Human or Divine Control?

It is with great joy that this columnist received word last week that a bill in the Connecticut legislature which sought to reorganize the structure of the Church was officially killed for this legislative session. It was quite moving to see thousands of people – Catholics and non-Catholics alike – arise in protest against this unconstitutional attempt to wrest control of the Church from her ministers.

What many do not seem to know about this situation is that this bill was introduced by a Catholic. It was criticized and withdrawn on constitutional grounds by both the legislature and the Governor of Connecticut, and for this they are to be praised. In addition, the Catholic hierarchy of Connecticut attacked this proposed legislation on constitutional grounds as well. Perhaps being in the heat of battle prevented them from seeing that this bill did not seek simply to reorganize the Church; it denied outright the claims which the Church makes about her very core. What needs examination is how this matter could have been possible in the first place, theologically speaking.

Human society is fundamentally a work of Divine Providence, and the Church, which is both a human and a divine society, is guided in a special way by the Holy Spirit. This does not prevent sinners and idiots from occasionally manning the helm of the ship of the Church – Judas was a bishop, too. Any attempt to reorganize the Church along human lines would only result in her no longer being “Church,” and she would certainly die a quick death. This bill denies the promise of the Holy Spirit in the Church and repeats the acts of our race at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). It also denies God’s ability to guide the Church which He founded.

This legislation would also have put an end to the Marian dimension of the Church. Early theologians gave titles to the Church which we would eventually give to Mary – Virgin Mother, Mother Church, Church Immaculate, Church Assumed. Just as Mary was, the Church is first and foremost a mother – she brings her children to life through baptism, she gives them in marriage, and sends them home to God with her funeral rites. Just as Mary did, the Church receives everything she has from God and is the good soil where God’s word can bear fruit. This bill would not have prevented the Church from acting as a mother, but it would have kept her from being a mother. In effect, this bill would have the Church watch over us as orphans, not as children. Whether we are actual orphans or not, our dignity lies in our being children of God, and this is only done through the maternal care of the Church.

It is good to see this bill dead, for it sought to see unto death two of the most important aspects of the Catholic Church, namely, the role of the Holy Spirit and the Marian dimension of the Church. We need to have a greater understanding of these dimensions ourselves if something like this is to be prevented in the future. This is not the first time that this sort of things has been tried, nor will it be the last. We can prevent it from being successful, though, by learning about the true nature of the Church ourselves and spreading that to our family and friends.

Rev. Mr. Ryan Hilderbrand is a contributor for Columna Veritatis. He can be contacted at ryanpaulhilderbrand@gmail.com.

Moral Status and the Embryo

This week, it is widely expected that President Obama will sign an executive order removing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. As Catholics, we believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; and because human embryos are destroyed in the process of embryonic stem cell research, such research is immoral. It is important, however, to point out that the Church is in favor of stem cell research (i.e. adult stem cell research), but is against embryonic stem research because of the destruction of human embryos.

There are many issues pertinent to the bioethics of embryonic stem cell research, but the one I want to mention in this post is the issue of moral status. An individual has moral status when one is protected by moral norms; norms such as the prohibition against killing innocent human beings. Throughout human history, prevailing power structures have asserted that certain groups of individuals have either no moral status or reduced moral status. One of the most obvious examples in the history of our country is the lack or reduced moral status given to the slaves. And presently, the prevailing power structures have declared that human embryos have no or reduced moral status.

This assertion is often made by making a distinction between a human being and a human person. All human persons are human beings, but all human beings are not persons according to this view; and only human persons have moral status. There is a diversity of opinions offered by philosophers on what properties a human being must possess in order to be declared a human person, such as having been born, the ability to experience pleasure and pain, or the beginning of brain activity, just to name a few. One can see that these proposed properties of personhood eliminate a significant number of human beings from having moral status, especially the human embryo and the unborn.

A wonderful challenge to this position, based on reason, is presented by Stephen Schwartz in his book The Moral Question of Abortion. Schwartz notes that there are primarily four characteristic differences that exist between the born and the unborn: Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED). None of these differences, Schwartz reasons are relevant for determining moral status. Those human beings who have been born are generally larger in size, more developed, live in a different environment (outside the womb), and are more independent than human beings who have yet to be born, including embryos. To claim that moral status can be based on size, it would follow that a human being who weighs 290 lbs. has greater moral status than one weighing 100 lbs. To claim that moral status can be determined by one’s level of development leads to the conclusion that an adolescent has less moral status than an adult does. To claim that moral status can be based on environment suggests that where one is, is more important than who one is. To claim that moral status can be determined by one’s level of dependency results in the notion that a nursing home resident has less moral status than a person living on his or her own. Each of these properties, when carried out to their logical conclusions, is irrelevant for determining moral status. The embryo is a human being who has full moral status, and must be afforded the protection provided by moral norms, simply because of their intrinsic property of being human. No extrinsic, or accidental property such as size, level of development, environment, or level of dependency can be used to deny moral status to the embryo because making such claims leads to absurd conclusions.

