THE CONFERENCE:

Candidate Survey (11/2006)

Legislative Issues

NCC/Publications:

  -NCC Statements &

   Current Issues

Medical Treat-      ment Decision-

making (1/06)

  -Bishops' Statements

    *Behavioral Health

     Statement (2/05)

  -Capitol 

   Correspondent:

    Columns-2007

    Past Columns

  *********

PRO LIFE:

Calendar of Events

Current Issues

NE Catholics for Life

  -NCL Newsletter

  -A People of Life Brochure

Life Insight: 

  Columns-2008

  Past Columns

Preg. Help Centers

Project Rachel

2007 PL Convention

Walk for Life 2008

Printed Resources

*********

Education Issues:

The NFCSP

Education/Legislation

Action Alerts!!

Newsletter: 

 Parent Advocate

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience.  By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

Life Insight 2003

By Greg Schleppenbach, Part II, July-December

Life Insight 11-14-03   Partial Birth Abortion Battle Continues

Life Insight 12-19-03

It’s A Matter of the Heart and Will

In my 13 years as State Pro Life Director for the Bishops of Nebraska, one reality is quite clear to me: rebuilding a culture that appreciates and respects human life and love depends far more on converting hearts than on converting minds. When I began this work, I thought just the opposite; that the pro-life cause was an intellectual battle where simply presenting irrefutable facts and unimpeachable arguments would assure us victory.

Unfortunately, the battle is not so simple. There is a dynamic in our culture that produces intellectual blindness and self-centered, intransigent wills—it’s called sin. Our Holy Father put it this way in Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"):

"In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the ‘culture of life’ and the ‘culture of death’…we have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism…Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad, vicious circle: When the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence."

In other words, the more alienated and distant we get from God, the less we can understand and appreciate the meaning and dignity of human life, which is made in His image. The less we understand and appreciate human life, the more likely we are to violate its dignity. When we sin, especially against the dignity of human life, it darkens our intellect and will making it harder for us to know and embrace God and His truth written on our hearts.

Incredibly, the U.S. Supreme Court identified this dynamic in its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when it gave the following as one of its rationales for not overturning Roe v. Wade:

"[Roe cannot be overturned] without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

To put it more bluntly, many people in our society have become stuck in a lifestyle of casual and self-centered sex. Therefore, not having abortion as a safety net to destroy any "unwanted" children that aren’t prevented or destroyed by contraception would require a lifestyle change that many people aren’t willing to make. They’re unwilling because when a person becomes mired in a sinful lifestyle— especially one of sexual permissiveness or perversion—conversion back toward God can be very difficult.

It is easier to rationalize a sinful behavior or lifestyle than to overcome it. This is why intellectual arguments, by themselves, are limited in their ability to prompt conversion. One can admit the truth of something and yet rationalize it away because living it would require a difficult, and often painful, conversion process. This is why I believe that rebuilding a culture that appreciates and respects human life and love depends far more on converting hearts than on converting minds.

Make no mistake, it is important that we continue to present the most compelling facts and arguments to support our pro-life positions, because God will convert some people through an appeal to the intellect. But the more a person is attached to a sinful behavior or lifestyle, the more it will take an appeal to their heart through our prayers, sacrifices and God’s grace to bring about conversion. If we are to help facilitate such conversion in others, it will require us to imitate the heart of Christ, not just His mind. And we’ll need to be patient and trust that with God’s grace all things are possible.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 12-12-03

On the Provision of Nutrition and Hydration

Last week’s column laid out some basic principles from Church teaching for making moral decisions regarding medical treatment at the end of life. This week I will present some principles to help guide decisions related to providing or discontinuing artificial nutrition and hydration (food and fluids), particularly in cases of persistent coma or brain damage (so-called "persistent vegetative state").

The document produced by the three Nebraska Bishops in their capacity as head of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching" says the following:

"Nutrition and hydration (food and fluids) should be provided as part of a patient’s normal care, even when the assistance of medical technology is necessary. The circumstances of a patient’s condition, however, may affect the moral obligation of supplying nutrition and hydration in this way, that is, non-orally, by means of an intravenous line, nasogastric tube, hyperalimentation or a tube inserted directly into the stomach."

"The presumption must be in favor of medically assisted nutrition and hydration, unless or until such means are clinically useless or until the benefits of receiving nutrition and hydration through such means are clearly outweighed by the burdens. Factors to be weighed include the patient’s ability to assimilate the medically-assisted nutrition and hydration, the imminence of death, and the risks of the means for the patient.

"It is extremely important to keep in mind that the basis of judgment cannot be that the patient’s life is useless or devoid of value, (for this would be to reject life itself); rather, the decision must be based on whether the measures being utilized are useless or create burdens which are disproportionate to the benefits they provide. (‘The burdens might include severe physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, excessive risks, etc. Moreover, while the extent of burdens is analyzed and judged primarily from the perspective of the patient, such analysis and judgment can also consider burdens experienced by family members and by the community as a whole, e.g., excessive expense’). Decisions regarding human life must respect the demands of justice, avoiding all discrimination based on age or dependency."

"The issue of medically-assisted nutrition and hydration raises serious questions about whether such means are treatment (which could be morally optional under certain conditions) or standard nursing care. There is common agreement among Catholic moral theologians that in the case of a patient in a [so-called] persistent vegetative state, medically assisted nutrition and hydration may be withheld or withdrawn if the patient can no longer assimilate the liquids or nourishment or if the patient is suffering from terminal illness and death is imminent.

"There is, however, some disagreement among Catholic moral theologians whether such hydration and nutrition may be withheld or withdrawn from other persons in a [so-called] persistent vegetative state, that is, those who are able to assimilate liquids and nourishment and for whom death is not imminent. In any case, before withdrawing or withholding, there must be clear evidence that the means being used to supply nutrition and hydration artificially, are in fact clinically useless, ineffective or disproportionately burdensome."

The U.S. Bishops Committee for Pro-Life Activities produced a very useful document on this subject entitled "Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections". In it they conclude that "In the face of the uncertainties and unresolved medical and theological issues, it is important to defend and preserve important values. On the one hand, there is a concern that patients and families should not be subjected to unnecessary burdens, ineffective treatments and indignities when death is approaching. On the other hand, it is important to ensure that the inherent dignity of human persons, even those who are persistently unconscious, is respected, and that no one is deprived of nutrition and hydration with the intent of bringing on his or her death."

"In light of these concerns, it is our considered judgment that while legitimate Catholic moral debate continues [on this subject], decisions about these patients should be guided by a presumption in favor of medically assisted nutrition and hydration." This document is available from my office or online at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutindex.htm.

| Back to Top | Current Column Index | Past Column Index |

Life Insight 12-5-03

Medical Treatment Decisionmaking

Several weeks ago I wrote about the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the center of a battle over whether or not her artificially-provided nutrition and hydration should be discontinued. Here I will go into some depth on the Church’s teaching regarding making medical treatment decisions—decisions that will one way or another affect most of us.

Several years ago, the Bishops of Nebraska under the auspices of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, produced an excellent document entitled "Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching". While no document can anticipate and answer every question that will arise when life and death treatment decisions are made, this document provides clear and concise guidelines that will help individuals make those decisions with the light of truth and faith.

Here are some of the most pertinent guidelines:

This Medical-Treatment Decisionmaking document is available from my office or on this site at Medical Treatment Decisionmaking. Information on advance directives is also available from my office. Next week I will go into some depth on the issue of providing nutrition and hydration.

Life Insight 11-26-03

Thanks Be To God

Our Catholic faith gives us guidance in formulating our prayers to God. Our prayers should begin with adoration, followed by contrition, then thanksgiving and finally supplication (remember the acronym A.C.T.S.). Our fallen human nature is such that it is quite tempting to slip past the first three elements of prayer and go right to supplication. No matter how many blessings we have, it seems our tendency is to dwell on our crosses or deficits.

Something which has been a continual reminder to me of my numerous blessings is my volunteer time with my parish’s St. Vincent DePaul Society. Every month we assist 25 to 30 people who have little or nothing materially, are often unemployed or part of the "working poor", and have health problems which complicate their ability to work.

Mostly these individuals are behind on rent or utilities, need food, clothing or furniture. Some are really on the edge and are about to be evicted or have their heat shut off. Without fail, every time I make a visit to such persons in need, I come away more thankful for my blessings and more contrite for my ingratitude.

There are so many obvious blessings for which we should be thankful. Foremost is the sacred gift of our life. Those who have lost a loved one recently have a heightened appreciation for this gift. One example, close to home, reminds us of the fragility of life. Last week a 33-year old father of 5 children was killed when the tractor he was driving down the highway was struck by a car. In the blink of an eye this precious life is gone.

I mention this example because this young man, Jeff Steffen, was the husband of the pro-life coordinator at Holy Trinity parish in Hartington, Kathie Steffen. She is left with 5 young children, the youngest of which is a mere 2 months old. Please keep her and her family in your prayers and let us pray for all who have lost loved ones recently.

Other gifts for which to be thankful for are our faith and our family. Any person of faith who has struggled with the death of a loved one or with any significant cross knows acutely the gift of faith and can be thankful for it. How often do we say in the midst of trial, "I don’t know what I’d do without my faith." Family (and friends) also gives us a structure of love upon which we can receive comfort and support.

In addition to these obvious blessings, there are others that are often taken for granted. Our health, for example, is something we seldom think about or thank God for—until we’re sick. Having a home and all the basic comforts in it such as food, clothes, a warm bed and a warm shower. Let us give thanks for all these blessings.

Personally, I want to express my deep gratitude to every parish pro-life coordinator in Nebraska and to those wonderful souls who generously volunteer in, or financially contribute to, my office. These selfless, often thankless, volunteers and benefactors are the heart and soul of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. I encourage all who read this to thank your parish pro-life coordinator and, if possible, to offer your help to her/him.

I am exceptionally grateful to the Knights of Columbus in Nebraska whose extraordinary generosity funds a large part of my office and assists many other pro-life efforts throughout Nebraska.

Finally, I want to thank all who in one way or another work or advocate for a respect for the right to life and dignity of every human being from fertilization to natural death. May the Author of Life continue to inspire and lead our efforts on His behalf.

Life Insight 11-21-03

Judges, Politicians, Bishops and Abortion

Abortion was not legalized in 1973 by the will of the people, it was imposed upon our nation by the will of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Even some legal experts who support legal abortion have said that these cases were wrongly decided. Ironically, abortion activists claim that pro-lifers are trying to impose our morality on the nation, when it was they who imposed their immorality through the courts.

Prior to 1973, abortion activists were successful in liberalizing abortion laws in some states (primarily on the coasts), but failed to do so in the vast majority of states. Thus they shifted their strategy from legislatures to courts, hoping to get activist judges to invalidate state laws that they were unable to change through the democratic process. It was such a challenge to Texas’ anti-abortion law that resulted in Roe v Wade, and a challenge to Georgia’s law that became Doe v Bolton (Roe’s companion case).

It seems to me that Roe v Wade’s outcome helped set the stage for the increasingly activist courts of today that are taking the lawmaking role out of the hands of our elected officials. The partial-birth abortion ban is a good case in point. Here is a law that has been enacted by Congress (three times) and numerous states with large, bipartisan majorities only to be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.

It is no surprise then that there is an enormous battle going on in Congress over several of President Bush’s nominees to various U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. These courts are important because they often make the final decision on the constitutionality of laws and they are the courts from which most Supreme Court justices are appointed.

Sadly, it has become quite evident that the President’s Courts of Appeal nominees are being filibustered mostly because pro-abortion (Democratic) senators fear that they will support restrictions on abortions. The U.S. Constitution requires a simple majority of senators to confirm a judicial nominee, but a filibuster (endless debate) requires 60 votes to stop and proceed to a vote. A majority of senators support these nominees, but not the 60 needed to stop the filibuster.

What’s worse is that most of the pro-abortion senators leading the way in blocking these judicial nominees are Catholic. The scandal given by these public officials is incalculable. Not only do they speak and vote in favor of keeping abortion legal, they are taking the unprecedented step of filibustering judicial nominees who might rule in favor of restricting or banning abortion.

Thankfully, the U.S. bishops at their Fall meeting last week, decided to form a task force to evaluate the various sanctions that could be imposed against Catholic elected officials who vote contrary to Church teachings. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz said to his fellow Bishops that "It’s a constant source of scandal that the most prominent pro-abortion people are Catholics…who seem to go unreproved." Bishop Joseph Galante of Dallas said, "I’m tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, ‘I am personally opposed to whatever, but I can’t impose my moral judgment on others…That’s nonsense…That’s a weaseling out."

Time will tell whether the Bishops ultimately take a tough stand to admonish pro-abortion Catholic politicians and mitigate the horrible scandal they perpetrate in our society. But at least they have recognized the problem and are taking steps to correct it. This is the proper role of our spiritual shepherds: to instruct and sanctify the laity, and to admonish us when our souls are in spiritual jeopardy.

But the laity also have a proper and serious role: that is to sanctify the temporal order (the world)—to take our faith into the world, to those places where the clergy cannot go, which includes the realm of politics. For some laity, this means using their God-given gifts to run for public office. God knows we need principled, virtuous men and women to accept this call.

But all of us, clergy and laity alike, have a serious duty to at least vote and to vote for candidates who will, above all, protect the right upon which all the others are based—the right to life for all human beings. As illustrated by the battle over partial birth abortion and judicial nominees, who we vote for can have life or death consequences.

These battles also illustrate, unfortunately, that too many Catholics have either failed to vote or did not vote for candidates who will uphold this fundamental right. Surely, of all the things for which we will have to account before God, whether and how we voted will be included.

Life Insight 11-14-03

Partial Birth Abortion Battle Continues

A little more than one hour after President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act into law on November 5, Judge Richard Kopf, a federal district judge in Lincoln, slapped a temporarily restraining order (TRO) on the law. His TRO temporarily prevents the law from being applied to Bellevue abortionist LeRoy Carhart and three other abortionists from various parts of the country.

The next day, two other judges (one in New York City, one in San Francisco) issued similar rulings essentially extending the TRO nationwide. I don’t think it surprised the activists on either side that judges were found to rule against this new law. I hope it surprises and shocks more of the general public into recognizing, in the words of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, how legal abortion "has deformed a great nation."

I attended Judge Kopf’s hearing and listened with great sadness as the lawyer representing LeRoy Carhart defended a procedure that usually involves pulling all of the baby’s body out of the mother, save his/her head, before killing the child—usually by stabbing a scissors into the skull and sucking out his/her brains.

I heard her coldly argue that banning this procedure could have a chilling effect on abortionists doing a similar procedure in which the baby is brought out in pieces, literally having his/her limbs torn off by the abortionist’s forceps. During her testimony, I had an overwhelming sense that our Lord was weeping as He listened to her hardened heart defend the brutal killing of His precious and sacred gift of human life. I told a reporter after her testimony that I don’t know how anyone with a heart can listen to someone defend these procedures and not be horrified. Indeed, how can we consider that our nation permits such procedures and not contemplate what kind of people we have become?

Judge Kopf’s ruling typifies the kind of confused reasoning that invariably accompanies the defense of legal abortion. The basis for his ruling was the absence of a health exception in the federal law. The government’s lawyer, who I thought did a masterful job of defending the law, pointed out that Congress conducted numerous fact finding hearings on the question of whether partial birth abortion is ever the safest procedure to preserve a mother’s health and concluded that it is not.

Arguably, Congress did a much more thorough job of investigating this question than the Courts did when they struck down Nebraska’s law. But Judge Kopf indicated in his comments during this hearing (as he did in the Nebraska case) that he thinks the only credible testimony on the safety of this procedure is from those who are performing it.

When it was pointed out that numerous medical experts, including maternal-fetal physicians who specialize in high risk pregnancies, have testified that partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a mother’s health, Judge Kopf said if they aren’t a surgeon who performs late term abortions he’s inclined to disregard their testimony.

Since this ruling was only a temporary restraining order, another hearing will be conducted to determine whether this law should be permanently invalidated. If Judge Kopf or either of the other two judges permanently invalidates the law, it will be appealed to the federal appeals court and then likely to the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s hard to say whether the current Supreme Court would rule any differently on this federal law than it did on Nebraska’s law.

In the meantime, we must pray. And we should urge our U.S. Senators to do everything possible to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees who are being unfairly opposed by a minority of predominantly Democratic pro-abortion senators precisely because these judges would likely rule in favor of pro-life laws such as the partial birth abortion ban.

Life Insight 11-7-03

President Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban

On Wednesday, November 5, President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act into law. Signing this bill culminates an eight year battle in Congress during which a similar bill was passed twice by overwhelming majorities in both Houses only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Enacting this bill also represents the first federal restriction of an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court imposed legal abortion on our nation 30 years ago.

Partial birth abortion is a later-term abortion procedure in which a baby is typically pulled feet first out of the birth canal until only the head remains in the womb. A scissors is then thrust into the back of the head to create a hole so the brain can be sucked out. Defenders of this procedure say it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, which flies in the face of overwhelming medical testimony to the contrary. Indeed, defending this procedure (or any abortion) for any reason flies in the face of human reason, compassion, love, justice and just plain humanity.

Having lost overwhelmingly in Congress (and the court of public opinion), abortion defenders have again turned to the judiciary in hopes that a few judges will negate the will of the people. Three pro-abortion groups filed separate federal lawsuits prior to President Bush signing the bill hoping a court will prevent the law from taking effect. One of those lawsuits was filed in Nebraska on behalf of Bellevue abortionist LeRoy Carhart, who successfully challenged Nebraska’s law banning partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 2000.

Given the growing tendency of courts to enact rather than interpret laws, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this legal challenge. Sponsors of the bill did make adjustments to address the two primary concerns raised by the Supreme Court in its 5-4 decision to invalidate Nebraska’s law.

First, they clarified the definition of partial birth abortion to address the Court’s concern that Nebraska’s definition was vague enough to effectively encompass other procedures. Second, they addressed the absence of a health exception in Nebraska’s law by presenting legislative findings in the federal bill to substantiate the assertion that this abortion procedure is never necessary to preserve a mother’s health. Adding a health exception would effectively render the ban meaningless since the Supreme Court defined "health" so broadly (in Doe v Bolton) that virtually any reason would qualify as a "health" abortion.

I was asked by the local newspaper to comment on the effort to legally challenge this federal ban and my initial reaction was, "bring it on!" I welcome the challenge because it will keep the brutal practice of partial birth abortion in the news and in the conversations of the public for months or years to come.

I believe that one of the reasons that public opinion on abortion has shifted toward the pro-life position over the last several years is because of the debate over partial birth abortion. This debate has confronted the American people with the brutal reality, and legal permissiveness, of abortion like never before. Most people are shocked to know that a procedure closer to infanticide than abortion is being performed in this country—and defended as a constitutional right.

Ultimately, partial birth abortions are no more brutal than any other abortion procedure. In his testimony in federal court, LeRoy Carhart coldly described another abortion procedure he performs, the Dilation and Evacuation, in which he literally rips the babies limbs from their bodies and pulls them out in pieces. Partial birth abortion is different only in that it is closer to infanticide than abortion. If we tolerate delivering three fourths of the baby’s body before killing her/him we cannot be that far from tolerating the killing of fully born human beings.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to the thousands of Catholics in Nebraska who have prayed, signed postcards, written letters or made phone calls in support of banning partial birth abortion. Although the legal challenge means the battle over partial birth abortion continues, the President’s signature on this bill brings us one step closer to a culture of life.

Life Insight 10-31-03

Speaking Truth and Love to Power

A couple of weeks ago, Pope John Paul II beatified Mother Teresa, a woman who taught us by her powerful example how to rebuild a culture of life and love. Although her example of self-sacrifice to the poorest of the poor—of loving until it hurts—spoke volumes by itself, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta did not cower from speaking the unvarnished truth to the most powerful people in the world.

Perhaps the best example of this was when Blessed Teresa spoke to President and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore and hundreds of other powerful leaders on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. She spoke of peace: "He came not to give the peace of the world which is only that we don’t bother each other. He came to give the peace of heart which comes from loving—from doing good to others."

She spoke of love: "And God loved the world so much that He gave His son—it was a giving…And as if that were not enough…Jesus also died on the Cross to show that greater love. He died for you and for me, and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person lying in the street…"

Then she lowered the boom: "But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts."

Blessed Teresa didn’t stop at challenging the practice of abortion, she went even deeper into the heart of our society’s poverty by challenging contraception. "The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

"We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion…And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome."

Our society’s utter disregard for the sacred dignity of human life and sexuality is enormous and overwhelming. Where do we begin? What can one person do? Blessed Teresa answers these questions with elegant simplicity. Love begins "at home," she says. "Let us learn to love in our family. In our own family we may have very poor people, and we do not notice them. We have not time to smile, no time to talk to each other. Let us bring that love, that tenderness into our own home and you will see the difference."

Love and service, Blessed Teresa says, begin with silence of the heart in which God can speak: "The Fruit of Silence is prayer. The Fruit of Prayer is faith. The Fruit of Faith is love and the Fruit of Love is service."

As for the impact of one person, Blessed Teresa’s life alone answers that question. But again, her words punctuate her life: "I never look at the masses as my responsibility. I look only at the individual. I can love only one person at a time. I can feed only one person at a time. Just one, one, one. You get closer to Christ by coming closer to each other."

"At the end of our lives, we will not be judged by how many diplomas we have received, how much money we have made or how many great things we have done. We will be judged by ‘I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was naked and you clothed me. I was homeless and you took me in. Hungry not only for food—but hungry for love. Naked not only for clothing—but naked of human dignity and respect. Homeless not only for want of a room of bricks—bit homeless because of rejection. This is Christ in distressing disguise." Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us!

Life Insight 10-24-03

The Starvation of a Disabled Woman

If you need a concrete example of the pervasiveness of the culture of death, take a look at the case of Terri Schiavo, a disabled woman in Florida who is being starved to death. According to a statement by the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), "public testimony by physicians who have examined [this 39-year old woman] indicate she suffers from a severely impaired state of consciousness, although there is disagreement whether she meets all of the medical criteria for [what is commonly referred to as] the ‘persistent vegetative state.’ Mrs. Schiavo collapsed in 1990 from unknown and apparently questionable causes resulting in this devastating brain injury.

"What is clear from the public record", the CMA statement continues, "is that since 1990…Mrs. Schiavo has been dependent upon medically assisted nutrition and hydration administered by gastric tube. She requires this support to survive because she is unable to feed herself. She is not terminally ill or in imminent danger of death and she has no problem assimilating the nutrition provided."

Mrs. Schiavo’s case is particularly contentious because not only is there disagreement about her condition and her rehabilitative potential to eat and drink by mouth, but her husband and her blood family (parents, siblings, etc.) disagree about removing her feeding tube. Following Terri’s injury, her husband Michael "brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury that he would provide Terri with rehabilitation and care for her for the rest of his life," writes Wesley Smith, a lawyer and writer on medical ethics.

"The jury awarded $1.3 million in damages…But once the money was in the bank", Smith continues, "Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab…Had she died then, Michael would have inherited all the money. But he denies having a venal motive, claiming that the trust fund money is now exhausted. If true, this is bitterly ironic. For the past three years he has been in litigation, opposed by Terri’s parents and her other relatives. Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much of it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care."

"Michael’s second conflict of interest is deeply personal," Smith writes. "He is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancée, with another on the way. The couple would like to marry, but Michael’s wife, inconveniently, is still alive."

Michael was able to get a judge to order Terri’s feeding tube removed which occurred on Wednesday, October 15^th following unsuccessful attempts to appeal this ruling. Adding to the injustice of this act, Terri, who is Catholic, has even been denied the opportunity to receive Communion. Terri’s family, pro-life and disability rights organizations and Florida Governor Jeb Bush are working feverishly to pursue numerous legal angles to reverse the court’s decision and restore her feeding tube.

A U.S. District Court on Monday heard arguments from a Florida disability watchdog organization that filed an emergency motion in Terri Schiavo's case asking for a temporary restraining order halting Terri's death, for Terri to be fed immediately, and for a ten day investigation into numerous charges. Governor Bush called a special session of the Florida Legislature to take up a bill that would place a moratorium on deaths by starvation or dehydration and allow the Governor to order Terri’s feeding tube to be reinserted. The House passed the bill on Monday, October 20 and the Senate is taking up the bill on Tuesday. Hopefully by the time you read this, Terri’s life will have been spared.

Church teaching on such cases says we are morally obliged to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving life, but are not morally obliged to use extraordinary or disproportionate means of care—that is, treatments, procedures or interventions which are useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or the burdens of which are excessive. Burdens might include severe physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, excessive risks, etc.

As for the specific provision of food and fluids, The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare state that "hydration and nutrition are not morally obligatory either when they bring no comfort to a person who is imminently dying or when they cannot be assimilated by a person’s body." Terri Schiavo clearly doesn’t fit in this category. The Directives also say that "there should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient."

Terri’s parents and siblings are simply asking for the ability to care for her and to provide the therapy that some experts have said could restore her ability to eat and drink by mouth. That her husband was able to get a court to deny this is horrifying. From the evidence I have seen, it seems quite clear that removing Terri’s feeding tube is an act of euthanasia. Please pray for Terri and her family and that truth and justice will prevail.

Life Insight 10-17-03 (TCV)

A Powerhouse Pro Life Convention

The annual Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities Convention will be held on October 24-26 at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln. This convention may be unsurpassable in the number of high-caliber speakers gathered for one event. This is due in part to the co-sponsorship of the Population Research Institute (PRI), a national pro-life organization dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in population control programs.

The convention begins on Saturday morning with a luminary from the field of sports: former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn. Mr. Kuhn served as Commissioner of baseball from 1969 to 1984 and is currently the chairman of the Culture of Life Foundation. He will speak on rebuilding the culture of life.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will speak on Humanae Vitae in the shadows of this document’s 35^th anniversary (July 2003). Understanding this document and the Church’s teaching on sexuality in general is essential to our efforts to rebuild a culture of life and love.

The afternoon speakers will tackle three more critical issues in the cultural battle. Dr. William Toffler will speak on Oregon’s experience with legalized assisted suicide and on true compassionate care for the dying. Dr. Toffler has been on the front lines in opposing Oregon’s legalization of assisted suicide and in promoting good quality end-of-life care.

Mary Ellen Bork, wife of Judge Robert Bork, will speak on "The New Feminism" that Pope John Paul II calls for in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life". Mrs. Bork is a writer and lecturer on issues affecting Catholic life.

Finally, Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), will address "The War on People". Mr. Mosher was the first American social scientist permitted to study in mainland China. In 1980, he first documented China’s brutal one-child policy. In 2002, based largely on PRI’s most recent investigation in China, President Bush cut $34 million from the United Nations Population Fund because of its support of forced abortion in China.

A 7:00 pm banquet at the Cornhusker will feature the Honorable Robert H. Bork as keynote speaker. Judge Bork gained notoriety when his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected by the U.S. Senate—largely because of his pro-life views. Judge Bork will speak about cultural decline in America, the subject of his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

On Sunday morning, nationally recognized expert David Reardon, PhD. will speak on the aftereffects of abortion on women. Steven Mosher will speak on his experience of being an atheist and finding God while in China. The convention concludes with a noon luncheon featuring Governor Mike Johanns talking about his own spiritual conversion and its impact on his public service.

This year’s convention includes some unique activities on Friday. Morning Mass at the Cathedral (8:10 am) will be followed by a Rosary procession to Planned Parenthood’s abortion mill. In the afternoon, a guided tour will visit the Carmelite Monastery in Agnew, St. Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward and Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton.

This convention provides a very rare opportunity to become informed on life issues by many leading pro-life experts from the national and international scene. Free child care is provided too, so there’s no reason to let this opportunity pass you by! For more information call me at 402-477-7417 or Michele Chambers at 402-489-3733 or go online to www.nebcathcon.org.

Life Insight 10-17-03

Calling Evil Good

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20). Any observer of our culture can easily identify examples of such woeful attempts to call evil good. Two breathtaking examples crossed my desk recently.

The first example comes from those macabre and pitiful folks at the Hemlock Society who stay up nights looking for innovative ways to assist in the suicides of "every American whose quality of life is unacceptably diminished by an irreversible physical condition." (Faye Girsh, Hemlock’s Executive Vice President, Timelines, Summer 2001, pg. 8)

As Girsh’s statement indicates, Hemlock advocates assisted suicide not only for persons with a terminal illness, but for persons with disabilities. Hemlock’s co-founder, Derek Humphrey, even extols assisted suicide for elderly people who are not ill: "Some couples choose to die together, regardless of whether both are in poor health, or only one…That the couple would wish to die together is a tribute to the strength of a loving relationship."

Hemlock, which provides how-to-commit suicide information by mail, has now developed a program called "Caring Friends" which trains volunteers to personally assist in suicides. In its publication EOL Choices (Winter 2002, pg 5), Hemlock said, "Even if we published Helium for Dummies, we still think that having someone with expertise present is better…[E]nding your life can be complex, you only do it once, and failure could be disastrous…We think the majority of people considering a hastened death would have better results if they did it in conjunction with Caring Friends."

What an insidious bastardization of the terms "caring" and "friend". As the saying goes, "with (caring) friends like that, who needs enemies!" But if you think that is a chilling example of calling evil good, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The September 2003 issue of Glamour magazine featured a story about the November Gang (so named because they first met in November 1989). This group is comprised of abortion center owners and directors, abortion industry consultants and activists whose mission is to not only advocate for and sell abortion but to help women feel good about their abortions.

The Glamour article reveals that "One of the questions November Gang clinics ask patients is, ‘Can you see abortion as a ‘loving act’ toward your children and yourself?’ Faced with that query, ‘a lot of them are totally taken aback,’ says Debi Jackson [executive director of one of the abortion centers]. ‘Then they actually think about it and they’re like, ‘Yeah, that’s what I’m doing. I do love this child, but I can’t [have] it right now.’"

The November Gang encourages their abortion customers to express their feelings on pink paper hearts which are pasted to the abortion center walls. Referred to in the Glamour article as "women’s love letters to their unborn children" one of those "love" letters says this:

"To my little angel…please understand that this wasn’t your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment…You are and forever will be beautiful and pure. I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. I love you! Always and unconditionally, Your mommy." This poor woman is clearly delusional; that these abortion centers are facilitating such delusions is not only shameful, it’s incredibly harmful to these women.

Charlotte Taft, director of an abortion center in Dallas, reveals in the Glamour article the diabolical goal of the November Gang and the abortion industry in general:

"As women and men and their families take on a sense of honor about this choice, as they realize that it can come from their love and their integrity, that it’s not evil or weak or selfish, but that it can be made in a very responsible way, I believe that shifts the entire conversation about abortion."

It’s hard to imagine a more shocking example of the depths a guilty conscience will go to rationalize objectively evil behavior—to call evil good. The Apostle Paul warned us of this in his second letter to Timothy (chapter 4, verses 3-4): "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."

Life Insight 10-03-03

Life is a Miracle

Every year since 1972, the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat in Washington, D.C. has produced a packet of Respect Life Program materials. The program is produced to help parishes celebrate human life and love throughout the year, but particularly on Respect Life Sunday which is always the first Sunday in October. The program, which contains informative articles, a beautiful poster, a liturgy guide, an informational flier and other pro-life materials/resources, combines education, prayer, services and advocacy to present the Church’s teaching on the value and dignity of human life to Catholics and the wider public.

The theme of this year’s program, "Life is a Miracle…was chosen to highlight this simple truth, seemingly forgotten today," said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities Committee. "It is a particularly poignant theme as research continues to unveil the delicate orchestration of early embryonic development, as 4-D photography affords a new window to the womb, as we enjoy and profit from humanity’s boundless creative gifts and ponder man’s ability to perform heroic acts of sacrifice and love."

The program features the following articles:

Every parish in the state has received this Respect Life Program packet. Those interested in obtaining any of the above articles or other materials can contact their parish pro-life coordinator or contact my office. Spanish versions of the above articles, as well as other program materials are available online at www.usccb.org/prolife.

From the practice of contraception to abortion, to human embryo research and cloning, to in vitro fertilization, to assisted suicide and euthanasia, to poverty and the death penalty, our society has devalued and degraded human life and love. Let us pray, this weekend in particular, that society will redevelop an appreciation for human life and human sexuality as sacred gifts—as miracles—from our all loving, all knowing and all powerful God.

Life Insight 9-26-03

Abortion Mill Prayer Project

Priests for Life recently launched the Abortion Mill Prayer Project. The project asks every parish in each state to pray for the closing of a specific abortion mill in its state and for the conversion of its staff. I think this is an excellent project and consequently have launched it in Nebraska.

Nebraska, unfortunately, has three abortion mills: Planned Parenthood in Lincoln (abortionist—Dr. Winston Crabb), Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska in Bellevue (abortionist—Dr. LeRoy Carhart), and Women’s Services P.C. in Omaha (abortionist—Dr. C.J. Labenz).

Parishes in Nebraska have been assigned to pray for these three abortion mills as follows: Parishes in the Lincoln Diocese pray for Planned Parenthood in Lincoln; Parishes in the Grand Island Diocese and the city of Omaha: Women’s Services, P.C.; Parishes in the Omaha Archdiocese outside the city of Omaha: Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska.

Priests for Life wrote the following prayer for this project and it is available from my office in prayer card form and in English and Spanish:

"Father, all life is in your care. You have entrusted us to one another that we may show our brothers and sisters the same love You have for us. We pray then for the least among us, the children in the womb. Protect them from the violence of abortion. We pray for those who are scheduled to die at Planned Parenthood in Lincoln. Save them from death.

Give new hope to their parents that they may turn away from the desperate act of abortion. Grant conversion to Dr. Winston Crabb and his staff. Show us how we are to respond to the bloodshed in our midst. And lead us to the day when this place of death will be transformed into a haven of life. Guard us with your joy and your peace, for in You, life is victorious. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

On the back side of this prayer card I have printed the name and address of the abortion mill, the name of the abortionist, the day(s) abortions are done, how many abortions are done at the mill, the total number of abortions done in Nebraska since 1974, and information on how to obtain the annual statistical report of abortions from the state of Nebraska.

In addition to promoting this prayer, parishes may participate in the project by offering a regular Mass for this intention, and organizing a car or van load of parishioners to go and pray at the abortion mill on a day it is doing abortions. All of the information and materials to participate in this project have been sent to pro life coordinators in every parish, but may also be obtained from my office.

In a culture such as ours that values physical productivity, it is easy to dismiss the power of prayer in affecting cultural change. But our Lord said that "certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting" (Mt. 17:21). I believe that the three abortion mills in Nebraska wouldn’t have a chance of surviving if every parish in the state was praying and fasting for their closure. Do you believe this? And are you willing to help bring this about?

Life Insight 9-19-03

Planned Parenthood Funding Offensive and Disappointing

Planned Parenthood (PP) of Nebraska, an affiliate of the world’s largest provider and advocate of abortion, announced in its Spring 2003 newsletter that it and Hastings Family Planning are launching Real Life. This program, the newsletter says, will invite teens "to sessions that include talks with college-age peer educators and computer access for researching sexuality and reproductive health information." Real Life will also provide teens with "low-cost health care, including annual exams, pregnancy tests, STD/HIV tests and birth control." And here’s the kicker: Real Life is being funded with $100,000 from the Nebraska Health Care Cash Fund (i.e. public dollars).

This fund was established with some of the proceeds Nebraska received a few years ago from the tobacco litigation settlement. The Nebraska Legislature determined how these proceeds would be utilized and made clear in statute that "No funds appropriated or distributed under the act shall be used for abortion, abortion counseling, referral for abortion, school-based health clinics, or [immoral research]."

Julie Schmit-Albin, director of Nebraska Right to Life, brought the Real Life grant (and objections to it) to the attention of Governor Johanns, several state senators and heads of the Nebraska Health and Human Services System (NHHSS). Knowledge of this grant angered some state senators who properly objected that this funding violates the prohibition on funding "abortion counseling" mentioned above.

As a result, NHHSS requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General’s office which concluded that the grant to PP and Hastings Family Planning does violate Nebraska law and is void. The primary reason cited by the Attorney General is that both agencies also receive federal Title X family planning grants that require the agencies to provide abortion information when a pregnant woman requests it. This means that if a teen receives a positive pregnancy test at one of the Real Life "teen nights" and requests abortion information, then PP or Hastings Family Planning must provide it. But, as mentioned previously, providing such abortion counseling with state funds is a violation of Nebraska law.

Based on this Attorney General opinion, NHHSS nullified the grant, but not before the two agencies had already received $14,000 of the grant. NHHSS officials have said the agencies will not be required to return these funds.

Not surprising, Planned Parenthood has sued the state over suspension of the grant. PP claims that its original grant request (which asked for $200,000) included both "educational" programs and health services such as pregnancy tests, but since they received half the requested amount they would only be providing education, not services. This argument is flatly contradicted by PP’s own published information about the program. The PP newsletter cited earlier explicitly says that the program will provide teens with "low-cost health care, including annual exams, pregnancy tests, STD/HIV tests and birth control."

Planned Parenthood may try to argue that any "services" provided to teens attending Real Life would be paid for with non-state dollars, as though that provides a meaningful separation of funds. That’s hogwash. Under this grant, PP would be using state dollars to invite students, through high school newspapers and health fairs, to participate in Real Life. Once the students are in PP’s doors, it would be impossible to provide any meaningful separation between "education" and "services".

A careful analysis of this grant request in the light of state law should have raised red flags about its legality from the very beginning of the process. It should never have been approved in the first place. To his credit, Governor Mike Johanns, who has been a very strong friend of the pro-life movement, once notified about the grant took immediate steps to suspend it and to make sure that no other public funds were used in place of the tobacco funds.

Planned Parenthood’s philosophy and practices are at the core of much of the degradation of human life and sexuality. Hopefully PP’s lawsuit will fail and prevent it from doing further damage. And hopefully more attentiveness will be given by NHHSS to future funding decisions.

Life Insight 9-12-03

Your Voice Needed to Protect Human Dignity/ Will You Stand Up for Life?

"All human beings ought to value every person for his or her uniqueness as a creature of God, called to be a brother or sister of Christ by reason of the incarnation and the universal redemption. For us, the sacredness of human life is based on these premises. And it is on these same premises that there is based our celebration of life—all human life. This explains our efforts to defend human life against every influence or action that threatens or weakens it, as well as our endeavors to make every life more human in all its aspects. And so, we will stand up every time that human life is threatened." (Pope John Paul II, homily in Washington, D.C., Oct. 7, 1979)

The pro-life movement in Nebraska is providing a concrete—and simple—opportunity for individuals to stand up and defend the youngest and most vulnerable members of our human family; to defend the dignity of all human life from further assault by human cloning. The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities (which I direct) is joining forces with other pro-life and pro-family organizations in sponsoring a campaign to educate and activate Nebraskans on the practice of human cloning.

Specifically, an educational piece has been produced explaining (in simple terms) how human cloning is performed and why it is morally wrong. It also provides information on a bill to prohibit human cloning in Nebraska—the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (LB 602). The piece provides information on how to contact your state senator by letter, phone or e-mail and urge him/her to support LB 602. Attached to the educational piece is a pre-printed postcard to make contacting your state senator as easy as signing your name and mailing the postcard.

The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (LB 602) would prohibit the use of cloning to produce human embryos for any reason. Human cloning is done by taking genetic material from a person’s body cell and injecting it into a human egg, then stimulating it to begin embryonic development. Genetically, the cloned human embryo is virtually identical to the person whose cell was used.

Some wish to pursue human cloning to produce embryos solely for the purpose of destroying them for their stem cells (so-called "therapeutic" or "research" cloning). Others wish to clone human embryos to implant them and achieve live births—"copies" of other people (so-called "reproductive" cloning). In both cases, human embryos are produced; the only difference between "reproductive" and "research" cloning is what you do with those embryos once produced. LB 602 would ban the cloning of human embryos for either of these purposes.

LB 602 was introduced in our state Legislature last January with 35 co-sponsors (far more than is needed to pass the bill) but is strongly opposed by a few senators who want to allow cloning of human embryos so they can be destroyed for research (i.e. "research" cloning). Unfortunately, the debate created much confusion about the process of cloning and what this bill would prohibit and even some co-sponsors of the bill began questioning their support.

For this reason, pro-life and pro-family groups are collaborating to lobby our state senators and to educate and activate Nebraskans to do the same. Catholic parishes are being asked to participate in this campaign on Respect Life Sunday, October 5 or another Sunday in October. Parish pro-life representatives or my office can be contacted for further information.

