Troubling discussion with Fr. Prieur about embryonic stem cell research

John Pacheco at Socon Or Bust recently wrote a thought-provoking piece about Fr. Michael Prieur.  John and I researched that piece together, although John did virtually all the work in writing the article.  Collaboration among bloggers is a beautiful thing, as varied skill sets can be combined.  

If you haven't read John's article, I would highly recommend it. In my current post, I would like to focus on Fr. Prieur's controversial paper on embryonic stem cell research.  In the paper, Fr. Prieur and nine co-authors argue that it's morally licit for Catholics to conduct research on embryonic stem cells as long as the killing of the embryo and the extraction of its cells are done at another facility and that the Catholic researcher doesn't agree with the killing of the embryo.

Here are some important chronological markers to keep in mind before we go further:

• In 2000, the Pontifical Academy for Life published a Declaration in which it clearly stated that it's morally unacceptable to conduct research on embryonic stem cells, even if the killing of the embryo and the extraction of its cells had been done at another facility and that the Catholic researcher didn't agree with the killing of the embryo.
• In 2006, Fr. Prieur published his paper, which referenced the 2000 paper above, but his conclusions contradicted those of the Pontifical Academy for Life.  What Fr. Prieur was advocating in this paper was

Is money all that matters to the CCCB regarding Development and Peace?

John Pacheco at SoCon or Bust just wrote another insightful article on the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal.  Click here to read it.

Media reports following the Plenary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) had some coverage of the D&P affair, although we really don't know what happened because all the important discussions were held behind closed doors.

Among the public comments that we know of, Bishop Richard Grecco (Charlottetown) presented a report that whitewashed D&P of any wrongdoing. That part isn't surprising.  What shocked me was the report's assessment of the toll that this scandal has taken:

"Among the individual and regular monthly donors to DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE, we have had 34 individuals (of our 6,110 donors) cancel their monthly contributions as a direct result of the controversy, representing 0.5% of our donor database." (Source)

The reason that donations were so little affected is partly due to the fact that most pro-life Catholics stopped donating to D&P years ago because of other scandals.  

But there is a more fundamental issue here.  Is that how Catholic bishops should assess a controversy, by its financial cost?  

What about the sufferings of thousands of faithful Catholics that have become disillusioned and

CCCB covers up damning D&P evidence; Archbishop admits his apathy

LifeSiteNews.com interviewed Archbishop Martin Currie of St. John's, Newfoundland, regarding the Development and Peace (D&P) scandal. Archbishop Currie was listed as a co-author of the June 2009 report of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) that whitewashed the D&P scandal. Look what happened during the interview:

The June report sparked controversy as it stated: "we believe the allegations by Lifesite News … are not founded on the facts."  In the interview however, LSN was able to demonstrate directly to the archbishop that the allegations were indeed founded on facts.  After seeing the evidence first hand, the bishop stated apologetically, "I just should have followed up more."

Hold on a sec. The whole purpose of the CCCB's so-called investigation into D&P was to "follow up more" on the allegations. It seems that the archbishop was grossly negligent in how he conducted his "investigation". Negligent probably isn't strong enough of a word. After all, John Pacheco mailed the evidence directly to each bishop in the country.  All they had to do was open the envelope and read the contents.  It was served to them on a silver platter.  Hand-fed into their mouths with a spoon.

It makes my blood boil. We're talking about abortion! This isn't some trivial theologian debate about how many angels can stand on the head of a needle. Lives are at stake!  What does it take to get a bishop to bounce out of his chair in outrage? 

Let's read more:

He explained that the investigation was limited to the first five groups in Mexico that LSN had

On the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

In light of the Richard Gaillardetz scandal, some people have inquired about the infallibility of the Church's teaching on the ordination of women. You can read an in-depth dissection of the issue at Socon Or Bust. I'll offer you my abbreviated version.

The Church's teaching on women's ordination is unquestionably an infallible teaching of the Church. If one reads the words used by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you can see that he used very heavy and deliberate language to authoritatively define this teaching. 

In the following months, the Church realized that this document was not accepted by everybody and that some controversy remained. After all, in such a large Church, it is not surprising that a variety of interpretations could emerge for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, despite the very definitive language used. So like a good Mother, the Church wished to reassure her children by repeating this teaching in a very explicit matter with the firm intention of dispelling any controversy that may have remained. 

