Virginia – Ave Maria University is recommended in the 2017-2018 edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, a publication of The Cardinal Newman Society that recommends 29 Catholic colleges, universities and higher education programs for excellence in faithful Catholic education.
With the release of the 2017-18 edition, The Cardinal Newman Society celebrates 10 years of connecting families with faithful Catholic education through the Guide. We also celebrate the strength and accomplishments of the recommended institutions over the last several years, despite the substantial challenges faced by most private colleges.
In seven years at Ave Maria University, undergrad enrollment climbed 75%. Recent expansions at the University include Catholic teacher formation and the Mother Teresa Project with the Missionaries of Charity to promote service.
“In the last 10 years, the institutions recommended in The Newman Guide have experienced remarkable success while remaining committed to a strong Catholic identity,” said Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick Reilly. “The reputation of and appreciation for these faithful institutions is certainly growing in the Church, and they have become pillars of the New Evangelization in America.”
The late Father Benedict Groeschel, CFR, who wrote the preface to the first Newman Guide 10 years ago, said it was the Newman Society’s “most important contribution to Catholic higher education ever.”
Since the first edition of The Newman Guide in 2007, the Newman Society has greatly expanded the profiles of the recommended colleges online at TheNewmanGuide.com, distributed more than 100,000 free copies of the companion magazine My Future, My Faith, and launched the innovative Recruit Me! program to introduce families to The Newman Guide colleges.
Founded in 1993, the mission of The Cardinal Newman Society is to promote and defend faithful Catholic education at all levels, including elementary, secondary and higher education. The Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit organization supported by individuals, businesses, and foundations.
As some students headed out of town for the mid-term break, others left the country to go and serve the poorest of the poor with Mother Teresa’s nuns in the Dominican Republic and Mexico. Here they are at a dessert Mary and I hosted at our home the night before they departed.
March was filled with huge University events. Principal among them was the joint celebration of the Annunciation and our founder Tom Monaghan’s birthday. I had a lot of preparatory work to do so that meant early mornings in the office. As I worked at my desk the week before the big day, I looked out my window and saw this gorgeous sunrise above the Oratory, with the shining cross at its highest point.
The History Department hosted its third annual Undergraduate Mini Conference this weekend. At the event, junior history majors gave presentations laying out the groundwork and direction of what will become, next year, their senior thesis projects.
The conference on Saturday April 8th began with a keynote address from AMU Assistant Professor of History, Dr. Michael Breidenbach, on one of his research specialties, the role of Catholicism in the American founding. Dr. Breidenbach’s paper, “‘This Damnable Doctrine’: Lord Baltimore and Catholic Loyalty in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,” both set the conference tone as one of serious academic inquiry and offered to the hopeful historians an example of historical research to which they can aspire.
Over the course of the morning and early afternoon, twelve juniors presented on topics as diverse as a history of medicine in the Middle Ages, the creation of the mythical gangster in the 20th century, diplomacy between the Confederate States of America and the Vatican, and Communism’s role in the decay of Russian mystical culture.
These presentations are projects stemming from the Historiography course (HIST 401), in which AMU history majors learn the philosophy of history and the methods and instruments used in the conduction of historical research. Next year, these research projects will be further developed into senior theses, which culminate in an oral presentation and defense. The Mini Conference affords the junior history majors valuable preparation in presenting on and fielding questions about their research.
Pauline Gilmore is an exemplary presence on Ave Maria’s campus. As a New York native, Pauline has spent her summers bringing her love for Christ to young adults by attending and working for Camp Veritas as a counselor. This summer, Pauline plans to set off on a missionary journey with Camp Veritas in the UK and is excited for the chance to truly encounter God’s children and tell them how loved they are.
