Missouri Constitutional Amendment #2

The amendment on the November ballot that claims to 'set limits' on stem cell research is filled with deceptions. I want to point out and bring to light some of these deceptions so my readers are informed on the dangers to life in our world today.

Lets begin with the actual wording that will appear on the ballot and will be what the voters read when they vote. The ballot description says:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

• ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
• ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
• require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
• impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
• prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?

This is deceptive in itself. It tries to sugar coat much of the true purpose of the amendment. Voters are presented with what seems to be benign. It seems to ban cloning, provide medical oversight and promote lifesaving cures. The actual amendment, however, could not be further from the truth.

I want to take a look at the actual full text of the amendment. First and foremost, a very important definition used in this amendment is purposely deceptive. The term 'cloning' according to the amendment is defined as meaning "to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." There are multiple problems with this definition including the fact that:

• There is nothing in the definition that limits implantation into an artifical or animal uterus. This IS a realistic possibility. While no artificial uteruses have been developed yet, animal uteruses have already been used for implantation.
• It does not limit someone from cloning a fertilized egg but with no intention of allowing the fetus to come to term. Basically, scientists have free reign as long as they don't let the embryo mature...in other words...as long as the kill the living, human embryo.

The following clause, however, seems to limit the collecting of stem cells from a fertilized egg: No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research. Yet, nothing prevents the collecting of stem cells from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), which does not entail use of a fertilized egg, but creates a blastocyst nonetheless that is a living human being.

Another example of a deceptive clause in the amendment is the use of a blastocyst. This clause of the amendment says: No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit. The primary deception is that by fourteen days, what was originally known medically as a blastocyst is now called an embryo. The clause does not prevent retrieving stem cells from this embryo. Also, once a blastocyst is implanted, it is no longer a "blastocyst."

These are just a few of the deceptions of this amendment. A full description of these deceptions can be found on the Missouri Right to Life web site. In the final analysis, this amendment doesn't restrict cloning and stem cell research. Rather, it gives scientists and doctors a blank check via the numerous loopholes.

Many of my readers might ask why this matters to me since I am not a resident of Misosuri. The danger and reason my readers should be VERY concerned is that this amendment, if passed, opens the floodgates to other states adopting similiar measures and even expanding upon existing ones. This is an immense and evil attack on life. All life is precious and deserves the dignity God calls us to give. This amendment makes a human being, at its earliest stages, a marketable product that can be used and thrown away just like can of soda. Think about life becoming rubbish. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 21:07 | link | comments |
blog

Resources that can help us understand pro-life issues

Periodically, I have a blog entry which focuses on internet resources that give more detail on an issue we've been discussing. I haven't done this recently for pro-life and since we are approaching the mid-term elections and votes on life issues, I thought this would be a good time to point out some resources. I have come across many new resources since my last resource blog entry (see the July 15th blog entry) and thought I'd share some of these with you.

Women for Faith and Family has a wealth of information not only on pro-life issues, but also sexuality, morality and other important Catholic issues in our world today. Based right here out of St. Louis, they state that their primary purpose is "To assist orthodox Catholic women in their effort to provide witness to their faith, both to their families and to the world." This is both a noble and much-needed service in our world today.

Secondly, Visible Embryo is an excellent resource in which one can better understand the stages of pregnancy and dangers during a pregnancy. It includes many charts and graphics that help one to see these stages of growth.

Another resource is the AbortionFacts web page of the Heritage House web site. This site answers many questions about the techniques of abortion, definition of various abortions as well on RU-486. It is a good resource if one wants to know about methods of abortion or how abortions are performed in various trimesters. There is no explicit graphic content, simply literature information.

Lastly, I have mentioned this site before, but it continues to be a good resource into knowing whether your elected political leaders are or are not supporting life issues. OnTheIssues.org provides numerous ways to view the voting history of your politician on a variety of issues that have come before Congress. It is worth checking out, especially as we near the mid-term elections.

These are but a few of the pro-life resources on the internet. I hope these resources help in gathering a little more information about pro-life issues as well as the dangers to the Culture of Life. If anyone has other good pro-life resources they have come across, please add a comment to this entry listing the URL of the site. It would be greatly appreciated. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 06:13 | link | comments |
blog

Upcoming stem cell vote in MO

It has been a busy and very stressful time the last few days, so I apologize for not blogging as often as I have been. Things have settled down, however, so I should be getting back to nearly daily blogging. I want to continue talking about Islam, but I also want to touch on some questions I was asked recently about Mass. Lastly, I have some pics of the Cathdral Basilica and I thought I'd dedicate a blog entry to that and my experience at Cathedral so far. For today, however, I want to focus on the stem cell research bill in Missouri.

The state of Missouri is just over a month away from passing an amendment that would give nearly unlimited embryonic stem-cell research federal and state funding. The amendment goes so far as to ban ANY legislative or judicial recourse to prevent or alter this amendment. The primary weapon these advocates are using to pass this amendment is ignorance or lack of understanding by the public of the reality of embryonic stem-cell research and cloning. In today's blog entry, I want to give my readers some important resources that will help in understanding the truth of embryonic stem-cell research, cloning and this proposed Missouri Amendment.

First, Fr. Edward Richard, is a tremendous resource in understanding the immorality of embryonic stem-cell research and this Missouri Amendment. Fr. Richard, who is the vice-rector here at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, is also the Moral Theology professor here. He has an Masters of Divinity from Kenrick in 1991 and a Doctorate in Moral Theology from the Academia Alfonsiana in Rome in 1996. I direct my readers to him because he has an oustanding wealth of information about stem-cells, cloning and the Missouri Amendment. For example, there is an online video in which he is interviewed about stem cells and cloning. I would highly recommend viewing this video. His video is fantastic in describing and helping to understand the immorality and actual process of stem-cells and cloning. I cannot stress enough to my readers to view this video. It is, by far, the best description of stem-cell issues I have ever seen.

The St. Louis Review, the St. Louis Archdiocesan newspaper, also has some recent articles that are very good. One of these article, written by Fr. Richard for the 'Dear Father' section of the newspaper, discusses ways to learn about stem cell research.

This upcoming vote in Missouri is pivotal to the future of stems cell research in the U.S. If it goes the wrong way, it could open the floodgates to human life at its most defenseless time becoming simply a commodity on the market. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 19:20 | link | comments (2) |
blog

Is Islam violent...part 2

Continuing my discussion on the Muslim response to Pope Benedict's speech in Germany, I thought I'd compare the quote read by Benedict and a statement made yesterday by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which is a Sunni Arab extremist group. The 14th century emperor, which Benedict quoted, said the following:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Mujahedeen Shura Council made the following quote:

"you (the pope) and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

The emperor was speaking specifically of the commands of Mohammad but since these Muslim extremists claim to follow the Islamic faith, it would seem that their understanding of his tenets are EXACTLY that which the emperor said and that which Benedict quoted!!!

It absolutely astounds me that this group of extremists can be so outraged by the pope's quote when their whole ideology of Islam is identical to the quote. In my opinion, and I emphasize that this is my opinion, these extremist groups are searching for ANY way in which they can attack and incite violence against non-Islamic faiths and against Western countries. This course of action seems to fulfill the other element of the quote, namely that "you will find things only evil and inhuman."

As I see it, these extremists are proving the very thing to which they are 'outraged.' Not only that, but they are giving many, many non-Muslims the idea that this truly IS the core of the Islamic faith. This is a VERY dangerous issue that has the potential to explode in the near future. I hope that I am wrong, though. It is definitely something to think about. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 14:30 | link | comments (1) |
blog

The pope apology...is Islam violent?

The pope made an apology on Sunday for his comments on Islam last week in Germany. In that speech, he quoted a 14th century emperor who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Holy Father said he was deeply sorry that the comments offended some and that the quote did not reflect his personal views of Islam.

Muslims were angered by the pope's remarks because they seemed to suggest that Islam is a religion of violence. So what is the response by some of the Muslims to the pope's remarks? Radicals attacked seven churches this weekend to express outrage at suggestions that their religion is violent! Extremists attacked one church by throwing a grenade at it. In another area, gunmen threw Molotov cocktails at four churches. Other gunmen set car tires on fire in a church seriously damaging the building. The most disturbing act of reprisal was the murder of a nun in heavily Islamic Somali. Ironically, these people are proving the 14th century emperor's statement of Islam as violent.

However, this was not the response by the many other Muslims, including some factions who are often considered extremists. For example, in the city of Jenin, armed members of the radical Islamic Jihad faction guarded a Catholic church in the city. They were quoted as saying, "Ten of us are here all the time to protect the church...to prevent anyone from doing any harm to the church because it's a holy place." Other Muslim leaders condemned the violence, including the head of Hamas, members of the Fatah party and other Muslim factions.

So, what does all of this mean? I honestly don't know. Every religion has extremists, including Catholicism. Yet Islamic extremists seem to immediately turn to violence to promote their agendas. We've spoken about Islam on this blog before, but discussions have always been geared toward pointing out that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. This latest uprising of Muslims, coupled with the Muslim violence over the Mohammed cartoons earlier this year, will cause many to question the peacefulness of the Islamic faith.

I am curious to hear what my readers think. Do you agree that many will question whether the Islamic faith is peaceful? Do you believe that the Islamic faith is primarily peaceful? My thoughts in this blog entry are just my opinion and I'm not sure how solid I am on this, but I would like to hear from my readers and their feelings. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 18:40 | link | comments (1) |
blog

TITLE: Catholicism and Fundamentalism

GENRE: Book Review

REVIEWED BY: CR

While not a recently released book, this 359 page book takes a look at many of the misunderstandings of the Catholic faith. Most of these misunderstandings are from fundamentalists, but these are usually extreme and strongly anti-Catholic fundamentalists. The book covers a variety of topics from the baptism of infants, purgatory, the Eucharist and Marian devotion just to name a few. His manner of writing for this book is to explain the misconception as well as some particular persons who hold this belief and then to offer approaches that a layperson can use to counter and set the record straight regarding the true Catholic beliefs. At times, his writings can be a little intense, but the majority is very Catholic and geared toward anyone who finds themselves having to defend the faith. In the final analysis, Keating does a wonderful job of giving both a clear understanding and a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith.

posted by: crossman at 12:39 | link | comments |
catholic blog review

Blog milestone...

On Wednesday morning, the blog hit a milestone as we had our 3,000th hit to the site. As I looked back over the last nine months since its birth (nice symbolism there...congratulations! its a bouncing baby blog!) our viewership has increased progressively over the months. We originally were getting about 50 hits a month last November. That has increased to the point where we are now getting 400 - 500 hits a month!

That's no credit on my part, though. You, my readers, are what makes the blog a success. I just supply my mental ramblings....it's you who take the time to visit the site often. Of course, the fact that people actually read my mental ramblings might be quite disturbing to a psychologist, but that's another blog entry all together.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for the few minutes you take out of your day to read the blog, for your comments to the blog (which happily seems to have increased recently) and for your continued support of my vocation the priesthood, God willing, next May. I hope to have another year of increased readership and blog entries that give honor and reverence to the Church. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 22:03 | link | comments |
blog

The rank of a Church

As I promised, I wanted to offer some information about the ranks of churches in the Catholic Church. There are a number of church designations that are given to the holy places of worship.

The lowest in terms of designation is the private chapel. This is a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more persons (Code of Canon Law: ¶1226).

Somewhat wedged in between a private chapel and an oratory is the chapel. A chapel is a church or area of worship, often small and attached to a larger building (ie. a church, hospital, etc.) They are sometimes grouped in with oratories, although they are actually lower in status from an oratory higher than a private chapel because they are accessible to the public.

An oratory is the next designation. It is understood as place for divine worship for the benefit of some community or group of the faithful, such as a religious community (cf. Canon Law, ¶1223).

A Church is widely known as a building used for public religious services, usually referring specifically to those for Christian worship. This is the most common type of place of worship for the Catholic Church.

A basilica is a large and important church that has been given special ceremonial rights by the Pope. There are two types of basilicas: a minor basilica and a major basilica. A major basilica is also called patriarchal basilicas, and serves as representative of the great ecclesiastical provinces of the world. There are only a few of these in the world, four of which are in Rome (St. Peter's, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul-without-the-Walls). A minor basilica is a place of worship that has been conferred with a certain precedence before other churches. Its distinct features include the right of the conopaeum and the bell. The conopaeum is a sort of umbrella (also called papilio, sinicchio, etc.), which together with the bell is carried processionally at the head of the clergy on state occasions (Catholic Encyclopedia). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm

The cathedral has the highest designation because of its special purpose. The chief church of a diocese, in which the bishop has his throne, or cathedra, it is the bishop's church, wherein he presides, teaches, and conducts worship for the whole Christian community. It represents the center and heart of the Catholic faith in its diocese.

That is a short overview of the church designations of the Catholic Church. These different designations, however, do not overshadow the general purpose of each of these places: a building in which the Catholic community gathers to give glory and praise to God and to celebrate the Holy Mass. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 13:32 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Guess where I'm assigned...

I thought about playing a game with my readers to see who could guess where in St. Louis I am assigned to serve as deacon for this school year. I decided, however, that it would be hard for those readers not from St. Louis (99.5% of my readers) and it'd take too long. I couldn't wait 4 or 5 days...I'm too excited.

Anyway...Archbishop Burke, a wonder and holy man, met with the three of us who are not St. Louis seminarians to give us our assignments. He has assigned me to serve as deacon at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis! This is a magnificant and absolutely beautiful church...the cathedral church of the archdiocese. I'll give a little insight for those who are unfamiliar with what is special about a cathedral. The cathedral serves as the central church of a diocese, and thus as a bishop's seat. Each diocese has only one cathedral, although in rare cases there are two and are each referred to as co-cathedrals. The bishop's seat is literally a chair within the cathedral called the cathdra from which the word cathedral arises.

The word basilica is a whole different rank in church hierarchy that I will discuss in my next blog entry. To return to my primary topic, being assigned to the cathdral is an honor but also a little intimidating. Usually a cathedral holds a place of honor in a diocese, but is not any different tha other churches in the diocese except for what I mentioned above. The Basilica Cathdral of St. Louis, however, is different. It is probably the most beautiful church I have ever seen, excluding a few churches I visited in Rome. Within its walls is the largest mosiac collection in the world!!! There are some 41.5 MILLION pieces that make up the beautiful mosaics covering every inch of its walls and ceilings. If you want to see some of the images of these fantastic mosaics, go to their web site, which I have a link above. Because of the unique architecture of the church, it is one of the most visited churches in the United States if not the world. Such a magnificant church is a little intimidating but is also very humbling that Archbishop Burke would bestow such an honor on a lowly servant of God like myself. 

I guess you could say I am a bit excited about my assignment (understatement of the year)! I look forward to serving the archdiocese and continuing to grow in my faith as I prepare for my ordination next spring. On a final note...no I have not forgotten about Catholicism 101, although it has been delayed. Starting back up with school and classes put me behind. Rest assured, I have the first installment on the Blessed Virgin Mary almost complete and should have it posted sometime this week. Once posted, I will lay out a schedule for further installments. I apologize for the delay and I hope my readers understand. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:02 | link | comments (5) |
blog