Father Thomas Berg

Critical Thinking about the Role Science is Playing in American Politics and Culture

An Interview with Yuval Levin 

Conscience Protections in Heathcare

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering a regulation that would essentially give teeth to already existing legal protections to conscientious objections in healthcare. The draft regulation denies federal funding to any hospital, health plan or other healthcare entity that fails to accommodate employees who, for reasons of conscience, do not want to assist in the performance of certain medical interventions.  The existing federal statutes,[1] as explained in the draft regulation,

Moral Conscience - Part III

In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:

Moral Conscience - Part II

Last week I began a series of reflections on the nature of moral conscience.  I sketched out four typical conceptions of conscience (labeled (a) thru (d)) which have come down to us over time through various channels, whether moral philosophy, psychology, or another related field. I would like now to offer a critique of the fourth notion of conscience (d) which I sketched out last week in the following terms: 

Moral Conscience - Part I

Political Responsibility - Catholic Style

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is the most recent update of a document prepared and presented during the previous two election cycles by the Catholic bishops of the United States. The latest version - published last November, just a year before the upcoming presidential election - constitutes a fine synthesis of the principles which the Catholic Church offers to all comers, but particularly to Catholics, who take seriously their Christian vocation and seek to exercise their citizenship in the voting booth.

Part two of Fr. Berg's reflection on Pope Benedict XVI - Joseph Ratzinger's book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures

In Chapter 1 of the book, Benedict notes that the disconnect today between the two realms of science and morality is considerable — dangerously so.  Benedict goes on to note that, notwithstanding the great contemporary disconnect between science and morality, our contemporary culture is not lacking a kind of pseudo-moralism.

Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures

Herewith I begin reflections on Pope Benedict XVI - Joseph Ratzinger's book, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures.

What Americans Think About Embryo Research

In my column last week, I explored the recent historical events and politicking that have come to shape contemporary American attitudes toward embryo-destructive stem cell research.  Arguably, most polls in recent years have indicated a slowly growing acceptance of such research.  A new poll, however, conducted by Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center and recently published in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges us to be cautious about our claims in this area.

Toward the New Serfdom

In the ten years since Dr. James Thomson at the University of Madison first procured human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), support for the prospect of using human embryos and fetuses for research purposes has gradually seeped into the American mindset to the point at which it is now broadly tolerated, if not openly endorsed, especially in the political arena, in academia, and certainly within the scientific community.[1] As we continue to advance as a nation into the age of developmental biology there is reason to fear that Americans are slowly coming to embrace the idea of submitting one class of our citizenry to a lethal form of biotech serfdom. The class I am talking about, of course, are ex utero human embryos and early stage human fetuses.  How have we gotten to the point now where arguably half of the American population claims to approve of embryo-destructive biomedical research?  The very prospect of conducting direct research on human embryos, or creating them explicitly for the purposes of research, had been until very recently the object of near universal moral opprobrium in the public square.  That began to change, however, with the advent of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the 1970s which made it possible to create human embryos in the laboratory and to engage in research on human embryonic development in addition to fertility problems.  From that point on, the biomedical establishment's prospects for incorporating human embryos into their preferred research platforms was on the horizon as never before.  Advocates knew at the time that progress in this direction would require a process of slowly eroding away popular resistance to the idea of using embryos for research purposes.  In 1994, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened the Human Embryo Research Panel in response to growing tensions over this prospect. The panel was designed to exclude from membership individuals who objected to embryo-destructive research. In its 1994 "Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel" the panel stated: From the perspective of public policy, the Panel concludes that sufficient arguments exist to support the permissibility of certain areas of research involving the preimplantation human embryo within a framework of stringent guidelines. This conclusion is based on an assessment of the moral status of the preimplantation embryo from various viewpoints and not solely on its location ex utero... Although the preimplantation human embryo warrants serious moral consideration as a developing form of human life, it does not have the same moral status as an infant or a child (p. x).   That panel went on to recommend[2] federal funding for (1) the use of left over IVF embryos, as well as for (2) the direct creation of human embryos for research purposes.  Both proposals received immediate public moral reprehension, including bipartisan rebukes from within Congress, consternation from the Clinton White House, and even a rebuke from The Washington Post editorial board: "The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable," said the Post editorial. "[I]t is not necessary to be against abortion rights, or to believe human life literally begins at conception, to be deeply alarmed by the notion of scientists' purposely causing conceptions in a context entirely divorced from even the potential of reproduction."[3] Not withstanding the rebukes, however, the panel's enthusiasm for ushering in the era of embryo and fetal-based biomedical research was a clarion call to a broad body of researchers to continue to advance the overarching project of using embryos for research. The next crucial step in that project would come into play just four years later, namely, to garner broad public acceptance for human embryonic stem cell research.   Under immediate and severe pressure from Congress, President Clinton rejected the panel's second recommendation, but embraced the first and permitted the NIH to consider applications for the funding of research using embryos left over from IVF procedures.  Congress disagreed, however, and attached language to the 1996 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the annual budget bill that funds the HHS and the National Institutes of Health) prohibiting the use of federal funds for any research that destroys, discards or seriously endangers human embryos, or that creates them for research purposes. This provision, known as the Dickey Amendment,[4] has been attached to the HHS appropriations bill each year since then.   The following year, 1997, Ian Wilmut announced the birth of Dolly the sheep--the first mammal ever to be successfully cloned.  This added further impetus to the hopes of harnessing the laws not only of mammalian development in general but especially of primate development.  A year later, 1998, the science of developmental biology went mainstream when Dr. Thomson announced the isolation of hESCs for the first time. This event added new and severe pressure on the Clinton administration to open the coffers of the NIH to fund research on hESCs.  In response, the Clinton administration settled on a loophole in the Dickey Amendment.  While the latter prohibits federal funding on research that would directly harm or destroy embryos, it did not appear to prohibit federal funding of research on the cells derived from human embryos once the act of embryo destruction had been accomplished and the lines of embryonic stem cells derived.  Accordingly, the Clinton administration determined that federal funding could be used to fund research on cells derived from human embryos and requested that adequate guidelines be drawn up to govern the use of federal monies in this way.  Those guidelines were never implemented, however.  It was not until August 9, 2001 when President Bush announced a carefully crafted policy that would allow a limited amount of federal funding on the then already existing lines of hESCs, a policy he believed would not involve federal taxpayer money to be used for further embryo-destructive research, but which at the same time would allow research on hESCs to go forward. Meanwhile, over the course of time, as the creation, donation and destruction of human embryos for research continued, vocal advocates of such research engaged in a constant and effective - if somewhat misleading - effort aimed at swaying public opinion in their favor.   As a result, public opinion has gradually grown more tolerant of the once almost universally condemned notion that some human life is expendable if it can be of benefit to others.       Such is the road[5] that has brought us to where we are today in which polls will invariably state that approximately 50% of the country will tolerate embryo-destructive research on the belief that this will lead to ground-breaking therapies.  I personally hold out hope that we can still get ourselves off the road to biotech serfdom.  But it will continue to take enormous amounts of time, money, and energy to educate Americans on the moral and scientific facts which must inform their attitudes and opinions about stem cell research.   ______

America and Jihad-A Gathering Storm?

In last week's column, I reflected on the often starkly contrasting interpretations of America's situation in the world vis-à-vis militant Islam.  I raised a number of troubling questions which we as a nation must continue to grapple with, most especially as we poise ourselves to elect a new president.  I recently shared my uncertainties with Rick Santorum.

America and Jihad-Where Do We Stand?

This week's column results from the convergence of three elements:  my reading recently of Magdi Allam's personal account of his conversion from Islam to Catholicism; a recent column in the Wall Street Journal by my friend, the ever prescient, Bret Stephens, entitled "Homeland Security Newspeak"; and my having just finished Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power.  At the risk of rambling a bit, I want to share some portions of these readings, but only to culminate in the observation that they leave me in a state of pensiveness--not  unlike the kind of pensiveness I shared in an article I wrote for National Review Online for the fifth anniversary of 9/11.  At the time I wrote:

Is 'Dignity' a Stupid Concept?

Is 'Dignity' a Stupid Concept?

Be Bearers of Truth

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bill McGurn (former Bush speech writer now a regular Tuesday columnist at the Journal) penned some insightful thoughts about Wheaton College--an academically rigorous, Christian liberal arts college in Wheaton, Illinois. McGurn observed that at Wheaton, students, academics and administrators enter into a covenant which embodies a creedal set of beliefs and a promise to adhere to certain personal mores which accord with Christian faith. McGurn observed that Wheaton came under heavy criticism for applying its own standards and for calling one of its long-time faculty members on a breach of covenant. Wrote McGurn:

Got Natural Law?

Pope Benedict XVI gave an address last year to the International Congress on Natural Moral Law which was convened at Rome's Pontifical Lateran University. 

Back to the Future: Eugenics

Last year marked the 80th anniversary of an infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In May, 1927, the Court upheld the Virginia eugenics law that permitted the forced sterilization of "mental defectives," allowing the state to forcibly sterilize 19-year old Carrie Buck, who the state determined was feeble-minded, and who had a daughter out of wedlock. Writing for the court in the Buck v. Bell decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Developmental Biology

Scientists have grown a human ear on the back of a laboratory mouse using cartilage cells from a cow.  In the peritoneal cavity of a mouse, scientists have coaxed a severed human fetal limb to grow into a tiny human hand. Scientists have also confected a human jaw bone in the laboratory, elevating "plastic surgery" to new heights.

Benedict at Ground Zero

Benedict's sojourn among us last week was composed of countless "moments."

What Will Benedict Tell America?

In the (highly unlikely) event that I get a phone call later today from the Pope's secretary asking me for input on the speeches that Benedict will deliver here this week, here are some talking points I would offer for his consideration.  These are the things I would love to hear Benedict say:  First, to Catholics in America: * Contrary to recent news reports, I have not come to "give you a boost," or a "shot in the arm" or to lead a pep-rally for you.  Actually, I've come to challenge you to be more authentically and thoroughly Catholic.  Millions of your brothers and sisters throughout the world actually embrace the fullness of Catholic teaching, especially on moral issues, without picking and choosing-as too many of you do, cafeteria style-which doctrines you like and which ones you don't.  Those who embrace the fullness of Catholic teaching are not mindless and subservient automatons.  Rather, they have considered the reasons behind such teaching and found those reasons thoughtful and convincing.   * I've also come to remind you that the Catholic Church is bigger than the Church in the United States. It's important for you to recognize that the needs of the Church throughout the world are too great, and our shared mission too big, to be lost to self-absorption.     * You presidents of supposedly-Catholic universities:  do the human family a favor and please be authentically Catholic in your campus life and academic culture.  Such "catholicity" on a Catholic campus does not translate into accommodating-in the name of "tolerance"-customs, behaviors, art forms, student associations or doctrines on campus or in the classroom whose core messages and philosophies are antithetical to the Gospel. (And, yes, I am referring to "The Vagina Monologues" among other things.) Tolerance, by the way, is not the core virtue of Catholicism; and there's much more to being Catholic than working for social justice.   * My brother priests:  please recognize, if you haven't already, that the level of religious knowledge and practice in your parishes is often near zero. Treat your parish ministry as a genuine mission field.  Far too many Catholics hold to a feel good, design-your-own brand of Christianity which is a hybrid of Catholic faith and modern therapeutic, self-absorbed Emotivism.  If you fail to preach the whole Word of God, then the situation will continue to worsen until the actual Catholic faith is only a faint memory in the minds of most of the laity. Then, to all Americans: * Don't be afraid of asking the big questions (about God, truth, and ultimate reality). Instead, fear the peril of falling into that existential boredom so characteristic of Europeans these days. * Be the leaders, culturally and politically, in rejecting the idea that science should be untethered from moral restraints.  * Keep the discussion about world religions honest, and don't let a misguided understanding of "tolerance" lead you to accept anti-Christian bigotry and hatred. And just because I give you reasons for the values that I uphold, it doesn't mean I am trying to "impose" my values on you.   * Remember that the moral principles which sustain a healthy society (sanctity of life, marriage, etc.) are not simply faith-based, but are in fact naturally human and rational. * Remember that "democracy" is not a magic word.  "Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes." [Note to his Holiness: you will likely recognize this last paragraph; it's from Evangelium Vitae, n.70.] * A religiously pluralistic society can co-exist peacefully without asking people of faith to suspend their commitment to the truth of their doctrine. Religious dialogue does not consist in everyone agreeing to abandon their particular truth claims in order to come together and profess that no one's vision of ultimate reality is any better than anyone else's.  A mutual commitment to the truth and a healthy respect for our common struggle for it is the sounder basis of inter-religious dialogue and tolerance. Don't allow your religious and creedal beliefs to deteriorate into a tyranny of relativism. Hmmm. Maybe I should go ahead and send these talking points along just in case. Now, where the heck did I put the Holy Father's fax number?

When Do We Die?

Thirty-six hours after Zack Dunlap had an accident last November with his souped-up ATV, doctors performed a PET scan on Zack and found there was no blood flowing to his brain. After informing his parents, the doctors declared Zack brain-dead.  Then followed the call to the organ harvesting team to come and retrieve organs from Zack. As they were being flown in by helicopter to the Wichita Falls, Texas hospital where Zack lay presumably dead, nurses began disconnecting tubes from his inert body.  It was only then that one of Zack's relatives who happens to be a nurse tested Zack for reflexes.  Not only did Zack respond to pain, he was later able to tell a stunned television audience and Today Show host Natalie Morales that he heard the doctor declare him brain-dead, and how much that ticked him off.  Stories like Zach's seem to be more prevalent of late, and more disturbing.  They occasion reasonable doubt about three related issues:  the reliability of the brain-death (BD) criterion as a standard for determining death; the degree of rigor with which such determinations are made; and whether the medical establishment is not dangerously biased toward organ harvesting as opposed to long-term, potentially regenerative care for persons who meet the loosest standard for BD. Until recently, the general consensus had been that BD -- the irreversible and complete cessation of all brain function -- constituted a sufficient criterion for establishing that a human individual has, in fact, died. However, the consensus surrounding BD has been challenged of late. Opponents, most notably Dr. Alan Shewmon, Chief of the Department of Neurology at Olive View Medical Center, UCLA, point to cases of individuals who have been declared brain-dead and have "survived" with the aid of artificial respiration/nutrition for weeks, months, and even years. Shewmon has published a controversial study of such survivors that has posed a diametric challenge to the neurological standard for determining death. In testimony before the President's Council on Bioethics, Shewmon observed: