Justice and the Right to Life
This module focuses on the fundamental social justice principal: the right to life for all human beings from conception to natural death.
Assaults Against Life
There have been many assaults at all stages against this basic right in many, sometimes horrific ways.
For Example:
In 96 percent of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both.
Capital punishment does not deter crime: states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those that do not.
Suction aspiration is the abortion technique used in most first trimester abortions.
Saline poisoning is often used to abort babies after sixteen weeks of pregnancy.
In a rare 9-0 vote, the United States Supreme Court in a 1997 decision found that the average American does not have a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.
Requests for voluntary euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary.
Abortion and Respect for the
Unborn
Abortion has been one of the most divisive and controversial moral, political and social issues for more than thirty years.
Discussions about abortion often center on what some consider peripheral rather than central questions key to the abortion debate.
Abortion-the deliberate killing of unborn human life by means of medical or surgical procedures. Direct abortion is seriously wrong because it is an unjustified attack on innocent life.
When Does Human Life Begin?
This remains one of the significant central questions in the abortion debate.
A person who believes that a fetus does not exist as a human person until later stages of prenatal development sees concern for respect for life primarily in terms of concern for the life and health of the pregnant mother. Abortion is therefore a medical procedure that could benefit the mother, if necessary.
A person who believes that a human exists in the earliest stage of development will view abortion as the taking of an innocent life who deserves care and protection.
Church Teachings on the Beginning of Life
The 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion
January 22, 1973
The document arises in response to Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that outlawed state laws against abortion and legalized the right of a woman to choose abortion.
A new and distinct human life begins at the moment of conception.
Information from modern science affirms the statement, “Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins.”
Questions about the beginning of life and abortion are not just scientific; they are more properly philosophical and moral.
If we are not sure when, in the course of development, a human person exists, then we should presume that a human person is present at the earliest stage.
Abortion and Values in Conflict
Individuals who argue that abortion is morally acceptable usually present argument that exhibit a sensitivity to the difficulties that can accompany pregnancy and having children, such as:
Rape Prenatal information which demonstrates
that the child will be seriously deformed. The physical and psychological health of
the pregnant woman.
The Declaration on Procured Abortion acknowledges that an individual’s circumstances leading a person to contemplate abortion are often difficult, even at times tragic.
However, it affirms that the right to life itself, once conceived, outweighs all the other values and concerns involved.
The right to life is the foundation on which rests all other inalienable rights and from which they develop.
If this most fundamental right-the right to life is not protected, then every other human right is under threat.
Human life is a gift from God which must be protected, nurtured, and sustained from the first moment of conception.
An act of injustice against the child. Pope John Paul II called it a “culture
of death” that promotes the wanton killing of human life, be it abortion, euthanasia, or the like.
Roe v. Wade The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 by
the Supreme court held that a women’s right to privacy included her decision to have an abortion.
Declared abortion a constitutional right.
Interesting note: the woman for whom this case was brought to the Supreme Court, Jane Roe-whose real name is Norma McCorvey-converted to Catholicism and devotes her life to reversal of this case that legalized abortion.
Though the rate of abortion has decreased in recent years, most estimates state there are still around 1.3 million abortions a year in the US.
Over 3,700 abortions per day. For every 1,000 live births there are
314 abortions.
“The mindset and language of abortion are part of a ‘culture of death,’ that does not guarantee life to those who most depend on us to protect them.”
The pope and the American bishops, among other Church leaders, trace the disrespect for the sanctity of life to two major factors:
Breakdown of the family: Freedom is the absolute value
Pro-Life StanceThe Church takes a pro-life stance. Those
who are pro-life proclaim: God conveys the gift of life, not the state. Human life begins at conception. A child’s right to life outweighs a mother’s
freedom of choice or her right to privacy. Abortion should be made illegal. The role
of gov’t is to protect lives. We should cultivate a correct view of the
sacredness of sex. There are always alternatives to abortion.
Euthanasia
The popular definition for euthanasia is “mercy killing.”
The Gospel of Life defines euthanasia as “an act or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating suffering.”
There is a growing movement in the United States and other western nations to legalize euthanasia.
Three reasons for this mindset are:1. A cultural climate that sees no
value in suffering, in fact, views it as the worst of all evils. Christians, however, have a God-inspired view of suffering. Suffering can be seen as a way of uniting ourselves or sharing in Christ’s passion. However, the Church understands that not every on is required to do so.
2. People who neglect God often think they have control over life and death. Many in contemporary culture view the old and infirm as dispensable.
3. An aging population puts pressure on a costly healthcare system. Some see euthanasia and assisted suicide as “cost effective.”
What is the alternative for the suffering and dying?
Compassionate care for the sick and dying. This is a promotion of life. In the medical and pastoral care fields, it is called palliative care.
