Reimagining Ethical Leverage in Technology for Peaceful Synodality: A Bioethics of Synodality with Technology

Abstract

This paper seeks to reimagine ethical leverage in technology for peaceful synodality (the term peaceful synodality is coined to mean a synodality that welcomes participation and inclusion of people from different backgrounds and views without compromising the truth and respecting their dignity and journeying together) through the lens of the bioethics of synodality with technology. The concept of this paper is that technology can be leveraged ethically to promote peaceful synodality in the Catholic Church and that such an approach to technology is rooted in reimagining a bioethics of synodality that emphasize the need for journeying hand in hand with the speed at which technological advancement moves in order to enhance ethical decision-making processes. Ethics has moved at a different pace than technology, especially in matters involving human life. Ethics has been viewed as problematic in technology, especially where science wants to be neutral, but rethinking ethics as a companion of emerging technologies will be helpful in directing the ethical uptake of technology. To argue this thesis, the paper will employ a review of relevant literature while presenting the theological and ethical perspectives of synodality. By and large, an interdisciplinary approach will be employed where various disciplines play a key role. Such methodology advances the theme of reimagining Catholic ethics by offering a fresh perspective on the ethical implications of technology in the context of synodality. By emphasizing the importance of journeying together through enhanced ethical guidelines for proper decision-making and by exploring how technology can respect human rights and dignity among other values, this paper contributes to a broader conversation about how Catholic ethics can be reimagined in light of technological developments. Ultimately, this paper argues that a bioethics of synodality with technology can offer a vision for technology that is grounded in Catholic social teaching that promotes universally accepted human dignity and the common good. A cross-cutting method will also be used, given that ethics has basically constant principles, yet technology keeps on changing. Reimagining ethics means studying the advancement brought about by biotechnology and seeing to what degree human beings are affected in their basic rights and the risks versus the benefits brought about by the same. The assumption is that decisions made regarding the ethics of various technologies will be at par with the rate at which new technologies emerge and are employed. What is of vital importance is that ethics can have the power to journey together with technology, not as an adversary but in synodality. Reimagining ethics means being ever alert in the developing technologies that serve humanity so that in consultation with various experts, the best practices can be embraced within the ethical guidelines for the common good. The outcome of this research is that reimagining Catholic ethics involves listening to the needs of humanity and how technology is bringing solutions to them. Participating in bioethical debates, training on bioethics and listening to experts in various fields will enable a critical, analytical and pneumatological discernment of how ethical decisions on frontier technologies can benefit non-humans and humans.

1. Introduction

The Catholic Church is known for its strong and perhaps rigid stance in matters of faith and morals. Rethinking its ethics would appear to be something impossible yet necessary in the wake of technological advancements in all fields, particularly biomedical and environmental. Most of these issues are being addressed as global concerns. Is the Catholic Church journeying with humanity affected by new realities and those offered solutions by technology? There is a need for a lens to interpret the signs of the times and how ethics can be a powerful pathway. It is a coincidence that the synod on synodality has offered the space for profound listening, discernment and acknowledgment of new frontiers, not forgetting the existing best practices.

This study is important because it explores the bioethical issues in the third millennium. Technology seems unstoppable and is offering practical solutions, possibly to science, but not necessarily ethical. How is the faithful responding to the ethics proposed by the Church? In this sense, then, is ethics capable of journeying with technology? Can the power of ethics stand in the midst of all the technology? This descriptive work explores the various interventions the Church has come up with, prompted by advancements in science and technology. Through a literature review, this work provides a rich background and up-to-date information. This study emphasizes the rethinking of Catholic ethics in such a manner that it becomes more inclusive of everyone, the existing realities and those new and yet to come. By itself, this promotes peaceful coexistence.

This work contains four main sections. The first section will handle the background and concept of bioethics. The term bioethics will be defined, and its historical development will be explored. Key persons and institutions linked with the term bioethics will be highlighted. The second section will handle the theological and ethical synodal perspectives. The ethical principles will be discussed together with some theological virtues. Section three will review the literature pertaining to Catholic bioethics in the wake of various technologies. The magisterium of the Church has offered guidance through encyclicals, declarations, apostolic exhortations, instructions and pastoral letters on bioethical themes from Pope Paul VI to the current Pope Francis. Finally, the fourth section will deal with how the Church is journeying with technology and how technology is challenging the Church.

In conclusion, various recommendations are proposed affirming the need to reimagine Catholic ethics in light of the unstoppable progress in technology involving not only human beings, dignity and respect but also the environment. Reimagining ethics has to be at par with technology at the speed at which it is developed because the person is at the center of all this, including his life, respect, dignity, peace and common good. This call for synodality with those embracing such technologies is made in order to understand the reasons behind their choices so that they can be better accompanied.

2. Background and the Concept of Bioethics

In this time, when the word synodality has been featured across the globe and with the synod called by the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, I was inspired to write about how ethics has the ability to influence technological advancement in its application. The power of ethics should enhance journeying together with technology in a peaceful coexistence that I refer to as synodality. While agreeing that we cannot stop technology from its discovery and application, we cannot at the same time lag behind as a Church, society, nation or entire humanity. We need to walk together in a synodal manner so that the influence of ethics itself becomes advanced power over the direction of scientific discoveries.

Bioethics is concerned with the ethical aspects brought about by advancements in technology and how this affects human life and its surroundings, positively or negatively. As far as we have many benefits from technological progress in the areas of medicine, medical interventions, artificial intelligence, agriculture, communication, information, education, transport and surveillance, among other areas, there is a need to ensure that the basic human rights to life, health and human dignity are respected. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (UDHR 1948, preamble). Bioethics is born in this pretext of recognition of human rights. In the midst of emerging biotechnologies, we need a clear anthropological understanding of the human person, his identity and dignity. UNESCO’s declaration on bioethics and human rights has as its goal “to promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms, consistent with International Human Rights Law” (UNESCO 2005, art. 2, aims, c). The way we understand human dignity is different. For instance, one side can be advocating for euthanasia, calling it death with dignity, while the other side claims its legalization is against human dignity towards the elderly, disabled and terminal patients. In history, the denial of human dignity was witnessed in the forced human experiments against their consent. Although the world has become pluralistic in its ideas, we still have commonly agreed values and principles. We find in this society people who are considered moral friends and others moral strangers, depending on whether they resolve or not, share or not, or agree or disagree on moral issues (Engelhardt 1996). Technology has a need for regulation so that it is not conducted in a vacuum. Each technological act should be responsible. As Pope Francis said while referring to his predecessors, “not all what is technically possible or feasible is therefore ethically acceptable (Pope Francis 2017). He thanked scientists for the progress they are making in many areas like medicine, genetics and neuroscience, and autonomous and thinking machines. At the same time, he reminded them that scientific technology “requires a sense of ethical responsibility”.1 It is a fact that we cannot stop science from progressing or conducting research, but we can influence policymaking and regulate technology. Technology on its own should not enslave man and woman. It is the human person who should direct and shape technology.

Bioethics, which was born in the United States and coined by an oncologist called Van Rensselaer Potter, had as its publications two works: Bioethics; The Science of Survival (1970) and Bioethics; Bridge to the Future (Potter 1971). This could be interpreted that, without bioethics, we cannot live or survive or be assured of life. Bioethics as a “new discipline”2, then, means a bridge that connects two cultures or generations. It combines biological knowledge and human values. Some scholars deny that it is Potter who used the term bioethics first. Recent discoveries attribute this to Fritz Jahr, one who used the word bioethics back in 1927. In the article “Kosmos Hardweiser fur”, he speaks about the bioethics imperative (Jahr). The bioethics definition considered as the canon is that of W. Reich of 1978: “The systematic study of the human conduct in the area of life sciences and health care, insofar as this conduct is examined in the light of moral values and principles (Reich 1978)”.

Since that time and until now, technology has greatly improved, and ethics has been challenged. The need to reimagine Catholic ethics is inevitable. André Hellegers was the Director of the Kennedy Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and Bioethics at Georgetown University, who introduced bioethics in the academic world (Digital Georgetown on Hellegers n.d.). He proposed an interdisciplinary method: medicine, philosophy and ethics and a restricted scope of bioethics to biomedicine, unlike Potter. This still challenges ethics because health is key to human beings and affects us. Anything touching life has to be well thought out and ethical. With the fast-growing biomedical sciences, can ethics keep up with its principles?

Dan Callahan, a Catholic philosopher from 1969, cofounded Hastings Center together with Willard Gaylin without explicitly using the term bioethics.3 To him, bioethics is the intersection between ethics and life sciences. There is synodality seen in his understanding of bioethics, whereby ethics and life sciences, in view of technology, are inseparable.

The Institutes of Bioethics were key to the development of ethics of technology. These include the following: the founding of the Hastings Center, USA, in 1969 by D. Callahan and W. Gaylin; the founding of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics in 1971 at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, by A. Hellegers (Sgreccia 2012, pp. 6–7). The first Encyclopedia of Bioethics came in 1978, 7 years after the discovery of bioethics. Those considered to be pioneers of bioethics include Walters—the first director of Hastings Center, Beauchamp and Childress with Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Reich with the definition of bioethics and Pellegrino with Ethics of Virtues (Sgreccia 2012, pp. 7–8). The first faculty of bioethics in Rome and Europe was at Regina Apostolorum University, Rome, in the year 2000. Were it not for biomedical technologies and other scientific technologies, ethics would not have progressed to embrace the bio part, meaning the ethics of life. Although ethics has existed, its focus and impact need to be reimagined in light of emerging technologies if it is to be relevant and have leverage in synodality. There is a need to listen to the stories of people who see technology as a solution despite the contrary ethical views in certain technologies. Journeying with them means offering reimagined ethics and bioethics that do not ignore technology but guide it with a force that respects human dignity.

