Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Church leaders clash over embryos

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 April 2008
A LEADER of the Scottish Episcopal Church says Cardinal Keith O'Brien was wrong to call for a halt to hybrid-embryo research, claiming the work is the last hope of treatment for many in suffering.
Writing in The Scotsman today, the Rt Rev Robert Gillies, the Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney, says the view of the head of the Scottish Catholic Church is not the only legitimate Christian position on the controversial issue.

He says that, while he
wishes crippling genetic disorders such as Huntington's and muscular dystrophy could be cured by conventional medicine, that was not possible.

He goes on: "It seems that if health and wellbeing is to come to sufferers, then the best option for them will come through stem-cell, including hybrid-embryo, research, given the current absence of any alternative."

His comments follow an attack last month by Cardinal O'Brien on the Westminster government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which would allow the creation of animal-human embryos. He described it as being "monstrous" and of "Frankenstein proportion".

But Bishop Gillies says he is "reassured" by the government's regulatory frameworks and its ability to keep research within ethical grounds.

He adds that, while there are those who have been "ennobled in their suffering", the pain and distress felt by the majority of individuals and their families meant he had to accept the science as necessary.

"Much as I may not like the thought of hybrid-embryo research … perhaps that is the way we must go to help those most in need of a Christian, loving response."

Professor Werner G Jeanrond, of Glasgow University's theology and religious studies department, said the embryology debate had been played out in Sweden along similar lines but had caused no long-lasting enmity between religious groups.

He said the bishop's position was close to that taken by some in the Lutheran Church of Sweden at the time.

"It means you take at face value the point made by many scientists that any research will alleviate illness," he said. "I don't accept that argument. It means that we can't take death seriously any more.

"When I put the question to a Swedish medic, he said 'Yes, death is the enemy we want to overcome'. As a theologian, I think this is ludicrous, because death is part of what makes life possible."

He added, however, that simply being against something because the Pope said so was not a strong argument.

Professor Sheila McLean, a medical ethicist, supported the bishop's beliefs. She said: "It seems to be two religious approaches: doctrinal, which is the Catholic Church, and the other, which can be broadly described as compassionate or Christian.

"That is in the sense that Christianity embraces the value that existing people have, and, unlike the Catholic Church, is less concerned about a fertilised egg having the same kind status as somebody who is existing."

The Scottish Catholic Church declined to comment.

HOW THE CLERICS MEASURE UP

The RT REV ROBERT GILLIES


• Born 1957

• Married with three children.

• Educated: Edinburgh University, and Edinburgh Theological College. He was awarded his PhD in Philosophical Theology by the University of St Andrews.

&149 Career: Chaplain to the University of Dundee during late 1980s; curate to Christ Church, Morningside, Edinburgh and curate to Christ Church, Falkirk; rector of St Andrew's Church, St Andrews and then dean of that diocese. Was consecrated Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney last year.

• Other positions held: He was an honorary philosophy lecturer at Dundee University from 1985 to 1994.

CARDINAL KEITH O'BRIEN

• Born: 1958

&149 Educated: University of Edinburgh; St Andrew's College, Drygrange, Roxburghshire; Moray House College.

• Ordained as a priest in 1965.

&149 Career: Assistant priest in Holy Cross; chaplain to St Columba's Secondary School; apostolate in St Patrick's, Kilsyth, then St Mary's, Bathgate; spiritual director to St Andrew's College, Drygrange; rector of St Mary's College, the junior seminary at Blairs, Aberdeen; Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh; appointed cardinal in 2003.

• Other posts held: a maths and science teacher at St Columba's Secondary School.





The full article contains 685 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Shamus,

Glasgow 09/04/2008 01:52:02
Well at least some other religious lot has expressed an opinion officially. Not before time.
2

Shamus,

09/04/2008 01:55:11
1# Bible bashing is a great source of employment. You should not bash it.
3

Encephalon,

09/04/2008 04:17:38
#2 exactly-the RC Church and its Irish Cardinal must not be allowed to dominate discussions as it will pursue its inherently fascist inclinations to stifle debate and as with other areas will attempt to dictate public policy to the vast majority-80% plus- of Scots who firmly reject its doctrines.

In essence this subject can potentially affect all of us and is far too important to be left to the Churches-both Christian and RC -although I do like to hear their views as part of a balanced debate.
4

somerferg,

Perth 09/04/2008 04:28:54

Mmm - feeling VERY uncomfortable about these two having any influence in anything never mind this topic. As a matter of interest why is the Episcopal church and the Catholic church mentioned in this article and not the Church of Scotland?? is it too Scottish for the Hootsman??
5

donald,

glasgow 09/04/2008 05:05:27
How about another Old Firm match to settle with a penalty shoot oot?
6

donald,

glasgow 09/04/2008 05:07:39
As the chorus girl said to the Bishops ...

Fill in the rest yersel's
7

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 09/04/2008 05:53:00
These religious freaks should stick to what they know white magic.

Science is for scientists .

GC
8

eric,

09/04/2008 07:57:21
The catholic church says things without actually thinking about it!.If thats the sharpest tool in the box!Its a diversion and a break from child abuse in church .
9

sam the god,

09/04/2008 08:21:45
In the bible god made man in his own image with the ability to think and evolve.
If the cardinal thinks that these experiments should not go ahead he is going against what his god intended for man and the cardinal should do the decent thing and resign.
10

fife runner,

09/04/2008 08:28:05
#10 is man evolving - perhaps physically but not otherwise. take a look around the world. I am not RC but you should at least be as good as your word and let the cardinal have his own thoughts also. even scientists disagree. What did God intend for man? A big question.
11

eric,

09/04/2008 08:42:35
Wonder what the cardinal would be doing if pacemakers werent invented!
12

Puzzler,

Edinburgh 09/04/2008 09:18:28
#1 Should we replace them with "do-badders" then?
#4 RC Is Christian. Thicko.
#5 The Kirk stopped having any views on anything to do with morals or ethics a long time ago. They will always stick with the safe bet taht won't annoy anyone.
#6 Thank you for representing the veiws of Scotland's true religion. I am sure bouncing a ball around affield for 90 minutes will be of great comfort when confronting the ethical dillemnas of life. Be sure to take your dummy with you as well wherever you go.
#12 Can't see what this has to do with embryo research.

It will all be a storm in a teacup anyway, as scientists aree alreadyt starting to make stem cells from people's own bodies.
13

,

09/04/2008 09:33:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Little Stewie Griffin,

09/04/2008 09:59:15
# 13 "RC Is Christian. Thicko. "


Er no!

"Professor Sheila McLean, a medical ethicist, supported the bishop's beliefs. She said: "It seems to be two religious approaches: doctrinal, which is the Catholic Church, and the other, which can be broadly described as compassionate or Christian. "


The professor is correct to draw this distinction. The RC approach is essentially successive Popes' and Vatican theologians' interpretations of doctrine and contrasts with Christianity, which is based on the bible and underlying compassion.

Moreover the RC Church affirmed the view that it considers itself apart from the broader Christian community as recently as last week in the debate about the relative numbers of muslims v RC's.



15

Stuart Hartill,

Ramsey, Isle of Man 09/04/2008 10:20:12
Theologians holding up medical research for an abstract discussion about the 'meaning' of death.
Quaint, but also damning evidence of their total inability to contribute to society.
Some people would just like a life, thank you very much!
16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

09/04/2008 10:33:01
#14 Keith O'Brien was born in 1938, not 1958. He was at school with my mum.
17

sam the god,

09/04/2008 10:49:18
#11 fife runner

At no point in my post did I say that the cardinal was not aloud his own thoughts.

On the other hand the cardinal has said that if our elected MP’s (who are RC) vote for this bill then they would be ex communicated from the catholic church. It is about time that people stood up against this sort of dictatorship the man should be hounded out of Scotland. And by the way I am an atheist.

18

BJGlasgow,

09/04/2008 11:30:30
#18
Where did the Cardinal say MP's should be excommunicated? He didn't mention that in his Easter Sermon. I don't think he has threaten to excommunicate any MP. He did suggest that they should look to their consceience and see whether they should put themselves forward for Holy Communion when they had broken that communion with the Church by going against such a basic part of the Church's teaching.
When an MP or anyone else has rejected such a fundamental part of the the Church's teaching, how can they say they are in communion?
I understand that you are an atheist, but before you pontificate on matters regarding the Catholic Church you should maybe do some research. There are plenty of sites on the net for you to do this. That's one of the big problems with these notice boards - people can spoute forth on a topic when they have little knowledge of it!
19

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 09/04/2008 11:41:57
Sam is not a MUDBLOOD!!
20

sam the god,

09/04/2008 11:55:35
#20 hassan i sabbah
maybe I should change my sign in name to sam the prophet just to please other people and be politically correct
21

Calum Crubag,

09/04/2008 11:57:22
More evidence that religion generally f##ks peoples lives up and holds back progress.

Btw... is this the same Cardinal O Brien who recently had a pacemaker fitted? So much for 'Frankenstein' science then. Church hypocrites...
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

09/04/2008 12:04:15
#19 But there's the rub. You consider the argument made in O'Brien's Easter sermon to be a "basic part of the church's teaching". It is absolutely nothing of the sort. His assertions were based on, to put it charitably, a mistaken understanding of the facts, and they continue to be put forward despite the facts having been made available to him.

