Tag Archive | "religion"

Medicine and Religion: Twin Healing Traditions

Tags: , , , ,


Many today might think that religion and medicine are two very different endeavors, that the mere suggestion that religion is relevant to health and healthcare is something new and different. However, this is not true.  What is new and different is the distinct separation of religion from medicine, a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States and that, in some countries, has still not occurred.  Throughout most of recorded history, religion and medicine have been strongly linked together in one way or another and physical disease understood largely in religious or spiritual terms.  Consider the following.

Artifacts from the prehistoric Egyptian period (6,000–5,000 BC) suggest that mental and physical illnesses were not distinguished from one another and both were thought caused by evil spirits, demon possession, or other spiritual forces.  The same was true for Mesopotamian medicine between 3,200–1,025 BC, which was based on a mixture of supernatural and natural explanations for illness.  Treatments were applied through spiritual practices at times and at other times through natural methods involving plant leaves, roots, and mixtures of animal parts. In the Indus Valley civilization (2,300–1,700 BC), the early Hindu priest – who also served the role of physician – performed rituals of dancing, recited incantations, and used amulets in attempts to cure disease. Herbs, liquid potions, and cow by-products were also administered with the hope of relieving mental or physical illness.

While early Greek medicine (350 BC and thereafter) established by Hypocrates focused on achieving a balance of bodily fluids or humors (considered to be scientific medicine), Platonic medicine mixed science with mystical elements and Asclepian medicine treated illness by means of astrology, magic, and herbs.  While private physicians attended the wealthy, most of the common people sought cures through miraculous healing, relied on folk remedies, or after 400 AD, sought help from clergy with medical skills.  Indeed, prior to the Christian era, there were no hospitals for care of the sick in the general population.  During Greek and Roman times, persons unable to afford a private physician or treatment in an Asclepian temple were either cared for by their families or simply left to die unattended.

The first major hospital in western civilization was built in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) around 370 AD by the bishop of Caesarea, Saint Basil the Great.  His actions were motivated by the Biblical injunction to clothe the poor and heal the sick.  Consequently, most physicians throughout the Middle Ages from 400 AD through 1400 AD were monks or priests and care of the poor and sick was provided primarily by clergy.  In the sixth century, mentally ill persons were cared for in monasteries run by the Church, and after the twelfth century, mental patients in Gheel, Belgium, were brought into Christian homes and included in family life.  For centuries later, the Church would continue to be active in caring for the mentally ill, establishing institutions operated by clergy in Spain during the early 1400s.  These hospitals provided exemplary care – care that secular institutions could not match until recent times.  In 1817, the Quakers established the first mental hospital (Friends Asylum) in the United States just outside of Philadelphia, applying “moral treatment” to its patients with remarkable success, and would be the model for care of the mentally ill for the next 150 years in the this country.

After establishing the first hospitals for treatment of the physically ill during the early Middle Ages, the Church would operate and staff most hospitals in the Western world for nearly 1500 years.  In the late Middle Ages, it was the Church that licensed physicians to practice medicine.  With the beginning of the Renaissance period (1400s), however, certification of doctors became a responsibility of the state—heralding a growing separation between medicine and religion.  During the Enlightenment period that followed the Renaissance in Europe, the Church continued to lose more and more control over the health care professions (especially physicians).  The secularization of healthcare was sped up by the spectacular scientific discoveries in the 18th century.  By the end of the French Revolution in 1802, the separation of medicine from religion had become nearly complete.  Medicine and religion would grow more and more separate with time, and as scientific medicine progressed after World War II, religion’s influence soon disappeared (with the exception of hospitals that carried religious names).

The nursing profession, however, was one of the last bastions to give in to secularization.  It was the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul during the 1600s in Europe that organized Catholic nuns to serve as “nurses” caring for the sick in both religious and secular hospitals.  By 1789 there were 426 hospitals run by the Daughters of Charity in France alone, and by early 1800s they had set up the first nursing group in the United States in Emmitsburg, Maryland.  Many religious traditions continued until the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S., including the requirement that nurses live next to the hospital together and could not be married.  In fact, the nurse’s white cap, which was worn by nurses until only recently, is directly descended from the large white winged habits of the Daughters of Charity.

While religion, medicine, and nursing have in modern times become largely separate, there are inklings of change.  In 1990, fewer than five medical schools in the United States taught students about the role that spirituality played in the lives of sick patients. Today, over 90 percent of the 122 U.S. medical schools now have either content in required courses or elective courses on religion, spirituality, and medicine.  Are we now seeing the gap closing between the twin healing traditions of medicine and religion?  What is driving this change?

Do Religion and Compassion Go Hand-in-Hand?

