The Religious Consultation Report
Published by The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics
Volume 9 No. 1
November 2005
Table of Content
How the Right-Wing grinches stole Christmas — the co-opted gospel
America the hypocrite
Pro_Life Abortions and Morality
Progress Report: Participating Scholars Gather at Villanova
Pew Poll Results: Taking America's Pulse on Social Issues
Sacred Choices Video Documentary Available
The Religious Right — They're Creeping Into Your Bedroom
Women's Rights Progress in Saudi Arabia
Update: Obstetric Fistula — Educating Men in Nigeria
The Legacy of John Paul II
Catholic Theologian Tells of Pro-Choice Tradition
Is Abortion Murder?
Reversible Birth Control For Men
Movers and Shakers
Beyond Choice
Travels of a Retired Participating Scholar
How
the Right-Wing grinches stole
Christmas — the co-opted gospel
A
devout atheist friend of mine often commented:
“Wouldn’t it be something if Christians really believed
what they say they believe — that the poor are their
prime concern and that ending poverty is their mission!”
By Daniel C. Maguire
My friend, warming to his topic, would continue
his
thought along these lines: The Bible says that the Christian
gospel is ‘good news to the poor’ (Luke 4:18), that
‘the
poverty of the poor is their ruin’ (Proverbs 10:15),
and
therefore ‘there shall be no poor among you’ (Deut
15:4) because the
poor are the apple of God’s eye. (Ps. 72:14)
“If they believed that,” my friend would say, “Christians
would
be a stupendously powerful lobby for the poor, and no politician
would dare neglect ‘the least among us.’”
The English writer, G. K. Chesterton, was just as damning
when he commented that Christianity has not failed; it simply
has
never been tried. Actually, it has been tried in the past,
and at
times, it pushed parts of humanity into greater achievements
of
compassion, justice, and peace.
Modern Caesar & the poor
Lately, however, Christianity has been a scary thing for the
poor — and for lovers of peace. Look at the United States,
a
country that is always God-blessing itself and compulsively
stuffing
Bibles in hotel drawers. In this country, Christianity has
been
largely co-opted as ideological cover for a mean-spirited
Right
Wing that is zealously transferring wealth from the bottom
to the
top of the economic food chain while exporting death in a
string of
senseless wars.
Modern Caesars have nothing to fear from this modern crowd
of “Christians.” If Jesus were like them, Jesus
would have died
merrily in his bed at a ripe old age. Of course, Jesus was
not like them.He
fought against the Roman Empire, his time’s “last
remaining superpower.”
He championed a kind of non-violent resistance so threatening
to Empire that
the Romans killed him and many who joined him.
Theology & the military
Jesus didn’t die to “atone for our sins,” a
lousy piece of theology,
gorily indulged in Mel Gibson’s blood bath. Rather, he
died resisting
an empire that was stomping on the poor — militarily
and
economically. Sorry, America, but he died fighting the likes
of us.
From our founding, Americans fancied ourselves “The New
Rome,” and right we were, for such we have become. Like
Rome,
we topple governments (more than 25 since 1945) and spread
800
military installations over the world.
Stingy beyond belief
We also fancy ourselves the most generous people on earth,
though we are among the stingiest. Empire is always animated
by
lies and hubris. American hubris is being undermined by
embarrassing data. Of the 22 richest nations of the world,
we are
first in wealth and last in developmental assistance.
Among those 22 rich nations, the United States devotes a
smaller percentage of national income to developmental assistance
than nearly any other developed nation—less than one-tenth
of
one percent (.1%). Compare that to .97% for the Danes, .89%
for
the Swedes, .55% for the French, and .31% for the Germans.
Even in absolute terms, if we exclude US aid to our two top
recipients, Israel and Egypt [largely military aid often used
in Israel
to oppress Palestinians, and given to Egypt to suppress democracy,
and none of which makes Israel or Egypt safer], the 265 million
people in the US give less than Denmark’s 5 million people.
Meanwhile, if you’ll recall, we villainously squander
6 billion
dollars a month making wars in the oil-rich Middle East, absurdly
claiming, as empires always do, that we are there for the
noblest of
purposes.
Christians cheering the lions
And the Christian Right cheers its new Caesar. They are, as
George Bush says, his “base.” They purr consolingly
in his ear at
prayer breakfasts, and they warm him at America-the-Beautiful
spectacles at the National Cathedral.
In his powerful new book, The New American Militarism,
Andrew J. Bacevich, a Catholic and a retired army officer,
now
professor at Boston University, notes how the Protestant Religious
Right pushed for the American invasions of Iraq — and
even
pushed for the barbarism of “preventive” or preemptive
war, a
concept championed by Adolph Hitler.
Writing as “a Catholic author,” Bacevich says that
“the
counterweight [to this action] ought to have been the Roman
Catholic
Church...[which] was eminently well-positioned to put its
stamp on
public policy.” It failed to do so. Bacevich puts major
blame on the
pathetic Catholic hierarchy. I put it on the all-too-mute
American
Catholic theologians who succor the military with their “just
war” euphemisms.We can also direct the “j’accuse”
at the seduced
and so-called “Pro-Life” Catholic citizenry who
gave Slaughtermaster
Bush a solid majority of their votes in the last election.
Nothing more stirs the human will than the tincture of the
sacred. The worst of madmen is a saint gone mad, said the
poet,
Alexander Pope.Wrap the sacred around evil policies, and you
have added infinitely to their strength. And that is precisely
the
mission of the Protestant and Catholic Christian Right today.
Their “piety” is their shame, and the poor and the
peacemakers
are their victims.
America,
the hypocrite
Americans bask in a marvelous self-image: a good and
generous 
people, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
“No,” says
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. We are really the
“land of
penny-pinchers.”
Americans give 15¢ per day per person to help the poor
of the world but
spend 60¢ a day for soda.
Money is beautiful because of what it can do. Jeffrey Sachs,
a Columbia
University economist, estimates that spending $2-3 billion
a year on malaria
might save more than one million lives each year — an
amount that we spend in
a couple of days on military kill-power. Says Professor Sachs,
“This is probably the
best bargain on the planet.”
Yet it is not a bargain that “America the Beautiful”
is interested in. It is not a
bargain the so-called “Pro-Life” people give a damn
about.
Pro-Life abortions and morality
No decision for an abortion is moral unless it is Pro-Life.
There are many
life values, and sometimes other life values supersede the
value of a fetus.
Cases from real life speak louder than books.
- CASE # 1: A woman is two months pregnant when she discovers
she has cancer and needs chemotherapy. The chemotherapy
would be fatal to the fetus. She decides on an abortion.
If you were this woman, or if this woman were your wife,
your sister, or your daughter, would you be Pro-Choice
for that abortion?
- CASE # 2: A woman, in spite of her best contraceptive
efforts, is pregnant. She has a serious heart condition,
and two physicians tell her that continuing the pregnancy
would likely cause her death. She chooses to abort. If
you were this woman, or if this woman were your wife,
your sister, or your daughter, would you be Pro-Choice
for that abortion?
- CASE # 3: A woman who suffers from a serious bi-polar
condition discovers she is
pregnant. The medicine she requires to function everyday would damage the development of the fetus. She chooses abortion. If you were this woman or if this woman were your wife, your sister, or your daughter, would you be Pro-Choice for that abortion?
If you were at the clinic when these women arrived for their abortions, would you join the pickets in insulting them and calling them murderers? Or would you see women who made serious decisions for Pro-Life abortions?
