Today, John Burger reported on a major expansion of education in bioethics. A panel has put together material that they believe will enhance this topic:
The science or technology in question might advance, the context might change, or our understanding of the values at stake might shift with time. Revisability allows decision makers to respond to these changes and ensures that all aspects of a decision, including norms, values, and theoretical commitments, are open to future challenge and subsequent revision or rejection if they no longer withstand scrutiny.
However, Dominican Sister Terese Auer, chairwoman of the bioethics department at St. John Paul the Great High School, offers a much different opinion on education of bioethics:
“We base our arguments on the truth regarding our common human nature,” she said. “Our goal then is not to arrive at group consensus; rather, it is to live truthfully, that is, in accord with our nature. We understand that there are objectively right and wrong answers because our human nature is objective.”
Teaching revisability to the upcoming generation may be dangerous. In his piece, Considering nullity and Francis in a Katy Perry world, Edward Mulholland writes of a millennial who wanted to be a priest “but only for 10 years.” This attitude does not jibe with the notion a of firm ideals and hard truths.
There is an article in The Sun which recounts a tale of the POW days of Pope Benedict XVI:
Günter Grass, in his memoirs, recalls an encounter with the young Joseph Ratzinger while both were held in an American prisoner-of-war camp in 1945. The young Grass, a Nazi who had been proud to serve in the Waffen-SS, was taken aback by this soft-spoken, gentle young Catholic. Unlike God, the future pope played dice, quoting St. Augustine in the original while he did so; he even dreamt in Latin. His only desire was to return to the seminary from which he had been drafted. “I said, there are many truths,” wrote Grass. “He said, there is only one.”
Do you agree with young Joseph Ratzinger?