5/04CathRespALL3 Womens Health

User Manual: WomensHealth

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 6

It’s a combination of mys-

tery and serendipity when

what you read, sometimes a

single statement, changes your

life or — more modestly —

changes the way you think

about something. It’s as if that

simple sentence manages to

stop you from fixating on the

individual tree so that you can,

finally, survey the whole forest.

The latter precisely de-

scribes a recent experience of

mine. A statement issued by

the Pontifical Academy of Sci-

ences (PAS) in June of 20031

revolutionized the way I had

formerly been thinking about

a system of women’s health

care called NaProTECH-

NOLOGY (NPT). The Acad-

emy (comprised of distin-

guished scientists from around

the world and appointed by the

Pope) echoed a plea and a chal-

lenge that John Paul II has re-

peatedly extended to scientists

and people of faith. “What is

required more now than ever

before,” the PAS urged, is “a

new humanism,” a new system

of thinking, believing and act-

ing that evolves from and is

nurtured by a conversation

with, rather than opposition

among, science, ethics and

faith.

Women’s Health Care

and the New Humanism

BY SISTER RENÉE MIRKES, O.S.F.

What I want to explore

here is how NPT, this new sci-

ence of women’s health care, is

a prolepsis of the positive soci-

etal impact of a humanistic sci-

ence. In other words, it is an

already-existing model of re-

productive health care that

anticipates bio-medicine’s role

in the new humanism envi-

sioned by the Pope and PAS

membership. NPT was and is

and will be a part of a much

larger movement, of a more for-

midable objective than that of

merely being an example of

how faith and reproductive

medicine can be in harmony.

With its neo-humanist culture,

NPT is, in my opinion, the flag-

ship of natural procreative ini-

tiatives that are, even as you

read, producing the “good fruit”

of a truly human culture where

knowledge, belief and behavior

will be ordered to the good of

present and future generations

of the family of mankind.

To prove my thesis, I want

to explore with you the culture

of NPT from two perspectives:

the vision of its science and the

vision of its faith. Both per-

spectives share one feature in

common: They attest, from dif-

ferent points of view, how the

culture of NPT is a robust re-

The Catholic Response 19

sponse to the call for science,

ethics, and faith to build a new

humanism.

Background

A preliminary definition of

this new science of women’s

health care is the first order of

business. NaProTECHNO-

LOGY (Natural Procreative

TECHNOLOGY) is an emerg-

ing science of women’s health

care developed by Dr. Thomas

W. Hilgers and his colleagues

at the Pope Paul VI Institute

for the Study of Human Repro-

duction. This science of repro-

ductive health care is a com-

plex of medical and surgical

interventions promoting gyne-

cological health that obviates

the need for either reproductive

techniques that exclude mari-

tal intercourse or the prescrip-

tion of oral contraceptives for

therapeutic or contraceptive

purposes. First, it is reproduc-

tive health care that assists

and optimizes, rather than ob-

viates and/or suppresses, the

natural procreative system. It

allows a woman to maintain

her obstetric and gynecological

health and helps couples to

understand and respect the full

psychosomatic truth of their

fertility. Second, it is obstetric

and gynecological medicine

that accurately evaluates and

effectively treats a host of ab-

normalities (whether on an

endocrine or anatomic level)

which could be the causes of

infertility or, in the case of a

pregnant woman, the cause of

miscarriage. Third, it pro-

motes fertility awareness that

enables couples to avoid and

achieve a pregnancy in a way

consonant with the comprehen-

sive meaning of their marital

union.

I. NPT: The Vision

of Its Science

Undergirding and perme-

ating mainstream reproductive

technology is a scientific theory

about the human person and

human procreation. It is a view

freighted with materialism,

pragmatism, progressivism

and individualism. The science

of NPT, in contradistinction,

avoids all of these reductionis-

tic errors. As a result, it dis-

tinguishes itself as a technol-

ogy that is in dialogue with, not

divorced from, ethics and faith.

The resultant contrasts

between mainstream reproduc-

tive science and NPT are, theo-

retically and practically speak-

ing, stark. The science behind

contraception and Assisted Re-

productive Technologies (ARTs)

constitutes scientism; the body

of knowledge that grounds

NPT is genuine science. Logi-

cally, then, the culture of ARTs

and contraception promotes

the “isms” that collectively con-

stitute the old reductionist hu-

manism. The culture of NPT,

in contrast, advances the new

integrated humanism envi-

sioned by the PAS. Let me un-

pack these rather sweeping

20 The Catholic Response

conclusions.

The principal assumption

grounding ARTs is that of a

value-free or morally neutral

science. Moral norms and ethi-

cal values arise not from an

objective source — the nature

of the human person and hu-

man dignity — but from soci-

etal consensus: the culturally

acceptable, ever-shifting indi-

vidualistic preferences that

surface at any given point in

time. Value-free science views

human beings as “the by-prod-

ucts of an evolutionary process”

that has no intrinsic finality.2

People are, by nature, nothing

but material beings, material

entities which lack not only a

moral or spiritual dimension

but that also lack a nature that

desires to know the truth and

to choose the good.

The main premise behind

the reproductive science of

NPT, on the other hand, is

rooted in the imago Dei doc-

trine of Scripture and Tradition

(human beings are created in

the image of God) and the com-

prehensive psychosomatic vi-

sion of the human person to

which it gives shape. Accord-

ingly, God’s purposes for male

and female sexuality are

connatural. Human sexuality

is meant to foster a covenantal

life-giving love between a mar-

ried man and woman, who “by

a mutual personal gift, proper

and exclusive to themselves,”3

mirror God’s own inner, tri-per-

sonal, love-giving life.

Moreover, the anthropo-

logical vision of NPT — the di-

vine plan for our sexually bi-

furcated human race — is not

only discernible by human rea-

son and our human experience

of natural (moral) law but is

also supported by the best

available scientific data. The

law of human nature teaches

(and psychological and socio-

logical studies attest) that,

first, children find a much-

needed security in the knowl-

edge that they were conceived

within acts of their parents’

committed sexual love. Second,

for children to be conceived,

gestated and brought into and

within marriage is important

not just for the well-being of

those children but also for a

healthily functioning familial

and social order. Third, it is

critical to a sound society that

parents who conceive their chil-

dren within a permanent mo-

nogamous marriage are also

supported by public laws that

outline parental responsibili-

ties for those children.

Many infertile couples re-

sort to ART because they see it

as a quick-fix science. It pro-

vides what looks like the most

pragmatically effective way for

them to have their own biologi-

cal child. Moral considerations

within this schematic are pre-

dictable. The choice of in vitro

fertilization, or one of its varia-

tions, is presented as the

“right” choice for two reasons:

It works (it’s pragmatic), and

The Catholic Response 21

it’s ostensibly the most expedi-

tious way of conceiving (it’s use-

ful or utilitarian). And, since a

“good” choice is one that pro-

duces “good” consequences and

maximizes “human happi-

ness,” the pragmatic choice is

thought to be necessarily “ethi-

cal.”

What’s behind a couple’s

choice of NPT, in contrast, is

the conviction that there are

such things as objective truth

and objectively good and bad

choices. To choose well in the

arena of reproductive medicine

is, first, to choose a treatment

or method that fully respects

what is objectively true about

personhood and human fertil-

ity and, second, to choose what

fully respects the couple’s dig-

nity and their procreative ca-

pacities.

I suppose, by way of sum-

mary, you could say that the

science of NPT is a both/and

science. The science of ARTs,

on the other hand, is a reduc-

tionistic, either/or science. Pro-

ponents of ART argue that, for

ART to be a reason-based sci-

ence,4 it must necessarily ex-

clude an appeal to faith. ART’s

designers insist that the em-

pirical observations of reason

and experience are the sole cri-

teria for finding solutions to the

problem of infertility.

But NPT tries to get at the

objective reality of what is be-

ing studied — female fertility,

the complexities of the men-

strual cycle and conception —

through “a subtle combination

of faith and experience, intu-

ition and reason, imagination

and deduction, personal insight

and communal wisdom.”5

Stated differently, while the

radical empiricist science be-

hind ARTs refuses to admit

facts other than those

observationally verifiable, the

science of NPT admits meta-

physical truths. The latter

truths, what John Paul calls

the “realities of the spirit,”

though not able to be viewed

under a microscope, are real

nonetheless and form “part of

the whole truth” about human

fertility and fertility treat-

ments. In short, the science of

NPT necessitates the march of

human reason as it ought to be:

“with [its] eyes fixed on Divine

Revelation.”6

II. NPT: The Vision

of Its Faith

Out of the gate, the single-

most important thing I could

say about the faith vision be-

hind NPT is what it is not. It

is not fideism. That is, the faith

which grounds NPT does not

pit “faith against reason, belief

against knowledge, or religious

experience against critical in-

telligence.”7 The science of

NPT recognizes that faith is

the “great friend of intelli-

gence.”8 The Catholic faith

that inspires NaPro guaran-

tees that the knowledge base

of this reproductive technology

maintains the right relation-

22 The Catholic Response

ship between faith and human

reason as it honors their “au-

tonomy and mutuality.”9 The

faith vision of NPT admits that,

although “science and faith

represent two different orders

of knowledge, autonomous in

their processes,” they converge,

in the end, upon “the discovery

of reality in all its aspects,

which has its origins in God.”10

The vision of the faith behind

NPT links “scientific thought

with man’s power in faith to

seek truth” and “to bring the

whole fullness of human capa-

bilities to realization.”11

As a result, the Catholi-

cism behind NPT has confi-

dence in reason, and its human

intellectual component is open

to Catholic theology. The vi-

sion of its faith puts reason and

faith at the service of the hu-

man family. Hence, it is a faith

that will not deteriorate into

the truncated rationalism typi-

cal of scientism. What’s more,

NPT is not at risk for the temp-

tation that plagues a functional

science like ART: to serve ide-

ology (rather than human-

ity).12

In short, the faith behind

NPT stands in the right rela-

tionship with reason envi-

sioned by the Second Vatican

Council: “If methodological in-

vestigation within every

branch of learning [substitute

“reproductive medicine”] is car-

ried out in a genuinely scien-

tific manner and in accord with

moral norms, it never truly

conflicts with faith. For earthly

matters [substitute “family

planning and infertility”] and

the concerns of faith [substi-

tute “the deeper meaning of

procreation”] derive from the

same God.”13

In sum, the faith vision of

NPT, fully admitting that sci-

ence must work in harmony

with faith, makes an invalu-

able contribution to human

culture and participates fully

in the new humanism.

Codicil

As an old maxim points

out, “The whisper of truth can

have an amazing resonance.”

Proof positive is that, within

the neo-humanist spheres of

NaProTechnology, our national

and international communities

have access to a procreative

culture that celebrates the pri-

ority of ethics over medical

technology, the primacy of the

person over things, and the

superiority of the spirit over

matter. In short, the hallmark

of the new humanism — seiz-

ing the hidden dynamic behind

reality — is interchangeable

with the scientific and cultural

charisms of NaProTechnology.

What an achievement for our

generation and those to come!

What a bold, versatile, and ki-

netic model of procreative

medicine! What woman-

friendly medicine! What a

blessing for society and the

family of humankind!

1 “Statement of the Pontifical

The Catholic Response 23

Academy of Sciences on the Cul-

tural Values of the Natural Sci-

ences,” Zenit, June 17, 2003

(available at zenitenglish@

zenit.org).

2 Luke Gormally, “Luke Gormally

on Human Dignity and Bioeth-

ics—Part I,” Zenit, July 11, 2003

(available at zenitenglish@

zenit.org).

3 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Con-

gregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith, “Considerations Regard-

ing Proposals to Give Legal Rec-

ognition to Unions Between Ho-

mosexual Persons,” # 2 (avail-

able at www.vatican.va).

4 C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) under-

stood that, although scientific

reason is valid, it is not the only

kind of reasoning. He pointed

out that, although “[N]oncon-

tradiction, validity, truth, value,

meaning, purpose, and obliga-

tion” are “necessary presupposi-

tions of the scientific method”

they are “not themselves scien-

tific phenomena.” (M. D.

Aeschliman, “C. S. Lewis on

Mere Science,” First Things 86

[October, 1998]: 17.)

5 Avery Cardinal Dulles, S. J., “Sci-

ence and Theology,” 13.

6 Stanley L. Jaki, O.S.B., Scientist

and Catholic: An Essay on Pierre

Duhem (Front Royal, VA:

Christendom Press, 1991), 278.

7 Richard John Neuhaus, “The

Naked Public Square: The Pas-

sion for Truth: the Way of Faith

and Reason,” First Things 88

[December, 1998]: 73.

8 Pope John Paul II, “Address to

Pontifical Academy of Sciences,”

Origins 13 (November 12, 1984):

542.

9 Neuhaus, “Passion for Truth,” 70.

10 John Paul II, “A Papal Address

on the Church and Science,”

Origins 13 (June 2, 1983): 51.

11 John Paul II, “Science and the

Church: A Dialogue,” Origins 10

(December 4, 1980): 397.

12 Ibid., 396.

13 Gaudium et Spes, # 36 (cited in

“The Collaboration of Science

and Religion,” Origins 21 [Octo-

ber 10, 1991]: 283).

Sister Renée Mirkes, O.S.F., Ph.D.,

serves as the ethics director for the

Pope Paul VI Institute. Please di-

rect any questions about NaPro-

TECHNOLOGY to rmirkes

@creighton.edu.

24 The Catholic Response