A week ago I wrote a post calling on Tom Monaghan, founder of Ave Maria University and builder of the town of of Ave Maria, to answer some serious questions surrounding the sale of his land for the purpose of development for the bio-tech company Jackson labs.
The serious question arose because there is evidence that Jackson labs is involved in research into contraception and in vitro fertilization and there was some speculation that Jackson Labs might even have some links to human embryonic stem cell research.
On its face, the sale of the land for the expressed purpose of developing a facility for such a company would seem to run counter to the professed mission and Catholic values of Mr. Monaghan and the neighboring university.
In my piece, I noted that Mr. Monaghan had sought and received a finding of “no moral impediment” to the land transaction by the National Catholic Bio-ethics Center. I suggested that citing such a finding was not, in my opinion, sufficient answer to these questions and that more information and explanation was needed.
After publishing my post, I was contacted by the University and subsequently I was sent a statement reiterating:
After examining the situation, the NCBC advised Mr. Monaghan that, in its opinion, there was no moral impediment to him proceeding with the proposed land transaction. As a result, in late summer of 2009, Mr. Monaghan entered into such an agreement with Baron Collier. This agreement was conditional on The Jackson Laboratory ultimately selecting the site under discussion, as well as on state and local funding approvals.
The NCBC’s staff consults regularly on life science issues and medical issues with the Vatican, the U.S. bishops and public policy-makers, hospitals and international organizations of all faiths. Vatican agencies including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers also consult with the Center. The Center is also consulted by the Pro-Life Committee and the Doctrine Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. To this end, Mr. Monaghan was confident that the NCI3C was more than capable of rendering a sound judgment.
In addition to providing the statement, Mr. Monaghan authorized the NCBC to respond to media questions about its opinion. I then spoke with Dr. John M. Haas, Ph.D., S.T.L.,President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
He said that the nature of Mr. Monaghan’s inquiry was limited to question of whether there was any moral impediment to the sale of land to the developer for use by Jackson Labs. In other words the NCBC only opined on the question of whether by selling the land for this purpose, would Mr. Monaghan “be involved in doing something sinful?” Their answer is no.
The NCBC issued a written statement on the issue of human embryonic stem cell in the land sale. You can read the NCBC statement in its entirety, but the NCBC’s conclusion is that based upon all the evidence they have seen Jackson Labs is not involved in human embryonic stem cell research.
However, we could not find any indication that human embryonic stem cell research was taking place at Jackson Laboratory, nor any strong or certain indications that such research might take place at the Florida site in the future under their auspices.
Therefore, since human embryonic stem cell research is not being done by Jackson Laboratory, there is no immoral cooperation with evil taking place through the sale of Monaghan’s interest in the land to his partner, who in turn may sell it to Jackson Laboratory. The point has been made that Jackson Laboratory had said it will not rule out ever doing human embryonic stem cell research. However, here one lacks moral certainty regarding the commission of an evil act at all, and it is impossible to cooperate with an evil that is not taking place and which may never take place. If an evil does take place at all, it would be after the transfer of ownership by Mr. Monoghan. As such, Mr. Monoghan cannot cooperate in theoretical or hypothetical future evil acts about which he has no moral certitude that they will ever occur.
The statement makes several points about levels of cooperation with evil and should be read by anyone interested in the topic.
However, the NCBC statement did not address the equally troubling statements on Jackson Labs website regarding research into contraception and in vitro fertilization.
The Jackson website boasts of its discoveries saying...
In vitro fertilization, the freezing of embryos and other assisted reproductive technologies were invented and/or perfected by Jackson.
Research into egg and sperm production and associated problems provides new ways to address reproductive disorders such as infertility and the potential for better contraception methods.
I asked Dr. Haas of the NCBC why such research poses no moral impediment and he responded that as far as the NCBC could ascertain, all such research has been conducted only on mice and not on human beings. And while he admitted that the fruits of this research could be used for immoral ends, the research itself is not immoral and might even provide positive results.
Dr. Haas went on to say that while Jackson Labs may not embrace the Catholic ethos in its research, that Mr. Monaghan’s sale of land is not a sinful act.
So, what is one to conclude from all this? I think that it is to Mr. Monaghan’s credit that he was sufficiently concerned about the moral implications of the sale to seek an opinion for the National Catholic Bioethics Center. I also thank the NCBC and Dr. Haas in helping to clarify some facts about the nature of the question and the reasons for their opinion.
But there are two different questions involved here. Is the sale of land for Jackson Labs a sin? And is the sale a good idea?
The NCBC was asked and only answered the first narrow question. Is the sale of land for this purpose a sin? Their answer, for the reasons described above, is no.
Does that make it a good idea? Not necessarily. I think that a case can be made that inviting a bio-tech company such as Jackson labs into the Ave Maria neighborhood may run counter to the objective of Mr. Monaghan in founding the University and the town. But this is a prudential decision. Good people make poor decisions all the time, is this one?
Certainly having a large bio-tech company that does not appear to embrace the Catholic ethos so closely affiliated with the town and the university may present long term problems. Even if research into contraception and in vitro fertilization is conducted only on mice, the end game is fairly clear. Does it make sense to have such a company as a significant employer in a town dedicated to our Blessed Mother?
So once again we are left with questions and some answers. Is the sale of land to Jackson Labs a sin? Probably not. Is it a good idea and in line with Mr. Monaghan’s vision for the university and the town? Once again, probably not.
Comments
Post a Comment
I have tremendous respect for NCBC, and admire Ave Maria for seeking their advice. I also appreciate your follow-up post on this topic.
While I appreciate the dedication to the effort of understanding the moral implications of this issue, I don’t agree with the writers conclusion, specifically the last one…i.e. it probably isn’t a good a idea or in line with the vision of the town/university.
To make that assumption, you would need to show that the company in question has established a pattern of violating agreements or a history of doing experiments on humans, or using research for ill-gotten gain.
Also The statement, ‘the end game is fairly clear’...sorry, but you’re going to have to explain that further otherwise it would be inappropriate speculation.
Fortunately, the article presents enough detail for me to conclude that Mr. Monaghan has done his due diligence.
I question the tone of the article which seems to imply a lack of reflection on his part. After all of his years serving Holy Mother Church, doesn’t he at least earn SOME benefit of doubt? Or because of his high public profile and controversial stances people feel it necessary to find a chink in his armor?
Again, I admire the interest in finding the truth on this matter, but I disagree with the (as far as I can tell) conclusion that Catholics must restrict dealings with the world on the basis of ‘potentials’. Maybe a point could be made that the ‘potentials’ in question here may be worthy of greater avoidance of risk, but that’s the fundamental issue. Any dealings with ‘the world’ has an element of risk. IMO, prayerful reflection and due diligence is the prescription, which seems to have been done here.
God Bless
The NCBC’s conclusion hinges entirely on their claim that “we could not find any indication that human embryonic stem cell research was taking place at Jackson Laboratory.” Yet, there is easily verifiable evidence to show that Jackson currently engages in a wide array of HESC research activities, and has for many years. http://avewatch.com/?p=1190
Pat,
I appreciate you pursuing this story, but I think that there are still questions and concerns that deserve a response. Perhaps you might want to again follow-up on with Dr. Haas.
1. “I asked Dr. Haas of the NCBC why such research poses no moral impediment and he responded that as far as the NCBC could ascertain, all such research has been conducted only on mice and not on human beings. And while he admitted that the fruits of this research could be used for immoral ends, the research itself is not immoral and might even provide positive results.”
