Vatican Watch: "Ethical" embryo stem cells still horrify Vatican

"Ethical" embryo stem cells still horrify Vatican: "'The use of embryonic cells will only become non-controversial when it is accepted that the early embryo is of little or no moral significance,' Harris said."

Universe without Beginning

According to a new theory advanced by Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, the universe had no beginning in the way we usually think of it:

How did the Universe begin? Many scientists would regard this as one of the most profound questions of all. But to Stephen Hawking, who has perhaps come closer than anyone to answering it, the question doesn't in fact even exist. [link]

This made me think of another story that popped up a few months ago:

World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. [link]

Although there's no particular reason why it should (in my ever so humble opinion), but I wonder if Hawking and Hertog's new theory will provoke controversy from Christians. The idea that the universe has a beginning and an end is pretty fundamental to the Christian cosmology. I can see why some might see this theory as denying this claim. Looking at the article in Nature, it looks like there is still a beginning to the universe of sorts, it's simply a much stranger beginning than we might have previously imagined. I'll be interested to see how much traction this theory gets in the near future.


John Paul II is known to have had a very conservative attitude to scientific inquiry. He once suggested that looking for extraterrestrial intelligence was a waste of resources that could have been used to address world poverty. This opinion isn't universal among Catholics or christians, naturally. My favorite Vatican astronomer says in his booklet on intelligent life in the universe

I have a hunch that, sooner or later, the human race will discover that there are other intelligent creatures out there in the universe.

Do I Like the da Vince Code?

I'm a timid SOB. I talk a lot, but I rarely tell you what I really think. That's because what I really think tends to elicit shock or blank stares. This is especially true about religion. Yes, I talk about it all the time, but I'm typically extremely careful about what I say. Which is why I take stuff like Doug's recent post on The da Vinci code as a bit of reprimand. Kudos on writing an honest and thoughtful post, Doug.

The Code is actually right up my alley: wild intellectual speculation, crazy high-speed adventures, improbable cliff hangers, conspiracy, double-crosses; I love all that stuff. Dan Brown's writing is only so-so (but much better in DVC than his previous work), but I don't hold that against him. Many of my favorite authors have strong whiff of the hack about them: Tom Robbins, Harlan Ellison, Philip K. Dick, Hunter Thompson, and Andre Dumas to name a few.

The notion that Jesus settled down with Mary Magdalene and had some kids doesn't seem all that bad.

I couldn't agree more, Doug, and bless your for saying it first [NOTE 1]. In fact it makes a rather nice story. So why don't I believe it?

Know, so that you may believe

This comes from the same guy who suggested test all things and hold to what is true [NOTE 2]. This means that it's OK and even encouraged to apply your skills and intellectual abilities to trying to figure out the truth.

Beleive so that you may know

This comes from a guy who had more than a few personal problems to sort out [NOTE 3]. It means that when you believe, things start to make sense.

Most of the people I've talked to fall on one side of this debate or the other, but I personally fall right in between. The relationship between belief and knowledge is a mystery, and not a mystery in the sense of "you can't understand this", but rather in the sense that the more you try to plumb its depths, the more you learn and understand.

So what's this got to do with the DVC?

First off, DVC is just a story, and is inherently BS, just as Edgar Rice Boroughs' Mars is a heap of BS. Nevertheless, DVC brings up a couple of virulent ideas, namely: 1) that Jesus settled down with Mary Magdalene and had kids, etc. 2) that the Catholic Church is an institution founded on falsehood.

Knowledge (and a little research) is sufficient to deal with statement 1.

Statement 2 is much thornier, and calls both faith and knowledge into the mix. Faith tells me that the Catholic Church is not founded on falsehood, but it tells me something else. It tells me that the Church is up to the intellectual challenge. It says that I should seek the answer to questions that vex me, including questions about the Church, and that the Church, which includes in its body Jesus, my friends and family, and a rich intellectual tradition, will be a bountiful resource in that quest. So I guess I'm saying that statement 2 has proven itself untrue in my life because if it were true, any quest for truth through the Church would eventually be doomed to failure.

As for DVC, the book itself doesn't bother me very much, and from Doug's post, I'm guessing he feels the same way. What does bother me, and what I fear, is a growing cultural and intellectual change in which I sense the possibility of violence directed at me and my children. To be Catholic is to know that the quest for Truth bears fruit, but it is also to know that the threat of systematic violence aimed at the body of Christ is a continual possibility in human history, and that I do fear.



NOTE 1: though it remains rather dubious scholarship at best and blasphemy at worst
NOTE 2: St. Thomas Aquinas
NOTE 3: I say continued because I was born Catholic. The reason I'm Catholic is that I was born so. The reason I continue to be Catholic is that my continued quest of faith and reason confirms my Catholicism rather than rejecting it. I've often joked that had I been born Zoroastrian, I might still be Zoroastrian. I mean that in full honesty. Then again, had I been born Zoroastrian, I might be Catholic by now anyway. Lately, I'm beginning to suspect this might be the case.

"The Roman Catholic Church is giving its support to a new research centre, which it believes could provide an alternative to the use of human embryos for medical research".

This might fall into the weird category for some people, but for me, it falls into the interesting. I'm interested that the Vatican, which has had a lot to say about ethics in science and reproductive issues, is putting its money where its mouth is, so to speak.

--CNN online