3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2% - by Peter Saunders

August 18, 2013 ( PJ Saunders) - The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.

 

The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.

 

For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.

 

The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.

 

Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.

 ‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)

This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the risk of damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.

 

But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

 

Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.

 

Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).

 

122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21%. Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth.

 

These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).

 

In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:

‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’

In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.

 

Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.

 

If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.

 

But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.

Engineering our way to a eugenic future - by Philippa Taylor

In MercatorNet

The UK fertility regulator has proposed a "minor" procedure with momentous consequences which is legal nowhere else in the world

You may consider the following headline from a leading US newspaper blog last week to be rather extreme: "The British Embryo Authority and the Chamber of Eugenics". But when it is followed a week later by a news report in a British newspaper saying: "Lord Robert Winston warning over child ‘eugenics’", should we then take more notice?

The spur to these news reports was the publication of the UK fertility regulator’s report on whether to recommend mitochondrial manipulation in the UK. I have written about the proposed "treatment" for mitochondrial disorders in previous blogs (see here and in a CMF submission). Briefly, mitochondria replacement techniques, it is claimed, could enable parents to avoid passing debilitating and sometimes fatal mitochondrial diseases on to their children by using a donor’s mitochondria to create a healthy embryo (although it is a relatively rare disorder and only one child in 6,500 is affected by a serious mitochondrial disease).

This would be a form of germline genetic engineering. A child born following mitochondria replacement would share their DNA with three people: the male "donor" of the sperm, the female donor of the nuclear DNA and the female donor of the small number of mitochondrial DNA. Hence the headlines about three-parent babies.

The UK fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has been requesting views over the past year on whether these techniques should be made available to couples at risk of having an affected child. The HFEA has just concluded that: "Our advice to Government, set out in this report, is that there is general support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment setting and is done so within a regulatory framework."

So why the negative headlines about eugenics when this research could save lives and the HFEA seems to think it is safe enough to use?

1. This technique will not save the life of any child born with mitochondrial disorders. Indeed, children will still be born with mitochondrial disorders because it is not always possible to determine which child (embryo) will be affected, how severely and at what age. This research is not about treatment of affected individuals but about trying to create unaffected individuals through genetic manipulation of the germline.

2. No other country in the world allows this technique, using germline manipulation, to take place. Over 60 countries specifically prohibit human germline engineering because of its profound social, ethical and unpredictable safety consequences for future generations. (Any mistakes and unknown consequences will transmit to subsequent offspring and become part of their genome). Scientists in countries that have not yet adopted public policies on human germline modification have nevertheless observed the prohibition.

3. Once genetic manipulation of a human life is permitted – as it almost certainly will be in the UK now – even if just for these rare mitochondrial disorders, it will be impossible to hold a line to prevent germline intervention (and engineering) being carried out for other diseases, for other reasons, and for less serious disorders. Where will we draw the line?

4. Which brings us to my fourth point, and back to the beginning of this blog, that once we start to modify human lives, and cannot realistically hold a firm line, then we face a eugenic future.

This new form of eugenics (the improvement of humans by deliberately choosing their inherited traits) uses a kinder, gentler language, clothed with words such as choice and freedom, to enable the same inherently offensive and discriminatory distinctions that used to be made between the so-called "fit" and "unfit". Today many people believe they have not just a "right" to a child but also a right to choose a particular kind of child.

Along with access to new genetic technologies, there seems to be a greater willingness on the part of scientists and prospective parents to take risks with future lives and a readiness to pick and choose other characteristics.

Yet genetically changing a human person – however little or much – turns that human into a designed product, modifiable at will, without consent. Hence Robert Winston’s concern:

"Genetic technologies could be exploited in the future to produce more intelligent, stronger and attractive offspring… current controls will not be able to keep pace with advances in reproductive technologies… a form of eugenics could lead to people wanting to modify their children to enhance 'desirable characteristics' such as intelligence and beauty."

