Richard A. McCormick

The Quality of Life, The Sanctity of Life

The tragic case of Karen Ann Quinlan sent moral theologians and ethicists back to their traditions to reevaluate the formulations that attempted to spell out and mediate traditional value judgments in an increasingly complex world. Conceptualization has always been very important to moral theology. Because times, circumstances, and perspectives change, sometimes dramatically, the viability of some of our most treasured value judgments depends on the accuracy of their formulation in our time. The adequacy of our formulations is being challenged in the area of life-preservation. The availability of powerful new technologies that can sustain life almost indefinitely has forced us to ask: what are we doing when we intervene to stave off death? What values are we seeking to serve? How should we formulate these values in our time if we are to

Theology and Bioethics: Christian Foundations

The title of this essay encompasses a subject so huge that sharp delimitation is necessary. On the one hand, ‘bioethics’ legitimately refers to the ethical dimensions of all attitudes, actions, and policies touching life (e.g., its begetting, protection, manipulation, improvement, etc.). Thus it includes the ethics of health care, of sexuality, of experimentation, of birth, of dying, etc., and public policies affecting all of these. Thus the Encyclopedia of Bioethics is a huge, four-volume work.

Bioethics in the Public Forum

Public policy is, and ought to be, concerned with the welfare of human beings across a broad spectrum of circumstances and conditions. A Catholic moral theologian analyzes his involvement as a public policy consultant on in vitro fertilization. Evaluative judgements made by the Ethics Advisory Board are not edicts; they leave matters open for reconsideration and revision, while providing a basis for policy decisions for the present.

The Ethical and Religious Challenges of Reproductive Technology

Birth regulation is a tired and worn-out conversation, so I will not approach the matter in that way. I think it much more exciting, and it raises all the same problems, to approach the issues of reproductive services through reproductive technologies that are now available. Since this is based on my recent experience with the American Fertility Society, now the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, I will take this tack. This presentation is a vehicle for getting some questions on the table; hopefully, there will be enlightenment in the discussion and debates that follow.

Notes on Moral Theology: 1980

For some years now, Catholic moral theologians have been attempting to explore the methodological implications of some quite concrete moral formulations traditional in the Catholic community. These explorations touch many areas and raise many questions; but above all, they have centered on the understanding of moral norms. Because the matter is difficult and highly sensitive, the literature has continued to abound. A brief sampling must suffice here. Johannes Griindel, professor of moral theology at the University of Munich, clearly adopts a teleological understanding in his most recent book.1 Behind this understanding is a conflict model of decision-making.2 Within this model, things traditionally prohibited by deontologically understood norms (contraception, sterilization, artificial insemination by husband, etc.) become discussable, indeed at times justifiable. GründeFs work is reported and some questions put to it by Heinz J. Müller.3 Müllers questions do not attack the theory as such but attempt to make it more precise. The same is true of the overview article of Karl Hörmann.4 It concentrates on and summarizes the perspectives of Joseph Fuchs, Bruno Schüller, Peter Knauer, Helmut Weber, Bernard Häring, and Rudolf Ginters. Hörmann does not challenge the substantial direction of these studies but insists on the importance of situating the conflict model within an adequate concept of the vocation of persons. J. R. Flecha Andres presents an overview study on norms in which he argues that traditional presentations of intrinsically evil actions do not

Pluralism within the Church

Let me begin with a citation from Civilta cattolica: Catholic principles do not change either because of the passage of time, or because of different geographical contexts, or because of new discoveries, or for reasons of utility. They always remain the same, those that Christ proclaimed, that popes and councils defined, that the saints held and that the doctors defended. One has to take these as they are or leave them. Whoever accepts them in their fullness and strictness is Catholic; whoever wavers, drifts, adapts to the times or compromises can call himself whatever he likes, but before God and the Church he is a rebel and a traitor ([5], pp. 145–159).

The Importance of Naturalness and Conjugal Gametes

As you know, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently issued its document on reproductive technologies.’ It rejected any technology that would replace sexual intercourse between husband and wife. That would include surrogate mothering, all forms of in vitro fertilization, and even homologous artificial insemination. I am interested here in the so-called “simple case” of in vitro fertilization between husband and wife-that is, a procedure that employs their own gametes. Presumably the Congregation’s rejection of this procedure centers around the term “naturalness. ” The Congregation’s Exposition begins as follows:

Notes on Moral Theology: 1979

The single most important happening in the field of moral theology in 1979 was, of course, the visit of John Paul II to several countries, including the United States. These visits were primarily pastoral in purpose, but in their course the Holy Father revealed very clearly not only the style of leadership he will exercise1 but his approach and priorities in the moral sphere as well. This is especially true of his trip to the United States. And this was to be expected. In a fine editorial America noted:

Sterilization and Theological Method

In response to American doubts and dissent on church directives to the Catholic hospitals that sterilization cannot be used as a method of contraception but only as treatment for a severe pathological condition (e.g. irradiation of ovaries in cancer therapy) the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that sterilization for contraception is intrinsically evil and hence absolutely forbidden because the power to procreate is so essential to sexual intimacy that to deprive it of this power is to harm the ethical i.e. the highest good of a person. However this assumes the very point to be proved - that the power to procreate is so essential that to deprive it always harms the ethical good of a person. Moreover the Congregation said that dissent as such has no theological significance; this implies that it is the reasoning and analysis of dissenters that provide doctrinal significance. However the Congregation did not examine the dissenters reasons it merely offered its own reassertion rather than an illumination of the churchs teaching.

Fetal Research: Response to the Recommendations

The June 1975 issue of the Hastings Center Report published the Deliberations and Recommendations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects concerning the regulation of fetal experimentation. The Commissions most controversial conclusions were as follows: First, it voted to allow non-therapeutic research on the human fetus, provided important biomedical knowledge could not be gained in any other way, proper consent had been obtained, and the research imposed “minimal or no risk to the well-being of the fetus” (Recommendation 4). Because interpretations of the last phrase varied in the case of fetuses scheduled for abortion, the Commission recommended that a national ethical review body be able to rule on disputed cases (Recommendation 5). In the case of research during abortion and research on the non-viable fetus ex utero, the Commissions interpretation of permissible “harm” was restricted to the proviso that “no intrusion into the fetus [may be] made which alters the duration of life” (Recommendation 6). The Commission also recommended further research on abortion techniques (Recommendation 12). The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare accepted the Commissions Recommendations almost without change—the major modification was to request paternal consent rather than to rely on the fact that “the father has not objected.” The DHEW regulations were published in the Federal Register on Friday, August 8, 1975, and written comments on them were invited. Already, however, a number of commentators including several members of the Commission had offered either dissenting or qualifying remarks. Some are printed here.