Archbishop Burke Warns US Legal Infanticide, Euthanasia are Next
Calls for an awakening of the national moral conscience
By Meg Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, DC, January 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, archbishop of St. Louis, MO, addressed the annual March for Life’s Rose Dinner and delivered a message of both encouragement and warning for the pro-life population of the United States.
The Rose Dinner is held every year at the Hyatt Regency in Washington, D.C. in
the evening after the March for Life and, according to its website, is an
opportunity “to enjoy delicious food, learn about important pro-life issues, and
toast to the hope for a successful pro-life year.”
Burke began his address reminding his listeners that another crucial front has
arisen in the battle against the culture of death. “Given the legalization of
procured abortion in our nation, we should really not be surprised that now the
agents of the culture of death seek a constitutional guarantee of the right to
generate artificially and destroy embryonic human life. A nation that permits
abortion at any stage, including the practice of partially delivering a baby
into the world in order to destroy it brutally, has so deadened its conscience
that it is no longer horrified at the thought of embryonic stem cell research,
which has rightly been called Frankensteinien.”
Referring to his home state of Missouri’s passage of Amendment 2 at the end of
last year, Burke described the amendment as a constitutional amendment which
“guarantees the right to clone human life and to destroy the embryonic human
life created in order to harvest stem cells.” The archbishop attributed the
passage of the amendment despite Missouri’s identity as a pro-life state to the
citizens succumbing “to the diabolically clever lies propagated by the
financially and socially powerful proponents of the proposed Amendment 2.”
Burke went on to describe, as an example, the actions of former Missouri
Republican Senator John Danforth, a supposedly “pro-life” senator and ordained
Episcopal priest, who appeared in television and newspaper ads and, according to
Burke, encouraged people to “abandon the heartless moral concerns of what he
calls the ‘Christian right’ and to exercise compassion for those suffering from
serious injuries and grave illness by guaranteeing the right to embryonic stem
cell research in the state of Missouri.”
Burke likened such a position to the racist ideologies that have plagued our
nation in the past saying that it is “a classic example of the powerful denying
the right to life to the less powerful – indeed, the voiceless.” He went on to
explain that arguments that deny the humanity of an embryo based on its size are
simply a racist justification of “our manipulation and destruction of human
life.”
Burke said that proponents of the culture of death shy away from discussing the
humanity of the embryo or the unborn fetus and went on to explain the scientific
basis for recognizing the human embryo as “a distinct genetic being who only
needs protection and nurturing to grow and develop.”
Burke cautioned that unless there is a re-awakening of the national conscience,
the United States will soon see “the move to permit infanticide up to a certain
age because the small child has not yet achieved the sufficient ability to
relate with others - even as we witness a growing acceptance of euthanasia in
the cases of persons who we no longer consider productive and able to relate in
society according to whatever standard we conveniently establish.”
He claims that such an awakening will only come with the individual awakening of
American citizens because he believes that, given the truth, the American people
will not accept the killing of human life. Burke attributed the current
cultural situation to “the programmatic lying which is the condition for the
existence of the culture of death.”
The Archbishop encouraged his audience assuring them that there were signs that
the culture of life in America was winning out. He used as one example the
recent growth of the Silent No More campaign, comprised of “heroic” men and
women who have previously had or collaborated in an abortion and who now deeply
regret their decision.
He also drew attention to positive signs in Hollywood – namely, the actors and
professionals involved in the production of the movie Bella. The archbishop
praised Bella saying that it is “an outstanding contribution to the new
proclamation of the Gospel of Life.”
Burke emphasized the importance of returning to an understanding and obedience
to the natural moral law which he referred to as the “fundamental truth that we
seek to communicate.” He stated that only through heeding the natural moral law
will our society “keep our eyes fixed on the moral principles upon which the
foundation of our nation rests – those expressed eloquently in the Declaration
of Independence – namely, that man is endowed by his Creator with certain
inalienable rights among which the first place is held by the right to life.”
