A new company has innovative uses for your new or leftover embryos.

By Father Thomas Berg

People who have undergone in vitro fertilization (IVF) in order to have children face vexing moral choices about what to do with the remaining embryos that were not implanted. Now they have a new option: to develop personalized stem-cell lines from their unused, stored embryos. A new company called StemLifeLine has begun promoting this “service” for customers.

This is from the company’s website:

    Until now, individuals who have undergone in vitro fertilization have had only three options for their remaining stored embryos after individual childbearing needs have been fulfilled. They could be donated to research, given up for “adoption” to other couples or discarded.

    StemLifeLine provides a fourth option for these embryos — to generate personal stem cell lines that may, in the future, benefit you and your family. StemLifeLine is proud to offer this service to individuals with remaining embryos after in vitro fertilization.

The website, it must be said, is almost too much to believe. Is there really a market for parents to destroy some of their own offspring — the siblings to their own born children — for personal gain? My first reaction was to wonder whether it wasn’t some kind of a gimmick. For example, this is on the site’s “getting started” section — it reads like something right off the script for the movie The Island:

    As soon as the fertility clinic receives your completed information, StemLifeLine will make arrangements with your clinic to transfer your remaining embryos to our facility.

    During the derivation process, we will keep you informed each step of the way. You can also inquire about the status of your cells by contacting us at any time. Once we have derived and cryopreserved your stem cell line we will provide you with detailed documentation of the derivation process and stem cell characterization.

Apparently, the company is for real. Founded in 2005, StemLifeLine just received its tissue bank license in May of this year. So, only recently has it begun in earnest its one and only “service” of “developing” and “transforming” unwanted IVF embryos into “useful” stem cells. Such are the idyllic euphemisms employed on the website to smoke screen the reality of the company’s dedication to embryo destruction.

Slate’s William Saletan cut through the euphemisms when he recently blogged about StemLifeLine. It’s not “developing” [an embryo into stem cells], wrote Saletan, “it’s killing.”

But there is more deception here than mere language games. For starters the company promises to offer clients “personal stem cell lines” that will provide them and their families with their “own high quality, genetically-matched stem cells.” Experts have been quick to point out, of course, that this is scientific nonsense. In a recent San Franciso Chronicle op-ed, stem-cell biologists from the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology observed that left-over IVF embryos “are not genetically identical to the couple or their children, any more than siblings are to each other or children are to their parents.” Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center, and senior fellow of the Westchester Institute, noted that “if either parent were to use tissues derived from their own IVF embryos, full-fledged immunosuppression would be essential. Recourse to these tissues would give the parents no therapeutic advantage whatsoever.”

But I would argue the deception gets even deeper and more disturbing. Couples are encouraged to “commit at least ten remaining embryos to ensure high probability for the successful derivation of a personal stem cell line.” That’s a claim that should give us pause.

It takes a considerable number of cryopreserved IVF embryos to yield a line of embryonic stem cells. According to the 2003 Rand study — an analysis of the few published studies available — technicians (including those at StemLifeLine) would have to allow for the fact that: a) only 65 percent of frozen embryos will survive the thawing process; b) only 25 percent of those will then develop to the blastocyst stage (approximately 6 or 7 days of development, the point at which embryonic stem cells are harvested from the embryo); and c) based on the past ten years’ experience of deriving stem cells from frozen IVF embryos, arguably only 15 percent of those embryos will yield stem cell lines (this figure is consistent with recent studies).

Now, do the math yourself, but this tells me that 10 or even 20 frozen embryos will not suffice (outside of very rare successes) for StemLifeLine technicians to get a stem-cell line. By the most optimistic set of stats, couples would have to commit upwards of 40 cryopreserved embryos — a preposterous amount — to have a reasonable hope of obtaining just one “personal” stem-cell line. Smell fishy to you?

StemLifeLine currently “partners” with three IVF clinics, and doubtless has a waiting list of others ready to sign on the dotted line. Now, I don’t mean to sound cynical, but these clinics — in the business of creating embryos — most likely have some incentive for referring clients to StemLifeLine. And if the latter’s clients need at least ten “extra” embryos for a “personalized” stem-cell line, these clinics are surely ready to help: as in create more embryos. That way, patients just “happen” to have a large number of extra embryos to dedicate to the personal stem-cell line project.

Then what about potential customers who lack the requisite number of “spare” frozen embryos, but still want “personalized” stem cells from their own offspring? Current best estimates by stem-cell experts suggest that as few as three or four “fresh” human embryos — not frozen — can successfully yield one line of embryonic stem cells. Is it far-fetched to think that such customers would create fresh embryos for their stem cells or that StemLifeLine might just suggest that they do so as a matter of course?

And it won’t be an exaggeration to push this scenario a bit further. Perhaps customers will actually go to all the trouble of creating fresh embryos, and since an average round of IVF normally yields as many as six or eight embryos or more (at least double the number of fresh embryos needed for obtaining a stem-cell line), why not suggest that the couple donate the remaining embryos for scientific research? Heck, why be selfish, right? After having “benefited you and your family” with your own “personalized” line of stem cells, why not go the extra mile and donate those remaining embryos so that others can “benefit”?

Does the image of Goya’s Saturn Devouring his Children come to mind perhaps?

The very existence of this company — however gimmicky and deceptive in its advertising — is a new and powerful indicator that the age of embryo-based science, medicine and commercial emporiums is now upon us. New enterprises like StemLifeLine will continue to appear. Most, if not all, will fly under the banner of “cures” and of “benefiting you and your family.”

Those cures may never come; but all the while, these enterprises will be the conduits for a steady supply of fresh human embryos for the basic scientific research that thousands of developmental biologists are so anxious to engage in, much or most of which will have little or nothing to do with cures. We urgently need Congress to produce legislation prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos ex vivo — by in vitro fertilization, cloning or any other technique — for research or purely therapeutic purposes.

If the present generation of Americans simply blinks at the existence of enterprises like StemLifeLine, then we will have become mere spectators of Brave New World at its ugliest, and have guaranteed a horrific and monumental defeat for humanity.

— Fr. Thomas Berg is executive director of The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person.

Europe Bishops' Statement on Stem Cell Program

ROME, JULY 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Rome's Gemelli Polyclinic works with an international network to make umbilical cord stem cells available to patients with acute leukemia, thalassemia, lymphomas and congenital immune-deficiencies.

The clinic runs a bank for umbilical cords, and any patient, from anywhere in the world, who is genetically compatible with one of the units of blood of the umbilical cords stored, can receive a unit of blood from the umbilical cord for transplant purposes.

An international network to identify donors has been operative since 1995, thanks to a computer file which has data on marrow and placenta blood donors worldwide.

The bank's activities are coordinated by professor Giuseppe Leone, director of the Institute of Hematology of the Catholic University of Rome, and professor Salvatore Mancuso, director of the Department for the Protection of Woman and Nascent Life.

In this interview with ZENIT, Leone and Mancuso discuss the present state of stem cell research.

Q: What is your response to those who say that using embryonic stem cells, and not those from the umbilical cord, is the answer for illnesses such as leukemia, or of the blood in general?

Leone: First of all, let's speak from a clinical point of view: Cells from embryos have never been used and they have certainly not demonstrated therapeutic capacities.

On the contrary, adult stem cells, and those of the umbilical cord, have demonstrated their validity in marrow transplants, for example, in the case of patients with thalassemia, or children with leukemia. At present, there is no patient who has been cured with embryonic stem cells. This must be clarified.

To those who say that ethics removes a "possibility" of cure, one should say that at most it removes a "hope." But if we want to speak of hope, then we can experiment with animal embryos. Once we have studied animal embryos we will be able to say something on the subject, we will have understood a bit more. I do not see any reason why at present human embryos should be used. Ethical problems to one side, animals must be studied first.

Q: Are women told about the possibility of donating the umbilical cord to one of these banks?

Mancuso: Increasingly. When they come to give birth in our department, they request that the blood of the umbilical cord be donated because of the spirit of solidarity that is increasingly spreading. However, not all umbilical cords can be collected and kept for donation, as there are certain minimum requirements on the family history of both spouses.

It is necessary that the pregnancy come to its termination, as there is a whole series of counter-indications. We can collect for donations between 30-35% of the umbilical cords from births that take place in our department. But much of the blood collected from umbilical cords is useful for research.

At present, there is great interest in research, not only in our department, but also in hematology, cardiology and neurology, as adult stem cells have an extraordinary versatility and, in fact, are restorative.

Q: How long can these cells be stored?

Mancuso: I would dare to say that they can be stored for an infinite amount of time. Today there are cells that have been stored for 30 years and that, to a large extent, maintain their capacity to be used. At present, the scientific community in several research centers is seeking to store and multiply them in vitro, as the amount of stem cells that can be collected from a cord are not that many.

Leone: They have been used, above all, to patients with acute leukemia, thalassemia, lymphomas, or congenital immune-deficiencies. These sicknesses are benefiting at present the transplant of stem cells from the umbilical cord. Research, obviously, tries to go further. The blood of the cord can give us hope for other pathologies. Now there are hopes for heart disease.

Q: When you say that sicknesses "are benefiting," what do you mean?

Leone: In the case of acute leukemia, there is a certain number of patients that are cured, in the case of thalassemia, the percentage is higher. In the case of immune-deficiencies, 70-80% are cured. In the case of leukemia, it is 35-40%. We are talking, that is, of cures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference)

A Discussion Paper on Ethics, Law & Medical Research CLONING & STEM CELLS:A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL DEBATE

20 Sep 2001  Printable Version

Introduction

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has reported on the regulation of cloning in Australia. The recommendations of this Committee come after a lengthy process of consultation with the scientific community, relevant interest groups, and the general public. This brief paper seeks to contribute to the critical on-going debate in Australia and overseas concerning, on the one hand, cloning and related matters such as the harvesting and attempted use of embryonic stem cells, and on the other, the formulation of public policy and the framing of legislation to regulate these scientific developments.

The Australian community will continue to be confronted by the wide range of scientific, legal and ethical dilemmas posed by cloning. At the level of public policy and the formulation of laws with respect to artificial reproductive technology ("ART") of which cloning is simply a topical and prominent part, it is essential to recall basic principles of long-standing with respect to human dignity, ethics and the rule and role of law.

While our religious tradition is consistently strong with respect to the protection of all human life,1 we are mindful that there is a significant legal and human rights tradition from which all may draw. It is from that tradition that the following points are primarily taken.

Human Dignity & the Rule of Law

1.    . .        The High Court has stated often enough that "human dignity is a value common to our municipal law and to international instruments relating to human rights." The Court has also commented on the responsibility of the law to "protect equally the dignity of the hale and hearty and the dignity of the weak and lame; of the frail baby and of the frail aged; of the intellectually able and of the intellectually disabled. ...Our law admits of no discrimination against the weak and disadvantaged in their human dignity."1 The human embryo is a member of the human family but rarely, if ever, does it have any "voice" in the formulation of laws which determine whether this most vulnerable member of our community will prosper or perish. Laws with respect to cloning are laws of this kind, and we are honour bound to be a voice for this particular group within the Australian community.

1.    . .        In addition to protecting the vulnerable and regulating against the unscrupulous, a long-standing feature of law is that it should educate citizens for their common good.2 As Archbishop Hickey said in his Opening Statement to the House of Representatives Committee on 29th March 2000, "Through their regulative, educative and symbolic effect, our laws will reflect the parliament's regard for the inherent dignity of all human life both in its generation and in its existence."3

2.    . .        The inherent dignity of all members of the human family is commonly proclaimed in the preambles to international instruments relating to human rights to which Australia is a signatory.4 In keeping with this tradition, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) provides that "the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity. In a symbolic sense, it is the heritage of humanity."5 The Declaration continues, "Everyone has a right to respect for their dignity and for their human rights regardless of their genetic characteristics. That dignity makes it imperative not to reduce individuals to their genetic characteristics and to respect their uniqueness and diversity."6 These principles relating to (a) human dignity and (b) that no member of the human family is reducible to the utility or combination of their genes, require also that no human embryo is exploitable because of the unique "embryonic stem cells" they contain.7

3.    . .        The Council of Europe has added its voice against those who seek to exploit the human embryo and to advance an unfettered right to clone. In the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (1998), the Council states that `considering the aim to protect the dignity and identity of human beings' "any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited." 8 We support laws which unequivocally ban cloning in all of its forms.

4.            The inherent dignity of all members of the human family, and the responsibility of the law to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities, leads us to claim the protection of the law for all human life from its first moment of existence. It follows from this claim that no part or aspect of human life should be exploited for commercial gain. Nor should any human life be regarded as expendable or used for the sake of others. Accordingly, human embryos, who are always without voice and often without the protection of the law, must never be created in order to harvest from them any cells, including embryonic stem cells. Our laws should also protect embryos already created but who, as members of the "frozen generation", are usually doomed to languish in a frozen wasteland.
Law & Ethics

5.    . .         Our legal tradition is supported by broad and venerable ethical principles. For example, the Hippocratic tradition is predicated upon the fundamental principle of "first, do no harm." Applying this ancient principle to research involving ART generally and cloning in particular, no embryo should ever be created so that embryonic stem cells can be harvested. The harvesting of these cells ensures the destruction of the embryo. Equally, the use of so-called "spare embryos" from IVF programs for "research", which will ensure their destruction, violates every principle known to God and man concerning human dignity.9

6.    . .        The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights says that "practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted."10 Our laws must reflect this growing international view that cloning is inimical to principles of international law concerning the dignity of the human person.

7.    . .        The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights also makes plain that "research, treatment or diagnosis affecting an individual's genome shall be undertaken only after rigorous and prior assessment of the potential risks and benefits pertaining thereto...."11 Consistent with this time-honoured principle of scientific research, and in keeping with the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council - Australian Health Ethics Committee to similar effect,12 research in relation to cloning should always be carried out not on embryos - whatever their source - but on appropriate animals prior to the application of that research to humans. Our laws must promote ethical research in this regard.

8.    . .        The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights also states unambiguously that "the human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains."13 It is essential, both as a principle of law and of ethics, that conflicts of interest should be avoided. It is well known that many scientists who conduct research on embryos, in the context of cloning and otherwise, hold significant financial stakes in biotechnology companies who invest in, and stand to gain financially from, this research. Just as our laws proscribe this kind of financial conflict of interest in, say, the field of company law, so too in relation to research involving human life, it is essential that there be appropriate regulation to proscribe such conflicts.

9.            There is another important aspect arising out of the inevitable conflict between the financial investment by researchers in their own research involving human life. That is that human life is not, and never can be, a disposable or commercial commodity. Already there is significant evidence that embryonic stem cells have been purchased both in Singapore and the United States and imported for the purpose of research. In the former case, this was to avoid existing State legislation which prohibits destructive embryo research.

10.    . .        A final aspect needs to be noted and emphasised. Embryonic stem cells is but one, selective source for stem cells. There is a growing body of scientific evidence to confirm that adult stem cells is both a medically more useful source of such cells (because it avoids immuno-suppressive problems which would inevitably arise from the use of embryonic stem cells) and an ethically unproblematic one.14

Conclusion

11.             For the above reasons, we are strongly of the view that appropriate regulation of cloning is essential in Australia. In keeping with the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights cloning should be banned. It makes no difference that, in some self-interested circles, cloning is distinguished between "reproductive" and "therapeutic" cloning.

Both involve the destruction of nascent human life and, therefore, is contrary to the consistent and universal injunction that all human life must be protected and accorded rights in keeping with its inherent and inviolable dignity.

12.            Cloning, however executed and for whatever goals, distorts the human meaning of procreation. Cloning must not be allowed to disfigure the dignity of all human life, nor to pervert the intrinsic beauty and goodness of human procreation between a man and a woman in marriage. Cloning in a laboratory is no substitute for human, married love.

13.            Appropriate regulation must also prohibit commercial gain and commercial trafficking in human life. Human life is neither expendable nor exploitable.

References

1 E.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) paras.2258-2296; Evangelium Vitae (1995); Reflections on Cloning (Pontifical Academy for Life) (1997).
1 E.g., Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion's Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 266 per Brennan J.
2 E.g. Institutes of Justinian, Bk.I,I "On Justice and Law;" Cicero, On the Laws; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Bk.V (on the virtue of "justice") and Politics Bk.III; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II qq.58 ff on the virtue of "justice."
3 ACBC Opening Statement of Archbishop B.J. Hickey to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning, 29th March 2000, par.4. The Archbishop also spoke about the requirement that respect for human life must always take precedence over market forces and academic/scientific freedom.
4 See, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
5 Article 1.
6 Article 2.
7 For an overview and discussion of the various ethical theories current in bio-medical discourse, such as utilitarianism, see the Submission from the ACBC Research Department to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on cloning, 14th March 2000 and the literature there referred to.
8 Article 1.
9 It is also a fact that "imperfect embryos" are discarded as a matter of course in laboratories because they are deemed "unsuitable" even for experimental purposes.
10 Article 11.
11 Article 5(a). This principle is consistent with other medical research protocols, such as the Nuremburg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects, as adopted by the World Medical Assembly and amended at its respective Assemblies. The text used is that dated September 1989 (Hong Kong).
12 See the AHEC Advice to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Aged Care, NHMRC-AHEC Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings, 16 December 1998, Appendix 1, "Primate Resources for Research in Embryology and Developments in Australia."
13 Article 4 (emphasis added).
14 See the Pontifical Academy for Life's recent Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells (25 August 2000) and the scientific literature there cited.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same-Sex Marriage Bringing Chills in Canada
Catholic Church Intensifies Its Opposition

OTTAWA, JULY 16, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The approval of legislation allowing marriage by same-sex couples in Canada has been strongly criticized by the country's bishops. On June 28 the lower house of Parliament, the Commons, passed the bill, which is now before the Senate. This non-elected chamber is controlled by a majority of members appointed by the ruling Liberal Party, and approval of the law is expected shortly.

In a statement released on the same day the Commons voted in favor of the bill Archbishop Brendan O'Brien, president of the bishops' conference, expressed regret for the "unfortunate step toward eliminating civil and social recognition and appreciation for the unique importance of the committed relationship of a man and a woman in marriage."

He insisted that by allowing same-sex couples to marry the government is placing at risk "the future of marriage as a fundamental social institution, together with the importance that society accords the irreplaceable role of a husband and wife in conceiving and raising children."

Archbishop O'Brien also noted that there is a "dangerous deterioration" of communal values in Canada, with high rates of marriage breakdown and abortion, and a declining number of births.

Politicians warned

Following the vote in Parliament there is also renewed controversy over the issue of support by some Catholic politicians for same-sex marriage.

The Ottawa Citizen newspaper on July 6 reported that Charles Angus, a member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay, has been denied the possibility of receiving Communion by his parish priest. Father John Lernire had warned Angus some months ago that this would happen if he continued to support the same-sex marriage bill, the article said. The priest's decision was supported by Archbishop Paul Marchand of Timmins.

Another Catholic parliamentarian, Joe Comartin, a member for Windsor-Tecumseh, has been barred from teaching marriage classes in his local parish, the National Post reported July 9. The article quoted Sylvain Salvas, director of communications for the bishops' conference, who said there are no national guidelines on how each diocese should deal with politicians.

But Salvas observed: "We have made our national position on the issue quite clear. The conference has intervened almost 30 times before the Supreme Court and the Senate opposing same-sex marriage."

Bishop Ronald Fabbro of the London Diocese, in which the parish is located, distributed a letter to parishioners explaining the decision.

The Vatican has made clear that Catholic politicians should not vote for same-sex marriage. On July 31, 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a statement entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons."

All Catholics, the document stated, "are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions" (No. 10). It added: "Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way." Regarding legislative proposals on the matter, "the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

Witness to truth

The Vatican document also asked that if legislation recognizing same-sex marriages is approved, "the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth."

All Catholics, in fact, are asked to oppose such laws, once in place. "One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection" (No. 5).

Another question in play is if the ruling Liberal Party will suffer a backlash from Catholics over its push for same-sex marriages. A commentary by Jeffrey Simpson in Wednesday's issue of the Globe and Mail newspaper pondered the phenomenon of Catholic support for the ruling Liberal Party.

Simpson noted that in elections since 1965 Catholics outside Quebec have preferred Liberals in Ontario and Atlantic Canada by an average of 18 points over other parties. In Ontario, Catholics make up 30% of the electorate, and 40% in the Atlantic provinces. "Without the big lead among Catholics, the Liberal lead would evaporate in both regions -- and, with it, the party's grip on power," commented Simpson.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has been hearing evidence on the bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in past days. On Wednesday Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec and primate of the Church in Canada, and Hélène Aubé, a lawyer and mother from Gatineau, presented a brief outlining the Church's opposition to the proposed law.

The Church's submission noted: "Neither the state nor religions invented marriage nor determined its natural components. They merely institutionalized a reality that existed well before them, thereby recognizing that the inherent characteristics of this reality -- the stability of the couple, as well as the procreation and education of children -- would assure the common good of society."

Equality?

The decision to give legal recognition to same-sex couples is, the brief said, based on a false understanding of what equality between persons means and on the question of human dignity and minority rights.

The brief also explained that marriage is more than just a relationship between two consenting adults, aimed at mutual fulfillment. "It possesses another constituent element, namely, the procreative potential of the man and woman who are making the commitment."

And concerning the question of children: "It must also be added that with regard to education of children, the same values cannot reasonably be attributed to both types of union. The principal right of children is to be born of an act of love and to live in complete communion with a father and mother."

Given this situation, discrimination is not suffered by homosexuals who cannot marry each other; rather, same-sex marriage would be unjust and discriminatory toward heterosexual couples. The brief contends, "The state must accord special treatment to a man and woman who marry, not because of the exclusivity, dependence, duration or sexual nature of their union, but because of its vital function of procreation and its function of socialization that encourages complementarity between man and woman for the greater good of their children."

The submission explained that promoting same-sex marriage on the grounds of "equal rights" is based on a misunderstanding of what human dignity means. "The equality and dignity of persons do not depend on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or marital status," it said. "Their dignity and equality are based on the simple fact that they are members of the human race. To respect their dignity, neither the state nor society is obliged to legally accept their 'lifestyle' that has no reason to be publicly recognized as a social value."

The submission also expressed fears over what will happen regarding Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. While the bill affirms that freedom of religion is protected and that those who perform marriages can refuse to marry same-sex couples, much will depend on how willing the provinces are to guarantee this right.

In recent years, opposition to same-sex marriage has been described as homophobic. "Once the state imposes a new standard affirming that homosexual sexual behavior is a social good, those who oppose it for religious motives or motives of conscience will be considered as bigots, anti-gay and homophobes, and then risk prosecution." The stage seems set for further controversy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feminism, Eugenics and "Reproductive Rights"
Interview With Journalist Eugenia Roccella

ROME, JULY 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- "Reproductive rights" are a means to wield demographic control in poor countries and to destroy the experience of being a woman, says journalist Eugenia Roccella.

A 1970s leader of the women's liberation movement, Roccella is the author of essays on feminism and women's literature. With Lucetta Scaraffia, she has just published the book "Against Christianity: The U.N. and European Union as New Ideology," published by Piemme.

In this interview with ZENIT, Roccella talks about the anti-birth ideology of international institutions such as the United Nations and European Union.

Q: You maintain that so-called reproductive rights are a deception to foster family planning and genetically selective births. Can you explain the evolution of "reproductive rights" and how opposition to births has been transformed into eugenics?

Roccella: What must be clarified in the first place is that so-called reproductive rights are in reality rights not to reproduce oneself, and they have been made concrete in governments' control over feminine fertility by a worldwide policy of dissemination of abortion, contraception and, above all, sterilization.

It is generally believed that the adoption of these rights by international organizations has been a victory of the women's movement. But from the documents one can see that this is not so.

Historically, the right to family planning arose from the pressure of powerful international anti-birth lobbies -- for example, the Rockefeller Foundation -- helped by the West's desire to exercise demographic control over the Third World.

Suffice it to consult the excellent documentation in the book provided by Assuntina Morresi, which demonstrates how much associations of a eugenic vein have influenced U.N. policies, through NGOs such as, for example, the IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Foundation].

Anti-birth attitudes and eugenics have been closely intertwined from the beginning: The idea of building a better world through genetic selection was very widespread at the start of the 20th century, and enjoyed great credibility even in learned circles. The objective was to prevent the reproduction of human beings regarded as second-class, namely, genetically imperfect, even through coercion.

The adoption of eugenic theories by the Nazi regime discredited the theories and elicited international condemnation. But associations born for this purpose -- among them, precisely, the IPPF -- have survived, changing their language and using, in an astute and careless way after the '70s, some slogans of the women's movement, such as "free choice."

In reality, international conferences on population, that is, on demographic control, have always preceded conferences on women, and have prepared their code words. For example, it was at the Cairo Conference of 1994 on population and development that the old "family planning" was replaced by the new definition of "reproductive rights."

The following year, the definition was uncritically accepted and appropriated by the Women's Conference in Beijing, without changing a comma.

Feminism has been, paradoxically, an easy mask to implement control practices that are often savage and violent on women's bodies, especially in Third World countries.

In the book, among other things, we illustrate some cases by way of example, such as the anti-natal policies adopted in China, Iran, India and Bangladesh, where poverty and the absence of consolidated democratic mechanisms have made women easy victims of experimentation, contraceptives dangerous to health, massive sterilizations and forced abortions.

Q: It is a widespread opinion that the feminist movement has contributed to the obtaining of women's rights. You maintain, instead, that there are ambiguities and mistakes. Could you explain what these are?

Roccella: Feminism is a galaxy of different movements and philosophies which is absolutely not homogenous.

International organizations have adopted a rigidly emancipating version which tries to equate men and women as much as possible. This is translated, for example, in the idea -- never explicitly stated but always present -- that maternity is an impediment to women's fulfillment, and not a central element of the gender's identity which must be valued and protected.

Thus, in the U.N. and the European Union an institutional feminism has been created based altogether on individual rights and parity, which has chosen reproductive rights as its own qualifying objective.

There is, instead, a feminine philosophy of an opposite sign -- the so-called philosophy of difference -- which maintains that the myth of equality prevents women from thinking of themselves autonomously, and that the sexual difference, rooted in the body, is not only a biological fact, but something that encompasses the whole experience of being woman. With this feminism, the Church has had an open dialogue for a long time; suffice it to read Pope Wojtyla's letter on the feminine genius, and especially the most recent one addressed to bishops and signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

But at present, at the international level, it is the feminism "of rights" which has prevailed, imposing reproductive rights as a flag that must be flown always and everywhere. Instead, women's priorities, in the various geographic areas, are different: In Africa, there is the urgent and dramatic problem of containing birth and postnatal mortality. There is also the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and malnutrition.

In the Muslim theocracies the objective for women is legislative equality and liberation from the oppressive control over public behavior -- for example, the use of the burkha. In Europe, the problems are altogether different, and so on. The U.N. resolutions stem from the assumption that the offers of abortion and contraception are, in any context, elements of emancipation, including empowerment, that is, the enhancement of women's power.

But the concrete cases analyzed in the book show that this is not the case. In Iran, for example, programs for the dissemination of control of fertility have been very successful, but women continue to be regarded as second-class citizens, subject to masculine authority.

Q: On the great topics regarding the defense of life and of the natural family, the Holy See has often confronted the international organizations, particularly the United Nations and the European Union. You entitled one of the chapters in the book "Europe Against the Vatican." Could you explain the essence of the controversy?

Roccella: The prevailing cultural plan in Europe is a secularist extremism that regards religions as potential bearers of fundamentalist demands.

The European Union, however, adopts many precautions, both political as well as verbal, in the face of the Muslim world. They are precautions that would be comprehensible if they did not create a visible imbalance vis-à-vis the Vatican, which instead is attacked with perfect serenity every time it is possible.

The result is that Catholicism appears as the bitterest enemy of woman in the international realm, because it is opposed to the ideology of reproductive rights and demographic control.

This cultural operation is resolved in a sort of suicide of identity, as has already occurred with the mention of the Christian roots in the European Constitution. ... It must not be forgotten that, from the beginning, Christianity has had an extraordinary idea of woman, and it is no accident if the fight for sexual equality has developed essentially in the Christian area.

Among all the religions, the Christian religion is the only one, for example, whose rite of initiation, baptism, is open to both sexes. Within the Catholic realm there is a strong feminist philosophy, and the two last papacies have given great cultural dignity to this philosophy.

But all this is silenced by a plan that favors the anti-religious element. The EU, even if it maintained the same policy, could modulate in a different way its attitude to the different religious creeds, fostering motives for agreement.

For example, it would be easy to find instances of unity with the Holy See on the protection of maternity, on international policies against maternal and infant mortality and on feminine schooling, or even on the recognition of women's political and economic rights.

Instead, preference is given to putting all religions in the same bag and pointing to the Vatican as the enemy par excellence of feminine emancipation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who Invented Marriage?
Interview With Canonist Juan Ignacio Bañares

PAMPLONA, Spain, JUNE 27, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Who invented marriage? Can the law "meddle" with something as personal as marriage?

These are some of the questions answered in this interview with ZENIT by Father Juan Ignacio Bañares Parera, a canon lawyer from the University of Navarre.

Father Bañares has just written a book on "The Conjugal Dimension of the Person: From Anthropology to Law," published by Rialp and the Library of the Institute of Sciences for the Family of the University of Navarre, of which he is a director.

Q: What is the conjugal dimension of a person?

Father Bañares: The human person exists fashioned as a feminine or masculine person. Both are persons, but they are so in a different way.

Despite the popular _expression "to find my other half," woman and man are not "halves of anything": because a half is only half of something; because half is identical to the other half; and because half of anything does not interact with the other half: it contributes more of the same.

Instead, this differentiation between a feminine and masculine person, which is established in the very structure of the personal being, comprises the whole person -- in the physical, psychic and spiritual dimension -- and implies a potential of enrichment for each one, which constitutes complementarity.

From whence arises the possibility to communicate, to love, and to give oneself to the other specifically "insofar as man or woman," that is, in what is conjugable.

We might call the character or generic dimension of being woman or man "spousalness," as a dimension that soaks the whole personal structure of the human being, and conjugal dimension the possibility that this complementarity offers to constitute oneself woman or man in a union in nature: the conjugal partnership. United here are the truth of nature, the sovereign strength of freedom and the grandeur of the ends.

Q: According to the book, a person is led naturally to marriage. But there are other options in life, such as yours, the priesthood. Can you explain this?

Father Bañares: I would prefer to say, not that a "person is led naturally to marriage," but that the person is naturally structured to be able to enter marriage: the anthropological assumptions exist in all human persons.

However, although marriage is "possible" for all, it is up to each one to decide freely to exercise this fundamental right of the citizen and faithful.

In turn, the decision to remain single can have many reasons, some very worthy and of great nobility. But I understand that, not only the priesthood, but all apostolic celibacy is neither a form of bachelorhood -- no matter how worthy the latter may be -- nor an initiative of the individual: It is always a gift of God and a response of man.

In this connection, and in keeping with John Paul II's thought, it can be said that in celibacy as a vocation, man or woman gives him/herself totally to God, also according to the structure of his masculinity or her femininity. So, the spousal dimension of the human being can be the basis for making oneself a gift to God through the gift to the other -- and that is to constitute the conjugality, marriage -- or giving oneself directly to God, without the mediation of a creature.

Let's be clear: This does not mean to minimize marriage. On the contrary, it means to underline that marriage is not only an option of two people but the will of God through the other in the personal journey of sanctification and evangelization, and in the contribution to the Church and to civil society.

Q: Who invented marriage?

Father Bañares: Marriage was designed by God's love. It is offered by the reality of nature, it is constituted by the freedom of the man and woman and it is "received and witnessed" by society, as an inherent relationship of justice.

Q: Can the law "meddle" -- these are your words -- in something as personal as marriage, you ask in your book, and you argue that it can. Why?

Father Bañares: In fact, it's not that the law "meddles," but that marriage has within itself relations of justice.

Conjugality is established in the order of being -- one "is" husband, as one "is" father, mother or daughter -- but in making a gift of oneself in all the masculine or feminine dimension, the future is being committed. That is, one gives oneself not only for an instant, but for all time.

That, obviously, is the consequence of love, which wills to give itself totally and without drawing back. But at the same time it is a relationship of justice.

After "being" spouses, the conjugal and family behaviors are "due." Given that the "being" has been given -- in that dimension -- in view of some ends, the "doing" is equally given, which is the opening proper of the free human being in his historical dimension, in his temporality.

The role of society through the law consists in regulating the exercise of the fundamental right of the person, in recognizing -- in an appropriate way -- the sovereignty of the spouses, and in protecting the truth of the institution itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problems With Artificial Reproduction
European Conference Reveals Flaws

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, JUNE 25, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A flurry of news stories on in vitro fertilization techniques emanated from the 21st Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The conference, held from Sunday to Wednesday in Copenhagen, heard from speakers about the latest research developments.

A press release posted Monday on the conference Web site explained that scientists in the United Kingdom have proved that human embryonic stem cells can develop in the laboratory into the early forms of cells that eventually become eggs or sperm. This opens up the possibility that eggs and sperm could be grown from stem cells and used for assisted reproduction, cloning and the creation of stem cells.

Behrouz Aflatoonian, from the Center for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Sheffield, stressed that there was still a lot of work to be done before the early laboratory results could be translated into reality.

A report on the experiments at the University of Sheffield published last Sunday by the Associated Press noted that some experts expressed concern over ethical issues. "It opens new and challenging possibilities," said Anna Smajdor, a medical ethicist at Imperial College in London. "Because the technique can be used to generate eggs from a man's [adult] cells, gay couples could have children genetically related to both."

Another press release by conference organizers on Monday announced that scientists in Belgium have discovered how to clone human embryos from eggs that have been matured in the laboratory. Previously, attempts at human cloning have had to use naturally matured eggs taken from women.

The research carried out at Ghent University Hospital could make it easier for scientists to create embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos. Researcher Bjorn Heindryckx warned, however, that there were still many problems to overcome. "None of these early embryos developed to the blastocyst stage, and failure to do so could reveal some problems in gene activation, especially in cloned embryos," he explained.

"Tourism"

The conference also heard that the number of European couples who have difficulty in conceiving children could double over the coming decade, reported the London-based Times newspaper on Tuesday.

There are four main factors causing a decrease in fertility, explained Bill Ledger, of the University of Sheffield. These are: the rising age at which couples first try for a baby; the increase in sexually transmitted diseases; rising levels of obesity; and declining male fertility.

One way in which couples are responding to fertility problems is by traveling to countries where laws governing IVF treatment are less stringent. This "reproductive tourism" was welcomed by Guido Pennings, professor of ethics and bioethics at the University of Ghent, Belgium, according to a press release Monday.

He explained that there is a general move to Eastern European centers, due to the lower costs. Spain is also attracting more people, as the law allows payment for egg donation. Pennings said he preferred a situation where liberal laws prevailed, and was critical of the restrictions in Italy, where voters recently rejected an attempt to repeal the law via a referendum.

Health concerns

But not all of the conference presentations were so positive in their portrayal of IVF techniques. A Reuters report on Tuesday noted the difficulties associated with babies born through these methods.

Babies conceived by means of IVF are usually born earlier than naturally conceived babies. As a consequence they have a lower birth weight, leading them to spend more time in hospital after the birth.

Diane De Neubourg, of the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium, said that the cause of the earlier births is in the number of embryos transferred into the woman's womb during IVF treatment. "We believe that our work shows clearly that single embryo transfer is best for both the mother and child," she told the conference Tuesday.

Anja Pinborg, of the University of Copenhagen, added that the difference in the health of babies following single- or multiple-embryo transfers could be competition in the womb. Multiple embryos vie for the nutrients and blood supply. And, even if only one of two embryos survives, it will not have had the same early advantage as a child from a single-embryo transfer.

According to Reuters the average number of embryos transferred during IVF varies widely. The average number of single-embryo transfers is 12% in Europe. But dual-embryo transfers rose from 46.7% in 2000 to 51.7% in 2001, according to data presented at this week's meeting. Triple-embryo transfers dropped from 33.3% in 2000 to 30.8% during the same period, while four-embryo transfers fell from 6.7% to 5.5%.

An Associated Press report last Tuesday noted that a study presented in Copenhagen showed that women who become pregnant with donated eggs are more likely to suffer miscarriages and dangerous high-blood pressure than those who undergo fertility treatments with their own eggs.

SunHwa Cha of Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, explained that the risk was even higher if the donated egg came from a woman who was not related to the patient. The greater risks are thought to be due to the fact that donated eggs, like transplanted organs or tissue, are not genetically identical to the recipient and probably awaken the immune system.

Another presentation at the meeting warned of the dangers to women of a pregnancy later in life, the Scotsman newspaper reported Wednesday. Michael de Swiet, of Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, said that the ideal age to have a baby was between 20 and 30.

He explained that a woman over 35 who already had more than one child had nearly a hundredfold increased risk of dying from a blood clot in her lung compared to the risk to a first-time mother aged 20. And a woman over 40 in Britain had the same mortality risk as an expectant mother in Eastern Europe -- that is, about three times as high as the continent's average. Moreover, by the time women reached the age of 42, more than half of all pregnancies resulted in the loss of the baby.

"Women need to be better informed. I'm not really saying that I think women shouldn't have babies over the age of 40," he said. "I just think they ought to be aware of the risks."

The ethics

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in Nos. 2373-9, briefly outlines the ethical principles involved in considering IVF techniques. After expressing compassion for the plight of couples who are unable to conceive, the text explains that the Church is in favor of research to help them overcome this problem. But it also warns that such efforts must be placed in the context of serving the human person and respecting human rights.

Techniques that use eggs or sperm from someone outside the married couple are unacceptable as they do not respect the marriage bond and also deny the child the right to be born of a mother and father known to him.

The Catechism also expresses serious reservations about techniques involving only the married couple, in which the sexual act is dissociated from the procreative act. Furthermore, the text explains that "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift" (No. 2378). It is not a mere piece of property, and, likewise, there is no "right to a child." Points that provide a useful orientation in the midst of constant scientific developments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeking an Ethical Option to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Interview With Father Thomas Berg of Westchester Institute

NEW YORK, JUNE 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- There might be an ethically acceptable alternative for obtaining embryonic stem cells, says a bioethicist.

Legionary of Christ Father Thomas Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute, a Catholic ethics think tank located in suburban New York, sees hope for a process known as altered nuclear transfer. He gave an overview of the status of stem cell research in this interview with ZENIT.

Q: What is the ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research?

Father Berg: The problem is that the methods currently used to obtain these cells -- pluripotent stem cells -- require researchers to kill living human embryos in the process.

In the case of so-called therapeutic cloning, which has been accomplished twice and recently streamlined by a group of South Korean researchers, it requires the intentional creation of human embryos precisely for their destruction in the course of harvesting stem cells from them.

Q: Are not human adult stem cells sufficient for all the therapeutic purposes we could want?

Father Berg: We really can't say enough in praising and promoting the inroads that have been made in developing therapies from adult stem cells.

Decades of research have yielded some 70 diverse therapies and clinical applications in treating diseases and disorders, including heart damage, spinal injury and several kinds of blood diseases.

By contrast, the research on deriving therapies from human embryonic stem cells is more nascent; it has only been going on in earnest for the last four or five years. Will it yield therapies? Quite possibly -- that's what scientists on both sides of the life issue tell me. It's too early to tell.

So, we should be guarded in our optimism with regard to the potential of adult stem cells.

Q: Can you explain again the difference between kinds of stem cells?

Father Berg: In the case of embryos, we distinguish between pluripotent and totipotent.

Pluripotent cells can give you -- to use an analogy with painting -- all the colors on the palette, but not the whole picture. That is to say, they give you all the human tissues.

Totipotent cells, on the other hand, can give you the whole picture -- a whole human being. It's the pluripotent cells that are of interest to the researchers.

Human adult stem cells are normally referred to as multipotent. There is ongoing debate as to whether certain kinds of adult stem cells -- for example, MAP-Cs, or multipotent adult progenitor cells -- can be coaxed to give rise to all tissue types. There are some reports that scientists are perhaps on the right trail, but no conclusive studies yet.

Q: How does cloning relate to stem cell research?

Father Berg: Cloning is the creation of a unique human individual through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

A donor donates a body cell from which the nucleus is taken and then transferred into an enucleated human egg. Factors in the cytoplasm of the egg are responsible for literally reprogramming the inserted nucleus to a pristine state, that of a one-cell human organism or zygote.

When coaxed with electrical stimulation, this clone begins to undergo the normal process of cell division which leads to the various stages of otherwise normal embryonic development. So the link with stem cell research is the following.

Cloning has been proposed as the ideal means of creating tailor-made embryonic stem cell lines. The DNA of the clone is an exact match of the donor's. The clone is developed to the blastocyst stage, about 6 days, at which point, its inner cell mass is extracted -- killing the human clone in the process.

From the inner cell mass of the clone are then derived in culture a new line of pluripotent stem cells which are a perfect genetic match to the donor. These lines of stem cells could be used to develop tissue replacement therapies for the donor -- should he or she eventually need them -- with no risk of immune rejection because the tissue is perfectly matched.

Q: Has anyone yet cloned a human being?

Father Berg: Yes. The South Korean team led by Woo Suk Hwang reported, in February 2004, the first successful creation of cloned human beings.

In 2004 they created some 30 embryos and allowed them to develop to the blastocyst stage. They were then destroyed in order to create lines of embryonic stem cells. On May 19 of this year, they reported that they have now honed their technique and claim to have created 11 new lines of human embryonic stem cells.

Q: Do you defend the Bush policy on funding of embryonic stem cell research?

Father Berg: While I am open to better arguments, I continue to defend the policy as the best prudential judgment President Bush could have made at the time.

You will recall that it was his decision on Aug. 9, 2001, to allow federal funding of research using lines of human embryonic stem cells created prior to Aug. 9. The president clearly demonstrated his moral condemnation of the evil of embryo destruction which was entailed in the creation of those lines. By this policy, he assured that no federal money would contribute to any new killing of embryos.

I think in hindsight we can make the case that by allowing a trickle of funding, he was able to forestall the evil that is now coming up on us. Had he completely banned federal funding, there would have been an extreme reaction from the scientific sector which would have provoked perhaps considerably more state and private funding. That's what is finally happening now.

Q: Are there morally acceptable means of obtaining human embryonic stem cells?

Father Berg: If it were shown to be feasible to obtain pluripotent stem cells by ethically acceptable means, I would support and encourage scientific exploration of their potential therapeutic value. The President's Council on Bioethics recently released a white paper exploring several possible alternative means.

Q: Can you briefly explain these alternative means for obtaining human pluripotent stem cells as described recently by the President's Council on bioethics?

Father Berg: That paper reported on, and gave an initial ethical evaluation of, four proposals for obtaining pluripotent stem cells without killing human embryos. The proposals are as follows in simple terms.

The first was proposed by Dr. Don Landry and Dr. Howard Zucker, both of Columbia University. They would seek to obtain embryonic stem cells from embryos that have been determined to be clinically "dead" in IVF [in vitro fertilization] clinics and that are about to be disposed of.

The second would perform a biopsy on an eight-cell embryo to remove an early forming stem cell, presumably without harming the embryo.

The third, called altered nuclear transfer, ANT, and proposed by Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University is to create a non-embryonic biological artifact akin to a tumor that would nonetheless produce the equivalent of pluripotent stem cells.

And the fourth proposal would endeavor to convert adult cells into pluripotent stem cells by reprogramming the nucleus of the adult cell to a pluripotent state. While the bioethics council could not endorse the "biopsy" proposal, it did encourage the pursuit of research on the other proposals using animal models.

Q: Why pursue these alternative means for obtaining embryonic stem cells?

Father Berg: I think in light of the fact that we now live in Brave New World, in which embryos are being created en masse, and in which there will be a growing demand for new embryonic stem cell lines, I believe we have a moral obligation to look seriously at alternate routes to obtaining them through non-embryo destructive means.

Q: Is there a down side to pursuing any of these proposals?

Father Berg: Potentially, and that's what makes them complicated from the moral perspective and that's why we need to see the animal studies done for these proposals.

With ANT, we have to be able to arrive at the moral certainty that the product of ANT is not an embryo; it may also run the risk of indirectly fomenting whole new avenues of human engineering.

The Zucker-Landry proposal may risk opening up a new market for the IVF industry, since it proposes removing intact embryonic stem cells from IVF embryos about to be discarded. But again, we may well have sufficient reason to tolerate the chances of any of this happening.

Q: You are on public record as supporting Dr. Hurlbut's proposal, ANT. Is that correct?

Father Berg: Yes. I, along with several other ethicists, have recently endorsed pursuing ANT on animal models -- not with human cells -- especially in a more recent and very specific rendition of ANT called oocyte assisted reprogramming.

Q: How did you get involved with Dr. Hurlbut?

Father Berg: When I thought carefully about what he was proposing, I felt we had almost a moral obligation to study his proposal seriously, so I contacted him about the possibility of getting some scholars together to look at the moral side of the proposal. That was last December.

Q: Explain altered nuclear transfer and new version you referred to called oocyte assisted reprogramming.

Father Berg: ANT is a broad conceptual proposal and could be accomplished in many different ways. The steps involved in oocyte assisted reprogramming would be the following.

First, a cell is removed from a donor and the DNA in the nucleus of that cell is "altered" in an effort to change the instructions that this nucleus would be giving to the cell, keeping in mind that a cell's nucleus essentially determines what kind of cell it will be.

Then, the nucleus is removed from an oocyte, or egg cell, and this enucleated oocyte, now essentially a sack of cytoplasm, is fused to the donor cell with the altered nucleus.

This process of cell fusion -- also called nuclear transfer -- is the same has used in cloning, but the product would be radically different in this case. This newly constituted cell would neither be an egg, nor an embryo, nor would it any longer be the cell it once was.

Rather, it would now be a hybrid that would show or express the properties programmed into it by the changes made to the nucleus. The way the scientist in our working group have conceived of it would suggest that the new cell would be programmed to essentially act like and produce pluripotent stem cells.

These stem cells would be genetically identical to the donor and could conceivably be used for research and therapeutic purposes. So essentially, it would mean going from an adult cell to stem cells, bypassing the creation and destruction of embryos in the process.

So, the long and the short of it is that a growing number of scientists are quite confident that ANT-OAR would actively and immediately convert adult cells directly into pluripotent stem cells without generating embryos.

Q: So what exactly does the egg do in this process?

Father Berg: The egg's cytoplasm will strip the cellular type of the adult cell nucleus, reverting to an undifferentiated, more plastic, and virginal state as it were.

