Quo Vadis Youth

+
JMJ
September 2008 Issue 1.8
Quo Vadis Newsletter
Life Issues II

The Catholic Church and Homosexuality
Catechism Quote of the Month
Pope Quote
Stem Cell Research
Q&A
Heterologous Embryo Transfer
Did you know?
Book of the Month
Novena of the Month

Homosexuality and the Catholic Church
By Mary Clare Piecynski
Homosexuality is a complex issue that is definitely relevant today. Many people believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a homosexual lifestyle and that we shouldn’t judge other people just because they happen to be different. The Catholic Church has always taught, however, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and that homosexual acts are wrong. That is not to say that the homosexual person is evil. We will examine the many facets surrounding the issue of homosexuality and try and discover what physical, moral and Biblical evidence say about this tendency.
Physically, there are proven drawbacks to living a homosexual lifestyle. For example, a study of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men (Hogg, RS, et al., Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay men. International Journal of Epidemiology 26(3):65761, 1997.)
There are also moral ramifications that one needs to explore regarding the homosexual lifestyle. For instance, many homosexual persons believe that they aren’t morally culpable for their actions since they’re “made that way.” The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided Catholics with an insightful letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons in which they clarified the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The letter stresses, “what is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well.” (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons paragraph 11 hereafter referred to PCHP) A homosexual person has an innate dignity that precludes him from being determined by his nature, he is, like all human persons, endowed with free will and the ability to be culpable for his actions. Therefore it would be wrong to say that “I am a practicing homosexual just because I’m made that way.”
The Bible is also very clear in condemning homosexual acts. To begin with, the first pages of Genesis teaches that only a woman is a fitting helper to man, she is taken from him, flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. A man leaves his mother and father and cleaves to a woman, not another man or a woman to a woman, and they become one flesh. This relationship between a woman and a man is sacred, called “very good” by God and is blessed by Him. Man and woman were also commanded to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth,” (Genesis 1:28) something a homosexual union is incapable of doing. Furthermore, a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is denounced in Scripture. For instance, Genesis 19 1-29, Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 124-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 all speak of the sinfulness of homosexuality. In Genesis, homosexuality was the primary reason Sodom was destroyed. Leviticus sets death as the penalty for anyone having sexual relations with a person of the same sex. Saint Paul even goes so far as to say that those who are active homosexuals cannot inherit heaven. In short, the Bible is explicit in showing the marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual acts are inherently wrong.
The question then arises, what are people with homosexual tendencies to do? The Catholic Church realizes the heavy cross this can be and says that homosexual persons “are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross.” (PCHP, paragraph 12) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith goes on to say in the same document
“Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.” (Ibid)
In sum, a homosexual person is called to heroic virtue to live a moral life pleasing to God. Those suffering from homosexual tendencies have a wonderful example from Jesus Christ who embraced His cross, just as they are called to do.
Homosexuality, then, is a disordered tendency that is intrinsically wrong. Though, however, the Catholic Church has always taught that there is a difference between loving a person with a homosexual tendency and despising sin incurred through homosexual acts. Further, one sees the wrongness of a practicing homosexual lifestyle after examining the physical, moral and Biblical standpoints. In conclusion, homosexual persons are created by God as good and deserve the love and respect that is due to each person created in the image and likeness of God.
Catechism Quote of the Month
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (CCC, 2359)
Pope Quote
“Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.”
Pope Benedict

