The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: December 3, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
“T.R.” writes in response to last month’s column three objections that “seem to lend weight to the idea that ‘human life cannot begin at conception.’” He writes, “ How can, at conception, a ‘separate, distinct human being’ be created when anytime between fertilization and implantation . . . twinning can occur, raising the question, ‘which twin got the human life at conception?’”
T.R. refers to the case of identical twinning, which occurs when a single embryo splits into two within 15 days of fertilization. With monozygotic (identical) twinning it does not matter if the split takes place at day two or fourteen. Each twin has the full complement of genetic material identifying her or him as fully human. If their division is incomplete, they will be conjoined. Regardless of where they are joined, each twin is a separate, distinct human being.
Robert P. George, Ph.D., writes, “Consider the parallel case of division of a flatworm. Parts of a flatworm have the potential to become a whole flatworm when isolated from the present whole of which they are part. Yet no one would suggest that prior to the division of a flatworm to produce two whole flatworms the original flatworm was not a unitary individual. Likewise, at the early stages of human embryonic development, before specialization by the cells has progressed very far, the cells or groups of cells can become whole organisms if they are divided and have an appropriate environment after the division. But that fact does not in the least indicate that prior to such an extrinsic division the embryo is other than a unitary, self-integrating, actively developing human organism. It certainly does not show that the embryo is a mere clump of cells.”
In other words, the human organism present at fertilization is complete with a set of genetic information to direct its own development; if it happens to divide, there may be more than one distinct human organism whose life began at fertilization and continued through the moment of twinning and beyond. Identical twins share the moment of conception and then divide.
T.R.’s second concern is about fertilization in a petri dish. He writes, “it can never grow into a human being unless first implanted . . .” What he doesn’t realize is that we do not grow into human beings. All of us became human beings at fertilization. Some of us die minutes after fertilization; others die 80 years later. All began life as unique, single-celled humans. All were human beings at different stages of development. None of us can continue to grow unless we are in an environment conducive to growth at our particular stage of development, whether in the womb or in our homes.
The third query posed by T.R. is that it is an “impossible stretch of the imagination to consider that a purposeful human life exists [in a single zygote that never implants].” It is a stretch of the imagination only if we recognize human life by the way one “looks.” We all were the size of a grain of sugar when we came into existence. We all looked like a shrimp at four weeks of development. None of us look like we did five minutes after we were born. Yet, we are all humans who looked the way we were supposed to look at specific times in our development. Our size, our age, our capabilities or the way we look does not determine our humanity.
Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D, writes, “The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists—not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.”
A brief perusal of standard human embryology textbooks finds “fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.” There is no question. The intellectually honest know that human life begins at fertilization.
Copyright, 2004
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
They Were More Than Just Numbers
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
November 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
The Illinois Department of Public Health has released its “2003 Illinois Abortion Statistics.” As always, the premature deaths of these tiny human beings are referred to as “reported induced pregnancy terminations.” While the Department of Public Health may choose to refer to these deaths as “pregnancy terminations,” the truth is that each one of these “terminations” resulted in the violent death of a developing baby before he or she had the opportunity to see the light of day.
During 2003 a total of 42,228 abortions were reportedly committed on women in Illinois. Of that number, 3,497 were committed on women living out of state. It goes without saying that anytime the number of abortions is reduced, it is good news. However, for a number of reasons, we have no assurance that these figures are totally accurate.
The “51” Rule
As I have mentioned in previous issues of Life Matters, for some unknown reason, abortion statistics in Illinois from any given county are tallied only if fifty-one or more women from that county aborted their babies.
If “only” fifty or less women from a county abort their babies, the number is not included in the over-all statistics. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, the statistics for 69 counties are listed as “less than or equal to 50.” That information—coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee that abortionists report all the abortions they commit—leaves us with no way of knowing for certain just how many babies in Illinois are killed in their mother’s wombs.
The statistics provided by the Illinois Department of Health regarding the total number of abortions committed in any given year must be viewed as incomplete. These numbers represent a minimum. Keep in mind that in 69 counties we have no idea how many women aborted. In each county it could be any number between zero and 50. For the entire state the number could remain the same or increase by a maximum of 3,450. The possibility that the reported number would increase by even a single digit does make a difference. Each increase represents another dead innocent human being.
At Least Six Babies Each Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois included in the Diocese of Rockford, the number of reported abortions for 2003 decreased to 2,134 (down from 2,309 in 2002). This is good news. However, 2,134 divided by 365 days (coupled with the possibility of up to an additional 150 not reported due to the “51” rule) means that at least six babies from our Diocese are killed before birth each day.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed by county of residence of their mothers is as follows:
Boone—78 (down from 91 in 2002);
Carroll—unknown;*
DeKalb—171 (down from 192 in 2002);
JoDaviess—unknown;*
Kane—612 (down from 632 in 2002):
Lee—unknown;*
McHenry—451 (down from 490 in 2002);
Ogle—74 (up from 69 in 2002);
Stephenson—65 (down from 74 in 2002);
Whiteside—52 (down from 60 in 2002);
Winnebago—631 (down from 701 in 2002);
*could be as many as 50
Why Were There Fewer Abortions?
Both pro-life and pro-choice for abortion apologists have weighed in on why there were fewer abortions reported in Illinois in 2003. According to an Associated Press report, “Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said… that the decline is not surprising with the huge growth in popularity of new contraceptive methods, such as the birth control patch. ‘Birth control methods are just so much better than they’ve ever been,’ Sutherland said. ‘Women and men are just being such good contraceptive users and really planning pregnancies.’”
Sutherland is apparently ignoring statistics from Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s own affiliate, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which reports that “Six in 10 women having abortions experienced a contraceptive failure.”
Sutherland did not mention the typical Planned Parenthood mantra that “more contraceptive education results in fewer abortions.” As Susan Wills, Esq. (Associate Director for Education, USSCB Office of Pro-Life Activities) writes, “Perhaps, it's more than a coincidence that all 5 states with the highest teen abortion rates (NY, NV, NJ, MD and CA)—at almost twice the U.S. average—also include contraception education in STD and sex education courses. And is it only a coincidence that 4 of the 5 states with the lowest teen abortion rates (UT, ND, SD, WV and ID) either prohibit or do not mandate contraception education, or allow it to be taught only if risks and failures are fully explored?”
Wills continues, “Certainly other factors are involved, but the data from these 10 states contradict the abortion/contraception industry's claim that educating kids about sex and contraception and increasing access to pills and condoms will bring down abortion rates.”
Last year, commenting about the reported general decline in the number of US abortions, Paula Gianino, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch, “…the decline speaks, in part, to the success of new contraceptive measures—especially the ‘emergency contraception kits’ of pills that can prevent pregnancy if taken within a few days after intercourse.”
What Gianino fails to acknowledge is that the primary mechanism of so-called “emergency contraception” (EC) is a very early abortion. As there is no way to know just how many very young human beings were killed by the action of EC, these abortions cannot be included in reported abortions. Hence, the widespread use of EC obviously contributes to the lower number of reported abortions.
Other Possibilities
While we have no way to know for certain, other possibilities for the reported decline in the number of abortions may include: increasing numbers of young people choosing to live chaste life styles; increasing awareness about the humanity of the unborn; the tireless work of pregnancy care centers which offer “real” choices for women facing untimely pregnancies; and increasing awareness of the negative psychological and health affects following abortion.
One area to also consider is the decline in the number of women of child-bearing age. Vital Statistic Illinois-1999 reported that, “One reason for the decline in the general fertility rate is the decrease in the number of women in the peak childbearing age groups.” If, then, there are fewer women in Illinois of child-bearing age, it follows that there will be fewer unintended pregnancies and hence, fewer abortions.
Bottom line, if there are fewer abortions being committed, that is wonderful news. But, let us not forget that even one abortion is one too many!
Copyright, 2004
November 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
The Illinois Department of Public Health has released its “2003 Illinois Abortion Statistics.” As always, the premature deaths of these tiny human beings are referred to as “reported induced pregnancy terminations.” While the Department of Public Health may choose to refer to these deaths as “pregnancy terminations,” the truth is that each one of these “terminations” resulted in the violent death of a developing baby before he or she had the opportunity to see the light of day.
During 2003 a total of 42,228 abortions were reportedly committed on women in Illinois. Of that number, 3,497 were committed on women living out of state. It goes without saying that anytime the number of abortions is reduced, it is good news. However, for a number of reasons, we have no assurance that these figures are totally accurate.
The “51” Rule
As I have mentioned in previous issues of Life Matters, for some unknown reason, abortion statistics in Illinois from any given county are tallied only if fifty-one or more women from that county aborted their babies.
If “only” fifty or less women from a county abort their babies, the number is not included in the over-all statistics. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, the statistics for 69 counties are listed as “less than or equal to 50.” That information—coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee that abortionists report all the abortions they commit—leaves us with no way of knowing for certain just how many babies in Illinois are killed in their mother’s wombs.
The statistics provided by the Illinois Department of Health regarding the total number of abortions committed in any given year must be viewed as incomplete. These numbers represent a minimum. Keep in mind that in 69 counties we have no idea how many women aborted. In each county it could be any number between zero and 50. For the entire state the number could remain the same or increase by a maximum of 3,450. The possibility that the reported number would increase by even a single digit does make a difference. Each increase represents another dead innocent human being.
At Least Six Babies Each Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois included in the Diocese of Rockford, the number of reported abortions for 2003 decreased to 2,134 (down from 2,309 in 2002). This is good news. However, 2,134 divided by 365 days (coupled with the possibility of up to an additional 150 not reported due to the “51” rule) means that at least six babies from our Diocese are killed before birth each day.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed by county of residence of their mothers is as follows:
Boone—78 (down from 91 in 2002);
Carroll—unknown;*
DeKalb—171 (down from 192 in 2002);
JoDaviess—unknown;*
Kane—612 (down from 632 in 2002):
Lee—unknown;*
McHenry—451 (down from 490 in 2002);
Ogle—74 (up from 69 in 2002);
Stephenson—65 (down from 74 in 2002);
Whiteside—52 (down from 60 in 2002);
Winnebago—631 (down from 701 in 2002);
*could be as many as 50
Why Were There Fewer Abortions?
Both pro-life and pro-choice for abortion apologists have weighed in on why there were fewer abortions reported in Illinois in 2003. According to an Associated Press report, “Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said… that the decline is not surprising with the huge growth in popularity of new contraceptive methods, such as the birth control patch. ‘Birth control methods are just so much better than they’ve ever been,’ Sutherland said. ‘Women and men are just being such good contraceptive users and really planning pregnancies.’”
Sutherland is apparently ignoring statistics from Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s own affiliate, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which reports that “Six in 10 women having abortions experienced a contraceptive failure.”
Sutherland did not mention the typical Planned Parenthood mantra that “more contraceptive education results in fewer abortions.” As Susan Wills, Esq. (Associate Director for Education, USSCB Office of Pro-Life Activities) writes, “Perhaps, it's more than a coincidence that all 5 states with the highest teen abortion rates (NY, NV, NJ, MD and CA)—at almost twice the U.S. average—also include contraception education in STD and sex education courses. And is it only a coincidence that 4 of the 5 states with the lowest teen abortion rates (UT, ND, SD, WV and ID) either prohibit or do not mandate contraception education, or allow it to be taught only if risks and failures are fully explored?”
Wills continues, “Certainly other factors are involved, but the data from these 10 states contradict the abortion/contraception industry's claim that educating kids about sex and contraception and increasing access to pills and condoms will bring down abortion rates.”
Last year, commenting about the reported general decline in the number of US abortions, Paula Gianino, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch, “…the decline speaks, in part, to the success of new contraceptive measures—especially the ‘emergency contraception kits’ of pills that can prevent pregnancy if taken within a few days after intercourse.”
What Gianino fails to acknowledge is that the primary mechanism of so-called “emergency contraception” (EC) is a very early abortion. As there is no way to know just how many very young human beings were killed by the action of EC, these abortions cannot be included in reported abortions. Hence, the widespread use of EC obviously contributes to the lower number of reported abortions.
Other Possibilities
While we have no way to know for certain, other possibilities for the reported decline in the number of abortions may include: increasing numbers of young people choosing to live chaste life styles; increasing awareness about the humanity of the unborn; the tireless work of pregnancy care centers which offer “real” choices for women facing untimely pregnancies; and increasing awareness of the negative psychological and health affects following abortion.
One area to also consider is the decline in the number of women of child-bearing age. Vital Statistic Illinois-1999 reported that, “One reason for the decline in the general fertility rate is the decrease in the number of women in the peak childbearing age groups.” If, then, there are fewer women in Illinois of child-bearing age, it follows that there will be fewer unintended pregnancies and hence, fewer abortions.
Bottom line, if there are fewer abortions being committed, that is wonderful news. But, let us not forget that even one abortion is one too many!
Copyright, 2004
They Just “Don’t Get It!”
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: November 5, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
After more than twenty-five years of involvement in the pro-life movement, it has become abundantly clear that many people just “don’t get it” when it comes to understanding the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion. I wonder if they have even thought about why the Church describes abortion an “unspeakable crime.”
If people truly understood the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion, they would not so easily accept empty arguments that attempt to justify this cruel practice—one that has resulted in the deliberate slaughter of more than 44 million tiny human beings since 1973. If people really understood the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion, they would not see the pro-life movement as just another “cause.”
If one-week-old infants were being killed every day, people would be irate. Yet, we hear little concerning the massacre of the most vulnerable among us: a minimum of 3,500 unborn children are killed by “choice” every day in this country. In our own Diocese a minimum of six pre-borns are killed by “choice” every day and still most people don’t give it a passing thought. They go about their activities as if the carnage is not happening. However, I am certain they would be rightly incensed when hearing about mothers or fathers who murder their newborns.
Let’s say two women living in the same city become pregnant on the same day. Mother “A” decides to abort her baby in the eighth month of her pregnancy (which is perfectly legal in the US). Mother “B,” on the other hand, delivers her premature baby on the same day as Mother “A” aborts, but shortly after delivery she murders her baby. According to the law, Mother “A” has just exercised her “right” to abortion while Mother “B” has committed murder. Does this make any sense?
The only difference between the two babies was their location. One remained in her mother’s womb and one was in her crib. Neither mother “wanted” her baby, but one hired a legal hit man (the abortionist) while the other did the dirty deed herself. One violated the law, the other did not. While this is obviously a hypothetical situation, it is one that reflects the schizophrenic nature of our society today when it comes to the killing of the unborn.
An actual scenario that parallels the hypothetical one is currently being played out in a courtroom in California— the Laci Peterson murder case. Scott Peterson has been charged with murdering his pregnant wife and his unborn son. Eight months pregnant when killed, Laci had named her unborn son who is commonly referred to as “baby Conner.” Because everyone associated with the Petersons recognizes that Conner was “wanted,” they are outraged at his death because they see him for what he was—an unborn baby. Had Laci chosen abortion for Conner, there would be no public outrage. People are so blinded by “choice” that they simply do not think logically—they just “don’t get it.”
It is a long held scientific fact that when sperm and egg are joined, a separate, distinct human being with his or her own entire genetic code is created. This is when human life begins and all human life is a continuum from fertilization to natural death. No one along this line is more or less of a human being or person—all are persons at different stages of development. Whether or not any person along this continuum is “wanted” has nothing to do with his or her inherent dignity as a human being.
Knowing that a minimum of six innocent pre-born babies from our Diocese are killed each day at the hands of an abortionist, do we just go about our daily activities? Do we just give up saying there is nothing we can do? Or, do we finally decide to take a stand and do something?
Copyright, 2004
Publication date: November 5, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
After more than twenty-five years of involvement in the pro-life movement, it has become abundantly clear that many people just “don’t get it” when it comes to understanding the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion. I wonder if they have even thought about why the Church describes abortion an “unspeakable crime.”
If people truly understood the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion, they would not so easily accept empty arguments that attempt to justify this cruel practice—one that has resulted in the deliberate slaughter of more than 44 million tiny human beings since 1973. If people really understood the humanity of the unborn and the reality of abortion, they would not see the pro-life movement as just another “cause.”
If one-week-old infants were being killed every day, people would be irate. Yet, we hear little concerning the massacre of the most vulnerable among us: a minimum of 3,500 unborn children are killed by “choice” every day in this country. In our own Diocese a minimum of six pre-borns are killed by “choice” every day and still most people don’t give it a passing thought. They go about their activities as if the carnage is not happening. However, I am certain they would be rightly incensed when hearing about mothers or fathers who murder their newborns.
Let’s say two women living in the same city become pregnant on the same day. Mother “A” decides to abort her baby in the eighth month of her pregnancy (which is perfectly legal in the US). Mother “B,” on the other hand, delivers her premature baby on the same day as Mother “A” aborts, but shortly after delivery she murders her baby. According to the law, Mother “A” has just exercised her “right” to abortion while Mother “B” has committed murder. Does this make any sense?
The only difference between the two babies was their location. One remained in her mother’s womb and one was in her crib. Neither mother “wanted” her baby, but one hired a legal hit man (the abortionist) while the other did the dirty deed herself. One violated the law, the other did not. While this is obviously a hypothetical situation, it is one that reflects the schizophrenic nature of our society today when it comes to the killing of the unborn.
An actual scenario that parallels the hypothetical one is currently being played out in a courtroom in California— the Laci Peterson murder case. Scott Peterson has been charged with murdering his pregnant wife and his unborn son. Eight months pregnant when killed, Laci had named her unborn son who is commonly referred to as “baby Conner.” Because everyone associated with the Petersons recognizes that Conner was “wanted,” they are outraged at his death because they see him for what he was—an unborn baby. Had Laci chosen abortion for Conner, there would be no public outrage. People are so blinded by “choice” that they simply do not think logically—they just “don’t get it.”
It is a long held scientific fact that when sperm and egg are joined, a separate, distinct human being with his or her own entire genetic code is created. This is when human life begins and all human life is a continuum from fertilization to natural death. No one along this line is more or less of a human being or person—all are persons at different stages of development. Whether or not any person along this continuum is “wanted” has nothing to do with his or her inherent dignity as a human being.
Knowing that a minimum of six innocent pre-born babies from our Diocese are killed each day at the hands of an abortionist, do we just go about our daily activities? Do we just give up saying there is nothing we can do? Or, do we finally decide to take a stand and do something?
Copyright, 2004
Political Responsibility
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
October 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
There’s an old adage that says one should never discuss religion or politics in polite society. It was thought that broaching either subject in conversation might result in a heated discussion. Because there was, and is, no shortage of opinions on both topics, the general consensus was that it was better just not to talk about either. Fortunately, religion and politics are no longer taboo subjects —although both still may result in impassioned discourse.
While our discussions must be characterized by civility, we need to be courageous and speak the truth. Some individuals and groups either misunderstand or, in some cases, ignore the teachings of the Church when it comes to voting.
The Church Shouldn’t Be Involved in Politics
While the Church may not be partisan, she can and should be involved in the political process. As the Bishops write in Faithful Citizenship: “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation.”
The Church has long spoken out on issues of a political nature—civil rights, nuclear disarmament, war, homelessness, poverty, capital punishment, global trade, immigration and the environment.
Yet, the same Catholics who would applaud the Church’s political involvement in these issues are typically the very ones who say, “the Church should not be involved in politics” when they are challenged to consider a vote for candidates who are most likely to limit abortion. It is almost as if they are attempting to justify their decision to vote for pro-choice for abortion candidates.
The Church Can’t Tell Me How to Vote
While the Church does not and cannot tell the faithful which particular candidate to vote for, the Church does have a responsibility to properly instruct the faithful on those moral principles which must be considered when voting.
In Living the Gospel of Life, the Bishops write:
Pax Christi-USA (in an attempt to attract Catholic voters to its way of thinking) claims, “A candidate for office must understand that the Church stands against any policy or course of action which diminishes life, dignity or the rights of the human person: abortion, capital punishment, war, scandalous poverty, denial of healthcare, mistreatment of immigrants and racism, to name but a few. All are essential issues to a ‘pro-life’ voter.”
A thorough reading of Pax Christi-USA’s writings fails to convince the reader that they truly care about offering any protection for the unborn.
Recognizing that all the issues mentioned above by Pax Christi-USA should be of concern to Catholics, there are two major problems with the statement. First, there is no mention of embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human cloning, or homosexual “marriage.”
Secondly, what Pax Christi-USA and other like-minded organizations fail to acknowledge is that there is a hierarchy of moral issues. Pope Paul II and the USCCB have made it very clear that the fundamental right to life is the source of all other rights. Writing in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II says, “the fundamental right and source of all other rights….is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. “
In 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on Procured Abortion which stated in part: “The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental—the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others.“
The 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life when it states:
Hence, not voting for a candidate who opposes abortion and, instead, voting for a candidate who is pro-choice for abortion but opposed to capital punishment and war would not be in conformity with the moral norms of the Church. The Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil while capital punishment and war are not.
I’m Going to Vote My Conscience
It is not unusual to hear those who are planning on voting for pro-choice for abortion candidates use the “I’m going to vote my conscience” mantra as if that declaration will somehow excuse their decision to ignore the moral teachings of the Church when they enter the voting booth.
It is true that “[a] human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience…[y]et it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed” [CCC #1790]. In order to follow our conscience, that conscience must be well formed. As the Catechism #1799 states, “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”
Conscience is not a feeling or a vague idea or opinion that something is right or wrong. A well-formed conscience has to do with objective truth based on the teachings of the Church.
For those who proclaim, “God will guide me” as they vote, I pray that that is true. However, this sentiment is often expressed by those who reject certain moral teachings of the Church when they vote. Let us never forget that true guidance comes from proper formation.
When you cast your ballot, be certain that you are being guided by the unwavering moral teachings of the Church and not political propaganda or party affiliation. As Archbishop Charles Chaput commented, “If we’re sincere about our faith, ‘conscience’ can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches.”
Copyright, 2004
October 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
There’s an old adage that says one should never discuss religion or politics in polite society. It was thought that broaching either subject in conversation might result in a heated discussion. Because there was, and is, no shortage of opinions on both topics, the general consensus was that it was better just not to talk about either. Fortunately, religion and politics are no longer taboo subjects —although both still may result in impassioned discourse.
While our discussions must be characterized by civility, we need to be courageous and speak the truth. Some individuals and groups either misunderstand or, in some cases, ignore the teachings of the Church when it comes to voting.
The Church Shouldn’t Be Involved in Politics
While the Church may not be partisan, she can and should be involved in the political process. As the Bishops write in Faithful Citizenship: “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation.”
The Church has long spoken out on issues of a political nature—civil rights, nuclear disarmament, war, homelessness, poverty, capital punishment, global trade, immigration and the environment.
Yet, the same Catholics who would applaud the Church’s political involvement in these issues are typically the very ones who say, “the Church should not be involved in politics” when they are challenged to consider a vote for candidates who are most likely to limit abortion. It is almost as if they are attempting to justify their decision to vote for pro-choice for abortion candidates.
The Church Can’t Tell Me How to Vote
While the Church does not and cannot tell the faithful which particular candidate to vote for, the Church does have a responsibility to properly instruct the faithful on those moral principles which must be considered when voting.
In Living the Gospel of Life, the Bishops write:
We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue — or lack thereof —is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.”I’m Not A Single-Issue Voter
Pax Christi-USA (in an attempt to attract Catholic voters to its way of thinking) claims, “A candidate for office must understand that the Church stands against any policy or course of action which diminishes life, dignity or the rights of the human person: abortion, capital punishment, war, scandalous poverty, denial of healthcare, mistreatment of immigrants and racism, to name but a few. All are essential issues to a ‘pro-life’ voter.”
A thorough reading of Pax Christi-USA’s writings fails to convince the reader that they truly care about offering any protection for the unborn.
Recognizing that all the issues mentioned above by Pax Christi-USA should be of concern to Catholics, there are two major problems with the statement. First, there is no mention of embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human cloning, or homosexual “marriage.”
Secondly, what Pax Christi-USA and other like-minded organizations fail to acknowledge is that there is a hierarchy of moral issues. Pope Paul II and the USCCB have made it very clear that the fundamental right to life is the source of all other rights. Writing in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II says, “the fundamental right and source of all other rights….is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. “
In 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on Procured Abortion which stated in part: “The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental—the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others.“
The 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life when it states:
To focus on the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia is not to ignore the many other urgent conditions that demean human dignity and threaten human rights. Opposing abortion and euthanasia “does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
Hence, not voting for a candidate who opposes abortion and, instead, voting for a candidate who is pro-choice for abortion but opposed to capital punishment and war would not be in conformity with the moral norms of the Church. The Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil while capital punishment and war are not.
I’m Going to Vote My Conscience
It is not unusual to hear those who are planning on voting for pro-choice for abortion candidates use the “I’m going to vote my conscience” mantra as if that declaration will somehow excuse their decision to ignore the moral teachings of the Church when they enter the voting booth.
It is true that “[a] human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience…[y]et it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed” [CCC #1790]. In order to follow our conscience, that conscience must be well formed. As the Catechism #1799 states, “Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”
Conscience is not a feeling or a vague idea or opinion that something is right or wrong. A well-formed conscience has to do with objective truth based on the teachings of the Church.
For those who proclaim, “God will guide me” as they vote, I pray that that is true. However, this sentiment is often expressed by those who reject certain moral teachings of the Church when they vote. Let us never forget that true guidance comes from proper formation.
When you cast your ballot, be certain that you are being guided by the unwavering moral teachings of the Church and not political propaganda or party affiliation. As Archbishop Charles Chaput commented, “If we’re sincere about our faith, ‘conscience’ can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches.”
Copyright, 2004
The Politics of Distortion and Confusion
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: October 1, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Father John Dietzen in his September 3rd column replied to a question about voting for a candidate who backs abortion. Reading Fr. Dietzen’s reply and my column in the same issue must have left readers of The Observer perplexed.
Dietzen’s comments and those of well known dissidents, many in the media (secular and Catholic), and even some who consider themselves pro-life, have distorted the meaning of recent remarks made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop Raymond Burke, and others about voting. This has given some Catholics the false impression that it is perfectly acceptable to vote for pro-abortion candidates as long as the voter believes the candidates hold views on other issues that the voter feels are important.
The central issue is the interpretation of “proportionate reasons.” Kevin Miller, professor of theology, was recently quoted in Our Sunday Visitor saying “proportionate reasons” means “the good you are trying to accomplish in voting for a pro-abortion candidate has to outweigh the evil he will bring.”
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”
Arthur Hippler, PhD., director of the Office of Justice and Peace, Diocese of LaCrosse, offers this explanation: “This could not mean…that support for a pro-abortion …candidate could be justified by his support for economic proposals, whether of a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ character. The protection of life is greater than the protection or redistribution of wealth [CCC #2197-2198]. Cardinal Ratzinger had already affirmed the priority of protecting innocent life when he stated that ‘not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.”
Hippler continues, “…Cardinal Ratzinger’s remark would have to mean that support for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia candidate could only be licit where the alternative was more detrimental to the defense of innocent life. A candidate who supports legal abortion with a number of restrictions would be proportionately better than a candidate who supports abortion ‘on demand.’”
As Archbishop John Myers writes in the September 17, 2004 issue of The Wall Street Journal, “What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a ‘proportionate reason’ to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs? Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.”
Do not be confused by either those who sincerely misunderstand or by those who are engaging in the politics of distortion by implying that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-choice for abortion candidate over one who favors limits on abortion. Bishop Rene Gracida writes, “Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion?” The answer is simple— none!
As I wrote in my column last month: “In those instances when neither candidate is totally opposed to abortion, but one favors some protective legislation, we ought to vote for the one who will at least limit the evil.” That vote would be for a proportionate reason—the voter would have judged that by casting a vote for the lesser of two evils (which would be morally permissible), he or she would be protecting a greater number of unborn children.
Copyright, 2004
Publication date: October 1, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Father John Dietzen in his September 3rd column replied to a question about voting for a candidate who backs abortion. Reading Fr. Dietzen’s reply and my column in the same issue must have left readers of The Observer perplexed.
Dietzen’s comments and those of well known dissidents, many in the media (secular and Catholic), and even some who consider themselves pro-life, have distorted the meaning of recent remarks made by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop Raymond Burke, and others about voting. This has given some Catholics the false impression that it is perfectly acceptable to vote for pro-abortion candidates as long as the voter believes the candidates hold views on other issues that the voter feels are important.
The central issue is the interpretation of “proportionate reasons.” Kevin Miller, professor of theology, was recently quoted in Our Sunday Visitor saying “proportionate reasons” means “the good you are trying to accomplish in voting for a pro-abortion candidate has to outweigh the evil he will bring.”
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”
Arthur Hippler, PhD., director of the Office of Justice and Peace, Diocese of LaCrosse, offers this explanation: “This could not mean…that support for a pro-abortion …candidate could be justified by his support for economic proposals, whether of a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ character. The protection of life is greater than the protection or redistribution of wealth [CCC #2197-2198]. Cardinal Ratzinger had already affirmed the priority of protecting innocent life when he stated that ‘not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.”
Hippler continues, “…Cardinal Ratzinger’s remark would have to mean that support for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia candidate could only be licit where the alternative was more detrimental to the defense of innocent life. A candidate who supports legal abortion with a number of restrictions would be proportionately better than a candidate who supports abortion ‘on demand.’”
As Archbishop John Myers writes in the September 17, 2004 issue of The Wall Street Journal, “What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a ‘proportionate reason’ to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs? Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.”
Do not be confused by either those who sincerely misunderstand or by those who are engaging in the politics of distortion by implying that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-choice for abortion candidate over one who favors limits on abortion. Bishop Rene Gracida writes, “Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion?” The answer is simple— none!
As I wrote in my column last month: “In those instances when neither candidate is totally opposed to abortion, but one favors some protective legislation, we ought to vote for the one who will at least limit the evil.” That vote would be for a proportionate reason—the voter would have judged that by casting a vote for the lesser of two evils (which would be morally permissible), he or she would be protecting a greater number of unborn children.
Copyright, 2004
It’s No Big Deal…Or Is It?
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
September 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Modesty is one of those hot button issues that few are eager or, in many cases, even willing to discuss let alone act upon. One mother of a teen-age girl told me that while she did not like the way her daughter dressed, she had to pick her battles and that modesty in dress was not one of those battles. Here was a loving, caring mother who unfortunately did not realize the importance of teaching her daughter about modesty. With little direction from her mother, this young girl continues to dress in provocative ways that cause many people embarrassment.
Immodest dress by its very nature is intended to be sexually attractive—that’s why it is commonly referred to as being “sexy” or “hot.” That is not to say that all tweens, teens, young adults, and older adults are purposely trying to draw attention to their bodies. But intended or not, that is exactly what is happening.
All one has to do is look at the so called “elite” to see what is supposedly “in style” or fashionable. Exhibitionism seems to rule today. If you doubt that—and if you are an adult—I encourage you to look at the popular teen magazines, CD covers, and movies, as well as the fare offered on television, especially MTV, VH1, and BET.
As Natalie Campbell—a teen from Kokomo, Indiana—writes in the Summer 2004 issue of Resounding Voice:
Whether we admit it or not, Natalie is correct.
Bikini Wars at the Olympics
Most people are aware of the exhibitionism in entertainment venues, but with the exception of the swimsuit edition in Sports Illustrated and the scantily clad NFL cheerleaders, most parents probably think that sports events are not problematic in terms of modesty. Janet Jackson’s “over-exposure” at the last Super Bowl shattered that idea and the 2004 Summer Olympics are continuing the assault on modesty.
The caption under a picture in the August 18, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune announced, “Bikini-clad dancers entertain the crowd while the bikini-clad Czech Republic’s beach volleyball team warms up for its match.” It was reported that the cheerleaders “gyrate” to “blaring techno-pop.” One of the female volleyball players said that it was “kind of disrespectful to the female players…I’m sure the male spectators love it, but I find it a little bit offensive.” No explanation was given for why she found it offensive. Maybe she is bothered by the fact that the “cheerleader” bikinis are even more revealing than hers and hence they get more “attention.”
Not to be outdone by bikini-wearing beach volleyball players, 2004 Olympians Amy Acuff, Amanda Beard, Haley Cope and Logan Tom have “graced” the covers of pornographic magazines in various states of “undress.”
Four years ago when swimmer Jennifer Thompson’s barely covered body was exposed in print, the director of the Women’s Sports Foundation (Donna Lopiano) commented, “Any exposure in a sports magazine [I would say anywhere in public] that minimizes athletic achievement and skill and emphasizes the female athlete as a sex object is insulting and degrading.”
What’s So Bad About Immodest Dress?
Whether or not one wants to admit it, immodesty often leads to unchaste behavior. It reduces the dignity and beauty of the human body to that of “object” status and it results in a lack of respect for our God given bodies and sense of self worth. Immodesty can lead others into sins against chastity and purity. It violates the ninth commandment that says, “Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
It’s His Problem, Not Hers
Radical feminism insists that if a man has immoral thoughts because of the way a woman is dressed, it is his problem, not hers. Contrary to what these militants claim, males and females are different. Men are by nature more inclined to sensual reactions from visual stimuli and women who dress in provocative ways bear some of the responsibility if their immodesty leads a member of the opposite sex to immoral thoughts.
As Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M., writes in the November 1988 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2522-2524) tells us that, “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love…Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet….Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies…..Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.”
Parental Advice from a Mother of 13
Mary Ann Kuharski, the mother of 13 (six of whom are adopted), has this to say in an article found at catholic.net:
Excellent advice from an experienced mother!
Copyright, 2004
September 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Modesty is one of those hot button issues that few are eager or, in many cases, even willing to discuss let alone act upon. One mother of a teen-age girl told me that while she did not like the way her daughter dressed, she had to pick her battles and that modesty in dress was not one of those battles. Here was a loving, caring mother who unfortunately did not realize the importance of teaching her daughter about modesty. With little direction from her mother, this young girl continues to dress in provocative ways that cause many people embarrassment.
Immodest dress by its very nature is intended to be sexually attractive—that’s why it is commonly referred to as being “sexy” or “hot.” That is not to say that all tweens, teens, young adults, and older adults are purposely trying to draw attention to their bodies. But intended or not, that is exactly what is happening.
All one has to do is look at the so called “elite” to see what is supposedly “in style” or fashionable. Exhibitionism seems to rule today. If you doubt that—and if you are an adult—I encourage you to look at the popular teen magazines, CD covers, and movies, as well as the fare offered on television, especially MTV, VH1, and BET.
As Natalie Campbell—a teen from Kokomo, Indiana—writes in the Summer 2004 issue of Resounding Voice:
If you turn on MTV, I guarantee that within five minutes you’ll see a girl prancing around showing more skin than she is wearing clothes, or a muscled-up boy with his shirt off dancing suggestively. These are images we see on almost any channel or in any magazine nowadays. What goes through your mind when you see this?
God? Mass? What a beautiful thing it is to receive Communion? Nice try. Let’s not lie to ourselves. Seeing that immodestly dressed girl or boy makes us think about things that aren’t so holy. I’m not saying we think unholy thoughts every time, but I think we can all agree that our minds have wandered.
But what led us to these impure, sinful thoughts in the first place? It was the immodestly dressed boy or girl!
Isn’t that a thought? That the way someone dresses could affect the way another person
thinks? Well, it’s true.
Whether we admit it or not, Natalie is correct.
Bikini Wars at the Olympics
Most people are aware of the exhibitionism in entertainment venues, but with the exception of the swimsuit edition in Sports Illustrated and the scantily clad NFL cheerleaders, most parents probably think that sports events are not problematic in terms of modesty. Janet Jackson’s “over-exposure” at the last Super Bowl shattered that idea and the 2004 Summer Olympics are continuing the assault on modesty.
The caption under a picture in the August 18, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune announced, “Bikini-clad dancers entertain the crowd while the bikini-clad Czech Republic’s beach volleyball team warms up for its match.” It was reported that the cheerleaders “gyrate” to “blaring techno-pop.” One of the female volleyball players said that it was “kind of disrespectful to the female players…I’m sure the male spectators love it, but I find it a little bit offensive.” No explanation was given for why she found it offensive. Maybe she is bothered by the fact that the “cheerleader” bikinis are even more revealing than hers and hence they get more “attention.”
Not to be outdone by bikini-wearing beach volleyball players, 2004 Olympians Amy Acuff, Amanda Beard, Haley Cope and Logan Tom have “graced” the covers of pornographic magazines in various states of “undress.”
Four years ago when swimmer Jennifer Thompson’s barely covered body was exposed in print, the director of the Women’s Sports Foundation (Donna Lopiano) commented, “Any exposure in a sports magazine [I would say anywhere in public] that minimizes athletic achievement and skill and emphasizes the female athlete as a sex object is insulting and degrading.”
What’s So Bad About Immodest Dress?
Whether or not one wants to admit it, immodesty often leads to unchaste behavior. It reduces the dignity and beauty of the human body to that of “object” status and it results in a lack of respect for our God given bodies and sense of self worth. Immodesty can lead others into sins against chastity and purity. It violates the ninth commandment that says, “Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
It’s His Problem, Not Hers
Radical feminism insists that if a man has immoral thoughts because of the way a woman is dressed, it is his problem, not hers. Contrary to what these militants claim, males and females are different. Men are by nature more inclined to sensual reactions from visual stimuli and women who dress in provocative ways bear some of the responsibility if their immodesty leads a member of the opposite sex to immoral thoughts.
As Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M., writes in the November 1988 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review:
Because traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality requires the woman to keep more of her body concealed than it does for the man, some Catholics believe that it is unfair to the woman. While it is true that traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality is more demanding of the woman, it is not unfair. Just as the woman is the weaker gender in the area of physical power, so the man is the weaker gender in the area of sexuality (in the sense that the male is more prone to immediate sexual arousal). And just as it is wrong for a man to use his physical strength to lord it over a woman, so it is wrong for a woman to use the feminine characteristics of her physical body to dominate a man.What the Church Teaches
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2522-2524) tells us that, “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love…Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet….Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies…..Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.”
Parental Advice from a Mother of 13
Mary Ann Kuharski, the mother of 13 (six of whom are adopted), has this to say in an article found at catholic.net:
“… as Christian parents we can have an impact on our own children. And in the end, we will have to answer to Our Heavenly Father for what we approved or allowed.
We want to tell our kids early and often that they are special. They are special because they are made in God’s own image and likeness, and their souls, minds, and bodies are to be treated as sacred because they are children of God. That means we treat others and ourselves with reverence and
respect.We need to be determined and diligent if we want our children to know right from wrong and to understand the seriousness of temptation and flirtation with sin. Yes, I’ve been called ‘old fashioned’ and my judgment has not always been appreciated.
Believe me, I was no hit with one of my college-age daughters the summer I discovered a skimpy bikini
hidden in a downstairs bathroom and threw it in the trash. Or the time I discovered that even ‘guy’ periodicals like my son’s Hot Rod magazine had a ‘swimsuit’ edition. Luckily, I grabbed a nearby razor and cut out all the ‘distractions’ before he came home from college. ‘This way you can concentrate
on the centerfold Model T, rather than another more seductive model,’ I told him.
I’ve been known to take posters off walls (they are my walls), toss out offensive videos and music cassettes, tear up objectionable comics (yep, it’s there too!), cancel magazine subscriptions, and veto outfits I felt to be alluring or offensive.
We’re their parents— not their pals —and if we don’t guard and guide them, who will? Parents must be diligent because it’s not just our children’s lives but their very souls that are at stake.”
Excellent advice from an experienced mother!
Copyright, 2004
All issues are not morally equivalent
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: September 3, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
On November 2nd, Americans will go to the polls to cast their votes for candidates who most closely represent their views on crucial issues. At least that is the way it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, many Catholics—relying on long-term political party affiliation—vote for candidates who hold positions that are in direct opposition to the moral teachings of the Church
Those who vote only for candidates who oppose abortion are disapprovingly referred to as “single issue voters.” One might ask, however if there are any political positions that should automatically eliminate a candidate from consideration? What if a candidate wanted to relax laws against child pornography? Are there any personal behaviors or affiliations that should automatically eliminate a candidate from consideration? What if a candidate were a member of the Ku Klux Klan? What if a candidate had a history of beating his wife or abusing his children? If a candidate could be associated with one or more of these issues would his position on the death penalty, healthcare, or immigration be sufficient for you to overlook his association with these issues?
A candidate who beats his wife or a candidate who would relax laws against child pornography is not fit for public office. This is true even if he were 100 percent “right” on every other issue. Simply put, some things are so egregious that they are disqualifiers, period. Surely a candidate who believes it is acceptable to kill a child, regardless of whether that child resides in or out of his mother’s womb at the time, is a disqualifier as well. Yet, many Catholics overlook the fact that a candidate supports the killing of unborn children and cast their votes based on other considerations. What they fail or refuse to acknowledge is that the right to life is the most fundamental issue of all, for without life there are no other issues.
A failure to recognize that abortion takes priority over other issues at this point in our history is to misunderstand the social justice teachings of the Church. As Father Frank Pavone writes, “Disputes among candidates about how to best secure rights that we agree people have (to food, clothing, shelter, education, protection from crime, etc.) are quite different from the fundamental dispute as to whether they have any rights in the first place or even belong to the human community (i.e., the status of the unborn before the law). No issue is more important to the political process than that of who belongs to the political community.”
In his October 20, 2000 column in The Observer, Bishop Doran writes: “It is said that we Catholics cannot be one-issue voters. But as Cardinal George has pointed out, not all issues can be given equal weight. The issue of life is different from all other issues of social import because all the others are incremental. One can be more or less poor, or have better or worse health care, or have a richer or poorer pension plan. But one cannot be more or less dead.”
All of us are called to speak out whenever and wherever the sanctity of human life is threatened. We must oppose everything that offends human dignity. In doing so, we must remember that the most urgent, the most egregious, and the most heinous crime against humanity is the deliberate killing of the most vulnerable among us—the unborn. Our selection of elected representatives should reflect this truth.
