Denver Catholic

18 FEBRUARY 27-MARCH 11, 2016 | DENVER CATHOLIC Perspectives After Justice Scalia T he death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13—unexpected and, for many reasons, tragic—draws a curtain on the life and public service of one of the most important Catholic fi gures in Amer- ica over the past half-cen- tury. Justice Scalia was regarded, by admirers and detractors alike, as the most conse- quential jurist of his time. He brought a remarkable intellect, a clear concept of judging, a distinguished literary style, and a biting wit to his work on the U.S. Supreme Court. His utter demolition of the majority opinion in Obergefell vs. Hodges, the decision that invented a constitutional right for people of the same sex to "marry," is a masterpiece of devastation—as was Scalia's dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts' opin- ion saving Obamacare by reinventing it as a kind-of-tax. But it would be a grave mistake to think of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence as essentially negative. Rather, his judg- ing was based on convictions about who should make the laws and how judges should function in a system of judicial review. In a democracy, he believed, legislators, chosen by the people, are free to craft laws within the bounds set by the Constitution. The judge's task is to interpret both Constitution and statutes according to their text, and according to the text's meaning as that meaning was understood when the text was adopted. Any other method of judg- ing, he thought, inevitably turned the Supreme Court into a Super-Congress, in which nine unelected lawyers who were not subject to periodic elections ruled the country. That seemed to him a very bad idea. More to the point, it was not the idea of governance inscribed in the Constitution. Justice Scalia was not only a distin- guished jurist; he was a wonderful man, full of vitality and humor. He made no secret of his intense Catholicism, bred in him in his youth, nor did he hesi- tate to express his concerns when the Church seemed to him to be coming unmoored from the Great Tradition on which it was grounded. He was a devoted husband and father, and his friendships extended far beyond the range of those who agreed with his jurisprudence. A man of honor and a dedicated public servant, he was, with Henry Hyde, one of the two most infl uential Catholics in national a' airs during his years in Washington. He will be sorely missed, not only by those of us privileged to know him, but by anyone who cares about intelligence and integ- rity in public life. There will be an enormous politi- cal struggle over fi lling his seat on the Court. It is far too early to know how that struggle will resolve itself. But it's not too early to do Justice Scalia one last honor and ask the question, why is that struggle so crucial? Why has the Supreme Court become such a Levia- than in our national public life? Something is wrong here. Last June, one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy, decided on behalf of 322 million Amer- icans that the Constitution included a "right" for people of the same sex to "marry" each other. Put aside the fact that his reasoning was so specious (indeed vacuous) that the keener proponents of "same-sex marriage" were dismayed by it, and are trying to fi nd another case that would put their "right" on fi rmer constitutional ground. Put aside the fact, previously noted, that after Justice Scalia's dissent from Ken- nedy's opinion, the dental records were needed to identify the remains. The real question was, is, and ought to be this: Why was one man deciding this for the entire country? Why was a deeply controverted issue being removed from the deliberation of the people and their legislators and decided by unelected and unaccountable judges? (Yes, I know, Supreme Court justices can be impeached; but if you believe that's a remedy for Obergefell, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.) America would honor the memory of the great Antonin Scalia if the 2016 presidential campaign, which will now, inevitably and bitterly, engage the ques- tion of his successor, would seriously debate the prior questions: Why have these Supreme Court nominations become so important, and what can be done to restore balance to the American constitutional order? George Weigel is a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The Catholic Diž erence GEORGE WEIGEL Human organs from pigs — is it kosher? H uman beings can have a vis- ceral reaction to the thought of growing human kidneys or livers inside the bodies of pigs or cows. A participant in a recent online forum on human/animal chimeras described it this way: "Unbelievable!!! …If there was anything that was more anti- God, it is the genetic formation of chimeras which is nothing more than Franken- stein monster creation." Although the idea of a chimeric animal is indeed unusual, several fac- tors need to be considered in evaluating the practice of growing human organs within animals. Despite our initial hesitations, certain kinds of human/ animal chimeras are likely to be justi- fi able and reasonable. This comes into focus when we recognize, for example, how thousands of patients who have received replacement heart valves made out of pig or cow tissues are already themselves a type of human/animal chimera. For many years, moreover, sci- entists have worked with chimeric mice that possess a human immune system, enabling them to study the way that HIV and other viruses are able to infect cells. We routinely use animals to address important human needs. We eat them and make clothing out of them. We keep them in zoos. Utilizing them for legiti- mate and important medical purposes like organ generation and transplanta- tion should not, broadly speaking, be a cause for alarm. As another online par- ticipant noted, only half in jest: "Think of it — a pig provides a human heart, lungs, and liver then the rest is eaten for dinner! ….Plus the pig will likely be chemical free, well-fed, and humanely treated." If a pig were in fact able to grow a human kidney in place of its own kidney, and if it could be used for trans- plantation, it could provide a major new source of organs in the face of the criti- cal shortage that currently exists. Many patients today are on waiting lists for a kidney, and a signifi cant percentage die before an organ ever becomes available. Yet signifi cant technical and eth- ical hurdles remain before growing organs in pigs is likely to be feasible. The science is still in its infancy, and researchers have yet to fi gure out how to make human cells co-exist in a stable fashion with animal tissues. There are abundant concerns about the possi- bility of transmitting animal viruses to humans, especially considering how readily other viruses like avian fl u have been able to jump from birds to humans. Even assuming these kinds of risks are able to be minimized, and pig/ human chimeras could be safely pro- duced, there would still be several ethical issues to consider. One concern involves using stem cells from human embryos as part of the process of making pig/human chimeras. Typically, scientists try to generate chimeras by adding human embryonic stem cells to animal embryos, which then grow up and develop into chimeric animals. Destroying young humans in their embryonic stages for their stem cells is gravely objectionable, so creating chimeras could be ethical only if alter- native, non-embryonic sources of stem cells (like adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells) were utilized for the procedure. The technology might also lend itself to other unethical practices, like trying to create a pig that could produce human sperm or eggs in its genitalia. Similarly, if human nerve cells were incorporated into a developing pig brain in such a way that the animal devel- oped what appeared to be human brain structures, some have noted there could be questions about the occurrence of intelligence or self-consciousness or other facets of human identity in the animal. Although such concerns seem farfetched, given the dearth of knowledge about the "sca' olding of consciousness," it seems reasonable to limit this kind of experimenta- tion. Some scientifi c agencies like the National Institutes of Health have restricted the availability of research funds for the study of human/animal chimeras because of these and other considerations, seeking to levy pressure so that the needed ethical discernment and discussion occurs before research- ers proceed further. We tend to view modern scientifi c progress as a powerful "engine of good" for the well-being of mankind, and therefore we view most scientifi c research with hope. This is proper and fi tting, and to reinforce and reinvig- orate that hope, we should continue to insist that cutting edge biomedical research remain in active dialogue and interaction with sound ethics. The expanding study of human/animal chi- meras challenges us to refl ect carefully on the morally appropriate use of these novel and powerful technologies, so that human dignity will not be harmed, sub- jugated, or misappropriated in any way. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., serves as director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, www.ncbcenter.org. Making Sense of Bioethics FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D.

• Cover