THE CONFERENCE:

Candidate Survey (11/2006)

Legislative Issues

NCC/Publications:

  -NCC Statements &

   Current Issues

Medical Treat-      ment Decision-

making (1/06)

  -Bishops' Statements

    *Behavioral Health

     Statement (2/05)

  -Capitol 

   Correspondent:

    Columns-2007

    Past Columns

  *********

PRO LIFE:

Calendar of Events

Current Issues

NE Catholics for Life

  -NCL Newsletter

  -A People of Life Brochure

Life Insight: 

  Columns-2008

  Past Columns

Preg. Help Centers

Project Rachel

2008 PL Conference

2007 PL Conference

Student Conference

Walk for Life 2008

Printed Resources

*********

Education Issues:

The NFCSP

Education/Legislation

Action Alerts!!

Newsletter: 

 Parent Advocate

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

Life Insight 2001

By Greg Schleppenbach, Part II - July-December

Life Insight 07-13-01  President Bush:  Don't Fund Research that Kills Human Beings

Life Insight 07-27-01  Embryonic Stem Cell Issue Continues to Heat Up

Life Insight 08-10-01  A Jaundiced View of Church Teaching

Life Insight 08-24-01  President Bush's Stem Cell Decision:  What Does It Mean?

Life Insight 09-14-01  Pro Life Legislation in Congress-Update

Life Insight 09-21-01  A Culture of Life Responds to Evil

Life Insight 09-28-01  October Is Respect Life Month

Life Insight 10-05-01  Contemplation Essential to Forming a New Culture of Human Life

Life Insight 10-12-01  Practical Ways to Help Build a Culture of Life and Love

Life Insight 10-19-01  Knowing Where Medical Charities Stand on Life Issues

Life Insight 10-26-01  Some Positive Developments in Thwarting the Culture of Death

Life Insight 11-02-01  End-of-Life Decision-making and Catholic Teaching

Life Insight 11-09-01  Federal Pro-Life Legislative Update

Life Insight 11-16-01  Another Blow to the Practice Assisted Suicide

Life Insight 11-23-01  Thank You God!

Life Insight 11-30-01  Seeking and Destroying the Disabled

Life Insight 12-07-01  The Problem with Human Cloning

Life Insight 12-14-01  Let Us Make Mary's Fiat Our Own

Life Insight 12-21-01  Christmas Reveals Full Meaning of Every Human Birth

Life Insight 7-13-01

President Bush: Don’t Fund Research that Kills Human Beings

President Bush is facing the first real test of his pro-life convictions. He must decide whether or not to allow federal funds to go to research that involves killing embryonic human beings. The research is called embryonic stem cell research. In simplest terms, stem cells are the cells from which all of our organs and tissues form. Hence, they are viewed as having great potential for regenerating diseased or damaged tissue and organs resulting from diseases like Alzheimers, Parkinsons, diabetes, etc.

However, there’s a very big ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research—harvesting these stem cells from embryos necessarily results in the death of the embryo. The embryos used in this research come from in vitro fertilization clinics where human beings are made (immorally) in petri dishes and implanted in the wombs of women who are having trouble getting pregnant. In the U.S. alone, there are an estimated 100,000 human embryos—frozen for preservation—who are no longer wanted by their parents.

Some say since these tiny human beings would be thawed and destroyed anyway, killing them for potentially beneficial research is morally acceptable. But if that rationale is acceptable, then what would prevent us from experimenting on terminally ill persons (who will die soon anyway) or for that matter any human being (since we will all die eventually)?

Since 1996, the federal government has prohibited federal funding of research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed". In January 1999, the Clinton Administration circumvented the law by allowing federal funds to be used for research on embryonic stem cells as long as private funds are used to harvest the cells (i.e. to kill the embryos). President Bush, who has stated repeatedly that he opposes embryonic stem cell research, must now decide whether to rescind the Clinton policy.

If he’s stated repeatedly that he’s opposed to embryo-destructive research then his decision should be a "no brainer" right? Well, not exactly. The president’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson (who had a generally pro-life record as Governor of Wisconsin and who overseas federal funding of research) supports the research. On top of that, several members of Congress who have pretty strong pro-life voting records (Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Charles Grassley, Sen Trent Lott, etc.) have spoken out in favor of this research and the scientific community is putting enormous pressure on the president to fund this research.

The president needs to hear from as many individuals as possible that it is unacceptable to kill innocent human beings for the benefit of other human beings, no matter how promising any research may be. Calls need to be made immediately as the president is expected to make a decision within the next couple of weeks. The White House comment line is (202) 456-1111 (calls must be made between 8 am and 4 pm, central time). Ask the president to rescind the National Institutes of Health guidelines for research that requires destroying human embryos for their stem cells.

Those who have access to the internet can also express their views to the president by signing an online petition sponsored by the Do No Harm Coalition (www.stemcellresearch.org/petition) or by signing a printed version available through my office (402-477-7517). Those interested in learning more about the embryonic stem cell debate can find a wealth of information on the internet at www.stemcellresearch.org or www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic. Those who don’t have access to the internet can call my office for further information.

It only takes a few minutes to register your opposition to embryo-destructive research, but your action could make the difference in this effort to forestall another devastating blow to the sacredness of human life.

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

Life Insight 7-27-01

Embryonic Stem Cell Issue Continues to Heat Up

As we await a decision by President Bush on whether he will allow federal funding of research that directly kills embryonic human beings, the debate continues to heat up. Two weeks ago our Nebraska Congressional delegation was queried by the local media regarding their positions on this issue. Most responses were disappointing, but I still have some hope that they will do the right thing and oppose federal funding of embryo-destructive research.

According to local media reports, Senator Ben Nelson says he supports the research with restrictions (none of which overcome the immorality of the research). Senator Chuck Hagel has said he’ll wait until President Bush announces his decision before he makes up his mind. Representative Tom Osborne said "it’s a very complicated issue" and is still looking into the science of the stem cell therapies. Representative Doug Bereuter has not yet announced his position. Representative Lee Terry said in the report he was undecided, but subsequent calls to his office revealed that the report was inaccurate and he is opposed to the research.

Nationally, there are 61 senators on record in support of embryo-destructive research. Some of these senators have very strong pro-life voting records, which makes their support—and rationalizations—for this research all the more disappointing and disturbing. Sen. Hatch, for example, rationalized that the embryo in a petri dish is not the same as a fetus in a womb.

Sen. Bennett, after studying the in vitro fertilization process his daughter went through, said "I have learned that all embryos are not created equal; some are healthy enough to have a chance of survival and some are not. Our daughter's doctors were able to determine, in advance of implantation, which embryos were healthy enough to survive. Those that were not were discarded." Never has the statement, "with friends like these, who needs enemies" had more relevant application.

