Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Pope, an Archbishop, and Nancy Pelosi, on Abortion, Human Rights, and Communion

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may or may not pay attention, but Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver says that, since she disagrees with the church on whether or not it's okay to kill babies, she shouldn't show up for Communion.

It's not that the Pope or the Archbishop don't like Ms. Pelosi. The Catholic Church has standards, and being an advocate for murder isn't regarded as compatible with receiving the Eucharist. (Catechism, 1355, 1385-1387, 1415, also see Article 8)

Unlike contemporary American law, the Catholic Church regards all human beings as people, with "human rights:" babies as well as members of Congress.

Supporting Human Rights Can be Awkward

Not being able to be 'broad minded,' 'compassionate,' or 'sensitive' by local standards can be awkward. I've had conversations with other Americans which were a bit tense in spots.

For example, there was the committed, and possibly ardent, pro-life campaigner who firmly felt that abortion should be illegal. Except in cases of rape or incest. He wondered how I could fail to care for the feelings of the woman, cruelly forced to carry an unwanted child.

Well, I care: but I also don't think that whacking a baby is going to make her feel all that much better in the long run. And, it's a little rough on the kid. That 'rape or incest' exception is one of the few cases in American culture, where otherwise very nice people sincerely feel that members of a criminal's family should be executed for the criminal's act.

Whaddaya Mean, "Human Rights?!" These are Babies/Embryos/Fetuses/Formless Blobs of Protoplasm

The Catholic Church has a rather inclusive notion of who is 'human.' The Church says that we start being human when we are conceived, and keep on being human. Even if we're clumsy teenagers with zits, disgusting criminals, winners of beauty pageants, crippled, stupid, or members of Congress. It doesn't matter. We're human: and have certain rights.

That's counter-cultural, but that's the way it is.

It's not all that hard to find out what the Church's teaching on human rights is. I spent a few minutes, and made a sort of 'best of' list of resources that discuss the human rights of babies:

Yeah, Those Catholics (or Whatever) Love Babies: but They Hate the Mothers

You've probably met a vicious, vindictive, vitriolic Catholic or two. The Catholic Church takes all sorts in, and some of us are more obviously in need of redemption than others.

They're not running the Church, thank God.

Actually, charity is one of the requirements for a Catholic life: if you're trying to take the Church's teachings seriously. It's the 'love your neighbor as yourself' thing again. The Catechism goes into the matter of charity quite a bit, including "Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,'..." (1931)

There's that "without any exception" idea again. I'm Catholic, so I have to help take care of babies whose fathers lost interest somewhere in the first nine months, and the mothers. There's a place in town that's doing a pretty good job: this household has given money when we can, as well as a crib and other material. It's not much, but I'm not exactly Bill Gates.

Back to Nancy Pelosi, the Ardent Catholic Who Supports Abortion Rights

In a way, it doesn't matter what the Archbishop of Denver says about Nancy Pelosi and receiving Communion. California isn't in his territory. Just the same, I think it would do Nancy Pelosi good to think about what he said.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver knows what he's talking about. So does the Pope.

I know that local Catholic authorities where people like the Pelosis and the Kennedys live appear to have what I'll politely call flexible standards: at least for the rich and famous. In today's America, that's one way to be called 'tolerant' or 'open minded.' It's certainly easier, in the short run, than following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

But, in the final analysis, I don't think that failure to correct serious misunderstandings of Church doctrine is a good idea: for the Church, or for the people who have decided to do things 'my way.'

Pelosi, the Pope, and an Archbiship, in the News

Here's the first and last paragraph from a Catholic News Agency article:

"Denver, Colo., Feb 19, 2009 (CNA).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver is in complete agreement with the message that Pope Benedict XVI delivered to Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. The archbishop also went so far as to say that since she disagrees with the Church on the 'black and white issue' of abortion, she should not present herself for Communion...."

"...Referring to the issue of abortion, Archbishop Chaput said, 'This is a human rights issue, from the point of view of the Church, and not a theological or religious perspective. Our religious perspective supports that, but that’s not the source of our belief about the sacredness of human life.' "

Related posts: In the news: Background:

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Pelosi and the Pope, Emotion and Beliefs

Nancy Pelosi has described herself as an "ardent Catholic." She may be right about that.

"Ardent" means
  • "characterized by intense emotion"
  • "characterized by strong enthusiasm"
  • "glowing or shining like fire"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
I've seen photos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she's not glowing or shining like a fire - but she may very well be emotional about being Catholic.

There's nothing wrong with that, but there's much more to being Catholic than feeling good about the Church, or enjoying the music. There's also learning to use your reason and your will. (Catechism, 1676, 1767, 1768, 1776-1794, 2708)

Practicing the Catholic faith means finding out what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Being Ardent Isn't Being Informed

There's no problem with being excited about the grandeur, ceremonies, and colorful costumes of the Catholic Church. But, I think it's more important to know what the Church teaches.

The Church is quite clear on what its doctrines are. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (2nd Edition), available online, covers what the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium have to say about what it is to be Catholic. (More about those three terms, in "The Roman Catholic Church isn't a Democracy" (February 19, 2009), and "The Catholic Church: Authoritarian, Which Isn't Necessarily a Bad Thing" (October 2, 2008).)

Ideally, Catholics growing up in America would have learned what the Church teaches while they were growing up. One of the problems I see with the Catholic Church in America is the weird stuff that passed for Catechetics over the last several decades. But, that's getting off topic.

Pelosi vs. the Pope: Match Ends in Draw

It doesn't look like Nancy Pelosi talked the Pope into repealing any of the Ten Commandments (he doesn't have the authority to, anyway). And, the American Speaker of the House probably won't make any change in her 'ardent' beliefs - not any time soon.

Hardly surprising, in both cases. Here's what the two offices had to say:
The Holy See
" 'His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development,' the Vatican wrote, having released the statement moments before the two met...."
United States of America's Speaker of the House Pelosi's Office
" 'It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today,' Pelosi said in a statement released hours after the meeting. 'In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show his Holiness a photograph of my family's papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.'..." (FOXNews (February 18, 2009))
The Vatican Reported on the Meeting - Before the Meeting??
I sometimes quibble about outfits that release statements about an event before the curtain goes up. The Holy See's jumping the gun is okay by me - not because I'm blindly loyal, but because it follows an established precedent. The press often gets speeches or other statements before they're officially made. That way, reporters get a chance to write at least part of their articles before an event, presumably filling in details later.

In a case like this, the Pope's statement about "natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life" was quite predictable. The fifth commandment pre-dates the Holy See by more than a thousand years, and it's not going to change: unless the Pope gets orders from a higher authority. He is, remember, just the Vicar of Christ. (Catechism 874, 882)

Press Coverage Could Have Been Worse

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that USA Today's column on the Pelosi-Pope match was a bit condescending. After starting with "The Catholic chat-o-sphere is not entirely lost in a guess-the-archbishop game...", we read "...Michael Paulson, at The Boston Globe does a nice run though of the waves comments, chiefly vitriolic toward Pelosi, on the blogs. He draws on Deal Hudson who writes at InsideCatholic.com:..."

This quote, excerpted from the column is, presumably, part of the "vitriolic" waves of comments:
" 'The Holy Father is a head of state and must, as a matter of course, meet with political leaders from every nation, regardless of their positions on issues important to the Church. It's also a good idea for Benedict XVI to meet with misguided souls like Pelosi, because you can never underestimate the impact of being in his presence on someone who is running from the truth as fast as she/he can.'..."
Her Boston Globe source could have done better, I think. Here's part of a blog from someone in Los Angeles, who's also Catholic: the kind of Catholic who actually knows what the Church teaches.
"The USA is really in trouble when the top three positions in its government are filled by human beings as ignorant, as extremist and as cruel and heartless as the remorseless pro-abortion zealots Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden and Barack H. 'Punished with a Baby' Obama...." ("Pope Benedict XVI and Pro-Abortion Nancy Pelosi" L.A. Catholic (February 17, 2009))
I wouldn't call those three politicos "extremist," but I've spent decades on or near college campuses: my threshold for "extremist" is set pretty high. I do agree with the the blogger, though, that none of them practices a political philosophy that's consistent with Catholic teaching.

Alienate "Mainstream Catholics," or Alienate God - This is a Choice?

