Morality and Social Justice - Essay Example

Lesson 6 Bioethics The Obligation to Feed and Hydrate the Helpless The Church says that all of us have the responsibility to help our fellow people who need help, especially those who are not capable of performing the most basic life activities, such as eating and drinking, due to a debilitative illness. Those able-bodied should help in giving nutrition and hydrating people in a vegetative condition and should continue to do so until they recover from their condition or finally succumb to their illness. The Church believes that an individual has ‘the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.)’ (‘Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State’ no. 4), and such right does not cease when the person becomes bedridden or incapable of movement. It is the obligation of those who can help to assist such person in carrying out these basic survival activities. The Church encourages and obliges health care professionals to keep on honing their craft for them to sufficiently help sick individuals through proper diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. They should properly evaluate the condition of people in a vegetative state, especially if they are getting the right nutrition and hydration. The medical profession, according to the Church, should prohibit and renounce euthanasia at all cost. There is no justification to end a human life. There are no costs that can outweigh the value of human life. However, society should help and support those who are caring for the sick because it is a difficult task, not only financially, but also emotionally, psychologically, and physical. Church’s Moral Teachings and Cooperation with Evil Bioethical issues are becoming increasing problematic. Smith and Kaczor (2007) presented the Church’s moral answer to the most difficult, pressing bioethical dilemmas today, such as abortion, reproductive technologies, and contraception. The Church provides numerous moral teachings about these bioethical issues, but only three are discussed in this section: (1) right to life should prevail over right to choose; (2) reproductive technologies are not morally permissible; and (3) contraception is immoral because it hinders fertility and the very meaning of sexual intercourse between husband and wife. As regards abortion, the Church argues that there are rights more important or valuable than other rights. In the case of abortion the mother has the right to choose, but the unborn child has the right to life. The Church says that the right to life should conquer the right to choose, because the right to life is the more basic, fundamental right. Generally, the right of an individual to have control over his/her body ceases when the body of another individual starts. The Church says that ‘controlling our bodies’ must not require damaging or inflicting pain on the body of another individual. Hurting another human being’s body is exactly what occurs in abortion (Smith & Kaczor 39). There are forces in this world that we are not allowed to tamper; killing an unborn child is one. Hence, in case of abortion, despite the potential costs, the right to life should be given greater primacy than the right to freely choose. For that reason, abortion is never morally permissible, even within the context of a pregnant woman’s right to liberty. With regard to reproductive technologies, the Church condemns artificial methods of conceiving a child, such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The Church claims that these reproductive technologies undermine the sanctity of marriage and God’s law of nature. Reproductive technologies, such as IVF, violate the purity of sexual intercourse by devising ways to successfully implant embryos into a woman’s body and acquiring sperm and egg donors that are outside the couple’s marriage (Smith & Kaczor 60-61). The Church says that conception should only come from a sexual intercourse between a husband and wife; conceiving a child outside this norm is morally prohibited. Likewise, the Church rejects artificial contraception, such as condoms and pills, because it hinders fertility and the very meaning of sexual intercourse between husband and wife. The Church encourages Natural Family Planning (NFP) (e.g. rhythm or calendar method, basal temperature, abstinence) instead of chemical contraceptives, not only because of morality considerations, but physiological concerns. Contraception also encourages sexual promiscuity and unsafe sexual activities. Hence the Church attributes the rise in the number of abortion, out-of-wedlock children, poverty, and dysfunctional families to contraception (Smith & Kaczor 76-78). Cooperation with evil is implicit in these bioethical dilemmas. Cooperation with evil is defined by Smith and Kaczor (2007) as “things we do make it possible for others to engage in immoral behavior” (Smith & Kaczor 133). They identified four forms of cooperation with evil: (1) formal cooperation; (2) immediate material cooperation in evil; (3) mediate material cooperation; and (4) remote material cooperation. Formal cooperation refers to a direct involvement in an evil deed, or the individual is the one actually committing the offense; immediate cooperation refers to the presence of guilt but the continuance of the evil deed; mediate cooperation refers to being unaware of the evil deed but did nothing to prevent when one discovers it; and remote cooperation refers to the irrelevance of one’s participation to the perpetration of evil. Lesson 6.2: Living True Love in Society: Sex, Marriage, and Family Human Sexuality, Social Justice, and New Feminism Human sexuality has been a very sensitive, controversial concept ever since it was introduced to the human consciousness. In the past, human sexuality has been viewed as something natural and good; but today, human sexuality is something quite debatable and scandalous that it can potentially divide an entire society into two absolute opposing camps—those against and for contraception. The core questions are: Is human sexuality incompatible with the teachings of the Church? Does the freedom to express human sexuality, and hence the attainment of social justice and the objectives of new feminism, go against God’s law of procreation and marital union? It is the author’s argument that the Church’s teachings and expression of human sexuality are in harmony with each other. The Church aims to protect human sexuality in order to promote social