I must have missed it.
Apparently, late on the evening of Saturday November 7, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on the healthcare reform bill (H.R.3962), several Catholic bishops and a cardinal or two strong armed their way into the House chamber and forced a majority of the members (including 64 Democrats) to vote for an amendment (the Stupak-Pitts amendment) which would prevent the healthcare bill from opening new avenues for the federal funding of abortions. (Read more)
Scientists can now make human eggs and sperm, no men or women needed.
Let me repeat that: as reported recently in the journal Nature, researchers at Stanford University have successfully produced human sperm and eggs from embryonic stem cells. This should come as no surprise since sperm and eggs are specific kinds cells, and human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to give rise to all cell types in the human body. In fact, researchers have been working hard to make this happen for the past few years. And while biotech is hardly on the cusp of mass producing human eggs and sperm by such artificial means, this disturbing biotech achievement should have us all thinking. (Read more)
This is part seven of my reflections on Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger's book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. If you missed the earlier columns, here are the links: part one; part two; part three; part four; part five; part six.
In Part III of Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, Pope Benedict turns to the question of Christian faith: "the fundamental act of Christian existence." (Read more)
The war in Afghanistan and our continued commitment to that battle raises any number of moral issues. These were recently addressed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a letter sent to the United States government's National Security Advisor General James L. Jones USMC (Ret.). Of course, America's military engagement of the Taliban has roots in the 9/11 attacks. Most observers find the U.S. at a critical juncture, and are anxiously waiting for President Obama to make a decision on tactical and strategic options while popular support for the war languishes at home.
Bret Stephens writes the Wall Street Journal's "Global View" column. In his September 7 column, Stephens explained why the consequences of an American failure in Afghanistan would be catastrophic for western civilization. "Afghanistan," he wrote, "matters not because that's where 9/11 was conceived. It matters because that's where it was imagined." It was imagined because prior to the U.S. occupation, the Mujahedeen had already -- in their jihadist conception of things -- defeated one of the great super powers, Russia. "Imagine," invites Stephens, "the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists -- and the possibilities that would open up to them -- if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn." (Read more)
Last week saw significant progress toward a final version of a healthcare reform bill which could be voted on by Congress as early as the end of October. The path toward that final bill is so tortuous, however, that even experts disagree on just how it will be accomplished. As explained to me by my colleague Dorinda Bordlee, Executive Director and Senior Counsel for Bioethics Defense Fund, and editorialized in the San Francisco Examiner, the bill was taken behind closed doors in the Senate chambers under the direction of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. From there it will eventually make its way to both chambers of Congress, but quite possibly without further input from the American public and without the opportunity for further amendment. Bordlee explained:
This scenario involves Senator Reid stripping an unrelated bill that is currently languishing in conference committee, and stuffing it with his preferred health reform language cobbled together from the Baucus proposal and the Senate Health Committee bill. Once that bill comes out of "conference committee" it would then be voted on in the House and Senate in a straight up or down vote without the opportunity for anyone to propose amendments. (Read more)
Readers will forgive me for waxing philosophical for just one column. But let's take a step back from healthcare reform, unemployment, the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Gitmo, water-boarding, gay marriage and stem cell research to think for a minute about just how the exchange of ideas is faring in the public square these days.
It is Christopher Tollefson, professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, who has me thinking about this. His recently published and timely thoughts on the nature of public discourse are well worth a read. Tollefsen explains that public discourse is crucial to the common good and should transpire precisely in public forums where the general populace can have access to the exchange of ideas and even participate. As to the meaning of 'discourse', Tollefson continues: (Read more)
Many within and without the Catholic Church have suggested of late that a "common ground" approach is the way to resolve our sharp cultural divide on the issue of federal funding for abortions. Within current debates over healthcare reform, "common ground" has taken on a more specific meaning, namely, to maintain the status quo on federal funding. Supposedly this would be a reasonable way ahead, especially to open a path for healthcare reform we could all live with.
Among advocates of such reasoning, Christopher Korzen, president of a group called Catholics United has been particularly vocal in drumming up support for such thinking. "[I]n order to reach consensus on the larger issues," affirms Korzen, "reform ought to preserve policies that are currently in effect regarding federal support for abortion services." Korzen, like many Catholics, appears to be convinced that when the day is done any healthcare reform legislation will remain "abortion neutral." (Read more)
Since I last wrote in August about the healthcare reform bills currently before Congress, there remains much public consternation and confusion as to whether these bills will or will not provide government funded abortion coverage. This concern is not surprising when public opposition to such coverage is mounting as demonstrated by recent polls. Last Tuesday, a new survey commissioned by the USCCB revealed that fully 60% of those who support health care reform oppose government funding for plans that include abortion. These results confirm similar results found in a poll commissioned by the Susan B. Anthony List and a recent Rasmussen poll.
Upon careful analysis, the truth remains that if passed in any of its current forms, legislation in both the House and Senate will authorize broad federal funding of abortion through both private and publicly subsidized healthcare. Here's why. (Read more)
Last Tuesday, 90 members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill (H.R. 3567) that would repeal the one federal law that currently protects the traditional definition of marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act. This is the latest in nation-wide attempts to redefine the traditional understanding of marriage. Last week in this column, I began a reflection on why that traditional understanding must be upheld and why gay couples suffer no injustice in being denied the unique legal privileges traditionally granted to married heterosexuals. It all hinges on what marriage is in the first place.
Last week's column led to a consideration that the traditional (natural law and Catholic) understanding of marriage is based on a vision of the human person as a soul-body whole in which the body is not merely instrumental to an intense emotional bonding (as in the contemporary understanding of "marriage") but rather can be constitutive of a unique kind of union which only one man and one woman can enter into through sexual intercourse. Consequently, sexual intercourse (and not other kinds of sexual acts, including sodomy) is uniquely capable of bringing about that kind of union which the natural law tradition, Catholic theology, and human cultures for millennia have exclusively called marriage. And here's why. (Read more)
With New York Governor David Paterson determined to legalize same-sex "marriage" in New York, it's a good moment to revisit this controversial issue from a Catholic and natural law approach.
The legal recognition of gay "marriage" is currently required by court order in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and by legislation in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. Active efforts to repeal gay "marriage" are taking place in New Hampshire and Iowa, and a referendum to that effect will be on the ballot in Maine this November. A federal challenge to California's Proposition 8 is now underway and seeks a ruling that would overturn laws protecting the traditional definition of marriage in all states, making gay "marriage" the law of the land. There is also a separate court challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. (Read more)
