Utopia ou Ousadia? - por Pedro Vaz Patto

A ministra francesa dos direitos da mulher anunciou o propósito do seu governo de abolir a prostituição. Trata-se de seguir o chamado “modelo sueco”, que vigora desde 1999 e assenta na punição do proxenetismo e também do cliente de serviços de prostituição; no apoio à reinserção social das mulheres prostitutas; e no esforço pedagógico nos sentido de essa prática passar a ser encarada como um atentado aos direitos humanos. Esse modelo é hoje também seguido pela Noruega (desde 2008) e pela Islândia (desde 2009).

            A proposta não recolhe, como seria de esperar, um apoio unânime. Os argumentos contra este tipo de propostas são recorrentes: há que reconhecer a liberdade de a pessoa dispor do seu corpo; sempre haverá prostituição, que é um mal necessário até para evitar a violência sexual; mais vale regulá-la para reduzir os danos próprios da clandestinidade.

            Mas também são significativas, e diversificadas, as vozes que apoiam esta proposta.

            Uma delas vem de um portal dedicado à divulgação da visão de João Paulo II sobre o amor e a sexualidade (www.theologieducorps.fr). Apesar de ser também clara nesse portal a rejeição de outras propostas do governo socialista (como a legalização da eutanásia e do casamento e adopção por pares do mesmo sexo), nele se afirma o apoio claro a esta proposta. Invoca-se a dignidade da pessoa como um limite à liberdade; a liberdade não pode servir para renunciar à dignidade (como o reconheceu o Tribunal dos Direitos do Homem a propósito de um célebre jogo de feira que consiste em atirar uma pessoa anã como se fosse um qualquer objecto de arremesso). É de duvidosa autenticidade a expressão de liberdade de quem se prostitui (como de quem vende os seus próprios órgãos), na grande maioria dos casos sob pressão de graves dificuldades sócio-económicas. Encarar a prostituição como um mal necessário é fazer da mulher que se prostitui a vítima sacrificial da violência dos homens.

            Uma proposta deste tipo também recebeu apoio da revista Famille Chrétienne (www.famillechretienne.fr, 7/5/2011). Em Itália, a associação Papa João XXIII, que, desde a sua fundação pelo Pe. Oreste Benzi, apoia a reinserção social e familiar de mulheres vítimas da prostituição, também se pronunciou a favor da proposta do governo francês (Avvenire, 10/7/2012).

            Mas não deve pensar-se que apoios a este tipo de propostas vêm sobretudo de sectores católicos.

            A associação Abolition 2012 reúne 45 movimentos, sobretudo feministas, mas também de apoio social às mulheres prostitutas (entre outros, Le Mouvement du Nid, de que é congénere o Ninho, activo em Portugal desde há várias décadas), e parlamentares de vários partidos, sobretudo de esquerda. No seu manifesto, esta associação denuncia a prostituição como uma forma de violência e de exploração, baseada no ancestral domínio do homem sobre a mulher e dos ricos sobre os pobres. O consentimento não é, na prostituição, livre, mas sujeito a esse domínio.

            Nesta mesma linha, um outro manifesto Éradiquer la prostitution? Non, l´abolir (ver www.mediapart.fr, 7/7/2012), cuja primeira subscritora é a filósofa Sylvianne Agacinsky, considera a proposta como um avanço civilizacional, pois pretende pôr cobro a uma prática que é expressão de uma ordem arcaica que permite a imposição de uma relação sexual pela força do dinheiro, que garante ao homem com poder económico uma mulher à sua inteira disposição para satisfazer os seus desejos. Como não pode “roubar-se” um corpo, também não pode “vender-se” um corpo.

            Apontam os críticos do sistema sueco o facto de ele não ter feito desaparecer a prostituição, que se mantém de forma clandestina e mais escondida. Mas também nos países que legalizaram a prostituição a clandestinidade não desapareceu (além do mais, para evitar o pagamento de impostos ou manter o anonimato). Os relatórios do governo sueco atestam uma diminuição da prostituição para cerca de metade, o êxito dos programas de reinserção social e o desvio das redes de tráfico para outros países. Será utópico pensar que a prostituição será abolida apenas por causa da punição dos clientes, sem o apoio à reinserção social e sem a transformação de mentalidades. O sistema penal nunca fez, por si só, desaparecer a prática de crimes (já é bom que a contenha dentro de limites aceitáveis). Mas estas leis apontam para o caminho certo, um caminho semelhante ao que levou à abolição da escravatura, prática que durante muito tempos também foi vista como inevitável.

