S
- Status
J
jfhh
Guest
Thankfully, the document does not forbid emergency contraception even the kind that “halts fertilization” (so it appears the controversial Connecticut bishops made the right choice and perhaps may have been able to go even further) and it also does not forbid vaccinations that are products of aborted individuals. It also thankfully does not define the embryo as a person.
Not so thankfully, the document appears to discourage embryo implantation.
Some Catholic theologians were surprised that the document did not prohibit hospitals from using the kind of emergency contraception that halts fertilization in cases of rape. And though the document denounced researchers who create embryos and use them as biological material to produce vaccines, it allowed parents to use those vaccines to protect their child’s health, as long as they express their moral objection to their physician.
**The document also stopped short of defining an embryo as a person, saying instead that the embryo has “from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.”
“It doesn’t take a final position on it,” said Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College. “Although it states it more strongly, it’s still shy of an unequivocal endorsement.”**
The document also refrained from endorsing—some even say it discouraged — activists’ efforts to implant in their own wombs embryos discarded after in-vitro fertilization. . . .
chicagotribune.com/news/chi-vatican-abortion_13dec13,0,2825079.story
Not so thankfully, the document appears to discourage embryo implantation.
Some Catholic theologians were surprised that the document did not prohibit hospitals from using the kind of emergency contraception that halts fertilization in cases of rape. And though the document denounced researchers who create embryos and use them as biological material to produce vaccines, it allowed parents to use those vaccines to protect their child’s health, as long as they express their moral objection to their physician.
**The document also stopped short of defining an embryo as a person, saying instead that the embryo has “from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.”
“It doesn’t take a final position on it,” said Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College. “Although it states it more strongly, it’s still shy of an unequivocal endorsement.”**
The document also refrained from endorsing—some even say it discouraged — activists’ efforts to implant in their own wombs embryos discarded after in-vitro fertilization. . . .
chicagotribune.com/news/chi-vatican-abortion_13dec13,0,2825079.story
J
jfhh
Guest
Here’s some excellent reporting on this by the esteemed John Allen
ncrcafe.org/node/2327
Surprisingly the document appears to divert from the opinion of John Paul II on certain genetic therapy questions (among perhaps other things)
At a tighter level of magnification, however, the document contains several points likely to raise eyebrows in Catholic moral theology. Most cut in the direction of a restrictive posture on previously open questions, though they generally stop short of outright prohibitions. They include:
Experts will also likely find Dignitas Personae noteworthy for what it does not contain.
Like Donum Vitae, the new document is exclusively concerned with beginning-of-life issues. It does not address end-of-life questions, such as withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state, or the growing debate over “brain death,” in which some maintain that use of neurological criteria allows deeply disabled, but still living, patients to be artificially declared dead in order to harvest their organs.
Even within the cluster of beginning-of-life issues, there are a couple of notable absences:
All of this suggests that while Dignitas Personae has answered some questions, it has also left some open, and created still others.
John Allen also notes:
Vatican officials said this marks something of an advance beyond previous church documents, which were more circumspect in referring to the embryo as a “person.”
Neverthless though “something of an advance” and less circumspect, it is still circumspect (as the statement still does not call the embryo itself a person per se) Since science is always evolving, I doubt that the Vatican will ever have an unequivocal endorsement of any position which defines the zygote or the embryo at implantation to be a person per se. The furthest they will go is in statements like we have seen previously in Donum Vitae and in the somewhat stronger but still not expressly committal statement in this new document.
ncrcafe.org/node/2327
Surprisingly the document appears to divert from the opinion of John Paul II on certain genetic therapy questions (among perhaps other things)
At a tighter level of magnification, however, the document contains several points likely to raise eyebrows in Catholic moral theology. Most cut in the direction of a restrictive posture on previously open questions, though they generally stop short of outright prohibitions. They include:
Code:
* A critical view of "embryo adoption," meaning allowing women and couples to bring someone else's frozen embryos to term.
* Caution about "Altered Nuclear Transfer," touted as a way of obtaining embryonic stem cells without creating an embryo.
* Potentially ambiguous language about the "morning after pill," which could affect the practice in Catholic hospitals of offering emergency contraception to rape victims – though a spokesperson for the U.S. bishops' conference told NCR that the document is not intended to address that question.
* Raising the bar on the morality of research involving biological materials obtained from aborted fetuses or human embryos.
* A more negative view of genetic interventions passed on to subsequent generations than was offered in a 1983 speech by John Paul II, which hinted that such therapy could, at least in theory, be justified.Like Donum Vitae, the new document is exclusively concerned with beginning-of-life issues. It does not address end-of-life questions, such as withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state, or the growing debate over “brain death,” in which some maintain that use of neurological criteria allows deeply disabled, but still living, patients to be artificially declared dead in order to harvest their organs.
