Catholic Church Conundrum

Bailey Moorhead
ENGCMP
Dr. Adam Johns

Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been challenged by advancements in science, such as the understanding of our heliocentric solar system and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Though these theories only challenge Catholicism in a most literal sense of interpretation of the Bible, the Church does not immediately accept the new discoveries. In fact, it often takes centuries for the Church to accept scientific findings if it has traditionally opposed them. It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that the Church began to accept the theory of evolution and it was not until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo Galilei. The issue of the embryonic soul presents more of a problem for the church, however. Not only is this subject very political, it also involves what the Church sees as human life. In Challenging Nature, Lee Silver offers an almost indisputable scientific argument against the treatment of embryos as human and laments the fact that religious leaders attempt to use science as a basis for their argument. Assuming what Lee Silver says is true, the Catholic Church must either come to accept the fact that human embryos are not quite human, just as they eventually came to accept the idea of a heliocentric universe, or they must drop the scientific façade used in their pro-life argument in the political arena because their arguments will no longer hold up.

Silver offers a very solid argument against the belief that embryos are human, creating an awkward situation for the Catholic Church in which they have three options: ignore the facts, accept Silver’s viewpoint, or drop the scientific façade of the pro-life argument. By using the example of teratomas and the HeLa line of cells, Silver argues that if we are to respect the life of an embryo, we must also respect the lives of these cells, although it is clear that no human would consider these a part of our species. He also argues that fertilization cannot be the point where an embryo becomes a human with a rational soul because teratomas, twinning, and chimeras occur after fertilization. He believes “the existence of human chimeras seems to invalidate the claim that every human embryo is a complete and whole human being from the moment of conception” (115). Unless the Catholic Church can either prove that the human soul exists at the time of fertilization or they can find a different point at which the embryo becomes human, the can not ignore the fact that there are scientific flaws in their arguments. For now, the Church responds to new scientific discoveries with “rationalizations;” Lee claims these rationalizations are “a matter of faith, not science” because they have never described a scientific test that could falsify the theory that embryos attain a soul at fertilization (116). The Catholic Church may ignore these facts and debate them using pseudo-scientific arguments for some time, but eventually as the public and, more specifically, members of the Church become informed about the issue they must address it. Though they may come to accept Lee’s argument, it is also likely that they may decide to argue for the protection of the lives of embryos religiously in the political realm. Because the American Constitution does not allow a national religion, however, the Catholic Church and other religions sharing the same opinion must hope that the entire population comes to share their viewpoint, or a biased administration takes power.

He also challenges the idea of “natural law,” which he believes is basically just a term religious leaders and conservative politicians use to oppose such things as homosexuality, mind-altering medicines, and embryonic stem cell research in a “secular” way. In Silver’s opinion the Catholic Church uses “one particular secular-sounding word—natural—frequently…to formulate its codes of morality” (119). He uses examples such as homosexuality in animals to show that natural law is actually just a way to defend Christian morals. He believes many people are swayed by the idea of natural law, which is why the idea is so effective when it comes to arguing against embryonic stem cell research. He argues, however, that it is absolutely religious in nature and that it cannot be used to argue against scientific fact. Once the myth of natural law is debunked, the Catholic Church will not have much to fall back on in the way of “scientific” arguments against embryonic stem cell research.

Though the Catholic Church may get by for some time using arguments that sound scientific, as people become more informed about the logic and scientific data behind people like Silver’s argument, there is no way this method will hold up for much longer. Unless a new scientific discovery is made that supports the Church’s pro-life stance, there should be no way that they are able to argue their ideas on the subject effectively in any secular nation’s politics. The only two options the Church has are to accept the argument and drastically change their traditional views, or argue an unmistakably religious argument and hope to convert everyone so that stem cell research and abortions never occur. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has come to accept scientific advancements, albeit rather slowly, but this issue is entirely different in that it effects the lives of embryos and has tangible consequences. Only time will tell which path the Catholic Church takes in dealing with this controversial issue, but it is clear that their methods must change as scientists are presenting increasingly convincing arguments and the populations of secular nations are becoming more informed.