Creation Sin Escathology

God, in his own creative way, created the whole universe and everything that is therein, but created it out of nothing. The creation, the creatures continue to be created, evolving and recreating – from microbes to bacteria, from planktons to big trees, from animals as well as humans. Reproduction and evolution are the scientific terms suitable for the recreating and continuity of creation. God is the ultimate creator without being changed or reduced. His creation never emanates from him. By his will everything came into being. God’s creation is that which he had created in the beginning and that which continuous to be created.

One of the many wonderful creations that he had is man. Man was created in the image and likeness of this God. He was given will and intellect, a soul, a body and spirit. He is created, just as the rest of the living plants and animals to be co-creator, to procreate. In the search for knowledge and search for meaning of life, man had discovered many things and had a lot of breakthroughs in these endeavour he undertook. One of the many discoveries is on the manner of reproduction. Aside form the fact that humans have discovered physical sexual intercourse as the main form of reproduction; they have discovered that one can reproduced without doing the workout in bed. This came about in the search of men for a wellness in life, for a better living – away from disease, defects, infections, better outlook.

IN VITRO FERTILIZATION (IVF) is one of the many ways now to reproduce. In IVF, eggs are surgically removed from the ovary and mixed with sperm outside the body in a Petri dish ("in vitro" is Latin for "in glass"). After about 40 hours, the eggs are examined to see if they have become fertilized by the sperm and are dividing into cells. These fertilized eggs (embryos) are then placed in the women's uterus, thus bypassing the fallopian tubes.[1]

The result of IVF is a so called test-tube baby. The first IVF baby in the world was born in July of 1978 at Bourne Hall, in Cambridge, England. To date, tens of thousands of babies have been delivered as the result of the IVF treatment. Only in the US, there are about 30,000 IVF pregnancies and healthy deliveries per year. The fertilization rates of 70-80% are currently being achieved, with healthy pregnancies and deliveries. These advanced fertility treatments are minor outpatient procedures and do not involve hospitalization. The cost is between $3,000 and $10,000.

The mother usually undergoes ovarian stimulation for a week with fertility medications so that several mature eggs develop. In order to determine the best time to stop the fertility medications and recover the eggs, ultrasound examinations and blood tests are performed.

There are different types in doing IVF: (1) GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer), is to place the eggs and sperm into the wife's fallopian tubes directly, instead of in a laboratory test tube. (2) ICSI (Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection), it is a micromanipulation technique to help achieve fertilization for couples with severe male factor infertility, in which sperm counts or motility are low but there are enough to allow fertilization in the laboratory. The semen sample is prepared by centrifuging (spinning the sperm cells through a special medium), to separate live sperm from debris and death sperm. Then, the micromanipulation specialist picks up the single live sperm in a glass needle and injects it directly into the egg in the laboratory.

My question herein therefore is this: does this IVF or these IVF babies (IVFB) have the mark of God’s image and likeness? Does he/she have a soul? Or it would be better to ask first, is it unlawful to procreate by not having sexual intercourse or in scientific terms, if it’s done as artificial insemination?

I would boldly claim that the Scriptures never said that physical sex, no matter how good it is to experience, is the only and definitive way to procreate. Neither has it been declared by God that only through sexual act that his human creation may procreate. The church claims so. The Catholic Church is against this way of procreating and she says that what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. The Magisterial office gave the reason why it’s immoral. They said that from the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has "wished for himself " and the spiritual soul of each man is "immediately created" by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves "the creative action of God" and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being. Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with the fruitful love of God; the gift of human life must be actualized in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, in accordance with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their union. [2]

And so, what about the IVF babies, don’t they have a soul. Would God not give soul to these babies that are actually living in this world right now? Are they not images of God? I believe that they are given and they do have a soul. And they continue to be images of God. IVF never alters God’s creating power, it only emphasize that we humans are co-creator of the Creator. It is just that it is hard to accept for the Catholic Church that there are other ways to procreate other than what the Medieval mind has conceived, other than what she has inherited from the Jewish traditions. The Catholic Church has stuck to this position and damned the destruction of an embryo after conception as murder and IVF as immoral. No distinction is made between embryos that are conceived naturally and those created through IVF or cloning.[3] Well, there are moral implications[4] on the left about specimens and those that are rejected or unsuccessful in vitro process just as masturbation is immoral. But, that is out of the scope and limitation of this paper.

