Did
you know that there is a Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and
Healing? Last Thursday, January 8, the Institute, together with Union
Theological Seminary in New York, issued a fifty-two page report, which is a
call for North American Theological Seminaries to offer more courses and
programs to help prepare ministers, rabbis, priests, and other religious
professionals to address issues of sexuality better than they now do.
Through the years I have met with leaders and constituents of the
Association of Theological Schools; I have some awareness of how many pressures
are on them to add teaching personnel, field-work opportunities, and courses to
deal with every kind of ethical and cultural issue of the day: pop culture,
science-and-theology, war and peace, dealing with technology, and many more.
All this at a time when the schools are under serious budgetary constraints.
Seasoned leaders are cautioned against curricular faddism and are conscientious
about sustaining integrity in biblical, theological, historical, and practical
basics. So they tend to wince or groan when asked to do more and offer more for
and with future ministers
But the Institute people do make a good
case to be taken seriously in this report. Their two-year study finds that more
than ninety percent of the thirty-six leading seminaries surveyed do not require
full-semester, sexuality-based courses for graduation, and two-thirds do not
offer a course in sexuality issues for religious professionals. A generational
issue is involved. Mention, for example, the churches' controversy over
same-sex marriage, and in most denominations seniors will observe that it's not
much of an issue for the younger generations. They've generally approved it and
want to move on to issues they consider more urgent. But for the next thirty
years ministers will be dealing with church and synagogue issues where it is
still the hottest-button kind of issue, and they need to understand the pros and
cons.
As I picture it, the Institute's concern that more seminaries
deal with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender studies in a major way will
not get a hearing in denominations where there are strictures against positive
dealings with church and synagogue members in LGBT camps. Yet it is hard to get
around the observation that, overall, sexual issues -- be they biological,
theological, or moral – are the most controversial subjects in religion today.
For a discussion group on the Trinity or Pelagianism (if you could get one
together), you would rent a classroom. For sex and gender debates, you would
crowd the field house, because everyone knows that the subject will quicken
passions, lead to walk-outs, and give the press much to disseminate.
In this half-century, like it or not, understandings of human sexuality
combined with issues of authority – who decides about practices? – concern every
body from Mennonites to Greek Orthodox. Clerical abuse scandals have undercut
trust relations in parishes and denominations. The press, understandably, "eats
this up," knowing how little anyone knows about how to handle sexual themes and
incidents and how hungry elements in the public are for stories about ethical
lapses in matters sexual. The Institute's report may not please everyone, but
it is an important wake-up call.
In our continuing debate over whether the Vatican overstated the case against Plan B, "Reader 1" responds to "Reader 2":
First, the person who quotes Sulmasy's article overstates the degree of our certainty about how Plan B works - that is, he or she claims that it is only a "possibility (at most, and rarely)" that Plan B prevents implantation. I'd be very happy to be mistaken, but I don't think the data supports this conclusion. [The manufacturer notes that Plan B may inhibit implantation.]
Second, I think that we would have to know more about the intention of women taking Plan B to conclude that the embryo's death (in the case of blocked implantation) is an indirect, foreseeable but unintended result. I would imagine that most people who take the pill are simply intending not to become pregnant and don't think much about how the drug works. The political and commercial campaign for Plan B simply says "it will not disrupt a pregnancy" -- failing to note the morally significant point that it nevertheless might cause the death of a living human embryo that has yet to implant. If a woman considering using Plan B consults the FDA website about its function, she will find the following explanation:
3. How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
Again, I would reiterate that if one regards intentionally preventing an embryo's implantation in the womb (and thus causing its death) as morally tantamount to intentionally preventing a living person from receiving needed life support, then it strikes me as sensible to think carefully before acting in this context. I find it surprising that the person quoting Sulmasy is arguing against proceeding cautiously in the face of a known grave risk. Surely caution and reflection are crucial features of medical practice. And since Plan B was approved for over-the-counter use in 2006 (for people over the age of 17), it seems likely that most people self-administer the drug without the advice of a physician. So comparing this to the "clinical context" seems inapposite.
Also, another reader writes that "Reader 1" did "not include the most recent research on Plan B, which has not found evidence for post-fertilization effects. Researchers believe that the effectiveness of Plan B can be explained entirely by pre-fertilization effects, and that Plan B is less effective [in] preventing (clinical) pregnancy than was previously believed. Rich Poupard from the Life Training Institute summarized the evidence in a series of posts in 2007 and 2008."
My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy. This was in no small part because of the encouragement and example provided by a wonderful teacher, friend, and priest, Prof. Ed Mahoney, who died yesterday. (See Brian Leiter's notice here, and the nice memorial at the Duke Philosophy Department's webpage here.)
"Father Ed" -- a specialist in later medieval psychology, who did important work on the "Great Chain of Being" -- taught me, and many others, Ancient, Medieval, and late-Medieval Philosophy. He was passionately committed to undergraduate education, and he inspired many of us not only to wrestle with difficult, beautiful texts and ideas, but to better appreciate, in a big-picture way, the medieval vision, mind, and cosmology. He ruthlessly gave me the worst grade I received in college, delivering a much-needed ego-check, and then proceeded to help me learn, and get me fired up to learn, in a deeper way than I ever would have without him. He made me think harder, and write better, than I would have, or could have, without his help. He was my teacher before I knew that he was a Catholic priest, and he later became an advisor, counselor, and mentor.
The news about Fr. Ed made me think -- it reminded me -- of how special a great teacher can be. I'm sure all of us (I hope all of us!) were blessed, at some point, with such a teacher. I'm thankful that I was able to tell him how much he meant to me, and that he was able to see, before he passed away, at least some of the fruits of his efforts in my own career. And I hope I'll remember, in my own teaching, how important it turned out to be, for me, that he took the time and expended the efforts that he did.
There are tributes and testimonials all over the Internet today. Check out, for example, this, over at "the Catholic Thing"; this, at First Thing; this, by Ross Douthat; this, by John Podhoretz, etc. Here, thanks to First Things, is an essay by Fr. Neuhaus, from a few years ago, called "We Are Born to Die." And, a few outlets have also posted this very moving passage from Fr. Neuhaus's own "Death in the Afternoon":
When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of "justification by faith alone," although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.
I hope that, in the coming days, many of us will share reflections on the relationship -- I think, the centrality -- of Neuhaus's work and core claims to our "Catholic legal theory" project. Obviously, some of us disagree with some of Fr. Neuhaus's views on policy and other matters. I would think, though, that we would all agree that his critique of the "naked public square", and his emphasis on the freedom-and-flourishing-enhancing functions of mediating institutions, were, are, and will remain hugely important, and valuable. More to come, I hope . . . For now, God bless him.
A reader responds to this post defending the Vatican's analysis of Plan B:
To Rob's reader who offers a partial defense of the CDF's treatment of Plan B contraception, perhaps there is still some lingering uncertainty in the scientific literature (as there usually is) about the effect of so-called Plan B contraception and the possibility (at most, and rarely) that it prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. From that, however, the reader draws the conclusion that "if you take the position of the CDF (namely, that every innocent developing human organism is entitled not to be killed), caution regarding Plan B is in order." I'm not sure how "caution" translates to clinical practice, but I fail to see how the premises of the argument entail that conclusion. As Daniel Sulmasy, OFM, pointed out in a 2004 article on Plan B in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, "If we are morally bound never to act whenever we risk indirectly causing human deaths, then most medical procedures would need to be banned." Indeed, in many contexts moral reasoning (under the principle of double effect) leads us to the conclusion that the risk of indirectly causing harm is justified--prosecution of a just war and the risk of civilian deaths is a common example, but, as Sulmasy suggests, everyday medical practice would look very different if the mere prospect of causing indirect harm required "caution." If it is (as most Catholic moral theologians hold) permissible to administer emergency contraception in cases of sexual assault, then use of Plan B (even if it poses some very, very slight risk of preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum) would seem morally licit unless we are prepared to ride roughshod over the traditional analysis of direct/indirect action and intention. In cases apart from sexual assault, furthermore, the moral permissibility of Plan B should rise or fall with one's views of the adequacy of the Church's teaching on artificial contraception (not abortion). In a document that helpfully clarifies the Church's teaching on a range of questions and draws several important distinctions for bioethical analysis, the Holy See's treatment of Plan B sows unnecessary confusion.
Another reader points out that there does not appear to be a translation problem with the "is certainly present" language in the Vatican document:
The Vatican document on the morning after pill contains the following sentence: "È vero che non sempre si dispone di una conoscenza completa del meccanismo di azione dei diversi farmaci usati, ma gli studi sperimentali dimostrano che l'effetto di impedire l'impianto è certamente presente, anche se questo non significa che gli intercettivi provochino un aborto ogni volta che vengono assunti, anche perché non sempre dopo il rapporto sessuale avviene la fecondazione." [Italics in original]
This is the same sentence that in the English version reads: "It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse."
There is no mistranslation from one to the other. They both make the same claim that Plan B has the ability to prevent implantation even if that is not how Plan B works every time.
A reader responds to my post of William Saletan's criticism of the Vatican's statement regarding Plan B:
Just to respond briefly to Will Saletan - there is no definitive evidence of how Plan B works. Saletan is guilty of the same exaggeration that he criticizes in the CDF document when he says that studies have "completely wiped out" the claim about Plan B preventing implantation. The picture is far murkier (as Saletan's quote suggests).
Originally, it was thought that Plan B could affect the endometrium in a fashion that would prevent implantation of a developng embryo. Ling WY, Robichaud A, Zayid I, Wrixon W, MacLeod SC (1983). "Mode of action of dl-norgestrel and ethinylestradiol combination in postcoital contraception". Fertil Steril 40 (5): 631–6. PMID 6628707. Kubba AA, White JO, Guillebaud J, Elder MG (1986). "The biochemistry of human endometrium after two regimens of postcoital contraception: a dl-norgestrel/ethinylestradiol combination or danazol". Fertil Steril 45 (4): 512–516. PMID 3956767. Yuzpe AA, Thurlow HJ, Ramzy I, Leyshon JI (1974). "Post coital contraception—a pilot study". J Reprod Med 13 (2): 53–8. PMID 4844513.
Subsequently, some scientists have re-evaluated these studies and have suggested that Plan B might not prevent implantation. The literature survey published in JAMA suggests as much.
Studies have also shown that, in women who ovulate despite taking Plan B before ovulation, there are changes in certain hormones such as progesterone and in the length of luteal phase.[112] These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite Plan B use. See e.g., Durand M, del Carmen Cravioto M, Raymond EG, Duran-Sanchez O, De la Luz Cruz-Hinojosa M, Castell-Rodriguez A, Schiavon R, Larrea F (2001). "On the mechanisms of action of short-term levonorgestrel administration in emergency contraception". Contraception 64 (4): 227–34. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00250-5. PMID 11747872
Bottom line is that there is no demonstration that the CDF claim is false. There are some good reasons to think that it is true. And if you take the position of the CDF (namely, that every innocent developing human organism is entitled not to be killed), caution regarding Plan B is in order. I wonder if the "is certainly present" that Saletan objects to is a translation problem from the Italian.
Sam Levine at Pepperdine had this to share in reference to my recent post on religious belief and self-control.
Some Jewish biblical commentators understand Abraham's statement in Genesis 20:11 as making a similar point about religion and self-control. In the context of the narrative, Abraham seems to imply that notwithstanding the possible virtues of Abimelech and the people of Gerar, the lack of religious belief left them (relatively) vulnerable to temptation and improper behavior.
Richard John Neuhaus has passed away. I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to tell Fr. Neuhaus how valuable First Things was in helping me, as a young Protestant lawyer, to begin to discern the relationships between faith, public policy, and a vibrant intellectual life. Even among those of us who did not know him well, he will be missed.
