The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: April 1, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
As I approached the pro-life bulletin board at our parish last week, I paused to look closely at the picture of Terri Schiavo positioned at the center. Although I had seen this particular picture many times, I was suddenly struck with the realization that 41 year-old Terri bears a striking resemblance to 32 year-old Ann Brodeski who is a member of our parish. Ann is the daughter of Sharon and Ray Brodeski. She has five siblings including our vocations director and pastor of St. Patrick-Amboy, Fr. Aaron Brodeski.
On February 25, 1990 Terri fell into unconsciousness from unknown causes. Eighteen days later (March 15, 1990) Ann slipped into a coma following complications from mononucleosis.
Both women are severely brain damaged, unable to speak, have limited physical movements, and receive nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube. Both are loved and valued by their parents and siblings. There is a huge difference between their circumstances, however. At the request of Terri’s estranged husband, the courts ordered her feeding tube removed and she is slowly dying from dehydration. Tragically, she may be dead by the time you read this.
Ann’s family cannot even imagine removing her feeding tube. Sharon Brodeski believes Ann’s life “serves a greater purpose.” She said “I believe God is using Terri and Ann for a greater good. Their limited lives are being used as a sacrifice.” Sharon adds, “People have told us that Ann has changed their lives.” She notes that her own life is different because of Ann’s condition. Fr. Brodeski concurs when he says, “Ann is uniting her suffering with Christ and her suffering has brought a lot of grace into the world and into my life.”
Lucy Wedemeyer’s husband, Charlie, was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 1977 and was told that he did not have long to live. He has been on a portable ventilator since 1984. He is fed through a gastronomy tube and requires 24 hour a day care. The only voluntary movements he can initiate are with his eyes, his eyebrows, and his lips. Lucy can “read” Charlie’s lips and that allows him to speak through her. He is loved and cared for by his family and friends who celebrate his life. He is known for saying, “I live to give others hope” and that is exactly what he does.
Kaye O’Bara has cared for her comatose daughter, Edwarda, for the past 35 years. Edwarda lapsed into a diabetic coma when she was 16. Kaye says, “What I do is not a burden, it’s an honor. I asked God for two daughters. I didn’t put restrictions on it.”
As a speech and language pathologist for many years, I worked with many patients who were severely physically disabled. Some were very intelligent and some were severely cognitively impaired. Some were blind, deaf, or hearing impaired. Some were autistic. Many had feeding tubes. The one thing they had in common was that each one had value, dignity, and worth simply because they were divinely created in God’s image. Each was set apart by God for a special purpose.
Terri Schiavo, Ann Brodeski, Charlie Wedemeyer, Edwarda O’Bara, and all those who are disabled are valued members of our human family who have a special purpose. Please pray for them.
Pray also that someday we will live in a society where material pursuits and worldly pleasures do not trump the Gospel of Life. A society where all human life is valued regardless of physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual condition. A society that cares for the infirmed and disabled and does not view them as burdens. A society that understands the value of suffering for a greater good and a society that recognizes true compassion rather than misplaced compassion.
As Pope John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae, “true compassion leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.”
Copyright, 2005
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
They wouldn’t do it to a dog
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: March 4, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Terri Schindler Schiavo is a 41-year-old severely disabled woman whose husband and parents are engaged in a legal conflict about whether she will be allowed to live or whether she will be forced to die by dehydration and starvation. As I write, the battle for her life continues to rage. Her parents are fighting to save her life and her estranged husband continues to seek her death. By the time you read this, the courts will most likely have determined whether Terri’s life has been spared or whether she will be in the process of experiencing a slow, agonizing death.
Terri is not receiving extraordinary care. But, because she is severely brain damaged and has a feeding tube, there are those who believe her life is not worth living and that she should die by starvation and dehydration. You can be jailed for starving an animal. Many who rightly fight for the humane treatment of animals and many who rightly oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals see nothing wrong with starving Terri to death. This makes no sense.
In reference to Terri and others in similar conditions, I have heard people say, “I know I wouldn’t want to live that way.” Certainly, no rational person would choose such circumstances. I doubt John Paul II would have chosen his current condition. However, while we do have the right to refuse certain medical procedures, we do not have the right to cause our own death or the death of another.
Those who reject or do not fully understand the teachings of the Church think it humane to hasten the death of someone they view as suffering. The 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 not having a good “quality” of life and avoiding suffering at all costs. The culture of life, however, teaches 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). Make no mistake, when a feeding tube is removed from a person who is not imminently dying, is not allowing the natural death process to occur—it is killing that person.
A March 2004 joint statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations states, “The possible decision of withdrawing nutrition and hydration, necessarily administered to VS [“vegetative” state] patients in an assisted way, is followed inevitably by the patients’ death as a direct consequence. Therefore, it has to be considered a genuine act of euthanasia by omission, which is morally unacceptable.”
Thirty-eight year old Sarah Scantlin of Hutchinson, Kansas recently surprised her family and medical professionals when she spoke for the first time in 20 years. Sarah, who is severely physically disabled and has been in what is described as a “persistent vegetative state” since 1984, suddenly and without any explanation began speaking.
I am thrilled that Sarah has regained the ability to speak, but it is important to acknowledge that her value as a human being is no different now than when she was unable to speak. Her life, like Terri’s has intangible value based on human nature itself.
