Embryos Are Human
On the subject of embryonic
stem cell research, a talk show host recently made the comment
that 'Catholics are all over the map on this.' This is a
common mistake made in the media and deliberately fueled
by Catholic dissidents. In fact, Catholic belief is that
Catholic doctrine is not derived from popular consensus
but from revelation: sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
Most Protestant groups do not
accept the sacred tradition part, opting for 'Sola Scriptura'
(scripture alone). The Catholic argument is that the Canon
of Scripture (which books were and were not included in
the Bible) was the work of Catholic bishops in an ecumenical
council in the early church.
This is not about comparative
religion but simply to clarify that the Catholic Church
has a central magisterium (teaching office) charged with
interpreting scripture and tradition, applying Christ's
teachings to complex questions of the day, thus continuing
sacred tradition and deepening understanding of Christ's
teaching as it comes to us in unchanging and unchangeable
doctrine. Catholic doctrine-that is, the essential teachings
of Christ on faith and morals-do not and cannot be changed;
rather, our understanding of them deepens with insight through
time. Any Catholics who are 'all over the map' either don't
pay attention to the Church's clear teaching or reject that
teaching. But the teaching remains.
Whether one accepts or rejects
Catholic teaching, the significance of Catholicism's self-understanding
is relevant to the national conversation because the Catholic
Church is one of the few objective and unchanging moral
yardsticks left in the world today, and therefore continues
to be invoked in ethical debate. The Catholic Church is
a player, like it or not. Naturally, there are those who
invoke 'separation of Church and state' to exclude the contribution
of the authentic Catholic voice and that of other world
religions in the public debate.
To exclude the voice of religion
in crucial public discussion is to block out a great mass
of accumulated wisdom on the human experience and the nature
of reality, rendering the discussion incomplete. It then
ignores an enormous and essential aspect of human experience
religion and leaves a gaping hole in whatever
conclusions might be reached. Those who seek to silence
religion in public debate tend to have a preconceived agenda
for the outcome which they see as threatened by religious
thought. But the attack on religion is a red herring, a
distraction from the real issue.
While individual Catholics
may be 'all over the map' on the question of embryonic stem
cell research, Catholic teaching is not. U.S. Catholic bishops
themselves lamented a widespread 'spiritual illiteracy'
among many Catholics, necessitating the release of the new
catechism of the Catholic Church in 1994. But Church teaching
couldn't be clearer: One may never commit an intrinsically
evil act (in this case taking an innocent human life) that
a perceived good may result (in this case potential medical
breakthroughs).
More likely what will result
(and is resulting) is a further diminishment of respect
for human life, and an increasingly utilitarian view of
the human person. Another Catholic principle: A human being
may never be used by another for his own ends. This is not
only utilitarianism but slavery. Each human being is an
end in himself or herself. If those embryos are not safe
no one is. The mantra, 'They are going to be discarded anyway'
could have come from the mouth of Dr. Josef Mengele.
These embryos are human and
alive, consisting of 46 chromosomes, and are therefore human
life. As living beings, who are human, they are human beings.
They are not potential life, any more than one is 'potentially'
or 'sort of' pregnant. You is or you ain't.
These embryonic human beings are alive, now, and involved
in a terrible dilemma utterly beyond their control. They
are human, innocent and helpless, and therefore deserving
of love and the protection of the state. They are dependent
on civilization but civilization is perhaps even more dependent
on them, as we consider their fate. In considering their
fate, we are determining our own.
Perhaps this is the real precipice
on which we stand: the notion (again) that certain human
beings can be considered so insignificant as to be unworthy
of love and protection solely on the basis of their size
and stage of development. In other words, the world needs
to go back and reread 'Horton Hears a Who' by Dr. Seuss:
'A person's a person no matter how small.'
That we are even considering
this question of human medical experimentation is already
the result of the disastrous turn we took with Roe vs. Wade,
the ruling that a developing (but fully human) child's life
was less important than a woman's convenience or difficult
circumstances, circumstances that could be vastly improved
with simple love and acceptance, offered and received with
a good outcome for all, including the child. There are millions
of women who regret having had an abortion, but I have yet
to hear of a woman who regretted changing her mind and choosing
life.
The questions at stake in the
embryonic stem cell debate are not a mere matter of one's
'personal religious belief,' but strike at the very foundation
of civilized society. The choice is between justice and
truth, where love and civility are safe to flourish, or
a descent into chaos, barbarism, anarchy, tyranny and death.
Medical science and ethical research will not stop; it will
continue, with the Catholic Church's blessing, diseases
will continue to be cured. But a cure that debases human
dignity and the sovereignty of individual lives is no cures.
They are, in fact, disease. The original disease.
Our nation now stands where
the fledgling nation of Israel stood in the Book of Deuteronomy
when Moses addressed them saying, 'I call heaven and earth
today to witness against you: I have set before you life
and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then,
that you and your descendants may live.' (Deut. 30:19)
John Mallon is contributing
editor for Inside the Vatican magazine and a member of The
Daily Oklahoman's Opinion Board of Contributors. This article
originally appeared in The Washington Times on August 20,
2001. Send an
e-mail to John Mallon
