Vatican Files

Images can turn the world and large portions of its population upside down. In 2005 a satirical vignette which pictured the prophet Mohammed having a bomb on his head instead of a turban caused outrage in the Muslim world. Millions of Muslims felt offended and thousands of them responded with street demonstrations around the globe. Protests went as far as bombing Danish embassies and pronouncing a fatwa against the cartoonist. An international controversy was aroused over free-speech rights, self-censorship and the respect of religious sensitivities. In the West the general orientation of public opinion perceived the Muslim reaction as grossly overstated and hitting one of the indispensable capstones of Western civilization. However it became clear that the final word could not be said on the issue. The power of images challenges a simple black and white approach. A new case will cause many to further reflect on it.

 

A Papal kiss to fight hatred?

On November 16^th, a huge banner was displayed on Castel Sant’Angelo’s bridge in Rome, right in front of Vatican City. The picture is very impacting and somewhat shocking. In it Pope Ratzinger is kissing an imam who happens to be Ahmed al-Tayyeb, imam of the mosque Al Ahzar in Cairo. The picture is part of an advertisement campaign by Italian photographer Oliviero Toscani on behalf of the fashion industry United Colors of Benetton, whose aim is to fight against the culture of hatred by promoting friendship amongst peoples, cultures and faiths. The campaign will also feature passionate kisses between President Obama and the Chinese President Hu Jintao, between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French President Sarkozy, and between Israeli Prime minister Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Abu Mazen. But the religious kiss between the Pope and al-Tayyeb was meant to be the first and perhaps most shocking one of the series.

The Vatican has immediately expressed its indignation for violating the image of the pope, desecrating his dignity, and offending the religious sensitivity of millions of Roman Catholics around the world. The banner was immediately removed but copies of the picture went out around the world, soon becoming one the most clicked on photos of the day. The following day the Vatican announced that Benetton will be sued both nationally and internationally.

 

Freedom in the era of Photoshop

Controversies over the limits of freedom of expression will undoubtedly rise again. The Vatican has not only appealed against the attack on the individual image of the Pope, but also to the alleged and public scorn and disgust caused to the faithful who recognize the Pope as their leader. While the former criterion is more neatly identifiable, the latter is more difficult to define. It is certainly contrary to the Pope’s dignity to manipulate a picture in which he, a confessed celibate, is pictured as kissing another man, thus indicating a homosexual relationship. If he had agreed to its use, this would have given United Colors of Benetton the right to exploit it. Since this is not the case, it is clearly not right to grossly caricature a man for publicity and business purposes without consent. Moreover, since the picture is counterfeit in sensitive and significant ways, permission is even more necessary, so to speak.

The other argument by the Vatican appears to be weaker and potentially dangerous. In any given matter/situation (i.e. sports, religion, politics) one can always find someone who gets offended by the language used, opinions expressed, or the media employed. Is “offensiveness” a proper legal category that entitles someone to sue someone else? Homosexuals can be “offended” by the Evangelical preacher who publicly reads Romans 1. Secularists can be “offended” by someone speaking of “the creation of the world”. Evangelicals can be “offended” by the Pope referring to them as a cult. The list goes on and on. The legal protection of one’s own dignity is one thing, respecting the “feelings” and “emotions” of different people is another. The former can potentially become a legal case, the latter is better addressed in terms of appropriateness (or lack of it).

The world of Photoshop is a brave new world. Christian ethics must pave a way forward in these difficult, yet unavoidable issues.

 

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

Rome, 19^th November 2011

 

 

 

 

The Vatican is a global player in bioethical debates. Its magisterium has been addressing bioethical issues since the birth of this discipline in the Sixties. Encyclicals like Humanae Vitae (“[The Transmission of] Human Life”, 1968) dealt with contraception in the context of changing sexual habits; Veritatis Splendor (“The Splendor of Truth”, 1993) defended the teaching of the authority of the Church in an age of moral relativism; Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”, 1995) underlined the inviolability of human life in the context of thorny debates about abortion, euthanasia, and medical research involving human embryos.

From the institutional point of view, the Pontifical Academy for Life was established in 1994 as the Vatican department whose mission is defending and promoting the views of the Church in academic and public debates around the world.

Theologically and ethically, Roman Catholic bioethics has been majoring on categories like “nature” (understood rather philosophically and statically), “the sacredness of life” (verging towards the absoluteness of what is a created and transient gift), “person” (conceived in rather monolithic terms and not adequately distinguishing human biology and human biography). More than exploring and developing Biblically supported reasoning, Catholic bioethics has preferred locking itself in natural law and the finality of being.

If secular bioethics has elevated the “ego” as its idol (i.e. whatever the individual decides, that’s fine), Catholic bioethics has tended towards elevating the “bios” as its idol (i.e. the decisive point is wherever and whenever biological life is found). The complexity of life is therefore flattened in both approaches and the Biblical realism about life is left aside.

 

A New Phase of Bioethical Engagement

Catholic bioethics has become synonymous with ethical conservatism and frequently mocked in public debate dominated by secularist trends. It has always been defending something and has developed a defensive attitude. However, things may change.

A recent move by the Pontifical Council for Culture (another important Vatican department) calls for attention. For the first time ever, the Vatican has signed a contract with a US biotech company (NeoStem) to stir research on adult stem cells. NeoStem is working in the field of regenerative medicine in order to develop cell therapies for autoimmune disorders (e.g. diabetes), heart diseases, and orthopedic ailments. Regenerative medicine using adult stem cells does not destroy human embryos and is therefore ethically legitimate for those who are in the pro-life front.

The Vatican financial investment amounts to 1 million US dollars. Not a big deal, but not an insignificant figure either. An international conference at the Vatican on “Adult Stem Cells: Science and the Future of Man and Culture” (November, 9-11) hosted the launching of the joint-venture in the biotech industry and the new Vatican engagement in the bioethical arena. The great promises of the use of adult stem cells were highlighted as far as the reduction of human suffering is concerned as well as their full ethical viability. Participants were also granted an audience with Benedict XVI who delivered a speech reinforcing the morality of using adult stem cells over against the immorality of destroying embryo stem cells.

 

 

The Two-fold Strategy

The Vatican is well aware that the bioethical debate is very polarized. In the area of regenerative medicine, the embryo stem cells versus adult stem cells debate has taken a very ideological turn. It is more often a clash of opposing worldviews than an informed scientific and moral discussion.

So far the Vatican has tended to embody and support the conservative side of the debate offering philosophical and moral arguments against embryo destruction and for the use of adult stem cells on the basis of Catholic moral theology. The partnership with NeoStem amounts perhaps to a paradigm shift or at least to a broadening of scope. The regenerative medicine battle will not be won by arguments, principles, and values alone. Those who discover sustainable cures first will win the day. So the Vatican, in investing in the adult stem cells industry, shows its willingness to run the race by financing research on adult stem cells with the expectation that it will deliver what it promises before the embryo stem cells industry gets to it. First come, first served.

Of course the Vatican will continue to play its role in the battle by way of its traditional contribution, e.g. through encyclicals, documents, conferences, moral suasion, etc. It will keep on employing its philosophical and theological expertise in order to support its moral framework. It will continue to let its voice be heard through its institutions. Yet this is not enough. For a global player like the Vatican, the bioethical challenges of our day require a new two-fold strategy as a moral reference point and as a financial investor. The Vatican seems to have the know-how and the resources to do both.

Leonardo De Chirico

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org

 

Rome, 14^th November 2011