http://www.ncbcenter.org/press/04-02-11-StemCell.htm
Cell Line Research At Georgetown et al
(Children of God for Life Responds in Red)
BOSTON
,
There
are 4 aborted fetal cell lines used at
This
is a very complex moral issue. As a result, there is some confusion of facts and
misunderstanding of some of the most fundamental principles from the Catholic
moral tradition, such as the principle of material cooperation with evil.
The
NCBC has failed to recognize the
“Is
it morally licit to use ES cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from
them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable?
The answer is negative, since:
prescinding from the participation - formal or otherwise - in the morally
illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a
proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human
embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.” (Declaration
on the Production and The Scientific and The Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic
Stem Cells,
In Catholic moral theory, a
particular human action is morally evaluated according to three different but
related criteria: (1) the kind of action ("object of the will");
(2) the intention of the actor; and, (3) the circumstances surrounding the
action. All three conditions must be judged as moral before the action can
be judged as morally licit -- not just one or two of them. Thus, as
evidenced above, the issue is not how long ago, or in what country, the
abortion took place, but rather it is participation in the morally illicit intention
of the principal agent who performed an intrinsically evil action.
Regardless of whether the illicit act involved embryos, fetuses, or adult human
beings, the Church teachings are clear: It is always wrong to directly and
intentionally kill an innocent human being. Unknowing and unwilling
participation in that morally illicit act constitutes at least proximate
material cooperation in the intention of the agent, thus rendering the use of
these cells morally illicit. As the Pontifical Academy of Life stated in
precise terms above, "the case in question entails a
proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human
embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.” The
Pontifical Academy describes exactly what GU is doing and terms it proximate
material cooperation and therefore illicit. Does the NCBC want to go on record
permanently contradicting the Pontifical Academy?
It
must be said that the Center applauds the commitment to the pro-life cause shown
by these groups and individuals. The Center, too, is working for the day when
direct abortion -- or even in vitro fertilization -- is no longer legal.
The Center clearly opposes the use of fetal tissue in research which is obtained
from direct abortions and opposes the destruction of human embryos to establish
embryonic stem cell lines and calls on Catholic academic and research
institutions not to be party to such practices as we all work toward the
establishment of a Culture of Life.
The issue is not whether or not the original abortion or the use of cells OR tissues derived from the original abortion was "direct". The issue is direct or indirect moral complicity in the intention of the agent(s) who performed that original immoral action -- regardless of how long ago the abortion took place or when the cell derivation was performed.
Nevertheless, to find something distasteful does not
necessarily mean it is immoral. For example, for years The Children of God for
Life have lobbied against the immunization of children for measles, mumps,
rubella and chicken pox because currently the only vaccines available for these
immunizations in the
Children
of God for Life is deeply saddened and distressed to see that the supposedly
professional and esteemed members of the NCBC have chosen to calumniate our
organization in a matter that calls for public correction. Their
statement of our work is simply not correct! We have NEVER ONCE
lobbied against immunizations of any kind. We
have certainly lobbied against the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the
manufacturing of vaccines. And we ENCOURAGE the use of ethical alternatives such
as single doses of measles and mumps which use chick embryo.
Further, we have sought ethical alternatives for rubella and the combined
MMR vaccine. We have the support of over half
a million parents, medical professionals and pro-life organizations in our
Campaign for Ethical Vaccines.
It
is the judgment of The National Catholic Bioethics Center that parents and
physicians may have children immunized with vaccines grown in cell lines MRC 5
and WI 38 without doing anything immoral. Furthermore, it is possible that
pharmaceutical companies and researchers using these cell lines could also be
free of immorality if they had not cooperated in the evil which engendered them
and they would not contribute to future abortions for the purpose of advancing
their work.
Perhaps
such is the "judgment" of the NCBC, but as documented above, it is not
the teaching of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the original pharmaceutical
companies and researchers did in fact knowingly, willingly, and directly
cooperate with the original abortion and derivation of cells!
And those pharmaceutical companies and researchers now knowingly and
willingly using these cell lines would likewise be participating in
the morally illicit intention of the original actors. They most certainly are
contributing to further abortions for use in their work as evidenced by the use
of PER C6 – a new aborted fetal cell line that is being used for new vaccine
development. We encourage you to read the document sent to the NCBC
September 2003 and again in
January 2004 which clearly shows the direct formal cooperation by these
researchers and the pharmaceutical industry.
