This text can also be viewed/downloaded as a scribd document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/36288800/Battle-for-Purity
Ten Steps when faced by temptations to Unchastity
Some of these steps are adapted from the book ‘Christian Totality’ by Fr. Basil Cole OP and Fr. Paul Connor OP
Short term immediate reaction:
(1) Do not panic in your first awareness of the temptation –panic gives more power to the Tempter.
(2) Make an immediate (but brief) internal ‘no’ to the temptation.
(3) Make a short prayer for protection against the temptation.
(4) Distract your mind by thinking about something else.
Think about either something you find interesting (a good movie or novel), or absorbing (work problems), or pious (the sufferings of Christ on the Cross). i.e. do not panic yourself in fighting the impure thought (trying to ‘not think about it’ just makes you think even more about the very thing that you are trying not to think about!).
Thus, instead of fighting the thought, gently move your thoughts to another topic.
Longer term reaction, after the temptation has passed:
(5) Try to forget about the temptation,
or else it will lead to a recurrence of the same thought.
This also helps to avoid scruples in this regard. Simply move on to other things. Confess your degree of consent to the temptation, i.e. was it brief and passing consent, or more prolonged; was it consent in thought, or in word, or in deed. Then, after confessing it, forget about it and know you’re forgiven.
(6) Learn to re-channel your energy in activity
–otherwise sexual tension can increase.
Therefore do exercise; work; play.
Boredom is a great opening to impurity. Boredom, in this context, means a lack of feeling satisfied.
Healthy busy-ness in work can be an important way to avoid impurity.
(7) Learn to avoid occasions of sin –by experience.
E.g. Late night internet; lying in bed when not asleep.
Such ‘occasions’ are different for each person –you are not the same as your friend.
E.g. movies, beer, beachwear. Question: How do YOU respond to these situations?
Know yourself –know the situations and times that you tend to be tempted. Plan to avoid to these situations.
Remember that temptations can help us grow in grace, by overcoming them. But do not seek temptation.
(8) Work on the ‘allied’ virtues -as listed below
The virtues all inter-relate. Thus, even if you seem powerless before your struggles against purity, you can still work on these other virtues and thus indirectly grow in purity. i.e. do not despair.
(9) Self-Esteem
Compulsive masturbation can often be linked to a lack of self-esteem –the individual somehow feels more ‘sexual’ and mature this way. Working to feel more content about oneself in other aspects of life can help build a self-esteem that is not just the hollow myth vainly fostered by pop psychologists.
(10) Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Virgin -Last but certainly not least!
Prayer helps us grow in our love of God and grow in our sense of being satisfied by his love for us. Loving God helps direct our desires to their ultimate and all-integrating end. A pure love for God only has affections for people (and things) in as much as such affections are part of our pure love.
The Blessed Sacrament is the earthly physical focus for our love of God, and it is our earthly physical focus for directing our devotions to counter disorder in our physical passions.
The Blessed Virgin is she who loved and loves purely, and can help us to do the same.
A daily half-hour of mental prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is a pivotal aid in purity.
Chastity –the Allied Virtues that we need cultivate:
c.f. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
(a) Temperance –chastity is part of temperance (temperance is also called ‘moderation’).
Learning moderation and self-mastery in other pleasures will help us in our self-mastery in purity.
E.g. food, alcohol, conversation (don’t always engage in conversation for the sake of your own pleasure, but speak so as to listen and help others).
Regular (but moderate) fasting is a very important part of this.
(b) ‘Play’ –this is an important a virtue! Esp. Exercise and sports
There is such a thing as too much play, but there is also such a thing as a lack of it.
The lack of play in our lives can sometimes be due to pride (we foolishly think that we are strong enough to not need to relax). The soul’s rest is in pleasure (ST II-II q168 a2). God intends us to rest the body and spirit in licit pleasures. When we deny ourselves licit pleasures and joys (and friendships) we then get more tempted to illicit pleasures. Note two excesses:
(a) A pampered body (with excess pleasure and no disciplined exercise) leads to impurity.
(b) Boredom is a great opening to impurity. Boredom, in this context, means a lack of feeling satisfied. Therefore, Plan to give yourself things that entertain and please you!
(c) Industriousness –keep at your work.
Keeping active in our work gives us a healthy satisfaction. A person satisfied in his work will be less prone to seek illicit satisfactions in impurity. A lack of work (like a lack of play) can lead to boredom and then to impurity.
(d) Humility –know your limits. Know when to flee temptation.
E.g. Know which movies may affect you more than they affect other people. PLAN: when you are in a calm sense of mind, in your stronger self, THEN plan for how you will avoid impurity. I.e. plan how to avoid what are occasions of sin for you. If you habitually lack humility in other things you are more likely to fall in impurity.
Remember that God allows us to be tempted to humble us. Impurity –“this vice is for the greatest part a just punishment of pride” (L.Scupoli, The Spiritual Combat, ch19). Therefore, let such temptations increase your humility, and know your dependence on grace. You are weak, just like your neighbour, humble yourself before God and man.
(e) Sobriety vs. drunkenness.
Learn due ‘measure’ in what is appropriate for you (not what is appropriate for others).
Drunkenness is an obvious pathway to impurity: it lowers our capacity to fight temptation, and lets the passions gain dominance over our rational faculty.
(f) Abstinence vs. gluttony. The virtue of refraining –a virtue we can then apply to sex.
Asceticism in food and drink leads to self-mastery, leads to knowledge of how to LICITLY use pleasures.
(g) Purity –meaning chastity in its outwards signs of kisses, embraces, touches, looks.
If we are not pure in these things then chastity in the heart will be impossible. This calls for prudence, self-knowledge, reflection, and an awareness of what is appropriate in different contexts.
(h) Modesty of dress.
If we seek to look provocatively attractive to others it’s difficult to think of ourselves in a pure manner.
Our immodest dress will lead others to have sinful thoughts. This calls for prudence, advice from others, and an awareness of how others react to us.
(i) Charity
This is a theological virtue, and is directly infused in us by God, but we can enable it to increase by removing the obstacles to it.
CCC 2347: the virtue of chastity blossoms in friendships, a pure focus for love, and spiritual communion, whether male or female (but note the obvious question of prudence in intimate friendships with members of the opposite sex, e.g. it’d be unusual for a man to seek an intimate friendship with a woman who was someone else’s wife).
Final thought:
WOMEN too. Unchastity is often preached about as if it only affected men, but it affects women too. Do not be overly embarrassed to confess it, to examine your conscience about it: examine your thoughts, affections, flirtations etc.
Note also: GUARDING YOUR HEART. Unchaste affections for someone you are not free to date is a form of unchastity.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Sunday, 7 January 2007
New Science backs the Early Embryo’s Personhood!
Recent Science and the Personhood of the Human Embryo.
By the Rev Dr Dylan James, Moral Theology Lecturer, Wonersh Seminary. Fr James recently completed a doctorate in bioethics on the notion of personhood, focussing on the embryo.
It’s now over two decades since the Warnock Report of 1984 led the way in approving experiments on human embryos in the UK. Back in 1984 many scientific claims were made to justify the 14-day time period that was given to experiment on embryos. The UK government now proposes extending embryo experimentation and works on the assumption that the 14-day time frame can be accepted as a starting point. However, recent science undermines the claims that were initially made for Warnock and this article will outline some points which indicate why the government should be re-thinking the Warnock position and not using it as a foundation.
Before looking at the science, it must be noted that the notion of a ‘person’ is a philosophical concept and not a scientific one. Similarly, which ‘rights’ we should accord to persons is an ethical matter and not a scientific one. However, science is very relevant because it shows us whether or not the embryo meets the criteria which define a person. Catholic bioethicists typically use the definition of the person first proposed by Boethius in the Sixth Century: ‘a person is an individual substance of a rational nature’. Turning this into a set of scientific criteria, this means that a human person must be an ‘individual’ and thus the question that needs to be asked about the early embryo is whether it is just a loosely-related collection of cells or whether it is properly an ‘individual’. Scientific data now implies that the transition from egg and sperm to an individual takes place within minutes of fertilisation beginning. Of course, none of this is likely to convince the hardened utilitarian who merely cares about the greatest good for the greatest number and does not care about whether it is a person he is experimenting on, but most people don’t appeal just to utilitarian calculus and the new science might sway them.
1. First, let us recall what the Warnock Report (mistakenly) took as being scientifically established. In the 1980s it was claimed that the cells of the early embryo were ‘undifferentiated’ and that the embryo was thus no more than a ‘loose collection of cells’. The supposed evidence to back this claim was that (it was then thought) it is not yet established which cells will become which types of future tissues, e.g. which will become the placenta and which will become heart cells etc. The early cells were referred to as ‘totipotent’ meaning that any one of them could become a whole new individual if separated from the cluster. It was thought that the cells only become differentiated at 14 days when the primitive streak (the early backbone) forms. As evidence of the undifferentiated status of the cells, it was pointed out that up until the formation of the primitive streak at implantation the embryo can divide and form identical monozygotic twins. It thus seemed to Warnock fair to claim that prior to 14 days there was no ‘individual’, there thus could not be a ‘person’, and so it was ethical to experiment on the early embryo.
Since the turn of the millennium, however, embryology has been aware of the ‘positional information’ possessed by the cells of the early embryo. This means that the cells are not as ‘totipotent’ as once thought and that the cells are in fact already differentiated at the two-cell stage with it being largely determined which cell’s progeny will form the ‘embryo proper’ and which cell’s progeny will form extra-embryonic material like the placenta. This positional information is established by the position of the initial sperm entry point, at fertilisation, long before the formation of the primitive streak at 14 days. It is the position of the sperm entry point that establishes an axis that determines where the initial cell will divide into two cells, where the position of the primitive streak will be, and thus where the backbone will form. There is thus a direct line of continuity from the position of the sperm entry point to the future adult body. Further, we also now know the speed and manner in which the ovum’s outer membrane changes to repel further sperm penetration, a process that establishes the zygote as a closed system. This process takes 1-3 minutes from initial sperm penetration of the outer membrane.
2. This said, what of the claim that the capacity of the early embryo to divide into twins means that it cannot be an individual? As the philosopher Prof. Kevin Flannery SJ has noted, a divisible individual is still an individual, and a ‘divisible individual’ is not a contradiction in terms. As Aristotle observed, many living individuals are divisible into two or more other living individuals, like plants or flatworms. Being divisible does not stop you being a living individual. Of course, what happens to the identity of the pre-existing individual is unclear. If the initial zygote possesses a spiritual soul, what happens when the embryo splits? Does the original embryo die and its soul get replaced by two new souls in the two new twins? Or does it continue and a new person split off from it, with its newly created soul? Or is twinning the result of an internal materially determined factor that would indicate that there were two souls present from fertilisation onwards, each sharing, in their own specific manner, some part of the one physical, organic unity of cells?
Though such questions cannot be easily answered, Nicanor Austriaco OP has argued that the first explanation corresponds better to some of the scientific data. What scientific data might indicate whether or not the embryo starts out as an individual person that is then destroyed in the division that produces two new individuals or whether it starts out as two closely related persons destined-to-twin? If the first scenario holds, then twinning would seem to be some form of defect in the program of development and if this is the case then we would expect to see some other signs of defect. This is, in fact, what we do find, with identical twins suffering from a statistically significant greater number of birth defects, defects ranging from indeterminate sex to anomalies of the tongue to Down syndrome. The fact of these defects does not easily accord with the second two scenarios and suggests that the first scenario could be the philosophically correct way to interpret the situation. This said, recent studies from the Mio Fertility Clinic in Yonago, Japan have suggested that it may be possible to predict which embryos will divide into twins. The research on this point is presently inconclusive, but, if this is true, then it would seem to follow that the third scenario is the correct interpretation. In short, we don’t yet have enough scientific information to be confident in determining which of these three philosophical interpretations is correct.
Nonetheless, whether twinning is the result of an individual that becomes two individuals or is the result of a cell cluster that was already two individuals but looked like one, the potential of the embryo to divide does not imply there is not already an individual present (or two individuals present), an individual who is a person with rights. Despite the fact that we don’t presently fully understand the factors that lead to the phenomenon of twinning, its existence as relatively rare phenomenon does not give us grounds to deny the early embryo its personal rights.
3. Having said that the cells of the early embryo are already differentiated, it must be noted that before the 14-day stage the cells do still have a certain ‘plasticity’ in that they can be re-programmed to another differentiation: the positional information they once possessed seems to be destroyed by their being separated from their cluster. None of this suggests, however, that the cell cluster was not an individual prior to such a change, nor does it suggest that more individuals appearing in twinning is a philosophical problem.
Another aspect of the ‘plasticity’ of the cells of the early embryo can be seen in the formation of chimeras. A chimera is a creature that has cells of a different DNA in different parts of it. In Greek mythology the chimera had a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. In modern science chimeras have been created with mice by merging together two different embryos when they are at the cell-cluster stage. Amazingly, the cells seem to re-differentiate themselves to form one new embryo that will mature into an adult mouse that has some parts of it with one set of DNA and other parts with another set of DNA –black and white mice embryos have been combined to produce this in a visual way. This phenomenon seems also to occur naturally and some humans have been found to be such chimeras with different DNA in different parts of their body. One thing this indicates is that DNA is not as central to individuality as was once thought: some writers used to claim that the early embryo was an individual because it had established DNA, however, the existence of chimeras suggests that DNA is not a precondition of individuality. In fact, the previous paragraphs have argued that individuality is established within 1-3 minutes: well-before DNA is established.
4. One final scientific issue: some sceptics of the personhood of the early embryo point out that the embryo suffers from a very high mortality rate. Some estimates claim that as many as 50% of embryos do not survive to birth. If all of these embryos are persons and thus have immortal souls, is heaven really full of people who never even achieved birth? This may seem like a startling concept.
In considering this it is worth noting that many ‘lost’ embryos are not real embryos at all but are rather ‘pseudo-embryos’ and that this is why they are expelled from the womb. While science’s ability to analyse this is still developing, Austriaco illustrates the issue by arguing argues that “complete hydatidiform moles” are such non-embryos while “partial hydatidiform moles” are embryos (but disabled ones). But in the final analysis it should be noted that for much of human history infant mortality has approached or exceeded 50% and thus this also suggests that heaven is full of people who never achieved adulthood. No Catholic would conclude from this that the baby at the breast is not a person worthy of full respect and protection. Similarly, the high mortality rate that embryos suffer from is no reason not to consider them to be persons.
5. Finally, when all is said and done, it must be conceded that a debate remains. Though science today gives us stronger reasons to argue for the personhood of the early embryo than there were two decades ago, some people still doubt the embryo’s personhood . How then should someone proceed in the face of doubt? When dealing with the rights of others, the SCDF in 1974 identified an important moral principle when it reiterated that, “It is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder”. If a deer hunter sees a bush moving he cannot shoot until he is morally certain that it is a deer and not a person who is moving it. The basic point with respect to the embryo is that recent science has shifted the burden of proof strongly in favour of the notion that an individual is established at fertilisation and thus strengthens the philosophical position that a person is instantiated that this stage. It follows that the risk of murder is even clearer now that it was when the Warnock Report was produced in 1984.
Recommended for further reading:
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “Are Teratomas Embryos or Non-embryos?”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.4 (Winter 2005), pp.697-706.)
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P. “On Static Eggs and Dynamic Embryos: A Systems Perspective”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly v.3 n.4 (Winter 2002): 659-83.
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “The Pre-Implantation Embryo Revisited: A Two-Celled Individual or Two Individual Cells”, Linacre Quarterly n.70 v.2 (2003):121-6.
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “Immediate Hominization from a Systems Perspective”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4.4 (Winter 2004): 719-38.
Flannery, Kevin L., S.J. “Applying Aristotle in Contemporary Embryology”, The Thomist 67 (2003): 249-78.
Seyfer, Tara L. “The Science of Chimeras and Hybrids”, Ethics and Medics 29.7 (July 2004): 1-3.
Sarah Hake, “Mobile Protein Signals Cell Fate”, Nature 413.6853 (20 September 2001): 261-4.
Karolina Piotrowska, Florence Wianny, Roger A. Pedersen and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, “Blastomeres arising from the first cleavage division have distinguishable fates in normal mouse development”, Development 128.19 (October 2001): 3739-3748.
Berenika Plusa, Karolina Piotrowska, and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, “Sperm Entry Position Provides a Surface Marker for the First Cleavage Plane of the Mouse Zygote”, Genesis 32.3 (March 2002): 193-8.
Pontifical Academy for Life, Final Communiqué of the 12th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Congress (23 March 2006).
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Let Me Live: Declaration by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Procured Abortion (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1974).
By the Rev Dr Dylan James, Moral Theology Lecturer, Wonersh Seminary. Fr James recently completed a doctorate in bioethics on the notion of personhood, focussing on the embryo.
It’s now over two decades since the Warnock Report of 1984 led the way in approving experiments on human embryos in the UK. Back in 1984 many scientific claims were made to justify the 14-day time period that was given to experiment on embryos. The UK government now proposes extending embryo experimentation and works on the assumption that the 14-day time frame can be accepted as a starting point. However, recent science undermines the claims that were initially made for Warnock and this article will outline some points which indicate why the government should be re-thinking the Warnock position and not using it as a foundation.
Before looking at the science, it must be noted that the notion of a ‘person’ is a philosophical concept and not a scientific one. Similarly, which ‘rights’ we should accord to persons is an ethical matter and not a scientific one. However, science is very relevant because it shows us whether or not the embryo meets the criteria which define a person. Catholic bioethicists typically use the definition of the person first proposed by Boethius in the Sixth Century: ‘a person is an individual substance of a rational nature’. Turning this into a set of scientific criteria, this means that a human person must be an ‘individual’ and thus the question that needs to be asked about the early embryo is whether it is just a loosely-related collection of cells or whether it is properly an ‘individual’. Scientific data now implies that the transition from egg and sperm to an individual takes place within minutes of fertilisation beginning. Of course, none of this is likely to convince the hardened utilitarian who merely cares about the greatest good for the greatest number and does not care about whether it is a person he is experimenting on, but most people don’t appeal just to utilitarian calculus and the new science might sway them.
1. First, let us recall what the Warnock Report (mistakenly) took as being scientifically established. In the 1980s it was claimed that the cells of the early embryo were ‘undifferentiated’ and that the embryo was thus no more than a ‘loose collection of cells’. The supposed evidence to back this claim was that (it was then thought) it is not yet established which cells will become which types of future tissues, e.g. which will become the placenta and which will become heart cells etc. The early cells were referred to as ‘totipotent’ meaning that any one of them could become a whole new individual if separated from the cluster. It was thought that the cells only become differentiated at 14 days when the primitive streak (the early backbone) forms. As evidence of the undifferentiated status of the cells, it was pointed out that up until the formation of the primitive streak at implantation the embryo can divide and form identical monozygotic twins. It thus seemed to Warnock fair to claim that prior to 14 days there was no ‘individual’, there thus could not be a ‘person’, and so it was ethical to experiment on the early embryo.
Since the turn of the millennium, however, embryology has been aware of the ‘positional information’ possessed by the cells of the early embryo. This means that the cells are not as ‘totipotent’ as once thought and that the cells are in fact already differentiated at the two-cell stage with it being largely determined which cell’s progeny will form the ‘embryo proper’ and which cell’s progeny will form extra-embryonic material like the placenta. This positional information is established by the position of the initial sperm entry point, at fertilisation, long before the formation of the primitive streak at 14 days. It is the position of the sperm entry point that establishes an axis that determines where the initial cell will divide into two cells, where the position of the primitive streak will be, and thus where the backbone will form. There is thus a direct line of continuity from the position of the sperm entry point to the future adult body. Further, we also now know the speed and manner in which the ovum’s outer membrane changes to repel further sperm penetration, a process that establishes the zygote as a closed system. This process takes 1-3 minutes from initial sperm penetration of the outer membrane.
2. This said, what of the claim that the capacity of the early embryo to divide into twins means that it cannot be an individual? As the philosopher Prof. Kevin Flannery SJ has noted, a divisible individual is still an individual, and a ‘divisible individual’ is not a contradiction in terms. As Aristotle observed, many living individuals are divisible into two or more other living individuals, like plants or flatworms. Being divisible does not stop you being a living individual. Of course, what happens to the identity of the pre-existing individual is unclear. If the initial zygote possesses a spiritual soul, what happens when the embryo splits? Does the original embryo die and its soul get replaced by two new souls in the two new twins? Or does it continue and a new person split off from it, with its newly created soul? Or is twinning the result of an internal materially determined factor that would indicate that there were two souls present from fertilisation onwards, each sharing, in their own specific manner, some part of the one physical, organic unity of cells?
Though such questions cannot be easily answered, Nicanor Austriaco OP has argued that the first explanation corresponds better to some of the scientific data. What scientific data might indicate whether or not the embryo starts out as an individual person that is then destroyed in the division that produces two new individuals or whether it starts out as two closely related persons destined-to-twin? If the first scenario holds, then twinning would seem to be some form of defect in the program of development and if this is the case then we would expect to see some other signs of defect. This is, in fact, what we do find, with identical twins suffering from a statistically significant greater number of birth defects, defects ranging from indeterminate sex to anomalies of the tongue to Down syndrome. The fact of these defects does not easily accord with the second two scenarios and suggests that the first scenario could be the philosophically correct way to interpret the situation. This said, recent studies from the Mio Fertility Clinic in Yonago, Japan have suggested that it may be possible to predict which embryos will divide into twins. The research on this point is presently inconclusive, but, if this is true, then it would seem to follow that the third scenario is the correct interpretation. In short, we don’t yet have enough scientific information to be confident in determining which of these three philosophical interpretations is correct.
Nonetheless, whether twinning is the result of an individual that becomes two individuals or is the result of a cell cluster that was already two individuals but looked like one, the potential of the embryo to divide does not imply there is not already an individual present (or two individuals present), an individual who is a person with rights. Despite the fact that we don’t presently fully understand the factors that lead to the phenomenon of twinning, its existence as relatively rare phenomenon does not give us grounds to deny the early embryo its personal rights.
3. Having said that the cells of the early embryo are already differentiated, it must be noted that before the 14-day stage the cells do still have a certain ‘plasticity’ in that they can be re-programmed to another differentiation: the positional information they once possessed seems to be destroyed by their being separated from their cluster. None of this suggests, however, that the cell cluster was not an individual prior to such a change, nor does it suggest that more individuals appearing in twinning is a philosophical problem.
Another aspect of the ‘plasticity’ of the cells of the early embryo can be seen in the formation of chimeras. A chimera is a creature that has cells of a different DNA in different parts of it. In Greek mythology the chimera had a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. In modern science chimeras have been created with mice by merging together two different embryos when they are at the cell-cluster stage. Amazingly, the cells seem to re-differentiate themselves to form one new embryo that will mature into an adult mouse that has some parts of it with one set of DNA and other parts with another set of DNA –black and white mice embryos have been combined to produce this in a visual way. This phenomenon seems also to occur naturally and some humans have been found to be such chimeras with different DNA in different parts of their body. One thing this indicates is that DNA is not as central to individuality as was once thought: some writers used to claim that the early embryo was an individual because it had established DNA, however, the existence of chimeras suggests that DNA is not a precondition of individuality. In fact, the previous paragraphs have argued that individuality is established within 1-3 minutes: well-before DNA is established.
4. One final scientific issue: some sceptics of the personhood of the early embryo point out that the embryo suffers from a very high mortality rate. Some estimates claim that as many as 50% of embryos do not survive to birth. If all of these embryos are persons and thus have immortal souls, is heaven really full of people who never even achieved birth? This may seem like a startling concept.
In considering this it is worth noting that many ‘lost’ embryos are not real embryos at all but are rather ‘pseudo-embryos’ and that this is why they are expelled from the womb. While science’s ability to analyse this is still developing, Austriaco illustrates the issue by arguing argues that “complete hydatidiform moles” are such non-embryos while “partial hydatidiform moles” are embryos (but disabled ones). But in the final analysis it should be noted that for much of human history infant mortality has approached or exceeded 50% and thus this also suggests that heaven is full of people who never achieved adulthood. No Catholic would conclude from this that the baby at the breast is not a person worthy of full respect and protection. Similarly, the high mortality rate that embryos suffer from is no reason not to consider them to be persons.
5. Finally, when all is said and done, it must be conceded that a debate remains. Though science today gives us stronger reasons to argue for the personhood of the early embryo than there were two decades ago, some people still doubt the embryo’s personhood . How then should someone proceed in the face of doubt? When dealing with the rights of others, the SCDF in 1974 identified an important moral principle when it reiterated that, “It is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder”. If a deer hunter sees a bush moving he cannot shoot until he is morally certain that it is a deer and not a person who is moving it. The basic point with respect to the embryo is that recent science has shifted the burden of proof strongly in favour of the notion that an individual is established at fertilisation and thus strengthens the philosophical position that a person is instantiated that this stage. It follows that the risk of murder is even clearer now that it was when the Warnock Report was produced in 1984.
Recommended for further reading:
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “Are Teratomas Embryos or Non-embryos?”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.4 (Winter 2005), pp.697-706.)
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P. “On Static Eggs and Dynamic Embryos: A Systems Perspective”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly v.3 n.4 (Winter 2002): 659-83.
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “The Pre-Implantation Embryo Revisited: A Two-Celled Individual or Two Individual Cells”, Linacre Quarterly n.70 v.2 (2003):121-6.
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio O.P., “Immediate Hominization from a Systems Perspective”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4.4 (Winter 2004): 719-38.
Flannery, Kevin L., S.J. “Applying Aristotle in Contemporary Embryology”, The Thomist 67 (2003): 249-78.
Seyfer, Tara L. “The Science of Chimeras and Hybrids”, Ethics and Medics 29.7 (July 2004): 1-3.
Sarah Hake, “Mobile Protein Signals Cell Fate”, Nature 413.6853 (20 September 2001): 261-4.
Karolina Piotrowska, Florence Wianny, Roger A. Pedersen and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, “Blastomeres arising from the first cleavage division have distinguishable fates in normal mouse development”, Development 128.19 (October 2001): 3739-3748.
Berenika Plusa, Karolina Piotrowska, and Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, “Sperm Entry Position Provides a Surface Marker for the First Cleavage Plane of the Mouse Zygote”, Genesis 32.3 (March 2002): 193-8.
Pontifical Academy for Life, Final Communiqué of the 12th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Congress (23 March 2006).
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Let Me Live: Declaration by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Procured Abortion (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1974).
Monday, 20 June 2005
Why I am a Sith Lord
When I was a child I dreamt of growing up, going to a Jedi Academy, and being trained in the ways of the Force.
It has therefore come as something of a revelation to me to realise, as I was watching Star Wars Episode III for the third time, that I have become a Sith.
I have learnt that I a Sith from a few simple points:
First, 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes' (as the Jedi Obi-Wan said to Anakin), and as a Catholic I deal in absolutes continually.
Second, The Jedi teach that "There is no emotion; there is peace",
whereas the venerable Sith Code teaches that "Through passion I gain strength".
We might observe that this fits a pattern also noticeable in contrasting the Eastern pagan religions with Christian knowledge of the virtues: The Greek Stoics, the Buddhists, and the Jedi all teach that the passions must be suppressed. In contrast, Catholics hold that the passions are good things, they simply are in need of proper harnessing in the right direction, according to right reason. Catholics, like Sith, direct and form passions, we do not suppress them. This is all as solid Thomistic moral theology and virtue theory have taught for centuries.
Quote quote another Sith source on this matter, "There is a common misconception that the Sith access the Force through evil or that being a Sith Lord automatically means that you are evil. This is not true. Any extreme emotion can access the Force. The essence of the Sith's power is in passion, not evil. Passion can take the form of joy or love as well as anger or hatred."
Third, we can note a similarity in the words of Anakin and the Lord Jesus. The anti-absolutism condemnation that we quoted above from the Jedi Obi-Wan came in response to a statement from Anakin that, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy". Presumably, Obi-Wan would have been equally unimpressed with the Lord Jesus saying, "He who is not with me is against me" (Luke 23:11).
Fourth, I think it is worth noting that the Jedi deserved to be extinguished. Any 'mighty' order that can 'sense' so many things, and yet fail to realise (until the very end) that Anakin is the reason that Padme is pregnant (even though he's been living with her for months) is clearly not all that it is made out to be.
Finally, I would like to claim the present Pope as a closet Sith Lord. When still Cardinal Ratzinger he said in his address to the cardinals going in to the conclave: "Relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of 'doctrine,' seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable... We have another measure: the Son of God, true man... We must mature in this adult faith; we must lead the flock of Christ to this faith. And this faith, the only faith, creates unity and takes place in charity."
Pope Benedict deals in absolutes too! Hail Darth Benedict!
Confused? Follow another side? Do not be despondent, for 'There are heroes on both sides' (as the opening scrolling words of Star Wars Episode III inform us) and the world isn't all black and white (at least if we believe the writing of history that those silly Jedi teach us. Personally, I prefer to watch TV in black and white -it's so much more like real life).
"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil", as Anakin so wisely put it, and, according to those liberal Jedi, it's all just a point of view.
Thus, the important thing to remember is that you and I can both be heroes, even if we fight on opposing sides of the Force. All that we need to do is turn off our brains, abandon reason, and ignore the Principle of Non-Contradiction (that "a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time"). Of course, to embrace that means that we need to become Jedis, which is what I started by saying I will not do!
May the Force be with you!
Darth Dylan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)