It is mystifying and ominous when pro-life stalwarts like these use the same arguments to justify embryo-destructive research that have been used for decades to justify abortion. I cannot imagine a more vivid example of the moral confusion that is sown by the prince of darkness.

In my last column I encouraged individuals to write to President Bush on this issue. Now I ask you to write to our two senators and to your representative and urge them to oppose federal funding of embryo-destructive research. (Hagel—346 Russell Bldg; Nelson—Dirksen B40-5, Washington D.C. 20510) (Terry—1728 Longworth; Bereuter—2184 Rayburn; Osborne—507 Cannon, Washington D.C. 20515). If President Bush forbids funding of this research, action will be taken in Congress to overturn his decision. What follows is some information from the letter I wrote to our congressman. Feel free to use any of it in your letters.

The Ethical Dimensions

Rationalization 1: "Excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics are going to be destroyed anyway." If this rationale is legitimate for prenatal human beings, what would prevent using this rationale to experiment on born human beings, such as death row inmates or terminally ill persons, "who are going to die anyway"—other than a belief that prenatal human beings are morally inferior to born human beings?

What’s more, these embryos are not necessarily going to be destroyed. Today, parents can preserve "excess" embryos for future pregnancies as well as donate them to other couples. In a recent study, 59% of parents who initially planned to discard their embryos after three years later changed their minds, choosing another pregnancy or donation to infertile couples [New England Journal of Medicine, July 5, 2001].

Rationalization 2: "An embryo in a petri dish is not the same as a fetus in a mother’s womb". "Pro life" individuals (like Sen. Hatch) who say this must know that a similar rationalization (a fetus in the womb is not the same as a born person) is the basis of support for legal abortion. Certainly there are physical differences (size and appearance) between an early stage embryo and a fetus, just as there are between a fetus and an adult.

But modern science is unambiguous and irrefutable on the biological fact that when a human ovum is fertilized with a human sperm cell (regardless of where fertilization takes place), a new human being exists. For example, the embryology textbook used at the University of Nebraska Medical Center says that a "zygote [embryo] is the beginning of a new human being" and "marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6^th edition)

Moreover, that there is no moral distinction between prenatal and born human beings should be apparent to anyone who professes to be "pro-life." What is the basis of opposition to abortion if it is not a belief in the moral equality of ALL human beings, regardless of size, circumstance or residence?

The Scientific Dimensions

Proponents of embryo-destructive research are trying to present a perception that if the federal government doesn’t fund this research, cures for various diseases will not be found or will be delayed. Those who morally oppose such research are viewed as uncaring or calloused toward those who suffer from various diseases. The good news, which needs to be communicated to those afflicted with disease and their advocacy groups, is that we need not choose between basic ethical principles and pursuing promising medical research.

Although it has been largely ignored by the dominant media, there ARE promising (arguably more promising) alternatives to embryo-destructive research. Adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have already helped hundreds of thousands of patients, and new clinical uses expand almost weekly. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have not helped a single human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit.

But even if there were no alternatives to embryo-destructive research, there can be no justification to killing some human beings for the benefit of other human beings. If we further exploit human beings for utilitarian purposes, any medical benefit or alleviation of suffering that may result will be far outweighed by the moral and social detriment that will result from that exploitation. Surely this detriment is evident to anyone familiar with the medical abuses in the 20^th century alone.

Public Opinion

Much attention has been given to a biased and misleading ABC News poll claiming to show majority support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (including a majority of Catholics). There is, however, a major problem with this poll: it simply asked people whether they support "stem cell research". Like most polls on this subject, it did not distinguish between stem cells that come from ethical sources such as adult tissue, placentas, or umbilical cord blood and stem cells obtained by killing human embryos.

When Americans are asked if the government should fund stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, 70% of Americans say "NO". And when choosing between funding stem cell research including embryonic stem cells vs. stem cell research without embryonic stem cells, Americans support the latter approach 67% to 18%. (International Communications Research, June 8, 2001.

The inescapable conclusion in the debate over research involving the destruction of prenatal human beings is that every argument in support of such research is predicated upon a view that embryonic human beings are inferior to born human beings and don’t deserve the ethical and legal protections we afford born human subjects. After all, if it is wrong to kill born human beings for the purpose of research (regardless of their condition or situation), then either it is wrong to do likewise with prenatal human beings or prenatal human beings aren’t morally equal. Support for research that involves the destruction of prenatal human beings is incompatible with the fundamental pro-life belief that all prenatal human beings are morally equal to born human beings.

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

Life Insight 8-10-01

A Jaundiced View of Church Teaching

July 25, 2001 marked the 33^rd anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This important document reaffirmed and proclaimed the Church’s constant teaching about the sacred dignity of human sexuality. "That teaching," says the document, "is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.

"Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood."

As a natural consequence of this teaching, inscribed in our very beings by our Creator, Humanae Vitae reaffirms the Church’s consistent teaching that every action which "renders procreation impossible" (such as contraception and sterilization) "are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth."

Sadly, the depth and fullness of the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marital love is not well understood—or embraced—by Catholics. The statistics I’ve seen show that the vast majority of Catholics (80-90%) disregard the Church’s teaching and use contraception. I think it is fair to say that this sad statistic is, at least in part, a result of a disregard for this teaching by some clergy and bishops.

Following the release of Humanae Vitae, some clergy publicly rejected the teaching. Others, while not outright rejecting it, perhaps chose to be silent rather than delve into the complexities of the teaching or confront the sensitivities of the subject with their parishioners. In their defense, most clergy were probably never taught this teaching in the seminary (at least not sufficiently) and as a result are ill-equipped to effectively proclaim it.

But there have been some bishops and priests who have been faithful in proclaiming this teaching, only to be confronted with angry parishioners who have a jaundiced view not only of the Church’s teaching on sexuality but of the whole teaching authority of the Church. "Who is the Church to tell me what I can and can’t do in my bedroom?" How can some celibate priest possibly understand this issue?"

It really saddens me that so many Catholics have a view of the Church’s teaching on sexuality (and other issues) as intrusive, restrictive or authoritarian. The Catholic Church was, after all, founded by Christ as His bride in order to help guide us on our journey home to heaven. When the Church teaches on faith and morals she is speaking for Christ.

God, who created us, knows us best and knows what will make us truly happy and truly free. Our Creator gave us instructions (through Sacred Scripture and His Church) so that we will know how to be happy and free. Therefore, when the Church teaches on sexuality, she is giving us as a road map to true happiness, true freedom and true love.

