Why would the Catholic church oppose to altering DNA?
489927
Your point is the right point--changing DNA is interfering with God's will.  So is abortion, the death penalty, cloning of any person or animal, etc.
806991
No, the church (especially if it's of a Christian background) shuold be tolerant of this idea. They do not have to accept it, agree with it, or even endorse the idea, but it must have a tolerance for this idea because we teach forgiveness. Furthermore, even though it might be a Christian church, and it strongly opposes abortion (not flat out but in other ways, email me if you care) this is still an issue over AIDS and it would be, for a lack of better words, DUMB not to include a smart individual on a conference over aids.
564604
Different protestant churches may have different views on biblical topics from each other and from the Catholic Church. One of the main things about the Catholic Church is that they put their church tradition at a higher place than the Bible. This is a very dangerous thing to do because it allows the church to hold views that even go plainly against the Bible. Example: if you read 1 Tim 4:1-5 you will read in the Bible (even the Catholic Bible) that men who forbid people to marry are following a doctrine of demons. The Catholic church disregards the Bible there and insists on promoting a doctrine that is not from God. The rampant homosexuality in the priesthood is a by-product of following that demonic teaching. Being single is actualy better for those who want to be more devoted to the Lord but that should never be forced on anyone. \n\nAnother area where there is great danger, is where the Catholic church makes a Pope to be in charge of the church. He is actually called the vicar of Christ which means that he is the representative of Christ here on earth. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the head of the church and the believers are His body. A Pope is said to be able to speak "excathedera" (I think I mispelled it) which means that when he speaks on matters of doctrine and faith, he is "infallible" Obviously throughout the Catolic Church's history it has been wrong in many of its actions and beliefs as in the example I already gave. \n\nProtestants may have differing views but rarely are they as serious as undermining the scriptures and worshiping a man as supreme leader of the church.    \n\nYour average catholic does not know much of the Catholic official teachings which include "transubstantiation", progatory, outright idolatry, not beliving that Jesus died once for all sins as evidenced in the sacrifice of the "Mass", not being able to clain assurance of salvation (one of the worst beliefs of all), adding several books to the old testament about 1500 yrs after the fact to try to defend some of their unbiblical beliefs and the sale of indulgences ect.....Today when I meet a catholic who is open to the Bible, I don't try to bring up most of the above. I try to talk about having a personal relation with Christ and knowing that to get to heaven is a choice that depends on one's own decision not belonging to such and such a church.
126685
it ought to be against the law:  people who try to impose their beliefs on others.  this is one of the reasons i am not what you would call a 'good catholic' any more:  i disagree with the idea that the church should dictate what my beliefs on abortion and the salvation of other denominations is or should be.  also, i dislike friends telling others that they 'ought to' believe in a certain cause or idea.  this is common in the adolescent years ('we don't hang out with kids from that neighborhood... so if you want to be with us, you can't either') but can continue into adulthood... my favorite example lately is the auto manufacturer (can't remember if it was GM or ford) who made employees who drove other makes of cars park in the lot across the road from the factory... it would be outrageous if it weren't so petty too.\n\nit's just presumptuous to think that someone else should tell me (or anyone) how to feel about an issue.  you can tell me what to do if you are in authority, but do not tell me what to think. this behavior should be outlawed.
1017082
No.\n\nIn fact the Catholic Church is not just against abortion, it is pro-life in the widest sense. This is often called a "Consistent Ethic of Life."\n\nThis pro-life stance stresses the highest regard for dignity of human life including that of:\n- All people in objecting to unjust war and nuclear arms.\n- The unborn in objecting to to abortion, in fitro fertilization, frozen embryos, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning\n- The elderly, sick and dying in objecting to assisted suicide and euthanazia\n- Prisoners in objecting to the death penalty\n- The poor and minorities in supporting social justice issues.\n\nWith love in Christ.
1107013
I had a child out of wedlock.  I can tell you that some Catholic priests would not baptize my daughter for precisely that reason.  That's one of the reasons I went to one of the Protestant churches.  I asked for and received forgiveness, and it was never considered something my daughter needed forgiveness for.  She has since been baptized.  Neither of us are going to hell for it, at least not according to our church :)
630141
Many people disagree; some on religious grounds (against God's will), some on ethical/moral (somehow cloning is unnatural).  given that clones have same DNA they would have same immune system and thus be vulnerable to diseases that others might resist because of variations.
