Last week I had the privilege of accepting an invitation to participate in the 21st Workshop for Bishops on Bioethics. The meeting was held in Dallas, Texas. It was sponsored by the National Catholic Bioethics Center and subsidised by the Knights of Columbus.

Ten Cardinals, 152 Archbishops and Bishops from the Caribbean, Latin America, Canada, Europe, South America and the United States joined ethicists, philosophers and legal experts from University Faculties and lawyers who specialise in litigation concerning bioethical issues.

Due to the many responsibilities of the participants, the Workshop schedule was quite compact. It opened on Monday evening and closed on Wednesday evening. Each day had a liturgical component: a concelebrated liturgy in the Morning and Evening Prayer in common before supper. There were three presentations followed by discussion in the morning and also in the afternoon. There was one session after supper.  

The list of speakers was truly impressive. The opening address of the Workshop was given by the Chairman of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics. The Workshop closed with an address by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.

The two days of presentations were given by people who were not only impeccably credentialed but who were also involved in the field of bioethics on a day-to-day basis.

Bioethics as a concept

For ordinary people, bioethics is not a familiar word. Before I summarise some of the issues considered at the Workshop, I want to offer a simple definition for the purpose of clarity. Bioethics refers to the application of moral norms to issues of human life, health care, therapeutic practice in medicine and psychology and to medical and biological research.

The elements of the definition have a practical impact on the rich and the poor, on the secular and the religious and on government and private sector sponsored facilities. The “health care industry”, including the commitment to research, involves trillions of dollars annually.

The issue of tension

Since Catholic Health Care is so widespread throughout the world – hospitals, clinics especially clinics for the poor, convalescent centres, assisted living facilities and home care ministries – the issue of the growing tension between Catholic Health Care systems and the values of contemporary culture is becoming a major challenge with practical implications.

The political struggles throughout the world on stem cell research (embryonic as opposed to adult stems cells), the right to die as related to assisted suicide legislation in some countries and State health care regulations which impose insurance programmes that include contraceptive and abortive stipulations for employees conflict with faith principles of the religious traditions involved in health care.

These examples are just some of the issues that have become prominent over the last few years. The tensions over these issues flow from different philosophical, theological and cultural values.

The growing tendency of legislatures to do little or nothing (quite deliberately) about these challenging ethical issues has given the courts tremendous authority in health care questions.

The courts have begun to subordinate the issue of religious freedom with no conscience exemptions to the issues of personal autonomy and gender equality.

To quote a number of the speakers on the programme, that tendency of the courts, if not checked by legislation, will have “dire and dismal” implications for Catholic health care throughout the world.

 It raises the issue of how the Church-based institutions can cooperate with State-imposed policies that no longer contain exemption clauses i.e. that people can be referred to other medical care facilities for the services they request.

Some view this development as the beginning of a long-term secular strategy to put Catholic health care (and similar religious-based institutions) out of business.

The issues covered

The context of the presentations at the Workshop was the “begotten not made” theology of the book of Genesis and its consequent implications of respect for life and the dignity of every human person from conception to natural death.

The contemporary concern among Catholic philosophers, ethicists, theologians and legal experts is that people are being manipulated at conception, during life and at death as if they were not begotten by God but were made by science. The dangerous implication is that what science has made science can control and terminate without reference to God.

Due to a lack of space in this column, I can summarise only a few of the many issues covered during the presentations:

1) Technological reproduction and the embryo debate There are now many assisted reproductive technologies through which children can be engendered.

The Church is not against technology as long as the technology assists but does not replace the conjugal act. Scientific progress has also created some unanticipated problems.

For example, in the USA, there are 450,000 documented frozen embryos. In many cases, people are no longer interested in these embryos. What is their future? It appears the courts will decide.

2) Vaccine controversies The truth is that some vaccines are grown in cell lines derived from a fetus aborted 30 years ago. Some people refuse to have their children vaccinated because they perceive they would be cooperating in an immoral action i.e. the abortion.

The discussion takes on a new dimension when the admissions policy of even Catholic schools requires the vaccinations. Since there are no alternative vaccines available, the Pontifical Academy for Life issued a decision in which it approved the use of the vaccines.

The reasons were that no formal cooperation was present and the risk to public health outweighs the concern about the origin of the vaccines.

3) Responding to immoral mandates from the State More and more states are imposing regulations for health care which the Church considers immoral e.g. providing contraceptives to employees, abortifacients to rape victims, placing children in homosexual environments or redefining marriage.

What is new about these mandates is they no longer contain conscience protection clauses. It appears that the only remedy for the cases is the legislative process.

Admittedly, that remedy will take time and will vary from country to country.

Conclusion

The reaction of the Church to the contemporary challenges mentioned above is not a condemnation of technology or modernity.

 It is a defense of the values of the Gospel of Life and a sharing of a rule of life for the disciples of the Lord. Many of the values found in the Gospel of Life can also be discerned by human reason. These values are important components for building the common good.

The Church must continue to be part of the international debate on these matters because the Church, by its nature, is missioned to be at the service of the world.