Blog

Contending Modernities article

A Muslim Response to Pope Francis’s Environmental Encyclical: Laudato Si’


Pope Francis’s environmental encyclical Laudato Si’: On Care For Our Common Home, which was officially released on 18 June 2015, is undoubtedly one of the most important interventions in twenty first century campaigns for environmental justice. It is not surprising that the 184-page document, released in eight languages, took more than 18 months to draft. This second papal encyclical by Pope Francis has already had a significant impact on shifting the global debate in favour of those who advocate that humanity should act with greater care for our common home. This was clearly in evidence at the discussions that took place at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) which convened in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015.

Moreover, Laudato Si’ has had a ripple effect within the interfaith community. The imminent release of Laudato Si’ inspired the issuing of a statement in June by more than 330 rabbis in a Rabbinic Letter on the Climate Crisis. Laudato Si’ no doubt also inspired the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change released in Istanbul in August 2015.

I concur with Muslim scholars such as Joseph Lumbard, Anas Malik and Ibrahim Ozdemir, who have each engaged with Laudato Si’, that the important themes in Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment resonates well with the teachings of Islam. Here I would like to highlight only two of them.

First and foremost, one of the most significant aspects of Laudato Si’ is that it frames the issue of environmental conservation within a framework of justice. Laudato Si’ is a document about justice with a focus on the environment, rather than the other way around. Pope Francis sees the issue of climate change through the eyes of the poor and this is the key hermeneutic or interpretive lens. In other words, the pontiff wants the economic, social and environmental world orders to be fairer to the poorest of humanity.

Laudato Si’ criticizes consumerist, profit-seeking economies, and emphasizes acute sensitivity to debt, inequality, and poverty, and suggests differentiated responsibilities based on wealth and ability. Compassion and justice require voices to speak up for the most vulnerable and marginalized – those often left voiceless, those who have been pushed into poverty, those who have been denied access to food, water and other basic human rights, those who stand to suffer the most from climate change, while having contributed the least to the problem. The social, economic and environmental dimensions cannot be considered in isolation, but should be treated integrally as a complex joint crisis. These social justice concerns resonate fully with the teachings of Islam.

It is most eloquently depicted in the Glorious Qur’an in Surah al-Rahman, chapter 55, verses 7-9, where God, the Lord of Compassionate Justice, proclaims:

God has raised the cosmos,
And set up (for all things) the balance.
So do not transgress the balance.
Weigh, therefore, (your deeds) with justice,
And cause no loss in the balance!

From an Islamic perspective, the environmental crisis facing humanity today can be viewed as a symptom of a deeper spiritual malaise. This spiritual malaise has come about through extravagant and consumerist lifestyles that have transgressed the balance between humans and nature. An imbalance or altering of the mizan (balance) has taken place at the individual, social and global levels and this is now being reflected in the environmental crisis. Moreover, it is significant to note that in the above verses of the Qur’an the balance can only be restored if humans act with justice and equity (qist).

A second novel theme that Laudato Si’ takes up is that of acknowledging the existential rights of those with whom we share this planet—namely animals and plants etc.—and, more importantly, recognizing their spiritual essence. In the sixth chapter of the encyclical, Pope Francis writes that humanity can “discover God in all things.” Hence, the pontiff asserts, “there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face.”(No. 233)

Interestingly, in order to drive home and substantiate this point, in footnote 159 of the encyclical, Pope Francis credits a ninth century Muslim Sufi mystic Amir al-Khawas for the concept of nature’s “mystical meaning.” In his novel theological perspective Amir al-Khawas was obviously inspired by the abundance of Qur’anic verses that depict the natural environment in this manner. The Muslim scholar, Joseph Lumbard in his response to Laudato Si’ has provided the following striking examples of Qur’anic verses wherein God affirms the spiritual essence of our natural environment. The Qur’an proclaims, “whatsoever is in the heavens and on the earth glorifies God” (59:1; 61:1; 62:1; 64:1). “The stars and the trees prostrate” (55:6), “the thunder hymns His praise” (13:13), and “unto God prostrates whosoever is in the heavens and whosoever is on the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, and the beasts” (22:18). In these and many other verses, the whole of creation is presented as a Divine symphony, for “there is no thing, save that it hymns His praise, though you do not understand their praise. Truly He is Clement, Forgiving.” (Q17:44)”

According to Argentinian priest Father Augusto Zampini, “it is certainly unusual for a Pope to cite a Muslim Mystic in support of his theology of environmental transcendence, but for those who have known Pope Francis since his days in the slums of Argentina this shows his personal touch on the encyclical.” By quoting Amir al-Khawas, Fr. Zampini argues Pope Francis is “inviting all human beings to transcend, to go out of themselves and therefore to improve the relationship that we have with other people, with the Earth, with God.” Moreover, Fr. Zampini contends that through his citing of a Muslim Mystic “Pope Francis is trying to foster ecumenical and interfaith dialogue about shared spirituality”. Such a view is confirmed by the following quote from Laudato Si where Pope Francis emphasizes the importance of interconnectedness and shared spirituality; “Everything is connected. Concern for the environment this needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.” (No. 240)

In conclusion, it is my considered view that through Laudato Si’ Pope Francis has inaugurated another constructive platform for credible faith and secular leaders to enter into renewed dialogue on the critical question of climate change and discuss ways in which we can bring ourselves closer to living in harmony and reverence with nature. Moreover, by locating such a conversation within the broader framework of Pope Francis’s theology of compassion for the poor, which offers a powerful social critique of our global culture of consumerism, covetousness, and opulence – interreligious dialogue should find even greater resonance among Muslims.

It is my sincere hope that more Muslim scholars will take up the dialogical challenge presented in Laudato Si’ in a comparable spirit of reverence and hospitality with which the twelfth century Muslim leader, Sultan al-Kamil, welcomed Saint Francis of Assisi from whom the current Pope takes his name. Muslims can and should engage substantively with Laudato Si’ in order to build broad solidarity with meaningful global commitments for the collective good, through responsible stewardship of the earth.

*English translations of the Qur’anic verses are the authors own.

