Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Bioethics’

Laying the foundation for an authentic Christian bioethic is what this blog is all about. It is about Coming Home; Coming Home to certain truths that have been lost over the past fifty years, as our churches (Protestant and Catholic) have veered to the edge of heresy in advancing the notion that Jesus is so taken up with love, that there is for many, no more sin, no more culpability.

On this blog, I continue to work at presenting the objective truth of the human person, as evidenced by science. Such objective truth which establishes human identity in areas of life where many say it has not yet existed, or no longer does, demands respect in its inviolability.

The famous psychiatrist Karl Menninger saw the writing on the wall in 1973 when he wrote his landmark book, Whatever Became of Sin? The answer to that question requires less science than it does a faithful response to God, and those whom He placed in authority over His Church.

Father John Corapi, a former Green Beret, leapfrogs the issue of personal sin, and writes about how our behavior leads us to participate in, and share the culpability for, the sins of others. His words are essential to reestablishing an authentic Christian anthropology and bioethic.

Here now, Father Corapi:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, although “sin is a personal act, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them” (CCC #1868).

How can we participate in the sin of another:

1. By counsel. i.e. “I think you should have an abortion; go ahead and have the abortion. It will help preserve your lifestyle.”

2. By command. i.e. Telling your child, your friend, or your co-worker, “Have an abortion, you may lose your job if you don’t.”

3. By consent. i.e. “If you and your partner feel it’s the best thing, go ahead and have a sexual relationship, get married; even if you’re both of the same sex, etc. It’s nobody’s business.”

4. By provocation. i.e. “Have the abortion! Aren’t you in charge of your own life? The Pope is old and out of touch, who cares what he says.

5. By praise or flattery. i.e. “Oh, Senator, you are so courageous and kind in defending a woman’s ‘right’ to an abortion.”

6. By concealment. i.e. The pastor allows the senator, judge, president, etc. who has voted for, or otherwise promoted, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, same-sex marriage, etc. to appear to be in good standing, when, in fact, they have caused grave public scandal by their actions. When the sin is public, the redress must be public. Although, I don’t disagree with the courageous bishops who would deny such persons Communion, I do believe that the “confrontation” should take place, without question, long before they arrive at the altar rail.

7. By participation. i.e. “I’ll drive you to the clinic. You need that abortion to be able to continue your lifestyle.”

8. By silence. i.e. You refuse to speak out against what is a clear violation of human rights, an incredible persecution and prejudice against a class of human beings (the unborn). You hide behind the Supreme Court’s unjust and inherently illicit decision on abortion, saying it’s the law of the land, when in fact it is the subversion and perversion of authentic law. The Nazi SS officers tried for war crimes used a similar defense, saying they were only following orders. They hung them, guilty as charged!

9. By defense of the evil. i.e. “It prevents child abuse by eliminating unwanted children; Women are more in charge of their lives, more liberated; it’s so much more sophisticated and educated a thing to do etc.”

Your conscience must be formed to the objective norm of Truth, which is Church teaching in faith and morals. Since a physician needs to be concerned with what’s sick, let’s get right to the point. It is not morally possible for any Catholic to support abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, or same-sex marriage. There are no ways around this, no justifications what so ever!! They are all intrinsically evil, which means they are always evil, all the time, no exceptions.

Father John Corapi

Edited by: Jeffrey David
Retrieved from:

http://www.courageouspriest.com/how-else-can-we-participate-in-the-sin-of-another

Read Full Post »

Abortion and abortion’s apologists have succeeded in twisting and distorting even a once-objective, just-the-facts, and statistically-oriented discipline as Public Health. In the not-so distant past, pregnancy was defined in medical textbooks as the result of fertilization of egg by sperm. Now it’s defined as implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Semantics? Hardly.

This represents a fundamental shift that protects the in vitro fertilization industry. If pregnancy is defined by implantation, then there is hardly an ethical hurdle when it comes to sifting through dozens of embryo’s in search of the ‘most fit’. Some might call them ‘keepers’. The rest may simply be discarded.

The in vitro fertilization industry and its related embryonic stem cell research industry, which makes use of ‘leftover’ embryos in frozen storage, serve as a bulwark for abortion, appealing to utilitarian sentiments regarding the alleviation of emotional and physical suffering, respectively.

Even defining something as simple as infant mortality has become a semantic three-ring circus.

Case in point: CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics released a study this past November entitled, Behind International Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe. The Bottom line is that the U.S. ranks 30/31 nations in the study in infant mortality rates.

A look at figure #1 in the study doesn’t inspire confidence as the study bills itself as a comparison between the U.S. and Europe, but goes on to include Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Cuba.

Table #1 inspires even less confidence as it details what constitutes ‘live births’ in the countries under study. The following countries take the most expansive definition of ‘live birth’ to include any birth of a living baby without regard to gestational age:

Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States.

Norway, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland are listed as having varying reporting criteria, including a 500 gram birthweight, gestational age, and in the Czech Republic, the added requirement that the infant survives the first 24 hours.

No mention at all of the remaining 12 countries in the study.

Additionally, the study claims, “Differences in national birth registration notwithstanding, there can also be individual differences between physicians or hospitals in the reporting of births for very small infants who die soon after birth.”

It’s difficult to compare nations to one another when the very definition of ‘live birth’ is up for grabs, when different nations take a more or less aggressive approach to saving the life of the neonate.

These approaches also have much top do with who is paying the bill. Governments with socialized medicine and flat economies have a powerful disincentive to attempt aggressive, costly life-saving measures, and may well be more apt to recommend abortion in cases where fetal anomalies are detected, further skewing the data.

Of course this study neglects to mention those realities.

They’re not politically correct.

Read Full Post »

LifeNews.com reports on 12/1/09 that President Obama, who had terminated the President’s Council on Bioethics three months before it was set for its September term limit, has constituted a new Council that may be more ideologically aligned with himself. If so, this could mean an opening into human cloning.

To be fair, Presidents reserve the right to constitute the Councils as they see fit. That said, President George W. Bush created his Council with a 50/50 ideological split. We’ll see what Obama does.

Don’t look for cloning by name. Look for legislation that funds “somatic cell nuclear transfer technology”, which is cloning’s technical name. If we can support embryo-destructive research in the pursuit of therapeutics, we’ll support cloning to achieve the same end.

That’s the fruits of “The ends justify the means” thinking.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: