No abstract

The nature of the Catholic faith often places practitioners at odds with established order and the specificity of our values may cause us to run afoul of secular sensibilities. What follows is a collection of writings by National Catholic Bioethics Center President, Dr. Joseph Meaney, exploring our place in the public square, the proper way to respond to government driven injustice, and some specific instances in which the current administration has infringed or threatened to infringe upon the conscience and religious rights of not just faithful Catholics, but faithful members of many other religions as well.

Il contributo esamina il “Caso n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica” sul quale si attende una pronuncia della Corte interamericana dei diritti umani. La vicenda ha origine dalla sentenza della Corte costituzionale costaricana (del 15 marzo 2000 n. 2000-02306) che aveva annullato, per ragioni di forma e di sostanza, il Decreto Ejecutivo n. 24029-S1 (del 3 febbraio 1995) sulla procreazione artificiale umana. La vicenda prosegue davanti alla Commissione interamericana chiamata in causa da una “Petición” che accusa la Repubblica del Costa Rica di aver violato i diritti di alcune coppie in attesa di realizzare il loro “progetto parentale”. Il divieto di fecondazione artificiale confliggerebbe, in sintesi, con il diritto alla privacy e alla vita familiare, con il diritto di fondare una famiglia con il principio di uguaglianza contenuti nella Convenzione americana dei diritti umani (“Patto di San Josè”). Al termine di un lungo percorso e di un ampio dibattito, la Commissione ha ritenuto che tali diritti fossero stati violati e ha rimesso il caso alla Corte interamericana dei diritti dell’uomo. Con riferimento a questa nuova fase, nell’articolo si dà conto del “Escrito de Amici Curiae” presentato alla Corte dal Movimento per la vita italiano, dall’Istituto di Bioetica, dall’Asociación Crece Familia-CreceFam, dal Coordinamento di Human Life International e da Bioethics Defend Found. Nell’“Escrito” si afferma che il divieto del Costa Rica non viola la Convenzione americana sui diritti umani che afferma: “Ogni persona ha diritto al rispetto della propria vita. Tale diritto è protetto dalla legge e, in generale, è tutelato a partire dal momento del concepimento. Nessuno può essere privato arbitrariamente della vita (art. 4/1). Nel parere, inoltre, si avanzano argomenti di ordine scientifico e giuridico a sostegno del divieto di procreazione artificiale, in nome del riconoscimento della dignità umana e del conseguente diritto alla vita dell’essere umano nella fase più giovane della sua esistenza. Questo diritto, primo fra tutti, è già ampiamente accolto nella Convenzione americana sui diritti dell’uomo sottoscritta e ratificata dalla Repubblica del Costa Rica. ---------- The article deals with the “Case n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica” which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is going to decide. This case has its roots in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica’s decision (n. 2000-02306, March 15, 2000) which annulled the Decree n. 24029-S1 (February, 3, 1995) on human artificial procreation because of both formal and substantial aspects. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Costa Rica considered that in vitro fertilization constituted a threat against human life before birth. Afterwards, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a “Petición” which charged Costa Rica with a violation of the rights of some couples who wanted to achieve parenthood by medically assisted procreation. In short, according to Petitioner, the ban on in vitro fertilization violated the right to privacy and family life, the right to raise a family and equality before the law and equal protection established in the American Convention on human rights (“Pact of Saint José”). At the end of a long iter and an extended debate, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights claiming the violation of said rights and asking the Court to rule and declare the international responsability of the Costa Rican Republic. Regarding this new stage, the article relates the “Escrito de Amici Curiae” sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Italian Movement for the Life, the Institute of Bioethics of teh Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Asociación Crece Familia-CreceFam, Human Life International and the Bioethics Defense Fund. This “Escrito” argues that Costa Rica’s ban does not violate the American Convention on Human Rights which says that “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” (article 4/1). Besides the “Escrito” presents scientific and legal arguments corroborating the ban on artificial human procreation in the light of modern idea of human rights, recognition of human dignity and the right to life of human beings in the youngest stages of their lives. This right, the primary or first right, is already widely recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed and ratified by Costa Rica’s Republic.

This article is taken from a letter written by Dr. Joseph Meaney, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center regarding the fiftieth anniversary of the Center’s founding. It discusses several issues in medical and scientific advancement, as well as their moral implications.

Pandemic precaution policies—in particular, extreme restrictions on visitors—have caused a failure of spiritual care for hospital patients, especially those not diagnosed with or at high risk of the disease in question. Many hospitals make significant pastoral efforts for patients. But phone conversations with ordained chaplains and visits by lay chaplains cannot substitute for Confession, Communion, and Anointing of the Sick. It is unreasonable to exclude clergy who have taken appropriate precautions to protect themselves and others, and no urgent medical reason exists to justify denying patients access to sacraments; doing so violates civil rights and religious liberty. Crises calls for greater accommodation of believers in danger of death, who may need a priest even more than a doctor. Serious consideration has to be given as to when the costs of a precautionary policy can no longer be ethically justified.