3. Theological and Ethical Synodal Perspectives

By reimagining ethical leverage and the bioethics of synodality, we shall consider several factors. These aspects will fall on the understanding and meaning of synodality, respect for values, family and natural procreation, fundamental rights, dignity, the common good and the formation of conscience, among others. It is not a straightforward matter, as argued in a paper on reimagining a global ethic. “Reimagining a global ethic is an important project, but a dauntingly difficult one, especially if we accept the premise that all human beings, and therefore all cultures, religions, and worldviews, have a right to contribute to the discussion” (Ignatieff 2012, 26.1 essay). The Synod on synodality poses the following fundamental questions: A synodal Church, in announcing the Gospel, “journeys together”. How is this “journeying together” happening today in your local Church? What steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow in our “journeying together”? (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, p. 39). This shows how concerned the Church is in all matters, especially in the ‘gospel of life’4, whereby the sanctity of life and its dignity is guarded against all technological progress. The fifth of the ten synodal themes is about “sharing responsibility for our common mission”.5 And the succeeding questions touch on several areas, including the following: What areas of mission are we neglecting? How does the community support its members who serve society in various ways (social and political involvement, scientific research, education, promoting social justice, protecting human rights, caring for the environment, etc.)? How does the Church help these members to live out their service to society in a missionary way? (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, p. 41). Bioethics handles scientific research, as mentioned in the theme, and also the need for ethical conduct. One article suggests four steps towards practicing synodality, and one of them is encountering others, listening to their stories and responding to signs of the time. “Our synodal journey is to be open to encountering our changing world and to be open to encountering difference. What is happening now that we need to respond to?”6 Technology is a sign of our time and also a story we need to listen to. We have a common responsibility to safeguard the environment, inalienable human rights, the common good and human dignity. We can support members who serve in these areas by journeying with them in their pursuit of knowledge and health care in a manner that is ethical.

Synodality is well explained in the documents of the synod 2021–20247. Synodality denotes the particular style that qualifies the life and mission of the Church (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, p. 9). In this paper, we need to reflect on the ethics that qualify the Church in its mission of defending, protecting and promoting life in the midst of technology. Synodality would imply that path which is the very life of the Church. The Church, like other institutions, has already constructed an ethics of technology and does not necessarily need to start anew or put down another foundation (Ignatieff 2012). Any ethics that does not reflect this life, no matter how it journeys with technology, would be contrary. This life and the way is none other than Jesus himself, who is also the truth (Jn:14,6).8 Synodality is, therefore, being led, guided and given life by the head of the body of Christ and his mission. No matter how promising technology is, it needs to be given leverage by Christ as the source of all our moral principles. Reimagining the power of ethics and synodality with technology needs to respect the divine revelation, natural law and the common good.

A synodality of ethics is open and ready to go forth in a mission with open doors, venturing into new areas brought forth by technology in view of seeing and listening, then guiding their action (Evangelii Gaudium 2013, n. 46; Preparatory Document 2021, n. 15). In their ordinary way of living, Christians are not spared from challenges such as abortion, infertility, assisted reproduction, euthanasia, research, resolving ethical dilemmas, organ transplant, gene editing and so forth. How do they live synodality in these issues if they are not following the ethical guidelines from the mother Church and sharing their experiences and expertise? Therefore, synodality is the ordinary way of living and working (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, n. 9). In this ordinary way of living, scientific technology is mastering our lives and the world; therefore, reimagining ethics means to plan in time and project the benefits and risks (Pope Paul VI 1965b, n. 5).

The theme for synodality is about communion, participation and mission (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, n. 12). There exists an appreciation and consensus in matters of faith and morals (sensus fidei) and the conviction that the Eucharist is the center and source of communion. This communion has not only significance in the Church itself but also in matters of ethics (Montecel 2023, chapter 3). The synod synthesis report calls the Eucharist the source and summit of synodality (Synthesis Report 2023, n. 1c). This means that in living synodality, our ethics are shaped by the communion and the mystery of Christ. “The Eucharistic synaxis is the source and paradigm of the spirituality of communion. In it are expressed the specific elements of Christian life that are called to mould the affectus synodalis” (International Theological Commission 2018, n. 109). For those who are not Christians or Catholics, this journeying together in matters of ethics may pose a challenge. However, we can still focus on those values, virtues and rights that are fundamental for the common good. In making ethical judgments, we are influenced by several factors, including faith, values, beliefs, culture, background, etc. This means we all have something to contribute towards ethical living and actions. Montecel calls synodality a virtue in the sense that it is an inner character of the Church with an influence on ethical principles and a goal that is communion (Montecel 2023, chapter 3). He continues to argue that virtues are interconnected, and love, being the very nature of the Eucharist, is a virtue not reserved only for the Church. It needs to be shared with the world. Synodality, in this sense, means that our ethics, which is founded on love, has the greatest leverage to shape and guide technological action in a manner that respects other people’s lives, health and dignity charitably. “If a synodal church is to take itself seriously as the realization of communion, then it must be committed to politics of the universal common good and to the building of structures of justice” (Montecel 2023, chapter 3).

Participation in synodality invites us to diversity, listening, serving, analyzing, dialogue, discernment and inclusion (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, n. 13). There are many researchers, health professionals, policymakers and lay persons with divergent views on bioethical topics. These need to be accommodated and allowed to participate in debates, conferences or policymaking. Sometimes, we fear welcoming others with contrary views, but we need courage in the fear of the unknown where we keep saying “we have always done it that way”9 A synodality that welcomes the participation and inclusion of people from different backgrounds and views, respecting their dignity and journeying together without compromising the truth, becomes a peaceful synodality.

The Church is a mission itself (Synthesis Report 2023, Part II, n. 8a), and this mission goes beyond its territories. When Jesus sent his disciples to go out into the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk 16:15)10, he did not distinguish or exclude anyone or anything. Therefore, our synodality with the ethics of technologies covers the environment, animals, human beings and any development as a result of technology. Every person, especially the baptized, is involved in this mission by witnessing Christ in their way of life, in whatever work they do in ordinary life and in all spheres, including scientific research, care for the environment, public participation and digital culture (Synthesis Report 2023, n. 8d).

Journeying in a synodal way should avoid the pitfalls and temptations indicated in the synod document (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021, 2.4, pp. 21–22). The guiding force and protagonist is the Holy Spirit, as we listen to each other and listen to the Spirit in discernment. Technology has brought many positive aspects to the lives of the faithful and humanity. Therefore, we cannot only focus on problems when reimagining ethics. Ethics and bioethics are global and beyond the visible confines of the Church. Synodality takes us to competencies beyond the Church yet not outside the concern of the Church. For this reason, training on competencies like bioethics needs to be considered (Synthesis Report 2023, n. 8e).

Ethics is concerned with the justification of why an action is right or wrong. With technology, we are faced with the dilemma of whether good technology can be unethical. What makes the solutions offered by technology wrong? For example, procreation in theology is best reserved for married people of the opposite sex within their marriage (Pope Paul VI 1968, n. 12). Technology offers solutions to couples with challenges in conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term. In this case, technology fulfills the dream of childbearing. When, then, does technology become ethically unacceptable? How can technology journey and be in synodality with bioethics?

Reimagining ethics needs an approach whereby we journey hand in hand with the pace of technology. It can be considered an alarming emergency in the sense that the future of some technology is unknown, and its outcome is unknown, too. Any concern regarding life by posing a threat to it or its dignity cannot be considered ordinary. It has to be dealt with as an emergency to save life or promote it. “The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency” to respect human life, dignity and the integral good. This is to say that “the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser people are forthcoming” (Donum Vitae 1987, n. 2). Let me give an example of COVID-19. The Church had to come up with an ethics of affirming the use of vaccines. The pandemic was an emergency that needed a wise decision in time and without delay. There was a grave danger of spreading the serious virus and causing more deaths (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith 2020). The approval was given since the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine were clinically recognized. Scientists and researchers had to overlook some of the fundamental stages in vaccine development11, thanks to advanced technology and intellectual collaboration.

The alarm can sound at any time with technology, and without proper ethics in place, confusion takes center stage, and decision-making creates more dilemmas. Pope Francis said during his address on artificial intelligence: “I would therefore encourage you, in your deliberations, to make the intrinsic dignity of every man and woman the key criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove ethically sound to the extent that they help respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life”. (Pope Francis 2023). So, there is a need for ethics to rise up (emergere)12 in any evaluated cases that are a threat to humanity and its dignity. While the Church finds it prudent to take its time before coming up with ethics for certain technology, it is still encouraged to be vigilant in this journey.

This urgency is not only in biomedical matters but also in digital technologies. The synod synthesis emphasized the need to take action when it comes to the digital mission of those engaging the internet. “Digital culture, then, is not so much a distinct area of mission as a crucial dimension of the Church’s witness in contemporary culture. This is why it holds special significance in a synodal Church” (Synthesis Report 2023, n. 17)

In journeying together with technology, we are guided by fundamental values and ethical principles. Does technology respect the human person from conception? Does it respect other values, be they cultural, religious or social? And if there is a conflict of principles and values, how does the Church ensure that people affected and in need of technology are assisted and not excluded? Going by the ethical principles according to Beauchamp, we can see how respect for the person and his autonomy is important in bioethical matters (Beauchamp and Childress 2009, p. 99ff). There is a need for convergence between one’s autonomy and the power within a person that gives a sense of right and wrong. This is the journeying I intend to make clear. If my autonomy is not in synodality with my conscience, then there will be conflicts. When I decide to use a particular technology for assisted reproduction, my freedom to use it should be leveraged by that inner voice. If this is not the case, then one will not be at peace with him/herself, even after having a child through technological support.

What could be the effects of the technological action or assistance I have chosen? This calls for prudence since not all the effects of technology are clear from the start. Journeying with technology means that we should well understand the benefits and risks brought about by certain uses of technology before making a decision to use or benefit from it. “The reason technology ethics is growing in prominence is that new technologies give us more power to act, which means that we have to make choices we didn’t have to make before” (Green 2024). Since the moral responsibility rests with the person making an informed decision, the important thing is that they consider the power behind ethics in making such choices.

“Often, dazzled by the products of his ingenuity, man views technology as the summum bonum, the greatest good. He fails to see or properly assess the negatives that come with some technological change (Greenwell 2012)”. Is technology doing good to humanity and specifically those uptaking it? Beneficence and non-maleficence call us to do good and avoid or prevent evil or harm (Beauchamp and Childress 2009, pp. 149–97). Some good effects tend to come through bad means, while some bad effects come from good actions. In this case, there is a need to ensure that we intend that which is good, and only tolerate the unintended bad effects.13 Careful synodality will not totally condemn technology use but weigh the harm versus the good effects and costs versus the benefits. The compendium of Catholic social teaching underscores the importance of technology as God-given human creativity and, at the same time, cautions us to prudence in discerning the true good from technology (Pontifical Council for Justice 2005, n. 457).

