The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) - Day 300: Science, Bodily Integrity, and the Dead

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

The Catechism looks at matters relating to scientific research, bodily integrity, and the dead with the lens of the dignity of the human person. Fr. Mike helps us navigate the Catechism’s teachings by acknowledging science and technology as a good while emphasizing restrictions and conditions to ensure respect for the dignity of persons. Today’s readings are Catechism paragraphs 2292-2301. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Hi, my name is Father Mike Schmitz and you're listening to The Catacism in a Year Podcast, where we encounter God's plan of sheer goodness for us, revealed in Scripture and passed down through the tradition of the Catholic faith. The Catacism in a Year is brought to you by Ascension. In 365 days, we'll read the Catacism of the Catholic Church discovering our identity and God's family as we journey together toward our heavenly home. This is day 300. Ha ha, all 65 days left. We're reading paragraphs 2292 to 2301. As always, I'm using the Ascension Edition of the Catechism, which includes the foundation of faith approach. But you can follow along with any recent version of the

Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also download your own Catechism in a year reading plan by visiting ascensionpress.com slash cyy and you can click follow or subscribe on your podcast app for daily updates and daily notifications. Speaking of today, today being day 300, this is pretty remarkable. I was literally thinking about this last night. I woke up in the middle of the night and I was like, oh my gosh, tomorrow I'm going to record day 300 and the fact that the people, you know, I'm saying the community, the community of the catacism in the here are continuing. This is remarkable. I was just was so overwhelmed as I was

tossing and turning like a literal Tisri chicken. I was just spinning around. I was thinking this is amazing. 300 days that you have been part of this. 300 days that you have pressed play. I remember back in recording day 100 and thinking this is a big deal. Here we are three times that. That's how math works. and on day 300 I'm just really proud of you guys and also thank you to all those who have supported the production of this podcast with your prayers I'm telling you I do pray every single day for you all and I'm grateful for your prayers for me as well as praying for each other And also those of you who have supported the production of this podcast with financial gifts We literally couldn't do this without you. We could not get to day 300

So on day 300 what are we doing? We're looking at respect for the person and scientific research. So remember two days ago, we talked about the kind of the header was respect for the dignity of persons. Then we looked at the sin of scandal. Yesterday we looked at the need to respect health. That health is a good, not an absolute good,

but still a good. Today we're continuing to look at this by looking at how we have respect for the person in light of the fact that there is such a thing as scientific research and that scientific research can be a great benefit to humankind, right? Science, we have a research can be of a huge benefit. At the same time, there are limits. Not just limits, there is a guidance system here. And the guidance system for scientific research is not just, hey, what works, what's useful, or what's efficient, but what is best for the human person?

That has to be always the case. So even in paragraph 2295, it says research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and for the moral law. So we realize that just because with science or technology, we can do a thing does not mean we ought to do a thing. And yes, we will probably have to quote the guy from Jurassic Park many times today. We're also looking at respect for bodily integrity

as well as respect for the dead. So there's all these pieces that when we're looking at this umbrella of respect for the person, okay, so scientific research, how does that guide our scientific research and our approach to technology? Also, what are some ways in which we need to respect bodily integrity and lastly, how do we respect the dead? And this is all connected to the fifth commandment. That will not kill. Why?

Because that's based off of the dignity of the person. I hope that all made sense as we launch into today today because we're leaving the days of four paragraphs behind. We have a few more paragraphs than just four paragraphs. 2, 2, 9, 2, 2, 2, 3, 0, 1. Let's pray. Father in heaven, we, I just give you praise and glory on this day. Thank you for every person, every person who has pressed play and is listening to these words

and is studying your teaching through the church and through Scripture. We thank you. We thank you for continuing to guide us. Thank you for continuing to give us the strength to each day, even in the midst of our own struggles, our own weaknesses, to press play. We thank you. We ask you to please open our minds and open our hearts today that we can know, not just the limits of science, but also the guidance that you offer when it comes to any kind of

