First of all, I thank Richard M. for his posting yesterday on the release of the Instruction Dignitas Personae issued by the Holy See. I also thank Michael P. and Rick for their contributions on this matter. In a small service to our contributors and readers, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a brief synopsis of the Instruction. In doing so, I must be transparent in declaring that I have no financial interest in the outcome of this debate; however, I do have a great interest in helping to develop a better understanding of the issues which this document contains that have a bearing on the development of Catholic Legal Theory—especially as they deal with the concept of human nature that is inextricably related to authentic human dignity.
Here I recall that several of us have previously discussed the issue of human dignity. Nevertheless, in reading the Instruction, I am convinced that it presents in a coherent fashion a discussion that is crucial to a proper understanding of human dignity, i.e., that human dignity is important because the idea of human dignity emerges from the nature of the human being and that which makes the human being. The text, in short, is a much-needed presentation about human ontology. I recall here what Pope John Paul II and Jacques Maritain have said in the past regarding human dignity: it is that which is due man because he is man. In short, human dignity is the recognition of what is due each member of the human family because each is a human being who, regardless of the many things that make us different from one another, is a member of this family and whose origin and destiny are shared with every other member of the family. This is a point that the present day world is reluctant to discuss or admit not because of a lack of understanding but in disregard of it. So, I begin by suggesting that the first important point made by the instruction is this underlying principle and truth that it advances about human nature.
The Instruction correctly, in my estimation, acknowledges the importance of biomedical research to enhancing and protecting the dignity of the human person. For those of us who may struggle with life-threatening illnesses or medical conditions, this is good news and Good News, indeed! In addition, the instruction offers important teaching to assist Catholics and all people of good will to understand better the role that developments in medical science can and will have on the formulation of public policy in whose development we, as citizens, participate. Thus, the instruction has special application to the formation of the well-formed conscience of those who shall participate in the debates regarding the policy making surrounding the use of scientific advances.
In this context, the Instruction is clear from the outset that human dignity extends from the moment of conception until natural death. Thus, any practice, procedure, policy, etc. that adversely comes to bear on human life and existence within this natural framework will likely rob someone of his or her dignity unless it advances and promotes life rather than retards or destroys it. It is essential that I point out that the Instruction is the product of not just one person or one dicastery but represents the work of numerous individuals and offices whose wisdom and insights have proven essential to its formulation and a clearer understanding of human dignity. Thus, the Instruction is intended not just for Catholics or Christians but for “all who seek the truth” about human nature. In short, the Instruction is an important synthesis of faith and reason that should appeal to the widest possible audience.
The Instruction’s three substantive parts explicate these points. The first component addresses the anthropological and ethical perspectives regarding human life, its procreation, and its sustenance. Here is where the Instruction elaborates on why it is not only important but essential to protect and nurture the youngest member of the human family when he or she is conceived. Unlike lawyers who often seek to avoid answering difficult but pressing questions, as did the majority of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the Instruction declares and explains at the outset that from the moment of conception onward the new human being is a person and must, therefore, be accorded not only the same rights as everyone else but the rights that are inviolable to every innocent human being who is considered by society and its juridical institutions to be a person. A related point is one which does not follow or adhere to present day views that may be popular but are, nonetheless, wrong because they convey a false understanding of human nature. This second component, then, emerges from the explanation of the proper origin of human life, which is from the union of the male and the female in the natural family which is also a manifestation of love between these two persons who are jointly responsible for the nurturing and raising of this new person. While human life may start in a Petri dish or other laboratory apparatus that borrows a “little from here and a little from there”, its proper place of foundation is between the conjugal relationship of parents, one of whom is male the other of whom is female—both being charged with the duty or caring for the new person whom they, and God, have authored.
This brings the Instruction to its second major part involving the medical science surrounding the foundation of new human life and the bringing forth of a new human person. The Instruction in this section discusses at some length the artificial means of procreation. While it properly acknowledges that some of these methods can and do produce new persons, they do so at great risk—including fatality—to many other persons who are not selected for nurturing but for destruction and death. As the instruction states, “Techniques are morally permissible if they respect: ‘the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being…’” [Italics are mine] Those techniques which therefore assist the husband/father and wife/mother in their conjugal relations and do not threaten the existence of any person, as understood by the Instruction, who may be produced from their union would appear permissible. Of course, in this age of IVF techniques that may generate a large number of persons, only a few may survive because many will be disposed of, i.e., deliberately killed even when they are subjected to long-term cryo-preservation [freezing]. The Instruction correctly notes that these methods of assisted procreation are riddled with moral problems because some new persons will invevitably be targeted for destruction regardless of the longevity of their existence in this world.
The third and final component of the Instruction touches upon the most recent development in medical science regarding manipulation of the human embryo (person) including genetic management and exploitation. The Instruction does not critique or condemn these interventions as long as they are designed to correct defects that will adversely affect the developing life of the person or the germ line that will become a part of subsequent offspring. The moral difficulty begins to emerge when the manipulation departs from helping the current subject and treats the current subject as an object whose genetic materials or cells may improve someone else’s life later on. Here, existing human life and, therefore, persons are treated as expendable. Their life is not valued as life, their life is objectified because it is not an end in itself, i.e., it is not viewed as human, but it is viewed as a means to contribute to another life. This is the basest kind of servitude that for millennia have justified slavery or inhuman domination that denigrates the dignity that is inherent to each human life, each human being, each human person. A recent illustration of this abuse is found in the arguments advancing human embryonic cloning for so-called therapeutic purposes and research. The necessary procedures, while ostensibly presented as pro-life because the research is intended to “assist” people, inevitably lead to the destruction of every person who becomes an unwilling, sacrificial donor to the “potential” advance for someone else’s life.
The Instruction is a rich document demanding careful study by all. However, I hope this brief synopsis will assist those who read MOJ in some small measure to appreciate the important contributions which the Instruction makes to some pressing problems of the present day and, most likely, beyond.
RJA sj
Monday, December 8, 2008
Today we celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception and we commemorate through prayer and the Eucharist the patroness of our nation and our efforts here at the Mirror of Justice. May we take a few moments today to ask for her intercession before her son for our needs, those of our families and friends, those of our nation, and those of the entire human family.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Michael P. has thoughtfully brought to our attention the article published yesterday in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) penned by Kate (ne Braggs) Childs Graham entitled “Our Journey to Holy Union.” I know from past postings that Michael has stated that he does not necessarily agree with the works of others that he brings to our attention here at MOJ, so I am not suggesting here that he agrees or disagrees with the article he posted. I, too, have found it most interesting. It may well be that Michael also thought the brief essay by Ned O’Gorman appearing in the current issue of Commonweal would also be of interest. Although there are common themes between the two essays of Ms. Childs Graham and Mr. O’Gorman, I shall simply respond to the first one authored by Ms. Childs Graham. I find myself in substantial disagreement with many of the claims or implications asserted by Ms. Childs Graham regarding Catholicism and matters that pertain to law and society. I hope that my following thoughts offer MOJ readers some additional insights in the context of Catholic legal theory that qualify Ms. Childs Graham’s claims.
Ms. Childs Graham takes the opportunity to celebrate in publication fashion in the NCR her recent same-sex commitment ceremony with Ms. Ariana Childs Graham (?). In the title and text of her essay she confers the terms “holy” and “holiness” to the relationship with her partner. Toward the end of her essay, she finally refers to the relationship in the context of marriage and, in her estimation, states the “fact” that she is now “married.” These are fascinating by erroneous claims. She engages in some revisionism by asserting that her “marriage” was not legal “by terms of the state of California or the official (italics mine) Catholic church.” In spite of these impediments, she nevertheless considers that the “union is indeed holy” and, therefore, a “marriage.”
Here I would like to offer some thoughts. Her approach and attitude throughout her essay capture the profound flaw of the “mystery of life passage” of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that has animated the faulty understanding of liberty or freedom addressed in Lawrence v. Texas and the Goodridge decision of the Massachusetts court. Yet, in spite of her claims, Ms. Childs Graham confesses that there is a problem—both religiously and legally—with her “holy union.” The problem is two-fold. In the legal context, she and Ariana have become a law or legal system unto themselves by asserting that, in spite of what the law states, their declaration about the status of their relationship is what legally matters. In the religious context, she has established herself as a shadow or alternative Magisterium—something that she holds in common with some of her colleagues at the NCR.
But the positions upon which she bases her contentions about “marriage” that conflict with the law (of society and of the Church) do not stop here. She also claims that the passage of Proposition 8 (a topic previously receiving treatment here at MOJ by several of us) has disapprovingly removed “an array of human rights.” She does not define what she means by “human rights” and how they have been “tak[en] away.” I could provide what I think is an objective analysis of the applicable law to demonstrate respectfully why she is wrong in this contention. But I could also ask her: what precisely are the rights that she claims have been usurped and where are they codified? The ambiguity with which she presents her argument may satisfy those who are accustomed to hearing this kind of debate that she offers only in brief sound bites, but I think the American public as a whole is entitled to reasoned justification of her position if that is at all possible, which I argue it is not.
She then rebukes the American bishops who have “team[ed] up with the Knights of Columbus to make the ‘preservation of marriage’ one of its [sic] key focuses for the next five years.” First of all, I am not so sure that the American bishops, the Knights of Columbus, or anyone else who is participating in the debate on same-sex marriage has limited the debate to any specific period of time. Second, there is nothing wrong with like-minded citizens associating with other like-minded citizens to join in public discourse about important issues which the American people are or will be facing. This is democracy, not conspiracy. While she does not make the assertion outright, her juxtaposition of the “alliance” of the bishops and the Knights with the “taking away an array of human rights” should not go unnoticed.
There are a number of other points that she presents that merit discussion, but one that I find fascinating from a professional standpoint is her “version of a Pre-Cana marriage preparation program.” Having conducted or participated in many marriage preparations and, therefore marriages that I have witnessed as the Church’s minister, I am perplexed by her claims. First of all, I just wonder what kinds of questions her preparer, Diann L. Neu (a principal in the organization WATER [Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual] who is a same-sex partner of one of the other principals, Mary E. Hunt according to WATER’s website) would have raised about the complementarity of sexual differences or the having and rearing of their biological children? Ms. Childs Graham is on target when she states that her “Pre-Cana was quite different from the Pre-Cana courses that many heterosexual couples” participate in; however, I am at a loss to know how she can claim that “many heterosexual couples go through [their Pre-Cana] kicking and screaming.” Having participated in a large number of marriage preparations of heterosexual couples, I never witnessed any “kicking and screaming.” Ms. Childs Graham has not offered any information about the number of heterosexual marriage preparations that she has conducted. Nevertheless, contrary to her contention, I witnessed a strong willingness and often joy by the engaged couple because they realized that the preparation was not only required, but it was also important to them. But kicking and screaming I have not seen.
Many elements of the “marriage” ceremony that she describes require comment, but let me address this one. Ms. Childs Graham indicates that she and Ariana “were the priests of [their] wedding.” To this I add, no priest in the Catholic Church could be a “priest” of their “wedding.” Nor, could any priest of the Catholic Church offer the “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer that was inclusive of [their] faiths” which the Mss. Childs Graham “managed to create.” I would be interested to examine the text of this “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer” but it was not provided by the author of the article and co-author of the “prayer.” I will, on good faith, accept her assertion that their “ceremony… was truly us.”
The final point I shall raise here is her claim that “The institutional [is there a non-institutional] Catholic church and the state cannot take away our commitment to each other.” Frankly, that is not the issue. There are many commitments that people can and do make to one another that are not the business of either the Church or the state. But that is not really her real point which she quickly turns to by claiming that it is her “legal right to marriage and family” that has been called into question. But that is not the issue either, for Ms. Kate Braggs has the same right as any other person to marry and to have a family as anyone else on the same terms as anyone else. But, neither marriage nor family can be defined simply on her terms alone. So, her “legal right” to these institutions of marriage and family has not been called into question as she asserts. She takes personal affront on the “attack” to her and the lives of her friends who agree with her. To call into question and to disagree with her on the positions she holds regarding her “marriage” is not an “attack.” It is, however, the substance of public life, the exercise of citizenship, and the operation of democratic institutions to debate and, if necessary, to express reasoned disagreement. And this is something, Kate Braggs does not appear to understand.
