The debate on the morality of using stem cells derived from embryos for research into possible cures for grave diseases has important religious, political, economic and social implications.
When the Vatican confirmed that Pope John Paul's condemnation of the use of human embryos for stem-cell research (issued in the Papal audience with President Bush in Italy at Castel Gandolfo on July 23rd) was absolute and allowed of no exceptions the debate on the morality of using stems derived from embryos reached a new level of intensity.
President Bush deferentially said he would "take that point of view into consideration as I make up my mind on a very difficult issue confronting the United States of America".
In other words the President does not consider the papal statement as the last word on this issue, nor should he have done so. Where does the papal condemnation leave Catholics as they wrestle with this most sensitive issue? Well, it leaves them with an important, authoritative pronouncement from the Pope which they, too, should take into consideration as the debate continues.
In other words, Catholics are free to disagree with the papal teaching and come to their own conclusions provided they accord respect to the Pope's teaching and have well-thought-out reasons for their own conclusions.
It appears from surveys that a majority of Catholics in the US favour proceeding with stem-cell research.
As regards the status of papal teaching on stem-cell research the following considerations are relevant.
The Pope did not invoke infallible authority in making his pronouncement, nor could he have done so since the subject is a new one and the necessary conditions for saying this is a matter of faith or morals binding on all Catholics are not fulfilled.
No Pope has ever made an infallible pronouncement on a concrete moral issue in the 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church.
Non-infallible pronouncements like the one under discussion are technically called authentic, which means they are reformable since they are subject to being in error.
The question as to when a fertilised ovum becomes an inviolable human person is still an open one in Catholic teaching. A continuous position (ultimately going back to Aristotle (c 384-322BC) and one endorsed by St Thomas Aquinas (c AD1225-1274) is that the process of animation or ensoulment is gradual and proceeds from vegetative to animal to human.
This means the early cluster of cells produced as the embryo develops after fertilisation is human life, but it is potentially not actually a person.
It may be argued that the Pope inflated the moral status of embryo stem cells when he equated their use in medical experimentation to infanticide.
William Safire and others correctly point out that the cells being used "are from embryos no bigger than the period [full stop] at the end of this sentence". - (New York Times, July 16th).
Something the size of the dot on the letter "i" on a printed page may be human and living but can it be a person or a citizen? Hardly, unless a hitherto unheard-of definition of person is used.
When the right to life of the embryo is invoked in this debate a counter-right must also be recognised and that is the right to health of persons who suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's, Tay-Sachs, Parkinson's or spinal cord injuries for which stem-cell research may provide cures.
When rights conflict, as they do here, the rights of existing persons take precedence over potential persons.
Eminent Catholic moral theologians like Daniel C. Maguire of Marquette University (US), and Christine Gudorf of Florida International University endorse positions similar to those expressed here. So also does orthodox Jewish theologian Laurie Zoloth-Durfman of San Francisco State University. (see www.religiousconsultation .org/stemcell.htm)
Mr Maguire argues, correctly, that the "shadow of the abortion debate darkens this discussion, especially in the halls of government".
The above argument is premised on the position that strict ethical guidelines be put in place regarding the medical use of stem cells.
Among these would be a stipulation that stem cells be used for alleviating human suffering in finding cures for debilitating diseases but never to enable cloning.
Father Paul Surlis is retired professor of moral theology and social ethics at St John's University, New York