Tags: , , , ,


Are altruistic actions such as volunteering or donating money for good causes related to religious involvement? Are religious people more likely to do this? Moreover, are religious people more likely to show compassion or kindness towards others? In this column I will discuss these questions and examine objective research that has attempted to answer these questions.

Here are some quotes from our national leaders:

“A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful, and restrained. It can afford to extend a helping hand to others. It’s a weak nation, like a weak person, that must behave with bluster and boasting and rashness and other signs of insecurity.” – Jimmy Carter

“The act of neighbor helping neighbor has been one of the distinguishing marks of America and one of the primary causes of our nation’s greatness.” – Ronald Reagan

“From now on in America the true measure of success will have to reflect man’s commitment to his community.” – George W. Bush

Here are some scriptures from the Bible:

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.” (1 John 4:7)

“Above all, love each other deeply.” 1 Peter 4:8

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35

What are some of the ways that people can be altruistic or show love or compassion towards others? One way, as indicated above, is to volunteer time and talents to a serving organization, whether that is a church, a food pantry, an organization that cares for the homeless, disaster relief, mentoring, or another helping group. A second way of demonstrating altruism is by donating money to a non-profit organization that is trying to improve the lives of people, clean up the environment, or advance a worthy cause. Examples include giving money to support a missionary, to help feed the poor in Africa or other under-developed areas, provide micro-loans or jobs to the poor so that they can help themselves, or give scholarships to those who could not otherwise afford an education. A third way might be to show compassion to those who are hurting in some way, perhaps by taking the time to listen, understand, and share similar experiences, provide companionship to the lonely (visit the sick in the hospital or a nursing home), or to simply be polite and courteous to others, whether at work, at home, or on the road. Some of the latter examples, however, are more difficult to measure than time spent volunteering or money donated, since those can be easily quantified and tracked over time.

There are various groups that monitor the donations that people make and the time spent volunteering for community organizations. One of the most active organizations in this regard is the Independent Sector, which published the New Non-Profit Almanac (2002). This book, and their website, contains a lot of objective facts on who volunteers and donates money.  Here are some of those facts. In 1998, 56 percent of Americans volunteered in 1998, providing 20 billion hours of service worth an estimated $226 billion. What do people volunteer for? In 1998, 24 percent volunteered to provide informal services to those in need, 22 percent volunteered for religious organizations, 18 percent for youth development, 17 percent in schools, 16 percent in human services organizations, 11 percent in health areas, 10 percent in work-related organizations and 9 percent each in environmental programs, the arts, and recreation (coaching). Unfortunately, the rate of volunteering in the United States is decreasing. In the late 1980s, Americans who volunteered spent an average of 4.8 hours per week. By 1998, the figure had dropped to 3.5 hours per week.

Religious involvement is related to volunteering. Among those who attended religious services weekly or more frequently, 73 percent volunteer. Those attending religious services at least weekly volunteer an average of 4.0 hours per week compared to 3.2 hours per week for less frequent attendees. Overall, 60 percent of those who belong to a religious organization volunteer, compared to about one-third of those who are religiously unaffiliated. With regard to donating money to non-profit organizations, again it is those who are religious that give the most. In fact, regular attendees at religious services account for an astounding 80 percent of all giving in the United States. Weekly attendees gave 2.8 percent of their incomes in 1998, compared to 1.6 percent for those who attend less than weekly and 1.1 percent for non-attendees. As with volunteering, however, donations of money are also decreasing even among the religious. In 1989, weekly attendees gave 3.8 percent of their incomes to non-profit organizations, whereas in 1998 (a time of unprecedented economic prosperity), they gave only 2.8 percent.

Nevertheless, research consistently shows that religiosity is one of the strongest predictors of volunteering (if not the strongest). In our systematic review of religiosity and altruism/volunteerism (Handbook of Religion and Health, Second Edition, 2012), we found that 70 percent of studies (33 out of 47 systematic studies) found statistically significant positive relationships between the religious involvement and altruism. If organ donation studies are excluded (for some reason, religious persons are slightly less likely to donate organs), the percentage of positive studies increases from 70 percent to 79 percent. The same is true for expressions of kindness/compassion and gratefulness, although in this case, the research is unanimous. In our systematic review above, eight studies (5 on gratefulness and 3 on compassion/kindness) examined relationships with religiosity. Every single study (100 percent) reported significant positive associations.

Based on the objective evidence that is available, it does indeed appear that religious involvement is associated with more altruism, compassion, and kindness, whether that involves donation of money, time spent volunteering, or otherwise seeking to provide care to others. This is not terribly surprising, given the emphasis placed on such actions by many different religious traditions – especially Christianity. According to Jesus, loving one’s neighbor as oneself is second only to loving and serving God, and as we care for others, we are literally caring for Christ himself (Matthew 22:38-39; 25:40). Tremendous needs exist in the world around us both locally and more distant. There is little doubt that it is often the religious people who are meeting those needs.