Leave a Comment on A Muslim Response to Pope Francis’s Environmental Encyclical: Laudato Si’ Array
A. Rashied Omar
A. Rashied Omar earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and an M.A. in peace studies from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where he is now a core faculty member. Omar’s research and teaching focus on the roots of religious violence and the potential of religion for constructive social engagement and interreligious peacebuilding. He is co-author with David Chidester et al. of Religion in Public Education: Options for a New South Africa (UCT Press, 1994), a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding (Oxford University Press, 2015), and a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Macmillan Reference USA, 2016). In addition to being a university-based researcher and teacher, Omar serves as Imam (religious minister) at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, and an advisory board member for Critical Investigations into Humanitarianism in Africa.
Contending Modernities article

The Challenge of Updating Archaic Doctrine


Contending Modernities co-director Ebrahim Moosa’s recently published op-ed in the Washington Post, My madrassa classmate hated politics. Then he joined the Islamic State, provides a timely case study of a successful South African imam’s unlikely immigration to Syria to join the Islamic State. Reflecting on the way that Rashid Moosagie “surrendered the orthodox commitment about which he had exhorted me [in his years as a madrassa student] and adopted the very idea he had mocked: a toxic version of political Islam on steroids”, Moosa rues the failure of mainstream Islam to diffuse the theologically toxic doctrines which are used as a platform of legitimacy and recruitment for extremist groups.

The theme of Islamic orthodoxy’s “archaism in theology and ethics”, and the need for “new interpretations of Islamic law based on current realities”, was expounded upon in Moosa’s Orlando Sentinel op-ed, Update of archaic doctrine should accompany censure, last week. Moosa decries “the absence of serious efforts to replace troublesome doctrines” — a major factor hindering the success of strategies designed to combat extremism — arguing that “when idolatry of method is identical to the truth, then it promises the forfeiture of meaningful ethical outcomes.” Therefore, the project to “restore moral common sense in Muslim moral philosophy and theology”, Moosa argues, should be a priority in long-term efforts to address the extremism of the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

Leave a Comment on The Challenge of Updating Archaic Doctrine Array
Ebrahim Moosa
Ebrahim Moosa is Mirza Family Professor of Islamic Thought and Muslim Societies in Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs and Department of History. He co-directs Contending Modernities with Atalia Omer and Scott Appleby. Moosa’s interests span both classical and modern Islamic thought with a special focus on Islamic law, history, ethics and theology. He is the author of Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination, winner of the American Academy of Religion’s Best First Book in the History of Religions (2006), and What is a Madrasa? (2015).
Field Notes article

Historicity and Discursivity, Religious and Secular: Responding to the Rome Conference 2015


Religious and secular traditions are both historical and discursive. By this, I mean that they develop over time in response to internal and external debates, and they react to contestations and pressures.

Because of this historicity and discursivity of religious and secular traditions, we should be mindful of our human fallibility. We are limited in our capacities to render a full and final conception of something as complex as the human person.

Such epistemological humility is often missing from both secular and religious accounts of the human person. Exegetes of these traditions are embedded within certain social imaginaries and it is through these frames that they engage the resources of their tradition. By calling for discursivity, I mean to stress the internal pluralities within traditions, pluralities that are at times in tensions with elite and official articulations of norms. I also mean to highlight ways of negotiating competing values and influences, as well as allowing extra-traditional resources (such as human rights) to influence processes of self-interrogation and innovation from within the tradition. Rather than fixating on the authority of past authorities and their social imaginaries, the discursive approach negotiates conceptions of the human person by way of historicizing and complexly rereading the tradition.

The poetry of Muhammad Iqbal provides one entry point to this modest epistemological contention with the question of the sources authorizing the human person. Iqbal believed that the Qur’an invites readers to full self-consciousness, to a spirituality that is deeply embedded in human self-realization. For Iqbal, to realize one’s selfhood is akin to one’s resurrection.

Turning to my call for epistemological humility and for discursivity clearly raises challenges to secular scientism as well as related secular reductive accounts of the human person. There is an overlap in my position with the position pursued by my colleagues Charlie Camosy and Maura Ryan. My position, however, also challenges the inclination of some religious respondents to contend with this type of secularity by offering a reactionary reification of past religious authorities by deploying past social imaginaries as a panacea to the present. I am agnostic about such mechanistic approaches. I will be more comfortable with a deep and organic discursive engagement with the past as I do in my book, Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination.

This line of critical engagement with the past opens up the possibility for certain forms of self-interrogation on the part of religious traditions. Accordingly, the operative mode in which contending with modernities proceeds is not antagonistic, but rather one that is potentially mutually transformative, in terms of both religious and secular discursive traditions. Talal Asad in his work clearly acknowledges this kind of mutual transformation.

This mutually transformative angle likewise facilitates the related possibility of interrogating religious resources as more than a countercultural force for good. Often religious discourses stand on the margins of ever-increasing mechanization and autonomization of the person within hegemonic secular discourses driven by economistic discursivities and their related social imaginaries. This secular and reductive challenge requires a response from religious traditions that is non-reactionary. This lends itself to a contextualized hermeneutical analysis that is internally consistent and historically relevant and that relates to norms of pluralism and human rights as a cross-cultural discursive secular tradition.

Viewing religious and secular traditions historically and discursively requires that we engage the normativity of secularist humanisms and their interpretations of human flourishing and self-fulfillment. By pursuing this line of discursivity we then have a better possibility of developing more robust normative accounts that engage not only with the riches of our religious traditions but also profit and better understand the plural but normatively informed commitments of our secular interlocutors.

 

Array
Ebrahim Moosa
Ebrahim Moosa is Mirza Family Professor of Islamic Thought and Muslim Societies in Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs and Department of History. He co-directs Contending Modernities with Atalia Omer and Scott Appleby. Moosa’s interests span both classical and modern Islamic thought with a special focus on Islamic law, history, ethics and theology. He is the author of Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination, winner of the American Academy of Religion’s Best First Book in the History of Religions (2006), and What is a Madrasa? (2015).
Deadly Violence & Conflict Transformation article

On Religion and Violence


The rise of ISIL and the so-called Islamic State in 2014 has given prominence to discussions of religious violence in the media, with much emphasis placed on questions of the relationship between Islam and violence. In his speech to the nation on 10 September 2014, President Obama restated his longstanding view that no one who commits violent atrocities in the name of religion can be considered an authentic believer. Similarly, Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium affirms that in the face of “disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” Others, however, have responded negatively to such statements, citing, violence in the Qur’an, religious leaders who have promoted violence, and contemporary and historical cases of religious violence linked to Islam.

While I think that no one can judge who is an authentic or non-authentic believer, I also tend to disagree with the latter view, which seems to lean towards a deterministic account of the relation between religion—in this specific case Islam—and violence. The succinct reflections I am about to draw follow from a study that Ron Hassner and I have conducted over the years on Jewish violence.

To begin with, our thesis contrasts with three views that prevail among students of religious violence.  First, those who adopt a deterministic view see violence as inherent in the very institution of religion and traceable to its deep structure and primordial essence.  This view trivializes historical circumstances and leaves actors with little to no agency.  A second group of scholars attribute a violent core to particular religious traditions.  They distinguish between inherently peaceful religious movements and inherently violent ones.  The devotees of the latter are said to be doomed to violence by the immanent nature of their religion. Third, those who adopt a quasi-Marxist or instrumentalist view see religion as an infinitely flexible tool at the disposal of rational agents who engage in violence for practical reasons. In this account, religion is epiphenomenal—a medium for strategic or materialist motives.

In contrast to the static and reductionist theories above, our approach emphasizes the dialectical nature of violence in a religious tradition.  We do not view religion as fully constraining.  Actors engage in a constant evaluation, selection, and reinterpretation of religious ideas from an ever-growing reservoir and, in so doing, contribute to that reservoir.  At the same time, we do not envision believers as cynical and opportunistic actors, unconstrained in exploiting religious tradition at will, distorting and undermining its content as they see fit.  Instead, we view religious tradition as both adaptable and bounded.  Though its boundaries may change gradually over time in response to the choices agents make, they also place limits on what these agents can justify at any point in time.

Our intention is not to depict Judaism, Christianity or Islam as violent traditions.  Nor is it our intention to portray any of the above traditions as non-violent.  The reality is far more complex, as it is in all religious traditions.  Religious tradition includes an abundance of material that has clearly violent implications, but also a profusion of materials that support a non-violent ethic.  Religious motifs are as apparent in the past and present struggle against violence as they are in justifying such violence.  Most contemporary believers have no violent tendencies. In today’s world, not only are there religious movements dedicated to opposing violence but several of the most prominent members of the peace camp justify their conciliatory, moderate, compassionate and dovish positions by means of religious ethics and base their resistance to aggression on sacred texts.

Religious violence is, firstly, violence sponsored or performed by individuals or groups who self-define and are identified by those around them as religious. Secondly, these actors account for their violence in a religious language, invoking religious symbols and referencing religious norms and values.

Tradition, including religious tradition, is a reservoir of ideas and symbols, norms and values, information and moods, handed down from generation to generation and stored in written and oral texts or objects, available for contemporary cultural, social or political use. Past tradition is not just a fixed rigid body—a fossil—imposing itself on passive present consumers of tradition. It is a vital and open-ended organism that lends itself to a wide variety of understandings and manipulations.

The Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions ingeniously preserved a harmony among countless interpretations, homilies, metaphors, sayings, ethical teachings, legends, and stories, which together constituted the material contained within the sacred texts. This included a fair amount of categorical, embellished, and provocative statements which, in their wider contexts, were considered acceptable despite their problematic nature.  With the help of irony and historical perspective, these putatively ridiculous, bizarre, offensive or violent materials could be assimilated tolerably without causing any damage.  Moreover, religious tradition tended to view many passages from the multi-layered Scriptures as general ethical teachings or abstract pedagogical lessons rather than as directives for uncompromising activities or as the foundations of specific political agendas.

All these canonical texts provided a wealth of ideas that proved crucial in the tradition’s survival.  They can be said to contain everything:  Arguments, on all their variants, including their opposites.  This includes an abundance of materials that support violence and an abundance of materials that oppose it.  In other words, this reservoir, limited but large, could be harnessed by a wide range of ideological leanings or historical requirements.  It could legitimate a vast array of interests and moral stances by providing them with a “traditional” authority.

Contemporary users of tradition are not traditional but traditionalist, which means that they can view tradition from a self-conscious, voluntary, selective, adjustive and creative stance.  The traditionalist project confronts tradition with an attitude that ranges from conservation to innovation. Naturally traditionalists that harness tradition to achieve their objectives tend to repudiate its inventive and adaptable nature and have uncompromising pretensions of faithfully returning the present to what they grasp as the authentic representation of the past.

Contrary to its self and public image, present-day religiosity, including the varieties of Orthodoxy, is not traditional but traditionalist. Modern text-centered Jews, Christians and Muslims, like many other traditionalists, rummage through the tremendous archives of their past, choose an existing principle—often subterranean or marginal—and bring it to the surface, to center stage.  This can represent a change in emphases and degrees of legitimization, wrought by presenting a principle outside of its original context in which it might have been balanced or restrained by others.

In the traditional past, textual interpretations were flexible, variegated and had various layers and streams, sometimes contradictory, that, nonetheless, coexisted side by side.  This is what gave religious tradition a richness that facilitated its endurance and customization to individuals, groups and situations.  The traditionalists lost something of this Darwinian survivalist potential due to their proclivity for selective, unambiguous, and obligatory interpretation.  Materials which were “soft” in their original contexts were hardened by the present-day Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. Legendary materials were transformed at a stroke into theological principles or authoritative commandments.  Believers in pursuit of inspiration and legitimation for their violent tendencies singled out a certain idea out of the many contained in the storehouse of their religion, adopted it and genuinely adhered to it as if it were the embodiment of the only consistent and pure Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

In hindsight, it can be hard to distinguish elements that expressed a purely religious rationale to begin with, from elements that were grounded in a social, political, or economic rationale, but that gradually assumed a religious status. It was a testimony to a realistic and responsible reading of history and a manifestation of adaptability to real-political constraints in its original context, that turned into an a priori religious principle, binding under all circumstances.

In the last two generations, some of these very same categorical imperatives were interpreted anew in a way that turned their practical implications on their head. Radical changes in historical circumstances allowed new understandings of the sacred legacy, particularly with regard to religious violent activism, that were in fact a resuscitation of long-forgotten interpretations.

Leave a Comment on On Religion and Violence Array
Gideon Aran
Gideon Aran is professor of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research focuses on the social scientific study of religion as well as extremism, militancy and violence. His most recent academic publications focus on Jewish religious violence, religiosity and super-religiosity. Aran was a visiting fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies for the Fall 2014 semester, where he conducted analysis of an extensive field study of terrorism in Israel/Palestine (forthcoming, University of California Press).
Authority, Community & Identity article

Call for Research Proposals: Contending Modernities Working Group on Indonesia


munim
Contending Modernities, an interdisciplinary research and education initiative based at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, is currently developing a working group on Indonesia focusing on the theme of Authority, Community and Identity. The working group will explore and analyze the complex relationships between the various contending authorities, communities and identities that have shaped, and been shaped by, religious life at both the societal and state levels.

Call for Proposals

Contending Modernities invites scholars, experts and activists to submit research proposals that explore the conditions for the possibility of peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic and religious communities in Indonesia, through a wide range of engagement with religious and secular forces. Here, coexistence is understood not simply as peacefully living side by side, but as involving some degree of interaction and cooperation across the lines of religious and ethnic divisions. Recognizing the complexity inherent within diverse social contexts, and that the conditions that make peaceful co-existence possible could vary from one place to another, we aim to focus on possibilities as a lens by which coexistence in intricate social contexts can be better understood. To this end, the working group will examine and analyze the possibilities of conflict transformation, peacebuilding and peacekeeping in both post-conflict and relatively long-held peaceful societies, assessing and evaluating a wide range of efforts and activities undertaken by various actors to build and maintain peace.

We are especially interested in research that (1) investigates how various religious (Muslim and Christian) and secular forces collaborate, contend, negotiate, and at times compete with one another, both within and across traditions, and (2) pays a close attention to local voices, perspectives and questions about what makes peaceful coexistence possible in such a complex intersection between contending authorities, communities and identities. The thematic focus on peaceful coexistence can also be seen as a lens through which the changing dynamics of authority, community and identity in Indonesia can be addressed, for “who prevails” in this contention and contestation will have major impacts on how religious diversity and freedom are managed in Indonesia.

Researchers whose proposals are selected will form the core team of the Indonesian working group and will engage in research, colloquium, conferences and the production of publications throughout the duration of the 3-year project.

Key Issues

Possible key issues may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • The state management of religion
  • Changing dynamics in majority-minority relations
  • Muslim-Christian relations: Confrontation and cooperation
  • Contending authorities, communities and identities in post-conflict societies
  • Religious radicalization and its impact on the family (especially on youth and/or women)
  • Pluralism and ethno-religious conflicts
  • Resisting religious radicalism through peace education

In developing a research proposal on any of the above themes, researchers are encouraged to consider the following guiding questions: What makes peaceful coexistence possible in the modern context? How will the research address in one way or the other the changing dynamics of authority, community and identity in Indonesia?

Proposal Requirements

Each proposal (2,000 words) shall consist of the following:

Research Outlook:

  • What is the project’s working title?
  • What are the main research questions that you wish to explore?
  • How is your research proposal relevant to the main themes of authority, community, and identity?
  • What research has been carried out on the proposed theme and what needs to be explored further?

Research Methodology:

  • How do you envisage conducting the research?
  • How will data be collected?
  • What research activities will be conducted? (Field research, workshops, focus group discussions, etc.)
  • What methodological and ethical considerations need to be explored?

Deliverables:

  • What kind of products do you expect to produce? (e.g. Scholarly products such as monographs, journal articles; curricular materials; accessible writing for a wider audience; scholarship in service of the people)
  • How do you envisage managing and overseeing the successful production of deliverables? 

Timeline:

  • Please provide a detailed three-year timeline

Budget:

  • Please provide a detailed budget for the research project

Important Dates:

  • Deadline for submission of research proposal: December 15, 2014
  • Notification of selection/acceptance: January 2015
  • Confirmation of participation: February 2015
  • First meeting at Notre Dame: April 16-17, 2015

Contact:
Please contact Mun’im Sirry with any questions and for further information.

Mun’im Sirry
1135 Flanner Hall
University of Notre Dame, IN 46556
USA

Email: msirry@nd.edu;
Phone: 1(574)631-1796

 

Leave a Comment on Call for Research Proposals: Contending Modernities Working Group on Indonesia Array
Mun’im Sirry
Contending Modernities article

Islam, Catholicism and Modernity: Evangelii Gaudium and Muslim-Christian Dialogue


Christian-Muslim relations have followed a sinuous path throughout the centuries. At times they have provided reason for hope, and at others they have encountered stumbling blocks in the path to mutual understanding. While the Second Vatican Council seemed to pave the way to a more accepting and opening dialogue, Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech, and the baptism of an Egyptian journalist who converted from Islam, were perceived as provocation in interreligious dialogue circles, but received support from some.

In this context, the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium is presented on both sides as a new step in the history of Christian-Muslim understanding. In his response, focusing on the section of the exhortation entitled “Social dialogue as a contribution to peace” (paragraphs 238 to 258), Dr. A. Rashied Omar underlines Pope Francis’ specific commitment to dialogue and the fact that he has earned “popular admiration” among Muslims, in contrast to Pope Benedict XVI whose relationship with Islam and Muslims was viewed as far more troubled.

While the goals and values of Christianity and Islam seem to be wide and disparate, there are frequent points of convergence. Pope Francis highlights the Catholic traditional concepts of the common good, integral development (paragraph 240), natural law, the supreme value of the human person at every stage of life (paragraph 242), ethical commitment (paragraph 252), the social dimension of the Gospel message (paragraph 258), and liberation and promotion of the poor (paragraph 187). Dr. Omar highlights references to genuine morality, work on the roots of violence, and social critiques of our global culture of consumerism, covetousness, and opulence.

Along with Pope Francis (paragraph 253), Dr. Omar acknowledges that the religious freedom of Christian minorities is “a matter of grave concern which urgently needs to be taken up more honestly and robustly”. Moreover, he notes that Pope Francis has made his plea for the rights of Christian minorities in countries of Islamic tradition in a “judicious and sensitive manner”, while at the same time expressing the need for Christians to embrace Muslim immigrants in Europe with affection and respect.

Notwithstanding these lines of understanding, it is possible to notice some gaps in the discourse used by Pope Francis and Dr. Omar vis-à-vis the secular world and, in particular, the modern right to freedom of conscience.

Neither Pope Francis nor Dr. Omar makes reference to the right of freedom of conscience, which was mentioned in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) along with freedom of worship and freedom to choose one’s religion. Significantly, it is not mentioned in the Apostolic Exhortation. Perhaps the concern that freedom of conscience might be interpreted as the freedom to pursue “purely individual religious experiences” (paragraph 254), or that it might pave the way to “atheistic immanentism” is behind this silence. This has been a constant fear within the Catholic magisterium, which generally differentiates freedom from civil coercion in matters of religion on the one hand, and freedom from religion on the other.

Dr. Omar understands the “moral standard of tolerance, dialogue and compassion” set in the Qur’an (22:40), as necessary to uphold the rights of a legal minority to freedom of worship.  He also calls for leaders to overcome the prevailing interpretation of the Islamic law on apostasy, mentioning the efforts of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. However, he overlooks the fact that the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, remains the reference for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—specifically Article 10 which states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature (fitra). It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.” This Article fails to recognize the right to convert, in as much as it lacks a proper foundation in man’s freedom of conscience.  The recent debate in the Tunisian National Assembly—particularly regarding Article 6, with its focus on the State’s commitment to the protection of the sacred, and the prohibition of any offense thereto—proved that legislating for freedom of conscience in some Muslim majority countries can be still a stumbling block.

Until now, representatives of Islam and Catholicism have allowed this important issue, which has important anthropological implications, to remain in the shadows. The anthropology underneath “freedom of conscience” and “religious freedom” is not exactly the same, and ought to be differentiated. Freedom of religion presupposes a notion of the human as a naturally religious being, who is inclined by nature to believe in and worship God. Some Islamic scholars go as far as saying that mankind is by his or her own nature (fitra) Muslim.  Freedom of conscience, on the other hand, presupposes an idea of the human as a thinking being, with no such natural proclivity toward belief in God. It allows for the possibility for man to believe or not to believe.

Leave a Comment on Islam, Catholicism and Modernity: Evangelii Gaudium and Muslim-Christian Dialogue Array
Dominique Avon
Dominique Avon  is Professor of Modern History at the Université du Maine, France. In 2014, he was a visiting scholar at the University of Akron, Ohio. Specializing in the History of 20th Century Religion, he has taught in Egypt (1992-1994) and in Lebanon (2004-2005). He runs the international network HEMED.  Avon is the author of Hezbollah: A History of the “Party of God”, (Harvard University Press, 2012) with A-T. Khatchadourian.
Contending Modernities article

A New Beginning


Evangelii Gaudium goes beyond merely providing an introduction to interreligious dialogue from the perspective of the new “Poverello” of Rome, Pope Francis. It is, and I feel sure of this, an emphatic proposal for interreligious dialogue to be reframed as a duty for religious communities, and an essential condition to the establishment and maintenance of peace in the world.

Dialogue as a Duty

Pope Francis’ choice of words in paragraph 250 of his Apostolic Exhortation is of particular importance:

“Interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as for other religious communities”. (250)

In his inaugural official teaching to present and future generations of the Church, Pope Francis’ conclusion that interreligious dialogue “is a duty”, and an imperative for peace is quite simply revolutionary as it posits interreligious dialogue as a responsibility and obligation for Christians and other religious communities alike. Such a statement provides firm grounding for future discourses on interreligious dialogue by explicitly emphasizing its necessity, and moving it from the realm of a few committed experts to that of all Christians.

Since Vatican II, where dialogue became accepted as a responsibility for the Catholic Church, it has generally been considered as a special service of small groups of enlightened Christians. By moving dialogue from being exclusively the realm of well-grounded experts on interreligious matters, to the general population of the Church, Pope Francis raises the stakes—now dialogue is a duty for each Christian and for each person of good will.

I have always been intimately convinced that dialogue is a condition for the living of a committed Christian life, because since the time of Pope Paul VI the understanding of charity has developed to acknowledge that it is rooted in dialogue. Pope Francis takes this further by positioning dialogue as part of each Christian’s vocation in the world. Moreover, Pope Francis, as a faithful follower of Saint Francis of Assisi, conceives the attainment of peace in the world as a duty for Humanity—an inner, spiritual and even dogmatic goal for human beings. Peace—both internal and societal— is, therefore, situated at the heart of faith.

Although Pope Francis presents dialogue as a duty, it is important to recognize the hindrances to dialogue, both interpersonal and structural, in a world that prioritizes economic development and prosperity as the primary means for achieving and maintaining peace. We live in a world of differences—not least, religious differences—and in this context dialogue is hindered by unfamiliarity and distrust. We have to begin with the recognition that the majority of peoples lived experience is one of not feeling naturally disposed to dialogue across divides. That is why Pope Francis speaks in terms of duty. Dialogue may not be comfortable, but it is necessary.

Sharing, above All

Having emphasized the duty and moral imperative of dialogue, Pope Francis moves on to focus on the human heart:

This dialogue is in first place a conversation about human existence or simply, as the bishops of India have put it, a matter of “being open to them, sharing their joys and sorrows”. In this way we learn to accept others and their different ways of living, thinking and speaking. (250)

Duty now becomes an inner necessity—one of the heart. This moral imperative is shown as a human conversation or, put another way, a deep sharing. This is a real development, as dialogue is moved from being a primarily intellectual and superficial exercise to one of real and truthful sharing—be it religious, spiritual, intellectual, or otherwise.

Working and spending time amongst Sufis, I have observed that spiritually-minded people and mystics live this deep level of sharing at a deeper level than many others. Again, this stage of spiritual life assumes a theological value in the eyes of Francis. Dialogue is a conversation about human existence or “being open to others, sharing their joys and sorrows.” When a person is open to others, and shares in their joys and sorrows, he or she no longer lives as before because he or she experiences the richness of Humanity. Here, Pope Francis is theologically consecrating human experience. I have experienced this when partaking in some Muslim celebrations, in particular with Sufis—moments where I have really felt the power of life, the energy of others, and I have been moved by the commitment of another man or woman who have devoted their entire life to spreading Islam. As a Dominican priest, and a deep believer in Christ, I hold fast to “my truth” in Christ—and yet I am able to share their joys and sorrows.  Whoever speaks of sharing really means reciprocity. Sharing—real, authentic and genuine sharing—is the only ground for interreligious dialogue, otherwise any attempt to do so would be just pragmatism or simply polite courtesy.

The principle of reciprocity is reflected in the teachings and spiritual traditions of both Islam and Christianity, and is rooted in deep sharing. When you share, you are together—the other is with you and you are with him. Friendship is, in this perspective, an absolute need for learning to share and to be reciprocal. Friendship needs two people, two societies, two nations, and requires sharing, above all.

The essential nature of dialogue and deep sharing across religious divides is reflected by A. Rashied Omar in his recent blog post: “I believe that it should be the responsibility of faith leaders, Christians, Muslims and those of other faiths, to offer deeper and far more ethically and scripturally grounded visions of a truly humanistic and compassionate world and to make strategic interventions to shift the balance in favor of such genuine morality.”

From Sharing to Action

Sharing must lead to action: a real and deep initiative. The dogmatic goal of interreligious dialogue, lived through sharing experienced in a broader human community, gives space for action.  As Pope Francis states, “Efforts made in dealing with a specific theme can become a process in which, by mutual listening, both parts can be purified and enriched. These efforts, therefore, can also express love for truth.” (250). Only in active service to Humanity can we go back to the dogmatic foundations of interreligious dialogue. If we cannot succeed in constructing real bridges, true peace, shared feelings, and mutual openness, our activities will remain at the level of superficial engagement. Humanity needs women and men who are engaged in the duty of interreligious dialogue lived through profound shared experience with the goal of service to the common good. Pope Francis’ words provide a vision of a world where interreligious dialogue and peace are not exclusive to a minority of believers, or idealistic principles that are far removed from reality.

Interreligious dialogue is not just an academic question—it has very real implications for the establishment of peace in the world. Dialogue needs to be lived and shared by more than just scholars. Pope Francis’ words carry significance for all Christians, and are a call for dialogue through shared experiences, commitments, and actions carried out together.

Leave a Comment on A New Beginning Array
Alberto Ambrosio
Alberto Fabio Ambrosio is an Italian Dominican priest and a Temporary Teaching and Research Assistant at University of Lorraine. Ambrosio completed his doctoral studies in Modern History at Paris-Sorbonne University in 2007, focusing on the history of Ottoman Sufism. In 2013 he received the Habilitation to teach Theology from the University of Metz. His publications include: Soufisme et christianisme. Entre histoire et mystique (2013); Petite mystique du dialogue (2013); and Vie d’un derviche tourneur.  Doctrine et rituels du soufisme au XVIIe siècle, (2010).
Contending Modernities article

A Muslim Response to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium


“Pope Francis resonates with the Muslim World much like the Saint of Assisi from whom he takes his name,”—this was how Imam Mohamad Bashar Arafat, president of the Islamic Affairs Council of Maryland, described his visit to the Vatican in October 2013. Saint Francis of Assisi is widely credited as being the first Catholic leader to engage a prominent Muslim Sultan in dialogue in 1219—a point well documented by Paul Moses in The Saint and the Sultan: The Crusades, Islam and Francis of Assisi’s Mission of Peace. Imam Arafat’s sanguine portrayal of Pope Francis’s growing stature in the Muslim World is corroborated by a number of experts on Catholic-Muslim relations, including Fr. Thomas Michel S.J., Senior Fellow at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

Notwithstanding this new optimism in Catholic-Muslim relations, it is my considered view that Muslim leaders, in particular, need to do much more to reach out, engage, and embrace Pope Francis’ invitation to interfaith dialogue and solidarity. For this indeed is the demand of our times.

A Constructive Platform for Renewed Dialogue

An invaluable opportunity for such dialogical engagement and solidarity presents itself in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), issued on 24 November 2013. Evangelii Gaudium is one of the most significant Vatican proclamations to appear since the election of Pope Francis in March 2013, and articulates the theological vision and pastoral mission sustaining the Papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Granted, it has only been three months since the issuing of this significant Vatican proclamation, yet it is my hope that some Muslim scholars and leaders will engage with its theological foundations and perspectives in a substantive and thoughtful manner. I believe Evangelii Gaudium could serve as a vital platform for Pope Francis’ resonance among Muslims to be transformed from popular admiration to a deeper encounter and embrace in the theological, social, and spiritual realms.

Evangelii Gaudium exhorts the Christian faithful to embark on a renewed journey of sharing the joy of the gospel (No. 9). It reaffirms a Second Vatican Council decree that establishes an essential bond between evangelization and dialogue; “Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another” (No. 258). Furthermore, social dialogue is viewed as a necessary condition for peace with justice (No. 239). It is within this context that the invitation to dialogue with states, society, and with other believers who are not part of the Catholic Church is framed (No. 238). Interreligious dialogue “with the followers of Islam takes on great importance, since they are now significantly present in many traditionally Christian countries where they can freely worship and become fully a part of society” (No. 252).

It is also here that the most significant part of Evangelii Gaudium’s proclamation to Islam and Muslims surfaces. Pope Francis speaks to Muslims in the first person, and exhorts them with the following words: “I ask and humbly entreat those [Muslim majority—my insertion] countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries” (No. 253).

This entreaty is not new and was essentially the foundational prop on which Pope Benedict XVI established his troubled relationship with Islam and Muslims. What is new, however, is the judicious and sensitive manner in which Pope Francis makes his plea.

I do not need to dwell here on the perilous nature of the situation of Christian minorities living in Muslim majority countries since experts on the subject have aptly made the case and all fair minded Muslim leaders will readily agree. The religious freedoms of Christian minorities in many Muslim majority countries are appalling and a matter of grave concern which urgently needs to be taken up more honestly and robustly by Muslims engaged in interreligious dialogue.

Elsewhere I have noted the incompatibility of restrictive laws regarding apostasy and religious freedom in many Muslim majority settings, and have called on Muslim scholars and leaders to question the prevailing interpretation of the Islamic law of apostasy and Christian leaders to abandon aid evangelism. An increasing number of Muslim leaders are speaking out against this injustice. For example, at his December 13 2013 Vatican meeting with Pope Francis, Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, head of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC), stressed the need for “greater efforts from OIC member states to foster respect for religious pluralism and cultural diversity and to counter the spread of bigotry and prejudice.”

The Ethical and Qur’anic Case for Religious Freedom

While it is my considered view that the demand for full religious freedom and greater protection for Christian minorities living in Muslim majority countries is legitimate and requisite, I respectfully disagree with Pope Francis that ‘reciprocity’ should be the driving force for religious freedoms on at least two grounds.

First, it is ethically expedient to argue that Muslim majority countries need to grant Christians freedom to worship and practice their faith in reciprocation of Muslims being granted those freedoms in Western countries. I believe that it should be the responsibility of faith leaders— Christians, Muslims and those of other faiths—to offer deeper and far more ethically and scripturally grounded visions of a truly humanistic and compassionate world and to make strategic interventions in order to shift the balance in favor of such genuine morality. Granting freedom of worship and protecting places of worship is an injunction to all believing Muslims in Chapter 22 verse 40 in the Qur’an, where God clearly proclaims:

If God had not restrained some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, and synagogues and mosques – all in which God’s name is abundantly extolled – would surely have been destroyed. Indeed God comes to the aid of those who come to His aid; verily He is powerful and all-mighty. (Q22:40 – Translation from Arabic by the author.)

