Life Insight 2005, Pt. II

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.

Most current:

Christmas Reveals Meaning of Every Human Birth (12/23/05)

Is the Pro Life Battlefield Shifting? (12/16/05)

Who's Blocking Cures? (12/09/05)

A Baby Shower for Christ's Little Ones (12/02/05)

Celebrating and Appreciating Human Life (11/25/05)

The Pastoral Plan and Its Activities (11/18/05)

Faithfulness and Perseverance (11/11/05)

Death with True Dignity (11/04/05)

Is America Taking a Second Look at Roe? (10/28/05)

Anti-Child Pressures in Parishes (10/21/05)

65 to 0 (10/14/05)

Be Vigilant with Charities (10/7/05)

How to Talk to a Friend Who's Had an Abortion (9/23/05)

Embryo Adoption (9/16/05)

MAPs Over the Counter? (9/9/05)

Angels Sent From God (9/2/05)

Vatican Addresses Tainted Vaccines (8/26/05)

Frist's Position Morally Incoherent (8/12/05)

Understanding Body Language Will Set Us Free (7/29/05)

The Myths, Facts and Future of Roe v. Wade (7/15/05)

Political Responsibility (7/1/05)

Life Insight 12/23/05

Christmas Reveals Meaning of Every Human Birth

“At the dawn of salvation, it is the birth of a child which is proclaimed as joyful news: ‘I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord’ (Lk. 2: 10-11). The source of this ‘great joy’ is the birth of the Savior; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn. 16:21).”

These are the words Pope John Paul II used to begin his encyclical, the “Gospel of Life” (Evangelium Vitae). For those of us who believe Jesus is our Savior, the Word of God made flesh, God the Son, there is much for us to ponder about the way in which God took the form of man in order to redeem us.

Since God is all-powerful, He could have chosen to redeem us by merely willing it, a sort of supernatural snap of the finger. Instead, John’s Gospel tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn. 3:16). And He didn’t just send us an adult Jesus to begin His ministry and redemptive act. God the Son was formed, like every human being, in the womb of a woman (actually, in the fallopian tube of a woman, to be precise).

The fact that God intentionally sent His only Son to redeem us in this way, necessarily reveals the unique and sacred dignity of every human being from the moment of conception. The Second Vatican Council, in its document Gaudium et Spes, said: “By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being.” “This saving event”, John Paul II says, “reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God…but also the incomparable value of every human person.”

To punctuate the humanity and sacredness of prenatal human life, it was an unborn child (John the Baptist) who first recognized our Lord’s presence on earth. Immediately upon Jesus’ conception in her womb, Luke tells that that Mary proceeded “in haste…to a town of Judah, where she entered Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leapt in her womb” (Lk. 1:39-41)

In our busy lives, full of activities, challenges, and worries, it is easy to lose appreciation for the miracle that is every human life. Christmas is one of those special times of the liturgical year that provides an opportunity for profound reflection on the miracle of human life.

One of my favorite reflections on the miracle of human life comes from author Max Lucado in his book The Applause of Heaven. He speaks of a sweater that hangs in his closet. He says he seldom wears it—it’s too small, the sleeves are too short, the shoulders too tight. Some of the buttons are missing and the thread is frazzled. Logically, he says, he should throw out the sweater since he has no use for it and will never wear it again. It simply takes up space in his closet.

But love, he reports, won’t let him. Why not? What’s unusual about that sweater? It wasn’t made in a factory, produced on an assembly line as the product of a nameless employee earning a living. Rather it was the creation of a devoted mother expressing her love and care—his mother. That sweater is unique, one of a kind, irreplaceable. Each strand was chosen with care, and each thread selected with affection. And so, even though that sweater has lost all of its use, it has lost none of its value. It is valuable not because of its function, but because of its maker. So is each life.

May the grace and blessings of this holy season inspire and transform us individually and as a nation to more fully appreciate and protect the miracle of human life.

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

Life Insight 12/16/05

Is the Pro Life Battlefield Shifting?

There are many encouraging signs that progress in the abortion battle is being made in law, in minds and hearts, and in practice. Hundreds of laws have been passed in all 50 states providing modest, but meaningful, provisions impacting the practice and numbers of abortion. Moreover, the replacement of retiring Supreme Court justices with justices who appear to be critical of Roe v. Wade, could mean that the prospect of its reversal is, God willing, more real. The overturning of Roe would restore the ability of individual states to enact legislation that fully protects the right to life of unborn human beings.

More compelling progress has been made by the pro-life movement’s educational efforts. Public opinion polls over the last five to ten years show a dramatic shift in attitudes against abortion and the Roe v. Wade edict that forced legal abortion upon our nation. This shift is undoubtedly a major contributor to the decline in abortions in recent years. Abortions in Nebraska have declined 44 percent from their high point in 1990; they’ve declined by nearly 25 percent in the last two years.

By no means am I suggesting that such evidence is definitive or a reason for resting from our pro-life efforts. I mention this evidence as part of my rationale for speculating that the pro-life battlefield may be shifting in some ways from abortion to certain forms of biomedical research, namely, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cloning. And I think this shift may mean our nation is at a tipping point that could lead to greater or lesser respect for human life.

I’ve long been concerned that, in terms of undermining the sacredness of human life, ESCR and cloning could eclipse the horrendous damage inflicted by the practice of abortion. There are several reasons for this concern.

First, abortion involves the taking of human life made in the image and likeness of God—a gravely evil act to be sure. But ESCR and cloning not only involve the destruction of human life, they involve the manufacture, manipulation and commodification of human life. Cloning and other forms of genetic manipulation of early human life represent an attempt to fashion human life in our own image, according to our own specifications or desires.

Second, only the most hardened souls suggest that abortion is a good and positive act. And few Americans get excited about financially or otherwise supporting the practice or legal availability of abortion. But many Americans, including many who oppose abortion, are being seduced by hyped promises of cures into supporting immoral medical research that proponents are mischaracterizing as pro-life.

Third, if the culture of death is successful in turning embryonic human beings into nothing more than raw material that can be manufactured and destroyed for the benefit of others, then it’s hard to imagine our nation ever restoring any rights to slightly more developed fetal human beings. Conversely, if we succeed in protecting embryonic human beings from destructive research, we are more likely to succeed in protecting unborn children from abortion.

This final point is undoubtedly why the Board Chair of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs (Carol Russell) is also Board President of Nebraskans for Research (NFR). NFR, with its heavy ties to the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Omaha’s wealthy ilk, is poised to spend a lot of money to make sure that the Med Center is not prohibited from conducting embryonic stem cell and cloning research, and any other research it wishes to pursue.

For the above reasons, and because this is a pro-life battle we simply must not lose, I have helped to form and lead the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (NCER). Organized and directed by leaders in the fields of medicine, biomedical research, science, ethics, business and religion, NCER advocates for excellence in medical research while insisting that the rights of every human being be protected.

The Coalition is David to the Goliath of the University and its powerful shills. Of course, as NCER’s executive director, Chip Maxwell, is fond of saying, “the guy with the slingshot did triumph and NCER is trying to land well-placed shots in the public conversation.” Nevertheless, I implore all who care about safeguarding the dignity of human life to contribute sacrificially to this critically important endeavor. NCER can be contacted at www.ethicalresearch.net or 402-690-2299.

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

Life Insight 12/9/05

Who’s Blocking Cures?