There are two excellent books that have been recently released which supports the full moral status of the embryo based upon purely philosophical arguments: Francis Beckwith’s Defending Life, and Embryo: A Defense of Human Life by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen. Both books are invaluable resources that can be used to defend the full moral status of the embryo as we battle to uphold the sanctity of human life.

Fr. Steve L. Roberts, MD, STL

Fr. Steve Roberts is a priest of the diocese of Lexington, Kentucky and currently completing his work for a doctorate in bioethics. He will be a regular contributor for "Columna Veritatis".

Vessel or Obstacle of Grace?

Perhaps you may have heard about the recent to-do out at Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts. It seems that a senior, Katie Freitas, has taken it upon herself to distribute condoms on Stonehill’s campus because the college does not have any programs that provide contraception for its students. Of course, this is the policy of the college because it is a Catholic institution, and most know that the Church cannot support the use of contraception – even Ms. Freitas knows this.

I do not wish to comment on the obvious moral issue involved in encouraging college students to engage in casual sex, nor on the medical or relational issues. Instead, I want to focus on one of Ms. Freitas’ statements. She is quoted, “Abstinence can be part of sex-ed, and should be…But college students are going to have sex, and they should be encouraged to have safe sex. In certain moments, students aren’t going to stop to run to CVS, so I think they should be available on campus.”1

Perhaps without willing it, Ms. Freitas denies the efficacy of grace with this statement. Christian anthropology is essentially a doctrine of God’s grace as it is expressed in the human person. Parents may train their children, schools may try to influence the people they educate, but fundamentally human action is influenced by the grace of God. God’s grace precedes, sustains, continues, and brings to fruition all human endeavors. All of the baptized have access to grace through preaching, the sacraments, and other vessels as God so chooses. In fact, you and I are often vessels of God’s grace for others, and if we are obstacles to grace, then we will have to answer for it when we die. However, if we act as coefficients of grace, then we are indirectly to be praised for the actions of others.

Ms. Freitas – and those like her – would rather have herself and her campus be obstacles to God’s grace. I do not wish to target Ms. Freitas in particular; she seems to have a large heart, and this move to provide contraception does not seem to arise out of an ill-will towards her fellow men and women. However, if we look at what she does through the lenses of grace, then we cannot approve of her actions. College students will not have sex inevitably – at least, I can say with absolute certainty that at least one man got through his college years without having sex, and it wasn’t because of a proliferation of condoms, but because of the grace of God. Perhaps we should focus on becoming, with God’s help, coefficients with His grace, and in so doing, transform the culture that sees “safe sex” as the only realistic alternative.

-Rev. Mr. Ryan Hilderbrand
________________________


1 “Catholic college bars student’s free condoms,” Boston Globe online edition. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/05/catholic_college_bars_students_free_condoms/ Accessed 5 March 2009.

Rev. Mr. Ryan Hilderbrand is a contributor for Columna Veritatis.
He can be reached at ryanpaulhilderbrand@gmail.com.

Dedicated to St. Paul

As "Columna Veritatis", (Pillar of Truth) begins, we dedicate our blog to St. Paul. We ask for St. Paul's intercession so that we may seek to protect, uplift, and communicate the truths of the Catholic faith with the same zeal and passion that he did.
The truth, as it is laid before us by the teaching authority of the magisterium and revealed by the Holy Spirit is the focus of this blog. It will be a running theological commentary that seeks to identify the truth in a modern culture that has made truth a relativistic term that changes for each person. Such a relativistic approach to life, from within the Church and from without, has created a crisis that needs dialogue.
We are Roman Catholic priests, scholars, and servants. We place our study, labor, and prayer at the feet of Lord Jesus and hope that this blog will be beneficial to uphold the pillar of truth. St. Paul Pray for Us!

In the Heart of Christ,

Fr. Claude Burns
Columna Veritatis Editor