What it comes down to is this: if a woman is pregnant and wants to terminate that pregnancy for good medical, psychological, economic, or other reasons, should we force her to stay pregnant? Should we bring in the federal and state government to control her and her pregnancy? Neither Democrats nor Republicans should want that kind of coercion and governmental intrusion. In a fascist state, it would be understandable; not in a democracy
Progress
Report:
Participating Scholars gather at Villanova
The Consultation has two ongoing projects at this time:
- The Religious Roots of Violence Against Women
- Heterosexism: Roots and Cures in World Religions
Both projects will look for cures to solve these
problems in those same religions. Scholars from these projects
came together last summer at the Villanova Conference Center
at Villanova University to complete their plans for publication
of their work.
Note: The Violence Against Women project has also received
funding to film a one-hour
video documentary. Filming has already begun in Thailand.
Pew poll results
— taking America’s
pulse on social issues
As nominees for the Supreme Court appeared in the news, they
once again enlivened the American conversation. At issue:
human rights and personal freedom. The legality of these
issues teeters precariously as the makeup of the Supreme Court
changes.
The greatest fear? That the new
court will base its decisions on the political climate
or religious ideology rather than the Constitution
and the intent of the law. Last July, two Pew
Research Center for The People & The Press polls
gathered some interesting numbers on how
Americans felt about the big issues that Supreme Court nominees
stir up. Here is what those who participated in the Pew poll
said:
ABORTION. Views have not changed much. A majority of
Americans (65%) still support a woman’s right to end
a pregnancy.
People support the Roe v.Wade decision, but nearly 75% believe
some restrictions should apply. For example, large majorities
of all
religiously affiliated respondents and approximately two-thirds
of
those who do not attend church felt parental consent must
be
obtained for girls under the age of 18.
68% of white evangelical Protestants reject abortion. They
maintain it should be allowed only in situations of rape,
incest, or
where the procedure will save a woman’s life.
THE MORNING-AFTER PILL. 52% are in favor of women
being able to purchase a morning-after pill without a prescription.
37% are opposed.
GAY UNIONS. Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans
support civil unions as a means to give gay couples the legal
rights
afforded married couples.However, these same respondents still
oppose sanctifying these unions in marriage.
STEM-CELL RESEARCH. Support is growing. 70% of
Protestants, 61% of white Catholics, and 77% of those who
do
not attend church are in favor of the research. Among evangelical
Protestants, however, only about one-third favor stem-cell
research.
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE. Slightly more than half of
Americans (51%) agree that the law should allow doctors to
give
terminally ill patients a means to end their lives.
END-OF-LIFE ISSUES. 74% of respondents said that the
Congress should not have become involved in the Shiavo case.
Even 69% of white evangelicals, 68% of conservatives, and
65% of
Republicans said that this is not a Congressional matter.
ISSUES IMPORTANT TO LIBERALS. The threat to abortion
is the most important issue that liberals fear as the Supreme
Court
changes.
ISSUES IMPORTANT TO CONSERVATIVES. Political
conservatives and white evangelicals have two concerns that
rank
nearly as high as their concerns about abortion: court rulings
on
the rights of detained terrorist suspects and the right to
display
religious symbols on government sites.
Sacred Choices video documentary available
The Consultation has produced a 55-minute video,
Sacred Choices and 
Abortion: Ten New Things to Think About. It is available on
request for
$10.00 in DVD or VHS formats, in English or in Spanish. To
order,
phone the office at (414) 962-3166, email us at orders@igc.org,
or fax
(414) 962-9248.
In 10 insightful segments, the video explores “the big
lie”... that religion
is opposed to a woman’s right to choose. The video, made
possible by the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation, reframes the debate over
reproductive
rights within the context of the world’s religious cultures.
The
Religious Right…
They’re creeping into your bedroom
As the names and faces change in the Supreme Court, there
are those who warn that Americans should be worrying
about more than abortion rights. The Religious Right is
beginning to infiltrate the nation’s bedrooms, denying
a citizen’s
right to privacy.
