Who Cares if the Vatican Weighs in on Bioethics?
No one. At least that's my view. Certainly not American Catholics who use birth control, IVF, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and a wide range of other reproductive technologies previously and even more so now get a Holy finger wagging from Rome.
Moreover, I don't know any American Catholics who oppose the commonplace forms of human enhancement we use today and even the borderline ones such as taking brain-boosting drugs or drugs to help us sleep at night.
And this concept that the conservative movement more generally keeps leveraging--human dignity--the centerpiece of Catholic bioethics? Perhaps it could be useful, if anyone knew what it meant.
The only group, as was claimed in a Washington Post story on Friday, who may care about the Vatican's edicts are bioethicists who will, for a short period of time ponder the what, the why and the implication of Rome's declarations.
Bioethicists care about what Rome does, but I would argue not any more than we care what other nations rule in regard to reproductive technologies or other major religions decide on these very same issues.
So the Vatican has taken its stance like any other organization, religion or individual can. We will discuss it, debate it and wonder what difference it will make. But the Catholic church is fundamentally different from governments or other kinds of organizations.
The Catholic church is neither in touch with or interested in developing recommendations for the 21st century to which its followers could or would adhere and it is not a government with police power, at best the Catholic church will do what it has just done. Take positions knowing full well that no real change will come of it.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
My question is, who cares what bioethicists think? Did they have any influence on law or policy during the Bush administration? Not really. Will they have any such influence during the Obama administration? I doubt it.
When I write the word "bioethicist", my web browser (Firefox), thinking that I'm typing a string of nonsense characters, draws a dotted red underline to try to correct me. That's actually a pretty decent measure of how much bioethicists really influence the popular culture.
- by James Nightshade on Dec 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM | link
I for one care, because I appreciate properly informed scientific discussion, and the Vatican track record in this respect in recent years has been superb.
Guess where I first heard about induced pluripotent stem cells and met Professor Yamanaka? At the Vatican no less, in September 2006. It took the wonderfully secular United Kingdom more than a year to catch on to this exciting development in bioscience, which has completely turned around the stem cell debate.
Nor was Yamanaka alone in presenting cutting edge developments in this area of biotechnology.
Knocking the Catholic Church without producing evidence is a tediously anti-intellectual game.
- by Josephine Quintavalle on Dec 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM | link
One of my dearest (Catholic) friends reminded me that the Vatican does matter a great deal to a great many Catholics. So in the spirit of that let me say that, if it wasn't clear, I think the media coverage of Rome's bioethics declaration was disproportionate to the actual effect that it will have on the average American Catholic's life. But then again, the Vatican is the only group paying attention to bioethics these days. That is, until President Obama takes office.
- by Summer Johnson, PhD on Dec 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM | link
I must say that was a very sweeping comment made about Roman Catholics, and I disagree heartily. As a Roman Catholic who graduated from a Catholic uniersity, I can say from experience that an increasing number of young Catholics (including myself) care a great deal about what the Vatican says as well as what the Church teaches. I have a feeling Fr. Nicanor from R.I. would disagree with your comments as well.
- by Genevieve White on Dec 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM | link
Summer, when President Bush refused to fund research on embryonic stem cells other than the lines already in existence, he was paying attention to bioethics. Unless you want to stipulate that "bioethics" presupposes one particular viewpoint about the ethics of creating and then destroying human life.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Dec 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM | link
Not sure why Americans should be the center of this discussion, but I personally know many, many American Catholics who--while they do not always follow the teaching--at least try to understand it and implement it in their lives.
Also, it seems perfectly obvious why there would be significant American media coverage of the first bioethics document from the CDF in 20 years: the astounding amount of Health Care provided in this country (and across the world) by the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, the arguments and ideas in documents like these filter down through the theological, philosophical and medical communities and get presented and analyzed in countless classrooms all over this country.
Not that the author of this entry was interested in actually engaging the arguments. Instead, we get the same old and tired canards easily refuted by anyone even vaguely familiar with the leadership role the Roman Catholic Church has taken, from the very beginning, in bioethics.
- by Charles C. Camosy, PhD on Dec 17, 2008 at 9:04 PM | link
Certainly when it comes to many good Catholic doctors and Catholic institutions, what the Vatican says does matter. Participants at the Catholic Medical Association convention in Baltimore, MD this year also seemed to care. Once researchers, politicians, patients and others have utterly "closed minds" about the Church's contribution, we can assume that the field of ethics will be fatally compromised. Moral decisions will not be based upon what is right or wrong but simply upon what we have the capacity to do. Did not the Nazis go that route?
Regarding two recent points made by DIGNITATIS PERSONAE released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all sorts of ripples will be made:
EMBRYONIC ADOPTION: Good Intent, No Morally Licit Solution
Many prolifers had hoped that embryonic adoption might be judged as ethical even though the marital act was bypassed. However, a strict reading of the few words said about the matter would seem to imply that it still falls under the same prohibition as regular IVF. The instruction states:
"It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of 'prenatal adoption'. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above (in regard to IVF)."
If these problems are deal-breakers, then I was wrong on the issue, as was Professor May, and Msgr. Smith was right. There is nothing we can do.
Propagation outside of the conjugal act is immoral. The IVF process (the intervention of a technician) and the destruction of excess embryos is immoral. The freezing of embryos is immoral. All this is granted within orthodox circles, but where do we go from here? The instruction goes on to say:
"All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an 'appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons'."
I guess that pretty much takes faithful Catholics out of the embryonic adoption business. The prohibition is not absolute, but it certainly weighs against it.
HURLBUT’S EMBRYO-LIKE CREATION: Moral Status in Doubt, Do No Harm
It appears that the concerns and reservations that a few of us had about Dr. Hurlbut’s ideas have found a hearing at the Vatican. Instead of more “cheerleader” acceptance from many moralists and pro-life researchers, the sobering question of true identity remains. As one moral philosopher wrote regarding the mutated embryo-like creation, “when is an acorn not an acorn?”
We read:
"The ethical objections raised in many quarters to therapeutic cloning and to the use of human embryos formed in vitro have led some researchers to propose new techniques which are presented as capable of producing stem cells of an embryonic type without implying the destruction of true human embryos. These proposals have been met with questions of both a scientific and an ethical nature regarding above all the ontological status of the 'product' obtained in this way."
The case is not closed, but given any ambiguity, one cannot presume to extract stem-cells or experiment upon what might be human beings, no matter how persuasive the developmental trajectory arguments might seem. The instruction tells us:
"Until these doubts have been clarified, the statement of the Encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE needs to be kept in mind: 'what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo'."
It should be said that certain recent developments may make Dr. Hurlbut’s strategy unnecessary.
Well, I might have been wrong on embryonic adoption, but it seems I was right about lingering concerns regarding Dr. Hurlbut’s mutant embryonic-like creation. We probably have not heard the last word about that one, though. Will there be a Hail Mary play from the other team?
Such concerns matter to many of us, even if certain secular researchers and dissenting Catholics might not care. The Church is one of the few warning voices to those procedures which reflect a BRAVE NEW WORLD perhaps even beyond Huxley's vision.
- by Rev. Joseph Jenkins on Dec 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM | link
It may not matter in the US, but it matters a lot to developing nations with strong Catholic populations. Bioengineering may be moot and academic, but the state promotion of artificial contraception is not. This is a particularly hot-button issue in many Latin American and African countries and the controversy has prevented the enforcement of any rational, comprehensive population management program.
- by Nico on Dec 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM | link
I want to thank, very much, my Catholic readers and the Catholic scholars who have weighed in on my post from this week. I appreciate your candor and the thoughtful comments raised regarding American Catholicism, the changes occurring among younger Catholics, and Catholicism around the world. The significant number of Catholics who ignore Catholic teachings regarding reproduction and use birth control, have pre-martial sex, among other behaviors, certainly do--I agree--have a great reverence for the Pope, for their priests, and for their faith generally. I meant to give no suggestion that these Catholics, American or otherwise, take their faith lightly. Religious observers of all kinds certainly err and stray from the tenets of their faith. Many members of many faiths "cherry-pick" in regard to which teachings they observe; Catholics are not alone in this. So, in short, thank you all for your comments. While I still strongly disagree with the Vatican's edicts, I certainly do not fault Catholics for their Church's positions on bioethics.
- by Summer Johnson, PhD on Dec 21, 2008 at 4:42 PM | link