Is There a Need for

Catholic Identity in Bioethics?

(A Young Layman Questions Himself
About The Peasant of the Garonne).
John F. Morris
O
ne of the. growing fi. telds of ap. plied ethics i.s bioe .. thics. The practice
and delivery of health care have given rise to numerous ethical ques-
.. tions over the last thirty years, and rapidly developing new technolo"'
gies promise to continue to challenge our ethical thinking. Tbe Catholic
Church has maintained a presence in health care from its inception as of'
the healing ministry of Jesus. Even in the midst of the ..current crisis in which ..
many hospitals and medical facilities are merging or closing due to fmancial
constraints, the Catholic mission in health care remains strong-although not
without its challenges. As a natural consequence, Catholic scholars have reg ..
ularly addressed moral issues relating to care long. before the temi
"bioethics" was coined. Certainly, the roots of a Catholic approach to
bioethics can be found in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. One could also .
point to the influential Spanish Dominican, Francisco de Vitoria, who in the
1500s developed the work of Aquinas in regard to withholding and with- ..
drawing medical treatment, and the difference between ordinary: and extraor
dinary Today this work is carried on in the United States by the Amer-
. ican Bishops, by groups such as the Catholic Health Association and the
National Catholic Bioethics Iristi,tUte, as well as by ethics committees iri local
Catholic hospitals, and by Catholic women and men across the country.
But this involvement is coining under fire today. In our culture dominated
by secular humanism, the views arid arguments of Catholics appear to have
no place, at least in so far as they come from our Catholic identity. Following;
146
Is THERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN BIOETHICS? 147
upon the political notions of separation between Church and State, it would
seem reasonable to some in bioethics that debates must involve only secular
ideas, which presumably will appeal to all parties involved. I would suggest
that this notion of "secular: is beginning to be taken rather strongly in
bioethics, excluding any arguments coming from a religious tradition_:_
whether specifically scriptural or theological in nature or not-as inappropri ..
ate in the public discourse. These thoughts raise the question of whether or
not a specifically "Catholic" approach to bioethics is legitimate? I would like
to consider this question from a slightly different perspective: 1s there a need
for a Catholic identity in bioethics?
[n my paper, I want to examine the growing attitude of resistance to argu-
ments with religious associations, both in the political and public arenas, and
more specifically within the field of bioethics. Then, I will raise a challenge
to such resistance as unjustand unreasonable. Finally, I want to end with a
personal ret1ection on the need for a "Catholic" identity in bioethics as part of
the temporal mission .of Catholic scholars. It is my belief that a Catholic pres-
ence does not destroy the pluralism of public debate, but rather enriches it, in
that the spirit of Catholic scholarship is a search for truth.
PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND RELIGIOUS PERSONS
Can a person, as a Catholic, participate actively in America's public dis-'
course and debate.of bioethical issues? The typical answer is often, "Itde-
pends what you mean by "as a Catholic."
Lying beneath the surface of the question of what it means to be "a
Catholic" is. the deep cavern of debate regarding the separation of Church and
. State. I do not mean to imply that such debate is unimportant---'in many ways
it may be all-important to the future of our country as a land of moral con-
viction. But the scholars writing on this issue offer little consensus as to the
original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, and they indicate wide di-
vergence of opinion as to the purpose of the Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment, and conflicting visions as to the height, breadth, and width of
Jefferson's "wall of separation.'' Should. the application of the Establishment
Clause protect religion and religious institutions from interference and perse-
cution from the State? Or, should .any application of the Clause aim solely at
protecting the integrity of the democratic political. process in this country
from the influence, and some would say corruption, of religious institutions?
To an extent, the divergence of opinion is unsettling: How does the separa-
tion of Church and State in America impact those who accept a specific reli-
gious tradition? Do we have a place in public discourse in this country, or
148 JOHN F. MORRIS,:'
ffiQSt Jive with ll religious beliefs and secular-
ized publiq ideas? ' "
It is interesting to note thatforty or more years ago several scholars did
not this would be an issue any is, the question. of
and State .should have disappeared, by now (notsettled, just vaqi;shed as
relevant Consider one proritinent .example,1]ze Secular City, pub.:-
lished by f{arvey.Cox.in 1965 .. (;q]f. otherslanticipated . human soci
ety would beqome .. as a result of scientific arl(\.
, technological deveJ()pQI'ent., WJ:iat Was fie,alded as the overcoming of. myth .
and superstition (Cox's view of faith) ... would .eventually be ex- '
plaiped 4;way .bY as psycbblogylUld
stJbrt, . rationality would lead to the demise. of organize4.
One gets this was to occur a ilirect coltf<ela-
tion---,.t)Je more we learitedi the we were,

to Mlie,ve:> Cox and

' 'the others were wrong, Cox admitsthis in. a paper he published in 19':)6, ,

.and Politics ..after'fhe City'': "We are in the: midst of areli:-,

. &iol1s resurgence .an. around woJJld, and realizY,g. meas9rlng, and
weighing ln, the pf: thjl) resurgence. we don't understand the world
we are in. "
2
is the. fact that Coi "resurgence';
. was
So. here we are.at the .end of tb, century whi<;h was supp0se<f
t(} see the away or the marginalization of religion, some ..
thing quite.clifferent,is .... [IJt was because the
scholiu's who were thinking about religion forty, years ago were 'still
steeped in the myth of in the idea of the gradual
overcoming of superstition by technolQgy ..
They were Sd SJl,Ce that religion COUld be pn basis Of
s<)CioiQgical, psy,cholegical,or heurologiqal theories that they really did-.
n';t apprciate. how. I woul(J: say ineradicable-the
1
reli-
giol1s dimension of human life is not gbing away;3 ..
1 For some illus,trative e1tamples see: J;Jryan Wilson, Re.ligiop f.tnd Secu,lar Saciety
.. (London: A. Watts, 1996); Peter L. Berger, The'Sa+red Canopy: Elements of a So-
. cioiog(cal Theory of Religion. (G4tden, (::ity/New York: I;>oubleday, J 967); Thomas
'"Liiclffitarin,. View (New York: Macmillan, and
Anthony f. C. Wallace, Religi()h: An An(ftropol()gical View (New York: .. Random
1966). .
... 4. tJarveyCox, "Religion and Politics after The Se.cularCity,'; in Religion and the .
Political Orden Politics in .Classical. and Contemporary Christianity, Islam and Ju-
daism, ed.Jacob Neusner (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, l996), p; 4.
Hb{d. .
"r,
(S THERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN BIOETHICS? 149
Now it would be hard to say just how many "scholars" really believed this, or
if this idea was truly anything more than a hope for some of them, but the
general consensus today is that religion does matter in human society.
The corollary to this is that it does not seem possible, for better or worse,
to keep religion entirely. out of the public and political arenas, even given cur-
. rent debates regarding the Establishrpent Clause. Cox himself offers the fol-
lowing rernarks in the conclusion of his essay:
Our present religious resurgence ... marks a tidal.change in human spir
ituality. It is a recognition that modernity has in some measure failed,
and that for many people, the bright promise of what science was sup-
posed to do for us has now turned to ashes. The scientists themselves,
perhaps more than anyone else, now recognize that we should .count on
science for a much more limited role. We are thankful for wtmt science
can do; but we don't count on it as the Messiah.Theage of scientific and
technological messianism is . .over, and now the door is open for some-
thing else. I think that religions are going to play . an important role .. in
whatever that "something else" is. But it is going to be good news and
badnews.4
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for religion and people of faith, but an en-
dorsement nonetheless.
In the volume in whieh Cox's essay was pQblished, many scholars con-
sider the implications of religion in the public and political arenas. They
question how they misjudged religion, why It has resurrected itself, and what
impact this new resurgence will have in contemporary society-all the while
noting that religion, fof better or worse, is here to stay and will be part of
public discourse. Other authors on religion and politics make similar claims.
For example, in his essay, "Religion . as a Political Interest Group," Anthony
Champagne writes:
Religion is a powerful force in the lives of the American people, far
more powerful a force than political scientists have tiaditionally been
willing to grant. Religious concerns irtclude a vast number of political,
social, and economic issues, ranging from compulsory vaccir)l,ltion laws
to sex education to nuclear proliferation: Today, that which is the domain
of the state and that which is within the domain of religious faith sub-
stantially o\'erlap.5
Such scholars arehard at work, trying to clarify how religion should function
in out pluralistic society, what role it .should have in politics, what its limits
.! Ibid., p. lO.
5 Anthony Champagne, "Religion as a Political Interest Group," in Religion and
Politics, ed. W. Lawson Taitte (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1989), p.
ll7.
are, how far it should extend, and sofo11th. A nobte .cause to be sure; .but one
\ .. -, ' ' . .
.which has yet to fUTive at consensys..
However, I believe ius important. to emphasize because reli-
gion seems to be re$urgmg, and that in sop1e_sense religion seents't6 be more
recoghiZed in the &ph ere nbw, developmentS do n6t ensqre that
peopie are .allowed to be a part qf public discc;mrse--at in a
sub_stan:tial wanner. his work, The Wall>' Protecting
in_the Public;quare
1
conce:rn vivjdly:
'' ' - ' _, , ! .' , '
. [.A]lthough;religi()US :Jjellevers ever more in poll tics ,
arid culturru eUte_s_ dismiss reU-
from dialogic: politics. If lam cofrect, theJ1 the
activism by religious dpes :tl()t that
or,even welcotfte in the marketplace, by rpany
academic an4 elites.6 .. ' ' - .
,. ' ' ' '- '., _, ' ' ! '' ', .
The- is that,even thougq seep1 fine peaceful on t}le
'reUgiouB voi9es. and attitudes ml).y be getting and
in mere SUbtle Wa;YS ln thi$ COUntry. QuliuzZa eiplams. tJle danger furtli.er: .
What a growing ofscholais are telling us is that the complex rela-
tionship between.religion and politics has The .
.. .. they mainbin; is that the two in!>tituti6ns do not. fulJy interact in COtttem-
porary American society. Specificruly, religious voices are neutrruized and
. are thus :resttaine(j fr9m p:tany parts of Americah- public life. Even though -.
the political and social lt is abrogated ef-
fectively by the actions of mitny eultuqll and intellecturu
What is particularly trpubijng is that the voice is being
qua religious-without any regard. for the merits or truth of the 2Iaillis
- .. '
. It is. t() fatht;>m thd generlll. with W,hich relfgion and
religious people are and University campuses .... This
contempt might be undei'Standableifintellecfuatsbacl reached
clusions after serious study, but often "t"tdigion"\vithout
employing the careful inquiry they devote 'to their own areas, of exper-
tise. is not uncominon for academics to dismiss
religious ilrgwtlent as unworth of serious discussion. 8 -
lb'elieve'that Part of the probJm here is that the difference a l'reli" '
gious argument" and''an!argument fropra religious petsoo'' is becoming :more ..
't '
6 Frank Guliuzza;:over the WaW Protec.ting Religious Expression in the Public
Square (New York:, State University of New- York Press; 2000), p, 5.
. 1 . p. 12. .. . .. . . . .
8Jbjd., pp. 15::.:.f6.
/;
Is THEREANEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN BIOETHICS? 151
and more blurred. [four current understanding of the separation of Church and
State does not allow the former, is there any room leftfor the latter?