Those of us who oppose killing embryonic human beings for stem cell research are regularly criticized for impeding the scientific community’s ability to pursue treatments for various diseases. We are ridiculed as religious extremists trying to impose our faith or ideology on others.

These accusations are carefully and skillfully crafted to play on people’s fears. They are also a bunch of baloney. First, opponents of embryonic stem cell and cloning research (and other attacks on human beings) are not trying to impose anything on anyone. We are using the democratic processes of persuading elected representatives to adopt our point of view and of electing new representatives who share our view. Pretty radical stuff.

Ironically, over the last few decades it has typically been social liberals who, unable to persuade, have imposed their views by turning to activist judges who will “legislate” from the bench and invalidate the will of the electorate or its representatives (e.g. Roe v. Wade)

Second, opponents of embryonic stem cell research continually try to point out that if the goal is finding treatments/cures as quickly as possible, then more attention and money should go to adult stem cell research. To date, adult stem cell research has resulted in at least 65 different human treatments, with new discoveries almost weekly. Embryonic stem cell research has produced none.

Finally, there is a curious and disturbing development in the U.S. Senate that suggests it is proponents of embryonic stem cell research who would impose ideology at the expense of cures/treatments. Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted two stem-cell-related bills. One would allow federal funds to be use to destroy human embryos for research. The other, the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 (S. 1317), would create a national umbilical cord blood distribution system supported by about $175 million over five years.

Author and ethicist Wesley Smith points out in a recent article that the blood remaining in the umbilical cord following the birth of a child is rich with stem cells that have great potential to alleviate human suffering. He cites studies published in medical journals suggesting that stem cells from umbilical cord blood (UCB) may provide treatments for spinal cord injury, Krabbe’s disease, sickle cell anemia, stroke, and many other ailments.

Stem cells from UCB are also showing signs of being able to produce any of the body’s tissues and cells—an ability thought to be exclusive to embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, unlike embryonic stem cells, UCB stem cells don’t form tumors. Equally significant is the fact that obtaining stem cells from UCB is completely non-controversial. It does not require the production or destruction of human embryos.

“Despite all this,” Wesley says, “umbilical cord blood stem cells remain woefully underutilized in research laboratories and medical clinics. This is primarily a supply problem. Rather than being ‘banked’ (deep frozen and stored) for future use, most cord blood is still thrown away. As a result, most of the banked umbilical cord blood is maintained privately by parents for the potential future use of their own children, and is thus unavailable for wider use.”

By establishing a system of publicly funded UCB banking, the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act would dramatically increase the amount of cord blood available for medical use and in research. This bill has near unanimous support in Congress. The House adopted the bill by a vote of 431-1 and no senator has publicly announced his opposition.

Wesley Smith reports that “despite this widespread enthusiasm, the measure is stalled in the Senate. Majority Leader Bill Frist wants the bill moved to the floor for an immediate vote. To do so in the waning days of this session, he would need the unanimous consent of all senators.” Apparently, it is someone on the Democratic side who is blocking this action.

According to one Senate source with whom Mr. Smith spoke, “the bill is being held hostage to ensure a floor vote on increased federal funding of more controversial embryonic stem cell research. But with President Bush vowing to veto that bill, and its earlier passage in the House well below override levels, federal embryonic funding will almost surely not become law.”

If this is true, then it is advocates of embryonic stem cell research who are blocking research that most agree would likely start saving lives soon after this funding bill is passed. In my book, that makes them the true extremists whose ideology trumps their claims of concern for sick people.

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

Life Insight 12/02/05

A Baby Shower for Christ’s Little Ones

As we begin the holy season of Advent, we are brought to the reflection that “[a]t the dawn of salvation, it is the birth of a child which is proclaimed as joyful news: ‘I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is, Christ the Lord.’ (Luke 2: 10-11).

The source of this great joy is the birth of the Savior, but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world. (John 16:21).”

So reads the introduction to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae (“The Gospel of Life”). The season of Advent, when we prepare for the coming of our Lord, presents a compelling time to reflect on the great joy and miracle of every human birth. It is also an appropriate time to join together as a Church community in an expression of solidarity with pregnant women in need.

For nearly ten years, my office has sponsored and promoted the Advent and Epiphany Baby Showers to collect baby and maternity items for pregnant women in need. The Advent Baby Shower takes place throughout Advent and concludes with the distribution of donated items at Christmas. The Epiphany Baby Shower begins after Christmas and concludes a couple of weeks later on the Feast of the Epiphany, when the three Magi brought gifts to the Christ child.

Over these years, dozens of parishes, Catholic schools and religious education programs throughout Nebraska have participated in one of these baby showers. The result has been the donation of tens of thousands of items and dollars to pregnancy-help centers and Catholic Social Services. This is a very practical and important way for each of us to help rebuild a culture of life.

With the debate over new Supreme Court nominees, there is much talk about the possibility of the Court eventually shifting enough to overturn Roe v Wade. Even if the new justices ultimately support overturning Roe, such an action is not likely to happen for several years.

In the meantime, it is critically important that the pro-life and faith communities continue to build a safety net of support for pregnant women, representative of a true culture of life. This effort must address and overcome the various deficiencies that drive women to the desperate and violent act of abortion. In other words, we must work hard to make abortion unthinkable in preparation for making it illegal.

Over the last 35 years, the pro-life and faith communities have done a great deal to build this safety net. Nationally, there are more than 3000 pregnancy-help centers operated, staffed and funded by pro-life people. There are 29 centers in Nebraska. These centers provide or make referrals for housing, instructional programs, maternity and baby clothes, furniture and other necessities, adoption, parenting classes, job training, medical care, social services, child health care, transportation and financial assistance.

Please find out if your parish is planning to conduct an Advent or Epiphany Baby Shower and do what you can to support this effort to shower Christ’s little ones with the necessities of life. As you do so, remember our Lord’s assurance that “as often as you did it for one of My least brothers, you did it for Me” (Mt. 25:40)

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

Life Insight 11/25/05

Celebrating and Appreciating Human Life

In the final chapter of his encyclical, “The Gospel of Life” (Evangelium Vitae) Pope John Paul II presents various components to building a “new culture of human life.” The second component is “celebrating the Gospel of life” to create a “setting in which the beauty and grandeur of [human life] is handed on.”

In a culture that tends to view human life as a burden and as not intrinsically sacred, John Paul II recognized the need to “foster in ourselves and in others a contemplative outlook…[arising] from faith in the God of life, who has created every individual as a ‘wonder’”.

“It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality, but instead accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing in every person his living image. This outlook does not give in to discouragement when confronted by those who are sick, suffering, outcast or at death’s door” but rather “feels challenged to find meaning” in these situations.

John Paul II provides plenty of evidence from God’s revealed truth to help us rediscover a sense of awe for human life. “Man has been given a sublime dignity based on the intimate bond which unites him to his Creator: In man there shines forth a reflection of God himself.

“The Book of Genesis affirms this when in the first account of creation it places man at the summit of God’s creative activity as its crown, at the culmination of a process which leads from indiscriminate chaos to the most perfect of creatures. Everything in creation is ordered to man, and everything is made subject to him: ‘Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over…every living thing’”.

John Paul II urges us to join with the psalmist in “our daily prayer as individuals and as a community [to] praise and bless God our Father who knitted us together in our mother’s womb, and saw and loved us while we were still without form.” “I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works.” (Ps 139: 14).

Furthermore, we are urged to “express wonder and gratitude for the gift of life…in the celebrations of the liturgical year”, particularly with the sacraments. “The sacraments make us sharers in divine life and provide the spiritual strength necessary to experience life, suffering and death in their fullest meaning…as a participation in the paschal mystery of the crucified and risen Christ.”

The sanctity of human life “is to be celebrated above all in daily living, which should be filled with self-giving love for others. In this way, our lives will become a genuine and responsible acceptance of the gift of life and a heartfelt song of praise and gratitude to God, who has given us this gift.”

Part of this daily example of self-giving love, says John Paul II, is “the silent but effective and eloquent witness of all those ‘brave mothers who devote themselves to their own family without reserve, who suffer in giving birth to their children and who are ready to make any effort, to face any sacrifice, in order to pass on to them the best of themselves.’”

In light of a modern culture that views “fidelity, chastity, sacrifice…as obsolete…” I join with Pope John Paul II (and the entire Church) in “thank[ing] you, heroic mothers, for your invincible love! We thank you for your intrepid trust in God and in his love. We thank you for the sacrifice of you life.”

I challenge each person to begin and end each day by giving thanks to God for His sacred and truly miraculous gift of our life and the life of each human being. I further challenge each person to never, ever allow the world’s view of human life as a burden and as not intrinsically sacred to creep into any aspect of our life.

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

Life Insight 11/18/05

The Pastoral Plan and Its Activities

The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities is the official pro-life program of the Catholic Church in the United States. First issued in 1975, the Pastoral Plan was reaffirmed and revised in 1985 and 2001 and calls on Catholics to give “urgent attention and priority” to ending the practice of abortion.

“Among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role,” the document says. This is because “abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral (The Gospel of Life, no. 57)” and “its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family.”

Furthermore, the Pastoral Plan points out that a “policy and practice that results in well over a million deaths from abortion each year cannot but diminish respect for life in other areas”, namely the destruction of embryos for research, assisted suicide and euthanasia and direct attacks on innocent civilians during war or from terrorist acts.

“Precisely because all issues involving human life are interdependent, a society which destroys human life by abortion under the mantle of law unavoidably undermines respect for life in all other contexts. Likewise, protection in law and practice of unborn human life will benefit all life, not only the lives of the unborn.”

To effectively address these most serious pro-life issues, the Pastoral Plan provides a multi-level organizational structure. At the national level is the Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA).

The Pro Life Secretariat is primarily engaged in developing pro-life educational materials and in lobbying Congress. One of the educational resources produced by the Pro Life Secretariat is the annual (October) Respect Life Month packets which contain educational and liturgical materials. The NCHLA works closely with the Pro Life Secretariat by monitoring pro-life legislation, communicating votes and activating grassroots Catholics to contact their elected representatives.

The next level or organization is the state office, which I direct in cooperation with the three diocesan pro-life directors and, to some degree, other Catholic organizations (Knights of Columbus, Councils of Catholic Women, etc.). The most local level of pro-life activity is coordinated by the parish pro-life coordinator/committee.

The Pastoral Plan also provides a four-pronged program: Public Information and Education, Pastoral Care, Public Policy and Prayer and Worship. My office coordinates statewide activities/initiatives and provides suggested activities at the parish level. At the state level, my office has been instrumental in the formation of two statewide coalitions: one to address end-of-life care issues (Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care) and one to address biomedical research issues (Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research).

My office initiated Project Rachel and collaborates with Catholic Social Services to administer this outreach of healing and reconciliation to post-abortive women and men. I also collaborate with the diocese of Lincoln to coordinate the annual pro-life convention in Lincoln.

For use at the parish level, my office provides various materials and activity suggestions that are usually connected to a liturgical feast. For example, the Advent or Epiphany Baby Showers connect the collection of baby gifts with the bringing of gifts to the Christ child. The Feasts of the Immaculate Conception and Annunciation feature educational materials on the topic of sexual morality.

For individual Catholics wishing to stay informed and active in the effort to rebuild a culture of life and love my office initiated Nebraska Catholics for Life. Members receive a quarterly newsletter and other forms of education and communication that provide effective tools for proclaiming and defending the sacred dignity of human life.

Those interested in learning more can contact me at 402-477-7517, gregschlepp@alltel.net or go online to www.nebcathcon.org/bpppla.htm.

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

Life Insight 11/11/05

Faithfulness and Perseverance

At the end of this year I will have completed my fifteenth year as state director of pro-life activities for the Nebraska Catholic Conference. Occasionally I am asked by individuals how I am able to continue doing this work without being overcome by cynicism, frustration, discouragement or just plain burnout.

My answer is always the same: faith in a God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn. 3:16) to redeem us and destroy death through His own death and resurrection. I continually remind myself and others involved in pro-life work that we are not the Savior and it is not our task to defeat death. God did that for us. Thanks be to God for that!

It is our task to discern and faithfully execute God’s will—and to always persevere. As Blessed Mother Teresa and many other holy people have reminded us, we are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful. When we stand before God, we will be accountable for how faithfully and zealously we used the gifts He gave us to proclaim and defend His truth about life and love.

This is not to say that we can simply shrug our shoulders with half-hearted efforts or be ambivalent toward success. We need to continually examine our efforts to make sure we are using our talents and resources to their fullest. But ultimately, we should ring our hands less over how many people respond to our efforts and more over how faithfully we are discerning and implementing God’s will.

Be it our faith or the pro-life positions, we cannot impose our beliefs, we can only propose them—always with the heart and mind of Christ. Then our task is to pray and fast that God’s grace will nourish the seeds we plant and produce good fruit. But, as we know from the parable of the seed, sometimes what we sow will fall on infertile ground. As one famous writer put it, for us there is only the trying, and the rest is not our business.

Mother Teresa, this blessed and holy woman, explained our responsibility as members of the Church militant with these profound and eloquent words:

“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. As Jesus said, ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me.’

“So you begin…I begin. I picked up one person—maybe if I didn’t pick up that one person I wouldn’t have picked up the others. The whole work is only a drop in the ocean. But if we don’t put the drop in, the ocean would be one drop less. Same thing for you. Same thing in your family. Same thing in the Church where you go. Just begin…one, one, one.

“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 bread—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—but homeless because of rejection. This is Christ in distressing disguise.”

Each of us should ask God daily what it is He would have us do in serving Him. And then we should heed the words of His Blessed Mother to the servants at the wedding in Cana: “Do whatever he tells you”.

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

Life Insight 11/04/05

Death with True Dignity

The Feast of All Souls Day prompts us to pray for the faithful departed and to reflect on our own mortality. It’s also a good time to review the Church’s teaching regarding end-of-life issues—a topic that continues to stir much interest in the wake of the very public debate over Terri Schiavo.

The foundation of the Church’s teaching is the innate and sacred dignity of human life. In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II asks and answers this question, “Why is human life a good?” “This question,” he says, “is found everywhere in the Bible, and from the very first pages it receives a powerful and amazing answer. The life which God gives man is quite different from the life of all other living creatures…[it] is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory…In man there shines forth a reflection of God himself.” (#34)

It is a source of profound contemplation to consider the fact that human beings are the only creature God put on earth with the innate dignity of being made in His image and likeness. The awe for human life intensifies when we realize that human beings are the only persons God made with a body. The only other persons God made in His image and likeness—angels—do not have bodies.

The sacredness of human life as a gift from God places certain obligations on us as stewards (not arbiters) of that gift. The first obligation is “never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem.” (“Living the Gospel of Life”, U.S. Catholic Bishops)

With regard to euthanasia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus, an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.” (CCC #2277)

Although our belief in the sacredness of human life prohibits intentionally causing death, the Church does not teach that death must be avoided at all costs. “[F]aith in the resurrection and hope for eternal life have enabled the Catholic tradition to accept death as the inevitable end to temporal life and to believe that death is the gateway to eternal life. It is for this reason that there is no obligation to utilize all possible medical interventions, all possible means of prolonging life.” (“Medical Treatment Decisionmaking”, Nebraska Catholic Conference).

In other words, the Church teaches us to avoid two extremes: withholding or withdrawing medical interventions with the intention of causing death on one hand, and the utilization of useless or excessively burdensome technology on the other hand. To avoid these extremes, the Church provides a framework of moral principles to assist us in determining whether a medical intervention is morally required or morally optional.

One of those principles says that “if a particular medical intervention is necessary or useful for the preservation of life or restoration of health, there is a moral obligation to use it…unless it imposes burdens that are disproportionate to the expected outcome.” The flip side of this principle is that “medical interventions…judged to be useless (offering no reasonable hope of benefit) or excessively burdensome…are…morally optional.”

“Determining whether a medical intervention is ethically ordinary (morally required) or extraordinary (morally optional) involves comparing the burdens that the intervention introduces when used and the benefits it achieves, within the totality of the circumstances. The burdens might include severe physical pain, psychological repugnance, intense anxiety or fear, excessive expense, severely disabling effects, and excessive risks. First and foremost, the extent of burdens should be analyzed and judged from the perspective of the patient.” (NCC document).

Determining whether a medical intervention is morally required or optional can, in some cases, be very complex and difficult. Studying the moral principles provided by our Catholic Church and discussing them with one’s family and clergy is the best way to help ensure sound moral judgments.

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

Life Insight 10/28/05

Is America Taking A Second Look at Roe?

The recent public debate over Supreme Court nominees has provided clear evidence of how legal abortion has been elevated to a near sacrament by this country’s political “left”. The usual cadre of abortion apologists (including, sadly, many “Catholic” elected officials) has been convulsing at the prospect of Roe v. Wade’s demise.

It should be noted that even if Justice Roberts and whoever replaces Sandra Day O’Connor oppose Roe, the Court would remain one vote short of overturning it. And, if the Court did overturn Roe, it would not mean the end of legal abortion. It would simply restore to each state the ability to determine whether abortion should be legal or not.

Thankfully, there are a number of indicators that would suggest that the “left’s” enthusiasm for Roe is increasingly being rejected by Americans. In the realm of public opinion, for example, a March 3, 2005 Harris poll shows that support for Roe dropped from 57 percent support/41 percent oppose in 1998 to 52 percent support/47 percent oppose now. This represents the highest opposition to Roe in 20 years.

While this shift in public opinion is good news, there is reason for even more optimism. This poll misrepresented Roe by saying it made abortion legal for the first three months of pregnancy. In fact, Roe and its companion Doe v. Bolton, legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. Had the poll accurately presented Roe, the amount of opposition would have been appreciably higher.

Another indicator of the shaky ground underneath Roe is a growing willingness of some on the “left” to question or even criticize it. Last week, the unabashedly pro-abortion Washington Post, ran an editorial column critical of legal abortion. This was the third such column since January of this year.

In the column, longtime Post columnist Richard Cohen (who supports legal abortion) questioned the legitimacy of Roe. He says, “I no longer see abortion as directly related to sexual freedom or feminism, [or] strictly as a matter of personal privacy, either. It entails questions about life…

“This is not a fashionable view in some circles,” he continues, “but it is one that usually gets grudging acceptance when I mention it. I know of no one who has flipped on the abortion issue, but I do know of plenty of people who no longer think of it as a minor procedure that only prudes and right-wingers oppose. The antiabortion movement has made headway.”

“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision -- the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution -- strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous”, Cohen says. “Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.” “I'm pro-choice,” he repeats, “but [overturning Roe] would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument…If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument -- but a bit of our soul as well.”

In addition to Cohen, several legal experts who support legal abortion have criticized Roe. John Hart Ely, a Yale law professor said Roe is “a very bad decision…because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe) said, “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible…[It is]one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era.” And Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

I believe that some things will have to shift and line up politically and socially before Roe will fall. These indicators, however, strongly suggest that a shift is underway. Our prayers and educational efforts can facilitate this shift until Roe is no more.

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

Life Insight 10/21/05

Anti-Child Pressures in Parishes

“America needs no words from me [Blessed Teresa of Calcutta] to see how your decision in Roe v Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.

“It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.”

There are plenty of examples to substantiate Blessed Teresa’s haunting assessment of our post-Roe v. Wade society. The Lincoln Journal-Star ran a story several years ago entitled “No Kidding! More couples remain childless by choice.” The story told of a “growing number of couples who are choosing…to remain childless...” or “child-free” as one woman insisted. “Childless”, she said, “means lacking. We’re free from. Free from a burden, a responsibility. We’re free from the drain on our time and money and resources. We’re not ‘less’ anything.”

An article by Dr. Donald DeMarco in Homiletic & Pastoral Review (1998), mentioned that the Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the American Pediatric Association, had “formulated a mathematical equation to differentiate those children who should continue to live from those who should not.” In his equation, a person’s quality of life equals his/her physical and intellectual ability multiplied times his/her home and societal support. How about that? The quality of human life and the determinant of who lives and dies boiled down to a mathematical formula.

These sickening examples are clear indicators of the deformation of our nation by the culture of death. The insidiousness and pervasiveness of the culture of death, however, really hit home with an e-mail I received recently from a friend. This friend announced that she and her husband are pregnant with their eleventh child. This wonderful news touched me in a special way since I am the youngest of eleven children.

She then said her pregnancy has been met with “scorn and ridicule from people within [her] own parish.” One evening when she went to church to play piano for Mass, there was a bouquet of flowers waiting on the piano with a booklet attached that read, “Why you should use Natural Family Planning, and How to use it”.

“I was devastated that someone would be so cruel”, she said. “I could probably take it more from the secular world…but within our own CATHOLIC parish??” she asked. This situation is saddening and disturbing by itself and because it likely represents a more pervasive antipathy toward children within our Catholic parishes.

When God created mankind in His image, he blessed us saying “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” As Fr. Richard Hogan reminds us, “God allows married couples a unique participation in the power of creation. The animals reproduce, but their offspring are not persons. The angels [who are persons] do not give life to new angels. Only human persons can bring new embodied images of God into our world…Each child is another expression of God in this world and will live for all eternity.”

The Church teaches that being responsible with God’s gift of procreation means that each act of marital love must unite husband and wife in one flesh and be open to the possibility a child may result from it. Responsible parenthood also means having children in accord with ones emotional and financial resources.

By giving women the ability to get pregnant only a few days out of each cycle, God gave couples the natural ability to space or postpone children if they prayerfully conclude that there is a compelling reason to do so. The key to responsible parenthood is a constant and prayerful discernment of God’s will.

Regardless of how responsible a couple is, treating anyone with ridicule and scorn because they have a large family demonstrates an abhorrent lack of Christian charity. When that ridicule and scorn is directed toward parents (such as my friends) who respond generously and responsibly to God’s gift of many children, it demonstrates something more insidious: an antipathy towards God’s sacred gifts of procreation and human life.

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

Life Insight 10/14/05

65 to 0

Sixty five to zero. This is not my prediction for the next Husker football game. It’s a far more important score (if that’s possible!). Sixty five represents the number of diseases that have been successfully treated to date with adult stem cells. Zero is the number of diseases that have been treated with embryonic stem cells.

Surprised? If you are, don’t feel alone. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of Americans aren’t aware of this reality. Why? Largely because the dominant scientific/ biotech communities and media have irresponsibly (even cruelly) hyped embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). The tiniest of advances with ESCR gets prominent media attention while major advances in adult stem cell research (ASCR) are barely mentioned.

The Church supports the use of adult stem cells because obtaining them causes no harm to the donor. The Church opposes use of embryonic stem cells because obtaining them causes the death of the embryonic human being.

Adult stem cells have shown success in treating the following diseases in human patients: 23 types of cancer, 14 auto-immune diseases, 3 immunodeficiencies, 3 neural degenerative diseases/injuries (Parkinson’s, spinal cord and stroke damage), 10 anemias/blood conditions, 4 wounds/injuries, 6 metabolic disorders, heart damage and corneal damage. And ASCR is showing great promise in animal models for treating other diseases such as juvenile diabetes, with new discoveries being reported almost weekly.

Not only has embryonic stem cell research produced no human treatments to date, according to some experts, it may be years, if not decades, before ESC’s could even be tested in humans. Ironically, the problem that prevents human application of embryonic stem cells is the exact characteristic that makes ESCs attractive to researchers. Let me explain.

A few days after fertilization, the embryonic human being is comprised of a few hundred cells which include what are called pluripotent stem cells. “Pluripotent” means that these stem cells can produce all of the cells, tissues and organs of the human body. Because of this ability, researchers hope that these stem cells could be used as a “repair kit” for the adult body.

One major problem is that when ESCs are taken out of their natural growing environment (the embryo) and placed into the unnatural environment of an adult human body, their growth becomes difficult to control. In animal trials, the result of this uncontrolled growth can be teratomas, which are particularly gruesome tumors that can contain hair, teeth and other body parts.

Although exaggerated claims about embryonic stem cell research continue to dominate most news about stem cells, if one looks closely enough, there appears to be growing caution about the prospects of ESCR. In a December 15, 2003 article in The Scientist, Philip Hunter wrote that “within the ESC research community, realism has overtaken early euphoria as scientists realize the difficulty of harnessing ESCs safely and effectively for clinical applications.”

In a December 18, 2001 New York Times story, a Vanderbilt School of Medicine professor (Dr. Hogan) says that many “think stem cells are going to cure their loved ones of everything. If it ever happens, it will not happen soon, scientists say. In fact, although they worked with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years and made some progress, researchers have not used these cells to cure a single mouse of a disease.”

“Scientists say the theory behind stem cells is correct: the cells, in principle, can become any specialized cell of the body. But between theory and therapy lie a host of research obstacles…the obstacles are so serious that scientists say they foresee years, if not decades, of concerted work on basic science before they can even think of trying to treat a patient.”

I do not want to mislead anyone by understating the potential of embryonic stem cell research. It is possible that ESCs could ultimately be more beneficial than adult stem cells for treating disease. But ultimately, the most pressing question confronting humanity with regard to embryonic stem cell research is not can it be done, but should it be done? Is it ever legitimate to destroy some human beings for the benefit of other human beings. Let us pray that the answer is no.

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

Life Insight 10/7/05

Be Vigilant with Charities

Throughout the year there are various medical charities that come knocking on our doors at home, work, or school, asking for our donations or for our help in raising money. Most of these charities do good work in finding treatments for a variety of diseases. Unfortunately, many of these charities also support or engage in research that violates the dignity of human life.

A few years ago, my office surveyed numerous medical charities asking for their positions on research using aborted fetal tissue or human embryos. About half of the charities did not respond or had ambiguous responses. They are: Alliance for Aging Research, National Parkinson Foundation, American Auto-Immune Disease Assoc., National Spinal Cord Injury Association, American Paralysis Association , Neurological Disorders Research Coalition, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, Huntington’s Disease Society, Spina Bifida Association of America, National Hemophilia Foundation, Tourette Syndrome Association, National Infertility Association, National Osteoporosis Foundation, United Parkinson Foundation, and the Lymphoma Research Foundation.

Four of the charities said that they were not involved in fetal tissue or embryo-destructive research: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, National Kidney Foundation, Children’s Leukemia Research Association, American Heart Association.

Ten charities expressed clear support for research using aborted fetal tissue, and/or embryonic stem cells: National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, March of Dimes, Glaucoma Research Foundation, The American Cancer Society, Alzheimer’s Association, American Lung Association, Huntington’s Disease Society of America, Muscular Dystrophy Association.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, which sponsors an annual “Race for the Cure” fundraiser, has a different problem. The Foundation gives a large amount of the money it raises to community outreach programs. In 2003, $475,000 of such funds was distributed to 21 local Planned Parenthood chapters. The Foundation’s refusal to discontinue its relationship with Planned Parenthood caused one of its board members to resign.

It is very sad when organizations that otherwise do good and important work get unnecessarily entangled with immoral activities or organizations. This entanglement presents a dilemma to people who want to support good research, often as a tribute to a loved one, but don’t want their contributions to support immoral activities.

Catholic individuals, and especially Catholic organizations, can have a powerful influence on such charities by refusing to donate to, or raise funds for, them until they change their policies. A case in point is the American Heart Association (AHA). Following a flood of protest letters, including one from the Archbishop of St. Louis, and the resignation of an entire fundraising committee in one state, the AHA changed its policy and no longer funds or advocates for immoral research.

For those wishing to support research without supporting immoral activities, there are some alternatives. In addition to the four charities mentioned above, Easter Seals, which helps children with disabilities, does not support immoral research (www.easterseals.com). The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute was founded to look at the connection between abortion and contraceptives and breast cancer (www.bcpinstitute.org, 1-866-622-6237).

The Spinal Cord Research Advancement Foundation raises money to support research using adult stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries (http://www.linksforcure.com/scicuremain.htm). The Thomas Hartman Foundation for Parkinson’s Research was founded by “God Squad” co-host, Father Tom Hartman, who was recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s. The foundation excludes any funding for human embryonic stem cell research and supports research using adult stem cells to treat Parkinson’s (http://www.hartmanfoundation.org , 631-277-9655).

The Lee Iacocca Foundation is raising money to support research with an adult stem cell therapy that reverses Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes in animals. The Foundation has contributed $1 million for human trials and is asking one million Americans to help by donating $10 each (http://www.joinleenow.org).

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

Life Insight 9-23-05

How to Talk to a Friend who’s had an Abortion

Under the banner of Project Rachel, the three dioceses of Nebraska extend God’s limitless mercy and love to those who have had, or been involved with, abortion. Specially-trained clergy and counselors provide hope and healing through psychological and spiritual counseling and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Healing the psychological and spiritual wounds of abortion is a critical part of addressing the spiritual poverty that underlies the culture of death.

Almost everyone knows someone who’s had an abortion. Each of us can play a direct role in healing the wounds of abortion by understanding how to talk to a post-abortive person and by pointing them to Project Rachel. A flier, available from my office, explains how to do this.

The first point on the flier is to “listen with your heart”. “If this is the first time your friend has told you about her abortion, she may fear that you will reject her or that you will repeat to others what she tells you. She needs to know that this will not happen. She must find in you compassion, and know that you are not sitting in judgment of her…Only then will she feel it is safe to trust you and to tell you of her deepest pains and fears.”

“Ask God to fill your heart and hers with love and understanding. Ask God: What does she need today? Someone to listen? A shoulder to cry on? A referral to a priest or professional counselor? Or even crisis intervention? Begin by listening…without interruption. You don’t have to understand every detail…What is important is that she…can let go of some of the terrible burden she has been carrying by sharing it with you.”

The second point is to “let her tell all the jumbled details of her troubled soul.” “She may talk about: 1. What happened at the clinic; 2. rage and anger—at the boyfriend who walked away, the parents who meant well but coerced her, clinic personnel who lied, God who let this happen, her baby for coming at the ‘wrong’ time, herself for not handling things better; 3. guilt, regret, depression, haunting nightmares, even suicidal thoughts; 4. Going to confession many times, yet never feeling forgiven; 5. drowning in an ocean of grief she doesn’t understand; 6. feeling unlovable and unforgivable in God’s eyes…and her own.”

Third, “assure her of love and support.” “Much as you’d like to make all her suffering go away with the right words, her grief and loss and self-condemnation cannot be resolved in one conversation. Assure her of your friendship. Tell her you will ‘be there’ for her through her journey toward healing and spiritual and emotional health. Remind her that God is her Father…her most merciful Father. In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus described God’s eagerness to shower the repentant child with love and grace and bring him back into the arms of the family. If we turn our hearts to God, He will reach out to meet us.”

Fourth, let her know “where help can be found.” “Ask your friend if she has ever heard about help for people struggling after abortion.” Let her know that there are counselors, priests, support groups, and retreats that “can help her to overcome grief and loss, and restore her hope. If she is Catholic, she can go to confession and be absolved of the sin of abortion.”

Finally, encourage her to call Project Rachel at 1-800-964-3787 (489-2249 in Lincoln). “Remind her of the depth and breadth of God’s love and mercy. Assure her again of your love. Promise to be there. Not only today, but in the future. Thank her for taking that leap of faith and talking with you. It took courage. Her healing journey has begun.”

Whatever our individual role may be in post-abortion healing, each of us can be an intercessor for healing by praying for post-abortive women and men who are wounded and hurting, and for the clergy and counselors who serve as intermediaries to God’s grace and healing.

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

Life Insight 9-16-05

Embryo Adoption

The debate over embryonic stem cell research has highlighted the sad reality that, according to estimates, there are roughly 400,000 frozen embryonic human beings currently being stored in fertility clinics throughout the United States. These tiny human beings were produced using in vitro fertilization (IVF) for the purpose of implanting them in the wombs of women experiencing infertility.

Why so many frozen embryos? Most fertility clinics produce more embryos than are initially implanted to attempt a pregnancy. This is because the process of hyperstimulating the women to obtain eggs can be harmful to her. But this means that these “extra” embryos have to be frozen to preserve them for future attempts at pregnancy.

Some reports have said that ninety percent of these 400,000 frozen embryos are wanted by the parents for future attempts at pregnancy. This means that roughly 40,000 embryos could be relinquished to other couples wishing to implant and nurture them, could be thawed and allowed to die or, God forbid, could be donated for research that intentionally kills them.

My purpose here is to present the arguments for and against embryo adoption. But first it is necessary to mention that Church teaching recognizes IVF, and any other techniques that replace the marital act, as morally illicit. Such techniques violate one of the essential components of the marital act: the uniting of husband and wife in one flesh.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about IVF: “The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person” (no. 2377).

In the Vatican document addressing reproductive technologies (Donum Vitae), we are reminded that children should never be viewed as rights, not even by married couples. “A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a…supreme…and most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right…to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents…”

Regarding the morality of embryo adoption, the Magisterium of the Church has not yet provided a definitive position. Faithful, orthodox theologians and clergy make compelling arguments for and against embryo adoption.

In general, positions in favor of adoption center around the argument that although the production of human embryos through IVF is intrinsically wrong, once they exist, rescuing and safeguarding them takes precedence. It is argued that transferring embryos to a woman’s uterus is a distinct act from the immoral production of embryos and such transfer is not intrinsically wrong.

Arguments against adoption are varied. Some argue that it is contrary to the natural law (i.e. God’s intended method of achieving pregnancy). Others believe procreation includes conception and gestation and thus believe it is intrinsically wrong not only to bring a human life into existence with IVF but also to initiate the gestation of an embryo. Others believe embryo adoption is a form of surrogate motherhood.

It must be emphasized here that these are very simplified presentations of quite complex moral arguments. Articles or papers with a more in-depth presentation of these arguments are available from my office. Furthermore, the pros and cons of embryo adoption will be explored in more depth at the Bishops’ Pro Life Convention in Lincoln on November 11^th and 12^th.

I would encourage those who struggle to accept the Church’s teaching on in vitro fertilization to reflect on its “fruit”: 400,000 nascent human beings stored in liquid nitrogen, a growing research enterprise that views these human beings as raw material, the opportunity to fashion our children according to our own specifications or desires. Surely this should cause us all to pause.

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

Life Insight 9/9/05

MAPs Over the Counter?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just announced it will further delay its decision about whether to allow so-called “morning-after pills” (MAP) or “emergency contraception” to be sold over the counter. Morning-after pills, first approved by the FDA in 1997, are high doses of ordinary birth control pills intended for use no later than 72 hours after “unprotected” intercourse.

In 2003, Barr Labs, which produces the MAP called “Plan B”, petitioned the FDA to allow nationwide sales without a prescription for women and girls of all ages. The FDA rejected this request in May of 2004 citing concerns about the pill’s use by young teenagers. Barr countered with a proposal that the drug be available over the counter for those 17 years of age and older and by prescription only for those under 17. In delaying its response, the FDA said it couldn’t decide how to enforce such an arrangement.

In 2003, when the FDA first considered the request, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of General Counsel laid out several compelling reasons to oppose approving over-the-counter use of MAP.

Regarding the dignity of human life, the General Counsel noted that MAPs can have an abortifacient effect. It has long been known that one of the ways the birth control pill operates is to change the endometrial lining of the uterus so that if the pill fails to prevent fertilization, it will prevent the resulting embryo from implanting in the uterus. This is an early abortion and women have a right to know this before they use this drug.

Abortion and contraception apologists, and most of the medical profession, try to dispute this abortifacient effect based on an intentional lie. As the General Counsel pointed out, in the 1960s, “proponents of the intrauterine device (IUD) decided to alter the medical definition of ‘conception’ to equate it with implantation of the embryo in the womb…so that such devices could be labeled ‘contraceptives’ even if they were found to act by interfering with implantation [i.e. abortion].”

Sadly, much of the medical profession agreed to this intentional deception. However, such an insidious and arbitrary change of definition does not change the biological fact that human life begins at fertilization. Human embryology textbooks overwhelmingly recognize this fact.

The absurdity of this “new” definition of conception is illustrated by the current tragedy and controversy over what to do with frozen embryos. If the pill’s mechanism of preventing the implantation of an embryo is contraceptive and not abortive, then destroying frozen embryos (i.e. not allowing them to be implanted) is “mere contraception”.

Regarding public health concerns, the General Counsel notes that the package insert for MAPs warn that it is not intended for routine use. Over-the-counter availability would eliminate clinical oversight and increase the risk of serious side effects associated with the pill, including potentially life-threatening ectopic pregnancies.

Furthermore, one of the primary reasons cited for allowing over-the-counter use of MAPs is its alleged effect of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. However, a study reported in the January 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that non-prescription access of MAPs did not result in any decrease in the pregnancy rate. A study in Scotland, with nearly 18,000 women showed no decrease in the abortion rate over a 28 month period.

As I read numerous articles related to MAPs, I frequently encountered the term “unprotected sex or intercourse”. Think about that term in its deeper dimensions. What every form of contraception represents is a view of the sacred and incomparable gift of “co-creation” with God as a disease or inconvenience or liability from which we need “protection”. What a sad and impoverished view of this beautiful gift, of true love, and of what it means to be a person made in God’s image and likeness.

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

Life Insight 9-2-05

Angels Sent from God

Ten years ago, Planned Parenthood (PP) opened an abortion center at 3705 South Street in Lincoln. In those ten years, PP has killed nearly 6000 babies at this center. The PP abortion center is one of three in Nebraska that have killed nearly 160,000 babies since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court imposed legal abortion on our nation. Nationally, about 40 million babies have lost their lives to abortion since 1973.

Like the ever faithful Apostle John and the Virgin Mary who stayed with our Lord on Calvary, a small group of apostles for life have held prayer vigils at PP every day that abortions are done. Some come simply to pray, others hold signs with messages of love for the mothers, others attempt to speak directly to the mothers or hand them materials with information about help that is available.

It is heartbreaking to watch car after car drive into this abortion center knowing that tiny babies are about to be ripped from the wombs of these mostly young mothers. It is heartbreaking to see these frightened mothers who often feel forced, by individuals or circumstances, to resort to this act of violence and desperation.

There are times when one wonders if our presence and prayers make any difference at all with these mothers. Thankfully, that question has been answered over the years with numerous women changing their minds and leaving the abortion center. Here are some excerpts from one mother’s letter, addressed to “My angels sent from God”:

“As we arrived, we pulled into the parking lot and there was a group of people praying on their knees. I can remember even making a joke of it as we parked the car. We got out, and as we walked to the entrance, I again looked over at this group of people praying. At that point God’s spirit hit me like a ton of bricks. I began frantically crying in my sister’s arms. In my 20 years on this planet, I have never felt that before. It felt like a 500 pound weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I was no longer afraid, and I knew everything would be okay.

“My family was thrilled I chose to keep the baby, but most importantly I was thrilled. My son was born in August, and he is the BEST blessing God has ever given me. He is my joy, my pride, and my very reason to live…I often look into his beautiful little eyes and many times cry thinking about the decision I almost made. If it had not been for you, well, I don’t even like to think about it.

“Thinking back to that day, I remember it being very cold. Those people who were gathered at Planned Parenthood that day could have very easily stayed at home...Because they didn’t, I was able to see God in them; I was able to see what I was about to do was a terrible mistake.

“I know how discouraging your fight can be at times, and I hope you never give up…Words cannot express how thankful I am of you and your presence that morning. I will always be eternally grateful for what you have done for me.”

Through God’s amazing grace, just last Friday, two more mothers changed their minds and left the abortion center. I am also pleased to announce that the downward trend in the number of abortions in Nebraska (a nearly thirty-two percent decline since 1996) is continuing so far in 2005. Through June, there has been a 13 percent decrease in abortions compared to the first six months in 2004. Planned Parenthood’s abortion center saw a nearly 25 percent decrease in abortions in 2004. And since they have gone from doing abortions weekly to once every two to three weeks this year, I suspect its abortion numbers will be down considerably more in 2005.

Clearly, one of the more effective pro-life activities available is to spend some time praying and being an apostle for life to desperate mothers who enter this or another abortion center. For more information on how you can participate, contact Mrs. Pam McCabe at 402-489-7968.

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

Life Insight 8-26-05

Vatican Addresses Tainted Vaccines

It has been known for many years that some vaccines are produced in cell cultures that were made using lung tissue from aborted babies. These cell cultures, known as WI-38 and MRC-5, were originally prepared in 1964 and 1970 respectively, but because they self-perpetuate, they continue to be used today to produce numerous vaccines.

Currently, the only vaccines available in the United States for Chickenpox, Hepatitis-A and Rubella are produced in these abortion-tainted cell cultures. Untainted (abortion free) vaccines for Hepatitis-A and Rubella are being produced in Japan and distributed throughout Europe and Asia, but are not yet approved for use in the United States.

Vaccines for other diseases have tainted and untainted versions. The tainted vaccines are as follows (disease followed by vaccine name): Polio (Poliovax), Measles (MMR), Mumps (MMR), Rabies (Imovax), Smallpox (Acambis 1000 and Dynport CCSV), Flu (MedImmune version and Vaxin Inc version),

The untainted versions are: polio (IPOL and Orimune), Measles (Attenuvax), Mumps (Mumpsvax), Rabies (Rabavert), Hepatitis B (Engerix and Comzax), Smallpox (Acambis 2000), Flu (Protein Science FLUBLOK). It should be noted that NO flu vaccines currently on the market use aborted fetal tissue.

An organization called Children of God for Life was founded by Debi Vinnedge several years ago to educate the public on this issue and to urge production and use of ethical vaccines. Two years ago, Ms. Vinnedge petitioned the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to provide clarification on the Church’s teaching with regard to using tainted vaccines.

In July, Ms. Vinnedge received a reply from the Pontifical Academy for Life, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. The document, entitled “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses”, provides a couple of key instructions:

1. “There is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems.” This responsibility to use alternative vaccines (if they exist) applies to doctors and parents who are asked to put “pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available.”

“Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”

2. “As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience.”

The complete Vatican document, and much other useful information regarding vaccines, is available on the Children of God for Life website at www.cogforlife.org (or call 727-584-3332). I’m also pleased to announce that Ms. Vinnedge will be giving a presentation at the annual Bishops’ Pastoral Plan Pro Life Convention on November 12 in Lincoln (further details available from my office).

Parents and doctors can have an immediate and significant impact in the campaign for ethical vaccines by simply using the untainted versions of vaccines where they exist. By creating this demand for untainted versions, pharmaceutical companies will be more likely to produce untainted vaccines where none are currently available. Our attentiveness and faithfulness to advocating and using ethical vaccines is a very concrete action that each of us can undertake to help rebuild a culture of life.

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

Life Insight 8/12/05

Frist’s Position Morally Incoherent

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist became the latest so-called pro-life elected official to embrace a morally and intellectually incoherent position in favor of embryonic stem cell research. In a speech on the Senate floor, he said:

“I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete—yes, immature—but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human…And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported.”

Huh? Come again? The Majority Leader’s statement reminds me of the Sesame Street game where children must determine which item doesn’t belong with the rest. Something tells me a child could see the disconnect in Sen. Frist’s position. I certainly would like to know how the Senator would show “utmost dignity and respect” for “nascent human lives” that he believes may be intentionally destroyed for the benefit of research. Perhaps his dictionary has a different definition for utmost.

Sen. Frist’s position is not only incoherent, it’s dishonest. What if Sen. Frist had said I am pro-life and believe all human beings deserve utmost dignity and respect, but I also support doing lethal experiments on humans who are imminently dying, brain dead, in a persistent “vegetative” state or are scheduled to be aborted. Wouldn’t the dishonesty of his claim to believe that all human beings deserve utmost dignity and respect be obvious?

Sen. Frist, and too many like him, try to have it both ways by claiming to believe in the intrinsic dignity of human life from conception, while supporting the intentional destruction of some of these humans for the benefit of research. He says he continues to oppose making embryos, through in vitro fertilization or cloning, solely for research purposes.

The Senator seems to base a large part of his rationale on an erroneous moral principle: that if embryonic human beings are going to die anyway, this justifies intentionally using and destroying them in research. As I just illustrated, however, this rationale totally contradicts the Senator’s claim to believe human embryos deserve utmost dignity and respect.

Sen. Frist’s support for limited embryonic stem cell (ESC) research (only using embryos that would otherwise be destroyed) is also scientifically unrealistic. Advocates of ESC research have made it quite clear they will not be satisfied with being able to do lethal experiments on so-called “left-over” embryos. They want to be able to mass produce embryos through in vitro fertilization and/or cloning.

For example, our own University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) is embarking on two ESC research studies to find out if ESCs can heal liver and lung tissue. UNMC officials insist that the ESC lines approved by President Bush in 2001 (which don’t require further destruction of embryos) will be sufficient for their studies. This is highly unlikely for at least a couple of reasons.

First, common sense dictates that this research will inevitably lead to a demand for more embryo destruction. If researchers discover that ESCs do heal liver and lung tissue (or any other disease), the ESCs approved by President Bush will not be sufficient in quantity or quality to treat diseases.

Does anyone seriously think that Sen. Frist, and elected officials like him, will then look researchers and patients in the eye and say, “although a successful treatment has been found, it can’t be used because it would require mass producing and destroying human embryos solely for this purpose?” I don’t think so.

Second, UNMC officials, after assuring elected officials just a few years ago that they have no interest in cloning or destroying human embryos, testified this year against bills in the Legislature intended to ban cloning and embryo destruction. They also were quite clear that they have every intention to pursue such research if allowed.

The House of Representatives has already passed a bill to allow federal funds to be used to destroy human embryos for research and the Senate is poised to do the same, especially now that the Majority Leader has thrown his support behind it. President Bush’s promised veto is the only thing that stands between us and such an abomination toward the sacred dignity of human life. Pray that President Bush holds firm in his position and that other elected officials will see and adhere to the light of truth.

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

Life Insight 7/29/05

Understanding Body Language Will Set Us Free

An honest assessment of the four decade social experiment of recreational, commitment-free sex, facilitated by contraception, must conclude it has been a complete disaster. Accompanying this experiment has been skyrocketing levels of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and abortions, an explosion of debilitating, or even deadly, sexually-transmitted diseases, infidelity and broken marriages, difficulty in forming meaningful relationships, and the heartache from being used, or even abused, and then discarded.

As if these problems aren’t bad enough, they pale in comparison to the spiritual wounds inflicted upon individuals and the whole Body of Christ from the abuse of God’s precious and sacred gift of sexuality.

When we misuse a product (putting water instead of gas into our car’s tank) it results in major problems. So, when we act contrary to how God made us by misusing His precious gift of sexuality (something clearly central to our natural and supernatural existence), it shouldn’t surprise us that the results are disastrous.

Despite these disastrous consequences, many in our society stubbornly refuse to admit and learn from them, turning instead to a distorted notion of freedom—freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies, freedom from the Church poking her nose into our bedrooms. But Jesus told us that “the Truth will set us free.” Understanding and embracing the God-given meaning, language and sacredness of our human bodies will bring us true freedom.

In the turmoil of the late 1960s, many groups within the Church were pressuring—even expecting—that Pope Paul VI would liberalize the Church’s teaching against contraception. Instead, thirty-seven years ago on July 25, 1968, Paul VI surprised these groups by issuing the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which he affirmed and defended the Church’s consistent teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception.

Ten years later, upon ascending the throne of St. Peter, Pope John Paul II immediately began to instruct the world with a deeper understanding of the Church’s teaching on contraception, the meaning and sacredness of the human body and married love. During his weekly Wednesday audience, John Paul II delivered one hundred twenty nine addresses (over five years) which now form what is called his Theology of the Body.

Many writers have begun to unpack this Theology of the Body, but in my view, no one has done a better job of explaining this profound and beautiful teaching than Fr. Richard Hogan. In the Winter/Spring 2005 issue of the NFP Forum, produced by the U.S. Bishops’ NFP office, Fr. Hogan does a masterful and inspiring job of summarizing Theology of the Body and its application to marriage and family life, natural family planning and responsible parenthood and contraception and sterilization.

John Paul II’s arguments, says Fr. Hogan, “always begin with the dignity of the human person…[who] are the only earthly creatures God created in His image and likeness…“Flowing from this reality”, he says, “is the corollary principle that as images of God, we should act as God acts…to love as God loves.” “The body becomes a physical sign [or language] of who I am and, when I act as an image of God, it becomes a [visible sign or language] of how God acts.”

“But before we can love as God loves, we need to know how He loves”, Fr. Hogan says. “The sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the clearest and most dramatic revelation of God’s love.” Therefore, if “we are to love as God loves, our love must have the five characteristics of divine love” made “clear from the account of the Agony in the Garden…” “Our love must be [1] a choice [2] based on knowledge…to [3] give oneself. The gift of self must be [4] permanent and [5] life-giving.”

Hopefully this tiny glimpse of Fr. Hogan’s writing will inspire you to read his whole article or to otherwise study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Fr. Hogan’s article can be read online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/newsletter.htm (click on current issue) or contact my office for a copy.

Broaching the topic of sexuality with family or friends can be very difficult. No one wants to be seen as judgmental or intrusive into another person’s private life. But we must never forget that it is an act of virtue and authentic love to admonish the sinner—to save another from the possibility of eternal damnation.

Furthermore, Christ told us that we should not hide the light of Truth under a bushel basket. The Truth found in Theology of the Body is an amazingly beautiful and transformation light and all who see it will be eager to share it with others.

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

Life Insight 7/15/05

The Myths, Facts and Future of Roe v. Wade

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s announcement that she will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court has, predictably, unleashed a torrent of “the-sky-is-falling” rhetoric from the pro-abortion crowd.

For example, Planned Parenthood interim president Karen Pearl said, "The resignation of Justice O'Connor creates a devastating and dangerous moment. Her departure places women's health at risk, endangering the future of reproductive rights in this nation." In the lexicon of the euphemistically-driven abortion industry, “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” are code words for abortion.

Not only do such abortion advocates have trouble using accurate words, they apparently have trouble communicating the truth. The fact is, replacing O’Connor (who consistently ruled in favor of legal abortion, including partial-birth abortion) with a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not result in enough votes to overturn Roe.<