No Apologies #76: Refusal of Blood Transfusions

To be fair AJWRB is about as Witness as Pelosi is Catholic, that is, only in the most tenuous of senses. I know that they’re trying to split hairs here but they are in direct violation of an established teaching that the Witnesses hold. I may agree with them now, but they do themselves a disservice in trying to play both sides. That being said they are a good source of information for the change in policies.

While the West has generally followed Augustine’s argument (what you essentially present here) the East hasn’t been as quick in doing so. The Council of Trullo says in canon 67:
“The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.”

Being held in 692 it undermines Augustine’s position that this was a pastoral exception (which isn’t held for the rest of the Council of Jerusalem’s decision). I think its generally safer to hold that transfusions aren’t consumption but are medical care and therefore aren’t covered nor do they cheapen the sacredness of blood.

I’m willing to give up blood sausage (which I’ve heard is horrible anyway) if I make it into Heaven. I imagine I won’t make it though if I let my brother die.

One further note, while its true that you could use “Jehovahs’ ” the more common collective noun is “Witnesses” as it tends to not make the definite article sound odd. I should have pointed that out in my first post and I apologize for not doing so.

4 COMMENTS

Jeffery Schwehm March 22, 2011 at 10:21 am

You should check out the website of the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood. http://www.ajwrb.org
This is a group of JWs who want the Watchtower Organization to drop the ban on blood transfusions. It is interesting reading and gives one a look at how the leaders of the JWs deal with dissenters.

Nick March 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm

To be fair AJWRB is about as Witness as Pelosi is Catholic, that is, only in the most tenuous of senses. I know that they’re trying to split hairs here but they are in direct violation of an established teaching that the Witnesses hold. I may agree with them now, but they do themselves a disservice in trying to play both sides. That being said they are a good source of information for the change in policies.

While the West has generally followed Augustine’s argument (what you essentially present here) the East hasn’t been as quick in doing so. The Council of Trullo says in canon 67:
“The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.”

Being held in 692 it undermines Augustine’s position that this was a pastoral exception (which isn’t held for the rest of the Council of Jerusalem’s decision). I think its generally safer to hold that transfusions aren’t consumption but are medical care and therefore aren’t covered nor do they cheapen the sacredness of blood.

I’m willing to give up blood sausage (which I’ve heard is horrible anyway) if I make it into Heaven. I imagine I won’t make it though if I let my brother die.

One further note, while its true that you could use “Jehovahs’ ” the more common collective noun is “Witnesses” as it tends to not make the definite article sound odd. I should have pointed that out in my first post and I apologize for not doing so.

FRED June 27, 2012 at 12:15 pm

TYVM may God see and bless your efforts Fra Joseph Mary

FRED June 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm

Thank you very much… may God see and bless your efforts Fra Joseph Mary