So is Dr. Haas saying that research into better contraception methods is moral because it is conducted on animals and not human beings? This doesn’t seem satisfactory to me. This isn’t a situation where Jackson Labs is researching for the sake of scientific truth and its discoveries are later used by someone else for immoral purposes; Jackson Labs is conducting its research with the specific intention to further immoral purposes. Would research into faster-acting nerve gas specifically for the purpose of killing humans (with corresponding production and marketing of the product to those who want to kill humans) be moral as long as the research is conducted only on animals and not humans?
2. Dr. Haas hasn’t adequately explained why it is moral for Jackson Labs to propose, organize, and host conferences on human embryonic stem cell research at which training on human embryo stem cells occurs. The fact that Jackson Labs receives some sponsorship from the NIH for the conferences seems irrelevant to me. Jackson Labs is still choosing to conduct such conferences on its property.
3. Dr. Haas hasn’t adequately explained why Jackson Labs’s research on mice and mouse cell lines is moral. I’m not a scientist myself, but it appears from the following link that Jackson Labs develops, produces, and markets mouse cell lines for use by those conducting human embryo stem cell research, as well as offering other services to facilitate human embryo stem cell research.
http://jaxmice.jax.org/literature/factsheet/FS0055_Human_ES_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf
I think these concerns merit a response by the NCBC.
Just a followup to my first comment…
Thank you B. Kennedy for the link. I think this article could be improved by including some links and takeways from it.
It appears that there may be evidence that the company in question may be involved in questionable activity. Also, it would be useful if the NCBC addressed those specifics. Maybe they already have?
God Bless,
Craig
I would like to know if Dr. Haas bothered to read the Jackson Laboratory 2004 paper “New mouse genetic models for human contraceptive development.” http://tinyurl.com/2edwv8x Jackson is clear that the application of their research is “to reveal novel human contraception targets” and for IVF. The stated purpose of the Ave Maria campus for Jackson is to translate research from bench to bedside. So, I fail to see how Dr. Haas can think that their conducting research on mice, and not humans, is not problematic. That is precisely what Ave Maria Jackson is for: going mice to humans!
I wonder if heaps and heaps of stupidity, great ponderous mounds of it, buckets and buckets full to the brim with stupidity, piles upon piles filling the great vista of the horizon from shore to sky - the sort of stupidity that you can see from space… the kind you dive headlong into full of purpose and determination, intending to wallow and frolic forever in its warm mire, ever amounts to sin. Please advise.
My moral theology courses are decades behind me, but even if Ave Maria University were selling the property to Planned Parenthood, this would only be material cooperation in sin, which is not sinful. It’s analogous to the postman delivering pornographic magazines. He receives money for doing something that cooperates in the sin of another, but only materially. When we buy the Sunday paper, we are materially cooperating in the sins of many people, their lies, their salacious advertisements, etc., but it is their sin, not ours.
However, looked at from the standpoint of causing scandal, that is a different lens, with different moral implications.
Then there is also the possibility of causing edification, for presumably Ave Maria University and its faculty and staff has the possibility of having a positive moral and spiritual impact on Jackson Labs and their personnel.
However, I wish a real moral theologian, instead of an armchair moral theologian, would weigh in on this issue.
“It’s analogous to the postman delivering pornographic magazines.” Respectfully, this is silly talk. The postman has no role in the actual sale of the magazine, unlike Mr. Monaghan. The postman’s bank account is not contingent upon the sale and delivery of the magazine, unlike Mr. Monaghan. Besides, are we now reduced to saying that it is OK for Monaghan and Ave Maria to knowingly engage in material cooperation with sin even when it is avoidable? Fine. I’ll remember that the next time that I receive a Ave Maria fundraising letter.
Below is an outstanding excerpt of commentary on “bioethics” from Fr. John Richard Neuhaus, written in First things in 2002, under the heading, “The Best Bioethicists That Money Can Buy.”
“A bioethicist is to ethics what a !@#$% is to sex.” That judgment by a friend who was once viewed as a pioneer of bioethics may seem somewhat harsh, but it is not entirely off the mark. This really happened: Some years ago I was on a panel at the big annual economic conference in Davos, Switzerland. Also on the panel was Nobel Laureate James Watson, then head of the Human Genome Project. I and a few others—well, I think it was one other—were pressing moral questions about the technological manipulation of human nature. Impatient with that line of inquiry, Dr. Watson—who seems not only to subscribe to but to devoutly celebrate what Jacques Ellul called the Technological Imperative—explained that nobody should worry about the morality of what they were doing since the project had allocated millions of additional dollars
“to get the best ethicists that money can buy.
“A number of publications have in recent months raised sharp questions about the biotech industry and its connections with the sub-industry of bioethics. For the most part, bioethicists are in the business of issuing permission slips for whatever the technicians want to do. ...”
Egads! The Register’s automatic thought policeman censored an important word in Neuhaus’s commentary above.
The word begins with “who” and ends with “re.”
I am not surprised by AMU’s typical response to this scandal. There is no way I would ever send my children there. What’s next? Seriously. It is just one thing after the other with them. I have lost all confidence in AMU’s governance. They should have kept Fr. Fessio and gotten rid of Monaghan instead.
I’m sorry, but what is so complicated about this issue?
Mr. Monaghan obviously should not have sold the land to a company that promotes human embryonic stem cell research. Much thanks to Thales for the link to Jackson Lab’s own promotional literature http://jaxmice.jax.org/literature/factsheet/FS0055_Human_ES_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf which states right there on the first page: “The Jackson Laboratory offers a wide array of mouse models and services for Human ES (embryonic stem) cell research including…
Now a moral theologian may be better able to tell you what kind of sin or complicity with sin that Mr. Monaghan is responsible for, but it’s plain to me that he did something wrong, and for what? Money? Was there some other great motivation for the sale?
As an educated Catholic, Mr. Monaghan will be held to a higher standard by Our Lord. Perhaps the NCBC did a good legalistic analysis, but what Mr. Monaghan really needed was some good pastoral advice.
Re: “Does it make sense to have such a company as a significant employer in a town dedicated to our Blessed Mother?”
Ave Maria University and Town, by the grace of God and our Lady, could influence Jackson Labs as much as vice versa. I couldn’t say if it was the prudent thing to do, but let’s not forget that God works to the good through all sorts of means and influences.
May the Holy Family cover you in blessings!
The best solution would have been to sell the land but includding a clause: the prohibition of any activity contradicting the magisterium of the Catholic Church or the return of the property and all that’s on it (or under it) a the same price it was purchased (or for free).
Or he could have rented the property with that clause, or given it in a trust with that condition or a sale with retro-sale pact triggered by the clause.
Of course, he might have gotten a lower price for this clause or, most probably, the cancellation of the transaction, which would have proven the “hidden” objectives of the lab.
Evil should be kept away from a land dedicated to Our Blessed Mother.
Ave María puríssima!
Blessings in JMJ
Fred at nazar.info
RE: AMU/T “could influence Jackson Labs as much as vice versa.”
Well, with that thinking, why not just give land to Planned Parenthood too? AMU “could influence” them too. I fail to see how anyone can logically go from Ave Maria supporting and defending this organization -to- Ave Maria changing or “influencing” this organization. What can be said with certitude is that Catholics throughout the county will be forced to pay new tax levies, sales taxes, and/or extra utility fees as part of the county government’s $130M giveaway to Jackson. In five years there will be almost three times as many scientists as AMU faculty in that town. The ten year projection by Jackson is to have 7,500 genetics and gene therapy jobs there.
Re: Z Hassan. and what if students from AMU get some of those jobs, and change the culture from within. That is certainly not out of the realm of possibility (especially considering the calibre of the AMU biology program, which is very good for a school of its size and age).
All I am saying is that none of the actions are done in a vacuum, and just as Jackson Labs might be an influence for ill, Ave Maria—a town with the Eucharist quite literally in its center—could have influence for the good.
Margaret Perry,
You apparently don’t read Ave Maria literature. You said “Ave Maria—a town with the Eucharist quite literally in its center ...” Not so. Tom Monaghan is at the center.
In reference to Lee Gilbert’s comment above, it is not true that material cooperation with evil is always sinless. It may or may not be, depending on the type of cooperation and how closely it is linked to the sinful activity. That is the question at issue here. It troubles me that this land sale would go to a company that has no qualms about doing research that is clearly at odds with Catholic teaching. Ultimately, why would he want to sell the land to them anyway? Isn’t the bottom line for the money? Is that the moral high ground? Given Ave Maria’s claims to pristine Catholicism, this action proves those claims seriously flawed.
Don’t you think it is a little ridiculous to assault Mr. Monaghan over this issue. He is a good, if imperfect, man who is trying to build something truly wholesome and truly great. Evil, as it was earlier put, often triumphs on account of greater organization and a willingness vocalize. As Catholics, we should all seek to build up an institution such as Ave Maria, to support the people and students living there, and to help it to thrive in a truly Catholic manner. Instead, many choose to sit back complacently and tear the institution down in articles and blog posts. Ave Maria is not perfect, nor will it ever be; but then, neither is any other human institution ever created.
Perhaps this company will misuse their facility in the future, maybe they will do evil, but the time for a response to that is not now, it is after it happens. You may think that this is absurd, to allow a potential evil into our beloved Catholic haven, but the Catholic religion is based upon the sacraments, especially communion and reconciliation. It would seem that the sale is, in fact, ethical since NCBC finds no issue with it. Any other worries and complaints fit more into the realm of paranoia unless one can find some sort of evidence to the contrary.
TKC
Michael, there are a lot of people who who spent years working with Tom who would dispute your comment that Tom “He is a good, if imperfect, man.”
Tom’s a predator who wraps up his evil intentions in a clever package of piety and testimonials from prominent Catholics, most who are on the take from him. The bishop of the Diocese of Venice won’t allow the place to even be called Catholic.
Tom’s track record with Ave Maria College and University is one of constant lying and betrayal. If you do a simple Google search for the written testimony of people who have written about Tom, you’ll be amazed. Try some of these names: Charles Rice, Jon Hittinger, Ed Peters, Guillermo Montes, Kelley Bowring.
Just four days ago Tom lost yet another round in court a 6-year lawsuit. Tom claimed that Ave Maria University was NOT a continuation of Ave Maria College, with is a much as a lie as Clinton’s about his relationship with Monica. And the damnedest thing is Tom’s top lieutenants were willing to testify to support that lie. You should read the ruling from the judge.
One of the best quotes about Tom’s character comes from Jon Hittinger, one of the early casualties of Ave Maria. Here is what he wrote, in 2004:
“Nick Healy … conspired in this fraudulent hiring, they concealed vital information from me. Who would have taken a job if they were told it well may come to an end after two years, while sitting on a secure six year arrangement? Not me. I told them that I was looking for long term stability and wanted to keep kids in school.
“ I was robbed of my freedom, reduced in my options so that Nick could keep his. This is not moral; a few lawyers tell me it is illegal - but hard to prove. I could not stand up to legal might and resources of Monaghan and Nick’s legal machinations. I capitulated to their pressure. But I will forever consider the AMC-AMU team to be a bunch of pirates, a reckless band of marauders on the high seas of academia and Catholic culture and I thank the Lord that I escaped with my own personal integrity and with whatever tenuous professional and financial stability that I have.
“I believe that other people need to know about these pirates before their vessels are boarded, their treasures plundered, and their families carried off to futile ventures. The facade of ecclesiastical, political, and conservative backing makes their deceit all the more shameful and tragic. It is our solemn duty to shout ‘Jolly Roger.’”
AveWatch.com has accurate information about Monaghan.
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.