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped person should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. (CCC, 2276)
The Church distinguishes between ordinary care and the decision not to employ “aggressive medical treatment known as “extraordinary means.”
Church teaching holds that the decision to forego using extraordinary or disproportionate means to sustain life is morally acceptable and in no way equated with euthanasia or suicide.
Declaration on Euthanasia
The Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia, The Gospel of Life, states that “aggressive medical treatment” refers to :
medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the person in similar cases is not interrupted. (S 65).
• Feb. 25, 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses at home. Her heart stops beating temporarily, leading to brain damage because of a lack of oxygen.
June 18, 1990: A court appoints Terri's husband Michael Schiavo as her guardian. Schiavo's parents, the Schindlers, do not object.
August 1992: Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 US in an out-of-court malpractice settlement with one of her doctors.
November 1992: Terri Schiavo's husband Michael Schiavo wins a malpractice case against another of Terri's doctors. He is awarded about $750,000 US for her care and about $300,000 US for himself.
• July 29, 1993: The Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo's guardian. The court would later dismiss the suit.
March 1, 1994: A court-appointed guardian says Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward his wife.
May 1998: Michael Schiavo files a petition to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. The Schindlers oppose the petition. The court appoints another guardian to Terri Schiavo.
Dec. 20, 1998: The guardian reports that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. He also says her husband's decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit Schiavo's estate.
• Feb. 1, 2000: Judge George Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have her feeding tube removed and orders that it can be removed.
March 24, 2000: Judge Greer stays his order to remove the feeding tube until 30 days after the Schindlers exhaust all their appeals.
April 20, 2001: The Schindlers win a stay until April 23 to exhaust all their possible appeals.
April 23, 2001: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case.
April 24, 2001: Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is removed.
• Feb. 1, 2000: Judge George Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have her feeding tube removed and orders that it can be removed.
March 24, 2000: Judge Greer stays his order to remove the feeding tube until 30 days after the Schindlers exhaust all their appeals.
April 20, 2001: The Schindlers win a stay until April 23 to exhaust all their possible appeals.
April 23, 2001: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case.
April 24, 2001: Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is removed.
• April 26, 2001: The Schindlers file a civil suit against Michael Schiavo, claiming he perjured himself when he testified that his wife had an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending the trial, Judge Frank Quesada orders the feeding tube reinserted.
Nov. 22, 2002: Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed Jan. 3, 2003.
Dec. 13, 2002: Judge Greer stays his order to remove the feeding tube until an appeal court can rule on the case.
June 6, 2003: An appeal court affirms Judge Greer's order, says Michael Schiavo can remove the feeding tube on Oct. 15.
Aug. 22, 2003: Florida Supreme Court declines to review the decision.
• Sept. 17, 2003: Judge Greer orders the removal of the feeding tube on Oct. 15.
Sept. 22, 2003: The Schindlers petition Federal Court.
Oct. 7, 2003: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush files a brief in Federal Court supporting the Schindlers' efforts to stop the removal of the feeding tube.
Oct. 10, 2003: A Federal Court judge rules he lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Oct. 15, 2003: Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is removed.
• Oct. 21, 2003: The Florida Senate passes a law, known as "Terri's Law," giving Gov. Bush the power to order doctors to feed Terri Schiavo. He issues an executive order and her feeding tube is reinserted. Michael Schiavo files a lawsuit in state court arguing that "Terri's Law" in unconstitutional.
Oct. 31, 2003: Judge David Demers appoints another guardian to Terri Schiavo.
Dec. 1, 2003: Guardian reports that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement.
May 6, 2004: County Court Judge Douglas Baird rules that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional and a violation of the right to privacy. Gov. Bush appeals the decision.
Sept. 23, 2004: Florida Supreme Court unanimously affirms the lower court decision that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional.
• Oct. 4, 2004: Gov. Bush files a motion to rehear the case. The court would later deny the motion.
Dec. 3, 2004: Gov. Bush files a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case for review.
Jan. 24, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review the Florida court ruling that "Terri's Law" in unconstitutional.
Feb. 16, 2005: Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, appears with the Schindlers at a news conference. He says his organization will hold protest vigils against the removal of the feeding tube.
• Feb. 25, 2005: Judge Greer orders that Michael Schiavo can remove his wife's feeding tube on March 18, 2005.
March 12, 2005:Michael Schiavo turns down an offer of $1 million US from a Florida businessman to keep his wife alive.
March 16, 2005: Florida Appeals Court refuses to block the removal of the feeding tube.
March 17, 2005: The Schindlers file a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the removal of their daughter's feeding tube. The court denies the petition.
March 18, 2005: The U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate attempt to the block the removal of the feeding tube, but Judge Greer rejects the moves. The feeding tube is removed for the third time in accordance with court orders.
• March 19, 2005:The U.S. Senate delays its Easter recess to work through the night on a "private bill," a law applying to only one individual, Terri Schiavo, calling on the Federal Court to review her case. It passes the bill and the U.S. House of Representatives returns from Easter recess for a special session to debate the law.
March 21, 2005:Shortly after 12:30 a.m., the House votes 203-58 to suspend its rules and pass the private bill. U.S. President George W. Bush signs it into law at 1:11 a.m.
Federal Judge James Whittemore hears arguments from both sides in the case, and adjourns without ruling.
March 22, 2005:Judge Whittemore rules that the Schindlers had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial and refuses to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
The Schindlers launch an appeal in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
• March 23, 2005:In a 2-1 ruling at 2:30 a.m., a panel of judges in the Court of Appeals rejects the Schindlers' appeal, saying they "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims."
The Schindlers' lawyer says he will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
March 24, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the Schindlers’ case. Judge Greer, who ordered on March 18 that the tube can be removed, denies motion to place Terri Schiavo in state custody.
March 25, 2005: Judge Whittemore denies the Schindlers' second motion to reinsert the feeding tube. Their appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit fails to overrule the decision. A federal judge rejects the Schindlers' second appeal to restore their daughter's feeding tube. The Schindlers then file an emergency motion in an attempt to get Judge Greer to overturn his decision.
• March 26, 2005: Judge Greer rejects the Schindlers' latest appeal that claims Terri Schiavo communicated a desire to live before the feeding tube was removed. The Florida Supreme Court rejects another appeal by the Schindlers.
March 29, 2005:The U.S. Court of Appeals agrees to consider an emergency motion by the Schindlers for a new hearing on reconnecting their daughter's feeding tube. Some doctors say it's not clear that reconnecting the tube at this point, 12 days after it was withdrawn, will save Terri Schiavo's life. Her family says her organs are still working, and it's not too late yet.
March 30, 2005:The U.S. Court of Appeals rejects the Schindlers' latest motion.
March 31, 2005:Terri Schiavo dies, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed.
Terry Schiavo
Stem Cell Research
Medical science has advanced at a lightning pace. One area that has taken on special urgency in the public arena is stem-cell research.:
For its potential benefits The moral and ethical questions side
effects due to the use of living human embryos to harvest stem cells.
What is a stem cell?
A vital way for the body’s cells to be replenished.
A stem cell is an unspecified cell that has the potential to become one of many specific types of cells-a cell like itself or a more specialized cell
For example, a stem cell could become that a cell that can produce new white blood cells.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any kind of body cell.
Adult stem cells have the potential to become many different cells, but not all.
Some signs want to work on lines of embryonic stem cells to develop them into becoming specialized cells, hoping to cure diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease.
The Church’s View on Stem Cells
The Church supports most stem cell research which typically obtains cells from adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, and other sources.
This type of research poses no moral problem.
What is the Problem with the Use of Embryonic
Stem Cells Researchers must use harvest stem
cells from living human embryos, thus destroying them.
Scientists accomplish this by collecting stem cells from the very early stages of a fertilized egg called a blastocyst.
Even though the purpose of the research might produce a good result, it does not justify the evil means of the destruction of human life.
A clear principle of Catholic morality is that one may not use a good end or purpose for doing an act to justify an evil means.
It is against the good (evil) to treat human life as a disposable commodity-as beings created in order to kill them for their cells.
The Church’s consistent teaching opposes the direct destruction of human life in those earliest stages.
Argument for the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells
Adult stem cells are difficult to obtain.
Adult stems cells are collected from a limited number of types in the body-typically bone marrow from the early stages of development.
Current research has had some success in isolating and developing adult stem cells.
If this continues, there may be no reason to use embryonic stem cells.
The fact is that adult stem cell research has saved thousands of lives to date, whereas embryonic stem cell research has shown little progress.
Capital Punishment People who commit horrendous crimes
do deserve justice. Many people, including some
Catholics, believe that the only just punishment for some serious crimes should be the death penalty, that is, capital punishment.
Today, the U.S. bishops and former pope, John Paul II, call into question the appropriateness of the use of capital punishment in our day and age.
The Gospel of Life
- They ask us to reflect on the truth:“ not even a murderer loses his personal dignity.” (Section 9)
- The bishops and JP II challenge Catholics, Christians, and all people of good will to look for ways to punish and rehabilitate criminals while protecting society and yet not inflict the death penalty.
Traditional Church Teaching on Capital
Punishment Must begin with Jesus’ teaching.
The Sermon on the Mount teaches us:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well (Mt. 5:38-39)
Jesus’ Teachings on Non-Violence
This teaching of non-retaliation seems to rule out revenge as a motive for punishing criminals.
Jesus taught non-violence in the Garden of Gethsemane when he told his followers to sheathe their swords: violence begets violence (Mt 26:52)
Forgive your enemies not just seven times, but seventy-seven times (Mt 18:21-22). Teaches powerful lesson of forgiveness.
Jesus, condemned to die on the cross, though innocent, prays, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)
The Church’s View
In trying to formulate a realistic approach to dealing with serious crime, the Church has recognized the right of both individuals and the state to self-defense, using the minimum for necessary to stop unjust aggressors.
Thomas Aquinas’ View
For the sake of the common good, according to St.
Thomas Aquinas, criminals who are destructive to society
may even be put to death.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:The traditional teaching of the
Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor (2267).
Contemporary Church Teaching on Capital
Punishment “If bloodless means are sufficient to
defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons” the states should limit themselves to these means.
Non-lethal means correspond more to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person (CCC 2267).
This allows for the possibility of the criminal redeeming himself.
Statement on Capital Punishment
In this document (1980), the American bishops agree there are many ways to repress crime so as to make capital punishment unnecessary.
Strongly urge Catholics and American citizens to work towards abolishing the death penalty.
The bishops are aware of the reality of rising problem of crime.
Statement on Capital Punishment
(cont.) They are aware of the need to preserve order in society and to work for justice through law.
They are extremely sensitive to both the victims of crime and law enforcement officers.
They are realistic enough to realize the great mystery of evil and the abuse of human freedom involved in criminal activity.
Crime deserves punishment; but, the punishment needs justification.
The American bishops remind us of the three traditional reasons for punishment of a criminal:
Retribution Deterrence Reform
It is impossible to reform a dead criminal.
There is very little evidence to show that the death penalty deters crime.
Retribution is about the restoration of the order of justice violated by the criminal acts. Taking the life of a criminal does not restore the order of justice. Revenge often lurks under the surface of the desire to use the death penalty. Revenge can never be a motive for Christians.
Breaking the Cycle of Violence
The US bishops note several problems with the death penalty in opposition to those who argue for it. Some of these reasons are:
A dead criminal cannot be redeemed. Mistakes are and have been made in
the administration of the death penalty. We cannot correct the mistake of killing an innocent person.
Since 1973, at least 100 people were exonerated and released from death row in the U.S.
Former Archbishop of Washington, DC, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick wrote:
The report that at least 100 people have now been found to be innocent of the crimes that put them on death row are 100 reasons to turn away from capital punishment. The 101st reason is not what was done to them, but what is being done to the rest of us. The increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing. It's time to "Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
A growing body of evidence show that the death penalty is disproportionally administered to poor persons and members of minority groups, especially black males.
The American bishops see four benefits to abolishing the death penalty:
1. It would tell society that we can break the cycle of violence, that there are more humane ways to deal with violent crimes.
2. It would manifest “our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God” (Statement on Capital Punishment)
3. It would emphasize our belief that God is the Lord of life
4. Outlawing capital punishment is more in line with Jesus who taught and embodied forgiveness.
Justice and Prejudice
“Do to others whatever you would have them do to
you.”- Matthew 7:12
Prejudice
Famed activist and liberator Mohandas Gandhi once considered converting to Christianity.
However, when he went to a Christian church one Sunday, he was told to go worship with his “own” people.
Gandhi decided that if Christianity had a caste system, he might as well remain a Hindu.
Jesus preached of God’s love for everyone.
He proclaimed that we are all children of God.
He gave us the Holy Spirit to unite us into a community of love.
This Spirit of love bestows on us the power to look beyond differences of color, age sex, religion, national origin, physical and mental attributes, etc. and to see the other as sister and brother.
Unfortunately, because of the sinfulness found within the human condition, we do not always treat each other as God’s special creation.
Real Life Prejudice
Prejudice-an unsubstantiated or preformed judgment about an individual or a group.
In other words, its is a prejudgment based on insufficient data.
One definition states that prejudice is a favorable or unfavorable feeling toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual fact.
The prior definition suggests that “prejudice” can have a positive or even neutral aspect, in addition to the usual negative connotation of prejudice we usually understand.
Negative Prejudice Negative prejudice such as racial
prejudice is rooted in sin. “It infects humanity like a virus.”Three Conditions that Make
Prejudice Wrong1. Prejudice is wrong when it
threatens the rights of people, that is when it denies them their just due.
2. Prejudice is wrong when it is illogical or when it exhibits stereotypical thinking.
What is a stereotype?
Stereotypes are oversimplified generalizations about some aspect of reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOZd11Mcej4`
Stereotypes result from over-categorization, of prejudging a whole group based on one or two faulty assumptions.
For example, (“All blondes are airheads.”)
3. Prejudice is a fault when it resists new information, when one is unwilling (or even unable) to change his or her mind when confronted with the truth.
4. This last trait is what especially makes someone with a negative prejudice a “prejudiced person,” –someone unwilling to change.