89389
We don't want to have human cloning. That has been made abundantly clear by numerous polls and elections.\n\nI doubt that you personnally know even a single person who wants human cloning.
376023
I think the Catholic Church doesn't like divorce but never asked America to ban divorce.\n\nI think this should be the model.  Government exists to protect people's different religions. \n\nWhen someone says I am going to consider my religious believes when they run for something, I am all for it.\nIts not a violation.\n\nWhen a person wants creationism taught in a science class in a public school, this is I think a violation of church and state, and recent court cases seem to think it unconstititional to teach creationism in science class.\n\nI think Jesus and creationism should be taught in something called comparative religion, maybe it should only be an elective, but we need to be able to present the option for people to learn to become culturally literate if they desire.\n\nThats just how I feel.
689674
Because this practice(along with others) by Catholics is not scripturally based. \n\ntosmith
302707
Genetic mutations are always a risk when manipulating genes.\nGross malformations can occur, thus making it necessary to imprison/destroy the life created.
924747
You understand that the Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin and "against nature".  So, I would suspect that it would also regard transgendered people as "unnatural" since they had to have operations, hormone treatment, etc, all of which is "against nature" as well.\n\nTraditionally the Catholic Church has regarded the natural purpose of sex is to produce children.  A transgendered person could have produced children then had an operation and now, cannot produce children.. so how's that serving the natural purpose of sex?  \n\nTherefore, I would have to say that a female-to-male person would not be able to marry a female-by-birth person in the church.  They would probably say that they are both females, and one of them is self-mutilated.  If they took any other position then they would also have to allow female-to-male transgendered to enter the priesthood - -  which they don't.\n\nNow on the positive side, the Catholic Church regards all people as having dignity and worth.  There are no persons rejected from the church on the basis of their orientation.  And all persons can be saved, even if they are transgendered.
807276
The acceptability of both is certainly culturally defined. While I will not issue an opinion on either, I am certainly willing to discuss the logic behind the various opinions often presented on the topic. One argument is that of religion. I will set aside the flawed logic of religion in general for the purpose of this discussion. If we seek to examine this issue within the context of our society's laws, we must examine the issue absent of religion...due to the separation of church and state.\n\nReligious issues set aside, we are left with the argument as it relates to the potential for the production of children with genetic birth defects. While incestuous breeding can arguably be linked to a increase in the likelihood of genetic birth defects, I do not see this alone as a reason to outlaw incestuous relationships. Consider this: If we were to outlaw a relationship between two individuals that had a higher likelihood of producing offspring with genetic birth defects (this, as well, is culturally defined to a certain degree), we would have to outlaw relationships between two consenting adults who are not related but both happen to have a genetic birth defect of their own. The answer above mine also raises the valid point that gay incestuous relationships would be exempt from this concern as well.\n\nIf we cannot outlaw it due to religion, and we cannot outlaw it because of the likelihood of producing genetic birth defects, then what is left? I would say that the only remaining argument would be that an incestuous relationship challenges our society's very definition (some would say "institution") of family, and what roles a family is intended to play. However, many have argued that homosexual relationships (specifically marriages) challenge our society's definition of marriage, yet our society is more readily accepting of homosexuality than it is of incest. \n\nTherefore, I fail to find a logical argument supporting any law against incest. This of course assumes that the relationship is between consenting adults of sound mind and legal age.
957884
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.
436290
is that, the catholic church opposes sex as a "leizure activity". They want you to have sex only when you are going to procreate, not just for fun.\n\nkinda weird.... but oh well, the catholic church....
1052180
Those who chose to ignore it are not following the Christian faith.  And most of us do not ignore it.\n\nhttp://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
633460
I'm a catholic and you know i never even thought of that. Glad you did and pointed it out. As far as Don up there maybe the reason he didn't go see it. Is because he's to much of a chicken, he would realize what kind of person he really is. He claims to be a christain but is always bashing the catholics. Calling us a perverted & cult like religion. A true christain doesn't bash another for their beliefs and religious practices. They are kind and understanding. If you are a christain and honestly feel  that some other religion is wrong the best  thing to do is pray for those ppl, not bash them . Thats the true christian way.