THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-2007
*********
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 2007
Be Critical of Stem Cell Reports (06/29/07)
Exposing the Stem Cell Word Games (07/13/07)
Muddle-Headed Science and Ethics II (08/10/07)
The Prevention Deception (08/24/07)
Supporting Our Pro Life Public Officials (09/07/07)
Legal Doesn’t Equal Safe(09/14/07)
Respect Life Sunday (09/28/07)
Virtue Media Inspires the Soul (10/05/07)
Vatican Answers Dubium on Food and Water (10/14/07)
Tools to Build a Culture of Life (10/26/07)
Caregiving Testifies to Human Sanctity (11/02/07)
Selling Out Young People (11/09/07)
Ethical Ignorance is Not Bliss (11/16/07)
Giving Thanks and Witness Through Service (11/23/07)
Great News in Stem Cell, Cloning Debate (11/30/07)
A Pro Life Giant Passes (12/07/07)
An Evangelist of Love (12/14/07)
Be Critical of Stem Cell Reports 06-29-07
A couple of months ago I spent a great deal of time interviewing with a reporter from the Lincoln Journal Star about stem cell research and cloning. The reporter told me that the Journal-Star was planning a series of stories on the topic and he was writing one of them.
The interview covered many relevant aspects of the debate and involved a substantive discussion of the research and its ethical problems. At the end of the interview I felt hopeful that at least this article, if not the series, would provide a fair presentation of both sides of the debate. My hope was squashed when the Journal ran its seven-part series last week giving little if any pretense of objectivity.
First, under the headline of “Stem Cells”, this series provided information about only one source of stem cells—embryos. It largely ignored the numerous non-embryonic and ethically acceptable sources of stem cells (e.g. amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, and various parts of the human body). This gives the public a false impression that embryonic stem cells are the only source (and hope) for cures or therapies.
I happen to believe there is a purposeful attempt by some in the research field to blur the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells. By doing this, the public is more likely to conclude that the successes of non-embryonic stem cells in treating humans are attributable to embryonic stem cells (which haven’t yet treated a single human). And it’s easier to create the false impression that opposing embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to opposing all stem cell research.
Second, this series provided one side of the debate. It only featured scientists and patient advocates who conduct or advocate for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Furthermore, rather than merely explaining the scientists’ research, it devoted nearly as much space to their moral views (allowing no response to their criticism of ESCR opponents). This series gave no voice to researchers and patient advocates who reject the destruction of some humans for the benefit of others.
This bias gives the public a false impression that there is consensus in the science community in support of ESCR. In fact, there are plenty of scientists who strongly oppose human embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Most do not share their opposition publicly for fear of being ostracized or even punished in their employment. I guess academic freedom only applies if you agree with the establishment.
Third, the series devoted only one article to the main reason ESCR is controversial: its ethical challenges. And the presentation it gave was woefully incomplete and facile. It does not facilitate a meaningful public discussion when complex ethical arguments are synthesized down to a few quotes (especially when, as in my case, these quotes were very incomplete if not inaccurate).
The ethical case against ESCR is better reasoned and more compelling than this series suggests. I intend to provide an in-depth response in subsequent columns. In the meantime, I urge readers to explore a more complete and honest presentation of this ethical case by going online to www.stemcellresearch.org, www.cloninginformation.org. and www.ethicalresearch.net.
Exposing the Stem Cell Word Games 07-13-07
Those who are engaged in the right-to-life battle know well how terminology is used to deceive and soften the public to accept radical social change. This dynamic is described most cogently as follows: “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering.”
Abortion advocates know that the public doesn’t react favorably to abortion (neither the act nor the word) so they disguise it with nicer sounding words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom”. Unborn babies are dehumanized into “products of conception”, “fetuses” and “blobs of tissue”. At the other end of the life spectrum, euthanasia and assisted suicide are transformed into “death with dignity”, “compassionate care”, and “choice in dying”.
We are now witnessing this same verbal engineering by advocates of human embryonic stem cell (ESCR) and cloning research. These advocates know that most people oppose destroying human embryos and the use of human cloning for research so, like abortion advocates, they are using different terms to deceive the public.
One example is substituting the word “early” for “embryonic” when discussing embryonic stem cells. Others will use terms like “fertilized egg” or “blastocyst” to dehumanize the human embryo.
Using the term “fertilized egg” in place of “embryo” is plainly incorrect. Any human embryology textbook will reveal that this term refers to an egg from the time a sperm cell penetrates it until the fertilization process is complete (about 24 hours). Once fertilization is complete, the egg is no more and you now have a new, one-cell human being in its embryonic stage of development (which last from the completion of fertilization until 8-weeks in utero).
Referring to the embryo as a blastocyst is technically correct (this is the biological term for a 5-7 day-old embryo), but it’s a transparent attempt to dehumanize human embryos. This word game is very similar to the one used by abortion advocates who try to dehumanize unborn children by using the term “fetus” (a biological term for a human being from 8-weeks after conception until birth).
Since cloning advocates know that most people oppose human cloning, they are also using word games to mislead the public. One game has been to suggest that there are two types of human cloning: one that produces “babies” (so-called “reproductive cloning”) and one that just produces stem cells (so-called “therapeutic cloning”). Cloning advocates claim to oppose reproductive cloning, but want therapeutic cloning to be allowed.
In reality, there is one human cloning technique, known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT) that if successful results in a cloned human embryo. At this point, human cloning has occurred. Therefore, the only truthful difference between “reproductive” and “therapeutic” cloning is whether the resulting embryo is implanted and gestated to live birth or destroyed to harvest its stem cells.
A new twist to this word game is to completely detach the concept of human cloning from the production of stem cells. Now they want the public to believe that cloning only occurs if a cloned embryo is implanted and gestated to live birth. They claim that cloning embryos to harvest their stem cells isn’t really cloning and doesn’t even produce an embryo, it’s just using “SCNT to make stem cells”.
I have no doubt that these word games are used intentionally by ESCR and cloning advocates to mislead or confuse the public. Unfortunately, much of the secular media uncritically accepts these misleading terms, presumably because they come from research “experts.” Nevertheless, I know from experience that when the verbal disguise is removed and ESCR and cloning research is exposed for what it is—the intentional production and/or destruction of human life for the benefit of other humans—the public rejects it.
Muddle-Headed Science and Ethics II 08/10/07
In the Lincoln Journal-Star's recent series on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), Dr. David Crouse, Associate Vice Chancellor of the University of Nebraska Medical Center said, "supporters of ESCR don't believe DNA alone is enough to give embryos a special ethical status."
Dr. Crouse may be pleased to know that opponents of ESCR agree with him on that point. Of course having DNA alone doesn't give embryos ethical status. Skin cells have DNA but clearly have no ethical status. Now surely Dr. Crouse knows that human embryos are far more than just a clump of cells with DNA.
Dr. Crouse 's nonsensical reasoning continued with this whopper: "during an embryo's first few days of existence, it is...a mass of cells that...could not develop into a human being unless implanted in a mother's womb. It has the potential to be a human being, but it isn't if it's not implanted. Most people would agree that embryos growing in a laboratory don't have the same moral value as a living, breathing human being," he said.
It is correct to say that embryos cannot continue to grow as human beings if not implanted, but it is flat wrong to say they are not human beings prior to implantation, a fact that is confirmed by opening any human embryology textbook. To punctuate this point, even implanted embryos cannot continue to grow as humans unless they move out of the uterine environment and born human beings cannot continue to live if they too are not in the right environment (i.e. oxygen, temperature, etc.).
Crouse's claim that most people don't morally equate embryos with living, breathing humans may be correct but so what? Undoubtedly, during the era of slavery most people in slave states didn't believe black people had the same moral value as white people. Crouse's belief that embryonic humans are morally inferior because they look different than older humans is as deplorable and unjust as the view that black people were morally inferior because they looked different than white people.
The ethical nonsense in this article was not limited to Dr. Crouse. Betty Hoskins, a biology professor from Massachusetts was attributed with this statement from a paper she wrote for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice: "It's possible to believe embryos are worthy of respect but still can be useful tools to help develop cures for human diseases."
Useful tools? Ms. Hoskins' statement raises a couple of obvious questions. How does society show meaningful respect for humans who are also categorized as "useful tools"? And at what point of development is a human transformed from being a "useful tool" to a person recognized and protected by law?
It's hard to imagine someone proposing more ethically incoherent sentiments than these, but I think Rev. Lauren Ekdahl accomplished it. In the article, this district superintendent for the United Methodist Church in Scottsbluff said, "I believe in a God who is big enough to be graceful about the ambiguity we feel as we take the risk and receive the gift of stem cell research as Christians in the 21st century."
Huh? Come again? I can imagine the prayer that Rev. Ekdahl would formulate out of that warped sense of God. "Dear Lord, although we're not sure if human embryos are your sacred gift, made in your image and likeness, we are confident that you won't mind if, in light of this ambiguity, we manufacture and/or destroy them for our benefit."
He goes on to say, "I believe we can respect and honor life without idolizing it's very basic incubatory stage, and thus refuse the gift of it's potential....... to heal life-threatening diseases." First, opponents of ESCR don't idolize human embryos, we simply believe they deserve equal protection with humans at subsequent stages of life. Second, human lives at later stages of life have as much potential to heal life-threatening disease as embryos. So why don't we allow lethal experiments on more developed humans, especially those who will die soon anyway (i.e. babies scheduled for abortion, death row inmates and terminally ill persons)?
These muddle-headed arguments are indicative of the moral confusion of our modern society. This moral confusion emanates from an impoverished view of God and man. I believe it also is a reflection of man's choice to rationalize immoral behavior rather than embrace the often painful path of spiritual and moral conversion.
The Prevention Deception 08-24-07
If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: the way to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion is to expand access to “family planning” (i.e. contraception). Planned Parenthood and other abortion apologists have had great success in promoting this idea in our nation and throughout the world.
In the United States alone billions of our tax dollars have been spent over the last 30 years on programs that promote and provide contraceptives. Among the results of this effort have been widespread use of contraception, even by Catholics, and a general acceptance of the idea that such programs really do reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion.
It is understandable that on the surface the suggestion that contraception will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion has intuitive appeal. But those who scratch below the surface will uncover some pesky facts that blow serious holes into the reasoning behind that suggestion.
First, according to Planned Parenthood’s research affiliate (The Guttmacher Institute) 9 out of 10 sexually active women of reproductive age already use contraception and 98 percent have used it in their lifetime. Given this virtually universal use of contraception, further expansion of contraceptive programs isn’t likely to have much effect on unintended pregnancies and abortions.
Second, as Guttmacher reports, with typical use, contraceptives often fail to prevent pregnancy. Nine percent of women using oral contraceptives will become pregnant within one year as will 15 percent of women whose partners use condoms. Nearly half (46%) of women with unintended pregnancies and more than half (54%) of women seeking abortions were using contraception in the month they became pregnant.
Furthermore, in 2006, Guttmacher issued a report ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives. It revealed the embarrassing fact that New York, California and other states that were most aggressive in promoting contraception also had some of the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates. By contrast, states like Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas which were the least aggressive contraception promoters have the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates. Such data seriously undermines the assertion that contraception is the solution to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions.
Third, there is little, if any, data substantiating the claim that greater access to contraception results in fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions. Conversely, there is ample and compelling data (mostly by contraception advocates) revealing that the provision of contraception has little or no effect on the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.
For example, in 2007, Obstetrics and Gynecology published a systematic review of 23 studies (published between 1998 and 2006) measuring the effect of increased access to so-called “emergency contraception” (EC) on unintended pregnancy and abortion. The review, conducted by leading experts who favor ECprograms, found that “in all but one study, increased access to emergency contraception pills was associated with greater use. However, no study found an effect on pregnancy or abortion rates.”
In a British Medical Journal editorial, Anna Glasier said that “Ten studies in different countries have shown that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home…increases use by twofold to threefold…but had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy or abortion…If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution.”
In a study featured in the Journal of Health Economics (March 2002), David Paton examined 16 regions of the United Kingdom over a 14-year period and found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”
Douglas Kirby, writing in the Journal of School Health (March 1999) concluded: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.”
More of this compelling evidence can be seen at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet0207.shtml.
Supporting Our Pro Life Public Officials 09-07-07
The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is a Catholic organization that works closely with the United States Bishops’ Pro Life office in Washington, D.C. NCHLA’s objectives include educating citizens, developing pro-life legislative networks, and offering programs in support of pro-life legislation.
Among its various activities, NCHLA produces educational and program resources, communicates with leaders about legislative priorities, and presents legislative seminars throughout the year. NCHLA also keeps diocesan pro-life offices and state Catholic Conferences informed about pro-life legislation in Congress and reports how our elected officials vote on this legislation. This can all be seen on its wonderful website at www.nchla.org.
If you look on the “Vote Track” section of its website you will see that it designates pro-life votes with and “X” and pro-abortion votes with an “O”. Thankfully, if you type in any of Nebraska’s three U.S. Representatives and two senators, you will find only Xs (pro-life votes) going back many years.
The last “O” you will find was in 2003 when Sen. Ben Nelson voted against the Mexico City Policy which prohibits federal family planning funds from going to organizations like Planned Parenthood that promote and perform abortions. Thankfully and to his credit, Sen. Nelson has since changed his mind and supports this policy.
Prior to that lone vote, one would have to go back to the tenure of Sen. Bob Kerrey (1988 to 2000) to find pro-abortion votes. Unfortunately he had a consistently pro-abortion voting record, including several votes against the ban on partial-birth abortions.
My point is that we are very blessed in Nebraska to have an entire Congressional delegation that votes for pro-life legislation. Beyond the votes, most of them have also spoken publicly and in other ways provided leadership on pro-life legislation.
For example, Sen. Ben Nelson, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was the only Democrat on the Committee to vote against a spending bill because it contained funding for embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, he is a board member of Democrats for Life. It takes courage and commitment to stand up for pro-life principles in the public square, but especially so when the vast majority of your own political party strongly disagree with you.
Another example is the leadership provided by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry to secure the commitment of enough Representatives to sustain a presidential veto of any legislation that weakens current pro-life policies. This kind of pro-life leadership often makes these officials a target for defeat by pro-abortion groups.
A final example is the effort by our Governor, Dave Heineman, to transform the ideological paradigm within the state’s Health and Human Services System to reflect the pro-life and pro-abstinence (before marriage) views of his administration and our state. From personal experience I can attest that some programs in HHSS are dominated by individuals whose world views and ideology very much align with Planned Parenthood. In some cases these individuals were former Planned Parenthood employees.
Several years ago, I personally witnessed (in a public setting) a state employee with some jurisdiction over the federal abstinence program admit that no one she knew of in HHSS supported the abstinence approach to sex education. Unfortunately, the secular media doesn’t seem to care that this ideological bias is being imposed on publicly funded programs. But it was critical of Gov. Heineman for trying to create a more pro-life, pro-abstinence environment in HHSS.
It is very easy to take our pro-life leaders for granted. Although we may not need to contact them to urge their support for pro-life policies, we do need to regularly let them know that we appreciate and support their pro-life actions. If you haven’t lately, please contact our two senators and your district representative in Congress and express your thanks and support. Sen. Chuck Hagel, 248 Russell Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510; Sen. Ben Nelson, 720 Hart Bldg, 20510; Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (1st District), 1517 Longworth HOB, 20515; Rep. Lee Terry (2nd District), 1513 Longworth HOB, 20515; Rep. Adrian Smith, 503 Cannon HOB, 20515.
Legal Doesn’t Equal Safe 09-14-07
Several weeks ago, a woman who had an abortion at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Lincoln was taken to a local hospital by ambulance. Those who were present at the abortion facility notified the pro-life community to pray for this woman.
A couple of weeks ago, the details of that botched abortion became public after the woman decided to sue Planned Parenthood and Meryl Severson, the abortionist. To find a lawyer, the woman apparently opened the local yellow pages and—among the 68 pages of lawyer ads—“randomly” chose Mr. Jeff Downing, a pro-life Christian who has represented pro-life legal interests in the past. Anyone who has ever doubted the influence of Divine Providence should re-read and contemplate that last sentence!
The details of this woman’s ordeal, recounted in the legal complaint are enough to make a person cry—and angry. The woman, referred to as “Jane Roe” is 40 years old and was about 8 weeks pregnant at the time of the abortion.
According to the lawsuit, after the abortion began she “immediately complained of excruciating pain” and asked repeatedly that the procedure be stopped because “something was terribly wrong.” The plaintiff alleges that Severson refused to stop each time he was asked and eventually said “We can’t stop.” The complaint then says that three Planned Parenthood employees held Jane Roe down while Severson “continued the suctioning procedure.”
After the abortion, the woman experienced severe pain and bleeding and ultimately had three seizures before an ambulance was called and took her to Bryan/LGH East hospital. A hospital report said the woman experienced a “catastrophic perforation” of her uterus during the abortion which required two specialists to perform an emergency hysterectomy on the woman.
During this ordeal the woman suffered internal bleeding and lost about 80 percent of her blood. In the report, one of the specialists said “Had she not received emergency care when she did, it is my professional opinion that the patient could have hemorrhaged to death.”
This case raises many disturbing questions about the alleged safety of legal abortions. What kind of safety precautions must an abortion facility have in place? How are abortion facilities regulated or monitored for safety compliance? More specifically, why didn’t this abortionist or his staff know the difference between the pain and bleeding normally caused by an abortion, and the pain, bleeding and other signs of a potentially life-threatening condition?
How about the allegation that her repeatedly stated request to stop the abortion was rejected to the point of forcibly holding her down? Why wasn’t this woman’s “choice” to stop the procedure respected by these self-described apologists of “choice”?
Even in the face of a botched abortion, abortion apologists are quick to defend the procedure as safe, saying that such complications are rare. One problem with such claims is that they are based on incomplete if not inaccurate statistics.
For example, several states, including our nation’s largest (California), have no state mandated abortion reporting requirements. If abortionists are not required to report the abortions they are doing, how likely are they to report complications?
Furthermore, most women who suffer complications go to hospitals for follow-up care, not to the abortion facility. It is quite likely that most of these complications presented at hospitals are, for various reasons, not reported as abortion-related. The bottom line is that there is little if any scientifically accurate data to back up the claim that abortion complications are rare.
For more information on abortion complications, I recommend the book Lime 5 by Mark Crutcher and other research he has done through his group Life Dynamics (www.LifeDynamics.com).
Finally, please join me in invoking the intercession of Our Lady of Sorrows for the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of Jane Roe, and all women and men who are contemplating or have been involved with an abortion. Please also pray for Jeff Downing and his family as he seeks justice for Jane Roe.
I remember well my college years as a budding pro-life activist. I had a strong fire in my belly to oppose the injustice of abortion, but didn’t feel well equipped to fully defend my position in the face of tough questions. Like many people, if I couldn’t confidently defend my position, my tendency was to say nothing at all.
The primary goal of this column is to equip Catholics and others with the arguments and facts necessary to confidently defend the pro-life position. One of the best and simplest tactics I’ve seen to do this comes from Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute and it’s called “toddler tactics.”
The tactic focuses the public’s attention on one of the central questions in the abortion debate: what is the unborn? Although the relevance of this question should be self-evident, Klusendorf uses a simple illustration for those skeptics.
Imagine that your young child comes up behind you as you are washing dishes and asks, “Daddy (or Mommy), can I kill this?” No responsible parent would answer the question without knowing what “this” is. Likewise, no responsible society should allow the unborn to be killed without knowing what the unborn is.
“Advocates of elective abortion generally believe that the unborn are not fully human”, Klusendorf says. “But instead of proving this conclusion with facts and arguments, many people simply assume it within the course of their rhetoric.” To clarify things, Klusendorf suggests asking whether a particular justification for abortion also works as a justification for killing toddlers. Klusendorf provides some examples.
Suppose someone justifies abortion by saying many poor women can’t afford to raise another child. A pro-lifer’s response should be to ask this question: “when human beings get expensive, may we kill them? Suppose a large family collectively decides to quietly dispose of its youngest child to help ease the family budget. Would this be okay? If poverty justifies killing a human before birth, why not after?
How about a woman who has been raped? Every time she looks at that child she’s going to remember what happened to her. A pro-lifers response: Of course we should provide compassionate care for the victim and it should be the best care possible. The real question is “how should a civil society treat innocent human beings who remind us of a painful event?” Is it okay to kill them so we can feel better? Can we, for example, kill a toddler who reminds her mother of a rape?
Inevitably, abortion advocates will respond to these comparisons by saying they compare apples to oranges. “Killing a toddler is different than killing a fetus”, they’ll say. Klusendorf says we should respond to this by saying, “that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn human beings, like toddlers? That is the one issue that matters.”
“Once you’ve framed the discussion around the status of the unborn”, Klusendorf says, “you can make a scientific and philosophic case for the pro-life position. Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today.”
The differences typically cited are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (think of the acronym SLED). Each of these differences can easily be exposed for their inadequacy.
If an embryo has less moral status because it is smaller than a toddler, then logically a toddler has less moral status than an adult. If the unborn has less moral status because it is less developed physically or mentally, then a toddler certainly has less moral status than an adult.
Certainly environment can’t dictate one’s humanity. While it is true that the unborn can’t live outside the womb until later in the pregnancy (viability), it is also true that born humans can’t live outside our environment (i.e. oxygen, temperature, etc.). Finally, the fact that the unborn are dependent upon their mothers before birth surely has no bearing on a human’s moral status. Anyone who thinks that a child right after birth is less dependent on his/her mother does not have a grip on reality. For more great pro-life apologetics, check out Klusendorf’s website at www.prolifetraining.com.
Every year since 1972, the bishops of the United States have designated the first Sunday in October as Respect Life Sunday. The purpose of Respect Life Sunday is to help Catholics reflect on the miraculous and sacred gift of human life and to better understand the various attacks against human life and its sacred dignity.
To help bring about this purpose, the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities produces the Respect Life Program each year which includes educational and liturgical materials for Catholic parishes. Although the materials focus heavily on human life at its beginning and end, over the years these materials have also included topics related to marriage and family life, capital punishment, poverty, natural family planning, biotechnology, and persons with disabilities.
This year’s program packet includes well-written and concise brochures on these topics: Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Family, The Person with Mental Illness: Bearing God’s Image, Caring for Your Aging Loved Ones, Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Link that Won’t Go Away, The Prevention Deception, How Not to Reduce Abortions, Abortion and Catholic Social Teaching, Discovering Hope and Love After an Adverse Prenatal Diagnosis, and Project Rachel: In the Heart of the Church.
The general theme for the 2007 Respect Life Program is “The Infant in My Womb Leaped for Joy”. Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Bishops’ Pro Life Committee, says that this theme of the Visitation, “calls to mind an extraordinary scene in Luke’s Gospel (1:39-56). Mary, newly pregnant with the Lord Jesus, is visiting her elderly cousin Elizabeth whose son, John, will soon be born.
‘The moment Mary’s greeting reaches Elizabeth’s ears and John’s, the tiny prophet announces to his mother the Messiah’s arrival, as if his entire being were exclaiming: Behold! The Lamb of God! There was no confusion as to what and who were nestled under their mothers’ hearts. Yet 2,000 years later, many well-educated people do not know – or claim they do not know – the truth about human life before birth.”
Recounting several examples of how some in society ignore the biological facts of life that unambiguously define its beginning, Cardinal Rigali says “We will not see the day when all human life is respected and defended unless we address a deeper problem”: man’s rejection of truth. He punctuates the point with this quote from Pope Benedict’s homily at Marianzell, Austria, Sept. 8, 2007:
“If truth does not exist for man, then neither can he ultimately distinguish between good and evil. And then the great and wonderful discoveries of science become double-edged: they can open up significant possibilities for good, for the benefit of mankind, but also, as we see only too clearly, they can pose a terrible threat, involving the destruction of man and the world. We need truth.”
I want to amplify Cardinal Rigali’s request for this year’s Respect Life Sunday (October 7) in which he asks “Catholics and all people of good will to witness to the truth about the incomparable dignity and right to life of every human being. This is no sectarian creed”, he says citing the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) which says the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’.
“And that”, the Cardinal says, “is the truth.”
Virtue Media Inspires the Soul 10-05-07
Do you remember several years ago when the Arthur S. De Moss Foundation ran those beautiful and moving pro-life ads with the tag line: “Life, What a Beautiful Choice”? These ads were such a breath of fresh air to the pro-life community which is not used to seeing pro-life messages on television. Although I’ve never seen data on the effect of these ads, I have no doubt that they touched many souls, impacted people’s attitudes about abortion, and saved countless babies and mothers from abortion.
The pro-life movement has a new opportunity to inspire souls and save lives through television thanks to Virtue Media. Founded in 1998 by Tom Peterson, a devout Catholic advertising professional, Virtue Media is a “Christian values-based, non-profit organization that creates and broadcasts the most effective and compassionate television ads that bring about positive change of heart in matters of life and faith.”
Virtue Media produces pro-life ads that do three things: help save unborn babies from abortion, offer hope and healing to post abortive parents, and gently but effectively educate the public about the sanctity of life. A sampling of these ads and more information about Virtue Media can be seen on its website at www.virtuemedia.org.
After viewing these very positive and compelling ads, I spoke with Tom Peterson, and was extremely impressed with his pro-life and advertising knowledge. I was also impressed with the research and professionalism behind these ads as well as the thoroughness of the program for funding and evaluating the ads.
Mr. Peterson has developed Virtue Media as a lean and efficient non-profit organization that is largely funded by benefactors. As a result, all contributions that are raised in a state go toward putting the ads on the air in that state. Not one dime goes toward overhead, administrative expenses, or to produce the ads.
But wait, there’s more! Virtue Media also provides—at no charge—donation envelopes and materials needed to promote this project. And they process all the donations, send thank you notes to donors, buy the media time, track the calls that result from the ads and send follow-up letters informing donors about the impact of the ads. In short, Virtue Media makes it very easy to implement this media outreach.
Virtue Media’s combination of outstanding and powerful ads with generous and comprehensive assistance in getting these ads on the air made it easy for the Bishops of Nebraska to embrace this project. As a result, each Bishop has recorded a 5 to7 minute presentation endorsing the project and making the case for putting these ads on air. The recording also features a sampling of the ads and an appeal from the Bishop for contributions.
Each bishop has sent a copy of the recording to every pastor with his request (not mandate) that it be shown during Mass on October 7, Respect Life Sunday (the parishes in the Omaha Archdiocese will do this in January). Given the positive reactions to these ads from priests in every diocese, I am confident that many or even most of them will embrace and promote this project in their parish.
I am also confident that Catholics and non-Catholics alike who see these ads will enthusiastically support this project to put them on the air. Already, several other pro-life and religious groups have embraced the project and will be contributing to and promoting it.
Between the thousands of people who will see these ads during Mass and the thousands more who will see these ads on television, I am confident and excited that thousands of women and children will be spared or healed from the scourge of abortion. And thousands more will be educated about the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death.
I strongly encourage all Catholics to pray for this project and to support it financially according to your means.
Vatican Answers Dubium on Food and Water 10-14-07
On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II addressed the topic of giving artificial nutrition and hydration to persons in the so-called “persistent vegetative state”(PVS). He gave his address to the participants of an International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State” in Rome.
John Paul introduces his conclusions about caring for persons in a PVS by reaffirming “strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a “vegetable” or an “animal”.
“The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or an natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.)…I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.
“Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.”
Since this address, certain questions have arisen about the meaning and interpretation of the Pope John Paul’s words. Two of the primary questions were submitted to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference in a formal manner known as a “dubium”. A few weeks ago, the Vatican responded.
The first question was, “Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?” The Vatican’s answer is “Yes.”
The second question was, “When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?” The Vatican’s answer is “No.”