All human beings, regardless of their physical, intellectual, or emotional condition have worth and dignity simply because they are human. Our worth is not dependent on what we can do, but on who we are—persons made in the image of God.
Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live. What her husband wants to do to her would not be done to a dog and it must not be done to her.
Copyright, 2005
Publication date: March 4, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Terri Schindler Schiavo is a 41-year-old severely disabled woman whose husband and parents are engaged in a legal conflict about whether she will be allowed to live or whether she will be forced to die by dehydration and starvation. As I write, the battle for her life continues to rage. Her parents are fighting to save her life and her estranged husband continues to seek her death. By the time you read this, the courts will most likely have determined whether Terri’s life has been spared or whether she will be in the process of experiencing a slow, agonizing death.
Terri is not receiving extraordinary care. But, because she is severely brain damaged and has a feeding tube, there are those who believe her life is not worth living and that she should die by starvation and dehydration. You can be jailed for starving an animal. Many who rightly fight for the humane treatment of animals and many who rightly oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals see nothing wrong with starving Terri to death. This makes no sense.
In reference to Terri and others in similar conditions, I have heard people say, “I know I wouldn’t want to live that way.” Certainly, no rational person would choose such circumstances. I doubt John Paul II would have chosen his current condition. However, while we do have the right to refuse certain medical procedures, we do not have the right to cause our own death or the death of another.
Those who reject or do not fully understand the teachings of the Church think it humane to hasten the death of someone they view as suffering. The 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 not having a good “quality” of life and avoiding suffering at all costs. The culture of life, however, teaches 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). Make no mistake, when a feeding tube is removed from a person who is not imminently dying, is not allowing the natural death process to occur—it is killing that person.
A March 2004 joint statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life and the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations states, “The possible decision of withdrawing nutrition and hydration, necessarily administered to VS [“vegetative” state] patients in an assisted way, is followed inevitably by the patients’ death as a direct consequence. Therefore, it has to be considered a genuine act of euthanasia by omission, which is morally unacceptable.”
Thirty-eight year old Sarah Scantlin of Hutchinson, Kansas recently surprised her family and medical professionals when she spoke for the first time in 20 years. Sarah, who is severely physically disabled and has been in what is described as a “persistent vegetative state” since 1984, suddenly and without any explanation began speaking.
I am thrilled that Sarah has regained the ability to speak, but it is important to acknowledge that her value as a human being is no different now than when she was unable to speak. Her life, like Terri’s has intangible value based on human nature itself.
All human beings, regardless of their physical, intellectual, or emotional condition have worth and dignity simply because they are human. Our worth is not dependent on what we can do, but on who we are—persons made in the image of God.
Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live. What her husband wants to do to her would not be done to a dog and it must not be done to her.
Copyright, 2005
Blinded by Choice
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
February 2005
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
I have to admit I have a tough time understanding why so many seemingly intelligent people have such a disconnect when it comes to the value of all young human life. Whenever we become aware of events that result in the harm to or deaths of innocent people, the greatest outpouring of sympathy is always showered on the children who died or were hurt.
When we first heard of the horrible 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the focus was immediately on the children in the day care center housed in the building. I will never forget the picture of the fireman carrying the lifeless body of one-year-old Baylee Almon from the debris. Today, there is a memorial, located on the site of the former Murrah building. Inside is a display of chairs—one for each person killed in the bombing. One hundred sixty-eight chairs—one for each person killed in the tragedy. Nineteen of those chairs are smaller than the others—to remember the children.
Children Need Protection
We have special laws to protect children and teens from abuse and neglect, from unsafe environments, and from economic exploitation. Our child safety and child labor laws are designed to save children from harm and exploitation in the work place.
People are outraged—as they should be— when children are abused, neglected, killed, or even die from natural causes. There is just “something” in us that reacts when we learn that innocent babies or children are harmed. Our hearts and our minds tell us children need our protection.
There is an automatic, visceral disdain for people who hurt children. Individuals convicted of crimes against children are often frightened about how other prisoners will treat them. It is not unusual for these convicted child abusers/killers to be “abused” or even killed by other prisoners.
When we learn about a baby who becomes ill or who dies, there is always an outpouring of grief and compassion. Counselors and funeral directors will tell you that the most difficult part of their profession is helping parents who have lost a child.
Abandoned Babies
Expressions of grief and anger are justifiably widespread when newborns are abandoned by their mothers and left to die. In December 2004 another abandoned baby in our Diocese was found frozen to death in a plastic bag. The full term baby girl was named “Baby Crystal” by local police officials.
The Rockford Register Star reporting on Baby Crystal, quoted Lori Pennington, “You just think of those poor, innocent, precious babies, left in Dumpsters and garbage cans. So many people want babies, and people are just throwing them away.” Pennington was one of the women who worked on the passage of the Illinois Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.
In February 2001 the Chicago Tribune, reported that “a work crew in Robbins, Illinois discovered the body of a partially burned baby—with its umbilical cord still attached—near a garbage dumpster in a housing complex . . ..”
Another woman with whom Lori Pennington worked on the passage of a law in Illinois designed to prevent these horrible instances of the dumping newborns reacted by writing:
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who has witnessed these gruesome abortions testified before Congress saying:
Thousands of these partial birth abortions occur in this country each year and yet many of the same people who rightly are horrified at the thought of abandoned newborns are the same people defending the right of a woman to have her pre-born baby killed even when he or she is partially born.
