Bishop of Parramatta


	Each month Bishop Manning answers questions from the Catholic Community of Parramatta Diocese, which is published in 'Catholic Outlook', the official diocesan newspaper. To review previous questions and answers from the Bishop visit the archivke.
	July 2007 Questions Bishops are asked By Bishop Kevin Manning, Catholic Outlook, July 2007 Question In the recent debate on the Human Cloning Bill in NSW, I was left totally confused by the views expressed within, and outside, the Parliament; especially on the rights of conscience. Could you please help me understand the issues involved? Answer: I am sure every reader of Catholic Outlook read about, heard about, or saw television coverage of the debate on the Human Cloning Bill in the NSW Parliament. In much of the media comment, both news and editorial, certain basic principles of Christianity were omitted, or ignored. They are the following: The moral issues surrounding stem-cell research; The right of individuals, bishops and others, to influence public policy; and The exercise of conscience and political obligations. Moral issues Firstly, the teaching of the Catholic Church is unambiguously clear on embryonic stem-cell research. She teaches that human life begins at the moment of conception; not at 14 days, or any other arbitrary time imposed by human beings. Secondly, it is never morally right to do evil so that good may come of it. The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007 makes it legal to do just that: to create an embryo in order to destroy it. In other words, to create a human being in order to kill it. There is no moral justification for such an action. Those favouring the Bill put forward the argument that research on embryos will result in cures for severely debilitating illnesses and medical conditions. Some people find that argument appealing: who would not want to find a cure for such conditions? But what is at stake? The destruction of another human being! At the same time, it is important to remember that the Church is not against all stem-cell research. In fact, she actively promotes research into adult stem cells and cord blood cells. These are alternative pathways which may well find cures for medical conditions: cures which do not require the destruction of a human being. The Church's moral position, or pro-life stance, is based on justice for the dignity of the human person, a position which many others share: Christians of various denominations; other religions; people of no religious faith. It is a natural justice argument maintained by the Church through the centuries. Influencing public policy In the November 2006 issue of Catholic Outlook I set out the principles by which the Church, through the bishops and all her members, may seek to influence public policy. Catholics live in a democracy, and do not seek to impose their views on everyone else, but do have the right, like everyone else, to put their views in a peaceful manner. Conscience and political obligations The matter of conscience lies at the heart of the discussion on the progress of the Bill through the NSW Lower House. Members were given a conscience vote. In party political terms that means that members of Parliament are not subject to the Party Whip in voting on this issue: there is no party line which they are obliged to follow. Many people would understand that to mean that members of Parliament, having given serious consideration to the issue, make their own decision on the strengths of the arguments before them, especially the moral ones. That is the rational way of reaching a major decision in a responsible way. Catholic teaching asks for no less, but, in the case of members of Parliament who are Catholics, the Church asks for something more. Catholics know, or should know, the teaching of the Church, so strongly expressed by St Thomas Aquinas, that a person must act according to his or her conscience. In coming to a decision, Catholics are assisted by the Holy Spirit, the advice of competent people, and the authoritative teaching of the Church. All Catholics, including Catholic members of Parliament, are obliged to take into account the teaching of the Church on the issue at hand. This is called an informed conscience. But what happens when the moral choice concerns complex and difficult situations? The Church holds that there are objective moral norms: some things are always good, and some are always bad, everywhere, and at all times, for people who know what is at issue, have reflected seriously, and are acting of their own free will.¹ The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a sure guide stating that some rules apply in every case, the first of which is: "one may never do evil so that good may come of it" (1789). At the root of all human practical and moral reasoning is the basic principle of preserving life, beginning with one's own. This fundamental life-promoting principle of conscience cannot be denied or extinguished; it could be stifled by one's hardness of heart. However, the act of conscience involves judging on the basis of truth. It does not create truth but has the task of helping one to conform one's actions to the good. No Catholic Member of Parliament should ever confuse the careful examination and prudent judgment required in matters accorded a conscience vote with the wishes, opinions or even strongly expressed views of his or her constituents. Of course, constituents' views must be heard but, in the end, the moral judgment is that of the Member of Parliament relying upon a properly formed conscience. I found this well summed up in a US Bishop's statement: "no public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful, serious, Roman Catholic, can reasonably advocate for, or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life … no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will, or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible". (Living the Gospel of Life, a Challenge to American Catholics, 12). If, through a confused, badly informed, or false conscience, a Catholic Member of Parliament should vote to destroy life, let him or her never lose heart but take advantage of the strength which comes from the Sacrament of Penance, and the grace, healing and peace in the Eucharist. May they all be mindful of Christ's invitation, "the man who comes to me I will never turn away" (Jn 6:37). I trust these words will help to clear up the matter for you. Footnote: 1. John A Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, 1975, p. 293.

July 2007

Questions Bishops are asked

By Bishop Kevin Manning, Catholic Outlook, July 2007

Question

In the recent debate on the Human Cloning Bill in NSW, I was left totally confused by the views expressed within, and outside, the Parliament; especially on the rights of conscience. Could you please help me understand the issues involved?

Answer:

I am sure every reader of Catholic Outlook read about, heard about, or saw television coverage of the debate on the Human Cloning Bill in the NSW Parliament.

In much of the media comment, both news and editorial, certain basic principles of Christianity were omitted, or ignored. They are the following:

The moral issues surrounding stem-cell research;
The right of individuals, bishops and others, to influence public policy; and
The exercise of conscience and political obligations.

Moral issues
Firstly, the teaching of the Catholic Church is unambiguously clear on embryonic stem-cell research. She teaches that human life begins at the moment of conception; not at 14 days, or any other arbitrary time imposed by human beings.

Secondly, it is never morally right to do evil so that good may come of it. The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007 makes it legal to do just that: to create an embryo in order to destroy it. In other words, to create a human being in order to kill it. There is no moral justification for such an action.

Those favouring the Bill put forward the argument that research on embryos will result in cures for severely debilitating illnesses and medical conditions. Some people find that argument appealing: who would not want to find a cure for such conditions? But what is at stake? The destruction of another human being!

At the same time, it is important to remember that the Church is not against all stem-cell research. In fact, she actively promotes research into adult stem cells and cord blood cells. These are alternative pathways which may well find cures for medical conditions: cures which do not require the destruction of a human being.

The Church's moral position, or pro-life stance, is based on justice for the dignity of the human person, a position which many others share: Christians of various denominations; other religions; people of no religious faith. It is a natural justice argument maintained by the Church through the centuries.

Influencing public policy
In the November 2006 issue of Catholic Outlook I set out the principles by which the Church, through the bishops and all her members, may seek to influence public policy. Catholics live in a democracy, and do not seek to impose their views on everyone else, but do have the right, like everyone else, to put their views in a peaceful manner.

Conscience and political obligations
The matter of conscience lies at the heart of the discussion on the progress of the Bill through the NSW Lower House. Members were given a conscience vote. In party political terms that means that members of Parliament are not subject to the Party Whip in voting on this issue: there is no party line which they are obliged to follow.

Many people would understand that to mean that members of Parliament, having given serious consideration to the issue, make their own decision on the strengths of the arguments before them, especially the moral ones. That is the rational way of reaching a major decision in a responsible way. Catholic teaching asks for no less, but, in the case of members of Parliament who are Catholics, the Church asks for something more.

Catholics know, or should know, the teaching of the Church, so strongly expressed by St Thomas Aquinas, that a person must act according to his or her conscience.

In coming to a decision, Catholics are assisted by the Holy Spirit, the advice of competent people, and the authoritative teaching of the Church.

All Catholics, including Catholic members of Parliament, are obliged to take into account the teaching of the Church on the issue at hand. This is called an informed conscience.

But what happens when the moral choice concerns complex and difficult situations?

The Church holds that there are objective moral norms: some things are always good, and some are always bad, everywhere, and at all times, for people who know what is at issue, have reflected seriously, and are acting of their own free will.¹

The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a sure guide stating that some rules apply in every case, the first of which is: "one may never do evil so that good may come of it" (1789).

At the root of all human practical and moral reasoning is the basic principle of preserving life, beginning with one's own. This fundamental life-promoting principle of conscience cannot be denied or extinguished; it could be stifled by one's hardness of heart.

However, the act of conscience involves judging on the basis of truth. It does not create truth but has the task of helping one to conform one's actions to the good.

No Catholic Member of Parliament should ever confuse the careful examination and prudent judgment required in matters accorded a conscience vote with the wishes, opinions or even strongly expressed views of his or her constituents.

Of course, constituents' views must be heard but, in the end, the moral judgment is that of the Member of Parliament relying upon a properly formed conscience.

I found this well summed up in a US Bishop's statement: "no public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful, serious, Roman Catholic, can reasonably advocate for, or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life … no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will, or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible". (Living the Gospel of Life, a Challenge to American Catholics, 12).

If, through a confused, badly informed, or false conscience, a Catholic Member of Parliament should vote to destroy life, let him or her never lose heart but take advantage of the strength which comes from the Sacrament of Penance, and the grace, healing and peace in the Eucharist. May they all be mindful of Christ's invitation, "the man who comes to me I will never turn away" (Jn 6:37).

I trust these words will help to clear up the matter for you.

Footnote:
1. John A Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, 1975, p. 293.