Monday, December 06, 2010

Midichlorians or microchimerism?

When I studied Anatomy and Physiology in college, the lesson that included microchimerism, became instructive to me on a different level. Learning that every child leaves within his mother a microscopic bit of himself–and that it remains within her forever–the dogma of the Immaculate Conception instantly became both crystal clear and brilliant to me. 

Actually, microchimerism also relates to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary as well. In the psalms we read “you will not suffer your beloved to undergo corruption.” Christ’s divine body did not undergo corruption. It follows that his mother’s body, which contained a cellular component of the Divinity–and a particle of God is God, entire–would not be allowed to corrupt as well.

That's unscientific. The scientific explanation for the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception is midichlorians, not microchimerism. Just like the bond between Shmi Skywalker and Anakin Skywalker.


  1. This doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. The gymnastics required to believe this makes my head swim, and my limbs ache.

  2. Wait a minute. How does the concept of microchimerism clarify the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which applies to Mary and not Jesus? Was the Incarnation somehow retroactive in its effects on our Lord's mother?

  3. You have got to be kidding me. What a bunch of nonsense!

    Does our Lord's dung get assumed into heaven as well?!?

  4. No... You just have to also claim that every hair follicle, skin and blood cell that he sloughed or spilled was also raised into heaven.

    Must have been a really neat sight to see each shed hair becoming luminous ascending into heaven.

  5. Something else--this sort of thinking leads one perilously close to denying the real humanity of our Lord.

  6. Midichlorians - it's like trying to "force" science to support what one wants it to support. "Lost a planet Master Obi-Wan has. How embarrassing."