Take Action to Defend Religious Liberty

Find other ways to take action by clicking HERE.

Don't buy what the mainstream media is selling. This is not about birth control or "those crazy Catholics."





UPDATE: "Senate votes, 51-48, to table the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of parts of the Obama health care law -- in particular, birth control -- on moral or religious grounds."


Click HERE to read the USCCB News Release


How did Catholic Senators vote? Read about it at the National Catholic Register.

Children: Begotten, Not Made

Over the past week, I have been strongly conflicted while reading the book Inconceivable.  It is about a Catholic couple who struggled with secondary fertility issues since their first child was born and turned to science in order that they may have more children.  Since men are fallible, a medical error resulted in the mother's pregnancy with a child who was not genetically hers.

On one hand, I was deeply saddened while reading what Carolyn and Sean Savage went through.  Their pain from having dreams of a large family dashed could not prepare them for the pain that was yet to come.  Carrying a child and subsequently falling in love with the boy, all while knowing that the child was to go to his genetic parents upon delivery is for most of us unimaginable.  On top of this, Carolyn had health complications and was putting herself at risk by carrying this child and giving him the gift of life.  As Carolyn noted in the book, she could legally kill the child through abortion, yet would have to give the child to his biological parents upon birth if she chose in favor of life.  Though I personally have not and would never  choose to use In Vitro Fertilization to expand my family, I can feel so much pain while reading the words of both Sean and Carolyn.  They desperately longed to do what was right for their family.  Their plans for a large family resulted in two healthy sons and two miscarriages before they decided to choose IVF to offer them hope for a larger family.  They are blessed to have a daughter who was conceived through IVF and in an attempt to further add to their family, once again underwent the implantation of three lives - embryos -which had been preserved frozen at a fertility clinic.  This is where the real nightmare began.

On the other hand, and this is where the conflict rises, they knew what the Church teaches about IVF and decided that the Church was wrong and that they were right.  They perceived a certain 'discrimination' against people who could no physically get pregnant without resorting to IVF procedures.  A look at Sacred Scripture shows that Carolyn and Sean were not alone in their longing for children.  There are perhaps dozens of instances of infertile couples struggling emotionally in the Bible.

In the Old Testament Elkanah says to his wife who was unable to conceive, "Hannah, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart so sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?" Of course Elkanah's wife loved him, but she wanted to bear their child. Source

I do not wish to hurt the Savages any more than they have been hurt.  It is they who put this story into a book and over the air waves into our living rooms, so I do feel I have some sort of implicit permission to give my own perspective on their deeply personal story.

It is my hope that they will read these comments and take them with the love and concern they are intended:

• Children are begotten, not made. 
• Gifts are to be freely given and accepted - but never forced.  
• You are deeply in love with a boy who is not genetically yours, and could have been as well with an adopted child.  
• The Church does not discriminate against you because of your infertility; to the contrary her members want to help you carry the burden of the cross.
• You made an extreme error in judgement just as everyone does.  Begin anew and put aside your anger with Church teaching. Prayerfully discern why the Church says that IVF is morally unacceptable.
• Isaac was the only son for Abraham and Sarah, yet through his obedience, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son for God. 
• Put yourself at the foot of the cross during this Lenten season and consider Mary, with her only beloved Son, knowing that he was destined to die upon a cross in order that all of humanity may be saved.  She too carried a child knowing heartbreak would be inevitable.
• Further encouragement of others to seek IVF not only leads yourself to further separation from God through mortal sin, it also brings others to the same destination. 
• Having children through 'any means necessary' serves yourself and your needs, disregarding God's will
• Gestational Carrier is a horrid term and one the Savages used when they decided to have their remaining embryos transferred to another woman in further efforts to expand their family.
• We all sin and sometimes it is with the best of intentions.  If we are off the mark according to Church teaching, it is best to further investigate where we are wrong - not the Church.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

EDITED 3-31-11:  A link to this blog entry was posted on the Savage's Facebook page and a storm followed.  I temporarily removed the previous bullet points, but after having read and re-read the comments made by Mrs. Savage and others, have since returned them where they were initially. There is no delicate way to tell someone that they did something wrong and to suggest alternatives.  Certainly that is the case where someone has been through difficult trauma such as Mrs. Savage experienced.  One additional note:  If a priest comments that he does not support the Church's position on IVF, one should not feel justified as many a priest has also supported gay marriage, artificial contraception, fornication, female ordination and numerous other topics against Church teaching.  No one has stated that a child brought into the world via IVF is any less precious than any other child.  It is not the child, but the means that the parents used to become pregnant that is a serious matter.  Does that mean you think a child born out of wedlock is somehow inferior?  Nonsense.  Please read the information contained in the links at the end of the entry as I have added more.

From their Facebook page (not including comments made by other individuals though some are quite interesting): 

 "It is articles like this that leave me shaking in my chair. Off to take a deep breath and say a prayer for guidance. C"

"I know...it just hurts. I feel like the doctrine is so shortsighted and discriminatory. And, I can't count the number of priests who have whispered to us...."I don't really agree w/the church on this issue!", but are so deathly afraid to speak up and urge the hierachy to reconsider. C"

"[facebook fan], So sorry this upset you so! I just keep torchering myself and rereading it. My goodness, to say that we should have adopted....to say that she would never personally choose IVF...I find it so interesting when people are quick to say what they would or wouldn't do when they have never been in a certain situation. It seems so arrogant."

"I love my church. My next blog post is about my relationship with our parish. A few Sundays ago I sat in my pew and admired all of the families that had gathered for worship. Funny thing about it was...there were many there that have IVF children. They've just never been publicly 'outed' (or chastized). It's really, really hard to reconcile right now. C"

"Interesting thing about the [Catholic Ponderings] author. I think if the church changed it's mind, she'd change her mind. She is a devoted follower. I'm not always a fan of devoted "followers". Instead, I love to read articles, blogs, and published works written by "inspired ponderers". Critical thought, prayerful reflection and the recognition of the dangers of arrogance are probably a more accurate reflection of Jesus' loving approach to mankind. I often wonder what Jesus would say about the Church of our world. My guess is, he'd be shaking his head in disappointment. C"

Inconceivable was, as mentioned, a difficult read.  It was well-crafted, alternating between Sean's perspective and that of Carolyn's, seamlessly taking you through a very painful time in their lives.  I was brought to tears over and over as the waves of painful news mounted against this loving couple who were trying to cope with unimaginable circumstances. A little boy and a family were blessed with life and yet another family was left to cope with incredible emptiness and despair at what they had hoped could have been.  +

*To read more about the Savage family or to order the book, visit their website HERE.  

_________________

For further information on Church teaching in regard to infertility treatments and IVF consult the following:

In Vitro Fertilization: Ethical Implications and Alternatives 

Catechism of the Catholic Church

In Vitro Fertilization and Reproductive Technology - USCCB

Embryo and Fetal Research - USCCB

Technology to assist infertile Catholic couples consistent with Church teaching - USCCB

What you need to know if you are struggling with infertility

Infertility: Terms you need to know

Quick Questions on IVF answered

Dignitas Personae

IVF and the Catholic Couple

The Multiple Injustices of IVF

NaPro Technology:  Moral and Better than IVF

In Virto Fertilization and the Hermeneutic of the Gift  by Christopher West

U.K. article: New fertility legislation will make it illegal to use embryos with a known genetic abnormality in IVF treatment

Read THIS powerful story. Yet another situation where a family is changed forever due to an IVF implantation.  This time, the mother was implanted with three fertilized eggs and found herself pregnant with triplets. Read this agonizing tale as told by the father, sharing what it was like to watch his children die in utero on a monitor after his wife insisted on aborting two of the children. 

"So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- "

Heretics among us are receiving thanks from the leader of Planned Parenthood, each of them requiring our prayers - each of them needing to be fitted for asbestos suits - just in case. From Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood President, on our recent Health Care Reform bill, now law:




"Some ask why didn't we yell even louder than we did? Why didn't we overturn the Hyde amendment, which has unfairly prevented poor women from having their health insurance -- Medicaid-- pay for abortion? The simple and discouraging truth is that we have an anti-choice House of Representatives. With the help of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's political action committee, things got better in 2008, with the election of 28 new pro-choice members of the House and, more importantly, eight new pro-choice U.S. senators. But if you're scoring, when the House voted for the first time on the Stupak abortion ban, 64 Democrats voted in favor of the ban. There are way too many members of Congress who are opposed to women's rights and who vote that way every session -- Republicans and Democrats.

...

And in the last days, when Congressman Stupak and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to bring down health care reform completely over their narrow demands, the true heroine for women's health was Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She never blinked. In the final hours, when congressional leadership and the White House were scrambling for any vote they could get to reach the magic 216, Speaker Pelosi put herself in the way of the anti-choice steamroller. In private and in public, she vowed that there would be no health care bill if it included the Stupak abortion ban.

And in the final days before the bill was passed, it was the Roman Catholic nuns who most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform. This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support. Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice, as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time he should.

...

It has been a long and difficult process to get health care passed, and the work isn't over yet. But we need more than health care; we need women and men elected to office who will stand up for our health and our rights, even when it's hard. So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- and to the women everywhere who were counting on them. They need our gratitude and our support."--Huffington Post

"Sister" Simone Campbell

____________

When Catholics are given a pat on the back by the leader of Planned Parenthood, everyone must take notice.  Obviously, the one receiving congratulatory 'warm fuzzies' has strayed far from the Shepherd. 

Did Obama Ban Cloning in the US?

No, he did not ban cloning. In fact, he gave his approval for it. If you are into hair-splitting, he has put his foot down on the implanting of cloned embryos into a woman's uterus - for now. Remember, he is the abortion president. All of the cloned embryos will be studied and then destroyed. Our children will not only be science experiments in some sort of warped Frankensteinian play, they will also be killed. That is our guarantee.

Allow me illustrate and then highlight some tidbits for you since he says one thing and leaks noxious fumes from under his breath:

As he was signing an executive order that will use federal funding to encourage the study of embryonic stemcells, he said: [human cloning is] dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in society." He eventually added this very codified sentence, "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."

______________________

From Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D, I present "The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research":

1. Stem cells can only come from embryos. In fact stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.

2. The Catholic Church is against stem cell research. There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, the church really opposes the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, the Catholic Church approves three of the four possible types of stem cell research.

3. Embryonic stem cell research has the greatest promise. Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already cured thousands. There is the example of the use of bone marrow cells from the hipbone to repair scar tissue on the heart after heart attacks. Research using adult cells is 20-30 years ahead of embryonic stem cells and holds greater promise. This is in part because stem cells are part of the natural repair mechanisms of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells do not belong in an adult body (where they are likely to form tumors, and to be rejected as foreign tissue by the recipient). Rather, embryonic stem cells really belong only within in the specialized microenvironment of a rapidly growing embryo, which is a radically different setting from an adult body.

4. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are fundamentally different from one another. The creation of cloned embryos either to make a baby or to harvest cells occurs by the same series of technical steps. The only difference is what will be done with the cloned human embryo that is produced: will it be given the protection of a woman’s womb in order to be born, or will it be destroyed for its stem cells?

5. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is different from cloning. In fact, “somatic cell nuclear transfer” is simply cloning by a different name. The end result is still a cloned embryo.

6. By doing somatic cell nuclear transfer, we can directly produce tissues or organs without having to clone an embryo. At the present stage of research, scientists are unable to bypass the creation of an embryo in the production of tissues or organs. In the future it may be possible to use chemicals, hormones or even elements from the cytoplasm of a woman’s egg to “reprogram” a somatic cell (like a skin cell) into a stem cell, without ever creating an embryo. This is called “de-differentiation,” and if this becomes feasible, there would be no moral objections to such an approach to getting stem cells.

7. Every body cell, or somatic cell, is somehow an embryo and thus a human life. People sometimes argue: “Every cell in the body has the potential to become an embryo when we do cloning. Does that mean that every time we wash our hands and are shedding thousands of cells, we are killing life?” The problem is that this overlooks the basic biological difference between a regular body cell, and one whose nuclear material has been fused with an unfertilized egg cell, resulting in an embryo. A normal skin cell will only give rise to more skin cells when it divides, while an embryo will give rise to the entire adult organism. Skin cells are not potential adults. Skin cells are potentially only more skin cells. Only embryos are potential adults.

8. Because no sperm is used in cloning, the resultant embryo can’t be a human being and it must be OK to destroy it for its stem cells. Normally when sperm and egg join, each provides half the DNA to make the full complement in the embryo. That embryo then grows to become an adult. When you do cloning, you avoid the first step of mixing parental DNA, obtaining the full complement instead from the nucleus of the regular body cell that is transferred inside the woman’s egg. That cloned embryo then grows to become an adult. Because Dolly the Sheep was made without sperm, this does not imply that she was some kind of being other than a sheep. Similarly, a human embryo made without sperm is not some kind of being other than a human. Cloning simply provides a workaround for the first step of fertilization, producing a genuine human who should never be destroyed for his or her stem cells.

9. Because frozen embryos may one day end up being discarded by somebody, that makes it morally allowable, even laudable, to violate and destroy those embryos. The moral analysis of what we may permissibly do with an embryo doesn’t depend on its otherwise “going to waste,” nor on the incidental fact that those embryos are “trapped” in liquid nitrogen. If we imagine a coal mine with miners who are permanently trapped inside through no fault of their own, with the certainty that they are all going to die, that would not make it okay to send a remote control robotic device to harvest organs from those miners and cause their demise.

10. Because large numbers of embryos generated during intercourse are lost from the woman’s body and die naturally, that makes it permissible for us to destroy embryos in research. What Mother Nature does and what man may do are two distinct realities that should never be confused. If Mother Nature sends a tsunami that claims thousands of human lives, that does not make it morally permissible for me to take a machine gun and shoot into a stadium filled with thousands of people.

Some other excellent sources where you can do your 'homework' on the embryonic stemcell creation and slaughter:

National Catholic Bioethics Center

National Right to Life Committee

___________________________

My confession: I'd like to make a positive entry very soon. If Mr. Obama takes time off from mangling the right of every American to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' and instead focuses on the economy, I would love to share joy and inspire you. My confession next Saturday will probably not be the last where I include my struggle with loving my neighbor a.k.a. president. (I'm having difficulty separating the sin from the sinner.)

On Prenatal Testing - Share This Entry With a Friend

This letter was sent to ZENIT in regard to a recent article on prenatal testing:

A little over eight years ago, my niece heard these words from a woman, "I will not bring this child into the world." The woman was not an expectant mother, she was my niece's OB/GYN. At five months into her pregnancy, an ultrasound revealed my niece's child had no apparent brain matter. A subsequent ultrasound revealed that her son had an encephelocele and that the build up of spinal fluid had squished his brain to the top of his head making the brain itself undetectable on a regular ultrasound. Many experts advised termination of the pregnancy.

My niece and her husband decided to bring their little boy into the world even if it meant just a few precious moments with their little son or if it meant a lifetime of constant care. They had to find a neonatologist, a new delivery doctor and even a new pediatrician who would agree to care for their son with his special needs. Three months later, my niece gave birth to her second child. He was taken that week into surgery where they implanted a VP shunt to drain the excess spinal fluid to allow room for his brain. They were told their son probably would not see, hear, talk or walk.

Today, this young boy attends second grade, is preparing to make his first communion, sees and comments on the beauty that surrounds him, asks his grandma to play the piano for him, is surprisingly articulate and is able to walk. While he has occasional seizures, he is a thriving little person deserving of care. Ultimately, he is a child of God, deserving of the special place in this world that God intended for him.

I guess my point is, prenatal testing is very worthwhile when it helps to prepare doctors and parents to help the child in need of help, but it can be very harmful and seductive when "experts" become the judge and jury of such a child and use it as a means to determine which children should live and which children they refuse to bring into the world.

Thanks and God bless you!

