Bishop Martino's Letter to Senator Robert Casey

Thank you so much for addressing Senator Casey's anti-life vote of January 28th. As your letter to the senator so powerfully explains:

• "Your vote against the Mexico City Policy will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children. This is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being. This action is worthy of condemnation by all moral men and women....It is the height of irony that this amendment was defeated while the Senate passed legislation to provide health insurance for children who would otherwise be without it. What hypocrisy offers health insurance to children in one part of the world when children in another part will be deprived, by the stroke of the same pen, of their first breath?....Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy." <www.dioceseofscranton.org/News/SenatorCaseyVoteOnOverseasAbortionsFebruary5,2009.asp>

I believe that your letter to Senator Casey is a model for how other members of the hierarchy can address similar scandals. Particularly powerful are your citations of the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in Political Life, Christifideles Laici, as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger's "memo to the bishops of the United States."

Thank you!

The Anti-Catholic World in which Shakespeare Lived

Like The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580, this book provides fascinating background on the anti-Catholic world in which Shakespeare lived - a background which seems erased from popular and supposedly educated memory: "England, by the end of the seventeenth century, had become culturally anti-Catholic to such a degree that memories of Shakespeares's Catholicism would not have been the topic of polite conversation" (p. 92). Seeing other Catholics of his era murdered by the state, Shakespeare "would remain obedient to his king, his country, his faith, and his conscience, saying, through the medium of his plays, with Sir Thomas More...that he was the king's good servant, but God's first" (p. 150). Pearce tells us that there is a tremendous lack of appreciation for Shakespeare's faith and its influence on his work: "It is only because we live in an age of uncommon nonsense that Shakespeare remains misunderstood and misconstrued by...academe"(p. 172).

St. Francis De Sales - Patron Saint of Deaf People

January 24th marks the feast of Saint Francis De Sales (1567 - 1622), bishop of Geneva. Among the various honors bestowed on this holy man, the Church calls him the "Patron Saint of the Deaf, in recognition of Francis’ work and devotion with deaf people, including his creation of a sign language" <http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/stfrancis.desales/patronsaint.html>.

An extremely learned man, Francis "earned a Doctorate in both Civil and Church Law. To the great disappointment of his father, Francis gave up a most promising civil career in favour of the priesthood....Francis was ordained a bishop of Geneva in 1602....His diocese became famous throughout Europe for its efficient organisation, zealous clergy and well-instructed laity....Francis’ fame as a spiritual director and writer grew. He was persuaded by others to collect, organise and expand on his many letters addressing spiritual subjects, and to publish them in 1609 under the title of the Introduction to the Devout Life. This became his most famous work and remains a spiritual classic found in bookstores throughout the world. But Francis’ special project was the writing of A Treatise on the Love of God....The enduring value and popularity of his writings led the Church to bestow on him the title Patron Saint of Catholic Writers....The church formally declared him to be a Saint in 1655 and in 1867 gave him the rare title of Doctor of the Church — a title conferred on fewer than 35 other saints in the history of the Church, all of whom are renowned for their writings....His ideals of moderation and charity, of gentleness and humility, of cheerfulness and abandonment to God’s will” <http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/stfrancis.desales/patronsaint.html>

Francis' "food was plain, his dress and his household simple. He completely dispensed with superfluities and lived with the greatest economy, in order to be able to provide more abundantly for the wants of the needy. He heard confessions, gave advice, and preached incessantly" <www.newadvent.org/cathen/06220a.htm>.

CHAUSA's "Talking Points on Dignitas Personae" (specifically Section 23)

I will preface my letter with Bob Dylan's famous line: "You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." I am neither a priest nor a physician, but I do know how to read.

As per my below email to John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, I take great exception to your assertion in Talking Points on Dignitas Personae, that "Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception, does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies." With all due respect, do you fail to understand the Food and Drug Administration has already and readily acknowledged that "If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)"? Have you adopted a Brave New World definition of "conception", which differs from the understanding of the Catholic Church?

As per an 11/1/07 statement on emergency so-called contraception from the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), "scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all these formulations have some potential to prevent the implantation of a newly conceived human being....The crime of sexual assault should not be compounded by an action, the intent or direct effect of which causes the death of a human being in the first days of gestation" <www.cathmed.org/pressreleases/PlanB_and_CCC3.pdf>.

Clearly, Plan B is an "interceptive", as defined by Dignitas Personae. Abortifacients are absolutely excluded by Dignitas Personae, as they have always been.

re: "Vatican issues new document on biotechnology" (NCRcafe.org, 12/12/08)

While I would take issue with various points of your analysis, it comes as a great surprise that the National Catholic Reporter is addressing one aspect of Dignitas Personae, which others seem to be avoiding. You report that Dignitas Personae "deals with emergency contraception in section 23, introducing a distinction between what it calls 'interceptive' methods, if they interfere with the embryo before implantation, and 'contragestative,' if they cause the elimination of the embryo after implantation....In either case, Dignitas Personae holds, these methods are illicit." Unlike the treatment of emergency so-called contraception in # 36 of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Dignitas Personae offers NO guidelines for the supposed "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative.