He adds that: "I think that the HFEA is not capable of regulating either the commercial aspects of reproductive technologies or the risks that people who undergo these technologies really run."

These concerns have been repeated by others, such as: Stuart Newman, a Professor of Cell Biology: "This attempt to improve future people is not medicine but a new form of eugenics. In its willingness to risk producing damaged offspring by modifying embryos’ genomes, this 'correctionist' eugenics goes even beyond the “selectionist” version."

They have also been voiced by several high profile academics in the UK and US who warn in a letter with the headline: "Eugenics fear over gene modification" that: "we should not cross this ethical line, since it is likely to lead to a future of genetically modified 'designer' babies."

Because of these four concerns, and indeed others not mentioned here, of the 1,836 responses to the public consultation by the HFEA a majority of respondents, (including the CMF) disagreed with the introduction of mitochondria replacement techniques and a majority argued against changing the law. This article has more analysis of the public responses and the HFEA’s rather misleading conclusion in its recommendation to Government.

We have warned frequently at CMF about our concerns with a "new" eugenics (a quick search on the CMF blog page will throw up a number) but this new research does take us one significant step closer, and this time there are many other people ringing the warning bells.

Humans, at whatever stage of life or ability, should be respected and accepted as equals not selected and designed (or improved) to fit another’s whim or will.

Society’s eugenic mindset and increasing obsession with celebrity status, physical perfection and high intelligence all fuels the view that the lives of people with disabilities or genetic disorders are somehow less worth living.

I’m writing this at Easter time and although this is out of context, this verse from Luke struck me with some poignancy when read at our Good Friday service, as I had been thinking about this particular issue: "Turning to them Jesus said. ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." Sadly, this may be all we can now do for the children who will one day be born of three genetic parents.

Um esclarecimento sobre “Terrível emergência pessoal (Carta aos amigos)” - por Nuno Serras Pereira

16. 04. 2013

Muitos se recordarão, ainda que vagamente, como eu, de uma narrativa de Eça de Queirós, que nos descreve uma família escutando um dos seus membros lendo em voz alta as notícias relativas a desastres e catástrofes relatadas pelo jornal. Nessas páginas de aguda perspicácia mostra-nos o autor como as reacções e intensidade das comoções de cada um não dependem da dimensão real da tragédia nem da profundidade do sofrimento alheio mas sim da proximidade geográfica e do maior ou menor conhecimento que se tem das vítimas. Assim, uma cheia diluviana que afogou centenas de milhares de chineses é encarada com a maior das indiferenças, talvez um leve bocejo, enquanto o torcimento de um tornozelo da vizinha provoca grande aflição e um enorme sobressalto.

Tão calejado e empedernido que estava, e ainda estou (ou estamos?), pela torrencialidade quotidiana de calamidades noticiadas por grandes meios de comunicação social, há uns anos atrás, morando eu no convento de S. José, em Campo de Ourique - poiso e remanso de grandes Missionários franciscanos, quando vinham recuperar forças, restabelecer a saúde e tratar de assuntos úteis e necessários às Missões africanas -, rebentou mais uma das inúmeras guerras, ou guerrilhas, a que a Guiné-Bissau nos acostumou. Confesso que não me deu grande cuidado a não ser o de rezar pelas vítimas e também pela Paz – era, tão só, ajuntado às orações usuais.

Ora sucede que por esse tempo tinha vindo a esmolas, para socorro das suas ovelhas, a cujo cheiro tresandava, o benigníssimo e provecto Bispo daquelas gentes, o franciscano D. Settimio Ferrazeta. Escusava-se à hora do jantar para ansioso escutar os telejornais sobre o que se passava com o seu povo. Como era mouco, em virtude da diminuição das capacidades auditivas e a sua vista estava muito enfraquecida, permanecia de pé com a cara praticamente colada ao ecrã, não ao centro, mas do seu lado esquerdo. A sua angústia e o seu sofrimento eram visíveis, a sua dor patente, a expressão do seu rosto comovia até às entranhas, era manifesto que experimentava a tragédia que se abatia sobre a sua Igreja, sobre cada um dos seus e dos que estavam destinados a conhecer Jesus Cristo, como sua. Os padecimentos daquele povo, eram os seus. Parecia mesmo vivê-los com maior intensidade do que aqueles que lá se encontrava. Aquele rosto era transparência do Amor de Jesus Cristo. A ele me rendi tão completamente, que aquilo que me era estranho e mais uma catástrofe entre muitas outras se transformou numa vivência existencial, num cuidado empenhado, numa preocupação constante, num comprometimento oracional mais sério e frequente. 

