Scientific American on Dignitas Personae

Dec

Scientific American on Dignitas Personae

Posted by Ginkgo100 Labels: blogs, catholic belief, clarifying the record, faith, human rights, news stories, science

I enjoy Scientific American. I really do. So when it published an article on the newly issued document Dignitas Personae from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I hesitated to comment here. It seems I so often criticize SciAm in this blog.

But then the secular pro-life blog Secondhand Smoke (hat tip to Der Wolfanwalt) made scathing remarks about the article, doing much of the job for me (and doing it better than I would have). So I really have no excuse not to make a few additions.

I am thunderstruck that when SciAm decided to interview an expert about a Vatican theological document, it chose a secular commentator, Josephine Johnston. This would be like interviewing an economist rather than a physician about a new recommendation by the FDA or the Surgeon General. And predictably, she makes both herself and SciAm look ridiculous by stating explicitly that she does not understand what she is talking about:

[The document] opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand.

She does not understand it because she has no background in Catholic theology. But it stems from theological principles that underlie everything the magisterium has promulgated about sex and reproduction in the past 50 years. Dignitas Personae is completely consistent with Humanae Vitae, the landmark document that reaffirmed the church's opposition to artificial contraception, and John Paul the Great's theology of the body.

Johnston also sounds a little ridiculous at the end of the interview, when she says "I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice" and then implies that perhaps the Church should operate as a democracy when it comes to teaching. In theory and practice, Catholicism is not a democracy, but a Kingdom. Truth is objective regardless of fickle public opinion, and even if some members of the Body of Christ dissent, the whole of that Body will always be subject to his truth.

Comments (5)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+1 Vote up Vote down

Eric Brown · 856 weeks ago

I was quite pleased with what bit of DP that I saw - and while I might be willing to allow IVF one embyro at a time, it is wholly consistent with Roman Doctrine to not draw that line there. In fact, everything seems to be a reaffirmation of tradiational Roman positions. Frankly, I enjoy consistent doctrine - be it Roman or Lutheran!

+1 Vote up Vote down

Alex Marshall · 855 weeks ago

I welcome the insistence of Dignitas Personae on the ethical implications of science. But I fear that the Church is staking out an impossible position. It is surely possible to respect the dignity of human life without endowing a handful of cells, fertilised or not, with the rights appertaining to human beings. To do so is to fly in the face not only of common sense but of ethical values too. Sexual responsibility is highly desirable: responsible parenthood is equally so. Insisting that every sexual contact carry the implication of parenthood is neither responsible nor ethical. Nor is it likely to impress the great majority of thinking, sensible, responsible, ethical people, including those of other faiths or no faith. It risks undermining the Church's entire position on ethics and science, which would be a great loss.

1 reply · active 855 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Ginkgo100 38p · 855 weeks ago

Thanks for your excellent comment and your respectful tone. Not everyone who disagrees is so civil.

You said that it is contrary to common sense to view "a handful of cells" as a human being with all the attendant rights. But the view that an embryo is a separate human being is supported by science; indeed, it is modern scientific understanding of embryology that led the Church to mark fertilization as the moment of life's beginning, rather than a later point in development (as some long-ago theologians speculated).

Arguments against this position typically appeal either to aesthetics (like your description of a "handful of cells") or to convenience (like your complaint that it gets in the way of "responsible parenthood").

If the Church's insistence on the dignity of all humans, even embryos, "undermines" its ethical position to non-believers, that would be a shame, but the shame is not on the Church. Catholicism has always insisted on unpopular beliefs. She is interested in teaching objective truth, not in making decisions by popular approval.

Your comment is thoughtful and thought-provoking. Please feel welcome to discuss issues here any time!

0 Vote up Vote down

Alex Marshall · 855 weeks ago

I respect your position: but I still think that the question of when human life begins is decided more by faith than by reason. There is no question that the zygote is alive, but so are the egg and the sperm. For the purposes of scientific definition, scentists may well agree that human life begins when egg and sperm unite. That's a long way from saying that a fertilised egg shd have the rights accorded a human being. At the simplest level, an egg is an egg, and a chicken is a chicken: if you confuse the two you risk adopting positions that defy common sense as well as ethical purposes. Rights imply responsibilities: Is a mother who dies after an extended labour the victim of murder by her newborn child? How about the mother who haemorhages to death after a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? This is not an exercise in semantics: it is simply an extension of your position.

(The rights of the mother get little attention in this discussion--I'm not sure why that is. If an unborn child has rights, then a fortiori so does its mother. The children of the mother also have rights--what happens to those rights if for example the life of the mother is sacrificed to save an unborn child?)

Calling a newly fertilised embryo a "handful of cells" isn't a matter of aesthetics, but of plain fact. Responsible parenthood isn't a convenience but an ethical duty. We, the rest of society owe parents (and potential parents) a duty of support. To my mind that includes treating them like responsible, ethical human beings capable of making their own decisions.

There is a discussion to be had about balancing the rights of the different people involved, as well as the interests of society. I don't think the Church has a monopoly of truth in this discussion. If you do, that's a matter of faith, not reason. Science doesn't decide ethical questions, though it sure does raise them!

+1 Vote up Vote down

Ginkgo100 38p · 855 weeks ago

For the purposes of scientific definition, scentists may well agree that human life begins when egg and sperm unite. That's a long way from saying that a fertilised egg shd have the rights accorded a human being.

Saying that a new human organism begins to exist at fertilization is more than a convenience of terminology. If you accept that (a) all humans have individual identity, and (b) all humans ultimately spring from other humans, then you can deduce that (c) there must be a discrete point at which a new human identity separates fully from the parents. That point, logically, is the union of egg and sperm, because that is the point at which it begins to act biologically as a separate organism from either parent.

Rights imply responsibilities: Is a mother who dies after an extended labour the victim of murder by her newborn child? How about the mother who haemorhages to death after a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? This is not an exercise in semantics: it is simply an extension of your position.

That is nonsense. Murder is an intentional act. Pregnancy is a unique area of bioethics because two organisms with equal rights are biologically tied up with each other. In a natural miscarriage, the embryo or fetus is no more at fault for any potential harm experienced by the mother than the mother is at fault for the death of the embryo/fetus. Neither had any intention to harm the other.

The children of the mother also have rights--what happens to those rights if for example the life of the mother is sacrificed to save an unborn child?

I have not mentioned the rights of the mother in a pregnancy only because it hasn't come up yet. The rights of both embryo/fetus and mother must both be considered in a pregnancy, but there is always the simple expedient that if the mother dies, so does the baby, so generally risking the baby to save the mother is the more ethical course. You would probably be interested in the philisophical principle of double effect, which I don't have time to expound on right now. It addresses ethical behavior in cases in which a pregnacy must be terminated or the mother will surely die, as in an ectopic pregnancy.

Calling a newly fertilised embryo a "handful of cells" isn't a matter of aesthetics, but of plain fact.

Yes, of course it is a fact that an embryo is just a few cells. But saying that an embryo has no rights because it is a "handful of cells" is an argument based on aesthetics. You or I could be said to be just a really big handful of cells.