justice and women’s rights. Social justice refers to the capacity of individuals to exercise their full potential within the society they belong to. Such potential includes the preservation of human sexuality. The Humanae Vitae asserts that the full integrity of human sexuality can be preserved through non-contraceptive sexual intercourse between husband and wife, with the sole intention of procreating and/or strengthening the marital union: “The Church condemns contraception since it violates both the procreative and unitive meanings of the human sexual act. It diminishes an act that by its very nature is full of weighty meaning, meaning that is unique to the sexual act” (Smith para 19). Preservation of human sexuality through love, respect, and commitment derived from the pure act of lovemaking facilitates social justice; human potential can never be realized if essential human aspects, like sexuality, are not respected or valued. Preservation of human sexuality in accordance with God’s law can also cultivate social justice by enlightening individuals about their true potentials-- “But we forget what a marvelous thing it is to be able to bring forth a new human being. God chooses to bring forth new human life through the love of spouses” (Smith para 26). This is the true human potential—to be able to give life and attain happiness through spousal love and respect. Likewise, new feminism believes that the female body is respected through preservation of female sexuality. New feminism criticizes eugenic ‘feminism’ because it destroys the female body. As argued by Angela Franks (2005), “As far as eugenics goes, embodiment is a problem to be solved technologically: the bodies of the ‘unfit’ must be controlled; the bodies of the ‘fit’ are to be liberated from constraints on the maximization of pleasure” (Franks 237). Eugenic feminism confines human potential to the achievement of the greatest possible pleasure. It completely disregards the female body as a sacred vessel that should be cultivated for a greater purpose—procreation and unity. New feminism aims to liberate the female body through a full embodiment of female sexuality as an element that should be valued and defended from harm, like those inflicted by chemical contraceptives. Human sexuality should not be used merely for selfish pleasure, but for the greater good. Centrality of Marriage and Family for the Common Good Marriage and family are vital for the common good; they are both gifts and responsibilities; they cultivate happiness, serenity, and self-actualization but involve struggle; they are symbols of God’s law and love provided through nature. We are agents of humanity; in fact it can be stated that we are agents of the human ‘gene pool’. Although the impact of the reproductive activity of a particular couple on the gene pool all together is miniscule, its impact on future generations can be substantial. We are agents of human life, and the security of future generations is partly determined by the decisions that we male. As stated by The Witherspoon Institute (2008), “the modern economy and modern democratic state depend upon families to produce the next generation of productive workers and taxpayers” (The Witherspoon Institute 6). The family is the one responsible for training the youth in self-sufficiency and work ethics, and such training consequently offers the foundation for cultivating valuable skills and knowledge and acquiring a profession. In essence, without healthy families the wellbeing of the society would be threatened. However, married couples are needed not just to welcome life devotedly, but to nurture it compassionately and to impart to it God’s affection and purpose, and their marital union grants them the capability to accomplish these obligations. This is another value of the family for the common good— “As the Second Vatican Council recalled, “since parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring.” Hence, parents must be acknowledge as the first and foremost educators of their children” (Familiaris Consortio no. 36). Parents, just like the Church and the State, have an inherent educational responsibility for the common good. However, it is vital that the educational responsibility value the rule of support. This means the rightfulness and in fact the necessity of supporting parents. Therefore, the Church and the States should respect parents’ important right as educators of their children and team up with them in this educational mission. Moreover, inherently the family that originated from the marital union of a man and a woman is available to the society and other families. The family’s responsibility to work for the common good is, in fact, not an aspect tagged on to or outside the family, but is derived from its natural purpose. The family has essential and natural connections to society, because it is its pillar and nurtures it continuously through procreation; the family produces the citizens and educates them with the social values that are the nourishment of the survival and growth of society. However, this principle is threatened today (The Witherspoon Institute 18): “Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected”. This same threat has been clearly stated by Sokolowski (2004 para 24): “Proponents of same-sex marriage want to unlink marriage from reproduction…” The very concept of same-sex marriage destroys God’s purpose for married couples—that is to replenish the earth with human beings. Lesson 6.3: Defending the Most Powerless: The Urgency of Moral Theology Connection between Contraceptive Mentality and the Culture of Death Contraceptive mentality did not solve the dreaded ‘overpopulation’, but only brought about what can be referred to as ‘culture of death’. Biblical teachings have been displaced by a new principle, for modern science has basically changed how males and females interact with each other in sexual terms. It is abortion and contraception that has freed women from their procreative obligations, and thus promote a culture of death. As commented by Eberstadt (2014) on the impact of contraception on overpopulation, “… it has actually been so thoroughly proved false that today’s cutting-edge theory worries about precisely the opposite: a ‘death birth’ that is ‘graying’ the advanced world” (Eberstadt para 25). It is a known fact today that highly developed countries, such as the UK and Japan, are facing problems caused by an ‘aging society’—a phenomenon brought about by very low birth rates. Pope John Paul II, in the Evangelium Vitae, mentions two origins of the culture of death. The culture of death, according to him, is caused mainly by the “mentality which carries the concept of subjectivity to an extreme and event distorts it, and recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy and who emerges from a state of total dependence on others” (Evangelium Vitae no. 19). And second, it is caused by a “notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way” (Evangelium Vitae no. 19). These statements imply that the culture of death is brought about by too much ‘autonomy’ or freedom to decide for oneself, such as deciding whether to seek abortion or other contraceptive methods. Connection between the Moral Realism of Veritatis Splendor and the Social Teaching of Evangelium Vitae Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae largely talk about the presence of absolute and universal laws in medical and sexual morality; thus there is a connection between the moral realism of Veritatis Splendor and the social teaching of Evangelium Vitae. Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, talks about the relationship between moral obligation and human freedom. In Evangelium Vitae, he presents social teachings as a guide against the expanding ‘culture of death’. Basically, the connection between the two encyclicals rests in the idea that a person’s moral duty should prevail over subjective autonomy, especially in the face of increasing threat from contraception. Veritatis Splendor acknowledges the “… great concern of our contemporaries for historicity and culture which has led some to call into question the immutability of the natural law itself and thus the existence of ‘objective norms of morality’ valid for all people…” (Veritatis Splendor no. 53) This implies that all human beings have universal moral duties, including preservation of life by rejecting any forms of contraception. As stated in Evangelium Vitae, “… such practices [contraception, abortion] are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment” (Evangelium Vitae no. 13). Moral duty should prevail over individual freedom. The Evangelium Vitae further claims that contraception is never a rightful respect for individual freedom: “… where it reveals it more sinister and disturbing aspect in the tendency, ever more widely shared, to interpret the above crimes against life as legitimate expressions of individual freedom…” (Evangelium Vitae no. 18) Voting against Abortion In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II calls for a resistance to the constitutionality of abortion because the Catholic tradition is eligible for legal implementation. The magisterium has decided not to talk about natural law principles of abortion but rather assert that the natural law demands that the moral codes of the Church become humanity’s civil law. Detailed instruction is given in Evangelium Vitae’s declaration that “in the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it” (Evangelium Vitae no. 73). Although every Catholic has the moral duty to abstain from voting in favor of abortion, the Evangelium Vitae obliges Catholic policymakers. Politicians must oppose the constitutional defense of abortion. In general, Catholics are under no circumstances supposed to put into power or support ‘intrinsically unjust’ (Evangelium Vitae no. 73) abortion decrees. However, Evangelium Vitae looks at a “particular problem of conscience… where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on” (Evangelium Vitae no. 73). Although the encyclical acknowledges the likelihood of practically voting for less preventive abortion decrees without encroaching upon their Catholic morality, Evangelium Vitae levis on them a greater moral problem. The encyclical abandons the natural law and appeals to Catholic policymakers to ratify scriptural principles into law. In spite of the nonexistence of the natural law principle, Evangelium Vitae obliges Catholic policymakers to enforce the teachings of the Church on those outside the Catholic faith. For practical justifications, Catholics are allowed to support less restrictive abortion decrees when their complete veto on abortion cannot be ratified. Catholics are allowed to vote for the restriction of abortion laws or to veto abortion as a whole. Their objective should be for the teaching of the Church to become the civil law, in order for abortion laws to be thwarted. As stated in the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (2003), “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility toward the common good” (no. 4). There are moral issues that may be given a certain degree of latitude, but never abortion. Even without the natural law argument, abortion should be completed prohibited. As mentioned in NRLC Abortion Factsheet, “Women have cited ‘social reasons,’ not mother’s health or rape/incest, as their motivation in approximately 93% of all abortions” (NRLC para 4). It seems that most women seeking abortion do not even have ‘legitimate’ reasons for it. Another NRLC Factsheet tells that RU 486: The Abortion Pill is not even a contraceptive but a medication that is intended to take the life of an unborn baby who already has a beating heart. Simply taking RU 486 automatically amounts to ‘murder’. Works Cited “Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on ‘Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas’.” Vatican.va, 20 March 2004. Web. 5 March 2014. Eberstadt, Mary. “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae.” First Things, 2014. Web. 5 March 2014. “Evangelium Vitae.” Vatican.va, 1995. Web. 4 March 2014. “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” Vatican.va, 1993. Web. 4 March 2014. “Familiaris Consortio.” Vatican.va, 1981. Web. 5 March 2014. Franks, Angela. Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2005. Print. “National Right to Life.” NRLC, 1968. Web. 5 March 2014. Smith, Janet. “Humanae Vitae: A Challenge to Love.” Catholicculture.com, 1991. Web. 5 March 2014. Smith, Janet & Christopher Robert Kaczor. Life Issues, Medical Choices: Questions and Answers for Catholics. New York: Franciscan Media, 2007. Print. Sokolowski, Robert. “The Threat of Same Sex Marriage.” The National Catholic Review, 7 June 2004. Web. 5 March 2014. The Witherspoon Institute. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles. Princeton, New Jersey, 2008. Print. “Veritatis Splendor.”Vatican.va, 1993. Web. 4 March 2014. Read More