THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-2008
*********
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 2008
Virtue Media Ads Begin (01/11/08)
35Years, 50 Million Abortions, Countless Broken Hearts (01/18/08)
Abortion Numbers Declining, Still Horrific(01/25/08)
Lenten Opportunities to Advance Pro Life Cause(02/01/08)
Investing in Our Future(02-08-08)
Putting A Face on Abortion(02/22/08)
Cloning Ban Compromise Reached (02/29/08)
The Incomprehensible Mentality of “Choice” (03-07-08)
Making Sense of Suffering (03/21/08)
Pulling Up the Weeds by Their Roots (03/28/08)
The Trivialization of Sexuality (04/04/08)
Abstinence vs “Comprehensive” Sex Ed (04-11-08)
Three Times in Modern History (04/18/08/)
Medical Charities and Their Research Policies (04/25/08)
The Vicar of Christ Inspires (05/02/08)
Voting with a Catholic Conscience (05/09/08)
Dedication to Mothers (05/16/08)
The Deception and Devastation of “Choice” (05/23/08)
The battle between the culture of life and the culture of death has, like any battle, its ups and downs, successes and failures, moments of light and darkness. Since this column often must present the endless attacks against life, it’s important to balance that with evidence of progress and hope.
Recently I received a mailing from Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life containing a list of ten reasons why the pro-life movement is winning. Here’s the list.
1. The Survivors. “The surest sign of our ultimate victory is the strong and ever-growing involvement of young people in all aspects of the fight to end abortion. And if you ask them why they have joined our fight, they will tell you: ‘It could have been me!’” My office has initiated a youth task force to tap into and support young Nebraskans in their pro-life activism.
2. The Flow of Conversions. “Another reason for confidence is simply to look at the flow of conversions…It goes from pro-abortion to pro-life. There is, for example, an international organization of former abortion providers called the Society of Centurions… Since when, however, have you heard of an organization of former pregnancy resource center directors who have repented of saving babies and are now pro-abortion? It just doesn’t happen. With the notable exception of politicians—individuals notorious for abandoning their principles…”
3. I Regret My Abortion. “Another clear sign of progress is the wave of women and men across the world who are speaking out about how they regret having their child killed by abortion…These men and women are living testimony that…[i]nstead of ‘solving’ a problem, abortion creates more problems of its own.”
4. Few Doctors, Fewer Abortion Centers. “Over half of America’s freestanding abortion clinics have closed since 1993…from over 2000 at that time to roughly 740 today. That’s because, no matter how much money, political strength, and media access the abortion movement has built up, they have not succeeded in removing the indelible stigma that is attached to abortion.”
5. Legal Evidence Mounts. “In Constitutional history, the rights of groups that have been oppressed—such as African Americans, children, women, and workers—have eventually been vindicated…In various cases, the evidence of the unborn child’s humanity, as well as of the harm abortion does to women, is being introduced in court…As the body of scientific evidence continues to mount, one day in the not too distant future the Courts will be forced to recognize the personhood of the unborn child and accord him with the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution.”
6. Abortion Research. “Another motive for confidence is the growing mountain of medical, psychological, and sociological evidence that abortion harms women, men, and families. Websites like www.AfterAbortion.org provide an excellent starting point for surveying this growing mountain of evidence.”
7. No More Arguments. “Another sign of victory is that the other side has run out of arguments. In the years leading up to Roe vs. Wade, abortion advocates assured everyone that legalized abortion would reduce child abuse, strengthen family life and improve society. But all the evidence shows that after three decades of legal abortion, all these problems have gotten worse. Moreover, all the arguments from medicine, science, psychology, sociology, law, ethics, and religion support the pro-life view.”
8. Even In Politics. “We even see evidence of pro-life progress in the political arena. Voters for whom abortion matters in their decision vote in favor of pro-life candidates by a two to one margin…Some 36% of voters [in 2006] said that abortion affected their vote. Within that group, 23% voted pro-life and only 13% pro-abortion.”
9. Legislation Galore. “The last several years have seen unprecedented legislative progress on behalf of the unborn child…On the federal level, for the first time, an abortion procedure—so-called ‘partial birth abortion’—has been declared illegal. The ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’ protects the unborn from being killed after a failed abortion. The ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act’ protects the unborn from acts of violence other than abortion. And at the state level, laws are in place that have reduced the numbers of abortion.”
10. Corruption Uncovered. “A key reason we are winning is that abortion destroys itself. The evil inner workings of abortion are being exposed for all to see…and as more and more crimes become visible, the abortion movement loses supporters. These crimes include medical malpractice, sexual abuse, injury and death…Details are available at www.ChildPredator.com.
“Above all,” Fr. Pavone reminds us, “the reason why we are winning the fight to end abortion is because…[Christ] trampled death by His death….Because of Christ’s Resurrection, [death] no longer has the final word in the human story.” Therefore, “our pro-life movement does not simply work for victory…we work from victory!
Last October, many parishes in the Dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island featured a DVD presentation during Masses about Virtue Media’s pro-life television advertising project. Virtue Media is a Christian non-profit organization that creates and broadcasts very effective and compassionate pro-life ads that do three things: help save unborn babies from abortion, offer hope and healing to post abortive parents, and gently but effectively educate the public about the sanctity of life.
As a result of these presentations, donations totaling about $90,000 have been made to the Virtue Media pro life advertising project from Catholics in the Lincoln Diocese ($56,000) and Grand Island Dioceses ($32,000). Based on these amounts a media plan was established with the goal of spending the money raised in each diocese on stations that cover that respective diocese (recognizing that many stations transcend diocesan boundaries).
The ads began running on December 24th and will continue through January. Three different ads are being featured that will appeal to women who are abortion-vulnerable (ages 18-24) or who have had abortions (ages 25-49). These ads can be viewed on Virtue Media’s website at http://www.virtuemedia.org/television.htm (see “Mentor”, “Pregnancy Help Multicultural”, and “Post Abortion Healing”).
Ads will run on both broadcast stations (KLKN, KOLN, KHAS, KHGI, KCWL) and on cable stations (TimeWarner and Charter Media stations). Stations and programs were chosen because they are viewed by women in the age categories mentioned previously. Cable stations include the following: Black Entertainment Network, The Food Network, MTV, E! Entertainment, TNT, The Family Network, Country Music TV Network, Travel Channel, VH1, HGTV, Lifetime, Soap Network, TBS, TLC, USA).
Programs on broadcast stations that will feature the ads include the following: Today Show, Days of our Lives, Prime time (7pm to10pm), Saturday Night Live, News, Insider, Dr. Phil, Jimmy Kimmel, Ellen, The View, Regis and Kelly, Good Morning America, Oprah, Rachel Ray, Seinfeld, Friends, Simpsons, and TMZ. A more detailed list of programs and run times is available from my office at 402-477-7517 or gregschlepp@neb.rr.com.
Parishes in the Archdiocese of Omaha will present this media project at Masses in January. The contributions raised there will be used to establish a media plan targeting stations that reach throughout the Archdiocese and beginning probably in February. Since many of the metro Omaha stations have a reach far beyond the boundaries of the Archdiocese, this media buy will enhance and extend the current media buy.
In a culture that has in many ways lost its sense of awe for human life, we need to be regularly inspired toward greater appreciation for the miracle and sacred dignity of human life. Through these ads, we now have a new opportunity in Nebraska to significantly elevate the public’s appreciation for the sacredness of every human life.
In my 17 years of directing the pro-life office for the Bishops of Nebraska, I have seldom seen such universal and enthusiastic support for a pro-life project. Everyone who sees these ads—Bishops, clergy and laity—has nothing but praise and enthusiasm for these ads and the promise they hold for changing minds and hearts.
Please pray that these ads will reach and inspire many minds and hearts. And if you want to contribute to this extraordinarily powerful and effective project, give me a call.
35 Years, 50 Million Abortions, Countless Broken Hearts
January 22, 2008 marks the 35th anniversary of the United State’s Supreme Court abortion rulings, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. In these two rulings, delivered simultaneously, the nation’s highest Court legalized abortion in our nation during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason.
Most people have heard of Roe, but not many people have heard of Doe. Roe legalized abortion for any reason during the first six months of pregnancy, but said abortion could be restricted or even prohibited in the last three months of pregnancy unless the mothers’ life or health was in danger.
If one only reads Roe, it would appear that abortion can be (or is) prohibited in the last trimester in most cases. Not so. Doe’s primary relevance to abortion law is that it contained the operative definition of “health” mentioned in Roe. And its definition was very broad: “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
Hence, because Doe’s definition of health encompasses almost every circumstance imaginable, Roe and Doe taken together effectively legalized abortion during all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. This broad definition of health is the main reason why there is always a big fight over including a health exception in abortion-related legislation. Both sides of the abortion divide know that including a health exception in a law to restrict abortion renders the restriction meaningless.
Another misconception about the practice of abortion is that most abortions are done because of maternal or fetal health problems, or in cases of rape or incest. In fact, abortions are rarely done for these reasons. According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey women cite “rape and incest” as the main reason for an abortion in only one percent of cases. Concerns about maternal or fetal health are cited in only three percent of cases each.
More than 90 percent of abortions are done for reasons other than rape, incest and maternal or fetal health. The three main reasons cited for this overwhelming majority of abortions are: “unready for responsibility” of a child (21 %) and “can’t afford the baby now” (21 %) and “concerned about how having a baby could change her life” (16 %).
It is hardly a surprise that our country’s extraordinarily permissive abortion law has resulted in a staggering number of abortions in 35 years. The best estimates place the number around 50 million. Fifty million human beings killed by abortion and the vast majority were killed for reasons of convenience.
Abortion’s destruction is not limited to the unborn. Countless women have been wounded psychologically, spiritually, and physically by abortion. What’s more, the psychological and spiritual wounds extend to the fathers, grandparents, and friends of the woman. We know this from studies, post-abortion programs such as Project Rachel, and personal testimonies on websites such as www.hopeafterabortion.org and www.silentnomoreawareness.org.
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta summarized Roe and Doe’s effect in this way: “The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”
In 2002, the U.S. Bishops established in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal that January 22 shall be observed as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life. This action by the bishops emphasizes that the battle to restore the right to life for unborn children is fundamentally a spiritual one and that there is no more powerful contribution each person can make to rebuild a culture of life and love than prayer and penance.
Finally, in addition to prayer and penance, I encourage all to publicly witness on behalf of the sacredness of human life by joining thousands of Nebraskans at the annual Walk for Life in Lincoln on Saturday, January 26. A vigil Mass and all-night Eucharistic Adoration will be held at St. Mary’s Church in Lincoln the night before the Walk. Details of these and other events are featured elsewhere in this paper. Please come to pray and march for an end to the scourge of abortion.
Abortion Numbers Declining, Still Horrific
National news providers have reported recently that the number of abortions has declined over the last several years. In 2005, the most recent year for which national data is available, there were an estimated 1,200,000 abortions in the United States. This is an 8 percent decline from 2000 and a 25 percent decline from 1990 (the high water mark for abortions in the U.S.). Since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state laws prohibiting abortion, there have been an estimated 50 million abortions in the U.S.
Roughly half of the women having abortions are 25 years of age or older. Thirty-three percent are 20 to 24 years of age and about 17 percent are 19 years of age or younger. Nearly 83 percent are unmarried and roughly 60 percent have given birth to one or more children prior to the abortion. Black and Hispanic women have abortions at a rate that is disproportionately high for their percentage of the population.
In Nebraska, the decline in abortions has been more precipitous. Based on the number of abortions reported in Nebraska through November of 2007, I am estimating that the total for the year will be about 2460 abortions. Assuming that this estimate holds pretty true, this would represent a 41 percent decline since 2000 and a 61 percent decline since 1990 (also our state’s high water mark for abortions).
Nebraska’s 2006 Statistical Report of Abortions, normally released in the spring following the reporting year was just released this week. It reports that in 2006, there were 2927 abortions reported in Nebraska. This represented an 8 percent decline from the previous year, but more significantly it was the fewest number of abortions recorded in Nebraska since 1974.
The 2006 report also revealed that 58 percent of all abortions were had by women 20 to 29 years of age. Sixteen percent of the abortions were had by teens including 12 abortions performed on girls under the age of 15.
Mirroring national numbers, the percentage of those having abortions in Nebraska who are teens has declined from around 40 percent in 1974 to less than 16 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, the percentage of those having abortions who are 30 years old or older went the opposite direction (from 14 percent to 26 percent). Women aged 20 to 29 have almost always comprised about half of all abortions had in our state.
The reasons women are having abortions has remained fairly consistent with 90 percent or more citing “socio-economic” reasons for their abortions. One and a half percent (45) cited “maternal physical health” as a reason. “Maternal life endangered” was cited by only one person and only six people cited “sexual assault” as a reason for their abortion.
Another disturbing statistic revealed under the “reasons for abortion” category was this: Half of those having abortions cited “contraceptive failure” (21.1 percent) or “no contraceptive used” (29.1 percent) as a reason for their abortion. These numbers, along with several studies showing that greater access to contraception does not reduce abortions, seriously challenge assertions that more contraception will reduce the number of abortions.
Finally, the report indicated that one third of women having abortions in Nebraska in 2006 had one or more previous abortions. Specifically, 696 had one previous abortion, 240 had two, 70 had three, 30 had four and 22 had more than four previous abortions. Having one abortion is unthinkable; I can’t begin to fathom how wounded must be those who have had two, three, four or more.