This document, called the Responsum ad dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued less than 18 months after Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It’s quite unusual for the Vatican to repeat itself so soon. It also contains the key word “infallible”. Let’s read a juicy quote: 

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”

That's very strong language!  How much more needs to be said?  But there is something else that you probably didn't notice.  All three sources of divine revelation are mentioned in that one sentence:

-Word of God
-Tradition (capital T)
-Magisterium

The three sources of divine revelation are invoked in the same sentence as “requires definitive assent” and “infallible”. The Vatican is telling us something profound: they didn't make this up, it is divinely revealed.  Let anyone with ears to hear listen!!

It doesn't matter how definitive you or I think that this teaching is. All that matters is that the Vatican intended for it to be definitive and infallible. At that point, debate and discussion must cease and gave way to humble obedience.

Now someone could argue that we don't really know how definitive the Vatican meant to be on this matter. All we have is a written document, and like any document, it is subject to diverse interpretations. So how do we really know that the Vatican meant to teach infallibly? This is essentially the position that Mr. Gaillardetz is taking. This is a very dangerous course because it would essentially nullify the wonderful gift of the Magisterium. We could never really know what the Vatican teaches and we would be open to our own personal interpretations on everything. In such a world, theologians would become the official interpreters of magisterial teaching. Even more, individual Catholics could also become their own interpreters of magisterial teaching and hence be allowed to contracept “in good conscience” despite what the church has taught for 2,000 years, and even before that going back to the earliest Old Testament texts.

Have you ever seen the skit called "Who's on first?"  It's a classic by Abbott and Costello.  Similarly, imagine if you're trying to explain something to a friend and he just doesn't get it.  No matter how many times you say it and how many different ways your word it, he still doesn't understand.  Wouldn't that be annoying?  That's exactly what Mr. Gaillardetz does with regards to the Vatican and women's ordination.  How many times does the Vatican have to say “definitive” and “infallible” before he finally accepts the teaching?

Do you see how all the pieces are coming together now? Once trust in magisterial teaching breaks down, everything else falls apart. Gaillardetz has made a living by playing on nuances and by instilling doubts about the infallibility of various Church teaching. This gives them free reign to put forward his own interpretations. 

.

Divisions start to emerge among bishops over Development and Peace

This is certainly a positive sign for the future of the Church in Canada. Archbishops Collins and Prendergast have definitely stepped up to the plate and assumed some leadership. I am sincerely grateful to both of them for this strong pro-life witness.

Let's pray that God's will be done.

Development and Peace scandal causing tangible harm

Remember that letter written by a bishop from Peru asking the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) to stop funding pro-abortion groups in their country?  The Peruvian bishop was complaining that three of Development and Peace's partners were "very committed to the pro-abortion movement" in Peru.  We never got a convincing response from the CCCB on that one.  Just a gallon of bleach.


John Pacheco at Socon or Bust is now reporting that a bill has been tabled before the Congress in Peru to legalize abortion under some circumstances.  Read his article here.

So now we have a tangible illustration of how our donation dollars can be used to advance the Culture of Death.  If this bill gets passed, unborn babies will start losing their lives in Peru.  And Development and Peace will have been an accomplice.  

Lord, have mercy upon all of us!


.

The Father Rosica controversy

Rather Thomas Rosica, who heads the TV network Salt and Light, has recently caused quite a stir in the pro-life community.  Here is a brief summary of what happened.

Following the funeral of Ted Kennedy, in which the former senator was portrayed as a hero and a faithful Catholic despite his pro-abortion and anti-family views, many pro-lifers felt outraged that such an ardent promoter of the culture of death would receive such a glorious public Catholic funeral.  Some people (unwisely) contacted Salt and Light asking them to provide negative coverage of the event.
Instead, they got a series of aggressive and vitriolic attacks from Fr. Rosica against the pro-life movement in general and LifeSiteNews.com in particular. Father Rosica took exception to the idea that pro-life Catholics could use strong language to criticize other Catholics. Father Rosica presented these criticisms as being uncharitable, divisive, unmerciful and non-Christian.

To illustrate, I've compiled the insults that have been hurled at pro-lifers by Father Rosica in person or through his website.  Note: these criticisms are not solely addressed to LifeSite; the vast majority are directed towards the pro-life movement in general.

• [LifeSite] is doing "the work of Satan" 
• "something is terribly wrong in the pro-life movement." 
• "Civility, charity, mercy and politeness seem to have dropped out of the pro-life lexicon."
• "Their words and actions vitiate their efforts in favor of life." 
• "not agents of life, but of division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence." 
• "I question whether or not they belong to the Catholic Church. Are such people Catholic?"
  
• "make the Church and our efforts for life look ridiculous and terribly anti-Christian."
• "deep-seated anger and hostility"
• "Through vicious attacks launched on blogs, a new form of self-righteousness, condemnation and gnosticism reveals authors who behave as little children bullying one another around in schoolyards- casting stones, calling names, and wreaking havoc in the Church today!"
• "Sowing seeds of hatred and division are not the work of those who wish to build a culture of life."
• "contribute to the misery and division within the world and the Church"
• "destroy and kill others along the way."
• "very strong, antagonist approach"
• "hostility towards women who would choose abortion"
• "pushing their ideals onto the rest of society"
• "judgmental instead of helpful and supportive"
• "radical" 
• "cruel and hateful individuals"
• "so shrill, so angry and judgmental"
• "ugly and threatening" 
• "this is how the devil triumphs"
• "character assassination"
• "[LifeSite] is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest"
• "wreaking division and havoc"
• [LifeSite] is not an authentic instrument at the service of unity and at the service of the Church. It is causing division. For the 1/10 of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) 9/10 is exaggeration."
• "[LifeSite] is bombastic, it is derisive and it is divisive."
• "pit people against each other"
• "wanting to set up a parallel Church"
• "cast aspersions or to dismiss or discredit what the bishops are trying to do" 

I feel so despised, disdained and derided.

Read here for the Vatican's view of how the Kennedy funeral should have been handled.  You'll see that it confirms everything that pro-lifers have been saying and contradicts what Fr. Rosica has been saying.

The oddest thing about this episode, is that Father Rosica did exactly what he was reproaching pro-lifers:  he openly criticized his fellow Catholics and he used such seething and inflammatory language as I have never seen used against pro-lifers, not even by the pro-abortion lobby.

This proves an important point:  his criticism of criticism is a hoax, a smoke-screen.  He himself realizes that constructive criticism is an integral part of Catholicism.  It's technically called "admonishing the sinner" and it is essential for the salvation of souls that have gone astray.

Unfortunately, Fr. Rosica has a distorted view of Catholicism.  But you will rarely hear him saying something overtly anti-Catholic.  He has a history of saying the right things (e.g. "I am pro-life"), but he tends to be unwilling to "take up his cross" by putting his reputation on the line in defending Church teachings.  For example, when he interviewed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, an infamous pro-abortion "Catholic", he remained silent while McGuinty expressed his disagreement with Church teaching on same-sex marriage. All this was broadcast on Salt and Light TV.  Is that Fr. Rosica's idea of good Catholic programming?  Contrast this to the beautiful witness of John Pacheco and David MacDonald who, in the last two elections, ran against Dalton McGuinty and publicly rebuked him for his anti-family positions.  Now that's heroic virtue.

To read more about the Fr. Rosica controversy, please visit Socon or Bust here and here. 

I agree with Fr. Rosica on one important point:  the Church is indeed divided.  The fracture is between those who want to follow the Vatican and those who have invented a lovey-dovey Catholicism (such as Fr. Rosica) where the primary goal is to never contradict anybody, even if they're dead wrong and rotting in mortal sin. Passivity can lead to complacency, which is often abused by ill-willed politicians and others.

This isn't about pro-lifers being self-righteous.  Just open up the Bible or the Catechism, or listen to the Vatican's statements.  We're simply trying to obey the Truth as it was handed down over the centuries, not invent our own path.

Please pray for Fr. Rosica. 

Summary of the Development and Peace scandal

In case you missed it, Development and Peace (the official charity of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) was caught financing organizations in developing countries that advocate for abortion and contraception.  Here is a summary of everything you need to know.