technology, when it comes to any kind of technology, when it comes to any kind of research, Lord God, help us to place our skills, our intelligence, our even desire for health and healing your service, at the service of our brothers and sisters, but always with that wise and gracious eye towards the dignity of the human person. Lord on the day, we're also going to talk about respect for the dead. We also ask you to please bring to yourself, bring to your heart those who have died. Those who are in purgatory, those whose hearts who are being purified in this moment by your grace, bring them close to you and help us to acknowledge the goodness of the body and the goodness of the person as we have respect

for those who have died. We make all these prayers, in the mighty name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, amen. And the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, amen. It is day 300, we are reading paragraphs 2-9-2-2-3-0-1. Respect for the person and scientific research. Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health. Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's

dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves, however, they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man from whom they take their origin and development. Hence, they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits. It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others, or even worse, from prevailing

ideologies. Science and technology, by their very nature, require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be, at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God. Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subject's potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's

life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him. Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit

consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons. Respect for bodily integrity. Kidnapping and hostage-taking, bring on a reign of terror. By means of threats, they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately. It is gravely against justice and charity.

Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred, is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law in order,

often without protest from the pastors of the church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times, it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On

the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. Respect for the dead. The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by the prayer of their relatives who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God. The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity in faith and hope of the resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy.

It honors the children of God who are temples of the Holy Spirit. Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious. The church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body. All right, now we have it paragraphs 2292 to 2301. We talked about a lot of stuff here.

So let's look at this. We have scientific research, bodily integrity, and respect for the dead. Okay, basically, very, very simply, when it comes to scientific research, it could be a good, right? So paragraph two to nine two, scientific, medical, psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and advancement of public health. Good. Great. Awesome. Perg. Two to nine three, this is where we start

having some of those boundaries and some of the guiding principles. Two to nine three says, basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's diminutive creation. Again, it's a good that we have here. By themselves, however, they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress, see obviously they're science. And there's this term, maybe for it, it's called scientism. And scientism is the idea or ideology that science can give the answers to anything, that science will give the solution to all problems.

And yet, here the church is reminding us on its own. Science and technology cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. You talked about this before, that, yes, science is a search for truth, but it's a search for natural truth. That faith is all about truth as well, and truth cannot contradict truth. But we said, science asks the question, or the natural sciences asks the question, what is this and how did it come to be? Whereas faith asks the questions, sure, what is this and how did it come to be, but also, why? Why is this here? And who did it? And on its

own, science cannot disclose the meaning, cannot answer the question, why? Further, it says science and technology are ordered to man from whom they take their origin and development. So they find in the person and in his moral values, both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits. So we can never, never advance science or technology at the expense of the person. See that, that's going to be so, so critical. That if ever there is a movement towards advancing technology, advancing science, that does not take into account the person

or violates the person or diminishes the person, then that's going to be a grave error. Goes on to say, 2-9-4 says, it is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications, which I think is really wise. The way that even says that, it's an illusion to claim moral neutrality. Nope, it's either we are working for the good of the person and of communities or we're working against the good of the person and communities. On the other

hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency. What I mean about that, we talked about this before, how in a world without God that you only judge the goodness or badness of a thing with two metrics. One is, do I like this? It's like, is it my preference? Or is it useful? Is there a utility there? Those are basically the only two kind of grounds without God that you can say something

is good or bad. Because I like it, again, it's my preference, or because it's useful. And there's a utility there. And we recognize here the churches reminding us that no, no, you cannot, our guiding principles are not, hey, does this get the job done? The guiding principle is always going to be

is this in conformity with the goodness and the dignity of the human person. And so, science says technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. dignity of the human person. And so science and technology, by their very nature, require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. This is the go back to the Jurassic Park thing. I might even just paraphrase it. We're so busy wondering whether or not we could. We didn't stop to ask whether or not we should do this thing. This is going to be vastly important for all those of you who are listening to who are involved in science

and technology. Awesome. Thank you. Praise the Lord for science. Praise the Lord for you and the ways in which you have advanced the care of human beings and even the care of animals. The care of the planet. Super good. But all of those things, care of human beings, care of animals, care of the planet, science and technology have to have an unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria.

They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, and in conformity with the plan and will of God. Which is so good. Okay, so paragraph 2-9-5 talks about experimentation, and we recognize that experimentation on its own can be morally legitimate, but there are certain kinds of experimentation that are not morally legitimate, but there are certain kinds of experimentation that are not morally legitimate. For example, if it exposes the subject's life, or physical or psychological integrity, to disproportionate or avoidable risks, and also has to be done with consent.

That's massively important. Guzan, 2-9-6, organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. So you can't just force someone to give an organ like Donate their kidney at the same time. Donation of one's organs is a noble and meritorious act, including organ donation after death. That's what it says here in 2296. It's a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as an expression of solidarity. But one may not take someone else's organs without their consent also last little note here in paragraph 2296. It says, Moreover, it is not morally admissible

directly to bring about the disabling, mutilation, or death of a human being. In addition, at the end of paragraph 2297, it highlights this, it says, except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. So that's under the category of torture, but it's also under the category of when it comes to medicine. So if there is a healthy arm, if there is a healthy organ, if there's

any kind of part of the body that's healthy, and science is used to simply make it not work anymore, that's against the moral law. So for example, Avisectomy on a man or a hysterectomy that's simply elective on a woman would be against the moral law. So that's a key thing. But keep in mind that this teaching against amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations So that's a key thing. But keep in mind that this teaching against amputations, mutilations and sterilizations, that's under the category in paragraph 2-9-7. That talks about kidnapping, hostage-taking, terrorism, and torture. And it says that they're explicitly wrong. Now, the question you continue might think is, wait a second, why does the church have to say that, oh, by the way, guys, taking is wrong terrorism or torture are wrong. Well, A, because that exists and those things exist and B, because even good

people can be tempted to do these things. Maybe not kidnapping, maybe not hostage taking your terrorism, but I don't know if you remember life in the wake of 9-11 here in the United States. I mean, remember the TV show, 24, Jack Bauer in it. Kiefer Sutherland was the main actor there, playing the character Jack Bauer. And it was all about, there's terrorists. And he has to stop the terrorists, has to find out where is the bomb that's gonna go off

somewhere in a city in the United States. And so in many, many, many cases in this show, I remember I kinda got into this show pretty intensely. There was torture happening a lot. And the idea behind this is, yes, you have to do this because we need to get the answer to where the bomb is because they need to stop the bomb and not to save people's lives.

And so it was one of those moments where it was, wow, I even noticed myself thinking, yeah, torture the guy because you need to save people's lives. The church here is reminding us that even when it seems like it could be a good, torture is not a good. He says torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred,

is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Again, why does the church have to tell us this? In times of peace, it's just a kind of, oh, little asterisk, little note here. But in times of difficulty, in times of war, the church has to remind us, just because war has broken out does not mean that all bets are off.

Now, paragraph two, to nine eight is very, very good. If paragraph two, to nine eight talks about this, in times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the pastors of the church, with themselves adopted in their own tribunals, the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. So this is kind of a nod to what we typically think

of when it comes to the Inquisition. So when it came to the Inquisition, you have the common law of whatever the kingdom, whatever the nation was at the time. Roman law here. And it says here that the church themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. And so again, this is kind of a nod to the inquisition. Now, it's very fascinating. I read a number of books on the history of the inquisition. And as it says, regardless of these facts are, this is a shadow.

I don't wanna say that in a light way. This is a dark time in history of the church where it comes to like, okay, here is the church that adopted the practices of the civil authorities. And the civil authorities were, yep, to extract confession, to do all these things to intimidate, here's torture. And at times, the church didn't speak out against that.

And at times, the church even adopted those practices in her own tribunals. Now, this isn't excusing, but it is trying to give some clarity. So there are remarkable records when it comes to the Inquisition. And the number of these books will cite this reality that when people were brought before the civil courts, they often appealed to the civil courts. They'd rather be judged by the church courts because the church courts not only

had a degree of fairness to them that it wasn't always existing in the civil courts, but also because the church courts had less severe penalties, less severe tortures in the church rather than in the civil authorities. Now, does that make everything all good? No, it doesn't. But does it demonstrate at least a little bit that the church was trying at least a little bit to stand apart from the civil authorities, to stand apart from the culture and to say that in these cases, here is the what's accepted. What's accepted here is this accusation. What's accepted here is this trial. What's accepted here is that accusation, what's accepted here is this trial, what's accepted here is that are the penalties in this trial?

The church is trying to distance herself from that. Could she have done a better job? Yes. But it was on to say that regrettable as these facts are, the church has always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. So even in the midst of what we would call the Inquisition or other things like this, the church was constantly teaching the duty of clemency and mercy. What's an example?

Well, she forbade clerics to shed blood, which might seem, again, to us in the 21st century, like, oh, so other people could, but your priests and deacons and bishop, whatever, couldn't. And this was the church trying to put a limit on this saying, this is not a good, but there's this willingness to compromise when it comes to disciplines. Not when it comes to dogma, not when it comes to doctrine. When it comes to like living this out in a broken world, was the church tempted to compromise? Seems like it. But in recent times, here is the church, and recent times, it's become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the person. And so the church condemns them and even condemns her own acts.

Does that make sense? The church condemns the acts of members of the church who may have even acted in the name of the church. And that's, I think it's really important for us to understand, and really important for us to accept. There is a distinction here, of course, between... This is the dogma, right? This is the doctrines, this is the teaching of the church, which is always going to be guided by the Holy Spirit, is always going to be preserved from error, and these are the actions of some people in the church, which could always have the potential to be sinful. They're not always going to be sinful, but they always have the potential that here we are, you and I are in the church. The church will always teach the truth,

but there are those of us in the church, every one of us who, yes, we have the Holy Spirit through faith and baptism, and at the same time, we are broken, and we can sometimes ignore what the Lord has revealed to us, and we can do what we want to do. And that's the example here. And so hopefully that's clear because it's not trying to make excuses.

What it is trying to do is let's have a clearer vision of this. And if you're interested in learning more about the Inquisition or say something about the Crusades, there have been some really good books that are written in a very, very honest way, right? They're very clear, but also in a way that's relatively unbiased. In a way that says, okay, so this is the myths that surround things like the Inquisition or the Crusades. What actually happened? There have been some really fantastic books put out there.

I think St. Benedict's Press or Tan Publishing has a number of really good ones. Sophia Press has a number of really good books on the Inquisition and on the Crusades that, again, they don't shy away from the reality, but they don't just buy into the myths that our modern culture has said, because a lot of what people have learned about the Inquisition or learned about the Crusades has come through our culture, which has not been entirely accurate. Okay, moving on. Again, I'm not trying to make excuses just saying it's better for us to know the full story than just part of the story. The last thing here is respect for the dead. So this recognition that we are bound to care for those who are dying and we're bound to care for those who have died, it is actually a work of mercy. Not only care

for the dying for the sick, it's a work of mercy to bury the dead. It honors the children of God or temples of the Holy Spirit. So those of you who are involved in that kind of work, or you do this as as a ministry, thank you so much. It is incredibly important. To 2301, autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquest, scientific research, and free gift of organs can be legitimate and meritorious. And lastly, when it comes to cremation, cremation is allowed, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith and the resurrection of the body. There was a long time when the church did not permit cremation to be done for Christians. The reason for this was because as the church continued to expand and

met some different cultures, many of those cultures, they saw the body as, you know, you say like the cage that the soul was trapped in. So in order to set the soul free, in death, you put them on a funeral pyre and you'd burn the body and free the soul. And the church is saying, no, no, no, no, no, your body and your soul are both good. Your body and soul are intended for redemption and resurrection. And so, in order to stand against the cultures that the church had encountered, the church had forbidden or had forbidden, not permitted cremation.

Now, we live in a different day and age where when people get cremated, they're typically not thinking about this idea that they need to destroy the body in order to free the soul. Because of that, the church says you can choose to be cremated after your death, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body. Okay, you guys, wow, kind of a long day, but a lot of stuff in there, hopefully it all made sense. I keep saying, I think I've said a couple times in the last few days, just because it's powerful, it's complex. At the same time, it's, this has been incredibly applicable right to all of our lives. And so we continue to just let the

Lord's Word shape us, to let the teaching of the church shape us. And we just keep on praying. I am praying for you. Please pray for me. My name is Father Mike. I cannot wait to see you tomorrow. God bless. you