A Bad Plan

The headline above Heather Cope’s Oct. 15 Voice letter – “Youths need accurate info about sex” – is true enough, but it’s an open question whether her employer, Planned Parenthood, is the best one to provide it.

Planned Parenthood is not, as Cope would have us believe, in the helping business; it's in the contraception and abortion business. Although it operates as a charitable organization, Planned Parenthood Federation of America managed a $35.2 million “excess of revenue over expenses” last year, and it has realized similar “excesses” every year since 1987.

Even if one overlooks this enormous revenue stream, it is hard to ignore Planned Parenthood’s passionate commitment to their mission to undermining traditional, family-oriented sexual mores and to ensuring unfettered access to abortion for any reason and at any time. When Planned Parenthood representatives suggest resources about sexuality and contraception, we should be on our guard and question the impartiality of the proffered advice.

Case in point: Cope presents statistics regarding the sexual practices of teens, and her only remedy is to push condoms and urge better access to the Planned Parenthood version of sex education. Conspicuous by its absence is any hint of a recommendation that chastity and self-control be promoted among our teens. Parents who are truly interested in the long-term welfare of their children would do well to avoid Planned Parenthood’s advice, and turn to places like Sex Respect or Rock for Life for support.

In a sex-obsessed world, our youth need reinforcement in their struggles to choose purity and abstinence, not encouragement to choose immediate gratification and excess.
______________________ 
This letter appeared in the "Voice of the People" section of the South Bend Tribune on November 6, 2005.

Statement of Faith

Byzantine mosaic of the Creation of Adam (12th c.)

Bethel College, my alma mater and employer, is in the news these days. A couple weeks back, the College released a "philosophical statement" regarding creation and evolution that had been in the works for years. That statement has led to the resignation of an esteemed colleague on account of his association with BioLogos, an outfit in Michigan seeking to reconcile Evangelical Protestantism with scientific majority opinion, especially when it comes to evolution and human origins.

Bethel is associated with the Missionary Church, a conservative Protestant denomination, but I'm Roman Catholic. Consequently, I'm an outsider with regards to the squabble over human origins – it's primarily an Evangelical tussle. Still, my proximity to the current controversy might give rise to a question: How is it that a devout Catholic is teaching at an Evangelical college anyway? It's an unusual situation, to be sure, but not unprecedented. Besides, I grew up in the Evangelical tradition, so I'm very comfortable with Bethel's culture, its vocabulary of faith, and its values. I've happily participated in the life and mission of Bethel for over ten years now, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. 

However, now that this whole origins thing is out in the public eye, I'm starting to get queries – like this one from my son: "Dad, you've signed a contract saying you don't believe in evolution?" The simple answer is "no," although it's an incomplete answer. The fact is that I did sign a Statement of Faith (with appended interpretive remarks) back when I was hired in 2004, but it did not include any mention of human origins. It's that original Statement of Faith, along with my appended comments, that I have in mind each year when I sign my annual contract.  

So, in the interest of full disclosure – and for my family and friends who may well wonder how it is that a practicing Catholic can teach at an Evangelical school – here's that statement, beginning with Bethel's "We Believe" affirmation (as it originally appeared on my contract), followed by my interpretive annotations:
______________________________________________

As a Christian college, we believe...

• God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and the Author of salvation. 
• The Bible is the divinely inspired, only infallible, authoritative Word of God, and the unchanging rule of faith and practice.
• Man's relationship to God, which was lost through sin, is restored through faith in the redeeming work of Christ, God's divine Son.
• The Church is composed of persons who are born of the Spirit and empowered by him to live a holy life devoted to the fulfillment of the Church's Great Commission.
• The personal return of Christ will bring about the end of the present age, the Judgment and the beginning of the glorious age to come.

Can you personally and unreservedly agree with this creed? Describe any exception you would make.

I do personally agree with the creedal statement as far as it goes, and yet I feel compelled to clarify that my belief and understanding extend beyond that which is explicitly articulated. The following addendum, therefore, is not an "exception" I would make, but rather a further fleshing out of how I embrace and try to live out all the points specified in the creedal statement.

Without reservation, I firmly believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, only infallible, and authoritative written Word of God. I further believe that the Word of God includes both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – the dynamic, divinely inspired transmission of apostolic teaching from one generation to the next. St. Paul refers to the dual nature of God's Word when he writes, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2.15 [RSV]).

Furthermore, I believe that the twofold Word of God – like a single, unified Deposit of Faith – has been entrusted to the Church by Christ, and that the Church has the obligation to preserve it intact and proclaim it to the world. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church also has the responsibility of interpreting the Word of God, and does so today with the same apostolic authority Christ granted the original disciples.
______________________________________________

For more information on Catholic beliefs regarding human origins, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§282-289).

Invocation at a Nursing Pinning

Holy God, we are gathered here to honor You through honoring these nursing graduates.

We all know how hard they’ve worked to get here, but no one knows it better than You.

And so, we ask for Your blessing—both on our celebration here today, and on the graduates themselves as they go forth to serve You as nurses.

Father God, Creator of all, You are the Author of Life.

Give these nurses courage to be defenders of life in a culture—and an industry—that too often sees death as a solution to difficult problems.

Make them warriors on behalf of the vulnerable, the weak, the defenseless, particularly the unborn and the elderly.

Lord Jesus, You are the Savior of the world.

Give these nurses a passion for the Gospel—for witnessing to their faith in both word and deed.

Make them bridges in their encounters with patients, families of patients, and co-workers—bridges to You and the salvation You offer the whole world.

Holy Spirit, You animate the church with love.

Give these nurses a capacity to love those whom the world despises—the diseased, the dying, the poor, the enemy.

Make them vehicles of Your infinite love, Holy Spirit, and cause them to be transparent in compassion and selfless in charity.

We honor and adore You, Holy God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.
_______________________

Offered on April 28, 2007, at Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana.

Personhood and Compromise

Charles Krauthammer ("Cell Lines, Moral Lines," Washington Post, 8/5/05) simultaneously provides a weak argument for expanded federal funding of stem cell research while unwittingly drawing attention to the twisted morality of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Krauthammer concedes that an embryo is indeed a “new human life,” but he sees no problem in destroying embryos in order to conduct research on their cells. His argument – emphasized in italics, no less – is that thousands of such embryos “will be destroyed anyway,” so snatching a few stem cell lines before they’re snuffed is simply a practical matter. 

Where Krauthammer does have trouble is the possibility that embryos will be produced (and presumably sold) for experimentation purposes only, and he calls for limits to be included in the stem cell bill that is working its way through Congress.

If Mr. Krauthammer is not bothered by the disposal of “extra” embryos, then why would he be bothered by entrepreneurs trafficking in embryonic tissue and cells? If pre-born human beings are not persons, as he suggests, then what difference would it make if free and fertile citizens made a few bucks by providing embryonic grist for the stem-cell mill? The inconsistency in Krauthammer’s logic betrays an underlying relativism that allows him to pick and choose what kinds of human life are worthy of protection.

A second question for Krauthammer follows hard on the heels of the first: If he is troubled by the idea of “human manufacture,” then why isn’t he complaining about the IVF industry itself? It is well known that successful IVF is dependent on embryonic redundancy, and that every attempt at achieving pregnancy through this method will result in the production of multiple “spare” embryos that are usually destroyed. Isn’t this the very utilitarian human manufacture that Krauthammer is afraid of?

The pro-life bottom line is this: All human life is precious, including the zygotes and blastocysts that Krauthammer so glibly dismisses as non-persons. To designate certain stages of human development as expendable is to engage in the very moral reasoning that has been used to justify all kinds of depravity and violence in the recent past.

Either human life is sacred and deserving of every protection from conception until natural death, or else no one is safe. This is not merely a lesson from religion; it is a clear and disturbing lesson from history, and one which our national leaders should heed as they consider the stem cell issue.
__________________________

A version of this letter originally appeared in the South Bend Tribune's "Michiana Point of View" on September 2, 2005.

Bothered by Bonhoeffer

Originally posted on Facebook (April 22, 2010). 

Joseph Loconte's review of Eric Metaxas' new Dietrich Bonhoeffer biography appears in today's Wall Street Journal, and it got under my skin.

I so much respect Bonhoeffer's devout orthodoxy and passionate commitment to living out the Gospel, heedless of the world's conventions and compromises. His embodiment of radical grace and costly discipleship is tremendously challenging and certainly deserves greater attention and imitation, particularly today.

But the assassination plot: I can't get past the assassination plot. I know I can't judge Bonhoeffer's decision to be party to a plan to kill Hitler—I wasn't there in wartime Germany when Jews and others were being exterminated by the hundreds of thousands.

Still, we rightly condemn those who today turn to violence in the name of protecting the unborn, and so the question arises: What's the difference?

