The following article was submitted to the Journal Theological Studies on September 6, 2006, and the reply letter appended at the end, dated October 12, 2005, rejected it for publication.  

 

                 QUAESTIO DISPUTATA: DELAYED HOMINIZATION

 

THE MORAL STATUS OF FERTILIZED OVA PRODUCED BY CLONING AND IN VITRO                                                             PROCEDURES

                                                          September 6, 2005                                                         

                                                   CHARLES P. POOLE, JR.

 

          The 1987 Instruction Donum vitae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is very clear in affirming that “The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first moment of his existence”, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church  (#2270) reiterates this same claim: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely, from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”  The 1987 Instruction also mentions: “This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person.”  It seems appropriate to offer a contribution to these current debates, especially on the present quaestio disputata, in the light of recent developments in human cloning and in vitro fertilization.

 

          A number of articles1-11 in the present journal Theological Studies have contributed to this quaestio disputata over the years. Three of these articles2,3,6 have extensive bibliographies.  Ford gives an excellent overview of all the issues involved12.   In 1975 Diamond13 surveyed the evidence for the possibility of delayed hominization (ensoulment or animation) and concluded that “At almost the same time as she notices that she is pregnant, the brain and heart have been differentiated, the possibility of twinning has been removed, the primary organizer has appeared, and according to my analysis, hominization has just occurred.”  Diamond added the comment “This proposition has no intrinsic weight in itself, but it is interesting.“  He further explained that “at fertilization is laid down only the characteristic of the subsequently hominizable entity(ies), the hominization and individualization of which cannot be posited until the second or early third week after fertilization.” His more specific claim was that in all probability the soul enters the embryo close to the time of implantation, perhaps 14 to 22 days after fertilization. Ford12 and Mahoney14 present similar viewpoints.   

 

          Four years ago in a TS article Shannon11 identified five stages in the process of embryogenesis “that identify the moral standing of the embryo at various stages along the developmental continuum”: (a) the completion of the fertilization process,  (b) the onset of “true individuality” when the various cells of the embryo differentiate to become committed to forming particular tissues for particular body parts,  (c) the appearance of the primitive streak and a generally recognizable fetal structure,  (d) the emergence of various organs and the beginnings of the brain and spinal column, and finally (e) the integration of the brain, the entire nervous system, and the spinal column.  Several of the above mentioned TS articles3-6 distinguish between “genetic individuality or uniqueness”, “developmental individuality”,  “biological individuality”, and “ontological identity.”  The early stages of this developmental continuum involve the embryonic cells being (a)  totipotent (e.g. at the eight cell stage) or capable of forming any type of human cell, (b) pluripotent (at the blastocyst stage of implantation) or capable of forming any type of body cell except the cells that form the placenta and related tissues, and (c)  multipotent or restricted with respect to the types of cells that can be formed.  This process of gradually increasing cell specialization is brought about by the successive  “turning off” of genes in the DNA.  The embryo can split into two cell masses to form identical twins at the totipotent stage.  

 

          There is also a history of delayed hominization in the ancient tradition of the Church, as detailed by Connery15, and discussed by Ford12.  Connery points out that some of the most ancient manuscripts of our Tradition, namely the Didache, the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, a Plea for Christians by Athenagoras, and the Paedagogue of Clement of Alexandria, all condemn the crime of abortion.  Connery also mentions that the Greek Septuagint passage of Exodus 21:22-25 makes the distinction that if a woman is smitten while her aborted child is incompletely formed (μη  ἐξεικονισμενον)  then the offender must pay an appropriate penalty, but if the dead child was completely formed (δε ἐξεικονισμενον)  then he must pay with his life.  This distinction between an incompletely and a completely formed fetus is not made in the original Hebrew Masoretic text, but it was the Septuagint version of the Old Testament  that was widely read and commented upon by the Fathers of the Church, most of whom did not know Hebrew. According to Connery during the early centuries of the Christian era from the years 300 to 600 AD all abortion was universally condemned, but it was only considered as homicide after formation of the fetus.  From the years 600 to 1100 various penances were assigned for various offences.  A shorter penance was assigned (e.g. one year) for destroying an unformed fetus, and a longer penance (e.g. three years) for killing a formed one, with the Aristotelian choice of 40 days being the usual criterion for formation taking place (some said 40 days for male and 90 days for female fetuses). Thomas Aquinas agreed with this timescale for formation, but Augustine preferred a criterion of 46 days in recognition of the 46 years that it took Solomon to build the Temple.  It was a common belief during these early centuries that the soul entered the body at formation.  

 

          The number 2n of chromosomes in the DNA of an ordinary or somatic cell of the body is referred to as diploid.  The male and female sex cells or gametes (sperm and ovum, respectively) each have one half of this number or n chromosomes, so they are called haploid.  When the sperm enters the ovum at fertilization the two sets of haploid chromosomes combine by a process called conjugation and form diploid DNA which shares characteristics from the father and the mother, a procedure that takes several hours  to complete.  The first cleavage or splitting of the fertilized ovum or zygote into two cells takes place between 40 and 60 hours later, with subsequent cleavages occurring closer together in time.  Eight cells form via the third cleavage by the third day, and the cell mass or morula descends into the uterine cavity.  The zygote is very small, about 0.14 mm (0.006 inches) in diameter, and eight cell embryos are about the same size since the initial cleavages take place without a change in size or mass. Embryos formed  in vitro and later implanted or frozen are generally at the eight cell stage. 

 

          Another way to form the equivalent of a fertilized ovum employs a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or more commonly cloning.  The nucleus with haploid chromosomes is removed from an ovum and replaced by a nucleus with diploid

chromosomes obtained from an ordinary somatic cell extracted from another human body.    We now have a zygote which, if allowed to reach maturity, will be biologically an identical twin of the donor of the somatic cell nucleus.  Successful cloning is relatively new; the first cloned mammal was the sheep Dolly that was born in 1997. 

 

          Some theological questions present themselves: Do these fertilized ova or zygotes possess human souls, and should they be baptized?  How can a 0.14 mm diameter cell be baptized?  What should be the fate of the hundreds of thousands of zygote-sized embryos that are currently being preserved frozen in liquid nitrogen?  The Magisterium has been very clear in proclaiming the immorality of generating these zygotes,  proclamations that did not involve  consideration of the time of hominization. However in recent decades not much has been said about how to react to the multitude of artificially generated zygotes and embryos that already exist, and the myriads more that will inevitably be created in the future.  Our reaction to them does involve consideration the time of hominization.

 

          It is not unusual for a woman to have a very early stage  spontaneous abortion, or a medically mandated abortion due, for example, to an ectopic pregnancy.  It would be a consolation to think that many of  these natural destructions are of embryos  not yet ensouled, but this of course is not a scientific rationale.  It would  be even more  comforting to realize that the myriads of embryos being routinely created and destroyed every day  in our research laboratories and medical clinics have not yet been ensouled. 

 

          In the light of the indications from biology and the evidence from Tradition it seems to the present writer that delayed hominization is the more probable likelihood.  This would mean that all zygotes presently being formed in the laboratory, experimented upon, stored under refrigeration, and routinely destroyed, do not yet possess human souls. The most reasonable choice for a criterion of formation seems to be implantation, in the range 14 to 22 days, rather than the mediaeval one of 40 days.   There is no incompatibility between positing delayed hominization and the affirmation of Donum vitae that “Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception.”  Some clarifications may be needed, such as the significance of the word “conception” in the context of zygotes obtained by cloning, but the essentials of present day teachings need not change.

 

 

                                      Literature

 

          1.  Carol Tauer, TS 45 (1984) 3-33. 

          2.  Lisa Sowle Cahill, TS 54 (1993) 124-142. 

          3.  Mark Johnson, TS 56 (1995) 743-763.

          4.  Jean Porter, TS 56 (1995) 763-770.         

          5.  Thomas A. Shannon, TS 57 (1996) 731-734.

          6.  Mark Johnson TS 58 (1997) 708-714.                                                               

          7.  Thomas A. Shannon, TS 58 (1997) 715-717.

          8.  Thomas A. Shannon, TS 60 (1999) 111-123.

          9.   James J. Walter, TS 60 (1999) 124-134.

         10.  M. Cathleen Kaverty, TS 60 (1999) 135-147.

         11.  Thomas A. Shannon, TS 62 (2001) 811-824.

         12.  Norman M. Ford, When Did I Begin?, Cambridge University Press, 1988.

         13.  James J. Diamond, TS 36 (1975) 305-324.

         14.  J. Mahoney, S. J., Bioethics and Belief, Sheed and Ward, London, 1984.         

         15.  John Connery  S. J.,  Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective,

                   Loyola University Press, 1977. 

         

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The following email was received from Theological Studies rejecting the above article for publication.