The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing represents a transformative moment in biotechnology, enabling genome editing with unprecedented precision, scale, and accessibility. This scientific breakthrough holds genuine promise for curing heritable diseases and advancing personalized medicine, yet it also introduces profound moral and theological challenges. This paper offers a Christian bioethical analysis of CRISPR through the lens of the imago Dei, drawing from the moral reasoning of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It contrasts utilitarian and autonomy-based frameworks in contemporary bioethics with a theological anthropology that grounds human dignity in the divine image rather than in genetic perfection or functional capacity. After presenting the scientific foundations of gene editing, the paper examines key ethical tensions-therapy versus enhancement, eugenic reasoning, the destruction of embryos, and intergenerational responsibility. Finally, it proposes a theological framework informed by virtue ethics, the principle of double effect, and a Christ-centered vision of human flourishing. The goal is not to reject gene editing categorically but to cultivate moral wisdom that upholds the sanctity of life, respects human limitation, and directs scientific vocation toward healing and justice.

Meta-ethical commitments or fundamental life assumptions shape a person's understanding of the good and informs the person's perspective on any given ethical issue. The common culture's commitment to the notion of autonomy has hollowed out civility and community in the United States and has left persons empty, lonely, and despairing, unable to correctly perceive the right in the context of moral discourse. The events surrounding the election of Pope Leo XIV reflect the culture's need for an ethic grounded in a theologically informed understanding of the good. A proper understanding of the good must start with God who is good, as revealed in Scripture and testified to in classical ethics. The characteristics ascribed to God and the Word of God Incarnate define transcendent moral law-those virtues, values, and moral principles which rightly govern human relationships. Ethics is ultimately the language of God. Without God, ethics is nothing but nonsensical language. We need to humbly proclaim we are not autonomous, devising our own notions of the good. We are dependent upon God and one another as humans and mutually accountable to the Infinite Good. We need to resuscitate God consciousness in our culture, grounding ethics in the source of the good, beautiful, and true.

An intern called in for contingency coverage of a sick colleague for a Christmas Eve shift learns the true meaning of the call to serve Christ.

In this essay, the transhumanist movement is analyzed through the lens of liberation theology, vis-á-vis the founding fathers of their respective movements, secular transhumanist Julian Huxley and liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez. Although Gutiérrez is not a transhumanist, he delineates a theology of liberation which is driven by a social justice enhancement of the marginalized. The central question which will be analyzed is: How does a liberation theologian understand the transhumanist movement? Critically, both men begin on similar ground, arguing that the human condition is not as it should be. Through a careful exegesis of Guiterrez's seminal works on A Theology of Liberation and On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, the arguments of liberation theology will be elucidated with respect to the transhumanist discourse, arguing that Gutiérrez privileges the telos of drawing humanity out of poverty and illness. However, Gutiérrez's work on Job restricts the potential social justice enhancement espoused by liberation theology. For Gutiérrez, God's gratuitous love precedes God's justice, making it so humanity cannot occupy the creative space of God. After establishing the theoretical arguments, the paper turns to the clinic to underscore when and how Huxley and Gutiérrez differ in relying on medical technology in the present day. The distinction between caring and curing is the deciding clinical factor to denote when a liberation theologian can embrace the transhumanist impulse. While Huxley does not limit his transhumanist project to conquer the limits of humanity, Gutiérrez sequesters the capacity of human transcendence because of his faith and hope in God's deliverance on earth.

This article addresses the central moral challenge of twenty-first-century societies: identifying a core principle to guide the hierarchy of values in the context of environmental and human rights conflicts. It examines the ontological questions underlying these debates, such as the explanation of the world and the basis for action, emphasizing the human tendency to project values through either ecocentric or anthropocentric perspectives. This essay argues that resolving the tension between these two worldviews requires moving beyond their dichotomy by incorporating a third vertical axis inspired by the concept of summum bonum from classical philosophy. By revisiting this fundamental principle, this study proposes a framework for harmonizing humanity's relationship with its environment while respecting the dignity of all beings.

Editor's Note: Issues of conscience are of increasing importance in medicine, especially when it comes to the Catholic physician. Nearly fifteen years ago, this alarm was sounded regarding the connection between physician conscience and patient autonomy. First published Vol 76, No 4, November 1, 2009. The development of patient autonomy within healthcare has created new challenges in the physician-patient relationship. When a patient demands a service that violates the conscience of a physician, it creates conflict within that relationship. This has become particularly problematic when a patient demands abortion or artificial contraception and the physician is morally bound to refuse. This article argues that the integrity of the physician's conscience must be maintained in order to uphold the integrity of the patient's autonomy. If the physician is forced to violate his conscience, then the guarantee that a patient's desires and wishes will be respected will be lost because a great moral inequality will be created between the physician and the patient. To safeguard both the physician-patient relationship and the patient's autonomy, it is vital that the physician's conscience be protected.

Primum non nocere or "first, do no harm" is among the most well-known proverbs in medical education. While its application to patients is well known, the injunction can also be read with medical trainees in mind. Teaching physicians might consider "first, do no harm" not only when considering their patients but also when considering the moral formation of their trainees. In a season when medical educators are attempting to clarify the "harms" of medical training, this reading can invite a more candid, nuanced discourse between teachers and learners about the experiences of medical training.