In those instances when neither candidate is totally opposed to abortion, but one favors some protective legislation, we ought to vote for the one who will at least limit the evil; lacking a truly pro-life candidate, only those who have demonstrated that they will do something to end the war against the most defenseless among us—those tiny human beings in their mothers’ wombs—are deserving of our vote.
Copyright, 2004
Publication date: September 3, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
On November 2nd, Americans will go to the polls to cast their votes for candidates who most closely represent their views on crucial issues. At least that is the way it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, many Catholics—relying on long-term political party affiliation—vote for candidates who hold positions that are in direct opposition to the moral teachings of the Church
Those who vote only for candidates who oppose abortion are disapprovingly referred to as “single issue voters.” One might ask, however if there are any political positions that should automatically eliminate a candidate from consideration? What if a candidate wanted to relax laws against child pornography? Are there any personal behaviors or affiliations that should automatically eliminate a candidate from consideration? What if a candidate were a member of the Ku Klux Klan? What if a candidate had a history of beating his wife or abusing his children? If a candidate could be associated with one or more of these issues would his position on the death penalty, healthcare, or immigration be sufficient for you to overlook his association with these issues?
A candidate who beats his wife or a candidate who would relax laws against child pornography is not fit for public office. This is true even if he were 100 percent “right” on every other issue. Simply put, some things are so egregious that they are disqualifiers, period. Surely a candidate who believes it is acceptable to kill a child, regardless of whether that child resides in or out of his mother’s womb at the time, is a disqualifier as well. Yet, many Catholics overlook the fact that a candidate supports the killing of unborn children and cast their votes based on other considerations. What they fail or refuse to acknowledge is that the right to life is the most fundamental issue of all, for without life there are no other issues.
A failure to recognize that abortion takes priority over other issues at this point in our history is to misunderstand the social justice teachings of the Church. As Father Frank Pavone writes, “Disputes among candidates about how to best secure rights that we agree people have (to food, clothing, shelter, education, protection from crime, etc.) are quite different from the fundamental dispute as to whether they have any rights in the first place or even belong to the human community (i.e., the status of the unborn before the law). No issue is more important to the political process than that of who belongs to the political community.”
In his October 20, 2000 column in The Observer, Bishop Doran writes: “It is said that we Catholics cannot be one-issue voters. But as Cardinal George has pointed out, not all issues can be given equal weight. The issue of life is different from all other issues of social import because all the others are incremental. One can be more or less poor, or have better or worse health care, or have a richer or poorer pension plan. But one cannot be more or less dead.”
All of us are called to speak out whenever and wherever the sanctity of human life is threatened. We must oppose everything that offends human dignity. In doing so, we must remember that the most urgent, the most egregious, and the most heinous crime against humanity is the deliberate killing of the most vulnerable among us—the unborn. Our selection of elected representatives should reflect this truth.
In those instances when neither candidate is totally opposed to abortion, but one favors some protective legislation, we ought to vote for the one who will at least limit the evil; lacking a truly pro-life candidate, only those who have demonstrated that they will do something to end the war against the most defenseless among us—those tiny human beings in their mothers’ wombs—are deserving of our vote.
Copyright, 2004
Don’t let change in language manipulate meaning of life
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: August 6, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
When people start playing with the meaning of words, they are actually meddling with reality, and when the meaning of words is manipulated to an extreme, individuals and societies suffer.
It was the fictional Humpty Dumpty who said, rather contemptuously, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” What Humpty was referring to, of course, is the assumed authority to create his own meanings. This is exactly the power over words that abortion apologists have seized and continue to maintain today with the assistance of the ever-present dominant media culture.
The first and most open admission of word manipulation appeared in a 1970 editorial in the journal, California Medicine:
Just like Humpty Dumpty, abortion apologists set out to make words mean what they wanted them to mean. When they use a word (often as contemptuously as Humpty), it means just what they choose it to mean—neither more nor less—even at the expense of the truth. As Senator Hiram Johnson said in 1918, “The first casualty when war comes is truth.” Make no mistake, we are in a war of words when it comes to the defense of human life.
William Brennan is his book, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives, begins by writing, “the power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound.” This book is a marvelous treatise on how, when words are used to deprive individuals of their human qualities, violence against those very people is justified. This is especially true when one analyzes the debate over abortion. Illusion, ambiguity, disinformation, deception, contradiction, propaganda, and sometimes out and out lies are used in an attempt to control language and ultimately, thought.
Think for a moment how the language describing the unborn has changed since that 1970 editorial. At that time physicians and others knew that human life began at fertilization. Now, some thirty-four years later, many of the so-called elite insist that no one knows for certain when life begins. The only thing that has changed is the language, not the humanity of the unborn.
In 1947, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who served as president of PPFA for twelve years, wrote in his book, Having a Baby, that “the new baby” is created at the exact moment of fertilization. Ten years later in his Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents he wrote, “…[the obstetrician] simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and infant. Each has an individual right to life.” By 1973, however, he was supporting abortion and referring to the unborn as “potential life.”
What changed? Did something about the unborn child change or did Dr. Guttmacher, the then-president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, acquire ChoiceSpeak as his second language? Since abortion became legal and ChoiceSpeak was adopted, Planned Parenthood has emerged as the largest single committer of abortions in this country and the world’s most aggressive advocate of abortion on demand.
Planned Parenthood is the epitome of ChoiceSpeak. Even its name is an illusion. One would think that an organization named “Planned Parenthood” would in fact be all about planning for parenthood. Instead, it is all about avoiding parenthood even at the expense of destroying a developing child. Planned Parenthood leads the fight for “reproductive freedom” which in reality has nothing to do with the freedom to have children, but instead stands for the freedom not to have children.
We must not allow Planned Parenthood and its pro-abortion allies control the language because, as William Brennan so aptly states, “Those who control language control thought, and eventually semantic corruption leads to the adulteration of thought itself.”
As people standing resolutely for the truth, we must continue to challenge the use of ChoiceSpeak and insist on words that convey reality. When the euphemisms “reproductive health care,” “choice,” “pregnancy termination,” “selective reduction,” “interruption of pregnancy,” “removal of uterine contents,” or other terms used to hide the facts are used, we must expose the reality of what these words mean.
While “fetus” is an accurate medical term for the developing child, it is typically used by abortion advocates in a dehumanizing manner. They just cannot bring themselves to call a developing child in the womb, a “baby.” And yet, when is the last time you heard a pregnant woman say, ”oh, the fetus just kicked.” Have you ever heard anyone say, “when is your fetus due?”
Magazines and newspapers in their “people” section typically report that a woman “lost her baby” when the she suffers a miscarriage. Of course, when discussing the abortion debate, that baby is somehow reduced to “fetus.” Interestingly, in October 2001, USA Today reported on a scientist who had cracked open un-hatched dinosaurs and guess what these unborn dinosaurs were called—you guessed it, “baby dinos,” not fetal dinos. Un-hatched dinosaurs are “baby dinos,” but unborn humans are fetuses.
We must not stand by silently and allow ChoiceSpeak to be the language used to educate and shape our culture on the life issues. We must kindly, but firmly, counter these messages with the truth—beginning in our own circles of influence—and we must never give up speaking the truth in love.
Copyright, 2004
Publication date: August 6, 2004
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
When people start playing with the meaning of words, they are actually meddling with reality, and when the meaning of words is manipulated to an extreme, individuals and societies suffer.
It was the fictional Humpty Dumpty who said, rather contemptuously, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” What Humpty was referring to, of course, is the assumed authority to create his own meanings. This is exactly the power over words that abortion apologists have seized and continue to maintain today with the assistance of the ever-present dominant media culture.
The first and most open admission of word manipulation appeared in a 1970 editorial in the journal, California Medicine:
Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if
they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.
Just like Humpty Dumpty, abortion apologists set out to make words mean what they wanted them to mean. When they use a word (often as contemptuously as Humpty), it means just what they choose it to mean—neither more nor less—even at the expense of the truth. As Senator Hiram Johnson said in 1918, “The first casualty when war comes is truth.” Make no mistake, we are in a war of words when it comes to the defense of human life.
William Brennan is his book, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives, begins by writing, “the power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound.” This book is a marvelous treatise on how, when words are used to deprive individuals of their human qualities, violence against those very people is justified. This is especially true when one analyzes the debate over abortion. Illusion, ambiguity, disinformation, deception, contradiction, propaganda, and sometimes out and out lies are used in an attempt to control language and ultimately, thought.
Think for a moment how the language describing the unborn has changed since that 1970 editorial. At that time physicians and others knew that human life began at fertilization. Now, some thirty-four years later, many of the so-called elite insist that no one knows for certain when life begins. The only thing that has changed is the language, not the humanity of the unborn.
In 1947, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who served as president of PPFA for twelve years, wrote in his book, Having a Baby, that “the new baby” is created at the exact moment of fertilization. Ten years later in his Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents he wrote, “…[the obstetrician] simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and infant. Each has an individual right to life.” By 1973, however, he was supporting abortion and referring to the unborn as “potential life.”
What changed? Did something about the unborn child change or did Dr. Guttmacher, the then-president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, acquire ChoiceSpeak as his second language? Since abortion became legal and ChoiceSpeak was adopted, Planned Parenthood has emerged as the largest single committer of abortions in this country and the world’s most aggressive advocate of abortion on demand.
Planned Parenthood is the epitome of ChoiceSpeak. Even its name is an illusion. One would think that an organization named “Planned Parenthood” would in fact be all about planning for parenthood. Instead, it is all about avoiding parenthood even at the expense of destroying a developing child. Planned Parenthood leads the fight for “reproductive freedom” which in reality has nothing to do with the freedom to have children, but instead stands for the freedom not to have children.
We must not allow Planned Parenthood and its pro-abortion allies control the language because, as William Brennan so aptly states, “Those who control language control thought, and eventually semantic corruption leads to the adulteration of thought itself.”
As people standing resolutely for the truth, we must continue to challenge the use of ChoiceSpeak and insist on words that convey reality. When the euphemisms “reproductive health care,” “choice,” “pregnancy termination,” “selective reduction,” “interruption of pregnancy,” “removal of uterine contents,” or other terms used to hide the facts are used, we must expose the reality of what these words mean.
While “fetus” is an accurate medical term for the developing child, it is typically used by abortion advocates in a dehumanizing manner. They just cannot bring themselves to call a developing child in the womb, a “baby.” And yet, when is the last time you heard a pregnant woman say, ”oh, the fetus just kicked.” Have you ever heard anyone say, “when is your fetus due?”
Magazines and newspapers in their “people” section typically report that a woman “lost her baby” when the she suffers a miscarriage. Of course, when discussing the abortion debate, that baby is somehow reduced to “fetus.” Interestingly, in October 2001, USA Today reported on a scientist who had cracked open un-hatched dinosaurs and guess what these unborn dinosaurs were called—you guessed it, “baby dinos,” not fetal dinos. Un-hatched dinosaurs are “baby dinos,” but unborn humans are fetuses.
We must not stand by silently and allow ChoiceSpeak to be the language used to educate and shape our culture on the life issues. We must kindly, but firmly, counter these messages with the truth—beginning in our own circles of influence—and we must never give up speaking the truth in love.
Copyright, 2004
TURN IT OFF!
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
April 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The tenth annual “TV-Turnoff Week” is scheduled for April 19-25th. While the mere thought of fasting from television may at first appear to be an impossible task for many, it is definitely one for serious consideration.
The television set has become an essential fixture in 98% of homes in the United States. Forty-one percent of those households have three or more sets. Over 50% of American children have a television set in their bedroom and the average household has the television on for nearly eight hours each day.
And while there are certainly some programs worthy of our time, much of what is offered up on a 24/7 basis via the television is downright evil. Typical fare includes the presentation—with overt or tacit approval—of non-marital sexual activity, co-habitation, homosexual activity, extra marital affairs, pornography and abortion as options in the smorgasbord of personal choices. What used to be considered evil is now considered good and vice versa.
Personal autonomy is exalted and traditional morality is rejected. On those rare occasions where characters who espouse time-honored views are included, they are usually portrayed as ignorant, over-bearing, and out-of-touch with reality. If they are presented in a more moderate way, the implication is still clear that they are not to be taken seriously.
Shape or Reflect Culture?
For years, people have pondered whether television (and other media) shapes or reflects culture. The general consensus is that the media now reflects a culture that it helped to create.
Most people are totally unaware that television influences their thinking and behavior. In fact, most would vehemently deny it. In May of 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation (a pro-abortion, "non-traditional family” group) released the results of its survey on teens, sex, and TV that found that 72% of 15-17 year olds “believe that sexual content on TV influences the behavior of kids their age ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot.’ Interestingly, just 22% think “it influences their own behavior to this degree.”
Vicky Rideout, a vice president at Kaiser, said “this survey points to the incredible power of TV in teens’ lives...we’re not saying TV causes teen pregnancy.. and we’re not trying to get sex off of TV…but we are saying that we need to pay attention to the messages TV is sending about sex, because the teens themselves are definitely paying attention.” Sadly, Ms. Rideout ignores the obvious—while TV does not cause teen pregnancy, it does influence teens to mimic what they see and that behavior does frequently result in pregnancy.
Friendspeak
Teens are also paying attention to the messages being sent about a number of other issues including abortion, marriage, and traditional families. Surveys like the one just mentioned are not really needed to understand the power of the media.
The March 18, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune printed an article entitled, “Hip hit shows drive language: from badabing, to yada yada, TV makes mark.”
Allan Metcalf, professor of English at MacMurray College, reports “Popular television shows certainly spread fads and perhaps intensify them, or even initiate them.” A study by a linguistic professor at the University of Toronto found that “‘Friends’ is in the vanguard of changes in the way Americans talk” and that the public “absorbed Friendspeak like a sponge.”
Although not mentioned in the article, there is no doubt that young people also absorbed the trivialization of sex and the rejection of traditional morality they observed on “Friends.”
Adults Not Immune
Bob Smithouser, of Focus on the Family, writes, “When ‘Vanilla Sky’ came out, it just so happened that Tom Cruise’s character in that movie ordered a certain drink, and that drink became the hot item at clubs across America… If adults are that likely to go into a bar and order something simply because Tom Cruise did, how much more susceptible are teen-agers who are still trying to figure out who they are, where their boundaries are?”
Corporate America spends billions of dollars each year advertising products because they know their ads have an effect on the attitudes and behaviors of consumers. Politicians buy air-time during election years because they know name recognition counts.
There is no doubt that media influences the attitudes and behavior of the general public, especially young people. Alcohol and cigarette ads were banned from television because it was understood that they were encouraging teens to smoke and drink.
Once banned from television, ads for birth control (targeting the young) are beginning to appear all too frequently. With the majority of media moguls personally rejecting traditional morality, it should come as no surprise that they use their venues to further their own values—or lack thereof.
Consequences
Numerous studies have shown a link between behavior and what is seen on television. While this could result in a positive outcome with benefits to both individuals and society, the content of much of what is seen on TV today leads to the negative. And let us not forget that children are especially vulnerable to what they see and hear on television.
Neil Postman, in his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, opined on how people adjust to what they see on TV. He said that “the loss of the sense of the strange is a sign of adjustment, and the extent to which we have adjusted is a measure of the extent to which we have been changed.”
Ozzy or Ozzie?
MTV’s popular show “The Osbournes” reflects Postman’s thoughts. This “reality show” attracts more than 6 million viewers per episode and was awarded an Emmy for outstanding nonfiction reality program. Many young people are watching this show and there is no doubt that their attitudes and actions are being influenced by what they are seeing and hearing.
The Osbourne teens are high school dropouts who nevertheless have unlimited access to money. They come and go as they please. There are no rules, no boundaries and no real consequences to their bad choices. The message heard is: do whatever you want and you will be rich and famous.
Every episode of “The Osbournes” is so filled with “bleeped” vulgarities (the Parents Television Council reports an average of 136.5 instances per hour) that it is often difficult to follow the conversations. As Postman suggested, “The Osbournes” fans see nothing strange about the show. In fact, those who do object to the content on these shows are often the ones branded abnormal.
In 1952, ”The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet” was the closest thing there was to what is now referred to as “reality” television. There was no vulgar language, the parents did not physically assault one another, no one drank or did drugs, the teens showed respect for their parents, and materialism was not promoted or portrayed.
The Nelsons, as well as most of America fifty years ago would have found the Osbourne’s behavior shameful. As Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation wrote, “what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates.”
What to do?
We can and must be more vigilant about what our children are seeing on television and at the movies. We can begin by turning the TV off during the week of April 19-25tth. Then, we can get rid of any TVs that are in our children’s bedrooms and finally, put limitations on the amount and type of TV they are permitted to view.
Copyright, 2004
April 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
The tenth annual “TV-Turnoff Week” is scheduled for April 19-25th. While the mere thought of fasting from television may at first appear to be an impossible task for many, it is definitely one for serious consideration.
The television set has become an essential fixture in 98% of homes in the United States. Forty-one percent of those households have three or more sets. Over 50% of American children have a television set in their bedroom and the average household has the television on for nearly eight hours each day.
And while there are certainly some programs worthy of our time, much of what is offered up on a 24/7 basis via the television is downright evil. Typical fare includes the presentation—with overt or tacit approval—of non-marital sexual activity, co-habitation, homosexual activity, extra marital affairs, pornography and abortion as options in the smorgasbord of personal choices. What used to be considered evil is now considered good and vice versa.
Personal autonomy is exalted and traditional morality is rejected. On those rare occasions where characters who espouse time-honored views are included, they are usually portrayed as ignorant, over-bearing, and out-of-touch with reality. If they are presented in a more moderate way, the implication is still clear that they are not to be taken seriously.
Shape or Reflect Culture?
For years, people have pondered whether television (and other media) shapes or reflects culture. The general consensus is that the media now reflects a culture that it helped to create.
Most people are totally unaware that television influences their thinking and behavior. In fact, most would vehemently deny it. In May of 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation (a pro-abortion, "non-traditional family” group) released the results of its survey on teens, sex, and TV that found that 72% of 15-17 year olds “believe that sexual content on TV influences the behavior of kids their age ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot.’ Interestingly, just 22% think “it influences their own behavior to this degree.”
Vicky Rideout, a vice president at Kaiser, said “this survey points to the incredible power of TV in teens’ lives...we’re not saying TV causes teen pregnancy.. and we’re not trying to get sex off of TV…but we are saying that we need to pay attention to the messages TV is sending about sex, because the teens themselves are definitely paying attention.” Sadly, Ms. Rideout ignores the obvious—while TV does not cause teen pregnancy, it does influence teens to mimic what they see and that behavior does frequently result in pregnancy.
Friendspeak
Teens are also paying attention to the messages being sent about a number of other issues including abortion, marriage, and traditional families. Surveys like the one just mentioned are not really needed to understand the power of the media.
The March 18, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune printed an article entitled, “Hip hit shows drive language: from badabing, to yada yada, TV makes mark.”
Allan Metcalf, professor of English at MacMurray College, reports “Popular television shows certainly spread fads and perhaps intensify them, or even initiate them.” A study by a linguistic professor at the University of Toronto found that “‘Friends’ is in the vanguard of changes in the way Americans talk” and that the public “absorbed Friendspeak like a sponge.”
Although not mentioned in the article, there is no doubt that young people also absorbed the trivialization of sex and the rejection of traditional morality they observed on “Friends.”
Adults Not Immune
Bob Smithouser, of Focus on the Family, writes, “When ‘Vanilla Sky’ came out, it just so happened that Tom Cruise’s character in that movie ordered a certain drink, and that drink became the hot item at clubs across America… If adults are that likely to go into a bar and order something simply because Tom Cruise did, how much more susceptible are teen-agers who are still trying to figure out who they are, where their boundaries are?”
Corporate America spends billions of dollars each year advertising products because they know their ads have an effect on the attitudes and behaviors of consumers. Politicians buy air-time during election years because they know name recognition counts.
There is no doubt that media influences the attitudes and behavior of the general public, especially young people. Alcohol and cigarette ads were banned from television because it was understood that they were encouraging teens to smoke and drink.
Once banned from television, ads for birth control (targeting the young) are beginning to appear all too frequently. With the majority of media moguls personally rejecting traditional morality, it should come as no surprise that they use their venues to further their own values—or lack thereof.
Consequences
Numerous studies have shown a link between behavior and what is seen on television. While this could result in a positive outcome with benefits to both individuals and society, the content of much of what is seen on TV today leads to the negative. And let us not forget that children are especially vulnerable to what they see and hear on television.
Neil Postman, in his 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, opined on how people adjust to what they see on TV. He said that “the loss of the sense of the strange is a sign of adjustment, and the extent to which we have adjusted is a measure of the extent to which we have been changed.”
Ozzy or Ozzie?
MTV’s popular show “The Osbournes” reflects Postman’s thoughts. This “reality show” attracts more than 6 million viewers per episode and was awarded an Emmy for outstanding nonfiction reality program. Many young people are watching this show and there is no doubt that their attitudes and actions are being influenced by what they are seeing and hearing.
The Osbourne teens are high school dropouts who nevertheless have unlimited access to money. They come and go as they please. There are no rules, no boundaries and no real consequences to their bad choices. The message heard is: do whatever you want and you will be rich and famous.
Every episode of “The Osbournes” is so filled with “bleeped” vulgarities (the Parents Television Council reports an average of 136.5 instances per hour) that it is often difficult to follow the conversations. As Postman suggested, “The Osbournes” fans see nothing strange about the show. In fact, those who do object to the content on these shows are often the ones branded abnormal.
In 1952, ”The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet” was the closest thing there was to what is now referred to as “reality” television. There was no vulgar language, the parents did not physically assault one another, no one drank or did drugs, the teens showed respect for their parents, and materialism was not promoted or portrayed.
The Nelsons, as well as most of America fifty years ago would have found the Osbourne’s behavior shameful. As Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation wrote, “what Americans would have found absolutely intolerable only a few years ago, a majority now not only tolerates but celebrates.”
What to do?
We can and must be more vigilant about what our children are seeing on television and at the movies. We can begin by turning the TV off during the week of April 19-25tth. Then, we can get rid of any TVs that are in our children’s bedrooms and finally, put limitations on the amount and type of TV they are permitted to view.
Copyright, 2004
BRAVE NEW WORLD
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
March 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and Dr. Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University (South Korea) recently announced that they had successfully cloned thirty human embryos and had “created” a stable stem cell line from one of them. While scientists from other countries have made similar claims in the past, this is the first credible documentation to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Previously, the debate over the ethical and policy issues associated with cloning has—for the most part—been theoretical. But now, the issue is real. These scientists have demonstrated that human embryos can be cloned.
In order to “produce” a cloned baby, these scientists must get the tiny human to develop to the six day old stage and then place him or her into a womb. If implantation is successful and the pregnancy goes well, a cloned baby will be born.
Semantic Jargon
Like the majority of scientists and lawmakers addressing the issue of cloning, Hwang insists that their goal “is not to clone humans, but to understand the causes of diseases.” In reality, however, they have cloned a human. Intellectually honest scientists know that a human blastocyst or embryo is a living human being—albeit a very tiny one.
Dr. Hwang did admit that therapeutic cloning “cannot be separated from reproductive cloning.” One has to be very naive not to recognize that reproductive cloning will follow therapeutic cloning. It’s only a matter of time.
In the February 23, 2004 issue of Time, Michael D. Lemonick acknowledges this possibility when he writes, “Responsible scientists wouldn’t try it [reproductive cloning], but an unethical researcher could read the Science paper [which describes in great detail the process used by Hwang and Moon] and attempt to use the technique to bring a clone to term. ‘I’m afraid that some nitwit is going to try,’ says Larry Goldstein, a cellular and molecular biologist the University of California at San Diego.”
Dr. Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, called for federal legislation to stop human cloning for any purpose. “The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking…In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning.”
The Genie is Out of the Bottle
Kass is correct that we must enact a ban on all human cloning. We must also recognize, however, that legislation alone will not stop this immoral research.
Dr. Panayiotis M. Zavos of the Kentucky Centre for Reproductive Medicine and IVF says that cloning cannot be banned. “That time has passed a long time ago. The genie is out of the bottle,” he said.
Zavos is focusing his research efforts on allowing “infertile couples to safely have healthy, genetically related children through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) [cloning] methods.” He views reproductive cloning as just “another new development in assisted reproductive technologies for the world to consider.” But it is much more than that. It is a doorway to a brave new world where the line between good and evil becomes increasingly blurred.
Some Things Are Just Wrong
David Stevens, M.D., executive director of the Christian Medical Association (CMA) writes, “Many injustices and horrors have been foisted on individuals and society in the name of science, but to duplicate a living human being for the sole purpose of exploitative research and destruction is singularly morally unconscionable. To do so when morally acceptable research—the use of adult stem cells—is already producing tremendous therapies for patients—is unthinkable.”
Dr. Gene Rudd, also of the CMA added, “What makes this watershed event even worse is the duplicity involved. These researchers, like some politicians and even some reporters, baldly state that they are not cloning human beings. A human embryo, scientifically speaking, is a genetically complete, living human being.”
Syndicated columnist, Armstrong Williams, weighed in on the South Korean cloning experiment saying, “Far less consideration seems to be given to the moral implications of creating life simply to destroy it. Each embryo these researchers harvest and dissect has a unique genetic code. That means they are using their scalpels to tear not at a random collection of cells, but at a genetically complete human being. This is no different from, say, abortion or murder.”
We must never forget that there are some things that are intrinsically and inherently wrong. Using human beings as research material—whether for therapeutic or reproductive cloning or for embryonic stem cell research is clearly wrong.
Recent research efforts have clearly demonstrated that we can treat diseases without killing human embryos. The British Medical Journal reported, “the need for fetal cells as a source of stem cells for medical research may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and less controversial adult stem cells.” There is simply no need to continue with the draconian experiments on human embryos—there are better and ethical alternatives that must be pursued!
Copyright, 2004
March 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and Dr. Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University (South Korea) recently announced that they had successfully cloned thirty human embryos and had “created” a stable stem cell line from one of them. While scientists from other countries have made similar claims in the past, this is the first credible documentation to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Previously, the debate over the ethical and policy issues associated with cloning has—for the most part—been theoretical. But now, the issue is real. These scientists have demonstrated that human embryos can be cloned.
In order to “produce” a cloned baby, these scientists must get the tiny human to develop to the six day old stage and then place him or her into a womb. If implantation is successful and the pregnancy goes well, a cloned baby will be born.
Semantic Jargon
Like the majority of scientists and lawmakers addressing the issue of cloning, Hwang insists that their goal “is not to clone humans, but to understand the causes of diseases.” In reality, however, they have cloned a human. Intellectually honest scientists know that a human blastocyst or embryo is a living human being—albeit a very tiny one.
Dr. Hwang did admit that therapeutic cloning “cannot be separated from reproductive cloning.” One has to be very naive not to recognize that reproductive cloning will follow therapeutic cloning. It’s only a matter of time.
In the February 23, 2004 issue of Time, Michael D. Lemonick acknowledges this possibility when he writes, “Responsible scientists wouldn’t try it [reproductive cloning], but an unethical researcher could read the Science paper [which describes in great detail the process used by Hwang and Moon] and attempt to use the technique to bring a clone to term. ‘I’m afraid that some nitwit is going to try,’ says Larry Goldstein, a cellular and molecular biologist the University of California at San Diego.”
Dr. Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, called for federal legislation to stop human cloning for any purpose. “The age of human cloning has apparently arrived: today, cloned blastocysts for research, tomorrow cloned blastocysts for babymaking…In my opinion, and that of the majority of the Council, the only way to prevent this from happening here is for Congress to enact a comprehensive ban or moratorium on all human cloning.”
The Genie is Out of the Bottle
Kass is correct that we must enact a ban on all human cloning. We must also recognize, however, that legislation alone will not stop this immoral research.
Dr. Panayiotis M. Zavos of the Kentucky Centre for Reproductive Medicine and IVF says that cloning cannot be banned. “That time has passed a long time ago. The genie is out of the bottle,” he said.
Zavos is focusing his research efforts on allowing “infertile couples to safely have healthy, genetically related children through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) [cloning] methods.” He views reproductive cloning as just “another new development in assisted reproductive technologies for the world to consider.” But it is much more than that. It is a doorway to a brave new world where the line between good and evil becomes increasingly blurred.
Some Things Are Just Wrong
David Stevens, M.D., executive director of the Christian Medical Association (CMA) writes, “Many injustices and horrors have been foisted on individuals and society in the name of science, but to duplicate a living human being for the sole purpose of exploitative research and destruction is singularly morally unconscionable. To do so when morally acceptable research—the use of adult stem cells—is already producing tremendous therapies for patients—is unthinkable.”
Dr. Gene Rudd, also of the CMA added, “What makes this watershed event even worse is the duplicity involved. These researchers, like some politicians and even some reporters, baldly state that they are not cloning human beings. A human embryo, scientifically speaking, is a genetically complete, living human being.”
Syndicated columnist, Armstrong Williams, weighed in on the South Korean cloning experiment saying, “Far less consideration seems to be given to the moral implications of creating life simply to destroy it. Each embryo these researchers harvest and dissect has a unique genetic code. That means they are using their scalpels to tear not at a random collection of cells, but at a genetically complete human being. This is no different from, say, abortion or murder.”
We must never forget that there are some things that are intrinsically and inherently wrong. Using human beings as research material—whether for therapeutic or reproductive cloning or for embryonic stem cell research is clearly wrong.
Recent research efforts have clearly demonstrated that we can treat diseases without killing human embryos. The British Medical Journal reported, “the need for fetal cells as a source of stem cells for medical research may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and less controversial adult stem cells.” There is simply no need to continue with the draconian experiments on human embryos—there are better and ethical alternatives that must be pursued!
Copyright, 2004
ANOTHER YEAR
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
January 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
Another year passes. One more anniversary of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton—the Supreme Court rulings that struck down all existing state laws prohibiting abortion. Another year where young girls and women were lied to, manipulated, and treated poorly. Another year where some women died as the result of what they were told was a simple “choice.” Another year where pseudo feminists insisted that women have no rights if they do not have a “right” to destroy their unborn children.
Abortion is sold to young girls and women as the best solution to their “problem.” That problem, of course, is what some consider an untimely or unwanted pregnancy. And as frightening and worrisome as those situations may seem, certainly we can help women of all ages make positive, life-affirming choices for themselves and for their babies.
Better Choices
Kristin Wallace was only ten years old when she found her father convulsing on the floor after a suicide attempt. Twelve days later he was dead. Three years later—at the tender age of thirteen and in seventh grade—Kristin was pregnant. She was embarrassed and terrified. One does not have to know much else to recognize that this was not a “wanted” or a timely pregnancy
Wanting what she mistakenly believed to be best for her daughter, Kristin’s mother urged her to have an abortion. Kristin carefully thought about her options and decided that not only would she have her baby, she was going to keep her. Fortunately, her mother supported Kristin in that decision even though she did not agree with it.
A story on Kristin in the Portland Oregonian on September 30, 2002 summed it up nicely when it reported, “Family once angered by Wallace's pregnancy melted at the sight of her tow-headed baby.” I am certain most of us can recall instances in our own social or family circles where similar sentiments have been expressed. While never forgetting that non-marital sexual activity is wrong, we must also never forget that a new life resulting from such activity is just as precious and miraculous as those babies conceived during the best of circumstances,
Kristin finished high school and went on to college at Portland State University where she was elected president of the student body. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Faced with challenging circumstances, Kristen exhibited true feminism and, with the assistance of her family and friends, she proved there are life-affirming alternatives to abortion—alternatives that while not always easy, are rewarding in the long run.
An Earlier Time
Kristin’s journey began in the late 90s. In an earlier era, Gloria Feldt was fifteen years old and pregnant when she quit school and eloped. By age twenty (the year was 1962) she had three children—two daughters and a son—none of whom were, according to Gloria, “planned.”
Gloria finished high school via a correspondence course and eventually earned a B.A. with honors from the University of Texas-Permian Basian. For the past seven years, she has served as president of a non-profit organization that took in more than $766 million dollars in its last fiscal year. Her base salary is more than $356, 000. In 2000, she was named as one of “America’s Most Influential Women” by Vanity Fair Magazine. Using society’s standards, most people would say this is one mighty successful woman.
Sadly, the organization Gloria leads is Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)—the country’s largest single committer of abortions and the world’s most aggressive advocate for abortion on demand for any or for no reason. And even more regrettably, rather than using her influence and personal experience to encourage girls and women facing similar circumstances to understand that the birth of a child does not destroy dreams, she uses it to promote a legal right to kill unborn babies. Gloria argues that only unrestricted abortion will allow these girls and women to preserve their independence and reach their goals.
Working for Planned Parenthood in some capacity since 1974, Gloria still laments the fact that she had no “choice” with her three pregnancies. In her 2002 book, Behind Every Choice Is A Story, Feldt writes, “If, however, there is one great sadness for me, it is that I have never had the pleasure of having a truly planned child with someone I wholeheartedly love and at a time of life when we could have provided the environment in which a child could have the best chance to thrive.”
In her 2003 Mother’s Day message, she said “I am overjoyed that my children, who thrived despite parents who were children themselves, have experienced the joy of planned, wanted children.”
How could her grandchildren possibly have brought more joy to their parents simply because they were planned and wanted? Is she implying that her joy was somehow diminished because her three children were not planned and wanted? How sad that she does not recognize that children are a gift who bring joy simply by their presence.
Without Abortion, Women are Helpless
If Gloira did recognize this truth, however, she would be unable to advocate for the killing of those children who were conceived under less than perfect circumstances. Rather than using her life experience as an example of what a young teen or woman can accomplish when faced with difficult circumstances, Gloria has spent the past 30 years preaching to young girls and women of all ages that “…the ability to choose when and whether to have a child underlies a woman’s ability to determine all other aspects of her life.” This is pseudo-feminism at its best—or should I say worst!
Rather than providing real assistance for women facing untimely pregnancies, Gloria’s organization offers abortion and works tirelessly to shut down those truly benevolent agencies who do offer practical help to women. Rather than teaching that non-marital sex is the problem, PPFA focuses on the result of that activity and pretends to solve the problem by doing away with the baby.
Women who choose life for their babies, regardless of the circumstances and short term suffering, will be stronger and better able to cope with life’s challenges. Viewing abortion as a quick fix solution robs the baby of his or her life and often results in greater pain and suffering for the baby’s parents, grandparents, and siblings. Everyone is robbed of the joy that children bring.
We Can Do Better
I am certain many of us can recall instances where a married female friend or relative was not overjoyed when she first found out she was pregnant. Yet, when that baby arrived, he or she was a source of immense joy.
Carolyn Edy, was twenty-five years old and had just received her master’s degree when she found out she was pregnant. Her boyfriend ditched her and although she said she always knew she would never have an abortion, she was “sure that my life was over.” Writing for Newsweek in 1999 she stated, “I really had no idea what I was in for. As much as I knew I would love my child, I love her more. I had hoped I would enjoy being a mother, and in fact I thrive in my new role.” Interestingly, the baby’s father is now involved and Carolyn writes that “Now he feels as I do—proud that there is no other baby like her.”
Certainly there are instances when an untimely pregnancy presents special difficulties and the mother wrongly believes she has no choice but abortion. Most women, however, who have chosen abortion say they would not have done so if only someone had stood by them during the pregnancy.
Unborn babies, their mothers and their fathers deserve better than abortion. Let’s not allow another year to pass without doing something to help women facing untimely pregnancies.
Copyright, 2004
January 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
Another year passes. One more anniversary of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton—the Supreme Court rulings that struck down all existing state laws prohibiting abortion. Another year where young girls and women were lied to, manipulated, and treated poorly. Another year where some women died as the result of what they were told was a simple “choice.” Another year where pseudo feminists insisted that women have no rights if they do not have a “right” to destroy their unborn children.
Abortion is sold to young girls and women as the best solution to their “problem.” That problem, of course, is what some consider an untimely or unwanted pregnancy. And as frightening and worrisome as those situations may seem, certainly we can help women of all ages make positive, life-affirming choices for themselves and for their babies.
Better Choices
Kristin Wallace was only ten years old when she found her father convulsing on the floor after a suicide attempt. Twelve days later he was dead. Three years later—at the tender age of thirteen and in seventh grade—Kristin was pregnant. She was embarrassed and terrified. One does not have to know much else to recognize that this was not a “wanted” or a timely pregnancy
Wanting what she mistakenly believed to be best for her daughter, Kristin’s mother urged her to have an abortion. Kristin carefully thought about her options and decided that not only would she have her baby, she was going to keep her. Fortunately, her mother supported Kristin in that decision even though she did not agree with it.
A story on Kristin in the Portland Oregonian on September 30, 2002 summed it up nicely when it reported, “Family once angered by Wallace's pregnancy melted at the sight of her tow-headed baby.” I am certain most of us can recall instances in our own social or family circles where similar sentiments have been expressed. While never forgetting that non-marital sexual activity is wrong, we must also never forget that a new life resulting from such activity is just as precious and miraculous as those babies conceived during the best of circumstances,
Kristin finished high school and went on to college at Portland State University where she was elected president of the student body. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Faced with challenging circumstances, Kristen exhibited true feminism and, with the assistance of her family and friends, she proved there are life-affirming alternatives to abortion—alternatives that while not always easy, are rewarding in the long run.
An Earlier Time
Kristin’s journey began in the late 90s. In an earlier era, Gloria Feldt was fifteen years old and pregnant when she quit school and eloped. By age twenty (the year was 1962) she had three children—two daughters and a son—none of whom were, according to Gloria, “planned.”
Gloria finished high school via a correspondence course and eventually earned a B.A. with honors from the University of Texas-Permian Basian. For the past seven years, she has served as president of a non-profit organization that took in more than $766 million dollars in its last fiscal year. Her base salary is more than $356, 000. In 2000, she was named as one of “America’s Most Influential Women” by Vanity Fair Magazine. Using society’s standards, most people would say this is one mighty successful woman.
Sadly, the organization Gloria leads is Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)—the country’s largest single committer of abortions and the world’s most aggressive advocate for abortion on demand for any or for no reason. And even more regrettably, rather than using her influence and personal experience to encourage girls and women facing similar circumstances to understand that the birth of a child does not destroy dreams, she uses it to promote a legal right to kill unborn babies. Gloria argues that only unrestricted abortion will allow these girls and women to preserve their independence and reach their goals.
Working for Planned Parenthood in some capacity since 1974, Gloria still laments the fact that she had no “choice” with her three pregnancies. In her 2002 book, Behind Every Choice Is A Story, Feldt writes, “If, however, there is one great sadness for me, it is that I have never had the pleasure of having a truly planned child with someone I wholeheartedly love and at a time of life when we could have provided the environment in which a child could have the best chance to thrive.”
In her 2003 Mother’s Day message, she said “I am overjoyed that my children, who thrived despite parents who were children themselves, have experienced the joy of planned, wanted children.”
How could her grandchildren possibly have brought more joy to their parents simply because they were planned and wanted? Is she implying that her joy was somehow diminished because her three children were not planned and wanted? How sad that she does not recognize that children are a gift who bring joy simply by their presence.
Without Abortion, Women are Helpless
If Gloira did recognize this truth, however, she would be unable to advocate for the killing of those children who were conceived under less than perfect circumstances. Rather than using her life experience as an example of what a young teen or woman can accomplish when faced with difficult circumstances, Gloria has spent the past 30 years preaching to young girls and women of all ages that “…the ability to choose when and whether to have a child underlies a woman’s ability to determine all other aspects of her life.” This is pseudo-feminism at its best—or should I say worst!
Rather than providing real assistance for women facing untimely pregnancies, Gloria’s organization offers abortion and works tirelessly to shut down those truly benevolent agencies who do offer practical help to women. Rather than teaching that non-marital sex is the problem, PPFA focuses on the result of that activity and pretends to solve the problem by doing away with the baby.
Women who choose life for their babies, regardless of the circumstances and short term suffering, will be stronger and better able to cope with life’s challenges. Viewing abortion as a quick fix solution robs the baby of his or her life and often results in greater pain and suffering for the baby’s parents, grandparents, and siblings. Everyone is robbed of the joy that children bring.
We Can Do Better
I am certain many of us can recall instances where a married female friend or relative was not overjoyed when she first found out she was pregnant. Yet, when that baby arrived, he or she was a source of immense joy.
Carolyn Edy, was twenty-five years old and had just received her master’s degree when she found out she was pregnant. Her boyfriend ditched her and although she said she always knew she would never have an abortion, she was “sure that my life was over.” Writing for Newsweek in 1999 she stated, “I really had no idea what I was in for. As much as I knew I would love my child, I love her more. I had hoped I would enjoy being a mother, and in fact I thrive in my new role.” Interestingly, the baby’s father is now involved and Carolyn writes that “Now he feels as I do—proud that there is no other baby like her.”
Certainly there are instances when an untimely pregnancy presents special difficulties and the mother wrongly believes she has no choice but abortion. Most women, however, who have chosen abortion say they would not have done so if only someone had stood by them during the pregnancy.
Unborn babies, their mothers and their fathers deserve better than abortion. Let’s not allow another year to pass without doing something to help women facing untimely pregnancies.
Copyright, 2004
WHO LIVES? WHO DIES? WHO DECIDES?
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
For the past several months, people who pay close attention to the “news” have been fed a lot of misinformation about the case of Terri Schlinder Schiavo. Terri is a 39-year-old woman whose husband and parents are battling over whether she will be allowed to live or whether she will be forced to die by dehydration.
Casual conversation in the work place and at social events reveals that many Catholics are confused about the decisions associated with the Terri Schiavo case and end-of-life decisions in general. And while end-of-life decisions may be fraught with complexities—making decisions difficult— the moral teachings of the Church regarding such crucial judgments provide the guiding principles.
A Proper End to Suffering
No rational person longs for suffering and no compassionate person wishes suffering on another. In fact, most people would avoid personal suffering if they could and certainly would help others do the same. Suffering, or more aptly, the avoidance of suffering appears to be the basic issue for most people when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
As is the case with the beginnings of life, it is no surprise that the culture of death is in direct conflict with the culture of life regarding end-of-life decisions. Those who reject God and/or the teachings of His Church, think it humane to hasten a suffering person’s death. Our Holy Father addresses this in Evangelium Vitae when he writes, “In reality, what might seem logical and humane when looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane.”
Popular culture appears to be excessively preoccupied with the fear of “being hooked up” to medical devices, being unable to care for ourselves, being burdensome to others, not having a good “quality” of life, and avoiding suffering at all costs. The culture of life teaches us that all human life has value and that we are to provide care, not death, for those who are suffering. Our Holy Father writes, “true compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” (Evangelium Vitae, #66).
Just Leave Me Alone
Compassion does not, however, mean that everything possible must be done for someone who is handicapped, sick, or dying. The Catechism #2278 speaks to this:
Many individuals—often led by misguided medical professionals and sadly, even by some well intentioned, but misinformed moral theologians and clergy—use this teaching to justify the removal of feeding tubes on patients who are not in the process of dying. On October 2, 1998 Pope John Paul II said, “…a great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome, and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life such as feeding.”
Are Food and Water Extraordinary Care?
Technological developments make the once exceptional seem quite “ordinary” today. While medical advances have made it increasingly difficult to define “extraordinary” in reference to caring for the disabled, the sick, and the dying, common sense (and the teachings of the Church) tell us that food and water—even if given through artificial means— are to be considered ordinary care. Artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is ordinary care that requires simple technology.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states, “There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.”
Notice, the reference to “burdens…to the patient.” When a person is in what the medical profession refers to as a persistent vegetative state (PVS), it is very rare for ANH to present a burden for the patient. In some cases, however, the spouse or family feels that the burden is too great and they are the ones who insist on removing ANH—not because the patient is dying, but because he or she is not dying. The removal of ANH in these cases, causes death, it does not allow death.
ANH may become burdensome to the patient when he or she is truly in the process of dying from disease. When death is expected within a few hours or a few days, it may be morally acceptable to cease ANH as long as comfort care (including keeping the mouth, nose, and eyes moist) is provided. However, the USCCB Office of Pro-Life Activities paper, “Questions About Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration” states that “Even in the case of the imminently dying patient, of course, any action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death is to be absolutely rejected.”
Do I Need A Living Will?
A Living Will is a type of advance directive—a legal document—that purports to “speak” for a patient who is unable to speak for himself. Rita Marker, Esq. of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide writes, “It’s absolutely essential that anyone who is 18 years old or older have an advance directive—but not just any type of advance directive.” Marker continues, “There are many types of advance directives, and some, like the ‘Living Will’ are downright dangerous.” One of those dangers is that the wording is usually so vague that the person’s intentions are often misunderstood.
Even secular publications acknowledge this risk. The July 24, 1989 issue of U.S. News and World Report offered the following: “The problem is language. The vernacular of living wills—such phrases as ‘terminally ill,’ ‘no reasonable expectation of recovery,’ ‘heroic measures,’ and ‘life-prolonging procedures’—is so fuzzy and open to interpretation that doctors frequently are left with no clear idea of which measures the patient wants started, stopped, or maintained.”
In the January 10, 1997 issue of USA Today, Dr. Joanne Lynn, director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. said, “A general living will says stop (extraordinary measures) when it’s hopeless, but the question is, how hopeless did you mean it to be?”
How, then, does one follow Rita Marker’s suggestion that everyone over the age of 18 have an advance directive? One way is to have a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (Health Care Proxy) drawn up by your attorney. This process will involve naming an “agent,” “proxy,” or “surrogate” to make medical decisions for you if you are no longer to do so for yourself. One should take care, however, that the “agent” is of good moral character and that he or she is familiar with and faithful to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
If you want to learn more about end-of-life issues, a good source are the websites for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide at www.internationaltaskforce.org and the USCCB at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/index.htm
Copyright, 2003
December 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
For the past several months, people who pay close attention to the “news” have been fed a lot of misinformation about the case of Terri Schlinder Schiavo. Terri is a 39-year-old woman whose husband and parents are battling over whether she will be allowed to live or whether she will be forced to die by dehydration.
Casual conversation in the work place and at social events reveals that many Catholics are confused about the decisions associated with the Terri Schiavo case and end-of-life decisions in general. And while end-of-life decisions may be fraught with complexities—making decisions difficult— the moral teachings of the Church regarding such crucial judgments provide the guiding principles.
A Proper End to Suffering
No rational person longs for suffering and no compassionate person wishes suffering on another. In fact, most people would avoid personal suffering if they could and certainly would help others do the same. Suffering, or more aptly, the avoidance of suffering appears to be the basic issue for most people when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
As is the case with the beginnings of life, it is no surprise that the culture of death is in direct conflict with the culture of life regarding end-of-life decisions. Those who reject God and/or the teachings of His Church, think it humane to hasten a suffering person’s death. Our Holy Father addresses this in Evangelium Vitae when he writes, “In reality, what might seem logical and humane when looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane.”
Popular culture appears to be excessively preoccupied with the fear of “being hooked up” to medical devices, being unable to care for ourselves, being burdensome to others, not having a good “quality” of life, and avoiding suffering at all costs. The culture of life teaches us that all human life has value and that we are to provide care, not death, for those who are suffering. Our Holy Father writes, “true compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” (Evangelium Vitae, #66).
Just Leave Me Alone
Compassion does not, however, mean that everything possible must be done for someone who is handicapped, sick, or dying. The Catechism #2278 speaks to this:
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcomes can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interest must always be respected.
Many individuals—often led by misguided medical professionals and sadly, even by some well intentioned, but misinformed moral theologians and clergy—use this teaching to justify the removal of feeding tubes on patients who are not in the process of dying. On October 2, 1998 Pope John Paul II said, “…a great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome, and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life such as feeding.”
Are Food and Water Extraordinary Care?
Technological developments make the once exceptional seem quite “ordinary” today. While medical advances have made it increasingly difficult to define “extraordinary” in reference to caring for the disabled, the sick, and the dying, common sense (and the teachings of the Church) tell us that food and water—even if given through artificial means— are to be considered ordinary care. Artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is ordinary care that requires simple technology.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states, “There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.”
Notice, the reference to “burdens…to the patient.” When a person is in what the medical profession refers to as a persistent vegetative state (PVS), it is very rare for ANH to present a burden for the patient. In some cases, however, the spouse or family feels that the burden is too great and they are the ones who insist on removing ANH—not because the patient is dying, but because he or she is not dying. The removal of ANH in these cases, causes death, it does not allow death.
ANH may become burdensome to the patient when he or she is truly in the process of dying from disease. When death is expected within a few hours or a few days, it may be morally acceptable to cease ANH as long as comfort care (including keeping the mouth, nose, and eyes moist) is provided. However, the USCCB Office of Pro-Life Activities paper, “Questions About Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration” states that “Even in the case of the imminently dying patient, of course, any action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death is to be absolutely rejected.”
Do I Need A Living Will?
A Living Will is a type of advance directive—a legal document—that purports to “speak” for a patient who is unable to speak for himself. Rita Marker, Esq. of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide writes, “It’s absolutely essential that anyone who is 18 years old or older have an advance directive—but not just any type of advance directive.” Marker continues, “There are many types of advance directives, and some, like the ‘Living Will’ are downright dangerous.” One of those dangers is that the wording is usually so vague that the person’s intentions are often misunderstood.
Even secular publications acknowledge this risk. The July 24, 1989 issue of U.S. News and World Report offered the following: “The problem is language. The vernacular of living wills—such phrases as ‘terminally ill,’ ‘no reasonable expectation of recovery,’ ‘heroic measures,’ and ‘life-prolonging procedures’—is so fuzzy and open to interpretation that doctors frequently are left with no clear idea of which measures the patient wants started, stopped, or maintained.”
In the January 10, 1997 issue of USA Today, Dr. Joanne Lynn, director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. said, “A general living will says stop (extraordinary measures) when it’s hopeless, but the question is, how hopeless did you mean it to be?”
How, then, does one follow Rita Marker’s suggestion that everyone over the age of 18 have an advance directive? One way is to have a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (Health Care Proxy) drawn up by your attorney. This process will involve naming an “agent,” “proxy,” or “surrogate” to make medical decisions for you if you are no longer to do so for yourself. One should take care, however, that the “agent” is of good moral character and that he or she is familiar with and faithful to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
If you want to learn more about end-of-life issues, a good source are the websites for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide at www.internationaltaskforce.org and the USCCB at www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/index.htm
Copyright, 2003
Monday, February 26, 2007
THANK YOU for visiting PatriciaBainbridge.com
This blog is currently being updated and will be completed on Friday, March 2nd!
ABORTIONS ON THE RISE IN ILLINOIS
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
November 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
For the second consecutive year, the number of reported abortions committed in Illinois has increased. There were a minimum of 45,884 abortions in Illinois in 2000; 46,546 in 2001; and 46,945 in 2002. I say “minimum” because in Illinois there is an unusual regulation for reporting abortion statistics. For some unknown reason, abortion statistics from any given county are tallied only if 51 or more women from that county aborted their babies.
If “only” fifty or less women from a county abort their babies, the number is not included in the over-all statistics. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, the statistics for 69 counties are listed as ”less than or equal to 50.” That information—coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee that abortionists report all the abortions they commit—we really have no way of knowing for certain just how many babies in Illinois are killed in their mother’s wombs.
The statistics provided by the Illinois Department of Health regarding the total number of abortions committed in any given year must be viewed as an incomplete. These numbers represent a minimum. Keep in mind that in 69 counties we have no idea how many women aborted. In each county it could be zero or it could be 50. For the entire state the number could remain the same or increase by a maximum of 3,450. The possibility that the reported number would increase by even a single digit does make a difference. Each increase represents another dead innocent human being.
At Least Six Babies Each Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois included in the Diocese of Rockford, the number of reported abortions for 2002 decreased to 2,309 (from 2,457 in 2001). While this appears to be encouraging news, we must never forget that each and every day these reported statistics admit that at least six pre-born babies from our own Diocese were destroyed at the hands of an abortionist. And must never forget even one baby killed per year is one too many.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed in the Rockford Diocese by county of residence of their mothers is as follows:
Boone—91 (up from 68 in 2001);
Carroll—unknown;*
DeKalb—192 (up from 184 in 2001); JoDaviess—unknown;*
Kane—632 (up from 597 in 2001);
Lee—unknown (down from 54 in 2001);
* McHenry—490 (down from 510 in 2001);
Ogle—69 (down from 84 in 2001);
Stephenson—74 (down from 98 in 2001);
Whiteside—60 (down from 62 in 2001);
Winnebago—701 (down from 800 in 2001).
*could be as many as 50
Early Abortions Not Reported
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) reports that “As much as 43% of the decline in abortion [nationwide] between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception [EC].” In this statement AGI (a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America—the largest single committer of abortions in this country) is using doublespeak to confuse or deceive the public.
In the first place, they have no way of knowing that the 43% figure is even close to being accurate. Secondly—and most importantly—one of the mechanisms of so-called EC is to cause a very early abortion. In its own reports, AGI admits that:
…all hormonal contraceptive methods, depending on when during the menstrual cycle a woman initiates the method, act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting fertilization or inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg, which in medical terms is considered to mark the beginning of pregnancy. Emergency contraception has no effect once a pregnancy has been established.
Of course, in order to accept the message that EC does not cause a very early abortion—an idea which sadly is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—you have to accept the new, politically correct definition of pregnancy beginning at implantation. In “obstetric terms, pregnancy begins with the first day of the last normal menstrual period, and lasts 40 weeks from that day.” In addition, the traditional definition states that “Pregnancy is the period between conception and birth when the embryo and then the fetus develop within the uterus of the mother.”
Truth is Truth
When the action of emergency contraception or other forms of hormonal birth control render the endometrium hostile to implantation, there is no doubt that a very early abortion is possible even likely—unless, of course, word games are used. While ACOG and other abortion apologists believe they can change reality by semantic engineering, the truth cannot be changed!
Once fertilization has occurred, a distinctive human being has come into existence and anything that deliberately prevents this very tiny human from implanting in its mother’s uterus causes an abortion. You can change the language, but not the reality. As Chesterton wrote, “Truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is.”
No Way of Knowing How Many
We have no way of knowing how many tiny humans are killed as the result of EC. Because abortion advocates have convinced government agencies and the general public that EC does not cause an abortion, statistics are not reported and of course, EC on occasion does prevent fertilization. Just as with “The Pill,” we have no way of ascertaining just how many embryos die as a result of hostile endometriums.
Any physician can write a prescription for EC. It is a tragedy, but in Illinois, even young girls can order EC over the internet (without seeing a medical professional) from four different websites including Planned Parenthood of Chicago. All the girls need is a credit card and access to a computer.
In addition to private physicians and the internet, EC unfortunately is available at Crusader Clinic-Rockford; Northern Illinois Women’s Center-Rockford; Freeport Clinic, Annex-Freeport; JoDaviess County Health Department-Galena; and the Country Center for Women’s Health-Elgin. These are the sites listed on the national list maintained by Princeton University and I am certain there are many more sites that have chosen not to be listed or are unaware of such a listing. We will never know how many very tiny, vulnerable male or females were denied a chance at life because of the sometime abortifacient action of EC.
Pro-Abortion Spin
When asked about the increased number of abortions committed in the state of Illinois, Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council (Planned Parenthood's statewide legislative and political office) said that the numbers were “statistically insignificant.” That should come as no surprise. Planned Parenthood is the largest single committer of abortions in the United States and 399 more dead babies would not be a “significant” matter for them.
Well, Ms. Sutherland, even one life is significant for us. Life is a gift and not one that is to be tossed out with the garbage!
Copyright, 2003
November 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
For the second consecutive year, the number of reported abortions committed in Illinois has increased. There were a minimum of 45,884 abortions in Illinois in 2000; 46,546 in 2001; and 46,945 in 2002. I say “minimum” because in Illinois there is an unusual regulation for reporting abortion statistics. For some unknown reason, abortion statistics from any given county are tallied only if 51 or more women from that county aborted their babies.
If “only” fifty or less women from a county abort their babies, the number is not included in the over-all statistics. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, the statistics for 69 counties are listed as ”less than or equal to 50.” That information—coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee that abortionists report all the abortions they commit—we really have no way of knowing for certain just how many babies in Illinois are killed in their mother’s wombs.
The statistics provided by the Illinois Department of Health regarding the total number of abortions committed in any given year must be viewed as an incomplete. These numbers represent a minimum. Keep in mind that in 69 counties we have no idea how many women aborted. In each county it could be zero or it could be 50. For the entire state the number could remain the same or increase by a maximum of 3,450. The possibility that the reported number would increase by even a single digit does make a difference. Each increase represents another dead innocent human being.
At Least Six Babies Each Day in Our Diocese
For the eleven counties in Northern Illinois included in the Diocese of Rockford, the number of reported abortions for 2002 decreased to 2,309 (from 2,457 in 2001). While this appears to be encouraging news, we must never forget that each and every day these reported statistics admit that at least six pre-born babies from our own Diocese were destroyed at the hands of an abortionist. And must never forget even one baby killed per year is one too many.
The breakdown of the number of pre-born babies killed in the Rockford Diocese by county of residence of their mothers is as follows:
Boone—91 (up from 68 in 2001);
Carroll—unknown;*
DeKalb—192 (up from 184 in 2001); JoDaviess—unknown;*
Kane—632 (up from 597 in 2001);
Lee—unknown (down from 54 in 2001);
* McHenry—490 (down from 510 in 2001);
Ogle—69 (down from 84 in 2001);
Stephenson—74 (down from 98 in 2001);
Whiteside—60 (down from 62 in 2001);
Winnebago—701 (down from 800 in 2001).
*could be as many as 50
Early Abortions Not Reported
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) reports that “As much as 43% of the decline in abortion [nationwide] between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception [EC].” In this statement AGI (a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America—the largest single committer of abortions in this country) is using doublespeak to confuse or deceive the public.
In the first place, they have no way of knowing that the 43% figure is even close to being accurate. Secondly—and most importantly—one of the mechanisms of so-called EC is to cause a very early abortion. In its own reports, AGI admits that:
…all hormonal contraceptive methods, depending on when during the menstrual cycle a woman initiates the method, act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting fertilization or inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg, which in medical terms is considered to mark the beginning of pregnancy. Emergency contraception has no effect once a pregnancy has been established.
Of course, in order to accept the message that EC does not cause a very early abortion—an idea which sadly is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—you have to accept the new, politically correct definition of pregnancy beginning at implantation. In “obstetric terms, pregnancy begins with the first day of the last normal menstrual period, and lasts 40 weeks from that day.” In addition, the traditional definition states that “Pregnancy is the period between conception and birth when the embryo and then the fetus develop within the uterus of the mother.”
Truth is Truth
When the action of emergency contraception or other forms of hormonal birth control render the endometrium hostile to implantation, there is no doubt that a very early abortion is possible even likely—unless, of course, word games are used. While ACOG and other abortion apologists believe they can change reality by semantic engineering, the truth cannot be changed!
Once fertilization has occurred, a distinctive human being has come into existence and anything that deliberately prevents this very tiny human from implanting in its mother’s uterus causes an abortion. You can change the language, but not the reality. As Chesterton wrote, “Truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is.”
No Way of Knowing How Many
We have no way of knowing how many tiny humans are killed as the result of EC. Because abortion advocates have convinced government agencies and the general public that EC does not cause an abortion, statistics are not reported and of course, EC on occasion does prevent fertilization. Just as with “The Pill,” we have no way of ascertaining just how many embryos die as a result of hostile endometriums.
Any physician can write a prescription for EC. It is a tragedy, but in Illinois, even young girls can order EC over the internet (without seeing a medical professional) from four different websites including Planned Parenthood of Chicago. All the girls need is a credit card and access to a computer.
In addition to private physicians and the internet, EC unfortunately is available at Crusader Clinic-Rockford; Northern Illinois Women’s Center-Rockford; Freeport Clinic, Annex-Freeport; JoDaviess County Health Department-Galena; and the Country Center for Women’s Health-Elgin. These are the sites listed on the national list maintained by Princeton University and I am certain there are many more sites that have chosen not to be listed or are unaware of such a listing. We will never know how many very tiny, vulnerable male or females were denied a chance at life because of the sometime abortifacient action of EC.
Pro-Abortion Spin
When asked about the increased number of abortions committed in the state of Illinois, Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council (Planned Parenthood's statewide legislative and political office) said that the numbers were “statistically insignificant.” That should come as no surprise. Planned Parenthood is the largest single committer of abortions in the United States and 399 more dead babies would not be a “significant” matter for them.
Well, Ms. Sutherland, even one life is significant for us. Life is a gift and not one that is to be tossed out with the garbage!
Copyright, 2003
SEAMLESS GARMENT?
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
October 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
I have been asked on numerous occasions why some Catholics who are so involved in what are commonly referred to as the “social justice issues” are occasionally the very ones who refuse to even speak out against procured abortion and in some cases, actually work against the efforts of the Pro-Life movement.
Sadly, in some cases, the problem stems from a conscious rejection of the official teaching of the Church. In many cases, it may originate from a misunderstanding or misapplication of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment or consistent ethic of life message.
In a 2001 presentation, Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Pro-Life Activities, commented that Bernardin “first used the phrase ‘seamless garment’ in this context in 1976, it was in a pro-life homily designed to show the fundamental importance of the teaching on abortion and euthanasia: ‘Life before and after birth,’ he said, ‘is like a seamless garment... If we become insensitive to the beginning of life and condone abortion or if we become careless about the end of life and justify euthanasia, we have no reason to believe that there will be much respect for life in between.’”
Used and Abused
In the years following the Cardinal’s initial use of the phrase “seamless garment,” many individuals and groups have used it to imply that abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, poverty, hunger, war, capital punishment, and economic injustice were morally equivalent. Some went so far as to equate abortion with the harmful effects of smoking.
Cardinal Bernardin was emphatic in stating that while all these issues were interrelated, they were not equal. In 1985 in a speech at Loyola University he stated that, “The fundamental human right is life—from the moment of conception until death. It is the source of all other rights.”
In 1989 on Respect Life Sunday, Cardinal Bernardin issued a statement in which he said in part:
Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence. Today the recognition of human life as a fundamental value is threatened. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of elective abortion.
The Truth
Pope Paul II and the USCCB have made it very clear that the fundamental right to life is the source of all other rights. Writing in Evangelium Vitae, our Holy Father says “the fundamental right and source of all other rights….is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual.”
In 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on Procured Abortion which stated in part: “The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental—the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others.“
It Could Not Be More Obvious
The 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life when it states:
To focus on the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia is not to ignore the many other urgent conditions that demean human dignity and threaten human rights. Opposing abortion and euthanasia “does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
Speak Out
All of us are called to speak out whenever and wherever the sanctity of human life is threatened. We must oppose everything that “offends human dignity. That means that we demand protection and promotion of all human life regardless of race, creed, or color and whether in a petri dish or womb, whether a zygote or embryo, fetus or infant, pre-schooler or adolescent, middle aged or elderly, strong or weak, intelligent or retarded, stable or emotionally disturbed, healthy or disabled, rich or poor, Jew or Muslim, Christian or atheist, free or on death row, abortionist or pro-life obstetrician.
In doing so, we must remember that the most urgent, the most egregious, and the most heinous crime against humanity is the deliberate killing of the most vulnerable among us—the unborn.
Copyright, 2003
October 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
I have been asked on numerous occasions why some Catholics who are so involved in what are commonly referred to as the “social justice issues” are occasionally the very ones who refuse to even speak out against procured abortion and in some cases, actually work against the efforts of the Pro-Life movement.
Sadly, in some cases, the problem stems from a conscious rejection of the official teaching of the Church. In many cases, it may originate from a misunderstanding or misapplication of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment or consistent ethic of life message.
In a 2001 presentation, Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Pro-Life Activities, commented that Bernardin “first used the phrase ‘seamless garment’ in this context in 1976, it was in a pro-life homily designed to show the fundamental importance of the teaching on abortion and euthanasia: ‘Life before and after birth,’ he said, ‘is like a seamless garment... If we become insensitive to the beginning of life and condone abortion or if we become careless about the end of life and justify euthanasia, we have no reason to believe that there will be much respect for life in between.’”
Used and Abused
In the years following the Cardinal’s initial use of the phrase “seamless garment,” many individuals and groups have used it to imply that abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, poverty, hunger, war, capital punishment, and economic injustice were morally equivalent. Some went so far as to equate abortion with the harmful effects of smoking.
Cardinal Bernardin was emphatic in stating that while all these issues were interrelated, they were not equal. In 1985 in a speech at Loyola University he stated that, “The fundamental human right is life—from the moment of conception until death. It is the source of all other rights.”
In 1989 on Respect Life Sunday, Cardinal Bernardin issued a statement in which he said in part:
Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence. Today the recognition of human life as a fundamental value is threatened. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of elective abortion.
The Truth
Pope Paul II and the USCCB have made it very clear that the fundamental right to life is the source of all other rights. Writing in Evangelium Vitae, our Holy Father says “the fundamental right and source of all other rights….is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual.”
In 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on Procured Abortion which stated in part: “The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental—the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others.“
It Could Not Be More Obvious
The 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life when it states:
To focus on the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia is not to ignore the many other urgent conditions that demean human dignity and threaten human rights. Opposing abortion and euthanasia “does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23).
Speak Out
All of us are called to speak out whenever and wherever the sanctity of human life is threatened. We must oppose everything that “offends human dignity. That means that we demand protection and promotion of all human life regardless of race, creed, or color and whether in a petri dish or womb, whether a zygote or embryo, fetus or infant, pre-schooler or adolescent, middle aged or elderly, strong or weak, intelligent or retarded, stable or emotionally disturbed, healthy or disabled, rich or poor, Jew or Muslim, Christian or atheist, free or on death row, abortionist or pro-life obstetrician.
In doing so, we must remember that the most urgent, the most egregious, and the most heinous crime against humanity is the deliberate killing of the most vulnerable among us—the unborn.
Copyright, 2003
JUDGE NOT LEST YOU BE JUDGED
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
September 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
A popular response heard today in regard to criticism of any number of behaviors is “judge not lest you be judged.” Typically, the person making this statement is responding to a pronouncement that a particular belief or action is “wrong.” In some instances, the assertion is offered by an individual in an attempt to justify his or her own personal behavior.
There is no doubt that this is an important teaching found in Holy Scripture. However, it is one that is often misunderstood or misapplied. Many draw on this verse from Matthew 7:1 having never studied or even read Holy Scripture. It suits their purpose, so they use it! This tactic is employed frequently in the area of attitudes and actions regarding sinful sexual behavior and other attacks on the dignity of human life.
Intolerant Tolerance
Most of us who have publicly proclaimed that abortion, assisted suicide, non-marital sex, co-habitation, contraception, homosexual behavior, in vitro fertilization (IVF), etc. are wrong have been told by some individuals that we are intolerant—that it is not our place to judge. But isn’t this attitude itself a judgment? By saying this, they are intolerant of our view. The difference is that we are judging actions according to God’s standards and they are judging according to their own private standards.
As Chuck Colson writes, “True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It’s knowing what should be tolerated—and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn’t.” It is recognizing the difference between good and evil and we cannot do that without judging. The important distinction, however, is that we are not to judge the condition or state of a person’s soul—that judgment is reserved for God alone.
We are called to discern good from evil and truth from error. If we do not, we may tacitly encourage error or sinful actions of others to continue. The Catechism #1868 says, “…we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: —by participating directly and voluntarily in them; —by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; —by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; —by protecting evil-doers.”
John 7: 24 calls us to “…judge with righteous judgment.” Therefore, we must not be reluctant to call evil, “evil” and good, “good.” We must never judge hearts, but we are to judge behavior against God’s standard of right and wrong. We have to make moral judgments and not be afraid to stand for the truth.
We read in James 5:19-20, “…if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
In many instances the faithful have allowed the popular culture to define what is good and evil and it is time to put a stop to it. We must not be afraid to stand up for righteousness even when it is not popular.
Copyright, 2003
September 2003
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Associate Director, Respect Life Office
A popular response heard today in regard to criticism of any number of behaviors is “judge not lest you be judged.” Typically, the person making this statement is responding to a pronouncement that a particular belief or action is “wrong.” In some instances, the assertion is offered by an individual in an attempt to justify his or her own personal behavior.
There is no doubt that this is an important teaching found in Holy Scripture. However, it is one that is often misunderstood or misapplied. Many draw on this verse from Matthew 7:1 having never studied or even read Holy Scripture. It suits their purpose, so they use it! This tactic is employed frequently in the area of attitudes and actions regarding sinful sexual behavior and other attacks on the dignity of human life.
Intolerant Tolerance
Most of us who have publicly proclaimed that abortion, assisted suicide, non-marital sex, co-habitation, contraception, homosexual behavior, in vitro fertilization (IVF), etc. are wrong have been told by some individuals that we are intolerant—that it is not our place to judge. But isn’t this attitude itself a judgment? By saying this, they are intolerant of our view. The difference is that we are judging actions according to God’s standards and they are judging according to their own private standards.
As Chuck Colson writes, “True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It’s knowing what should be tolerated—and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn’t.” It is recognizing the difference between good and evil and we cannot do that without judging. The important distinction, however, is that we are not to judge the condition or state of a person’s soul—that judgment is reserved for God alone.
We are called to discern good from evil and truth from error. If we do not, we may tacitly encourage error or sinful actions of others to continue. The Catechism #1868 says, “…we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: —by participating directly and voluntarily in them; —by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; —by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; —by protecting evil-doers.”
John 7: 24 calls us to “…judge with righteous judgment.” Therefore, we must not be reluctant to call evil, “evil” and good, “good.” We must never judge hearts, but we are to judge behavior against God’s standard of right and wrong. We have to make moral judgments and not be afraid to stand for the truth.
We read in James 5:19-20, “…if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
In many instances the faithful have allowed the popular culture to define what is good and evil and it is time to put a stop to it. We must not be afraid to stand up for righteousness even when it is not popular.
Copyright, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
