I am in complete agreement with Rick's concerns about President Obama's explanation for his new policy on stem-cell research.
I continue to be frustrated and bewildered by these sorts of proclamations about how vital it is to press forward on all fronts with embryonic stem cell research, when there seem to be so many more significant and therapeutically promising medical possibilities emerging from adult stem cell research. This story, for example (which was buried somewhere in the middle of my own local paper sometime over the weekend), announces some incredible advances in turning a person's own skin cells into stem cells.
Although I don't know enough about the amount of federal funding at stake, I also appreciate this fiscal argument being made by Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life:
“Embryonic stem cell research is the research of the past. Millions of dollars have been spent on embryonic stem cell research and it has failed. To pour more money into it is simply a waste.”
Dr. Yoest continued, “Even more, this research destroys lives at the very earliest stage of development. Adult stem cell research is helping people now. If we’re going to put tax dollars into research -- particularly at a time of unprecedented federal deficits -- it needs to be research that protects life and helps patients now.”
The order is here: "The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law." The accompanying statement is here.
Many will, of course, welcome this (entirely predictable) policy shift. And, no doubt, in some quarters, the President's concession that "[m]any thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research" and his statement the he "understand[s] their concerns" and thinks "we must respect their point of view" will be seen not as empty, cynical, or patronizing, but instead as indicating moderation, civility, and thoughtfulness.
It strikes me that -- wholly and apart from the coming policy, which I believe is horribly misguided -- the statement is a mess.
We have been told, time and again, that President Bush "politicized" what should have been a "scientific" issue -- or worse, that he imposed "religious" strictures on scientific progress. Now, though, we hear Pres. Obama saying "[a]s a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
Of course, few would disagree with the statement that "we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering." To say this is to say little. The question is, what does it mean to do so "responsibly"? Where will the limiting criteria -- which, according to the President, and notwithstanding the "keep politics out of science" mantra, will be in place -- come from? "Science", of course does not supply them.
I wish we could drop the pretense that we are moving from a "politics and religion trumping science" regime to a "responsible science" regime, and simply admit that we are moving instead from "science constrained by one set of moral commitments" to "science constrained by a different set of moral commitments". We could then ask whether the moral commitments in the new regime are really the ones we hold, and really up to the job of preventing horrible injustices.
Consider this:
We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
I agree with the President that cloning for human reproduction (like human cloning for other purposes) is "profoundly wrong", but I am not sure how "science" supplies this moral conclusion. (That is, I am sure that it does not.) Why, exactly, is it profoundly wrong? Presumably, there is a reason -- and, again, it is not "science" that is supplying that reason. Why, in a statement that insists the autonomy and integrity of science, does the President think it is appropriate to lecture scientists that what many people believe is a fascinating new research frontier is "profoundly wrong", and has "no place in our society, or any society."
A friend offered this explanation to me, when I asked why it was alright for a "keep politics out of science" Administration to proceed in this way:
Because that’s not a “political judgment.” It’s a moral judgment. And you see, when a Catholic says that cloning is “gravely wrong,” and he disagrees with Pres. Obama on stem cell research, he’s making a religious judgment that has no place in government. And when a non-Catholic says that cloning is “gravely wrong,” well if the non-Catholic disagrees with Obama on stem cell research, that’s a “political judgment” and an intrusion of “politics” into “science.” But when a non-Catholic says that cloning is “gravely wrong,” well if the non-Catholic agrees with Obama on stem cell research, that’s a “moral judgment” which is important for science to respect, because very deeply felt by Obama and only those who agree with him. And when a Catholic says that cloning is “gravely wrong,” well if the Catholic agrees with Obama on stem cell research, then that’s a “moral judgment” made by a man or woman of faith attuned to the complexities of the mystery of existence and the heart of liberty important for science to respect. . . .
The President concludes with this:
There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us -- the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are finally retired from our vocabulary. . . .
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.
The "Freedom of the Church" idea (for more, try this) is the subject of Prof. Howard Wasserman's very interesting post, at Prawfsblawg, on the Connecticut proposal. Check it out.
Fr. Araujo has already brought our attention to the proposed Bill 1098, which strikes me as reaching Alien & Sedition Acts-levels of obvious unconstitutionality. Bishop Lori's statement in opposition is here; Bishop Mansell's is here.
This is serious business. Sometime similar was tried in Massachusetts, a few years ago, as this op-ed by John Garvey reminds us:
But it is not the government's business to take sides in internal church disputes. You can imagine a legal system where it does. British courts supervise the way churches use their members' money. But the Church of England is controlled by the government. Our First Amendment forbids any such arrangement. When we talk about separation of church and state, this is what we mean -- that it is none of the state's business to say how churches are run.
On this past Friday, March 6, 2009, a bill was introduced into the Connecticut General Assembly, Raised Bill No. 1098, that would modify corporate laws relating to certain religious corporations. The bill can be viewed HERE . The title of the bill is somewhat misleading in that this proposal concerns only the Roman Catholic Church. This becomes clear when the statement of purpose of the bill is examined: “To revise the corporate governance provisions applicable to the Roman Catholic Church and provide for the investigation of the misappropriation of funds by religious (i.e., Catholic) corporations.” In a nutshell, I do not believe that the Connecticut General Assembly nor, for that matter, any other civil or secular authority has the competence to make, let alone revise, the governance, corporate or otherwise, of the Roman Catholic Church.
In past postings on the Mirror of Justice, I have addressed efforts by the Massachusetts legislature to pressure the Church. Although those efforts have subsided and not materialized in legislative regulation of the Church, for the time being, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly has decided to amend legislation that currently enables a corporation to be established in any parish or congregation thereby leading, in my estimation, to the ability to pressure the Church in Connecticut. While the purposes of such a corporation under the existing law, Section 33-279, are not specified, it is clear the bishop, the vicar-general, and the pastor of the parish are ex officio members of the corporation as the law now currently reads. In turn, they appoint annually two lay members of the corporation, candidates being taken from the lay members of the parish or congregation. Of these five members, three constitute a quorum, and a quorum must include at least one of the two lay members.
The new bill would dramatically alter the constitution of the corporation which a bishop may decide is the proper organization for a particular parish or congregation. First of all, it would establish a board of directors consisting of no less than seven and no more than thirteen lay members. These directors would be elected by the lay members of the parish at an annual meeting. The bishop, but not the vicar-general or the pastor, would serve as an ex officio member of the board of directors without a right to vote. The pastor and vicar-general would not be able to serve on the board and would have no voice in the activities of the board. The board created by the revised legislation would owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and the members of the congregation but not to the bishop. The new legislation would drive a wedge between the pastor and bishop by requiring the pastor to report to the corporation, not the bishop, on matters financial and administrative since the board rather than the pastor or bishop would control budgets, manage assets, and oversee all financial affairs. In short, the Connecticut legislative proposal does not take account of provisions of Part II, Section II, Title III, Chapter VI of the Code of Canon Law; moreover, it is clear that the Connecticut bill would potentially conflict with a number of substantive provisions of the Church’s law regarding the relationship between pastors and parishes with the office of bishop. Another problematic element of the bill would authorize the board to develop “outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community” without any mention that such activities must comport to Catholic teachings.
It has been suggested by some commentators that this legislative proposal is in response to misappropriation of parish assets by members of the clergy without mentioning theft by non-ordained religious and members of the laity. However, I wonder if this is the intention of this bill given the fact that clergy, religious, and laity who have been responsible for the wrongful conversion of church assets in the past are currently subject to the existing laws that address these abuses. One reason for my stating this is the bill’s incorporation of Section 33-1036 conferring on the lay directors the expansive general powers of corporations that include buying and selling properties (which can constitute an alienation of property regulated by Canon 1291 and other provisions of the Code of Canon Law) and entering into contracts (which is governed by the Code of Canon Law including Canon 1290). Section 33-1306 authorizes many other activities of a civil corporation which have the realistic potential for conflicting with other provisions of the Code of Canon Law since the authorization conferred by this bill would enable the lay directors of the incorporated congregation or parish to:
·enter a wide variety of financial ventures;
·enter into various enterprises and relationships with secular entities;
·transact “any lawful activity that will aid government policy” [which presumably could include activities that conflict with Church teachings];
·establish conditions for admission of members, admitting members, and regulating membership in the parish [this is a serious challenge to the rites of Christian initiation and regulation of the sacraments by competent Church authorities];
·and the list goes on…
From my perspective, the bill possesses the objective, whether intended or not, of interfering with Church governance as the Church requires it under its own law. Another objective may well be one designed to put pressure on the Church by one or a small group of individuals. For example, new section 3 of the bill would empower anyone—meaning even those who did not contribute the gift and those who have nothing to do with the parish—who has “reason to believe that monetary contributions to a corporation… (i.e., parish or congregation) are being misappropriated and not being used for the purpose for which they were given may report that belief to the Attorney General.” Of course, the Attorney General is authorized to investigate and take whatever action is deemed necessary by the AG.
I doubt whether this legislation could pass the Constitutional muster of the First Amendment since it contains many provisions that would interfere with the free exercise of Catholicism. But my more fundamental question concentrates on who is responsible for this bill and what are their objectives for promoting it? Regarding the latter part of the second question, I wonder if the objective is to destroy the Church and this proposal is a trial canter to see how proposals of this nature will fare.
Rob and Mark haven't complained about Catholic church music in quite a while. But I presume they still don't like it. Here's an antidote, a Lenten gift from the Vatican, avaible through their Lenten web site.
Vatican Offers Internet Lenten Music
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 6, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See is offering online sacred music to help people worldwide to live this Lent with a spirit of prayer and reflection.
In a special Lenten section of the Vatican Web site, one can listen to liturgical hymns performed by the Musical Chorus of the Sistine Chapel, which for centuries has interpreted music for the Pope's liturgical celebrations. It is directed by Monsignor Giuseppe Liberto, and the oldest choir of its genre.
The site offers five Lenten hymns with lyrics and music, including "M'invochera e Io L'esaudiro" and "Signore, Il Tuo Mostrami Volto."
It also offers passages interpreted by the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music in Rome, a scientific and academic institution founded by the Holy See, directed by Monsignor Valenti Miserachs Grau.
The mysterious Professor P. says that I mischaracterized the Greater Kansas City Women's Politcal Caucus. I'll let the facts speak for themselves and the good judgment of our readers to determine whether I have mischaracterized this organization. The Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus' "Positions and Mission Statement" webpage says: "We support the right of women to control their own reproduction without governmental intrusion." Their "endorsements" webpage says that they support pro-choice candidates.
Finally, as my colleagues Rick Garnett (here), Greg Sisk (here), and John Breen (here) have so ably argued, Sebelius' participation in the "auction" and subsequent reception/party for the abortionist Tiller at the Governor's Mansion is largely a side show given Sebelius' longstanding ties to the abortionist community and her allergic reaction to even the most modest of abortion regulation.
I guess if I'm gonna get Rick's cultural references (one in his most recent post, the other in an e-mail message a few days ago), I'm gonna hafta begin viewing (re-viewing) old classics--beginning, of course, with The Godfather.
Although if you're my age, The Godfather is a contemporary classic. Casablanca ("I'm shocked, shocked ...") and The Treasure of Sierra Madre ("Badge? Badge?! I don't need no stinking badge!") are old classics.
If you're in the Twin Cities, you might be interested in this program, “A Muslim-Catholic Dialogue on Faith and Reason,” on March 18 at 7:30 p.m. on the University of St. Thomas's St. Paul campus. The two participants are of global status and recognition: Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's nuncio and permanent observer at the United Nations; and Professor Ibrahim Kalin of Georgetown University, a planner and key participant in the Catholic-Muslim Forum that met for the first time in November 2008 in Vatican City to discuss issues arising out of Pope Benedict's 2006 Regensburg speech on the need for both reason and faith in religion. The event is sponsored by St. Thomas's Murphy Institute on Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy.
More here. Even though Pres. Obama's education secretary (like the Washington Post) urged the Senate to spare the program, it appears that the D.C. voucher program is hanging by a thread. Not enough room in that budget, I guess, to let a few low-income kids in D.C. escape failing schools and have hope for a better life.
Still more here. Hear me, Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Olympia Snowe of Maine: If you roll over for this thing, may Tom Hagen visit your horse.