A Decade Later: Time for a Dose of Reality on Stem Cells
Prepared for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
By Richard Doerflinger
In 1998, Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin first isolated human embryonic stem cells (ESCs). These early, unspecialized cells were hailed as a way to create all cell types of the human body at will, a Holy Grail for curing diseases. Moral qualms about killing embryos for the cells were swept away in this wave of enthusiasm. In a few years, it was said, life-saving medical advances would show that such objections should be ignored.
A decade later, it is time for a reality check. ESCs have been involved in some interesting experiments, but are not close to producing cures. This is not due to limited federal funding—it is equally true in countries with no such limits, and in states pouring their own public funds into the research. ESCs in fact are unpredictable, difficult to control, and prone to causing tumors in animals. Experts now admit that human treatments using them may not emerge for decades, if ever.
The bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship urges Catholics to become informed on important moral issues in public life, including this issue of destroying embryos for stem cell research.
One fact is that treatments are emerging from stem cell research. But these use stem cells (once seen as less versatile) found in adult tissues and in umbilical cord blood from live births. In human trials, these cells have repaired heart damage, restored vision, and helped reverse autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and juvenile diabetes, as well as some cancers. A search on “stem cell” on the federal site www.clinicaltrials.gov shows over 2,000 clinical trials using these cells, half of them still recruiting patients.

"Americans want to be fair and humane. They do not seek out the most unethical way to pursue medical progress—rather, they want science and ethics to move forward hand in hand. It is not too much to ask the same of our researchers and policy makers."

Last November an additional breakthrough transformed the stem cell debate. Scientists in Japan and in Wisconsin—the latter team led by the same James Thomson who first isolated human ESCs—learned how to “reprogram” ordinary adult cells into cells with the properties of ESCs, without producing or destroying a human embryo. These “induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPS cells) have already been used to reverse disease in animals. Dr. Thomson says this is “the beginning of the end” of the ethical debate, as fewer and fewer laboratories will see any need to kill embryos for stem cells.
Americans are pragmatic. We find it hard to focus on an ethical principle when medical benefits are placed on the other side of the scale. But the noise about the benefits of ESCs may now die down enough to let us hear that message about ethics again.
Though at a very early stage of development, the human embryo is one of us – a living individual of the human species, with the innate potential to grow into a mature human being if given nourishment and protection. Here, as in all human research, we must never harm or kill an innocent, unconsenting human being solely for alleged benefit to others. Crossing that moral line leaves more ethical abuses in its wake.
This has proved true. The problem of tissue rejection has led researchers to support cloning human embryos, to obtain cells that genetically match individual patients. This means mass producing human lives in the laboratory solely to destroy them. Researchers have hired women to take fertility drugs to produce many eggs at once for cloning attempts, risking the women’s health. Some propose using animal eggs instead, to produce bizarre human/animal hybrid embryos for stem cell research. Some, to address ESCs’ tendency to form tumors, have proposed gestating cloned embryos in the womb to a stage where more usable cells may be obtained – the grotesque practice of “fetus farming” that Congress has prohibited.
Most Americans abhor the idea of cloning human embryos for research, as well as these other abuses. Polls show they are ambivalent on the ESC question generally. In a survey published in the Spring 2008 issue of The New Atlantis, 69 percent of respondents said they support “stem cell research.” But 51 percent agreed that it is unethical to destroy human embryos for such research, notwithstanding the hope of curing disease. When told about the new alternative of iPS cells, 61 percent said public funding should go to that avenue and not to research that destroys human embryos.
Americans want to be fair and humane. They do not seek out the most unethical way to pursue medical progress -- rather, they want science and ethics to move forward hand in hand. It is not too much to ask the same of our researchers and policy makers.
- - -
Richard Doerflinger is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Q&A
By Laura Corrigan
Do you have a question about why Catholics believe something? Are you unclear as to what exactly the Catholic Church’s position on an issue is? Our Q&A section is designed specifically to give you feedback regarding your questions about the Catholic Church. Please e-mail all questions to laura@chnetwork.org.
What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on suicide? Can a person who commits suicide get to heaven?
The Catholic Church teaches that suicide is a grave sin but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person can’t go to heaven. If we turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2280 – 2282]
In response to this question, we must examine why suicide is a grave sin. For an action to be a mortal sin, three things must occur. First, the action itself must be serious matter. Second, the person must know that the action is serious matter. In other words, if the person is ignorant that his action is wrong, he is not completely culpable. Third, the person must also perform that action with full knowledge and complete consent of his will.
This third point is the most crucial when considering the culpability of the one committing suicide. One could argue that these persons are not actually in their ‘right mind’ at the time and therefore not acting with full knowledge and complete consent. The Catechism states that “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2282]
This is not to say that suicide is permissible. It is still a most grievous action for the victims and a heavy burden for the ones they leave behind. If you know someone who has committed suicide, you must pray for them. It is not our position to judge others, particularly when they have died. We must leave the judging up to God. However, we should also remember that while God is Ruler over all, He is also merciful. And it is through His infinite Mercy, we must have compassion and understanding of others.

