Introduction
Dear
Friends in Christ,
I
am grateful to Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula and to the Pontifical Academy
of Life for inviting me to speak to you today and I am delighted that so many
of you have made the time to be here to discuss and to learn about some of the
most sensitive moral issues of our day.
It
is not insignificant that we are meeting during the Year of Faith which recalls
the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council and the
twentieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. In the light of this Year of Faith,
therefore, I would like in this short talk firstly to offer some brief comments
on the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes which sets
forth a global vision for the mission of the Church in today’s world. I will
then propose for your consideration the two fundamental bioethical criteria
articulated in the Instruction Dignitas personae of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And I will conclude by revisiting
the famous image of the “seamless garment” as a description of the Church’s
moral teaching.
The
Vision of Gaudium
et spes and our mission in the Church
I
am sure that I do not need to convince you of the difficult social and
political context in which the Church today is called to fulfill her mission,
particularly with regard to biomedical issues. The process of
de-Christianization in the Western World has reached a climax in the “new
atheism” of thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens—whose books
are “best sellers” in many countries. And while in its essentials it is neither
particularly new nor particularly insightful, this so called “new atheism” uses
the architecture of astrophysics and neurobiology and the wizardry of
contemporary means of mass communication to propose to credulous “modern man” a
world view that not only discounts God, but also displaces the human person
from the center, and assigns him to a mechanistic periphery.
This is our Areopagus! This is the
context in which we are called to fulfill our mission, and difficult as it may
be it is not that different from the context in which the Fathers of the Second
Vatican Council found themselves, addressing the Church and
the
world just twenty years after the conclusion of the Second World War. In
contrast to the evident inhumanity and intolerance of the National Socialist
project in Germany and the atheistic Soviet regime in Russia, today’s so-called
scientific atheism presents itself as a form of humanism. However, it fails to
be humane precisely by excluding a priori all reference to
the transcendent. In this sense, godless scientism is but the latest inheritor
of a dark patrimony, which always lurks just below the surface of history
exposing the human family to the risk of new forms of political
totalitarianism.
Then
as now, man seeks his place in the world. The Council’s Pastoral Constituion Gaudium et
spes frames the fundamental existential question of man in this
way: “But what is man? About himself he has expressed, and continues to
express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often
exults himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the
point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety” (Gaudium
et spes, n. 12). The utopian vision which historically has been
the promise of the atheistic world view is as illusory now as in the heyday of
the Stalinist revolution. Rather, a sense of moral crisis has taken hold of
human society as evidenced by repeated failures in the attempt to construct a
just global society, by the continued abuse of the environment and the
depletion of natural resources, and by an unbridled financial system which has
brought the western world once again the verge of ruin. The Council, for its
part, not only acknowledged the nihilistic crisis of meaning which ultimately
results from godless socialism and scientism, it offered a telling and timely
diagnosis: in refusing to acknowledge God as creator and source of all things,
man obscures his own proper and ultimate goal as well as distorts his
relationship with other persons and with all created things (cf. Gaudium et
spes, n. 13).
But
the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not content themselves with
diagnosing the problem. Rather, they spoke directly into the problem by
reminding the Church and the world that God is the only true measure of man and
that the will of God, echoed in the voice of conscience, is the only sure source
of moral obligation. “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which
he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always
summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience speaks to
his heart when necessary: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law
written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will
be judged” (Gaudium
et spes, n. 16). Ethical reflection is, therefore, not primarily
a religious pursuit but rather arises from the intellectual nature of man. The
Council Fathers highlighted the necessity of a rationally-based ethics because
the Natural Law is grounded in human nature itself and therefore accessible to
all.
The
intellectual nature of the human person which grasps the law of God is
perfected in faith which gives him the power to be united to Christ, the
fullness of divine Revelation. And so the Council teaches: “The root reason for
human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God. From the very
circumstance of his origin, man is already invited to converse with God. For
man would not exist were he not created by God’s love and constantly preserved
by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely
acknowledges that love and devotes himself to his Creator” (Gaudium et
spes, n. 19). The fundamental questions of human existence and
meaning have not changed - if anything the problem we face today in a media-
saturated culture is a large scale avoidance of philosophical questioning and
rational argumentation. How could it be otherwise when so many people today are
educated without a solid formation in the Christian faith or, more
fundamentally, without a philosophical basis which enables rational
argumentation and rigorous thinking. Such people seem to react instinctively
against the idea that there are objective norms, and they live under a
philosophically impoverished conception of “tolerance” which leads to the
ultimately destructive idea that each person is able to decide for himself what
is right, just, acceptable, and even moral. But let us not mistake this for an
intellectual rejection of truth! It is rather the failure to engage the
intellect in pursuit of truth.
Here,
therefore, is where the Church must begin her engagement with contemporary
society. In her teaching she must capture the heart of modern man, so as to
encourage an engagement of his mind with the truth. This indeed is the vision
of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes which
articulates - in terms that are as relevant today as they were fifty years ago
- both a diagnosis of the contemporary socio-political situation as well as a
remedy; namely, the proper presentation of the Church’s teaching accompanied
and amplified by the integral life of the Church and her members. We must
reject the characterization of our teaching as out-dated and tired. The
overarching message of Gaudium et spes is that the Church is
thoroughly concerned and engaged with man at the most basic levels of identity,
meaning, and moral discernment. We cannot allow our moral teaching to be frozen
in the political categories of liberal or conservative, modern or out-dated.
Our categories are orthodoxy or heterodoxy, the measure by which something
corresponds to the Gospel and to the God-given nature of man or distorts it.
The Church’s moral reflection is not simply a collection of teachings, more or
less related. Rather, ours is a sustained reflection in faith on Divine
Revelation, the Word of God which brings life and light. For this reason, the
Council observed: “Above all, the Church knows that her message is in harmony
with the most secret desires of the human heart when she champions the dignity
of the human vocation, restoring hope to those who have already despaired of
anything higher than their present lot. Far from diminishing man, her message
brings to his development light, life and freedom” (Gaudium
et spes, n. 21).
The
Instruction Dignitas personae
and Fundamental Bioethical Criteria
With
this vision of Gaudium
et spes in mind, let us now consider the teaching of the Church
on human life in more recent years, particularly as expressed in the
Instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled Dignitas
personae. In the twenty years since the publication of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, we have witnessed extraordinary advances
in bio-medical technology. On the one hand, research into the use of adult stem
cells and the development of new treatments for infertility have opened up new
possibilities which would have been considered impossible just a few years ago.
On the other hand, each new development in technology gives rise to new ethical
questions, not only in terms of the application of the Church’s moral teaching,
but often enough touching on the very nature of the human person. Consider, for
example, the host of moral implications which arise from embryonic stem cell
research, attempts at therapeutic cloning, or the practice of cryogenically
freezing tens of thousands of embryos.
It
was precisely to enable the Church to respond prudently to these new questions
that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided that a new survey
of the horizon of bioethics was necessary. The fruit of this survey, which
involved several years of study and consultation with the theological and
scientific communities, and especially with the Pontifical Academy of Life, was
the Instruction Dignitas
personae which was published in 2008. With this document, the
Congregation intended to offer the pastors, theologians, and faithful of the
Church an aid towards the correct formation of consciences and a measure by
which biomedical research could be judged in a way that truly respects both the
dignity of each and every human person and the dignity of human procreation.
Drawing
“upon the light both of reason and of faith and [seeking] to set forth an
integral vision of man and his vocation” (n. 3), the Instruction presents
rather succinctly two fundamental ethical criteria by which biomedical
questions should be evaluated. These two criteria concern the dignity owed the
human person and the intimately personal nature of the sexual act. Dignitas
personae articulates the first criterion in this way: “The human
being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception;
and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized,
among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human
being to life” (n.4). The second fundamental criterion follows from this: “The
origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family,
where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love
between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-a-vis the
child to be born must be the fruit of marriage” (n.6).
From
these two criteria, the whole of the Instruction’s reflection on complex
biomedical issues proceeds. The genius of these criteria, if I might say so, is
threefold.
First,
these criteria are simple. How many of our clergy perceive
bioethical issues as too complex or beyond their level of understanding? But
the principle of the dignity owed to the human person is straightforward and
unburdened by overly technical or medical jargon. It also happens to be true,
and so instilling this basic principle into our faithful empowers them to
confront specific bioethical issues in their own lives, whether in the media
discussion, at the ballot box, or in medical decisions facing family members.
Similarly,
the teaching about the uniquely personal nature of procreation and the sexual
act is marked by a compelling and beautiful simplicity. So many people ask why
the Church is so concerned with sex—they mean this as a criticism, of course.
The Church is so concerned with sex because sex has everything to do with love,
and God is love! There is plenty of loneliness, brokenness, and unhappiness in
the world. Yet often the Church is the only voice speaking to the cause
of that existential loneliness and unhappiness. The degradation of the sexual
act, reducing it to a function of pleasure, power, or control, demeans the
human person. The great lie of the sexual revolution is that sex always leads
to happiness and personal liberation. The sexual union of a man and a woman
does lead to integral fulfillment in its authentic context, which is when it is
open to new life within the life long bond of marriage. However, out-with this
context it invariably leads people into the desert of meaninglessness. In the
stark simplicity of our moral teaching and through the working of grace in the
sacrament of Penance, there is a tremendous power for liberation and happiness
if we can just communicate to people the intrinsic meaning of sex within the
Christian vision of love.
Secondly,
these fundamental moral criteria are recognizable as true by human reason.
At the heart of our bioethical and moral teaching is the conviction that the
Natural Moral Law is engraved on the heart and soul of each and every human
being. It is human reason, therefore, which ordains man to do good and to avoid
evil. Sadly, civil society is increasingly forgetful of this original moral
sense in its public discourse. For its part, the media nearly always portray
the teaching of the Church as sectarian or based entirely on articles of
faith—and often purposely so in an attempt to relativize and dismiss that
teaching. And yet, human reason, that great gift of our Creator, will not be so
thwarted! God created man a rational being who can initiate and control his own
actions. Because the dignity of the human person and the nature of human
sexuality are concepts accessible by reason, it is possible to set forth the
Church’s teaching in a convincing way that rouses the intellect from its
rational amnesia.
Thirdly, these criteria are reinforced
by our Christian faith. The revealed knowledge that the human
person is created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the Precious
Blood of Christ Jesus the Lord opens our moral and ethical reflection to an
eternal horizon. Human dignity takes on new, vibrant dimensions when man understands
himself as possessing “an eternal vocation...called to share in the Trinitarian
love of the living God” (n. 8). Human sexuality cannot be divorced from faith,
rather faith helps us discover its true meaning and beauty. From within a
prayerful meditation on the divine Mystery, we come to understand that
procreative acts “are a reflection of Trinitarian love. God, who is love and
life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in
his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father.. ..The
Holy Spirit who is poured out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian
couples the gift of a new communion of love that is the living and real image
of that unique unity which makes of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of
the Lord Jesus” (n. 9).
Conclusion: Teaching the
“Seamless Garment”
We
are all familiar with the image of the “seamless garment” which is used to
illustrate how Catholic moral teaching is a consistent whole - uniting ethical,
religious, and political threads in a unified moral vision. Attributed to
Cardinal Bernardin, the “seamless garment” image was used to great effect to
root the Church’s response to various moral issues - from nuclear proliferation
to poverty - within the overarching teaching on the sanctity of human life,
from natural conception to natural death. Unfortunately, however, it is also
true that the image of the “seamless garment” has been used by some theologians
and Catholic politicians, in an intellectually dishonest manner, to allow or at
least to justify turning a blind eye to instances of abortion, contraception,
or public funding for embryonic stem cell research, as long as these were
simultaneously accompanied by opposition to the death penalty or promotion of
economic development for the poor - issues which are also part of the fabric of
Catholic moral teaching.
Often
this abuse of the “seamless garment” theory stems from a natural tendency on
the part of some in the Church to look for “common ground” with the surrounding
culture; that is to say, to emphasize in their teaching and preaching those
elements of Catholic doctrine that are acceptable to the non-Catholic ambient
culture; for example, social justice, human rights, and other similar issues.
This is understandable and sometimes it is an appropriate pastoral strategy.
But what also must be taken into account is the difference which exists
between those elements of Catholic teaching that may be attractive to the
surrounding culture and those elements which are profoundly counter-cultural
and which Catholics
themselves need to hear proclaimed by their pastors.
There is a beautiful coherence to the
Church’s moral teaching, but that coherence can only be demonstrated, and its
truth apprehended, when the moral teaching of the Church is taught in its
entirety and lived out integrally. As the fundamental moral criteria
articulated in Dignitas
personae indicate, the separation of the sexual act from its
proper context is at the very core of many of the bioethical problems which
confront us today. The prophetic teaching of Humanae vitae both on human
dignity and on the intrinsic meaning of the sexual act is so important that
without it we cannot engage our faithful—to say nothing of the larger
society—in a coherent discussion of the problems and moral evil presented by
techniques of artificial fertilization, preimplantation diagnosis, cryogenic
freezing of embryos and “embryo reduction”, human cloning and the therapeutic
use of stem cells. Our teaching is based in an inspired vision of the meaning
of love wherein the sexual act finds its proper place as an expression of
nuptial intimacy and openness to the live- giving creativity of God. In
marriage, sex is an expression of love with a particular and intrinsic meaning.
Once the sexual act is removed from this defining context - the “seamless
garment” begins to unravel.
We
are told again and again by the media that a majority of the faithful have
rejected this teaching of the Church on the meaning of love and sex. I propose
to you that this not true. What many have rejected is but a caricature of the
Church’s teaching. The truth is that many have never heard the fullness of the
Church’s teaching, the profound “yes” to the sanctity of sexual love lived-out
in marriage and the family; the “yes” to responsible parenthood; the “yes” to
the dignity of the woman against manipulation by a process that views her body
as a problem to be overcome or circumvented.
Over
the last forty years, the so-called sexual revolution has led to the widespread
acceptance of a profoundly distorted understanding of sexual intercourse -
which in the minds of many is now denied any intrinsic meaning and reduced to a
merely pleasurable pursuit or a morally irrelevant activity. The experience of
the Church in this same period demonstrates that where the Church has tried to
accommodate her teaching to this secular understanding by deemphasizing the
specific witness of her moral teaching, this has lead neither to a greater
societal acceptance of the Church nor to a renewal in her own life. Rather
where the teaching of Humanae vitae has been down-played, or worse
still ignored, we have witnessed a collapse of family life, an increase in
extra-marital infidelity and a diminishment of vocations to the priesthood and
consecrated life.
On
the other hand, we have also seen that in those places where Catholic teaching
has been robustly presented, it has indeed taken root and has flowered in a
renewal of family life and a new vitality for the Church. In many respects,
this situation was foreseen and predicted by Humanae vitae as a
consequence of a contraceptive culture. These experiences have shown that the
only response of the Church to modernity has to be one which is completely
faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium, above all on matters of sexual
morality because this is precisely where doctrine touches life.
We
are to exercise our mission in such a way that faith is presented in its
entirety and integrity with particular attention to the interrelatedness of the
various aspects of our teaching. Yes, we fight for peace and justice in the
world, and at the same time we need to set forth persuasively the Church’s
vision of life, love and sexuality, including the intrinsic immorality of
abortion and contraception. If our teaching on the essential dignity of the
human person and the intrinsic meaning and value of the sexual act is not
presented in our schools, in homilies, by diocesan offices, in our Catholic
newspapers, in marriage preparation programs, how can we legitimately expect
that this vision will form consciences and equip our people to confront the
moral decisions in their own lives? Only through an integrated and enthusiastic
presentation of our teaching can we begin to reclaim the language and concept
of human rights as it relates to family life and especially to marriage as
constituted by one man and one woman.
In
the specific field of bioethics Bishops, moral theologians, researchers and
specialists have a vital role to play in the articulation of the Christian
vision of human dignity and the sanctity of human sexuality. We must work
together to promote an integrated vision of the faith which informs bioethical
considerations. With the strength offered by this global vision, Bishops may
engage physicians, medical researchers and health care professionals in a
dialogue based on truth and charity in order to promote a more human
civilization, a civilization of life and love. At the same time, if Catholic
theologians and medical professionals are to begin to combat the secular vision
of life dominant in the world of contemporary heath care, they must acknowledge
the normative role of Magisterial teaching.
Finally, the image of the “seamless
garment” reminds us that faith, worship, and life are interwoven. We know that
the Church’s moral teaching must be lived by fallen human beings prone to sin.
But where sin abounds, God’s grace abounds all the more! And so our teaching is
supported by frequent reference to the sanctifying power of the sacraments of
the Church. It is no small task to which we have been called, and it must be
said that this hopeful vision of human life in God, a vision captured by Gaudium et
spes and Dignitas personae, has found expression in the
renewal and resurgence of ecclesial life in many parts of the world. I hope and
pray that the Pontifical Academy of Life continues to play a vital role in this
renewal and in the promotion of the Gospel of Life. Thank you.