Quando na meditação imaginária(uma verdadeira forma de oração), que ontem redigi, falo de padecimentos que não são fruto de doença psiquiátrica nem de possessão demoníaca, uma vez que os tratamentos efectuados se mostraram impotentes para os remediar ou simplesmente aliviar, refiro-me a algo mais profundo, ou melhor Misterioso, que indico com as expressões “participante nos sofrimentos de Cristo” e, no final, “todas as injustiças que eles padecem se abatem sobre mim”. “Eles” são os que aparecem no sítio para que remete o link “Socorram-me, por Caridade”, isto é os embriões humanos, quer dizer as pessoas na fase inicial da sua vida, aqueles que tanto o Papa João Paulo II como Bento XVI afirmaram categoricamente ter o mesmo valor transcendente que qualquer um de nós. Eles são eu, eles são tu, são o teu melhor amigo, o teu mais querido familiar, melhor e mais ainda, eles são Jesus Cristo, que os Criou, por Eles Se fez homem, sofreu a Paixão e foi ignobilmente Crucificado. Por cada um deles, como por ti. Incorporados pelo Baptismo em Jesus Cristo, “completámos na nossa carne o que falta à Sua Paixão”, isto é, a ela somos associados para que a Redenção, em si completa e perfeita, se torne efectiva em nós e nos outros.

Quem socorre, pois, aos entre todos mais “periféricos”, para usar uma expressão do Papa Francisco, aos mais esquecidos, ignorados, abandonados, que não têm voz para se defender nem presença na comunicação social para se manifestarem e reivindicarem os seus direitos, acode-me a mim, muito mais, acode ao próprio Jesus Cristo.

Mas reconhecer a pessoa humano no seu estado embrionário, respeitá-la, protegê-la e amá-la é uma enorme Caridade que se faz também a todos aqueles que estão envolvidos, como perpetradores, nesta raivosa hecatombe, sem precedentes na história da humanidade. As horribilíssimas penas inomináveis que lhes estão destinadas, caso não se arrependam e se convertam, após o Juízo pessoal e universal, podem, de algum modo, ser carregadas por nós vicariamente (substituidamente) como uma Cruz que possa, sobrenaturalmente, influir nas suas liberdades escravizadas de modo a transformá-las em liberdade de tender para o Amor, para Deus. Também a esses sofrimentos me refiro na meditação de ontem.

Pelos vistos, não me expliquei bem no texto de ontem, pois deixei algumas pessoas em grande alvoroço preocupadas tão só por mim – creio que a sua excessiva amizade os detiveram nas feridas do dedo sem toparem que ele apontava a lua ensanguinhada. A culpa evidentemente foi minha que não revi o texto (confesso que também não o farei com este, pois custa-me tanto escrever que fico de tal modo esbodegado de cada vez que redijo qualquer insignificância, que não tenho forças, nem disposição, nem vontade par o fazer) e conclui-o abruptamente.

Mas não peço desculpa, porque estou confiado que Deus aproveitou o vosso susto e as vossas orações para tudo reverter em favor das pessoas no seu estado embrionário e dos grandes pecadores frios e implacáveis que as subjugam impiedosamente.

Estou verdadeiramente persuadido, em virtude da grande estima que me têm e do grande amor que nutrem por Jesus, que todos não só assinarão a petição Um de nós, como se empenharão em fazê-la chegar a muitos outros para que todos possam participar da infinita alegria de Deus.

À honra e glória de Cristo. Ámen.

Terrível emergência pessoal (Carta aos amigos) - por Nuno Serras Pereira

15. 04. 2013

A lastimosa aflição em que me encontro impede-me de ser eu mesmo a escrever-vos esta missiva. Limitei-me, com enorme custo, com muitos gemidos e suspiros, a esboçá-la a um confrade, dotado de grandíssima caridade, que me tem assistido neste horrível suplício em que me encontro - é ele, partindo não só do que eu disse mas da observação contínua e demorada que de mim tem feito, o redactor deste texto que assino.

 

Não há palavras que consigam descrever nem imagens que possam mostrar a ingente e profundíssima ansiedade e angústia que me assaltam com desmedida fúria raivosa. O quebranto inerme que de mim se apoderou paralisa todas as minhas faculdades. Sinto-me acossado por terrores nocturnos e pânicos diurnos. Não obstante o amparo de excelentes amigos, proeminentes psiquiatras, e toda a panóplia de medicação em que me encharcam, permaneço insone. Não há sequer choques eléctricos, último recurso para as depressões de maior gravidade, que me recomponham. Não há parte sã na minha mente… Tudo é negrume, tudo é desânimo, tudo é desespero.

Suspeitoso da medicina, recorri aos mais autorizados e poderosos exorcistas, mas em vão. Os indescritíveis e desmesurados tormentos que me possuem espatifando-me não são, assim o sentenciaram, provocados pelo diabo.

Mas as febres altíssimas, os suores gélidos, as convulsões frenéticas, os sufocos contínuos, as rigidezes cadavéricas, as exaustões esbodegadas, as sovas misteriosas que me escavacam, não me dão um instante de alívio, um momento de sossego. Experimento na minha pele, na minha carne, no meu coração dilacerado, na minha alma desmaiada, sevícias tamanhas que não duvido em afirmar que não há dor semelhante à minha dor, não há tribulação nem agrura como a minha. Isto, não é retórica, é mesmo assim.

Desculpem lá a expressão mas estou mesmo completamente à rasca, estou numa agonia sanguinolenta, e só os meus queridos amigos é que me podem valer. Poderão ajudar-me? Querem socorrer-me? Eu sei que é um sacrifício medonho o que vos imploro, mas a verdade é que, por mais espantoso que pareça, ninguém mais me poderá remediar… Nos meus caríssimos amigos está toda a minha Esperança! Valham-me, imploro-vos! Perdoem-me a debilidade, mas não me abandonem! Sem ti, estou perdido!

Como é que me podem acudir, a mim participante nos sofrimentos de Cristo?

Tudo o que fazes ao mais minúsculo a mim mesmo o fazes, e tudo aquilo em que não o socorres é a mim mesmo que não socorres: os embriões humanos têm direito ao mesmo respeito devido à criança já nascida e a qualquer outra pessoa (“ … o uso de embriões … como objecto de experimentação constitui um crime contra a sua dignidade de seres humanos, que têm direito ao mesmo respeito devido à criança já nascida e a qualquer pessoa.” (Bem-aventurado João Paulo II, Evangelium vitae, 63).

Socorram-me, por Caridade, que todas as injustiças que eles padecem se abatem sobre mim.

O Mais Pobre dos Pobres - por Pedro Vaz Patto

Mobilizar as consciências e as vontades dos cidadãos talvez não seja tão fácil quando estão em jogo vidas humanas na sua fase embrionária como quando estão em jogo vidas de crianças ou adultos já nascidos, eventuais vítimas da fome, da violência ou da opressão.

Mas será que se justifica uma discriminação deste tipo? Será que a pessoa humana na fase inicial da sua existência é menos digna de protecção?       

A partir da concepção, surge um ser com um património genético que lhe confere uma identidade humana indiscutível, um ser único e irrepetível, que inicia um percurso de crescimento gradual, contínuo e coordenado, em relação interactiva com o corpo da mãe. Nenhum de nós pode, obviamente, deixar de passar por essa fase inicial da sua vida.   

Nas fases iniciais da sua existência, a pessoa humana não é menos digna de protecção, é, sim, mais carente de protecção: porque não é visível, porque não pode comover-nos com a imagem e o som do sofrimento, porque é difícil que com ela nos identifiquemos (não recordamos essa fase da nossa vida, nem sequer a imaginamos), porque não pode defender-se ou reivindicar os seus direitos sozinha.

O nascituro (embrião ou feto) é “o mais pequeno dos meus irmãos” a que se refere Jesus no Evangelho. Madre Teresa de Calcutá chamou-lhe “o mais pobre dos pobres”. O ainda cardeal Joseph Ratzinger, em 19 de Dezembro de 1987, referiu-se-lhe como «aquele em relação ao qual podemos passar ao lado e fingir que não existe, a quem podemos fechar o coração e dizer que nunca existiu».

Num contexto de acentuado eurocepticismo, depois de à União Europeia (certamente também para contrariar esse espírito) ter sido atribuído o prémio Nobel da paz, celebra-se este ano o Ano da Cidadania Europeia. Como avivar um espírito de cidadania europeia activa neste contexto de descrença e cepticismo?

Já por várias vezes se salientou a importância de reforçar a consciência das raízes culturais europeias (claramente ligadas aos cristianismo) e dos valores éticos em torno dos quais assenta o projecto de unidade europeia (a dignidade da pessoa humana, os direitos humanos, a solidariedade, a unidade na diversidade). Só desse modo a unidade europeia pode entusiasmar e mobilizar as pessoas e os povos, para além dos egoísmos nacionais.

Ao falar de dignidade humana e direitos humanos, não pode deixar de ser evocado o direito à vida, como o primeiro desses direitos, que é pressuposto de todos os outros. O direito à vida está hoje particularmente ameaçado nas primeiras fases da vida humana, na fase pré-natal. Com o objectivo de garantir os direitos do ser humano na sua fase embrionária surgiu a Iniciativa Europeia de Cidadãos Um de nós. Este tipo de iniciativas está previsto no Tratado de Lisboa como expressão do exercício da cidadania europeia. Corresponde a uma proposta legislativa (a submeter ao Parlamento Europeu) subscrita por um mínimo de um milhão de pessoas de um mínimo de sete países da União Europeia.

Pretende esta iniciativa garantir que as normas da União Europeia (no âmbito de competência desta, onde não cabe a legislação sobre o aborto) garantam o direito à vida desde a concepção, excluindo o financiamento de actividades que impliquem a destruição de embriões humanos, especialmente nos âmbitos da investigação, da ajuda ao desenvolvimento e da saúde pública.

A protecção do embrião, como «sujeito e não objecto, fim e não meio, pessoa e não coisa» («um de nós»), é encarada como o culminar de um processo histórico gradual que conduziu à abolição da escravatura e das várias formas de discriminação entre diferentes categorias de pessoas. Pretende-se, deste modo, contribuir para eliminar a discriminação (que persiste) entre seres humanos nascidos e não nascidos.

A iniciativa partiu de vários movimentos de defesa da vida europeus. Em Itália, os dirigentes de vários movimentos católicos subscreveram, em nome desses movimentos, um manifesto de apoio à mesma. O Papa Bento XVI também lhe deu um apoio público no dia 3 de Fevereiro, poucos dias antes de renunciar ao seu ministério.

A adesão à iniciativa, com a assinatura respectiva pode efectuar-se através da Internet no sítio multilingue  www.oneofus.eu

Esta é uma forma de exercer a cidadania europeia e de despertar a consciência das raízes culturais da Europa e dos valores em que deve assentar um projecto autêntico e sólido de unidade europeia.

Human Life in some Documents of the Magisterium - by Most Rev. Gerhard L. Muller

February 22, 2013

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.