Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester issued an open letter in response to a proposal by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to set aside $1 billion to fund embryonic stem cell research.
The recent announcement by Governor Deval Patrick to promote embryonic stem cell research in our Commonwealth with over $1 billion in public funds and benefits is morally problematic. The Governor’s proposal uses public support to promote a destructive research method which is reprehensible.
Embryonic stem cell research creates then destroys innocent human life in exchange for the promise of fighting diseases, a clear example of why society believes the end does not justify the means. There have been many very promising research results in this area, using ethical means to acquire stem cells, including umbilical cord blood, placental tissue and adult cells. I urge the Governor to support these morally sound methods.
Additionally, the proposal earmarks a large amount of money for unproven technology in a state that is facing a $1 billion budget deficit and is currently plagued by homelessness, lack of access to affordable healthcare, challenges in education funding, skyrocketing property taxes, and a cost of living which is driving people away. I ask Governor Patrick to reevaluate his priorities and commit public resources to answer the pressing needs of the people of this Commonwealth in order to improve the common good of society for all citizens.
Technorati Tags: Massachusetts | biotech | stem cells | politics |
Embryonic stem cell research creates then destroys innocent human life in exchange for the promise of fighting diseases, a clear example of why society believes the end does not justify the means.
Of course if there is no Limbo, and unbaptized babies who die are transported into the arms of God, it is inconsistent with our Catholic goal—to reach heaven when we die—to condemn the process that transports them there; and the potential of an advance in medicine that could result from their death is just an added bonus.
Carrie, that’s specious reasoning. If that were true, then what would prevent killing a one-year-old or a 30-year-old to harvest their body parts to advance medicine. After all, the person is presumably dying and going to heaven (at least in the case of the one-year-old) and we get scientific advances.
Murder is still murder and cannot be justified. The ends do not justify the means.
“… the proposal earmarks a large amount of money for unproven technology in a state that is facing a $1 billion budget deficit and is currently plagued by homelessness, lack of access to affordable healthcare, …”
And if we are 10-15 years away from a point of no return with respect to global warming—as some have claimed, then this $1B needs to be spent on solving the greenhouse gas crisis.
We should also promote non-embryonic stem cell research whenever possible. Today I’m going to a Bone Marrow Drive to see if I’m a match for someone. Bone marrow transplants is stem-cell therapy.
Why do corporations get millions of dollars, but I have to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars to save my baby’s umbilical cord blood?
Dom, would you risk hell to assure your daughter of eternal life in heaven with God? That is the ultimate question being raised. How strong is mother love? Because we can desire nothing better for our children than that they should spend eternity in heaven with God.
Re what is the difference between killing an unborn, a 1-year-old, and a 30-year-old? The law of the land.
We are sending one heck of a message to every woman who is considering abortion with this claim that the abortion propels the baby into the arms of God.
First, the truth of a doctrine should be what motivates us. (Not to mention the fact that the theological commission, which is not an infallible voice of the magisterium, did not make a definitive judgment either way.)
Second, you posit a false choice. There is never a circumstance in which risking hell for oneself can merit heaven for another since we cannot assure salvation for anyone else.
Third, the difference between killing the three is not the law of the land. It is the law of God and in fact there is no moral difference.
Point No. 2 is cast into a gray area by this proposition. According to an article in First Things: the International Theological Commission will recommend that the pope abolish the doctrine of limbo and declare that the souls of unbaptized infants are saved.
If you are among the cafeteria Catholics, of which there is an epidemic, it might feel good to tell yourself as you abort your baby that you are sending the baby to heaven, and this proposition would give you a reason to hope that is what you are doing. I very much doubt that a person considering an abortion is going to delve into the theological ramifications of this proposition. More likely it will be taken at face value.
Then there are the theological considerations outlined in the above linked article:
the doctrine that has a basis in tradition is not that unbaptized infants are saved but rather that they are not, meaning that they are in limbo. Thus the Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438–1445) both taught, “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin only immediately descend into hell, even though they suffer different penalties” (D 464, 693), the penalty suffered by those in original sin only generally being thought to be limited to the absence of the beatific vision, as stated in a decree of Innocent III. Moreover, Pope Pius VI at least implicitly affirmed the doctrine of limbo by condemning a contrary error at the Synod of Pistoia in 1526. Although none of these magisterial acts amounts to a dogmatic definition by the extraordinary magisterium, the direction of the tradition is obvious. Similarly, the fathers and doctors of the Church who considered the problem are nearly unanimous in affirming that the souls of unbaptized children do not enjoy the beatific vision. See Gregory Nazianzus (Oratio 40, 23), Augustine (Enchiridion cap. 93), and Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae App. I, 1-2, De Malo v. 3). The teaching that unbaptized children enjoy the beatific vision, therefore, not only lacks foundation in the Catholic tradition but, to the extent that it has been considered, has been positively rejected by it.
Is this a good time in the Church to propose yet another novel idea that overthrows past beliefs? We are in a state of crisis that cries out for stability, not more change.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the non-Catholic abortion situation in America which is not persuaded by your point 3.
This proposal, intended to salve the conscience of those who have confessed an abortion, could do more harm to the efforts to eliminate abortion than we anticipate.
Carrie,
Rather than rely on an article that speculates on what the commission was going to do, why not comment on what the commission actually said? In fact, the commission did not recommend an abolishing of the doctrine.
I rely on the article in First Things because that article along with the other articles on this topic in popular American Catholic news sources is much more likely to fall into the hands of the Catholic in the pew than the extensive writings of the Theological Commission which is dry and boring. The Catholic press is going to shape this discussion here in America, not the writings of the Theological Commission.
Then rely on an article that reports what they actually said, not on what people were speculating they said. I don’t understand the point of holding the commission responsible for what others said falsely about what they did.
Either the commission developed a potential new doctrine or it reaffirmed the status quo. The concluding statement:
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
can be read either way given that the teaching of the Church has not denied this hope in the past, or so the Commission seemes to have concluded.
In any case, the headlines in the American press can’t be ignored. Just a few in the secular press:
“Catholic Church Buries Limbo”
“Catholic Church Lays Limbo to Rest”
“The end of Limbo”
“God Can Live Without Limbo”
How could you deny the impact of such statements? Where do many Catholics turn for news of the Church, afterall? The conscientious ones look to Catholic sources such as “First Things”. Many others settle for the reports in the secular press. A non-Catholic considering abortion could easily grasp the headlines as just another justification for her decision.
Expecting the dry report of the Theological Commission to be the source of information for a mother considering aborting her child isn’t realistic. The consideration of such an action is too emotional. Anything that will reinforce the decision to abort will be grasped.
Carrie, I’m not denying the impact of such statements. You started out this thread by advocating the murder of unborn children for the sake of medical treatments.
Now you’re blaming a theological commission for the misstatements of the secular press. What’s your point? What do you want the Church to do? What should the commission have done different?
P.S. A theological commission cannot make new doctrine. It has no more authority than any group of theologians. It can only advise.
And if you read the whole document instead of just the end, you’d see that it is not as ambiguous as you make it out to be.
You started out this thread by advocating the murder of unborn children for the sake of medical treatments.
Dom, where on earth did you get that notion? I wasn’t advocating anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out a logical conclusion that could be drawn from the latest headlines that are based on the developments out of this theological commission. That has been my whole point throughout this exchange.
What do you want the Church to do? What should the commission have done different?
Uphold Tradition.
You wrote:
You did not indicate that your were positing a hypothetical misunderstanding that someone else might have. The way it’s phrased made me think that you believed this. I understand now, but you should be careful in the future.
They did. But they can’t control the mass media’s distortions.
I understand now, but you should be careful in the future.
Yes, I see that I wasn’t clear.