Even within the cluster of beginning-of-life issues, there are a couple of notable absences:
Code:
* Dignitas Personae approves research with adult stem cells, but does not mention "induced pluripotent stem cells," a means of reprogramming adult skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. The technique has been hailed as a scientific end-run around the debate over embryonic cells.
* It also does not address a means of assisted reproduction known as GIFT, or "gamete intra-fallopian transfer." Catholic moralists are divided over GIFT, which involves removing eggs from a woman and mixing them with the man's sperm, then reinserting them in the fallopian tube. Many experts regard it as the best example of a question left hanging by Donum Vitae.John Allen also notes:
Vatican officials said this marks something of an advance beyond previous church documents, which were more circumspect in referring to the embryo as a “person.”
Neverthless though “something of an advance” and less circumspect, it is still circumspect (as the statement still does not call the embryo itself a person per se) Since science is always evolving, I doubt that the Vatican will ever have an unequivocal endorsement of any position which defines the zygote or the embryo at implantation to be a person per se. The furthest they will go is in statements like we have seen previously in Donum Vitae and in the somewhat stronger but still not expressly committal statement in this new document.
J
jfhh
Guest
Here’s the context of the snippet from John Allen/Chicago Tribune. It confirms btw my contention that Donum Vitae did indeed decline to make an explicit philosophical assertion on the matter (which we discussed in the when does human life begin thread). Since no mention of a new explicit philosophical assertion is made, it appears the status quo stands, even if expressed in stronger language. It is noteworthy that the word “embryo” and not zygote is used as technically an embryo does not include the zygote stage. “Embryo” has not just a technical usage but a theological or common usage that IMO would confine it to individuals being nourished by their mothers, which would take place only after implantation, not fertilization (part of its etymological history includes the meaning “fruit of the womb”). This accords with my view that a human life properly speaking does not exist until implantation in the ordinary natural case. (i.e. theologically speaking, not according to the dictates of biological taxonomy which place btw humans in the same animal kingdom as rats, though we know theologically humans are midway between angels and animals)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week
[from the pdf in OP]
If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life. Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”.8 Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.
And here’s the paragraph from DV to which DP alludes to above:
This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new 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. To this perpetual evidence … modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time … to find its place and to be in a position to act”. (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.(26)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
It appears that DP similarly declines to get explicitly philosophical, i.e. “expressly commital” philosophical on this matter. The Church is not the guardian of philosophy. The church is the guardian only of divine revelation as such. The church may have authority to teach in matters outside the scope of divine revelation, but she is not herself the guardian per se of philosohical matters. So, IMO, on philosophical questions like this we should not give the magisterium too much weight just as we wouldn’t on questions of a geopolitical nature even though the magisterium here also has authority to give an opinion on capital punishment, just war, and so forth. Just war theory has evolved. Originally it had as a few as three conditions. In the Catechism it has a few more. Some have urged the Vatican to further evolve it in light of new geopolitical data. Philosophy likewise evolves and can evolve not only with new scientific data but also with new philosophical reflection. For example, whether one goes with the (neo)-Thomistic view of the soul or the Scotist (after Blessed John Duns Scotus) view of the soul may be relevant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of implantation until the end of the 8th week
[from the pdf in OP]
If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life. Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”.8 Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.
And here’s the paragraph from DV to which DP alludes to above:
This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new 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. To this perpetual evidence … modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time … to find its place and to be in a position to act”. (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.(26)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
It appears that DP similarly declines to get explicitly philosophical, i.e. “expressly commital” philosophical on this matter. The Church is not the guardian of philosophy. The church is the guardian only of divine revelation as such. The church may have authority to teach in matters outside the scope of divine revelation, but she is not herself the guardian per se of philosohical matters. So, IMO, on philosophical questions like this we should not give the magisterium too much weight just as we wouldn’t on questions of a geopolitical nature even though the magisterium here also has authority to give an opinion on capital punishment, just war, and so forth. Just war theory has evolved. Originally it had as a few as three conditions. In the Catechism it has a few more. Some have urged the Vatican to further evolve it in light of new geopolitical data. Philosophy likewise evolves and can evolve not only with new scientific data but also with new philosophical reflection. For example, whether one goes with the (neo)-Thomistic view of the soul or the Scotist (after Blessed John Duns Scotus) view of the soul may be relevant.
A
averheyen
Guest
…anyway…
H
Holly3278
Guest
Interesting. I would like to look over this new teaching document sometime. 
- Status