July 25, 2008 marked the 40^th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life). In this highly controversial document, Paul VI affirms the Church’s consistent teaching on the nature of marriage and marital relations, and he predicted several social ills that would result if contraception was embraced by society.

The first social ill, said Paul VI, would be “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality”. It is clear that since the mid-1960s the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, sexually-transmitted disease and out-of-wedlock births have all increased significantly. Although other factors may have also played a role in this increase, a growing number of social scientists are acknowledging a correlation between contraceptive use and these social ills.

Second, he warned that man would lose respect for woman and “no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium,” seeing her only “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” It has always amazed me how contraception is marketed as a boon for women when it is sexually irresponsible men who “benefit” most from it.

Third, Paul VI warned that contraception would place a “dangerous weapon…in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” China’s one-child-per-couple policy embodies this prophesy. So does the massive export of contraceptives, abortion and sterilization from developed countries to developing countries, acceptance of which is usually as a prerequisite for receiving financial aid.

Finally, “Pope Paul warned that contraception would mislead human beings into thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power” (Archbishop Charles Chaput’s paraphrase). Archbishop Chaput rightly points out that “in vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation are all descendants of contraceptive technology.”

Unfortunately, Humanae Vitae was “issued during a tumultuous time within both society and the Church…[and] met immediate and sustained public opposition from some theologians within the Church and from prominent exponents of the popular culture”, says Bishop Thomas Olmstead.

“The reaction was so unprecedented that it caught off guard both bishops and priests, leading most to fall silent on these vital issues”, Bishop Olmstead continued. “Worse still, it planted seeds of doubt in their minds, especially as dissenting theologians raised the volume of their rhetoric and found ready amplification for their dissident ideas in key sectors of the popular media.”

“The result was a twofold disaster” says Bishop Olmstead. “[O]n the one hand, uncertainty and silence by the clergy about the teaching of Humanae Vitae and related matters; and on the other hand, indifference and ignorance among a large sector of lay Catholics, bombarded as they were on a daily basis by distorted messages about sex and marriage.”

This “twofold disaster” has resulted in at least two generations of Catholics who have little or no understanding of the Church’s teaching on the meaning of marriage and the marriage act. And sadly, what little understanding most Catholics have about Church teaching is most likely negative in nature.

“With the election of John Paul II in 1978, however, a new confidence began to emerge about all the teachings of the Church”, Bishop Olmstead says. John Paul “assured us that we could trust the truth, and that the truth would set us free. And he began a vigorous defense and more persuasive presentation of the key teachings of Humanae Vitae.”

As evidence of how important he saw this teaching, for the first five years of his pontificate Pope John Paul used his weekly Wednesday Audience talks at St. Peter’s to expound upon the Church’s teaching in a deeper and more convincing fashion. This series of talks has been compiled into a book called “Theology of the Body”.

I’m currently participating in a group study of Theology of the Body. Each discussion we have is like getting a tiny glimpse of the Grand Canyon; it is profound and beautiful and it inspires you to want to look further. Many great study group materials are available at www.theologyofthebody.com or 800-376-0520. Humanae Vitae can be downloaded for free online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/humanaevitae.shtml .

Life Insight 8/1/08

The Joys and Challenges of Co-Creation

Our faith and our life’s experiences teach us that true love brings great joy and requires—indeed is authenticated by—sacrifice. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI applies this view of love to our role as co-creators with God in generating human life: “The most serious duty of transmitting human life, for which married persons are free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator, has always been a source of great joys to them, even if sometimes accompanied by not a few difficulties and by distress.”

It is well documented that among the 42 million fertile, sexually-active females in the U.S. who do not wish to conceive, 89 percent contracept. This sad reality is surely due in large part to poor or non-existent formation of Catholics on Church teaching regarding the sacred gift of sexuality.

Thankfully, a growing number of Catholics (and non-Catholics) are discovering the wisdom and beauty of Church teaching and are re-thinking their use of contraception. Couples are testifying publicly to the joys and challenges of living God’s plan for love and life through the practice of natural family planning.

One couple’s testimony, featured in a brochure by One More Soul acknowledges that “the joy of this discovery is accompanied by fears, doubts, and many questions…It was the defining moment of our marriage,” they said.

“We celebrate the beginning of a whole new way of life together and a whole new way of loving each other. But we also vividly remember how difficult it was to be in the middle of this conversion process. Our transformation wasn't so ‘joyful’ when we were actually going through it. To be honest, we were a mess. We stayed up night after night until the wee hours of the morning trying to figure out, ‘how are we going to live this?’ Discovering the Truth about love wasn't enough. What to do with this Truth proved to be a far greater challenge.

“Perhaps you have struggled with the issue of contraception. Perhaps you have ignored the Church's teachings in your marriage for many years. Perhaps you or your spouse has been sterilized. But now, for whatever reasons, you find yourself wanting to change, wanting something better, wanting authentic love and unity in your marriage. This longing is the first step on the road to holiness and healing. Do not ignore this longing! The road ahead may be filled with obstacles; it may be frightening and uncertain. But take comfort in Sacred Scripture, set your foot to the path, and take one tiny step forward.”

This couple provides several suggestions to encourage couples and help them take the next step. Here are some of them:

1. Receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. “No matter how often [we] may have rationalized it, using contraception was a sin in our marriage. In order to start anew, we needed the grace of this sacrament. This was the first and most important step for both of us…It doesn’t matter what you’ve done, where you’ve gone, or how long you’ve been away—NO sin is too great.”

2. Gain Knowledge of the Truth—Read, Read, Read! “[We] literally had to re-learn how to love each other. We didn’t know that every sexual union was meant to be a renewal of our marriage vows; we had never heard that real love is free, total, faithful, and fruitful…But when we discovered [Pope John Paul II’s] Theology of the Body, it was like finding ‘the pearl of great price’ for our marriage.” For great resources on this teaching contact One More Soul (www.omsoul.com).

3. Take a Class on Natural Family Planning. “NFP is fertility awareness that is simple, scientific, and reliable…[and] can be used either to achieve a pregnancy or to [postpone] a pregnancy when there are serious reasons for doing so.” Contact your pastor or my office for more information on the various NFP methods.

4. Remain Grounded in Sacred Scripture. “There were so many Scripture passages that strengthened me when I was afraid or confused. Two verses in particular were crucial at these times: Mark 1:17: ‘They dropped their nets and followed him.’ I knew that contraception was my ‘net,’ and I needed to drop it in order to follow Jesus. Luke 5:37: “No one pours new wine into old wineskins.” I wanted ‘new wine’ in my marriage. But in order to get that, I had to get rid of the old wineskins…The truths of these scriptures…sustained me throughout this journey. Pray for wisdom, strength, perseverance, and purity.”

Life Insight 8/15/08

The Gift of NFP

The more I learn about the human body the more in awe I am about its amazing intricacies and abilities. And the more I’m convinced that only an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God could create such an elegant creature. Of course, how could we expect any less as creatures made in His image and likeness?