Finally, Burke exhorted his listeners to always pray saying, ““Only through
prayer will we know the truth and have the courage to speak and defend the
truth.”
Burke concluded his talk by calling on the intercession of Our Lady of
Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn, and reciting the prayer that Pope John Paul
II used to conclude his encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
“Oh Mary, bright dawn of the new world. Mother of the living, to you, do we
entrust the cause of life. Look down, oh Mother, on the vast number of babies
not allowed to be born, of the poor whose lives are made difficult, of the men
and women who are victims of brutal violence and the elderly and sick who are
killed in indifference or out of misguided mercy. Grant that all who believe in
your Son may proclaim the Gospel of Life with honesty and love to the people of
our time. Obtain for them the grace to accept that gospel as gift ever new, the
joy of celebrating it with gratitude throughout their lives and the courage to
bear witness to it resolutely in order to build together with all people of good
will a civilization of truth and love to the praise and glory of God, the
Creator and Father of Life. Amen.”
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
New Enthusiasm and New Energy in Proclaiming the Gospel of Life -- (Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop of Saint Louis
March for Life Education and Defense Fund Convention
Rose Dinner
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
January 22, 2007
Introduction
In speaking with you tonight, I want, first of all, to express my deepest admiration for the work of the MARCH FOR LIFE Education and Defense Fund and, in particular, for Miss Nellie J. Gray, President of the Fund. As a citizen of the United States of America and as a Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, I am profoundly grateful for all that the MARCH FOR LIFE has been and is doing for the restoration of the respect for all human life, from the moment of its inception to the moment of natural death, without exception and without compromise.
As one who marches with you on behalf of our smallest and most vulnerable brothers and sisters, I am honored to be invited to offer to you a few reflections which, I hope, will inspire in you a new enthusiasm and a new energy in the promotion of the respect for human life in our nation. It is thirty-four years now since the Supreme Court of our nation handed down its deadly decisions in the cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Since January 22, 1973, nearly 50 million of our unborn brothers and sisters have lost their lives through procured abortion carried out under the legal protection of our government. The gravity and the extension of the evil which we are battling, and the duration of the battle can easily lead to discouragement.
Latest Advance of the Culture of Death
As we continue to battle for the reversal of the decisions of the Supreme Court, which have made abortion on demand legal in our nation, we now face yet another most disturbing development in the culture of death. In the State of Missouri, my home state, on this past November 7th, the citizens voted for an amendment to the Constitution of the State, which guarantees the right to clone human life and to destroy the embryonic human life created, in order to harvest stem cells. Missouri which is known as a pro-life state succumbed to the diabolically clever lies propagated by the financially and socially powerful proponents of the proposed “Amendment 2.”
Former U.S. Senator John Danforth, identifying himself as pro-life, appeared in prime-time political ads, urging the citizens of Missouri to abandon the heartless moral concerns of what he calls the Christian Right and to exercise compassion toward those suffering from serious injuries and grave illnesses by guaranteeing the right to embryonic stem-cell research in the State of Missouri. In his book entitled Faith and Politics (New York: Viking, 2006), conveniently released and promoted during the months of September and October, the former senator seeks to justify the evils of human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research by denying that human cloning is human cloning, because, according to his logic, the cloned human embryo is not a human life until it is implanted in the womb (pp. 93-97). He further justifies the destruction of the human embryo, because of its size. Not surprisingly, amidst a number of other anti-life positions espoused in the book, he expresses a doubt regarding the personhood of the human fetus (p. 84) and states that the truth that human life begins at conception is a religious belief which has nothing to do with the arguments set forth in Roe v. Wade (p. 80).
The campaign which led to the passage of “Amendment 2" to the Constitution of the State of Missouri on this past November 7th was a classic example of the powerful denying the exercise of the right to life to the less powerful, indeed the voiceless. In the past, qualities like race or religion have been used to justify the denial of the exercise of fundamental human rights, including the right to life itself, to brothers and sisters who are endowed with a dignity equal to our own. Now, the quality of size is used to justify such totalitarian measures. If what is clearly human life is not recognizable to us because of its size, then we justify our manipulation and destruction of one of our own. Statements about the human embryo not looking like a human being are redolent of the statements used by racists claiming that people of a different race do not look like us and, therefore, can be denied the exercise of their fundamental human rights.