Other religions on the other hand accept IVF as part of propagating life and moral implications are not so much of an issue. Buddhism does not give it a very opposing strike unlike the Catholic Church. This is mainly explained by Buddhism's view of the world and mankind's place in it, which is different from the view of monotheistic religions. There is no supreme or divine creator, whose plan might be distorted by human tinkering with nature. In addition, Buddhists believe that the creation of life is not a fixed or unequivocal process. "Buddhism teaches that life may come into being in a variety of ways, of which sexual reproduction is but one, so sexual reproduction has no divinely sanctioned priority over other modes of procreation.” Life can therefore begin in many ways and, theologically, cloning would not be seen as a problematic technology. Furthermore, in contrast to other mainstream religions, Buddhists regard human individuality as an illusion or mirage. Cloning would therefore not threaten or devalue the personality or character of an individual. [5] If cloning is ok, it is also true with IVF. For Muslim, IVF is also allowed.[6]

Going back to the issue of ensoulment, if the IVF baby has a soul, when does it acquire its soul? Is it when it is implanted on a mother’s womb? God creates and inserts in the human body an immortal soul as in regular fertilization, at the moment of conception, just when the nucleus of the egg cell joints the nucleus of the sperm cell. Would it occur as soon as the egg or the sperm comes out of the male and female respectively? Would each cell so placed have a soul? Would souls appear after the cells start of to divide? And a lot more questions would follow.[7] When the soul does becomes part of the body? Does it corelece into a body for a time. Is soul intrinsic really to life? Are they created in the image and likeness of God? Yes, God works through us and through our technology but what is his relationship to God?

Sperm and egg do not each contribute half a soul to form a baby's soul. Only God creates souls. If "creation by God" refers to "procreation via sex between parents" (since the difference between clones and non-clones is whether or not the parents had sex) and sex is thus a prerequisite for the creation of a soul, then those born via in-vitro fertilization should also be considered soul-less. IVFB have souls no matter how and when and how was it given by God or if not given how it came about in each person. The Sacred Scriptures tells a lot about man having a soul.[8] I presume that babies born of IVF are humans.

Is soul then the only prerequisite for a person to become one with the Creator, or a person created in the likeness and image of God? I believe no. But I don’t agree that only through sexual intercourse (interpreted as “being in communion” just as the Trinity is in communion) that Love comes out and that new humans are born and marked as God’s own children. John Paul deduces that "man became the 'image and likeness' of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning." This "constitutes, perhaps, the deepest theological aspect of all that can be said about man." And the Pope adds that on "all this, right from the beginning, there descended the blessing of fertility linked with human procreation."[9]

Nevertheless, an IVFB still caries the mark of God’s creation for he/she was not created out of nothing, but still out of something – sounds in tune with the continuous creation of God in the world. Then let us say that each IVFB has a soul and they inherit God’s mark, do they inherit or caries Original Sin too? If Original Sin according to the Catholic Church is that which is inherited from the first parents and that which is in and with each human persons, then, the IVF babies/persons are carrier of the Original Sin (for Catholics). Do they need to be baptized then?

The question now is it because of the soul given by God that makes IVF babies destined to also have Original Sin? Is it the soul that makes a person sinful? Because if the In Vitro Fertilization Babies (IVFB) are non-contaminated if it has no soul then it would be better that men chose to be born out of IVF rather than obliging Jesus Christ to continually save each and every born babies in the world. His saving act was then once and for all 2000 years ago. No need for continuous saving act.

IVFB do sin and theologians may argue and state that it is because he/she was also born in the sinful world or can be said that still he/she inherited it from the parents no matter the father is different from that who is canonically wed to the woman. Could they be considered as one of the “sins of the world” – the Catholic stand against IVF and cloning may and could imply that IVFB are one of the “sins of the world” but who are we to judge. Even though John Paul II or the church considers life or a new baby is a “gift” only given by God and is that “gift” is shattered in doing IVF," It shatters the "gift" between God and man, between man and woman, and between parents and child,[10] therefore making IVF an act against God. We all know that for Catholics, an act against God is sin per se. Poor IVFB then for he/she is born as a sin, out of sin, and in a sinful world. That would be too much for us to say. It would be a lot safer to say that they have sin rather than they are sin. It is better to say that they have concupiscence rather than saying that they are concupiscence. For me, there is nothing wrong in creating a human out of the ordinary. For what is wrong in promoting life or when you create a life.

If having IVFB is bad, and it is really against God and nature, why does God allow them to live? God do not intervene and stop these IVFB to live. After all, there are a million of IVFB now in this world. For the Catholic Church, it may be a sinful act but apart from purely miraculous interventions, which appear to be quite rare, God does not step in and break the humanly-initiated chain of causality which allows sinful actions and evil choices to play out with all their consequences. He invites us to make moral and upright choices ourselves, so that evil in our world might not spread further, but he doesn’t actively prevent us from doing evil by abrogating physical laws or refusing to “ensoul” embryos.[11] Rather, God continuously offer salvation to these IVFB just like us who commit sins in many ways. The saving power of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity for the Catholics, effects even to these precious ones in the eyes of the Lord. If the Catholic Church, claims that people of other faith or other religions would be saved including non-believers who have not heard of Jesus Christ and unbaptized because there is no available baptism for them, then the IVFB whether they would have a soul or not, they too will be saved. But a question arises if IVFB doesn’t have soul because what they do only have is body, it is out of the context of what is bodily resurrection mean. Does it mean then that it would only be the body that will be transformed and continue to live? But nevertheless, I believe that it would not be the case just as I have already pointed out that IVFB has a soul.

It is not just the body, nor just the soul that is saved by Christ. Humans, whether ordinarily or in vitro born, are not dualistic or divided in nature. They are not tripartite nor of one part only. The body and soul makes the person one and the same, a unique person. We speak of a soul as an “it” as we are to treat persons as biological objects. Soul does not exist as an “it,” apart from personality. Rather, the soul consists of content, the totally unique creation -- truly the image of God -- that we call the person.[12]

The soul is not the reason why men are saved. Because if it is the only reason why men have to be saved by God, then there is no need for the body to be resurrected in the end of the end times. There is no need for a transformation of the body, no need for a bodily resurrection. Good if the IVFB is a Hindu, it would not be a problem if his body is IVF made for the body is just a vessel and the soul seek for purification by reincarnation. How about if he is a Catholics or the Christians?

In the final analysis In Vitro Fertilization babies/individuals are bearers of the image and likeness of God. They are gifts from God. They are born body and soul. They are not sin per se, but it is a fact that they too have sins as they live in the world. If we follow the Catholic Church, and the thoughts of the “situationist theologians” they do acquire, inherit Original Sin even though they were not born through sexual intercourse. Neither this is the case or the other, they are saved by the saving grace of God, buy the loving mercy of God, whether they may have soul or not or have sinned or not. IVFB will also enjoy the resurrection in the end of the end times just as we justify the resurrection, salvation extended to our non-Catholic believers, just as Rahner have said about salvation. In Vitro Fertilization Babies are God’s Children too. They deserve to be treated as we wish to be treated. They share in the sinfulness and the grace in the world. Christ’s image are in them, the spirit dwells in them, God loves them.

Note: this is a scrapbook. if errors were committed/written against faith, i don't care. The following is not the true doctrine of the church.


Original Sin (OS)
OS = Pride of Man = inherited by all in terms of nature of man
man is prone to have pride by its nature
aside from pride it is also of power, authority, autonomy (these are all God's attributes actually & not of man - cause of problems, sin in the world, destruction of relationship between God and man

these attributes are all good but when it goes beyond, it becomes god (somebody higher than others, not equal)

- nature of man
JC is a choice/showed us how to change the nature, that we can overcome this nature. JC tried to overcome this pride by his servan image, this power by dying, this authority by submission to history, the autonomy by alluding to the Father's will
- could have given us a peaceful place, no sin, Kingdom of God (one with God)

Baptism if seen as a way of conversion and not just a rite, it becomes a real sign, the sign of Jesus Christ (the primordioal sacrament-sign of conversion)
JC calls us to convert from pride to humility

ORIGINAL SIN is biologically inherited by fact of the nature of man
- is a term used for all the acts that inclines a person to be more, be above from anyone else (good interior, not evil inside)
-it is not a particular sin e.g. stealing, phidophilia, etc - seek above thru evil

Man is not born to be "a sinner" as Weger would say nor conditioned as a sinner, as situationists theologians would say, but MAN is born good but by its nature, chemical composition
he is capytivated by this will to chose to be or not to be.. (e.g chose JC's person)

JC was born with OS but it was overcomed not because he was divine in nature but becuase, as a man, he truly chose not to allude to this nature and brought back the true nature of man - good. use this OS in good sense (define OS in good sense) - he showed us how to overcome

JC saved us, redeemed us from this satate of life by showing that MAN HAS THE CAPACITY TO - BE GOOD, capacity to chose, capacity to transcend from just remaining in the state of OS, to be fully human
-He redeemed our humanity thru his example - he is our MODEL OF CHANGE
-we continue to sin/being redeemed - we need our participation, go through a process, cfrom child to adulthood process, maturity in faith
-Redemption is once and for all - when Jesus came. when that model man came. it is on the process for each one changes as he connects himself little by little to this "MAN WHO IS GOOD."