To suggest that a cardinal can make up binding teaching on the hoof like that and immediately suggest that anyone who doesn't immediately fall into line is out of communion, is breathtaking. No matter how deep one's faith, no-one could possibly accept such a state of affairs.
23

hertscot,

09/04/2008 12:10:30
#18 "the cardinal has said that if our elected MP’s (who are RC) vote for this bill then they would be ex communicated"

All ex communication does is move you from 'Good RC' to 'Bad RC'. I have been trying to get my RC baptism removed from the list, but it would appear that as an atheist, complete non believer who has renounced faith in any god, I am only a 'Bad RC' - but RC till I die.

Well I suppose I make up the numbers!
24

sam the god,

09/04/2008 12:31:37
#24 hertscot,

thank you for confirming my statement re ex communication #18 had me thinking whether or not i had seen the statment somewhere
25

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 13:03:04
24 hertscot, don't worry, an infant 'baptism' means nothing - the Bible makes it clear that baptism is for a person who has made a conscious decision to repent and follow Christ.

At present your destination of eternal damnation is secure. I wouldn't go shouting about it though; it's going to be unbelievably horrible for your soul. There will be no remission - ever.
26

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 13:08:49
#13 Puzzler wrote, "The Kirk stopped having any views on anything to do with morals or ethics a long time ago. They will always stick with the safe bet taht won't annoy anyone."

True, but this "Rt Rev" Robert Gillies works for the Scottish Episcopal Church so may not be too likely to know the moral/Biblical issues involved, but wants to get his name in the paper.

27

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 13:11:09
As a Christian who is anti-Rome (but loves Catholics!) can I just say that when these RC bishops speak up, I usually agree with them.
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

09/04/2008 14:11:17
#28 To which particular brand of Christianity does your allegiance belong then, Stewart?
29

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 14:22:50
#29 my allegiance is to Christ the King, no particular 'church', Duncan.
30

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 14:28:37
hertscot, here's an idea of how long eternity is....

How long is eternity in Hell?

Picture a sphere of solid steel the size of the sun. Every 10,000 years, a sparrow flies past and brushes the sphere with the tip of its wing and flies off again only to return 10,000 years later. Eventually, the sphere will have been completely eroded by this action.

This is not even close to eternity.

You will still be twisting and groaning in chains and in agony. Some of your friends and family will be in paradise, and because love of God was more important to them than love of man or self, and because they shunned greed, selfishness and lies, they will not even have memory of you. God will allow nothing to impede the joy that they merited through their faith.

Your final and eternal destination is your choice. Heaven with Christ or unspeakable torment - forever.

One day very soon, it will be too late – it could be tomorrow, or today.
31

Saoghal Beag,

09/04/2008 15:08:32
Hertscot. they are missing out the erverlasting smell of sulphur, so even if you were to sneak upstairs they'd find you out from the pong from your duddies and frog march straight back to hell.....i'm with you, better make the best of your time here and repent, but repent on your death bed, just in case.
32

Scientific Method,

Edinburgh 09/04/2008 15:44:15
# 31 Stewart C

And the alternative to an eternity in hell is an eternity in Heaven surrounded by self righteous, preachy god bothers like yourself? I will take the lake of fire every time. As anyone who has spent more than 5 mins listening to a holier than thou evangelist knows, there is more than one way to experience torment that seems to last for an eternity.
33

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 16:16:42
32 Saoghal Beag, not a good plan because,

a) a change of heart is required that might not come on your deathbed.

b) you might not get the choice of taking your last breaths on a deathbed; you could have a sudden fatal heart attack or be hit by a bus or a million other things could prevent a last gasp repentance.

c) another benefit of accepting the gospel ASAP is that you won't be as angry, spiteful and unhappy as the likes of Scientific Method #33 who is so full of hatred that he feels the need to spout out a couple of sentences rather than engage in civilised, intelligent debate.

I'd hate to be that upset that I couldn't debate.

I suspect he is so upset because like so many others, he knows the truth and is scared to admit it. You can tell that from his attitude.
34

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 16:19:58
33 Scientific Method,

I've responded to you in #34, but just to add that I understand it, but it's well worth accepting the gospel and stop fighting it.

There is no scientific method of proving or disproving these things, but you have a heart, mind and soul to be able to discern the truth. Getting angry and upset doesn't change anything.
35

BJGlasgow,

09/04/2008 16:39:13
# 24 & 25
Where did the Cardinal say that they would be excommunicated? You haven't given me any evidence he did say it. His sermons and speaches are available on the Archdiocesan website, so can you please quote me the occassion(s) when he said they would be "excommunicated".
To understand what "excommunication" is I suggest you follow these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Roman_Catholic_Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Hertscot re Baptism
You cannot have your name removed from the Baptismal register because you cannot be un-baptised, it cannot be un-done. You can only be validly Baptised once, because Baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark on your soul.
from the Cathechism - 1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated.
36

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 09/04/2008 16:46:07
33 Scientific Method - about the 'self righteous, preachy god bothers'.

