(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
The third criterion by which one can judge the goodness or evil of a human act is the circumstances. “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts…Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can neither make good nor right an action that is in itself evil” (CCC No. 1754). Thus, the fact that a cure may someday be found for a debilitating condition such as Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease does not of itself justify the destruction of a human embryo.
Given these three criteria (object, intention and circumstances), the Church has judged that because a human embryo dies when its stem cells are extracted, research cannot licitly take place. The destruction of innocent human life, especially embryonic life, is an act that is intrinsically evil by reason of its object, and no good intention nor even favorable circumstances can serve to make such an act morally good.
The Catholic Church has taught specifically on this subject. In 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated clearly, “To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person” (“Donum Vitae” I, 4). In the same document, the Congregation continues, “It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained ‘in vitro’ for the sole purpose of research” (“Donum Vitae” I, 5).
Last year, the Pontifical Academy for Life’s “Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells” posed the question, “Is it morally licit to use ES (embryonic stem) cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable?” The same “Declaration” responded, “The answer is negative, since: Prescinding from the participation ‘formal or otherwise’ in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.”
This response from the Pontifical Academy for Life raises the issue of cooperation in the wrongdoing of another person. Allowing for research with existing stem cell lines does not avoid moral complicity in the destruction of human life, particularly since other, morally good, alternatives exist. In fact, research using umbilical cord, placental and adult stem cells has already shown very effective and positive results. Although perhaps not intended by President Bush, or the many people who support human embryonic stem cell research, this decision to fund experimentation on human embryonic stem cell lines that have already been extracted, and thereby has ended a human life, will contribute to an increased disrespect for human life and will undoubtedly be used by those who seek unlimited human embryo research.
While I welcome President Bush’s clear statement that he will not allow federal funding for further research on stem cells obtained through the destruction of human embryos, there is still an evident inconsistency in the president’s decision. I invite you all to join me in the hope and prayer that our president, who has repeatedly expressed his commitment to life from its beginning at conception, will unequivocally uphold that innocent human life is sacred and inviolable, and that no compromise can be made in this regard.
As the chief shepherd of the Diocese of Arlington, I judge it my duty to comment on the recent policy announced by President George W. Bush concerning the federal funding of scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. At the heart of his policy lie two crucial decisions. One prohibits federal funding for the future destruction of human embryos — whether left over from in vitro fertilization procedures or created specifically for scientific research — and the new embryonic stem cell lines they may yield. The other allows federal funds to be used for research on the 60 existing stem cell lines, “where the life-and-death decision has already been made.”
As obvious as it is to many people that a human embryo is a human person, not everyone in our society understands this. How can we know that a human embryo is a human person? Well, from a scientific point of view we know that when a human sperm and egg meet, a strand of DNA from the mother attaches to a strand of DNA from the father. Since DNA encodes the entire genetic make-up of an individual, making it this individual person, it is a genetic fingerprint, so to speak. “The genetic information (DNA), which will determine a person’s physical characteristics and much of his intelligence and personality is present at fertilization. Fertilization is the process during which a male gamete or sperm…unites with a female gamete or oocyte…to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual” (William J. Larsen, Essentials in Human Embryology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998, p. 17).
So, our DNA, which makes us unique and different from every other person who has ever existed or who will ever exist, is present from the moment the human egg and human sperm unite. At this point, a new life begins, a life that is neither totally that of the mother nor totally that of the father. As this new life develops, it undergoes a process of cellular division, becoming more and more complex. From the single-cell zygote to the more complex, multi-cell embryo, however, our entire genetic information remains encoded in our DNA, which is present in each cell of our body. This organic process of growth and development cannot be merely a random process. Some organizing principle must be at work in order to guide this development. This organizing principle (or life-principle) is what philosophers and theologians for centuries have called the human soul. Thus, at the moment of fertilization, a new being comes into existence, furnished not only with the DNA that makes us biologically human but also with a spiritual soul that causes us to be made in the image and likeness of God, as the Book of Genesis recalls (cf. Gen. 1:26-27).
President Bush in his speech to the nation explicitly recognized the sanctity of human life and has decided that since the extraction of stem cells from a human embryo would directly cause the death of that embryo, federal funding will not be available for any procedures involving the destruction of embryonic life. He recently wrote in The New York Times that “it is unethical to end life in medical research,” and that “we do not end some lives for the medical benefit of others.” It took great moral and political courage to adopt this position. The president’s decision to reaffirm the sacredness of human life, and specifically to recognize that extracting stem cells from a human embryo is a “life-and-death” decision, has hopefully set the nation on a course of respect for all human life.
Yet, President Bush is allowing federal funding of scientific experiments on the stem cell lines that have already been harvested by means of the destruction of human embryos. The president said, “Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”
It is here that we encounter a fundamental moral question. “Can we use, for purposes of scientific research, embryonic stem cell lines that have already been obtained by the destruction of a human embryo? Is such an act morally right?” This is the central question, and ethicists are wrestling with it.
In order to respond to this question, we must examine how we can determine whether a human act is morally good or evil. The Catholic Church, thanks to the careful efforts of theologians over the centuries, teaches that there are three main criteria for assessing the moral goodness or evil of a human act. These criteria are the object, the intention, and the circumstances.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us: “The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself…The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good” (CCC No. 1751). The object of a human act is the matter of the act; it answers the question, “What are you doing?” In the case of embryonic stem cell research, the object of the act is the obtaining of human stem cells, a process which involves the deliberate destruction of an embryonic child.
The second criterion for judging the morality of a human act is the intention. “In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action…It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken” (CCC No. 1752). Thus, the intention seeks to answer the question, “Why are you doing this act?” Someone who supports embryonic stem cell research can have the good intention of relieving suffering or curing disease. However, we must always keep in mind a fundamental moral principle, namely, the end does not justify the means. If an act is disordered (that is, morally evil) by reason of its object, a good intention cannot make such an act morally right. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, even the intention of seeking cures for certain diseases cannot make the destruction of innocent human life a morally good act.