Yet, unlike cloning, the adult cell nucleus will not be converted to a totipotent state -- a state that could generate a whole human embryonic organism. Rather, should the ANT-OAR proposal work, the alterations made to the donor nucleus will ensure that the cell produced is not an embryo, and will immediately be able to multiply itself, producing a new line of pluripotent stem cells.

Q: Some people would wonder if ANT does not entail complicity in the evil of human embryonic stem cell research. They might ask: Why mess with human eggs and genetic material?

Father Berg: We all share a sense of profound veneration and respect to be owed to those elements -- human eggs, sperm, human genetic material -- that are the essentials of human life.

Nonetheless, their use for human benefit is not something intrinsically evil. In other words, while we don't go at it lightly, we have to recognize that there can be legitimate and morally unproblematic uses for them.

As long as in using human eggs, human genetic material does not in itself cause us to transgress some absolute moral norm, such as the norm prohibiting the creation or destruction of embryos, and as long as it is pursued in light of some substantial and probable benefit, then such research could proceed.

Could there be some foreseeable downside of doing this? For example, does it contribute to a thinning out of our respect of life? That is hypothetical, but even were that the case, I think in light of the fact that we now live in Brave New World, in which embryos are being created en masse, and in which there will be a growing demand for new embryonic stem cell lines, we have proportional reason to pursue this research and to tolerate the potential negative consequences.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Basis for Doubts About Stem Cell Research

Embryology Points to Humanity of Nascent Life

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The bioethics debate has heated up with the recent approval by the U.S. House of Representatives of funding for stem cell research on human embryos and the combined announcements of human cloning in South Korea and England. The cloning experiments in both cases were designed with the end of producing stem cells for medical research and eventual treatments.

A common argument used by researchers is that the stem cells used in their research are not really human life anyway, but just a collection of cells. Moreover, many supporters of allowing these experiments dismiss opposition as being anti-scientific and an attempt by moralists to impose their views on society.

After U.S. President George Bush threatened to veto any additional stem cell financing approved by Congress, a New York Times editorial of May 26 said: "His actions are based on strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself. Such convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation."

On the same day Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen also criticized opposition to stem cell research saying: "I grant you that we are embarking on a wondrous and scary intellectual and ethical journey, but we are doing so to save lives, to make them bearable, to mend the broken and cure the sick. What is wrong with that?" He also condemned those he termed "religious conservatives" who "have imposed their religious convictions on the rest of us."

Good for all

Attacking religion could just be a rhetorical trick used to willfully ignore the validity of the arguments raised by opponents of cloning and stem cell research. But it does raises questions about the basis of opposition to these techniques.

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, archbishop of Milan, Italy, provided an answer to these questions in an article published in the Vatican daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on May 25. Titled, "The Good of Life is a Good of All and for All," it was written in the context of the Italian referendum over the law on in vitro fertilization which will be held on June 12-13.

The archbishop started with some reflections over the legitimacy of defending human life in its initial stages. He raised the following arguments.

1. Human life is always a good. In fact, it is the most precious good that exists and is the foundation of all other goods that a human can possess. Moreover, the life of every person has such a high value that it cannot be compared to the worth of the life of other living beings.

The cardinal clarified that he was not only talking as a believer in God. He was also making an appeal to human reason, in the sense that the value of human life is something that can be grasped through the use of reason and is, therefore, a principle that can be appreciated by all.

2. Protecting human life is a duty that falls upon every one of us, to be taken up with responsibility and decision. It is, in fact, a civic duty given that the protection of human life is an irreplaceable condition for ensuring the common good of all.

3. The Church and the Christian community is united with those who defend human life from the moment of conception until death. The fact that certain rights and duties are defended by the Church does not, however, cancel out their civil legitimacy or their authenticity from a secular point of view.

It should be clear, stated Cardinal Tettamanzi, that defending human life is a prerogative of all, not just of Christians. Moreover, it would be a grave case of ideological intolerance if civil activity, legitimate in itself, were marginalized merely because it comes from Christians. Democracy itself would be the loser if this were to happen.

4. Caring for human life during its beginnings is particularly important, given its vulnerability at this stage of development. Neglecting this protection, either at the individual or social level, carries the risk of creating irremediable damage, or even the destruction of the life itself.

Concerning the debate over how to relate morality and law, Milan's archbishop explained that they are connected in the sense that morality can illuminate our conscience, while the law codifies how we should act. It is important to remember, he added, that the state does not create human rights, and likewise cannot destroy them.

Moral norms and civil law are, indeed, distinct one from the other. But the civil law does have the important role of promoting the common good of all, even if it cannot pretend to abolish all imperfections.

Harrowing harvest

If, then, it is legitimate for Christians to have a say on laws governing human life, is it the case that in the early stage we are dealing with something that is human? This point was debated in a number of articles in the fall/winter issue of New Atlantis. The magazine is published by the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center.

In their contribution, Robert George and Patrick Lee replied to arguments in favor of stem cells research advanced by two members of the President's Council on Bioethics, Paul McHugh and Michael Sandel. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the bioethics council. And Lee is professor of philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

The two said that there would not be any objection to using embryonic stem cells for research or therapy if they could be obtained without killing or harming embryos. "The point of controversy," they noted, "is the ethics of deliberately destroying human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells."

Both contemporary human embryology and developmental biology "leave no significant room for doubt" about the human status of embryos at the initial stage of their life, argue George and Lee. "Each of us developed by a gradual, unified and self-directed process from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages of human development, and into adulthood, with his or her determinateness, unity and identity fully intact."

We value human beings precisely because of the kind of entities they are, and they point out "that is why we consider all human beings to be equal in basic dignity and human rights." This dignity is intrinsic and does not depend on any accidental characteristics. For this reason we do not kill retarded children to harvest their organs.

While no one claims that embryos are mature human beings, at the same time it is correct to argue that human embryos are human beings, "that is, complete, though immature, members of the human species."

Embryology, they explain, shows the following:

-- The embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or the father, and grows in its own distinct direction, with its growth being internally directed to its own survival and maturation.

-- The embryo is human, since it has the genetic constitution characteristic of human beings.

-- The embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being. And unless prevented by disease, violence, or a hostile environment, the embryo will actually do so. None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long as he or she survives, generates a new direction of growth.

There are, naturally, ample religious and theological grounds on which to oppose sacrificing embryos for research. But many objections are based on science and a rational ethical analysis, and are, therefore, no imposition on pluralism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Cloning: the Ongoing Battle

Some Scientists Reject Limitations on Research

LONDON, OCT. 23, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Limitations on the manipulation and destruction of human life are looking shaky in the face of sustained efforts in a number of countries to extend human cloning. At the international level the question of cloning is once more under debate in the United Nations. A proposal by Costa Rica to ban cloning was shelved last year, but is once more on the agenda.

The president of Britain's Royal Society, Lord May, criticized efforts to promote a ban on all forms of human cloning, Reuters reported last Sunday. Last month U.S. President George Bush spoke in favor of the Costa Rican proposal in a speech to the General Assembly. But Lord May favors of a proposal made by Belgium that would outlaw cloning for reproductive purposes, but allow it for therapeutic ends.

The renewed effort to obtain a worldwide ban comes after scientists in South Korea announced earlier this year that they had cloned humans and extracted embryonic stem cells. The experiments were carried out at the Seoul National University, reported the New York Times on Feb. 12.

The United Kingdom may be the next in line to clone humans. Cloning for therapeutic purposes was made legal in 2001, but the first permission was given only recently. On Aug. 11, BBC reported that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority gave the go-ahead to scientists at the University of Newcastle to clone human embryos. According to BBC it is believed this is the first time such a license has been granted in Europe.

After this first approval, a team led by the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep also applied for a license to clone human embryos, BBC reported Sept. 28. Researchers at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute, led by professor Ian Wilmut, hope to develop a cure for motor neurone disease through experiments using the cloned embryos.

Harvard's move

In the United States, scientists from Harvard University are also attempting to gain permission to clone human embryos, the Boston Globe reported Oct. 13. According to the report, two separate teams of researchers want to use cloning to produce embryonic stem cells that match the genetic material of patients with juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses. The teams are part of the recently formed Harvard Stem Cell Institute, established by the university earlier this year.

Cloning is legal in the United States, noted the Globe, but the scientists must first receive approval through an institutional review process, which could take months.

In another recent move, Singapore has opened up the possibility of cloning, Reuters reported Sept. 2. Parliament passed a law that bans human cloning for reproduction, but allows it for research purposes. The law will allow scientists to clone human embryos and keep them alive for 14 days to produce stem cells.

Japan is also moving toward allowing cloning. The country's supreme science council has voted in favor of policy recommendations that would permit human embryos to be cloned for scientific research, the Associated Press reported July 23.

Japan banned human cloning in 2001, although it does allow researchers to use embryos that aren't produced by cloning. After the vote in favor, the science council, headed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, will now ask government ministries to come up with guidelines for research using clones.

"Medieval bigotry"

Human cloning is often defended on the grounds of compassion for those suffering serious illnesses. Typical of the claims advanced was a comment reported in the Scotsman newspaper on Sept. 29, following the application by the Roslin Institute for permission to clone. Dr. Brian Dickie, from the UK's Motor Neurone Disease Association, said the research would be a breakthrough and patients could be benefiting from it within 10 years.

A more extreme statement in favor of cloning was that of Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist and vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham in England. In an opinion article for London's Times on June 17, Kealey stated: "Human cloning is almost magical in its potential."

Opponents of cloning were dismissed as "traditionalists" or as suffering from "medieval bigotry." "Since our only obstacle to exploring these nascent sciences is the traditionalists' invocation of mystical texts, a future of universal good health awaits us," he concluded.

Defending human life

The moves in favor of human cloning have not gone unanswered by pro-life forces. The approval by authorities in England was criticized by Dr. Helen Watt, director of the Linacre Center for Healthcare Ethics. "Therapeutic cloning creates a human life in exactly the same way as 'reproductive' cloning does," she stated in an Aug. 11 press release. "The only difference is that the embryo is intended not for birth but for laboratory destruction."

She also called into question the approval "at a time when adult stem cells are already used to treat a whole range of diseases." By contrast, "Cells from early embryos are difficult to control and have not so far produced a single treatment," added Watt.

The German Medical Council also condemned the approval, Deutsche Welle reported Aug. 13. The association called for a ban on all forms of human cloning. "We can't allow embryos to be harvested like raw materials," said association president Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe.

Germany's National Ethics Council has also called for a ban on cloning humans for research, Deutsche Welle reported Sept. 13. The body, set up in 2001 by the federal government to offer advice on ethical issues in the life sciences, announced its opposition after more than a year of study. The German Parliament voted in 2002 to outlaw cloning.

"Crescendo of hyperbole"

John Paul II commented on cloning, and research in general, in a message sent to a meeting organized by the movement Communion and Liberation in Rimini, Italy, last summer. In the text dated Aug. 6 the Pope spoke of the risk that progress in scientific knowledge and technical means "would become an absolute value, even the source itself of every value."

The result of this tendency is that "Truth and justice would no longer be superior instances, criteria of justice which man must follow in directing the actions that fuel progress itself, but would become a product of his research activity and manipulation of reality."

The Holy See also issued a declaration, dated Sept. 27, concerning the renewed U.N. debate over human cloning. The statement explains that the Holy See is in favor of research in the fields of medicine and biology.

But, continues the document, "The Holy See opposes the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of destroying them in order to harvest their stem cells," as it is "inconsistent with the ground and motive of human biomedical research, that is, respect of the dignity of human beings."

As an alternative the statement noted the proven results already obtained with adult stem cells. By contrast, "Embryonic stem cell experiments have not yet produced a single unqualified therapeutic success, not even in animal models." In fact, the declaration cited a number of scientific sources that detail the risks involved with the use of embryonic cells. In this context the text criticized "the crescendo of hyperbole" extolling the use of human clones.

In terms of a moral judgment the declaration notes that therapeutic cloning is ethically worse than when it is undertaken for reproductive purposes. In the latter case at least the human life has a chance of surviving, instead of being used "as mere laboratory material." Attention is now focused on the United Nations to see if it will step in to defend innocent human lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spare Parts or Human Life?

Embryos Sacrificed for Research

LONDON, FEB. 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has given the go-ahead for the cloning of human embryos. BBC reported Tuesday that the creator of Dolly the sheep, Ian Wilmut, obtained a license to clone embryos in order to study motor neurone disease (MND). This is the second time the fertilization authority has given approval for human cloning since it was made legal in the United Kingdom in 2001.

Wilmut, together with researchers from Kings College London, plans to clone embryos that have the disease in order to study how it develops in the early stages, and to try out new drugs to see how they work. Some patient groups, including the MND Association, have supported the proposal.

Not everyone welcomed the announcement, however. In a press release Tuesday from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the group's political secretary, Anthony Ozimic, assailed Wilmut's research. "Any 'license to clone and kill' strikes at the very heart our society's basic rule for living together in peace, which is 'do not kill the innocent,' because the cloning process kills many embryonic human children at their most vulnerable stage of life," Ozimic said. "All of those killed are unique, never-to-be-replaced, totally innocent human individuals."

Another press release, issued by Julia Millington, political director of the ProLife Alliance, stated: "All human cloning is intrinsically wrong and should be outlawed. However, the creation of cloned human embryos destined for experimentation and subsequent destruction is particularly abhorrent."

Moreover, Millington questioned the approval to use embryos at a time when much greater scientific progress is being reported using ethically acceptable adult stem cells, and cells taken from the umbilical cord of newborn babies.

In the United States, meanwhile, the Christian Medical Association also took Wilmut's plan to task. In a Tuesday press release, David Stevens, executive director of the 17,000-member association, said: "It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing to claim that you're somehow helping humanity when in fact you're killing living human beings." He continued: "So-called therapeutic cloning is hardly therapeutic for the living human subjects destroyed in the process."

Spain's shift

There was bad news for embryos in Spain, too. On Tuesday, Health Minister Elena Salgado announced a new proposal to govern in vitro fertilization. The measure could be in force by year-end, and would represent a substantial relaxation of the norms approved by the previous government in 2003, the Spanish daily ABC reported Wednesday.

Among the changes announced by Salgado would be one that allows parents to choose embryos that can help to cure existing children, by using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The legislation would prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, but is silent as to whether it will be allowed for research purposes.

The legislation would also allow research on the "leftover" embryos from IVF treatments. This would be a change from the 2003 legislation which only permitted research with those embryos frozen at the time the law came into force.

"Pre-embryo"

Coincidentally, this past Tuesday also saw the publication of an article by Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on questions related to the human embryo. Writing in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Bishop Sgreccia noted that many researchers justify using an embryo during the first days of life by denying it has reached a stage when it is truly human. Thus, during the first 14 days, the researchers often refer to the "pre-embryo" stage of development.

The Vatican official, however, observed that from a purely scientific point of view it is perfectly evident that from the moment the ova is fertilized by the spermatozoa, there is a distinct form of life with its own genetic identity and biological unity. Moreover, after the initial fertilization there is no subsequent qualitative change that affects the process of development of the new life.

Bishop Sgreccia added that from the moral viewpoint it is sufficient to merely suspect the possibility that in the embryo we find a human person, in order to justify prohibiting its use in scientific research. Thus the Church has insisted on an absolute respect for life right from the moment of conception.

Struggling to define life

The human status of the embryo is also being debated in legal tribunals, with some positive results. Last week a Cook County judge in the state of Illinois allowed a Chicago couple to sue a fertility clinic that destroyed one of their embryos. A Feb. 5 report in the Chicago Sun-Times explained that Alison Miller and Todd Parrish had gone to the Center for Human Reproduction for help in conceiving a child, but that one of the fertilized ova was discarded in an error by a clinic worker.

In his decision, Judge Jeffrey Lawrence II said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb." As a result, the couple may seek the same compensation awarded to other parents whose children are killed. Commentators noted that the judgment will almost certainly be appealed.

Another recent legal case involving unborn life was that of the murder of Laci Peterson, who was pregnant when her husband killed her. The lengthy legal process finished last November, when Scott Peterson was declared guilty by the jury. The jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder of his wife and second-degree murder of his 8-month-old unborn son.

In an article published Nov. 13 by the Christian Post, an analyst for Focus on the Family, Carrie Gordon Earll, explained that "the murder conviction of Scott Peterson in the death of his wife and pre-born son, Conner, is further evidence of the growing shift in U.S. law regarding protection for all human life, including young humans who still reside in their mother's wombs."

Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court had ruled that a 1970 state law could be used to charge assailants with the death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked. Charges regarding the murder of the fetus can be brought even if the aggressor did not know the victim was pregnant, the Los Angeles Times reported April 6.

Another victory, albeit limited, for the embryo came with the decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court. The court ruled that murder charges can be brought if the fetus at the time it was killed would have been viable outside the mother's womb. The court thus overturned a 21-year-old decision that had barred homicide charges against someone accused of killing a fetus, according to a report June 18 in the Courier-Journal newspaper of Louisville.

With its decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court defined a fetus as a person at the point of viability. The ruling did not however decide the constitutionality of the new "fetal homicide" law passed last year by the Kentucky Legislature. The law allows homicide charges to be brought when a fetus is killed -- regardless of whether it is viable.

Another 2004 case saw Quenten Qortez Thompson convicted of feticide by a jury in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported June 11. Thompson was found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide of Nicole Blake and first-degree homicide of an unborn child, under a 1998 law.

Meanwhile, during its first stages of development the embryo remains under threat from scientific researchers who seem to regard it as a source of spare parts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A Patient in a Vegetative State Is a Human Person"

Interview With Dr. Gian Luigi Gigli, of a Catholic Federation

ROME, FEB. 28, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The vegetative state is a "pejorative term" which implies lack of humanity, warns Dr. Gian Luigi Gigli, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations.

Gigli is co-author with Dr. Nathan Zasler of the book "Life-Sustaining Treatments in Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas," reprinted in a special issue of the Neurorehabilitation review, published by Iospress. The book is the result of a congress on this topic.

Q: What does it mean to be in a vegetative state and what is the Church's position?

Gigli: A vegetative state is verified in some patients when they come out of a coma, and it is characterized by a prolonged condition of wakefulness without apparent awareness on the part of the patient either of himself or of his surroundings.

The physiotherapy for this disorder is not yet clear, and the cerebral lesions that can cause it are of different types and in many areas.

The patient, alternating sleep with wakefulness, does not give answers that seem to make sense. It is not a terminal illness and does not require machines to guarantee vital functions.

However, the patient needs care, in particular, to be hydrated and fed, sometimes with patience through the mouth, more often with a probe or a tube in the abdominal wall, the PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

For the Church, the patient in a vegetative state is a human person, in need of affectionate care. The discussion that has taken place between moralists and Catholic health institutions in past years has focused on indefinite continuation of hydration and nutrition, even if hopes for a resumption, though partial, of consciousness seem to be diminishing.

Some have seen in the prolongation of hydration and nutrition aggressive therapy; others have interpreted it as euthanasia by omission of the suspension of care, considering the mortal consequences that inevitably derive.

From outside the Church, the pressures of scientific societies, magistrates and some family members are very strong, as is occurring in the Terri Schiavo case in the United States, in favor of the suspension of hydration and nutrition. They are pressures based on the attribution of the little value of life, when its "quality" is greatly reduced.

However, resistances are also very strong by those who see in such procedures a surreptitious method to authorize, in fact, euthanasia in countries where it is prohibited, extending it later, as is already occurring, to other conditions such as dementia, mental retardation or acute ictus.

Q: Up to what point is the vegetative state "vegetative"?

Gigli: Beyond the term, which should be reformed because of its pejorative character -- referring to a condition of the patient's lack of humanity -- it must be acknowledged that a rudimentary perception of pain cannot be excluded, as there are studies that prove the persistence of rudimentary processes of recognition and discrimination of stimuli.

An indirect proof that there are doubts of a neuroanatomic and neurophysiological order on the total lack of perception of pain in these patients is the common practice of subjecting them to pharmacological sedation during the 15 days in which the death of the patient is effected after the suspension of hydration and nutrition.

The vegetative state is diagnosed too often with excessive speed, with a high percentage of mistaken diagnoses, including within qualified health institutions. In particular, it must not be confused with other neurological conditions in which there is a state of prolonged reduction of the levels of consciousness.

Q: What did John Paul II say that was new in the treatment of patients in vegetative state in his historic address last March 20?

Gigli: The Holy Father, in as you say his "historic" address, pronounced words that serve to clarify misunderstandings among Catholics, avoiding -- for example -- suspension of hydration and nutrition in cases in which it should not be done, as unfortunately has occurred in some North American Catholic hospitals.

Despite the fact that there are many attempts by moralists and Catholic health institutions to reduce the scope of the Pope's words, his message was very clear. For the Pope, judgment on the quality of life and on the costs of care cannot prevail over the respect due to the patient's life.

Hydration and nutrition must be considered as ordinary and proportionate means for the objective that they intend, i.e. to nourish the patient. As such, they are morally obligatory, even if they are administered through a tube.

For the Pope, the fact that there is a high probability that the patient will not recover consciousness cannot justify the interruption of basic care, including hydration and nutrition. Otherwise, there is euthanasia by omission.

Moreover, the Pope called for the raising of our societies' level of civilization, supporting with attentive solidarity the families of patients in vegetative state.

After the Pope's words, I believe that for a doctor, a nurse or a Catholic health institution nutrition and hydration may only be interrupted if they no longer achieve their effect, or impose grave burdens on the patient -- who on the other hand appears to tolerate them in an admirable way over many years -- or family members, something which should not occur in civilized countries, in which basic care should not be a luxury.

Q: You wrote the book with Dr. Nathan Zasler, a Jewish doctor. Is there a meeting point between Catholics and Jews on the topic of nutrition and hydration in the vegetative state?

Gigli: The Jewish world is very diversified. Rabbi E.N. Dorff's article, which forms part of the work, clarifies adequately that for the majority of Orthodox rabbis and for many Conservative rabbis the doctor has the obligation to do everything possible to maintain the life of the patient in vegetative state.

Other rabbis allow treatments not to be established, but prohibit their suspension once begun.

Instead, the Reformed and secularized Jews tend to decide according to their conscience.

In general lines, however, it seems that we could say that the Jewish tradition is hesitant when it comes to suspending treatments such as hydration and nutrition, on which the life of a patient in vegetative sate depends.

The congress and the volume that derived from it certainly demonstrate great respect for the Catholic position on the part of famous Jewish scholars.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gauging What "Quality of Life" Means

Vatican Conference Considers Ethical Principles

ROME, MARCH 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The much-bandied term "quality of life" was the theme of the annual meeting of the Pontifical Academy for Life. The Feb. 21-23 general assembly of the Vatican body brought together Church dignitaries, along with experts in medicine and bioethics, to reflect on the subject of "Quality of Life and the Ethics of Health."

In his presentation, the president of the academy, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, observed that the terms "quality of life" and "health" have become a sort of absolute, "to be pursued to the point of a sort of divinization of health."

The terms, he noted, reflect a strong influence of the utilitarian philosophy so widespread in English-speaking societies. This has led to a widespread belief that "the human being who does not possess the desired minimal 'quality' does not deserve to be kept alive -- hence, the proposal of eugenic parameters for the purpose of selecting those who do deserve to be accepted or kept alive and those who are to be abandoned or suppressed via euthanasia."

Trying to understand what the concept quality of life means was dealt with by A. Gómez-Lobo, professor of metaphysics and moral philosophy at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. The idea that lives can be judged according to their quality goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers, he noted.

It is a concept that covers diverse dimensions of life, but in the area of health the expectation of a low quality of life has become a standard rationalization to justify euthanasia, Gómez-Lobo explained. However, claiming to benefit a person by intentionally killing someone with a low quality of life is "deeply wrong," he argued.

A person suffering from health problems "is still enjoying the basic good of life, a good that is distinct from any evil the person may be undergoing," the professor said. Moreover, for an external observer to judge that the patient is a life "not worth living" is "an intolerable presumption," he added.

The prohibition against killing an innocent person, Gómez-Lobo continued, is based on respect for the dignity of the person, "and human dignity is logically independent of, and not reducible to, the quality of a person's life because dignity is an intrinsic property that does not admit of degrees." In fact, he added, "The suffering and the weak have a special claim on us." And the quality of life of the patient should not affect this obligation.

"Vegetative state"

The question of what to do with persons who are in a vegetative state was addressed by Gian Luigi Gigli and Mariarosaria Valente. They are, respectively, the president of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, and director of the Department of Neurosciences at the Santa Maria della Misericordia hospital in Udine, Italy.

In analyzing the current situation they observed in a statement: "Faith in the omnipotent power of technology of being able to ameliorate the quality of life and lack of moral principles combine together." This technological approach considers every action ethical if it is the result of free choice, and every action legitimate if it is socially useful.

Regarding the vegetative state they explained: "This condition is still affected by important clinical uncertainties, leading to frequent misdiagnosis." It is difficult to distinguish between the vegetative state, and the persistent, also called permanent, vegetative state. In the latter case no recovery is expected, but the point of division between the two is not clear. They added that there are well-documented cases of patients who have recovered consciousness even after the criteria for permanence have been met.

So-called right-to-die advocates argue that once a vegetative state is diagnosed as permanent there should be a presumption against assisted feeding. In addition, the provision of food and water is redefined as a medical treatment, rather than the provision of basic needs. "According to this view, the ensuing death by dehydration and starvation should be regarded as a natural death," Gigli and Valente wrote.

However, they explain, in this situation patients do not die because of the vegetative state, but of malnutrition and renal failure. "The outcome (death) is fully intended."

The two explain that understanding how we have arrived to intending the death of someone in this state is linked to considerations about the quality of life. Often, in measuring the quality of life, the concept is reduced to the ability to produce and to be useful. It follows, then, that using health resources for people who cannot return to a productive life is considered wasteful.

The withdrawal of nutrition and water from persons in the permanent vegetative state can lead to a dangerous attitude in the medical profession, Gigli and Valente warned. "Withdrawal of nutrition and hydration could be the key to open the still strong existing barriers which oppose the legalization of euthanasia in the majority of countries," they added. As well, in the long term, having doctors hastening death could destroy the relationship of trust between patient and physician.

The newborn

Another set of questions regards the quality of life for newborn babies. This was dealt with in the paper presented by Patricio Ventura-Juncá, director of the Center for Bioethics of the pontifical University of Santiago, Chile.

Newborn babies are highly vulnerable as well as quite incapable of evaluating their situation or expressing preferences. In the last few decades, neonatal care has made enormous strides, explained Ventura-Juncá. Many of the immature functions of prematurely born infants can be temporarily replaced by mechanical means. But the ethical problem that exists is judging whether to withhold or withdraw treatment.

She explained that many parents have difficulty in understanding the medical information they are given and to make a decision. In general, however, parents are more in favor of intervening to save the infant than are health care professionals. In this situation the opinion and the values of the doctor in charge have a great influence on the parents.

The situation of persons suffering from mental handicaps was addressed by professor Wanda Poltawska, a psychiatrist from the school of theology of the University of Krakow, Poland. "A human being is always human irrespective of the stage of his or her physical or mental development," she stated.

Families burdened with a mentally diseased person are often divided over the best way to cope with this problem. In order to affront the burden, family members need a deep understanding of the sense of suffering.

In deciding what to do when confronted with this situation Poltawska stated: "The life of a human being, its beginning and its end are in the hands of the Creator -- when we try to manipulate human conception or human death we transgress our authority."

Handicapped persons are a challenge to society, she added, and our own value as persons can be assessed by examining our attitudes toward the ill, the old and the disabled.

In a letter dated Feb. 19, directed to Bishop Sgreccia on the occasion of the congress, John Paul II drew attention to "the essential quality that distinguishes every human creature as that of being made in the image and likeness of the Creator himself" (No. 3).

This dignity and quality of the person "endures through every moment of life, from the very moment of conception until natural death," the Pope stated. "Consequently, the human person should be recognized and respected in any condition of health, infirmity or disability."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Infertility Treatments, in Accord With Church Teaching

Interview With Dr. Thomas Hilgers of the Pope Paul VI Institute

OMAHA, Nebraska, JULY 16, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Many Catholic couples who experience infertility can achieve pregnancy without resorting to immoral medical treatments, says an expert in natural procreative technology.

Dr. Thomas Hilgers, director of Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, explained to ZENIT some of the fertility methods he has developed that are in accord with Church teachings.

Q: What are the main causes of infertility?

Hilgers: Infertility is due to many causes. It is often called multifactorial, but unfortunately the medical profession only usually focuses on one issue at a time.

The main causes of infertility include endometriosis, polycystic ovarian disease and pelvic adhesive disease, along with a variety of underlying hormonal dysfunctions and ovulation-related abnormalities. Tubal disease and obstruction is also a cause of infertility, but not as common as the others.

Q: Among the causes, how important is the role of sexual diseases contracted through premarital relations; past use of certain kinds of contraception; and the decision to delay having children?

Hilgers: It is difficult to say exactly how often these are linked. Certainly, sexually transmitted diseases can cause pelvic adhesive disease and tubal obstruction.

My own concern is with the incompleteness and unsatisfactory nature of premarital relationships when sexual intercourse is involved. I think that, in many cases, women who have premarital sex use contraception so that they do not become pregnant; later, when it is difficult for them to become pregnant, they can experience resentment and anger.

This makes it very complex, and the chronic stress that develops from this may be another underlying factor to infertility.

Q: What is the institute's success rate in overcoming infertility?

Hilgers: Our approach to the evaluation and treatment of infertility is one that looks at the underlying problems -- the diseases -- that cause infertility and then treats those diseases successfully.

This is the primary approach that we use in "NaProTechnology," or natural procreative technology.

NaProTechnology is a new women's health science that has been described in the new medical textbook, "The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTechnology" [Pope Paul VI Institute Press].

In this situation, our success rates are statistically much better than the artificial reproductive technologies. In fact, they average about two to three times more effective. Generally speaking, we will see effectiveness rates in the 50% to 80% range, depending upon the problem and the extent of the abnormality.

Q: Briefly, what fertility methods are in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Which are not?

Hilgers: Those approaches that do not separate love from life are the methods that are in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. These do not include such approaches as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization.

Those that are acceptable are the approaches that are used in NaProTechnology. This scientific method looks for the basic underlying medical problems that are associated with infertility and then corrects them.

Q: Why is it so important for Catholics to use fertility methods that do not contradict what the Church teaches?

Hilgers: The Church has been extremely wise in its teaching relative to reproductive-related issues.

It teaches, first of all, that marriage is a sacred relationship and that children are the supreme gift of marriage. It does not treat children as commodities. The Church's approach makes good psychological and spiritual sense, as well as good medical sense.

Unfortunately, over the years, only artificial reproductive technologies have been available. Because of the breakthrough research that has been ongoing at the Pope Paul VI Institute, methods are now available that are very effective, medically authentic and completely consistent with the teachings of the Church. In many ways, it proves the validity of what the Church has been teaching all of these years.

Q: How can Catholics find doctors in their area who can help treat their infertility but not compromise their beliefs?

Hilgers: I would personally refer them to a Web site where one can find a teacher of the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System -- the system that has been developed at the Pope Paul VI Institute. The teachers trained in that system are allied health professionals who can guide them toward physicians who have training in these areas.

Q: The desire to have children is very strong. What do you say to couples who cannot conceive using those methods approved by the Church?

Hilgers: No program of infertility treatment is universally or 100% successful. In fact, there is no program for the treatment of infertility that even comes close.

If one watches the news or morning television programs, one gets the mistaken impression that the artificial reproductive technologies are almost the only alternative available to women with infertility problems.

What they do not tell you is that they are extremely expensive, the dropout rate in their use is extraordinarily high, and that, overall, they help less than 1% of women with fertility problems in any given year.

Physicians who are involved in the provision of Catholic reproductive health care do not have to apologize for the services they have to offer. In fact, they can be extremely proud of the good record they have and the ability to help women and married couples in a way which is morally consistent.

At the same time, adoption is a very fulfilling way of family building for many couples.

In our program at the Pope Paul VI Institute, 90% of the couples who come to us either have a biological child of their own or have an adopted family. This is an incredible success rate and we are very proud of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Marriage a Form of Discrimination?

Commentary by R.M.T. Schmid of Oxford

ROME, JULY 12, 2004 (Zenit.org).- This commentary on same-sex unions appeared in the weekly edition of the English-language L'Osservatore Romano, by R.M.T. Schmid, of St. Hugh's College at the University of Oxford.

* * *

Justice requires that equals be treated equally and unequals unequally. Discrimination is a distinction or the differential treatment based on such a distinction. Whether discrimination is justified depends on the answer to what Aristotle calls "the difficult question": equals and unequals in what? Unjust discrimination either fails to ask the right question or fails to act on the right answer.

In contemporary political discourse the term discrimination itself has come to signify injustice. While this reflects the truth that all human beings have equal dignity simply in virtue of belonging to the human species, it can obscure the fact that human dignity also requires recognition of the truth that, though equal, not everyone is the same.

To deny driving licenses to the blind does not assume that they do not deserve equal respect and consideration as persons, but that they are different from other persons in respects relevant to driving.

Some countries have introduced, and others are considering, the extension of the legal recognition and social benefits of marriage to persons in homosexual relationships, in order to "put an end to discrimination".

Are homosexual relationships equal to marital relationships?

The first and most ambitious argument from discrimination proposes that homosexual relationships are equal to marital relationships in those respects that justify the privileged treatment of marriage.

Exclusivity, dependence, duration and sexual nature are not the relevant aspects why marriage is privileged by the State. They are only the conditions of those aspects that make marriage unique: the vital function of procreation and the socializing functions of bridging the male-female divide and raising children.

When the State uniquely privileges marriage it takes the position that it is in the best interest of society for children to be born and raised in a community where they experience the cause of their biological and historical identity as a loving union preserved by each parent placing the needs of others over their own. By promoting marriage to be the exclusive union between one man and one woman, the State not only protects the rights of children but encourages the values of commitment, restraint and diversity that are needed to preserve community at large.

One objection to this is that not all marriages lead to children. Of course, the State cannot anticipate whether or not couples will have children, but it is clear that only one man and one woman together can be the biological parents of a child and can raise it with the complementarity of motherly and fatherly love. Marital acts are procreative in character, even if non-behavioural conditions do not allow for conception.

The other objection is that marriages fail, to the detriment of children, spouses and families at large. But if individual marriages are in crisis, the correct inference cannot be that social policy should institutionalize this failure rather than counteract it. Through marital benefits the State promotes rather than rewards ideal conditions for procreation and socialization.

Are legal recognition and governmental support justifiable?

When the State uniquely privileges marriage, homosexual relationships are in no way singled out for "unequal treatment". There are any number of relationships that do not qualify for the benefits of marriage. The question then is why homosexual relationships should be treated as uniquely analogous to marriage.

The aspect that differentiates homosexual unions from other non-marital relationships of dependence and duration is their particular sexual nature, and it is not clear why this should single them out for governmental support. Preferential treatment of this sort would discriminate against all those in dependent relationships of a non-sexual nature: an unmarried woman who cares for her aging mother or two widowed sisters who share a household could not claim privileges and protection from the State.

In France the perception of this problem has led to a more liberal model of civil unions, open to any two citizens. Even this model discriminates against some, as it provides no justification why groups or singles should be financially and socially disadvantaged.

Crucially, in an open-to-all policy marriage loses the uniquely privileged position it deserves for practical and symbolical reasons. The extension of marriage privileges to non-marital unions inevitably diverts resources, dilutes meaning and diminishes status of marriage as traditionally understood. Rhetorical efforts to maintain some distance between marriage and homosexual unions cannot hide this fact.

A minimalist version of the argument for homosexual unions suggests that with "legal recognition" nothing more is at stake than the formal registration of a social phenomenon. In most cases, though, such "legal recognition" does in fact confer to homosexual relationships privileges previously reserved to marriage. This involves a re-evaluation of what contributes to the common good, how social benefits should be distributed and what the rights of children are.

But even if no benefits and privileges were involved, to single out the social phenomenon of homosexual relationships for formal registration is either arbitrary or it suggests an analogy to the only other legally recognized relationship, which is marriage.

In an attempt to justify this analogy, proponents resort to the category of "committed relationships" to describe both homosexual and marital relationships. This falsely suggests that commitment in relationships is worthy of privileges for its own sake, while in fact the privileges promote the vital and social functions of marriage, for which commitment is only the condition.

Consequently, for the State to promote a homogenized vision of "committed relationships" amounts to the decision no longer to encourage ideal conditions for procreation and socialization.

Conferral of marital status to homosexual unions?

The second argument from discrimination takes a different approach. Now the contention is not that homosexual unions are equal to marriage in relevant aspects but that the disadvantages homosexual persons suffer in society ought to be compensated for by conferring marital status to homosexual unions.

Because only homosexual persons are disadvantaged in this particular way the question whether the State should extend the privileges to other non-marital relationships does not arise. The burden of proof then no longer lies with homosexual unions and their contribution to society in comparison to marriage, but with individual homosexuals and the disadvantages they suffer.

Naturally, the argument will encounter less sympathy if these sufferings are in any way self-inflicted - hence, the importance of shifting responsibility away from those who share the homosexual identity to others who by their actions allegedly make it oppressive.

The argument from identity often assumes a unique advance in knowledge and understanding of human nature and elevates contemporary perceptions and practices to a normative status. Different perceptions, such as the traditional heterosexual model of marriage envisaged by Plato and Aristotle, are explained by their relation to an inferior understanding of the "facts" about homosexuality. Their objection to homosexuality, based on the notion that homosexual persons engage in unnatural and therefore immoral acts, now can be dismissed because we "know" that homosexuality is a "natural condition" and ought to be treated as an "identity".

But are these established facts?

While so far there is no empirical evidence that homosexuality is biologically predetermined and unchangeable, there seem to be biological factors that can contribute to the development of homosexual inclination, just as there are in the case of aggressiveness or athleticism. However, the claim of a biologically determined and clearly delineated homosexual identity is rendered problematic in theory by Foucault's sexual constructivism and in practice by the bisexual and paedophile fringes of the category.

Regardless of whether sexual orientation is chosen, biologically determined or psychologically enforced (as it seems to be the case with many victims of abuse), no account of the origins of homosexuality can establish that the inclination must constitute an identity.

Next to the identity claim, the argument for compensation has to rely on the perception that the disadvantages homosexual persons face are substantial.

In this regard there can be no doubt that the feeling of being ostracized or persecuted among many homosexual persons is real, even if the truth of the feeling is increasingly difficult to establish as a truth of fact. Homosexual persons enjoy the full protection of the law, and in many countries additional antidiscrimination laws are in place that single out sexual orientation for particular protection. They enjoy above average professional success and financial power (in the U.S. almost twice the average household income) and are present in high proportion in politics and among opinion-shaping elites.

This is not to say that they do not face very real problems, but so far it has been impossible to show that they are related to societal discrimination. The significantly higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide among homosexual persons seem to be independent not only of HIV status, but there is no reduction in these rates among those who live in a social milieu where homosexuality is widely accepted and legally recognized.

If social acceptance does not affect these problems, it is unclear how increased social status could remedy them.

Opposition to homosexual unions does not mean lack of respect

Thin evidence for societal discrimination weakens the compensation argument, as the discrimination for which marriage is supposed to compensate appears to consist mostly in the fact that homosexual persons cannot marry. Because this is true for any number of relationships, the question returns why homosexual persons should be singled out for preferential treatment.

Here emerges the perhaps most problematic aspect to the compensation argument. If it turns out that the discrimination to be compensated for consists not so much in acts that unjustly discriminate against homosexual persons but simply in the fact that homosexual behaviour is morally controversial, this raises questions of freedom of conscience.

Is the introduction of homosexual unions ultimately to symbolize that there is no right to freedom of conscience on the matter of homosexual acts and that conscientious objectors are to be marginalized in public life?

Already the appeal to conscience in any matter pertaining to homosexuality risks being dismissed as "homophobia". Understood as a pathological fear, this disqualifies the position of opponents as an entirely irrational stance.

Beyond that, it has also come to imply an indifferent or even hostile attitude. Because the condemnation of homosexual behaviour objects to acts, not to persons, the conclusion that any opposition to homosexual unions indicates lack of respect and care for people is a blatant non sequitur.

If the line of reasoning is that homosexuality is so central to the human person that it is impossible to morally disapprove of homosexual acts and not thereby discriminate against the person, then by the same token conscientious beliefs central to the human person could not be contradicted without discriminating against the person.

The exhortation that "religious belief must not lead to the discrimination of homosexual persons by refusing them the right to marry" sets up a false problem. Not all arguments made by religious believers can be reduced to their religious beliefs or are justified on the basis of their beliefs alone, and not all the reasons why the State should uniquely privilege marriage depend on the immorality of homosexual acts.

The contribution of religious believers to the public debate on homosexual unions cannot be dismissed as inherently irrational and biased without denying them equality as citizens.

Moral objections to sexual orientation are not necessarily irrational, and it is only unjust to discriminate on the basis of these objections in areas where the sexual orientation of the individual is irrelevant. It cannot be allowed that in political discussion pathological irrationality, bad motives or even hatred are freely ascribed to opponents of homosexual unions, disregarding basic rules of evidence.

The same is true for the voice of the Catholic Church: Scripture and Tradition are unequivocal in the condemnation of homosexual behaviour, but the difference between homosexual relationships and marriage has not been invented by Christianity, nor is it upheld only by Catholics.

If in the name of truth rational arguments can be dismissed because they accord with conscientious beliefs, and in the name of justice conscientious belief can be silenced, then freedom is not for all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian Personalism's Place in Bioethics

Interview With Bishop Elio Sgreccia

VATICAN CITY, JULY 6, 2004 (Zenit.org).- In the face of approaches that diminish man and even attack respect for life, Christian personalism "reveals itself as an indispensable basic option," explains Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

It is, moreover, a cultural platform that has given origin in Rome just over a year ago, at the initiative of the Center of Bioethics of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, to the International Federation of Centers and Institutes of Bioethics of Personalist Inspiration (FIBIP).

On June 21-22, the federation held its second congress at the university. To understand Christian personalism and the FIBIP better, ZENIT interviewed its president, Bishop Sgreccia.

Q: What is understood by Christian personalism?

Bishop Sgreccia: When, 20 years ago, the School of Medicine of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart decided to establish the Institute of Bioethics, a choice was made of constructive and solid content, namely, to put at the center of bioethical reflection the dignity of the human person, recognized in every human being from conception until natural death, in all conditions of life, sickness, proximity of death, handicap.

This idea corresponds to the position of Christian personalism, especially from the ontological point of view, which refers to the human being, who must be valued and promoted. This choice has revealed itself increasingly as a basic, indispensable and distinctive option.

Q: There are other schools of bioethics that describe themselves as more oriented to freedom ...

Bishop Sgreccia: Freedom does not subsist without responsibility. For example, a family that builds itself in freedom without responsibility means that it is open to divorce, abortion, de facto unions and even homosexual unions.

There is no freedom without responsible commitment toward other human beings; for this reason the freedom of personalism is true freedom, charged with responsibility.

Q: There is also a current of thought that defines itself as utilitarian.

Bishop Sgreccia: Utilitarianism is oriented to the solution of problems, to cancer sufferers or terminal patients, only insofar as they are useful, and thus proposes euthanasia and no access to certain treatments or surgical interventions for the elderly.

Utilitarianism values persons and treatments according to their economic viability. Therefore, it proposes taking human embryos as they might be useful to produce medicines, to produce cellular lines, all this without respecting human dignity.

We are also opposed to so-called contractualism where ethics follows the majority. Executing a contract between social agents results in attacking those in society who are voiceless, namely, children, the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled.

These are persons who cannot enter into a contract, while there are persons who negotiate for them to their detriment. This varied and diverse cultural scene calls for dialogue with personalism which is a strong concept, for a committed dialogue which appreciates the whole man and all men, and the common good, which is not only the good of the majority, but the good of all through the good of each without neglecting anyone, especially the neediest.

Q: What place does personalism have in the Federation of Bioethics Centers?

Bishop Sgreccia: Personalism is the cultural platform on which different bioethics centers have found themselves, among which are the School of Bioethics of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, and other centers of Argentina, Chile, the United States, etc.

It was born from their spontaneous desire to be together. Established last year, then made official as the Federation of Centers and Institutes of Bioethics, it assumed Christian personalism as its fundamental philosophy. The federation has the formal affiliation of 31 centers in five continents. We have received new requests for affiliation which we are studying.

Besides this organization, we organized two days of study to see how, through personalism, we could address certain problems, not only those of biomedicine, which perhaps are many, but also those of health education, health, ecology, and bio-law.

The European Constitution has just been launched and, especially on the concept of family and the mention of the Christian roots, it doesn't seem to move in the direction of Christian personalism. What is your opinion in this regard?

Bishop Sgreccia: I think that this Constitution does not respect the European reality. From the objective point of view, it is culturally lacking and does not reflect the truth. Europe has a multi-century and multi-generational relationship with the Christian tradition. To deny this is a historical and cultural falsehood.

Moreover, not to pronounce oneself on decisive values such as those relating to the family, which is the fundamental cell of civil and social coexistence; not to stress respect of life from procreation to natural death; not to make reference to these strong values -- means to prefigure a Europe that will be lacking in adequate cultural instruments for its construction.

It is known, for example, that in demographic terms, Europe is committing suicide. The percentages of fertility are very low; growth is under zero. We are witnessing the phenomenon of empty cradles. It is clear that children are born from families. To destabilize the family means to undermine the process of procreation, not to defend the family and life means not to prefigure a Europe of the future.

It is well known that even the economy cannot make do without solid families and many children. Several Nobel Prize recipients have demonstrated that an economy is solid when there is a sufficient number of children born in solid families.

Immigration is helping us, but the European population is moving backward. Europe must choose if it wants to be an old continent in which only the ruins remain, or if it wishes to be a Europe in continuity and confront its human capital with other cultures.

It is obvious that the loss of Europeans would be a loss for the whole world. The cultural and civil qualities of Europe were developed thanks to the interior cement of the Christian faith. It is a real shame to see the Constitution born under the wind of secularization, a wind which I hope is passing away.

Q: The Earth Charter is mentioned in the European Constitution, which some Catholic scholars like Michel Schooyans define as neo-pagan. What do you think?

Bishop Sgreccia: I think analogously that the Earth Charter suffers from a biocentric approach, where man is no more than one element among others, defined in fact as the most harmful of the biosphere.

However, I think that to safeguard the earth and maintain its great heritage it is important to exalt human responsibility, because the only being responsible for the other beings is man. Nothing less can come about from his humanity and his responsibility. To wish to reject man's activity in the universe means to allow the patrimony of all the several forms of life to drift.
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------