These Rightists are unimpressed with the fact that
94% of
Americans consider contraception a moral act. They ignore
the fact
that Emergency Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies
and
thus prevents abortion. Still, the Religious Right doesn’t
like it, and,
fascists that they are, they want to prevent all American
women
from using it. According to A Clinician’s Guide to
Providing
Emergency Contraceptive Pills, these pills "prevent
pregnancy by
delaying ovulation, inhibiting fertilization and/or preventing
implantation." They are most effective when taken within
72 hours
after unprotected intercourse. The sooner the better. They
are not
abortifacients. "They will not be effective if a pregnancy
is already
established.”
Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page editor of the
Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reports that Emergency Contraception
(EC)
has been studied and proven to be safe and effective in preventing
pregnancy. Yet the Food & Drug Administration has refused
to
approve EC as an over-the-counter device, to be purchased
like
condoms. Those who support EC argue that it should be taken
as
soon as possible after sexual intercourse. Seeing a doctor
and
getting a prescription might not be feasible.
Why would the FDA refuse to approve this “safe
and effective”
contraceptive as an over-the-counter product? Because groups
like
Stop Planned Parenthood allege that this contraceptive is
“designed
to kill human beings.”That may be their opinion, but
it’s not science.
Yet this distorted mix of wrong-headedness and
Right-Wing religious zeal
is finding supporters and spreading to other areas of birth
control. Ms.
Tucker writes that women are beginning to report that some
pharmacists
are now refusing to fill perfectly legal prescriptions for
contraceptives.
Women say that they have been interrogated as pharmacists
try to
ascertain facts that would sanction the purchase: for example,
whether
or not the woman is married. If the customer passes the test,
proving
herself a “legitimate” user of the prescription
— whatever that may be —
the transaction is completed. Essentially, in these instances,
a woman’s
right to fill a prescription comes down to her making a good
enough
impression on the pharmacist. It’s a game of chance.
This intrusion into a woman’s privacy is bad
enough. But now
this concern for guarding a woman’s moral welfare is
being taken
on by a government agency. The FDA is supposed to base its
decisions on data. Instead, it seems, the FDA’s decisions
are being
influenced by extremists whose ideological agenda seems to
outweigh the results of scientific testing.
It’s a dangerous and slippery slope we’re on. Cynthia
Tucker likens the
movement to a US Taliban, a group who wants to impose on others
their
harsh 10th-century philosophy.
Women’s rights progress in Saudi Arabia
The religious authorities in Saudi Arabia have
declared that
the practice of compelling women to marry
against their will is “not permissible” under
Islamic law. Saudi women have long been
coerced into marrying men chosen by their
fathers. A woman’s wish to marry a man not
chosen by her father has held no sway.
Fact: Nearly half of Saudi marriages ends
in divorce. Arranged
marriages are thought to contribute to this high divorce rate.
With this new decision to honor a woman’s wishes, fathers
who attempt to coerce their daughters into marriage will now
be
jailed if the law is observed. They will not be released until
they
agree to respect their daughter’s views.
This new mandate is a major step for women’s
rights in a
country where a conservative interpretation of Islamic Sharia
law
has imposed a variety of restrictions. Saudi women must wear
a veil.
They are not permitted to travel alone. They cannot be inthe
company
of men other than their relatives. Until 2001, women could
not own an
identity card. Now they may file for such a card, but only
if a male relative
permits the application.Women are barred from voting or holding
public
office. (Saudi Arabia is lucky that the US doesn’t invade
countries for
reasons like these.)
However, there is another sign of the progress
of women’s rights in the
Saudi kingdom: In June, the ban was lifted on working in most
jobs outside
the home.
Source: Saudi Arabia Bans Forced Marriage, BBC News, April
12, 2005
Update:
Obstetric fistula —
educating men in Niger
Several issues ago (Volume 7,No.1), this newsletter covered
the
widespread problem of obstetric fistula in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Some glimmer of hope seems to be emerging in Niger.
The problem
Young girls, victims of their culture and powerless to reject
their father’s or family’s will, are forced to marry.When
they get
pregnant, it’s a case of children having children. The
bodies of
these young girls are too immature to manage a successful
labor.
Their pelvises are too small, and so the baby cannot pass
through
the birth canal. Other factors — like large or poorly
positioned
babies — can further complicate the labor.
As a result, the obstructed labor stops the blood supply from
reaching the vagina, bladder, and/or rectum. The tissue dies
and rots. The mother is left with an uncontrolled flow of
urine
and feces.
Their babies dead, the girls now must live with the stench
of
their wrecked bodies. Abandoned by husbands, ostracized from
villages and families, the girls find themselves outcasts.
Socially
repugnant and uneducated, they have nowhere to go.
The culture
Early pregnancies and home births are not the only causes
of
obstetric fistula. In Niger, as in other African nations,
the culture
dictates that very young girls marry — and that frequently,
they marry
much older men. Many girls meet their husbands at the marriage
ceremony.
Some girls are married off because now that they are menstruating,
“it’s
time.” For other girls, their families marry them off
early so that the
girls do not get pregnant out of wedlock. For still others,
families wish to rid
themselves of the economic burden of daughters.
Although Islam does not encourage early marriage, many Muslim
leaders
continue to influence communities in that direction.Moreover,
when a girl
is married, Islam considers the marriage valid even if she
has not yet
reached puberty.
Working for change
While the United Nations Population Fund and other NGOs have
begun
programs to care for girls with obstetric fistula, Niger has
begun a grassroots
movement to prevent the condition, rather than try to fix
it. The aim is to
overcome poverty and ignorance by educating men — fathers
and potential
husbands — about the appropriate ages for girls to marry.
The Association of Traditional Chiefs of Niger established
The National Forum
on Early Marriage in Niger. The United Nations Children’s
Fund helped orchestrate
this meeting.
At the end of the gathering, the group decided to call upon
the
traditional broadcasters in Niger to carry the group’s
message
across the land. These broadcasters included traditional
storytellers, Islamic religious figures, blacksmiths, hairdressers,
and butchers. Observers are guardedly optimistic because,
in
some places, the message is being accepted.What could it mean?
Fathers who stop pressing early marriages, understandingthat such unions expose their daughters to risk.
Fathers who, therefore, might keep their daughters in school
instead of marrying them off. A trend that could immeasurably
improve
the country in many ways.
Girls who may, for the first time, have the opportunity to
get
an education. Currently 50.1% of boys attend primary
schools vs. only 33.3% of girls.
Future husbands who might postpone marriages to spare
their wives the risk of fistula.
Prevention is the key, says doctor in neighboring Nigeria
Caesarian sections, surgical procedures that have eradicated
fistula
in wealthy countries, are out of the question in impoverished
African
nations. Two years of fundraising by the United Nations Population
Fund
has yielded only $11 million to grapple with the obstetric
fistula
problem. The World Health Organization put the number of untreated
fistulas in Sub-Saharan Africa at 2 million, and that was
16 years ago.
Nigeria alone claims 400,000-800,000 — and those are
only the reported cases.
One Dutch physician, Dr.Waaldijk, who toils nine months a
year in rural Nigeria, has single-handedly repaired 15,000
fistulas
in 22 years. Nigeria (population 137 million) has eight fistula
repair facilities. Dr.Waaldijk has trained 300 physicians
for these
centers. However, once trained, many of the doctors leave
Nigeria
to find better pay in wealthier nations. In Mozambique, three
surgeons repair fistulas in a population of 17 million.
Without prevention and male education, even those girls who
are lucky enough to have their obstetric fistulas repaired
run the
risk of tearing holes in their bodies again with another pregnancy.
As Dr.Walldijk says, “To be a woman in Africa is a terrible
thing.” To learn more about Dr.Walldijk and the story
of
Nigerian women, see nytimes.com, September 28, 2005,
Nightmare for African Women: Birthing Injury and Little
Help by
Sharon La Franiere.
Thomas Cahill, well-known author, posted a powerful
OP-ED
column in the New York Times on April 5, 2005. The
article,
The Price of Infallibility, reviewed Roman Catholic papacies
over the ages. Here are some highlights of Mr. Cahill’s
observations with regard to John Paul II.
Despite
taking the name of John Paul I,
John Paul II shared little with his redecessor.
John Paul I congratulated the parents of the
first test-tube baby — hardly something the
late pope would do.
Nor did this pope emulate Paul VI, who, “though
painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of
bishops (and especially archbishops and
cardinals) who were the opposite of yes
men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly
representative of the parts of the world they came from.”
True, John Paul II may have been a powerful political figure
who
sallied forth into the world and battled Communism. However,
John Paul II was not anything like John XXIII, a pope who
tried
to drag the church into the modern world and undo the antiquated
and backward papacies that preceded him. John XXIII, like
Peter in
the early church, was inclusionary — celebrating all
God’s children.
John Paul II found reasons to exclude the voices of those
groups within the church whose beliefs or behaviors did not
follow party lines. Says Cahill, “John Paul II’s
most lasting
legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal
appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop,
a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to
masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms
used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce,
homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and
any
hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who
subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes;
as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless
sycophants and intellectual incompetents.”
But popes who are hard-line disciplinarians don’t want
participation or group effort. They prefer obedience and a
solid, albeit small, core of extremely loyal of followers.
And now
former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new pope, selected from
John Paul II’s closely selected minions will continue
the legacy:
a tight-fisted adherence to rules and exclusion.
Catholic theologian tells of Pro-Choice tradition
CHRISTINE NEWMAN
THE IRISH TIMES -- MAY 27, 2005 The Catholic Church has a
littleknown,
strong Pro-Choice tradition on abortion, a leading US theologian
said in
Dublin yesterday.
Dr Daniel C. Maguire, a Catholic theologian and professor
of moral
theological ethics at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
said the Roman Catholic position on abortion was pluralistic.
He said it had a strong Pro-Choice tradition and a conservative
antichoice tradition. Neither was official, and neither was
more
Catholic than the other.
In an interview with The Irish Times ahead of giving an address
on
The Hidden Tradition of Abortion last night, Dr Maguire said
all the
world religions had Pro-Choice and no-choice views.
“What would be very good for theUS and for Ireland would
be to get
this abortion bone out of the Catholic throat, and realise
that Jesus
did not found an organisation to condemn contraception, abortion
and stem-cell research.”
That was not the definition of the Jesus mission. In fact,
those issues
were totally unmentioned and were not part of the tradition
whatsoever.
He said the Bible did not condemn abortion, and scriptures
did not touch
it at all.
Abortions were going on since the foundation of the church.
St Antoninus
was the first Catholic to write extensively on abortion. He
was
Pro-Choice for early abortions where necessary to save the
woman’s life.
There was a large acceptance of this. There was no hubbub,
and he was
considered a very holy man.
St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas both held that the early
embryo foetus
had the moral status of a plant, a vegetative soul, and then
as it developed
it had an animal soul. They did not know when the soul was
there but the
common view was when there was quickening.
“The idea of a little cluster of stem cells being a person
goes against the
longest Christian tradition in existence, and makes no sense
at all.”
Things began to change to a stricter regime in the 19th century
as
the Church began to realise that its world view was collapsing
around it.
There was more communication, other viewpoints and the solidities
were disappearing.
Recently the Vatican and conservative Muslims were “buddybuddy”
in the UN on one issue, abortion. “My analysis, fallible
as it is, is they’re not
suddenly worried about foetuses; it’s a different threat
and that is liberated
women. I think the liberation of woman poses a threat to these
two
patriarchies.”