How can bioethics be just to a society longing for the benefits of technology? Is the Church being unfair with its doctrine and ethics, which condemn some biotechnology and biomedical procedures? Some people have a more dire need for technological solutions than others. Let us use the example of organ transplantation. Where donation of organs is not possibly free, a price is offered, although human life or its parts have no monetary value. Selection criteria for who has to be assisted first is undertaken. Although some form of bias may be envisaged, nevertheless, a very critical person has to be assisted with an organ to save life.

“The intervention of the Magisterium falls within its mission of contributing to the formation of conscience, by authentically teaching the truth which is Christ and at the same time by declaring and conforming authoritatively the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself (Pope Paul VI 1965a)”. Rethinking ethics calls for people’s conscience to judge what is ethical or not and morally good or not. The Church’s document by the congregation for the doctrine of faith (CDF) on procured abortion says that violating one’s conscience can lead to ethical pluralism and actions that violate the rights of others. Therefore, there is a grave obligation for Christian consciences and fidelity to it in truth and uprightness (CDF 1974, 2.4. n. 24). The Church’s instruction affirms that even science needs conscience for it to serve humanity, respect inalienable rights and dignity and promote man’s integral development and good (Donum Vitae 1987, n. 2,). There are people who have “killed” their consciences and do not want to be truthful. In this case, all the technological means aimed at terminating human life in its very early stages should be called by the right name as abortive and murderous. Tertullian (“Apologeticum”, (IX. *pl. 1, 371–72: Corp. Christ, 1 p.103 1, 31–36) said that preventing birth is an anticipated murder because what is to become is already a human being.14 It is a humble call to those behind such technology to view human life at any stage as sacred and with equal dignity. We shall journey together by protecting human life and advocating for policies that support life and recognize its worthiness. Since the Church has a mission to journey with all its members, even technology becomes one of them at its weakest point when it fails to defend life and instead destroys it. Otherwise, what will technology benefit if it destroys life and the dignity of the same people it is serving?

The ethics of vaccines are questionable when it comes to their origin, safety, efficacy, consent and scarcity vs. the need. The Catholic Church is known for its strong defense of life and for being against the use of aborted fetuses for whatever purposes, such as biological material for research or vaccines. “Proposals to use these embryos for research or treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere ‘biological material’ and result in their destruction” (Dignitas Personae 2008, n. 19; Donum Vitae 1987, I, 4). This statement above from the dicastery for the doctrine of faith is irrevocable in its nature. Despite that, the Church, in journeying with the rest of humanity, had to reimagine its ethics in a concrete global emergency case and judge it in its context of specific time and need. In the COVID-19 period, Pope Francis gave explicit approval for the use of the vaccine. “It is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith 2020). This was one of the many ways in which synodality was lived by the Church in solidarity with humanity that was threatened, wounded and even killed by the coronavirus. “A global tragedy such as the COVID-19 pandemic “momentarily revived the sense that we are a global community, all in the same boat, where one person’s problems are the problems of all. Once more we realized that no one is saved alone; we can only be saved together” (Preparatory Document 2021, p. 9).

Synodality calls us to walk with the suffering and even be a voice for those in the peripheries whose lives equally matter. Pope Francis had such courage in his famous saying to priests pursuing higher ecclesiastical studies that we need to have the smell of the sheep.15 Despite one’s level of education or even technological expertise, the benefits or impact has to be felt by those on the ground. Otherwise, each one will be journeying on their own if we cannot live, cry, laugh and communicate with people. This is a call to fraternity and solidarity, a message expressed in Pope Francis’ encyclical (Pope Francis 2020, n. 35). Thanks to advanced technology and scientific research, it was possible to have the COVID-19 vaccines and the boosters to save lives. Technology is constantly advancing, yet “how wonderful it would be if the growth of scientific and technological innovation could come with more equality and social inclusion” (Pope Francis 2020, n. 31).

4. Literature Review on the Timing of Catholic Bioethics of Technologies in History and in the Catholic Church

Historically, there are events that necessitated the ethics of technologies and biomedical research, including human experimentation, World War II, the discovery of genetics, organ transplant, debates on the beginning of life, and human procreation and end-of-life issues, among others. The Hippocratic Oath, in those olden days, was respected, as it ensured the best interests of the patient and the deontological service of the physician, which avoided doing any harm to the patient (Sgreccia 2012, pp. 13–14). With the World War II research by Nazis, we experienced crimes against humanity, sterilization, mass extermination, holocausts, gas chambers and experiments that exposed people to disfigurement, torture and disease (Sgreccia 2012, p. 17). This led to crimes against humanity and to the Nuremberg trials. These trials led to the Nuremberg Code of 1947, considered the first international document to set the pace for ethics in research on human subjects.

