Like many contemporary ethical dilemmas revolving around religion, this question pitting patients’ interests against religious conviction presumes a fault line or dualism, characteristic of modernity, which has now led us into what T. S. Eliot called a wasteland. It is hard to believe that just a few hundred years ago the great philosophers, theologians and religious figures like Maimonides were also the era’s greatest doctors. And it would have been unimaginable to them that patients’ interests (to be cured) and God’s desires (to choose life) could conflict. No wonder, that well into this century, this sensibility was expressed by many like my grandparents who saw doctors as gods!

The explosive advances in medicine since the enlightenment were to a great extent dependent on the differentiation (Kant) between the knowledge spheres of science and religion, and the emergence of scientific and empirical methods to study the body. This healthy differentiation became, over the centuries, an unhealthy separation and even antagonism between medicine and religion with the unfortunate consequence of medicine seemingly always associated with pushing the limits (a good thing) and religion seemingly always being associated with holding the line (a bad thing). The fact that this question feels so pressing reflects the failure of both physicians and religious leadership to understand their respective expertise’s, roles, limits, and to ultimately see the patient as a whole human being.

Continue »

In recent weeks Pope Benedict XVI has unnerved liberal Catholics as well as many Protestants and Jews with two pronouncements. The first removed restrictions on celebrating the old Latin Mass which since Vatican II has been replaced by a more accessible version of this core Catholic rite. The second pronouncement reasserted that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true church through which salvation can be achieved. Many people, both within and outside the Catholic community, are perplexed and apprehensive that the Pope is taking the Church back to its exclusivist and even intolerant pre-Vatican II days.

But perhaps something very different is transpiring. Anyone familiar with Pope Benedict’s work knows that while he is indeed a deeply traditional thinker he is not some pre-modern religious fanatic. He is a genuine intellectual and theologian. Strikingly, in these pronouncements, he repeatedly points out that these decisions are “continuous with Vatican II” and that he remains “deeply committed to ecumenical dialogue” and the “mutual openness” necessary for such dialogue to be “truly constructive”. As if to make clear that he not be misunderstood regarding these commitments, the Pope approved the document on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

Continue »

At different moments in my life different passages have spiritually defined and pushed me to grow. In these days of nasty religious polarization and culture wars, the passage that most animates my life is a passage from the Talmud, the classic Jewish wisdom text, describing the intense debates between two ancient philosophers and theologians Hillel and Shammai, who lived during the time of Jesus.

Each had his own academy and approach, much like contemporary think tanks or schools that differ philosophically, religiously, and politically. The schools of Hillel and Shammai disagreed on just about everything – from how to ensure economic justice to the nature of our deepest, most committed and loving relationships, from how to treat the other to what it means to sincerely be part of a community, from how to transform ordinary time into sacred time to how to increase light and meaning in the world.

One might think that clear decisions would be necessary given the weightiness of these matters but rather than provide answers or simple rules to follow, the Talmud invites us into the debates and reveals the multiple and contradictory perspectives at the heart of all genuine disagreements.

Continue »