Who says they will be in Heaven?

From Matthew ch.7

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


So no self-righteous hypocrites allowed.
37

Scientific Method,

Edinburgh 09/04/2008 17:55:44
# 34 + 35 Stewart C

Ah the evangelists always attempting to buy their way into heaven by saving the souls of others, Christianity's pyramid scheme.

And as for your claim that I am angry and unhappy, if you were less self righteous you would have been able to see that the comments I made were meant to be a light hearted dig at someone posting so much off topic religious dogma.

I think you might be in for a surprise if there is a heaven as it is unlikely to be one for evangelists, what with all that judging and greed.
38

A McBay,

09/04/2008 19:22:15
Not only is there disagreement within the faiths, there is disagreement between them.

In the Jewish Chronicle in March, Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum united in their support of the Bill.

The rabbis disagreed vehemently with the Cardinal, with some hitting out at his comments. Baroness Rabbi Julia Neuberger, who was on the scrutiny committee for the Bill, said: “I don’t think we have a problem with it in Judaism, from Liberal to Orthodox. As Jews, we have a different view on when life begins to the Catholic view. (pretty key comment, that one) We don’t think of life beginning at the moment of conception. I believe God gives us our minds in order to further the wellbeing of human beings. It is incumbent on us to try to reduce suffering, and this is part of the way of doing that. I think that’s what most Jews will feel.”

From a Reform perspective, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said: “Judaism is just as concerned at the sanctity of human life as Catholicism, but strongly differs from Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s Easter sermon against the Embryology Bill. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research is not to be condemned as ‘Frankenstein science’, but welcomed as a life-saving development that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes. It is irresponsible to hold back the progress that could benefit so many lives."

There are plenty more rabbis quoted in the article who diagree with the Cardinal.

So - whose "religious conscience" should we take heed of here?
39

A McBay,

09/04/2008 21:55:42
I didn't say anywhere that I welcomed these views, James, although I might indeed!

We all have a right to express views. My point was simply to highlight the danger in assuming that when a leader of one faith claims "religious conscience" in raising objection to scientific progress, a leader from another faith (or even the same one) may well say there is no problem. Clearly in this case, there is a difference of opinion - and that's all it is at the end of the day, an opinion - between what Catholics claim and what Jews claim and what other Christian denominations claim. So which divinely-inspired opinion carries most weight? Equally, why should we take notice of any of them?

The Jewish support for the Bill, as opposed to the Catholic objection, illustrates perfectly the impossibility of trying to accommodate this elusive "religious conscience" all the time, as people like Cardinal O'Connor and the Archbishop of Canterbury would have us do. We all have a conscience about some things. There is no reason to assume that a religiously inspired one should merit any special consideration over any other kind, just because a Cardinal or an Archbishop says so.


40

Calum Crubag,

10/04/2008 10:49:58
#43 - James, the problem with 'religious' leaders expressing their views is that they expect to be listened to and acted upon because of their adopted set of beliefs. Why should Christians or Muslims get any more preference - i.e. our tax money funding their schools, ceremonies and tax breaks - than astrologers, pagans or any other crank with some kind of 'faith' in an unproveable super-natural force?

Surely, if our society runs on science - even pensioners get 'means tested' and even Cardinal O Brien is happy enough to use a pacemaker - then why should chruches get away with it?
41

Calum Crubag,

10/04/2008 10:54:37
James - further, we've had their 'faith' pumped into us since school. If churches are so strong in their 'faith' then why can't they leave religion until we're adults? Then we can be truly free to think, weigh up the evidence and decide if we want to worship a 'god' or not.
42

hertscot,

10/04/2008 12:33:35
#45

We get indoctrinated as children because free thinking adults would treat most of the cr*p they spout as misguided hippy-sh*t.

StewartC, You seem to think that atheists are unhappy or angry. Not in my experience, they, and I include myself, tend to have a good outlook on life, accept people for who they are, don't particularily lust after anything, are clear in their beliefs and don't change the meaning of a 'holy book' every time they realise that they are wrong or wish to oppress others. And they don't expect a place at the table because they kow-tow to a 3rd century, compilation of writing designed to deal with the then socio-political environment and the protection of a fledgling christian church that declared the gospel of St Peter heretical.

Also there is no eternity as you describe, you live - you die - you decompose, possible the only truism in the bible is "ashes to ashes"

#32 repent what?
BJglasgow, you missed my point which was that I do not wish any record of my life to be outside my control, I was baptised without consultation, called a catholic child (I was actually the child of catholic parents!, and now I wish my name to be dissociated from RC and deleted from there records as I do not subscribe to RC or any other religion or to the belief in any supernatural being (although pixies are quite an appealing concept).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.