Cloning represents a whole new avenue of attacks on human dignity. It reduces the creation of a new human being to a manufacturing process in a laboratory. It demeans parenthood, treats human life as disposable, and exploits women for their eggs. Will you stand up in the face of another attack on human dignity and contact your state senator? Nothing less than the future of humanity is at stake.

Life Insight 9-5-03

Pro Life Apologetics III

The first and most important point of discussion in the debate over abortion is whether or not the "fetus" being killed is a human being and therefore a person (this was the focus of my first two columns on pro life apologetics). There really is no point in discussing any other aspect of the abortion debate until there is some agreement on this point. After all, if the unborn are persons, no circumstance could justify directly and intentionally killing them.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court that gave us Roe v Wade agrees with this point. It said in Roe that "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [fourteenth] amendment." So when the subject of abortion comes up, start by discussing the fact that the science of human development tells us unambiguously that the unborn (from fertilization) are human beings; and common sense and the tragedies of the holocaust and slavery should tell us that all human beings must be considered persons.

Another important aspect of the abortion debate that pro-life apologists need to know well is the law. Incredibly, after 30 years of legalized abortion in this country, and extensive pro-life education, a significant number of Americans simply do not know how permissive our abortion law is. Most think abortion is far more restricted than reality.

In Roe v Wade and its companion case Doe v Bolton, the Court ruled 7-2 that abortion is a fundamental Constitutional right and is legal during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. Specifically, Roe said that during the first 6 months of pregnancy, the decision to abort is exclusively between a woman and her doctor. The ruling did allow states to regulate second trimester abortions (months 4-6) in ways related to the mother’s health, since later-term abortions pose more serious risks to the mother. These regulations were ruled unconstitutional by the Court in a subsequent case.

In the last 3 months of pregnancy (3^rd trimester), when the child could live outside the womb, the Court held that "the state in promoting its interest in the potentiality (sic) of human life, may…regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary…for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." At first, this may appear to allow states to prohibit most 3^rd trimester abortions, but in practice allows virtually no restriction—because of the term "health".

The Court didn’t define "health" in Roe v Wade, it defined it in its companion case Doe v Bolton. If you don’t know Doe you can’t know Roe. Doe defined "health" as encompassing "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient." This definition is obviously so broad that almost any reason would fit under it. It is the exception that swallows the rule.

It is important that we educate the public about how permissive our nation’s law on abortion is because most do not support this permissiveness. As featured in the July/August 2003 Life Insight newsletter (U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat), the latest Gallup poll on the subject of abortion (May 2003), "reveals that a large and steadily growing majority of Americans are opposed to virtually all the abortions permitted under Roe [and Doe]. Almost 1 in 5 Americans want abortion illegal in all circumstances (19%), and another 42% would forbid abortion except in the narrowest circumstances—typically when the mother’s life is endangered or in cases of rape or incest, amounting to less than 3% of abortions each year.

"Taken together, 61% of the public opposes all but a small fraction of the abortions that are done today. By a margin of 61 to 38, Americans—if they had the political power to do so—would outlaw over 97% of abortions. Regrettably, the Court in Roe took that power from the states and from the American people, substituting the personal policy wishes of a few judges for the laws enacted by 50 state legislatures."

Life Insight 8-22-03

Pro Life Apologetics 2

My first pro-life apologetics column answered the pro-abortion argument that it is unknown when human life begins or that such a point is a matter of religion, not science. Here I will answer the pro-abortion argument that often comes next.

PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENT:

"The unborn may be human ‘life’, but it’s not a person like you and me. It’s like an acorn not an oak tree."

ANSWER:

First, the rationale that unborn humans aren’t "full persons" is based on the worst criteria for determining the true essence of something: physical appearance or ability. Abortion advocates will argue that "the unborn don’t look human", "they lack awareness or the ability to live independent of the mother", "an embryo is just a clump of cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence", etc. In other words, unborn humans aren’t persons because of their size, appearance or physical/mental abilities.

It should be pointed out that, ironically, those who hold this view are also typically advocates of "women’s" and civil rights which reject discrimination against women, elderly and disabled individuals, and racial or ethnic groups; discrimination that is based on physical appearance or ability. The only way to prevent unjust discrimination against anyone is to define personhood as membership in the human species, not by physical appearance/ability or by stage of development within that species.

Second, comparing unborn humans and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading. Randy Alcorn says in his book "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments": such a "comparison encourages us to make the quantum leap of concluding we should value bigger and older people more than smaller and younger ones (specifically the unborn.)

"But what are our reasons for valuing the oak tree over the acorn? They are not moral or humanitarian, but simply pragmatic. The oak tree serves us well, either aesthetically or for the lumber or fire wood it can provide. Acorns are plentiful and expendable. But why are they expendable? For the same reason the oak tree is…expendable—it isn’t a person, only a thing. A baby, however, isn’t a thing, it’s a person. The unborn are not more expendable because they haven’t developed into infants, nor infants more expendable because they haven’t developed into toddlers, nor teenagers more expendable because they haven’t developed into adults."

"Even if the analogy were valid", Alcorn says, "scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person…[E]very oak tree was once an acorn…[and] every person was once a fertilized egg. All the oak tree is or ever will be was in the acorn. If the acorn were destroyed, there would be no oak tree. Likewise, all that the adult is or ever will be was in the embryo. If the embryo were destroyed, there would be no baby, no teenager, and no adult. When the baby dies the teenager dies. When the embryo dies, the baby dies. Abortion doesn’t kill potential people. It kills actual people."

Of course an embryo doesn’t look or act like an infant, any more than an infant looks or acts like an adult. Furthermore, an early-stage human embryo looks physically similar to other mammals at a similar stage of development. But to understand why the human embryo is different from other animals and has intrinsic value, we must go beyond a superficial physical definition and get to its nature or end. The "end" of a being is what it was meant for—it’s final goal or purpose. Only a human embryo will become a human adult. More important, the end of a human embryo is the same as the end of the human adult: union with God. This is why the human embryo has the same intrinsic value as the human adult; and this is what makes humans different from all of God’s other creatures.

Life Insight 8-8-03 

Pro Life Apologetics

It’s frustrating to have passion for a cause like pro-life and not know how to answer the common pro-abortion arguments. This is the first of a series to provide specific answers to these arguments. Some of this response comes from "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn. This and another great resource, "Abortion Questions and Answers" by Dr. and Mrs. Jack Willke, are available from Life Cycle Books, 1-800-218-5849. A third resource is "The Facts of Life" by Brian Clowes, PhD [Human Life International, 1-540-635-7884.

PRO ABORTION ARGUMENT:

"It is uncertain when human life begins; that's a religious question that cannot be answered by science."

ANSWER:

First, even if there was uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life. If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person or an animal, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? To legalize abortion based on an uncertainty about when human life begins is to say, this may or may not be a child, therefore it’s all right to destroy it.

Second, the point when human life begins is determined by science not religious opinion. The Catholic Church has never dictated when human life begins, but rather has always looked to science to determine this beginning. What the Church does teach is that when human life exists—from its very beginning to its natural end—it is sacred and inviolable.

