Sunday, January 30, 2011

Catholics objecting to Michael Kinsley's anti-Catholicism

Last Sunday, Jan 23, the Star Tribune picked up a Michael Kinsley column from the Los Angeles Times that mocked Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church for the proposed beatification of our former pope this coming May 1.

Kinsley, an atheist who is also suffering from Parkinson's Disease was upset to discover that the required miracle needed for the beatification involved a woman who was cured of her case of Parkinson's. Kinsley, among other things thought he should have been cured, too. Of course since he never prayed for a cure, I wonder why he thought that.

Why the Strib picked up that foolish column is one thing to muse about. But this Sunday, they did publish letters from Catholics objecting to Kinsley's screed. If they published three, they must have received a lot more. You no doubt will recognize at least one of the objectors.


Columnist too skeptical about role of miracles

In a recent commentary, Michael Kinsley's dismissive assertion that what the Catholic Church really demands of its candidates for sainthood is "an old-fashioned, abracadabra type of miracle" either ignores or is ignorant of the church teaching ("Please, John Paul, make me your miracle," Jan. 23). Candidates for sainthood must be found to have exhibited extraordinary holiness during the course of their lives, in addition to the intercessory acts (or miracles) that can be attributed to such a person after their death. The faithful among us would call them acts of God. Kinsley obviously rejects such notions.


• • •

I'm disappointed that the Star Tribune chose to run the Kinsley column. The article ridicules the Catholic Church's belief in miracles and mocks the legacy of the late Pope John Paul II. Kinsley's failed attempt at satire is a thinly veiled attack on the Catholic Church in general and the papacy in particular. I seriously doubt if the Star Tribune would dare to publish a similar article mocking the beliefs within the Jewish or Muslim traditions.

THE REV. John C. Nienstedt

The writer is archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

• • •

Kinsley's commentary was a cheap, ad hominem attack on the Catholic Church. In addition, he's factually wrong in his explanation of church opposition to stem cell research. The church opposes embryonic stem cell research, which has yet to produce any positive therapeutic outcomes. But adult stem cell research actually works, does not kill unborn humans and is consistent with Catholic bioethics. Kinsley may view "surplus embryos" as human wastage, but the church does not.

DICK HOUCK AND Pat Phillips, Roseville

The writers are leaders of the Catholic Defense League.

Star Tribune --- Kinsley op-ed

Catholic Spirit Editorial by Publisher Joe Towalski

Please, Mr. Kinsley, present the church’s teaching accurately

In his op-ed commentary in last Sunday’s StarTribune, Michael Kinsley, a former editorial page and opinion editor at the Los Angeles Times, sadly resorts to mocking the Catholic Church and the late Pope John Paul II while making an ultimately unpersuasive argument in support of embryonic stem-cell research.

Kinsley’s premise in “Please, John Paul, make me your miracle” is that, while the church recently approved a miracle attributed to the intercession of Pope John Paul in the case of a French nun suffering from Parkinson’s disease, the church remains one of the main obstacles to finding a cure for the illness because of its stance on stem-cell research.

Kinsley, who suffers from Parkinson’s, as did Pope John Paul, says he and millions of others would like their own miracle cure — not necessarily the “old fashioned, abracadabra type” that Kinsley mockingly characterizes as part of the church’s beatification process, but a miracle cure of a different sort.

Kinsley writes: “The most likely source of miracle cures for all sorts of diseases, with Parkinson’s foremost among them, is stem-cell research. The church opposes stem-cell research on the grounds that it uses, and in the process destroys, human embryos. These are surplus embryos from fertilization clinics that will be destroyed, or permanently frozen, anyway. They are not fetuses; they are clumps of a few dozen cells.”

He continues: “But of course none of this matters if you believe they are full human beings like you and me.”

Several of Kinsley’s points require correction and clarification.

First, the church doesn’t oppose stem-cell research. It opposes stem-cell research that destroys human embryos. But it supports, and even promotes, research that uses adult stem cells — those found in adult human tissue and blood, not embryos. Adult stem cells are being used today for a variety of therapies and in research that has the potential to save lives, including research that could result in treatments for those with Parkinson’s.

The argument that surplus embryos from fertilization clinics would be destroyed anyway and that they only amount to “clumps of a few dozen cells” doesn’t make destroying them for utilitarian purposes any more moral.

This is nascent human life after all (check your Biology 101 textbook) and society has a duty to nurture and protect it — no matter its age, abilities or perceived usefulness to others. The end doesn’t justify the means: You can’t intentionally destroy human life in order to benefit others without embarking down a very slippery moral slope.

A question we should be asking is why all those “surplus” embryos are being created and stored in the first place. They shouldn’t be. But when they are, they shouldn’t be destroyed for research, as Kinsley would allow, because they will die anyway. One could argue that terminally ill patients will die anyway, too, but that certainly doesn’t give anyone the right to kill them in the name of research.

The fact that Kinsley and millions of others have to struggle with Parkinson’s is sad. No one likes to see anyone suffer through an illness. The Catholic Church, which Kinsley targets for criticism, devotes huge amounts of resources every day to treat millions of ill people in this country and around the world, especially the poorest and most vulnerable who could not afford care at many other hospitals or clinics.

Throughout his pontificate, Pope John Paul II spoke out in support of health care as a human right. At the end of his life, he was one of the vulnerable who needed special care. He certainly suffered in his final years as the world watched, but he would never compromise good moral principles, even for his own personal benefit.

The church will continue to promote stem-cell research that has the potential to help people without destroying innocent human life. It’s not an issue of science vs. morality — it’s an issue of ensuring science is grounded on a solid foundation of morality and ethics for the benefit of all.

No comments: