Newspaper Page Text
POST FOR RAIMONDI
PAGE 3—March 29,1973
More Changes Made
In Vatican Offices
VATICAN CITY (NC) - Pope Paul
VI gave prominent jobs in the central
administration of the Church to two
former papal diplomats and a Spanish
bishop whom the Pope generally
appointed to the 1971 session of the
World Synod of Bishops.
Cardinal Luigi Raimondi, 61, former
apostolic delegate in the United States
and a career Vatican diplomat, was
named prefect of the Congregation for
Saints’ causes.
The congregation examines the lives
and writings of those proposed for the
various steps leading to their
proclamation as saints.
Assuming leadership of the little
known but very important Sacred
Penitentiary is Cardinal Giuseppe
Paupini, 66, who has papal nuncio to
Colombia when Pope Paul visited
Bogota in 1968.
Since his nomination as cardinal in
1969, the career diplomat has served as
adviser to several Vatican departments.
The Sacred Penitentiary is a Vatican
judicial agency that deals with matters
of conscience and also presides over the
granting of indulgences.
Although the Penitentiary deals with
forgiveness of sins or granting of
dispensations which may be public in
nature, all its transactions are strictly
confidential.
The third appointment announced
March 21 places Spanish Bishop
Maximino Romero Lema of Avila, 61,
as secretary of the Congregation for the
Clergy and bestows on him the title of
archbishop.
As second in command at the
congregation to American Cardinal John
Wright, the new secretary becomes one
of the highest-ranking Spaniards in the
Church’s central administration.
Cardinal Raimondi, named to the
sacred college by Pope Paul March 5,
returns to his native Italy after service in
the papal diplomatic corps in
Guatemala, the Vatican, India, Haiti and
Mexico before his lengthy tour in the
United States.
Has the Court Made Fetus
An Experimental Animal?
WASHINGTON (NC) - The U.S.
Supreme Court decision on abortion has
made the human fetus “a new species of
experimental animal,” according to the
director of the Kennedy Center for
Bioethics at Georgetown University
here.
Writing in Hospital Progress, the
journal of the Catholic Hospital
Association, Dr. Andre E. Hellegers
predicted that the court decision “will
not necessarily affect Catholic hospital
practice.” He said, however, that it “is
almost bound to affect research in fetal
physiology.”
Contacted by NC News, Hellegers
said that the abortion decision left the
way open for Catholic hospitals and
doctors to refuse to perform abortions.
While the fetus has no legal rights under
the decision, the court “specifically
stated that it is not legislating abortion
on demand,” Hellegers said.
The court left the medical decision
up to the doctor, he said, “and the
doctor can still use the life of a fetus as
a medical contraindicator, a reason for
opposing an abortion.”
Turning to the issue of
experimentation with fetuses, Hellegers
pointed out that it is “standard
procedure when any new drug comes
out” to conduct separate tests for the
drug’s effects on life in the womb.
Pregnant mice and monkeys are now
used for preliminary testing in this area,
he said. But under the court’s ruling it
would be possible to test the effects of
new drugs on the fetuses of pregnant
women who have already agreed to
abortion.
Dr. Hellegers also pointed out that
this might not necessarily happen in the
United States: “When they faced this
situation in Britain, it was specifically
said that one could not use the pregnant
woman for such tests, even if she had
agreed to have an abortion, because she
might change her mind.”
“The classic example of a drug’s
effects on a fetus was thalidomyde,” he
said. “Most people forget that
thalidomyde was a first-rate drug for
non-pregnant adults.”
Although experimentation with live
fetuses inside the womb might not
actually occur if the United States
follows the course set by England, the
use of live fetuses outside the womb is
another major problem left unresolved
by the court.
“I don’t think the court ever gave a
thought to the question of using fetuses
for experiments,” said Hellegers. “They
left undetermined whether the fetus is
something outside or inside the uterus,
whether this is determined by its age
from conception, or whether it has
something to do with its chance of
living, or how long it can live.”
Outside the womb, he said, there is
no clear-cut distinction in medicine
between a “fetus” and a “premature
baby.”
“It had nothing to do with biology -
it depends on what society wants to
do.”
Dr. Hellegers indicated that many
abortion techniques can produce live
fetuses. “One of the newer techniques
for aborting the fetus after the 13 week
is the use of prostaglandin, a substance
which makes the uterus sensitive to
agents which make the uterus contract.
The effect is to expel the fetus through
induced labor.”
He listed various purposes for which
such live fetuses might be used, such as
study of the rate of bone growth, study
of how the fetus reacts to various
hormones or chemical substances, or
using individual organs of the fetus as
“spare parts” to study their reactions to
chemicals or viruses.
As an experimental animal, “the
fetus is very useful - if we prescind
from moral judgment,” said Dr.
Hellegers.
CIRCLE OF LIFE BRACELETS -- This sketch shows a Circle of Life
bracelet, part of a new pro-life effort to protest the Supreme Court’s
abortion decision. The brainchild of Dr. Thomas Hilgers, a doctor in
Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, the bracelets borrow from the success of the
Vietnam Prisoner of War bracelets. The bracelets feature a circle of life,
the alpha and omega (symbols of beginning and end) and Jan. 22, 1973,
the date of the court decision. (NC Photo)
Right-to-Life Bracelets Campaign
BY DON EFFENBERGER
SAINT PAUL (NC) - Borrowing
from the success of POW bracelets, the
nation’s pro-life forces are launching a
similar countrywide campaign to call
attention to the right-to-life movement.
Originating in Minnesota, the
“bracelets” campaign will be both a
fund-raising tool for anti-abortion
groups and an educational method of
protesting the Supreme Court’s abortion
decision.
Both the National Right-to-Life
Committee and the National Youth
Pro-Life Coalition have endorsed the
program.
Like the POW bracelets which are to
be worn until all prisoners are safely
home, the pro-life bracelets are to be
worn until the Supreme Court decision
is overturned.
The bracelets, which will feature an
ancient symbol called the “circle of
life” are the brainchild of a Mayo clinic
physician, Dr. Thomas Hilgers, long
active in the national pro-life
movement.
Douglas Dahl, Minneapolis
coordinator for the bracelet sales and a
member of Save Our Unwanted Life
(SOUL), said pro-life forces expect to
sell a million bracelets. He is convinced
even more can be sold.
Half of the proceeds from bracelet
sales will go to pro-life groups, Dahl
said.
He said the “circle of Life” bracelets
represent an attempt to broaden the
image of pro-life groups - especially the
youth-oriented SOUL -- from that of
being one-issue groups. The SOUL
spokesman said the pro-life campaign
will take in such issues as euthanasia and
capital punishment as well as
“quality-of-life” issues such as poverty
and ecology.
However, primary attention will still
be focused on the abortion question,
Dahl said.
The bracelets will feature the Greek
letters alpha and omega - symbols for
the beginning and end - and the “circle
of life.” They will also bear the date of
the Supreme Court decision - Jan. 22,
1973 - which the pro-life literature
terms “a day of infamy.”
Besides bracelet sales, SOUL in
Minnesota plans to expand its activities
to include weekend picketing of
hospitals which perform abortions as
well as several special 24-hour vigils at
some.
SOUL - the local affiliate of the
National Youth Pro-Life Coalition --
also hopes to establish chapters at every
college and high school in the state,
Dahl said.
He said he envisions the bracelets as
only the first step in making the pro-life
message more visible in everyday life
and said plans for such items as pro-life
medallions and T-shirts are also in the
works.
Lenten Special--Justice in the World
AMERICAN DILEMMA
BY JAMES R. JENNINGS
Associate Director
USCC Division
Of Justice and Peace
Commitment to support the United
Nations and its aims can be burdensome
“NAMIBIA is slightly larger than Texas . . . with a
population of over 600,000, mainly blacks.” Children
attend school outdoors in a part of Namibia where the
government has not paid for classrooms. (NC Photo
courtesy Episcopal Churchmen for South Africa).
and has, at times, exposed embarrasing
contradictions in U. S. national goals.
Frequent squabbles erupt in Congress
about such issues as the size of the U.S.
share of the U.N. budget, or the U.S.
Contribution to the allegedly
communist-tainted International Labor
Organization and other U. N. agencies.
The contradiction between American
ideals and operations is evident in the
case of Namibia.
Formerly called Southwest Africa,
Namibia is slightly larger than Texas; a
territory of desert, scrub and dry
grassland, with a population of over
600,000, mainly blacks.
Namibia entered the world stage in
the late nineteenth century when
Germany belatedly attempted to join its
European neighbors in colonial
land-grabbing. A desolate leftover as
colonies go, Namibia became part of
Germany’s short-lived empire. With
Germany’s defeat in World War I,
Namibia became a trust territory under
the League of Nations, and then the
United Nations, to be administered by
the neighboring Republic of South
Aftica.
South Africa’s administration has
meant virtual annexation of Namibia.
Further, South Africa has forced on the
Namibians its system of white racist
laws. Despite the U.N. Security
Council’s repeated resolutions that
South Africa withdraw from Namibia,
South Africa has refused to do so. The
U. N. General Assembly in 1970, with
the assent of 95 nations, condemned
South Africa for its adamant
occupation. It called for “effective
measures” to force withdrawal.
When South Africa continued to
resist, the issue was referred to the
International Court of Justice. In 1971,
the World Court released its opinion:
the continued presence of South Africa
in Namibia is illegal, and it is obliged to
withdraw immediately. To date, South
Africa continues its illegal occupation of
Namibia.
How is the Namibian situation a
dilemma for the United States? The fact
is, Namibia is rich in mineral resources:
diamonds, copper, lead, tin, vanadium
and zinc. One of the major diamond
mines is owned primarily by a U.
S.-based oil company, and 80 per cent
of the mineral extraction industry is
owned by two American corporations.
Recently, three major U. S. oil firms
and two metal companies have been
reported exploring the territory for
exploitable resources.
In 1970, the United States, as well as
certain other First World powers, voted
against the resolution calling for South
African withdrawal from Namibia. U.S.
-owned companies continue to operate
in Namibia, extracting the rich natural
resources of the country and exporting
them around the world for sale and
profit. The companies pay taxes to the
South African government, despite its
illegal occupation. And, these businesses
are granted tax credits from the U. S.
Internal Revenue Service.
Black Namibians are prohibited by
law from forming unions or striking.
However, by December 1971,
conditions among the Namibian miners
had become so intolerable that a general
strike was called, eventually shutting
down the mines and much of the
construction and fishing industries.
South African troops moved in, and
violence broke out. An unconfirmed
report to the United Nations claimed
that 90 miners had been killed in five
days of fighting in January, 1972.
When the strike ended, some wage
rates were increased, but the worst
features of the quasi-slavery system
remained for the black workers: low
wages, year-long separation from their
families, denial of property and voting
rights. Underlying the conflict,
according to U. N. reports, is the
Namibians’ desire for
self-determination.
An Anglican bishop, Right Reverend
Colin Winter, was ordered out of
Namibia by the South African
government because he sided with the
blacks in their protest. During a recent
visit to the United States, Bishop Winter
articulated the Namibians’ position:
Foreign corporations should leave the
country. “Our country,” say Namibians,
“is being exploited by greedy
entrepreneurs, robbed of its wealth and
rendered barren for the future.”
The U. N. regional meeting at Addis
Ababa in 1972 passed a resolution on
Namibia, requesting nations to ensure
that their corporations AT LEAST
apply the principles of the Declaration
of Human Rights to their operations in
Namibia. The U.S. delegate voted in
favor of this resolution.
Namibia is not very important on the
world scene, but neither was Ethiopia
thirty years ago. Italy’s illegal invasion
of that inconspicuous African country
eroded the effectiveness of the League
of Nations and led, ultimately, to its
collapse. Private U.S. investors have an
economic stake in Namibia, and the
United States as a nation has the dual, a
and oftentimes conflicting, commitment
to champion “free world enterprise”
and to support the United Nations. The
degree of America’s commitment to its
ideals may be severely tested in the
1970’s.