Malta’s bishops speak out against IVF

In AoM

Pastoral Letter – Celebrating Human Life

 

Cherishing Life

It is indeed positive to note that in our country, there has been an ongoing debate with respect to the way in which a number of couples can address the difficulty of infertilty.  This gives witness just to what extent we cherish human life.  This is even more appreciated when one realizes that in today’s age, in Europe, and in Malta too, a large part of society is stingy with respect to new life, in the sense that the birth rate is low.[1] It is admirable that our society expresses such enthusiasm, particularly in the case of those couples who are called upon to make great sacrifices.

As Bishops of Malta and Gozo, bearing in mind the cultural context of today’s society, we are addressing this Pastoral Letter primarily to the Catholic community of our country; but also to our Maltese and Gozitan brothers and sisters of goodwill who genuinely hold Catholic teachings at heart.[2] It is our duty as spiritual shepherds of this community to guide those Catholics (in the first place, married couples who are experiencing difficulty with procreation, as well as other persons who work in the field of science, politics and the law), in order that they may form their consciences rightly on a subject such as human life, a subject which is so sacred and fundamental.

It is normal for a newly wedded couple to desire children.  It is often the case that when faced with the problem of infertility, a couple feels that it has failed.  This sense of failure is aggravated if this condition arises as a consequence of certain choices which the couple would have made in the past.

As Bishops, we empathize with these couples and we wish to remind them that the fact that they are childless does not mean that their mission as a married couple has been unsuccessful.  We all know of couples who, in spite of being childless, have proved to be worthy in other areas of their lives.  Yet this does not resolve their great desire to communicate their love by becoming parents.  For this reason, we appeal to men of science to carry on with their research, leading them to seek solutions which are ethically and morally good, in order that these married couples may fulfill their genuine and valid desire to become parents.  In our appeal, we are reiterating that which His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stated a few months ago while he was addressing scientists gathered to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. While praising the intellectual honesty of the scientists who seek truth,  he also felt the need to make the following observation: “Scientism and the logic of profit seem effectively to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation today, even to the point of limiting many other areas of research”.[3]

YES to Life

The Church is the Institution which favours life more than any other institution in the world.  It insists that the value of human life must remain untarnished and the Church defends it from the very moment of conception, always striving to bring to light the unique dignity of the human being.  This is in accordance with the will of God, who alone is the Lord of life.  The Church recognizes that human life is not a ‘product’ which may be fashioned, built, used and brushed aside.[4] The Church teaches that no one can “use” a person, at whatever stage of his development, right from the first moment of his existence until the moment of his natural death, whatever his condition. If this fundamental respect is over-looked, science becomes man’s enemy. The Church is fully aware of her duty to defend those who are vulnerable and to give a voice to the voiceless.  The Church strongly reiterates its ‘yes’ to life, particularly when life is at it’s weakest point, such as when a person’s development is in its early stages.

It is in this light that the Church, bearing in mind the principles of natural reason, and confirmed by Revelation, has always insisted upon the fact that science is to be at the authentic service of humanity.  Scientific development must progress within such limits which ensure that fundamental respect towards the person is never lacking, otherwise it becomes an enemy of the human being.

The Church has always taught that authentic service to humanity and the protection and promotion of his dignity cannot be guaranteed unless one abides by the principles of truth about mankind.  This is explained very clearly by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in veritate.  In fact, the Church has always taken loving initiatives (Caritas) in favour of mankind in the light of the truth about the human person.  Charity and truth go hand in hand; it is truth which ensures authentic charity.
The Church has the right and duty to proclaim its moral judgment upon research and upon technical methods used for human reproduction.  By so doing, she is in no way interfering in the scientific field; rather she is fulfilling her mission of bringing to the attention of one and all, the ethical and social responsibilities which arise from any action taken in respect of human beings.

The Truth protects Life

What is the ethical truth regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF) which the Catholic Church, out of love for mankind, and together with all its members, has the duty to proclaim as part of its mission?

According to the teachings of the Church, any medical methods which are used to cure infertility should be based  upon a profound respect for the following three fundamental values:

The value of life and the physical integrity of every person. This must be protected from the very moment of conception until the moment of natural death of the human person, more so when the person is in a vulnerable state.  Any form of discrimination with respect to different stages of life cannot be justified and must be upheld like any other form of discrimination.[5] “From conception, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already”.[6] Some months ago, this most important value was acknowledged at a civil level, that is, human life must be safeguarded from the moment of conception (embryos).[7]

The value of conjugal unity. This unity is manifest in the respect which the married couple foster for one another; in recognizing that in their marriage, they have the right to become parents.  The married man and woman, through their reciprocal gift of love, bring one another to perfection when they cooperate with the Creator in the conception and bearing of children.  For this reason, any couple which accepts a third party to participate in the process of artificial fertilization is in effecting constituting a rupture of their conjual unity, their conjugal fidelity; it also obstructs the right of the married couple to become parents exclusively through their mutual co-operative action.

The value of human sexuality in marriage. The conception of a human person should be the outcome of the mutual self-giving love of the married couple  This gift is realized through their sexual intimacy, an action through which the man and the woman become “one body”.  Therefore, bearing in mind this value, the conception of new life cannot be treated solely as a biological act.  Neither can it be a technical process which produces embryos as if they were objects.  The gift of human life should be eagerly accepted in marriage, which is the ideal and most natural situation for conception to take place, through personal acts which are exclusive and specific to married men and women.  This is in conformity with the teachings of the Church which state that “there is an inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”.[8]

Therefore, every technical method which replaces the personal conjugal act fails to respect the dignity of the human person and of the unity of marriage and so this is not acceptable.  On the other hand,  such technical methods are acceptable when they aid the personal conjugal act to achieve its aim, that is to concieve human life.[9]

The natural law safeguards life

The IVF method calls for the creation of several embryos in order for the desired child to be born.  Even though a number of these embryos are not killed deliberately, but die a ‘natural’ death shortly after they are concieved, the fact remains that several embryos are being sacrificed and instrumentalized so that a child may be born. Both this procedure, as well as the method in which human embryos are being selected in order that a child may be born, confirms that the process, in itself, infringes upon human dignity.  Everything points to the fact that in vitro fertilization methods, which at first glance seem to be at the service of life, are in fact, actually a threat to human life.

At times the scientific process involves the freezing of superfluous embryos (concieved through IVF) which are not selected to be implanted in the mother’s womb (cryo-preservation).  The Church makes it clear that it does not consider the freezing of embryos to be an acceptable solution. The document, Donum Vitae, which was previously referred to states clearly that:  “The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo – cryopreservation – constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible”.[10]

Parents can never concede to the freezing of their children.  By so doing they would be shirking their responsibility as parents.  On the other hand, if their ‘offspring’ is frozen without their consent, they would be unfairly deprived of their responsibility as parents. Through the freezing of these embryos, mankind is creating new orphanages.  Besides this, the future of these frozen embryos is very bleak.  The embryo, even while it is frozen, is still in possession of certain unalienable rights.  A democratic society is duty-bound to oversee that the laws which protect these embryos are observed.

In some areas, it is being suggested that in order to mitigate the dangers of frozen embryos, such embryos which are not implanted in the mother’s womb are put up for adoption.  This is not a solution either because serious complications of a medical, psychological and legal nature may arise; this also poses greater ethical problems.

The IVF process involves methods which at times considers the person, who is still at the embryonic stage, to be merely “a mass of cells” which may be used, selected and dispensed with.  Many times, a significant number of human embryos are sacrificed for the sake of the birth of the desired child. Such in vitro fertilization practices constitute the meditated and direct destruction of innocent human life.  The Church Magisterium has always considered this destruction of embryos to be abortive.  Blessed John Paul II teaches that:  “Procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”.[11]

Therefore the above-mentioned practices cannot be morally justified in any way and under no circumstances.  It is never morally permissible for a bad action (in this case, the destruction of a number of embryos) to atone for a good cause (in this case, the conception and birth of a desired child).  It is a well-known moral principle that the end does not justify the means.

Human life should be safe-guarded and its integrity promoted from the very moment of conception.  This obligation stems from the dignity of the human person which is at the foundation of all human rights.  Therefore, this is an obligation which stems from the principles of natural law. Every person, because he is a person, has an inherent dignity which must be acknowledged and respected by others. For this reason, civil law would be just or unjust not based upon whether it agrees or disagrees with the religious ethical code, but if it is not in conformity with the human ethical code.  This human ethical code, also referred to as the natural law, does not depend upon positive parliamentary legislation; even more so, it cannot be tarnished or brushed aside by a majority vote in parliament.

