Today's Worcester Telegram reports on the new Embryonic Stem Cell Bank at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester, MA. Dr. Michael Collins, interim chancellor of the medical school and senior vice president for health sciences for the university, said in the article that UMass may be able to establish itself as the top center in the world for storing and handling [embryonic] stem cell lines for researchers.
It remains unclear from this article whether the UMass bank will include adult stem cell lines, or only Embryonic stem cell lines. The distinction is important for two reasons; Adult stem cell research is ethical, and is supported by the Catholic Church while embryonic stem cell research is controversial because human embryos, the very earliest stages of development of human life, have to be created only to be destroyed so that their stem cells can be exploited. This is why the Catholic Church is opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell research.
The second reason is, Dr. Michael Collins is Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Holy Cross College, which means we have another example of Holy Cross flouting Catholic Moral teaching.
7 comments :
From the book—Spiritual Malpractice, page 287– Holy Cross College, Catholic or not Catholic?
“Colleges and insane asylums are both mental institutionsm in a way — but one has to show improvement to graduate from an asylum! Well I am not too sure of the present condition of our mental institutions, but the condition of Catholic higher education is patently evident, there is a common link, Catholic higher education has gone crazy.
To be crazy is to be disordered; to be unsound; it means to be extremely foolish. Well when Catholic institutions and educators separate themselves from the Magisterium, we can rightly say they are disordered, unsound, and foolish for they have departed from their purpose and the very reason of being. They have departed from a Divinely established source of truth.”
(Abbot Edmond McCaffey, OSB, The Magisterium and Catholic Higher Education–Chapter seven–Symposium on the Magisteriun: A Positive statement. Greenburg- O’Rouke–St. Paul Edition 1978)
Holy Cross is crazy, i.e. disordered, unsound, and extremely foolish. Holy Cross College has departed from its purpose and its very reason of being. It has departed from a Divinely established source of truth.
Holy Cross College from the years 1966 to the present year, 1994, has not accepted the ordinary infallible teaching of the Magisterium in Humanae Vitae on contraception. It has not upheld that contraception is an intrinsically evil act and that the human act of reproduction must at all times be open to new life.
In the year 1966 Rev. John E. Brooks, chairman of Holy Cross College’s Theology department, urged the state legislator to support legalizing birth control and called the papal encyclical upholding the church’s prohibition of bith control, “in opportune”. [Sunday Telegram, Dec. 5, 1993 page A 14].
Under Rev Brooks presidency (1969 to 1993) of Holy Cross College, he continued to advance his views or attitude by employing the following dissenters to head the theology department. Dr Vincent Forde, Dr. Benard Cooke, Sister Alice Laffey and Dr David O’Brien, of the history department, propagated their dissent on the college campus for years and had free going in the very workings in the diiocese of Worcester.
Dr Vincent Forde, March 18,1987 at a Lenten lecture:
“Is contraception sinful? I have plenty of words from the Church that it is sinful. I’ve not word from God on that.”
“Contraception is moral in some cases.”
“I differ from the official Church’s view in this area.”
I am now living in out of state. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone in the Worcester diocese who has this book, give it to their Bishop be able to actually see it for himself.
To this present day, October 27, 2007 Holy Cross' presidents on behalf of Holy Cross, or O’Brien, have reneged on their stance. What more evidence does the Bishop of Worcester need to confirm his great courage to declare that Holy Cross has lost its “Catholic Identity”
Liberal Colleges and insane asylums are alike in other respects as well. One may find drugs on both campuses and certain individuals (be they faculty members at the former and patients at the latter) who have evidently experienced a lobotomy.
Contact Bishop McManus' secretary Lucina Pietrowicz, lpietrowicz@worcesterdiocese.org to lodge a complaint about the continuous scandal coming from Holy Cross.
This is a shame. Holy Cross is not an option for Roman Catholic parents of Roman Catholic children. The neutral ground of Clark University seems a better option.
I just brought up the Catholic Free Press and clicked on "Headline news". Nothing on the Bishop's action concerning Holy Cross College and its "Catholic Identity".
The Bishop made a statement on war with Iran.
Well, what about the war that Holy Cross College has and still has with the magisterial teaching of the Church? The casualties are the souls of the the Worcester diocese and others from other parts of the country. Their spiritual lives are at stake. And this is a matter of life on the road to heaven or hell.
Why cannot the Catholic Women Groups or the Catholic Men Groups speak in one voice and demand, yes demand, their spiritual Father to put an end to the dissent at Holy Cross College.
Where is the true committed love that all claim to have for the Lord, for the truth, for the faith?????
Monday, November 12, 2007
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Oakland city message to pro-lifers: Shut up!
'This is the biggest threat to free speech in a generation, and that's not hyperbole'
Posted: November 12, 2007
2:40 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A proposal moving swiftly toward approval by the Oakland City Council would tell Christians and others who offer an alternative to abortion to "shut up," a public interest law firm says.
Cyrus Johnson
"If we assume there is a right to choice as it is alleged … if there is the right to choose an abortion, there must also be a right to choose birth," Cyrus Johnson, an attorney affiliated with Pacific Justice Institute, told WND after the council gave initial approval to a new speech restriction on pro-life protesters.
But Johnson said a new "bubble" law en route to passage by the council simply ignores free speech issues and clamps down on one side of the abortion argument.
"If reproductive rights include the right to choice, and one of those choices is abortion, then another one of those choices is to give birth," Johnson said. "If they claim, on the one hand, that the law guarantees the right to reproductive rights counseling on the matter of the choice of abortion, it must necessarily also include the right to receive counseling about another choice. This ordinance effectively wipes out that second alternative.
"It is saying some people can counsel but other people cannot counsel," he told WND. "It depends which side of the debate you're on."
(Story continues below)
Pro-lifers recently waited through six hours of arguments over other issues before the proposed ordinance, No. 25 on an agenda of 26 items, took the stage at 12:30 a.m. The city's proposal would require anyone who offers counseling on sidewalks outside of abortion industry businesses to remain eight feet away from those entering the building.
City officials alleged there was a rising tide of complaints of "harassment" of clinic patients and staff and state and federal laws don't offer enough protections. They want to impose penalties of up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,000 for violators of their new speech regulation. A final vote is set for Dec. 4.
But city officials are wrong on both counts, Johnson insisted, pointing out there were no records of complaints, no injunctions, no records of lawsuits, no record of police action and no record of any kind submitted to support the allegation that such situations are a problem.
Council, left to right, standing: LaTonda Simmons, Desley Brooks, Jean Quan, Patricia Kernighan, Ron Dellums, Henry Change, Ignacia De La Feunte, Deborah Edgerly. Seated: Courtney Ruby, Nancy Nadel, Larry Reid, Jane Brunner, John Russo
And, he said, the law already provides penalties for various actions.
"If I get too close to you in a threatening way, that's known as assault," Johnson said. "If I touch you, that's battery. If I block you or prevent access, that's false imprisonment."
There's even a federal law requiring open access to such "health care" facilities, he noted.
The driving force, therefore, isn't any legitimate safety concern but simply a desire to stop the free speech of one side, Johnson asserted.
"This is the biggest threat to free speech in a generation, and that's not hyperbole," he told WND. "I truly believe that, with regards to the topic of abortion, which is very controversial, this is the government deciding which message can be heard and which message cannot be heard."
The proposal was brought by councilwoman Jane Brunner, who told local reporters the ordinance "would give women the right to make that choice and safely go to the clinic," without hearing any statements that conflict with the abortion-rights lobby.
But protesters themselves say they are more often the victims of harassment, up to and including violence.
Walter Hove, a Union City resident who hands out pro-life literature in Oakland, told reporters that's exactly what he's seen.
"I've seen the escorts push and shove protesters," he said. "The ordinance is one-sided, and there is no need for it."
He suggested if protesters have been "threatening," police and prosecutors simply should use video as evidence video from the cameras abortion businesses have installed to monitor them.
Johnson said the proposal restricts speech, conversation, handing out a leaflet and a range of other actions.
"Anyone with an interest in the right of free speech and limited government would consider whether we ought to grant the government the power to say which message can be communicated and which message cannot," he said.
On the California Catholic News website forum, reader Maria Rosa was blunt in her opinion: "Those supporting and promoting this bubble law do not care one iota about free speech when that free speech doesn't agree with what they want to do. They only support free speech when it is in agreement with what they support."
"So, where's the ACLU?" asked another reader. "Why aren't they rushing forward to protect that which they claim to be their basic charge – protecting the First Amendment freedom of speech rights?"
The Catholic newspaper also reported the story of Mary Arnold, 55, who was a pro-life protester for about a year, until the business hired escorts to "protect" customers.
"During that year, we had a lot of saves – about 20 babies," she said. "These women were grateful that someone was there to offer an alternative. We referred them to a pregnancy help center that provided assistance.
"When the escorts came, it was like having a bubble anyway, because we couldn't get near anybody," Arnold said. "They would jump in front of us and shout out at the women, 'Don't talk to them!' If a girl was actually brave enough to reach out for a pamphlet, they would snatch it out of her hands."
Johnson told WND the ordinance provides a protected area within 100 feet of an entrance to an abortion business in which no one can approach another person within eight feet without permission.
"Nobody has the right to be unspoken to," he said. "The constitution does not prevent people from being addressed."
Post a Comment