Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Thanks, Steve. I was hoping that those of you who are interested in this issue would read Outka's piece and comment on his argument--and, if you are so inclined, point out where, in your judgment, the argument doesn't work. After all, the point you make in your posting below is not one that Outka has overlooked.
Michael
Tuesday, August 3, 2004
Michael:
If one believes that life begins at conception, does that not imply that the so-called "excess" embryos are living human beings with souls upon whom experimentation would violate the gospel of life? Conversely, if one does not believe that life begins at conception, then why draw a line between creating embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells and using "excess" embryos? I realize that this probably won't help sort out the problem, but I am genuinely curious as to why the difference in source matters.
Steve
PS: The Pontifical Academy for Life refers "to the enormous number of human embryos that are lost or destroyed following these [fertility] procedures - a real "slaughter of the innocents" of our times." As I understand it, the harvesting of stem cells from the excess embryos entails the destruction of those embryos, so it does not solvge the problem (in my view).
I am attracted by the position of Gene Outka, Dwight Professor of Philosophy and Christian Ethics at Yale University. Outka "take[s] conception and all that it alone makes possible as *the* point at which one should ascribe a judgment of irreducible value." Outka opposes the creation of embryos for use in stem cell research. But Outka would permit the use of "excess" embryos, i.e., embryos that are left over after fertility treatments have been completed. I would appreciate some help in thinking further about Outka's argument. See Gene Outka, "The Ethics of Human Stem Cell Research," in Brent Waters & Ronald Cole-Turner, eds., God and the Embryo: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning 29 (2003).
Michael
Monday, August 2, 2004
Steve, thanks for pointing out the LA times piece – in response to the piece and to your post, I was wondering, does anyone else find it incredibly reductive to describe faithfulness to the teachings of Pope John Paul II as resistance to the short list of “optional celibacy, women priests, the democratic elections of bishops and greater lay leadership” – and in an affection for somewhat exterior “Latin prayers, special vestments, bells and other traditional touches”?
John Paul II’s own description of the kind of “communion” which should set the tone for relationships between bishops, priests, and the laity, seems to articulate a much more complex (and inviting) vision. Take a look at John Paul II's map for the Church in the new millenium, Novo Millennio Ineunte n.45:
Communion must be cultivated and extended day by day and at every level in the structures of each Church's life. There, relations between Bishops, priests and deacons, between Pastors and the entire People of God, between clergy and Religious, between associations and ecclesial movements must all be clearly characterized by communion. To this end, the structures of participation envisaged by Canon Law, such as the Council of Priests and the Pastoral Council, must be ever more highly valued. These of course are not governed by the rules of parliamentary democracy, because they are consultative rather than deliberative; yet this does not mean that they are less meaningful and relevant. The theology and spirituality of communion encourage a fruitful dialogue between Pastors and faithful: on the one hand uniting them a priori in all that is essential, and on the other leading them to pondered agreement in matters open to discussion. To this end, we need to make our own the ancient pastoral wisdom which, without prejudice to their authority, encouraged Pastors to listen more widely to the entire People of God. Significant is Saint Benedict's reminder to the Abbot of a monastery, inviting him to consult even the youngest members of the community: "By the Lord's inspiration, it is often a younger person who knows what is best". And Saint Paulinus of Nola urges: "Let us listen to what all the faithful say, because in every one of them the Spirit of God breathes".
The LA Times piece also highlights the tension between the new generation (faithful to John Paul II / attracted by his vision for the Church) and an older generation of priests more focused on ecumenism and social justice. Read on, in Novo Millennio Ineuente, about John Paul II's profound commitments to ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue - and at least in my read, social justice... It seems like there's something much more complex going on than the LA times article suggests.
Here is a very interesting en banc decision, just issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A divided panel of that court had concluded that the City of Lafayette, Indiana could not -- consistent with the Constitution -- ban a convicted sex offender (whose victims included children) from City parks. The City's ban came after City officials learned that the offender -- "Mr. Doe" -- was in the habit of "cruising" City parks, and engaging in sexual fantasies involving the children playing in the parks.
The United States District Court rejected Doe's First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the ban, and disagreed with the claim that the ban effectively punished Doe for his thoughts. In its en banc decision, the Court of Appeals agreed, per my colleague Judge Ripple, that the ban did not violate the First Amendment: "It is difficult to ascertain how the freedom of self-expression is implicated" because Doe's conduct -- i.e., "cruising" the parks for kids -- was not "infused with an expressive element." The Court concluded, "we have nothing approaching 'expression'; instead, we have predation." Apart from the First Amendment issue, the Court concluded also that the ban did not punish Doe for pure, or mere, thoughts -- thoughts that the City disapproves -- but rather (assuming the ban constitutes "punishment" at all) for the expression of those thoughts in dangerous conduct.
There's a lot more here, and the dissent is well worth reading. I had planned to teach the panel's decision in my criminal law course; the case grabbed my attention, touching as it does on a line from the Confiteor: "in my thoughts, and in my words . . ."
Rick
Sunday, August 1, 2004
From the LA Times (reg. req'd):
Father Marcos Gonzalez ..., an associate pastor at St. Andrew Church in Pasadena, is hardly a relic from a fading past. At 41, he offers one glimpse of the future as a member of a new breed of younger priests ordained during the 25-year papacy of Pope John Paul II and passionately committed to the pope's orthodox teachings.
As the health of John Paul — now 84 and the third-longest serving pontiff in history — continues to falter, men like Gonzalez stand ready to guard and propagate his legacy. They represent a global trend toward Christian orthodoxy, in contrast to a generation of more liberal priests ordained during the 1960s reforms of the Second Vatican Council. ...
In general, ... the "John Paul priests" are less supportive than older colleagues of optional celibacy, women priests, the democratic elections of bishops and greater lay leadership, according to numerous surveys. They show less tolerance for dissent against church teachings. And they are more apt to favor greater use of Latin prayers, special vestments, bells and other traditional touches to restore a sense of sacredness to the liturgy ....Praise God for raising men like this to the priesthood. Given what one hears about the seminaries out here, of course, I'm surprised they made it through. Even in the seminaries, however, the Times article suggests things are changing for the better:
In 1981, he entered St. John's Seminary in Camarillo right after high school. The experience, he says, was filled with conflict. His class of about four dozen men, mostly conservative, challenged the more liberal faculty. The young seminarians asked for uniforms, more discipline and more group devotions such as the rosary. The students also asked for more of John Paul's teachings in class. "The faculty gave the perception that they were suspicious of this pope and that somehow he was turning back the clock," Gonzalez says. "We were perceived to be in line with the pope, so we were also viewed with suspicion."
Weary of the conflict and hoping to help support his parents financially, Gonzalez left the seminary for four years. In 1991, after a stint with a hospital trade association, he returned to the seminary and found the instruction far more balanced. He was ordained in 1994.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
