It’s time for a conversation about justice, top Catholic scholar says

Famed ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre called upon academia and other Catholics and intellectuals to invest in the “expensive conversation” about justice, and to sharpen their understanding of what constitutes human dignity. MacIntyre, whose teaching career spans 70 years and includes some of the most important books on virtue ethics such as "After Virtue" and "Dependent Rational Animal," gave a reflection entitled “Human Dignity: A Puzzling and Possibly Dangerous Idea?” at the University of Notre Dame’s de Nicola Fall Conference Nov. 12. During the presentation, he argued that the modern term “human dignity” is doing the work that justice should be doing and that the current definition of human dignity and its implications have puzzling limitations. He posed the question of whether or not Hitler has human dignity— and if he does, what is he afforded by it? Can human dignity never be lost, MacIntyre asked. He analyzed the limits of the modern conception of human dignity, which differs starkly from the Thomistic understandings of "dignitas" advanced by the Belgian Thomist Charles De Koninck. According to this view, which MacIntyre asserted was a more accurate understanding of the term, human beings have dignity in virtue of what they can become--not because of the simple fact that they are persons. Accordingly, this means that human beings can also lose their dignity through sin. “A bad human being is worse than a bad animal,” he said. It also means that in order to live a dignified life, in addition to having access to basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter, human beings must be given the chance to exercise virtues which ennoble their nature and bring it to its highest level of flourishing, MacIntyre said, adding that this requires a social restoration of the common good. MacIntyre critiqued pervasive individualist ethics, which often focus on negative prohibitions rather than the common good. He gave the example of a state that outlaws slavery, but does nothing other than allow them to live in “miserable freedom.” The elimination of evil did not ennoble the former slaves in the way it should, he argued, which is a problem of conceptualizing and seeking the common good. “One cannot have a care for human dignitas if we ascribe to political and social individualism,” he decried. MacIntyre also argued that a state that outlaws abortion, but then fails to provide basic medical and maternity care as well as economic provisions, exemplifies this same individualist ethos centered on eliminating negative prohibitions but not aimed at achieving the common good. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in one of the most significant challenges to Roe v. Wade since its inception— Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Many believe Dobbs will overturn Roe. During a Q&A Nov. 12, several participants questioned MacIntyre’s assertion that human dignity be recognized in its potential form rather than by virtue of the fact that a human being is a human being, citing concerns for the implications on moral arguments against embryonic stem cell research. MacIntyre responded that too many are attempting to make the modern term human dignity— widely used in United Nations documents and constitutions in the post-war period because it allowed fighting political, religious, and philosophical factions to bridge unsurmountable gaps because of its lack of definition— to do the work that properly belongs to understanding the virtue of justice. Justice, which Aristotle defines as rendering to another person his due, is where answers to questions of embryonic stem cell research and torture properly belong, MacIntyre said. He said the dignity of an embryo, or of Hitler, lies in his or her potential and urged the attendees to have “expensive conversations” about the question “what is justice?” so they can better articulate what is owed to human beings. MacIntyre has often written about the loss of moral vocabulary and vision in today’s world. The philosopher considers this to be one of the biggest obstacles to allowing human beings to flourish, since the path to happiness through virtue is largely unknown. This was MacIntyre’s 20th contribution to the de Nicola Fall Conference on Ethics.