The World Medical Association came up with the Declaration of Geneva in 1948, building on the principles of the Hippocratic Oath. The same year, the United Nations came up with the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and freedoms). In 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki was issued by the World Medical Association as the basis for clinical trials and a guide and ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. From 1932 to 1972 was the scandal of the Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis in the USA, targeting citizens of color (Black Americans) (Beauchamp and Childress 2009, p. 134). This breached the principles of informed consent and lack of treatment. In 1972, the Belmont Report was the response to the mentioned Tuskegee scandal and the savage experiments. It contains three principles of respect for persons, justice and beneficence (do not harm). Other declarations, ethical principles and codes of professional ethics followed suit (The Belmont Report 1979).

The Church has, as one of its oldest discourses on analgesics, a landmark ethical principle set by Pope Pius XII in 1956; it includes the principle of double effect. It was a timely one, considering the rapid and expanded use of analgesics beyond surgery for chronic pain and end-of-life suffering. The ethical dilemma was regarding the use of analgesics to compassionately remove or reduce pain versus the meaning of suffering in salvation. The dilemma faced was also in terms of these painkillers, which can accelerate death. Furthermore, he called people to use it with caution and without exaggerated haste since the ultimate value for man is neither in science nor technological ability but in the love of God and devotion to his service (Pope Pius XII 1957). This discourse of the Pope with the Italian Society of Anesthesiologists called for a reimagining of Catholic ethics whereby, regardless of technological uses, love should prevail in the prohibition or ethical approval. There is a need for rethinking ethics with these words: “This rapid expansion of technology outstripped established ethical territory. In essence, it was necessary to move from what “could” be done to what “should” be done” (Journal of Anesthesia History 2020). This means that Catholic ethics and bioethics must be in time with technological frontiers to keep pace with what is happening now and anticipate what the advancements are capable of doing. Reimagining Catholic ethics should be preemptive16 in nature.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI came up with the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), whose concern was the sanctity of life, the bond between sexual union and procreation and the use of artificial contraceptives. This predicted the consequences of the disconnect between unitive and procreative goods, namely divorces, conjugal infidelity, loss of respect for women, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and venereal diseases. The timing of this letter was necessitated by the concern over overpopulation and the increase in the use of contraceptives (Human Life International 2023). Planning and spacing of children was done naturally before technology came along. The natural timing of infertile periods is one of the solutions when it comes to planning. Technology can actually journey with this natural cycle by leveraging it to monitor the cycle closely without the interference of contraceptives. We have fertility awareness apps, which assist efficiency in a natural way in the technological era (PMC PUBMed Central 2023). This technological solution goes hand in hand with ethical acceptability in the Catholic Church. The same energy scientists invest in new technologies can be invested in leveraging the awareness of the natural process so that people can find it easier to monitor. For technology to journey with bioethics, it will be important to evaluate the impact, consequences or effects brought about by contraceptives. Where evidence-based research shows a negative impact on the family, fertility and morals, it is prudent and just to inform users of these. The prediction of Pope Paul is evident in many of these negative effects.

A year after the Roe vs. Wade landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court that its constitution generally protected a right to have an abortion, the sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith issued a declaration on procured abortion in 1974. This declaration defended the fundamental value and sanctity of human life conceived (CDF 1974). The right to life pertains to all human beings conceived as human beings and who remain human beings after birth. This declaration was timely because, to date, the debate on abortion has reached another level. It was indeed a slippery slope to rule in favor of killing unborn babies. A number of countries in the African continent have legalized abortion for varying reasons, while others are still debating it in terms of more liberty or restrictions. Even where abortions may not be legal, there is a possibility they are done clandestinely. This United States landmark ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court on 24 June 2022, stating that this constitutional right to abortion that was held for close to 50 years no longer exists because it was egregiously wrong and its arguments exceptionally weak and so damaging that they amounted to the abuse of judicial authority (Reproductive Rights in America 2022). Given the window opened by technological progress in the ways in which abortion is done today, without the need for surgery, ethical power needs to be felt more. The right to life and dignity has been abused and lost with the use of pills for abortion, apart from surgical methods. If technological solutions are not promoting the life of every human being, then rethinking ethics must make those behind new technologies and those using them accountable. The ethical condemnation of such abortions must continue being black and white despite the emerging debates and newer advanced technologies.

The issues of killing the unborn were followed by the declaration on euthanasia in 1980. Euthanasia dates back to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the work of Thomas Moore (Utopia Acta Medica Mediterranea 2012). It is only in the twentieth century that social and cultural changes made the debate fierier. Just a year before the declaration on euthanasia was released, the “World Federation of the Right to Die Societies”17 was in place in Oxford. The sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith cites issues that necessitated this document. Fundamental values of human life have been questioned, whether people can continue living with certain health conditions or they can opt to die. Cultural sway in these years has changed and is controlling how people view suffering and death. On the other hand, medical advancement has guaranteed less pain, increased capacity to cure diseases and even prolong life. All these put together contribute to the mercy-killing debate and reality. The Catholic Church does not approve euthanasia or any other killing right, whether embryo, infant, adult, weak, critically ill or old. To rethink this ethics, there is a need for measures that accompany this unethical and unacceptable practice. If those taking care of their loved ones are tired of caring for them, being close to them and seeing them suffer, what accompaniment is the Church offering? More ongoing formation on the reality and meaning of suffering as human beings and Christians is necessary. Although technology is ever offering easy and pain-free solutions, the concept of suffering cannot be eliminated. Christ has given us a new meaning of suffering and death that can never be dazed by any technological advancement.

There are many responses the Church declared regarding technological issues in the biomedical field apart from the few selected and presented in this paper. The latest comprehensive one, which handled most bioethical matters, was the “Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions (2008). However, I will not discuss the content of this instruction in this article.

The other bioethical topics handled by the Church include the following: Declaration persona humana concerning sexual ethics (1975), Donum Vitae (1987), Responses to questions concerning uterine isolation and related matters (1993), Evangelium Vitae John Paul II (1995), Charter for health care workers (1995), Reflections on cloning (1997), Respect for the dignity of the dying person (2000), Declaration on the production and use of human embryonic stem cells (2000), On dignity of human procreation and reproductive technologies (2004), On providing nutrition and hydration to persons in a permanently unconscious state JP II 2004, On vegetative state (2004), Role of magisterium in bioethics, Church bioethics in matters bioethics as in the magisterium by Cardinal William Levada (2007), Responses to certain questions concerning artificial nutrition and hydration (2007), Why concept of brain death is valid as definition of death (2008), Clarification on procured abortion (2009), Response to a question on liceity of a hysterectomy in certain cases (2018), Note on morality of using some anti-COVID-19 vaccines (2020), Letter Samaritanus Bonus on the care of critical and terminal phases of life (2020), Vaccines on aborted fetuses, and Xenotransplants, among others.

With all these church documents about bioethical issues, we still find Catholics and Christians who feel they are not obliged to follow the Church’s teachings. We need to rethink our ethics by carrying out a study or research about this. What kind of theories or principles are the faithful following to make ethical decisions? Is the religious legalism rule (Bible, divine command) still a priority, or do people justify their decisions personally (Asley and O’Rourke 1997)? If the expected level of cooperation between the magisterium and the laity or the religious is lacking in ethical decisions made personally, it means there is discord somewhere. Rethinking ethics does not mean going by what the majority of people are in favor of but probably journeying with them in the process of making informed choices and respectful and dignified autonomous decisions.

5. How Is the Church Journeying with Technology and How Is Technology Challenging the Church?

Sometimes the role of bioethics has been questioned and not clearly understood by those who enjoy the autonomy and neutrality of science. “These have rejected any claim to supervision or any interference from any quarter whatsoever, whether government, church or civil authorities (Sgreccia 2012, p. 39)”.

Popular views may condemn the Church for being in opposition to technology rather than in synodality. However, there are many areas where the Church has benefited from technology. In the COVID-19 pandemic times, after churches were locked, the vitality of the Church was dependent on technology, although that is not what keeps the Church alive. Through live transmission of mass, services and liturgies, the faithful were reconnected and felt a sense of communion, thanks to technology.

Is the Church journeying with technology, or is technology journeying with the Church? I would say both, even if the Church may seem left behind in embracing what it deems could wound or weaken the very nature of its life and faith. The Church should journey with self-directed technology to show it the way and in order to live peacefully with it. The Church has been challenged by technology in the way it thinks, believes and teaches. While there are problems the Church is not able to resolve because of their scientific nature, technology comes in handy. For instance, mothers or fathers who are not able to conceive naturally are seeking recourse to technology for IVF or other assistance. The Church has its stand on this matter—that any technology that substitutes the conjugal act rather than assisting it to remove obstacles and treats infertility in view of achieving procreation is morally unacceptable (Dignitas Personae 2008, second part). The faithful who are in need of a child find it problematic or irreconcilable as to why the Church cannot fully embrace the technology that fulfills their desire to have children. This is one way that the Church and its members are challenged by technology.

The Church is considered by some to be a spiritual institution devoid of experts or knowledge in fields outside its disciplines. It is good to note that the Church has its own experts, and before it makes any pronouncement or raises any alarm, it has done its research on the matter. The Church journeys with technology with caution, considering the welfare of its spiritual children in this generation and those to come in both physical and spiritual integrity. Just as the Church has in its nature to walk with all its members and even those not within it18—sinners, needy and marginalized alike—it is part of its mission to journey with technology so that, in being close to it, it discovers which is the right path to journey along with it as inspired by the Holy Spirit through discernment (Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality 2021). It is the nature of the Church and its mission to teach and correct where necessary, even when the current appears to move in a different direction.

How many people are bothered today with the choice between easy and available solutions offered by technology versus the stand on morality? Some people may prefer journeying with technology without any critical evaluation of its ethical implications if they are not deeply convinced of their faith and morality. We cannot deny that there are very critical and doubtful people who question the ethics of technology and the manner in which it affects us. Ethical or moral choices are driven by beliefs and faith. When these choices drift from that which drives them, it means there is a weakening of the spiritual fabric. Both technology and our moral choices have a role to play. None can do without the other nor blame the other without journeying together. “Technology without morality is barbarous; morality without technology is impotent” (Dyson 2022).

Pope Benedict says this regarding technology: “Technology enables us to exercise dominion over matter, to reduce risks, to save labor, to improve our conditions of life” (Benedict XVI 2009). This is in line with the power and responsibility God endowed to the first man over his creation in Genesis by tilling, keeping and caring for the land.19 The land of today extends to space and technology and God is still asking man and the conscience of the Church to explore technology and take care of it. There are probable areas in technology, like in the Garden of Eden, where God is limiting man’s exploration. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was prohibited by God.20 These resemble the areas technology is venturing into while trying to play God. As much as God gave man intellect, the exercise of his freedom must respect the author, who is God.

With technology, almost everything is possible, yet “not everything that is technically possible or doable is thereby ethically acceptable” (Pope Francis 2018). A bioethics of synodality with technology calls for a proper choice between what causes no harm to our dignity, to our lives or to future generations. The benefits of technology are vast, and it may be tempting to undermine ethical responsibility, but the fact remains that there is a need for technology to journey with ethics and allow it to leverage its application.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Synodality means to listen and journey with those encountering various challenges who have found solutions in technology. This may help us to understand why they opt to use even ethically unacceptable methods or procedures. Case studies may guide the appropriate pastoral approach. Ethics as an applied science can be evidence-based as to how the theories impact the spiritual and physical lives of people. We need to journey with Christ in our biological challenges and weaknesses and not in perfection.21 Ethics in synodality with technology rethinks the source of communion, such as the safeguarding of human rights, dignity and the common good. It is also a way of involving everyone in their fields to contribute ideas and shape ethical policies.

Rethinking Catholic ethics should include the fellowship of its members for who they are (images of God, wounded, redeemed by Christ) and not for what they are not able to do because of their nature. This means translating it into the applicable life of the faithful and people without it being burdensome or violating life or its dignity. The ethics in biotechnologies must reflect the love of Christ. Reimagining ethics should take into consideration, for example, the voices of those seeking abortion and the challenges they face. Those who rescue such women in distress can help strengthen the ethical issues through the stories of those really affected.

Reimagining Catholic ethics should avoid too much condemnatory or prohibitive ethics. This means avoiding the synodal pitfall of seeing only problems. Such terms make the Church appear that it is always opposing or against technology use. Instead, we can have more affirmative statements in our ethics. Do ethical stands help with changing behavior? To answer this question, we need to study the impact ethical issues have on the life of the faithful. Can reimagining effective ethics call for deep reflection and action and, perhaps, follow up on those who defy Church ethics? What of their freedom to make informed choices?

A precautionary approach is needed since some technological advances are new, and their long-term effects are unknown. Reimagining ethics means studying the advancement brought about by biotechnology and seeing to what degree human beings are affected in their basic rights and the risks versus the benefits, among others. Sometimes, poor countries benefit less and are left behind despite the new technologies available.

We need to anticipate what the advancements are capable of doing by the timing of our ethics. Reimagining Catholic ethics should be preemptive in nature. Is science playing God by introducing beings closely related to human beings and functioning? Reimagining ethics full of wisdom is very crucial and necessary in this age. What was technologically impossible yesterday is possible today and tomorrow, with or without ethics. This means that without reimagining our ethics, we are left behind, and this may lead to our downfall. People question the existence of God while affirming the power of man in his or her innovation.

Reimagining ethics should engage Catholics, especially priests and the religious, to specialize and be apostolates in biomedical-related fields in order to journey and have first-hand information on the reality. This will make the Church informed by research and praxis, apart from sound doctrine and faith. When policies are approved, we can shape and influence them. Ethics as a companion of emerging technologies will be helpful in directing the ethical positive uptake of technology. Unfortunately, the Church universities are lagging behind in bioethics training and teaching, especially in Africa, yet this is one way of reimagining ethics through bioethics formation.

Ethical dilemmas are on the rise for many reasons, such as awareness of patient rights, advanced medicine, conflict of interests, human dignity and respect, among others. Without timely and proper ethics, decision-making in clinical settings can be very complicated. The autonomy of the patient and his/her best interests, the welfare of the family and the physician’s indications may be in conflict, and ethical principles serve as a guideline.

If technological solutions are not promoting the life of every human being, then rethinking ethics must make those behind new technologies and those using them accountable. The right way to do it is by introducing ethical principles. Rethinking ethics does not mean going by what the majority of people are in favor of but probably journeying with them in the process of making informed choices and respectful and dignified autonomous decisions. It calls for people’s formation of conscience, including scientists, to judge what is ethical or not and morally good or not. Moral stands and values influence the decisions we make and embrace such ethics. People should be enlightened on this aspect so that they do not imagine their choices only depend on what is offered by technology.

Rethinking ethics should consider differences in culture and benefits as opposed to risks. The recent recommendation by the sacred doctrine of faith called Fiducia Supplicans22 has sparked reactions, mostly against the blessing of same-sex couples. Most African bishops opposed it, basing their arguments on it being against African culture. This poses a challenge in rethinking ethics. Some people’s mindset is far from accommodating any changes deviating from the traditional and conservative way. However, rethinking ethics should be aware of the slippery slope such positions may lead us to. It could also be some form of myopia whereby we are blurred from seeing ethical issues clearly, and the moral implications are distorted (Savanah and Myopia 2024).