A
petition is currently being circulated to the Archbishop of Washington to put a
stop to this research being done at
Yes, and it appears from the response to our petition that thousands of Catholics do not share in the Georgetown and NCBC belief that this is morally acceptable. The signatures come from prominent Catholic organizations, scientists, medical professionals, bioethicists, professors, researchers, alumni, students, parents and members of the clergy and religious life. Clearly it seems that the NCBC is out of touch with what faithful Catholics believe.
It appeals to church documents in support of its position. We do as well. The
authors cite Directive 66 of the Ethical and Religious Directives:
“Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue
obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes.” And
they cite Donum vitae (I.4): “The corpses of human embryos or fetuses,
whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as
the remains of other human beings. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be
safeguarded, that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the
risk of scandal be avoided.”
Careful
distinctions" and "complex moral issues" are one thing;
obfuscating the scientific facts and the moral teachings of the Church are
another. And the facts in this case are simple and clear. The
"careful distinction" is only that children were murdered to obtain
the cell lines, and the remains of those murdered children still live in their
"offspring" - the cell lines. If
this were not the case, the cell lines would die. In
addition, a biological distinction between "fetal tissue" and "cell
lines" is a distinction without a moral difference. In
the real world, "cells" are parts of the "tissues" that are
parts of the human "body" that has been deliberately destroyed during
an elective abortion. Such a "distinction" on the part of
the NCBC is a false distinction. The
cell lines obtained from aborted fetal tissue are morally no different
than the cell lines or their sub-cellular
parts obtained from
killed embryos. The age of the
innocent human being killed is morally irrelevant. That he/she was
intentionally killed is. Would the NCBC then say that it is okay to use
embryonic stem cells, just not the embryos themselves? Just how does one
do that? Would the NCBC also maintain that it is thereby "ethical"
to use morally and illicitly obtained kidneys and other body parts in
"good" research that have been derived from children who have
been maimed and killed for them? In addition, the NCBC further fails to
recognize these important Vatican statements:
1)“The
second topic of your meeting concerns Stem Cell Technology and Other Innovative
Therapies. Research in this field has understandably grown in importance in
recent years because of the hope it offers for the cure of ills affecting many
people. I have on other occasions stated that stem cells for purposes of
experimentation or treatment cannot come from human embryo tissue. I have
instead encouraged research on adult human tissue or tissue superfluous to
normal fetal development. Any treatment which claims to save human lives, yet is
based upon the destruction of human life in its embryonic state, is logically
and morally contradictory, as is any production of human embryos for the direct
or indirect purpose of experimentation or eventual destruction.” (Pope John
Paul II, Address to the Pontifical
2)“No
objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to
science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify
experimentation on living human embryos or fetuses, whether viable or not,
either inside or outside the mother's womb”. (Given
at Rome, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987,
Cardinal Ratzinger)
3)
“Although one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo
which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve
disproportionate risks for it, but rather are directed to its healing, the
improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival, it must
nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of
experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who
have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every
person. This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living
human embryos and fetuses -- sometimes specifically "produced" for
this purpose by in vitro fertilization -- either to be used as biological
material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the
treatment of certain diseases.” (Evangelium Vitae, 63 Mar. 1995)
There
can be a moral difference between using fetal tissue obtained from a miscarriage
or an indirect abortion and fetal tissue obtained from a direct abortion.
No
such research on miscarried fetal tissue is being conducted by
There
is a moral difference between researchers cooperating with those performing
abortions to obtain tissue to establish cell lines and researchers using an
established cell line the origins of which they are unaware, or, if aware, in
which they played no part.
There is simply no
real "moral difference" here (see above). The researchers using
these cell lines must have known -- or should have known -- that these cell
lines were obtained from morally repugnant sources and that their use is forbidden
by the Church. Those who did know participated in formal
material cooperation. Those who really didn't know participated in proximate
material cooperation. Either way, their actions are morally illicit, albeit
with varying degrees of guilt.
The
researchers using these cell lines most certainly cooperate with abortion by
using the “fruits” of a poison tree. Further,
they institutionalize abortion and this research by participating in it and
profiting from it.
There
is a difference between avoiding actions which in and of themselves are wrong
and avoiding actions which in and of themselves may be licit but which may
appear wrong to others, leading to moral confusion (i.e., scandal).
Note
the careful use of the term "appear to" in the NCBC's statement.
Neither the USCCB nor the Holy See actually state or imply this. As
stated above, "cells" are parts of the "tissues" that are
parts of the human "body" that has been deliberately destroyed during
an elective abortion. Again, such a careful "distinction"
on the part of the NCBC is both biologically strange as well as
existentially non-existent. It is a false distinction. It is the
morally illicit ORIGIN of these cells and participation in that morally illicit
action that is the issue, not which part of a part of a body is used, or
when, or where. So,
does this mean we can use cells and tissues from a human being, but not the
human beings themselves? Just how
does one propose to do that? You
can't get the fetal or embryonic cells without destroying the unborn child! By
using these cells and tissues one is using the remains of a human being who must
be intentionally killed in order to get them!
Biotechnology
companies, for example, grow sheets of human skin to be used for burn victims.
The human skin cells had to come from a human being initially but have quite an
independent existence. What would clearly be immoral would be killing someone to
obtain the skin cells. What would clearly be immoral would be killing a fetus in
order to obtain cells to start a cell line or killing a fetus to perform fetal
tissue transplantation or directly to contribute to future abortions to obtain
tissue or organs for research or therapy.
And
that is EXACTLY what was done in obtaining these cell lines.
Leonard Hayflick clearly defines what they were doing and why. See
www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm
And thus to materially or formally
participate in the original evil is morally illicit as well.
That
was in fact exactly what was done. See the above link.
The “identifiable
assistance” is that they participate -- knowingly or unknowingly -- in
the intention of the original wrongdoer, as the Church documents have
taught. And they cause scandal by continuing to use these cell lines,
ignoring that the remains of these butchered children deserve to be treated with
respect – not as tools for profit – which is clearly what
It
is difficult to accuse current researchers or even the pharmaceutical firms
manufacturing these vaccines of illicit cooperation in an evil which occurred
four decades ago.
Time
does not diminish the sin. A sin
committed 40 years ago is still a sin today. God
did not punish mankind with the original sin of Adam and Eve for just a few
centuries and then said, okay, that’s enough.
From this point on, nobody bears the sin anymore.
Let’s face it, I certainly did not eat that apple – I certainly did
not want to disobey God – and as for my being related to Adam, well that is
really a remote connection after all this time, right?
Wrong. To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a
day. An abortion committed 30 years
ago was an act of evil then and an abortion done 3 minutes ago is an act of evil
now. Sin is erased or diminished
only by repentance and
restoration of ill gotten goods. Georgetown needs to return their ill-gotten
goods!
There is no statute of limitations in
civil law for murder. The
intentional killing of an innocent preborn human being by abortion is to commit
the sin of murder. So why should
anyone believe there is somehow a statute of limitations in the
moral law for the sin of murder?
Those who
experienced or understand the Holocaust know why Nazi criminals who collectively
killed millions of innocent human beings are still hunted and prosecuted in
courts around the world for those killings.
Just because those killings took place 50 years ago doesn’t diminish
the horror or injustice of those crimes against innocent human beings.
Would it be permissible to use the cell lines from the Holocaust victims
in experiments today? Or are we to
say that the children murdered in abortion are not entitled to the same respect
afforded to all human beings?
To
use the reasoning of some of those calling for the cessation of the use of these
cell lines at Georgetown would require a refusal to use organs and/or tissue
from murder victims even if they had previously stated a wish to be an organ
donor.
To
compare the use of aborted babies in research to organ donors is like comparing
apples to oranges. A murder victim
did not consent to be murdered, but did consent to their organs being used.
These babies did NOT give their consent to be murdered nor to their
cells, tissues, organs or anything else to be used for any purpose whatsoever.
No other person involved in the direct murder of an individual can licitly substitute their "consent" for another's
nonconsensual donations.
It
would require pro-life groups to refrain from using pictures or even the
knowledge of embryonic development in their presentations because such knowledge
and pictures were obtained using immoral means (e.g., through immoral
embryological research or in vitro fertilization procedures).
Using
pictures of aborted babies or embryonic development cannot be even remotely
compared to using the babies’ remains! To
make such a comparison is a shameful act for any organization claiming to give
credible ethical guidance!
It
is much preferable for cell lines to be developed which are not been derived
from directly aborted fetuses for use in research and for the manufacture of
human vaccines. This would certainly help to avoid the danger of scandal.
Nonetheless, even though it is our current judgment that the use of these cell
lines is not intrinsically immoral, we hope and pray and work for the day when
cell lines will be available for scientific use which did not arise from immoral
practices in the past. Researchers and pharmaceutical firms should work toward
that as a goal in order to give witness to a societal abhorrence of the direct
killing of the innocent.
And why in the world should they “work toward that goal” when Catholic institutions see nothing wrong with doing immoral research? Aborted fetal tissue is plentiful and cheap. If one believes that these researchers will stop doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they are living in a fairy tale world. The only way this will stop is when there is no further market for the research or end products - and when Catholic leaders stop giving their blessing to this research!
"God
chooses the foolish of the world to shame the wise."
The
E-mail: search@ncbcenter.org
Tel: