While duplicating Fido isn’t quite the ethical minefield that duplicating Uncle Fred would be, it does raise questions on where biotechnology is headed.
It was only a matter of time before Tom Brady rewrote the playbook again — this time not on the football field, but rather in the dog park.
Last month, the seven-time Super Bowl champ, who was raised Catholic, revealed that his new dog, Junie, is actually a clone of his previous one, Lua. The procedure, once a rare scientific curiosity reserved for laboratories and celebrities, is now slowly becoming more common among ordinary pet owners willing to pay the steep price tag.
Catholics everywhere might find themselves asking a question no catechism class ever prepared them for: Is this allowed? While duplicating Fido isn’t quite the ethical minefield that duplicating Uncle Fred would be, it does raise questions on where biotechnology is headed, and how soon the same moral dilemmas could arise for humans.
Pet cloning, which costs between $50,000 and $85,000 depending on the animal, has become a technically feasible option for grieving owners hoping to preserve a bond with their furry friend. The process involves collecting a small tissue sample from an animal and using it to create a genetically identical embryo that is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The resulting puppy or kitten is a genetic twin of the original, often resembling it closely in appearance and some instincts, though temperament and personality can still vary widely since these are shaped by environment as much as genes. Veterinarians also note that cloning can carry high medical risks, raising additional questions about animal welfare.
For most people, the appeal lies less in “playing God” and more in extending an attachment with a beloved companion. Brady’s high-profile decision thrust the practice into public view, but it came with an added layer of interest: He is an investor in the company that cloned his dog: Colossal Biosciences, which not only markets pet replication but has also ventured into cloning endangered species. His involvement underscores the growing commercial momentum behind these technologies that is now drawing not only celebrities, but ordinary families seeking the emotional continuity of “the same” pet.
‘Morally Acceptable’?
While cloning a pet may seem like a purely personal choice, it touches on broader debates about where the trajectory of reproductive technology is headed and how far humans should go in trying to “duplicate” life. And here the question of cost becomes morally relevant.
Technically, the Church has no formal teaching or doctrine prohibiting the cloning of animals, meaning that creating a genetic copy of a cherished pet is not intrinsically immoral. Still, public unease is real: A Gallup poll in May found that only 34% of respondents consider cloning animals “morally acceptable,” while 59% say it is wrong.
Yet the same scientific tools that make pet cloning possible also operate in realms involving human embryos, a domain the Church approaches with caution and, in many cases, outright opposition. As cloning and genetic manipulation advance, Catholic bioethicists warn that these developments will increasingly force society to wrestle with profound questions about human dignity, the limits of grief, and the role of technology in shaping identity.
At this point, Catholic moral guidance turns more concrete. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, underscored that while animal cloning is permissible in principle, it must meet a high bar of justification. Current cloning techniques, he noted, remain “rudimentary” and often harm the animals involved, with some clones exhibiting disturbed gene expression, postnatal death, and organ defects.
For that reason, he argued, cloning can be moral if it “advances scientific research in important ways,” he told the Register. Likewise, duplicating a capable police dog whose skills could meaningfully help law-enforcement agencies may offer “a proportionately serious reason to motivate the endeavor.”
However, Father Tad questioned whether “an inordinate attachment to a deceased dog and his memory” can justify a procedure that risks harming multiple animals along the way, especially when the resulting clone will be “an imperfect reproduction.” He noted that for most people, the more fitting response would be simply to adopt a new companion.
“With dogs holding one of the primary positions as ‘man’s best friend,’” he shared, “it should not be so difficult to venture out and find another furry friend— perhaps one that needs to be rescued from a local shelter.”