Heterologous Embryo Transfer
Mary Clare Piecynski
In his article entitled, In Defense of Transferring Heterologous Embryos E. Christian Brugger sets forth his position that it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abandoned frozen embryo implanted in her womb in order to “rescue it from death.” Brugger argues that heterologous embryo transfer (subsequently referred to as HET) is permissible since what the woman intends to do is to save the life of the child. Furthermore, Brugger contends that HET is not an offense against the goods of marriage since the woman having the embryo implanted in her uterus did not engage in the act that separated the unitive and procreative aspects of human procreation. This paper will examine Brugger’s main arguments in defense of HET and explain why they are inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Brugger begins his article defending HET with very good points regarding the sanctity of human life and the right of every individual to life, even from an embryonic stage. Brugger then goes on to examine the issue of HET and presents the reader with the question of whether or not it is “ever morally legitimate for a woman to choose to have a biologically unrelated embryonic human person surgically transferred into her uterus in order to rescue him or her from death.” Brugger, acknowledges that the exterior act of surrogacy, explicitly condemned in Donum vitae is the same as the woman engaging in HET to rescue the embryo but that their interior intention is different and therefore the latter act is moral. Brugger explains, “Both the surrogate and the embryo-rescuing mother become impregnated by having an IVF [in vitro fertilization]-created embryo transferred into their uteruses.” But since the surrogate chooses “to fulfill the illicit purposes of the offending person…[while]the woman rightly rescuing an embryo deplores the conditions under which the child was conceived, refuses to carry out the plans of the offending persons and is firmly morally opposed to IVF.” Essentially the argument that Brugger sets forth is that though what the woman who is rescuing the embryo is exteriorly identical to a surrogate her interior intention makes the act moral.
Brugger’s position, that the intention of the woman is what changes the act from that of surrogacy to a morally licit act, however is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church since if the object is itself immoral, the act is immoral then no intention or consequences can change the nature of the act. For while Vertitis Spendor, quoted by Brugger, asserts that to discern whether an act is moral or not a person must “place oneself in the perspective of the acting person and then to assess the object of the person’s free choice.” While true, this quote however must not be taken to mean that the object of the person’s free choice is the person’s intention. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines that the object chosen “is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act.” Further reading of Veritatis Splendor reveals that “there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being ordered’ to God because they radically contradict the good of the person made in His image.” John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor goes on to write, “Circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” Essentially, what Veritatis Splendor clearly teaches is that there are some objects, or acts in themselves, which can never be licitly pursued. Therefore, though the woman might intend to save the life of the child and the circumstances might require that the only way for her to do that is to have the embryo implanted in her uterus if the object is wrong then no noble intentions or circumstances could change the immoral character of the act.
Consequently, careful consideration must be given to what the object of the woman is who engages in HET in order to rescue an embryo. Essentially, the object of an act (not to be confused with the object or intention of the agent) is what the act is in itself. Therefore, the act the woman attempting to rescue an embryo through HET chooses would be, according to Brugger, “to have a biologically unrelated embryonic human person surgically transferred into her uterus.” Donum vitae, however, condemns this act by stating, “In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which are not transferred into the body of the mother and are called ‘spare’ are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.” In summary, since Donum vitae states that there is no option that can be moral for the use of in vitro embryos the act of HET, no matter how noble the intentions of the agent, must necessarily be condemned.
Brugger furthermore asserts that the woman choosing the act of HET can do so morally since she herself is not separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act and hence is not an offense against the goods of marriage. Brugger writes that “the tiny human person has already been generated…The unitive and procreative meanings of marriage have already been severed by other persons, not the woman here.” A problem with Brugger’s explanation, set forth in Catherine Althaus’ article Can One “Rescue” a Human Embryo is that “pregnancy can be considered a continuation of the conjugal act in that no further human acts are required on the part of the man or the woman.” Althaus writes, “The separation of the unitive and procreative dimensions of the conjugal act that occurs in the creation of a frozen embryo through artificial fertilization is replicated in any action by a woman to ‘rescue’ a frozen embryo.” Therefore, since the conjugal act in and of itself can include pregnancy, to seek pregnancy is to seek the conjugal act. Hence, Althaus argues that the woman choosing HET is “engaging in a new conjugal act that seeks pregnancy without genetic motherhood.” In conclusion, Brugger fails to consider the intrinsic connection between the conjugal act, which includes unity and procreation, and pregnancy and that the woman choosing HET necessarily requires that she choose in a manner the conjugal act in such a way that it disassociates its unitive and procreative meanings.
Althaus’ position is grounded in numerous Church documents that affirm the inseparableness of the unitive and procreative while stating that the conjugal act does not merely end with physical intercourse but extends to the raising and educating of the child. For example, Donum vitae clearly teaches that “artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved disassociation between the two meanings of the conjugal act.” Further, the Catechism asserts, “The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education.” Therefore, conjugal love does not end with the act of intercourse but incorporates all aspects of nurturing the newly created life, arguably including pregnancy. Furthermore, the Pontifical Academy for Life teaches, “Only the reciprocal gift of the married love of a man and a woman, expressed and realized in the conjugal act with respect for the inseparable unity of its unitive and procreative meanings, is a worthy context for the coming forth of a new human life.” In addition, Humanae vitae is clear that “by means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaboration with God in the generation and education of new life.” In summary, these authoritative Church documents affirm the link between the conception of the child and the duty of the parents to raise the child in a honorable manner, which obviously includes having the genetic and gestational mother be the same person.
Though one could meticulously examine the different intentions, circumstances and arguments for HET as set forth by Brugger, the essential point of contention is that the act of HET in itself is not permitted by the Catholic Church and therefore is immoral. Further, the woman engaging in HET violates the unitive and procreative aspects of giving life and thereby directly making the act illicit. In summary, though the current state of frozen embryos is deplorable and gravely wrong, the act of HET, however well intended, is not a moral option since it contradicts the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church and violates the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act.

Did you know?
Lots of people wonder what the Catholic Church’s teaching is on the death penalty. In short, the Catholic Church says that legitimate authority has the duty to give penalties corresponding to the gravity of the offense committed. Therefore, the death penalty is permitted but only “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” (CCC, 2267, see also 2266) The Catechism does go on to say, however, that these instances are today “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (CCC, 2267)

Book of the Month
Did Adam & Eve Have Belly Buttons?
By Matthew J. Pinto
This book has a silly title but a great message with answers to 200 questions about the Catholic Church. With sections on morality, Catholic living and Catholic beliefs and practices this is the book you need to get to delve more into the truths of the Catholic faith. Easy to read and written especially for teenagers!
Available from the Coming Home Network for $12.99

Novena of the Month
Novena to the Little Flower
St. Therese’s feast day is October 1, perhaps Quo Vadis could pray this novena together for the nine days preceding her feast day (beginning on September 23).
O Little Therese of the Child Jesus, please pick for me a rose from the Heavenly Gardens and send it to me as a message of love. O Little Flower of Jesus, ask God today to grant the favors I now place with confidence in your hands... (Here mention specific requests) St. Therese, help me to always believe as you did, in God's great love for me, so that I might imitate your "Little Way" each day. Amen.