BAptism doesnt remove the concupiscence because it is .... (Rahner)
-it removes OS because it transforms us to a new AMn (JC)
-not necessary to be Christianb/catholic but it applies to all

If a Muslim or Jew would overcome this OS in him - he is REDEEMED from OS

A MAN WHO INTEGRATES CHRIST (MoDEL) CHANGES HIMSELF/ HIS NATURE.

The Catholic Church claims that ours is the true religion, there is salvation in the Catholic Church and it is also available to those who do not know Jesus Christ but have goodwill equivalent to what Jesus teaches. She used to claim that “there is no salvation outside the church” but Vatican II changed that church’s statement. She added and removed words from that statement making it “there is salvation inside the Church.” This salvation is effected by the grace of God through the redemptive action of Jesus Christ who had become one with us, crucified, died, raised to life, and exalted. The eschatological and stereological[1] meaning of his death explains the claims of the Catholic Church for its salvation.

There had been a lot of questions raised by well known theologians down to non-Christian believers and much has been said about salvation. Much has been said too in the classroom regarding salvation of Muslims, Hindus, etc. I am curious about the salvation of communists, from leaders to people of communist countries considering the eschatological claims of Marxism. This has brought into my attention when a brother Vietnamese asked me the question “How about our family in Vietnam as well as my friends who are communists?”

Communism believed that it was the great goal, the vision, the desideratum, the ultimate end that would make the sufferings of mankind throughout history worthwhile. For them history is the history of suffering, of class struggle, of the exploitation of man by man. In the same way as the return of the Messiah, in Christian theology, will put an end to history and establish a new heaven and a new earth, so the establishment of communism would put an end to human history. And just as for post-millennial Christians, man, led by God's prophets and saints, will establish a Kingdom of God on Earth (for pre-millennials, Jesus will have many human assistants in setting up such a kingdom), so, for Marx and other schools of communists, mankind, led by a vanguard of secular saints, will establish a secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth.[2]

Msgr. Vengco, in one of his lectures in Christian Initiation said that salvation is available and effected to everyone even to those who had not heard of Christ because they are one with us through God. Salvation is effected and received in being one with Christ, through being one with the church by virtue of baptism. Those who had not been baptized, therefore not incorporated in the church, therefore no union with the mystical body of Christ, may or may not have heard of Christ but Baptism is impossible or not available for them, are still saved because of the loving mercy of God and the effect of Christ saving act that affects all. But for those who had been baptized or not baptized but rejects Jesus Christ, in my opinion therefore, are not saved. The communists reject Christ as the saviour by virtue of their eschatological principles and their ideals. Therefore, there is no salvation for them if I would follow logic. No matter what the position of Karl Rahner maybe, and no matter how enlightening the Word may be, reaching out to every person in the world (D. Mollat) and no matter how the eternal Logos could manifest itself to other peoples through other religious symbols (Avery Dulles), unless salvation would always mean “deliverance from” and not “healing, wholeness and harmony”[3], there is no way to dialogue with the communists and millions of people under communist rule (not belonging to any religion) will never be saved, can never be saved, are not worth of salvation. Besides they reject the eschatological action of Christ.

At first I thought there could never be a dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Communists. Surprisingly, there had been such one as reported in the Time Magazine of May 1965 that involved Karl Rahner and some other theologians[4]. Nevertheless, this great gathering never answers the question will they be saved too. With the principle of eschatology that they have, it’s too narrow for a real dialogue to happen.

According to a number of Vietnamese from ICLA and our own community, communists do not believe in the Catholic Church’s eschatological claims just as I have stated above and yet despite their unbelief, they, like many of us Filipinos, who are Catholics but believes in many superstitious beliefs. Maybe somehow through these hidden beliefs the church could dialogue with these unbelievers, Vietnamese communists in particular. These people do not look for deliverance but harmony with people and with nature.

I wrestle not with the question “who will be saved” but with the question “why do we have to be saved,” “from what do we have to be delivered from?” Why don’t we just believe the New Age religion? They explain away sin; they have no need for salvation in the biblical sense. In their minds, any salvation would simply be a more complete unification with the One.[5] Being in harmony or being in good relationship with God and with people would be better than to seek of being delivered out of “sin,” out of the distorted freedom of man.

Cardinal Ratzinger in one of his written books commented that the question of “who will be saved” or “are other people of other religions are saved” is already obsolete and irrelevant in our times. I agree with him. He said that the central question is to have an intuition of the Church’s position and mission in History under a positive new point of view that would allow one to believe in the universal grace of salvation. He said that the concerns have changed. We have to leave to God how people are to be saved. He insisted that what we are supposed to be concerned of is the necessity of the Church, its role in being one of the sources of faith and life.[6]

I think and suggest that there is no need for dialogue in order to accommodate other religions, non-believer’s salvation if we include in our dialogue “the need to be delivered out of.” If it is for the sake of harmonizing and having good relations with them, it might be better.

I prefer to state that there are two or more parallel revelations contrary to what the church claims. There may be many revelations but it only happened in one single history, it happens in one single history. This “revelation” is not defined as “that which comes from God” for there is only one revelation from God (wether it is our God or Allah, etc) but rather, what I mean is that there are many parallel ways of “perceiving” the only one revelation from one God. Asked about how it is revealed or at least how it is perceived by the communists - I do not know.

There is “no need” and “a need” to harmonize with other religions or non-believers. If revelation of God is the same for one and all yet perceived in different ways though received in one history, there is no need for dialogue or to be in harmony with them and to insist the Church’s claim that only through Christ that every one will be saved. On the other side of the coin, there is a need for the Catholics to dialogue and be indulged in ecumenism - for the road to salvation for those who had heard about Christ - entails being a witness to the teachings of Christ and the Church. Witnessing entails not just rituals and being related with God and but also in relations with the church, other people who also believe in Christ, and even to those who doesn’t believe.

In relating with others, it isn’t necessary to oversimplify the situation humans need saving from. Escaping our bodies as practiced by the Gnostics and the present-day counterpart of Gnosticism (New Age), or by changing our social structures as suggested by liberation theologians and realigning our theological framework as suggested by Amalados because it does not address the “real issue of sin,” that which we are to be delivered from or saved from. Salvation is not about becoming good or getting the “right knowledge of the self,” nor about creating the right political order but it is about being in the right relationship with God.

Just as I have stated in my previous paper that Jesus can be seen as “a model” in moving away from sin, in the removal of original Sin, I suggest again here that we can take a look at Jesus as “a model” in transforming human freedom so that we may be in the right relationship with God and with each other. I do not suggest anyhow that he does not save. He saves. But for the sake of those who are non-believers he can be seen as models not just a mode of salvation. And for the communists perhaps, though they may acknowledge Jesus, if they do their best to have the proper relationship with their people and truly looks for the common good of the people, then they are saved from the distorted freedom of man, from sin, salvation then is right here and then on earth. The Kingdom is here on earth little by little being established by men itself.

Salvation is relational. To be in right relationship with God demands also to be in right relationship with the world, beginning with our own communities that live by the mind of Christ, this means that each one looks not only to his own interest but also to the interest of others.[7] Here, the communists can in a way relate with us or we relate with them without insisting our own eschatological principles. There is no need to dialogue but there is a need to change our mentality about salvation. There is a need for us to respect their beliefs and principles of life of others. If we are to look at Jesus as model for transformation, if we’ll hold on to the claim that in, through, and with Jesus all men can be saved, then just as he shows us a God who saves all humanity by entering fully into this world and just as he showed us as a brother whose faith in God and love for others reveals the right direction of human freedom out of the social realities of the world, out of sinfulness, then we should do the same as he did.

Borrowing form the communists’ eschatology, mankind if lead by a vanguard of secular saints – those who are related in God through its proper relations with people, not by realignment of theology nor by just dialogue, by contextualization nor by creating a political order but by simply and properly relating with God and with others – we will be able to establish not just a “secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth” but a Kingdom of God as defined by Fr. Jim Kroeger for his Christology classes. Salvation is at hand for everybody.