Anyone familiar with the television series Star Trek: Voyager will remember the character of the holographic doctor. When the ship’s doctor was killed at the beginning of the series, a computer program–the Emergency Medical Hologram–was activated as a temporary solution. Since Voyager became stranded in the Delta Quadrant, the EMH had to be utilized far more than intended by his designers. Throughout the series, the doctor’s behavior simulates more and more closely that of a normal member of the crew such that he becomes regarded by the others as another person whom they have come to know.

This theme is entertaining in Star Trek: Voyager but deadly in real life, that is, the theme of becoming a person. In the modern West, today, we often base our behavior on the premise that personhood is something to be accomplished.

There are a number of ways this is expressed:

1. Personhood is achieved by reaching a certain stage of physical development.

This is one reason why abortion is acceptable at all in our culture. While we cannot deny that from the moment of conception an embryo is a unique human being (speaking from a biological point of view), we easily deny that it is fully human by appealing to a lack of personhood. Interestingly, this runs completely counter to our tendency to materialism–after all, we can’t appeal to something immaterial if we are materialists. Materially, speaking, an embryo is just as human as anyone else.

2. Personhood is achieved by being able to perform certain functions.

Most people who support abortion will appeal to this, especially if they are confronted on the first point. This is also the error that admits things like euthanasia, etc.

3. Personhood does not intrinsically entail certain rights which must be respected.

This is a very sad error, indeed, for it denies the most basic rights of everyone. The other errors tend toward this error in practice. Claiming that a person has no intrinsic rights by virtue of being a person, leads to several horrific conclusions, e.g.: a person’s rights are granted by the state (the opposite of the American philosophy), a person who is strong enough may assert his will in an arbitrary manner (Nietzscheism), we all operate on a consensus of “polite behavior” in a society.

Those who embrace this error cannot know what love is because they recognize in no one–not even themselves–anything which by its nature is lovable.

As usual, we have things entirely backwards.

Every human being is a person by nature. This human nature, which entails personhood, is a gift of God, and is a primary reason that human beings are in the “image of God.” God is personal; in him are Three Persons. We are personal, too. Our destiny, therefore, is a free relationship with him. This freedom is his gift to us, a key element of our personal nature.

The theory of human rights is based precisely on the affirmation that the human person, unlike animals and things, cannot be subjected to domination by others. We must also mention the mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible, communication. It is clear that on the basis of these presuppositions there is no place in the world for anyone who, like the unborn or the dying, is a weak element in the social structure, or for anyone who appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them, and can only communicate through the silent language of a profound sharing of affection. (Evangelium Vitae)

MY WIFE AND I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor’s office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses — two girls and two boys — and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we’re lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother’s name.

We didn’t want to. We didn’t mean to. We didn’t do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife’s suffering belly.

The rest of the story.

Some philosophers think that people only did things that were wrong because of a lack of knowledge. While the Beatific Vision, for instance, would be so good as to overwhelm the will making it impossible to choose anything less than God, we can’t attribute every sin to a lack of knowledge.

It is very sad when we know what we’re doing but do not do the right thing. What a failure of Charity we are all capable of, what a failure of even natural love.

There are words that have become ubiquitous in our vocabularies that I just don’t like to use. Some of these started out as legitimate terms but have taken on modern meanings that I don’t want to support.

Values: These are created by people. Because different people have different “values,” they cannot be debated. After all, a debate would only be an appeal to someone’s values. Which value system do you use? How do you decide? You don’t. Use this word when you want to keep people from offending you by questioning one of your beliefs or actions.

Lifestyle: This word is a very recent one, I’m sure. I can’t imagine that before the rise of the middle class and radical individualism the idea that people can choose to live different “lifestyles” arose. Use this word when you want to declare that a class of behavior is not debatable.

These words obviously have legitimate usage, but often they are thrown out simply to keep us from talking about what is really going on. They’re a sort of secret code. There are more examples, but I don’t want to go into all of them right now.

This is not to say that there shouldn’t be any variety to people’s lives or to what their interests are. It is to say that these things are secondary and must be grounded in the recognition of a set of core principles.

I’ve been reflecting since the passage of Amendment 2 on the various ways of cooperating with abortion. Specifically, I am thinking about the morality of paying taxes which will be used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Declaration on Procured Abortion by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, #22:

It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.

From Evangelium vitae, #73:

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.

Evangelium vitae, #74:

The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.

From MORAL REFLECTIONS
ON VACCINES PREPARED FROM
CELLS
DERIVED FROM ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES:

To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
- as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s
own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
- the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
- such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

The Catholic Missourian published a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to one by Jenny Smith of Immaculate Conception Parish in Jefferson City. In her letter, Ms. Smith gave reasons why she would vote in favor of Amendment 2 and then urged people to “follow their hearts” while decrying the deception of the anti-Amendment-2 crowd.

Here is the text of my response:

In the October 27 issue of The Catholic Missourian a letter by Ms. Jenny Smith of Immaculate Conception Parish regarding the proposed Amendment 2 was published. The editor has already clarified several factual errors.

Ms. Smith indicates that she is “voting for this amendment for ethical and moral reasons,” and she gives a few of these reasons such as “there is a difference between an egg fertilized in a test tube … and a fully developed human being” and “if there is a potential to alleviate human suffering then these blastocysts destined for destruction should be used in research.”

Ms. Smith is correct in stating that there is a difference between an embryo and a fully developed human. It must be understood, however, that the differences are not essential differences but only differences of appearance. Every human being is “a fertilized egg” or “a collection of cells” scientifically speaking. The visible differences are only due to the degree of development, not to a change in essence.

Being human is not the result of reaching a certain level of development–an achievement which could be lost due to old age, an accident, or a number of factors. Being human means having a body and a spirit created in the image and likeness of God.

Because the difference between a blastocyst and an infant or between a blastocyst an adult is only one of degree of development and not of essence, blastocysts must be afforded the legal protection due to any human being. Therefore, it is not permissible to kill them even in the hope of obtaining some good. We cannot do evil in order to bring about good.

I agree with Ms. Smith that the facts ought to be stated frankly. When this is done, anyone who honestly consults the facts and his conscience will recognize that the defeat of Amendment 2 is imperative.

Of course, I had trouble keeping it short enough for publication. You know me.