Why the Catholic church can't ignore science

The article's author, Dr. Krauss, a theoretical physicist, says, in this first paragraph: "In December, with great fanfare, the Vatican released Dignitas Personae, its latest report on bioethics. Sad to say, the document demonstrates once more that a morality rooted in outdated, pre-scientific understanding is not appropriate to modern realities."

Dignitas Personae in full: http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae...

How does Dr. Krauss argue the Church demonstrates its "outdated, pre-scientific understanding"?

"I refer not to the hot-button issues of abortion or stem cell research but to the Catholic church's continued opposition to a decidedly pro-life medical intervention: in vitro fertilisation."

Interesting that Dr. Krauss chose to say IVF is "decidedly pro-life." Is a medical intervention pro-life if it results in the birth of one child but the death of four to engineer that birth?

He goes on to say that the Church opposed IVF because "as I understand it, that a baby conceived by this method would not have a soul." Dr. Krauss understands incorrectly, as the Church did not advocate this position (it contradicts the Church's own teaching on the nature of body and soul).

Dr. Krauss wonders "whose dignity is enhanced by withholding medically viable methods that have allowed infertile couples, now numbering in the millions, to conceive and give birth to children they will love."

Dignitas Personae gives him his answer on page 6: "The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence."

In other words, the Church concerns itself with the dignity every human being deserves, no matter how small or how young, or how weak or how old. Performing a medically viable procedure that kills four children to implant one ... doesn't respect the dignity of those four now-dead children.

Page 8 of DP gets right to this point: "It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. [Footnote 27: Currently the number of embryos sacrificed, even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial fertilization, hovers above 80%.] These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo."

Dignitae Personae goes on to discuss IVF on the next page: " Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic election of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied."

And in the next paragraph, Dignitas Personae directly responds to Dr. Krauss' view that IVF is a "decidedly pro-life": "This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the "various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life"."

There's much more.

The Church certainly understands the "biomedical understanding of human conception." But yes, the Church is guilty of "allow[ing] the foundations of its morality to be fixed in the past" -- moral foundations don't seem like something that ought to change -- Thou shalt not kill seems as if it should be true today and tomorrow, just as it was yesterday. But Dr. Krauss is incorrect to claim that the Church is "ignoring advances based on changing knowledge." She isn't. She's engaging with scientific advances and understanding them, and analyzing them from a moral and ethical perspective. Then, on the basis of her moral authority, she says what she sees -- that morality doesn't change just because science does, if it was wrong to kill a man with a sword it's still wrong to kill him with a gun.

Let me try to draw an analogy.

There are people who sincerely believe "meat is murder." In other words, that killing an animal capable of experiencing terror and pain is wrong in the same way that killing a human being is wrong (though perhaps different in degree, or not). There are other people who, while willing to eat meat, find the conditions that animals live in before they are killed deplorable and would prefer to eat the flesh of an animal that at least gets to experience a more dignified existence before its death.

Now, because the first group advocates a more restrictive standard and takes issue with the second groups willingness to eat meat, is the first group responsible for undue suffering of animals because they fail to acknowledge the reality that people will continue to eat meat?

Yes, this analogy is very inexact in comparison to the positions of monogamy vs. condom use in preventing AIDS. But the general principle is that someone advocating a higher standard is not responsible for others failing to live up to a lesser standard. So, if the Catholic Church advocates monogamy, that does not make them responsible for people not at least using condoms failing that. The only argument left is that the Catholic Church should make gradations in their arguments (condoms bad compared to monogamy, but not as bad as non-monogamous unprotected sex).

(Not a direct response to the article, but to other comments spread throughout this thread. Instead of picking just one to attach this comment to, I'm putting it at the top level.)

Ermm, the Catholic Church doesn't ignore science. In fact it even funds science! http://vaticanobservatory.org/ You would think that a science journalist would know that.

This is a very very inflammable subject and I'll try to not step on anybodies (sp?) toes, but at some fundamental level the two are mutually exclusive.

For the church to chip in to scientific questions is like having someone that does not play poker getting involved as a referee.

I'm sure they have a lot to say about ethics questions, maybe even some valid points. But ultimately, when the Pontiff is ill he's going to go to a doctor, not rely on prayer alone, when a doctor is ill he's going to see a doctor, not pray at all (other than maybe that his collegue is sober during surgery).

One of the greatest tragedies of our time is happening right now in Africa, and if it was up to the Catholic church it would be a lot bigger than it is already. (HIV/AIDS spread because of a lack of / refusal to use condoms).

I honestly wished that these so called 'spiritual leaders' would recognize the limitations of their knowledge and act accordingly, they might even win back some of the respect they've lost.

I've flagged this and encourage everyone, both believers and non-believers to do the same.

Because we all know the old joke about arguing on the internet.

And in addition to that many of us have seen what religious arguments on the internet did to reddit.

The story itself may be a perfectly fine, but I encourage everyone to keep HN a religious debate free zone.

The Catholic Church is enormous, it moves slowly. Comparisons with Galileo are more than a little extreme. The Church's position on IVF is fairly benign. In the US, it's not much of issue at all. Religions can preach whatever they want, until it becomes a political problem then science can keep moving forward.

As for listening to religion-- sometimes it can be helpful. The problem with Catholicism and Christianity in general is that it has coexisted with western science for hundreds of years. There isn't much left to share on either side. The points of contention now are really rather minor. Contrast with Tibetan Buddhism, which had long been isolated from western science, and there are many interesting ideas to share.

Until recently, natural philososphy was a subdivision of theology.

There is always going to be a disconnect between the Catholic Church and science, simply because science is interested in the real world, the Church is interested in dualism, i.e., subjugating the physical (i.e. real) world to an imaginary spiritual/Platonic world. Maybe scientists and church people can get along on a personal level and that is great, I know a few myself, but there is always going to be a disagreement of approach. In science there is a desire to understand the actual material world, and make use of it, and not denigrate it or subjugate it to some kind of Platonic world. Why do you think the Catholics hate sex so much, to a point that they would rather have AIDS spread than for people to use protection? It is simply that that sex is an act purely of and for the material world, indeed, it is almost a celebration of the material world, and they hate sex because they hate the material world. I know a lot about Catholicism, in fact I am sorry to say I flirted with it myself when I was younger and still clinging to the fading meme of the god delusion in my mind. Again, I am not saying we can't have a beer with these people, they can be nice and good people and all that. I am saying there is a fundamental difference of approach, one approach that values the actual, real world, and the other that seeks to subjugate, and finally destroy it, just like their gnostic cult ancestors wanted. The material world is good or it is evil. Science says it is good, the Catholics say it is evil. Between these polarities there is little compromise. Simple as that.

I know this will be voted down, but the catholic church will ignore science because it threatens their very existance as an organisation.

To put it into terms that are less dividing (religion does that), here is a scenario that happened a few years ago. The US invades Iraq.

The Iraqi Information Minister is famously quoted as saying "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!", despite at the time the incredible overwhelming proof that there was. Photo and Video footage is pretty conclusive evidence suggesting that there was.

You just can't change some people thoughts on subjects, they will believe what they want to believe... like Bishop Bernard Fellay (he's a holocaust denier) who's excommunication from the church was recently rescinded.

Fellay can believe in a man rising from the dead nearly 2000 years ago, but has trouble believing the Nazi's did some mean stuff only 60 years ago*

*joke shamelessly stolen from Stephen Colbert.