Don’t get confused with the human being versus person distinction. The point at which we come into existence biologically as human beings is scientifically provable and unambiguous (see below). Personhood is a social construct and obviously not scientifically provable. The pro-life position is that a human being and a person are one and the same and should never be separated.

These two concepts were separated in recent history by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Dred Scott case allowing slavery and by the Nazi government—with devastating consequences. And this is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. If being a human being does not automatically qualify one for personhood, then being a person is arbitrary and open for subjective application by the powerful.

Third, among scientists, medical textbooks and scientific reference works, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at fertilization. For example, the human embryology textbook used by the University of Nebraska Medical Center says:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male…sperm unites with a female [egg] to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized…cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." The book defines a zygote (the one-celled human embryo resulting from fertilization) as "the beginning of a new human being."

It also says, "Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, some important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Although it is customary to divide human development into [before birth] and [after birth] periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth."

For further references on the beginning of human life and fetal development, contact my office or check out http://www.nebcathcon.org/educational_info.htm, http://homepage.eircom.net/~jxb/contact/index.htm,

www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html.

Life Insight 7-25-03

The Beauty and Truth of Humanae Vitae II

Most people would agree that few aspects of our humanity are more central to our happiness or sadness than God’s sacred gift of sexuality. Understanding and living God’s design for this gift brings incredible joy and peace; ignorance or rejection of it brings incredible sadness and discontent. Sadly, as evidenced by the meteoric rise over the last three decades in divorce, family breakdown, sexually-transmitted disease, abortion, wife and child abuse, and out-of-wedlock births, many have chosen to ignore or reject God’s design for our sexuality.

As explained in my last column, Pope Paul VI predicted this result 35 years ago this month when he issued Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s constant teaching that contraception is contrary to God’s design and intrinsically evil. Unfortunately, most Catholics have never read, let alone seriously and prayerfully studied Humanae Vitae. Consequently, it’s glimpse into our true, beautiful nature as sexual beings made in the image and likeness of God remains largely undiscovered.

One of the examples of its beauty is Pope Paul VI’s explanation that the "true nature and nobility" of conjugal love is revealed "in its supreme source, God, who is Love." "Marriage," he says, "is a wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind his design of love…For baptized persons…it represents the union of Christ and the Church. In this light, one sees clearly the characteristic marks and requirements of conjugal love"—an exact understanding of which, Paul VI says, "is of the highest importance."

The first characteristic of conjugal love is that it is "fully human; that is to say, it pertains…to both sense and spirit. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and feelings but also, and principally, an act of the free will, destined to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one heart and one soul, and together attain their human perfection."

"Conjugal love is total…a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his spouse, does not love her only for what he receives from her, but for herself, happy to be able to enrich her with the gift of himself." Conjugal love is faithful and exclusive until death. "The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness."

Finally, conjugal love is fruitful, "for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to perpetuate itself, bringing new lives into existence. Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained to the begetting and rearing of children. Indeed, children are the most precious gift of marriage and contribute immensely to the good of the parents themselves."

Archbishop Charles Chaput, in his pastoral letter on the 30^th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, applied this beautiful insight on conjugal love to the practice of contraception. "When spouses give themselves honestly and entirely to each other, as the nature of married love implies and even demands, that must include their whole selves—and the most intimate, powerful part of each person is his or her fertility. Contraception not only denies this fertility and attacks procreation; in doing so, it necessarily damages unity as well. It is the equivalent of spouses saying: ‘I’ll give you all I am—except my fertility; I’ll accept all you are—except your fertility. This withholding of self inevitably works to isolate and divide the spouses, and unravel the holy friendship between them…"

Archbishop Chaput continues, "The Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming ‘one flesh’ implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception, just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse necessarily involves spouses’ withholding themselves from each other and from God, who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect they steal something infinitely precious—themselves—from each other and from their Creator."

"And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP is not contraception…it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation…that does nothing to attack fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one’s spouse, or block the procreative nature of intercourse." When "for good reasons*, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife’s natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God’s love." [*It’s worth emphasizing that NFP can be used immorally if a couple intentionally tries to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons].

To grow in holiness and happiness, study Humanae Vitae and other relevant Church documents (Familiaris Consortio, Theology of the Body, Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality) some of which are available online at http://www.cin.org/ftp.html (or contact my office). Other excellent materials are available from One More Soul (800-307-7685, www.omsoul.com).

Life Insight 7-11-03

The Beauty and Truth of Humanae Vitae I

In Humanae Vitae, issued 35 years ago this July, Pope Paul VI predicted four main harms that would arise if Church teaching on contraception was ignored. Sadly, many bishops, priests and theologians did ignore (and even undermined) this teaching, and the harms predicted by Pope Paul VI have been realized. The worst result is that most people have a distorted and incomplete notion of love and of what it means to be a person—both of which are major contributors to the culture of death. Using excerpts from Archbishop Charles Chaput’s pastoral letter on the 30^th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, this column will present how Pope Paul VI’s predictions have come true. My next column will present what Humanae Vitae really says.

Prediction: Widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."

Result: Few would deny that the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, venereal disease and out of wedlock births have all massively increased since the mid-1960s. Obviously, the birth control pill has played a major role. In fact, the cultural revolution since 1968, driven at least in part by transformed attitudes toward sex, would not have been possible or sustainable without easy access to reliable contraception.

Prediction: Man would lose respect for woman and "no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium," to the point that he would consider her "as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

Result: Although contraception was marketed as liberating for women, the real "beneficiaries" of birth control pills and devices have been men. Three decades later, contraception [and abortion] has released males from responsibility for their sexual aggression leaving women to bear the brunt of the physical, psychological and economic consequences of contraception.

Prediction: Use of contraception would place a "dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies [urgency]."

Result: The developed world is engaged in population warfare and cultural re-engineering by massively exporting contraceptives, abortion and sterilization to developing countries -- frequently as a prerequisite for aid dollars and often in direct contradiction to local moral traditions.

Prediction: Contraception would mislead human beings into thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power.

Result: Fertility has become an infection which must be attacked and controlled. Consequently, when contraception "fails" and a child results, he/she is often viewed as an unwanted intruder to be eliminated with abortion. In either case, a defining element of woman's identity -- her potential for bearing new life -- is recast as a weakness requiring vigilant distrust and "treatment."

This phenomenon was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in it’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling in which it reaffirmed Roe v Wade in part because overruling it would cause "serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

Further evidence of this prediction has been the proliferation of immoral reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (test tube babies) and immoral biomedical research such as cloning, genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation.

If Paul VI was right about so many of the consequences deriving from contraception, it is because he was right about contraception itself. In seeking to become whole again as persons and as a people of faith, we need to begin by revisiting Humanae Vitae with open hearts. Jesus said the truth would make us free. Humanae Vitae is filled with truth. It is therefore a key to our freedom.

| Back to Top |