It is a fact that in our country, the practice of IVF is widespread.  It has just been reported that during the last 22 years, 750 women became pregnant through this method.  It is also a well-known fact that where civil laws do not regulate the practice of IVF, there is great disorder.  In continuation to what we stated earlier, we feel that civil law in respect of assisted procreation should aim to safe-guard the three values we have already mentioned, ie. the value of life and physical integrity of every person, the value of the unitive aspect of marriage and the value of human sexuality in marriage.

A law which does not safe-guard these values is morally wrong.  There are different levels of ethical gravity emanating out of a law that does not respect these values. For this reason, men of goodwill who are responsible to draw up legislation are duty-bound in conscience to try and achieve the best possible benefits, or as far as possible, to mitigate dangers.

Solidarity with couples who wish to accept the gift of life

The Church, in deep solidarity with couples who are facing problems of infertility, desires that science will continue to develop and offer such technical methods which, without replacing the conjugal act, assist the couple’s fertility processes.  It is the hope of the Church that couples who are combatting infertility will not taken advantage of either psychologically nor financially, especially since their situation already poses enough stress as it is.

The Church is heavily committed in several ways to assist couples who are facing such a situation and to offer proper guidance on the real nature of their condition. First of all, the Church steadfastly encourages couples not to concede to the temptation of taking “easy” solultions simply because these seem technically possible. Not only are these solutions morally wrong, but they are susceptible to danger in that they are to the detriment of the physical and mental health of the couple, most especially the woman.  The Church is also committed to take initiatives that are morally good, in order to assure the utmost respect towards strengthening the couple and towards human life.  Finally, it would be extremely helpful if one were to embark upon a serious scientific study with respect to the cause and prevention of infertility.

For this reason, the Church makes an appeal to all people and reminds them of their obligation to form their conscience properly.  An authentic Christian conscience is formed in the light of the principles of natural law mentioned above and in conformity with the teachings of the Church.  Catholics with a morally and correctly formed conscience are called upon to give witness to the Truth of Love, and this love is confirmed by the same truth.

In this respect we wish to address those couples who have overcome infertility problems by adopting or accepting to foster children.  Their generosity is most exemplary and praiseworthy.  These couples offer hope not only to those children whom they have welcomed into their lives and who are being reared with love and care, but also to those couples, who similarly, are hoping to be parents.

The Church holds close to her heart all those children who are born as a result of IVF methods and confirms that they are still children of God, even if the methods through which they were concieved go against Church teachings and against human dignity.  The Church urges the parents of these children to trust in God’s mercy and to seek the road to self-reconciliation, in line with their call and mission as parents.

We pray for God’s blessing upon all married couples and families of our country and also upon all those who cherish and labour in favour of human life.

Today, 26th July, 2012 Memorial of St Joachim and St Anne.

+ Paul Cremona O.P.

Archbishop of Malta

+ Mario Grech

Bishop of Gozo

.

Click here to view the Pastoral Letter in PDF version.
.

[1]In EU countries, the birth rate is 1.59, a litte higher than ten years ago, however in Malta is decreased from 1.77 in 1999 to 1.38 in 2010. See Eurostat,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdde220&plugin=0.

[2] Joseph Mercieca and Nikol Cauchi, “Declaration on Artificial Insemination”, 26th July 1995; ibid., “Declaration on Ethical Problems  Related To Assisted Reproduction”, 4th February  2005; ibid., “Declaration on the Protection of Human Life from Conception”, 1st July 2005;  Joseph Mercieca, “The Dignity and Integrity of Human Life”, 21st September 2005; Paul Cremona and Mario Grech, “Pastoral Letter for Advent 2010, The place of the Crib in our families”, 27th  November 2011; Mario Grech, “The sorrow of couples who are unable to bear children”, 30th March 2012.

[3] Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 25th February 2012, par. 2. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120225_acdlife_en.html.

[4] Ibid. par. 5.

[5] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 18th November 1974, par. 12.

[6] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, 22nd February 1987, par. I.1 which quotes from the Declaration on Procured Abortion of the same Congregation, 18th November 1974, par. 12.

[7] European Court of Justice, Oliver Brustle vs Greenpeace, 18th October 2011 decided that human embryos deserved to be respected with human dignity.

[8] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae, 25th July 1968 par. 12. This teaching is repeated in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, 22nd February 1987, p IIB4a

[9] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, Instruction on certain bioethical situations, 8th Settembru 2008, par. 12

[10] Par. I.6.

