The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) - Day 300: Science, Bodily Integrity, and the Dead (2024)

Episode Date: October 27, 2024

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 Catechism 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 Catechism in a Year is brought to you by Ascension. In 365 days, we'll read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, discovering our identity and God's family as we journey together toward our heavenly home. This is day 300. How? 65 days left? We're reading paragraphs 2292 to 2301. As always, I'm using the Ascension edition of the Catechism, which includes the Foundations 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 C-I-Y 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 can record day 300. And the fact that the people, you know what I'm saying, the community of the Catechism in a year are continuing. This is remarkable. I just was so overwhelmed as I was tossing and turning like a literal tisry chicken, you know, 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 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? Scientific 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 to 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, 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, thou shall 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, because we're leaving the days of four paragraphs behind. We have a few more paragraphs than just four paragraphs.

2292 to 2301, let's pray. Father in heaven, 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 at 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 this day, we're also gonna talk about respect for the dead. We also ask. Lord, on this day, we're also gonna 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. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

It is day 300. We are reading paragraphs 229-2 to 2301. 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 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.

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 and 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. Alright, there 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 2292, scientific, medical, psychological experiments

on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and advancement of public health. Good. Great. Awesome. Paragraph 2293, this is where we start having some of those boundaries and some of the guiding principles. 2293 says, basic scientific research as well as applied research is a significant expression of man's dominion of 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 there's science and there's this term, maybe you've heard it, it's called scientism.

And scientism is this, it's 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. We 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 asked the question, or the natural sciences asked 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 and who did it and on its own science cannot disclose the meaning cannot answer the question Why? 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 that's gonna be 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 gonna be a grave error.

Goes on to say, 2294 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 by that, we talked about this before, how principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency. What I mean by 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 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 church is reminding us then 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 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, scientists 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 the will of God. It was just so good. Okay, so paragraph 2295 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. It goes on 2296 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 to 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 2 2 9 6 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's 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, a vasectomy 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 That's under the category in paragraph 2 to 9 7 that talks about kidnapping hostage-taking Terrorism and torture and says that they're explicitly wrong. Now the question you could you might think is wait a second Why does the church have to have to say that? Oh, by the way guys kidnapping is wrong or hostage-taking is wrong terrorism or torture are wrong well a because that exists those things exist and B Because even good people can be tempted to do these things

Maybe not kidnapping maybe not hostage-taking or terrorism, but I don't know if you remember life in the wake of 9-eleven here in the United States I mean remember the TV show 24 Jack Bauer in it Kiefer Sutherland 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, he 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 in order 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. It 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 2 to 9, 8 is very, very good. If paragraph 2 to 9, 8 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, who 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 a kind of a nod to the Inquisition now. It's very fascinating I've read a number of books on the history of the Inquisition and as it says regrettably these facts are this is this is a Shadow I don't want to say that in a light way, but this is a dark time in the 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 a 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 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 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 what's accepted. What's accepted here is this accusation. What's accepted here is this trial. What's accepted here 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 goes 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, now 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 a 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 that the church in recent times has 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 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 like the Crusades, there have been some really good books that are written in a very, very honest way, right? That 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 to 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 a ministry, thank you so much. It is incredibly important. To 2301, autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquest or scientific research. And free gift of organs can be legitimate and meritorious. And lastly,

when it comes to cremation, cremation is allowed provided that does not demonstrate a denial of faith in 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 was saying, no, 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 forbade, 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 that a couple of times in the last few days, just because it's powerful, it's complex, at the same time, it's, this at the same time, this has been an 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's Father Mike, I cannot wait to see you tomorrow. God bless.