You go on to report that Richard "Doerflinger of the U.S. bishops' conference...does not believe this language means the practice of administering Plan B in Catholic hospitals is illicit....Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, chair of the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the U.S. bishops' conference, agreed....Talking Points on Dignitas Personae prepared by the Catholic Health Association assert that current practice in Catholic hospitals will 'remain unchanged.' The CHA text says that 'Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception, does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies'" <http://ncrcafe.org/node/2327/print>.

There are only be two ways for CHAUSA's contention of no "post-fertilization effect" to be "true," & neither is acceptable:

1. CHAUSA's staff is so incompetent, as to be unable to understand the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Q and A on Plan B.
2. CHAUSA's staff has embraced a Brave New World definition of "conception", which is NOT Catholic.

As per the FDA's Q and A on Plan B, "Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)" [emphasis added] . Clearly, Plan B is an "interceptive" and an abortifacient.

re: "Misplaced Mercy & the Stifling of Blessings" (Jewish World Review, 1/16/09)

(excerpts from a fascinating article)

"From the Talmud (Sotah 12a) it is clear that as the leader of his generation, Moses' father, Amram, had vast influence over the Jewish people. When Pharaoh decreed that "every son that will be born — into the river shall you throw him" (1:22), Amram became greatly discouraged....He then divorced his wife, Yocheved.

"When word of this spread, the other Jewish men did the same. Amram's daughter, Miriam, saw this and said, ''Father, your 'decree' is harsher than Pharaoh's....your 'decree' will mean that no Jewish males or females will be born. Furthermore, Pharaoh has decreed against life in this world, while your decree will affect life in this world as well as in the World to Come."

"(Once a child is conceived, it is entitled to a share in the World to Come....)....Amram accepted Miriam's argument and publicly remarried Yocheved. This served as an encouragement to the other separated couples to remarry, and they proceeded to do the same....

"Amram....came to the logical conclusion that it was purposeless to bring children into a world where they would be drowned shortly after birth. And, even if they somehow survived that ordeal, they would eventually be ruthlessly enslaved to Pharaoh....Yet his mercy was misplaced — because by remarrying Yocheved, he had a son, the future Moses, who would lead the Jewish nation out of Egypt. Had Amram not heeded his daughter's advice, his act of 'kindness' would have been an act of cruelty of monumental proportions.

"A similar act of misplaced mercy is found in the Prophets (II Kings 20:1, Isaiah 38:1):....When Hezekiah heard [a]...death sentence from the prophet Isaiah, he asked, 'What is the reason for all this? (What sin did I commit to deserve so severe a punishment?)' Isaiah responded, 'It is because you did not get married and engage in procreation.' Hezekiah told him, 'I did not marry because I saw...that if I did I would have wicked children ...'

"'Why do you concern yourself with the hidden secrets of the Divine?' replied Isaiah. 'What you are commanded to do, you must do, and what is found to be good before the Divine, He will do!'

"Hezekiah....had a son, Menasheh, who succeeded him as king. Menasheh had the longest rule of any Jewish king, 55 years, but was a terribly evil and instituted a reign of terror in Jerusalem, filling its streets with the blood of innocent victims....

"Hezekiah had correctly seen that he would have a wicked son. But he did not know that Menasheh would have a grandson, Josiah, who would epitomize the pentitent, as the Prophet says (II Kings 23:25...): Before him, there had never been a king like him who returned to G-d with all his heart, with all his soul and with all his wealth, in accordance with the entire Torah of Moses, and after him no one arose like him.

"Josiah uprooted the idols of his wicked grandfather and father and brought the people back to the service of the Divine....Had his great-grandfather Hezekiah refrained from marrying, the Jewish people would have lost this great person whose mark was felt on the nation for generations to come.

THERE'S ONLY ONE KNOW-IT-ALL....

"History has shown how utterly wrong the Malthusian Theory has proven to be....Yet scientists and writers continue to warn of the dangers of population explosion and advise that the ideal family have no more than two children, which would keep the population stable and ensure that nobody starves. As ludicrous as this fear is, it has been adopted as fact by countless people worldwide. What they fail to recognize is that Hashem, the One Who nourishes, sustains and supports [all creations] from the horns of the re'eimim to the eggs of lice (i.e., from the greatest and largest creatures to the smallest ones) will certainly take care of every human being to provide him with his needs (see Talmud, Shabbos 107b).