[11] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 25th March 1995, par. 58

 

Argentina: Bendicen cementerio para niños no nacidos

BUENOS AIRES, 20 Jul. 12 / 04:49 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- El Arzobispo de San Juan de Cuyo (Argentina), Mons. Alfonso Delgado, bendijo un espacio para sepultar a niños no nacidos en el cementerio parque El Palmar, del departamento de 9 de Julio, con el cual, señaló, se está "realizando un acto de profunda humanidad".

"El Dios de todos los hombres bendiga este lugar santo, que nos habla de la vida, de la dignidad de todo ser humano, de amor, de perdón, de fe, de conversión y de vida eterna", expresó el Prelado, que animó a los padres y madres "a visitar este lugar, a darles un nombre a esos hijos, a quererlos" y a encomendarse al Padre a través de ellos.

"Se trata de los niños fallecidos antes de nacer, independientemente del motivo de su deceso", destacó. 

"Ellos son seres humanos, tan humanos como cada uno de nosotros, cuyos restos mortales merecen el mismo trato que desearíamos para nosotros, en sintonía con la más plena dignidad humana", añadió. 

Por ello felicitó a las autoridades locales por ceder un espacio en el cementerio, pues "este lugar es un ámbito donde se dignifica vida humana" y donde se recuerda "que la vida del hombre tiene un destino inmortal, que Dios quiere que sea inmensamente feliz, aunque deja en nuestras manos la libertad para aceptar esa felicidad o rechazarla".

The Importance of Dignity: A Reply to Steven Pinker - by Christopher Kaczor

In The Public Discourse

From its ancient Stoic origins to its modern Kantian formulations, human dignity is an important concept for sound ethical thinking. We must distinguish dignity as attributed, dignity as intrinsic worth, and dignity as flourishing.

Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist, is well known for his 2008 article in the New Republic titled “The Stupidity of Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics, in its Human Dignity and Bioethics, had underscored the importance of dignity in contemporary ethical discussion, and Pinker wanted to reject it wholesale. Pinker criticizes the use of dignity for a variety of reasons and holds that we should replace “dignity” with “autonomy” in bioethics discussions. His arguments still enjoy great purchase in our intellectual culture today, but they are fallacious and inconsistent in a variety of ways. And it is important for us to see how they fail and to understand why dignity matters.

So, what argument does Pinker give against making use of dignity in discussing issues of bioethics? He writes,

First, dignity is relative. One doesn’t have to be a scientific or moral relativist to notice that ascriptions of dignity vary radically with the time, place, and beholder. In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. We chuckle at the photographs of Victorians in starched collars and wool suits hiking in the woods on a sweltering day, or at the Brahmins and patriarchs of countless societies who consider it beneath their dignity to pick up a dish or play with a child.

Pinker fails to realize that autonomy is also relative. Kant, the originator of the contemporary emphasis on autonomy, considered it always contrary to autonomy, the self-given universal law of practical reason, to commit suicide or to have sexual activity of any kind outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. Contemporary advocates of using autonomy as the basis for ethics reject these positions with scorn. Now autonomy is used to attempt to justify physician-assisted suicide as well as freedom of “sexual expression.” So, if dignity cannot be used in bioethics because it has been understood in various ways over the ages, this standard likewise excludes appealing to autonomy in bioethical disputes.

Second, Pinker notes that dignity is fungible:

The [President’s] Council and [the] Vatican treat dignity as a sacred value, never to be compromised. In fact, every one of us voluntarily and repeatedly relinquishes dignity for other goods in life. Getting out of a small car is undignified. Having sex is undignified. Doffing your belt and spread-eagling to allow a security guard to slide a wand up your crotch is undignified.

But Pinker’s premise also renders autonomy problematic, since autonomy too is fungible. Soldiers give up autonomy when they enlist for military service. Employees give up autonomy when they sign contracts agreeing to perform certain services and refrain from doing other activities that constitute a conflict of interest. Police officers, FBI agents, and politicians relinquish autonomy when they swear to enforce the laws of our nation. Lawyers and psychologists give up autonomy in speech in preserving client or patient confidentiality. Do the actions of these people reveal that autonomy is a trivial value, well worth trading off for money, public order, confidentiality, the good of raising children, or health?

Third, Pinker argues that dignity can be harmful. He writes,

In her comments on the Dignity volume, Jean Bethke Elshtain rhetorically asked, “Has anything good ever come from denying or constricting human dignity?” The answer is an emphatic “yes.” Every sashed and be-medaled despot reviewing his troops from a lofty platform seeks to command respect through ostentatious displays of dignity. Political and religious repressions are often rationalized as a defense of the dignity of a state, leader, or creed: Just think of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Danish cartoon riots, or the British schoolteacher in Sudan who faced flogging and a lynch mob because her class named a teddy bear Mohammed. Indeed, totalitarianism is often the imposition of a leader’s conception of dignity on a population, such as the identical uniforms in Maoist China or the burqas of the Taliban.

However, it is even more obvious that autonomy can be harmful. Consider the case of Desmond Hatchett who, before the age of thirty, exercised his sexual autonomy by fathering twenty-one children with eleven different women. Exercising her reproductive autonomy in similarly irresponsible fashion, Nadya Suleman, unemployed and unmarried, used in vitro fertilization to add eight more babies to join her other six young children at home. Drug abusers exercise their autonomy in harming themselves physically and mentally, often to the point where they become a drain on society. Politicians regularly exercise their autonomy in such a way as to cause unreasonable taxes, unfair laws, and unjust wars for their own political gain. Indeed, misuse of autonomy causes more harm, arguably much more harm, than misuse of dignity.

A fourth and unoriginal argument from Pinker for abandoning dignity echoes Ruth Macklin, who highlights the ambiguous ways in which the term “dignity” has been used in bioethics. The ambiguity of the term is an important issue that deserves serious consideration, something that Pinker himself fails to offer. He also fails to notice that “autonomy” is used in a variety of ways, so the difficulty of ambiguous terms is not unique to the term “dignity.” Does “autonomy” mean anything actually desired by the agent, even if the agent is brainwashed or under the influence of drugs? Does autonomy mean “informed consent” (which itself is a term used in various ways)? Does autonomy means rational, self-given law, so that an irrational request cannot be considered autonomous? Indeed, there is no term that cannot be used ambiguously. Admittedly, “dignity,” in the contemporary discussion, is even more prone to ambiguous usage than “autonomy,” but this is hardly ground for dismissing it entirely or for prejudicially abandoning attempts at disambiguation.

Disambiguation of the term dignity is done quite well by Daniel P. Sulmasy, in the very book Pinker criticizes. Sulmasy distinguishes dignity as attributed, dignity as intrinsic worth, and dignity as flourishing. Dignity as attributed is the worth human beings confer on others or on themselves. Attributed dignity comes in degrees and is at issue in some of the examples raised by Pinker in his argument that dignity can be harmful. Dignity as intrinsic worth is understood by Sulmasy as “the value that human beings have simply by virtue of the fact that they are human beings” rather than in virtue of performance, health, wealth, location, or social status. Dignity as flourishing is understood as the excellence of a human life consistent with, and expressive of, intrinsic dignity.

This simple disambiguation removes the alleged contradictions seen by Pinker. Slavery and degradation are morally wrong because they take away someone’s dignity as flourishing. Nothing you can do to a person, including enslaving or degrading him, can take his intrinsic dignity away. Dignity as attributed reflects excellence, striving, and conscience, so that only some people achieve it by dint of effort and character. Everyone, no matter how lazy, evil, or mentally impaired, has intrinsic dignity in full measure, but not dignity as flourishing or as attributed.

Even if we can successfully disambiguate the term, why is dignity important? The concept of dignity does a better job than autonomy in describing and accounting for the intrinsic value of every human being. We are valuable not simply because of our choices, and still less do we have value only while we are exercising our autonomy. We have value even when we are not choosing or cannot choose. In his 2009 Tanner Lectures at UC Berkeley, “Dignity, Rank, and Rights,” Jeremy Waldron pointed out that in ancient times dignity was accorded in particular to persons regarded as royalty or nobility. Noble persons were accorded rights, privileges, and immunities that accorded with their elevated rank. Contemporary society at its best does not reduce the noble but elevates the commoner, making every single human person equal in rank to the Duke or Lady. Although these ideals are often imperfectly realized in our society, still Waldron has a point when he writes, “we are not like a society which has eschewed all talk of caste; we are like a caste society with just one caste (and a very high caste at that): every man a Brahmin. Every man a duke, every woman a queen, everyone entitled to the sort of deference and consideration, everyone’s person and body sacrosanct, in the way that nobles were entitled to deference or in the way that an assault upon the body or the person of a king was regarded as a sacrilege.” The term dignity better captures than most, if not all, other terms the elevated status of the human person.

Do we have any reason for ascribing to all human beings such intrinsic dignity? In an earlier essay, I suggested that there are a number of ways to argue for the proposition that all human beings are endowed with intrinsic dignity and certain inalienable rights. The first is that our dignity should be based on who we are, the kind of being that we are, rather than on how we are functioning in the moment. Dignity should be based on our membership in the human family, rather than on any particular performative activity in which we could engage. Our functioning, whether it be understood in terms of our ability to experience pleasure and pain, or our consciousness, or our intelligence, comes in many degrees. If we think that our value as persons is based on a degreed characteristic, an accident in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics, then we cannot secure equal basic dignity and equal basic rights for all persons. We should therefore base our fundamental ethical judgments on the substantial identity of who we are rather than on any accidental degreed quality. Since all human beings are endowed with the same nature, members of the same kind—homo sapiens—they all share equally basic rights and dignity.

Christopher Kaczor is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University and the author of The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Routledge 2011). This piece is adapted from his remarks delivered at the conference “Radical Emancipation” sponsored by the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture on the campus of the University of Notre Dame on November 10-12, 2011, and an article in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.

Brilliant documentary - Fighting the Scourge of Pornography

Pornography—or Persons as Objects

Benedict XVI Supports Adult Stem Cells Research

In Vatican.va

12. 11. 2011

Dear Brother Bishops,
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests,
Dear Friends,

I wish to thank Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, for his kind words and for promoting this International Conference on Adult Stem Cells: Science and the Future of Man and Culture. I would also like to thank Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Health Workers, and Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life for their contribution to this particular endeavour. A special word of gratitude goes to the many benefactors whose support has made this event possible. In this regard, I would like to express the Holy See’s appreciation of all the work that is done, by various institutions, to promote cultural and formative initiatives aimed at supporting top-level scientific research on adult stem cells and exploring the cultural, ethical and anthropological implications of their use.

Scientific research provides a unique opportunity to explore the wonder of the universe, the complexity of nature and the distinctive beauty of life, including human life. But since human beings are endowed with immortal souls and are created in the image and likeness of God, there are dimensions of human existence that lie beyond the limits of what the natural sciences are competent to determine. If these limits are transgressed, there is a serious risk that the unique dignity and inviolability of human life could be subordinated to purely utilitarian considerations. But if instead these limits are duly respected, science can make a truly remarkable contribution to promoting and safeguarding the dignity of man: indeed herein lies its true utility. Man, the agent of scientific research, will sometimes, in his biological nature, form the object of that research. Nevertheless, his transcendent dignity entitles him always to remain the ultimate beneficiary of scientific research and never to be reduced to its instrument.

In this sense, the potential benefits of adult stem cell research are very considerable, since it opens up possibilities for healing chronic degenerative illnesses by repairing damaged tissue and restoring its capacity for regeneration. The improvement that such therapies promise would constitute a significant step forward in medical science, bringing fresh hope to sufferers and their families alike. For this reason, the Church naturally offers her encouragement to those who are engaged in conducting and supporting research of this kind, always with the proviso that it be carried out with due regard for the integral good of the human person and the common good of society.

This proviso is most important. The pragmatic mentality that so often influences decision-making in the world today is all too ready to sanction whatever means are available in order to attain the desired end, despite ample evidence of the disastrous consequences of such thinking. When the end in view is one so eminently desirable as the discovery of a cure for degenerative illnesses, it is tempting for scientists and policy-makers to brush aside ethical objections and to press ahead with whatever research seems to offer the prospect of a breakthrough. Those who advocate research on embryonic stem cells in the hope of achieving such a result make the grave mistake of denying the inalienable right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death. The destruction of even one human life can never be justified in terms of the benefit that it might conceivably bring to another. Yet, in general, no such ethical problems arise when stem cells are taken from the tissues of an adult organism, from the blood of the umbilical cord at the moment of birth, or from fetuses who have died of natural causes (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae, 32).

It follows that dialogue between science and ethics is of the greatest importance in order to ensure that medical advances are never made at unacceptable human cost. The Church contributes to this dialogue by helping to form consciences in accordance with right reason and in the light of revealed truth. In so doing she seeks, not to impede scientific progress, but on the contrary to guide it in a direction that is truly fruitful and beneficial to humanity. Indeed, it is her conviction that everything human, including scientific research, "is not only received and respected by faith, but is also purified, elevated and perfected" (ibid., 7). In this way science can be helped to serve the common good of all mankind, with a particular regard for the weakest and most vulnerable.

