The traditional Christian teaching is that engaging in sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside the marriage of one man and one woman is sinful (as distinct from having thoughts about illicit sexual desire, which need not be sinful as long as they are not meditated and/or acted upon—in the same way that the Church teaches about any “logismoi”). In direct contrast, there are those in the Church who quite recently have begun to insist that the traditional teachings concerning sexual sin need to be changed. In particular, the effort is being made to have the Church accept homosexual behavior as not sinful or problematic in any way—at least not for committed homosexuals, as comparable to committed heterosexuals in a marriage. As we all know, this relatively recent view has been promoted heavily in the media and popular culture, and even by our national government. As we make our observations, we will particularly focus on traditional Orthodox Christianity as the fullness of the truth and, thus, the source of the true alternative to this “new” outlook that is gripping much of popular Western culture today.
{"title":"By Whose Authority? Sexual Ethics, Postmodernism, and Orthodox Christianity","authors":"Mary Ford","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The traditional Christian teaching is that engaging in sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual, outside the marriage of one man and one woman is sinful (as distinct from having thoughts about illicit sexual desire, which need not be sinful as long as they are not meditated and/or acted upon—in the same way that the Church teaches about any “logismoi”). In direct contrast, there are those in the Church who quite recently have begun to insist that the traditional teachings concerning sexual sin need to be changed. In particular, the effort is being made to have the Church accept homosexual behavior as not sinful or problematic in any way—at least not for committed homosexuals, as comparable to committed heterosexuals in a marriage. As we all know, this relatively recent view has been promoted heavily in the media and popular culture, and even by our national government. As we make our observations, we will particularly focus on traditional Orthodox Christianity as the fullness of the truth and, thus, the source of the true alternative to this “new” outlook that is gripping much of popular Western culture today.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125730232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How does one committed to the claims of Christ and a biblical story of redemption live Christianly and navigate the competing worldviews encountered in everyday medical practice? Adopting the practical conceptual framework promoted by Reformed Christian philosopher and theologian Albert Wolters, we argue for an all-encompassing biblical understanding of God’s cosmic redemption plan for the entire creation order in contrast to a more typical sacred/secular duality. We then apply the concepts of structure and direction, drawn from a pretheological understanding of human life drawn from the Scripture, to a semi-fictional case study in discerning Christian faithfulness in everyday mundane aspects of medicine. Our subsequent analysis seeks to render an interpretation of what it means to live life consistent with that worldview when confronted with challenges like those presented in the case.
{"title":"Christian Integrity Regained: Reformational Worldview Engagement for Everyday Medical Practice","authors":"J. Tilburt, Joel E. Pacyna, J. Rusthoven","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 How does one committed to the claims of Christ and a biblical story of redemption live Christianly and navigate the competing worldviews encountered in everyday medical practice? Adopting the practical conceptual framework promoted by Reformed Christian philosopher and theologian Albert Wolters, we argue for an all-encompassing biblical understanding of God’s cosmic redemption plan for the entire creation order in contrast to a more typical sacred/secular duality. We then apply the concepts of structure and direction, drawn from a pretheological understanding of human life drawn from the Scripture, to a semi-fictional case study in discerning Christian faithfulness in everyday mundane aspects of medicine. Our subsequent analysis seeks to render an interpretation of what it means to live life consistent with that worldview when confronted with challenges like those presented in the case.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124991686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The views on in vitro fertilization (IVF) within Russian Orthodox Christian society are diverse. One reason for that variation is the ambiguity found in “The Basis of the Social Concept,” the document issued in 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church and considered to be the primary guidelines for determining the Church’s stance on bioethics. This essay explores how the treatment of infertility reconciles with the Orthodox Christian faith and what methods of medical assistance for infertility may be appropriate for Orthodox Christians. The focus here is on IVF because it is among the most widely used methods to overcome childlessness, and the permissibility of IVF is the object of disagreement among Orthodox. The article defines criteria that can help to discern what is absolutely wrong and must be avoided from what only falls short of the mark, but not very far, for Orthodox Christians. If treatment of the underlying causes of infertility has failed or promises no hope and a husband and a wife do not feel able to carry the Cross of infertility, then from pastoral dispensation they might be blessed to use ethically acceptable variants of IVF. IVF has many variants that are different in their spiritual influence on a person. Orthodox Christians pursuing IVF should seek spiritual guidance and a blessing to pursue IVF. They must not form more embryos than will be transferred in the same cycle. Freezing, discarding, or reduction of embryos is forbidden. Infertile couples ought to use only their reproductive cells. The use of donor gametes is unacceptable. Any embryo formed ought to be transferred into the wife’s womb, and the use of surrogates is impermissible. Only a husband and wife who are able to maintain their marital union and where the wife is still of childbearing age should be blessed to use IVF.