An essay exploring the biological effects of hormonal birth control on multiple generations of humans
Diana West, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Ave Maria University, Ave Maria, FL
Vicki Thorn, Founder, Project Rachel and Executive Director, National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation & Healing, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
In 1930, Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the Church’s two-millennia teaching on contraception in Casti Connubii (1). A generation later, Bl. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae defined and predicted the consequences of a contraceptive mentality and explained why acceptable methods such as Natural Family Planning/Fertility Awareness respected the nature of the marital act (2). Subsequent Pontiffs have continued to contribute to deeper theological understanding for marriage and human dignity, most notably, St. Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Despite the Magisterium’s clear instruction on appropriate means of family planning, a Guttmacher survey (3) reported that among self-identified Catholic women (between ages 15-44 and sexually-active), 83% used contraceptive methods not sanctioned by the Church. As a significant proportion of women, Catholic and non-Catholic have used birth control over the past several decades, several scholars have delved into the social and spiritual consequences of a contraceptive society (4-8). This essay will instead explore the history and multi-generational biological fallout of hormonal contraceptives.
In 1936, Dr. Elizabeth Hunt published a medical editorial raising concerns over using natural estrogens to treat human skin disorders. Knowing that estrogens induced tumors in laboratory animals, Hunt asked, “…should not a woman be informed of the possible risk to which she is exposed[?]”(9). Shortly thereafter, two synthetic estrogens were developed by competing scientific teams: diethylstilbestrol (DES) (10) and ethinyl estradiol (EE2) (11). DES was prescribed to women to prevent miscarriages and premature births. While male workers occupationally exposed to DES developed breasts (12), few recognized this harbinger of future’s disturbing side effects. Decades later, vaginal cancer (adenocarcinoma) was linked to patients whose mothers’ used DES (13), and subsequent evidence of DES-induced cancer and fertility disorders led to its ban in 1971. By then, millions of women worldwide had taken DES; their children, exposed to DES in utero, were termed “DES daughters and sons” (14, 15). DES children later had children of their own, and “DES grandchildren” also experienced side effects of their grandmothers’ prescription (16,17). These observations implied that DES induced inheritable changes, and experimental evidence of DES-altered DNA via epigenetic modifications supports this hypothesis (18,19).
EE2, developed at the same time as DES, showed potential as a birth control hormone. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger backed a team of researchers to formulate the first birth control pill with mestranol, a derivative of EE2 (20,21). First available in 1960, the drug was quickly nicknamed “the Pill,” a general moniker used since then for most oral hormonal contraceptives. In 1969, Barbara Seaman, a pro-choice journalist-turned-activist, summarized her research on Pill-induced blood clots, mood disorders, and cancer in The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill (22). Senator Gaylord Nelson subsequently organized congressional hearings on Pill safety that were interrupted by young feminist protesters shouting questions such as: “Why are 10 million women being used as guinea pigs?” (23, 24). Like DES, EE2 was a recognized occupational hazard for pharmaceutical workers; male breast development and female fertility disorders were documented symptoms (25). Four decades after the Pill was first prescribed, the World Health Organization classified the combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptive as a Group 1 carcinogen (26, 27), a ranking shared with tobacco and asbestos. The Pill’s elevated risk of breast and cervical cancer was strong enough to warrant Group 1 classification, despite evidence of lowered ovarian/endometrial cancer risk. Some of today’s contraceptive formulations, with lower EE2 doses than the first Pill, still have a significant association with increased breast cancer risk (28, 29). Similar to DES, EE2 is also an environmental epigenetic DNA modifier (30) that may produce inheritable risks for Pill user’s children and grandchildren. Altered epigenetic DNA markers and increased cancer incidence were observed in EE2-exposed female rats and two subsequent generations of offspring (31). Dr. Craig Roberts and others have demonstrated that Pill-users were attracted to different men compared non-Pill-users (32,33), implying an unknown biological mechanism that may alter human evolution and mate choice. Some of the first Pill proponents became concerned about the unintended effects of synthetic hormones on human health and evolution. Dr. Carl Djerassi, nicknamed “father of the Pill,” admitted that the Pill’s use over several decades served as an incidental longitudinal side-effect study (34). Djerassi ironically suggested that pharmaceutical companies develop Natural Family Planning methods as the future for birth control (35). Dr. Alexander Sanger, Chair of International Planned Parenthood Council, wrote that Pill-users “…are taking reproductive risks that cannot be seen or measured” (36). Therefore, as we begin to understand the biological consequences of the synthetic hormones in contraceptives, the contraceptives upon which our society purportedly relies, we can’t help but think of the early whistle-blowers: should not a woman be informed of the possible risk to which she is exposed? Why are millions of women and men being used as guinea pigs?