Catherine Lemek

____________________

And to share another more tragic outcome, I submit to you a fellow blogger's account:

When I came back, I had a wait (of course), and the radiologist came in to do the scan herself. About 15 minutes later she flipped the lights back on and dropped a bomb. A big bomb. Congenital Heart Defect. What they had seen earlier, but couldn't tell me without having an M.D. confirm it was that the baby's heart is asymmetrical. The left ventricle is not growing.

They let me call B's office (I'd left my cell in the car), I just told his boss to send him home without giving any specifics (although considering I was crying, he probably didn't need them), and they called a genetic counselor down to talk to me. She dropped another bomb. The disease is nearly always fatal. After taking a family history as far back as I could provide, she said she sees nothing to indicate that this is genetic, or could have been expected, and no indication that it would be expected to happen again. It is a fluke, a random happenstance.

I came home to a frantic B, of course, and just collapsed in his arms while he begged me to talk to him and tell him what was the matter. He, of course, sat me down in front of a computer, he sat down in front of another, and we both started researching. I'll save you the trouble.

"one of the most complex cardiac defects seen in the newborn and remains probably the most challenging to manage of all congenital heart defects... without treatment... uniformly fatal, often within the first hours or days of life" - Cincinnati Children's

and later, after meeting with the Cardiologist:

The pediatric cardiologist spent almost 2 hours examining the heart of our baby boy. From the beginning, it was evident that it was not a healthy heart. Only 3 of the 4 chambers were pumping blood. The other chamber looked like a knot of scar tissue. B could tell almost from the first picture that it wasn't right, but we both were hoping that the defect would be something that our child could live with.

It isn't.

The doctor laid out our choices and the odds the baby would survive with the necessary surgeries. Even though the odds were better than we thought, our baby would still lead a life of sickness and pain.

Until the third surgery, our son would not be getting enough oxygen. His developing brain would be starved of the fuel it needed to function properly. Three years. It would be three years before he would get the oxygen he needed to be healthy. Who knows what damage that would cause?

Their decision? Death for the child by labor induction.

And if you wish to see the pictures the mother posted of her beautiful and perfect baby following his forced birth and subsequent death, click here. We would have loved to have welcomed the little boy into our home. His little heart beat for three hours and eight minutes.

Heresy Barometer Explodes in UK

Quotes from Bishop Kieran Conry, United Kingdom, on matters of the Catholic faith:

"You can't talk to young people about salvation. What's salvation? What does salvation mean? My eternal soul? You can only talk to young people in young people's language, really. And if you're going to talk to them about salvation, the first thing they will understand is saving the planet. You're talking about being saved and they will say: 'What about saving the planet?' "

.

"But to young people, boiling a kettle, wasting water, saving the planet, that's language they will understand. Then you can move on from there: 'Right, do you understand what saving means? Do you understand what good and bad is here?' And they'll say 'yes' and you can say: 'Right now, if you look at your own life...' And again I think for a lot of the claims there is simply no evidence."

.

"They need to be told God loves them. They don't need to be told: 'You're heading for hell.' No. I would disagree profoundly with that view, profoundly, profoundly."

.

On Humanae Vitae and contraception:

"Well, first of all, I would disagree that it's a key teaching. The key teachings of the Church are in the Creed. It's not a life issue." To do with the transmission of life, then? "It's to do with what family and married life means, being open to procreation. So it's not a life issue because then you tie it in with abortion. The two are completely different issues."

"In the great scheme of things I don't think it's high up the list. It became a very public issue which affected a significant number of people, not the majority of Catholics. The majority of Catholics are not in that position, where birth control is an issue. Look around on Sunday morning and see 'is birth control an issue for most people here?' No, it's not."

"Why do people never go back to the Beatitudes, 'blessed are the poor in spirit'? You know, are you poor in spirit? No. Does that bother you? No. Do you practise birth control? Does that bother you? Yes. We've got a very distorted view of what we think Christian morality is."

When asked if the teaching on use of birth control is wrong, he responded:

"It could be. It's not an infallible teaching. Clearly the basic Creed formula, what the Church teaches about the sacraments is infallible but there's only been one strictly infallible statement."