俄罗斯东正教社会对体外受精(IVF)的看法是多种多样的。这种差异的一个原因是《社会概念的基础》(the Basis of the Social Concept)中的模糊性，该文件由俄罗斯东正教会(Russian Orthodox Church)于2000年发布，被认为是确定教会在生命伦理问题上立场的主要指导方针。这篇文章探讨了不孕不育的治疗如何与东正教的信仰相协调，以及什么方法的医疗援助不孕不育可能适合东正教基督徒。这里的重点是试管婴儿，因为它是最广泛使用的方法来克服无子女的问题，而试管婴儿的许可是东正教之间存在分歧的对象。这篇文章定义了一些标准，可以帮助辨别哪些是绝对错误的，哪些是必须避免的，对于东正教基督徒来说，哪些只是不符合标准，但不是太远。如果不孕的根本原因的治疗失败了，或者承诺没有希望，丈夫和妻子感到无法承受不孕的十字架，那么从牧师的豁免中，他们可能会被祝福使用道德上可接受的试管婴儿变体。试管婴儿有许多变体，它们对一个人的精神影响不同。追求试管婴儿的东正教教徒应该寻求精神指导和祝福来追求试管婴儿。在同一个周期内，他们不能形成比将要移植的胚胎更多的胚胎。禁止冷冻、丢弃或减少胚胎。不孕夫妇应该只使用他们的生殖细胞。使用供体配子是不可接受的。任何形成的胚胎都应该移植到妻子的子宫里，使用代孕是不允许的。只有丈夫和妻子能够维持他们的婚姻关系，并且妻子仍处于生育年龄，才应该被祝福使用试管婴儿。
{"title":"Orthodox Perspectives on In Vitro Fertilization in Russia","authors":"R. Tarabrin","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The views on in vitro fertilization (IVF) within Russian Orthodox Christian society are diverse. One reason for that variation is the ambiguity found in “The Basis of the Social Concept,” the document issued in 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church and considered to be the primary guidelines for determining the Church’s stance on bioethics. This essay explores how the treatment of infertility reconciles with the Orthodox Christian faith and what methods of medical assistance for infertility may be appropriate for Orthodox Christians. The focus here is on IVF because it is among the most widely used methods to overcome childlessness, and the permissibility of IVF is the object of disagreement among Orthodox. The article defines criteria that can help to discern what is absolutely wrong and must be avoided from what only falls short of the mark, but not very far, for Orthodox Christians. If treatment of the underlying causes of infertility has failed or promises no hope and a husband and a wife do not feel able to carry the Cross of infertility, then from pastoral dispensation they might be blessed to use ethically acceptable variants of IVF. IVF has many variants that are different in their spiritual influence on a person. Orthodox Christians pursuing IVF should seek spiritual guidance and a blessing to pursue IVF. They must not form more embryos than will be transferred in the same cycle. Freezing, discarding, or reduction of embryos is forbidden. Infertile couples ought to use only their reproductive cells. The use of donor gametes is unacceptable. Any embryo formed ought to be transferred into the wife’s womb, and the use of surrogates is impermissible. Only a husband and wife who are able to maintain their marital union and where the wife is still of childbearing age should be blessed to use IVF.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130777594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Whereas bioethicists generally consider medicine a practice aimed at the individual good of each patient, in this paper I present an alternative conception of the goods of medicine. I first explain how modern liberal political theory gives rise to the predominant view of the medical good and then contrast this understanding of politics with that of Thomas Aquinas, informed by Aristotle. I then show how this Christian politics is implicit in certain aspects of contemporary medical practice and argue that Christians ought to draw more attention to this point in order to direct medicine toward the common good.
{"title":"Medicine and the Common Good in the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition","authors":"K. Karches","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Whereas bioethicists generally consider medicine a practice aimed at the individual good of each patient, in this paper I present an alternative conception of the goods of medicine. I first explain how modern liberal political theory gives rise to the predominant view of the medical good and then contrast this understanding of politics with that of Thomas Aquinas, informed by Aristotle. I then show how this Christian politics is implicit in certain aspects of contemporary medical practice and argue that Christians ought to draw more attention to this point in order to direct medicine toward the common good.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128800308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Medicine increasingly envisions health promotion in terms of reducing risk as determined by quantitative risk factors, such as blood pressure, blood lipids, or genetic variants. This essay argues that this vision of health care as risk reduction is dangerous for Christian bioethics, since risk can be infinitely reduced leading to a self-defeating spiral of iatrogenic effects. Moreover, it endangers character because this vision of health is connected to a reductionist vision of the body and an understanding of individual risk that undermines the more communal virtue of solidarity. The essay concludes by discussing how recent Thomistic analyses in favor of physical enhancements illustrate some of the problems that envisioning health care in terms of risk reduction holds for Christian bioethics.
{"title":"Risk, Health, and Physical Enhancement: The Dangers of Health Care as Risk Reduction for Christian Bioethics","authors":"P. Scherz","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa003","url":null,"abstract":"Medicine increasingly envisions health promotion in terms of reducing risk as determined by quantitative risk factors, such as blood pressure, blood lipids, or genetic variants. This essay argues that this vision of health care as risk reduction is dangerous for Christian bioethics, since risk can be infinitely reduced leading to a self-defeating spiral of iatrogenic effects. Moreover, it endangers character because this vision of health is connected to a reductionist vision of the body and an understanding of individual risk that undermines the more communal virtue of solidarity. The essay concludes by discussing how recent Thomistic analyses in favor of physical enhancements illustrate some of the problems that envisioning health care in terms of risk reduction holds for Christian bioethics.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128228273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This issue of Christian Bioethics explores foundational debates regarding the orientation and application of Christian bioethics. Should Christian bioethics be approached as essentially a human activity, grounded in scholarly study of theological arguments and religious virtues, oriented toward practical social ends, or should Christian bioethics be recognized as the result of properly oriented prayer, fasting, and asceticism leading to an encounter with God? The gulf between these two general perspectives—the creation of immanent human goods versus submission to a fully transcendent God—is significant and, as ongoing debate in Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality over the past nearly three decades has made clear, the implications are both intellectually engaging and spiritually profound.
{"title":"Christian Bioethics: Immanent Goals or a Transcendent Orientation?","authors":"M. Cherry","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa007","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of Christian Bioethics explores foundational debates regarding the orientation and application of Christian bioethics. Should Christian bioethics be approached as essentially a human activity, grounded in scholarly study of theological arguments and religious virtues, oriented toward practical social ends, or should Christian bioethics be recognized as the result of properly oriented prayer, fasting, and asceticism leading to an encounter with God? The gulf between these two general perspectives—the creation of immanent human goods versus submission to a fully transcendent God—is significant and, as ongoing debate in Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality over the past nearly three decades has made clear, the implications are both intellectually engaging and spiritually profound.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128399748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Corrigendum to “Orthodox Perspectives on In Vitro Fertilization in Russia”","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132813494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article articulates the Hippocratic medical ethic found in the Oath and the Christian medical ethic as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It proposes that the Oath has a natural-law-based deontological character (as understood by Aquinas) that governs friendships of utility (as understood by Aristotle) between student and teacher and physician and patient. The article elaborates on the Samaritan’s conduct as exemplifying Christian agapeic-love. It contrasts agapeic-love with friendship-love, while noting that the Samaritan relies on friendship-love (as found between the Samaritan and the innkeeper) to realize agapeic-love towards the robbers’ victim. It concludes with noting that the grace-based Christian medical ethic perfects the nature-based Hippocratic ethic not by destroying it, but, rather, by employing it.
{"title":"Relating Hippocratic and Christian Medical Ethics","authors":"T. Cavanaugh","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbz017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbz017","url":null,"abstract":"This article articulates the Hippocratic medical ethic found in the Oath and the Christian medical ethic as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It proposes that the Oath has a natural-law-based deontological character (as understood by Aquinas) that governs friendships of utility (as understood by Aristotle) between student and teacher and physician and patient. The article elaborates on the Samaritan’s conduct as exemplifying Christian agapeic-love. It contrasts agapeic-love with friendship-love, while noting that the Samaritan relies on friendship-love (as found between the Samaritan and the innkeeper) to realize agapeic-love towards the robbers’ victim. It concludes with noting that the grace-based Christian medical ethic perfects the nature-based Hippocratic ethic not by destroying it, but, rather, by employing it.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128991394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The principle of stewardship has come to play a significant role in the consciousness of Catholic health care. This is a recent development correlative with changes in the economic configurations of Catholic health care in the latter two decades of the twentieth century, as well as with the striking ascendance of the principle within US Catholic culture during the same period. Yet while the concept of stewardship seems to be an unobjectionable given central to Catholic practice, I argue that in its contemporary configuration, it embodies a deeply problematic set of theological assumptions drawn from a particular historical trajectory that is—from a Catholic perspective—quite troubling. This history is concurrent with an equally problematic deformation of the concept of charity. Taken together, these malformed concepts often shackle and misdirect the ability of those who work within Catholic health care to creatively discern transformative solutions and faithful modes of practice.
{"title":"Beyond Stewardship: Reordering the Economic Imagination of Catholic Health Care","authors":"M. T. Lysaught","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbaa002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbaa002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The principle of stewardship has come to play a significant role in the consciousness of Catholic health care. This is a recent development correlative with changes in the economic configurations of Catholic health care in the latter two decades of the twentieth century, as well as with the striking ascendance of the principle within US Catholic culture during the same period. Yet while the concept of stewardship seems to be an unobjectionable given central to Catholic practice, I argue that in its contemporary configuration, it embodies a deeply problematic set of theological assumptions drawn from a particular historical trajectory that is—from a Catholic perspective—quite troubling. This history is concurrent with an equally problematic deformation of the concept of charity. Taken together, these malformed concepts often shackle and misdirect the ability of those who work within Catholic health care to creatively discern transformative solutions and faithful modes of practice.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129349324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The papers in this issue of Christian Bioethics explore and challenge taken-for-granted ideas that inform judgments about the nature of Christian bioethics, the nature of Christian clinicians’ and healthcare organizations’ obligations, and the nature of who we are. In doing so, these leading scholars in the field address some of the most fundamental questions in Christian bioethics scholarship today.
{"title":"Christian Bioethics: From Foundations to the Future","authors":"A. Iltis","doi":"10.1093/cb/cbz015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbz015","url":null,"abstract":"The papers in this issue of Christian Bioethics explore and challenge taken-for-granted ideas that inform judgments about the nature of Christian bioethics, the nature of Christian clinicians’ and healthcare organizations’ obligations, and the nature of who we are. In doing so, these leading scholars in the field address some of the most fundamental questions in Christian bioethics scholarship today.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126200106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：