Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 14:36:12 EDT

Yes, there are aspects of RC sexual ethics that are helpful. However, Christians in general have had far too great a tendency to be wary of sexuality & to limit it as much as possible. & once you get a celibate male magisterium, it's not too surprising that some of the church's teachings about sexuality are skewed.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
  From: Austerberry, Charles
  To: George Murphy ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

  Good points, George.

  On the one hand, sometimes I hear very good insights from RC theologians when they discuss their "theology of the body", which is a broad umbrella encompassing opposition to casual sex, as well as their opposition to assisted reproduction techniques, therapeutic/research use of human cloning and hESCs, abortion, etc.

  But then on the other hand, as you say, some go overboard if they still oppose any and all sexual activity that does not potentially result in procreation. Furthermore, sometimes they extend the theology to justify mandatory celibacy for priests and nuns, the necessity of Mary's perpetual virginity, the limitation of the priesthood to men, etc. I think they're trying to weave rather disparate and often weak threads into some kind of whole cloth, which gets pretty strained.

  I've read Augustine, and he's fascinating. As a Christian he was really bothered by the way sexual passion can take over a person's will. Of course, he was speaking from personal experience, as he was quite promiscuous for a time, then had a mistress for a time, before his conversion to Christianity. If it could somehow be done without passion, I think he would have found sexual intercourse much easier to accept as a good gift from God. Even someone as modern as C. S. Lewis once speculated that perhaps an effect of the Fall was to give animals and humans desire for more sex than is prudent and necessary for propagation of species.

  That sex can be tainted with selfishness and sin seems undeniable. But, some of the practical results of RC theology of the body based on Augustine's views may be nonsensical, as George notes. For example, while the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha does great work treating infertility in women, if a couple's infertility is due to problems in the man, the Institute is very limited. I don't think they do sperm counts because in their view, I believe, obtaining semen would require an act contrary to Church teaching.

  Now to be fair, most modern RC theologians have noted some of Augustine's deficiencies, and they acknowledge the value of sexual relations within marriage even when procreation is impossible (e.g. intentionally timing relations when the woman is infertile, continuing relations when the woman is postmenopausal). And, I very much appreciate the RC church's protection of women who want to maintain pregnancies when boyfriends, parents, insurance companies, etc. are urging the woman to abort. Too many women have been victims of abortion clinics that hide information from their clients.

  So all in all, I think Catholics are more right than wrong on reproductive issues across the board. But, George's points are also well taken.

  Cheers.

  Chuck
  Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
  Assistant Professor of Biology
  Hixson-Lied Room 438
  Creighton University
  2500 California Plaza
  Omaha, NE 68178
  Phone: 402-280-2154
  Fax: 402-280-5595
  e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
  http://groups.creighton.edu/premedsociety/

  Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
  http://nrcse.creighton.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:02 PM
    To: Austerberry, Charles; asa@lists.calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

    Chuck -

    I think RC ethics in reproductive matters is in a way too consistent internally & thereby damages not only their own credibility but that of pro-life people in general. This ethic is strongly (I do not say exclusively) informed by natural law arguments that in some cases are simply outdated - in particular, the Aristotelian natural/artificial distinction. Opposition to "artificial" contraception while allowing "natural" methods of birth control simply makes no sense. There is no logical connection between that position and opposition to abortion, e.g., but they're seen by many people as part of a total package so that they don't take either position very seriously, seeing them both as outdated ideas.

    Shalom
    George
    http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Austerberry, Charles
      To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
      Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:26 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] scientific fact vs. ideology?

      Two open-access (I think) references re. when personhood begins:

      When Personhood Begins in the Embryo: Avoiding a Syllabus of Errors by Scott F. Gilbert (author of a widely used developmental biology textbook).

      Human embryo: a biological definition by a host of authors in Australia.

      My two cents worth:

      Gilbert and others make some interesting points about the biology, but then Gilbert argues that because in biblical times the most obvious milestone was birth, today only after birth should humans gain full status as persons. It's ironic that he would chide the Church for not incorporating the latest scientific knowledge about early human development, but then suggest that theological and ethical conclusions regarding personhood be based on pre-scientific understandings.

      Though I'm not Catholic, I think the Catholics' position is the most internally consistent, as shown by their opposition to IVF as well as hESC harvesting, abortion, etc. The problem with the Catholic position is its speculative theology of "creationism" (in the older sense of the word, having nothing to do with Genesis 1 or anti-evolution but rather with the doctrine that a human soul is infused at the moment of conception). Gilbert and others correctly point out that conception is a process rather than a moment, that the majority of humans die before or soon after uterine implantation, that in some cases two souls would have to fuse into one while in other cases one soul would have to split into two, etc.

      I think embryo(s) or fetus(es) in an established pregnancy deserve more protection than embryos that have not been (and often cannot and/or will never be) implanted and gestated. Nonetheless, I respect the Catholic position, even if I do not precisely agree in all its details.

      Here in Nebraska the public medical school is again the focus of debate over whether its researchers should use some of the many newer hESC lines that Obama made available on Monday to labs using federal funds.

      State law prohibits Nebraska researchers from destroying embryos to harvest hESCs, and Congress would have to act anyway before federal funds could be so used to establish new hESC lines, but hundreds of lines have been established by others, and I hear they are a lot easier to grow than the few early cell lines Bush allowed.

      My employer (Creighton University) has not, does not, and will not use hESCs obtained through a process that destroys human embryos. Furthermore, Creighton argues that human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) make the use of hESCs unnecessary, especially now that the few genes needed to convert adult cells to hiPSCs can be introduced without the use of viral vectors. Creighton spokespersons note even if hiPSCs fall short of hESCs' potential, for moral reasons Creighton still will not use hESCs. I'm not yet convinced that hiPSCs are completely equivalent to hESCs, but they appear close enough to substitute for most every application.

      Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
      Assistant Professor of Biology
      Hixson-Lied Room 438
      Creighton University
      2500 California Plaza
      Omaha, NE 68178
      Phone: 402-280-2154
      Fax: 402-280-5595
      e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
      http://groups.creighton.edu/premedsociety/

      Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
      http://nrcse.creighton.edu

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 11 14:36:46 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 14:36:46 EDT