Here he is, delivering himself of a typical specimen of Generation Narcissus thinking, the purpose of which is to incoherently yell at the Catholic Church and demand the sacrifice of as many babies as it takes so that he can go on living in Pepsi Generation bliss forever.
Here’s how Kinsley’s logic works:
A) Ridicule the miraculous healing of Sr. Marie Simon-Pierre from Parkinson’s Disease due to the intercession of Pope John Paul II.
The 46-year-old, speaking in a clear, poised voice, said she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2001. Her symptoms worsened with time: Driving became practically impossible, she had difficulty walking, and her left arm hung limply at her side. She also could no longer bear to see John Paul on television, because he, too, was stricken—more seriously—with the disease.
When seeing him, “I saw myself in the years to come, to be honest, in a wheelchair,” she said.
Her cure came on the night of June 2, 2005, exactly two months after the pontiff’s death, she said. In her room after evening prayers, she said an inner voice urged her to take up her pen and write. She did, and was surpassed to see that her handwriting—which had grown illegible because of her illness—was clear. She said she then went to bed, and woke early the next morning feeling “completely transformed.”
“I was no longer the same inside. It is difficult for me to explain to you in words ... It was too strong, too big. A mystery.”
“I realized that my body was no longer the same,” she added. “I was convinced that I was cured.”
As with the critics of the man born blind, Kinsley simply doesn’t bother to pause over any of this. Instead he waves it away and suggests/declares that she never had Parkinson’s to begin with:
Of course, there is another possibility besides a miracle: Maybe she never had Parkinson’s in the first place. There is no way to diagnose Parkinson’s for sure; you just eliminate other possibilities — such as a brain tumor — until Parkinson’s is the last malady standing, and often a welcome one, considering the alternatives. But, according to AP, “Vatican-appointed doctors” determined that “her cure had no scientific explanation.” That sounds bad, but actually it’s good. If there’s no scientific explanation, the explanation must be unscientific — in other words, a miracle. There’s nothing like a scientific explanation to spoil everything. Fortunately, none materialized. Therefore, the Vatican doctors concluded, it was a miracle. One down, one to go.
The radical incuriosity of the atheist is on full display here. Don’t bother with the facts of the case, just dismiss them. Then, moving on, make the standard complaint that because God only worked a sign in one person’s case, he is unjust for not doing it for Narcissus too:
Congratulations to Sister Marie Simon-Pierre. It’s miraculous what a miracle can do. But I could use a miracle cure for Parkinson’s too, as could millions of others around the world who have Parkinson’s or will develop it.
Big deal that Jesus raised Lazarus! If he won’t do the same for me, then (somehow) the sign is meaningless. It’s all about ME! A stunning incuriosity really. And all this is, of course, leading up to the real point:
And one of the main impediments to such a miracle is the Roman Catholic Church. 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.
Note the huge lapses in logic. Having just said that “There is no way to diagnose Parkinson’s for sure” Kinsley now offers not only his own expert diagnosis of his own Parkinson’s, but also his own expert prognosis that if only the Church would support the slaughter of babies, that Parkinson’s would be cured. He also completely overlooks the fact that the Church has no problem with the use of adult stem cells, and that treatments derived from such stem cells work while embryonic stem cells have not produced a single successful treatment for anything.
Of course, even if it did, it would still be wrong, for the same reason that my killing you and eating your heart would be wrong, even if I were starving. There is no essential moral difference between what Kinsley is advocating and the Jeffrey Dahmer Oral Method of Tissue Harvesting except for aesthetics. We have adult stem cells and they work. All embryonic stem cells do is line the pockets of butchers.
Comments
Post a Comment
It is sad that most people think it is ok to kill someone in order to end their own suffering. Even most Catholics I talk support embryonic stem cell research. I would not want someone else to die to end my own pain. It seems only the Catholic church stands against the Culture of Death.
It seems to me that so many people fall on the “me first” side of any debate because, at the root, there is a chasm of misunderstanding about suffering. Somehow, mankind got hold of the notion that no one should suffer and that suffering is inherently evil. (i.e., “God can’t exist or else why is there suffering?”) What many fail to stop and think about is the fact that there isn’t a single human being in all of history that went through life without suffering. Suffering is part of the human experience. Even God incarnate—Jesus the Christ—and His Immaculate mother (the only 2 perfect humans to ever exist) had to endure suffering. And not the namby-pamby kind, either. It’s about asking the right question here, which isn’t, “Why is there suffering? How can we eliminate suffering?” Instead, we should ask, “What can I do with my suffering? What can I do for my neighbor to ease his suffering?” Suffering is a call to increase in holiness. It is not a good in and of itself, but it has the power to do immense good in ourselves and those around us by calling us away from our selfish tendencies and doing what is right.
Poor Michael, why light a candle when you can curse the darkness.
Michael must really be living in darkness…no hope, no faith..and obviously no love for others (only himself). This guy needs Christ more than anyone! We should keep praying for him and all of the other athiests who militantly attack the Church out of blindness.
Could you be specific about the successful outome(s) from the use of adult stem cells? Thanks.
I pointed out in a direct reply to that article online that Christ in the Gospels cure only those who had faith. It would appear that, based on his own words, Michael Kinsley lacks that faith, unlike the sister who was cured.
I would never want to kill someone else to cure my Parkinson’s disease. But my argument with anti-embryonic stem cell research people is that the cells in question are not “people” as they claim. They have never been nor will they become a “person” unless they are successfully implanted in a human uterus. These microscopic cells would be and are routinely thrown away if they are not used for implantation and their owners don’t want to keep them frozen in perpetuity.
I think the church never has and doesn’t like the idea of man doing “God’s Work”. Perhaps they would not be so uncomfortable with science if they suffered daily for years from the feeling of rigor mortis without the benefit of death and of being buried alive that a disease like Parkinson’s gives you.
While it is true that no one gets through life without some suffering, it is also true that some people get a much worse deal than others. Using cells to cure diseases is not the same thing as aborting fetuses.
Rayilyn, I am sorry that you have Parkinson’s disease.
ESC research is a flop, particularly in California, where the state invested billions to NO results. Now, quietly, the CA researchers are switching over to ADULT stem cell research, because that’s where the successfuly therapies are happening.
In fact, there are at least 73 therapies for adult stem cell research, while the ESC has a big ZERO successful therapies. The therapies for ASC run from cancer, diabetes, to heart treatments, and too many to list.
Can God tell us anything clearer???
Kinsley did much better when he was on Crossfire on CNN and he had Mr. Novak (may he rest in peace) or Pat Buchanan to clarify his misleading diabtribes.
I’ll have to start praying for him again.
BTW, I got my info from www.stemcellresearch.org a great website.
Rayilyn, would you agree with these:
“An fetus has never been nor will be a person unless they are out of the womb.”
“A two-month old has never been nor will be a person unless they are able to demonstrate self-awareness.”
A subjective definition of ‘person’ allows all types of horrors, including those who think it is ok to kill a two-month old (or older) because they do not fit their specific definition. The problem with your argument is that the Church defines an embryo (even one that is not implanted) as a person. That is why we are against ESC research, in vitro, etc. You do not have to agree with that definition (if you are not Catholic, at least), but I hope you do realize that your argument really does not hold the force you want it to.
Rayilyn Brown is lacking in scientific understanding and in logic. A fertilized zygote is a full, unique human life with its own unique, unrepeatable DNA. Science tells us that. Logic tells us that saying that if the Church got Parkinson’s it would somehow be enlightened that killing these human lives to relieve the Church’s Parkinson’s-riddled body’s suffering would be a-OK, is confused and silly. Pretty lame post.
Rayilyn: I am neither a professional philosopher nor a scientist, but it seems to me that a human embryo is required to obtain an embryonic stem cell. This process involves the death of a human embryo. There are political forces at work (no doubt, backed by unseen spiritual forces) which welcome any rationalization for the justification of abortion on demand in our society. The promise of improving the quality of life for more developed, stronger, smarter human beings at the expense of less developed human life seems to provide the requisite justification for this policy. The problem is, embryos are human life forms, and their sacrifice cannot be justified as the means to some theoretical medical end, much less an actual political one.
@ Rayilyn: ”... [M]y argument with anti-embryonic stem cell research people is that the cells in question are not ‘people’ as they claim. They have never been nor will they become a ‘person’ unless they are successfully implanted in a human uterus. These microscopic cells would be and are routinely thrown away if they are not used for implantation and their owners don’t want to keep them frozen in perpetuity.”
Sorry, there’s nothing magical in implantation that makes it any less an arbitrary demarcation than a week count, viability or birth. The whole fallacy lies in making “personhood” something separate from being human, making it an exclusive, elite class, membership to which can be denied at the pleasure of others. However, the continuity of life is such that any attempt to import such a line between “person” and “unperson” is like trying to bisect a sneeze. It’s precisely because “[t]hese microscopic cells ... are routinely thrown away” that makes IVF morally intolerable: not only does this callousness betray a refusal to recognize the continuity of life, it also betrays an inhumanly utilitarian view of children as useful only so far as they fulfill some adult’s need.
Granting that “some people get a worse deal than others”, it still doesn’t follow that if your hand is lousy enough you’re entitled to cheat. While I feel sorry for your suffering, neither suffering nor compassion validate wrongdoing.
At conception each zygote is a genetically complete human.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.