Wisconsin bishops encourage vaccination while affirming conscience rights

Interesting article from CNA about the ethical issues of COVID vacinations and Conscience. The five bishops of Wisconsin on Friday issued a message encouraging vaccination against COVID-19, while maintaining that people ought not be forced to accept a COVID vaccine. “We encourage those eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine to do so because it is the most effective way to combat this virus. We are all morally responsible to protect our lives and the lives of others. This is an imperative of natural law that we treasure in our faith,” the bishops wrote. They also acknowledged “many health or ethical reasons why a person may refuse COVID-19 vaccination,” but added that “it is the responsibility of the individual” to explain their decision to decline the vaccine, and recommended that clergy not intervene in such cases. “However, the Church also treasures her teaching on the sanctity of conscience,” they stated. “Nobody should violate the sanctity of conscience by forcing a person to do something contrary to his or her conscience.” In cases of conscientious objection to the COVID vaccine, “[p]astors should not feel compelled to issue documentation recognizing this conscientious objection and are recommended not to do so,” the bishops stated. The bishops stressed that anyone refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must take steps to avoid spreading the virus. “Every decision has consequences; and in this case, the person claiming a religious or ethical exemption should be ready to properly assume other scientifically recommended means of avoiding infection and contagion: face-coverings, social distancing, hand sanitizing, periodic testing, and quarantine,” the bishops wrote. Bishops across the country have issued guidance for Catholics seeking conscience exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Some bishops, including the bishops of South Dakota, have explicitly supported Catholics wishing to seek conscience exemptions. In contrast, many bishops in California, as well as in Chicago and Philadelphia, have instructed clergy not to assist parishioners seeking religious exemptions to mandates, stating that there is no basis in Catholic moral teaching for rejecting vaccine mandates on religious grounds. Quoting Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Dignitatis Humanae, the Wisconsin bishops wrote that “the Christian faithful, in common with all other men, possess the civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their consciences.” Given “the urgency of this pandemic and the frustration some may experience because of the number of unvaccinated people,” a person’s conscientious refusal of a COVID vaccine may offend some, the bishops said, but that decision still retains its “dignity,” they wrote. “Consequently, someone who in conscience decides that he or she should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine should be granted an exemption based on his or her beliefs or convictions,” the bishops asserted. “It is the responsibility of the individual to raise moral or ethical objections to vaccination based on the dictates of his or her conscience. Pastors should not feel compelled to issue documentation recognizing this conscientious objection and are recommended not to do so.” Before COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for use in the United States, some Catholics raised concerns about their use of cell lines likely derived from fetal tissue of an abortion decades prior. Those vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna were tested on the controversial cell lines, while the vaccine created by Johnson & Johnson was both tested on and directly produced with the cell lines. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, echoing guidance from the Vatican, has since stated that all three vaccines approved for use in the United States are “morally acceptable” for use despite their remote connection with abortion. If one had the ability to choose a vaccine, the bishops recommended that they choose one with the least connection to abortion. Pope Francis has strongly encouraged vaccination, collaborating with the Ad Council on a video promoting vaccination. The pope called getting vaccinated against COVID “an act of love,” in the video. December 2020 guidance from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation,” and “therefore, it must be voluntary.”

Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim leaders sign declaration against euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide

By Hannah Brockhaus
Vatican City, Oct 28, 2019 / 12:15 pm (CNA).

Leaders of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam presented a signed declaration to Pope Francis Monday expressing their total opposition to euthanasia and any form of physician-assisted suicide, as well as voicing their support of palliative end-of-life care.

The document was signed at the Vatican Oct. 28 by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, along with representatives of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. It was given to Pope Francis during an audience.  

The position paper states that the three Abrahamic religions “oppose any form of euthanasia – that is the direct, deliberate and intentional act of taking life – as well as physician assisted suicide – that is the direct, deliberate and intentional support of committing suicide – because they fundamentally contradict the inalienable value of human life, and therefore are inherently and consequentially morally and religiously wrong, and should be forbidden without exceptions.”

The paper also affirms the right of healthcare workers to not be coerced or pressured into directly or indirectly assisting in the intentional death of a patient through assisted suicide or any form of euthanasia, especially when doing so would violate the provider’s religious beliefs.

Even if accepted by the local legal system, “moral objections regarding issues of life and death certainly fall into the category of conscientious objection that should be universally respected,” the paper declares.

Healthcare providers, it notes, have the responsibility “to provide the best possible cure for disease and maximal care of the sick.”

The idea for the declaration came from Rabbi Avraham Steinberg, an Israeli medical ethicist, who proposed it to Pope Francis. The pope entrusted the project to the Pontifical Academy for Life, which organized an interreligious committee to create the document.

In the nearly 2,000-word position paper, it is stated that the Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic faiths “share common goals and are in complete agreement in their approach to end-of-life situations.” It also notes that these principles are sometimes in conflict with “current secular humanistic values and practices.”

The preamble to the report notes that “the moral, religious, social and legal aspects of the treatment of the dying” are among the most complex and most widely discussed in medicine today.

The issues surrounding the end of life include “difficult dilemmas,” which have increased in recent years, it argues, because of scientific-technological developments, changes in the patient-doctor relationship, cultural changes, and a growing scarcity of resources related to the expense of medical care.

These dilemmas are not primarily medical or scientific, but “social, ethical, religious, legal, and cultural,” it declares, adding that human intervention in the form of medical treatment and technologies “are only justified in terms of the help they can provide.”

“Therefore, their use requires responsible judgment about when life-sustaining and life-prolonging treatments truly support the goals of human life, and when they have reached their limits,” it claims.

The declaration states that “when death is imminent despite the means used, it is justified to make the decision to withhold certain forms of medical treatments that would only prolong a precarious life of suffering.”

However, both medical providers and society should respect the wish of a dying patient to prolong or preserve his/her life even for an additional short period of time by clinically appropriate medical measures,” it continues.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that a person may legitimately choose to discontinue medical procedures which are “over-zealous,” meaning “burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome..”

The position paper defines a “dying patient” as someone who has “a fatal, incurable, and irreversible disease” and is at a stage when their death will likely occur within a few months “as a result of the disease or its directly related complications, despite the best diagnostic and therapeutic efforts.”

The report offers encouragement and support for professional palliative care for everyone, everywhere and to commend laws and policies which protect the dignity of a dying person.

It also declares a commitment to engage with communities on the issue of bioethics, and to raise public awareness about palliative care.

The paper states a belief that society has an obligation to help patients not to feel like a burden and to know the value and dignity of their life, “which deserves care and support until its natural end.”

The declaration also calls on policymakers and healthcare providers to familiarize themselves with the perspective and teaching of these religions in order to better provide medical assistance in accord with their patients’ beliefs.

“While we applaud medical science for advances to prevent and cure disease, we recognize that every life will ultimately experience death,” it states. “Care for the dying is both part of our stewardship of the Divine gift of life when a cure is no longer possible, as well as our human and ethical responsibility toward the dying (and often) suffering patient.”

h/t to CNA

New Vatican document says gender theory is 'cultural and ideological revolution'

Vatican City, Jun 10, 2019 / 08:35am h/t CNA

A Vatican department has issued a sweeping denunciation of so-called gender theory, and affirmed the principles of human dignity, difference, and complementarity.  

“In all such [gender] theories, from the most moderate to the most radical, there is agreement that one’s gender ends up being viewed as more important than being of male or female sex,” the Congregation for Catholic Education wrote June 10, in a new document entitled “Male and Female He Created Them.”

“The effect of this move is chiefly to create a cultural and ideological revolution driven by relativism, and secondarily a juridical revolution, since such beliefs claim specific rights for the individual and across society.”

The document says it aims to set out an intellectual framework “towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender theory in education.”

Published at the beginning of “Pride Month,” during which many cities and corporations mark the campaign of LGBT advocacy, the document says that the Church teaches an essential difference between men and woman, ordered in the natural law and essential to the family and human flourishing.

“There is a need to reaffirm the metaphysical roots of sexual difference, as an anthropological refutation of attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated,” the document explains.

“The denial of this duality not only erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation but creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who ‘chooses for himself what his nature is to be.’”

The text, signed by Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, outlines the philosophical origins of the gender theory movement, and notes the broad movement to enshrine its distinct anthropology in policy and law.

The Congregation explains that, beginning in the middle of the twentieth century, a series of studies were published which proposed that external conditioning had the primary determinative influence on personality. When such studies were applied to human sexuality, the document says, they did so with a view to demonstrating that sexuality identity was more a social construct than a given natural or biological fact.

“These schools of thought were united in denying the existence of any original given element in the individual, which would precede and at the same time constitute our personal identity, forming the necessary basis of everything we do.”

“Over the course of time, gender theory has expanded its field of application. At the beginning of the 1990s, its focus was upon the possibility of the individual determining his or her own sexual tendencies without having to take account of the reciprocity and complementarity of male-female relationships, nor of the procreative end of sexuality,” the document says.

The result was a “radical separation between gender and sex, with the former having priority over the later.”

The problem with this theory, according to the Congregation, is not the distinction between the two terms, which can be properly understood, but in the separation of the two from each other.

“The propositions of gender theory converge in the concept of ‘queer’, which refers to dimensions of sexuality that are extremely fluid, flexible, and as it were, nomadic.”

The result of this ideological trend, according to the Congregation’s assessment, is an undermining of the family.

“[In gender theory] the only thing that matters in personal relationships is the affection between the individuals involved, irrespective of sexual difference or procreation which would be seen as irrelevant in the formation of families.”

“Thus, the institutional model of the family (where a structure and finality exist independent of the subjective preferences of the spouses) is bypassed, in favor of a vision of family that is purely contractual and voluntary.”

The document said that despite the challenges, dialogue remains possible. It also called for protection of human and family rights, decried unjust discrimination, and noted points of unity among people of divergent perspectives on gender ideology.

“For instance, educational programs on this area often share a laudable desire to combat all expressions of unjust discrimination, a requirement that can be shared by all sides,” the document said.

“Indeed, it cannot be denied that through the centuries forms of unjust discrimination have been a sad fact of history and have also had an influence within the Church. This has brought a certain rigid status quo, delaying the necessary and progressive inculturation of the truth of Jesus’ proclamation of the equal dignity of men and women, and has provoked accusations of a sort of masculinist mentality, veiled to a greater or lesser degree by religious motives.”

The aim of the Church at the institutional and individual level must be the education of children in line with authentic principles which defend and instil authentic human dignity, the Congregation explains.

“In practice, the advocacy for the different identities often presents them as being of completely equal value compared to each other.”

“The generic concept of ‘non-discrimination’ often hides an ideology that denies the difference as well as natural reciprocity that exists between men and women.”

Referencing classical philosophy, historic Church teaching, Vatican Council II and the writings of several popes, the document explains the Church’s understanding of a Christian anthropology, insisting that it be at the heart of human formation.

For Christians working in schools, both religious and secular, the radical individualism of gender theory should be avoided in favor of teaching children “to overcome their individualism and discover, in the light of faith, their specific vocation to live responsibly in a community.”

Above all, the document says, the family remains “the primary community” to which the students belong and the fundamental vehicle for preserving, understanding, and transmitting human dignity.

“The school must respect the family’s culture. It must listen carefully to the needs that it finds and the expectations that are directed towards it.”

In the modern context, however, the essential alliance between school and family “has entered into crisis,” the Congregation notes.

“There is an urgent need to promote a new alliance that is genuine and not simply at the level of bureaucracy, a shared project that can offer a ‘positive and prudent sexual education’ that can harmonise the primary responsibility of parents with the work of teachers.”

“Although ideologically-driven approaches to the delicate questions around gender proclaim their respect for diversity, they actually run the risk of viewing such difference as static realities and end up leaving them isolated and disconnected from each other,” the document concludes.

Promoting a culture of dialogue between the Church and those advancing gender theory principles must take place, the document says, in a manner that respects “the legitimate aspirations of Catholic schools to maintain their own vision of human sexuality,” based on “an integral anthropology capable of harmonizing the human person’s physical, psychic and spiritual identity.”

The congregation ends by insisting on the rights of the Church, the family, and of Catholic educators to defend authentic teaching and understanding in the face of an increasingly exclusivist approach to education in line with secular progressive principles.

“A democratic state cannot reduce the range of education on offer to a single school of thought, all the more so in relation to this extremely delicate subject, which is concerned on the one hand with the fundamentals of human nature, and on the other with natural rights of parents to freely choose any educational model that accords with the dignity of the human person.”

The 70th miracle: Lourdes healing officially declared supernatural

18

Lourdes, France, Feb 12, 2018 / 02:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News)

A miracle was officially recognized at the Marian shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France, the 70th Lourdes miracle recognized by the Catholic Church.

The miracle was officially declared by Bishop Jacques Benoit-Gonin of Beauvais, France on Feb. 11, the World Day of the Sick and the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes. During Mass at the shrine’s basilica, Bishop Nicolas Brouwet of Lourdes announced the miracle.

The miraculous event involved a French nun, Sister Bernadette Moriau, who went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in 2008. She had been suffering from spinal complications which had rendered her wheelchair-bound and fully disabled since 1980. She also said she had been taking morphine to control the pain.

When Sister Moriau visited the Lourdes Shrine almost a decade ago, she said she “never asked for a miracle,” according to the Associated Press.

However, after attending a blessing for the sick at the shrine, something began to change.

“I felt a [surge of] well-being throughout my body, a relaxation, warmth…I returned to my room and there, a voice told me to ‘take off your braces,’” recalled the now 79-year old nun.

“Surprise. I could move,” Moriau said, noting that she instantaneously walked away from her wheelchair, braces, and pain medications.

Moriau’s case was brought to the attention of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes, who extensively researched the nun’s recovery. They eventually found that Moriau’s healing could not be scientifically explained.

After a healing is recognized by the Lourdes committee, the paperwork is then sent to the diocese of origin, where the local bishop has the final say. After the bishop’s blessing, a healing can then be officially recognized by the Church as a miracle.

The shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in southern France is a popular pilgrimage destination for individuals with special devotions to Mary and for those seeking miraculous healings. It is the site where young Bernadette Soubirous witnessed Marian apparitions, beginning on Feb. 11, 1858. The shrine also holds a spring of water which is said to have miraculous healing properties.

While there have been more than 7,000 miraculous recoveries attributed to the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes at the French shrine, only 70 cases have been officially recognized by the Catholic Church. A miraculous recovery must generally be a complete, spontaneous, and immediate healing from a documented medical condition.

The last official miracle attributed to the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes was declared in 2013.