In drawing attention to the needs of the defenceless, the Church thinks not only of the unborn but also of those without easy access to expensive medical treatment. Illness is no respecter of persons, and justice demands that every effort be made to place the fruits of scientific research at the disposal of all who stand to benefit from them, irrespective of their means. In addition to purely ethical considerations, then, there are issues of a social, economic and political nature that need to be addressed in order to ensure that advances in medical science go hand in hand with just and equitable provision of health-care services. Here the Church is able to offer concrete assistance through her extensive health-care apostolate, active in so many countries across the globe and directed with particular solicitude to the needs of the world’s poor.

Dear friends, as I conclude my remarks, I want to assure you of a special remembrance in prayer and I commend to the intercession of Mary, Salus Infirmorum, all of you who work so hard to bring healing and hope to those who suffer. I pray that your commitment to adult stem cell research will bring great blessings for the future of man and genuine enrichment to his culture. To you, your families and your collaborators, as well as to all the patients who stand to benefit from your generous expertise and the results of your work, I gladly impart my Apostolic Blessing. Thank you very much!

“Pornography and prostitution are crimes against humanity” - Benedict XVI

On the occasion of the arrival of the new German ambassador to the Vatican, Benedict XVI warns: “A society is humane only if it defends the dignity of each person”

In Vatican Insider

Alessandro Speciale

In a pluralistic society, the Catholic Church is convinced that it is duty bound “to intervene in favor of the values that are valid for man as such, independently of the various cultures” - values the Church knows “through its faith” but which at which all men can arrive through reason alone, regardless of faith.

Pope Benedict XVI touched upon themes he had addressed in his discourse to the Bundestag in Berlin, on the occasion of the arrival in the Vatican of the new German ambassador, Reinhard Schweppe. The traditional audience to consign the Letter of Credentials became an occasion, for the German pontiff, to relaunch an appeal in defense of man, because – he said - “only a society that respects and defends unconditionally the dignity of every person, from conception until natural death, can call itself a humane society”.

But the Pope's strongest words were reserved for the “sexual discrimination against women”, pornography and prostitution, likened to “crimes against humanity”. They are the consequence, says the Pope, of the “materialistic and hedonistic tendencies” that are spreading above all in the “so-called Western world”, that is, the sexual discrimination against women.

“Every person”, admonished Benedict XVI, “whether man or woman, is destined to exist for the others. A relationship that does not respect men and women's equal dignity, constitutes a grave crime against humanity. It is time to make a vigorous effort to stem prostitution, as well as the widespread diffusion of material with erotic or pornographic content, also on the Internet”.

Regarding this point, he assured, “the Holy See will see to it that the commitment of the Catholic Church in Germany against these evils is brought forward in a clear and decisive manner”.

The Pope's reference to the issues are anything but coincidental: last week, the weekly “Die Welt” accused the German Church of making money through the sale of pornographic books, through the publishing house Welbild, one of the largest in Germany, and which belongs to several German dioceses. The publisher's catalogue includes some 2,500 erotic titles, with covers that are anything but modest. The scandal had already been pointed out in 2008 by a document prepared by numerous faithful, but without effect.

But in his speech, as he had done in his trip to his homeland last September, Pope Ratzinger also reasons about the contribution - which for him is fundamental – of faith to common life. And as he did before the German parliament, he recalled the dark period of Nazi dictatorship, to warn Germans of the risks of separating power from values.

And yet, he warned, “today, once more, there is discussion about the fundamental values of the human being, involving the dignity of man as such. Here the Church, beyond the realm of her faith, considers it her duty to defend, throughout all of our society, the truth and values, in which the dignity of man as such is at stake”.

The reference is to the bioethical questions at the center of a heated debate in Germany in the past few months. In particular, the German Catholic Church has committed herself fully – though unsuccessfully – against the legalization of a limited form of 'pre-implantation diagnosis' of the illnesses that an embryo might bear.

For the Pope, a society that “wishes to decide to select its members who are most in need of care, wanting to exclude persons from becoming a person, would be acting in a profoundly inhumane and non-credible manner before the equality of the dignity of all people at every stage of life, evident to any person of goodwill”.

If the Church intervenes in the legislative process on these themes, it is because “fundamental questions that regard the dignity of man” are at stake, and not to “indirectly impose its faith on others”.