On March 12, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com (a non-profit news service focusing on life and family issues) revealed that Development and Peace was funding five groups in Mexico that were pressuring the Mexican government to legalize abortion. Less than a week later, the National Catholic Register discovered that Development and Peace was funding a pro-abortion group in Bolivia. Over the following months, further investigations into Development and Peace's partners were carried out by various pro-life groups, led by LifeSiteNews.com and Catholic blogger John Pacheco, the main author of Socon or Bust. By June 22, 2009, LifeSiteNews had identified 19 pro-abortion groups being funded by Development and Peace. On July 24, 2009, the tally from Socon or Bust reached 40 pro-abortion and anti-family groups.

During this period, several prominent pro-life groups expressed concerns about these revelations. The most authoritative statement came from the Bishops' Conference of Peru in a letter addressed to Archbishop James Weisgerber, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). After listing three partners of Development and Peace that are promoting abortion in their country, the Peruvian bishops stated:

“In that sense, we respectfully would like to formally request that the funding for the pro-abortion groups in Peru by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace be halted. It is very disturbing to have groups which work against the Bishops of Peru by attempting to undermine legal protection for the right to life of unborn children, be funded by our brother bishops in Canada."

Other prominent groups to speak out against Development and Peace included Priests for Life Canada, Canadian Catholic author Michael O'Brien, the B.C. Catholic newspaper, American Life League, Catholic Insight magazine, the Population Research Institute, Human Life International (HLI), the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) and the Latin American Alliance for the Family (ALAFA).

Response by Development and Peace and the CCCB

On March 13, 2009, the day after the initial evidence was revealed, the Executive Director of Development and Peace, Michael Casey, issued a note denying that the organization supported any partners or projects that violated Church teaching. However, Casey did not address or disprove any of the evidence presented by LifeSiteNews. Similar statements were published by Development and Peace in the subsequent weeks, but none ever addressed or disproved the growing body of evidence.

Archbishop Thomas Collins (Toronto) was the first Canadian bishop to publicly respond to the controversy. On March 18, 2009, he announced that no donations from his Archdiocese would be forwarded to Development and Peace until an investigation was completed. In the following days, the bishops of Peterborough, Kingston and Vancouver made similar announcements.

On March 20, the president of the CCCB, Archbishop James Weisgerber (Winnipeg) issued a letter stating the matter was being "carefully looked into". On April 8, the CCCB announced that it would conduct an investigation, with the assistance of Development and Peace, into the initial allegations regarding the five Mexican groups only. The report of this investigation was released on June 28 and concluded that the allegations made by LifeSiteNews and other pro-life groups were "not founded on the facts". Despite this sweeping statement, the CCCB's report did not address or disprove any of the evidence presented against the five Mexican groups, nor did it address any of the evidence presented against dozens of other partners of Development and Peace. The report also called for the organization to exercise greater vigilance in selecting its partners (although no specific guidance was provided) and that it foster better relations with the CCCB and with the local bishops in the countries in which it operates. Finally, the report reaffirmed the bishops' belief in the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

Throughout the controversy, Archbishop Weisgerber argued that it was morally licit for Development and Peace to fund organizations that were in opposition to Church teaching, a point that caused much consternation among Catholics. To support his point, the Archbishop incorrectly claimed that the Vatican was providing funds to UNICEF despite disagreements over issues such as contraception and abortion. In reality, the Vatican had announced in 1996 that it would stop donating to UNICEF precisely because it was promoting abortion and contraception. This ban remains in effect today.

Distrust remains over Development and Peace

Given the lack of attention to the evidence, the CCCB's report does not appear to have reassured pro-life Catholics. On July 23, 2009, Archbishop Collins (Toronto), who had been withholding donations from his Archdiocese, announced that donations from Toronto would only be directed to partners of Development and Peace that were endorsed by the local bishop. He also called for a comprehensive review of Development and Peace during the coming year, guided by two key principles: 1) that Development and Peace only work with partners that are in harmony with the Catholic faith; 2) that Development and Peace obtain approval of the local bishops before funding any projects. Archbishop Collins also added that future donations from his Archdiocese would depend on the extent to which the issues of concern had been resolved. The same week, Archbishop Miller of Vancouver, who had also been withholding donations, announced that he strongly supports the steps taken by the Archdiocese of Toronto in order to prevent future controversies.

The editorial staff at LifeSiteNews also reacted to the CCCB's report by publishing a response in which they call the report a "whitewash". Similarly, Socon or Bust published a four-part rebuttal to the CCCB's report.

The CCCB is scheduled to discuss the matter further at their plenary assembly in October 2009.