Although it is encouraging to know that the number of abortions is declining, the fact that well over one million unborn babies continue to be aborted each year in our country should stagger the imagination. Tragically, our nation has largely become numbed to the magnitude of this killing and its metastasis to other vulnerable members of our human family.
Please pray and sacrifice for an end to the scourge of abortion and for the healing of those women and men who are its secondary victims.
Lenten Opportunities to Advance Pro Life Cause
Our Lord tells us in Scripture that “Certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21). The more a person engages in the pro-life battle the more evident it becomes that, above all else, this is a spiritual battle. It is a battle between good and evil, between the culture of life and the culture of death.
To avoid being misunderstood, I’m not suggesting that those who advocate abortion or other direct attacks against innocent human life are evil. Rather, it is the act of intentionally destroying innocent human life—no matter how small, unformed or frail—that is evil.
To get more specific about the spiritual nature of the pro-life battle, I’m convinced that one of the most difficult dynamics we face is that it’s easier to ignore or manipulate truth in order to rationalize personal behavior than it is to change behavior.
As sinners, each of us knows that true conversion is usually difficult and painful, even if we believe that the end result will be greater fulfillment and happiness. Consequently, many in our society choose the easier but empty path of rationalizing destructive lifestyles and behavior.
This dynamic was exemplified in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling reaffirming Roe v Wade. In its Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling the Court said that overturning Roe would cause too much turmoil because “for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”
To restate this more bluntly and honestly, the Court said: “to hell with the rights of the unborn, too many people have embraced a sexually permissive lifestyle that relies upon killing the little buggers if contraception fails to prevent them from coming into existence.” This dynamic is likely to change only with prayer and fasting.
I submit, then, that the most powerful contribution one can make to the pro-life battle is to offer special prayers and sacrifices for the conversion of our society. As we approach Lent, now is a great time to identify some form of prayer and sacrifice that you will offer for the pro-life cause during this season of penance. What follows are some suggestions to assist you in this discernment.
1. PRO LIFE STATIONS OF THE CROSS. Priests for Life has pro-life meditations for each of the Stations of the Cross. This two-page document is available online at www.priestsforlife.org/prayers/stationsofthecross.html and may also be obtained from my office.
2. 40 DAYS FOR LIFE LENTEN PRAYER VIGIL. Lincoln Right to Life and the Newman Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln are teaming up to organize this round-the-clock prayer vigil at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Lincoln.
The purpose is to have a continual prayerful presence at the abortion facility throughout Lent and to urge fasting during Lent for the closing of the facility and the conversion of its staff.
3. INTERCESSORS FOR LIFE. Those who don’t live close enough to Lincoln to directly participate in the Lenten Prayer Vigil can still join their prayers and sacrifices to those who will keep vigil at the abortion facility.
Intercessors for life asks individuals to offer some form of prayer and sacrifice each week (preferably on Fridays when abortions are done in Lincoln) for the same intention as the Lenten Prayer Vigil. Prayer cards and other prayer suggestions are available from my office.
A survey of our recent past and present society might lead one to conclude that it has largely been consumed by the culture of death. Whatever one concludes about our past and present society, one thing is for sure, we need not concede the future to the culture of death.
Pope John Paul II spoke of a “springtime in the Church” in the 21st Century. I suspect that one factor prompting this hopeful assessment is this current generation of young people (ages 13 to 28) known as “Generation Y”. Extensive research conducted on this generation reveals them to be fundamentally very pro-life and inclined toward chastity.
Another hopeful characteristic of this generation is its size. Considered to be the children of the Baby Boomers, Generation Y (or the “echo-boomers”) is 60 million strong. This is nearly four times the number in the previous generation (ages 29 to 43) known as Generation X.
Given the pro-life and pro-family inclinations of Generation Y, and its size, this generation has the capacity to significantly change our society for the better. But given the culture of death’s considerable influence on young people, this phenomenon will not likely happen (at least to its full potential) by itself.
Planned Parenthood, for example, is keenly aware of Gen Y’s inclinations. Consequently, it has pursued insidious ways of influencing young people’s attitudes and behaviors, such as its alluring but disgusting website Teenwire.com. Likewise, the entertainment industry (movies, music, television) and the internet can have an alluring but corrosive effect.
Therefore, although Gen Y has pro-life and pro-family inclinations, these inclinations need to be nourished and protected. Individuals, families and our Church’s various educational enterprises have considerable influence and opportunities to do this.
It seems to me that it is critical that we evangelize children at a very early age. That is, we need to foster in them a deep and personal relationship with God in advance of, and in tandem with, our catechetical efforts to engage their intellect. And when we engage their intellect, this generation wants to know the “why” behind the “what” of Church teaching.
In addition to fostering faith in their children, parents need to instruct and form their children with virtue. Since this is caught as much as it is taught, parents can have a profound effect on their children by their example.
By living the faith they profess and working hard to keep their marriage healthy, parents can better demonstrate the virtues they want their children to espouse. Besides prayer and fasting, this is the greatest contribution parents can make to the cause of building a culture of life and love.
As for my office, I have established a “youth advisory council” to give me a better understanding of how to reach Gen Y and equip them to be effective apologists for the Gospel of life and love. It is evident after just one meeting with these high school and college students that this effort will bear much fruit.
In “The Gospel of Life” (#96) Pope John Paul II said that the “first and fundamental step toward this cultural transformation consists in forming consciences with regard to the incomparable and inviolable worth of every human life.” But he emphasized that “there is a need for education about the value of life from its very origins.”
“It is an illusion”, he said, “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.”
Planned Parenthood’s Warped View of Life
In a recent national story reporting on abortion statistics in our country, Planned Parenthood’s (PP) warped view of life and sexuality was on full display. Planned Parenthood is the world’s largest abortion purveyor and advocate. It is also one of the world’s most powerful forces in promoting a hedonistic view of sexuality.
In trying to explain why the age of those having abortions is increasing, Miriam Inocencio, president of PP of Rhode Island said this: “It doesn’t just happen to young people, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with irresponsibility. Women face years and years of reproductive life after they’ve completed their families, and they’re at risk of an unintended pregnancy that can create an economic strain.”
There are many disturbing assumptions in her rationale. First, typical of a secular worldview, there is no recognition of God’s essential role in the creation of human life or the planning of a family. God equipped our bodies and minds with the natural ability to responsibly plan our families in a way that is always unitive and open to life and that corresponds with the gifts and resources He gave us.
Second, it assumes that killing one’s offspring is acceptable to avoid the economic strain of an unintended pregnancy. But if it’s not okay to kill a newborn or adolescent child because of economic strain on the family, why is it okay to kill an unborn child for this reason? True justice says that once a human life exists, killing that person to solve social problems is never acceptable.
Dr. Vanessa Cullins, PP’s national vice president for medical affairs, was attributed with saying that the right to abortion is an important component in the ability of all American women to determine the right size of their family.
“Groups that become assimilated in the U.S. culture and experience economic opportunities naturally decide to limit family size, because they want to take part in the American dream,” she said. “If you’re a single mother, achieving the dream is all the harder, so it makes sense to limit family size so you can shower as much support as you can on the children you have.”
Dr. Cullins is even blunter in advancing the notion that killing one’s offspring is an acceptable method of family planning. But she goes even farther in suggesting that it is an important tool for achieving the “American dream.”
Sadly, many immigrant groups are lured by the materialism of our culture and fall prey to the culture of death’s seduction to even kill their children to achieve it. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood operates many of its abortion facilities in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
Finally, Rachel Jones, a researcher with the Guttmacher Institute (a PP affiliate), asserted in a report published in the Journal of Family Issues that women often choose abortion because of their wish to be good parents. “These women,” she said, “believed that it was more responsible to terminate a pregnancy than to have a child whose health and welfare could be in question.”
It’s hard to imagine a more warped and impoverished view than to suggest that it is more responsible to kill a child than to risk that child living with questionable health or welfare. Again, if it’s not okay to kill a child after birth because his/her health or welfare is in question, why is it okay to kill a child before birth for this reason?
It is also warped and impoverished thinking to suggest that the only choices available to some women are to kill their offspring or face negative social or health consequences. Human beings clearly have the ability to overcome or at least embrace these consequences. Our humanity is in jeopardy if we do not.
For most people, abortion is abstract. It is a moral issue, a religious issue, a political issue. Occasionally the act of abortion becomes a little more concrete when we read about the number of abortions, the gestational ages of the aborted children, or a graphic depiction of an abortion procedure.
The act of abortion, however, becomes very concrete when one sees the face of a child who narrowly escaped its destruction. I recently received a picture of such a child, “baby Frank”, along with the story of his narrow escape from being just another abortion statistic (his picture accompanies this column).
Baby Frank’s mother, “Rose”, was just 12 years old when she became pregnant. Unfortunately, her parents arranged for the child to be aborted on March 17th, 2007 at LeRoy Carhart’s abortion facility in Bellevue.
Upon arrival at the abortion facility, Rose and her parents were told that they needed to pay more money for the abortion because Rose was more advanced in her pregnancy (4 months) than anticipated. Thankfully, they did not have the additional money required and they left the abortion facility with baby Frank still alive.
As Rose and her parents left the facility, one of the pro-life sidewalk counselors was able to talk with them and offered to help in any way to allow this child to live. Rose and her family are from Lincoln so they were put in touch with Pam McCabe and Sue Johnson who do sidewalk counseling at Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility in Lincoln.
Pam and Sue sprung into action and lined up a pro-life doctor to help Rose with her medical needs. They also got Catholic Social Services involved to help Rose and her family with any material or other needs.
Rose is one of six children living with her parents in a two bedroom trailer house. Unfortunately, her father was out of work for a short while and so this family was in need of financial assistance. Thanks to Pam and Sue’s efforts, this family received help from the pro-life community.
On August 22, 2007, Rose gave birth to “Frank”. She and her family are very appreciative of the help and hope they were offered outside the abortion facility that Saturday morning. Pam summarized this story well when she said, “we must all be grateful to the Lord our God that prayers were answered and this precious little baby was given the gift of life.”
The American Life League produces a placard that features the face of a child with this slogan: “Face it, abortion kills children”. This message and the real lives like “Baby Frank’s” that it represents are concrete reminders that we must never let abortion become an abstraction.
Cloning Ban Compromise Reached
Over the last six years the legislative priority for the pro-life movement in Nebraska has been to ban human cloning in our state. This focus on cloning is the culmination of a nearly ten year battle with the University of Nebraska Medical Center following the revelation that it had been conducting research utilizing brain tissue from aborted babies.
Despite the enormous controversy and ill will its fetal tissue research created with many Nebraskans, the Medical Center chose to proceed further into the swamp of immoral research. Over the subsequent years, the Medical Center chose to embrace human embryonic stem cell research (which requires the destruction of human embryos) and more recently human cloning.
Initially, attempts were made to ban both embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Eventually, however, the focus turned to just banning cloning, primarily because it became evident that cloning was the end game of embryonic stem cell research.
Three times, beginning in 2003, legislation was introduced to ban human cloning. The first time, when the Medical Center was publicly neutral on the ban, the Legislature came within one vote of advancing the bill over a filibuster by Sen. Ernie Chambers. Had four senators (co-sponsors of the ban no less) not reneged on their support for the bill, the ban may well have been enacted that year.
The second cloning ban was introduced in 2005, but this time the Medical Center publicly opposed it, testifying that they wanted to be able to clone human embryos for research. The Med Center’s opposition made it much more difficult to secure enough votes to overcome a certain filibuster by Sen. Chambers and so this bill never saw legislative action.
In 2007, a third cloning ban (LB 700) was introduced by Sen. Mark Christensen, a freshman senator from southwest Nebraska. This time the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over such bills, lacked the votes to advance the bill for consideration by the full Legislature. Committee members who opposed LB 700 are Ernie Chambers, Diana Schimek, Amanda McGill and Vicki McDonald.
Sen. Steve Lathrop and Sen. Brad Ashford (also committee members) seeing that LB 700’s prospects for advancement and debate were slim, and that the pro-life movement wanted action on this issue, decided to forge a compromise. All of the major pro-life and pro-family groups were involved in the negotiation for this compromise.
The compromise proposal focuses on provisions that would give something to both sides without offending either side. Not an easy task. One of the provisions establishes a scientific committee to award grants for non-embryonic stem cell research using state tobacco settlement funds. This provides another source of research funds to the Med Center (good for them) but restricts these funds to ethically acceptable non-embryonic stem cell research (good for our side).
The second provision contains the real substance for our side of the debate. It prohibits the use of state facilities and funds (which includes the Med Center) for the destruction of human embryos or the cloning of human embryos (good for our side). It does not prohibit the use of embryonic stem cell lines by the Med Center, which is clearly a major reason why they accepted the compromise.
Although this proposal (which is being inserted into a “gutted” bill, LB 606) does not prohibit these acts by private labs using private money, the Med Center has the only research lab in Nebraska capable of conducting this research and it is very unlikely that a private lab would be pursued. During the negotiation on this compromise, the pro-life side made clear that if the Med Center or any other entity tries to sidestep this prohibition through a private endeavor, the pro-life/ pro-family movement would be fierce and unrelenting in seeking a private-sector ban on cloning as well.
The adoption of LB 606 (which is likely, given its acceptance by both sides) will be a solid victory for the pro-life cause. Sen. Lathrop, Sen. Ashford and Speaker Mike Flood deserve much credit for helping to bridge the gap between the two sides of the human cloning debate and forge a policy that both sides can accept. In addition, Sen. Mark Christensen deserves much credit. Had he not introduced LB 700, it is quite certain that we would not have seen this positive development for human dignity.
This liturgical year, within the span of a week, we will reflect on the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord and His Incarnation on the Solemnity of the Annunciation. These events represent the beginning and end or our Lord’s earthly existence as a human being and are a source of profound reflection.
In last week’s column about the Annunciation, I focused on the fact that our Lord began His human existence at conception—as a single-cell embryo—just like you and me. In fact, Jesus experienced every stage of human development: embryonic, fetal, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. As the Church stated in her Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, “By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself with every human being.”
This week we reflect on our Lord’s passion and death. As confused as our society is about the humanity and sacredness of unborn human life, it is equally confused about the meaning and benefit of suffering. For any serious Christian, it should not be difficult to draw some meaning out of our own suffering if we contemplate that our Lord freely chose to suffer and die in order to redeem us and conquer death.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services provides this helpful insight: “For the Christian, our encounter with suffering and death can take on a positive and distinctive meaning through the redemptive power of Jesus’ suffering and death. As St. Paul says, we are ‘always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body’ (2 Cor 4:10). This truth does not lessen the pain and fear, but gives confidence and grace for bearing suffering rather than being overwhelmed by it.”
British writer (and convert to Catholicism) Malcolm Muggeridge put it this way: “If ever there was a killing without mercy, a death without dignity, it was on Golgatha. Yet from that killing, what an outpouring of mercy occurred throughout subsequent centuries!”
Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae that “Living to the Lord also means recognizing that suffering, while still an evil and a trial in itself, can always become a source of good. It becomes such if it is experienced for love and with love through sharing, by God’s gracious gift and one’s own personal and free choice, in the suffering of Christ crucified.
“In this way the person who lives his suffering in the Lord grows more fully conformed to him…and more closely associated with his redemptive work on behalf of the church and humanity. This was the experience of St. Paul, which every person who suffers is called to relive: ‘I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Col. 1:24).’”
Another important point of reflection during the Easter Triduum is the fact that our Lord’s death and resurrection conquered death, once and for all. In assessing and confronting the enormous culture of death and its endless attacks on human life, it can be tempting to give in to despair or cynicism if we lose sight of what God asks of us as believers.
God does not ask us to save the world or defeat death. He did that. Our role is to be faithful to His will and to persevere. We are called to faithfully and zealously use His gifts of time, talent and treasure to embody and proclaim His love and truth to everyone He puts in our path. And we are called to persevere in the face of our own fears, inadequacies and the magnitude of the culture of death.
In his Easter card, Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life succinctly presents the good news of Easter: Christ is Risen! Death has been Conquered! We in the pro-life movement are not just working “for” victory! We are working from victory! Happy Easter!
The Incomprehensible Mentality of “Choice”
Recently I was sent an article entitled “Private Lives” featured in the January 2008 issue of Vogue magazine. The article is written by a mother who recounted her experience having a partial-birth abortion.
She recounted that her first pregnancy ended in miscarriage, and “floored [her and her husband] in a way neither if [them] expected. We were heartbroken…[and] struggled to find the balance between accepting our loss and recapturing our optimism.” She said that her third and fourth pregnancies resulted in a healthy boy and girl respectively.
“But [her] second pregnancy,” she said, “was quite unlike the others.” At 22 weeks of pregnancy her water broke sending her and her husband straight to the hospital. She was told that her water broke prematurely because of a condition called incompetent cervix.
As she explained, “in a normal pregnancy, the cervix remains firm and closed until a woman reaches term, around 40 weeks. But with an incompetent, or weakened, cervix as the baby grows and begins to press down, the cervix starts to open prematurely, often causing the membranes surrounding the amniotic fluid to rupture.” According to the article, incompetent cervix affects roughly one in 100 women and is the cause of about 25 percent of miscarriages between 18 and 22 weeks.
She and her husband were also told that the “threshold of viability, or the earliest a fetus is potentially able to live outside the womb, is generally accepted to be around 25 weeks.” They were presented with statistics from one study revealing that out of 138 live births at 22 weeks, roughly 84 percent died in the delivery room, 14 percent in intensive care and a 1 percent survival rate “with almost guaranteed severe disabilities, such as brain damage.”
Most astute readers can probably predict what course of action was recommended by her doctor. Her “well-loved” obstetrician, with four children of his own she points out, recommended that they “look toward the future” and “terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible.” “The good news”, he said, “was that the next time [she] got pregnant he would stitch the cervix closed…to reinforce it and help keep it sealed.”
What transpires in the second half of this article can only be described as this mother’s painful attempt to justify having her own child killed. She does this in part by trying to legitimize the use of partial-birth abortion and by lamenting the legislative and judicial battle over efforts to ban it. She even makes a pitch to vote for a Democrat for president this fall out of concern that “one more conservative appointment to the [Supreme] court presents the very real threat of Roe v. Wade itself being overturned.”
She also tries in various ways to convince the reader that she is not a bad person because she loved her child deeply and struggled mightily with this dilemma. “I chose what I believe was the path of least suffering, for myself, my husband, our future children, and mostly for the baby inside me.” She insists that the partial-birth abortion she had was “born out of love.”
I have no doubt that this mother and father loved their child deeply. However, to suggest that love can be defined by an act of killing your own offspring is impoverished beyond comprehension. It is a warped sense of compassion that kills another human being to avoid potential or actual suffering. As Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae, “True compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.”
Unfortunately, in cases such as this, the standard of practice for most maternal-fetal specialists is to recommend abortion. Parents need to know that there are other ways to address such pregnancies, ways that respect and protect the dignity of their child’s life.
Pulling Up the Weeds by Their Roots
If you pluck a dandelion from the ground up it may appear—for a short while—that you have eliminated the problem. But anyone who’s cared for a garden or yard knows that weeds must be destroyed by their root or they will eventually grow back.
This phenomenon also applies to social/cultural “weeds” such as contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, premarital sex, in vitro fertilization, embryo-destructive research and cloning. These attacks against life and love are manifestations of very serious philosophical, spiritual and moral errors that characterize what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of death.”
This great Pope of happy memory provided considerable insight into the origin and roots of the culture of death with his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”). To punctuate the importance of this document, five years after he issued Evangelium Vitae JPII said it is “a document that I consider central to the whole of the Magisterium [teaching authority] of my pontificate.”
John Paul begins by reminding us that death entered the world with the sin of our first parents. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and fell to the devil’s temptation to be like God. Modern man’s transgression into God’s domain as the Author of Life through in vitro fertilization and cloning demonstrate that man continues to fall to this temptation.
Seldom does one witness such a frank admission of this temptation as this quote from Dr. Richard Seed, a physicist who announced his desire to be the first person to clone a human being: “We’re 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.”
“Death entered [the world] in a violent way” JPII said, “through the killing of Abel by his brother Cain.” “This first murder” he said, “is presented with singular eloquence in a page of the Book of Genesis which has universal significance: It is a page rewritten daily, with inexorable and degrading frequency, in the book of human history.”
As for the roots of the culture of death, John Paul speaks of a “perverse idea of freedom”. This perverse freedom is characterized by radical individualism (a self-centeredness that views people as burdens or obstacles instead of opportunities to give and receive love). It is also characterized by relativism (no recognition of objective truth) and materialism (valuing possessions over people).
“In seeking the deepest roots of the…culture of death” says John Paul II, “we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom…We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experience by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism…”
“Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad, vicious circle: When the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence.”
In other words, if our understanding of God and our relationship with Him is weak or distorted, then our understanding of, and appreciation for, the value and meaning of human life created in God’s image will be weak or distorted as well. And if we don’t understand or appreciate the value and meaning of human life, we are more likely to violate its sacredness. This violation or sin separates us further from God, hence a “sad, vicious circle.”
Think about it this way: If you have never heard of Michelangelo and someone gave you one of his paintings, you’d have no idea that it was valuable. As a result, you might give it away, sell it for cheap, or even throw it away. Likewise, if we don’t know our Creator, we won’t appreciate His gift of human life made in His image and likeness.
Conversely, the deeper our relationship is with God, the more profound will be our respect for human life. Therefore, the most profound contribution each of us can make to build a culture of life and love is to strengthen our own relationship with God and radiate it to those around us.
The Trivialization of Sexuality
Sexuality. This sacred and powerful gift from God is a common subject of degrading jokes and songs, it’s used to sell products, and it’s reduced by much of our culture to a recreational activity for selfish pleasure. Like fire, the human sexual drive can bring about great good or terrible destruction, depending upon if it is used as God intended or not.
The great good that God intended for this gift is to give humans a unique participation in the power of creation. “The animals reproduce, but their offspring are not persons”, says Fr. Richard Hogan. “The angels do not give life to new angels. Only human persons can bring new embodied images of God into our world. Only human beings can give life to new unique persons of equal value to themselves. Each child is another expression of God in this world and will live for all eternity.”
The terrible destruction takes the form of disease, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, abortion, sexual abuse, broken marriages and families, and physical, emotional and spiritual poverty. The recent political demise of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer provides one stunning example (out of many) of this destruction that results when we misuse our gift of sexuality.
Here is a man on a meteoric rise in a promising political career, married with two young daughters and he risks destroying it all for a few one-night stands with a prostitute. What makes his actions even more stunning is that when he was New York’s attorney general he carried out the exact sort of prostitution ring dragnet that caught him.
One thought that occurred to me in light of the Spitzer case is how foolish the dominant culture is when it comes to addressing sexual behavior. Many in society seem to think that making it easier and more acceptable (with contraception) to engage in out-of-wedlock sex won’t cause more people to do so.
This naïve view fails to acknowledge the powerful influence of the sexual drive. Think about it. Governor Spitzer represents countless individuals who have risked life-threatening disease, the destruction of their career and family for a momentary satisfaction of this sexual drive. In light of this, to suggest that making it easier to engage in irresponsible sexual activity won’t increase such activity is the height of foolishness.
One of our society’s foremost proponents of this foolish view of sex is Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood promotes a hedonistic view that sex is simply for pleasure and as long as you try to reduce its negative consequences there is no need to save sex for marriage.
Planned Parenthood and its ilk argue that the best way to reduce the negative consequences of sex outside marriage is by providing widespread information about contraception and the importance of using it. If there is one lesson from the Spitzers of this world, it’s that the problem isn’t a lack of information.
Precisely because of the power of the sexual drive, to reduce the negative consequences of out-of-wedlock sex, we must reduce out-of-wedlock sex. To accomplish this requires formation not merely information. It requires formation (at an early age) in virtue and self-control. It requires a society that truly believes it is best to save sex for marriage and will do what is necessary to help each other achieve this goal.
In the “Gospel of Life (#97), Pope John Paul II provided this powerful admonition in his blueprint for forming “a new culture of human life”:
“It is an 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. Sexuality, which enriches the whole person, ‘manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love.’ The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life.”
Abstinence vs “Comprehensive” Sex Ed
Abstinence education programs and its government funding are under increasing attacks by advocates of contraception-based sex education. Sadly, one of the first programs to get the axe when Democrats took control of Congress last year was an abstinence-based educational program.
Over the last 30 years, the federal government has spent billions of dollars promoting contraceptives and condom use. Only in the last 10 years has the federal government gotten serious about funding abstinence programs. But even now federal spending to promote contraception far outweighs spending for abstinence programs.
This funding imbalance is not enough for proponents of contraceptive sex ed who will not be satisfied with anything less than a complete de-funding of abstinence programs. The core of their attack is a distorted characterization of abstinence education programs and a dishonest claim that there is no evidence showing that these programs work.
The first part of this attack is to refer to abstinence programs as “abstinence only” and to characterize their content as nothing more than an unrealistic “just say no” message. In fact, abstinence education is overwhelmingly more comprehensive, holistic and realistic than so-called “comprehensive sex ed”.
According to the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) (www.abstinenceassociation.org), “abstinence education realizes that ‘having sex’ can potentially affect a lot more than the sex organs of teens, but as research shows, can also have emotional, psychological, social, economic and educational consequences.
“That’s why topics frequently discussed in an abstinence education class include how to identify a healthy relationship, how to avoid or get out of a dangerous, unhealthy, or abusive relationship, developing skills to make good decisions, setting goals for the future and taking realistic steps to reach them, understanding and avoiding STDs [sexually-transmitted diseases], information about contraceptives and their effectiveness [or lack thereof] against pregnancy and STDs, practical ways to avoid inappropriate sexual advances and why abstinence until marriage is optimal.”
So-called “comprehensive sex ed”, ironically, is not even close to being comprehensive. Such programs focus predominantly (even solely in some cases) on how to use birth control to reduce the risks of sexual activity. They do little or nothing to encourage or equip teens to save sex for marriage and they add insult to injury by assuming that teens are incapable of doing so.
Such programs are also unrealistic and irresponsible in that they instruct teens on how to engage in a variety of sexual activities supposedly instead of sexual intercourse. It is unbelievably foolish and counterintuitive to suggest that sexual intercourse can be reduced by encouraging teens to engage in what amounts to various forms of foreplay.
It is also counterintuitive to conclude that showing acceptance of teenage sexual activity will not increase the likelihood of such activity. There doesn’t appear to be much dispute about research showing a 2-4 times greater likelihood of teens using alcohol or drugs if their parents show any acceptance of such use (see www.nebraskaprevention.gov). Yet we’re supposed to believe that teens won’t be more inclined to engage in sexual activity if their parents (or other authority figures) show acceptance of it?
As for the claim that there is no evidence showing that abstinence programs are effective in reducing sexual activity and its consequences, this is demonstrably false. The NAEA has ten studies listed on its website indicating otherwise. The most recent study, from the January 2008 issue of the American Journal of Health Behavior, revealed that participants in a program called “Reasons of the Heart” were “approximately one-half as likely as non-participants to initiate sexual activity after one year.”
Conversely, there is very little evidence substantiating claims that contraception-based programs reduce sexual activity, pregnancy, STDs or abortions. The website of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet0207.shtml) provides citations to numerous studies showing that contraceptives often fail to prevent pregnancy, that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, and that increased access to contraceptives is linked to an increase in STDs.
The Lincoln Journal Star recently ran a front page story about slavery. The story was accompanied by a picture of an ad that appeared in the Nebraska City newspaper in 1860 announcing an Otoe County sheriff’s auction to sell the property of Charles F. Holly. The “property” included “One Negro Man, and one Negro Woman, known as Hercules and Martha”.
Even though, like most Americans, I have some knowledge of our nation’s shameful history embracing the despicable practice of slavery, seeing an actual advertisement to sell two human beings made me sick to my stomach. This practice was legally and culturally enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scot ruling in 1857.
In this ruling the Court said “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves…were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”
The Court referenced the historical abuse of the rights of black people in trying to rationalize its embrace of slavery saying, “…that unfortunate race…had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order [and] they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Unbelievably, the Court even concluded that “…the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit”(emphasis added).
There are at least two other times in modern history when the word “person” or “citizen” was officially redefined to exclude certain human beings. In 1936, the German Supreme Court, the Reichsgericht, refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense. As Professor William Brennan said in his book “Dehumanizing the Vulnerable”, in the twelve years of the Third Reich, “the Nazis pioneered assembly-line killing in death factories, annihilating human beings quickly and efficiently…The bodies of the victims were also subjected to experimental and commercial exploitation before, during and after extirpation.”
The third time the word “person” was redefined was in 1973—again by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn…the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”
As with slavery, the Court referenced historical abuses of the unborn saying “abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era…Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn.” The Court also suggested that abortion is for the unborn child’s own good saying this: “There is also the distress for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family unable, psychologically, and otherwise to care for it.”
The sort of oppressive social engineering embodied in these and other atrocities against humanity do not typically occur overnight. In his book, Professor Brennan chronicles how verbal engineering is always used as a predicate to oppressive social engineering. He explains this phenomenon in the introduction to his book:
“The power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound. In many instances, the most significant factor determining how an object will be perceived is not the nature of the object itself, but the words employed to characterize it. Operating through the lenses of contrasting linguistic symbols, two persons looking at the same phenomenon are likely to come up with sharply divergent observations. Words can also act as a force for justice or a weapon of repression, an instrument of enlightenment or a source of darkness.”
Medical Charities and Their Research Policies
Throughout the year, but especially in the spring, I receive many inquiries from Catholic schools, organizations and individuals wanting to know if a certain medical charity supports immoral research. As a result of these inquiries I have tried to maintain updated information about the research policies of the major medical charities.
Maintaining accurate information on the research policies of such organizations is a challenge. Some charities provide clear and easily accessed information on their policies. Many groups, however, provide very little and often unclear information about their policies.
Based on direct correspondence or on information from an organization’s website, the following medical charities fund or in some way support embryonic stem cell (and in some cases human cloning) research:
ALS (Lou Gehrig) Association, American Association for Cancer Research, American Diabetes Association, American Lung Association, Glaucoma Research Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, March of Dimes, National Hemophilia Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Parkinson’s Action Network, Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
The following medical charities say that they do not fund or lobby for embryonic stem cell or human cloning research: Alzheimer’s Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the Nation Kidney Foundation. It should be noted that the American Cancer Society recently changed its policy and now does not fund or lobby for this immoral research.
There are also several organizations that are raising money to support research using adult stem cells. The John Paul II Stem Cell Institute (www.jp2sri.org) only funds adult stem cell research or other alternatives to embryonic stem cells:. JP2SRI is a non-profit research institute whose mission is to advance research and education on stem cell research in a manner consistent with a pro-life bioethics. The Institute strictly focuses on adult and cord blood stem cell research and education.
The Spinal Cord Research Advancement Foundation (www.scicure.org) is headed by Will Ambler who is himself a victim of spinal cord injury. The foundation raises money to support research using adult stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries.
The Thomas Hartman Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (www.hartmanfoundation.org) was founded by Father Tom Hartman who is co-host, along with Rabbi Marc Gellman, of radio and TV’s popular “God Squad.” Father Hartman was recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s which led him to establish The Hartman Foundation.
The Iacocca Foundation (www.joinleenow.org), through its “Join Lee” campaign, is raising money to support the research of Harvard’s Dr. Denise Faustman. Dr. Faustman and her team at Massachusetts General Hospital have received FDA approval to begin human trials of an adult cell therapy that reverses Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes in animals. Although the researchers are ready to test this very promising approach in patients, millions of dollars are needed for human trials—and some major foundations are devoting much of their funding to research that relies on destroying human embryos instead. The Iacocca Foundation has contributed $1 million for human trials using the Faustman approach, and is asking one million Americans to help by donating $10 each.
For those who are wine enthusiasts Bogo Wine (www.buy-one-give-one.com) donates a share of its profits from the wine it sells to support adult stem cell research, including support of the Hartman Foundation and the Spinal Cord Research Advancement Foundation.
A list of all the above groups with references or links to the source documents from which their research policies were obtained is available from my office or online at www.nebcathcon.org (click on “printed resources” under “pro-life”). I encourage Catholic groups and individuals to refuse to support organizations that fund or lobby for immoral research and to communicate your reasoning to these groups. Some groups have changed their policies because enough supporters took a stand for what is right. Your voice can make a difference.
I was one of the 60,000 blessed souls who got to join our Holy Father in his celebration of the Mass at Yankee Stadium in New York City. This Mass was the culmination of a trip in which the Vicar of Christ spoke and interacted personally and pastorally with the American people and left both Catholics and non-Catholics inspired.
I think it was evident to all who observed Pope Benedict’s visit, in person or through the media, that he is generating the same level of energy, passion and affection as his predecessor. It’s clear that Benedict is not a “caretaker” Pope filling a spot until a younger Pope can be found. He is tirelessly evangelizing and teaching with clarity and love.
Like his predecessor, he is also speaking with clarity and urgency about the sanctity of human life. What follows are a few of his statements.
On the Fundamental Right to Life
“God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gn 1:26) in each one.”
[L]ife is the first good received from God and is fundamental to all others; to guarantee the right to life for all and in an equal manner for all is the duty upon which the future of humanity depends.”
Abortion
“Children truly are the family's greatest treasure and most precious good. Consequently, everyone must be helped to become aware of the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion. In attacking human life in its very first stages, it is also an aggression against society itself. Politicians and legislators, therefore, as servants of the common good, are duty bound to defend the fundamental right to life, the fruit of God’s love.”
“As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society…. Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace.”
“[E]ven in the most difficult circumstances human freedom is capable of extraordinary acts of sacrifice and solidarity to welcome the life of a new human being.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
“Research [involving the destruction of human embryos]…is not truly at the service of humanity....History itself has condemned such a science in the past and will condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the light of God but also because it lacks humanity.”
“[N]o one can dispose of human life. An insurmountable limit to our possibilities of doing and of experimenting must be established. The human being is not a disposable object, but every single individual represents God’s presence in the world.”
“[T]he new frontiers reached in bioethics do not require us to choose between science and morality: rather, they oblige us to a moral use of science.”
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
“The freedom to kill is not true freedom, but a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery.”
“More and more lonely elderly people exist in big cities, even in situations of serious illness and close to death. In such situations, the pressure of euthanasia is felt, especially when a utilitarian vision of the person creeps in. In this regard, I take this opportunity to reaffirm once again the firm and constant ethical condemnation of every form of direct euthanasia, in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old teaching.”
Voting with a Catholic Conscience
Next Tuesday is the primary election day in Nebraska. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to spend some time this weekend researching the positions of candidates before you cast your vote. As our United States Bishops remind us in their political responsibility statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, “in the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.”
The Bishops make clear in this document that the Church’s role isn’t to tell Catholics who to vote for or against. It is to equip her members “to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience…in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church.”
“Conscience,” the bishops say, “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.” When this judgment involves voting, the Bishops urge voters to “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 to “consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and performance.”
The Bishops provide seven themes of the Catholic social tradition” to “provide a moral framework for decisions in public life.” They are 1. The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person; 2. Call to Family, Community, and Participation; 3. Rights and Responsibilities; 4. Option for the Poor and Vulnerable; 5. Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers; 6. Solidarity; and 7. Caring for God’s Creation.
Although we should consider all these themes as we evaluate candidates, the Bishops point out that in voting, “it is essential for Catholics to…[recognize] that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.” The Bishops cite abortion and euthanasia as preeminent examples of such intrinsically evil acts “because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.”
Emphasizing this point, the Bishops cite Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Christifideles Laici (no. 38): “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”
Fr. Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, provides a splendidly clear explanation on how to compare the weight of issues by focusing on principle versus policy: “Most disagreements between candidates and political platforms do not have to do with principle, but rather with policy. For example, it is a basic principle that people have a right to the safety of their own lives and possessions. That’s why we have to fight crime. We don’t see candidates campaigning on opposite sides of that principle, with some saying, ‘Fight Crime’ and other defending ‘The Right to Crime.’
“Instead, there is agreement on the principle, but disagreement on the best policies to implement the principle. One voter concludes that one candidate has a better policy on crime than his opponent, while a second voter concludes the opposite. Both can vote in good conscience, because as long as the policy doesn’t break the principle, both policies may well be morally legitimate.
“But when a policy dispute involves questioning whether people deserve that protection in the first place, the policy is the principle. To allow abortion, which is the killing of a human child in the womb, is to break the principle that every human life is sacred and to deny the principle that life deserves protection. In fact, to allow abortion establishes a different kind of government, namely, one that claims authority to tamper with human rights.
“The most important person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral, a dwelling place for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body.
“The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God’s creative miracle to bring new souls to Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature. God joins forces with Mothers in performing this act of creation. What on God’s earth is more glorious than this…to be a mother!”
These powerful words by Cardinal Josef Mindszenty comprise one of my favorite dedications to mothers. This inspiring reminder of the extraordinary gift of motherhood is particularly important in a culture that treats women’s fertility as a burden and stay-at-home moms as unenlightened.
Another inspirational voice on the subject of motherhood is Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995), Blessed Teresa enlightened the world with this insight about motherhood:
“God has created each one of us, every human being, for greater things-- to love and to be loved. But why did God make some of us men and others women? Because a woman's love is one image of the love of God, and a man's love is another image of God's love. Both are created to love, but each in a different way. Woman and man complete each other, and together show forth God's love more fully than either can do it alone.
“That special power of loving that belongs to a woman is seen most clearly when she becomes a mother. Motherhood is the gift of God to women. How grateful we must be to God for this wonderful gift that brings such joy to the whole world, women and men alike!
“Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also be thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving, than giving oneself to others. No job, no plans, no possessions, no idea of "freedom" can take the place of love. So anything that destroys God's gift of motherhood destroys His most precious gift to women-- the ability to love as a woman.”
Of course, no discussion of motherhood is complete without referencing our Blessed Mother. In the conclusion of his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II says, “The one who accepted ‘Life’ in the name of all and for the sake of all was Mary, the Virgin Mother…Mary’s consent at the annunciation and her motherhood stand at the very beginning of the mystery of life which Christ came to bestow on humanity.”
Therefore, the Church’s mission, John Paul II says “was made possible by the motherhood of Mary, who conceived and bore the one who is ‘God from God’, ‘true God from true God.’” This critical role of motherhood, he says, is punctuated in the Book of Revelation: “And the dragon stood before the woman…that he might devour her child when she brought it forth (Rv. 12:4).”
“[T]he powers of evil,” John Paul II says, “before affecting the disciples of Jesus, [are] directed against his mother…who has to flee with Joseph and the child into Egypt (cf. Mt 2:13-15). Mary thus helps the church realize that life is always at the center of a great struggle between good and evil…The dragon wishes to devour ‘the child brought forth’…a figure of Christ....[and] every child, especially every helpless baby whose life is threatened…”
I extend my profound gratitude to my mother and to all mothers for the unique love and selflessness that you show to your children and through them to the whole world. Never has our world needed your example more than now. As our Blessed Mother’s love and selflessness showed us, every human mother’s “yes” to life can help transform our culture of death to a culture of life and love.
The Deception and Devastation of “Choice”
One of the cruelest hoaxes played upon women is embodied in the abortion industry’s euphemistic mantra “freedom of choice”. The abortion industry’s attempt to disguise the act of killing unborn children with the appealing concepts of “freedom” and “choice” suggests that women freely choose to have abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth.