« Recovering in Covington | Main | That time of year »
December 23, 2005
The Bioethics of Bethlehem
often wonder how many people who hear the famous Bible text that begins "In the sixth month" are aware of what is going on (Luke 1:26). It does not refer to the month of June, or for that matter to Elul, the Hebrew sixth month of the year. The reference is gynecological: the dating is by Elizabeth's pregnancy. And it focuses us on the design of God to use the weak things of the world to confound the strong. The divine conspiracy is hatched within the walls of the womb.
Back to our key questions. God took human form; and he took it not simply as a baby, but as the tiniest of all human beings, a mere biological speck, so small and so undeveloped that it could be mistaken for a laboratory artifact, a research specimen, an object for human experimentation. But this speck was God; this complete genetic human organism, in its primitive and undeveloped form, was so much "one of us" as to bear the existence of the Creator. He dignified humanity by taking the form of this creature he had made in his image; and he did it at the most inauspicious and feeble point in the human life story. At the heart of the Christmas celebration lies the fact of all facts, that God became a zygote.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83466d8fd53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Bioethics of Bethlehem:
Comments
Amen! I found your site through Michelle Malkins...I'm linking you today.
Posted by: Stacy Harp at Dec 23, 2005 10:30:58 AM
This illuminates your post of yesterday. It too is a keeper but I'd better start keeping things in my head.
Posted by: dick Rood at Dec 23, 2005 11:57:15 AM
Years ago, I took some flak for saying that "The Incarnation means God Almighty having to squat down and take a crap by the shoulder of a dirt road in Judea."
Posted by: Ken at Dec 23, 2005 1:25:28 PM
To paraphrase St. Athanasius:
God became zygote,Think about that.
that zygote might become God.
When Paul said in Philippians 2:6-8
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.That emptying, humbling and being obedient included limiting himself to just a few cells within Mary's body.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself, becoming obedient
What would happend to the general opinion of abortion if we celebreated the Incartion as it actually occureed at the Annunciation, rather than just the birth at Christmas?
When John lept in Elizabeth's womb, to what, within May's womb, was he responding? To God, incarnate at a very early stage in human development.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 23, 2005 1:28:00 PM
Old Zhou, that would be an excellent idea, except that the Church has never proclaimed when the incarnation happened. It was certainly at the moment of Christ's conception in Mary's womb, but whether or not that explicitly happened at the moment of the Annunciation is not known.
She may have conceived a few days later, for instance. Or as soon as the Angel Gabriel departed from her.
Jimmy Akin had a post on this topic just a few days ago.
Posted by: chris at Dec 23, 2005 1:49:02 PM
True enough, Chris. In fact, the Church doesn't even teach when the Nativity occured. But liturgically, the Annunciation is March 25, nine months prior to the Nativity.
Posted by: Fred K. at Dec 23, 2005 2:08:57 PM
Hello, Ken,
Your Christology is entirely correct - dogma, in fact, - but probably offensive (to some) pious ears.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Dec 23, 2005 2:15:01 PM
Thanks for pointing that out, Fred. I actually recalled that shortly after I posted, but decided not to append it.
I suppose it might be appropriate to tie the incarnation with the annunciation, especially it it helped Catholics to understand that our souls are created at conception.
Posted by: chris at Dec 23, 2005 2:16:55 PM
Isn't it the case that we do not know the date of Jesus' birth? How do you all come up with these calculations? Tertullian recounts how the date was set at December 25. The conception of Jesus in Mary's womb was linked to his three days in the tomb, which is how the feast of the Annunciation was placed in March. The analogy was based on the notion of his being in the tomb likened to being in a womb before his rebirth at the resurrection. It was from the March date that Decembers 25 was selected as the date of Christ's birth. So it had nothing really to do with claiming the winter solstice for Christians and the way it was decided shows that even in the early Church no one really knew what day Christ was born on.
The bioethics of Bethlehem is a nice warm, fuzzy pious peace such as those which appear at this time of year. As a modern reflection on the fact that Jesus took flesh it is interesting. But as for science it is wanting, since it cannot account for anything but Mary's genetic material. God being immaterial could not have contributed the required male DNA, as God has no gender. The Annunciation and the Birth of Christ are theological not biological proclamations.
Posted by: tohu at Dec 23, 2005 2:38:23 PM
Yes, far be it from the omnipotent God the father to do things outside of the physical norms of nature, eh tohu?
Posted by: chris at Dec 23, 2005 3:03:38 PM
Yes Chrs,
According to Roman Catholic teaching, that is true. Serious theology does not think otherwise.
Posted by: tohu at Dec 23, 2005 3:17:09 PM
Given that DNA is a recent discovery, I would not expect that this question is addressed anywhere in Sacred Tradition.
And in regards to God acting outside of nature, Catholic teaching absolutely allows for this, and necessarily must, else you deny all miracles. Though many Catholic theologians in recent times have done just that, with predictable effects on the faithful (driving them into agnosticism).
Posted by: chris at Dec 23, 2005 3:22:33 PM
What does it mean to say that the Annunciation and the Birth of Christ are theological rather than biological proclamations? How can they be true theologically unless they are also true biologically? This sounds suspiciously like those people who say that the Resurrection is "the experience of the early Christian community that Jesus was alive among them" meaning that, He wasn't, really, but they felt as if He were because they remembered Him, acted differently because of Him,etc. Those who really believe that is all there was to it are not Christians, having rejected one of the most basic articles of the creed.