"As we have seen in our times, this can be manifested in many ways. It can be achieved with great advancements in science and technology which make it possible to produce vast quantities of food on small tracts of land. Additionally, technology has spawned the development of foods that can meet the nutritional requirements of people without the need for farmland altogether. Foods that are highly concentrated in both caloric and vitamin intake have been developed that can be mass produced cheaply enough to feed many times over the entire world's population. It is not necessary to concern ourselves with the age-old question of Mah nochal, 'What will we eat?' (Leviticus 25:20)....

"A large family is a great blessing, not a liability. If anything, it is easier to raise children in a large family because the older ones assist in the task and thereby develop parenting skills themselves. As for the additional financial burden of a large family, the Talmud (Niddah 31b) states that G-d sends every child into this world with a source of livelihood (see Maharsha). Moreover, one really never knows which of his children will provide the most nachas (famial pride and joy). It often occurs that the little ben zekunim'l (youngest child born to older parents) whom nobody expected (or wanted) can be the one who achieves the greatest accomplishments.

"Every child carries a unique blessing for his family and for Klal Yisrael. It is the supreme task of life to realize and develop that blessing."

Section 23 of Dignitas Personae & #36 of the USCCB's Ethical & Religious Directives

(The article in question may be found at <http://www.hli.org/sl_2009-01-09.html>.)

Recommit to AUTHENTIC Catholic Social Teaching

Not to Be Confused with Being a Spiritual Leader or Theological Expert

(Click to enlarge.)

Welcome guideline for couples: A 'yes' behind every 'no' " [Re: Instruction "Dignitas Personae"] (B.C. Courier Times, 1/29/09)

(This is also available at <www.buckscountyprolife.com/commentary_detail.asp?id=887>.)

(The original submission....)

To anyone who has ever looked upon the face of a newborn, or seen that child months earlier via an ultrasound, human grandeur is undeniable. When one contemplates the eternal life to which each human is called, the undeniable is unspeakably magnificent! Two weeks before commemorating Jesus Christ's arrival as a newborn, the Vatican released a magnificent instruction, focused on human life at its origins. Brief and readily available on the internet, I imagine that “Dignitas Persona” will be read by many Catholics and non-Catholics.

Dignitas Personae proclaims

1. ) human dignity from the first moment of fertilization until natural death &
2. ) the right of everyone to originate in the loving embrace of a mom and dad, who are wife and husband.

Dignitas Personae screams that each human being is owed uncompromising respect, no matter how she came to be, and that we must stand with the weak and powerless against exploitation. Isn’t it only the rare individual who would oppose such a magnificent core?

Recent years have seen a vast increase in reports of infertility and interest in reproductive technology. When employed by a husband and wife, Dignitas Personae says assistance to AID the “marital act” toward procreation can be moral. However, even when used by a husband and wife, Dignitas Personae says that methods REPLACING the marital act - such as IVF - are immoral. Exacerbating IVF’s immorality is the discarding or freezing of “extra”, unwanted embryos. Dignitas Personae forbids using these new humans as research material or implanting one in the womb of a woman other than her mom. Also recognized as immoral are

• human cloning,
• the mixing of human with animal genetic material (Yup, some “scientists” are doing that!),
• germ line cell therapy,
• “genetic engineering for purposes other than medical treatment” (# 27), and
• research using illicitly obtained cell lines.

Yet, it would be an absolute mistake to dismiss Dignitas Personae as a laundry list of prohibitions.

Dignitas Personae beautifully declares, “Behind every ‘no’ in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great ‘yes’ to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence [# 37].

• NaProTechnology <www.fertilitycarefriends.org/> strikes me as a “great yes” – a fabulous alternative to the immorality of IVF, as well as IVF’s incredible expense and low "success" rate.
• Another “great yes” is that stem cells can be obtained in manners, which are not morally objectionable! Obtaining stem cells from embryos results in the death of the embryo. Despite the research “science” presented to us by celebrities, this is NEITHER the only way NOR the most promising way to obtain stem cells. Stem cells can be morally obtained from adults and umbilical cord blood.

Section 23 of Dignitas Personae appears to require change at Catholic hospitals, regarding treatment of women identified as victims of sexual assault. After trying to rule out pregnancy (&/or ovulation), so-called "emergency contraception" (aka, "morning after pills") HAS been allowed (Note: Some say it’s IMPOSSIBLE to ensure "emergency contraception" is NOT abortifacient.). "Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation & contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted....the use of means of interception & contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral." NO guidelines are offered for supposed "moral" use of a potential interceptive or contragestative.