It is interesting to note that the explicit wording of the above verses gives precedence to the protection of monasteries, churches and synagogues over that of mosques in order to underline their inviolability and the duty of the Muslim to safeguard them against any desecration or abuse, and protect freedom of belief. (For an depth analysis of the interpretations of this verse by classical Muslim commentators of the Qur’an see: Asma Afsaruddin, “In Defense of All Houses of Worship”, in ed., Sohail H. Hashmi, Just Wars, Holy Wars & Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and Exchanges). It is the proper reading of these and other verses in the Qur’an (2:256; 10:99, & 11:118) that should be invoked in the plea to Muslim majority countries to grant non-Muslim minorities freedom of workshop in their countries. Upholding the teachings of the Qur’an and sacred scriptures, should set the moral standard of tolerance, dialogue and compassion to which we must aspire in striving towards a more just and peaceful world.

Second, should the religious freedoms and opportunities for integration accorded to Muslims by Western countries be the most sublime height of pluralism that we should aspire to? The answer to this question, is of course an unequivocal no! The Runnymede Trust (1997), the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2002), and the United Nations (2004) have all concluded on the basis of extensive research that there is an alarming rise in religious bigotry and prejudice, which includes the virtual explosion of Islamophobia in Europe and the United States.

To his credit, Pope Francis does explicitly raise the question of the indignities suffered by Muslims in the West in Evangelii Gaudium when he says: “We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries” (No. 253). Pope Francis has not only been vocal about the need to embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants in Europe—he has practically displayed such compassion with a number of symbolic expressions of this concern. In December 2013, for example, Pope Francis gave Christmas gift packages to 2,000 immigrants, many of whom are Muslims, who live at the Dono di Maria, a shelter within close proximity to the Vatican. In an accompanying message he urged Western countries to welcome and respect immigrants rather than treat them as “pawns on the chessboard of humanity.”

To thwart and mitigate against such political exploitation of the plight of Muslim immigrants in the West, Pope Francis specifically exhorts the faithful in Evangelii Gaudium, to avoid hateful generalizations even in the face of “disconcerting episodes of violence” and “in spite of fundamentalisms on both sides,” because “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (No. 253).

An Invaluable Opportunity

It is my considered view that through Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis has inaugurated a constructive platform for credible Muslim leaders to enter into a renewed dialogue with Catholics on the critical question of interpretations of sacred scripture and the roots of violence in our contemporary world. Moreover, by locating such a conversation within the broader framework of Pope Francis’ theology of compassion for the poor which offers a powerful social critique of our global culture of consumerism, covetousness, and opulence, interreligious dialogue will find even greater resonance among Muslims. It is my sincere hope that more Muslim scholars will take up the dialogical challenge presented in Evangelii Gaudium in a comparable spirit of reverence and hospitality with which the twelfth century Muslim leader, Sultan al-Kamil, welcomed the Saint of Assisi from whom the current Pope takes his name.

Leave a Comment on A Muslim Response to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium Array
A. Rashied Omar
A. Rashied Omar earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and an M.A. in peace studies from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where he is now a core faculty member. Omar’s research and teaching focus on the roots of religious violence and the potential of religion for constructive social engagement and interreligious peacebuilding. He is co-author with David Chidester et al. of Religion in Public Education: Options for a New South Africa (UCT Press, 1994), a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding (Oxford University Press, 2015), and a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Macmillan Reference USA, 2016). In addition to being a university-based researcher and teacher, Omar serves as Imam (religious minister) at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, and an advisory board member for Critical Investigations into Humanitarianism in Africa.
Contending Modernities article

Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Modern World


Since his election in March 2013, Pope Francis has aroused enthusiasm and raised the hopes of many through the articulation and lived example of his vision of a Church open to dialogue with the modern world. Pope Francis’ recent Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, is no exception, delivering an even more explicit invitation for the Church to avoid entrenchment:

“For the Church today, three areas of dialogue stand out where she needs to be present in order to promote full human development and to pursue the common good: dialogue with states, dialogue with society – including dialogue with cultures and the sciences – and dialogue with other believers who are not part of the Catholic Church.” (No.238)

Through such statements, Evangelii Gaudium reemphasizes and gives new impetus to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on dialogue between faith and reason, religion and politics, and believers of different religious traditions—for the sake of making the world a more peaceful and just place.

Interreligious Dialogue

Pope Francis’ invitation to dialogue with non-Catholic believers, including Muslims, is motivated among other reasons by the conviction that they are also “justified by the grace of God” and that they “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day.” This statement had already been underwritten by two documents of the Second Vatican Councils, Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate, which the Pope implicitly references when he says that the “sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings.” Most importantly, Pope Francis writes that “our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations,” even in the face of “disconcerting episodes of violence” and “in spite of fundamentalisms on both sides,” because “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

Against Secular and Religious Fundamentalism

The tendency to draw the kind of “hateful generalizations” the Pope wants to avoid, is not only common to Islamic and Christian fundamentalisms but to all forms of fundamentalism – militant and non-militant, religious and secular. As Scott Appleby and Martin Marty highlighted in their five volume series on global fundamentalism, a core trait of fundamentalism is the tendency to define social relations in terms of an “inside-out”, or “good and bad”, Manichean dichotomy.

So, for instance, some exponents of modern atheism have targeted the three monotheistic religions for being the main source of social warfare and violence throughout history. Their claim to possess the Truth, it is argued, coupled with the promise of eternal salvation for those who blindly follow their injunctions, make Islam, Judaism and Christianity prone to legitimizing violence and oppression. On the other hand, in virtue of their skepticism, these same atheists view themselves as tolerant of plurality, and thus less violent. This simplistic dichotomization does not take into account that religious violence represents a corruption of religion, rather than its authentic expression. It is also oblivious to the fact that modern atheism with its emphasis on unrestrained freedom and the will to power has led, or could lead, to legitimized killing.

Similarly, some Christian believers have been tempted to use a simplistic Manichean outlook to explain the difference between Christian and non-Christian Revelation.  The Old Testament and the Koran, they argue, portray an image of God as a violent vindicator. On the other hand, the Gospel alone offers an image of a Merciful God.  It follows, therefore, that Islam and Judaism are intrinsically vengeful religions, whereas the violence displayed by Christian believers in history is contingent and dependent on the human temptation to identify divine might with temporal power. The validity of this sort of interpretation – which judges Christian and non-Christian violence with a double standard  ̶  has been called into question by a recent document of the International Theological Commission. While acknowledging that the Old Testament contains a number of instances of “violence that involve God directly or indirectly,” its authors explain that, from a historical-pedagogical perspective, the Old Testament reflects a progressive understanding of God’s revelation, in which violence is at least tempered by a lesser violence. Likewise, scholars of Islam have shown that the Koran contains the seed of a critical stance toward violence.

If true dialogue between Christian and non-Christian believers, faith and reason, religion and politics is to take place, it is essential that the temptation to define their relationship in a Manichean fashion be overcome, and that each side be open to self-critically acknowledge its errors and strengths, in the belief that “Truth enlightens all men.”

Leave a Comment on Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Modern World Array
Paula Bernardini
Paola Bernardini is Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Global Perspectives at the Holy Cross College in South Bend, Indiana. She was previously the Associate Director for Research for Contending Modernities. Paola received a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome, Italy, where she was a Russell Berrie Fellow in Interreligious Studies. Her past publications include Natural or Political Man? The Foundation of Human Rights in Martha C. Nussbaum (2009), and Multiculturalism and Adult Dialogue Education (2003). Paola received an Ed.M. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, with a concentration in human rights and conflict resolution education.
Field Notes article

Gender, Religion and IVF


About five years ago, I had occasion to meet with some of the senior staff administering women’s health programs for USAID in Kampala, Uganda. I was interested in finding out how infertility is addressed as a women’s health challenge in an area where healthcare is poorly resourced and basic medical needs across the population are difficult to meet. Not surprisingly, I was quickly told that their priorities were high fertility and maternal mortality. Indeed, they told me that infertility was not a problem for women in Uganda.

With limited budgets and serious public health challenges, we can imagine why USAID staff in Kampala responded that way to my questions. However, their dismissal of the significance of infertility for Ugandan women reflects a not uncommon ignorance of the relationship between fertility and infertility. In fact, high levels of infertility often co-exist with high levels of fertility. Twenty-nine of the thirty-one countries identified by the UN as high fertility countries are in Africa, where it is also estimated that one in four women experience some form of infertility.

Universal access to the continuum of reproductive healthcare by 2015 was identified among the UN Millennium Development Goals. But the question of whether, and to what extent, there is a social obligation to promote fertility or to guarantee universal access to infertility treatment (whatever the scope) continues to be contested. The World Health Organization has called infertility a “global public health issue,” but there is wide disagreement on the rationale for investing in the treatment of infertility—especially in resource-poor regions where local population pressures are thought to impede human development and ecological stability—as well as the relative priority of reproductive healthcare in efforts to provide universal access to basic health care.

Catholic Perspectives on IVF

Catholic doctrine condemns virtually all forms of in vitro fertilization, on the grounds that therapeutic interventions that “replace the marital act” offend the dignity of the offspring and undermine the sanctity of marriage. To date, however, theological reflection on assisted reproduction has largely focused on what choices are or are not morally acceptable for Catholics. To be sure, questions such as “How should we judge the morality of donor-assisted IVF or commercial surrogacy?” and “Is it appropriate to freeze human embryos?” are important. But a focus on particular therapies and methods of intervention, or on the limits of individual autonomy, overlooks crucial dimensions of the lived experience of infertility globally. Moreover, much of Catholic reflection on assisted reproduction has lacked a critical gender lens.

As a consequence, there is insufficient attention to the multiple ways in which pressures to conceive or to assume the role of parent in pronatalist societies intersect with the flourishing global market in fertility services. My hosts at USAID were not aware of the scope of fertility treatments available in Kampala, or of the growing number of patients seeking treatment through assisted reproductive technologies. IVF was introduced in Uganda in 2004 at the Women’s Hospital International and Fertility Centre; by 2012, the center recorded more than 700 births through IVF. As in the United States, fertility services are not regulated and treatment is expensive. (Some researchers are working on developing cheaper methods, but virtually everywhere where fertility treatment is delivered primarily through private clinics, costs represent a significant portion of household income.) Insiders consider the global South to be the promising growing edge for the fertility market, both because of the prevalence of infertility and the potential to expand trade in gametes and reproductive services such as surrogacy.

The Lived Experience of Infertility

Neither a quick dismissal of the significance of infertility nor a blanket condemnation of assisted reproduction will help us understand why individuals, especially women, are willing to make significant physical, emotional and financial sacrifices to pursue therapies that have a success rate (if measured by live births) of less than 40 percent, sometimes going against the teachings of a treasured religious faith. Attention to the gendered experience of infertility would illuminate the costs associated, especially in societies where high value is placed on bearing children, costs which are experienced differently by men and women, but which include stigma, the possibility of being abandoned by a spouse, vulnerability to violence at the hands of a partner or one’s in-laws, social insecurity and lack of status associated with the transition to adulthood.

A finer grained analysis would attend to the way in which the turn to IVF can undermine both investments in prevention and support for other means of resolving infertility. The most common form of infertility in Uganda is caused by blocked fallopian tubes—a type of infertility for which IVF is particularly well-suited.  However, many cases of infertility of this kind can be averted by preventing or treating infections that lead to scarring.  Failing to acknowledge infertility among basic health care needs for women misses an opportunity to educate, treat and provide the means for protecting fertility and plays directly into the tendency in modern medicine to privilege high tech rescue care.

Bringing assisted reproduction under a critical gender lens would also require a candid look at how religious images, narratives, teachings and practices shape experiences of infertility and childlessness, especially for women. Both Catholicism and Islam recognize the equal human dignity of men and women. Both have social justice traditions that call for advancing women’s status in society through investments in education, comprehensive health care and adequate nutrition. But both traditions can also be invoked to defend the subordination of wives to husbands, a primarily domestic role for women, the elevation of motherhood as women’s fulfillment, and the ceding of control over one’s own body. Promoting women’s full participation in society and honoring the ability to give life are not in necessary or fatal opposition. Still, we should be willing to acknowledge the places where our religious traditions are shoring up or legitimating the conditions under which infertility leads to stigma, social insecurity or vulnerability to domestic violence.  We should also be willing to examine our rhetoric about the family. Catholicism has a conflicted view of the family—on the one hand privileging the communion of faith over biological ties, but on the other hand privileging the biological family (the family that results from the marital act) over the social family.  Although the Catholic Church has been involved in the practice of adoption, there is little theological reflection on adoption in the context of ART.

Leave a Comment on Gender, Religion and IVF Array
Maura Ryan
Maura Ryan is the John Cardinal O'Hara, C.S.C. Associate Professor of Christian Ethics, and Vice President and Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs at the University Notre Dame. Her primary interests are bioethics and health policy, feminist ethics, and fundamental moral theology.