psalm123

I copied this from http://americanpapist.com/blog.html  as I share Mr. Peter's enthusiasm in promoting Dr. Janet Smith. She is a gift to the church and locally here at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. Her talks on contraception and bioethics are excellent.

AmP Speaker of the Month: Janet Smith

This is my contribution to Fallible Blogma's Support a Catholic Speaker initiative.

I'm back from class after a busy day at work so I'm pretty tired. Here is a topic that I have been meaning to comment on. Hopefully, I can get to it in the near future. The bottom line is that all life is sacred. It's very simple.


"The fact that 92 percent of women who are told that their unborn child carries the high risk of Down syndrome choose to abort the baby should shock us all. What does that say about our devaluation of human life and human dignity? This can only mean that these women see a child with Down syndrome as not worth having -- and the baby as a life not worth living."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092101.html 

Commentary by Albert Mohler, President, Southern Baptist Seminary

September 21, 2009 (AlbertMohler.com) - The development of prenatal diagnostic technologies presents a constellation of moral issues -- with the diagnosis of Down syndrome front and center. Over the past several years, a marked decrease in the number of babies born with Down syndrome has been both observed and widely reported. This decrease can be traced directly to the decision to abort after prenatal diagnosis.

As Science Daily reports, a new leading article to be published in Archives of Disease in Childhood points to developments in the near future that will likely increase the diagnosis of Down syndrome [DS] during pregnancy.  "New tests expected to be introduced next year will offer a simple blood test that poses no risk to the fetus and delivers a definitive diagnosis of one of more of the genetic variants of Down syndrome -- trisomy 21, translocation, or mosaicism," the journal reported.

The development of these new tests will almost surely make the practice of prenatal screening for Down syndrome more widespread. At present, the available tests pose some risk to the fetus and are invasive. The new tests expected next year are based on simple blood tests.

The new research is based on work by Dr. Brian Skotko, a clinical genetics fellow at Children's Hospital Boston.  Skotko, who has a sister with Down syndrome, asks this haunting question: "As new tests become available, will babies with Down syndrome slowly disappear?"
 

( Read more... )
 

 

I may have posted this in the past. It's a video produced locally by http://www.realcatholictv.com 

Stem Cell Research and Human Dignity
A reasoned look at the morality of stem cell research, and the Church's position on it.

When if ever are we going to draw a true ethical line in scientific research in regards to embryonic stem cells? I mentioned this during the election season when this issue came up. There is a major push in some parts of the scientific community for unlimited research on embryonic stem cells. Right here in MI, the voting public bought into this idea. The thing is, I'm not so sure people really looked into the issue properly from all sides.  It is human life we are talking about here.  

Something like this should at least make us wonder where this Country is headed in regards to 'ethical' scientific research.

The following is from http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html

GE says "Who needs Lab rats? We have human stem cells!"

I have been very busy at work lately and thus no posts. Today alone I saw 6 patients and was on the road for 3 hours! From Dearborn to White Lake to Romeo and ending up in Southfield. I haven't even had the time to finish reading the new encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI. Maybe this weekend.

In the meantime, here are some stem cell basics.  I witnessed a lot of misunderstanding, rhetoric, and apathy concerning this issue during the election.

http://www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign/q_and_a.shtml

What is a stem cell?
A stem cell is a relatively unspecialized cell that, when it divides, can do two things: make another cell like itself, or make any of a number of cells with more specialized functions. For example, just one kind of stem cell in our blood can make new red blood cells, or white blood cells, or other kinds—depending on what the body needs. These cells are like the stem of a plant that spreads out in different directions as it grows.

Is the Catholic Church opposed to all stem cell research?
Not at all. Most stem cell research uses cells obtained from adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, and other sources that pose no moral problem. Useful stem cells have been found in bone marrow, blood, muscle, fat, nerves, and even in the pulp of baby teeth. Some of these cells are already being used to treat people with a wide variety of diseases.

Why is the Church opposed to stem cell research using the embryo?
Because harvesting these stem cells kills the living human embryo. The Church opposes the direct destruction of innocent human life for any purpose, including research.

If some human embryos will remain in frozen storage and ultimately be discarded anyway, why is it wrong to try to get some good out of them?
In the end we will all die anyway, but that gives no one a right to kill us. In any case, these embryos will not die because they are inherently unable to survive, but because others are choosing to hand them over for destructive research instead of letting them implant in their mother’s womb. One wrong choice does not justify an additional wrong choice to kill them for research, much less a choice to make taxpayers support such destruction. The idea of experimenting on human beings because they may die anyway also poses a grave threat to convicted prisoners, terminally ill patients, and others.

Haven’t doctors, scientists, and commentators said that embryonic stem cell research will lead to the cure of many diseases?
Some have made this claim, but in fact this is largely speculation. Embryonic stem cells have never treated a human patient, and animal trials suggest that they are too genetically unstable and too likely to form lethal tumors to be used for treatment any time soon. Years ago it was said that stem cells from embryos would be the most useful because they are so fast-growing and versatile, able to make virtually any kind of cell. But those advantages become disadvantages when these cells make tumors, creating a condition worse than the disease. Yet many supporters remain wedded to this approach, having invested a great deal of money and effort and hoping they can still make it work. This kind of exaggerated “promise” has misled researchers and patient groups before—most obviously in the case of fetal tissue from abortions, which in the 1990s was said to promise miracle cures and has produced nothing of the kind.

Is the Church telling us to choose the lives of embryos over the lives of suffering patients?
No. It is calling us to respect both, without discrimination. We must help those who are suffering, but we may not use a good end to justify an evil means. Moreover, treatments that do not require destroying any human life are at least as promising—they are already healing some conditions, and are far closer to healing other conditions than any approach using embryonic stem cells. The choice is not between science and ethics, but between science that is ethically responsible and science that is not.

( Read more... )

As a  health care worker who provides hands on care to patients, I feel very strongly about this issue.  With the ongoing attack on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of all human life in this country, you think I might have some concerns as a hospice nurse?

Sally Sanchez RN

As a  health care worker who provides hands on care to patients, I feel very strongly about this issue.  With the ongoing attack on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of all human life in this country, you think I might have some concerns as a hospice nurse?

This excellent speech is definitely worth posting.  I agree with Thomas Peters(americanpapist.com) when he says "I think Abp. Burke has provided Catholics in America with a comprehensive manifesto for action in the coming year. I think his speech will have wide, beneficial consequences, or at least I pray that it does." I think it's required reading for Catholics in America".

WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY 8, 2009
KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Introduction

1. I am deeply honored to give the Keynote Address at this annual gathering of Catholics to pray for our nation. I express my heartfelt esteem and gratitude to those who, each year, organize and support the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

2. The theme of this year's Breakfast is most fitting to the difficult time through which our nation is now passing. Before the fundamental and great challenges which we as a nation are facing, how better to express our patriotism than by celebrating the teachings of our Catholic faith. The most treasured gift which we as citizens of the United States of America can offer to our country is a faithful Catholic life. It is the gift which, even though it has often been misunderstood, has brought great strength to our nation, from the time of its founding. Today more than ever, our nation is in need of Catholics who know their faith deeply and express their faith, with integrity, by their daily living.

3. Although I no longer have my residence in our beloved nation, I am no less bound to practice the virtue of patriotism, taught and exemplified by Our Lord during His public ministry. It is Our Lord Who gives us, in the Church, the grace to practice patriotism as a fundamental expression of the bond of charity which we have, in Him, with our fellow citizens. From my earliest formation in the life of the faith, received at home from my parents and in the Catholic schools, it was clear to me that duty to one's nation, to one's fellow citizens, is integral to our life in Christ in the Church. In the Baltimore Catechism, the virtue of patriotism is joined with filial piety. These essentially connected virtues, in the words of the Catechism, dispose us to honor, love and respect our parents and our country (Revised Baltimore Catechism and Mass, No. 3, New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1949, 1952, no. 135). Surely, the most fundamental expression of patriotism is daily prayer for our homeland, the United States of America, her citizens and her leaders. Our participation in the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast is, I trust, an extraordinary expression of the daily prayer which we all offer for our country, as good Catholics and, therefore, good citizens.

4. It pleases me that today's celebration included a presentation by Mother Shaun Vergauwen, Superior General of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist. I have known Mother Shaun's religious congregation for all the years of my priestly life. The consecrated life of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist is an inspired witness to the truths of our Catholic faith, especially what pertains to the Gospel of Life, and, therefore, also makes a strong contribution to the good of all citizens in our nation.

Growing Crisis in Our Nation

5. I come to you, this morning, with the deepest concern for our nation. I come to you, not as someone who stands outside of our nation but as a citizen who, with you as fellow citizens, takes responsibility for the state of our nation and, therefore, cannot remain indifferent and inactive about what most concerns the good of us all, especially those among us who are small, weak and defenseless.

6. Over the past several months, our nation has chosen a path which more completely denies any legal guarantee of the most fundamental human right, the right to life, to the innocent and defenseless unborn. Our nation, which had its beginning in the commitment to safeguard and promote the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for all, without boundary, is more and more setting arbitrary limits to her commitment (cf. The Declaration of Independence: Action of Second Continental Congress, 4 July 1776, in The Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2002, p. 81). Those in power now determine who will or will not be accorded the legal protection of the most fundamental right to life. First the legal protection of the right to life is denied to the unborn and, then, to those whose lives have become burdened by advanced years, special needs or serious illness, or whose lives are somehow judged to be unprofitable or unworthy.

( Read more... )

Some of the same things I've been arguing since before the election are being publicly argued by a pro-life democratic party group. It's good to see. It's a little late but still good to see.

“Supporters of embryonic stem cell research seek to avoid the moral and ethical objections by arguing that the end – the possibility of a breakthrough that might advance medicine – justifies the means – destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells,” DFLA writes, calling this a “dubious argument.”

"The unfortunate thing about this whole debate has been the confusion around it. Media reports talk about ‘stem cell research’ and there’s no distinction made between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research."

( Read more... )

The attack against innocent human life continues.  Soon, the actions of our president in relation to embryonic stem cell research will make the attack much more serious.


Washington D.C., Mar 7, 2009 / 08:04 am (CNA).- Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has criticized human embryo-destroying stem cell research, saying it is unethical, “unworkable and unreliable” and now “demonstrably unnecessary” in light of recent advances. He charged that President Obama and some Congressmen “still don’t get it” about the breakthroughs involving adult stem cell research.

Rep. Smith also accused the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership of being “obsessed with killing human embryos for experimentation at taxpayer expense.”

( Read more... )

It's shameful when the answer to a perceived problem is death.

Rome, Feb 9, 2009 / 04:20 pm (CNA).- The 38 year-old Italian woman who was in a coma and whose father had waged a battle in the courts to disconnect her feeding tube and euthanize her died today at 8:10 p.m. local time.

Four days after her food and water were withdrawn, amidst a divisive debate throughout the country over the passage of a law that could have saved her, Eluana Englaro died at the La Quiete Hospital in Udine.

( Read more... )

I've been following this story for awhile but I have been too busy to comment.



There is a comatose woman in Italy named Eluana Englaro who is about to be starved to death. Does this situation sound at all familiar? Some people call this an act of compassion. I call it murder. Somehow Eluana has lost her value as a human person in the eyes of some. Of course in a civilized and moral society we would never intentionally starve to death a human being. So, apparently Eluena isn't quite reaching some arbitrary standard by which she is seen as a human person.

Thankfully there are some people who are thinking with moral clarity that are trying to stop this woman from being starved to death.

Rome, Feb 6, 2009 / 10:50 am (CNA).- Italy’s Council of Ministers, headed by Silvio Berlusconi, unanimously approved an emergency decree on Friday to stop the father of Eluana Englaro from killing her by removing hydration and food. However, this morning at the clinic La Quiete, where Eluana is staying, the process to end her life was initiated.

According to the newspaper La Repubblica, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi commented on his motivation for passing the emergency decree, saying, "I do not want the responsibility for the death of Eluana."

( Read more... )

Interesting article. Way back in 1968 Pope Paul VI made several predictions in his encyclical Humanea Vitea (Of Human Life) on the negative effects artificial contraception would have on society.  He was right in several respects.  A great talk about contraception and Church teaching that I have mentioned before is Contraception Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith. She explains very clearly what the Church teaches about artificial contraception and why.  Dr. Smith also explains how natural family planning is a more effective and morally acceptable alternative to artificial birth control that is also beneficial to marriages. How could you not want to hear about that? !

Use this link to find the talk. http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/   Under Speaker:Janet Smith on the right.

Vienna, Jan 11, 2009 / 02:10 am (CNA).- The chemist who made a key discovery leading to the invention of the birth control pill has written a commentary calling demographic decline in Europe a “horror scenario” and a “catastrophe” brought on in part by the pill’s invention

( Read more... )

I am sure that I will be posting more articles by Fr. Tad in the near future. With the recent release of a Vatican document concerning several bioethical issues, Fr. Tad is a great resource to get the truth. I have already been hearing of the mainstream media misrepresenting, distorting, and mocking what the Catholic Church supposedly teaches in this document in particular and overall in certain bioethical issues.  So, hopefully Fr. will be posting somewhat frequently to help us sort through all the incoming secular media confusion.

This short article isn't so much related to bioethics as it is how people often react to a religious person who articulates a position on some moral problem. I experienced the fallacious  "imposing your beliefs" argument a lot during discussions about abortion.  It can be a real stumbling block to productive discussion if the person I am interacting with perceives any argument from me as merely an imposition of religious ideas.  So, it's always important to clear up this misperception if it arises.
 

  Father Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the NCBC, is the author of a column called Making Sense out of Bioethics that appears in various diocesan newspapers across the country.
 
After earning a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University, Fr. Tad did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He subsequently studied in Rome where he did advanced studies in theology and in bioethics.
lot of hot-button topics are being debated in our state legislatures these days, topics of great ethical and bioethical importance, ranging from emergency contraception to gay marriage. These debates address important issues for the future of our society. Lawmakers face the daunting task of making decisions about what should or should not be permitted by law within a reasonable society. Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research. After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. "Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don't you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?" The senator's question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.

( Read more... )