The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly

The Catholic debate over embryo adoption is at a genuine impasse awaiting resolution from the magisterium of the Catholic Church because both sides have reached a point where there is a fundamental disagreement. Several Catholic ethicists have argued that the ethical reasoning linking the acts of having sex and of making a baby, and therefore reserving both to the causality of a husband, should be extended to the act of becoming pregnant. This would rule out embryo transfer in all its manifestations. However, this dispute cannot be resolved by further argumentation, but requires authoritative definition in response to the question, Should the principle of inseparability be extended to the act of becoming pregnant?

On July 14, 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued Samaritanus bonus (The Good Samaritan), beckoning the human family to take the Good Samaritan as the ideal in the care of all persons in critical and terminal phases of their lives. The import of this letter is understood best as seen through three prisms: (1) Fratelli tutti, the encyclical of Pope Francis signed at Assisi on October 3, 2020; (2) the Declaration on Euthanasia issued by the CDF in 1980; and (3) “the remarkable progressive development of biomedical technologies [which] has exponentially enlarged the clinical proficiency of diagnostic medicine in patient care and treatment [which] call for growth in moral discernment to avoid an unbalanced and dehumanizing use of the technologies especially in the critical or terminal stages of human life” (CDF, Declaration on Euthanasia, intro)

This essay argues against Charles Camosy’s proposal, found in his book Beyond the Abortion Wars, for premature induction of labor in a mother whose child is diagnosed with a life-limiting disease, such as Potter syndrome. This proposal is critiqued within the context of motherhood as sacrificial self-gift, which has been raised to new heights by the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ, as witnessed by the motherhood of Mary.

Gender ideology and medical interventions for so-called transitioning pose profound challenges for Catholic health care. Unfortunately, many institutions do not offer clear, specific policy guidance addressing these issues. This template policy is offered to Catholic health care institutions and systems to assist them in drafting such guidance. The template defines the mission of Catholic health care, summarizes Church teaching with regard to gender ideology, and identifies both licit and illicit clinical interventions for gender dysphoria. The template also offers guidance on practical issues, including name and pronoun use, sex-specific facilities, employee training programs, and health benefits. An appendix offers model language that institutions can incorporate into employment documents to maintain Catholic identity and mission.

North America is facing an ongoing, persistent opioid epidemic, and Vancouver, British Columbia, continues to be one of its devastating epicenters, with record overdose deaths in 2020. Roman Catholic health care organizations in Vancouver are compelled to pioneer potential solutions to this public health crisis—in solidarity and employing necessary strategies to help the most vulnerable in the communities served. While controversial, harm reduction strategies for intravenous substance use keep people alive until they are able to receive the help that they need to recover. An evaluation of the degree of cooperation involved in some harm reduction strategies indicates that they can be considered morally permissible and compatible with core tenets of Catholic bioethics.

This article seeks to demonstrate that the perverted faculty argument is at the foundation of magisterial teaching in sexual ethics. Yet new natural law (NNL) theorists have consistently condemned this argument for decades despite their claim that they support the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. This situation is incongruous. Current scholarship indicates that NNL theorists do not accept the rationale for magisterial teaching in sexual ethics because, despite their opposition to proportionalism, they still hold in common its most critical error—an error that Pope St. John Paul II was at pains to condemn in Veritatis splendor

Using cell lines like HEK 293 or their products—like many of the COVID-19 vaccines—involves no cooperation with evil strictly speaking, but it does involve appropriation of the benefits of past evil. Applying M. Cathleen Kaveny’s framework for assessing the permissibility of appropriating the benefits of evil, the duty to avoid using cell lines like HEK 293 or their products is weak and defeasible. Proper interpretation of Dignitas personae requires recognizing the crucial moral differences between the use of these cell lines—which does not perpetuate the injustice of abortion, imply approval of abortion, or involve significant risks of corrupting moral character or provoking scandal—and the direct use of fetal tissue or human embryos in research.

The Texas Advance Directives Act stipulates the process by which physicians may withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment contrary to the wishes of the patient or medical proxy. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of families and clinicians have faced this personal and distressing dispute. Catholic teaching offers a rich tradition for assessing the ethics of life-sustaining treatment and analyzing disputes over its administration, yielding the conclusion that a Catholic defense of the Texas Advance Directives Act is untenable. Two objections rooted in patient harm and physician conscience fail. A solution that fairly respects the patient’s moral right to choose life-sustaining treatment is offered.