E-Mail This Article to a Friend Soft cell Why isn’t the Catholic Church fighting harder on stem-cell research? Also, Maura Hennigan finally makes it official. BY ADAM REILLY

GIVEN THE FEROCITY of the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage, one might expect its lobbying on stem-cell research — the biggest issue on Beacon Hill today — to be equally intense. But it hasn’t been. Far from it, actually: while the Church treated gay marriage as a grave moral threat, its efforts on the stem-cell issue have been oddly tepid.

Consider this contrast. Five months before the Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark ruling in the Goodridge case, the state’s Catholic bishops fired a pre-emptive strike in a statement released in June 2003 — and they were just getting started. The ensuing months brought another, post-Goodridge-decision statement against gay marriage that was distributed at Mass and read from the pulpit by some priests; a million-person mailing to Massachusetts Catholics that endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; an impassioned appearance by Archbishop Seán O’Malley at an anti-gay-marriage rally on Boston Common; and sustained, intense pressure against Catholic legislators who backed full marriage rights for gays and lesbians (see "The Catholic War Against Gay Marriage," News and Features, March 26, 2004).

Compare that with the Church’s actions on the stem-cell issue thus far. The push to make Massachusetts more welcoming to stem-cell research has been gaining momentum for weeks, ever since Robert Travaglini, the state Senate president, urged his colleagues to quickly approve a "comprehensive stem-cell-research bill" in his January 5 inaugural address. (Similar legislation went nowhere in 2004, largely because it was opposed by then–House Speaker Tom Finneran, a pro-life Catholic; Finneran has since resigned to become president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, which supports most forms of stem-cell research.) As proponents see it, unfettered stem-cell research is an opportunity to cure serious illnesses such as diabetes and Parkinson’s disease while bolstering the state’s economy and heading off competition from California, which recently allocated $3 billion for growing the stem-cell industry there.

A month after his speech, Travaglini filed legislation that would create a legal framework for future stem-cell research and permit several different methods. For example, Travaglini’s bill would allow research on stem-cell lines extracted from currently existing embryos, such as those created during fertility treatments. It would also permit somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), in which the nucleus of a human egg is removed and replaced with a particular type of tissue cell from a patient. For example, a pancreatic-cancer patient might provide pancreatic tissue, which would then be combined with an egg. In theory, the resulting entity would be capable of creating healthy pancreatic cells that could be transplanted back into the patient. (Travaglini’s bill prohibits human-reproductive cloning, but does not explicitly prohibit the creation of ordinary human embryos, via the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, for research purposes.)

The same day Travaglini filed his legislation, Governor Mitt Romney told the New York Times he opposed the creation of human embryos to further stem-cell research. (The governor did, however, endorse research on stem-cell lines drawn from existing embryos; see "Social Distortion," News and Features, February 18.) Unlike Romney, the state’s Catholic bishops took their time speaking up. On March 2 — almost one month after Travaglini filed his bill — Archbishop O’Malley, along with Bishops Robert McManus of Worcester, Timothy McDonnell of Springfield, and George Coleman of Fall River, finally issued a statement opposing all forms of embryonic-stem-cell research. The document extolled the scientific potential of adult stem cells, and argued that two presidential commissions — one convened by Bill Clinton and one by George W. Bush — have deemed SCNT tantamount to human cloning. It also urged Catholics to contact Romney and their state legislators as soon as possible to voice their opposition to the bill. "Cloned human embryos are human beings with a claim on our conscience; they deserve the respect and protection accorded to the human person," the statement said. "... Science does not have to kill in order to cure."

Like many Church statements, it was an eloquent document. So far, though, it hasn’t been backed up with the emphatic persuasion the Church used for gay marriage. Catholic opponents of Travaglini’s bill haven’t been inactive, exactly. Several spoke at the legislature’s February 16 hearing on stem-cell research. The full text of the bishops’ statement ran in the March 4 issue of the Pilot, Boston’s archdiocesan newspaper, and was faxed to dioceses around the state. A 90-minute program featuring O’Malley and Father Tad Pacholczyk, a neuroscientist with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, has been running on Boston Catholic Television for a week. And Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group with close ties to the Church, has distributed packets synopsizing arguments against embryonic-stem-cell research to every member of the legislature. On the other hand, O’Malley hasn’t spoken out publicly on the subject. There have been no glossy direct mailings sponsored by the Church. And whatever urging priests received to discuss the bishops’ statement with their parishioners seems to be going largely unheeded.

Consider the proceedings at two churches in Dorchester last Sunday. Both St. Gregory’s, on Dorchester Avenue, and St. Brendan’s, on Gallivan Boulevard, sit in the First Suffolk state Senate district. The First Suffolk is represented by Jack Hart, a practicing Catholic who hosts the St. Patrick’s Day political breakfast and co-chairs the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, a new body responsible for advancing Travaglini’s legislation. If the Boston archdiocese wanted to bring the stem-cell issue to the fore at select churches around Boston, St. Gregory’s and St. Brendan’s would have been excellent choices. But on Sunday, the issue barely came up. At the end of Mass at St. Gregory’s, Father Vincent Daily plugged an upcoming candidates’ forum for the 12th Suffolk special election and offered an exhortation that could have pertained to stem cells, gay marriage, or abortion rights. "Maybe you should show up — shake things up a bit," he suggested. "You’re Americans and you’re Catholic. Flex the muscle." That was it. At St. Brendan’s, Father James Fratus closed the service by telling the congregation the bishops’ statement was available in the front lobby. Take one, he said, if you want to know the bishops’ position. Pretty mild stuff — and hardly suggestive of a church in full crisis mode.

It’s no surprise, then, that many Beacon Hill insiders say negative feedback from constituents on stem-cell research has paled in comparison with what they heard on gay marriage. "During the Constitutional Convention [in 2004], the Senate received thousands of phone calls and e-mails and letters on gay marriage," says Ann Dufresne, Travaglini’s spokesperson. "With [stem-cell research], we’re seeing some phone calls and some e-mails. I don’t think it compares at all."

Marian Walsh — a state senator and pro-life Catholic from West Roxbury who drew conservative ire for supporting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians — concurs. "So far, it’s very different," Walsh says. "I’ve talked to my colleagues, I’m in the community all the time, and my sense is [the Church] just isn’t investing the same level of financial commitment. There is some presence; there is some outreach. But it appears to be diminished." Jack Hart agrees, saying, "It’s certainly on people’s radar screens, but I wouldn’t say it’s as rampant as it was during the gay-marriage debate."