He said fundamentalism in any religion was always misogynistic.
It
feared mutuality between the genders.
Dr Maguire said women who have had abortions should not feel
they
were no longer good Catholics. The killers of the species
have been
mainly men.
“It’s good news. I’m not here to promote irresponsible
sex, but to
promote respect for women and respect for their choices.”
© The Irish Times
Murder is the unjust killing of a person.
So can you murder a fetus?
Not unless it is a person.
The longest view on this issue in the Christian
tradition is that
the fetus is not a person until it is fully “formed.”
St. Augustine
held that, early on, the fetus has the moral status of a plant.
St. Thomas Aquinas said all life has a soul. According to
Aquinas, the
early fetus has a vegetable soul; when the fetus develops
a bit more, it
has the moral status of an animal. Only when it is “formed”
could
God infuse a spiritual soul.When is that?
Catholic philosophers Daniel Dombrowski and Daniel Deltete
from the Jesuit Seattle University say that modern science
would put a
fully formed fetus at around six or seven months. Religions
hold
similar views. (See Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception
and
Abortion in World Religions, Oxford University Press,
2003 and
Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and
Abortion in Ten
World Religions, Fortress Press, 2001.)
The modern argument is often heard that the fetus is “potential
life.” That’s wrong.
The fetus is real life. It just has not reached personal status.
The
fetus is potentially a person, but the potential is not actual.
After all,
gentle reader, you and I are potentially dead but would not
like to be
treated as if that potentiality were fulfilled. Personhood
was potential
in the early evolutionary process. Even if some extraterrestrial
being
killed one of the highly developed species that predated humans,
the
act may have been wrong, but it was not murder.
There exist serious and justifying reasons for ending pre-personal
fetal life. The decision on that belongs naturally to the
woman who
carries that life.Women have a far better track record than
men when
it comes to cherishing and protecting life. Let’s leave
abortion
decisions up to them.
Reversible birth control for men
A way for men to help out with birth control.
The IVD, the Intra Vas Device, is the first implantable —
and reversible —
male contraceptive. In a sevenminute procedure, which takes
place in a
doctor’s office and uses a local anesthetic, surgeons
make a small opening
in each vas deferens tube, the duct that carries the sperm
from the testicles
to the male urethra. The tubes are then capped shut using
2.5 cm hollow
silicone plugs. The plugs block the flow of sperm from the
testicles to the penis.
Vasectomies cut and cauterize the vas deferens tubes, permanently
damaging
them in most cases, resulting in permanent birth control.
Not so with the IVD.
These plugs can be removed, restoring the sperm flow.
So far, the IVD has succeeded in two primate studies and preliminary
human
trials.While removing the device has proved successful in
primates, similar
research on removal in humans has yet to be completed.
Shepherd Medical, the US company that owns the patent on the
IVD, has been
awarded a $1.4 million grant from the US National Institutes
of Health to perform
clinical trials this year. The tests will take place in Seattle
for 18 months under
FDA-approved conditions.
If all goes well, the data may open the door to European,
US, and Canadian
markets. Scientifically, the IVD could prove a gigantic step
in the area of family
planning.
Movers & Shakers … Activites of our Participating Scholars
Kelly Brown Douglas has written a new book,
What’s Faith Got to Do With It?:
Black Bodies/Christian Souls, Maryknoll: Orbis,
2005.
Hsiao-Lan Hu. Her recent book, Taoism, has been
published by Chelsea House
Publications (January, 2005).
Ben Hubbard has written an article, The Impact of Religion
on Western Culture:
A Mixed Legacy in Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism:
6 (2005), pp. 55-66.
After serving for 15 years as chair of the Department of Comparative
Religion at
California State University-Fullerton, Ben has stepped down.
Mary E.Hunt and Radhika Balakrishna, co-editors
of Good Sex:Feminist Wisdom from the World’s Religions,
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001) are celebrating
the third printing of the book.
Patti Jung was promoted to full professor last spring
and was recently appointed
co-editor of the Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics.
She has also published, The Call to Wed: A Catholic Case
for Same-Sex Marriage, Liturgy.Volume 20, no. 3, 2005:
31-42.
In addition, Patti’s book, Sexual Diversity
and Catholicism: Toward the Development of Moral Theology
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), was translated
and published in Portuguese as Diversidade Sexual e Catolicismo.
Adail Ubirajara Sobral, Trans. Sno Paulo, Brazil: Ediçtes
Loyola, 2005.
Paul Knitter’s essay won the Catholic Press Association’s
“Best Essay/Scholarly Journal”
award in May 2005. The essay: The Vocation of an Interreligious
Theologian: My
Retrospective on Forty Years in Dialogue, Horizons, 31/1
(2004) 135-49.
In September, Orbis Books published The Myth of Religious
Superiority: A
Multifaith Exploration, which Paul edited. The book gathers
the best papers from an international/interreligious conference
at the University of Birmingham, which Paul organized together
with John Hick. The book shows that there are resources in
all the religious traditions to move beyond
Judith Plaskow has published The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics 1972-2003 (Beacon Press).
Liu Xiaogan has just completed the manuscript of his book The Laozi from the Ancient to the Modern: Comparative Studies of the Five Versions, including Introductory Analyses and Criticisms (with Comparative Concordance), which is prefaced by Ying-shih Yu, Donald J.Munro, and Lao Sze-kwang. The book is in press by the China Social Sciences Publisher (Beijing). Liu is the founding director of the Research Centre for Chinese Philosophy and Culture in the Department of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The research centre was inaugurated in May this year. It organizes and promotes exploration and research in new issues and new methods in the study of Chinese philosophy and culture.
I
n the tradition of his grandmother,Margaret Sanger, Alex Sanger
is challenging us to look in a new way at a woman’s reproductive
freedom. Beyond Choice contends that the Pro-Choice movement
must re-think its message if it is to have political success
and then gives a thorough outline of why and how to change
the rhetoric. Well researched and readable, Beyond Choice
should be required reading for both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life
supporters.
– Governor Christine Todd Whitman
Travels of a retired Participating Scholar
While Participating Scholar Paul Knitter is officially
“retired,” he doesn’t seem to have
slowed down much.Here’s a quick update on Paul’s
most recent activities.
Dateline: Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. From June
23 to July 10, Paul participated with seven other US scholars
in a State Department-sponsored visit to Pakistan,
India, and Bangladesh. The trip was part of an exchange program
intended to promote a conversation, rather than a clash, of
civilizations between Muslim leaders from South
Asia and Christians and Jews from the USA.
Paul reports that in all conversations, their group heard
comments that South Asian participants deeply appreciated
that the American government would support
a program intended to listen to what Muslims have to say.
Yet at the same time, attendees expressed consternation and
anger at the policies of the Bush administration, especially
in Iraq. “Your government is turning many in the Muslim
world against the United States!” was the repeated message.
The visiting Americans were able to console their South Asian
Muslim friends with the fact that a large and growing number
of US citizens agree with such criticism of
Bush policies.
On Roman Catholicism: September 7-17th found Paul meeting
with about 15 Roman Catholic theologians in Bangalore, India.
Funded privately and meeting independently of the Vatican,
the group has gathered annually over the past three years
seeking to reach a consensus on a Catholic theology of religions
that would support an authentic dialogue. The group —
representing all points on the spectrum of Roman Catholic
theology from the most conservative (mostly from Europe) to
the most progressive (mostly from Asia) — was not able
to attain a consensus. “For the moment,”
Paul concluded, “the practice of interreligious dialogue
within the Catholic local communities is way ahead of the
official theology of religions of the Magisterium.”
me
| News
Archives | Newsletters
| Ab
Us | Donate