Does the pill only prevent conception or is there more to it. Tim Staples, apologist for ‘Catholic Answers’ in San Diego – California, addresses this question during a daily radio program where listeners can ask questions about anything that has to do with Catholic faith, including ethical issues. He deals with the definitions used in the medical field for conception and implantation of a human fetus.
Watch the video.. (6 min.)
Map of Africa coloured according to the percentage of the Adult (ages 15-49) population with HIV/AIDS. Colour chart present in image. Countries coloured white have no information available.
In the Washington Post of March 29th, 2009, Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, affirmed that Pope Benedict XVI was right in what he said about Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa. When the pope gave his comments and said that ‘condom distribution isn’t helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa’, he set off a firestorm of protest, Green says. “Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. (…) Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.” Take a read in order to learn what this scientist, who is not a catholic, had to share.
Continue reading on the website of the Washington Post.
Are atheist making believers afraid to examine science or can believers use science to prove that God exists?
EWTN’s father Mitch Pacwa SJ jumps into the world of astrophysics with father Robert Spitzer SJ of the Magis Center for Reason and Faith.
Links
If you are interested in biological science and faith, you cannot ignore the existence of an ‘Academy for Life’ created on February 11, 1994 by the leader of the largest religious organisation on the planet, the Roman Catholic Church, pope John Paul II. The academy was established in order to promote ‘the study, information and formation on the principal problems of biomedicine and of law, relative to the promotion and defense of life, above all in the direct relation that they have with Christian morality and the directives of the Church’s Magisterium’.
The first president of the Academy was the famous French professor Jérôme Lejeune, pediatrician and geneticist, best known for his discovery of the link of chromosome abnormalities to Down’s syndrome. The academy has some seventy members named by the pope, who represent different branches of biomedical sciences and those that are closely linked with problems concerning the promotion and defense of life, belong to the academy.
‘The Mystery of Life (“Vitae Mysterium”) and of human life in particular’, as pope John Paul II puts in his Motu Proprio, ‘is attracting the increased attention of experts who are drawn by the extraordinary opportunities for investigation that scientific and technological advances offer their research today. While this new situation opens up fascinating horizons for intervention at the sources of life itself, it also gives rise to a variety of new moral questions that man cannot ignore without the risk of taking steps that could prove irreversible. With this awareness, the Church, … “intends to put forward (…) the moral teaching corresponding to the dignity of the person and to his or her integral vocation.” This is a particularly urgent task in our days (…) as a ‘culture of death’ threatens to take control.”
It is clear that in an era in which abortion, human cloning, experimentation on embryonic stem cells and euthanasia have become common goods, a religious institution as the Roman Catholic Church sheds it’s light on these issues, as a service to mankind in finding the right paths to deal with life as it is given to him. Since 1994, the Academy has been publishing about numerous topics that we will try to summarize on this website.
Links
– Pontifical Academy for Life
– Motu Proprio of John Paul II
(A document issued Motu Proprio is from the Pope on his own initiative, and not in response to a request or at the initiative of others. Its legal determinations carry the full force of papal authority, though it does not derogate from existing laws unless specifically stated. It can be any category of document.)
In their ‘Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services’, Fifth Edition, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states: “Health care in the United States is marked by extraordinary change. Not only is there continuing change in clinical practice due to technological advances, but the health care system in the United States is being challenged by both institutional and social factors as well. At the same time, there are a number of developments within the Catholic Church affecting the ecclesial mission of health care. Among these are significant changesin religious orders and congregations, the increased involvement of lay men and women, a heightened awareness of the Church’s social role in the world, and developments in moral theology since the Second Vatican Council. A contemporary understanding of the Catholic health care ministry must take into account the new challenges presented by transitions both in the Church and in American society.
[youtube=http://youtu.be/Xe5kVw9JsYI]
Address of Pope Benedict XVI to the 12th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the congress on “The Human Embryo in the Pre-Implantation Phase”.
Vatican, Clementine Hall
Monday, 27 February 2006
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
I address a respectful and cordial greeting to everyone on the occasion of the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the International Congress on: “The human embryo in the pre-implantation phase”, which has just begun.
I greet in particular Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragàn, President of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, as well as Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, whom I thank for the kind words with which he has presented clearly the special interest of the themes treated on this occasion, and I greet Cardinal-elect Carlo Caffarra, a long-standing friend.
Indeed, the study topic chosen for your Assembly, “The human embryo in the pre-implantation phase”, that is, in the very first days subsequent to conception, is an extremely important issue today, both because of the obvious repercussions on philosophical-anthropological and ethical thought, and also because of the prospects applicable in the context of the biomedical and juridical sciences.
It is certainly a fascinating topic, however difficult and demanding it may be, given the delicate nature of the subject under examination and the complexity of the epistemological problems that concern the relationship between the revelation of facts at the level of the experimental sciences and the consequent, necessary anthropological reflection on values.
As it is easy to see, neither Sacred Scripture nor the oldest Christian Tradition can contain any explicit treatment of your theme. St Luke, nevertheless, testifies to the active, though hidden, presence of the two infants.
He recounts the meeting of the Mother of Jesus, who had conceived him in her virginal womb only a few days earlier, with the mother of John the Baptist, who was already in the sixth month of her pregnancy: “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leapt in her womb” (Lk 1: 41).
St Ambrose comments: Elizabeth “perceived the arrival of Mary, he (John) perceived the arrival of the Lord the woman, the arrival of the Woman, the child, the arrival of the Child” (Comm. in Luc. 2: 19, 22-26).
Even in the absence of explicit teaching on the very first days of life of the unborn child, it is possible to find valuable information in Sacred Scripture that elicits sentiments of admiration and respect for the newly conceived human being, especially in those who, like you, are proposing to study the mystery of human procreation.
The sacred books, in fact, set out to show God’s love for every human being even before he has been formed in his mother’s womb.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer 1: 5), God said to the Prophet Jeremiah. And the Psalmist recognizes with gratitude: “You did form my inward parts, you did knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for you are fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are your works! You know me right well” (Ps 139[138]: 13-14).
These words acquire their full, rich meaning when one thinks that God intervenes directly in the creation of the soul of every new human being.
God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gn 1: 26) in each one.
He makes no distinctions because he perceives in all of them a reflection of the face of his Only-begotten Son, whom “he chose… before the foundation of the world…. He destined us in love to be his sons… according to the purpose of his will” (Eph 1: 4-6).
This boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for the human being reveals the degree to which the human person deserves to be loved in himself, independently of any other consideration – intelligence, beauty, health, youth, integrity, and so forth. In short, human life is always a good, for it “is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 34).
Indeed, the human person has been endowed with a very exalted dignity, which is rooted in the intimate bond that unites him with his Creator: a reflection of God’s own reality shines out in the human person, in every person, whatever the stage or condition of his life.
Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end (cf. ibid., n. 57). This moral judgment also applies to the origins of the life of an embryo even before it is implanted in the mother’s womb, which will protect and nourish it for nine months until the moment of birth: “Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth” (ibid., n. 61).
I know well, dear scholars, with what sentiments of wonder and profound respect for the human being you carry out your demanding and fruitful work of research precisely on the origin of human life itself it is a mystery on whose significance science will be increasingly able to shed light, even if it will be difficult to decipher it completely.
Indeed, as soon as reason succeeds in overcoming a limit deemed insurmountable, it will be challenged by other limits as yet unknown. Man will always remain a deep and impenetrable enigma.
In the fourth century, St Cyril of Jerusalem already offered the following reflection to the catechumens who were preparing to receive Baptism: “Who prepared the cavity of the womb for the procreation of children? Who breathed life into the inanimate fetus within it? Who knit us together with bones and sinews and clothed us with skin and flesh (cf. Jb 10: 11), and as soon as the child is born, causes the breast to produce an abundance of milk? How is it that the child, in growing, becomes an adolescent, and from an adolescent is transformed into a young man, then an adult and finally an old man, without anyone being able to identify the precise day on which the change occurred?”.
And he concluded: “O Man, you are seeing the Craftsman you are seeing the wise Creator” (Catechesi Battesimale, 9, 15-16).
At the beginning of the third millennium these considerations still apply. They are addressed not so much to the physical or physiological phenomenon as rather to its anthropological and metaphysical significance. We have made enormous headway in our knowledge and have defined more clearly the limits of our ignorance but it always seems too arduous for human intelligence to realize that in looking at creation, we encounter the impression of the Creator.
In fact, those who love the truth, like you, dear scholars, should perceive that research on such profound topics places us in the condition of seeing and, as it were, touching the hand of God. Beyond the limits of experimental methods, beyond the boundaries of the sphere which some call meta-analysis, wherever the perception of the senses no longer suffices or where neither the perception of the senses alone nor scientific verification is possible, begins the adventure of transcendence, the commitment to “go beyond” them.
Dear researchers and experts, I hope you will be more and more successful, not only in examining the reality that is the subject of your endeavour, but also in contemplating it in such a way that, together with your discoveries, questions will arise that lead to discovering in the beauty of creatures a reflection of the Creator.
In this context, I am eager to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Pontifical Academy for Life for its valuable work of “study, formation and information” which benefits the Dicasteries of the Holy See, the local Churches and scholars attentive to what the Church proposes on their terrain of scientific research and on human life in its relations with ethics and law.
Because of the urgency and importance of these problems, I consider the foundation of this Institution by my venerable Predecessor, John Paul II, providential. I therefore desire to express with sincere cordiality to all of you, the personnel and the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, my closeness and support.
With these sentiments, as I entrust your work to Mary’s protection, I impart the Apostolic Blessing to you all.
© Copyright 2006 – Libreria Editrice Vaticana
“Borders Are Neither Recognized nor Respected”
Here is a translation of a lecture Cardinal Christoph Schönborn delivered in October in Vienna on creation and evolution. The lecture was meant, in part, to clear up misunderstandings that arose from an article he wrote that appeared July 7 2005 in the New York Times.
Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as It Stands
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006:
Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005, St. Stephan’s Cathedral, Vienna
Intervention by the Holy See at the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the International Convention against the Cloning of Human Beings.
Address of Msgr. Celestino Migliore
Tuesday, 21 October 2003
Mr. Chairman,
After only a short time since my delegation’s intervention last September 29th, I am taking the floor again, with pleasure, in this current debate on human cloning.
It is indeed encouraging to note that this debate in the Sixth Committee is attracting increased attention and gaining factual contributions from delegations and from various sectors of the civil society represented at the United Nations.
My delegation has presented its views in a position paper, circulated by the Working Group on the occasion of the first session of this debate, a couple weeks ago. During that meeting, my delegation reaffirmed the conviction that only a comprehensive convention on human cloning can address all the related issues and respond to the challenges of the twenty-first century on this topic. Situations that pose grave dangers to human dignity can only be effectively addressed by international agreements that are comprehensive, not partial. While a partial convention might address temporarily some issues related to human cloning, it could generate subsequently greater problems, even more difficult to solve. The most durable solution should therefore be an all-inclusive legal instrument. Moreover, an all-inclusive convention can provide a binding legal instrument that could guide and enable States to formulate appropriate domestic legislation on human cloning.
My delegation has noticed with satisfaction that the time of reflection and meeting of minds of the past two weeks has yielded an increase of co-sponsorhips and support for the proposal put forward by Costa Rica. Also in light of this, my delegation wishes to reaffirm its view that the matter before us can be resolved through the earliest ban on human embryonic cloning.
It must be clear that the position my delegation takes is not, in the first instance, a religious one. It is a position informed by the process of reason that is in turn informed by scientific knowledge.
We have heard a number of statements from a variety of delegations that this is a “complex” issue. We have also heard pleas that we must avoid divisiveness, that we must not impose views, and that we must strive toward a consensus on this item for time is running short. We have also been reminded that the matter of research cloning must be sensitive to diverse belief systems and religious perspectives, cultures, and personal circumstances. It has been stated on several occasions that whilst we must move quickly to ban human reproductive cloning we must, on the contrary, move slowly on human research cloning.
Some delegations have put forward proposals with a view to promote freedom from certain regulation-the freedom from the imposition of a universal obligation against research or therapeutic cloning. The very juridical instrument of a Convention, which can be acceded to or not, I believe, does guarantee such a freedom. However, I would like to mention another important freedom. This, Mr. Chairman, is the freedom for life itself which is the core norm of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To be free for the protection of human life is the reality underpinning our work here in this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the science may be complex, but the issue for us is simple and straightforward. The matter of human cloning that involves the creation of human embryos is the story of the beginning of human life-a life that is not just a local issue, not a national issue, not a regional issue. It is above all a universal issue, because an embryo is a human being regardless of its geography. If reproductive cloning of human beings contravenes the law of nature-a principle with which all delegations appear to agree-so does the cloning of the same human embryo that is slated for research purposes. A cloned embryo, which is not destined for implantation into a womb but is created for the sole purpose of extraction of stem cells and other materials, is destined for pre-programmed destruction.
Some would argue, Mr. Chairman, that whilst we must act quickly to ban human reproductive cloning, we must take more time to study all aspects of research cloning-a procedure that intentionally destroys human life. How many human lives are we willing to take in this process? Since the process is unnecessary and would require more than one embryo per patient treated, hundreds of millions of cloned human embryos would be required to treat even one disease, such as diabetes, in any developed nation.
In closing, my delegation wants to remind this distinguished assembly that one of the fundamental missions of the United Nations is to uphold the rights of all human beings. If the United Nations were to ban reproductive cloning without banning cloning for research, this would, for the first time, involve this body in legitimizing something extraordinary: the creation of human beings for the express purpose of destroying them. If human rights are to mean anything, at any time, anywhere in the world, then surely no one can have the right to do such a thing. Human rights flow from the recognition that human beings have an intrinsic dignity that is based on the fact that they are human. Human embryos are human, even if they are cloned. If the rest of us are to have the rights that flow from the recognition of this dignity, then we must act to ban cloning in all its forms.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the occasion of the 2002 Wortld Day of Biological Divirsity, the Vaticans ‘Pontifical Counsil for Justice and Peace’ has released a note on forest biodiversity. The counsil states: “This theme is of global importance and is a fitting subject for this year’s commemoration, as the World Summit for Sustainable Development approaches. This World Day of Biological Diversity may thus help draw our attention to the vast and ample richness of our forests, too much of which now seems to be threatened.”