We of course have free will and can reject God’s instructions. Sadly, out of a distorted view of freedom, many people do reject God’s plan and they and our society bear the negative consequences of this rejection. I pray that couples who use contraception will set aside their preconceived notions and any bitterness and commit themselves to an honest and prayerful effort to learn the fullness of the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marital love.

A full understanding of this teaching will reveal a treasure of beauty and freedom and love that will leave you awestruck and wondering why you waited so long to pursue it. Below are the names of some organizations that have excellent materials to help you start this journey. One such item I would recommend is an audio cassette tape by Dr. Janet Smith entitled "Contraception Why Not?"

Family Life Office, PO Box 80328, Lincoln, NE 68501-0328, 402-488-2040, catholicflo@alltel.net; Pope Paul VI Institute, 6901 Mercy Road, Omaha, NE 68106-2604, 402-390-6600, www.popepaulvi.com; Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184 Cincinnati, OH, 45211, 800-745-8252, www.ccli.org; One More Soul, 1846 North Main St., Dayton, OH 45405, 800-307-7685, www.omsoul.com; The Gift Foundation, PO Box 95, Carpentersville, IL 60110, 847-844-1167, www.giftfoundation.org;

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

Life Insight 9-14-01

Pro-Life Legislation in Congress—An Update

What follows is a summary report on pro-life legislation in Congress as of August 6. Those wishing to see a complete report can check it out at nchla.org/download.htm or contact my office.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: This bill would recognize and protect as persons all infants who are born alive following an abortion attempt. The Senate bill (S. 1050) was attached as an amendment to the Patients’ Bill of Rights (S. 1052) and on June 29 was approved 98-yes, 0-no. On July 24, the bill was approved in a House committee. The full House has not yet taken up the bill.

Human Cloning Ban: On July 31, the House approved H.R. 2505, 265-yes, 162-no. This bill bans the cloning of human beings for both reproductive and research purposes. Reproductive cloning is done for the purpose of producing a full-grown human being. Research cloning means producing an embryonic human being for the sole purpose of research followed by his/her destruction. All three Nebraska representatives voted for this important pro-life bill. The Senate will take the bill up this fall. Please contact Senators Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson and urge them to co-sponsor this bill (S. 790).

Mexico City Policy: On January 22, 2001, President Bush reinstated this policy in full. The policy originated under the Reagan administration and continued until President Clinton rescinded it in 1992. The policy requires any foreign nongovernmental organization receiving U.S. funds to agree not to perform abortions, not to violate other countries’ abortion laws, and not to lobby to change those laws. Efforts by abortion advocates in the House to overturn the president’s actions have failed. However, similar efforts will be undertaken in the Senate. In addition, pro-abortion advocates have gone to court to challenge the president’s action.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act: This measure provides that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child during the commission of certain federal crimes will be guilty of a separate offense. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 503); the Senate bill (S. 480) is awaiting action.

Use of Military Health Facilities to Perform Abortions: On August 1, the House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment that would allow military health facilities to be used to perform abortion-on-demand.

Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Plans: On July 25, the Treasury/Postal Appropriations Bill (HR 2590) was adopted by the House. The bill includes a provision that mandates coverage for contraceptives/abortifacients in FEHB plans and prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. The Senate version of this bill (not yet numbered) also includes a provision mandating contraceptive/abortifacient coverage, but does not exclude coverage for abortion. An amendment will be offered on the Senate floor that would prohibit plans from covering abortion.

UNFPA: Under current law, the president, after review, can determine that the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) is not eligible for U.S. funding as long as it supports China’s coercive population control program. The president has included $25 million for the UNFPA in his Budget for fiscal year 2002; he has also included the language of the current law authorizing him, after review, to stop the funding.

RU 486: The Bush Administration has determined that the Hyde Amendment restrictions (which restrict federal funding of abortion) apply to funding RU 486 in the Medicaid program. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has weakened his stand on reviewing the medical safety of the drug. Once saying he would order a review of the drug’s safety, he is now saying that a review would be undertaken only if there is evidence showing that the drug is unsafe.

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

Life Insight 9-21-01

A Culture of Life and Love Responds to Evil

I, and other pro-life leaders, have for years been talking about, and working toward, building a new culture of life and love. When occasionally asked to describe what such a culture would look like I often stumble around to find concrete examples, to personify the intangible. This has troubled me because people tend to understand and respond better to concrete examples than to theoretical or philosophical concepts.

It occurred to me after witnessing and reflecting on the awesome human response to the evil attack on our nation, that this response is an extraordinary and concrete demonstration of the concepts that form a culture of life and love: faith, hope, community, sacrificial and unconditional love, compassion, concern for others, even a recognition of the objective reality of good and evil.

Think about what we are witnessing. Consider the hundreds of firefighters and rescue personnel and the Catholic chaplain who not only risked, but sacrificed their lives for the sake of others. Think of the numerous individuals in the World Trade Center who risked and lost their lives because they refused to leave disabled individuals behind. Reflect on the thousands of volunteers who are setting aside their own self-interests to help others in need.

Think about the massive return to prayer and faith by Americans; churches filled to overflowing with individuals offering prayer for the victims and their families and looking to the supernatural for consolation and for answers. Consider the reordering of priorities—sporting events cancelled or postponed to mourn and show respect, work pace slowed as a numbed and sobered people reflect on priorities, a general transformation away from a total focus on self-interest toward a focus on others and their needs.

How about the uncommon and definitive references to good and evil (and to God and faith) by the media (particularly Fox news) and by our public officials. It’s been amazing to me to witness moral relativism being shoved aside by our leaders, at least for a moment, in order to call these acts of terrorism evil and to call our nation and its response good. In a nation where much of the media and many public officials mock or minimize the practice of faith and where prayer is largely banned in public schools, it’s been refreshing to witness the unguarded and frequent references to God, prayer and faith.

And let’s not forget the extraordinary transformation of the political environment in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere. Literally overnight the bitter political divisions have vanished as our nation unites with a common purpose to support and heal the victims and their families and to seek justice.

What we’re seeing in this spectacular human response is a society of individuals becoming a united family—a community. We’re seeing a society that was plagued with self-centeredness turning to, and taking responsibility for, others. We’re seeing a society awash in moral relativism and secularism grasping desperately for substance, structure, meaning and the supernatural.

We’re seeing a society that views freedom as the ability to do whatever we want shocked into acknowledging that true freedom means the ability to do what is right and involves sacrifice, discipline and responsibility. We’re seeing a society with a selfish and adolescent view of love confronted with the stark contrast of true love which is self-less, and which gives of self totally and unconditionally to others. In short, we’re witnessing humanity at its best and as our Creator intended.

It is my fervent hope and prayer that this renewal, this glimpse of the beautiful culture of life and love that God intended, will spread and be sustained throughout our society. Should this happen, the deaths from this tragedy will not have been in vain.

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

Life Insight 9-28-01

October is Respect Life Month

Since 1974, the United States Bishops have designated October as Respect Life Month to celebrate the sacredness of human life at every stage of its existence and to point out the many and growing ways in which it is attacked. To help parishes celebrate this month, the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro Life Activities produces a Respect Life packet that includes many excellent educational and liturgical resources.

The theme for this year’s Respect Life Month is "Every Human Life Has Its Origin In The Heart Of God". The Respect Life packet, which reflects this theme, includes well-written articles on these timely subjects:

The packet also includes liturgical suggestions for celebrating life, an informational flier, a poster, program models and resources and a catalog of educational resources. The program resources document provides a list of educational resources (including Church documents, books, periodicals, audiovisual, print resources, and internet sites) on bioethics, building a culture of life, end-of-life issues, raising children with Catholic Values despite media sex and violence, capital punishment, contraception/sexuality/chastity and natural family planning.

Every pastor and parish pro-life coordinator has received this Respect Life packet and will be distributing or otherwise using these materials during October and throughout the year. The materials in these packets are for the benefit of all Catholic dioceses, parishes and individuals and may be used and reproduced freely by Catholics. Anyone wishing to view these materials should contact their parish pro-life coordinator or pastor.

In his profound encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) our Holy Father speaks of our duty to live—and thereby proclaim, celebrate and serve—the Gospel of life. "We are the people of life because God, in his unconditional love, has given us the Gospel of life and by this same Gospel we have been transformed and saved. We have been ransomed by the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15) at the price of his precious blood…Interiorly renewed by the grace of the Spirit, ‘who is the Lord and giver of life,’ we have become a people for life and we are called to act accordingly."

"We have been sent as a people. Everyone has an obligation to be at the service of life. This is a…responsibility, which requires concerted and generous action by all the members and by all sectors of the Christian community. This community commitment does not however eliminate or lessen the responsibility of each individual, called by the Lord to ‘become the neighbor’ of everyone…"

"Together we all sense our duty to preach the Gospel of life, to celebrate it in the liturgy and in our whole existence, and to serve it with the various programs and structures which support and promote life."

I strongly encourage all Catholics—individuals, families, clergy, religious—to use the opportunity of Respect Life Month to renew your commitment to living the Gospel of life through prayer and sacrifice, through self education and through service to others. The Respect Life packet is a great resource to help you make this commitment.

Please also take this opportunity to find out who coordinates and implements your parish pro-life activities (ask your pastor or call me at 402-477-7517). When you find out who this person (or persons) is, thank them and offer to help them with this vital effort to build a new culture of human life.

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

Life Insight 10-5-01

Contemplation Essential to Forming New Culture of Human Life

Anyone who knows basic biology knows that simply plucking weeds from the ground up does not get to the source of the weed, it merely removes its visible manifestation—for the time being. Sooner or later the weeds come back. This metaphor is a good source of reflection for the pro-life movement.

There are obviously many attacks against human life and love (weeds) that represent various manifestations of the culture of death. Contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, in vitro fertilization, embryo-destructive research, etc. are some of the prime culprits. Perhaps because of limited time and resources, the pro-life movement often attacks these weeds from the ground up, with little understanding of, or attention to, the roots that continue to produce these weeds.

Contemplating, understanding and attacking these roots, however, is essential to forming a new culture of human life and love. With the help of our Holy Father’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life"), a group of advisors and I have been trying to gain a deeper understanding of these roots so that our pro-life efforts can be more fruitful.

In "The Gospel of Life", Pope John Paul II refers to individualism, relativism and secularism as the prime roots of the culture of death. Individualism means essentially a selfish view of life; a focus on self with little or no regard for our obligation to love our neighbor as our self. A false notion of freedom is closely linked to individualism. This false notion sees freedom as the ability to do whatever we want with no regard for what is right.

This diminished relationship with God has also led to an impoverished view among Catholics of the role of the Church. Too many Catholics view the Church’s teachings, particularly in the area of sexual morality, as restrictive and oppressive. But this is backwards thinking and is also a root of the culture of death.

God, who created us, obviously knows best what will make us truly happy and truly free. After His Son, Jesus Christ, saved us from our sins, He established the Catholic Church to be His visible presence on earth, to guide us on our journey to our eternal home in heaven. Thus when the Catholic Church speaks on matters of faith and morals she is speaking for Christ, she is telling us what will lead us to true freedom and happiness and ultimately to eternal life.

On October 13 and 14, the annual Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities convention will be held at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln. The presenters will take a deeper look at the roots and manifestations of the culture of death and present concrete ways to promote a culture of life and love. I encourage all Catholics to take advantage of this opportunity to become more informed and empowered to help build this culture of life and love. For convention and registration information, contact Michele Chambers at 402-489-3733.

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

Life Insight 10-12-01

Practical Ways to Help Build a Culture of Life and Love

Last week’s column focused on the roots of the culture of death. As we continue to celebrate Respect Life Month in October, this column will provide some practical and effective ways through which individuals and families can help build a culture of life and love.

PRAYER AND WORSHIP

"Certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting" (Mt. 17:21). Since the deepest root of the culture of death is spiritual poverty (a loss of the sense of who God is), the most important contribution an individual or family (or parish) can make to building a culture of life and love is to pray and fast. To encourage and facilitate this effort, my office has implemented "Intercessors for Life"(IFL). IFL cards are available so individuals and/or families can make a written commitment to offer weekly prayer and sacrifice for the cause of life.

In addition to private prayer, the most powerful prayer in the Church—the Mass—should be offered for the intention of spiritual renewal in the Church and society and for a culture of life and love. Individuals, families, parish organizations or priests can make an extraordinary contribution to the pro-life effort by having a Mass said for this intention on a regular basis (preferably monthly). Imagine the supernatural power behind the pro-life cause if a Mass for its intention was being offered monthly in every one of the roughly 380 parishes in Nebraska!!

Of course, spiritual and cultural renewal starts with our own renewal. Each of us needs to regularly step out of the fast pace of life and examine our own relationship with God and His Church and to deepen these relationships. We cannot give what we do not have, so we must commit ourselves to living the Gospel of Life so we can more effectively spread it to others.

LEARN AND SPREAD THE TRUTH

Another way to help build the culture of life and love is to learn the truth about life and love and spread it. The Catholic Church, which is the Bride of Christ, helps to form us in this truth which comes from our Creator. The Popes (particularly our current Pope) and Bishops have written extensively on topics related to respect for life and love and each person can contribute to the cause of life by prayerfully studying these documents, living them and spreading them to others. Most of these documents—and many other pro-life educational resources—are available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference web site (www.nebcathcon.org) or may be obtained through my office.

SERVING THE GOSPEL OF LIFE

"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." In the 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."

With these words in Evangelium Vitae (#87), our Holy Father Pope John Paul II introduces our duty as Christians to serve the Gospel of Life. He goes on to enumerate various ways in which we may serve: By using, promoting or assisting natural family planning centers; by working toward healthy and intact marriages and families; by supporting pregnancy assistance centers with your time and/or money; by assisting or supporting programs/agencies that respond to human hardship, maladjustment, sickness or rejection; by supporting or assisting hospice providers (or the like) that provide truly compassionate support and care to terminally ill persons.

The Holy Father also says that an essential means of serving the Gospel of Life is through public service. "If 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 ever more complex and pluralistic societies." (EV #90) There is a tremendous need for faithful Christians (particularly Catholics) who may have a call to public service to step up to the challenge and help build a culture of life and love in elected office.

Whether it be through a major initiative or a simple act of love, everyone is called by Christ to serve the Gospel of Life and to help build a culture of life and love. I’ve listed here a number of practical ways for individuals, families and parishes to contribute to this new culture. For more ideas, see our web site or contact my office at 402-477-7517.

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

Life Insight 10-19-01

Knowing Where Medical Charities Stand on Life Issues

Catholic individuals, schools, and organizations are often asked to help raise money for various medical charities. As a result—and to their credit—many of these Catholics will contact my office to find out where these medical charities stand on life issues. Since apparently no one at the national level is regularly monitoring these charities for their policies/positions, I decided to survey 30 of them.

I asked each organization the following questions:

The following organizations openly supported research using tissue from induced abortions and/or embryonic stem cells:

The following organizations gave responses that were either neutral or mixed:

The following organizations claimed they could respond no to the questions in the survey:

The following organizations did not respond to the survey: Alliance for Aging Research, Alzheimer’s Association (I know from other sources that they have supported embryonic stem cell and aborted fetal tissue research in the past), American Auto-Immune Disease Association, American Diabetes Association, American Paralysis Association, Epilepsy Foundation of America, Huntington’s Disease Society, National Hemophilia Foundation, National Infertility Association, National Parkinson Foundation, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Neurological Disorders Research Coalition, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, Spina Bifida Association of America, Tourette Syndrome Association, United Parkinson Foundation.

The actual responses from the organizations that did respond to my inquiry are available in my office. However, since the positions/policies of these organizations can and do change, the above information should not necessarily be considered to be definitive.

The purpose of this column is to raise awareness among Catholics that when we are asked by medical charities to raise money for them, we should first find out if they in any way support research the Church deems immoral. Therefore, I encourage Catholic individuals, schools and organizations to contact organizations directly and ask them the questions mentioned above. If their response is in any way unclear, I encourage Catholics to contact my office for further clarification. Our vigilance on this matter can have a positive impact in prompting organizations to change immoral policies.

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

Life Insight 10-26-01

Some Positive Developments in Thwarting the Culture of Death

The enormity of the task of battling against the numerous and serious attacks against human life can be overwhelming. Thus, it is always a breath of fresh air when we learn of little victories for the cause of human life. There have been some positive developments recently on the issue of assisted suicide.

First, the second largest medical organization in the United States, the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced in August that it officially opposes physician-assisted suicide. A paper published in the August 7, 2001 Annals of Internal Medicine says the 90,000-member association believes that doctors should always look for ways to improve care for the dying. "We must solve the problems of inadequate care at the end of life, not avoid them through practices such as assisted suicide," according to co-author Dr. Daniel Sulmasy.

The paper went on to say that providing more and better care for pain and suffering, treating depression more aggressively and increasing access to hospice care are essential to help terminally ill patients live more comfortably. Assisted suicide would damage the patient-physician relationship, jeopardize the medical profession’s role of healing and lessen the value placed on life, the paper said.

The largest medical organization, the American Medical Association, announced its opposition to physician-assisted suicide in 1993. In addition, the American Nurses Association, The American Geriatrics Society and numerous other medical and religious groups have taken official positions against physician-assisted suicide.

Second, on September 21, 2001, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that there is no right to physician-assisted suicide under the privacy or equal protection provisions in Alaska’s state constitution. According to James Bopp, Jr., President of the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, "This decision drives a stake close to the heart of the movement to legalize euthanasia through the courts. The proponents of legalized assisted suicide had a two-pronged strategy of bringing cases in both federal and state courts, claiming that assisted suicide bans violate both the United States and State Constitutions," said Bopp. "They’ve now lost every case they’ve brought in both arenas."

Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court rejected recognition of a right to assisted suicide under the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, the Michigan and Florida Supreme Courts and a California appeals court have refused to recognize such a right. With the Alaska Supreme Court ruling, there is now a significant body of case law rejecting both federal and state claims for recognizing a right to assisted suicide. No court of highest jurisdiction recognizes such a right. As a footnote, it is worth mentioning that the Supreme Courts in both Florida and Alaska were viewed as being among the most likely to rule in favor of assisted suicide.

To date, attempts to legalize assisted suicide through ballot initiative have also failed in every case, except Oregon. But even Oregon’s law, which went into effect in 1997, may be in jeopardy. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to rule that the federal Controlled Substances Act forbids the use of drugs controlled by this act from being used for assisted suicide. Since the drugs being used for assisted suicide in Oregon fall under this act, Ashcroft’s ruling would significantly disrupt, if not end the practice in Oregon.

Voters in California, Washington, Michigan, and Maine have rejected attempts to legalize assisted suicide through ballot initiatives. Furthermore, numerous state legislatures have rejected bills intended to legalize assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (including Nebraska’s Unicameral) and several have actually formally banned the practices.

It would be foolish to allow such positive developments to make us complacent in addressing end-of-life issues. These developments do, however, give us some breathing room in our battle to stop the encroachment of the culture of death. This breathing room must be used wisely to inform the public about the availability of quality and comprehensive end-of-life care (exemplified by the hospice movement) and to make sure that everyone has access to this care. The Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care (NCCC) exists for this purpose. For further information on NCCC, contact my office or go to its website at www.nebrccc.org.

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

Life Insight 11-02-01

End-of-Life Decision-making and Catholic Teaching

All Souls Day is an appropriate feast day to reflect on our own mortality, to learn about the Church’s teaching on end-of-life care and to communicate with family members about our medical-treatment wishes should we become unable to make those decisions for ourselves.

Most Catholics are probably aware of the Church’s teaching that euthanasia and assisted suicide are immoral. According to the Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia (issued in 1980), these acts are a "violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life and an attack on humanity." This document defines euthanasia as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.

What fewer Catholics understand is how this teaching about the sacredness of human life and the immorality of euthanasia/assisted suicide is applied to actual medical-treatment decision-making: What treatment must we accept? What treatment may we refuse? A number of excellent documents have been produced within the Church to assist Catholics in making morally good end-of-life care decisions.

One of those documents was produced by the Nebraska Catholic Conference and is entitled "Medical-Treatment Decision-making: Moral Guidance and Considerations from Catholic Teaching". The purpose of this document is to provide some practical guidelines to assist us in making morally sound decisions about medical treatment. What follows are some of those guidelines.

This complete document and others are available through my office (402-477-7517) or at www.nebcathcon.org/press_releases.htm#Med. In addition, my office has a great deal of information on advance directives for healthcare.

While for most people it is difficult to think about and discuss end-of-life care wishes, good communication now will help to ensure that you get the care you want and will save you family or friends from the grief of having to make decisions without knowing your wishes.

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

Life Insight 11-9-01

Federal Pro Life Legislation Update

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Congressional agenda has been substantially altered with many issues being subordinated to national security matters. Nonetheless, here is an update of action on pro-life related legislation.

Coerced Population Control in China: On October 17, the House International Relations Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Hyde, held a hearing entitled "Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilization." Evidence was presented that coercive practices continue even in those parts of China in which such practices are supposed to be outlawed.

Morning-After Pill in Schools: In October, an attempt was made in the House of Representatives to attach an amendment to the 2002 Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3061) to deny federal funds to any state or local educational agency that distributes or prescribes postcoital emergency contraception ("morning-after pills") to an unemancipated minor in any elementary or secondary school. In the face of strong opposition, the amendment was withdrawn with the promise by House leadership that the amendment could be offered as a freestanding bill at a later date.

Post-Abortion Aftermath: On November 1, during debate on the 2002 Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill (HR 3061), the Senate approved by unanimous consent an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the National Institutes of Health should expand and intensify its research and related activities on post-abortion depression and psychosis.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning Research: On October 30, the White House stated that the president would veto the Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill if it contains language giving the president power to fund embryonic stem cell research in which human embryos are destroyed. In an agreement between proponents and opponents of such research, this language was dropped and it was agreed to postpone debate on legislation related to cloning and embryonic stem cell research until February-March of 2002. PRIORITY ACTION: Write Senators Chuck Hagel (346 Russell Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510) and Ben Nelson (Dirksen B40-5, Washington, D.C. 20510) and urge them to co-sponsor the Human Cloning Ban (S. 790). More information on this ban is available at nchla.org/download.htm.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: This measure, which recognizes and protects as persons all infants who are born alive following an abortion attempt, was attached as an amendment to the Senate-passed Patients’ Bill of Rights (S 1052) and was included as part of the House-passed Bipartisan Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2563).

Mandated Contraceptive/Abortifacient Coverage: On September 10, the Senate held a hearing on a bill (S. 104) that would require contraceptive/abortifacient coverage in all group health plans. What’s worse, the bill contains no conscience protection for individuals or institutions.

Mexico City Policy: This policy requires foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. family planning funds to agree to not perform abortions, to not violate other countries’ abortion laws, and to not lobby to change those laws. This policy was eliminated under the Clinton Administration and reinstated by President Bush. Efforts to overturn the policy in the House failed, but efforts to do so are still being made in the Senate.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act: This measure provides that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child during the commission of certain federal crimes will be guilty of a separate offense against the child. The House passed its version of the bill (HR 503); the Senate bill (S. 480) is still awaiting action.

A more complete report of pro-life legislation in Congress is available online at http://www.nchla.org/legisdisplay.asp?ID=95  or by contacting my office at 402-477-7517.

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

Life Insight 11-16-01

Another Blow to the Practice of Assisted Suicide

On November 6, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum in which he determined that assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" for prescribing, dispensing, or administering federally controlled drugs. This applies to any state, including Oregon, which since 1997 has been the only state to allow physician-assisted suicide. This memorandum overturns the June 5, 1998 opinion issued by then-Attorney General Janet Reno that allowed physicians in Oregon to use federally controlled drugs for assisted suicides.

It must be emphasized that Ashcroft’s ruling does not change the legality of assisted suicide in Oregon, it simply means that physicians who assist in suicides cannot use federally controlled drugs to do so. Here is some legislative background to put this very good news into context. This background is compliments of a brief by the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

On April 30, 1997, after a vote of 398-16 in the House of Representatives and a unanimous vote in the Senate, then-President Clinton signed into law the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, which prohibits the use of federal funds to cause a patient’s death. President Clinton, while signing the bill said it "will allow the Federal Government to speak with a clear voice in opposing these practices," and warned that "to endorse assisted suicide would set us on a disturbing and perhaps dangerous path."

A few months later, in a letter responding to the inquiry of Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) made a determination that physician assisted suicide with the use of federally controlled drugs violates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA requires that any drugs under its authority must be used only for "legitimate medical purposes". Under the DEA ruling, assisted suicide does not qualify as a "legitimate medical purpose" and so doctors given the special federal license under the CSA to prescribe federally controlled drugs could not prescribe them for this purpose.

In a letter dated June 5, 1998, then-Attorney General Janet Reno overruled the DEA’s determination and decided that the federal CSA was enforceable against the use of controlled substances for assisted suicide only to the extent that states have not authorized assisted suicide. Thus, while federal law forbids the use of federal funds for assisted suicide without regard to whether states legalize this practice, this ruling rendered federal law and policy on assisted suicide subordinate to state law and policy.

In order to remedy Janet Reno’s ruling, in 1999 and again in 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Pain Relief Promotion Act. This Act affirms the use of federally controlled drugs for legitimate pain control and reaffirms that federal law does not authorize the deliberate use of these drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia. Unfortunately, this Act which is supported by over 40 (mostly medical) organizations, has been blocked in the Senate by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon who supports Oregon’s assisted suicide law.

Thus, it is good news that Attorney General Ashcroft has brought some sense back to federal policy on this issue. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops applauded Ashcroft’s decision. "This important directive", said their statement, "not only ends the federal government’s involvement in assisted suicide, but also promotes improved pain management for patients near the end of life."

The Bishops note that "In other federal programs, and in states passing new laws against assisted suicide, use of controlled substances for pain control has dramatically improved once the law recognizes a clear difference between intentional taking of life and the unintended side effects of necessary pain control. Attorney General Ashcroft’s decision fully respects this medical, legal and ethical distinction."

The Bishops’ statement also reminds us that "Suicide among the sick and elderly is not a ‘medical’ practice. It is a tragic public health problem that deserves our concern and caring response. Good medicine and good law call on physicians to kill pain, not patients." The Bishops call on us to thank President Bush (1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. 20500 or president@whitehouse.com) and Attorney General Ashcroft (950 Pennsylvanie Ave, NW, Wash. D.C. 20530 or www.usdoj.gov) "for affirming this vitally important principle."

But the battle isn’t over. The state of Oregon has challenged Ashcroft’s ruling in court and on November 9, a federal district court judge in Portland, OR issued a temporary restraining order blocking its enforcement at least until November 20. Stay tuned.

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

Life Insight 11-23-01

Thank You God!

In the wake of the September 11^th terrorist attacks against our nation, this Thanksgiving will undoubtedly have special meaning to all Americans. This life-shattering event has prompted us to look outside ourselves to the needs of others. It has prompted us to be more generous and to be more thankful for our blessings of faith, life, family and freedom.

There are so many things for which I am thankful—many of which are easy to overlook. I am thankful for the ability to see—the beauty of God’s creation in nature and in the innocent and irreplaceable face of a newborn child. I’m thankful for the ability to hear the objectively beautiful work of Mozart and the alarm clock in the morning.

I’m thankful for the ability to walk and think and talk. I’m thankful for my health in general. I’m thankful for the comforts of home: a warm bed, a hot shower, plenty of food.

I’m thankful for my loving family—outstanding parents who loved me, taught me the Catholic faith and gave me a stable home, 10 wonderful siblings to share love, happiness, sorrow and clothes(!) and 22 ultimate expressions of my family’s love—otherwise known as nieces and nephews.

I’m thankful for being employed and for having a job I love and which gives me the opportunity (and the responsibility) to help lead the way in forming a culture of life and love. I’m thankful for the Knights of Columbus, whose generous financial assistance makes my office possible.

I’m thankful for the 500 plus parish pro-life coordinators who sacrifice time and talent to advocate on behalf of the voiceless. I’m thankful for all who work in various ways to uphold the sacred dignity of every human being—whether it be the unborn child, the pregnant mother, the homeless, the hungry, the abused, the elderly, the disabled, the marginalized or the terminally ill.

I’m thankful for our military men and women and our law enforcement and rescue personnel who put their lives on the line so we can enjoy the freedom and other blessings of our nation.

Most of all, I thank God for His goodness, love, mercy, justice and grace. I thank God for sending and sacrificing His only Son for our sins and thereby defeating death once and for all. I thank God for giving us the Catholic Church and Scripture to guide us through the rough waters of life and to reach our ultimate home in heaven.

It is so easy in our fast-paced and affluent culture to take so many basics in life for granted and to become very self-focused. It’s sad that it usually takes a tragic event to turn our attention away from ourselves and toward others and it’s sad that we tend to turn back toward self as life settles back to normal. Perhaps this Thanksgiving we can make the commitment to reflect and give thanks daily to God for His many blessings. And to live every aspect of our lives for His greater honor and glory.

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

Life Insight 11-30-01

Seeking and Destroying the Disabled

Last week (11-20-01) the Lincoln Journal-Star carried a story entitled "New Down syndrome test could diagnose condition earlier." The story reported on a British study showing that a new test could help identify Down syndrome in the first trimester (3 months) of pregnancy. As I read through the article, my blood pressure began to rise as it became readily apparent that the primary purpose of this new test is to identify Down syndrome earlier in pregnancy to facilitate an earlier abortion.

Sure enough, at the end of the story, a professor was quoted as saying this test "has obvious benefits over second-trimester screening" including "for some, an early diagnosis with consequent safer and less traumatic therapeutic abortion." This made me sick to my stomach—and somewhat angry.

Here we have a news story basically heralding as progress the development of a new test primarily to facilitate the identification and destruction of disabled human beings in utero. Furthermore, calling this a therapeutic abortion is nothing more than despicable verbal engineering. There is NOTHING therapeutic (for mother or child) about killing an unborn child because she/he has Down syndrome.

Since I was pretty worked up about this story, I decided to call the National Down Syndrome Congress and the National Down Syndrome Society to see what they had to say about this new test. First I asked them what they understood to be the advantages of prenatal diagnosis for mother and child. Both representatives readily admitted that the primary purpose of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome is to give parents an opportunity to abort their children.

I then asked them, as advocates for the dignity of persons with Down syndrome, how they viewed such a test. Their responses: NEUTRALITY!!! "Oh, we don’t take a position on abortion". Holding back my palpable incredulity, I respectfully asked how an organization whose mission is to safeguard the dignity of persons with Down syndrome could be neutral about a test designed primarily to seek and destroy unborn babies solely because they have Down syndrome. Their answers were basically, "we understand your point, but we don’t take a position on abortion."

Determined to show the incoherency of this answer I pressed further with the representative from the National Down Syndrome Society. I mentioned that I saw on their website (www.ndss.org) that they had spoken out strongly and rightly against the appointment of Peter Singer to Princeton’s Center for Human Values because he advocates that "killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person."

I said to the representative, "you spoke out forcefully and eloquently in defense of newborn babies with disabilities, why not do so for babies who are a few months earlier in their development?" Again I heard, "I understand your point but we don’t get involved in the abortion controversy."

I truly don’t know what sickens and saddens me more: the development of this new seek and destroy test or the silence by our society to this atrocity—even by groups whose mission is to promote the dignity of human beings with Down syndrome. I suspect that the overriding concern of these advocacy groups is that by taking a position on such a controversial issue their fundraising efforts will be harmed. How sad—and foolish—when you consider that neutrality on such tests undermines their mission.

I pray for the day when EVERY human being—no matter how small, disabled, sick or marginalized—will be protected by law and supported and loved as an unrepeatable and sacred member of our human family. Perhaps then America will be fully deserving of God’s blessing.

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

Life Insight 12-07-01

The Problem with Human Cloning

On November 25, Advanced Cell Technology, a privately funded biotechnology company in Worcester, MA, announced it had produced the first cloned human embryos. None of the embryos lived beyond the six-cell stage, but this development indicates that the cloning of human beings is on our societal doorstep.

Cloning is a way of producing a genetic twin of an organism, without sexual reproduction. The method used to produce Dolly the sheep and one of the methods used to produce the human embryos is called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT). With SCNT, the nucleus of a body cell (somatic cell) is transferred into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus has been removed or rendered inactive. A tiny electric pulse is usually used then to stimulate development of the resulting embryo. Scientists hope to get these cloned human embryos to grow to the blastocyst stage (about 100 cells) in order to harvest their stem cells for research, thus causing the death of the embryo.

"As one group of scientific and other experts advising the Holy See has written, ‘In the cloning process, the basic relationships of the human person are perverted: filiation, consanguinity [blood relation], kinship, parenthood. A woman can be the twin sister of her mother, lack a biological father and be the daughter of her grandmother. In vitro fertilization has already led to the confusion of parentage, but cloning will mean the radical rupture of these bonds.’"

It should be noted here that the Church opposes the use of cloning to produce human embryos. She does not oppose the use of cloning techniques to produce animals or human molecules, DNA, tissues or cells other than human embryo cells. Those interested in learning more about the Church’s teaching on cloning can go online to www.usccb.org/prolife or contact my office at 402-477-7517.

Shortly after Dolly the sheep was cloned, a physicist from Chicago, Dr. Richard Seed announced that he wanted to be the first person to clone a human being. In a January 17, 1998 World magazine article he was quoted as saying that with cloning, "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."

While most scientists may not be as candid about their motives as Dr. Seed, cloning and other artificial reproductive technologies (like in vitro fertilization) do represent an attempt to play God by having sole dominion over the creation of human life. Based on this, it would appear that man’s rebelliousness has not changed much since the sin of our first parents in the Garden of Eden.

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

Life Insight 12-14-01

Let Us Make Mary’s Fiat Our Own

"'Do not fear, Mary. You have found favor with God. You shall conceive and bear a son and give him the name Jesus. Great will be his dignity and he will be called Son of the Most High…'  Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be since I do not know man?’ The angel answered her: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; hence, the holy offspring to be born will be called Son of God…" Mary said: ‘I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you say.’"

As I heard these words from Luke’s Gospel (1: 30-38) at Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I thought to myself, "How does Mary’s response pertain to my life today?" Obviously, Mary’s "yes" to God has many important meanings and effects in our lives, most important of which is that it made possible God’s greatest gift to mankind: His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

While reflecting on Mary’s fiat, it occurred to me that one of its practical meanings in our lives is that each of us is called to bring Christ into the world. While none of us can physically bring Jesus into the world, as did Mary, we nonetheless can—and must—bring Him into the world by imitating Christ to those around us.

I’m sure it was Divine providence that while I was having this reflection I happened to read the following passages from a book entitled "The Reed of God" by Caryll Houselander. "The one thing that [Mary] did and does is the one thing that we all have to do, namely, to bear Christ into the world. Christ must be born from every soul, formed in every life.

"Nothing but things essential for us are revealed to us about the Mother of God: the fact that she was wed to the Holy Spirit and bore Christ into the world. Our crowning joy is that she did this as a lay person and through the ordinary daily life that we all live; through natural love made supernatural as the water at Cana was, at her request, turned into wine."

Houselander goes on to say that "[t]he one thing that [God] did ask of [Mary] was the gift of her humanity. She was to give Him her body and soul unconditionally, and…she was to give Him her daily life. And outwardly it would not differ from the life she would have led if she had not been chosen to be the Bride of the Spirit and the Mother of God at all…He asked for her ordinary life shared with Joseph.

Not everyone is called to work directly in the pro-life cause. But all of us are called to bring Christ into the world through our love and service to His least ones. Our faithfulness to this calling, in whatever form it may take, is ultimately the most effective pro-life activity we can undertake.

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

Life Insight 12-21-01

Christmas Reveals Full Meaning of Every Human Birth

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

This passage from the introduction to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") highlights a significant theme presented in this splendid document: "The incomparable worth of the human person." The first section of the introduction and the entire second chapter present this theme quite powerfully from a basis of Scripture. This reflection on the sacred dignity of human life is clearly warranted in a culture that largely views human life as a burden.

Recalling the words of the Second Vatican Council, our Holy Father says "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being" Gaudium et Spes 22). "This saving event," he tells us, "reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God, who ‘so loved the world that he gave us his only Son’ (Jn. 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person."

"Why is life a good?" our Holy Father asks. "This question is found everywhere in the Bible, and from the very first pages it receives a powerful and amazing answer. The life which God gives man is quite different from the life of all other living creatures inasmuch as man, although formed from the dust of the earth, is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory…Man has been given a sublime dignity based on the intimate bond which unites him to his Creator: In man there shines forth a reflection of God himself.

"The Book of Genesis affirms this when in the first account of creation it places man at the summit of God’s creative activity as its crown, at the culmination of a process which leads from indistinct chaos to the most perfect of creatures. Everything in creation is ordered to man, and everything is made subject to him: ‘Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over…every living thing’ (1:28)…We see here a clear affirmation of the primacy of man over things; these are made subject to him and entrusted to his responsible care, whereas for no reason can he be made subject to other men and almost reduced to the level of a thing.

"In the biblical narrative, the difference between man and other creatures is shown above all by the fact that only the creation of man in presented as the result of a special decision on the part of God, a deliberation to establish a particular and specific bond with the Creator: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gn. 1:26). The life which God offers to man is a gift by which God shares something of himself with his creature."

These are very powerful and compelling reflections on the sacredness and uniqueness of human life. However, as the Pope tells us, "The Gospel of life is not simply a reflection…on human life. Nor is it merely a commandment aimed at raising awareness and bringing about significant changes in society. Still less is it an illusory promise of a better future. The Gospel of life is something concrete and personal, for it consists in the proclamation of the very person of Jesus. Jesus made himself know to the apostle Thomas, and in him to every person, with the words: ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life’ (Jn. 14:6)."

"Through the words, the actions and the very person of Jesus," Pope John Paul II continues, "man is given the possibility of ‘knowing’ the complete truth concerning the value of human life. From this ‘source’ he receives in particular the capacity to ‘accomplish’ this truth perfectly (cf. Jn. 3:21), that is, to accept and fulfill completely the responsibility of loving and serving, of defending and promoting human life."

Let’s not let another Advent and Christmas go by without making a commitment to seek a greater understanding of God’s profound love for us, of the incomparable value of every human person and of our responsibility to imitate God’s love through our sacrificial service to others. A good start to this commitment would be to read and re-read Evangelium Vitae, "The Gospel of Life".

Back to Top