Subject: Split in Catholic Community on ESCR Doesn't Exist
Source: Washington Post; July 30, 2001

Split in Catholic Community on ESCR Doesn't Exist

Washington, DC -- After drawing a sharp rebuke from the Pope for saying he
could support some forms of embryonic stem cell research, ESCR advocates
and some media pundits have shifted their focus to identifying a supposed
"split" within the Catholic Church over the ESCR issue.

However, Catholic leaders in the United States, particularly the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, have taken strong pro-life stands in
opposition to life-destroying ESCR. Echoing the stance of Pope John Paul
II, the conference has rallied Catholics across the country to contact
legislators urging them to support stem cell research but oppose research
that destroys human life.

Pointing to the supposed "split" some pundits are encouraging President
Bush to permit limited and restricted use of existing embryos for
research. However, such a compromise would certainly draw criticism from
both the Catholic Church and the pro-life community in general.

"The disappointment with a change in position would be especially acute,"
said Richard M. Doerflinger, who represents the pro-life perspective for
the Catholic bishops' conference. Doerflinger noted that Bush announced
his opposition to embryonic stem cell research to the bishops during last
year's campaign.

On the other hand, however, if Bush maintains his campaign promise and
decides to bar federal funding, he would risk losing support among many
Catholic voters. A recent poll said that 61 percent of Catholics support
embryonic stem cell research -- results that conflict greatly with a poll
conducted by the Catholic Conference.

The Catholic Conference poll suggests that Americans oppose federal
funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, by a
factor of almost three to one (70% to 24%). Asked to choose between
funding all stem cell research (both adult and embryonic), and funding
only adult stem cell research and similar alternatives to see if there is
no need to destroy embryos for research, Americans prefer the latter
approach by an even wider margin (67% to 18%).

Bush's dilemma was evident earlier this month, when it looked as if a
window had opened that would allow Bush to appease research supporters
without alienating pro-life Catholics.

On July 8, the Los Angeles Times reported that three of Bush's top
Catholic advisers -- Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis Magazine; Robert P.
George, a professor at Princeton University; and the Rev. Robert A.
Sirico, head of the Acton Institute -- were "open to a plan that would
allow the government to fund certain medical experiments that use stem
cells from human embryos."

All three are participants in a weekly White House conference call
designed to maintain lines of communication between the administration and
leading pro-life Catholic intellectuals and activists. Highly respected
among conservatives and liberals in the church, their support of a
compromise on stem cells would make it easier politically for Bush if he
allowed federal funding.

"I can imagine circumstances in which this would not only be politically
acceptable but could be a morally justified policy," George told the
newspaper. "I am open to it," Hudson was quoted as volunteering.

Within hours of the publication of the story, however, the three men
issued a statement declaring they did not support a compromise "that would
include authorization of federal money for research on existing cell
lines." They did say, however, that "it is possible, as an abstract
matter, to imagine circumstances and conditions under which research on
existing cell lines could be acceptable."

The next day, the three men issued another, more adamant, statement in
which all reference to the acceptability of compromise, even in the
abstract, was eliminated. "Our position on stem cell research is clear and
adheres to the fullness of Catholic teaching regarding the sanctity of
human life at every stage of development," it said. "This teaching holds
that the destruction of human embryos for scientific research and medical
treatment is intrinsically evil."

In response via e-mail to questions from The Washington Post, George said
the discussion of compromise was based on the abstract "question of
ethical principles controlling decisions whether to accept benefits
resulting, not from one's own wrongdoing, but from the (past or
continuing) wrongdoing of others."

As a hypothetical example, George wrote: "Imagine that U.S. soldiers are
fighting their way into Nazi death camps and taking heavy casualties in
their efforts to save surviving prisoners. Upon liberating the camp, they
find -- to their horror -- organs taken from people the Nazis had
murdered. . . . As it happens, one or more of the gravely wounded U.S.
soldiers could be saved by using some of these organs for transplants."
While still problematic, George said, use of the organs could be
justified.

He and Sirico said the soldiers' dilemma is whether to benefit from an
"evil" already committed by others, while federal funding of embryonic
stem cell research would make taxpayers complicit in the destruction of
the embryos.