Abstract
The importance of having ethical oversight in research that is carried out on humans is well established. Research ethics, which is mainly influenced by a biomedical ethical framework, aims to ensure that the well-being and the rights of research participants are upheld and that any potential risks and harms are reduced. However, research is also considered to be a social activity with social effects. Therefore the principles of Catholic Social Teaching as a framework for research ethics may be significant. This paper outlines those principles and demonstrates how these principles may be used for: (1) reflecting ethically on research (i.e. before the project begins), (2) judging a research ethics proposal (i.e. the ethical review) and (3) providing guidelines for action in research (i.e. the implementation of the research project).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While not all research will make a contribution to society in terms of policy-making or in terms of specific realisable outcomes, there is still a social dimension to it. For example, a philosophy thesis examining St Anselm’s so-called ontological argument may not have a huge impact on society in terms of policy formation but may certainly contribute to a community of learning among philosophers in terms of providing new or further insights into the work of this medieval scholar.
For the purpose of this paper, I have kept the original emphasis in the quotations used.
A fourth point could also be added that the principles provide a criterion for discerning whether a completed research project was ethically sound.
As Brenda Appleby and Nuala P. Kenny put it: “… the ontology of humanity is a well-developed teaching in papal encyclicals, doctrinal documents, and public letters from bishops’ synods. The consistent understanding throughout these texts is that the human person is constituted as both uniquely individual and social” (2010).
“The relationship between human dignity and human community is integral to a Catholic understanding of justice” (Rougeau 2010).
Catholic Social Teaching is often considered to be the Catholic Church’s best kept secret (DeBerri et al. 2007).
As Zigarelli highlights, “several encyclicals have commemorated the anniversary of Rerum Novarum by updating and expanding Catholic Social Teaching in regard to evolving economic, social and political events” (1993).
The social writings include the follow:
Encyclicals
Main Themes
1891 Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Labour)
Condition of industrial working classes, right to private property, right to form associations
1931 Quadragesimo Anno (After Forty Years)
Common good, subsidiary
1961 Mater et Magistra (On Christianity and Social Progress)
Aid, just distribution, subsidiarity, economic development
1963 Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth)
Human rights, international relations, disarmament
1967 Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)
Structural injustice, global justice, peace, development
1971 Octogesima Adveniens (A Call to Action)
Social responsibility, global dimensions of justice
1981 Laborem Exercens (On Human Work)
The dignity of work, relationship between capital and labour
1987 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (The Social Concern of the Church)
Solidarity, authentic development, ecological concerns, international relations
1991 Centesimus Annus (100 Years)
Human dignity, development, market capitalism
2005 Deus Caritas Est (God is Love)
Relationship between justice and charity
2009 Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth)
Human development in a global context
The “…principles are the dominant conceptual paradigm used as a summary or short-hand for the teaching as a whole” (Vogt 2007).
In this paper, the various complexities of each principle in terms of their theoretical and practical aspects are not discussed. There are strengths and weaknesses within Catholic social thought (Curran 2002).
In the Compendium, the human person is considered to be “… an intelligent and conscious being, capable of reflecting on himself and therefore of being aware of himself and his actions. However, it is not intellect, consciousness and freedom that define the person, rather it is the person who is the basis of the acts of intellect, consciousness and freedom. These acts can even be absent, for even without them man does not cease to be a person” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005).
“Development” is understood as “… the transition from less humane conditions to those which are more humane …” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005).
The Compendium acknowledges the key significance of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948). It states that: “the movement towards the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity…” (2004).
Although, the principle of respecting the dignity of the person is central to the social teaching, there is the debate as to whether the concept of ‘dignity’ is useful for ethical decision-making. Even though the concept of dignity has been contested philosophically, this does not necessarily imply that the concept is generally incomprehensible and not of use (See O’Mathúna 2013).
All principles are connected and are not to be seen in isolation. As the Compedium states: “Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005).
According to Albino Barrera, “the centrality of the common good … cannot be overemphasized” (2010).
Hornsby-Smith contends that the common good “… presupposed respect for individual people and social groups and their access to what was necessary to lead a fully human life, and a stable, secure and just order” (2006).
If a piece of research does not contribute to the common good, it may not necessarily imply that it is unethical. Some types of research do not contribute in any tangible way to the common good; however they still may be ethical. For example, a thesis that examines one philosopher’s influence on another may not necessarily contribute to the common good in any tangible way but still be an ethical piece of research.
The question could be raised as to what should be done if promoting the good of current generations detracts from the good of future generations? I think that this is where the principles of Catholic Social Teaching need to be understood not separately, divorced from one another, but as interrelated. Therefore, regarding the question raised, the other principles of the universal destination of goods and solidarity would need to be taken into account. See also footnote 15.
The word “destination” refers to a religious view that God “… destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005; Second Vatican Council 1965).
The economic circumstance of the person can be a driving factor in his/her decision to participate in a research project that offers some kind of remuneration. However, those living in poverty may only see the financial benefits of the project but not consider the particular risks posed to them.
This does not mean that all research projects have to include all sections within a society. The selection of participants will depend on the kind of project undertaken. The issue at stake here is the deliberate but needless exclusion of certain groups from a project.
People are nonetheless free to participate or not.
That is to say, a research project that is ethically sound.
For an in-depth analysis of solidarity, see Bilgrien (1999).
Towards the end of the section on the principles, the Compendium highlights the reciprocal relationship between the social principles and the fundamental values of truth, freedom, justice and love. The Compendium points to the incessant human search for the truth, which, it could be said, is a driving force at the heart of research. The right to exercise freedom is claimed to be an “inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person”. Justice is considered to be key criterion of morality as well as having to be translated into actions that recognise the other person. Love is deemed to be the “highest and universal criterion of the whole of social ethics”. The values of truth, freedom and justice flow and develop from the fondant of love. According to the Compendium, justice is presupposed and transcended by love and justice alone cannot be the sole measure governing human relations.
This is in line with the question raised in Economic Justice for All: “Does economic life enhance or threaten our life together as a community?” (United States Catholic Bishops 1986).
This follows the U.S. Bishops’ view that: “every perspective on economic life … must be shaped by three questions: What does the economy do for people? What does it do to people? And how do people participate in it?” (1986).
The Compendium maintains that: “each person must have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full development” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005).
According to the Catholic Social Teaching, social systems are to serve the good of individual persons and the common good.
References
Akinpelu, Y. (2008). Read and soar: for those who want to fly. Kent: Pneuma Springs.
Appleby, B., & Kenny, N. (2010). Relational personhood, social justice and the common good: catholic contributions toward a public health ethics. Christian Bioethics, 16(3), 296–313.
Barrera, A. (2010). What does catholic social thought recommend for the economy? In D. K. Finn (Ed.), The true wealth of nations: catholic social thought and economic life (pp. 13–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benedict XVI. (2009). Caritas in veritate. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Bilgrien, M. V. (1999). Solidarity: a principle, an attitude, a duty or the virtue for an interdependent world? New York: Peter Lang.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (1987). Research as a social act. The Clearing House, 60(7), 303–306.
Bonino, J. M. (1991). Social doctrine as a locus for ecumenical encounter. The Ecumenical Review, 43(4), 392–400.
Briggle, A., & Mitcham, C. (2012). Ethics and science: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byron, W. (1999). Framing the principles of catholic social thought. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 3(1), 7–14.
Cahill, L. S. (2004). Bioethics and the common good. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Curran, C. E. (2002). Catholic social teaching, 1891-present: a historical, theological, and ethical analysis. Washington: Georgetown University.
De Melo-Martín, I. (2008). A duty to participate in research: does social context matter? The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), 28–36.
DeBerri, E. P., Hug, J. E., Henriot, P. J., & Schultheis, M. (2007). Catholic social teaching: our best kept secret. New York: Orbis.
Dwyer, J. C. (1994). Person, dignity of. In J. A. Dwyer & E. L. Montgomery (Eds.), The new dictionary of catholic social thought (pp. 724–737). Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
Ederer, R. J. (2008). A principle for economics. The Catholic Social Science Review, 13(2008), 107–116.
European Commission (2010). European textbook on research ethics. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/textbook-on-ethics-report_en.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Evans, H. M. (2004). Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 198–203.
Fahey, T. (1998). The catholic church and social policy. The Furrow, 49(4), 202–209.
Farrimond, H. (2013). Doing ethical research. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Golemboski, D. (2012). The flip side of subsidiarity. Commonweal, 139(10), 9–10.
Greaney, A. M., Sheehy, A., Heffernan, C., Murphy, J., Ni Mhaolrúnaigh, S., Heffernan, E., & Brown, G. (2012). Research ethics application: a guide for the novice researcher. British Journal of Nursing, 21(1), 38–43.
Hamilton, A. (2005). The development and operation of IRBs: medical regulations and social science. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(3), 189–203.
Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 242–248.
Hittinger, R. (2009). The coherence of the four basic principles of catholic social doctrine: an interpretation. Nova et Vetera, 7(4), 791–838.
Hollenback, D. (1989). The common good revisited. Theological Studies, 50, 70–94.
Hornsby-Smith, M. P. (2006). An introduction to catholic social thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irish Council for Bioethics (2004). Operational procedures for research ethics committees: guidance 2004. Dublin: Irish Council for Bioethics. http://www.dohc.ie/issues/nacb/Operational_Procedures.pdf?direct=1. Accessed 12 April 2013.
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2008). Research ethics for social scientists. London: Sage.
John XXIII. (1961). Mater et magistra. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
John Paul II. (1981). Laborem exercens. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
John Paul II. (1988). Sollicitudo rei socialis. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus annus. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jpii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Juritzen, T. I., Grimen, H., & Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research participants: a foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committee. Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 640–650.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234.
Maloney, O. (1987). Catholic social teaching: ideal and reality. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 76(303), 286–293.
Michael, G. J. (2009–2010). Catholic thought and intellectual property: learning from the ethics of obligation. Journal of Law and Religion, 25(2), 415–451.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The belmont report: the national commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Naughton, M., & Laczniak, G. R. (1993). A theological context of work from the catholic social encyclical tradition. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(12), 981–994.
Njoku, U. J. (2008). Re-thinking solidarity as a principle of catholic social teaching: going beyond Gaudium et Spes and the social encyclicals of John Paul II. Political Theology, 9(4), 525–544.
O’Mathúna, D. P. (2013). Human dignity and the ethics of human enhancement. Trans-Humanities, 6(1), 99–120.
Olson, C. E. (2011). The principle of assistance: what is subsidarity? The Catholic Answer. July/August, 23–25.
Paul VI. (1967). Populorum progressio. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html . Accessed 11 February 2014.
Paul VI. (1971). Octogesima adveniens. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo anno. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2005). Compendium of the social doctrine of the church. Dublin: Veritas.
Rhodes, R. (2008). In defense of the duty to participate in biomedical research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), 37–44.
Riordan, P. (1996). A politics of the common good. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Riordan, P. (2008). A grammar of the common good: speaking of globalization. London: Continuum.
Rougeau, V. D. (2010). Just contracts and catholic social teaching. In D. K. Finn (Ed.), The true wealth of nations: catholic social thought and economic life (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Second Vatican Council (1965). Gaudium et spes: pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. Accessed 11 February 2014.
The Nuremberg code (1947). http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1448.1. Accessed 11 February 2014.
Thompson, J. M. (2012). Introducing catholic social thought. New York: Orbis.
United States Catholic Bishops. C. (1986). Economic justice for all: pastoral letter on catholic social teaching and the U.S. economy. Washington: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Vogt, C. P. (2007). Fostering a catholic commitment to the common good: an approach rooted in virtue ethics. Theological Studies, 68(2), 394–417.
World Medical Association (1964). Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed 12 September 2013.
Yuenget, A. M. (2010). What is “sustainable prosperity for all” in the catholic social tradition. In D. K. Finn (Ed.), The true wealth of nations: catholic social thought and economic life (pp. 37–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zalot, J. D. (2008). Catholic ethics in today’s world. Winona: St Mary’s Press.
Zigarelli, M. A. (1993). Catholic social teaching and the employment relationship: a model for managing human resources in accordance with vatican doctrine. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(1), 75–82.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kearns, A.J. Catholic Social Teaching as a Framework for Research Ethics. J Acad Ethics 12, 145–159 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9208-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9208-0