The baby must have started growing in Mary soon after the Angel spoke, or more likely, right then, since the Angel was a messenger of God, and God's word is immediately effective. There is no reason to think other than that Jesus developed in the womb from the earliest stages just like any other human. But how did he get those other 23 chromosomes? Well,we don't know. Maybe they were all Mary's-some lower animals occasionally have parthenogenesis with and their eggs can be shocked into dividing the genetic material and then proceding as if the second set were from a male. It wouldn't be impossible for God to create a set of genes ex nihilo, of course, but isn't the teaching that His whole human nature came from Mary? There aren't any genes for being God. However God did it, I think it is a pretty safe speculation to say that Jesus was a zygote at one point.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Dec 23, 2005 4:12:19 PM
For Susan:
Theological language is symbolic, rich with metaphor and analogy. That is not to say that it is not real. It is not the language of science, however. So that is what it means to say that these statements are theological rather than biological. Certainly, the New Tetsament authors were not making biological statements of the sort posted under the Bioethics of Behtlehem. Please do not impugn my words with suggestions of what you think I mean. if you don't understand ask for a clarification.
If you have evidence from Denzinger of a definition of when the Incarnation took place, please provide it. Also if you have evidence for any miracles that have been defined, de fide, send that as well.
If I rememebr correctly, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not take a positon on when the Incarnation actually took place. Hence if the Church were doing biology rather than theology, one would expect to see the pronounecments in that form.
Posted by: tohu at Dec 23, 2005 5:42:59 PM
Tohu, where does the onus come from?
Sure, we don't know when the Incarnation actually began, to the moment. We know that by the time Mary went to visit Elizabeth it had happened since we are told John the Baptist lept in the womb at the approach of the savior.
My speculation is that it occurred right after Mary made her "fiat", because God had spoken and His word is effective and creative. I also don't see why the incarnation would begin any later than the earliest stages. He was obvious a babe in the womb for some extended period of time and later was a baby and a little child and a teenager; why would he not take part in every stage of human development. Nothing else makes sense to me.
Miracles are in scripture. Scripture is the word of God. I don't think they have to be defined separately. However the virgin birth and the resurrection which are miracles and more than miracles, are defined. And once one believes in the Resurrection, why quibble at walking on water?
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Dec 23, 2005 6:09:29 PM
It is true that we do not know when the Incarnation took place, in two senses. First, we do not know the date of the year, and even the year is open to question within the range of a couple of years. Second, we do not know the timing of the Incarnation in relation to the Annunciation, except that the Annunciation occurred first.
That having been said, we do know that Jesus was: 1) conceived by the Holy Spirit, 2) born of the Virgin Mary, 3) true God, 4) true man, and 5) like us in all things but sin. The latter two items make it most probable that the Incarnation - or ensoulment of Jesus, if you will - occurred at the moment of conception. Although this has not been precisely formulated doctrinally, this, and I believe only this, accords with two doctrines that have been pronounced. The ancient Church condemned "adoptionism" and its variations. This was the belief that at some point the second person of the Trinity "adopted" a human body, or entered a human body. Second, the Church more recently, and after a long period of theological speculation, has said that a human being is a human being from the first moment of conception. (Aquinas was clearly wrong on this, as the early Dominican school of theology also was clearly wrong on the Immaculate Conception).
Finally, a comment on the "it's biology" vs. "it's theology." These should not be put in opposition to each other, as so many Fundamentalists do. The Incarnation was a miraculous historical event, and also a miraculous biological event. It could not be otherwise in our theology. Therefore, discussing the historical (what year, what time of the year, how to resolve difficulties of dating etc) and discussion of the biological (how can this be, since ....? etc.) is very appropriate, and even necessary, theologically.
Posted by: Fr. John at Dec 23, 2005 6:35:06 PM
I think that anyone reading Scripture could honestly conclude that the Incarnation occured between the Annunciation (when Gabriel used future tense for the act) and the Visitation, when John the Baptist, in utero, responded to Jesus Christ, in utero, at most three months. And I believe it was closer to the Annunciation than the Visitation.
The Church does not need to take a position on this, an more than it needs to take a position on the chemical composition of the sun, or the DNA makeup of a fruit fly. It is common sense, and common biology and human development.
Again I say, if Christians were faithful to the article of the faith which is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, abortion would be more cleaerly seen as the horror that it is.
But Catholic and Christian theologians mumbling "We don't know...we don't know..." leave the door open for slaughter.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 23, 2005 6:54:16 PM
Truth is one.
Something can't be true in theology and untrue in biology.
If Jesus had (which he didn't) a human father biologically, any theology which said he didn't would be simply nonsense. Either born of a virgin meant his mother as she said "did not know man" or it doesn't mean anything at all. There is no way it is "theologically true" and not biologically true.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Dec 24, 2005 1:12:09 PM
God being immaterial could not have contributed the required male DNA, as God has no gender
God contributed the DNA, male and female, for every single conception that ever occured on the earth.
Here the glove of Nature was off the hand of God.
Posted by: Mary at Dec 24, 2005 2:41:45 PM
I'm with Susan on this. I think tohu's comments come a little too close to Docetism--the early heresy that God didn't really take on a human body but only something that seemed like one.
The reality of the Incarnation means that in taking on a true human nature, body and all, God took on biologically everything that having a human body entails.
Yes, the Church is making a theological statement when it teaches about the Incarnation. But that theological statement is grounded in basic reality. To hold otherwise is to make theology detached from real life, something "out there" that doesn't really apply to our human condition.
Posted by: Sr Lorraine at Dec 24, 2005 4:50:01 PM
