Showing posts with label conscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conscience. Show all posts

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration

Some things speak for themselves:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the
weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of
civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to
reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our
fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These
truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union
of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as
these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are
inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from
powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their
defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are
brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this
commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the
crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While
public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are
working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and
euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of
government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting
what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for
the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and
in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated
in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in
conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at
risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important
institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage
erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather
than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding
of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious
traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean
abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it,
the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and
destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships
whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection
of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the
covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor,
and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to
these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate
conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti-
discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities,
businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and
relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty
are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including
families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such
institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of
government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including
government itself—on which society depends.

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count
it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law
on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political
process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning,
our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws
or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws
lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of
sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the
institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research,
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound,
inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral
sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from
proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or
the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political,
regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no
circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Whose Kids Are They?

Here is a strange case of a 13 year old teenager, Daniel Hauser, from Minnesota who has been diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. His parents have opted not to treat him with chemotherapy, but rather with "alternative" medicines and nutritional supplements. Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect and a judge in Minnesota has ruled that the parents MUST seek conventional treatment for their ailing son.

The story ought to stop here, if only to protest the intrusive nature of this government action. Since when does the government have the right to direct parents of children to take a particular course of medical action? Especially if it's expensive, painful, and with serious side effects? What if that course is morally objectionable? Are children wards of the State and parents only incidental caretakers, whose wishes, conscience, or religion may be discarded at the State's whim?
[Washington Times] "I feel it's a blow to families," [the lawyer] said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
Now, the story ought to stop here, but it doesn't -- and it only gets weirder. So what about the parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit? What about religious rights -- aren't these worth protecting as well?
Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.
I don't agree with his parents' decision to seek to cure lymphoma this way, but I do support their right to be wrong. Morally, I think this is disastrous; somebody who is not the State needs to smack some sense into them. Legally, I think they are within their rights.

Now here is the fly in the ointment and the point where I get off the train:
The Hausers have eight children. Mrs. Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illnesses.
Ok, in one fell swoop the Hausers just made Catholics, people with large families, and seekers of natural remedies look like crazy whack jobs all lumped together. Oh, and the part where Mrs. Hauser said her son is not in any medical danger -- yeah, that part does make you crazy.

Seeking natural remedies to treat illnesses isn't a bad thing by itself. Even using traditional American Indian remedies isn't a bad thing by itself. Endangering your children IS a bad thing at all times. Saying that belonging to another religion, say, by being a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band is, in fact, in conflict with the Catholic religion. The Nemenhah Band is "an Educational Auxiliary of The Oklevueha Native American Church of Sanpete" and membership is by spiritual adoption only.
"Membership is only by Spiritual Adoption. It is also the only way the Nemenhah Seminary can accept you into the program and designate you a Medicine Man or Medicine Woman."
The effort to blend Catholicism and the Nemenhah Band is called syncretism and it is a type of heresy.
The effort to unite different doctrines and practices, especially in religion. Syncretism is also applied to [...] the attempts made of combining the best elements of different theological schools.
It's syncretism when Tony Blair does it, it's syncretism when Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo does it, and it's syncretism when Colleen Hauser does it along with her impressionable 13 year old son Daniel.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Carry On: The Irony Is Thick

Matthew over at Creative Minority Report tips us off that for the first time since 1995 more Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" (51% -42%) according to a Gallup poll. While it's still up in the air what the exact definition of "pro-life" means in the context of this poll, it's still an encouraging trend. Matthew concludes:
So don't stop talking about it, blogging about it, and trying to convince people. We're winning. It's going to be a long battle. But one we must win.
Now contrast that with this little bit of cheerleading from the unlikeliest of sources ... Hillary Clinton.
NEW YORK (AP) - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged college graduates on Wednesday to resist the temptation to disengage from world affairs, saying to do so would "cede the field to those whose ideologies are absolutely anathema to people of conscience and faith all over the world."
The irony is thick. This is the same woman who lavished praise on racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger for giving birth to what became Planned Parenthood (pun intended), and who is helping to export abortion as the primary tool of our foreign policy in the world.

These are words that can and should be turned around and used against those who would wipe out what's left of the foundations of our society. So for once I'll agree with Hillary. We should not "cede the field" to those ideologies that are "anathema to people of conscience and faith".

Somebody just needs to instruct her what those ideologies actually are.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Stick With Plan A

We've been talking a lot about threats to conscience and health care recently, so it's appropriate to share some news of a little bit of movement towards the side of sanity -- from Illinois (of all places!), that land of proverbial corruption.

The AP reports that Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz has issued a temporary restraining order against the State that prevents it from forcing pharmacists from issuing the emergency contraceptive/abortifacient Plan B, the so-called "morning after pill", if they object on religious grounds.

Two pharmacists in Illinois took their case all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court who ruled in December that their case must be heard. The case stems from a rule by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2005 ordering all pharmacies to dispense the pill without exception.

The main antagonists in the case are Barr Labs, who makes Plan B (of course, since they stand to make a lot of money by its unfettered sale), and (who else) Planned Barrenhood.

[FoxNews] Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's right to say no, and four states now permit pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their personal beliefs. Seven states and Canada allow pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription.
Previously, the Food and Drug Administration has ruled that Plan B can be made available over the counter to women over 18 years, but by prescription only for minors. The Obama administration has reversed that through their surrogates in the FDA, making Plan B available to minors without a prescription.

Critics within the FDA called delays on the previous policy "politically motivated" -- completely and hypocritically missing the point that the Obama administration's abrupt policy reversal in pushing the drug to minors was also politically motivated, just in the opposite direction.

Oh -- but your kids still can't get an aspirin at school.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Freedom And Conscience Calling

The USCCB has been aggressively encouraging all people of faith to speak out to defend conscience rights in health care. You only have until Thursday, April 9, 2009 to make your voice heard by the Department of Health and Human Services as they consider whether to rescind the conscience protection laws currently in place. Repealing these protections will hit Catholic health care workers particularly hard.
Conscience Protection

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is inviting public comment on a proposal to rescind an important federal regulation issued in December. The regulation implements and enforces three federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers, especially those at risk of being discriminated against because of their moral or religious objection to abortion.

The Catholic community must speak out to protect Catholic doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Our church had a petition signing drive outside of Mass today, so if you can't or don't want to post your comments publicly the good old paper method works just as well. They had us sign it in triplicate (for some unknown bureaucratic reason), but I'd sign it nine times if I thought it would help. I joked that the triplicate was so the Gestapo could find you later; I was joking -- mostly.

Not to sound too alarmist, but this is one of those watershed moments. Speak out before you're told what you can think.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Four Things About A Good Death

The LA Times published an article in Mid-March on the relationship between the level of medical treatment received and faith in God. The author of the article tries to be balanced in her presentation, but the larger question of how doctors and other health care workers deal with issues of faith and medical care remains open.

The article makes four main points.
  • Faith in a higher power can often lead to more aggressive treatment than is medically warranted, research is beginning to show.
  • But the more aggressive care you get, the worse your quality of life in that last week.
  • To very religious patients, avoiding pain and suffering may not be the priority.
  • Some healthcare providers are now reconsidering what it means to have a "good death."
Given the fact that religious patients aren't going to become a scarce resource any time soon, this article highlights the need for doctors, health care workers, and patients ALL to retain the right of conscience in medical and ethical matters.

The healing arts should be about caring for a person, not just treating a body or disease. Catholics in particular have a long tradition of praying for a good death.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Targeting Conscience

I opened up my Arlington Catholic Herald today, since it always comes in the mail on Thursday, to see what's going on in the Diocese, and I see this headline on page 2: Pro-life pharmacy targeted by proposed law.

Now, it states that the bill was introduced into the Virginia House of Delegates as a "general bill" (Virginia House Bill 2373) by delegate David Englin from Virginia’s 45th district requiring "pro-life" pharmacies to put a sign in the window proclaiming that they don't sell contraceptives or abortifacients. But a quick search will reveal that DMC Pharmacy is the only one in Virginia. That means they were specifically targeted as an individual business -- which is illegal (I think) or ought to be.

Nation-wide there are only 7 publicly confirmed "pro-life" pharmacies, but the radical foaming-at-the-mouth types would have you believe it's an epidemic where you won't be able to get an aspirin if your doctor doesn't believe in it.

Other than the obvious religious bigotry, I have a personal reason for being incensed: I shop there. I know the pharmacist, Robert and Pam Semler, personally. (Nicer people you will not meet.) My family and friends go there precisely because they are pro-life. As Robert Semler said,
"We're not threatening anybody. We're just trying to serve a niche market of like-minded individuals."
And believe me, this is a tiny store; there are several other national pharmacies within two hundred yards of this one, including a KMart and a CVS. I don't sue Giant if they don't carry Pistachio ice cream (they don't, I looked); I don't draft legislation against Target because they have one check out line without candy in it -- some parents prefer that line. It's the same thing here: people will patronize businesses that have (or explicitly lack) things they want. Others go somewhere else. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, this is a small dose of a growing threat to personal conscience and values. Opponents worry they won't be able to kill the right people if doctors and health care providers are allowed to exercise their own freedom of religion (aka conscience).

The price of freedom: eternal vigilance.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails