Catholic Social Teaching: Principles, History, and Bioethics

Posted on Dec 26, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

Can People Live in an Organized Way Without Religion?

Europe was formed from three pillars: Jerusalem (God), Greece (philosophy), and Rome (laws). As it was said before Christ, “One cannot speak of laws without religion.” Religion comes from “religar” (to bind or unite), which means joining with something superior and with everything that surrounds you. Can a man be good without a God? There are Christians who are bad and good atheists. Did someone tell us that murder is bad? We did not need anyone to know that. Humans have reasoning, some more than others, but our nature determines our values. For instance, in a movie, a man was born away from civilization and had no contact with other humans, yet he exhibited similar behavior.

In the 19th century, there were two important events: the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. During the Industrial Revolution, there were changes in social classes (rich and poor) and child labor (exploitation). In the French Revolution, there were many deaths, especially of Catholics, as people sought power. Leo XIII did not live during these revolutions, but he lived through their consequences, writing an encyclical, Rerum Novarum (Of New Things). Socialism was present before him, so the Pope before him wrote an encyclical about socialism and liberalism. But Leo XIII is declared the founder of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) because he called for a return to the origin. He recognized that what he said was not new and that the solution to the situation was already there. He began to talk about social principles (justice, solidarity, etc.) already mentioned by Jesus. The Bible speaks extensively about these social principles; everything in the Bible is about social situations.

Social Justice is a term often used by politicians, such as the PSOE. CST is a set of reflections in modern times, embracing different aspects of social life. It is a mix of two realities: doctrine and texts. It is for everyone, not only Catholic people, including non-believers (to every man of good will). This is because it is based on values that everyone knows.

General Characteristics of Catholic Social Teaching

CST has developed over time. Popes throughout history have refined what previous figures said. There are four main characteristics that can explain the different questions or comments directed at the Church:

1. Continuity and Change: CST remains the same at its root, like wanting to run but having one foot anchored. It provides new answers to new situations but always bases them on previous knowledge (Jesus). New questions are answered with the same foundational words.
2. Progress, Not Immobility: There is always pressure to forget our past. The past is not inherently bad; although it can be dark or very good, it is part of our history and must always be present. Without disconnecting from the past, we attend to the immediate future.
3. Inductive, Not Merely Deductive: CST emphasizes experience and reasoning. In the inductive approach, we have premises that form the basis for conclusions. We must be persistent in our thinking to reach the right conclusions. In deductive thinking, we have conclusions and formulate premises to support them.
4. Life, Not Merely Theory: CST is meant to be practiced. Everything said can be applied to real life.

What CST Is Not

• It is not a political or economic doctrine. It does not have a precise political or economic model but offers a guide with certain norms to follow.
• It is not an accumulation of documents.
• It is not a substitute for capitalism or a third way.
• It is not an ideology. It does not have an action plan but provides guidelines. It does not distort reality.
• It is not a body of static doctrine.
• It is not an attempt to reach utopian situations.

Leo XIII wrote about the immutability of what man is, not modern words.

Theology

Theology is the knowledge of God, which implies that men need faith to reveal who He is. If we do not know God (the theological dimension), the root of CST, we cannot love or understand it. In an encyclical by John Paul II, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the numbers beside the text allow readers to find specific passages in any language. For instance, number 54.

Principal idea: Man needs faith to know himself; he also needs social sciences (economics, politics, etc.). Faith is the belief that there is something you do not see or understand completely, not only in God. For instance, you have faith in your parents, that everything can be good. We must understand it like hope and confidence.

Sources of CST

1. Revelation: Expressed through two important elements: the Word of God (God’s presence in history, as expressed in the Bible) and Tradition (passed down through generations). For example, Jews celebrate Passover and tell stories based on experience. Midrashim are tales, half true and half fictional, that Jews used to teach their children that God was one, that He listens, and that He is always there.
2. Reason: Distinguishes humans from animals and helps control our animal instincts. Reason without faith does not exist; for example, if a bird has two wings, one is reason and the other is faith.
3. Social Sciences: Economics, politics, etc. However, each social science has many branches, not all of which align with the Church’s teachings, leading to contradictions. Only some fit within the concept. For example, the Church includes all people, but if you support something, it must be in consonance with your beliefs and the Church’s teachings.

Note: We are not a source.

Magisterium

Magisterium means teaching. The Catholic Church teaches at three levels:

1. Infallible Definition by the Pope: The Pope is not inherently infallible but must speak infallibly on rare occasions, such as when defining a dogma of faith (e.g., Mary is a virgin). Popes cannot deny what a previous Pope has said. Another instance is when someone is named a saint, a very delicate and difficult situation. The Pope speaks ex cathedra (from his chair). *It was difficult to make Mother Teresa a saint because she was a woman.
2. Episcopal Conference: Each country has an episcopal conference. The teaching of the episcopal magisterium is in communion with the Pope and cannot be contradictory. For example, in an African country where marrying young girls to old men is permitted, only the episcopal magisterium of that region can address it. The magisterium teaches through encyclicals, letters, and radio messages.
3. Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope: Primarily through encyclicals.

Summary

What is the object of study of CST? The social issue, because its priority is man and it is developed around society.

An encyclical, meaning “circular letter,” was initially a letter circulated to all churches and people worldwide. Now, it is easier to access. It has the value of teaching addressed to the Universal Church. Its structure includes a denunciation (everything against the values) and an announcement (we must return to the Father). *Encyclicals are not technical solutions but moral or ethical guides.

Historical Periods of CST

First Period: Leonine Period of Leo XIII

The most important encyclical of this period is Rerum Novarum (1891).

Movie 10 minutes

In a homily, the Pope discusses the importance of sharing with one’s neighbor, referencing the miracle of the loaves and fishes. He criticizes the wealthy for ignoring the Church’s teachings and emphasizes the need to improve the quality of life for the poor. The wealthy leave the Mass, discussing the Pope’s call for universal suffrage and social welfare. A Monsignor expresses his opposition to equal rights, even suggesting he would have to accept Black people, reflecting the racism of the time. The encyclical, written in Latin, is perceived as not being intended for the French audience.

2nd part

The film depicts the exploitation of children in a textile factory, where a young girl dies from the cold. A father publicizes the deaths of these children in a newspaper. The president and his entourage discuss reducing wages and hiring women, showing indifference to factory accidents and deaths. The female workers rebel. In the modern world, this defense of workers is called a union. The Pope’s writings reflect the right of association, including unions, family, friends, sports clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. In the video, the government does not consider a fair wage.

The encyclical denounces salary and social problems and announces that we must return to the origins of Christian values, with each person doing their best to help others.

Principles Presented in This Encyclical

Imagine a theater presentation with a protagonist and secondary characters, each with a parallel story. The historical context is like the scenario, and we will focus on six principles (moments of shine) present in all encyclicals.

Main messages

Other encyclicals by this Pope addressed various themes over the years. Popes, like mothers, feel the necessity to help and teach their disciples to become people of good.

Timeline

Pius X

This Pope died just as World War I began. Most countries were Catholic, so the King of Austria asked the Pope for a blessing for his soldiers. The Pope responded, “I bless peace, not war,” and died three weeks later of a heart attack (suspicious).

Benedict XV

Benedict XV lived through all of World War I. He stated, “Denial of this Christian meaning of life.” Millions of deaths are caused by the evil in people’s hearts, as they lose conscience of what killing means because they forget God. During this time, survival often meant the death of others. The Pope declared that one cannot serve two gods: truth and money. “I saw in war the monstrous effect of the moral crisis of modern Europe.”

He issued an important and serious trade for lasting peace (7 points), the Note of 1917. At that time, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) had not happened. Germany was paying that debt until 2010.

This note was sent to all countries involved in the war. When France received it, they felt it was an offense and told the Pope he had no voice in war. Germany lost, leading to two sides: winners and losers. Forgiveness was seen as a sign of weakness.

The 7 Points or Recommendations

1. Do not charge war spoils to the losing country.
2. Have a “watcher” to control maritime borders.
3. All countries, winners or not, should abandon occupied territories.
4. Establish arbitration, an alternative to trial, to mediate between victors and vanquished.
5. All countries should simultaneously dismantle their weapons.
6. (Points 6 and 7 are in the notes.)

The Treaty of Versailles was totally the opposite. Benedict wrote the note two years before the treaty, so the Pope’s words were essentially discarded.

Hitler won the elections democratically. His speeches were very convenient for everyone, promising to “Make Germany great again,” like a motivational coach. He promised to save money, end slavery, improve the economy, etc. The world was divided between winners and losers (map of the vote). The Catholic sector voted less for Hitler, not because they knew what he would do, but because his speeches showed hatred towards others (the enemy).

How different is the Christian message? Knowing that you can be a good person in all religions. For example, at a university fair, all options are morally acceptable because many values are common. What is the difference between a non-believer and a Christian? Obvious differences include attending Mass and believing in Jesus. But from a moral point of view, it is the message of loving your enemy. At that time, France’s enemy was Germany.

For example, if Nicolas murdered all my family, the normal human instinct is not to forgive him. But the Christian message is to love him, even though humanly we cannot. I am no better than Nicolas, even though I have not killed anyone. This opens something supernatural that allows us to forgive.

Curious fact: Pastafarians, the religion of a flying spaghetti monster, even appear with a colander on their heads in their IDs, just as Muslims wear hijabs.

Another curious thing: In Spain, there are rules prohibiting naming your son with girl names or TV character names.

A French boxer was abandoned by his mother as a child, tied to a post. His father rescued him, but due to his drinking and drug use, he nearly killed him, breaking 16 of his bones. The boy ended up in a children’s home and decided to become a boxer to kill his father. He was later abused in a youth facility, escaped, and joined a gang. While hiding in a church during a robbery, a priest found him, leading him to become a new person. He wrote a book titled “Stronger than Hate” after a woman wrote to him for about 10 years, asking him to share his testimony. The woman died on the date she always sent the letter, and the man understood that this was her mission.

Video: How the boxer changed from a man of war to a man of peace.

Second Period: Piano Period of Two Popes

Pius XI (1922-1939)

After World War I, the Crash of ’29 occurred, leading many people to commit suicide en masse. This period saw the origin of totalitarianism, a regime where every decision is voted on and discussed, different from a dictatorship. During COVID, the Spanish state declared unconstitutional measures that could be considered totalitarianism. Other examples include South Korea and Russia.

Around the 18th century, there was a growing hatred for the divine, with man displacing God as the center. During this time, man invented meteorology, learning to predict rather than control the weather. The Communist movement, especially the Soviet regime, began. Despite many problems, the press never reported on the horrors.

Pius XI wrote an encyclical denouncing the press’s silence on the horrors of Soviet communism. He also created another encyclical, Quas Primas (1925), commemorating Christ the King, which has two components: religion and the disease characterizing our time, forgetfulness. It is the first encyclical to mention social justice.

Mit Brennender Sorge (1937): A letter read in German Catholic churches, meaning “with deep anxiety.” During this time, Hitler was implementing gas chambers. When the government discovered the letter, they prohibited it. Some Catholic believers continued to read it in secret.

Pius XII

Pius XII was the first Pope not to write encyclicals; he used radio messages. He knew that anything he wrote would be destroyed. He is called the “Pope of Silence” and was sometimes considered to be in favor of the regime. Before COVID, the Vatican archives were opened, and historians concluded that he helped Jews by bribing soldiers and aiding their escape.

Documentary: The Pope vs. Hitler

Hitler declared war on the Church, saying there was no God over Germany. They threw a cardinal out the window, broke statues, and implemented weapons. Pius XI died, and Pius XII, seen as a politician and supreme commander, entered. On Christmas, he sent a radio message to stop the war for the day so families could celebrate, but it was ignored, like everything the Popes said.

“The hundreds of thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, sometimes only for reasons of nationality or race, are destined for death or progressive annihilation” refers to mass killings due to race, country of origin, etc.

Third Period: Pauline or Conciliar Period

John XXIII

This is the only period not named after the first Pope who implemented it. It is called Conciliar because of the significant event of the Church, or it can be named after the Pope who ended the period, Paul VI. Vatican Council II was a meeting that lasted four years (four sessions). John XXIII convened the council but died after the first session. Paul VI continued and finished the other three.

By this point, the Church had endured many historical events (World Wars and revolutions), so it decided that it must change too. The central question was, “Who is man?” Europe was devastated and scared. It began exploiting resources from other countries, particularly in Africa and South America. This led to the distinction between the First and Third Worlds. There were many scientific advances but very few moral improvements.

John XXIII wrote two encyclicals: Mater et Magistra (1961) and Pacem in Terris (1963). It was the first time an encyclical was addressed to all men of good will.

Vatican Council

During the Vatican Council, all groups brought many questions, and the Pope reached conclusions, which took a lot of time. There was a year between sessions. Another question was whether the state or individuals should define culture. For example, in Ceuta, with a large Muslim population, Ramadan is an official holiday, even though Spain is not a Muslim country. This means the population defines the culture. However, if a Catholic goes to Morocco, they cannot publicly celebrate Easter.

Culture cannot be decided by the state or solely by people due to changing opinions. So who decides? Laws and rules should be set by tradition, which can be verified for correctness if it remains stable over time and helps people, even if society changes. Groups of wise individuals study this. For example, they believe it is incorrect for someone like Pedro Sánchez to govern because he does not work with tradition, which comes with experience and time.

Paul VI

Paul VI concluded the Vatican Council. Among his main messages is the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968), written during the Sexual Revolution, a revolt of women for fertility and birth control, changing the concept of marriage from union and reproduction to sexual freedom. People suggested the Pope not publish this encyclical because it would be too controversial. He published it anyway, and it became very famous, even among non-Catholics. They wanted their children to have a decent life with basic, not excessive, material goods.

Saint John Paul II

Like U.S. President Ronald Reagan, this Pope shared the goal of ending communism. His first words as Pope were noted by Ronald Reagan, who said, “Me and this Pope are going to finish communism,” and that is what happened.

There was an increase in relativism. What is relativism? It is the belief that there is no objective truth; everything depends on your point of view. Within relativism, everything is true, and there is no possibility of dialogue. Remember, the roots of CST are in theology. Throughout history, man has always worshipped something, feeling there is something above him. It is impossible to see a civilization without a god, even if it is a false god.

Main messages through encyclicals:

• Centesimus Annus (100 years of Rerum Novarum): This encyclical discusses newly established human rights, addressing them from the Church’s perspective. It contains many common-sense human rights that everyone, even non-believers, can agree with.

Benedict XVI

During an international economic crisis, Benedict XVI resigned in 2015, a rare event in history. He did so because he believed that leading the Church required both physical and mental fitness, which he felt he could no longer meet. He was called the “wise Pope” due to the high intelligence reflected in his few encyclicals. Transsexual laws appeared during his papacy.

Francis

Despite being sick, Pope Francis believes he must stay until he dies. He is the first Pope with this name. He talks about ecology, something other Popes have never mentioned. He defended that man must take care of himself first and then care for the common home, as detailed in Laudato Si’.

Synod: Unlike a council, the Pope sends many questions to parishes, which the priests then explain to the laity. In this case, the Synod discussed the family, explaining 16 types of families. The percentage of people getting married has decreased significantly, so the Pope wanted to show the real meaning of divorce. The Catholic Church allows divorce only in certain and very specific situations, such as when one partner hides something significant from the other (e.g., having another family or being involved in drug trafficking) or if the man is impotent. In such cases, the Church does not allow marriage because it would be like marrying a sibling.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is not allowed by the Church. The accepted option is naprotechnology, which will be explained in future chapters.

Fratelli Tutti is about economics, balancing capitalism and communism.

For Thursday, February 23: Read the article and in 2 minutes answer: What or who is God? Provide a reasoned response.

Criteria for Judgment and Action Guidelines

Do we judge? Some people say that we judge a person within the first few seconds and then try to justify our impressions when we meet them. We often judge to determine if someone could be our friend. Another example is choosing a career, where we list pros and cons. The Church has the right and duty to make judgments in the field of morality regarding systems, structures, institutions, and specific social situations, especially in the political order. However, it never judges people. For example, it judges communism, Nazism, and socialism, but not the people who support or practice them. A typical phrase is “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Another example is judging homosexuality but not gay people. The Church understands that although a person may engage in a certain bad practice, they can freely change their opinion and leave it. What is wrong is the action, not the person.

The Church cannot be neutral in the field of morality, nor can it practice abstention or silence. It will always ask what is adequate for man and his development, which is the main criterion.

Examples of judgment criteria are found in the encyclicals.

Four Judgment Criteria

1. Certain Knowledge of the Object or Social Situation: For instance, many people judge the Church without truly knowing what it is.
2. Professional Capacity and Corresponding Experience: For example, a lab teacher must have done what they are teaching before; otherwise, they cannot teach it effectively.
3. Correct Formation of Social Conscience: This should be in light of the Gospel and the documents of the Magisterium.
4. Vigilance and Caution: Neither immovable attachment to the past nor blind passion for the new. This means that certain currents can aid man’s knowledge while others must be eliminated, but we must always keep “one foot anchored” when judging.

Action Guidelines (Common Sense, Even Non-Believers Agree)

1. Respect for Man
2. The Exercise of Dialogue: A necessary condition to find the truth. Each person has an opinion. Agreements are possible, but those in dialogue must intend to find the truth. This is hindered by systems and institutions that deny an objective moral order.
3. The Fight for Justice: Avoid both cowardice (we must strengthen the spirit) and excessive impulse for justice (evolution, not revolution). For example, in the case of abortion, I should not impose my opinion to avoid hurting others, but I also cannot take immeasurable justice against those with different ideas, as both approaches fail to use the first two action guidelines.
4. The Experience of Life: Specifically for the laity. This includes both professional experience (daily work) and religious experience (interior life). Necessary times of solitude and silence are essential.
5. Political Commitment of the Christian: An obligation for the believer. The Church can and must judge in the field of morality (not a technical but an ethical judgment), and immediate political commitment is the duty of the laity, thanks to baptism and confirmation. Pastors and clergymen should stay out because this is not their field. “Non expedit” was a law stating that it was not convenient for the Church to participate in social issues until John XXIII removed it.

Text: Pacifist by Lewis

This text discusses:

a) Will

b) The difference between what is correct and incorrect

How can we know when an action is morally correct? Lewis defines the guide of action:

1. Facts: We discover facts through senses or authority. For instance, if Elena is in Asturias and tells us it is raining, we can only know it is true because of her sensory perception.
2. Intuition: The act of intelligence that discovers something because it is obvious in itself. For example, parents do not need to explain to their children that murder is bad because we have the intelligence to deduce that ourselves. However, passion or feelings can darken our intuition. For instance, reading about suffering around the world makes us empathize and question why we do not help them; that humanity does not let you think clearly. Unlike animals, humans can stop passion. For example, a dog in heat cannot avoid having sex, but humans can decide when to do it. Similarly, I love chocolate but can decide when not to eat it.
3. Reasoning: The last step in making a decision, taking into account the previous two. It is determined that 90% of our facts are determined by authority.

Principles of Catholic Social Teaching

There are ten principles in total, classified into two groups. Common features include being universal, permanent, constant, and morally binding.

• First Degree (4 General or Base Principles): These are original principles that do not change or mutate; they always remain the same.
• Second Degree (6 Derived Principles): These are discussed in a book by Benedict XVI (the one who died), titled “Living as if God Existed,” even when you do not believe in God. There are two sides (believers and non-believers), with the doubt of whether God exists behind them. Can we live as if God exists even with those doubts? We ask ourselves two questions for each principle:

1. Is it a principle (God, man, nature, etc.) of faith or reason?
2. Is it a principle common to all religious denominations or specific to the Catholic Church?

Our civilization has put much effort into making God non-existent, thinking that nothing will change when that happens. But when God completely leaves the heart of man, it will deeply affect who he is. This is because the desire for God is a piece in the machinery of our being, and if we remove it, the machine will break. Whether believers or not, we can understand God through reason or faith, but the conclusions from both paths cannot be contradictory. We must consider God as an integral part of each person throughout history. We cannot consider God as distant.

Can we know God with faith or reason? Note that reason is not always science. The Bible was written by men, so although it may not be completely precise (they wrote what they remembered Jesus said), and some pages may be lost or testimonies not included, what is established is true. For instance, each evangelist tells the story of the Passion from their own point of view, but they do not contradict each other.

First Degree Principles

1. Theological Principle: God

The desire for God has never been absent in any civilization, though it has been presented and interpreted in different ways. Man is born with that doubt in his heart. For example, a streetlight inevitably attracts bugs. The first Aristotelian movement understood something similar, but unlike bugs, men have the freedom to choose.

• God exists.
• God has created the universe.
• God has created man.
• God is the first cause.

Saint Thomas Aquinas (Theologian)

A) Existence of a universal effect of all beings.

B) Principle of causality: everything is caused.

C) The causal process has an origin.

D) God exists and is the first cause.

Is it a principle of reason?

We can necessarily meet God through faith and reason. Experimental sciences cannot define God because He is not measurable. The only science that can explain this is philosophy. Immanuel Kant, a non-believer, wrote a book to explain God, the soul, etc., through reason. He concluded that reason can reveal many things about God but reaches what he called the “limits of pure reason.” Thus, to know that God exists, we do not need to be believers, but to know Him completely, there must be a leap of faith. Years later, Kant recognized that to pass those limits, practical reason (faith) is the only way.

There are two proofs:

1. Proof/Evidence of Order: Everything has a sense (objective order) and does not depend on man or science. There must have been a supreme intelligence that perfectly put everything in its place. Probability exists in a certain context but is not mere chance.
2. Contingency Evidence/Proof: Contingency is something that could have happened or not, and its existence needs another to be explained (e.g., Maria explains her existence through her parents). Everything around us is contingent. God is the only non-contingent being; He is necessary and does not need another to exist.

Is it a principle of faith?

Faith is confidence in something without proof. Abraham is considered the “Father of Faith,” and his story defines it. For the Israeli people, having descendants was very important, but Abraham grew old without children. One day, God told him on a hill that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. After a year, his wife Sarah became pregnant. When the child grew, an angel asked Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. Abraham faced a dilemma but took his son to the hill. Just before he could kill him, the angel stopped him, saying, “You proved your faith.”

In conclusion, faith is experiential, being man’s response to God. In the picture, God does not touch Abraham, leaving space for him to choose to develop his faith. God is the creator but did not make us robots; He gave us the freedom to choose.

In summary, can we know God through faith or reason? Both ways. Like a bird, one wing is faith, and the other is reason, but it cannot fly without using both.

Is it a principle common to all religious denominations or specific to the Catholic Church?

All monotheistic religions believe that God exists and is the cause. To understand this, we mention Cicero in the pagan world (where God had not revealed Himself to the people). In one of his speeches, he concluded that there is only a final choice of faith (believe or not), even in a pagan society. The first link between man and divinity is reason. Man, since birth, has a religious sense, something we do not look for. For example, everyone can draw a unicorn, even though we know they do not exist. We can draw God, although we have never seen Him, and unlike the unicorn, people look for God because we know He exists in our hearts (the desire for God, the need to explain life, to live as if God exists). Behind reason, there is a higher reason.

2. Christological Principle

This principle involves two affirmations:

1. Jesus Christ is true God and man.
2. Christ is the Son of God who enters the history of humanity to save all.

The correct answer is that we cannot fully understand this through reason alone. Faith is the only way to completely understand this. Through reason, we can conclude historically that Jesus was a man who existed, lived, and died as historians say, but we cannot conclude that He is the Son of God solely based on this.

Image of Jesus in Salamanca: Each wound was counted and represented by historians.

This principle has been developed by several encyclicals. The key meaning is that Jesus had such an impact that He divided history (the world is counted differently since His arrival). We live in 2023 years after Christ.

Exam Question: Re-signification of three concepts: mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

Example of re-signification is the love for the individual in the Catholic religion (loving your enemy, which is not humanly possible). The worst death was crucifixion, where despite all the pain, you had to make an effort to breathe. Jesus was the first to show this type of love through how and for whom He died.

God is not a myth (like those parents used to teach their children); He is a truth.

This is not for the exam: Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. There is the Old Man (with all your sins) and the New Man (converted).

Why did Jesus arrive at that moment? Because the Jewish people had forgotten their origin and become legalistic (fulfilling laws). Jesus was Jewish but did not follow certain laws, saying, “I have not come to break the rules but to fulfill them so they are not a burden.” Jews still await a political Messiah, expecting Him during Passover. Christians see Jesus as the Messiah and await His second coming during Passover.

3. Anthropological Principle

*Estudiar este principio con el Tema del Hombre Affirms the total primacy (superiority) of man over all material order (everything that surrounds it). It is a climbed supremacy (escalada), in other words, man is over everything BUT not over GOD. It is not TYRANICAL, so the man must be a good administrator of all the goods given to him. So although there is that humanity in the man (he can be tempted to break the rules), he has limitation, for instance he cannot control the seasons. In the XVI century, was born in the man that need to control things that he cannot. For instance, they invented meteorology, in which men predict but not control. That’s the difference between the supremacy of god and ours. God gave earth to the man, giving him power over all the living beings, but his purpose was to work it and take care of it. Men has a superiority over all things created for god. Man is the second source of creation, the first one is GOD/Christ. For instance, computers, tables, etc. are created by man’s hand. It is also called Principle of HUMAN DIGNITY. What does is mean that Jesus is god for the man?? Man was created with a ontological dignity (in a different way than the other living beings). Nowadays, people find difficult to accept that human is greater than dogs for instance. Dog is digno but as an animal, which is not compared to the man. Man has 2 features: Intelligence and freedom. How is the man??? The man is a unity of Body (corporea) and Soul (Espiritu). Book: Reclaiming CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING. “The most fundamental truth about man is that he has been made by God, who is Himself love. He is made by God, in the image of God, for God. He is made for the enjoyment of that fullness of being. Nothing short of that aim will sufficie” there is nothing that can satisfy more the man in the world, than accept this true. Each society has a different concept of what man is. But the man is always the same, one that has to be TRUE. Depending on the concept we take into account, we can explain several topic with true (abortion, politics, etc.). It is evident for all that man is not only body. Example, in appearance we can say that this is a boat, but it cannot work as a boat. Other example, 3 cerditos, all built a aperient house, but only one really made it The CST maintains a conception of man received jointly from reason and faith. 4. Iusnaturalist Principle Ius means RIGHT (derecho). So this principles is about natural rights. We observe evidence of this in the ORDER of nature, we recognize that it is not from man. Inside it, we accept that it has a DIVINE origin. Now, we talk about 3 concepts: ✓ Legal Positivism (LP): says that only positive right exists. Only exist thigs that can be verified. 2 Precedents: sophists and Auguste Comte. A sophist is a wise man, also called soul catcher. A sophist uses arguments (disfraza) a truth in order to get what he wants (ex: nico convence a pablo de bajar a ayudarlo en su despecho a pesar de que estaba estudiando para su examen).Then in the 19th century Auguste Comte formulate the positivism (cooriente de pensamiento), laws that govern nature and social history. ✓ Positive Right (PR) or positive Law: positive comes from positivus (exactly put=puesto explicitamente). So positive right is the explicitly put of law OJO! It doesn’t mean good. Who put it in Spain??? The government, legislators of that moment, etc. They are put in official documents, for instance ignorance of law is not justified. Example: bad guy kill someone, and says that if he would have known that he would be in prison, he wouldn’t kill, but police says that he could have verified. It defends, what is more valuable for the society. In the example show how in spain (codigo penal) what is more important (valioso) is LIFE. Es decir, penaliza cuando se incumple lo mas valioso. Lo normal es que el derecho postitivo tiene que estar basado en el derecho natural. But not all are like this, for instance there are positive right that goes against the natural right (ex: abortion, against the natural right of life, and ocupas that goes with the natural right of having a place to live, but it is not a positive law). For example in a constitution, positive law base on positive law, it will change continuously, BUT if positive constitution is based on natural law, the constitution will not change (because it is objective). ✓ Natural Law (NR): at difference from positive right, it is not put, it IS (está). It is discover thanks to right reason (razon trabajada o cultivada). All men have reason, just as computers, all come with a operative system that later can be added more apps. Natural right is a series of universal principles or values that can be raspable (discovered) by reason and are founded (fundados) in the nature of men. Examples: life, freedom. It is objective (doesn’t depend on anyone). The islam has laws and right, that they impose to the society (ex: the way muslim women dress). REMEMBER!!! To develop a reason, are needed 2 things: dialog and free time. Is a set of universal and permanent principles, graspable by reason and founded on the nature of man. Reflection: what is man and what is freedom??? It doesn’t matter the concept of man we have, the nature of man is always the same. Paul VI ask himself 3 affirmations: 1. Is there really a natural right? Yes. Because the man has reasoning which allow him to create laws. 2. Is this natural law enough to guide the social life of man? No, it needs positive coded, social expression. In other words, positive rights assure that society behaves the same (framework of action). Examples “ocupas”, based on natural law say that they have the right to have a place to live, but it is not right because when they do that they remove that right to other person, even if no one lives there. 3. Is positive law by itself a just/fair law? If it is conforming to the natural law, yes. Otherwise, no. example: a non faire positive law is ABORTION. CICERO (who lived in a pagan world) The truth law is the one that is based on the nature of man (same for all people and times) lasting and immutable. He said that the author, judge, common chief or legislator is god (con minuscula porque es un mundo pagano). He understands that whom that disobeys the law, the maximum penalties is applied and cannot be paid on earth, he says that the author (god) is whom apply it (de manera transcendente, ya que transcede la naturaleza del hombre).   

Theme 2.2 The MAN What is the man? It is a mistake to think that there is a UNIVERSAL SHARED concept of what is man. Depending on whom ask, remember the example of the Boat of paper. Peter Singler is radical, saying a concept that is completely opposite of the concept stablished by the Christian. But we can resalt that he defends and arguments until the end his concept (abraza el concepto y nunca se contradice). The Christian concept of Person The church makes questions, and answer them based on the historical development of reflections. According to the principle Christological, we believe that Jesus is god, so as he is a man and god, that means something to us as humans. Implicating that the man participates in the divine (2 natures, human and divine) just as Cicero said. Information about Aristoteles. Father of occidental theology. Plato´s disciple. Thaught Alexander the great and founded the lyceum of Athenas. Nature of man Man is an individual unit, irepeatable, not made in series. It is a natural substance and personal, which means it is body and soul. However, Soul is superior to body. This is because body is just the organic matter, while the soul include the intelligence, the conscience and will. MAN → PERSON. Every human being is a person, from the moment of conception until death, always maintains the same dignity. 2 Classical definitions *we need to learn them by heart 1- Boetius (480-524):“Individual substance of rational nature” He developed 2 etymologies of the term person: Prosopon (Greek) → FACE or countenance. Actors in plays could not be recognized by their face, because they use this kind of MASK. Persono (latin)→ SOUND. people didn’t recognize actors; they recognize the resonate or sound loudly own by the actor. So, in that moment, persono was used to designate man that has certain dignity. At the end, after etimological development, person was established (tautologically) to describe any man that possess certain dignity. Going back to classical definitions….the substance is by itself, and the accidents is in another. What is the Substance??? Everything that is under of (lo que subyace, de lo que esta hecho algo, la esencia de algo). So individual substance, means that the man is under something superior. But what is above??? The accidents. An Accident is everything that predicate the substance. For instance, in the sentence, Lucia has brown eyes, Lucia is the substance and brown eyes is the accident. Another thing that Boetius explained, was POTENTIAL or POTENCY (todo lo que puedes llegar a hacer dentro de tus limites). For instance, Lucia is a CST teacher, but she can be a mother, can be a astronaut, a biology teacher; BUT she cannot be a man (due to her biology). 

And ACT, refers to what you are (ex: I am a student). So accidents can be in act or potential, for instance Lucia is a CST teacher in act, but can be a mother in potential. The straight line refers to substance and waves are accidents. Accidents change through time, but substance doesn’t change. So accidents must happen in something that exist, the substance (accidents don’t exist without substance), they are inferior to substance. Substance exist by itself but accidents exist in another. Ejemplo: Lucia is an olympian runner but she is also an engineer. One day she had an accident, and lost one leg and her mind is not well. BUT she is still Lucia, we just remove the accidents, but not the substance. The substance is something that cannot change. Personality is not substance (ex: someone that has a personality disease). People can be described by their accidents, BUT they don’t define what they are. Remember!! Aristoteles said intelligence and rationality-> constitutive of the essence of man-> foundation of sociability. He doesn’t differentiate between substance and essence (ser y esencia), he says that man is made of intelligence and rationality. But, for instance, a 3 y/o cannot talk or reason just as we do, but he is still a person. Aristoteles did not distinguish between Substance and essence, because when we ask ourselves about substance of a thing, we answer with the essence. Example: cuando te preguntan quien o que es algo o alquien, contestamos con la esencia, es por esto que Aristóteles vio innecesario diferenciarlas. 2- Saint Thomas of Aquino (1225-1274): “Individual subsistent of rational nature. The most perfect thing in nature” Ojo!! Subsistent is not the same as substance He said Aristoteles and Boetius didn’t make an important differentiation: ESSE → being/ser. In terms of word, esse is the root of essentia. Makes the substance EXIST in a special way (esse significa existir), te diferencia incluso de tu hermano gemelo, te da una dignidad distinta a otros seres. It doesn’t need to be developed, it is unique and nonrepeatable (It is in ACT, it is the act of all acts, it is NEVER a potency). You have it from the moment you start to exist, and it is INFINITE (substance ends when you die). It exists IN and BY itself (no se destruye y solo se considera que es creado por DIOS). The Esse constitute the person. It is what puts into action or updates the essence. *el esse siempre es ESSENTIAL→ esencia/essence. Esencia necesita de la existencia (esse), has to be crossed by the being/ser/esse. No puedes predicar algo que no existe. The essence or essential acts can be considered potentially. Summary Existence (esse), comes to finite BEINGS (seres finitos) from outside. In other words, I cannot give myself the esse, my existence is explained by a superior one (theological principle). I am a contingent being. Mi existencia viene dada por un ser superior que se define como: The cause of existence esse ( viene de un ser) is that being whose determination is existence itself (no depende de otros), a necessary being Existence forms together with essence, a being. Todos los seres humanos tenemos esencia. Un ser sin esencia es que su existance es el puro ser, y ¿quien es asi? DIOS. Book: what difference us from the rest of animals??? The esse is the existence but it also gives you DIGNITY. Dignity in animals, they should be respected and valued BUT say that something has value is not the same as saying that they have dignity. Animals have value but they do not have dignity. Another example is jewelry, it has a value but it has no dignity. The dignity of man, is not thanks to reasoning, is the human condition, the fact of being a person that gives you right. Animals have rights but only the human being is the one that has a dignity that cannot be removed. Some people think that dignity comes with physical state, say that when they lose ability they are not a person anymore. But you CAN’T make a distinction between person and human. Some people, such as Peter singer, defend that there are men that are human (have a body) but not a person because they don’t have certain abilities (talk, intelligence, etc.). in this way even artificial intelligence can be a person (but not a human). A person has abilities but that does not define it (no es el). In this way, una persona no deja de ser persona si pierde una habilidad. Other examples are when people do not stop being a person, blind man, sleeping state, coma, vegetative state (major difficulty), although they lose abilities or are not practicing it, they don’t lose their dignity (it doesn’t depend on the physical or psychical state). The Church (Christianity) always look on the accumulation of wisdom (gradually absorbed main philosophical elements of Greek philosophy), being REASON, the basic one. It gives us the ability to get to know the world around us (give us the ability to define or capture the essentia of things without haven’t studied). Example, Luis can tell what a car is, without being a mechanical engineer. And reason gives us the ability to discover the creator. Sabiduria → Greek phylosophy According to PLATON, reason led us to knowledge the 3 SUPREME IDEAS: Good, truth and beauty Incorporation of Faith component Church adds faith because we can’t reason without it (Faith and reason are not incompatible, both are necessary). Saint Thomas: “Both lights from human reason and faith share identical origin in God; thus, they cannot contradict each other”. Everything that is deduced by reason cannot contradict what is deduced by faith (they are like a “gear or engranaje”, if they don’t roll in the same direction they are stuck). As John Paul II said, “There is no unlawful competence between reason and faith: the first belongs to the other, and each one has its own place of achievement”. This means that faith and reason cannot compete, each has a place of action which have a common place In which they cannot contradict.   Theory of ACTION John Paul makes a distinction between human acts and acts of man. The acts of man are those “propios” of man, for instance breath, digestion, they are inconscient or involuntary. Human acts are those that are susceptible to morality, they are freely made and voluntary. Reflection: is there an objective GOOD or EVIL??? For instance, everyone knows and agrees that murder is bad, but in ancient civilizations make sacrifices was good. The objective Good and evil are linked to the OBJECTIVE TRUTH (si todo es verdad, nada es verdad). Problem is that we live in a relativist world (todo depende de), no possibility of dialog. Acciones del ser humano son susceptibles a la moralidad, por ejemplo no podemos decir que las acciones de los animales son buenas o malas. Para descubrir que es bueno y malo, se deben tomar en cuenta las circunstancias, pero al final nosotros lo definimos por el uso de la RAZON. This is related to the natural right because this reasoning allows us to get to know what action is good and bad. Intelligence helps us to make sense of things and freedom to put them into practice or not. What is the objective Good? According to Aristoteles, good is what all beings want according to their own nature (todo lo que le apetece de acuerdo a su naturaleza). For example, murder has always been BAD regardless of the time in which it was done (even Christians have killed, la inquisition). Does not matter the circumstances, even in self-defense. The execution of an action does not change that it is bad (el fin no justifica los medios). The nature of man is good but he has the capacity to do bad. Example Hitler’s nature is good, but he acted bad. This is because we all have FREEDOM. The wound of sin (marcada) is what makes the man to use his fereedom for evil. So, that’s why when we talk about Jesus we say that he is man, and he is the same to us in all, EXCEPT of the sin. ´ Aristoteles said: always look for the good, regardless of the utility that gives us. We have to do Good even when it hurts us. For example, Lucia helps her friend to finish his thesis, but for doing that good she is investing her time and not doing her job as a teacher. In this way, we say that good is not the sameusefulsefu (util). Philosophy and theology, also religion are not useful (no te da nada material que sea util), which means that the good that it has is a GOOD by ITSELF. what is to be useful? and what is good? Good is what is wanted by itself, without the necessity to return a utility. Utility depends on what you see, example among 2 computer you chose one, both are useful but one is more util for you than the other. *Utilitarianism theory, we made a list of pros (lo que mas me de a mi) and I chose it. Subjective Good On the other hand, the Subjective Good is the man´s perception of what an action can bring him, example pleasure, power, economic increase, etc. For example, if Lucia (our teacher) increases her salary, she will feel really good, but for us is indifferent, because this good is due to her perception. Double acting actions An action that produces 2 effects: one good and the other bad. Man is charged with the good and evil of the acts (HUMAN acts). For a double-effect action to happen, 4 points must occur: 1- The action is in itself GOOD or at least indifferent (ex: walk or talk until we hurt (calumniar) or praise someone, has no effect until we add intention) 2- The end that the subject proposes is good and not the bad. Example when you take a paracetamol for headache, but I can vomit (secondary effects), or if I put a bar in my neighborhood, but I take the risk that people get drunk and have fights. 3- That the first and immediate effect is good. For example, if thieves enter the bank and threaten a secretary to give them the money, so the secretary gives the money for her good of stay alive but a second effect will be the loss of the bank. Or if I take paracetamol, the first effect must be the relief of the headache 4- There is a proportionate cause between the good and the bad effect. Example when I put a bar is proportional that people get drunk, but it is not proportional to the presence of prostitution, or drugs. Or a pill, makes me lose hair, vomit and stay infertile, but it reliefs my headache (bad is not proportional to good) The actions of man depend on: freedom and rationality. Rationality as Specific of morality Every action must be done with a conscience. Warning: is the action good or bad? (realize it!!!) can be in two ways: 1- Full/complete 2- Half full/half complete: Darkened by other reason Example: Human experimentation (Nuremberg trial). Lot of people participated. treat by doctor, guards that take the prisoners, the one who buy the medical supplies. On the trial, most people defended themselves, because they didn’t know that those doctors were doing human experimentations, so not having that warning, the responsibility is less. We never sin by surprise. Example: Lucia’s mom didn’t know that not going to church on Sundays is mortal sin. As she did not know the sin cannot be implied over her. On the other hand, with laws, ignorance is not justification. That is why we must morally analyze each of our actions. Example if Lucia lends money to Ana, and ana traffics drugs. Lucia did not know that Ana would do that, she didn’t have the full conscience, so morally she is not guilty, but maybe legally she is. Freedom as a condition of morality Actions to be bad or good, depends if It is done voluntarily. For instance, the secretary in a bank robbery gives the money to the thieves, but the responsibility of the bank’s broke is not on her (it went against her will). In the Greek world didn’t believe on freedom, “What is announced by destiny, even if it is announced, it cannot be avoided” Tacitus. they thought that you were destined to do always the same,

FREEDOM Church goes against this idea of Tacitus because thinking that we are destined to do the same, means we ignore the fact of rationality too. So, there is this popular tell of the church against Tacitus thinking of freedom: “Let us fight against these circular periods that drive man’s misery.” Freedom is to do good and not evil. According to Saint Thomas of Aquino, doing evil is not freedom but it is a sign that the man is free. We see a distinction of what freedom is and to be free. Bossuet (French clergyman), also said, “To be free is not to do what one wants, but to want everything one owes”. Example: we are free to don’t come to classes, BUT the freedom (our duty) is to go. The will, just as the reason, is developed. Examples: smoking, diets, etc. The more the will is worked, the stronger it is to fulfill what is due. For instance, my friend Dani (a cocaine addict). He exercises being free (doing what he wants when he wants (steal and cheat), but he does not exercise freedom. He weakened his will so much that he is now a slave (he lost the power of rationing) and although he has the desire to have a normal life, he cannot. There are 4 conditions for freedom: knowledge (reason), will, informed will, what is going to be done and want to do it. Man, when he is truly free, masters his actions, and is able to do truly human acts. It is the ability to choose between GOODS (not between god and evil) that are presented to us. If a person destroys his esse he also destroys his freedom. “Freedom is, in man, an imminent sign of the divine image and, consequently, a sign of the sublime dignity of each human person” (GS 17). RESPONSIBILITY Freedom (with rationality) makes the man responsible. 3 classes of responsibility: in front of our own or others, in front of a court/justice, and in the first place in front of God (if you are Christian the supreme judge is God). Every act directly wanted is imputable by its author. The imputability and responsibility of an action can decrease due to ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, habits (ex: I smoke because my parents smoke), disordered affections (example of women, weak feelings and manipulation by others). OJO! This is in moral terms Morality of human acts depends on 3 things: 1. Of the chosen object: it is not the action considered in itself but in relation to the moral norm (objeto considerado en su circunstancia moral). example if Lucia is holding a weapon, that is not bad. But if she point me and shot me, in the moral norm is bad. Another example is if she uses it when a tiger is trying to kill her, the weapon is in the moral condition good. In the same way, a machine of torture or a nuclear bomb exposed in a museum, are good. Do not confuse with purpose/fin. It is not just the act, but according to its moral qualifier. 2. Of the end that is sought (intention of the purpose): its like the motor. “el fin no justifica los medios”. Intentionality for which an individual performs a good or bad act. If an action is bad, doesn’t matter the purpose of it, it is still wrong. Example if Lucia makes a big donation to a school, a good intention (bondadosa = praise) is for charity, but a bad intention (malicious = slander) to be seen in the newspaper. An indifferent action can be improved or worsened by the intention. A good intention can make better a good action. “it is not enough to do good actions, it is necessary to do them good” for instance Robin Hood, he has a good intention (help the poor), but he does bad actions (he steal) 3. Of the circumstances of the action: there are situations and secondary elements, that occur along with the human action that can contribute to aggravate or diminish the goodness or malice of the act, for instance, the amount of money stolen. We locate the circumstance by doing some questions: who, where, with what means (although the end does not justify the medium), etc. The circumstances affect moral appraisal in 3 ways: 1- Aggravate or diminish malice, 2- Add a new sin (example: casa de papel, they are thieves but their first intention is to not kill anyone, but at the end they add a new sin by accidently killing 2 people), 3- Change the theological species (example: you steal, but now you start stealing to poor people in the church, the action becomes malicious. Another example, is to hit, but hit your mother)  1. Principle of Solidarity You can only be solidary with other people (example: you cannot be solidary with a table), even when you do not know them. Is it easier to help who you have by your side?? What is solidarity in papal means?? In the RN (centesimus anus), “solidarity is one of the BASIC principle of the Christian conception of social and political organization”although these principles are not hierarchical, we can say this is the base. Current When analyzing your solidarity (just like using a thermometer to measure levels), We have 2 situations, which are simultaneous and CONTRADICTORY: 1. Solidarity practiced on a global scale is at a minimum 2. Appears as a noticeable sign at certain times. Do we live in a individualist world?? Humans are not made to be alone, we need a family. Nowadays, the family is separated, there are phrases like “you don’t need anyone, if you want to start alone you can…” because there is a SOMEONE, most of the times is the State. Have we seen peaks of solidarity??? In the pandemics, people were solidary, clap for all those doctors and nurses, even though we did not know them. Also, with the war of Ukraine, giving home, weapons, money, etc. Another moment is Christmas, there are events for charity, etc, ATHOUGH poor families need food the rest of the year. The thermometer of solidarity goes up ONLY when the situation requires it, but when times doesn’t require it (thermometer is neutral or negative), people is individualist Other factors: moral decay of the West, selfishness (excess of that thinking of mental health, like you don’t need people, don’t talk them, …) Example: MANIFEST. Plane works as a salvavidas, every time we do something immoral, opens a hole in the boat. The Christianism works like this, we sail in the same boat. Solidarity teaches us that we are the same ie creation and the same in salvation (redencion). For instance, when Jesus resurrects, he says to predict the gospel (la Buena Nueva), in solidarity. Christians are like the boat, but not in that radical way, we are free to choose. For instance, los testigos de Jeova, they knock the door In order to recruit people and they must reach a certain number, if not, no one survives. Christians are not like this, because we are free. Tacitus (griego) “The sterility of the first century, in virtues, was not that big that it prevented the numerous presence of good examples” lived in a moment of a lot of wars.. In other words, even when the world seems to end, it doesn’t stop the appearance of good actions. No situation is bad enough to avoid good examples. Jews haver like 300 laws, but when Jesus arrived (not to break them, but to meet them) he summarize them in 10 commandments (mandamientos). It can also appear as the concept of CHARITY (law in its fullness), means to recognize the other and understand that we are the same and we have to help each other’s, over our necessities (real practice of charity). Ex: woman that gives 2 euros and rich that gives 5000, woman gives more because she gave everything she had (not what was left over). It is good to give a cent at church, or food at Christmas, but this is not charity. Definition of Solidarity: the radical homogeneity and equality of all men and all towns/pueblos in all times and spaces. Contributes a whole or family unit. Morally and seriously obliges each and everyone to practice a firm social cohesion, creator of coexistence. Solidarity is synonym of fraternity and equality. Solidarity is the effect of fraternity. Fraternity sounds to be something close to us (hermandad y fraternities at uni), more physical. But according to CST, understands Fraternity as a universal value, in 2 levels or causes 1) equality in the creation (we have the same and share the same dignity) and 2) equality in the benefit of redemption. Communion, even with people that we don’t know (example: us with people in mexico). Solidarity has 2 sources or ROOTS: 1. The natural: of common sense. for instance, give money to poor 2. The supernatural: give more than what we had. Example of the French boxer, he forgave supernaturally his father, who tried to beat him to dead *NOTE: La solidaridad en si es una virtud sin esfuerzo (SIN medida) Three moments 1. Universal fraternity 2. The solidarity. Recognize the other as equal to me 3. The projection of solidarity → association trend in all the forms and levels. Example: recollection of tapitas to buy wheelchairs, sick children, run marathons for cancer. Solidarity in the social Magisterium It is a concept that along the time, popes have been developing, ESPECIALLY Pius XII (solidarity is the first manifestation of universal fraternity). The knowledge of how this happen is NOT ESSENTIAL. But we must see the antecedents in Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII recognizes fraternity in the work situations in his time (if bosses of the factories, had fraternity with the workers, they would have considered them). Also, in wars, the thermometer of solidarity is cold, hate the enemy and see it as less. It is important to use solidarity to recognize the other as a person and not as an object. Example: I can’t ask Elena for notes if I have ignore her all the year. Solidarity (fraternity or charity) creates in time and space a Universal family unit • Source unit= God • Of nature = body and soul in personal unity • Near purpose=dignified life in time • From space= the whole earth (for everyone) • Domain and use = enjoyment of temporal goods (ex: table) • Universal redemption = in Christ. Remember both equally in creation and redemption (Christ is who redempts) • Of supreme destiny = eternal life The roots of social DISORDER are oblivion and disrespect to the fraternity. A correctly developed solidarity leads to a coexistence enriching for all. Geographical and cultural differences should not obscure solidarity. Saint John Paul II also developed this topic, founding that the best development of it is found in the question what is the man? Lack of Solidarity Solidarity can be seen in 2 ways. 1. Anthropocentric humanism → religion centered in men. Several problems, but resalt the Homos corbus (se enrolla en si mismo). So the equally in the fact of creation is lost because you are looking to yourself. The causes are denier or unaware (ignorance) of the divine order. This is clearly exemplified, in the gap of the 1st (developed) and 3rd (undeveloped) world (due to wars, countries considered the others less). Also, what happens with Atheism (always dissatisfied and HUNGRY for more, not having God we will always look to fill that void). For example a pregnant woman ask her husband for chocolate, but he brought her a fish, and she gets angry (she will not be hungry anymore but that is not what she wanted) 2. Theocentric humanism: search of the purpose of the man. Attend to respect all people and towns.man nature. To reach a worked out reasoning 

CST remember that every man is linked to the common destiny of the salvation of all. RECAPITULATION Man is a being-with-others. The man has a natural constitution and its elevation to the supernatural order (you never want to be alone, no se entiende en la relacion sin los demas). BUT you are not only there with others, you are with others for a purpose of service. We extend the phrase, being-with-others-for-others. In the French rev, people believe that independence, freedom of your family and your past, etc. but this is actually a slavery (you are going against your nature of being-with-others) Service: 1. 2. 3. two directions for the OTHER (God) for the other (neighbor/projimo) Sociological Derivations  Epochs of memory (solidarias): reinforce the meaning of solidarity When the thermometer of solidarity is too hot. Respect to nations, similitudes accentuate (common values), there is respect for the living inheritance received (reverence to the past but not idolatry, feeling the present before immediate future), eras of creative ability, and social health  Times of forgetfulness: Deep forgiveness of solidarity (thermometer is cold). It is increased the conflict thanks to DIFFERENCES. For instance, cultivate partisan solidarity (no ayudo a los que no son conmigo), break with the past, falsify their own and others’ history. Times of oblivion are times of disintegration. Tend to reduce/eliminate solidarity. Two categories or historical forms of solidarity 1. 2. Solidarity by similarities: association of groups by likeness. We have what they have En otras palabras, renuncia al pasado y la memoria Solidarity by differences: association of groups that complement each other (we´ve something they lack). These do not usually last Catechism Points OJO!!! These numbers are not years, these are points Point 1940 Solidarity is manifested by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. Reduce tension and negotiate conflicts Point 1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity, among rich and poor, employers and employees, nations. Point 1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods Theme 3 Bioethics Foundations of Bioethics What is bioethics??? Ethics of/for life. How it arises??? Is the ordinary moral knowledge (ethical compass that every human being has embedded in him without anyone having taught it to him) enough to abord bioethics problems?? Ethics are NECESSARY to abord, but they are not enough by themselves. In this way, the bioethics arises in techniques (especially in the scientific field). There is a surge of technical development, but it is not accompanied by ethical reasoning. Moral dilemmas are also transferred to bioethics. Example: a boy that suffer an accident and the only way to cure him is to cut his leg, but that will stop him. Fritz Jahr (1977) coins the concept of bioethics, not only for the life of men, but for the life of animals, environment (ecosystem), etc. No one listened to him, his concept was ignored. Van Renssoleare Rotter (1970). This scientist defends that there are 2 words that must be channeled (unirse en valores). More in the scientific field. Medical art must go hand in hand with the philosophical. Two worlds (values and technique) that until now have been separated must be united at the same point. Definition Elena Postigo: “bioethics is the systematic and interdisciplinary study of man´s actions, planet, and animal life, considering their anthropological and ethical implications in order to RATIONALLY see what is good for man, future generations and ecosystem, to find a possible CLINICAL solution or develop an adequate LEGAL regulation” Bioethics looks REALITY based on several disciplines (chemistry, biology, economia, derecho, etc.). In this way, she considers this method triangular and interdisciplinary *transhumanism. Believes that man is not perfect, so seeks to try to improve the human species (ex: improve brain capacity). Example: the human dog Bioethics does not judge the individual but recognizes that he has a problem and needs to be helped. All hospitals, have a committee of bioethics. Example, when the abortion law appears they consult with this committee, they said no, but people ignore them. Historical Antecedents 1- Hippocratic Oath (500 b.C) Hippocrates “father of bioethics”. There are 2 types of oath: law (contract) and by word (is affected by changes in opinion). Just as Cicero, Hippocrates says that for whom (doctors) that violate the oat have a transcendent penalty (by gods, and in that moment, by people)Name things that nowadays are applied in normal medicine, as mortal drugs, abortive substances, etc. 2- Nuremberg Judge (1945). They experimented with humans without their consent. Nowadays, there is a law that defends this right, for surgeries, organ donations, etc. 3- Medical technological advances (1960). People discover things that are possible, but they don’t have an ethical base. Method of Bioethics interdisciplinary (uses a lot of disciplines) and triangular (it has 3 moments) ✓ Moment A. Develop the theory of the practice that is being done. Example: types of abortion. ✓ Moment B. Think about the implications for men, future generations, environment… (consequences) ✓ Moment C. Put down everything I have discovered in a practical manner (brings down to earth everything I’ve been thinking). Try to find a Clinical solution or law regulation if necessary. Oviedo Congress (1999) it is a agreement in which several medical practices were regulated. Examples: CLONATION, Eugenesia (discarding, depriving, choosing, discriminating, killing people for different features, race or religion), fetus experimentation (create a fetus only for experimentation, because embryonal cells could help to solve several diseases), you can’t play with the germinal line. OJO! In Asia, most of these prohibitions are allowed. Need for a philosophical Reflection Is the technological development necessarily human progress??? Trains, phones, planes, are considered progress, but is that human?? ? Is everything technically possible is ethically correct????NO. Human progress is all progress used for the good (does not interfere with human integrity and respects its dignity progress that make man more human. Bombs, missile, guns, imply a huge technical advance but, what is the limit for human? These technological progress just move away of human. Ortega y Gasset. “Any technique that moves away the man from its humanity, is a mistake that ruin us”. Example: paintings of Picasso and Goya. Each painting should express the man, but this doesn’t happen all the time. Before we continue, we need: 1) specific definition of man (base), 2) philosophical anthropology, and 3) rehabilitate the teleological concepts of nature (an order, meaning or telos, in nature and technology (e.g., an elephant will not hatch from an egg). This supports the initial theory of the father of bioethics Rotter. Teleological=order, sense, fin. Example: you will not keep a bomb with the purpose to use it if you need it Three fundamental positions (1 and 3 are the most important) 1- Materialism, biological reductionism or functionalism: 3 ways to name this type of thinking . Peter Singer and Hugo Tristram Engelhards Jr work on this concept. Peter Singer defends to his death all his reasoning, he never contradicted himself (not hypocritical), defends abortion seriously, infanticide (babies are human but not person, it is not protected). and that some apes can become a person but not a human (not of the species homo sapiens sapiens). It’s also called Reductionism, have a scientific vision of the corporeality, the separation between human and person. First you are a human (body) and according to your development you can become a person (defined by rationality). Not all human are person, or never will be. For example, a person has an accident and stays vegetal, it change from being a person to come back to be a human (only body). For the functionalism (subjective), also makes this separation of human and person, but at difference it says that for being a person you must be able to interact and socialize with others, involve in the conscience. *Peter Singer accepts that man has 2 dimensions, and even seems to degrade the body over the mind. “These bodies, no longer belonging to any person or mind, at least in general secular terms, should be considered as biologically living corpses, and in this sense deprived of values and rights.” Consequence: instrumentation of the body, body biologically alive (not person) have no right. The lack of protection of these biological bodies allows human experiments, abortion, and transhumanism (experiments to improve our human capacities). For instance, when we reach to have artificial intelligence that could formulate opinions, for these people that machine is a person. 2- Interactionist Dualism: starts with Plato and ends with Descartes. AFFIRMS the 2 realities, body and soul, but is also interactionist because in some way these 2 interact. According to Descartes the pineal gland is what makes this link (not scientifically or philosophically proven). Descartes “Pienso y luego existo” first you reason and, then you can exist, but this interactionism does not occur at the same time (primacy of the mind over the body). Therefore, arises the materialism. Nowadays, this position is not applied The body appears since the fecundation. 2 questions: is it acceptable to make this separation? Is the essence of man in the body (hay algo mas en el cuerpo)?. Letter on humanism, “The fact that physiology and physiological chemistry can inquire about man as an organism from the point of view of the natural sciences is not proof that the essence of man is in the body as it is scientifically explained.” There is no proof that the essence is in the body so there is no way to study through biology or chemistry. Science cannot explain this duality, so this corresponds to metascience (science fiction). 3- Dual unit: body and soul exist in the same moment, as a unit. Aristoteles and Saint Thomas of Aquino were one of the philosophers that develop this thinking 7 Bioethical Currents/Schools ✓ Principalism (first school): doctor cannot get without answers when bioethics problems present in their life. Belmont Report (1974) presents 4 principles: autonomy, beneficence non-maleficence and justice. Later in 1979, two scientists, Beauchamp and Childress, write the bioethics manual that include these principles 1. Autonomy: the patient is free to decide what to do with his or her life, even against medical advice. It is understood that this person is sufficiently capable of deciding for his or her own good. 2. Beneficence: the doctor must look for everything that can benefit the patient. 3. Non-maleficence: the physician is forbidden to apply anything that may harm the patient. 4. Justice: all patients have the same right to be treated in the best way. It does not matter the color, race, religion. Principalism does not establish any hierarchy between them, so in some cases, principles may contradict each other. Example: autonomy and non-maleficence in euthanasia. Th

e Moderate Principalism of Diego Gracia to solve this problem separates them into two categories: at a higher-level non-maleficence and justice, and at a lower-level autonomy and beneficence. This was criticized a lot by Clouset and Gert, Diego has since become a deliberationist. ✓ Utilitarianism and functionalism: Based on the theories of Bentham and Stuart Mill. what is useful is the best. It makes a cost-benefit calculation on the actions (more or less like making a list of pros and cons), the result of which will be the decision to take. OJO! Something useful is not necessarily good, and something good is not necessarily useful either. This current is associated with Peter Singer. In utilitarian terms, some people are not useful, e.g. people with Down’s (they are good but they are more expensive and less “useful”). Other examples: euthanasia (way of eliminating people because of the costs or pensions), abortion over a child has a disease (e.g. baby Rodrigo was born without a fibula), transhumanism (in a cost-benefit society, only people who are able to think above others will be considered). ✓ Contractualism: the only possibility to solve problems is to reach a consensus. But this current does not succeed because who sets the limits? and who make a consensus? ✓ Ethics of minimum: arises from the SOCIAL contract. We mention Adela Cortina in Valencia, who continues to defend it, that we all agree on the same basic thing (do no harm, defend life, etc.). It contributes to the panorama, but it is not important (very criticized) because it is not possible to establish these minimums due to the erroneous concept of man (it does not have a philosophical basis of the anthropology of man). ✓ Ethics of care: we have as example Carol Gilligan. is a feminist approach to ethics. It is grounded in voice and relationships, in the importance of everyone having a voice, being listened to carefully (in their own right and on their own terms) and heard with respect. ✓ Narrative of Ethics: understand the patient. The physician must take the necessary time to get to know the patient and his history (putting out the fire when there is a fire behind it). It may happen that a sick person goes to the doctor, but he is not sick because he does not take care of himself, but because he lives in living conditions that make him constantly ill) Nowadays, there is so much demand that for example in the emergency department, the doctor does not even know the name of the patient. ✓ Casuistic Bioethics: decide in each situation. Resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine Personalism with an ontological foundation Founded by Elio Segreccia, understands the intrinsic dignity of man. It understands the person as the substantial union of body and soul (when treating the patient, both are treated). It is opposed to other currents (as utilitarianism) and complements others (as dual unit theory). Seeks to recover the human nature. It presents 4 principles: : 1) respect for physical life (amputation can never be the first option.), 2) therapeutic principle (protect the person without violating his or her integrity), 3) freedom + responsibility (understands the principle of AUTONOMY with a twist, so more freedom = more responsibility, that is why, for instance, you cannot give a child autonomy on a medical issue, as if they were an adult.) and 4) justice (just as before). *example against personalism: doctors in Holland practice euthanasia (because he is too old or sick) without the person’s consent Synthesis 1. Recovery of the philosophical-sapiential dimension. 2. Get ahead of technological development: euthanasia, embryo freezing (they produce so much that they have to freeze them, in the end they only use about 60%). Philosophical reflection is always behind technology, so we need to get ahead. 3. Recta Ratio + hu

