“And you do not consider that it is profitable for us that one man should die instead of the nation, and not that the whole nation perish.” This quotation from the gospel of St John puts down in a single verse the essence of the Judeo-Christian religion about the respect that should be shown for human life. The pronunciation of Caiaphas as high priest is prophetic in the sense that that is what was going to happen as that is what God the Father willed to happen and that is what God the Son assented to willingly, which combines the two personal wills into one. However Caiaphas as high priest should have known that the religious and civil tradition to which he belonged should never have accepted the position that any innocent man should suffer death for the benefit of the community.
The principle of the lesser of two evils, or as it is known in philosophy as the principle of perplexity, can have some applications in applied ethics but not in the sphere of the destruction of innocent human life. The Catholic Church has never accepted that this principle should apply to human life at all especially if it can be avoided by other means. The right to life of innocent human life is absolute!
Gozo Bishop Mario Grech came under much fire last week for his equitable position on IVF. If one studies his statement properly, one realises that he is just repeating the teaching of the Church Magisterium on the matter. The Church is not satisfied that taking the issue out of the hands of the parents and leaving it in the hands of third persons would result in full respect for human life. The issue for full respect for human life is a benchmark of Catholic doctrine especially where innocent life is concerned. The way IVF is practised can make a whole difference in the measure of this respect. He is absolutely right in pointing out that in many centres worldwide where IVF is practiced, there is a complete disregard for nascent human life as newly formed embryos are either discarded, frozen, or given over to scientific experimentation such as stem cell research. This always results in a profound waste of human lives, which is often excused as the lesser of two evils in a scientific technique that is meant to provide childless couples (the greater evil?) with children. In this case however, is it a lesser of two evils attitude? I do not believe that succeeding in providing a pregnancy to a couple should accept the consequence of embryo destruction and freezing with its attendant dangers as a lesser evil and therefore not ever justifiable for any reason at all.
The fact remains that it also depends very much on how one practises IVF. If one enters the E-Health (Malta) website and clicks on Others and then find Regulatory Councils, under the Bioethics Consultative Committee icon, one can see for oneself a method that excludes embryo freezing (freezing of ova) and can therefore provide full respect for nascent human life from fertilisation. One has to be careful in these cases what to tailor best practice criteria on.
The Church also teaches as part of its Magisterium that there is a moral object, which in this case means there is a moral law not to kill, which is absolute as far as innocents are concerned. As far as the issue of separating sexual unity and procreativity, it also teaches that there are also subjective issues of intention and circumstance which may qualify the measure of guilt in any moral act. Absolute rights may however never be so qualified. Whether a Catholic couple should revert to IVF or not, after all other measures to acquire a pregnancy have failed, should remain within the remit between the couple and their own confessors.
Should the State consider ethical issues when considering legislation? Of course it should and this is where the advice of the Bishops should always be considered carefully. The State ought not however to consider everything immoral as illegal. The State should always keep in mind the synthesis of the common good and ought to legislate to protect the common good above all else. Otherwise it should leave space for individuals to consider their own moral positions in acts where they feel that circumstances and intentions may adequately mitigate guilt. Since IVF has been performed for about 20 years in Malta without any form of regulation, it should therefore be expedient to legislate to bring things above board. It should also legislate to ensure that innocent human life is absolutely protected as it is not in the interests of the common good and the State itself to allow the destruction of human lives especially the ones who are not in a position to defend themselves (we are always complaining of a demographic slide in births for example). Other issues such as counselling and family issues need to be given due attention.
This is not an issue of Church against science as many who are overtly infantile seek to crystallize the issue. After all the Church is very much interested in science both because it is an act of the Creator regulating the natural world and also because through natural law we have insights into ethical standards through reason. However, the Church rightly worries that it is essential that science be kept under constant surveillance so as we all make sure that it is applied always for the service of man and not let other narrow interests, such as money and power, get in the way! We will all end up as losers if this had to happen. The State should be always grateful for this important role that the Church plays in society while the Church recognises the independence of the State. Everyone can commit mistakes; the issue is whether we can get up after our mistakes. This is what the resurrection is all about after all. A Happy Easter season to all!