Archbishop Donald Wuerl and the World

Tags: , , ,


[Yesterday was] the day we [ran] our full-page ad in the Washington Times weekly edition. It is a full-color ad in which we pay tribute to the 16 Catholic bishops who have chosen to protect Christ from sacrilege by enforcing Church law, specifically Canon 915.

In the ad, we ask Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. when he will join with these bishops. We have to presume from past statements and actions that the archbishop does not plan to do so any time soon; yet the question is a valid one. As Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis wrote in January 2007, 

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington recently told journalist Allyson Smith that he would not discipline nor deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, nor to other Catholic politicians who promote and legislate procured abortion.

Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient to say that many opportunities have presented themselves to the archbishop to not only enforce Canon 915, but to instruct his priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to do likewise. Such an action has not occurred.

The purpose of this column is to explain why we persist in this campaign and why our actions should not be perceived as disrespectful or otherwise antagonistic toward Catholic bishops. Quite the contrary is the case, as my comments will show.

Perhaps you have not read this particular canon before, so I will quote it for you:

Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, [emphasis added] are not to be admitted to holy communion.

We pursue this project of asking Catholic bishops, priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to enforce this Church law specifically because numerous pro-abortion Catholic public figures, politicians, media types and so forth are scandalizing the faithful. They do so by being permitted to receive the body of Christ despite exhibiting obstinate persistence in the manifest grave sin of publicly supporting abortion.

As one Catholic wrote recently on Father John Zuhlsdorf’s blog, 

Senator Lisa Murkowski was listed as a guest of honor in the program for the Red Mass in Anchorage last Sunday, attended by Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, OMI. Lisa voted for the infamous “Harkin Amendment,” proclaiming the “sense of the senate” that Roe v. Wade is a wonderful decision and should be the law of the land. Thank God, she wasn’t able to attend and profane the Eucharist. Nonetheless, the impression left with the congregation was that if you publicly endorse abortion, you too can still be a guest of honor at a Red Mass, of all occasions.

The sentiments expressed in this comment expose the problem of not protecting Christ from sacrilege. The notion is created that pro-abortion Catholics in public life really aren’t in direct conflict with Church teaching. And yet, the fact is that they are not only in conflict, but their souls are in grave jeopardy. Regardless of what your opinion may be on Catholic teaching, the fact is that for any Catholic who claims to be a practicing Catholic, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act that is always and in every case wrong. No Catholic should support the murder of the innocent and yet they do so with abandon, and few ordained priests and deacons remind them of the gravity of their public position by denying the body of Christ to them. This too is a scandal.

American Life League does not focus attention on Canon 915 because we disrespect Catholic bishops; on the contrary, we do this because we believe sincerely that the purpose of Canon 915 is two-fold. Enforcement of this Church law protects the body of Christ and helps to teach the errant public figure that his actions are an offense to God and he must repent in order to return to full communion with the Church. 

For these two reasons alone, we cannot understand why all 260-plus Catholic bishops have not united in a position of solidarity to protect Christ from sacrilege. And by sacrilege I do not mean to suggest that we at American Life League are sitting in judgment of others’ intentions. Quite the contrary. If one examines the public record of any of these Catholic supporters of abortion, it is crystal clear that they endorse this crime against humanity while knowing full well that it conflicts with Church teaching, not to mention the commandment of God: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Deacon John Giglio states in his Deacon for Life blog,

Were there to be no support in the whole history of ethical and moral thought, were there no acknowledged confirmation from medical science, were the history of legal opinion to the contrary, we would still have to conclude on the basis of God’s Holy Word that the unborn child is a person in the sight of God. He is protected by the sanctity of life graciously given to each individual by the Creator, Who alone places His image upon man and grants them any right to life which they have.

It is an undeniable fact that there is a human being in the womb during pregnancy; if it were otherwise, why would anyone promote, support, fund or acquire an abortion?

The presence of that baby in the womb, Fallopian tube or test tube is as real as is the presence of Christ in Holy Eucharist. It therefore makes perfect sense that just as the Catholic Church teaches that there is never a reason to abort a child, so too there should never be a reason to permit sacrilege against the truly present body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And yet it continues, day in and day out.

But we are not disheartened. We know that defending the truth does not resound well with many, but the accusations that we are divisive or judgmental cannot deter us. In fact, we welcome it all as we continue to defend the preborn and the real presence of Christ.

As Archbishop Raymond Burke wrote last year,

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.