Fertilization in vitro Historical indications OJO!!! Fertilization (acts on the way sperm and egg come into contact) is different from artificial insemination (deposition of male fluid into the female genital tract). Artificial insemination appears much earlier (18th century), and works by bringing the sperm and the ovum together without sex. On the other hand, the first in vitro baby girl was born in 1978, Louise Brown. Although it is true that, in both cases, the main problem is that the sexual act does not take place, separating union and procreation. But why does this research arise? In some cultures sterility is a problem, and research is not aimed at curing sterility, but at giving them the possibility of having a child anyway. Terminology (although in English, there is no distinction in the word) Sterility is a disease of the male or female reproductive system. After having tried many times (long time of unprotected sexual intercourse) impossibility of achieve pregnancy. Infertility is the inability to carry a pregnancy to term. The woman becomes pregnant but loses the pregnancy. Facts about sterility According to WHO, around 10-15% of couples have problems conceiving. This alternative of In vitro fertilization, give the final result (the pregnancy), but the sterility stays there, so if you want to have another baby you could not make it. In all diseases, we always look for the root. Although in some diseases we know the root but not the cure (e.g. quistic fibrosis). But with sterility, there is NO investigation looking for the reasons, although this problem may have a solution. Example we can say that some men have defective spermatozoids but we don’t know why. This is crucial, because maybe the reason of sterility can be transferred to the child (environment,…) Some known causes: Advance age, Hormonal problems, Sexually transmitted disease, Ovulation problems, Endometriosis (tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus) Types of techniques *We can differentiate between heterologist (donor sperm from a sperm bank) and homologous (sperm comes from partner) 1. Intracorporeal: fecundation occur inside the woman • Artificial insemination (AI): it is intracorporeal: With a syringe the spermatozoid of man is introduced into the woman’s genital tract. Can be homologous or heterologist, only a 10-20% of possibility of pregnancy • GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) it is considered dangerous and invasive because it requires an surgery (eggs are collected through an ovarian puncture, then the best sperm are selected and both are mixed, for later introduction in the fallopian tubes, another incision) it have a 20-25% of pregnancy only to women under 35 2. Extracorporeal: fecundation outside the body. There are several types, that only difference in the technique steps is the fecundation (1. Ovarian stimulation, 2. follicular puncture, 3. Semen capacitation, 4. Fecundation, 5. Fertilization assessment, 6. Tubal transfer) • In vitro fertilization (IVF): it can be heterologist or homologous. In summary, first, apply hormones (hCG or human chorionic gonadotropin applied by injections), and stimulate the production of multiple eggs, which are collected in a dish and fused with sperm during 12-18 H after that. If the fecundation occurs, the doctor checks that embryo has no disease before implantation. Fecundation is very successful (80%). Incubate 24-60H, doctor checks in a scale 1 to 7 the embryo esthetically and genetically, this is called PROCESS OF SELECTION. Normally, implantation do not occur, that’s why we implant several (3 to 4 embryos) that will take care of each other. After implantation, woman is again bombarded with progesterone (to stabilize the hormones once she is pregnant). The percent of successful cases is 20-50%. *Sperm Sorting or MicroSort: separate in the sperm the X chromosomes and carry the Y chromosomes. In this way we can select the sex of the future baby. This technique is very new, has around 5 years Types of IVF Conventional → it is in a plaque ICSI (Intracytoplasmatic Sperm injection) → The ovary is held with forceps (a pipette that absorbs it fixes it) and then the sperm is injected with a syringe. When the male sperm has defects, a selection is made from the worst (the most motile and healthy). A solution is made and forces the fertilization of THAT sperm. This is why genetic problems increase because half of the child’s info (which is the father’s part) is defective, which is why autistic children are born, or with delays (fragile X syndrome), which cannot be seen until the baby is born. High percentage of damage to the ovum (implantation rate is very low), so it takes many eggs to ensure implantation. General Complications ✓ Very high percentage of natural miscarriage, mostly in the first weeks ✓ Ectopic pregnancy ✓ Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHS) abnormally elevated ovarian response triggered after administration of hCG. ✓ Compromise functions of Hepatic, hematologic, renal and respiratory systems ✓ Multiple pregnancy Ethical implications of IVF:  Embryo production. Babies are born through a technique in a lab  Excess of hormones. Ovarian hyperstimulation or breast cancer.  Process of selection (discrimination over sex, size…) Preimplantation diagnosis. For example to find out if your child has Down syndrome. It can be done on the plate in the lab before implantation, but also during pregnancy. This has meant that in Spain today there are almost no children with Down syndrome.  Frozen embryos Gamete donation/sperm bank Consists on giving sperm, eggs, both, or embryos to another person/couple so that another person/couple may have a child. This offers patients the opportunity to have child(ren) when sperm and/or eggs or both are not healthy enough to lead to successful pregnancy. Examples: Man with 500 children. Parents discover that their child (born by IVF) is not the child of one of them. Ethical Implications of gamete donation:  We would all be related.  The child never knows who his parents really are (you don’t know your origin). Man’s primal question, who am I? Where do I come from? Example of Angel, he was all his life with his father, but as an adult he learns that he is not his real father, so even though he loves him very much he wanted to know who his real father was, he met him and also met his sister who has schizophrenia. Embryo freezing (supernumeraries) Embryos cannot live more than certain (around 7) days outside the mother’s body. If we have 5 healthy embryos, and we implant 3, what do we do with the rest???.Healthy embryos are kept under -196º in liquid nitrogen. Poor quality embryos are left and observe the evolution, but the normally they die. SEF (sociedad española de fertilizacion) estimates that 40% of the IVF-generated embryos were frozen. NEWS!!! After 30 years, frozen babies were born. NEWS!!! After 30 years, frozen babies were born Why are they frozen??? For the mother to use them when she want. It is a way of preserving them for later use in the event of not getting pregnant or in the event of wanting to have another child several years later. This implies that, as the hormonal treatment is too strong, it is dangerous to expose the mother to the treatment again and again.

Thawing/defrosting: it is the process of defrosting of eggs. But it can occur that the embryo freeze (trozos de cristal) inside the cell, so it provoke a lot of cell damage. Nowadays, some techniques have minimize damage, such as thawed slowly or for instance some doctors say that the 4th day is the best. Destinations of the cryopreserved embryos (in Spain) a. Used by the woman herself b. Donation for reproductive purposes (prenatal). It is like an adoption; it is called rescue. Only can be done by women until 35 y/o. they must be prepared molecularly. You only adopt one, so the possibilities of implantation are really low. The purpose of this is take out a person of that unworthy situation, so the main purpose is life, not to have a child (it is a good action por parte de los padres adoptivos). Esta opcion surge por el problema de espacio de almacenamiento c. Donation for research purposes. The utilitarian argument arises, the decision taken will be the one that is most beneficial regardless of the ethical implications. Example human experimentation, they used people who had already decided that they were going to die. d. The cessation of their conservation without any other use. Destruction of the embryos A and B are the better (less worse) option, the possibility of life is the priority. Percentage of embryo transfer is 30% Ethic implications of embryo freezing  The embryo is taken as an object. The person (baby) is devalued.  High risk of death. Playing with life  Donation to science. This can be considered human experimentation (just as Nuremberg)  Socioeconomic consequences. Very costly.  You can also get into a legal dispute over custody.  You freeze a person, stop their development and keep them in a very undignified situation for many years. Embryonic Reduction (another way of abortion) It is a way of EUGENESIA, because normally it is performed between 10-12 weeks (because it is still small but can be distinguished), when we can already know the sex and size of the baby. It is an injection of potassium chloride, stops his heart and then it is suctioned. Age limit??? Ana Obregon and 74 years old (India). Giving life to a child will always be good, but in cases where a woman who cannot get pregnant naturally can use these methods is always a questionable thing. Savior sibling (bebe medicamento): children that are born to cure an existing sibling. They generate 50 embryos, which are designed to be immunologically equal to the existing sibling (baby design efficiency). This is done to cure blood diseases, leukemia, sickle cell. Remaining embryos (49) are destroyed, not frozen. Two assumptions must be ensured: 1) that the baby is healthy and 2)that is immunologically compatible with the sibling. It is considered a therapeutic cloning (obtain embryos genetically equal to a certain sick person), but this one is accepted here in Spain. It is not exactly a cloning, so the law does not contemplate it completely. Ethical implications of Savior siblings: ✓ Genetic selection (form of eutanasia). Babies on demand ✓ Embryo manipulation ✓ Equal access. It is too expensive, so only rich can access to it ✓ Informed consent. An example of alternative: umbilical cord blood (SCU), some mothers are keeping it. Side effects of these techniques Epigenetics: the way in which our genes are expressed and how they are conditioned by the environment. It is thought that this (climate, conditions, habits, food, sport) can have repercussions on future generations. Changes in conditions – alter embryonic development Several papers and authors support that these techniques have health consequences. Ann Diamond book (2016), lists possible health effects. For example, low birth weight (nothing serious), but it also hints that babies may be born with malformations, leukemia, diabetes, etc. Francisco Güell. He helped to change the mentality of the fertilization clinics in Mexico, trying to generate the least amount of embryos, to eliminate the destruction of the embryos. Legal Implications – – – – – – Right to know who the parents are Disregards of paternity Possibility of unknown siblings Postmortem parent Rental wombs Embryo freezing What does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church say??? Encyclicals fruit of congregations (not popes). They talk more about IVF. Insemination is accepted if there is a conjugal act. It does not accept the implantation of something that does not belong to the parents. – – – – – Donum vitae. substitution for the conjugal act and not only helps its full realization is not licit Dignitas Personae nº. 12 Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted, except in the case in which the technical means does not replace the conjugal act, but is a facilitation and an aid for it to achieve its natural purpose”. Heterologous ART is never permissible. Dignitas Personae, nº 18 Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect due to human embryos Dignitas Personae, nº. 19 The Catholic Church cannot accept that the freezing of human embryos Donum vitae, nº 2: IVF has required the formation and destruction of countless human embryos, superovulation in the woman, Some of the embryos already implanted are sometimes sacrificed for various reasons: eugenic, economic or psychological. detriment of their integrity and life Most of the unused embryos remain “orphans”. Their parents do not request them, and sometimes their traces are lost. This explains the existence of deposits of thousands of frozen embryos in almost all countries where in vitro fertilization is practiced. Abortion We must be SURE of what we are doing. Biologic status of embryo: zygote or unicellular embryo. It is the same from this point till it is an adult, there is no disorder. It is an organism Cell How do we know it belongs to the human specie? A cell is a “basic structure and functional unit of people and all living things”, but this don’t differentiate animals from humans. In 1979 the Alu sequence was discovered to be only present in humans (but can also appear in primates). Also we mention the Human specific markers and proteins that appear in the human specie since the moment of conception, such as HLA (human leukocyte antigen), fetal hemoglobin, homeobox genes, proteins specific to the human brain. In this way, a zygote as a cell is a unit of life and as a carrier of Alu sequences in its genome, it is human life. So now, the only doubt in abortion is if the embryo is a person or not. Because a woman can only give birth to a human. Then, if the embryo is not person, when is it considered a person??? When it can be protected by the law?? Some argue that the embryo or fetus is a potential human in life. Some also consider that the baby is an extension of the mother. However, the embryo is a unique biological structure, not an extension, for instance an astronaut in a spaceship, he cannot live in the space without the spaceship but the astronaut is not an extension of it. The embryo is ia a new gene pool in which is always in continuous development. Language manipulation (pre-embrion) Warnock committee (1984). It was a meeting to reach an agreement on whether abortion is accepted or not. But another intention of this was also to determine when we can experiment with the fetus. It was created a new concept “pre-embryo”, everything that is previous to the embryo (14 days old). Scientifically, this term is not valid because before the embryo is just the gametes. Ann McLaren (1986): “this term was coined because of some pressure from outside the scientific community”This concept was only an excuse to manipulate the embryo. Abortion as a voluntary interruption of pregnancy. Actually, this is wrong, because when you see the word interruption means that it can be continue later, but a pregnancy cannot be stopped and resumed. In spain are around 99.879 abortion per year. Here includes the natural abortions, but not the ones of embryo reduction (in IV fertilization). *even the man that create the After-Day Pill, he admitted that it is a form of abortion Jérôme Lejeune (April 23, 1981). He was invited to the US senate with the intention to defend the abortion, BUT he instead said that it was innegable the fact that after a fertilization there is a human being. “Accepting the fact that, after fertilization, a new human being has come into existence is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. It is not a metaphysical hypothesis, but experimental evidence.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Donum vitae, 1987). Since the moment the egg is fertilized life is inaugurated, it is a new human being that develops on its own “From the moment the egg is fertilized, a life is inaugurated that is not that of the father or the mother, but that of a new human being that develops on its own. It will never become human if it is not already human. To this long-standing evidence modern genetic science provides precious confirmations.” Laws In Spain (3 moments) ✓ Law of 1985 (repealed) ✓ Organic Law of 2010 (as mended) has been modified by the current one. It was a term law (depending on the stage of pregnancy). There is an abortion limit (14 weeks) and the woman to have an abortion is understood to have medical complications. You have to certify several times (3 days of reflection) that this is what she wants to do. The doctor must make sure that emotions and impulses do not affect the woman’s decision. ✓ Law of 2023 (CURRENT) Currently the doctor does not inform about the other options and there is no time for reflection (it is not mandatory as before). Guarantees that abortions can be performed in public hospitals and allows girls under 16 to have abortions without parental consent. Spanish constitution 1978. Art 14. Spanish legislation is “antieugenesica“. Art. 15 everyone has the right to live and physical integrity. It is worded ambiguously. Who are they all? Animals, plants, baby born? It does not specify anything, when in doubt do not act. For example, a hunter can only shoot if he is absolutely sure that what he kills is a wild boar and not something else. Civil code Art 30. Personality (juridica) is adquired at the momento of live birth. Record creation (registro) Register of conscientious objectors in each autonomous region, and once declared objectors, these professionals will be so for both the public and private spheres. It opens a window to discrimination based on the morals of the physician. For example, a private hospital that offers these services will not hire a doctor (no matter how good he may be) if he does not comply with the services offered. What does the Spanish Episcopal Conference say (BISHOPS’ NOTE IN DEFENSE OF LIFE 2022=high priests’ offices). Before this law, they express their rejection to this law. Rejection of abortion, especially in girls, the creation of the registry, which do not give information or reflection period (conscientious objection). Prenatal development Depending on the week of the fetus, one abortion technique or another is practiced. And at the time of making the law, when it is established that it is a person, when it has a heart (3 weeks)? Does it produce pain (9 weeks)? When it hears (20 weeks)?? It has a brain (neuromuscular development at 5th week)? Abortion methods (6 more commons) – – – – Pharmacological Abortion. These are pills. The most potent is RU 483 but there are others less effective such as EllaOne or prostaglandins (induce labor). They can only be applied in the first 9 weeks, first period (if it is later, the woman has the risk of having an incomplete abortion, infection and ultimately death). *In the case of incomplete abortion, a small spoon is inserted (curettage technique) and scraped to remove what may be left. Suction or aspiration. It is at week 14. The fetus is aspirated from the inside

. It is said to be more powerful than a Dixon. How is it done? First it is dilated, then air is pumped in and suctioned out, and finally the curette is inserted. Curettage (es mas bestia) It is only with the spoon. This is at the limit of the Spanish law, because it is done until 13 14 weeks. The fetus is already big and it is more difficult. Intraamnioitic injection. (it is admitted in Spain but it is not used so much nowadays, it is considered very inhumane). It is considered inhumane not because of what it does to the baby but what it does to the mother. It is an injection of chemicals in the 22-25 week, a chemical is injected (to the baby’s head or heart) that in very high concentrations for the baby’s heart, cause painful death from dehydration or burns after 2 days or so. The mother can give birth to her dead baby or if it does not come out, the baby is taken out in pieces. – – Mini caesarean section Between 15-16 weeks. It can happen that by a miracle the baby comes out alive, but in this case, the baby is left to die outside the uterus and that’s it (it has no lungs to breathe). Partial birth D and X (Dilatation and extraction) They dilate (but it never dilates as much as in a normal delivery) and they extract the baby piece by piece. The baby is put on its back, dragged and when it is about to come out, the head is cut off so that it can come out. Post-abortion syndrome It happens to at least 90% of women. Various problems such as depression, anorexia, sexual dysfunctions, breakup with partner, anxiety, suicide, problems getting pregnant again…Manuel Martinez Sellés ”the hippocratic oath explicitly prohibits abortion and euthanasia.” Resources Women’s and maternity associations: RedMadre, Fundación Vida, Fundación Provida, Proyecto Raquel, Movie unplanned. La reina de los abortos. Realidad de estados unidos con el aborto Exam questions!!!! Ethical consequences or implications of abortion. Definition of person applied to fetus, intrinsic value of the fetus (dignity) From the moment of fecundation, there is a new human being with its own growth and development. Eutanasia Comes from the Greek, meaning good death. According to WHO, deliberate action of the physician that causes the death of a patient, there are 2 ways: 1) administering toxic substances or 2) denying medical assistance to a patient.*OJO! The intention of the physician may play a role. A physician may do so in order to alleviate pain.Two kinds of death: heart-stopping or brain death. CRITERIA for death: – – – Vegetative state: patient can open eyes, does not need breathing apparatus, there is brain activity. Coma: patient’s eyes are closed. It is not known how conscious the patient is. May or may not wake up. Terminal illness: this concept depends on the legislation. In Spain, it is defined as a disease for which there is no cure. Alzheimer’s is not included (although it is degenerative and has no cure). The church considers that these situations of terminal illness are complicated. Because not only the disease is considered but all the problems that surround them. Example: sick people who have NO ONE. Arguments in favor We must seek a rigor that makes us more human. 1. Respect for individual freedom. It depends on the concept of freedom that one has. The individual’s wishes must be respected. To do what he/she wants when he/she wants and how he/she wants. 2. Right to accept or refuse treatment (medical aspect). The patient’s autonomy allows him/her to decide whether or not to receive the treatment, even if it goes against the medical recommendation. As long as the person is of sound mind. Euthanasia is understood as an additional treatment, so that it can be asked for 3. The lack of quality of life caused by certain diseases. Suffering is seen in 2 ways: 1) Christian way (Jesus suffered in an inhuman way, as a sacrifice, happiness in suffering is possible) 2) suffering is bad and I do everything possible to avoid it. Today we seek to flee from suffering, alcohol, drugs (to avoid reality) or euthanasia. 4. The intervention of the physician. When a doctor does it, it is much more appropriate than if one does it oneself (suicide). *Assisted suicide. The doctor prescribes you a series of drugs, and you just take them. This is not considered a crime in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, etc. But there are countries that do not allow it, for example Spain. Palliative Care The goal is that the patient does not suffer (remove the pain) and can make life to enjoy (to be alert) what he/she has left. They are much more expensive than euthanasia, because it is a medical SPECIALTY, and needs resources. It never seeks to extend life (the key is the intention). Proposed Organic Law Regulating Euthanasia in Spain 2021 Medical condition and alternatives, request the application voluntarily, suffer from a serious illness.It only applies to Spaniards over the age of 18 (important medical decisions are the responsibility of the parents). It is a restrictive issue. Not all countries allow it. Theory slippery slope or inclined plane It states that once these things are legalized in a more restrictive way, society will lean towards it, opening the spectrum of circumstances in which they can be applied and they will end up being accepted without restrictions. An example of this is the law on euthanasia in HOLLAND! In the beginning (2001) in Holland there were restrictions just as there are in Spain. Conditions for decriminalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands 1. Free and voluntary request of the patient. 2. Stable request. 3. Intolerable suffering with no prospect of improvement. 4. Last resource 5. Physician’s duty to consult the case. The development of the law came to transgress the laws established by legislation, and euthanasia was being applied not only to those who suffered physical pain, but also psychological pain, such as bulling, death of family members, stress, depression etc. (cases where the degree or magnitude of suffering cannot be determined). If there is a case where any of the restrictions are not covered, it is the judge who can overrule the doctor’s decision (before, if it was not accepted, another doctor was called to be objective). Normally, advance directives for euthanasia are not accepted. It is like a kind of testament, in which, for example, if I were to become a vegetable, I give permission to euthanize. But in Spain and at the time in Holland it was not allowed for euthanasia since it is a transversal decision. Now in Holland everything is accepted In the Netherlands today, “insurmountable” limits have been crossed: children can ask for it, even when the pain is not physical. Also, 1 out of 7 euthanasia practices are done without the patient’s consent and it is allowed. Example of a mentally ill patient who was euthanized without the patient’s or the family’s permission. Several organizations speak out AGAINST euthanasia Collegiate medical organizations, Councils of Europe, human rights, …. Not only the church is against it “The primary duty of a physician and that of his or her team with respect to the care of terminally ill patients is to facilitate the full range of palliative care, and this includes relieving or preventing suffering, and giving the patient the assistance necessary to protect or improve his or her quality of life.” Manuel Martínez Sellés (president of Madrid collage of physicians)—– explains that in countries where palliative care is considered the request for euthanasia is very low, people change their minds. Arguments against euthanasia 1. Slippery slope 2. Lack of real self-determination. Muchas veces el impulse que te lleva a esto, no es real 3. Reduction of palliative care. Se necesita dinero y vocacion para ello, debe darse mas info about this 4. Deformation of medical sense. El medico no esta hecho en ningún caso para matar ni solucionar problemas, el esta para acompañar y cuidar.