The emphasis on the academic and intellectual level, then, is significant. It
would be hard to prove that religious people are not welcome in the public
arena, for there seems to be ample evidence to the contrary. Religious people
and religious groups are gaining in numbers and presence. Cox's
gence" suggests itself everyWhere. But does mere .presence matter? Notre-
ally-not when it comes to public discourse. At a time when America is rec..,
ognizing the need to empower disadvantaged groups in our communities, and
to provide more open and public forums of our diversity, the reli-
gious voice seems to be effectively ''marginalized" from those very forums.
But this "marginalization" is subtle, as GuliJJzza explains:
The pressure to privatize religion is more subtle than an overt restriction
on political participation. Remember I am distinguishing between the
treatment religion receives by intellectual elites from the public at large.
Citizens who are religious are welcome to the political debate .as. citi-
zens. They can bring whatever intellectual arrows that are in their quiv-
ers to the fray-with one exception. (ncreasingly, religious argument is
unwelcome.9
Without necessarily accepting Guliuzza's whole thesis, I think he makes
some valid points regarding the religious person in public and political dis-
course. Tbe religious person is welcome as a citizen-that, on the surface
seems appropriate. But if, at the same time, religious argument is dismissed
by cultural and intellectual elites without even being heard, what value does
the participation by religious people in public debates hold for both the reli-
gious person himself, and for the public? Very little I am afraid. Even worse
would be the of arguments that come from religious people,
simply because they come from religious people, and regardless of whether
such arguments are based upon theological or scriptural sources versus argu-
ments based on valid reasoning which bappens to concur with a person's re-
ligious beliefs. It is the latter attitude that I see gaining momentum in the
field. of marginalization of arguments from religious persons
without any serious consideration of the merits of those arguments.
THE SECULARIZATION OF BIOETHICS
In terms of the political implications of the separation of Church and
State, and the impact of prevailing attitudes for public discourse and debate,
much more could be (and will need to be) said. But I wantto narrow down
9 Ibid., p. 26.
152 JOHN F. MORRIS,
my focus to the field of bioethics .. Even Cox
have conceded tha:t religion has not died, there is qo mistaking the increase in
secularization in cur country and the impact such has had on
what we believe public discourse should loo:K . . ,
In biaethics, for example, issues . still. treated .largeiy in. of their
technical . dimensions, and to a certaip degree . Qn their legal implicati9ns
. Some ethicists will discuss but is .embedded
in the privatti.lives of those jpvolyed,
7
not in the public pf the "is:-
sues." Certainly, the "secu1arization'; that has been oecqrririg.'i,nAmericat1 so-
ciety has also the public discourse of bioethics. In 'f990 Daniel
Callahan .noted. tflls development:
The most strikihg change over the past two decades or so has been the
secularization of bioethics,, .The field has moved from 6ne dQminated by
religious .anditledical traditionS, tb'Qne increasingly 'snhped. by philo-
sophical l;llld legal concepts. The ctmseqpence has been a model of pup- ,
emphasizes Sf:lculat themes: rigl}ts, individual.
procedural justice, artd denial of either a,
coinmon .. gqodor a transcendent individual. good. to
This "systematic" of tr!lllscendent ideals is evid,enced in recent
texts in bioetbics, which are more artd more faking on a legalistic flavor, as
well as in the media on shows such as 20120, Dateline, and when
they bioethi:cal issues.; Wheq cloning, tbe human genome prpject, or
'reproductive are . the focus is scientific. Evert the
"He!Uth that are part of nightly newscasts primarily focus on
breakthroughs, with little senolis effort to in any ethical
considerations .during the reporting. Ther is to th,.at .

. the field. of bioe:thlcs, as weil as in other aspects of our society.
As an itl4strati0n, I. want to point to t4o examples from the. of
bioothi:cS which this "margilJa,fu,ation'; oftbe teligiOU$ voice.' Cqn-
sider the remarks qf Justice in his dis.sentipg opinion on_Websterv. Re-
productive Health Services (1989), Oiie of the landmark abQition cases
ing the wake of Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Supreme Court Was considering .the
. constitutionality of a Missouri law that prohibited the use. of public. funds for
an abortion was notnecessllrY.to save her
life, that afso the usage <i pubiic facilities f()r abortions except in .
cases where mother's .life was at risk . and which abortion doctors
. lo Daniel Callahan, "Religion and the seculanzation of biaethic;s." Hastings Cen-
. t,er Report, July-August, 1990, 2 .
. _,.; ' '
IS THERE A NEEP FOR (:ATFJ:OLic"lDENTITY IN HIOETHICS? 153
to test the viability of fetuses over twenty weeks gestation. In part, however.;
attention was qrawn to case a. preamble had been affixed to the
law which stated that: ''life begins at conception and that unborn children
have protectable int.erest in .life, hea1th, and well-being." II Note
' h ' ,
Steven's discussion regardiqg this point from the law's preamble:
I am pers11aded that of any sec1,1lar purpose for the legisla-
tive declaf<ltions .that life begins at. conceptjon and that conception oc-
. curs at fertiJization the relevant portion bf the preamble invalid
under the Establishment Clause . . . the preamble; rut unequivocal en-
dorsement of a religious tenet pf some but by no mean,s all Christian
faiths, serves no identifiable secul purpose. Thatfad alone compels a
conclusion that the statute violates the Establishment Clause. . . Bol>
stering my conclusion that the preamble violates.the FirsfAmendment is
the fact that the intenS,ely divisive.character of much oqpe national de-
bate over the issue reflects the deeply held religiotis convictions
of many participants in the debate. The'Missouri Legislature may not in-
, ject its endorsement Qf a particular re,ligiolis tradition iqto this debate,
for "[t]he Establishment Clause does not allow public bodies to foment
such disagreement. "12
It .is important to. note, however, that in the actual bill that was signed into
law by the Governor of Missouri in 1986, religious arguments were in-
cluded. That is, the statement in to which Justice Stevens reacts
is not offered as a argument per .se-but rather as a conclusion of
medical science and reason. of that were sug-
gested by certain amici for Reproductive Health Services, it was concluded
that the point regarding conception. w.as an end.orsement of religion, and thus
invalid under the Esta})li&hment Clause. Justice Stevens.did not even consider
this as a point of consideration on own There numerous
people the stai(;'ment regarding life
tion on purely grounds. The idea of "life at conception" has been
excluded from the puQJic discourse on abortion-at least at the highest levels
ofthe Supreme Court where, unfortunately, it matters most.
A second example comes from the recent debate ewer physician'"assisted
suicide. One of the leading of assisted suicide E.
Quill, M;D. In his various discussions .. of this topic; Dr. Quill has addressed
.the Principle of Double Effect, which is often employed in arguments agajnst
... his view that assisted suicide is morally permissible. Double Effeet helps . to
explain why allowing a person to die under certain circumstances (i.e., when
II Missouri Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 1596 ( 1986), preamble.
12 JListic.e Stevens, opinion, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,
492 u.s. 490 0989). . .
l54 JOHN F. MORRIS
treatment is medically futile or there is the presence of a grave burden for the .
patient) may be permissible, when the intention is not to kill the person, but
rather to act for some other important good; At the same time, Double Effect
rather clearly shows that assisted suicide is impermissible, because the actual
''assistance" here requires that one intend to kill the patient. Now, Quill ob-
jects to this principle at many levels. Note, however, the first reason Quill of-
fers for rejecting the Principle of Double Effect in a 1997 ''Sounding Board"
article in The New England JournalofMedicine:
The rule of double effect has many shortcomings as an ethical guide for
either clinical practice or public policy. First, the rule. originated in the
context of a particular religious.tradition. Americatl society incorp(')rates
multiple religious, ethical, and professional traditions, so medicine must
accommodate various approaches to assessing the morality of end-of-life
practices. I3
Quill does go on to present other reasons to reject this Principle, at least as it
might apply to assisted-suicide. But what is striking is that his very first claim
against Double Effect is that it comes from a "particular religious tradition,"
which he notes earlier in the ruticle specifically as the Roman Catholic tradi-
tion. Quill's remaining comments hark back to this initial remark, albeit
rather subtly. In explaining the development of the Principle of Double Effect
Quill makes note that it developed in the Middle Ages. Later,. suggestions are
made that the Principle rests on an ambiguous and old-fashioned notion of in
tentionality, one which modem psychology suggests does notreflect the com-
plexity and ambiguity of the human psyche. The implication is one of the
ligious medieval tradition versus modem more strongly,
superstition versus science. Quill also notes that philosophers and theologians
who attemptto apply the Principle often have trouble doing so clearly .. Dr.
Quill's .consideration of the Principle of Double. Effect seems. tainted by his
perception of it simply as a religious concept. It is again worth noting that in
current applications of Double Effect, no religious or theological arguments
are asserted in its defense. It is offered as a rational Principle in its own right,
but people like Quill would marginalize its application because of its reli'"
gious association.
Many other examples could be offered in further support ofthis marginal-
ization of the religious voice in public debates on issues in. bioethics. Reli-
gious health care institutions are coming under greater pressure to perform
13 Timothy E. Quill et al., "The Rule of Double Effect-A Critique of Its Role in
End-of-Life Decision Making," in The New England Journal ofMedicine 337, no. 24,
December 11, 1997, p. 1770.
Is THERE A !'fEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN 155
that secular society deems necessary . and important-with reli:-
gious objections being viewed less and less favorably in .the media. Religious
hoseitals and health care facilities are charged with being unresponsive to the
needs of the community, especially in to reproductive rights and
:women's health issues. The reasons .. for not providing certain treatments and:
.. drugs are characterized as "Catholic rea,sons''.:_not just ''reasons." How can
religious im;titutions respond if their voice is marginalized in .the public de-
bate.'! Do religious health care facilities have a place in the public forum? If
yes, how mUch of their. "religious" side can they bring into the public realm?
Does ifdepend on what one means by "Catholic"? Is the Catholic role only
.valid if it is first secularized?
A CHALLENGE IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE
Even granting tbat some levels of separation Church and State are
valid within American political system, the presence and participation of
religious believers in public discourse must be a:llowed in the name of justice.
To support this, it must be rioted tbat there is a distinction between (he po-
litical realm and the public realm that needs to be drawn more dearly .
. Modem political debate has been settin,g the tone for public discourse-,but
the two are not co-equaL What may not be appropriate for a State to do, is not
necessarily, de facto, inappropriate for society-(!specially a society that
claims to be genuinely pluralistk and diverse. As Richard McBrien notes in
his es.say, "The Future Role of the Church 'in American
The discussion of the gerieral topic of religion and politics, and of the
more specific;: topic;: of church and politics, is confused
tion bdtween society and state is collapsed. The separation of religion-
church and state is 110t the same as the separation of religion-church and
. f\ . . . .
. society.l4 . .
Given this distinction, L would argue that to achieve at the political
'tevel, where direct theological and scriptural.l;lfgumel}.t would not seem ap-
propriate, tliere must be a correhiting openness to a plurality of views at the
public level, within the rules of ciVcd How else our country
achieve the common good, Unless all parties are allowed a presence al the
discuss'ion table? This in no way irhplies.that we, have to meet all the interests
that C()me:forth in our society-political :will have to discriminate in
some sense. .But to achieve fairness in a pluralistic society, the public forum
14 Richard P. ''The Future Role of the Church in American Society,'' in
Religion anc/Politics in the American Milieu, ed. Griffin, published under the
auspices of The of Politics (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1986), p. 87.
...
. '
J56 JOHN F.
will need ta. be open in a getmine to those .views
and causes deemed politically.ciJrrect,,Toexclude some voices (those of tra-'
ditional gaekgrounds or the religious rig4t) in the name of allowing
others n1orefreely is simply discrimina,tiofi in,thevery worse sense.
We must become .more careful, 'lumping all groups int0 one-aU
religions artd:.,religious do not bear the purdtmofthe acts of a few.who
. claini to E.ficri casE), each ac.t. each must i
be consideied.on its own . .
Ana so, if. w
0
uld seem ,perfe4?tiy legitlmatefor religious institutions and re-
. ligious personstg earficjpate in pu/?lff' discourse within sqciety? even if mgJJe
. 'direct politicafactivit.y, .Was not legitimate. As McBrien explains
,. "' '
, Although the act;iyity of bishops on weapons
a.lld abortien, ,:for example, . is. . wlth policies' which are
. QY tfie state, the bishop's iQvblvement in these occurs in
and tfu"oUgh the .channels a provides for public de-
bate. In sqch a society. voluntary associations play a key role, pro'fiding
a buffer between the state and the citize9JY ru;; as a structured means
of influep!ling publlt: pOlicy. The church is a. voluntacy association.
As su,ch, it has the constitutitmal right to. raise and lldcrresswhatit
as the moral dimension of public issues, a,nd to .its own
. members to. engage. in the same public discussion of. . ..
Thomas.Jefferson's metaphor about a ''wali of
miy lllean constitutionally fot the between church and state, '
it. can have no inhibiting iJApaQt, constitutipmU or otherwise, on the rela-
tionship artd society.l5 ' .
In short, the limitations of O.lJCpoli(ical system in ternis of .
gion does not 'tb,at \Ve must matginalization of
voice an4. the religious person that. is occurring .in contempot:a.ry pabUc
' discourse. . .
The sanie con<;em,s were reflected in aft,icle written PY Sulmasy
and'rumund Pellegrino in response to Quill's argl!Iilents against Double Ef..
feet. In their well reasoned and titled, "TheRule.of Doqble
Effect: Up the these address .Quill's claim,
that the religious of Double Effect is a hind.rance to itS effective-
.. ness as a moral guideline: .
'Qlis is a. ()(fg $J1o1114 tpe cq!Jtinollly hel<J );!gSition tbat
is: fnorally.wrong 1:Je rejected simply because it can . .be found
20: 15) in the co11lllUlrldments of a particular religious tradition? .
The religious origins qf a moral principle or rule should not preclude its
'\ " '
is Ibid . pp. s1...:ss, 92.
>)'
IS THERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN BrOETHICS'? 157
discussion in civil society. Nor should the congruence between a moral
argument's conclusions and the teachings of a religion undermine the
validity of the argument. An exhortation to exclude such rules and prin-
ciples in the name of tolerance seems itself highly intolerant.1
6
The crucial point that Sulmasy and Pellegrino underscore is that whereas the
Double Effect was developed by religious people, no specific theological or
scriptural arguments are asserted in its defense:
There is nothing about the rule of double effect that is inherently reli-
gious. The fact that it was developed by theoh)gians does not vitjate the
fact that it might be morally true. Nothing about the rule presumes any
knowledge of scripture or the teachings of any religion. All that is re-
quired is a belief that certain <ictions are absolutely morally prohibited,
or, more controversially, at least a belief that consequences are not the
sole determinants of the morality of an action .... A logically rigorous
argument against the rule of double effect would deal with the rule on its
own terms.
17
Having made the point that Double Effect needs to be considered on its own
merits in public discussions of bioethical issues, the authors go further and
call Quill to task for this inappropriate attack. They do not let Quill get away
with this attempt to marginalize the principle simply because ofits religious
origins:
To raise the yuestion of the origins of the rule as a reason to discredit it
is a form of the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument-to claim to
discredit an argument because of who states it. ... The argument that it
should be rejected out of hand si111ply because it originated with a par-
ticular religious tradition is completely unwarranted. IS
Sulmasy and Pellegrino get to the heart of the problem here, and challenge
Quill's blatant ad hominem remarks. One wonders whether or not these im-
portant points were given due is a well-known Catholic
doctor, and Sulmasy, who has a Ph.D. and M.D., happens to be a Franciscan.
I can only hope their atticle was considered on the merits of its arguments
and not simply on its origins.
Nonetheless, I believe that we must continue to challenge such ad
hominem attacks raised against the arguments of religious persons, and
call for serious consideration and discussion in their place. This is the only
16 Daniel P. Sulmasy and Edmund Pellegrino, "The Rule of Double Etfect: Clear-
ing Up the Double Talk," in The Archives Medicine, 159, March 22. 1999.
Seep. 548.
17 Ibid., pp. 548-49.
18 Ibid., p. 549.
'i;,
158 JOHN F. MORRIS
way we can hope to reach Truth. Whatever politittal needs couptry
may have for separation of Church and State, 1 do not believe there is a
corresponding need for sucll a stroog of ideas in public dis-
course-:-eertainly not to the extent of marginalizing the arguments of reli-
gious .petSO!lS without further. consideration. Our country . has come such a .
Iong.way in 'regards to recognizing the dangers and of exclusion,
with women and minorities for example, that it seems a shame to
,, ;' ,, ' ' ' . '
what has been 'learned.
. . .
BUT WHY SPECIFICALL-Y CATHOLIC?
. ,
If one grant$ the given tbus fat, a further question Wlty
insist on i approacll to bioethics? Is there. really a neeq
to. make such an explicit idfimtification? .Indeed, if has beep said thus far
.is true, perhaps insisting on a "Catholic" identity'would be
in today's public'.climate-t;hat is,.if the voices of persons are being
would it not be tnore effecti.ve voluntarily secularize. the
"Catholic" approach ,so that the. ideas would be. more acceptable? One might
even wonder if
1
'Catholic" positions, for example oil birth control
and assisted reproduction, should be withheld (rom p\lblic debate in the hope
of fostering better our diverse society? I find this line of .. ;
reasoning troubling for Catholic scholars and Catholic institutions . I believe
that. such an attitude accepts the ad hominem attacks that made pub-
lic discourse as legitimate critit::isms of the ideas of persons, rather
than such attacks as:fallacious attemJ?ts te neutralize the question-
ing of troubling positions. And so, I recognize two significant reasons
. why there is, indeed, a need fu,,r a "Catholic'.' to'bioethics within con-
!emporary Atperican society. First, I would insist tQat the approach
brings a. unique perspective to table tllat is founded on' a catefuUy thou gilt
out understanding of ihe htiman' that is
within the general arena ofbioethical discussion. Second, I believe that' devel-
oping a specifically "Cathplic" to bioethics is appropriate for
Catholic philosophers as part of fulfilling their tempora1. nrission as Christians.
To aid my reflections on these points, ltum to the work of Jacques Maritaih in
his fiQal reflection, The.Peasant of the Garonfie, and to John Paul IT's encycli-
. cal letter, Fides et Ratio.
Let me begin by noting that, while one may speak at times of "Catholic
biQt1thics," the Church, as noted consistentlyin official documents and teach-
ing, cannot have an au.thoritative bioethics. Bioethics is an applied field of
philosophy, and as John Paul IT reminds us in Fides itt Ratio, there. is no
Is THERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC IDENTITY IN BIOETHICS? 159
"official philosophy of since the faith. as such is not a philoso-
phy."l9 However, as Maritain notes in The Peasant of the Garonne: "[F]aith
itself demands to be completed by a ... theology. And theology cannot take
shape in us without the help ofthat nahtral wisdomofwhich human reason is
capable, whose name is philosophy."20
For Maritain,. this statement is a reflection of his belief that there could be.
a genuine "Christian philosophy." Much has been debated regarding the no-
tion ofa "Christian philosophy," but l want to focus specifically upon Mari-
tain's explanation of how natural such a development would be in the Chris-
tian who also happens to be a two roles are not antithetical:
After all, a Christian can be a philosopher. And if he believes that, in
order to philosophize, he should lock his faith up in a strongbox-"'-'-that is,
should cease being a Christian while he philosophizes..:.........he is maiming
himself, which is no good (all the more as philosophizing takes upthe
better part of his time). He is also deluding himself, for these kinds of
strongboxes have always poor locks. But if, while he philosophizes, he
does not shut his faith up in a strongbox, he is philosophizing in faith,
willy-nilly. It is better that he should beaware ofit.21
Simply put, I would say that Catholic philosophers are not two people, but
one. And as one person, it is certainly possible to develop oneself as a
philosopher and be true to the of philosophical inquiry, without at
the same time otiending one's fundamental religious beliefs. In fact, I would
claim that )n the name of philosophical consistency, a Catholic philosopher
must carry out this task.
In Fides et Ratio, John Paul II also addresses the notion of"Christian phi-
losophy." He notes that there can be a genuinely
Christian way of philosophizing, a philosophical speculation conceived
in dynamic union with faith. It does not therefore simply refer to a phi-
losophy developed by Christian philosophers who have striven in their
resea.rch not to contradict the faith. The term Christian philosophy in-
. eludes those important developments of philosophical thinking which
would not have happened without the direct or indirect contribution of
Christian faith.22
John Paul II is not na'ive to the demands of philosophy which require it to
be independent and autonomous. However, he expresses in his letter a belief
19 John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, no. 76.
20 Jacques Maritain, The Peasantofthe Garonne, trans. Michael Cuddihy and
Elizabeth Hughes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 85.
21 Ibid., p. 142.
22 John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, no. 76.
, ,,
t60' JOHN .. F. MORRIS
.that philasophy and the faith are compatible:
obey its own rules and be based upon its own prinCiples; truth, b,owever, can '
ortly be one. The content of Revelation can never debase the discoveries and
legitimate autonomy of reason.''23
adclitlon to the compatibility of and fhlth, tllere is a practical
tgle that the development of a "Christian philosophy" can Which was
recognized by both Maritain and John Paul U. In the. Peasant of the
Qaronne, Marltain .
tt seems clear that in its very capacity as philosophy,
phy is, on its own level/better "situated" titan for the dialogue .
. . . Dogtl,latic are not philosoJ)hy's concern. afleast not di-
J'he object of its :investigation belpngs to order and has ...
to dp with. mat mttural ecumehism the 'desire for which,. frus-
tdtted,, MtturaUy haunts human mind. Not only)s dialogue with non-
Christians much easier for philosophy, since eru;h 6fthe pijrties cap more
easily receive from the other valuable contributions for his own thought,
out the possibilities for agreement in this field are also of .
much vaster scope. 24 . '
' .
. In Fides et Ratio,. John Paul. II echoes this important ,;bridging" role of
philosophy:
Philosophical thought is often the only gl"Ound for understanding. and lli-
alogue with thqse who do qot share our faith .... Such a groun:d for un-
derstanding lind dialogue is all the more vital nowadays, since tl)e most
pressing,issues facing and the
of different races and for pOS!!ibly find a
tion If there is a cleat and honest collaboration Christians and
the followers of other .religions ood al. those \vbo, while not a re
ligious belief, have at heart the. reqewal of humaniry,25
, It ., '''
The recognitionof;thepractical value of pbiiosophyJ()r tl'Je no way
undermines the value and validity of phllO$Opby. in and of itself.
Rather; this is sjmply a recogqition of the of philosophical re-
flection and. insight for day to day life.. .. .
' . What, then, the Catholj.c philosopher bring to the, .. Worid'' of
public disqourl)e regarding issues in bioetbics? First, I believe; is the focus on
. the humah tqat .is inherent. within. the and theological
. traditions of the Church, and the pl;imacy of the person oyer the community.
As Maritain .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. ,. .
23 Ibid., no. 79;
24 Jacques Maritain, The Peasantofthe Ga('Qnne:,:p, l65i
25 John Paul U, Fides et Ratio, no. 104. '
-',>;;,
,, :
'
ts THERE A. NE:En FOR CATHOLic InENTn')' IN BtoETHics? t6i
In $at human which \$a society, the in
keeping with the demands of truth, priril'acy to the person over the
community; today's world gives prhnacy to the community
over the petspn_:.a highly interesting and signit1cant disagreement. In ,
our age .of c;ivilfzation the Church
Her.......:the r,efuge.and only one,) of the person.26
1 finltnt1fie words both true and .stirring. There is ample. evidence that :ill the
years wrote thesewqrds, notreforme9 .
.. . Nor one mistake the current eint>hasi& on ''autonomy': in American
for a genui,ne respect f0r the a.ssisted
suicide, genetic Cloning, 'stern cell.researcb' all pose St?rious
tlu'eats to .the of person,S: The OhUrrCb, an<f.,spe,cif.ically' Catholic
. , philosophers intere$ted ;in bioethics, .have an important duty. to continue to
GUll a,rtntion to tlie dignity Of hUI}1ah persons.
The affront to the. dignity of h4rnan persons is due, in part, to the lack of a
qleat understandh1g 0f human t.n the arena, especi&Ily
within scientific discourse;fn his .owh Hille Maritil.in made note of this Iatk:
,. . <: ,. ' . . ' ' ' ' '
I am told by trustworthy fnellds, tile best representatives of the world of
technicians.feel much more the and
ate niuch to a genuine reai,ism, than are those whobelong to
..the intelligentsia. What lack is a .idea of fuan, which qo
one iwthe intelligentsia them, and which it be up to
Rhilosdphers and theologians worthy of the name to; propose them.27
'.This need' has only become more pressing in contemporary Arnerica,n society.
fndeed,Wi(h developments Genome Project we maybe on the
.. verke of chat;tging what }t means tO be humail, Jew lO the scientific CO(I1-
munity seem co.nce(Ded. They simply qo not the seriousness of
what we doing bedattse theylack a critical of what they are
wotldng upon. Biology, neuroJogy, psych,ology, sociology, and gnetics are
. setting the tone for. t>Jbiic discourse, n6ne of wnichcan offera:.complete un-
. der:stao4ing of human n.ature. Nor have the variotJS philosophies of mod-
ernism apd offered anything to help. our understanding.
i.11 sum, Catholic philosophers have truly important to share in
. tliis debate, if.only the intelligentsia will allow the arguments of :religiou.s'
.. perseus to be heatd.'Qle secularized and largely scientit1c attitudes that dome
.inate public.': discourse .. simply . do .not addr.ess alL the questions .relevant to
. 'hu,man society. ettplains:
26 Jacques Marltain, The Peasbnt of the Garonne, p. 51.
i 27lbid., p. 17i. . . .
162 JOHN F. MORR1S
It is clear that science as such has nothing to tell us about the problems
which matter most to us, and about t!Je idea of the world, of man, per-
haps of God, which we cannot escape forming for ourselves, any more
than about the torment of the absolute, the "why were we born?"; the "to
what can we wholly give our hearts?"; the desire for that tire which will
burn us without consuming us, which as hidden as they may be, are
there, in our very depths. All of this remains completely outside the
scope of science.28
And if the strong notions of separation between Church and State continue to
set the tone for public discourse, these issues will not be brought to the fore-
front at the very time when they matter most to us as a society-on the brink
of so many long lasting and deeply impacting decisions. The philosophical
conclusions of Catholic philosophers Who are drawn to such issues because
of their faith background are indeed relevant for our society as we consider
where we are heading in the next millennium. It would be a teqible tragedy
to simply allow American society to continue unknowingly into the future
with so many important questions and issues left unconsidered because of the
"religious associations" of those questions and issues.
In addition to these reasons for developing a specific "Catholic" approach
to bioethics, I want to offer one final ret1ection, These last thoughts are more
subjective in nature, and are drawn from Maritain's own reflections on the
temporal mission of the Christian in The Peasantofthe Garonne. Early in the
book, Maritain makes the following remarks:
The age we are entering obliges the Christian to become aware of the
temporal mission which he has with respect to the world and which is
like an expansion of his spiritual vocation in the kingdom of dod and
with respect to it. Woe to the world if the Christian were to isolate and
separate his temporal mission (then it would be wind only) from his spir-
itual vocation! The fact remains that this temporal mission requires him
to enter as deeply as possible into the agonies, the cont1icts, and the
earthly problems, social or political, of his age, and not hesitate to "get
his feet wet."29
However, as we jump into the water, Maritain reminds us that this temporal
mission is not the only duty of the Christian. One must be careful, he notes,
to avoid "kneeling before the world."30 Rather, the Christian must always
remain dedicated to his spiritual calling. Thus, a Christian is required to;
"love the world with that love which is charity as a creature of God on the
way to its own natural ends, and therefore to cooperate in its temporal
28 Ibid., p. 113.
29 Ibid., p. 43,
30 Ibid., p. 56.
IsTHERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC. IDENTITY IN .BIOETHICS? 163
struggle against injustice and misery."3l The mission to work within the
world is not a subsequent call to abandon Truth in order to make living in so-
ciety more convenient, and with less conflict:
Charity has to do with persons; truth with ideas and with reality attained
thrm,tgh them. Perfect charity toward our neighbor and complete tldelity
to the truth are not only compatible; they call for one another .... It has.
never been recommended to confuse ''loving" with "seeking to
p1ease."32
The Catholic philosopher must in fact remain dedicated to Truth if he is to
manifest true charity.
Final1y, Maritain does not suggest that all Catholics who engage in philos-
ophy must carry out this ternporal mission in the concrete. Rather, he sug-
gests thanhere are those among the laity who will be drawn to such work, for
example in the field of bioethics, as "a calling." This notion of "a calling"
seems echoed in Fides et Ratio, when John Paul II issues a challenge to
C;1tholic philosophers'-'-Which he admits is daunting-to help people "come
to a unified and organic vision of knowledge":J3
I appeal also to philosophers, and to all teachers of philosophy, asking
them to have the courage to recover, in the t1ow of an enduringly valid
philosophical tradition, the range of authentic wisdom and truth-meta-
physical truth included-which is proper to philosophical enquiry. They
should be open to the impelling questions which arise from the word of
God and they should be strong enough to shape their thought and dis-
cussion in response to that challenge. Let them always strive for truth,
almi to the good which truth contains. Then they will be able to formu-
late the genuine ethics which humanity needs so urgently at this particu-
lar time.
34
This "call" is issued by the Pope to those philosophers who are interested in
the specific tasks he is addressing in this letter. There is no demand for all
Catholic philosophers to carry out these tasks-the freedom of philosophical
enquiry will undoubtedly call some towards other philosophical tasks. But I
e l i ~ v e that this call from the Pope for Catholic philosophers to work in a
genuinely philosophical manner for the betterment of humanity serves as the
ultimate foundation for a specifically "Catholic" approach t'o bioethics. It cer-
tainly embodies the spirit of my own involvement in the field.
31 Ibid., p. 62.
32 Ibid., pp. 90-91.
33 John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, no. 85.
34 Ibid., no. 106.
164 JOHN F. MORRIS
CONCLUSION
In many ways, goal of this paper was simple: to justify the need for a
specifically "Catholic" approach to bioethics. In public debates on bi<lethlcru
. .issues thereis a need to support and promote the uniq11e that the:
Catholic Church. has on the. primacy aQd dignity of the human person. Contem-
abo4thuman natUre to be re-Y.i.dby the philosophl-
embpdied in. the Catholic Here lies one manner in 'Yhich
can fulftll.,their temporal mission iJ) the worldtoday-. a
mission that is' further supported by the Pope's encyclical., Fides et Ratio . .
Disc\lssion of Qle above point$ requited an exaillimition of the current mi- .
lieu of.public ,discourse on bioethlcal issues, in w'hlch it was arg1,led that the .
voices of religious persons are being :marginalized, with6ut flue considera"'" :
tion for the positions and ideas being espoused, f beHeve that such curr'ent :
intolenant attitudes need to be. ch,allenged b)r philosophers at all levels, and .
within all fields of study. It will be important to t
0
distinguish po ...
litical. ne.eds for separation from ar,td sociaLneeds for openness in the '
pursuit of truth. ,
In the end, to reflect back upon Cox's former belief that religion would,
eventually be replaced by science, I believe that Cox and others who shared
his position, were wr
0
ngbecause they were only looking at reliigion and re
ligious institutions, all the underestimating .the religious person. For
'e"ample, as a lay person, it is my understanding that what makes Catholic .
healthcare "Catholic," is not the fact that there may be a chapel. ip the hos- .
. pi tal, nor that there may be crucifixes in. pa.tiept rooms; nor tlt&t, a religious
may run the institution and haye members sit on :the Board of Direc-
. tors-none of these factors rep.;esents . the totaliiy of Catbolic health. care.
is .. a way of life-a that is it:r touch with the present, .
yet not disconnected from the past. The way of life embodied in Catholi-:
cistn is with the tradition of Christianity--ca living tradition rep- .
resented in Church teaching, council. documents, papal letters, the Writings '
of holy women and men; the arid the Word, Himself, Jesus Christ.
To think'of Catholic he.alth as something of{ered by people, or
in certain buildings, is impoverish in its deepest reality iS' a healing .
ministry. In sum, being "Catholic" is not limited to following certain rules
and rituius, but rather encompasses the totality of s life' in all imitation : .
. .
Life involves action, and action is the arena of ethics. 'the need for a
"Catholic" approach to. bioethics flows from the way. of life to which all
Catholics and Chri$tians are called .. :aven if there did not a single hqspita1
i', \,
Is THERE A NEED FOR CATHOLIC iDENTITY IN BIOETHICS? 165
in this country affiliated in any formal way with the Catholic Church, there
should still be Catholic health care wherever there are Catholic nurses, doc-
tors, therapists, administrators, etc. In a similar fashion, I believe that a
'Catholic" approach to bioethics should exist wherever Catholic philoso-
phers apply their philosophical training to the tield of bioethics, The "call-
ing" here is a personal one-part of the mission of a Christi<m in the world
today, and as genuine as the calling of Catholics to any vocation. However,
the actual presence of Catholic hospitals, health care facilities, and academic
it1stitutions, especially those devoted to the study of bioethics, allows for a
more concrete, physical presence-that is, a sacramental presence___,.in our
communities, states, and nation. Catholic philosophers today have inherited a
tremendous gift from the tradition they workwithin, as well as an incredible
opportunity to foster the living presence of Christ and the search for truth
within the world today. Perhaps the greatest strength we have to stand on is
that the wisdom of the Catholic tradition strives to be reasonable-this is the
heritage left to us by the great Church fathers and doctors. Not that we will
ever know the mysteries of this lite fully, but that there is reason here-the
reason of o d ~ If this is the case, as Catholics believe, then we find an answer
to our question, ''Why the need for a Catholic identity in bioethics?" Truth!