Dignitas Personae calls everyone to courageously defend human life. While he calls himself Catholic, Congressman Patrick Murphy maintains positions diametrically opposed to Dignitas Personae, including sponsorship of FOCA, the so called "Freedom of Choice Act" (See http://canon915andbuckscounty.blogspot.com/.). If Murphy maintains such positions, he should have the honesty to stop calling himself a Catholic.

Father John C. Ford, SJ Deserves Better!

Until reading this book, I was unaware of Father John C. Ford, S.J.'s contribution to the defense of the innocent in warfare. While he acknowledges this and some other contributions by Ford to moral theology (with particular regard to alcohol/substance abuse and upholding Church teaching on contraceptives), Father Genilo does a poor job of conveying the legacy of Father Ford. More seriously, this work seems uninformed by Pope John Paul II's magnificent encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor.

If we were to only consider Father Ford's contributions with regard to alcohol/substance abuse, his legacy would still be magnificent. As per a 1996 article by Robert Aufill in This Rock magazine, Father Ford was "one of the earliest Catholic proponents of addressing alcoholism as a problem having spiritual, physiological, and psychological, dimensions. Ford said that alcohol addiction is a pathology which is not consciously chosen, but he rejected the deterministic idea that alcoholism is solely a disease without any moral component....Ford's contribution to AA was therefore twofold: He drew on both religion and psychology to show alcoholism as a synthetic problem requiring a synthetic remedy, and he took seriously the quasi-compulsive nature of addiction while rejecting both absolute determinism and the attendant pitfalls of a purely therapeutic approach....In so many ways, Ford's approach to addiction and recovery remains a model of spiritual discernment for our own time."

In 1930's Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI had offered a powerful message, with regard to the clerical mandate to teach the truth on marriage and marital relations: "If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust." For his entire priesthood, it is clear that Father Ford took these words with the utmost seriousness.

As a young man, Dr. Germain Grisez collaborated closely with Father Ford. Grisez's position on contraception was explained by Russell Shaw in a 1996 Catholic World Report article: "In much over-simplified terms, the argument is this: The choice to contracept is a choice against the human good of procreation and as such can never be justified, since it is never morally right to turn one's will against a good of the person, not even for the sake of some other good...From June 1965, on, Grisez collaborated closely with Ford on [so-called papal birth control] commission-related work....[After Humanae Vitae,] The Archdiocese of Washington, DC rapidly became a center and focal point for...dissent....Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle....called in John Ford to help, and Ford called in Grisez." Considering his historic collaboration with Father Ford, Grisez receives incredibly scant treatment from Father Genilo.

While no promoter of Humanae Vitae, Leslie Woodcock Tentler explains in "Catholics and Contraception: An American History" how hints of dissent started to crop up in the mid twentieth century. For far too many years, the Catholic University of America even kept dissenter extraordinaire Father Charles Curran aboard its faculty. Why on earth would Father Genilo prominently feature Curran's feedback on the book jacket! This makes about as much sense as an endorsement from the Joker on a biography of Batman!

It is interesting that Tentler acknowledges the impact from a large scale, silent, clerical rejection of Humanae Vitae: "The result was a church where sexual ethics were seldom discussed, despite rapid change in the cultural values.... Divorce rates rose, even among regular churchgoers, as did the practice of premarital cohabitation. Birth and marriage rates declined....Many Catholics...were newly tolerant of abortion" (pp. 276, 277). Father Genilo offers no such acknowledgement. He evidences no awareness 1.) that the pill has been subsequently found to sometimes work in an abortifacient manner or 2.) the magnificent development of knowledge with regard to natural family planning - particularly NaPro Technology. He does not even bother to comment on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

According to a New Year's Day 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal, it was toward the start of the 1970s that "Politicians...began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda. In some cases, church leaders actually started providing 'cover' for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a 'clear conscience.' The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen....writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion." It should be noted that Fuchs, McCormick, and Curran are treated as royalty by Father Genilo.

"mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition"

There is a letter in today's Times of Trenton ("The Beauty of Science is Skin-Deep"), which very much necessitates your speedy response. The letter appears to infer that it is now possible to ethically obtain human embryonic stem cells. Evangilium Vitae and Dignitas Personae specifically caution against such over-stepping.

As per Section 30 of Dignitas Personae, "The ethical objections raised in many quarters to therapeutic cloning and to the use of human embryos formed in vitro have led some researchers to propose new techniques which are presented as capable of producing stem cells of an embryonic type without implying the destruction of true human embryos [As per the footnote, "The new techniques of this kind are, for example, the use of human parthenogenesis, altered nuclear transfer (ANT) and oocyte assisted reprogramming (OAR)."]. These proposals have been met with questions of both a scientific and an ethical nature regarding above all the ontological status of the 'product' obtained in this way. Until these doubts have been clarified, the statement of the Encyclical Evangelium vitae needs to be kept in mind: 'what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo'."