RJA sj
As I mentioned earlier this week, the International Theological Commission (ITC) has been meeting in its final session and met earlier today with Pope Benedict. As you may recall, the ITC has been working on a document concerning a search for a universal ethics that brings a new examination into the moral natural law. The address of the Holy Father is here, however it is still only available in Italian (versione originale). As I previously mentioned, it will be some time before the final text is released by the ITC, and this was confirmed by the pope when he stated (my translation), “it must still be subject to the final review of the ITC according to its norms.” However, the Holy Father hastened to add that this work must be done expeditiously for there is necessity and urgency to make the ITC’s work accessible in order “to create in the civil culture and political society a consciousness that makes the value of the moral natural law indispensable.” He added that “the natural law constitutes the authentic guarantee to everyone for living in freedom and receiving respect in human dignity knowing that they are defended from any ideological manipulation and any abuse perpetrated by the law of might” (versus the law of right).
As I previously stated, I shall be on the lookout for the release of the ITC’s final text. But, in the meantime, I thought that MOJ contributors and readers would be interested in this development.
RJA sj
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Thanks to Michael S. for raising the interesting and important question raised by one of his students over Mary Ann Glendon’s valuable analysis of the Kantian and Rousseauian perspectives on human dignity. Ambassador Glendon is right on target in identifying the debilitating fault line that runs through Kant and Rousseau. Although there has been some previous discussion of the subject of human dignity here at Mirror of Justice, I would like to draw attention once again to a point made by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Centesimus Annus where he said there is something “which is due to man because he is man.” Jacques Maritain offered a similar insight into the nature of every human some years earlier. I would like to take this mutual thought of John Paul II and Maritain and suggest that regardless of who anyone is—which takes into account all kinds of physical, emotional, social, economic, age, sentient, and all other statuses—each human is to be accorded the protection of his or her existence because he or she is human. This is not necessarily a religious argument, although it reinforces the Catholic doctrine on the issue of human dignity. It is, however, an argument based on reason, an explanation that transcends the problems with the views of Kant and Rousseau that Ambassador Glendon identifies. As I stated earlier, there is something that is innate to the human and this integral character is the dignity which is the guarantor of everyone’s existence that begins with the moment of their first being. With each’s being there is the commencement of the individual’s dignity that needs to be preserved. If one’s dignity is assaulted, what is to prevent the forfeit of anyone else’s dignity?
RJA sj
Monday, December 1, 2008
A while back, several of us had a friendly exchange on natural law and the moral natural law. The International Theological Commission (ITC), whose five year mandate expires at the end of this calendar year, is meeting over the next five days to address a draft document on the moral natural law. The draft is presently entitled, The Search for Universal Ethics: A New Look at Natural Law. These sessions of the ITC are under the direction of my former colleague at the Gregorian University, and, I believe, still friend, Luis Ladaria, S.J., who retains his post at the Gregorian but is also the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the General Secretary of the ITC. It is thought that the draft will receive the ITC’s approval soon; however, there are still some procedural issues that must be dealt with prior to publication. Since the ITC will have an audience with Pope Benedict later this week as they conclude their plenary, there may be some chance that the approved text will be released shortly thereafter. I, for one, look forward to reading this document and will try to make it available by hyperlink, perhaps with a brief commentary.
RJA sj
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
In an indirect way I am responding to Rick’s last post. Mind you, I am not disagreeing with him because I believe he is quite correct in his assertions. What I am disagreeing with is that compromise is the only way out of many of the bioethical dilemmas that we now face and have been facing for some years. Concrete evidence of moral scientific development is. And there is some new promising evidence that will reinforce the argument that embryonic stem cell research ought to be abandoned in favor of concentrating resources on the use of adult stem cells.
This morning The New York Times and other media announced a remarkable new discovery solidifying the known track record that adult stem cells, i.e., stem cells from existing tissue, not stem cells removed from embryos (which causes the embryo to die), have been successful in treating yet another illness. While the final verdict must yet be made, the initial results of the adult stem cell therapy are most promising.
This news is important not only to legal regimes dealing with the codification and enforcement of laws dealing with biotechnological advances and the treatment of illnesses but of laws concerning the right to life of all, not just some, humans. This news, I pray, will grant the incoming administration the great opportunity to take stock of its objective to “change” the current administration’s view regarding public funding of embryonic stem cell research. As the current administration has held, public funding should go into adult stem cell research but not embryonic stem cell research.
For those of us interested in stem cell therapy but who object to the use of embryonic stem cells being harvested from another human thereby destroying him or her, today’s announcement is good news indeed!
RJA sj
