By
THE MOST REVEREND WILLIAM E. LORI, S.T.D., BISHOP OF BRIDGEPORT
Some years ago,
Mother Teresa spoke at a Congressional Prayer Breakfast in Washington,
D.C. Arrayed before her were some of the most powerful leaders of the
world, including the President of the United States. With the strength
that comes from holiness, she spoke simply, truthfully, and powerfully
about the value of each human life, including the life of the unborn
and the very poor. She could barely be seen over the podium, but her
words towered over all of us gathered there. Her words struck a deep
chord, even with those who were on record in support of abortion.
One immediate result
of her talk was a new and expanded adoption effort in the D.C. area.
But her witness to the value of life continues to reverberate beyond
a single program, worthy though it is. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, from
her place in eternity, calls us – as Catholics and as citizens, as believers
and as a people of reason – to bear witness to the value of human life
from conception until natural death. And the challenge she places before
us is formidable.
But first, let’s
do away with a myth. During the last presidential campaign, Senator
John Kerry, a Catholic, was asked about his support for abortion. Referencing
the Church’s teaching on the humanity of the unborn, Candidate Kerry
said he was unwilling to impose “Church dogma” on our free and democratic
society – whatever he might hold personally. In responding that way,
the Senator gave credence to the unfounded view that the Church’s consistent
ethic of life is solely a matter of Church teaching, unsupported by
reasoned and reasonable arguments. We need to set the record straight.
Most moral teachings
and values are derived from reason, not faith. They are rooted in moral
innate sentiments, shared by people across diverse religious and cultural
lines, that certain things are wrong, either all of the time or some
of the time. The ethical values and conclusions toward which these inborn
sentiments tend are confirmed by common sense, experience, observation,
logical arguments, and sometimes by scientific analysis. Those same
values and conclusions are often codified in civil law – in whole or
in part. Again, those same values and conclusions are undone only by
going against one’s inborn moral sentiments. That always requires mental
and semantic gymnastics.
The Church, for
her part, does not “invent” moral values. Rather, with reason illumined
by faith, she recognizes those moral values that are true to our humanity
and true to the Author of our humanity, and makes them her own. The
Church tests moral values and ethical conclusions for reasonableness,
consistency, decency, and compassion. Are they coherent, truthful, good,
and beautiful? If so, they are clarified and elevated by the light of
faith and are recognized as integral to what it means to lead a life
that corresponds to the Gospel and also to the inherent requirements
of human nature.
Some moral teachings
are perhaps too subtle for unaided human reason fully to grasp; only
with the assistance of faith we can see their inherent reasonableness
and truth. The more complex or subtle the rational argument, the more
necessary is faith to guide one through the intricate steps that lead
to an ethically correct conclusion. Sometimes it takes the light of
faith to cut through the fog of popular culture, so that we can see
and think clearly. But most teachings, including the value of human
life from the moment of conception, can be known and argued from reason
alone. And it is both legitimate and necessary for people of faith to
be voices of reason when society turns its back on fundamental human
values.
Take the question
of when life begins. The inherent moral sentiment of the vast majority
of people for thousands of years, representing diverse cultures and
religions, is that human life in the womb is just that – human – and
thus deserving of respect. Scientific observation has confirmed that
deep moral sentiment. The closer science looks at the embryo, the more
apparent is its humanity. Modern embryology tells us that the “the initial
one-celled zygote is ‘the beginning of a new human being’ and defines
the ‘embryo’ as the ‘developing human during its early stages of development.’”
(see Richard Doerflinger, “Congressional Testimony on Embryonic Stem
Cell Research,” Origins, November 18, 2004). Last summer, Dr. Jennifer
Lahl, executive director of the Center of Bioethics and Culture in Oakland,
asserted, “Once the sperm and egg are united and the DNA double helixes
are raveled and unraveled, you have a human. If you put that embryo
in a woman, you’re going to have a baby in nine months’ time. . . ”
Those definitions and insights are continuously verified by contemporary
discoveries in the science of embryology which underscore the continuity
of human development from its very earliest stages.
To say that embryos
bear no resemblance to a human being may score political points but
it is an unreasonable, unscientific statement. Nor is it logical. The
human embryo will never develop into a tree or a giraffe. It simply
isn’t reasonable to think of the embryo as other than human.
Or take the argument
that it is ethically acceptable to ignore the human-ness of the embryo
because embryonic stem-cell research promises help to people who suffer
terribly from tragic diseases. Our inborn moral instinct tells us that
there is danger ahead when we start thinking that the end justifies
the means. That same inborn moral sentiment, confirmed by grim historical
experience, experience, warns us that experiments that do harm to human
beings are off limits. It warns against making one class of human beings
(embryos) mere instruments to serve the needs (however pressing) of
other human beings.
Beyond that, science
tells us that adult stem-cell research is more than “promising” – it
is currently delivering medical advances. So this is not a Church vs.
science debate, with the Church blocking the way of progress.
As a matter of fact,
the Church – in its teaching and through its research institutions –
actively supports two types of stem-cell research: umbilical cord stem
cells and adult stem cells. A third, embryonic germ cells, are under
study by Catholic ethicists. In truth, the Church opposes only that
sort of research which reason itself is warning against.
During the months
ahead, some in the General Assembly of Connecticut will likely push
for state funding embryonic stem-cell research – in spite of a looming
budget deficit. Sadly, some, such as Senator George “Doc” Gunther of
Stratford, have attacked the Church’s representatives to advance this
cause. It is time for us to speak out, to contact our legislators early,
and to say that we are opposed to such funding, not on religious grounds,
but on scientific, logical, ethical and humanitarian grounds. Our faith
gives us the clarity of vision and the inner strength to do this.
If it is clear
that the embryo is human, how much clearer is it that the developing
child in the womb is human and deserving of respect? I hope that many
will attend the March for Life, in Washington, DC, on Monday, January
24. I’ll be there, and groups will be traveling on buses from parishes
in Fairfield County. There’s still time for you to join us (see article
on page 13).
And finally, as
part of a consistent ethic of life, I hope we will also raise our voices
against the death penalty (see article on page 1). Reason and experience
have demonstrated that taking life is not the morally acceptable way
to defend life. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta has given us a lot of work
to do!
May she support
us by her prayers!