Battle of the Bishops

Judging the Judges.


It is both amazing and frightening that people so freely condemn the motivation of others to call for their deprivation of the eucharist when Jesus flatly said "neither do I condemn you" and expressly said not to judge the motivation of others. Jesus did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Some people are outraged that a priest in San Francisco gave communion to two gay men in Nun drag who were making a point about who knows what, because they appear to be mocking Nuns rather making a point about who knows what. They don't know what. They are just sure that they shouldn't get communion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0epd4HRb6gM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecatholic%2Dtube%2Ecom%2F

Cardinal McCarrick, the "retired" Archbishop of Washington doesn't agree with those who would deny communion to any candidate based upon their "pro-choice" stance. His view; they are all problematic on one doctrine or another. This is the genteel bishopric way of saying- basically, they all sort of suck. He has a more consistent integrated "life" view that includes doing the things that make Life possible (improved educational opportunities, fighting poverty, etc.) , the death penalty issue and immigration related livlihood issues, rather than the sometimes narrow agenda of just legislating "thou shall nots" and hand slapping "bad boy/bad girl" dictums on one issue- albeit a huge issue. For some this is the defining be and end all issue. Some studies indicate that one in three women in America will have an abortion by the time that they are 45. ONE THIRD. We know at least 47 Million abortions have occured since Roe.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/11/america/NA-REL-US-Cardinal-Politics.php

The abortion of an embryo that has a real potential to become human because it is already housed in a womb has a different reality and factual predicate than the pre-zygotes that will never see a womb because they were artificially created in a lab in the Invitro process and there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of them more than wombs lining up to house them to maturity.

A tree in a forest will drop multitudes of acorns and pine cones only a fraction of which will ever mature to trees.

The official Catholic position on any stem cell research that requires destruction of an embryo is that it is a "grave moral sin." Period. End of Story. No Discussion. Consequently it could fall within the excommunicable offenses also along the same lines if any candiate espoused it too loudly (as opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell" rubric some politicians are hiding under rather than address the issue head on while public opinion in America is overwhelmingly that the people holding back the federal funding on this research which already takes place around the world and in this country with state and private grant funding are "flat earth" people who in 50 years will look like the people who wanted to stone Gallileo.) Thus, there is a tendancy for people to go "oooh- embryonic stem cell research- cardinal sin-grave sinner." The more charitable will say "well, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion" while secretly condemning them to the netherworld.
The nuance of the issues begs much depeer study and typically people spouting off about what is or is not a "grave moral sin" understand the science about as well as they understand the circuitry in their car On-Star system, how the video feeds to them from their i-phone or the email is sent from their crack-berry.
Questions barely thought about in the grave moral sin spectrum by some include, but are not limited to whether the killing of an embryo is required to extract embryonic stem cells ( not always required or contemplated), whether the stem cells are pre-implanted in a scientifically fertilized scenario of a scientifically created pre-zygote that will never be implanted for lack of enough womb takers or artificial wombs (there are literally tens of thousands more frozen than ever will find a womb-are we pretending they don't exist or arguing for a society that just forces women to be surrogate wombs shackled to a bedpost?) and whether the taking of the cells, by their research properties will save magnitudes more people than the pre-zygote lost such that the moral balance might be reconsidered. If the research from three pre-zygotic not-implantable "embryos" allows two million children to be cured of AIDS or malaria what then is the moral equation even if those three pre-zygotic "embryos" die?
People in this election cycle are really tired, no - thoroughly disgusted-- with people whom they consider scientifically illiterate dictating their state of sin to them. If any progress is to be made, and any coming together in a mutually respectful civil consensus, we need better science education all around with facts to support it. Now each side crafts the facts to suit the argument, like saying-"well, umbilical and placental cells are just as good, and no promising result is actually believed with embryonic stem cells that adult stem cells can't provide". Researchers disagree.
"Moralists", theologians, clergy, etc. have to stop resorting to epithetic slander like "scientists and researchers are just out to cash in on an undeveloped market and thus they are exploiting human life for profit." False. Scientists and Researchers can be just as motivated by the drive to find cures-life saving cures. If they believe they can, and don't, it is worse than negligence in loss of life. These Moralists and Theologican have to understand the boring parts of the science they preach against if anyone will take anything they say seriously.

Candidates would do well to stop throwing around buzz words and sound-bites and talking to the audience and press like they are fifth grade drop-outs.
The candidates who are more scientifically literate and can articulate the science will do much better- you can win minds much better if you respect that people have them and treat them like they use them. The questions are serious. No time for making up the science. The scientific/research community would do well to do what they do well; present the facts factually.
That's what I call Scientific Progress.

What do you think? If a tree falls in the dark does it make the same sound as an acorn falling from a tree in the dark?