Given the legalization of procured abortion in our nation, we should really not be surprised that the agents of the culture of death now seek a constitutional guarantee of the right to generate artificially and destroy embryonic human life. A nation which permits abortion at any stage of development, including the practice of partially delivering a baby into the world, in order to destroy it brutally, has so deadened its conscience that it is no longer horrified at the thought of embryonic stem-cell research, what has rightly been called “Frankensteinesque” (William A. Borst, “The Boys from Missouri: Myths, Lies, and Falsehoods about Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Mindszenty Report, Vol. XLVIII, No. 10 [October 2006], p. 2) .
Unless the conscience of our nation is reawakened, we will surely see the move to permit infanticide up to a certain age, because the small child has not yet achieved a sufficient ability to relate with others, even as we witness a growing acceptance of euthanasia in the cases of persons whom we no longer consider productive and able to relate in society, according to whatever standard we conveniently establish.
Programmatic Lying and the Culture of Death
The conscience of the nation will be reawakened with the reawakening of the individual consciences of the citizens of our nation. I cannot believe that our fellow citizens are truly in favor of the killing of unborn human life or the artificial generation of human life in a petri dish. Why, then, do they tolerate these intrinsically evil acts to be protected by the laws of our nation?
The answer, in my judgment, is the programmatic lying which is the condition for the existence of the culture of death. In the recent election campaign in the State of Missouri, for example, the political ads on television and in the newspaper, supporting “Amendment 2,” gave the clear impression that cures for serious injuries and grave illnesses through the use of embryonic stem cells are imminent. It is a plain lie, but it was believed by many who spoke with me, wondering why I would oppose cures for those who suffer so intensely.
The more fundamental deception regards the metaphysical reality of the human embryo. If our fellow citizens understand the truth that a human embryo is a human being, with a distinct genetic identity, who only needs protection and nurturing to grow and develop, then I do not believe that they will be in favor of destroying the tiny human life for the sake of relieving suffering. The proponents of “Amendment 2,” as the proponents of procured abortion, bristle at any discussion of the nature of the human embryo or the human fetus in the womb.
The terms, embryo, blastocyst and fetus, describe stages of the development of a distinct human being; the size and other qualities of the human life change as it grows and develops, but the being does not become any more human. It is a human being from the moment of conception or, in the case of human cloning, the artificial stimulation of the human egg from which the nucleus has been removed and into which a body cell of an adult has been placed.
The same political ads for “Amendment 2,” which played upon the sympathy of the voters before the suffering of others, insinuated that the embryo is not a human being because of its tiny size, when the scientific examination of the human embryo can come to only one conclusion, namely, the human embryo is a fully defined human life which just needs time to grow and develop. The following quotation from Mr. Danforth’s book illustrates the kind of deceptive argument used by the agents of the culture of death:
The life in question in SCNT [Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer] is what is known as a blastocyst, a preembryonic cluster of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Blastocysts have not been fertilized by sperm, and they will not be implanted in a uterus. Unlike the issue of abortion, where a fetus in the womb will, with the passage of time, become a breathing human being, these cells in a petri dish have no potential other than what scientists can do with them to find cures for diseases. Calling these blastocysts human life can only be understood as a statement of religious doctrine, and advancing legislation to protect them can only be understood as attempting to enforce religion by resorting to the criminal law (p. 93).
In truth, the being created through somatic cell nuclear transfer is a human embryo. It has the identity of a human being.
Thirty-four experts in science, medicine, law and ethics signed an open letter to the people of Missouri on November 1st last, in which they stated:
In short, human cloning for research purposes creates human embryos, using the SCNT procedure, in order to destroy them. That is exactly what Amendment 2 authorizes. In fact, the amendment creates a statewide constitutional right to conduct such human cloning, so competing ethical or human safety considerations, or other state laws, cannot meaningfully limit the research community’s right to do human cloning.
Some have tried to claim that the SCNT cloning technique does not produce an embryo. But as this country’s most prominent embryonic stem cell researcher, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, said last year, such claims are “disingenuous,” an attempt to “define away” the moral issue instead of confronting it honestly (MSNBC, June 25, 2005, www.msnbc.,sn.com/id/8303756/). Those who say the technique merely produces “stem cells” are simply being evasive – as currently practiced, SCNT seeks to create a human embryo, so researchers can dissect the embryo for stem cells (Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, “An open letter to the people of Missouri from experts in science, medicine, law and ethics on the cloning provisions of Missouri’s Amendment 2,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 November 2006, p. A5).
The experts in question rightly alerted the citizens of Missouri to the evasion of the grave moral questions in the promotion of “Amendment 2.” They also indicated the end for which the evasion was perpetrated, namely, to permit researchers to experiment with human life.
Why do prominent leaders like Mr. Danforth engage in such evasion and deception? In my judgment, the answer is: If the citizens of our nation knew about the taking of human life, which is involved in embryonic stem-cell research, they would not tolerate it. Even as procured abortion has been presented to the citizenry in words which evade the truth of the brutal reality of destroying a human life in the womb, so now the destruction of embryonic human life is presented in a manner which evades the truth of the killing involved.
The systematic lying, which is at the foundation of the culture of death, manifests itself in word games which are deliberately employed to confuse. For example, in the campaign for “Amendment 2" in the State of Missouri, the proponents denied that the measure provided a guarantee of the right to human cloning. They claimed that they were promoting somatic cell nuclear transfer, as if it were something other than human cloning. The deception was so patent that the first words of the proposed amendment states that it proscribes human cloning, when, in fact, “Amendment 2" guarantees to every researcher the right to practice somatic cell nuclear transfer which plainly and simply is human cloning.
Reawakening the Conscience of Our Nation
Reawakening the conscience of the nation means using every good means to help individuals recognize the lies which they are being told. It means using as cleverly as possible the means of social communication in order to communicate the truth to our fellow citizens. For instance, in the campaign against “Amendment 2" in the State of Missouri, three sports personalities who are devotedly pro-life produced an advertisement in the newspaper, which simply raised the question of the fairness of embryonic stem-cell research, in the familiar and easily understood language of sports (Mike Sweeney, Jeff Suppan and David Eckstein, “Practicing fair play is the right thing to do. (Just ask these champions.),” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 3, 2006, p. A10). It was an attractive expression of the Golden Rule and, I am certain, changed the thinking of many. The above-quoted open letter of the experts in science, medicine, law and ethics was also most helpful. We must heed the counsel of Christ to His Apostles, as He sent them out on the mission of preaching the Gospel. He warned them about the opposition which they would face, and he counseled them with these words: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16).
One of the word games played by the agents of the culture of death discounts discussions of the metaphysical reality of the human embryo and fetus as religious discourse which cannot be allowed in the public square. The reawakening of the consciences of individuals and the conscience of the nation depends on religious discourse having its proper place in the public square, especially through its grounding of religious discourse in metaphysics. In the battle against “Amendment 2,” religious discourse insisting on the truth of the natural moral law played a significant role.
Although the opposition to “Amendment 2” lost the battle at hand, there are definite signs of hope of winning the war for life in the matter of embryonic stem-cell research. At the beginning of the election campaign, the polls showed that some seventy-five percent of the electorate favored “Amendment 2.” The initiative passed by only the narrowest margin. As citizens came to recognize the lies told to them by the proponents of “Amendment 2,” they rejected the initiative. The radical diminution of the percentage of approval of “Amendment 2” shows us what will be the fruit of our continued efforts to speak the truth about human life in the civic arena. We must increase all of our efforts to reach more and more citizens with the message.
Natural Moral Law and Intrinsic Evil
The fundamental truth which we seek to communicate is the natural moral law written by God upon every human heart. The natural moral law teaches us that it is never good or right to destroy innocent human life. It teaches us that human life is God’s most wonderful gift to us, a gift which we must treasure in every way, safeguarding and fostering it at all times. It also teaches us that the origin of human life is in the conjugal union, the cooperation of husband and wife with God in the act of procreation. It teaches us to abhor the prideful act of attempting to create human life artificially in a laboratory.
Without a return to the teaching of the natural moral law, we will never be able to communicate the moral duty always to safeguard and foster human life, especially the life of the innocent and defenseless brother or sister, and we will never be able to communicate the integrity of human procreation and protect ourselves from the prideful and destructive pretense of those who would artificially generate human life for the sake of their own purposes.
The recovery of the natural moral law will keep our eyes fixed on the moral principles upon which the foundation of our nation rests, expressed eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that man is endowed by His Creator with “certain unalienable rights,” among which the first place is held by the right to life. Today, there is a call to adhere strictly to the text of the Constitution of our nation and rightly so. The strict interpretation of the Constitution will discipline the tendency of judges to establish legal principles which are immoral and contrary to the founding principles of our nation. The founding principles, however, inhere in the language of the Constitution, and the Constitution can only be understood fully in their light.
Conscience and Religious Faith
It is critical to distinguish between the content of the natural moral law and the content of positive ecclesiastical law. Often, even as I noted in the arguments of Mr. Danforth, the content of the natural moral law, for example, the duty to protect and foster human life, and to do no harm, is excluded from the civic discourse because it is part of religious belief and is seen as a means of having the civic order legislate ecclesiastical matters.
Yes, the natural moral law pertains to the content of the faith. It comes from God and, therefore, faith in God requires adherence to the natural moral law. But the natural moral law is not ecclesiastical, in the sense of serving the good order of the Church. Rather, it is directed to the common good. It, therefore, must be applied in the civic order, if the common good is to be served.
The natural moral law, by definition, binds the conscience of every lawmaker. It is not possible to state, regarding the precepts of the natural moral law, that one holds them to them personally but cannot apply them in the civic order. On the contrary, the lawmaker or other government official who does not apply the natural moral law in practice violates the integrity of his conscience and contributes to the further erosion of the common good.
The natural moral law binds our consciences always and everywhere. It is frightening to consider the effect of lawmakers and other civic leaders who vote contrary to what their consciences teach them.
Signs of Hope
There are many signs of hope in the work of communicating the truth. One of the most compelling forms of communication of the truth regarding abortion comes from “Silent No More,” the organization of men and women who have been involved in a procured abortion, and who now give courageous witness to all of the sadness and suffering which abortion brought into their lives, and to the healing which comes through the admission of the grave evil of abortion and the reception of God’s forgiveness. Earlier in the day, Dr. John Wilke reminded me that, in the first years after Roe v. Wade, it seemed impossible to find a woman or man who would give testimony regarding the profound suffering which resulted from the decision to have an abortion. Now, thanks be to God, more and more men and women are giving witness to the transforming power of God’s grace, which is ours when we confess the sin of abortion and accept God’s forgiveness.
Yesterday, a devout couple from the Archdiocese of Saint Louis visited with me to tell me about the witness which they gave today at the end of the March for Life. They had suffered for years, after having procured an abortion in their youth. It was during EWTN’s broadcast of the March for Life in 2003, which they were watching with special interest because their son who was a seminarian at the time was taking part in it, that information regarding a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat appeared at the bottom of the television screen. They turned toward each other and began to weep. God, in His Providence, had shown them the way to begin to heal. They made the retreat, have experienced a great and ongoing healing, and have received the inspiration to help others who have been involved in abortion to seek forgiveness and healing. Now, they generously want to promote the healing work of Rachel’s Vineyard in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis. What a blessing they bring to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis by their articulate and effective enunciation of the truth about procured abortion and about God’s unceasing desire to receive the confession of our sins and to forgive us.
By the grace of God, Hollywood, of all places, has offered a powerful witness to the truth about procured abortion in the movie entitled Bella, which is based on a true story and was, last year, the winner of the People’s Choice Award at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival. Eduardo Verastegui, the star of the film, together with Alejandro Monteverde, Leo Severino and other men gifted with the talents to make them successful in the Hollywood film industry are dedicating themselves and their gifts to the new evangelization, the teaching and living of the Catholic faith with new enthusiasm and new energy, that is, the enthusiasm and energy of the first disciples of our Lord, of the first missionaries to our nation, and of the martyrs for the faith. They have formed a new company, Metanoia Films, to serve the Gospel through the cinema. Bella is an outstanding contribution to the new proclamation of the Gospel of Life. It will not surprise you to learn that their next film will have as its subject the life of Blessed Miguel Pro, martyr for the faith during the persecution of the Church in Mexico in the last century.
The third powerful sign of hope in the communication of the truth about abortion and other attacks on the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is the witness of youth, of the thousands of youth who have traveled to Washington in these days for the March for Life, of the youth throughout our country, who are dedicated apostles of life. We saw them in great number on Sunday night at the Vigil Mass celebrated in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was filled to its substantial capacity. Many young people could not participate in the Mass for the simple reason of lack of space. We saw them today, participating in the March for Life in such great number and with so much conviction and enthusiasm. Many of them traveled all night on economy buses to participate in the March for Life and returned home in the same way this afternoon, once the March for Life had concluded.
The youth of today, all born after January 22, 1973, have a particularly strong sense of the urgency with which the Supreme Court decisions of that date must be reversed. Their parents all had the legal option of choosing abortion. Those of us who were born before January 22, 1973, I believe, do not sufficiently appreciate how strongly our young people sense the lack of protection of human life at its beginning, in our nation, since January 22, 1973.
Our youth are the hope of the future of our nation. Witnessing their faithful and generous engagement in the respect life apostolate, we can be confident about what is to come. At the same time, we must encourage and help them in every way to be articulate and courageous apostles for life, especially in their one-on-one communication with each other.
Conclusion
I draw to a conclusion my brief reflections by underlining that the first strategy in the respect life apostolate is prayer. No effort of ours to restore the respect for human life will bear fruit, if it does not rest upon a deep faith in God Who alone gives us life and Who strengthens us to respect human life. Only through prayer will we know the truth and have the courage to defend the truth about human life.
I close with the prayer with which our late and most beloved Pope John Paul II concluded his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.” The Holy Father prays for the restoration of the respect for the inviolable dignity of all human life through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary who first brought our Lord into the world. We pray with our late Holy Father. As Americans, we invoke the intercession of our Blessed Mother under her title, Our Lady of Guadalupe, recalling how the Mother of God appeared on our continent to manifest God’s all-merciful love to all, without exception or compromise. We recall how her apparitions and her message put an end to the brutality of human sacrifice, taught the evil of racism and brought the Native Americans and Europeans together to form one new culture, the mestiza culture, under her maternal protection. We ask Our Lady of Guadalupe, today, to help us by her prayers to end to the grave evils of procured abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and all attacks on innocent human life. We ask her to intercede with our Lord that we may have the grace to be faithful and generous apostles of life.
O Mary,
bright dawn of the new world,
Mother of the living,
to you do we entrust the cause of life:
Look down, O Mother,
upon the vast numbers
of babies not allowed to be born,
of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
of men and women
who are victims of brutal violence,
of the elderly and the sick killed
by indifference or out of misguided mercy.
Grant that all who believe in your Son
may proclaim the Gospel of Life
with honesty and love
to the people of our time.
Obtain for them the grace
to accept that Gospel
as a gift ever new,
the joy of celebrating it with gratitude
throughout their lives
and the courage to bear witness to it
resolutely, in order to build,
together with all people of good will,
the civilization of truth and love,
to the praise and glory of God,
the Creator and Lover of life (Evangelium vitae, n. 105).
Amen.