Culture of Death Watch
Stem Cells and Shadow Boxing
by David A. Wemhoff
“This above all:
To thine own self, be true,
For it must follow, as dost
the night to day,
That canst not then be false
to any man.”
Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3
We hear over and over about
the secularists, and the liberals, and those who want to allow for this or
that, all of which is against our beliefs. That which we believe has been
formed by the Roman Catholic Church as it teaches the Roman Catholic Faith. Whether
it is abortion, women’s rights, homosexual rights, contraception, taking Christ
out of Christmas, or striking prayer to Jesus in the State House, we are told
that it is the liberals, the secularists, or some other amorphous group, that
is pushing an agenda that is “un-Christian”. At some point, we come to the
realization that this worldview which creates this liberal/secularist category
is flawed because things never seem to get better. The editor of this magazine
has called this situation, the one in which we find ourselves in 21st
Century USA, as the “Whig view of history” while others have called it “shadow
boxing”.
There are a lot of problems
with not accurately identifying one’s temporal enemies. An initial one is that
you call your own identity into question. Another is the failure to accurately
analyze the social and political dynamics of the day. Without honest analysis
of the situation and the opponents, you cannot expect to win at
anything--whether it is a ball game, a chess match, court cases, or war. Without
names, faces, and groups, the enemy becomes some large, undefined, all-powerful
entity that surrounds us. Indeed, neighbors, co-workers, friends, family, and
others become members of the vast secular conspiracy to de-Christianize our
world which the “mainstream media” gleefully reports and against which
“conservatives” (whatever that means) continually screech as they hold out
their hand for hundreds of millions of dollars in (tax-deductible) donations.
When we ascribe to this
“shadow boxing” view of dealing with enemies of the Faith, the Church, and all
that is decent and right, it follows that our passion for the fight is
diminished, our tactics are muted, and our will is weakened. The reason is that
out of fear of offending those around us as we discussed above, we tend to act
more with a concern for being polite, than with being successful and faithful. When
viewpoints and beliefs and agendas are presented devoid of their roots, then
people are kept from organizing effectively in their own natural groups to
protect their interests. At the same time, the principles of unity of these
natural groups are subverted, and they fragment into ineffective clusters, or,
worse yet, individuals susceptible to the whims of public opinion manipulators
far away.
Perhaps what is most
nefarious about this whole situation is the elevation of these “secular”
beliefs to a level of respectability. These beliefs become institutionalized as
legitimate viewpoints that people can have and hold, all to their own and to
society’s detriment. Opposing these ideas can only be within the boundaries of
the pre-ordained limits of discourse. In other words, conservatives oppose
liberals. Faith communities oppose secularists. Traditionalists oppose
progressives. What does it all mean, you ask. It means this is how we are all
controlled—we create our own illusion of doing something when in reality we are
just running in place.
Perhaps it is for this
reason that the motion picture “The Matrix” resonated with so many
people—though they were unable to articulate just why that was so. The premise
of the motion picture is that human beings are being “grown” and used as
sources of electrical and biochemical energy to fuel a system run by robots
with artificial intelligence. The world as we know it no longer exists and
human beings, isolated as individuals in “pods” where their biochemical energy
is “harvested” for the machines, live in a dream world which is called “the
Construct”. Each human creates their own illusions in the movie, but these are
just illusions and they have no real power as cables, tubes and machines keep
their bodies locked in place. Self-determination is achievable only by
withdrawing from “the Construct” and living a hard, and hunted, life, as a
rebel or outsider. In many regards, this motion picture is an allegory for the
reality of American society today.
Once we accept the
conservative-liberal, faith community-secular dichotomies established by the
powerful in this society (I’ll refer to them as the Regime), and once we craft
our arguments and order our thinking in accordance with this schema, it’s over.
Once you buy into the modern day Construct, you’ve lost. To quote a hometown
sports announcer at the end of the fourth quarter of a football match, “That’s
the game, folks!”
Roman Catholics effectively
consent to control by the powerful in the society when we accept the legitimacy
of the liberal-conservative, secular-faith communities categories. These
powerful ones, the ones who set the terms of the debate, are not Roman
Catholics. They do not share Roman Catholic beliefs and values, and they do not
act in accordance with the Faith.
One of the best examples of
this discussion is the embryonic stem cell debate.
On August 9, 2001, President
George W. Bush, capping a long-running debate, announced to the nation that “I
have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on
these existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has already
been made. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell
research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer
funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos
that have at least the potential for life”
Bush was immediately
criticized by a lot of groups, to include the American Catholic Bishops. To
their credit, the Bishops did allow Dr. Anton-Lewis Usala to articulate the
Catholic position against embryonic stem cell research early in 2001. He wrote:
“Catholic teaching strongly opposes any procedure that willfully terminates
innocent human life, from the time of conception until natural death. Jesus
Christ taught that each human being is important to God, and each is
responsible for his or her own actions. Individuals will be judged not by the
goodness of those around them, but by how well they personally have lived
according to God's Word.”
Dr. Usala made a haunting
observation that signaled the Church’s approach to the matter. He wrote: “As I
testified to a Senate subcommittee on this issue last September [2000], it
became very evident that while religious arguments would be politely listened
to, they served as a convenient opportunity to dismiss contrary views. Many
legislators take a literalist view of `separation of Church and State,’ hence
they dismiss religious arguments as perhaps a valid personal view, but not
worthy of a substantive response in a secular arena.” The Faith would not be
spoken in public for fear it would not be effective or convincing, yet religion
proved to be the decisive factor in the entire controversy. And how is it that
the exhortations of St. Paul, and the examples of countless saints and martyrs
were forgotten?
The United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops is not known for standing up to the dominant culture. The
Catholic Bishops in the United States tend to fall in line with the worldview
of politics and society that the elites in America have foisted on all of us. A
quick review of the USCCB website sees that their material concerning
information and teachings on the issues of the day are organized as one would
expect from the Hollywood-New York culture shapers. There is “Social Justice”,
“Family, Laity, Women & Youth”, “Migrants & Refugees”, and “Pro-Life”. These
separate categories in no way articulate a comprehensive, and hence Catholic,
view of how such things as personal morality and social justice are to be
integrated to form a coherent approach to living lives, and ordering society
for the betterment of all and the salvation of souls. The sad thing is that
history is full of examples of how societies should be organized for the common
good. If only the USCCB would try.
The decision to fight the
stem-cell issue on the terms set by the American Regime, which, is to say, to
fight in “secular” terms, was a mistake on the most fundamental of levels. It
ignored the reality that people speak, act, and live, largely out of their
beliefs which are formed by religion, and environment. And the reality is that
in the embryonic stem-cell debate, the conflict is fundamentally one between
Judaism and Roman Catholicism.
Political operative William
Saletan, chief national correspondent of Slate.com, saw this basic fact first
hand and for himself. (Slate.com was originally created by Microsoft about ten
years ago but in December, 2004 was purchased by The Washington Post.) Writing in March, 2005, he authored a posting
entitled “Oy Vitae—Jews vs. Catholics in the Stem Cell Debate.” Saletan
observed the President’s Council on Bioethics discuss the issue of embryonic stem
cell research and he found that “the reactions fell into two camps. Catholics
leaned one way, Jews the other.” Leon Kass, the chairman of the President’s
Council on Bioethics, said that a ban on funding of destructive embryo research
“wasn’t written at Sinai.” Then, according to Saletan, Kass said “And even the
things that were written at Sinai are’—he groped for a rabbinical exit--`under
review’.”
Later, Saletan flew to the
bioethics conference at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome as
the guest of Eric Cohen, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a protégé
of Leon Kass. It was while in Rome that Saletan met Father Nicanor Austriaco a
well known Dominican who earned a doctorate in biology from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and who frequently writes and speaks on stem cell
issues. Saletan wrote that Fr. Austriaco also saw a “Catholic-Jewish”
difference on the matter and added “Catholics follow streamlined authority. Jews
trust intuition; Catholics trust reason.”
A commentator to the article
almost immediately wrote “the mishnah (nidda 30a) seems fairly clear that
jewish tradition and law don’t
consider an embryo/zygote before 40 days to be possibly considered a human
being.” [sic] This blogger knew what he or she was talking about.
Israel21c bills itself as a
not-for-profit corporation that works to “inform Americans about 21st
century Israel, its people, its institutions and its contributions to global
society”. On April 25, 2005, Roberta Neiger authored an article entitled
“Israeli Scientists Pushing the Boundaries of Stem Cell Research”. In it, she
writes that “Jewish Biblical and Talmudic Law holds that the embryo acquires
full human status only at birth. In connection to the pre-implantation embryo, Jewish
Law dictates that genetic materials outside the uterus have no legal status
since they are not part of a human being until implanted in the womb.” She
noted that an embryo acquires some human status only after the first 40 days,
and, so the creation of embryos by cloning for therapeutic purposes is
justifiable.
Professor Michel Revel, the
Israeli representative at UNESCO’s Bioethics Committee, stated: “Unlike the
Catholic view that places the beginning of a human life at the moment of
conception, Judaism believes that human rights are acquired progressively. Traditional
sources regard the fertilized egg and sperm as `water-life’ material until
after 40 days”.
Judaism is opposed to, and
irreconcilable with, the Roman Catholic Faith on this issue, among many others.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
clearly states in Section 2274: “Since it must be treated from conception as a
person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as
far as possible, like any other human being.” And, in Section 2275: ”It is
immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable
biological material.”
It is this fundamental
difference between the Roman Catholic Faith in particular, and Christianity in
general, on one hand, and Judaism on the other, that has led to varying laws
between Western countries and Israel. Neiger reports that it is this
fundamental difference that has led to the emergence of an Israeli-Jewish
industry in the field of stem cell research. Neiger writes, “Perhaps most
significant is the fact that ethical issues, which have curbed stem cell
research in the US and elsewhere, are muted in Israel. There is no law
regulating stem cell research in Israel, and use of embryos for such research
is allowed. In the United States, embryonic stem cell research is a burning
issue that played a major role in the recent presidential election.”
The International Stem Cell
Forum confirms that Israeli law on the subject, entitled Prohibition of Genetic
Intervention Law (Human cloning and Genetic Manipulation of Reproductive Cells)
5759-1999, academy.ac.il, allows for the
manipulation of embryonic stem cells from an early state of development. Of
course, this “manipulation” results in the killing of a tiny human being.
Additionally, the Forum
noted that Israel is very permissive in allowing embryonic stem cell research
because “Judaism places a high value on the religious obligation of treating
serious illness even if it requires transgression of religious commands such as
the sanctity of Sabbath. …With respect to the embryo prior to implantation, it
is further viewed that there is no potential of the fertilized egg or the
blastocyst to initiate pregnancy and develop to birth unless there is a
parental decision to do so.” Hence, we hear in Roe v. Wade and the “pro-choice” position, the echoes of Jewish
religious beliefs.
Jews, and Israel, have
aggressively acted on their religious beliefs. Realizing that Israelis are in a
position of prominence in the field of stem cell research, Neiger writes
“[A]ccording to [Dr. Arik] Hasson, Israel is disproportionately represented in
all the natural sciences. In many US universities, he says, the number of
Israeli graduate students in biology-related fields approaches that of their
colleagues from India and China, countries that have populations more than 200
times greater than Israel’s.“
As a result, Israeli
academics and industry are “pushing the boundaries of an already cutting-edge
field: stem cell research”. While Neiger listed seven Israeli companies
involved in this field, there are at least ten, which contrasts sharply with
only five United States companies involved with working on existing stem cell
lines.
Indeed, Jews have been
leaders in embryonic stem cell research. The Jewish Weizmann Institute’s Leo
Sachs demonstrated in the 1960s that stem cells could be grown in a culture. Israeli
Doctors Joseph Itskovitz-Eldor of the Technion and Rambam Medical Center and
Binyamin Reubinoff of Hebrew University were some of the first to isolate stem
cells from human embryos in 1998. Researchers from Hebrew University lead in
the areas of describing genetic modifications of stem cells and differentiation
of embryonic stem cells in cultures. Cell Cure, an Israeli company, was the
first to show how transplanted human embryonic stem cells work in animal models
with Parkinson’s disease. Science
Magazine named Israel as the world leader in stem cell research in 2002.
In 2004, The Consortim
Bereshit for Cell Therapy was formed in Israel under the Chief Scientist’s
Office of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Iris Lewin, Bereshit’s technical
manager, told Neiger that the Consortium’s “main goal is to create embryonic
stem cells that will be FDA approved.” According to the Vision Statement of the
Bereshit Consortium as quoted by International Stem Cell Forum, the Consortium
is “To create and advance a cluster of cell therapy companies in Israel that
will acquire a global leadership position in the field, providing generic
enabling technologies for cell therapy and stem cell derived products and new
human Embryonic SC [stem cell] lines.”
The Consortium members are
academic groups such as Ben Gurion University, Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, and the Hadassah Medical Center, as well as a number
of companies whose mission is to advance stem cell research. Some of the member
companies of the Consortium are Gamida-Cell, whose Chief Executive Officer is
Dr. Arik Hasson. Dr. Hasson has claimed, according to Israel21c, that embryonic
stem cells are pluripotent, are capable of becoming any cell, and develop
spontaneously into organs. And, he is of the belief that researchers will be
able to determine which organs can be formed by these embryonic stem cells.
As of May, 2006, the Israel
Life Science Industry (ILSI) noted that the Consortium’s “general consensus”
was that both embryonic and adult stem cell research should continue, even
though there were advantages and disadvantages to each. The Consortium
referenced a stated need to obtain “human embryonic cell lines free of
contamination by animal components” since so many of these cell lines were
apparently contaminated. ILSI identified two objectives involving embryonic
stem cells. These were “up scaling of embryonic…stem cells, culturing
modalities and methods for large-scale production of stem/progenitor cells and
other cells for cellular therapy”: and the “[d]erivation and establishment of
new lines of feeder-layer-free human embryonic stem cells (hESC) or with FDA
approved human feeder layer.”
In January, 2005, the
Director General of the Ministry of Health and the President of the Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities formed the Israeli Stem Cell Research Forum
which is administered by the Ministry of Health. The vision statement of that
entity announced the intent to “support the use of the revolutionary principles
of the new stem cell and regenerative biology”.
Stem cell research is very
expensive. Clinical trials and medical expertise are needed to do this kind of
work, and both come with a large price tag. It is difficult finding private
money to support the work, because private individuals and companies are
generally risk adverse when new technology is being developed as in the case
with embryonic stem cell research. So, government money is needed to advance
the research to a point that industry will get interested in making investments
that stand a reasonable chance of paying off, or returning a profit. In other
words, once the government, which is funded by tax dollars, does the “heavy
lifting”, then private companies can walk in and make a profit from the result
of the research.
Add to all of this a report
from the United Kingdom’s Department of Health that “Israel has no dedicated
funding for stem cell research, and…it is at risk of losing its leading
position,” and the plot thickens. The scarcity of funding, and the need for
foreign subsidies, is admitted by the Israelis. The August 5, 2005 edition of The Forward referred to a report from
the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that recognized this need.
In light of all of this, it
is not surprising how the parties lined up in the fight for federal and state
funding of embryonic stem cell research. Joining the Roman Catholics for
protecting the unborn were the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the
Family and other Christian groups. Pushing for federal funding were the
Orthodox Union (the oldest and perhaps the most powerful Jewish organization),
the National Association of Judaism and Medicine, and Hadassah, which is the
Women’s Zionist Organization of America.
The year 2005 was indeed an
important one in the fight over government funding of embryonic stem cell
research. With 37 states considering stem-cell legislation of one form or
another, one would think that everyone would be too busy to notice what was
going on in Washington. However, Republican Senator Bill Frist, a medical
doctor from Tennessee and the Senate Majority Leader, stole the show with a
speech he delivered on July 29 from the floor of the Senate.
Frist announced that he
believed the United States Government should expand the funding for embryonic
stem cell research. Such a break from Bush’s position of four years earlier
troubled a lot of Catholics who knew that there were two bills pending in
Congress. In the House of Representatives, HR 810 would expand federal funding
for embryonic stem cell research beyond the limits Bush imposed. (Senate
Resolution 471 was similar to HR 810). HR 2520 (with its Senate version, S.
1317) would allocate federal funds to study stem cells from adults and from
umbilical cord blood, not human embryos. The Catholics and other Christians
supported HR 2520 and S. 1317. The Jews wanted HR 810 and S. 471.
Frist’s speech shocked
Catholics, and apparently, Jews. According to The Forward, several weeks earlier an unnamed “Frist staffer told
delegates to Hadassah’s national convention in Washington that his boss would
oppose the measure” that would have provided more funding to embryonic stem
cell research (S.471; HR. 810).
While Catholics and
Christian leaders criticized Frist’s about-face, the powerful Jewish Orthodox
Union (officially, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of AmericaTM), the Religious Action
Center of Reform Judaism, and Hadassah were delighted. Rabbi David Saperstein, the
director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism said that the
stem-cell issue was the primary issue for his organization.
Indeed, it was a primary
issue for many Jews.
In July, 2001, Embryonic
Stem Cell International (ESI) was created in July, 2001, according to a press
release from the University of California Santa Barbara. This Israeli
organization, founded just before the President’s speech of August 9 of that
year and the promulgation of the official National Institute of Health policy
directive on stem cell research, established a technique “to develop embryonic
stem cells from surplus embryos, `in order not to waste them’.” Dr. Binyamin
Reubinoff of the Hadassah Embryonic Stem Cell Research Center at Jerusalem’s
Hadassah Medical Center, has been deeply involved in trying to obtain stem
cells from human embryos for a long time.
According to a July 11, 2004
report from Israel21c, Reubinoff’s group produced six, of the twelve, human
embryonic stem cell lines that qualified for federal funding under the
President’s decision of August, 2001. So, the Israelis stood to gain enormously
by Bush’s announced policy, which appeared to stop the killing of embryos. Not
only would they to get money for research, but they had obtained a real
competitive advantage over other groups and companies by virtue of garnering
such a large percentage of the existing embryonic stem cell lines.
That did not appear to be
enough. Reubinoff said that “It [the August, 2001 policy] may affect progress in
the field if Bush stopped the process of more liberal funding … . It has an
influence on scientists and the availability for money for research.” And, it
was Reubinoff’s group, Hadassah, that appeared influential in changing Frist’s
viewpoint. In May, 2005, Frist was hosted at Jerusalem’s Hadassah Medical
Center where he was briefed on all of the advances in stem-cell research. Later,
Frist supposedly praised the efforts of Hadassah during a meeting with the
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a key player in the Israel
Lobby according to the paper released in March of this year by scholars Walt
and Mersheimer.
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on
the Family was perhaps the most vocal in castigating Frist. On August 3, 2005,
during a syndicated radio show, Dobson said that embryonic stem cell research
exhibited a lack of morality reminiscent of Nazi experiments on concentration
camp inmates. The reaction from the Jews was immediate and furious. Abraham
Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said “We are concerned because
it trivializes history”, making an obvious reference to the Holocaust. Foxman
demanded Dobson apologize.
Dobson would not apologize. Indeed,
he repeated his comments the following Monday on the popular Fox Network
program, “Hannity & Colmes.”
Focus on the Family went one
step further. It exhorted all of its readers and members to email or write
those who criticized Dobson. That included Jewish organizations like the
Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and any
of the multitude of Jewish groups that dared attack Dobson. The Christians were
urged to respectfully tell the Jews and pro-embryonic stem cell research
organizations that their position on embryonic stem cell research was immoral. The
Christians did as they were asked, and they did so in large numbers. The stem
cell organizations were inundated with criticism.
HR 810, along with S. 471
went down to defeat. Instead, HR 2520 and S. 1317, both of which permitted the expansion
of federal funding to “provide for the collection and
maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and
research” became public law.
Dobson would not retract his
statements. He did not hide the truth. He judged the actions of death camp
doctors and embryonic stem cell doctors by the same moral standard. Christians
told Jews and the pro-embryonic stem cell crowd they were morally wrong. Dobson
did not apologize for Christianity.
And so the Christians won. 
David
A. Wemhoff is an attorney. He edits Roman Catholic
Report.
This
article was published in the June, 2006 issue of Culture Wars.
Share |
| Home | Books | DVDs/CDs | Events | Subscribe | Write Letter to Editor | Donate |
Culture Wars •
Copyright