The Los Angeles Times article had a different angle, but brought up the same basic point as the USA Today column: "...All of which is likely to fuel a continuing debate in Catholic circles, as the New York Times put it, about whether this pope's focus on doctrine could alienate mainstream Catholics like Pelosi...." (Los Angeles Times (February 17, 2009))

First, although people like Pelosi and the Kennedys are, in the dialect used by American news media, "mainstream Catholics," I'm not entirely convinced that they're quite as near the 50th percentile of Catholic Americans as The New York Times, US News, and Los Angeles Times editors would like to believe.

Second, even if a clear majority of American Catholics 'ardently' believe that the Pope is wrong on most doctrinal points: so what?
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Goals
It's easy enough to say "...As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15) Actually following through on those bold words is something else. Particularly when 'ardent Catholics' like Nancy Pelosi are in positions of influence and 'mainstream Catholics' are assumed to follow in the footsteps of Pelosi and the Kennedys.

Following the teachings of the Catholic Church isn't made easier, when Catholics who understand what the Church teaches, and follow its rules, seem to be regarded as about on a par with the Yokums of Dogpatch. Only not as funny.

I'm not complaining. That's the way it is, and nobody told me that being Catholic would be easy.

Besides, I like to look the big picture. It's inconvenient, and sometimes a little embarrassing, to go against the Pelosis, Kennedys, and USA Todays, of the world. At that, I've got it easy: There are times and places where following God is just plain lethal.

Even in a worst-case scenario, though, I hope I'd have the guts to follow God and His Church. He's the one I'll have to face, sooner or later: so His opinion matters more than that of anyone else.

If that means I'm not in the 'mainstream,' so be it.

More-or-less related posts:
Related post in another blog:
News and views:

The Roman Catholic Church isn't a Democracy

Or: Why I became a Catholic.

Even if most American Catholics ardently support abortion rights, contraception, gay marriage, and whatever else is fashionable this year, it doesn't matter. The Roman Catholic Church isn't a democracy, and it certainly isn't a consumer-driven religion service.

Catholics aren't in a "roll-your-own doctrines" church. What the church believes and teaches is based on The Magisterium interprets the deposit of faith in its written form, and in Tradition. But there are rules. "...this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant." (86) And the Church gets its authority from Jesus, who gave it to Peter and his successors. (67, 75, 83, 84-90, 105, 555)

If someone doesn't like what the Church teaches, the door is open. Anyone who wants to leave, may do so. Just as anyone who accepts the Word of God, rejects sin, and is baptized, can become a Catholic. (1229) And, yes: I'm simplifying the process a bit.

Being perfect, by the way, is not a requirement. Let's put it this way: they let me in.

I Don't Like Authority - So I Converted to Catholicism?!

I may have gotten my general attitude toward authority from growing up in the sixties, or from my Irish roots.

Which makes my decision to become Catholic seem odd. Maybe even a little crazy.

It makes sense, though.

I tend to be dubious about people who say this or that is so, or that I should do one thing, and not do another, just because they've got some alphabet soup after their name, or have a fancy title.

If they can back up their claims, that's another matter.

When it comes to God, I've learned to give Him the benefit of the doubt. He's earned titles like Omnipotent, Omniscient, and quite a litany of others. In short, He's large, and in charge.

And, when I found out that He (his Son, specifically) had given authority to Peter, who passed it down the centuries to the current Pope, becoming Catholic was something of a no-brainer.

Related post:

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Stimulating Schools - But not Those Religious Ones

I'm not terribly surprised about this headline. There are quite a few people in America who seem to neither like nor trust religion.

"Conservative Groups Declare Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer" (FOXNews (February 4, 2009)).

"A provision in the House-passed stimulus bill -- banning money to be used to renovate schools from being spent on facilities that allow 'religious worship' -- has ignited fury among those who claim it discriminates on the basis of faith and violates the right to free speech...."

I could go on a rant about 'freedom of religion' having changed into 'freedom from religion,' but I've got other work to do.

Besides, although I'd sort of like the Feds to support church-sponsored schools, I also know that money always comes with strings attached: even if the restrictions aren't immediately obvious.

And, I think think the federal government's role in educating our children is to get out of the way: and that's a whole different topic.

I'd suggest reading that article, even if you don't like FOXNews. I don't know when, or if, old-school news media is going to pick up on this little detail.

Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral Burned, Hats Still Hanging

Thanks God, nobody was killed. And, Father Matt Compton, one of the priests on duty at the Cathedral, got the Blessed Sacrament out.1

Francis Cardinal George said:
" 'First of all, we want to thank God that no one was injured ... Father Mayall, the priests, the sisters who live in the convent are all safe. There was one firefighter whose back was sprained while trying to get into the crawl space.2 We should pray for his health and recovery,' he said...."
(NBC Chicago)
I'll add my 'amen' to that.

Icicles on the Pews, Masses in the Auditorium

Holy Name Cathedral Parish updated their website a few minutes ago. The home page now starts with:
"HOLY NAME CATHEDRAL PARISH WILL CONTINUE TO OFFER A FULL SCHEDULE OF MASSES DESPITE THE FIRE THAT CLOSED THE CATHEDRAL AFTER AN EARLY WEDNESDAY MORNING FIRE IN THE CATHEDRAL ATTIC...."
In case they change the home page address, Holy Name Cathedral Parish's URL is holynamecathedral.org. Right now, that shows you a simple splash screen.

The home page has a nice photo of the cathedral's interior, taken before the fire.

Holy Name Cathedral, Chicago: More than a Fancy Church

Make no mistake, the Holy Name Cathedral parish took a big hit this morning. They'd remodeled the cathedral, fixing up the bookstore, confessionals, and children's playroom. Now, from what I read, bride's room in the basement is waist-deep in water.

A "cathedral" isn't a fancy church: although they generally are tricked out more than other Catholic churches in an area. A cathedral is the seat of the local bishop. You could think of it as a regional headquarters. And, in this case, one where the bishop is a cardinal (the next rank after cardinal is pope).

So, the effect of Holy Name Cathedral's physical damage is something like what people would feel about a fire in their state's capitol building.

Firefighters have been pushing water off the floor, and my guess is that the Cardinal, or whoever he assigned to handle the project, is getting appraisers and contractors lined up to get the building fixed.

Wet and Dripping, but Still Hanging

Set against the two millennia 3 since the Church got started, the Holy Name Cathedral fire of February 4, 2009, in Chicago, Illinois, isn't all that major an event. The damage will be repaired, and the work of the Church will go on.

A deacon, showing a reporter around, "pointed to the cardinal's hats hanging above the altar. He believed they were wet, the purple color darkened, the hats sagging ‹ but they were still hanging." (Chicago Sun-Times)

I think those sagging hats are a good symbol for what's happened. There's been some physical damage, but the Church, like those hats, is still there.

In the news:
  • "Inside look at Holy Name after the fire"
    Chicago Sun-Times (February 4, 2009)
    Includes videos
  • "Cardinal: There Are Icicles on the Pews"
    NBC Chicago (February 4, 2009)
    • "Cardinal Francis George went inside Holy Name Cathedral on Wednesday morning to survey the damage, shortly after the fire was out...."
  • "Chicago cathedral ravaged by fire"
    BBC (February 4, 2009)
    • "A fire has swept through Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral - a city landmark and the seat of Roman Catholic Cardinal Francis George...."
  • "Crews snuff blaze at Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral"
    FOXNews (February 4, 2009)
    • "CHICAGO — Crews have extinguished fire at Holy Name Cathedral, a 134-year-old Chicago landmark and the seat of Cardinal Francis George...."
  • "Fire is latest problem for Holy Name"
    Chicago Tribune (February 4, 2009)
    • "In November, daily worshipers finally returned to Holy Name Cathedral, the seat of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, after a piece of decorative woodwork fell from the ceiling in February, forcing the cathedral to close its doors while workers inspected and repaired.
    • "A piece-by-piece check of the ceiling found 4,000 pieces were either loose or missing. Each one was removed by hand, milled, repainted and reattached with long metal screws. Each one was also cleaned, a task that had filled the worship space with a new glow.
      ...
      "
Background:
1 Getting the Blessed Sacrament out of a burning church is a pretty big deal for Catholics. Father Compton was doing what White House security probably has standing orders to do: in case of fire, get the boss out. It may look like 'just a cracker,' but the Blessed Sacrament is Jesus, really present in the flesh (1373-1377). I don't understand how, and don't expect to: I'm not God. Not even close.

2Somebody's likely to pounce on that "no one was injured ... one firefighter whose back was sprained" gaffe, so I'll address that now: The fire started around 5:30 this morning, odds are good that the Cardinal was alerted shortly after that, and he's got quite a lot to think about right now. He's also human. I'm not all that surprised, when someone says something like "no one was injured," instead of "no one was [adjective] injured."

3 Okay: it's more like 1,975 years, give or take. "Two millennia" is easier to read and remember than "1.975 millennia" - and sounds a lot less geeky. Plus, it's only off by 1.25% or so.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Medical Ethics and Human Experimentation: Why I Take it Personally

As the survivor of a medical experiment, I'm biased about bioethics.

Back in 1951, treatments for congenital hip dysplasia weren't as advanced as they are now, but they existed.

'That Hurts, Doesn't It?

My parent's family doctor noticed that I screamed when he rotated my hips, and said something like 'that hurts, doesn't it?'

Some time later, when my parents noticed that I had trouble rolling over - and wasn't very good at crawling - they found out that I had congenital hip dysplasia. That's a five-dollar term meaning that my hips hadn't grown correctly.

Months in a sort of brace didn't have much effect, and so a surgeon went in, took bone from my femur and sculpted a hip socket for my left hip. The right socket was definitely not up to specs, but was good enough to leave alone. That operation got me to the point where I could learn to walk, so I was able to walk back into the hospital a few years later, when something went wrong with my left hip.

Neither of the operations, or the physical therapy, were a medical experiment. I'm getting to that.

Medical Research, an Enraged Irishman, and a Grim Daughter of the Vikings

My father was head librarian at a college, and could get himself assigned to the reference desk from time to time. He enjoyed being able to connect students with information they needed. When he wasn't doing that, he had time to read a book or periodical from the shelves.

One day, he was going through a medical journal. One of the articles' title read something like "Effects of Delayed Treatment on Congenital Hip Dysplasia." He recently told me that, as he read the author's name, and the article, and realized what the good doctor had done, it felt like the top oh his head had come off.

Before he got to the doctor, my mother discussed the matter with him. He returned to his duties at the library. She made an appointment with the doctor.

During that appointment, I presume that she discussed the matter of congenital hip dysplasia, certain aspects of medical research, and her son. I understand that she did not speak - ever - of what happened in that room.

It might have been more merciful, in a way, to let an enraged Irishman get at the doctor - instead of five-foot-nothing of concentrated viking determination.

Shortly after the interview with my mother, the doctor's office quietly announced that he was taking an indefinite leave of absence. We never heard of him again.

I have no idea what my mother planted in his brain. She was a highly intelligent woman with a will of cold iron that did credit to our viking forebears. Whatever she gave him, I hope he took advantage of the experience, and reconsidered his views on medicine, people, and research.

Artificial Hips: These Things are Great!

I've got two new hip sockets now. They're artificial, and don't work as well as most people's original equipment.

But they're a lot better than what I'd been working with for a half-century. I've got what for me is an astonishing range of movement for both legs. Best of all, I can stand, sit, walk, lean, lie down, turn, or stay still: and not hurt. I realize now that what I'd decided to regard as "discomfort" was pain.

A Half-Century of Pain: Yes, it's a Blessing

Once in a while, I wonder what it would have been like to have gotten treatment when the doctor noticed what was wrong with my hips. It's possible that the two operations wouldn't have been needed, and that I'd have avoided quite a bit of unpleasantness.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have
  • Learned how to deal with discomfort (I yelled a lot - but I also learned to accept what I had, and keep going).
  • Been able to tell a couple of mouthy kids, "it's a [expletive] of a young age to lose your legs." Their (sister, I think) had been trying, unsuccessfully, to convince them that what they were doing in a subway station wasn't prudent. The way I looked, and walked, and my cane, may have given credibility to my observation. They moved to safety.
  • Had experiences I could share with a young man who was experiencing intense self-pity. He'd been in a motorcycle accident, and wasn't able to walk as well as he had before: a genuinely rough experience for someone who's used to being somewhat athletic.
  • Had the opportunity to forgive the doctor who apparently thought of me as a large, noisy, lab rat.
About forgiving that doctor and his little experiment: yes, I forgive him; no, I'm not being 'spiritual,' or some other nonsense.

I have to forgive him. It's in the rules. Besides, I've got enough troubles as it is, without keeping a grudge that'll hurt me more than it does him.

Bioethics: With Me, it's Personal

I also have to forgive people who want to grow clones for their parts, or as experimental subjects. That doesn't mean that I can't feel a bit more personally involved in bioethics than some do.

I know, from personal experience, what a relatively benign experiment can do to a person. I accept what happened to me as an opportunity to learn and grow: but I wouldn't wish it on anybody else.

Related posts:

Monday, February 2, 2009

Human Clones Possible: Don't Worry, They're Just for Parts and Research

Today's Wired magazine includes this article:

"Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable"
Wired (February 2, 2009)

Don't Worry: They'll Only Make Clones for Parts and Research

Kudos to Wired, for not saying that. But, if this round of debate in what's called "medical ethics" is like the others, someone's going to use the 'parts and research only" idea.

There seem to be people who are uncomfortable with the idea of human clones walking around, who think that it's quite a good idea to clone people. Provided that someone kills the clones and either
  1. Breaks them down for the parts
  2. Does medical experiments on the clones
Those uses of clones are, respectively, (1) compassionate, and (2) scientific. Or so I understand.
Cloning in Wired's World: Excerpts
I suggest that anyone interested in what's happening in this sort of research read "Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable." The article seems to be quite accurate, written in relatively non-technical language, and remarkably complete in its discussion of human cloning's state of the art.

I'll be referring to excerpts from the article. You'll find them at the end of this post.

He Ain't Human, He's a Lump of Protoplasm

I remember when one of the arguments for legal abortion was that people aren't people until we're about three months old. Or, in medicalspeak, after the first trimester.

After all, it's generally accepted that Roe v Wade (1973) said it's okay to get your kid whacked in the first trimester. And the American Supreme Court wouldn't approve of killing people, would it?

I've discussed capital punishment before. And, yes, capital punishment is legal in America. I said "legal," not "right." There's a difference.

Quite a few people aren't all that concerned about killing adults who have done something disgusting. Not so many show any real enthusiasm for killing babies.

That sort of inhibition can be a real problem for those who do. I doubt that they think of what they're pushing for is 'killing babies.' That isn't nice. It does, on the other hand, seem very 'scientific' if whatever you're cutting up or experimenting on isn't a baby, and isn't even human.

I remember when the "lump of protoplasm" line was rather more popular among equal rights activists. It was effective, too, until imaging technology started showing what the "lump of protoplasm" actually looked like. The phrase hasn't died out - I ran into an example recently - but its usefulness in public debate has declined.

These days, we've got much more scientific terms, like "totipotent cell" "clump of embryonic cells, and "unfertilized oocyte." Impressive! Oocyte, by the way, means "a female gametocyte that develops into an ovum after two meiotic divisions. A gametocyte is "an immature animal or plant cell that develops into a gamete by meiosis" (Princeton's WordNet).

Euphemisms like that don't always work. The state of Wisconsin prohibited human cloning in 2005 ASSEMBLY BILL 499, even though some very scientific terms had been used in the debate, and appeared in the bill itself (" 'Enucleated oocyte' means a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte, the nuclear material of which has been removed or inactivated....").

Sometimes it's necessary to use very precise technical and scientific terms: like in legislation, to nail down exactly what's being described. Polysyllabic utterances utilized when discussing issues before the general populace, however, can be employed with intent to obfuscate.

Taking the tone down a few notches, scientific terms like "oocyte" can be used as euphemisms. And, I agree with the USCCB: "...They are employed to conceal the fact that researchers want to be allowed to use cloning to produce and destroy human embryos...."

Catholics, Cloning, and 'Christians Hate Science'

I've known people who said they were Christians - I believe them - and obviously neither liked, no understood, science. Too bad: they're missing out on a lot.

Individual Catholics may not like science - or broccoli. But the Roman Catholic Church has no problem with science. (And the Catechism is silent on the subject of broccoli: I like it myself, but would never force my tastes on another person.)

"Faith and science: 'Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.'..." I know. I've been to college. That "faith is above reason" thing may distress quite a few people. Sorry about that.

The rest of that quote is: "...'Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.' " (Catechism, 159)

Clones: Soulless Monsters of Science Run Amok?

Clones wouldn't have souls, since they didn't have a mother and a father, right?

If you don't think souls exist - or that they shouldn't - this is a meaningless question. For everyone else, here's part of what the Catholic Church has to say about where the human soul comes from:

"The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not "produced" by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection." (366)

But that's about real human beings. Clones wouldn't have souls, right?

"Catholics have no reason to deny that a cloned human has a human soul. Respect for natural reason, and for the equal dignity of all human beings under God, leads us to respect every member of the human species regardless of his or her origins. The account of Jesus' origin in the Gospel of Luke certainly reminds us that there may be more than one way to come into existence as a member of the human family!..." ("Human Cloning vs. Human Dignity")

Following the principle that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is almost certainly a duck, I'd say that cloned people are people: human individuals. And, "how could a human individual not be a human person?" That last is a quote from "Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions" - written last year.
...If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life. Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?"8. Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.
(CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions)
8 CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Donum vitae, I, 1: AAS 80 (1988), 78-79.

Come on: Growing Clones for Parts? That's Science Fiction!

When "The Clonus Horror" was released, in 1979, it was. You may have run into the movie as "Clonus" (USA) or "Parts: The Clonus Horror (USA)" (reissue title) imdb.com.

Clonus Associates filmed this little exercise in horror at Moorpark College. My guess is that it's regarded as a rather poor film: no big actors, no big budget. I doubt it will every join the ranks of "Citizen Kane" or "The Nude Restaurant" as recognized work of the cinematographic arts, but I think that "The Clonus Horror" did a better-than-average job of handling the implications of applied science, than most of what Hollywood produces.

The movie's plot centers around a young man who finds out that these wonderfully fit people don't 'go to America' when they disappear. Or, rather, they don't go all at once.

They're all clones, grown for their parts. For years, when a promising leader was spotted, a tissue sample was taken, and a clone made. As the clone grew, he or she was given the best possible care, an excellent diet, and every opportunity for attaining the peak of physical fitness.

Then, when a clone reached an optimum age, he or she was frozen and stored. As the original grew older and started to have medical problems, replacement parts would be taken from the clone.

In fact, I can see a few problems with this scenario. For starters, there'd have to be more than one clone per master if Clonus were to be a practical parts factory. Human beings only have so many paired organs, and the odds are that VIPs would need more than one set of some parts. Then, there's the matter of the preservation technology and that chemical lobotomy they used.

But, I'm nitpicking. The basic idea, growing people and harvesting them for parts, has some utilitarian merit. Provided that you accept that people like members of Congress and leaders of industry are more important than the rest of us, and that clones aren't really people, it makes perfect sense. In an amoral, cannibalistic or vampiric, way.

As the Survivor of a Medical Experiment, I'm Biased

I take the matter of medical experimentation on human beings, and medical ethics, rather more personally than some people might. I learned recently that I was part of a medical experiment. One that my parents didn't know about.

But that's another story.

Related posts: Background:
Excerpts from Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable (Wired (February 2, 2009))

"The research is the first step toward therapeutic cloning — making embryonic stem cells from a patient's own DNA capable of replacing diseased tissue, failing organs and even lost limbs. And, theoretically, the same technique could be used to produce a cloned person."

"Research on these hybrid embryos — as well as chimeric embryos, formed by mixing actual human and animal DNA — was approved last year in the United Kingdom. But that approval came after bitter public debate in which opponents raised the specter of sentient human-animal hybrids being used as biological parts factories."

"But the fully human cloned embryos could produce stem cells and, if permitted, perhaps grow into a person.

" 'The DNA resembles the DNA of a normal human embryo, which raises the question of human reproductive cloning,' said Lanza."

Dred Scott, the Slavery Compromise, and Who to Trust

There's a reason "I Put no trust in princes..." (Psalms 146:3). Even if I hadn't read what the Bible has to say about the reliability of secular institutions, I know too much history to assume that 'the government' belongs at the top of my 'trust' list.

I'm an American citizen, and I think this country is a pretty good place to live. As Winston Churchill said, "...democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." And I think the American economic system's opportunities are part of the reason so many people have been trying to break into this country.

Whaddaya Know: America isn't Perfect

Over the years, I've run into a few people who seem to think that America is perfect: real-life versions of Doonsbury's B.D. If they really think that America has had an error-free history, they haven't done their homework.

Having worked with people who had escaped to America, I appreciate what a fine place this is for someone who's willing to work with the system. But: Perfect? This is firebase Earth. Don't expect perfection here.

Doing research for another post, I ran into some details (or trivia - you decide) about the slavery compromise of 1787 or thereabouts, and the Dred Scott decision. It didn't quite belong in that post. But, I don't like letting research go to waste, so here it is.

History, Civil Rights, and Religious Stuff

Hypothetically, let's say that someone asked, "wait a minute! This is a blog about being a Catholic in America. What's history and civil rights doing in a religious blog?" That depends on what you mean by 'being religious.'

There are people who seem to be 'too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.' And people who want to be so 'spiritual' that they can't soil their hands with mundane affairs. I'm not talking about cloistered orders here, but 'nice' people who think it's 'not nice' to discuss controversial issues or unpleasant topics.

If giving a rip about what happens to people means I'm not 'nice,' I can live with that.

And from what I've learned, the Catholic Church isn't very 'nice' either.

Neither was its founder, for that matter. You may have heard about the disturbance Jesus caused in Jerusalem's temple (John 2:14-16). Or his distinctly counter-cultural approach to adultery (John 8:1-11).

So here's what I dug up about one of America's very messy problems. Before diving into that, though: a reminder.

There have been a few notable events since 1787 and the slavery compromise, including:
I sincerely hope that it doesn't take something like two centuries and a major war to sort out the question of whether or not it's okay to kill babies, cut up (living) people for parts, or make one class of people fair game for doctors with an urge to experiment.

"Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857)

Cultural assumptions being what they are, I think I'd better make this disclaimer: In my considered opinion,
  • Slavery is a really bad idea
  • The Dred Scott decision was a mistake
  • It's wrong to consider people as more or less valuable based on
    • What they look like
    • Who their ancestors were
What follows are excerpts from "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857), as provided by the 'Lectric Law Library. (Despite the whimsical name, 'Lectric Law Library had what appears to be a complete copy of the Dred Scott decision - there's another at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.)

These excerpts are not in the order in which they appear in the Dred Scott decision.
"...Hence it follows, necessarily, that a slave, the peculium or property of a master, and possessing within himself no civil nor political rights or capacities, cannot be a CITIZEN. For who, it may be asked, is a citizen? What do the character and status of citizen import?"

"By the references above given it is shown, from the nature and objects of civil and political associations, and upon the direct authority of history, that citizenship was not conferred by the simple fact of emancipation,..."

"We give both of these laws in the words used by the respective legislative bodies, because the language in which they are framed, as well as the provisions contained in them, show, too plainly to be misunderstood, the degraded condition of this unhappy race. They were still in force when the Revolution began, and are a faithful index to the state of feeling towards the class of persons of whom they speak, and of the position they occupied throughout the thirteen colonies, in the eyes and thoughts of the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and established the State Constitutions and Governments. They show that a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race."

"But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed."

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."

"And still further pursuing its legislation, we find that in the same statute passed in 1774, which prohibited the further importation of slaves into the State, there is also a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant, who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged, without a written pass such as is therein described, was made liable to be seized by any one, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master -- who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of the same law provides, that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that up to that time free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State."
('Lectric Law Library)

Dred Scott, the Constitution, the 3/5ths Rule, and an Update on Current Events

Interestingly, the "3/5" ratio doesn't appear in copies of the Dred Scott decision I read and searched.

However, defining a 'non-free' person as 3/5 of a person is in the American Constitution. How the slavery compromise of 1787 is presented depends, I think, on how the particular college or university wants students to feel about America.

The Emory University School of Law has a pretty good copy online, with interesting sidelights, like "Amendments never ratified." The "3/5" ratio is in Section 2, Clause 3 ("Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned ... determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2...") (Constitution for the United States of America, 1787)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.