For those who believe that God created us in His image and likeness, it should be no surprise that He would make the human body in a way that comports with His design for our sexuality. “In effect,” says Archbishop Joseph Naumann, “God designed a balance in our physiology that provided a natural and effective deterrent from the trivialization of sexual intimacy.”

“Hard-wired into every act of sexual intercourse,” the Archbishop says, “is both the power to create a new human life, as well as the physical expression of the total giving and sharing of oneself with another. This can only be completely authentic when a couple is ready, able, and willing to commit all of their lives to one another in the marriage covenant.”

A part of this amazing human physiology is the ability to recognize natural signs of a woman’s fertility. Although men are always fertile (assuming no pathology) women are only fertile (i.e. capable of conceiving a child) a few days out of every month.

According to “What is Natural Family Planning” by One More Soul (www.omsoul.com), modern methods of natural family planning have identified “three basic signs for identifying the fertile and infertile phases of [a woman’s monthly] cycle. The primary sign of fertility is the mucus released from the woman’s cervix. [A woman] learns to observe this normal, healthy, cervical mucus which indicates the days that intercourse is most likely to result in a pregnancy.”

“A second sign is her basal body temperature. Due to hormonal activity, a woman’s resting temperature changes during the cycle. Lower temperatures indicate that ovulation has not yet occurred. Sustained higher temperatures indicate a rise in progesterone which signals the end of the fertile time. The third sign of fertility is the change in the shape or texture of the cervix.”

“[Natural Family Planning] instruction helps a couple identify the most fertile and least fertile days of the woman’s cycle. Understanding that intercourse on fertile days can result in pregnancy, couples using the natural methods must clearly determine their family planning intention—do they wish to achieve or postpone pregnancy?”

“What are the benefits of NFP? With NFP both spouses are taught to understand the nature of fertility and work with it, whether it’s to plan a pregnancy, space children, or avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. A couple who uses NFP soon learns that they have a shared responsibility for family planning. The husband is encouraged to ‘tune into’ his wife’s cycles and both spouses are encouraged to speak openly and frankly about their sexual desires and their thoughts concerning family size.”

“Other benefits include: marriage enrichment and mutual understanding, appreciation for the blessings of every child, greater respect for and acceptance of the total person, effectiveness for spacing or limiting pregnancy, can be used throughout life—postpartum, breast-feeding, and perimenopause.”

How effective are the methods of NFP? “When couples are taught by a competent teacher and follow the rules of the method carefully, NFP is highly successful in achieving their intended family plan. Numerous studies, including one by the U.S. government, have shown that the most common NFP methods are 97-99% effective for avoiding pregnancy. That’s as effective as the birth control pill and far more effective than barrier methods.”

Where can I learn how to use NFP? There are a variety of NFP methods, each employing one or more of the three fertility signs. In Nebraska, the Couple to Couple League (www.ccli.org) and Pope Paul VI Institute’s Fertility Care Centers (www.fertilitycare.org) are the primary teachers of NFP. The simplest way to find a qualified NFP instructor is to contact your diocesan family life office (402-488-2040 or www.dioceseoflincoln.org for the Lincoln Diocese).

Life Insight 8/29/08

Voting With A Clear Conscience

Traditionally, Labor Day marks the point at which national and local elections really get fired up and when most Americans begin to tune in to various political races. Therefore, now seems an appropriate time to review how our faith guides us in exercising our right—and serious moral obligation—to vote.

Every four years the United State’s Conference of Catholic Bishops issues a document reflecting on Catholic teaching and political life. This document “highlights the role of the Church in the formation of conscience, and the corresponding moral responsibility of each Catholic to hear, receive, and act upon the Church’s teaching…With this foundation, Catholics are better able to evaluate policy positions, party platforms, and candidates’ promises and actions in light of the Gospel and the moral and social teaching of the Church in order to build a better world.”

The Bishops seek to accomplish this by addressing four questions. First, “why does the Church teach about issues affecting public policy?” “The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith,” the Bishops answer. “It is a basic part of the mission we have received from Jesus Christ…[whose] love for us lets us see our human dignity in full clarity and compels us to love our neighbors as he has loved us.”

Furthermore, the “Catholic community brings important assets to the political dialogue about our nations future. We bring a consistent moral framework—drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church—for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need…”

The second question addressed by the Bishops is “who in the Church should participate in political life?” The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “it is necessary that all participate, each according to is position and role, in promoting the common good.” “This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person” and “is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do.”

The third question is “how does the Church help the Catholic faithful to speak about political and social questions?” “The Church equips her members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience.”

“Conscience”, the bishops remind us, “is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil.”

“Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor…These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

“A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5)

The final question is “what does the Church say about Catholic social teaching in the public square?” “Catholic voters”, the Bishops say, “should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine candidates’ positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace, and they should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and performance. It is important for all citizens ‘to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 33).

My next column will provide additional insights into our call to be politically responsible citizens.

Life Insight 9/5/08

Voting With a Clear Conscience II

In last week’s column I discussed our moral obligation to vote and the role of the Church in forming our consciences to help us vote responsibly. This week I will discuss some additional responsibilities to voting with a clear conscience. These responsibilities are featured in a document produced by Priests for Life (PFL) bearing the same title as this column.

One responsibility is to know the candidates. “It is a moral obligation to do your homework to learn about the candidate[s], and the time is now, long before Election Day. Candidates have websites you can visit, campaign headquarters you can call, and literature you can read. Also, candidates who already hold elected office in which they have voted on legislation have a voting record.” The voting record of federal elected officials can be seen online at www.nchla.org (National Committee for a Human Life Amendment).

Another responsibility is to weigh the issues properly. Our bishops have taught in various Church documents that not all issues have equal moral weight. In Living the Gospel of Life, the bishops declare the following:

“Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all those areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life.

“But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit—the living house of God—then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand” (23, emphasis in original).

Another responsibility mentioned in the PFL document is to “keep your loyalty focused on Jesus.” “When you vote,” the document says, “you say something about where your loyalties are. There is nothing wrong with being loyal to a candidate or to a political party. But there is something very wrong if your loyalty to either is stronger than your loyalty to Jesus Christ.”

In Living the Gospel of Life, the U.S. Bishops point out that, “We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue—or lack thereof—is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.”

Finally, make sure that you actually vote. The General Election Day for 2008 is Tuesday, November 4^th. To be able to vote you must be properly registered. The PFL website (www.priestsforlife.org/states/index.htm) has a very convenient list of the states and their voter registration deadlines. Remember that if you have moved since the last election and live in a different precinct, you’ll need to re-register. And if you are going to be out of town, are homebound or in a nursing facility, be sure to get an absentee ballot well in advance of Election Day.

"Jesus calls you to change the world,” the PFL document reminds us, “and you can’t do that if you just sit on the sidelines while somebody else chooses your leaders who will then write the laws you have to follow! The duty to vote comes from our duty to build a better society."

Life Insight 9/12/08

The Church’s Constant Teaching on Abortion

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t the first Catholic politician to wrongly suggest that the Church’s teaching is unclear and inconsistent on the beginning of human life. And she likely won’t be the last. Thankfully, many bishops have publicly corrected her erroneous public statements to avoid any scandal.

The U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro Life Activities has gone a step further by using Pelosi’s public error as an opportunity to present the Church’s constant teaching on respect for unborn human life. In a two-page fact sheet, the Bishops point out that “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2271).

“In response to those who say this teaching has changed or is of recent origin,” this document presents the following facts (see complete fact sheet online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/constantchurchteaching.shtml):

ý From earliest times, Christians sharply distinguished themselves from surrounding pagan cultures by rejecting abortion and infanticide. The earliest widely used documents of Christian teaching and practice after the New Testament in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) and Letter of Barnabas, condemned both practices, as did early regional and particular Church councils.

ý To be sure, knowledge of human embryology was very limited until recent times. Many Christian thinkers accepted the biological theories of their time, based on the writings of Aristotle (4th century BC) and other philosophers. Aristotle assumed a process was needed over time to turn the matter from a woman’s womb into a being that could receive a specifically human form or soul. The active formative power for this process was thought to come entirely from the man – the existence of the human ovum (egg), like so much of basic biology, was unknown. However, such mistaken biological theories never changed the Church’s common conviction that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage.

ý In the 5th century AD this rejection of abortion at every stage was affirmed by the great bishop-theologian St. Augustine. He knew of theories about the human soul not being present until some weeks into pregnancy…But he also held that human knowledge of biology was very limited, and he wisely warned against misusing such theories to risk committing homicide.

ý In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas made extensive use of Aristotle’s thought, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy. But he also rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, observing that it is a sin “against nature” to reject God’s gift of a new life.

ý During these centuries, theories derived from Aristotle and others influenced the grading of penalties for abortion in Church law. Some canonical penalties were more severe for a direct abortion after the stage when the human soul was thought to be present. However, abortion at all stages continued to be seen as a grave moral evil.

ý In 1827, with the discovery of the human ovum, the mistaken biology of Aristotle was discredited. Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult. From 1869 onward the obsolete distinction between the “ensouled” and “unensouled” fetus was permanently removed from canon law on abortion.

ý Thus modern science has not changed the Church’s constant teaching against abortion, but has underscored how important and reasonable it is, by confirming that the life of each individual of the human species begins with the earliest embryo.

Life Insight 9/19/08

Opportunities to Build Civilization of Love

As Christians we take great comfort and confidence in the assurance that our Lord’s death and resurrection has defeated death once and for all. However, as is evident nearly every time one opens the newspaper or turns on the television, the battle between life and death, good and evil, rages on. Fortunately, as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was famous for saying, God does not ask us to be successful in this battle, He asks us to be faithful to Him. And, I would add, He asks us to persevere.

In the coming weeks there are several major pro-life events or activities providing Nebraskans with ample opportunities to participate in the battle against the culture of death and in building a civilization of love and life. The first opportunity begins on September 24^th with a project called 40 Days for Life.

The communities of Omaha and Lincoln are uniting with more than 170 other cities nationwide for this campaign of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion. The campaign includes prayer and fasting, a peaceful vigil at the abortion centers in Omaha and Lincoln and community outreach/education.

If you live in or close to Lincoln or Omaha, please consider joining the vigil. You can sign up online or by phone at: OMAHA: http://www.40daysforlife.com/omaha/ or 402-399-0299; LINCOLN: http://www.40daysforlife.com/lincoln/ or 402-489-7968. If you can’t join this prayer vigil in person, you can still participate by offering some form of prayer and fasting during this 40 days campaign, ending November 2^nd.

Another opportunity occurs on Sunday, October 5^th, designated as Respect Life Sunday by the United States Bishops. For more than 30 years the Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat has produced the Respect Life Program packet containing excellent educational and liturgical materials to help parishes celebrate and promote the sacred dignity of human life. Every parish receives this packet.

October 5 is also the date that millions of people around the country publicly witness on behalf of unborn babies and their mothers in a peaceful, prayerful demonstration called Life Chain. A list of participating cities and local contacts is available at http://www.lifechain.net/ .

At Masses on Respect Life Sunday, Catholics in most parishes will also have an opportunity to donate to the Virtue Media pro-life television ad project. The Bishops of Nebraska have agreed to sponsor and promote this project for a second year in their respective dioceses. Last year’s effort raised nearly $230,000 statewide which allowed us to purchase almost 9500 television ads.

These ads prompted almost 600 pregnant women to seek help from pro-life agencies, potentially saving hundreds of babies from abortion. In addition, these ads prompted more than 1100 post-abortive women to seek spiritual and emotional healing. Your generosity to this project will allow us to build on this success.

On Friday, October 10 and Saturday, October 11, an outstanding educational opportunity will occur with the annual Bishops’ Pro Life Conference in Lincoln. This year’s conference will focus heavily on the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, marriage and family life found in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in celebration of its 40^th anniversary.

On Friday at 5:30 pm, all three Bishops will concelebrate the conference’s opening Mass at St. Mary’s Church (14^th and K Sts). A 7:00 pm banquet will follow at the Cornhusker Hotel featuring Dr. Janet Smith. Dr. Smith is a nationally known expert on Humanae Vitae. More than a million copies of her talk, “Contraception: Why Not” have been distributed.

Saturday’s presentations, which are being held at Pius X High School this year, include many excellent speakers and topics. A new component to this year’s conference is a parallel pro-life conference on Saturday for high school and college students. This conference, also held at Pius X High School, will equip students to defend the pro-life position, form and sustain pro-life clubs in schools, and to live a chaste life. Registration forms for both conferences are available online at www.nebcathcon.org or by calling me at 402-477-7517.

Finally, on Tuesday, November 4, we have the privilege and moral obligation to vote. Voting for individuals who will safeguard the sacred dignity and rights of every human life, particularly the unborn, the sick and the elderly, can have a significant impact on building a civilization of love and life.

Life Insight 9/26/08

Men and Abortion

The Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows (September 15) offers an annual opportunity to focus on a form of grief that is pervasive but largely unrecognized by secular society: post-abortion grief.

According to Dr. Vincent Rue, a psychotherapist and post-abortion expert, “the best evidence indicates that a minimum of 10-30% of women who undergo an abortion report pronounced and/or prolonged psychological difficulties attributable to the abortion. These adverse psychological outcomes include guilt, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, relationship problems, substance abuse, symptoms of posttraumatic stress, and increased risk of suicide.”

In an article he wrote for this year’s Respect Life Program (“The Hollow Men”: Male Grief and Trauma Following Abortion), Dr. Rue points out that “the evidence is mounting that abortion carries serious and significant mental health risks for many women.” But what about the impact of abortion on men?, Dr. Rue asks in this article.

“How abortion impacts men is complicated by the decision-making that precedes the abortion,” he says. “Prior to a woman aborting her child, there are at least seven scenarios of male involvement:

(1) he does not know she is pregnant and she aborts without his knowledge; (2) he opposes the abortion and says so openly; (3) he knows about the pregnancy but hides his true feelings or beliefs against abortion from the woman, out of his attempt to “love” her and affirm her rights over her body; (4) he is ambivalent about abortion and simply goes along with his partner’s decision to abort; (5) he supports and encourages her decision to abort; (6) he pressures her to abort, even threatening to leave her if she doesn’t; or (7) he abandons her physically and emotionally and refuses any responsibility for her or her choices.

“For men who pressure or encourage the women they care about to have an abortion,” Rue continues, “troublesome feelings can emerge later on. If they insisted on an abortion for selfish reasons or out of fear, these men can pay a great emotional price once they recognize the reality of what an abortion is and how it has affected their partners.”

“While there is much we don’t know about men and abortion,” Dr. Rue says, “there are some 28 studies on men’s reactions to abortion that are informative. In one study, most men felt overwhelmed, with many experiencing disturbing thoughts of the abortion (Shostak & McLouth, 1984). Research evidence suggests that men are also less comfortable expressing vulnerable feelings of grief and loss, instead either saying nothing or becoming hostile.”

“Men do indeed grieve after an abortion,” Dr. Rue asserts, “but they are more likely to deny their grief or internalize their feelings of loss rather than openly express them (Coyle, 2007). Then too, in our culture men are typically discouraged from expressing their feelings. When men do express their grief, they tend to do so in culturally prescribed “masculine” ways, i.e., anger, aggressiveness, silence, control. Men typically grieve following an abortion in a private way. Because of this, men’s requests for help may often go unrecognized and unheeded by those around them.”

“Regardless of legal status,” Dr. Rue concludes, “abortion remains an intentionally caused human death experience. As such, clinical and research evidence suggest it is capable of causing significant symptoms of grief, guilt, shame and trauma. Abortion leaves indelible footprints in the texture of masculinity, in the recesses of a man’s heart, and in his reproductive history. A father is a father forever, even of a dead unborn child. In the aftermath of abortion, the real choice for men is whether to accept this biological reality, grieve the loss and seek forgiveness, or to continue denying what is inwardly known…”

This complete article can be seen online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/rue.pdf or by contacting my office. Here are some great websites on this topic: www.abortionresearch.net , www.fatherhoodforever.org , www.menandabortion.info , www.noparh.org .

Life Insight 10/03/08

Pro Choice or Pro Coercion?

The abortion industry’s attempt to cloak the violent act of abortion by calling it “choice” has long been exposed as a sinister attempt to deceive the public. The lie behind the perception that abortion advocates are all about the “freedom to choose” is laid bare by the abortion industry’s increasing attempts to force healthcare professionals and institutions to perform, counsel or refer for abortion.

The abortion industry’s “anti-choice” agenda has in recent years included several attempts to force abortion on our society. This includes trying to force Catholic hospitals and other health care institutions to perform or promote abortion; trying to force federal health plans to provide benefits for contraceptives with abortifacient properties; trying to force obstetrics and gynecology residency programs to insure abortion training for their residents.

These coercive efforts by the abortion industry are prompted largely by the increasing reluctance of doctors and other healthcare professionals and institutions to take part in abortion. The abortion industry is concerned that this trend will make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

Over the past three decades, Congress has enacted several laws to protect individuals and institutions from these coercive efforts of the abortion industry. For example, the Church Amendments, enacted in the 1970’s, protect conscience rights in various federally funded health care programs, including the right to refuse participation in abortion, sterilization, and any medical or research activity that is contrary to a person’s moral or religious convictions.

In 1996, Congress enacted an amendment to the Public Health Service Act that prevents federal, state or local governments from discriminating against health professionals, hospitals and training programs that choose not to be involved in abortion or abortion training. And since 2004, the Weldon conscience protection amendment has been attached to the annual Labor/HHS Appropriations bills ensuring that the protections of the 1996 law extend to the full range of institutional and individual health care providers. For the text of these laws, see: www.nchla.org/docdisplay.asp?ID=189

Unfortunately, even with clear conscience protection laws on the books there has been a disturbing amount of non-compliance with these laws. As a result, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed new regulations intended to increase awareness of, and compliance with, federal laws that protect health care providers’ right of conscience.

“This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. “Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree.”

“Doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel face pressure to participate in abortion – a practice that many find abhorrent in good conscience,” said Deirdre McQuaid, the U.S. Bishops’ spokeswoman on abortion. “The enforcement of federal laws designed to protect their freedom of conscience is long overdue…Organizations calling themselves ‘pro-choice’ are actually pro-coercion in seeking to deny the freedom of doctors and nurses,” McQuade said.

More information on this and other federal pro-life public policy can be seen on the website of the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment at www.nchla.org. I also urge individuals to post messages on Secretary Michael Leavitt’s blog, http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov/my_weblog/2008/08/physician-con-2.html, thanking him for his support of conscience rights and urging him to implement the strongest possible regulation.

Life Insight 10/10/08

Demagoging Stem Cell Research

Voter beware! As campaigns at every level heat up in the closing weeks of this election cycle, the rhetoric from all sides can get distorted and outrageous. Because I direct pro-life activities for the Bishops of Nebraska I am particularly tuned into what is being said about beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues.

Although abortion is a perennial “hot-button” election issue, stem cell research has joined abortion as a premier issue of contention in this year’s election—locally and nationally. Unfortunately, as with abortion, the discussion about stem cell research has been full of misinformation and demagoguery.

For example, claims have been made in public statements and advertisements suggesting that embryonic stem cell research holds the only promise of treating or curing a variety of diseases. Such a demonstrably false claim cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

First a little review. Stem cells are, like the stem of a plant, cells that have not yet branched out into other types of cells. They are capable of making a variety of other cells and of making more stem cells. Stem cells are found in the human body throughout its life cycle, from its earliest embryonic stages through adulthood.

Harvesting stem cells from human embryos (so-called “embryonic” stem cells) necessarily results in the death of these youngest human beings, which is intrinsically evil and must always be opposed. However, harvesting stem cells from humans at later stages of development (so-called “adult” or “non-embryonic” stem cells) causes no harm to the donor and is therefore ethical and praiseworthy.

Okay, now back to the false claims. One claim, particularly glaring in its inaccuracy, suggests that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise in treating Alzheimer’s disease. This claim reached a fever pitch following President Reagan’s death from Alzheimer’s. Building on comments made by Nancy Reagan in support of embryonic stem cell research, the media, elected officials and patient groups all called for a loosening of President Bush’s restrictions on federal funding of this research.

The problem is, as stem cell experts and the Alzheimer’s Association have publicly stated, Alzheimer’s disease is not likely to benefit from any type of stem cell research. In a June 10, 2004 article entitled “Stem Cells an Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer’s”, Washington Post writer Rick Weiss said this about the false hope and hype created around President Reagan’s death:

“It is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum. But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.

“It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists. ‘To start with, people need a fairy tale,’ said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. ‘Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.’”

“Here’s something simple to understand” said Chip Maxwell from the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research in a Lincoln Journal Star letter (10-5-08): “There have been no successful treatments of any conditions in humans with embryonic stem cells…There aren’t even human trials involving embryonic stem cells because in two decades of trials with lab animals, embryonic stem cells have caused tumors and other abnormalities…All successful treatments in humans”, Maxwell continued “have been with non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, which are harvested without harm to the donor.”

The extraordinary success from ethical sources of stem cells has even prompted a couple of high profile scientists to shift their research away from embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. James Thomson, a leading pioneer in ESC research and Ian Wilmut, the cloning pioneer who cloned Dolly the sheep, have shifted there research away from embryonic and cloning research and into a new ethical technique (called “induced pluripotent stem cells) that turns ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells, without creating or destroying embryos.

So as you are bombarded with endless campaign ads, beware of false claims about stem cell research. And keep this column handy in case a candidate making such claims knocks on you.

Life Insight 10-17-08
Pro Life Conferences Generate Enthusiasm
The annual Bishops’ Pro Life conference took place last weekend in Lincoln and focused on celebrating 40 years of Humanae Vitae. This encyclical, issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968, reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that the use of contraception is gravely sinful because it is contrary to God’s design for His sacred gift of sexuality.

My hope for this conference is that by focusing on the beauty, joy and even challenges of embracing God’s design for our sexuality, many Catholics would take another look—or a first look—at the Church’s teaching in this area. Fostering an understanding of, and appreciation for, God’s design for our sexuality is foundational for our efforts to promote respect for human life.

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said “[i]t is and illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection…The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life.”

Dr. Janet Smith, the conference keynoter, provided much insight into the sociological and theological genesis of Humanae Vitae. Dr. Smith, who teaches moral theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, has spent much of her life studying the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, marriage and family life and sharing this beautiful and compelling teaching to countless souls.

Sr. Renee Mirkes, Director of the Center for NaproEthics at the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha connected the dots between contraception and other social ills in one of her talks. Susan Wills from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office followed Sr. Renee with compelling evidence refuting the often-repeated argument that greater access to contraception will reduced unintended pregnancy and abortion. Some of the awesome data from her talk is online at: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet0207.shtml and www.concernedparents.com

One of the most well received presentations was a panel that featured two married couples who practice natural family planning, two doctors (one who has never prescribed contraception and one who used to) and a pharmacist. All of the panelists discussed the joys and challenges of living the Church’s teaching on human sexuality and contraception.

One of the most exciting aspects to this year’s conference was the parallel pro-life conference for high school and college students. Three weeks prior to the conference I had only 3 students signed up, causing me some concern. In the end, however, more than 150 students attended this conference—an extraordinary response for our first youth pro-life conference and hopefully the genesis of an exciting new youth pro-life movement.

Annie Casselman and John Jansen from Generations for Life led this conference providing compelling information and engaging activities. John kicked to conference off with powerful pro-life responses to the common pro-abortion arguments. Annie then gave the students a wealth of practical information on how to activate students and form or revitalize pro-life clubs in schools. Annie finished up with helpful advice on how to live chaste lives.

All of the talks from the adult and youth conferences were recorded (except Janet Smith’s) and are available for purchase through Florian Audiovisual at 1-785-658-2375. Individual CDs of the adult conference talks are $10.50 (the complete set is $44.00). The youth conference was videotaped with individual DVDs costing $15.00 (the complete set is $39.00). I highly recommend getting a set of both conference talks and promoting them in your parish.

Life Insight 10/24/08

Fatalism or Impoverished Faith

   “Sometimes election years produce more policy myths than good ideas. This year one myth is about abortion,” says Richard Doerflinger from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Secretariat. “It goes like this: The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is here to stay, and that’s fine because laws against abortion don’t reduce abortions much anyway. Rather, ‘support for women and families’ will greatly reduce abortions, without changing the law or continuing a ‘divisive’ abortion debate” (Life Issues Forum, 10/15/08)

        Mr. Doerflinger is referring to public statements being made by Catholics, such as Duquesne University law professor Nicholas Cafardi who said Catholics have, as a matter of law, “lost the abortion battle…and I believe that we have lost it permanently.” Therefore, he suggests, we should quit working to make abortion illegal and just work through government to reduce the number of abortions.

        Richard Gaillardetz, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Toledo said this in an article in the September 27 issue of the Toledo Blade: “Many Catholics…have made the reversal of Roe. v. Wade bear the full weight of Catholic opposition to abortion. They have also made opposition to Roe v. Wade a veritable litmus test for Catholic orthodoxy. These Catholics have confused principle for implementation and have conveniently overlooked the fact that in over 30 years…opposition to Roe v. Wade has not brought about any discernable reduction in abortions at all.”

        Doerflinger debunks some of the false claims made to bolster this myth. For example, some wrongly claim that “over three-quarters of women having abortions cite expense as the most important factor in their decision.” The actual figure is less than one-fourth, 23%. This false statistic is used to suggest that simply expanding the social safety net for poor women will reduce abortions.

        “It is said,” Doerflinger continues, “that abortion rates declined dramatically (30%) during the Clinton years, but the decline stopped under the ostensibly pro-life Bush administration. Actually the abortion rate has dropped 30% from 1981 to 2005; the decline started 12 years before Clinton took office, and has continued fairly steadily to the present day.”

        Susan Wills, Mr. Doerflinger’s colleague at the Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat, debunked another major myth about factors responsible for reducing abortion: increased contraceptive use. “Between 1984 and 2004,” she says, “the abortion rate for girls under 18 plummeted more than 60%. Rates for 18- and 19-year-olds dropped 48%. The decline tapers off for women in their 20s and rates actually increase among women over 30.

        “Are teens using more and better contraception than older women? Ridiculous. Teen use of oral contraceptives has not changed in over 12 years: only 1 in 6 teen couples relies on the pill, and miniscule percentages use the more effective implants or shots. Furthermore, as used by teens, pills have a high failure (pregnancy) rate of 13% (over 12 months), rising to a 48% failure rate among cohabiting teens.”

        The more likely driver of the decline in abortions among teens, Ms Wills points out, is that the number of sexually active teens has declined by 15 percent. “One study,” she cites, “finds abstinence responsible for two-thirds of the decline in teen pregnancy from 1991 to 1995.”

        Mr. Doerflinger points out that a number of restrictions on abortion over the years has reduced abortions. For example, following the implementation of the Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortion, the number of federally funded abortions went from 300,000 a year to nearly zero. Doerflinger also cites the “rigorous research” of Dr. Michael New showing that other modest restrictions on abortion such as informed consent and parental involvement laws significantly reduce abortions.

        Certainly, the objective of the pro-life movement is not merely to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable. We absolutely must address all of the underlying social problems that drive women to the violence of abortion. But this alone will not satisfy the demands of justice that every human being be recognized and protected in law.

        Those who subscribe to the fatalistic view that the battle against the evil of abortion is lost have become impoverished in their faith. Our faith teaches that our Lord has defeated death, once and for all, although the battle between good and evil continues. Our role isn’t to defeat death but to persevere and be faithful in proclaiming His truth with love. Those who give up in this effort have given into the wickedness and snares of the devil.

Life Insight 10-31-08

Pray, Fast and Vote

This coming Tuesday, November 4, is General Election day in our nation. Citizens of our nation will choose who will be the next president and who will represent us in federal, state and local offices. The privilege we have of choosing our leaders is a right for which millions of our fellow citizens have fought and died.

Our Catholic faith teaches us that we have a serious moral obligation to use our vote to advance the common good. “The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. . .” (USCCB, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, nos. 33-34).

Past elections have demonstrated that a shameful percentage of citizens do not exercise this right and moral responsibility. Perhaps many fail in this responsibility because of carelessness or because of cynicism. Neither of these excuses will hold up when we account before God how we used the gifts He gave us to safeguard His sacred gift of human life.

Our faith not only teaches the importance of voting, but voting with a properly formed conscience. “Conscience”, our Bishops point out, “is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do.

“Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the truths of our faith.” “At the center of these truths,” the Bishops continue, “is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, November 2007, #10, #17).

In the few days remaining before Election Day, I urge everyone (assuming you didn’t vote early) to study the positions of the candidates, giving appropriate weight to their views on such intrinsic evils as abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. For most candidates these and other positions can be found in the Nebraska Catholic Conferences candidate survey which appeared in the last issue of this newspaper and can be seen online at www.nebcathcon.org.

Equally important in the remaining days is our prayer and fasting for God’s mercy on our nation and that He will give us virtuous leaders who will safeguard the rights and dignity of every human person, from conception to natural death. Bishop Robert Finn, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO urges the invoking of Mary in this month of the Rosary. And, since this is also the month of the Angels, to invoke “the Guardian Angels of the 47 million babies lost through abortion in our country in the last thirty-five years”

Another consideration is this prayer from Fr. Frank Pavone at Priests for Life: “O God, we acknowledge you today as Lord, not only of individuals, but of nations and governments. We thank you for the privilege of being able to organize ourselves politically and of knowing that political loyalty does not have to mean disloyalty to you.

We thank you for your law, which our Founding Fathers acknowledged and recognized as higher than any human law. We thank you for the opportunity that this election year puts before us, to exercise our solemn duty not only to vote, but to influence countless others to vote, and to vote correctly.

Lord, we pray that your people may be awakened. Let them realize that while politics is not their salvation, their response to you requires that they be politically active.

Awaken your people to know that they are not called to be a sect fleeing the world but rather a community of faith renewing the world.

Awaken them that the same hands lifted up to you in prayer are the hands that pull the lever in the voting booth; that the same eyes that read your Word are the eyes that read the names on the ballot, and that they do not cease to be Christians when they enter the voting booth.

Awaken your people to a commitment to justice to the sanctity of marriage and the family, to the dignity of each individual human life, and to the truth that human rights begin when human lives begin, and not one moment later. Lord, we rejoice today that we are citizens of your kingdom. May that make us all the more committed to being faithful citizens on earth. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

Life Insight 11-7-08

Abortion Extremism

I have recently written in this column about the dishonesty of the “pro-choice” label. Even a child can figure out that this term is nothing more than a cowardly euphemism for abortion. But beyond the fact that this term is intended to cloak the ugliness of killing unborn children, advocates of the “freedom to choose” continually demonstrate that they represent the antithesis of choice.

One recent example was the abortion industry’s vehement opposition to new federal regulations to ensure that current laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers are not violated. Logic would dictate that those who supposedly defend a woman’s “right to choose” an abortion would also defend a health care workers right to not participate in abortion. Instead, as Richard Doerflinger (from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office) pointed out, “they condemned this modest regulation as a direct and unprecedented attack on ‘access’ to ‘reproductive health care.’”

Now, those same advocates of “choice” are pushing to for the enactment of the deceptively named Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This act, Cardinal Justin Rigali pointed out in his letter to Congress, “would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry.” Cardinal Rigali is Chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Committee.

“FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars,” the Cardinal continued, and “would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.” No matter how you look at it, calling this measure the “Freedom of Choice Act” does not pass the truth in advertising test.

As Cardinal Rigali outlined in his letter, there are two key provisions to FOCA. “First it creates a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons. No government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this newly created federal right.

Making abortion a “fundamental right” would be more extreme than our current abortion law. Although Roe v. Wade made abortion a “fundamental right” (the highest, most protected right we have in the U.S.), the Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling rejected this view.

The Casey ruling made it possible for states to pass modest and widely supported abortion regulations such as informed consent and parental involvement laws. By making abortion a “fundamental right”, FOCA would wipe out these laws.

“Second, it forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.’ For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”

According to an analysis of FOCA by Michael Moses (associate general counsel for the U.S. Bishops), in legal terms to “discriminate” means to treat differently. “Thus,” he says, “legislation that funds childbirth or other health services but not abortion, public hospitals that provide services related to childbirth but not abortion, and public benefits that pay for childbirth but not abortion—all of these treat abortion differently and therefore could be said to ‘discriminate.’”

By the time you read this column our nation will know who its next president will be. If it is Barack Obama, our nation will be in grave danger of having FOCA forced upon us. In a speech to Planned Parenthood last year, Sen. Obama promised that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Of course, it would have to pass Congress first and I can assure you there will be an unprecedented campaign to defeat this abortion extremism.

So stay tuned, and in the meantime check out the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office website (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/) for more information on this abhorrent expression of the culture of death.

Life Insight 11-14-08

Post-Election Thoughts

Efforts to defend the dignity of the human person took it on the chin on General Election Day 2008. Several states rejected pro-life ballot measures including parental notification before abortion (California), and a ban on abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother (South Dakota). Conversely, two states passed anti-life measures with Washington becoming the second state to legalize assisted suicide and Michigan legalizing embryonic stem cell research.

The toughest blow, however, was the election of a president whose own words and actions promise to expand and further entrench the abortion license in our nation. I will readily acknowledge that the election our nation’s first black president is a notable achievement in the struggle for civil rights. However, it is incredibly sad and ironic that the standard bearer of this achievement, Barack Obama, has a seriously impoverished understanding of human rights.

In a public forum last summer, Sen. Obama was asked: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama said, “answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” How genuine can his claims be to defend the human rights of Americans if he doesn’t know when they begin?

Equally sad and ironic is the fact that our nation’s first black president, whose race was once excluded from full personhood under our Constitution, promises to ensure this same fate for another category of human beings: the unborn. Sen. Obama publicly stated his intention as president to only appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who will uphold Roe v. Wade’s exclusion of the unborn from legal recognition and protection.

Obama’s transition team has also confirmed that one of the first acts of his administration will be to overturn current pro-life executive orders. One of those executive orders is the Mexico City Policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries. Another is President Bush’s policy restricting the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

On the latter policy, it should be noted that Sen. Obama was one of a few U.S. senators who opposed a bill that would have provided a modest amount of federal money to find alternatives to embryonic stem cells for research. This kind of extremism prompted Princeton professor Robert George (a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics) to conclude in a recent article that “It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.”

Helen Alvare (former spokeswoman for the U.S. Bishops on abortion) pointed out that as a Presidential candidate, Obama promised Planned Parenthood in a July 17, 2007 address that the “first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” “This is overwhelming on its face,” Ms. Alvare said. “Among all the first statements about the meaning of his historic presidency a President Obama could choose, it would be this: an expanded abortion license.”

The election of a president who has promised a well-documented agenda of abortion extremism has caused many pro-lifers to despair. My response to the numerous calls and e-mails is to remind distraught pro-lifers of the assurance of our faith that our Lord defeated death once and for all. Death cannot win out over life.

Evil does, however, still exist and God expects us to oppose it—zealously, faithfully and without ceasing. We must turn all negative energy into positive prayer for the conversion of Barack Obama and into a fierce and massive resistance of his pro-abortion agenda. All who profess to be pro-life, particularly those who voted for Barack Obama (presumably in spite of his pro-abortion agenda), will carry a serious responsibility to do this.

In the coming weeks, my office will devote much effort to expand and energize our Catholic pro-life grass-roots. If you haven’t been active in the pro-life cause, there’s never been a more critical time to make your voice heard. A simple way for you to become engaged is to join Nebraska Catholics for Life by calling my office (402-477-7517) or by going online to http://www.nebcathcon.org/ncl.htm.

Life Insight 11-28-08

Materialism Impoverishes Our View of Others

Our nation’s recent financial crisis has caused me to reflect on the materialism of our culture—including my own spending habits. It has always amazed me how my spending always seems to match—and sometimes exceed—my income. Until a recent attitude adjustment, I frequently found a way to convince myself that purchases of “want” were actually purchases of “need.”

Materialism or consumerism can really be infectious; you know that whole “keeping up with the Jones’” nonsense. But materialism does more than impoverish us financially; it can also impoverish our view of other human beings.

In Evangelium Vitae (no. 23), Pope John Paul II discussed the role of materialism as a root cause of what he called the “culture of death.” He said that materialism is a consequence of man’s alienation from God, and he said it “breeds individualism, utilitarianism and hedonism.” To punctuate his point, JP II cites the words of St. Paul: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (Rom. 1:23).
Materialism, John Paul II says, means that the “values of being are replaced by those of having. The only goal which counts is the pursuit of one’s own material well-being. The so-called ‘quality of life’ is interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, to the neglect of the more profound dimensions—interpersonal, spiritual and religious—of existence.”

In other words, when the pursuit of material goods dominates our life, we interpret having many things as a good quality of life and having few things as a bad quality of life. Those who contribute to the production of goods are useful and productive members of society. Those who can’t contribute (due to physical or mental limitations) or who place demands on our time and treasure are viewed as burdens that impede our pursuit of material things.

In this “materialistic perspective”, John Paul II says, “interpersonal relations are seriously impoverished. The first to be harmed are women, children, the sick or suffering, and the elderly. The criterion of personal dignity—which demands respect, generosity and service—is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: Others are considered not for what they ‘are,’ but for what they ‘have, do and produce.’ This is the supremacy of the strong over the weak.”

It has occurred to me that God could be using our nation’s financial crisis to get our attention and to prompt our reflection on the priorities in our life. Can we live more simply? Are we too fixated on the pursuit of material goods? Are we working extra hard (sacrificing family or volunteer time) to meet our needs or to pursue our wants? Could we sacrifice more of our financial excess to help others with basic needs rather than indulge our wants?

As we give thanks this year for all of God’s blessings it is also a good time for us to reflect on these questions. As Pope John Paul II explained, abandoning materialism and getting our individual and national financial priorities in order has implications not only for our fiscal health. More importantly, it has implications for how we and our nation view the human person.

Life Insight 12-5-08

Nebraska Abortions Continue Steep Decline

The 2007 annual report of abortions in Nebraska was released recently by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services and there is some encouraging news. Although there were 2,481 unborn babies killed by abortion in 2007, this represents a fifteen percent decline from last year’s total of 2,927.

For a little more perspective, there were 38 percent fewer abortions in Nebraska in 2007 than just five years ago and a whopping 61 percent fewer abortions than the all-time high of 6,346 abortions in 1990. Another encouraging statistic in the 2007 report is the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) which was 91.5. This is the lowest abortion ratio on record and a 65 percent decline from the highest ratio of 257.7, also in 1990.

Among the saddest statistics in this report is the fact that fifteen young women had abortions at the age of fourteen. And 388 young women between the ages of 15 and 19 had abortions. Every year since 1974, the largest percentage of abortions has been committed on women between the ages of 20 and 29. In 1974, the percentage of abortions in this age group was 44.7; in 2007, the percentage was 57.9.

Over those same years, the percentage of women having abortions who were younger or older than the 20-29 age group has shifted. In 1974, women under the age of 20 comprised 40.8 percent of all abortions while women over the age of 29 comprised 14.5 percent. In 2007, the 20 and under group comprised just 16.2 percent of all abortions while women aged 30 and over comprised 25.9 percent of the abortions.

The reasons given for these abortions may surprise many people. Public opinion polls suggest that the majority of Americans believe that most abortions are done for the so-called “hard cases” of rape, incest and life of the mother. This has never been the case. In fact, the number of abortions done for these three reasons combined has never exceeded one percent of the abortions committed in any year since 1974. The overwhelming majority of women (ranging from 53 to 99 percent) cite social/economic factors as a primary reason for their abortion.

Other revealing statistics included under the “reason for abortion” section have to do with contraceptive use. Nearly half (45%) of those having abortions said that they were not using contraception. And 623 women cited “contraceptive failure” as a reason for their abortion. Assuming that 55 percent of the women were using contraception, that means that nearly half (46%) of them had a “contraceptive failure”.

These statistics seem to debunk the assertion by abortion advocates that greater accessibility to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. After all, it is hard to imagine a society more saturated with contraceptive drugs, devices and indoctrination and yet nearly half of all women seeking abortion are not using contraception and nearly half of those who used it still got pregnant.

Another very sad statistic in this report is the number of women who have had multiple abortions. For the last twelve years, between 30 and 40 percent of women having abortions have had one or more previous abortion. In 2007, 250 women had two or more previous abortions; four of them had more than four previous abortions. The high mark for repeat abortions was in 1994 when 55.4 percent of those having abortions had a previous abortion(s).

Finally, one statistic in these annual reports suggests that the abortion industry has become increasingly marginalized. In 1974, thirty physicians did abortions compared to five in 2007. Over these years, the vast majority of abortions were committed by a few abortionists in free-standing abortion facilities, with the rest done by physicians in hospitals mostly.

In 2007, all but ten abortions were done in two abortion facilities: 734 at Planned Parenthood’s abortion center in Lincoln and 1,737 at Leroy Carhart’s abortion center in Bellevue. The complete 2007 abortion report is online at http://www.hhss.ne.gov/srd/ABORTION2007RPT.PDF.

Many in our society have become numb to these abortion statistics, failing to internalize the fact that each number represents a dead unborn child, a wounded mother, father and society. Few things humanize these statistics more than being physically present at one of these abortion centers as women enter. Some people come to pray; others try to assure the women that alternatives are available and realistic.

I encourage everyone who can to spend a little time at one of these two abortion facilities, either in prayer or as a “sidewalk counselor” if you are so inclined. If this is not possible, your prayers and sacrifices can be offered in solidarity with those on the front lines in this battle against the culture of death.

Life Insight 12-12-08

Will Embryo Research Expand in Nebraska?

One of the disturbing campaign promises made by President-Elect Barack Obama was to overturn President Bush’s restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). President Bush’s policy, which he communicated in a television address on August 9, 2001, only allows federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells obtained prior to that date.

The President’s rationale for this policy was that it would allow some funding of ESCR without using federal money to actually destroy human embryos. This is because the act of destroying the human embryos to obtain their stem cells had occurred prior to the time President Bush established his policy.

From the moment President Bush established this policy, many researchers and elected officials denounced him for not allowing federal funds to be used to destroy human embryos and “harvest” new stem cells for research. President-Elect Obama has promised to do just that, and some say he will effect this change in policy on his first day or two in office.

So if Barack Obama follows through on this campaign promise, what will that mean for embryonic stem cell research in Nebraska? To answer this question, a review of current Nebraska policy is in order.

In 2001, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents adopted a policy that allows the “derivation and use” of stem cells from human embryos “remaining after infertility treatments”. In other words, this policy allows researchers at the University’s Medical Center in Omaha to destroy human embryos solely for the purpose of obtaining their stem cells as long as the embryos are fertility clinic “leftovers” no longer wanted by their parents.

The University policy does not, however, allow researchers to harvest stem cells from human embryos produced solely for research purpose; nor does it allow the harvesting or use of human embryonic stem cells from embryos produced using somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning).

Another key provision of the University’s stem cell policy requires researchers to “follow all federal regulations and guidelines applicable to the derivation and/or use of human [embryonic stem] cells.” This means that even though University policy allows the destruction and use of fertility clinic embryos, researchers at the Med Center have been limited to using embryonic stem cells approved under President Bush’s 2001 policy.

In addition to the University’s policy, the Nebraska Legislature had something to say earlier this year about embryonic stem cell and cloning research. The Legislature enacted LB 606 which prohibits the use of state facilities and funds for research that destroys human embryos or involves the cloning of human embryos.

This state law overrides the University’s policy which allows the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells. Hence, even if Obama’s new policy allows the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos, state facilities and funds in Nebraska are prohibited by state law from doing so.

However, LB 606 did not prohibit state facilities from conducting embryonic stem cell research, per se. Consequently, if Obama’s policy allows federal funding of embryonic stem cells harvested since 2001, the University’s policy will also allow research on these new stem cells, so long as the human embryos from which the cells came were not produced solely for research purposes.

All of this means that the University’s Board of Regents will now be the focus of those who oppose any expansion of ESCR in Nebraska. Following the election of Tim Clare to the Board of Regents, there is now a majority of Regents who have said that they oppose the expansion of ESCR at the Med Center. However, they will face enormous pressure by Med Center bureaucrats and researchers to allow ESCR to expand.

Given the fact that some of our nation’s most prominent scientists are shifting their research away from ESCR and toward other promising and ethically sound research, it is mystifying that our University’s Med Center seems hell-bent on expanding ESCR. Pro life Nebraskans need to let their representative on the Board of Regents know that such a move is unacceptable.

Life Insight 12-19-08

“You will be like gods”

In the third chapter of Genesis, the “fall of man” is described as a serpent tempting Eve to eat from the tree in disobedience to God’s command. “You certainly will not die,” the serpent said. “No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad” (Gen. 3, 4-5).

The decision by our first parents to acquiesce to this temptation to “be like gods” brought death into the world. Soon thereafter, death came into our world in a violent way when Cain killed his brother Abel. The progeny of these acts has been a bloody history of man killing man.

It is hard to imagine a more serious offense against God than the willful destruction of human life made in His image and likeness. However, I think we are witnessing a more serious offense as modern man attempts to use science to transgress further into God’s domain as the Author of Life—to be like gods.

Some years ago in the aftermath of the cloning of the sheep named Dolly, a physicist from Chicago, Dr. Richard Seed, announced that he wanted to be the first person to clone a human being. In an interview with World magazine (1/17/98) he was quoted as saying, “We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.”

More than ten years after Dr. Seed made this arrogant comment no one has yet succeeded in cloning an embryonic human being—but some scientists are still trying to do so, at least for use in research. And in Britain, its Parliament recently approved (overwhelmingly) a bill that allows the cloning of human/animal embryos for use in research.

Furthermore, this bill allows the creation of so-called “savior siblings” to be used as tissue donors for sick siblings and permits the genetic manipulation of human embryos for eugenic purposes. According to a report in Lifesite News (10/22/08), “it was also revealed that the government plans to use the bill to allow the creation of human clones from tissues taken from mentally incapacitated patients who cannot give consent.”

These examples of science untethered from basic ethical principles are among the reasons why the Vatican recently issued “Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions” (“The dignity of a person”). According to a summary document produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, “All the conclusions of the document are based on the inherent dignity of each and every human person, from conception to natural death, and the need for all technology and other human activity to respect that dignity.”

Issued by the Catholic Church’s highest doctrinal agency, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the document applies “timeless moral principles to some new issues and situations arising from biotechnology,” the Pro-Life Office summary says. “The Instruction updates and reaffirms the conclusions of the Congregation’s earlier Instruction of 1987, Donum Vitae...on reproductive technologies and embryo experimentation, and discusses more fully the threat of human cloning.”

Dignitas Personae goes beyond in vitro fertilization and cloning to address other related ethical dilemmas such as embryo adoption, abortifacient drugs and devices, gene therapy, genetic enhancement/designer babies, new techniques for embryonic stem cells, human/animal hybrid embryos and use of unethically obtained cells and tissues.

Many in our society will undoubtedly see this document as nothing but a series of “thou shall not’s”. In fact, the document says yes to all science and medicine that protects the inherent dignity of the human person. This includes fertility treatments like those provided at the Pope Paul VI Institute which “overcome or correct pathologies and succeed in re-establishing the normal functioning of human procreation.”

The only “no’s” you will find in Dignitas Personae will be attached to actions that attack or threaten the basic right to life or that directly assault normal procreation within the bonds of a loving marriage.

Many in our society (including many Catholics) have been seduced by the temptation to “be like gods” when it comes to the generation, suppression or manipulation of human life. Through His bride, the Church, Our Lord is reminding us in Dignitas Personae that only by following His plan for our lives will we be truly free, fulfilled and at peace. The entire text of this document can be seen online at www.usccb.org.