It Makes No Sense
What is the difference between a baby killed by partial birth abortion and an abandoned newborn? In most cases, while the unborn baby is smaller and less developed he or she has the same value as one already born. Both the unborn and the newborn are totally dependent—the former on its mother and the latter on any other person who will care for him or her. Both are “poor, innocent, precious babies.” Both are made in the image of God. Both, sadly, may end up in dumpsters or garbage bags. Aborted babies often end up in garbage disposals or incinerators. Neither tiny human being will have “a chance to experience the love and compassion of the human race.” The major difference is that our courts have said the one form of execution—abortion—is legal and the other—abandonment—is not. If the mothers of abandoned babies had simply implemented their so-called “right to choose,” there would be no public outpouring of sympathy for the baby.
While I applaud the efforts of those encouraging mothers not to abandon their newborns in unsafe places, I still must ask why most of them do not extend the same expressions of grief and outrage to those tiny human beings that are killed while still in—or two-thirds out—of their mother’s womb?
In my opinion, it is because they are blinded by choice. They are so intent on defending a woman’s so-called right to choose abortion that they cannot see the value of all human life including those precious lives growing in their mother’s womb.
Copyright, 2005
February 2005
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
I have to admit I have a tough time understanding why so many seemingly intelligent people have such a disconnect when it comes to the value of all young human life. Whenever we become aware of events that result in the harm to or deaths of innocent people, the greatest outpouring of sympathy is always showered on the children who died or were hurt.
When we first heard of the horrible 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the focus was immediately on the children in the day care center housed in the building. I will never forget the picture of the fireman carrying the lifeless body of one-year-old Baylee Almon from the debris. Today, there is a memorial, located on the site of the former Murrah building. Inside is a display of chairs—one for each person killed in the bombing. One hundred sixty-eight chairs—one for each person killed in the tragedy. Nineteen of those chairs are smaller than the others—to remember the children.
Children Need Protection
We have special laws to protect children and teens from abuse and neglect, from unsafe environments, and from economic exploitation. Our child safety and child labor laws are designed to save children from harm and exploitation in the work place.
People are outraged—as they should be— when children are abused, neglected, killed, or even die from natural causes. There is just “something” in us that reacts when we learn that innocent babies or children are harmed. Our hearts and our minds tell us children need our protection.
There is an automatic, visceral disdain for people who hurt children. Individuals convicted of crimes against children are often frightened about how other prisoners will treat them. It is not unusual for these convicted child abusers/killers to be “abused” or even killed by other prisoners.
When we learn about a baby who becomes ill or who dies, there is always an outpouring of grief and compassion. Counselors and funeral directors will tell you that the most difficult part of their profession is helping parents who have lost a child.
Abandoned Babies
Expressions of grief and anger are justifiably widespread when newborns are abandoned by their mothers and left to die. In December 2004 another abandoned baby in our Diocese was found frozen to death in a plastic bag. The full term baby girl was named “Baby Crystal” by local police officials.
The Rockford Register Star reporting on Baby Crystal, quoted Lori Pennington, “You just think of those poor, innocent, precious babies, left in Dumpsters and garbage cans. So many people want babies, and people are just throwing them away.” Pennington was one of the women who worked on the passage of the Illinois Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.
In February 2001 the Chicago Tribune, reported that “a work crew in Robbins, Illinois discovered the body of a partially burned baby—with its umbilical cord still attached—near a garbage dumpster in a housing complex . . ..”
Another woman with whom Lori Pennington worked on the passage of a law in Illinois designed to prevent these horrible instances of the dumping newborns reacted by writing:
The heart wrenching sight of the tiny bundle, wrapped in a stiff orange bag instead of a soft pink or blue receiving blanket, strapped to a seemingly huge, adult sized gurney and rolled from a dump by ambulance drivers, haunts my mind. This precious little bundle, who's [sic] beautiful eyes never saw the light of day made a lonely journey from the ambulance, to the hospital emergency room to be poked and prodded by ER personnel and officially pronounced dead. The tiny tortured remains will then be taken to a very cold morgue, with the nauseating and overpowering smell of formaldehyde.Who could disagree with these sentiments? This was indeed a precious life that should not have ended. Those were really heartfelt, compassionate words. The problem, however, is that these same words about newborns are often spoken by individuals who believe that if five minutes before delivering this baby, the mother had chosen to have a D&X (partial birth abortion), it would have been considered an acceptable choice.
The precious body will be cut into and examined for the cause of death. As a nurse, who has witnessed autopsies, this is a difficult thing to observe even on an adult body. I can't imagine the horror of watching a newborn on that hard cold steel table as each internal organ is skillfully removed, sectioned and examined by a doctor. This incredibly precious gift from God, has met such a tragic end.
I feel such a strong urge to scream out to someone, ANYONE, EVERYONE, STOP THIS!!!! [emphasis in the original] Let these desperate mothers have an option to legally hand their newborns over to a
designated person so that they can have a chance to experience the love and compassion of the human race.
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who has witnessed these gruesome abortions testified before Congress saying:
Dr. Haskell went in with the forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head….The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking.
Then the doctor stuck the [surgical] scissors in the back of the head, and the baby’s arms jerked out….like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.
Thousands of these partial birth abortions occur in this country each year and yet many of the same people who rightly are horrified at the thought of abandoned newborns are the same people defending the right of a woman to have her pre-born baby killed even when he or she is partially born.
It Makes No Sense
What is the difference between a baby killed by partial birth abortion and an abandoned newborn? In most cases, while the unborn baby is smaller and less developed he or she has the same value as one already born. Both the unborn and the newborn are totally dependent—the former on its mother and the latter on any other person who will care for him or her. Both are “poor, innocent, precious babies.” Both are made in the image of God. Both, sadly, may end up in dumpsters or garbage bags. Aborted babies often end up in garbage disposals or incinerators. Neither tiny human being will have “a chance to experience the love and compassion of the human race.” The major difference is that our courts have said the one form of execution—abortion—is legal and the other—abandonment—is not. If the mothers of abandoned babies had simply implemented their so-called “right to choose,” there would be no public outpouring of sympathy for the baby.
While I applaud the efforts of those encouraging mothers not to abandon their newborns in unsafe places, I still must ask why most of them do not extend the same expressions of grief and outrage to those tiny human beings that are killed while still in—or two-thirds out—of their mother’s womb?
In my opinion, it is because they are blinded by choice. They are so intent on defending a woman’s so-called right to choose abortion that they cannot see the value of all human life including those precious lives growing in their mother’s womb.
Copyright, 2005
“Gentle, Loving Boy” Uses Baseball Bat to Abort His Son
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: February 4, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
A recent incident in Michigan resulted in the tragic death of a 24-week-old unborn baby boy. According to reports, a 16-year-old boy (at the request of his 16-year-old pregnant girlfriend) repeatedly hit her abdomen with a 22-inch “souvenir” baseball bat over a three-week period in an attempt to “end the pregnancy.”
While many tiptoe over the truth, it is obvious these two individuals intentionally killed their unborn child. Every day for three weeks, the young man—with full consent of the young woman—struck her with the specific intent of killing the baby. They could have stopped the assault at any time, but they chose not to. They teamed up to brutally destroy an innocent life and then one of the grandparents helped to bury the little boy in the back yard. A cadaver dog was brought in to locate his tiny body.
No one is being held responsible for the death of the baby and only the young man has been charged with “assaulting a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage.” Under Michigan law, the pregnant woman “no matter how complicit in the termination” cannot be charged. Both grandfathers publicly defended the young man’s actions. There has been little public outrage over the brutal death of the little boy. Instead, the young man is being portrayed as the victim.
The teens will most likely come to regret what they did, but they will not benefit from people making excuses for them. They must be held accountable and helped to understand why their actions were wrong.
Eric Smith, the Macomb County prosecutor, remarked, “The length at which these two 16-year-olds went to abort this unborn child is disturbing.” It demonstrates what can happen when children are not taught the value of chastity and the value of all human life—born and unborn.
The parents of the young man hired defense attorney, Miranda Massie who wasted no time in offering excuses for her client’s despicable actions, calling him “a gentle, loving boy.” Most reasonable people would agree “gentle, loving” young men do not repeatedly hit their pregnant girlfriends with a bat in an attempt to kill their unborn children.
Taking advantage of the opportunity to promote ideology, Massie commented, “We can provide teens with access to safe and legal abortions and access to intelligent information about sex, or we are going to see more back alley abortions like this one. Parental notification laws and abstinence-only sex education approaches add up to desperate acts like these.” She wants people to think the reason these young people engaged in non-marital sex and then wanted to eliminate the “consequence” of that behavior is the fault of laws and “abstinence-only sex education.” No, they did what they did because the culture around them screams that there are no absolute rights or wrongs and that the unborn have no value.
"It’s always tragic when people resort to such drastic measures, when there are appropriate, safe medical measures available,” bemoaned Lori Lamerand of Planned Parenthood. Just how “safe” are these “medical measures” for the unborn baby or how “safe” were these procedures for young women like Holly Patterson—an eighteen-year-old who died from an RU-486 abortion obtained at Planned Parenthood in 2003?
Abortion is always a drastic measure. It takes the life of a very young human being.
Planned Parenthood, the largest single committer of abortions in this country, chooses to ignore the tragedy of the deaths (244,628 in 2003) of unborn babies occurring in its own facilities. To them it is simply a “choice” and I predict they will use—more accurately, misuse—the factoids in this case to ignite fear about increasing numbers of “back alley” abortions in their attempt to repeal parental notification laws and to force all schools to teach “comprehensive sex education.” They never miss an opportunity—real or contrived—to further the culture of death.
Copyright, 2005
Publication date: February 4, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
A recent incident in Michigan resulted in the tragic death of a 24-week-old unborn baby boy. According to reports, a 16-year-old boy (at the request of his 16-year-old pregnant girlfriend) repeatedly hit her abdomen with a 22-inch “souvenir” baseball bat over a three-week period in an attempt to “end the pregnancy.”
While many tiptoe over the truth, it is obvious these two individuals intentionally killed their unborn child. Every day for three weeks, the young man—with full consent of the young woman—struck her with the specific intent of killing the baby. They could have stopped the assault at any time, but they chose not to. They teamed up to brutally destroy an innocent life and then one of the grandparents helped to bury the little boy in the back yard. A cadaver dog was brought in to locate his tiny body.
No one is being held responsible for the death of the baby and only the young man has been charged with “assaulting a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage.” Under Michigan law, the pregnant woman “no matter how complicit in the termination” cannot be charged. Both grandfathers publicly defended the young man’s actions. There has been little public outrage over the brutal death of the little boy. Instead, the young man is being portrayed as the victim.
