I can’t believe the war on women and their right to use contraceptives. I thought this was settled in the 1960′s. I am surprised that there are those who dispute this as a right, which makes it feel like we are going back to the dark ages. Yes, I know the Roman Catholic position, but in spite of this, 98% of Catholic women in the United States have used some form of contraception. I can understand why an Arch Bishop on the docket to be a Cardinal would demonstrate his adherence to Roman Catholic law prohibiting most forms of contraception, but why have Republican presidential candidates enjoined the battle over contraception and the effort to subvert a woman’s right of choice?
In the last month or two the extreme positions that attack a woman’s choice on matters of reproductive health are reprehensible.
I was shocked by the proposed law in the Virginia Legislature, supported by the governor, that would force a woman to have a trans-vaginal ultra-sound before she could have an abortion. The governor backed down from that position after anger and outrage led to demonstrations against the law. Some have suggested that a forced procedure, trans-vaginal ultrasound, was state sponsored rape because it fits the new FBI definition of rape; the non-consensual penetration of the vagina.This law does more, it requires a physician to do a totally unnecessary procedure. What an over-reach by government, mandating physicians to carry out certain medical procedures whether needed or not.
The proposed law that cuts across everything we know scientifically is the one which says, “a fertilized egg is a person.” In Mississippi, even conservative women opposed the personhood law because it would make hormonal birth control impossible.
Arch Bishop Dolan’s condemnation of the Obama administration’s policy requiring that Roman Catholic Institutions, which serve the public, such as hospitals and universities,must provide insurance that covers contraception, is problematic.. However my concern goes beyond this to the fact that Arch Bishop Dolan vehemently opposed the President’s compromise which took the employer out of the equation. It seems that the issue is not about the separation of church and state but clearly about contraception.
Maybe I am naive about politics in the church, but I know it happens in the denomination of which I am a part. I have to believe it is also a factor in the Roman Catholic Church. Dolan’s new authority as a prince of the church is evident in taking on President Obama on the issue of contraception. Of course, he has every right to do so, but let’s not forget the power dynamic. I haven’t heard any of the media address the Roman Catholic Church’s reaction from a political stand point. The power dynamics have to be there when 98% of Roman Catholic women use contraception in spite of the church’s position. I would think this is a reality with which Rome must be concerned given their current dogma.
I wonder what would happen if the Roman Catholic Bishops were to have women in their number. Of course, that is not going to happen in the short-term, but it would make a difference in how things are viewed. In a church that has women bishops and women clergy, I can tell you, it makes a positive difference in how the church deals with the rights and concerns of women.
In saying this, I am always impressed by the Roman Catholic stance with regard to the poor and suffering and have been inspired by their courage to stand with the marginalized. It seems to me, however, that a disconnect exists with the 21st Century reality of over population and the increased consumption of resources at a greater rate than can be sustained. The issue of women’s reproductive health and contraception (15% of women use contraceptives for other medical needs) is an essential factor in the 21st Century. I don’t believe we will effectively deal with poverty, hunger, ecological justice, economic justice and war unless we come to terms with the basic rights of women to make choices about their reproductive health.
Brian McLarean in his book, (A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIANITY, Harper One, New York, 2010, pp 253,254), says, humankind faces four crises: 1) The crisis of the planet, 2) the crisis of poverty, 3) the crisis of peace, and 4) the crisis of religion. I believe all of us in the faith community must pull together if we are to deal with these crises. We cannot afford to have one half of the worlds population at a disadvantage of not fully developing their potential because they do not have the right to make choices about their reproductive health. A woman’s right to do this makes a tremendous difference in her realizing her full potential. Research shows that choice about health, and the size of family, make an incredible difference in the well-being of the family and of the community.
So why the war on women? Is the war against women related to a basic anti-scientific movement in this country, as well as the whole world? I have been thinking about this and believe it is related to the view by some that science and faith are incompatible. But why is there such a view?
A friend and colleague preached a sermon recently that may be able to offer some explanation. Richard Randolph uses Theologian Ian Barbour’s typology as a way of understanding the basic ways people relate religious faith and modern science. Barbour’s typology helped me see more clearly what is going on in the anti-science mind set that affects part of this country. It suggests a way to a more constructive understanding of faith and science. So let me quote from Richard Randolph’s sermon, “Bridging Science and Christian Belief: The Incarnation and Quantum Mechanics.”
“1.) Conflict. For many people, there is an ongoing war between science and religion.These people–who locate themselves both inside and and outside the Church — see science and religion as bitter rivals, with no possibility of reconciliation. This approach assumes that science and religion have two competing views of reality that are mutually exclusive. Barbour observes that proponents of this method can be divided into two sub-categories.
At one extreme is “scientific materialism”. This position holds that physical matter and energy are the only fundamental realities in the universe. Therefore, the scientific method is the only reliable path to generate knowledge. From this perspective, religious insight is not knowledge at all, but rather meaningless expressions of emotions or preference devoid of cognitive significance.
At the other extreme is “biblical literalism”. This position holds that scripture is literally true and inerrant in all aspects. Consequently, if there is a conflict between scientific results and scripture, then the science must be wrong. In the twentieth century, this lead to “creation science,” an attempt to conduct science within the rigid parameters set by a literal, word-forword reading of the scriptures. Ultimately, Barbour concludes that both scientific materialism and biblical literalism abuse scientific inquiry.”
Barbour’s third typology is dialogue. Of course the view of this blog is that one must move to a dialogue between modern science and religious faith. But at this point I want to deal with the first typology which I believe helps us understand what is going on in the current war on women and contraception.
As I thought about this I remembered something I had read years before in James Barr’s book, FUNDAMENTALISM, (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1978, p.p. 107, 108). In his definitive work on fundamentalism he describes the similarities between Roman Catholic and conservative evangelicalism. This analysis goes a long way in understanding the anti-science view relative to a woman’s right to choose with regard to reproductive health which includes contraception.
Barr says:
“The fundamentalist and the traditional Roman Catholic position have in this respect a similar structure, but the Roman position is much more open and honest in that the place of the tradition is made fully explicit in doctrine, while the conservative evangelicalism tends to conceal it: everything is represented as if it came solely and directly from the Bible itself. In both cases biblical interpretation has the task of bringing support from the Bible to the tradition; in both this is done by the use of varying interpretative techniques, literal at one point but vague, parabolic or allegorical at another; in both the variations in interpretative techniques at any point are made in the interest of the given religious traditions, which is the final governing force.”
If one begins with the view that life begins at conception then one would oppose most forms of contraception and the right of a woman to have reproductive choices, including abortion. One might go further in believing that a fertilized egg is a person. This kind of fundamentalism will oppose scientific truth if it does not fit the doctrinal or Biblical interpretative techniques that support the religious traditions.
Unfortunately, these views have a patriarchal view of human relationships which believe in male dominance. Therefore, women are seen to be in an inferior position in relationship with men. This kind of domination is supported by Roman Catholic dogma which is set and interpreted by an all male hierarchy, and for fundamentalism, a patriarchal understanding of the man as the head of the family. Of course, this comes from a particular interpretation of scripture.
So it is no wonder that in a male domination system that men see their role of making decisions for women, even on such intimate matters of choice with regard to reproductive health, which includes contraception. It is why basic science about reproduction is discounted because it does not agree with Biblical interpretation or church dogma.
An illustration of this is the Arch Bishop’s outrage even at the compromise offered by President Obama with regard to health insurance in Catholic institutions which cover contraception. That is why Darrell Issa’s hearing was made up of all men with the elimination of the woman recommended by the minority party. It is why, when Sandra Fluke testified before a forum sponsored by the House Democratic members and stated the need for health insurance that covered contraception at Georgetown University, she was shamefully attacked by Rush Limbaugh. I appreciated the President of Georgetown University saying that even though he disagreed with Ms. Fluke he supported her right to state her views.
The anti science stance of the male domination system, when its power is confronted, is a powerful force. Unfortunately, it will stand against a woman’s right of choice in matters of reproductive health. And because it is informed by fundamentalism it will use various scriptural interpretative techniques sustaining a belief or dogma regardless of scientific reality.
Is there any way out of this? Maybe the outrage against the vile attack of Sandra Fluke by Limbaugh will galvanize men and women to stand for the right of women to make choices about their reproductive health. Perhaps a new paradigm of dialogue between modern science and religious faith will emerge in which the domination system is reformed.
Prayer
O God of all,
who has made us male and female,
we need your help.
We pray that we might exist
for the full humanity of all your people.
Forgive us,
when as men,
we have assumed the power
to make decisions for women
that is theirs to make.
Save us from the sin of arrogance,
where we treat another person
as inferior to us.
O God,
help us when
we get things mixed up
and think
that our interpretation of the Bible
or the dogma we follow
causes us
to deny the new realities
that science teaches us.
Help us to see
that the quest for truth
is both the responsibility
of modern science and religious faith.
O God of wonder,
help us celebrate life.
Be with us when we stand in awe
at the miracle of birth.
Be with women,
discerning their choice
about when to bring life into the world.
Help them with this
awesome responsibility.
And when things don’t go well,
and there is a problem pregnancy,
be with that woman.
We pray that you will be with those
who love and support her.
And if there is a conflict of life with life,
and a pregnancy has to be ended,
be with that woman
and all of those
who feel pain at such a decision..
O God,
infuse us with the power
of your presence,
both men and women,
that we might be faithful
stewards of life,
maturing in the image
and mind of Christ.Amen.