In other words, the Vatican made it very clear that being in a “persistent vegetative state”, by itself, cannot justify the withholding or withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. In a public statement, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said these “responses provide a clear rejection of the claim of certain theologians that the provision of food and water for patients in the persistent vegetative state is not morally obligatory.”
Although artificial nutrition and hydration must, in principle, be provided to persons in a PVS, the Vatican response recognizes that there may be certain exceptions to this rule. For example, in places that are remote or in extreme poverty, where the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, there is no moral obligation.
The same is true when, “due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless.” Finally, “in some rare cases,” the administration of nutrition and hydration by tube can cause medical complications that “may be excessively burdensome for the patient”. In such cases, continuing artificial nutrition and hydration would be morally optional.
The Vatican’s responses and commentary can be seen online at www.usccb.org/comm/hydrationletter.doc and www.usccb.org/comm/hydrationcommentary.doc respectively. The U.S. Bishops’ Conference has produced a Q&A document on this topic that’s available at www.usccb.org/comm/hydrationq&a.doc. For a document from the Nebraska Bishops outlining Catholic principles and guidelines for medical-treatment decisionmaking, contact my office or go online to http://www.nebcathcon.org/Medical%20Decision%20Pamphlet.pdf.
The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities is the official pro-life program of the Catholic Church in the United States. It includes a plan of action for countering the practices of abortion and euthanasia and it establishes a structure for implementing this plan.
The Pastoral Plan structure includes national, statewide (my office), diocesan and parish implementation. Each level of this structure is important, but parish coordinators are perhaps least recognized and appreciated. Parish pro-life coordinators implement and coordinate pro-life activities in their parish, serving as liaisons between the diocesan and statewide pro-life directors and their parish.
The parish is where the “rubber meets the road” for pro-life activities. Consequently, parish coordinators are invaluable in the Church’s effort to build a culture of life and love. Being the point person for a program that addresses controversial issues requires a great deal of virtue and dedication. It is often a thankless job.
At the pro-life conference this weekend, parish coordinators and the role they play will be recognized and honored in a number of ways. First, they will be will honored at a special reception with Cardinal Rigali and the three Bishops of Nebraska. At the end of Mass Friday night, Cardinal Rigali will recognize them with a commissioning ceremony.
Finally, three parish pro-life coordinators (one from each diocese) will receive the inaugural Gospel of Life award. This award was established to recognize exemplary leadership and dedication to the pro-life cause at the parish and community level.
This year’s recipients are Mrs. Connie Consbruck from St. Michael’s parish in Hastings (Diocese of Lincoln); Mrs. Janet Kaus from St. Ann’s parish in Morrill (Diocese of Grand Island); and Mrs. Marie Ramold from St. Patrick’s parish in O’Neill (Archdiocese of Omaha).
There are certainly numerous coordinators whose efforts are worthy of this award. Choosing each year’s recipients will not be easy. However, as I gathered specific information about the leadership and dedication of these three recipients, my judgment about their worthiness for this award was quickly confirmed.
Connie Consbruck has been a parish coordinator for at least 25 years. In that role she sponsors regular speakers and prayer nights, organizes an annual pro-life breakfast and a spiritual adoption program culminating with a collection of baby items for the local pregnancy-help center.
Connie currently serves as president of South Central Right to Life and edits the group’s newsletter. She also volunteers at the local pregnancy-help center, helps organize the annual Life Chain and a pro-life booth at county and state fairs.
Janet Kaus has served as parish coordinator since the inception of the program in 1975. She organizes a regular “mother/daughter” event with a pro-life theme, has organized the annual Life Chain, and coordinated the “cross display” that represents abortion deaths in our nation.
She was one of the first volunteers to staff the local pregnancy-help center and is credited with saving the first baby after the office opened. She organizes and staffs an annual pro-life booth at the county fair, sponsors a float in local parades, and coordinated the fundraising and production of a pro-life billboard in her community. Janet also serves on the board of Nebraska Right to Life.
Marie Ramold has been active in pro-life activities in her parish and with Boyd-Holt Right to Life for more than 20 years. She has implemented postcard campaigns to our elected officials, sponsored baby showers, and coordinates an annual tribute to the unborn during a pro-life Mass.
Marie coordinates a pro-life float in the county parade, organizes a Mother’s Day ad in area newspapers, staffs a pro-life booth at county fairs, helps organize Life Chain and has lead efforts to put pro-life billboards up throughout the county. Marie and her husband have also hosted two unwed mothers in their home.
Please join me in asking God to bless these faithful servants (and all parish coordinators) for their tireless and generous service to rebuilding a culture of life and love. And pray that God will guide and bless all pro-life efforts inside and outside His Church.
Tools to Build a Culture of Life 10-26-07
At last week’s pro-life conference I presented a number of practical tools for rebuilding a culture of life. These tools address the four activities of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities: Prayer and Worship, Information/Education, Pastoral Care and Public Policy.
Regarding prayer and worship, I emphasized the critical importance of an active spiritual life to fortify those who engage in the battle to rebuild a culture of life. This battle involves spiritual warfare against the devil so those who engage in it must spiritually prepared and fortified. My recommendation is daily or frequent reception of the Blessed Sacrament at Mass and frequent use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In addition, daily recitation of the Rosary and a weekly holy hour before the Blessed Sacrament are power tools to fortify us for the battle.
In each parish, I recommend that a foundation of prayer and sacrifice be established to guide and bless all other pro-life efforts. Some practical tools include a monthly Mass for the pro-life cause. Families or individuals could be solicited to offer the Mass stipend for these monthly Masses.
Other prayer and worship tools include “Intercessors for Life” (individuals committed to offering prayer and sacrifice each week for pro-life efforts), the Abortion Center Prayer Project (parishes praying for the closing of Nebraska’s two abortion centers and the conversion of its staff), and various pro-life novenas and meditations on the Rosary and Stations of the Cross. Many more prayer/liturgical resources can be obtained online from Priests for Life (www.priestsforlife.org) and the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office (www.usccb.org/prolife).
The educational resources I presented were predominantly to produce and equip more pro-life apologists. Among the books I recommend are “Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively” by Scott Klusendorf ($7.00 from Stand to Reason, 1-800-273-2766, www.str.org); “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments” by Randy Alcorn ($11.95 from Life Cycle Books, 1-800-214-5849, www.lifecyclebooks.com).
To present a pro-life message to young children, I recommend Dr. Seuss’s “Horton Hears a Who” ($13.75). Horton is an elephant trying to protect the tiny residents of “Whoville” from the other animals in the jungle who don’t believe they exist. The recurring message in the story is “a person’s a person no matter how small”. Another great book from Dr. Seuss is “Oh, Baby, the Places You’ll Go! A Book to Be Read In Utero” ($6.99). Both books can be obtained from Life Cycle Books.
To appeal to our age of television, there are some great DVDs available that utilize four dimensional ultrasound technology to present a window to the womb. “Baby Steps” ($9.95) is a wonderful (5-7 min) presentation of life in the womb available from American Life League (1-540-659-4171, www.all.org). “Preview of a Birth” ($13.75) is a 17 minute view of life in the womb available from Life Cycle Books.
To understand the critically important scientific and ethical issues surrounding stem cell and cloning research I recommend Fr. Tad Pacholczyk’s “Cutting Through the Spin on Stem Cells and Cloning” ($12.99, 1 hour and 20 minutes in length) from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. A shorter (30 minutes) and less sophisticated DVD on stem cells and cloning featuring yours truly is available from my office for $4.00.
In the pastoral care realm, there are numerous materials available to help promote post-abortion healing through Project Rachel. Brochures presenting Project Rachel and how to talk to a friend who’s had an abortion are available from my office. The latter brochure is also available in Spanish.
A Project Rachel newspaper ad is available for placement in your local newspaper. Advertising in small town newspapers is usually inexpensive and provides another opportunity for families or individuals in your parish to participate in pro-life activities by agreeing to buy one ad.
Finally, a great resource to keep up on pro-life legislation in Congress is the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), an office that works in tandem with the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office. NCHLA monitors pro-life and anti-life legislation, provides action alerts and keeps track of how our elected officials vote on such legislation. NCHLA’s website (www.nchla.org) is an excellent source of information on public policy and also provides the past votes of our Senate and House members.
To order audio CDs of the outstanding pro-life conference talks, contact my office (402-477-7517) or go online to www.nebcathcon.org.
Caregiving Testifies to Human Sanctity 11-02-07
It doesn’t take much effort to identify ways in which human life has been cheapened in our society. Abortion, assisted suicide, and abuse of the gift of sexuality are some of the obvious manifestations of a culture that has an impoverished sense of human sanctity and dignity.
In his encyclical “The Gospel of Life” Pope John Paul II explained the roots which have produced such rotten and destructive fruit. Among those roots is a radical individualism and materialism that portrays human beings as burdens and obstacles to our autonomy and our pursuit of possessions.
This portrayal especially targets those who are unplanned, disabled, sick or elderly—those persons most in need of our generosity and love. An individualistic and materialistic society is tempted to see such persons as burdens to be eliminated rather than opportunities to grow in faith and love.
In this year’s Respect Life Program, produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, is an essay focusing on the difficult, but life and love-affirming role of care givers. The article (available online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Dodds.pdf) emphasizes that whether you are helping your spouse, parent, sibling, or child with special needs, “your compassion, dedication, and hard work are testimonies to the value of human life.”
This wonderful essay not only points out that “caregiving is pro-life”, but it provides practical insights from the point of view of caregivers and care-receivers. From a caregivers point of view it addresses the common experiences of anger, guilt and exhaustion. It provides concrete suggestions for each of these experiences, such as a support group and respite care. It urges caregivers to know your limits and to “admit that “an exhausted caregiver can’t be a good caregiver.”
From a care-receiver’s perspective, it focuses on issues of independence, control, self-determination, loss, grief, changes in roles, and feeling like a burden. “Your loved one values his or her independence and many decisions you and he or she make revolve around this key concept…Don’t take over tasks or make decisions your loved one can still handle.”
A major role of caregivers is to help “your loved one cope with a succession of losses.” The article urges caregivers to “realize that as your loved one ages (or health deteriorates), he or she becomes unable to perform the everyday tasks that person used to love and may feel a part of his or her identity is being lost.”
“A role reversal (an adult child assuming some of the duties of an aging parent) or an assumption of new roles (taking over responsibilities formerly handled by one’s spouse) is rarely an easy transition.” Caregivers are urged to “go slowly” and “be gentle. Don’t suddenly charge in and take control. Start with small things. If at all possible, let your loved one still play a part.”
“Care-receivers are often concerned about ‘being a burden’…Admit that what you are doing is hard” but “let your parent or spouse know that providing care is something you want to do. Yes, there are hectic moments, but you see taking care of him or her as a privilege.”
The authors of this essay, Bill and Monica Dodds (founders of “Friends of St. John the Caregiver, www.fsjc.org), remind us that “God has chosen [us] to play a central role in providing that care. Just as from the cross Jesus asked St. John—the patron saint of caregivers—to take care of his Blessed Mother, God asks [us] to help take care of someone else He deeply loves.
“What you’re doing is a prayer, and the path you and your loved one are taking is a pilgrimage. It is the Father asking you to help his son or daughter along these final stages of that journey. It is the Son who has told us whatever we do for those in need we do for him.”
Human life and the family structure modeled by our Creator have a cyclical nature. Parents are called to care and sacrifice for their young children. In turn, children are called to care and sacrifice for their aging parents. Caring and sacrificing for others, particularly when life is most vulnerable, is a tremendous antidote to the selfish tendencies of individualism and materialism. It is also what keeps our humanity intact.
Selling Out Young People 11-09-07
The recent decision by the Portland, Maine school board to provide contraceptives to middle school children is a disturbing reminder of the impoverished way our society views and treats the sacredness of human sexuality. It’s also a clear indicator of how powerful elements of our society are degrading and selling out generations of young people—our future.
One of the degrading mentalities at the base of the contraceptive culture is that teen sex is inevitable and basically uncontrollable. In other words, teens and young adults are only marginally better than animals when it comes to controlling their sexual drive. This mentality concludes that the best society can offer young people are some powerful, and potentially dangerous, hormones and other devices to reduce the chance of one consequence of sex: a new human life.
Adherents to this mentality, most notably Planned Parenthood, will give a perfunctory lip service to abstinence but they fundamentally reject the notion that teens should be expected to save sex for marriage and assisted in achieving that goal. Instead of helping teens achieve a chaste lifestyle that is indisputably healthier for them and society, Planned Parenthood and school boards like the one in Portland lower expectations and their treatment of teens to the lowest common denominator.
Imagine if this mentality was applied to other important elements of a young person’s formative years, such as academics and athletics. What if our schools and athletic programs fashioned curriculums and training programs around the belief that all young people are lazy and undisciplined and therefore incapable of achieving excellence?
One of the characteristics that distinguishes humans from animals is our will. We have the capacity to control our actions, but it takes desire and discipline, not to mention virtue and grace.
Most young people recognize and accept the fact that achieving greatness in sports and academics requires sacrifice and discipline. They embrace this because they desire the reward that results from this sacrifice. Likewise, most young people desire the benefits of saving sex for marriage and are very capable, with the help of grace and society, of the sacrifice and discipline necessary to achieve this goal.
Although God is always ready to impart His grace to help young people be chaste, unfortunately our society has largely abandoned them. Instead, our society should attack the purveyors of sexual license and degradation (e.g. advertising and entertainment industries) like it has attacked the purveyors of tobacco, drugs and alcohol.
Likewise, parents and educators must set high standards for sexual chastity and assist students in achieving them. In such an environment, it would be much easier for young people to save sex for marriage and I have no doubt most would rise to the occasion.
Unfortunately, there are too many parents who conclude that it would be hypocritical to expect higher standards from their children than they lived up to in their youth. This is wrong. Every person makes mistakes, but what defines our character is how we respond to those mistakes.
If we learn from our mistakes and become better persons, when we help the next generation to avoid those mistakes we are not being hypocritical, we are demonstrating love. After all, parents rightfully help their children to avoid mistakes they’ve made in other aspects of life (e.g. finances) which have far less consequence for a person’s happiness in this life and the next.
A recent anti-drinking radio advertisement in Nebraska proclaims that “What you say, what you do as a parent does matter. [According to the 2005 Nebraska Risk and Protective Factors Survey] young people are 2-4 times more likely to use alcohol and other drugs if parents show any acceptance of alcohol use.” Common sense, if not empirical evidence, strongly suggests that this same phenomenon applies to sexual activity.
Ethical Ignorance is Not Bliss 11-16-07
Last Friday, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee conducted an interim study hearing on stem cell and cloning research. The impetus for this hearing is LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act introduced by Sen. Mark Christensen in the 2007 legislative session.
Since its introduction, LB 700 has remained stuck in committee with insufficient votes to advance it to the full Legislature for debate. The purpose of this hearing was supposedly to facilitate a deeper examination of this controversial research.
The arguments against cloning and embryonic stem cell research were made by Dr. Maureen Condic, Dr. John Safranek and Dr. Lou Safranek. Dr. Condic, a stem cell researcher and director of instruction in human embryology at the University of Utah, presented a scientific explanation of stem cell and cloning research.
Armed with compelling facts, backed up with unimpeachable sources, Dr. Condic explained why human embryonic stem cell and cloning research is bad science that is unlikely to produce human therapies in the near future, if at all.
The Safranek brothers are from Omaha and are both medical doctors with additional doctorates in philosophy and ethics. They addressed the ethical concerns with this research. In particular, Dr. John Safranek decimated the assertion by a University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) doctor that human cloning for research purposes does not produce a human embryo.
The UNMC doctor, James Turpin, asserted in public testimony earlier this year and again on Friday that the cloning technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) only produces stem cells not an embryo. Dr. Safranek refuted this assertion with one word: Dolly.
Dr. Safranek pointed out that Dolly the sheep resulted from an act of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The irrefutable fact is that the only way Dolly could have existed is if the act of SCNT resulted in an embryo that was subsequently implanted and gestated to live birth.
Turpin defends his assertion by pointing to embryology textbooks that define an embryo as a genetically distinct individual produced through fertilization (combining of sperm and egg). Since SCNT (i.e. cloning) doesn’t involve fertilization and the “product” of cloning is genetically identical to the person who donated the somatic (body) cell, Turpin insists that it isn’t an embryo.
Both Dr. Condic and Dr. Safranek pointed out the absurdity of this assertion. If being a human embryo requires an act of fertilization and genetic uniqueness, then how does Dr. Turpin explain identical twins? Identical twins, triplets, etc. are genetically identical and only one was the result of fertilization; the others split off (twinned) from the first.
What was most discouraging and disappointing about this hearing was the lack of a substantive discussion on the central point of contention in this debate: does embryonic stem cell (ESC) and cloning research involve the destruction of early human life? As I stressed in my testimony, the arguments in favor of this research are compelling if, and only if, the answer to that question is no.
Amazingly, proponents of ESC and cloning research seldom, if ever, provide any meaningful or compelling arguments to defend their presumption that human embryos have no moral status. None of the UNMC panelists last Friday said a word to defend this extraordinarily dangerous presumption. And sadly, no senator on this committee asked them to do so.
Avoidance of difficult and contentious ethical questions about ESC and cloning research will not make them go away. It will only exacerbate the injustice of this research and intensify the debate.
Giving Thanks and Witness Through Service 11-23-07
“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them ‘ Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2: 14-17).
This passage from Scripture introduces the section (no. 87) in the encyclical “The Gospel of Life” in which Pope John Paul II presents mankind’s call and responsibility to serve the Gospel of life. “By virtue of our sharing in Christ’s royal mission,” says JP II, “our support and promotion of human life must be accomplished through the service of charity, which finds expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment.”
Unfortunately, in a secular culture dominated by radical individualism and materialism there is a strong inclination to view persons in need of our assistance and charity as impediments to our autonomy rather than opportunities to demonstrate our faith and love. A naval-gazing culture also tends to overlook God’s expectation that we give back to Him, in serving others, what we’ve been given; and that those to whom much is given, much will be expected.
“We must care for the other,” says John Paul, “as a person for whom God has made us responsible. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to become neighbors to everyone (cf. Lk. 10:29-37) and to show special favor to those who are poorest, most alone and most in need. In helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned—as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death—we have the opportunity to serve Jesus. He himself said: ‘As you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me’ (Mt. 25:40).”
“Hence we cannot but feel called to account and judged by the ever relevant words of St. John Chrysostom: ‘Do you wish to honor the body of Christ? Do not neglect it when you find it naked. Do not do it homage here in the church with silk fabrics only to neglect it outside where it suffers cold and nakedness.”
John Paul II provides many examples of practical ways in which we can serve the Gospel of life through service of others: centers that promote and teach natural methods of regulating fertility, marriage and family counseling agencies, pregnancy-assistance centers and maternity homes, communities for treating drug addiction, residential communities for minors or the mentally ill, care and relief centers for AIDS patients, associations for solidarity especially for the disabled.”
He also mentions the important work of social welfare agencies, palliative and hospice programs, hospitals, and convalescent homes. “A unique responsibility belongs to health care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants to human life.”
Finally, John Paul II says that “[i]f charity is to be realistic and effective, it demands that the Gospel of life be implemented also by means of certain forms of social activity and commitment in the political field as a way of defending and promoting the value of life in our every more complex and pluralistic societies. Individuals, families, groups and associations…all have a responsibility for shaping society and developing cultural, economic, political and legislative projects which…will contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced.”
In addition to fulfilling our call as Christians, when we serve those in need we give thanks to God for His blessings and we receive a therapeutic dose of love, grace and peace in return. Therapeutic? Yes, somehow when our focus is on the needs, pain, grief, and worry of others, our own concerns diminish or are at least placed into perspective.
As we give thanks for all God has given us, let us examine how faithfully and generously we are returning His gifts through service to others, particularly His least ones.
Great News in Stem Cell, Cloning Debate 11-30-07
For many years as the debate over embryonic stem cell and cloning research has raged, I have hoped and prayed for an ethical breakthrough that would obscure or supplant this dreadfully immoral research. Last week, researchers in the United States and Japan simultaneously announced such a breakthrough.
According to a New York Times article, “Two teams of scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.” The new discovery, called direct reprogramming, was published online last week in Cell, in a paper by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and in Science, in a paper by James A. Thomson from the University of Wisconsin, who is the founder of human embryonic stem cell research.
“All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.”
Experts on both sides of the ethical debate over embryonic stem cell and cloning research have acknowledged the earth-shattering nature of this research. “Everyone was waiting for this day to come,” said Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center. “You should have a solution here that will address the moral objections that have been percolating for years,” he added.
"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone — the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, whose company, Advanced Cell Technology, has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos. “Anyone who is going to suggest that this is just a side show and that it won’t work is wrong,” said Dr. Doug Melton, co-director of the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard University.