Can we ever countenance intentional killing, even of someone like Hitler? Was Bonhoeffer simply wrong?
___________________________________

A Person Must Never Be Allowed to Starve to Death

Theresa Marie Schiavo (1963-2005)

Thank you for the editorial "Every human life deserves dignity" (May 29, 2005), which comes significantly just about two months after Terri Schiavo's death. Since then, the issue of artificially supplied nutrition and hydration has virtually disappeared from the headlines, and it might seem that all the fuss about tube feeding has simply faded away. 

Nevertheless, the question of whether Schiavo was allowed to die or was killed is very much current for those who care for others in similar circumstances. While it is true that the courts allowed Terri's husband to remove his wife's feeding tube – thereby ensuring her death by starvation – they in no way legitimized what he did. Indeed, the drama surrounding Schiavo's demise only serves to illustrate how inhuman this practice is, and the revulsion most people of good will experienced during the ordeal makes it plain that it should never be allowed to happen again.

Unfortunately, as anyone who works in healthcare can attest, it is a situation that recurs with alarming frequency in our hospitals and nursing homes today – often with the prior consent of the victim. Many so-called "living wills" include clauses that allow signers to explicitly reject the artificial administration of food and water if they become incapacitated and unable to eat on their own. By signing these forms, people agree to accept a horrible death, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and too many doctors are all too willing to carry out those wishes once the circumstances present themselves. 

This is the kind of dangerous moral surrender that Pope John Paul II addressed in a speech he made back in March 2004. Speaking to a gathering of experts on persistent vegetative state (PVS), the pope made it very clear that the provision of nutrition and hydration must always be considered a part of ordinary care. Even when artificially administered, John Paul said, food and water "always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act." The debate on this issue among moralists and theologians had gone on for many years, but the Holy Father's clear statement effectively put an end to the controversy. 

Even so, confusion on this issue is rampant, even among Catholics, and even those who were on the right side of the Schiavo issue are unaware of the full implications of her case. Much was made in the media of the question regarding Terri's wishes concerning what she'd want if she were in a PVS, but according to the Holy Father's instruction, a person's wishes are irrelevant to the provision of food and water. Simply put, a person must never be allowed to starve to death, no matter what that person desires or requests. 

A protestor outside the Florida courthouse where Terri's fate was decided.

Obviously, when the provision of nutrition and hydration is no longer serving any purpose at all – when nutrients can no longer be assimilated by the body or are not providing any comfort to someone whose death is imminent – then it may be discontinued. But such a situation was not being addressed by the pope in the spring of 2004; he was addressing a narrowly prescribed set of circumstances, and it seems providential that, almost exactly a year later, the specific circumstances he had referred to burst into the public eye with the battle over Terri Schiavo. We must never forget that Terri was not dying until her feeding tube was removed. This is the crucial point: When food and water are withheld such that a person dies as a direct result, the only possible conclusion is a willful homicide. 

Of course, consideration must be made for the particular circumstances of individual cases, but what the Holy Father has done is to help us know the limits of what can be debated, even in the hard cases. No one is claiming that food and water must be provided at all costs until the very last breath has passed ones lips; what the pope did declare is that no one should ever die from starvation and dehydration – and that is precisely what happens when feeding tubes are discontinued despite the absence of underlying pathologies that naturally lead to death. In fact, John Paul refers to such precipitate withdrawals of food and water as "euthanasia by omission."

No one would choose to be in a PVS for any length of time – whether 15 years or five years or even the required one year to attach that label to someone – but unforeseen and unfortunate things happen all the time, and it is in those very unforeseen and unfortunate situations that we are closest to the cross. Our brothers and sisters who are in a PVS (or "post-coma syndrome," as some Catholics writing on this topic are calling it to get away from the negative connotations associated with "vegetative") require our love an care. They are Christ, the Christ of Matthew 25 – "when I was hungry, you fed me; when I was thirsty, you gave me drink."

Can we do otherwise?
______________________________

A version of this essay originally appeared in Today's Catholic on June 19, 2005. Terri Schiavo died of marked dehydration on March 31, 2005.

Hydration at the End of Life: Avoiding Unnecessary Dehydration

"The deliberate withholding of food and water, regardless of how it is administered, can constitute a form of passive euthanasia, particularly when the intention is to hasten the patient's death. 

"The Church has made it abundantly clear that all forms of euthanasia, whether passive or active, are gravely immoral and must be avoided."

Read more...