The teens will most likely come to regret what they did, but they will not benefit from people making excuses for them. They must be held accountable and helped to understand why their actions were wrong.
Eric Smith, the Macomb County prosecutor, remarked, “The length at which these two 16-year-olds went to abort this unborn child is disturbing.” It demonstrates what can happen when children are not taught the value of chastity and the value of all human life—born and unborn.
The parents of the young man hired defense attorney, Miranda Massie who wasted no time in offering excuses for her client’s despicable actions, calling him “a gentle, loving boy.” Most reasonable people would agree “gentle, loving” young men do not repeatedly hit their pregnant girlfriends with a bat in an attempt to kill their unborn children.
Taking advantage of the opportunity to promote ideology, Massie commented, “We can provide teens with access to safe and legal abortions and access to intelligent information about sex, or we are going to see more back alley abortions like this one. Parental notification laws and abstinence-only sex education approaches add up to desperate acts like these.” She wants people to think the reason these young people engaged in non-marital sex and then wanted to eliminate the “consequence” of that behavior is the fault of laws and “abstinence-only sex education.” No, they did what they did because the culture around them screams that there are no absolute rights or wrongs and that the unborn have no value.
"It’s always tragic when people resort to such drastic measures, when there are appropriate, safe medical measures available,” bemoaned Lori Lamerand of Planned Parenthood. Just how “safe” are these “medical measures” for the unborn baby or how “safe” were these procedures for young women like Holly Patterson—an eighteen-year-old who died from an RU-486 abortion obtained at Planned Parenthood in 2003?
Abortion is always a drastic measure. It takes the life of a very young human being.
Planned Parenthood, the largest single committer of abortions in this country, chooses to ignore the tragedy of the deaths (244,628 in 2003) of unborn babies occurring in its own facilities. To them it is simply a “choice” and I predict they will use—more accurately, misuse—the factoids in this case to ignite fear about increasing numbers of “back alley” abortions in their attempt to repeal parental notification laws and to force all schools to teach “comprehensive sex education.” They never miss an opportunity—real or contrived—to further the culture of death.
Copyright, 2005
Is It Ever “Too Late” for an Abortion?
The Observer—Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Rockford
Publication date: January 7, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Attempt to convince someone abortion in the United States is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and you will most likely be told that you are mistaken. With the dominant media culture bombarding the public with factoids such as abortion is legal only in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, it is likely that your contention will be rejected.
According to the National Abortion Federation, “Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances.” Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes in her December, 2004 blog, “Roe v. Wade strikes a sensible balance that allows states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except in cases where the health or life of the woman is endangered. Most states already have such laws.”
Respected pro-life organizations maintain abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for practically any reason. So what is the truth? Is it ever too late for an abortion? If not, are late term abortions allowed only under extreme circumstances?
The rulings handed down by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 provide the answer. On that date, the Court handed down two decisions that were “to be read together.” Most Americans, however, are familiar with only one of those two rulings—Roe v. Wade. Few have heard of Doe v. Bolton.
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion. While guaranteeing that right, the Court did say that the state “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.”
The court [in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)] included the following:
It is this reference to health that is addressed in Doe v. Bolton [410 U.S. 179 (1973)]:
We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors— physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
Reading Roe v. Wade and Doe V. Bolton together (as mandated by the Court), it becomes clear that abortion in the United States is legal for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Abortionists Warren Hern and George Tiller advertise that they “perform” late term abortions. Hern declares he provides “medically indicated termination of pregnancy up to 36 weeks.” Tiller acknowledges he provides “very late term abortion care for fetal problems and maternal health.” The late James McMahon admitted that he committed abortions “even into the ninth month.”
Sadly, it is never too late to procure an abortion in the United States.
Copyright, 2005
Publication date: January 7, 2005
Life Lines
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Attempt to convince someone abortion in the United States is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and you will most likely be told that you are mistaken. With the dominant media culture bombarding the public with factoids such as abortion is legal only in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, it is likely that your contention will be rejected.
According to the National Abortion Federation, “Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances.” Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes in her December, 2004 blog, “Roe v. Wade strikes a sensible balance that allows states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except in cases where the health or life of the woman is endangered. Most states already have such laws.”
Respected pro-life organizations maintain abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for practically any reason. So what is the truth? Is it ever too late for an abortion? If not, are late term abortions allowed only under extreme circumstances?
The rulings handed down by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973 provide the answer. On that date, the Court handed down two decisions that were “to be read together.” Most Americans, however, are familiar with only one of those two rulings—Roe v. Wade. Few have heard of Doe v. Bolton.
In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion. While guaranteeing that right, the Court did say that the state “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.”
The court [in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)] included the following:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.Basically, the state may not regulate abortion for any reason during the first trimester of pregnancy; may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother during the second trimester; and may regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester except where necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
It is this reference to health that is addressed in Doe v. Bolton [410 U.S. 179 (1973)]:
We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors— physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
Reading Roe v. Wade and Doe V. Bolton together (as mandated by the Court), it becomes clear that abortion in the United States is legal for virtually any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Abortionists Warren Hern and George Tiller advertise that they “perform” late term abortions. Hern declares he provides “medically indicated termination of pregnancy up to 36 weeks.” Tiller acknowledges he provides “very late term abortion care for fetal problems and maternal health.” The late James McMahon admitted that he committed abortions “even into the ninth month.”
Sadly, it is never too late to procure an abortion in the United States.
Copyright, 2005
Another Birthday For Louise
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
August 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Just about a year ago, one could find countless news stories written about the twenty-fifth birthday of Louise Brown. While there might be a reference to her birth in one of those “this day in history” columns this year, I doubt that we will see any in-depth stories like those printed last year. Twenty-five has a milestone importance than twenty-six simply does not.
Yet, on each July 25th, I cannot help but think about the implications of Louise’s birth. Each year is a significant reminder of the watershed event that took place on July 25, 1978 when Louise was born. For those of you who may not know or have forgotten, Louise Brown is the first “test tube baby”— the first successful outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Sliding Down That Slippery Slope
The first successful IVF procedure was a moral and legal turning point in a number of ways. It changed the way many individuals view the gift of life and it opened the door to a myriad of reproductive technologies now known as ART (artificial reproductive technology). Slowly, but surely, ART has become so common that few couples even stop to think about the moral and legal implications of utilizing such procedures to achieve pregnancy. Pandora’s box was opened and it will not be closed easily, if at all!
Robin Marantz Henig, a science writer for the Washington Post (who supports ART) admitted in a July 13, 2003 article that “If IVF was the first step down a slippery slope of its own, then it seems to have landed us in exactly the spot that Kass [Leon Kass, bioethics professor at the University of Chicago] and others said it would.”
She was referring to an American scientist who had recently announced that he and his colleagues “had successfully inserted cells from a male embryo into an early-stage embryo, creating a mixed-gender chimera that some journalists called a ‘she-male.’ Another team, from Israel and the Netherlands, described a trick that was even more bizarre: harvesting eggs from aborted fetuses and culturing them so they could be used in IVF, thereby creating a baby with a biological mother who had never been born.”
Henig acknowledged that neither of these experiments would have taken place “if IVF hadn’t been perfected over the past quarter-century…Of the scenarios that are now causing so much anxiety —cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic engineering of sex cells, the creation of human/animal hybrids, the culturing of human embryos as a source of replacement parts—none is possible without the techniques of basic IVF: laboratory fertilization and embryo transfer.”
There is simply no doubt that we are, indeed, sliding down that slippery slope when it comes to reproductive technologies. Human beings are coming to be thought of as raw materials or products to be bought and sold—even over the internet.
“Internet Sperm” Babies
Sperm can be “banked” or purchased via numerous sites on the internet. Spermbankdirectory.com has a colored map of the United States and visitors are directed “to find a sperm bank in your region, just click on that region.” Sperm banks charge for access to their list of donors who are described in great detail including physical characteristics.
Some services offer “catalogs” of donors. One sperm bank in Los Angeles says, “We try to provide enough donors to give them a choice, the same opportunity as if they were dating.” We should not be surprised that in Southern California there was a Nobel Prize sperm bank called the Repository for Germinal Choice. Founded by a self-proclaimed eugenicist, the Repository closed in 1999 after “bearing” more than 200 children.
ManNotIncluded.com which was launched in 2002 claims to have 5,000 donors. Once a donor is chosen, ManNotIncluded sends the sperm to the buyer’s home for self-insemination.
In August 2003, the first baby conceived from sperm arranged through ManNotIncluded was born in England. Although the website was designed to assist lesbians achieve pregnancy, this baby was born to a married heterosexual couple.
Frozen Egg Banks
Not to be outdone by the sperm bank web sites, “Frozen Donor Egg Banks” are now appearing on the internet. The first ones—located in Los Angeles and Las Vegas—have a list of donors with a description of their parent ethnicity and physical characteristics (including “hair texture”). This is the a portion of the introduction found when one clicks on “egg donors” at californiaeggbank.com:
Most of these egg banks offer what the Chicago Tribune on June 20, 2004 called “’fertility insurance’ to preserve ‘future reproductive options’ as they age.” Knowing that a woman’s fertility declines with age, these banks are hoping to attract women who want children “some day,” but when they will be less fertile and therefore less likely to conceive. They are hoping their frozen eggs combined with sperm in a petri dish (IVF) will “solve the problem.”
We Want A Baby, Why Can’t We Use IVF?
Sometimes it is difficult for some couples to understand why the Church teaches that IVF is immoral. After all, they are married, they desire children, and they are not able to conceive in the natural way. What could be wrong with utilizing techniques such as IVF that will result in a child who will be loved and cherished by a devoted family?
One has to understand the purpose and meaning of marriage and the conjugal act that reflects respect for the dignity of the husband and the wife. The procreative and unitive aspect of the marital embrace must not be separated. Just as contraception blocks the procreative aspect, IVF eliminates the unitive aspect. Rather than a child being conceived by an act of self-giving by the husband and wife, the child is conceived in a petri dish by a technician. The process of IVF reduces husband and wife to simple sources of raw material (sperm and eggs) and the new human being is on the same level as a “product” carefully selected to be of high quality.
In addition, “spare embryos” from IVF procedures are frozen, discarded, or become the objects of experimentation. “By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless [sic] human beings.” (Donum Vitae I, 5)
Even though the goal to have a child is good, many procedures employed to achieve that goal (including IVF) are immoral. The end does not justify the means. There are morally acceptable means to assist in achieving pregnancy and these must be chosen over the immoral means.
Copyright, 2004
August 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
Just about a year ago, one could find countless news stories written about the twenty-fifth birthday of Louise Brown. While there might be a reference to her birth in one of those “this day in history” columns this year, I doubt that we will see any in-depth stories like those printed last year. Twenty-five has a milestone importance than twenty-six simply does not.
Yet, on each July 25th, I cannot help but think about the implications of Louise’s birth. Each year is a significant reminder of the watershed event that took place on July 25, 1978 when Louise was born. For those of you who may not know or have forgotten, Louise Brown is the first “test tube baby”— the first successful outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Sliding Down That Slippery Slope
The first successful IVF procedure was a moral and legal turning point in a number of ways. It changed the way many individuals view the gift of life and it opened the door to a myriad of reproductive technologies now known as ART (artificial reproductive technology). Slowly, but surely, ART has become so common that few couples even stop to think about the moral and legal implications of utilizing such procedures to achieve pregnancy. Pandora’s box was opened and it will not be closed easily, if at all!
Robin Marantz Henig, a science writer for the Washington Post (who supports ART) admitted in a July 13, 2003 article that “If IVF was the first step down a slippery slope of its own, then it seems to have landed us in exactly the spot that Kass [Leon Kass, bioethics professor at the University of Chicago] and others said it would.”
She was referring to an American scientist who had recently announced that he and his colleagues “had successfully inserted cells from a male embryo into an early-stage embryo, creating a mixed-gender chimera that some journalists called a ‘she-male.’ Another team, from Israel and the Netherlands, described a trick that was even more bizarre: harvesting eggs from aborted fetuses and culturing them so they could be used in IVF, thereby creating a baby with a biological mother who had never been born.”
Henig acknowledged that neither of these experiments would have taken place “if IVF hadn’t been perfected over the past quarter-century…Of the scenarios that are now causing so much anxiety —cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic engineering of sex cells, the creation of human/animal hybrids, the culturing of human embryos as a source of replacement parts—none is possible without the techniques of basic IVF: laboratory fertilization and embryo transfer.”
There is simply no doubt that we are, indeed, sliding down that slippery slope when it comes to reproductive technologies. Human beings are coming to be thought of as raw materials or products to be bought and sold—even over the internet.
“Internet Sperm” Babies
Sperm can be “banked” or purchased via numerous sites on the internet. Spermbankdirectory.com has a colored map of the United States and visitors are directed “to find a sperm bank in your region, just click on that region.” Sperm banks charge for access to their list of donors who are described in great detail including physical characteristics.
Some services offer “catalogs” of donors. One sperm bank in Los Angeles says, “We try to provide enough donors to give them a choice, the same opportunity as if they were dating.” We should not be surprised that in Southern California there was a Nobel Prize sperm bank called the Repository for Germinal Choice. Founded by a self-proclaimed eugenicist, the Repository closed in 1999 after “bearing” more than 200 children.
ManNotIncluded.com which was launched in 2002 claims to have 5,000 donors. Once a donor is chosen, ManNotIncluded sends the sperm to the buyer’s home for self-insemination.
In August 2003, the first baby conceived from sperm arranged through ManNotIncluded was born in England. Although the website was designed to assist lesbians achieve pregnancy, this baby was born to a married heterosexual couple.
Frozen Egg Banks
Not to be outdone by the sperm bank web sites, “Frozen Donor Egg Banks” are now appearing on the internet. The first ones—located in Los Angeles and Las Vegas—have a list of donors with a description of their parent ethnicity and physical characteristics (including “hair texture”). This is the a portion of the introduction found when one clicks on “egg donors” at californiaeggbank.com:
Our donors are extensively screened and are all college or graduate students. Unlike many other programs, we do not utilize egg donors over the age of 27 year… We have no age restrictions for health potential recipients interested in utilizing our donors.
Most of these egg banks offer what the Chicago Tribune on June 20, 2004 called “’fertility insurance’ to preserve ‘future reproductive options’ as they age.” Knowing that a woman’s fertility declines with age, these banks are hoping to attract women who want children “some day,” but when they will be less fertile and therefore less likely to conceive. They are hoping their frozen eggs combined with sperm in a petri dish (IVF) will “solve the problem.”
We Want A Baby, Why Can’t We Use IVF?
Sometimes it is difficult for some couples to understand why the Church teaches that IVF is immoral. After all, they are married, they desire children, and they are not able to conceive in the natural way. What could be wrong with utilizing techniques such as IVF that will result in a child who will be loved and cherished by a devoted family?
One has to understand the purpose and meaning of marriage and the conjugal act that reflects respect for the dignity of the husband and the wife. The procreative and unitive aspect of the marital embrace must not be separated. Just as contraception blocks the procreative aspect, IVF eliminates the unitive aspect. Rather than a child being conceived by an act of self-giving by the husband and wife, the child is conceived in a petri dish by a technician. The process of IVF reduces husband and wife to simple sources of raw material (sperm and eggs) and the new human being is on the same level as a “product” carefully selected to be of high quality.
In addition, “spare embryos” from IVF procedures are frozen, discarded, or become the objects of experimentation. “By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless [sic] human beings.” (Donum Vitae I, 5)
Even though the goal to have a child is good, many procedures employed to achieve that goal (including IVF) are immoral. The end does not justify the means. There are morally acceptable means to assist in achieving pregnancy and these must be chosen over the immoral means.
Copyright, 2004
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Opinion or Truth?
Life Matters —The Newsletter of the Respect Life Office of the Diocese of Rockford
December 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
The dictionary defines “opinion” as “the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment.” “Truth,” on the other hand, is defined in that same dictionary as “a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.”
Often, in our complex world—especially one in which so many individuals depend on the media for information—it is difficult to distinguish between truth and opinion. Even media that purports to reflect Catholic teaching often blurs the line between what the Church actually teaches and what a particular journalist believes or wants to believe the Church teaches.
We have a responsibility as Catholics to know the difference between truth and opinion—between a well-formed and an ill-formed conscience. As Francis Cardinal George wrote on October 10, 2004, “Participation in the Church is based upon Baptism and the profession of the Catholic faith. The common faith shapes personal consciences, so that a Catholic conscience, even as it directs an individual believer’s actions, is never individualistic.”
One has to look no further than to the continuing debate raging over the recent elections to recognize that an abundance of confusion about the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church in regard to the life issues still lingers. Some Catholics are confused. Others are obstinate in their refusal to accept what the Church teaches—choosing instead to believe what they want to believe. They refuse to acknowledge that some issues are fundamentally more important than others,
One More Time
On a number of occasions, I have referred to the statement from the Bishops included in the 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities which addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life. Because of its clarity and importance, I include it again:
Always Wrong vs. Almost Always Wrong
Yes, we need to “resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment,” but the Church does not teach that either is intrinsically evil. They are not always wrong.
The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2267: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” While this for all practical purposes eliminates any use of the death penalty (especially in the United States), it is important to recognize that the Church is not saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil.
Arthur Hippler, Ph.D., director of Peace and Justice for the Diocese of LaCrosse, writes, “. . . while circumstances might render capital punishment just, no circumstances could ever make abortion or euthanasia just, for the lives in question are innocent. . .” The Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae writes, “. . . the commandment ‘you shall not kill’ has an absolute value when it refers to the innocent person.”
What About War?
The CCC #2308-2310 states that “. . . governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. . . the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [“just war” doctrine] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” [emphasis in original]
Whether the Iraqi war meets the criteria for “just war” is not settled. Contrary to what some have reported, there has been no definitive ruling from the Vatican, so it is an open question whether or not it is “just.” It is an issue where faithful Catholics may hold opposing views—where, unlike with abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning—there can be legitimate differences of opinion.
Cardinal Dulles Speaks
In an interview with Zenit news service, Avery Cardinal Dulles explains, “The Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and should be kept to the necessary minimum . . . Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is morally defensible . . . Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been constant and emphatic.”
Copyright, 2004
December 2004
By Patricia Pitkus Bainbridge
Director, Respect Life Office
The dictionary defines “opinion” as “the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment.” “Truth,” on the other hand, is defined in that same dictionary as “a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.”
Often, in our complex world—especially one in which so many individuals depend on the media for information—it is difficult to distinguish between truth and opinion. Even media that purports to reflect Catholic teaching often blurs the line between what the Church actually teaches and what a particular journalist believes or wants to believe the Church teaches.
We have a responsibility as Catholics to know the difference between truth and opinion—between a well-formed and an ill-formed conscience. As Francis Cardinal George wrote on October 10, 2004, “Participation in the Church is based upon Baptism and the profession of the Catholic faith. The common faith shapes personal consciences, so that a Catholic conscience, even as it directs an individual believer’s actions, is never individualistic.”
One has to look no further than to the continuing debate raging over the recent elections to recognize that an abundance of confusion about the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church in regard to the life issues still lingers. Some Catholics are confused. Others are obstinate in their refusal to accept what the Church teaches—choosing instead to believe what they want to believe. They refuse to acknowledge that some issues are fundamentally more important than others,
One More Time
On a number of occasions, I have referred to the statement from the Bishops included in the 2001 USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities which addresses the interrelated, but morally disproportional issues of the various assaults on human life. Because of its clarity and importance, I include it again:
“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.While the above statements should settle the debate, there are still those who place capital punishment and war on the same moral level as abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. The latter offenses against life are intrinsically evil—in other words abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, cloning are always wrong. There are no exceptions.
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).”
Always Wrong vs. Almost Always Wrong
Yes, we need to “resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment,” but the Church does not teach that either is intrinsically evil. They are not always wrong.
The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2267: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” While this for all practical purposes eliminates any use of the death penalty (especially in the United States), it is important to recognize that the Church is not saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil.
Arthur Hippler, Ph.D., director of Peace and Justice for the Diocese of LaCrosse, writes, “. . . while circumstances might render capital punishment just, no circumstances could ever make abortion or euthanasia just, for the lives in question are innocent. . .” The Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae writes, “. . . the commandment ‘you shall not kill’ has an absolute value when it refers to the innocent person.”
What About War?
The CCC #2308-2310 states that “. . . governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. . . the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [“just war” doctrine] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” [emphasis in original]
Whether the Iraqi war meets the criteria for “just war” is not settled. Contrary to what some have reported, there has been no definitive ruling from the Vatican, so it is an open question whether or not it is “just.” It is an issue where faithful Catholics may hold opposing views—where, unlike with abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning—there can be legitimate differences of opinion.
Cardinal Dulles Speaks
In an interview with Zenit news service, Avery Cardinal Dulles explains, “The Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and should be kept to the necessary minimum . . . Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is morally defensible . . . Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been constant and emphatic.”
Copyright, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
