GAUDIUM ET SPES:
SCIENCE, FAITH, AND BIOETHICS TODAY
by Jason T. Eberl
The Second Vatican Council was revolutionary in its ad extra engagement with issues prevalent in modern times. Gaudium et Spes strikes a very different tone from the previous anti-modernist attitude prevalent during the papacies of Popes Pius IX and St. Pius X. Rather, the Council Fathers sought constructive engagement with the modern age, working towards the common good for all humanity based on values not only inspired by the Gospel message, but which all reasonable persons of goodwill could agree upon. The primary concern of GS is the responsible use of humanity’s divinely-bestowed capacities for rational inquiry and creative activity: “Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only bring men hope of improved self-knowledge; in conjunction with technical methods, they are helping men exert direct influence on the life of social groups” (§5). Such influence may often be beneficial—understood in the Church’s view as contributing to the common flourishing of human persons in our physical, intellectual, and spiritual nature—but it also leads to “a new series of problems … calling for efforts of analysis and synthesis.”
Within a decade of Vatican II’s conclusion, bioethics had emerged as an interdisciplinary academic field that almost immediately began to impact public policy in light of novel developments in reproductive technology, genetic recombination, and support for the terminally ill and dying. Catholic and Protestant moral theologians were the forefront of this new field and, as it has developed over the past four decades, the Catholic voice continues to be significant in the pluralistic debates that continue Vatican II’s spirit of critical constructive engagement with all persons of goodwill. Theologians typically address bioethical issues from the Church’s distinctive faith-based perspective in order to witness to the fullness of truth embodied in revealed Scripture and Tradition. Philosophers usually take a different approach in formulating arguments premised upon rationally defensible propositions to which those who do not share the Church’s theological perspective may yet agree based on reason alone.
Today, Catholic bioethicists contend with a host of issues unforeseen at the time of Vatican II: including human embryonic stem cell research, reproductive cloning, animal-human chimeras and hybrids, synthetic biology, gene editing, and forms of pharmacological, technological, and genetic enhancement of human beings. As these issues have emerged, ecclesial bodies such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy for Life, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as lay organizations such as the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in the U.K. and the National Catholic Bioethics Center in the U.S., have devised ethical responses that—in the spirit of Vatican II—are grounded in the Church’s moral tradition, yet adapted to the latest developments in human understanding. Many, both inside and outside of the Church, view such ethical responses as too-often negative in their evaluation of potentially beneficial biomedical research and therapeutic endeavors. The CDF, however, in its most recent authoritative document, Dignitas Personae (2008), stresses that “Behind every ‘no’ in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great ‘yes’ to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence” (§37). This attitudes mirrors Vatican II’s shift in tone from the negative anti-modernist browbeating of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to one of positive constructive engagement with the modern world and all reasonable persons of goodwill. With this shift in attitude, it is crucially important for Catholic bioethicists to continually emphasize in our research and polemics that the alleged incompatibility of faith and reason—or religion and science—is a false premise. As stated in GS, “Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God” (§36).
The Church’s Magisterium has definitively settled certain moral questions regarding the inviolability of innocent human life—entailing absolute prohibitions on directly intended abortion and euthanasia—and the essential bond between the unitive and procreative ends of the conjugal act—thereby prohibiting artificial forms of contraception and most forms of assisted reproduction. Nevertheless, there remains considerable debate among Catholic bioethicists on a number of prevalent issues: Is the use of condoms wrong when intended to prevent HIV transmission within marriage? May emergency contraception be given to a rape victim? Are neurological criteria sufficient to define human death? Must organs always be “donated” for transplant or may they be “sold” to increase their availability? May human and animal DNA be combined in potentially therapeutic research? Are certain forms of human enhancement permissible?
Negative responses to such questions are often accused of being “anti-science.” Despite the Church’s past issues reconciling itself with novel scientific discoveries, the central issue is not the discoveries or technological developments themselves, but rather the use for which we may employ them. Consider the latest purported breakthrough in single-gene editing. Catholic bioethicists have good reason to welcome this development as it would provide an alternative to prenatal selection via abortion by allowing embryos with genetic defects to be “fixed” rather than discarded. This technique, however, needs to be evaluated in light of the Church’s teaching on permissible means of procreation, the intrinsic value of embryonic lives, and the potentially worrisome non-therapeutic purposes for which this technique may be employed. In short, the Church does not reject, but rather supports, novel scientific developments; however, such developments and the uses to which we put them must always have the common good of humanity—understood both rationally and spiritually—firmly in mind.