This new technique is so compelling and promising that Ian Wilmut, head of the team that cloned ‘Dolly’ the sheep, now says he is abandoning efforts at human ‘therapeutic cloning’ to pursue this adult cell reprogramming avenue instead. In a London Telegraph article (11/16/07) Wilmut said direct reprogramming of cells “has better potential for making human embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient's own cells and tissues for a vast range of treatments, from treating strokes to heart attacks and Parkinson's, and will be less controversial than the Dolly method, known as "nuclear transfer."
The article said Wilmut’s “announcement could mark the beginning of the end for therapeutic cloning.”
In a statement responding to this new research, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said “the goal sought for years through failed attempts at human cloning – the production of ‘pluripotent’ stem cells that are an exact genetic match to a patient – has been brought within reach by an ethical procedure.
“This technology,” he said :”avoids the many ethical landmines associated with embryonic stem cell research: it does not clone or destroy human embryos, does not harm or exploit women for their eggs, and does not blur the line between human beings and other species through desperate efforts to make human embryos using animal eggs…This advance reminds us once again that medical progress and respect for human life are not in conflict; they can and should support and enrich one another for the good of all.”
I have no doubt that many advocates of embryonic stem cell and cloning research will persist in advocating for and conducting this immoral research. In light of this new research, such persistency will not only be ethically indefensible, but it will be significantly more difficult to defend as good science.
A Pro Life Giant Passes 12-07-07
Last week, the incomparable, eloquent and compelling voice of a pro-life champion was silenced. Congressman Henry Hyde passed away on November 29 at the age of 83.
Right from the start as a freshman congressman, Henry Hyde established himself as a great defender of human life, particularly the unborn and those least capable of defending themselves. In 1976, his first year as congressman, he introduced and passed what has since been called the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding of abortion.
"Because of the Hyde amendment countless young children and adults walk on this earth today and have an opportunity to prosper because they were spared destruction when they were most at risk," said pro-life Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., in a statement. "With malice toward none, Henry Hyde often took to the House floor to politely ask us to show compassion and respect—even love—for the innocent and inconvenient baby about to be annihilated.”
"With uncanny skill, determination and grace, he crafted numerous, historic bipartisan laws and common-sense policies that lifted people out of poverty, helped alleviate disease, strengthened the U.S. Code to protect victims and get the criminals off the streets," Smith said. "He was magnificent in his defense of democracy and freedom both here and overseas."
Another pro-life giant, Dr. Jack Willke, President of Life Issues Institute said "Henry's death is a major loss to the entire pro-life movement…Probably no other person in public service, here and abroad, has had the influence and certainly no one commanded the respect that he did. We'll all keep trying, but none of us will ever be able to replace him.”
Anyone who listened to Henry Hyde on the floor of Congress or elsewhere could quickly recognize, as one pro-life columnist put it, that “his words and eloquence were reminiscent of another era of ideals and determination-- his speeches read like those of our founding fathers. At the conclusion of his floor speech urging his colleagues to override President Clinton’s veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Congressman Hyde said the following:
“This is not a debate about sectarian religious doctrine or about policy options. This is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what does it mean to be human? Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of death and a culture of life, and today, here and now, we must choose sides.
“I am not the least embarrassed to say that I believe one day each of us will be called upon to render an account for what we have done, and maybe more importantly, what we fail to do in our lifetime, and while I believe in a merciful God, I believe in a just God, and I would be terrified at the thought of having to explain at the final judgment why I stood unmoved while Herod's slaughter of the innocents was being reenacted here in my own country.”
Henry Hyde was not only eloquent and brilliant. He was a model of the class and charity that must characterize our pro-life activism if it is to be effective and faithful to God. Henry Hyde embodied the truth that how we do what we do in defense of human life is at least as important as what we do.
The following is one of Congressman Hyde’s most memorable pro-life quotes and is particularly appropriate as he stands in judgment before our Maker: "When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God - and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there'll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world - and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, 'Spare him, because he loved us,' - and God will look at you and say not, 'Did you succeed?' but 'Did you try?'"
Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and let the Perpetual Light shine upon him.
An Evangelist of Love 12-14-07
Every day I include among my prayers the prayer to St. Peregrine for those friends who are battling cancer. The prayer provides a place to mention those suffering by name and one of the names I included for several years was Jennifer Finder. After a four year battle with breast cancer, this 35-year old mother passed away last week leaving her husband Bob and three children behind.
Jennifer’s cancer appeared during the pregnancy of her third child Jack. As is often the case in our culture of death, Jennifer was advised to abort the child so she could undergo intensive chemotherapy. Jennifer would hear none of that. Even if it meant putting herself at greater risk, she would never consider aborting her child.
As it turned out, she and Bob did some research and found out from the MD Anderson Cancer Institute in Houston that she could undergo chemotherapy without harm to her unborn child. Jennifer’s story caught the attention of a local newspaper reporter and her selfless act of heroic virtue was featured on the pages of the Lincoln Journal Star and more recently on a national news program.
In his homily during Jennifer’s funeral Mass, Msgr. Liam Barr, pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in Lincoln recounted her decision and the public attention it received. She’s an “apostle for life” and an “evangelist of love”, he said. Not only did she demonstrate her faith and love by giving life to her son, Monsignor said, but in doing so her act of love was a witness to the world that undoubtedly saved other babies from abortion.
Jennifer’s witness as an “evangelist of love” was not confined to her selfless act of love toward her son. Those closest to Jennifer recounted how she embraced her suffering and God’s will with a saintly level of faithfulness and love.
She likened the challenge of her illness and the spiritual journey that accompanied it to climbing a mountain. Each time God asked her to continue the climb toward her own sanctification, she did so with a degree of love and faith that inspired many. Msgr. Barr pointed out that the hundreds of people who packed the church reflected not just the love so many had for Jennifer, but the love Jennifer had for so many.
St. Gianna Beretta Molla made a similar decision to put her own life at risk rather than risk the life of her unborn child. According to an account of her life, the heroic choice she made “was something her family members and friends testified she prepared for every day of her life.
“Her heroic virtue, genuine holiness of life, selflessness, and quiet joy remind us all that God entrusts us with a personal vocation”, the account continued. “Each and every day presents us with choices that have the power to prepare us to take heroic action whenever it will be called for. We can do that, however, only if we surrender ourselves and what we desire to God and His will for us.”
According to the testimony of Jennifer’s family and friends, it is evident that Jennifer not only strived to emulate St. Gianna but to a large degree did emulate her.
At the January 2004 March for Life (which was shortly after Jennifer made her decision to forgo treatment), Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, said in an interview that the solution to our culture of death is holiness. He said Catholics must “be willing to live their faith heroically, the testimony of holiness is the only thing that’s going to be able to convince people. “Mother Teresa”, he said, “could speak about life issues in a way, because of the ethos of her life, that was much more powerful than the most eloquent preacher or teacher. We have to live our faith very deeply in order to draw people.”
Cardinal O’Malley is exactly right. In our culture of death, we desperately need examples of heroic virtue to inspire us to strive for holiness. Jennifer’s life and the unconditional love she demonstrated give us a very powerful example to emulate. I have no doubt that her life and death will draw many people to greater sanctification.
| Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |