Een positief antwoord op een ‘tsunami van secularisering’

Dit voorjaar werd ik uitgenodigd om een van de 6 ‘keynote addresses’ te verzorgen – in het Engels – tijdens het 25ste congres van de FIAMC, de Wereldfederatie van katholieke artsenverenigingen. Thema: “Een positief antwoord op een ‘tsunami van secularisering”. In mijn half uur durende lezing verteld eik eerst iets over mijzelf, als bioloog, aanwezig op een mondiaal katholiek artsencongres, mijn werk voor de Belgische katholieke Artsenvereniging, en voor de wereldfederatie. Ik beschreef kort de secularisering zoals die zich in Nederland en België, in het bijzonder Vlaanderen, mogelijk meer dan waar ook ter wereld had voorgedaan. En dat ik daar twee uiterste reacties op tegenkom: die van een relativistische houding, waar om de lieve vrede op de werkplek of in de samenleving, de waarheid het moet ontgelden, of – aan het andere einde van he spectrum – de katholieke arts die trouw is aan de leer van de Kerk en geen onethische praktijken zal verrichte, maar nors zijn collega’s en tegenstanders veroordeelt, omdat zijn niet ‘recht in de leer’ zijn. 

Ik stel een derde weg, voor, een van waarheid én liefde, van een houding van het hart, en niet om het even welk hart, maar het Hart van Jezus. Dat leidt tot de oproep van paus Franciscus, om heilig te zijn, ook in het medische werk, op een heel gewone manier, en je daarbij steeds te verheugen, zelfs te te juichen.

Vincent Kemme

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honor for me to be able to address you during this 25th Congress of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, here in Zagreb, the beautiful  capital of Croatia.

Allow me to introduce myself to you, before engaging in my reflections on a positive response to the ‘tsunami of secularism’. 

I am a biologist with training in theology, philosophy and bio-ethics. I come from the Netherlands, and have been living and working in Belgium – two of the most secularized countries in Europe. My background is education. Nine and a half years ago, I started ‘Biofides’, an association for biology and faith. Shortly after that, I was asked to join the board of directors of the Belgian Catholic Medical Association, in order to help physicians in their orientation regarding medicine and the catholic faith. Four years ago, I was asked to join the newly created committee for bioethics of our world federation ‘FIAMC’ and today, I am standing in front of you in order to share my thoughts with you on the topic that has been assigned to me. I also want to mention my membership with the ‘Emmanuel’ international lay community, although I do not speak in its name: the representatives of the medical branch of this ‘new community’ are amongst us.

I am what one might call a ‘revert’ to the faith. After having left the Church, like all of my peers in the seventies, I found my way back with the help of a very religious classmate and after a personal encounter with God, or Jesus, more specifically, during my studies at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. The first thing that had to happen was: the reconciliation of my faith with my scientific training in biology. Next, a considerable ‘ethical conversion’ took place, as I lived out what one could call a catholic charismatic spirituality. Over the years, while studying theology and bioethics in Brussels, these developments have led to personal conclusions that I will now share with you:

• that the catholic faith is reasonable, just like good science
• that there is no conflict between science and faith, just some confusion
• that catholic morality is reasonable
• that reason and ethics can – in the end – not do without faith and prayer
• that there is an urgent need for holiness, for every single person.

Secularization

So I was brought up in the sixties and seventies, in the Netherlands, a county that I still love dearly and for many good reasons, but which also seems to be the champion in secularization in Europe, heavily characterized by materialism, pragmatism, relativism and subjectivism. When I moved to Belgium in the year 2000, I found out that the situation was going in the same direction, especially in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern half of the country, which is geographically, linguistically and culturally very ‘close’ to the Netherlands. What we have lived through, over all these decades, is what I would call a ‘tsunami of secularization’, in the sense of a development that in a way was and still is overwhelming: there seems to be no way to stop it if one wished: Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have been ‘taken by surprise’. Christian beliefs and morals were almost whipped out in society. And this ‘tsunami’ continues to flood other countries in Europe and throughout the world.

Today, according to official studies, more than 50% of the Dutch population has no religious affiliation whatsoever, be it Christian, Islamic or other. In the whole of Europe, the average percentage of these ‘non-believers’ is said to be 20%, worldwide, maybe 16%. Of course, these figures must be taken with some degree of suspicion, but they do provide an indication. Only the Czech Republic succeeds in competing with the Netherlands and has a similar percentage of religiously non-affiliated inhabitants, for a reason that I haven’t been able to find out yet. 

I do not need to evoke the consequences of this process on church life, society and medical practice. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia have practically and almost formally become ‘normal medical treatments’ in the everyday practice of physicians, depending on their specialization. Medicine has been or is still being redefined and the Hippocratic oath has been abandoned or at least adjusted to our ‘modern times’. Many catholic and protestant physicians see no other solution or even have no problem with ‘going with the tide’, while others risk their career in opposing certain developments that are incompatible with their faith and refuse to act against their conscience.

Two extremes

Working with catholic physicians for some ten years know, in both Belgium and the Netherlands, and also in other countries of Europe and beyond, I see two extreme reactions to this tide of secularization, extremes that we should try to avoid, in my opinion.

The first reaction, already mentioned for a bit, is that of what I would call, not in an accusatory but in a  factual sense, ‘compromising with the truth’. These compromises are being made:

• scientifically, when, for example, the human embryo is not considered to be a human being, but mere biological material,
• philosophically or anthropologically, e.g.: as if a human being in certain conditions should not be treated as a human person,
• morally, e.g.: treating human beings in some stages of  their existence as a means and not as an end,
• religiously: as if God, the soul and eternal life do not exist or at least are not taken into account, the Church’s reflections on medical ethics not even being studied, or not taken seriously, or contradicted.

On the other hand, there are those Catholics, physicians and others, that I would characterize, again, not in an accusatory but a factual sense, as living out a more or less ‘rigid orthodoxy’, running the risk of spending their time condemning ‘the people from the other side’. They may know the scientific, philosophical, theological and moral truth, but tend to present it without love. As a former agnostic, I can assure you that their approach, although lived in good conscience, is devastating for those who have other beliefs, as it distances them even more from these ‘truths’. A lack of compassion and love for ‘the enemy’ is quite possibly be the root of their own problem, having been hurt themselves by ‘modernist’ tendencies and practices.

Positive response

What I want to propose to you, today, is a third way between, a ‘positive response’ to the situation that I have described to you and to the polarization that easily can ensue. And this positive approach can be articulated in three levels: faith, reason and (medical) practice.

  

1. Faith

Speaking today to catholic physicians from all over the world, I would like to put emphasis on our personal and common prayer. Being rooted in Christ, in God’s love and truth, is absolutely necessary to be enlightened and filled with the love that God has for every human being, your patients, your spouses and children, your colleagues and last but not least…  your adversaries. I’m not talking about a prayer life that is  characterized by the petition “Listen Lord, your servant is speaking” (although we can say what we want to God), but rather one that says “Speak Lord, your servant is listening” (because God can speak to us in a variety of ways). One that doesn’t forget the Holy Spirit, probably the most neglected person of the Holy Trinity. Christian life should be characterized by being fulfilled with God’s love and mercy, through a personal experience of ‘Pentecost’ in our lives, these moments where our happiness is overwhelming, and which give to our lives a supernatural flavor, in our actions and reactions.

From this prayer life, we receive the love that enables us to love ourselves, our last or most difficult patient of the day, and all our ‘enemies’. It gives us compassion for the most vulnerable, in a society t whose members live as if God does not exist, and tend to do away with the most vulnerable, in a throw-away culture as Pope Francis calls it.

This spiritual life in faith also gives us the inner conviction and the ‘fire’ to be a witness of God’s love and mercy, in deeds and in words, wherever we go. It motivates us to “give reason for the hope that you have, with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3, 15)

2. Reason

Having been trained in medicine and science, I find it is unacceptable that our life of faith not also be grounded in reason. As I told you earlier: my studies led me to the conclusion that our faith is reasonable, although not scientifically provable. Unfortunately, faith and science are oftentimes confused. Theology and the teaching of the Church are not forms of mere speculation, but based on ‘facts’ that we derive from what we call revelation. This demands an act of faith, but is therefore not unreasonable. I will not have time to develop this theme, but many good resources can help us to understand the internal logic of the catholic faith!

Only in this way, can we understand the relationship between science and faith, a prerequisite, in my view, for a catholic doctor in understanding the coherence between his beliefs and his medical profession. Reason is the bridge between medical science and faith and I would advocate a broad definition of ‘sciences’, as in earlier times: natural sciences, humanities, as well as philosophy and theology. But that is a matter of definition.

Going back to the theme of our conference: the sanctity of life and the medical profession, from Humane Vitae to Laudato Si’, let me just say a few words on both encyclicals.

Personally, as a man, and husband, together with my wife, I have never had any problem with the so-called ‘prohibitions on contraception’ as reaffirmed by pope Paus VI. Although short, its argumentation has always appeared to me as reasonable and the natural regulation of human fertility proves itself to be very well feasible. Many studies have confirmed these findings over the decades. There is no good reason to separate sex from fertility deliberately, and we have seen the results of this separation in our culture. Additional biblical, theological and anthropological argumentation has been given by Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, that I recommend to you strongly if you haven’t been able to study it yet.

As a biologist, I have had great joy in reading Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’. Never ever have I encountered such a ‘biological’ encyclical reading about the intrinsic value of any form of life, not only human life. So the ‘sanctity of life’ is not limited to the human species, although of course ontologically to be distinguished from other forms of life. The Holy Father warns justly against an anthropocentric approach in our faith (Laudato Si’ §§ 68, 69, referring to the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church). The responsibility for the ‘common home’, as both an ecological and a social responsibility, brings everything together: our biological makeup, our social life and our relationship to God. This is bioethics in the broadest sense of the word.

The requirement of reason in our understanding of the relationship between medicine and faith includes good science, but also a good definition of medicine, an ‘adequate anthropology’ (as John Paul II called it in his Theology of the Body) and good theology. We can not afford any lack of reasonability in either of these levels of thought.   

3. Practice

Thirdly, our positive response to the ‘tsunami of secularization’ requires ‘good practice’ in every aspect of our lives. It goes without saying that our conduct, as physicians, should be characterized by professional excellence. And as we have learned from another contribution to this conference: medical error can occur and asks for admitting it overtly and doing everything possible in our capacity to restore what can be restored.

Good practice, apart from our professional skills, includes also the willingness, as a catholic doctor, to be a witness of the faith, by our actions and reactions, in a balance between words and deeds, and coherence between the two.

In the end, I believe that that we can do with nothing less than personal holiness. Nobody is perfect, but that does not free us from the religious and human obligation to “be[come] perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mathew 4, 48). If we all would like the other person to be holy, why not be holy ourselves, to begin with?

What does this mean, concretely? I will give your some suggestions that come to my mind.

• • In love and truth. Love without truth is ‘sentimental’ and can be misleading. Truth without love is harsh, judgmental, unforgiving (see also Benedict XVI’s encyclical ‘Caritas in Veritate’ § 1.)

• • Always make a clear distinction in our minds, words and actions, between a person and his or her actions or convictions. There is no reason to be unkind to a person who favors abortion! We may condemn that conviction for good reasons, but we may never condemn the person because we do not know his or her background, personal history, how he or she came to that conclusion. There is a huge difference between our judgment between right and wrong, and our judgment on a fellow human being.

• • It is easier to ‘be right’, than to get the other person to acknowledge that you are right. The challenge is to get the truth across. In the Emmanuel community, where ‘evangelization’ is a crucial element of our spiritual life, we adhere to the ‘strategy’ of bearing witness instead of convincing. God calls us to bear witness to our faith, but we are not ‘in the business of convincing’. Conviction resides in the heart of the human person and demands a personal decision, arrived at freely, to adopt a certain point of view. It is not up to me to interfere in this most intimate place of the ‘self’ where he or she ‘is alone with God’ (cf. Gaudium et Spes 16). 

• • I would strongly advise to never ever speak or act out of frustration or anger, or with aggression, not even in our non-verbal communication and spontaneous reactions. That is a serious challenge for many, starting with me.

• • Our contribution to the realities of our professional, social en private life should normally be characterized by joy and kindness, love and hope, and many other virtues apart from faith and truthfulness. 

• • And let’s be patient. God is also patient with us. It took the early Christians three centuries to change the Roman Empire from the inside and we learned during this conference that it took the Americans 250 years to abolish slavery. So ‘re-christianizing’ western society, what we may all would like to do ‘in an instant’, at the stroke of a pen, the push of a button on our laptop, will take time and may even go in the opposite direction for the coming years and decades. Don’t panic!

• • A physician once criticized me by saying that I advocated passivity, but I think this is not the case. What I envision is a gradual process of re-evangelization of our culture by our excellent witness to the faith in medicine and and in every aspect of our life, and with the help of God’s grace. Guided by the Holy Spirit, thanks to our prayers, we will meet opportunities to be influential and achieve results, but without ever forcing anything upon our contemporaries.  As Cardinal Willem Eijk reminded us during this conference we do not impose, we only propose (see also: Pope Benedict Benedict XVI, to the bishops of Central Asia, 2008), with kindness and gentleness.

• • Being a witness includes suffering a certain ‘martyrdom’. Are we willing to accept that and ‘take up our cross’? I personally had to go through very difficult times in my professional career as a biology teacher, not being allowed to teach the truth on certain topics (especially on human sexuality). The consequences were very serious, professionally and financially. But here I am standing before you, in a place where I never ever had expected to be invited, sharing some of my considerations with a worldwide medically-trained audience. We know the stories of physicians that had to go through very difficult situation for similar reasons. But God is able to draw even better things out of the most difficult situations. Therefore, in a mysterious way, suffering can be beneficial if we live it in the right way.

An attitude of the heart

What I am proposing to you as ‘a positive response’ to the so-called ‘tsunami of secularization’ is a certain attitude of the heart. Not just any heart. What I propose to you is the attitude of the Heart of Jesus. In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus invites us to come to Him (every day in prayer), “all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.” And He continues: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” It is that attitude that we also find in the fifth chapter of the same gospel: the “Beatitudes”; where poverty in spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst for righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, persecution for the sake of righteousness, insults and false accusations appear, paradoxically, to be an invitation to ‘joy and gladness’ and a foretaste of our ‘great reward in heaven’.

May, I ask you not to forget to pray to the Holy Spirit, the often so neglected Divine Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus says in reference to the Spirit: “Rivers of living water will flow from within you, if you believe in Me” (cf. John 7;38). Blood and water were pouring out of the open wound of his Heart on the cross, which gave birth to Christianity and the ‘renewal of the face of the earth’. A tsunami is intense and devastating, but relatively short. Rivers of living water, flowing from the burning hearts of Christians, (and even non-Christians who have ‘faith’, will renew the face of the earth again, sustainably.

Be a saint

Just a few days before this conference, when a FIAMC delegation visited  Pope Francis in Rome, the Holy Father said through them to all of us: “Your qualification as “Catholic physicians” commits you to a permanent spiritual, moral and bioethical formation in order to implement the evangelical principles in medical practice, starting from the doctor-patient relationship up to the missionary activity carried out to improve the health condition of the populations in the fringes of the world.“ The pope may have known what I was going to say to you today 😉 So let us be saints, through our prayer, our professionalism and by our example. And – as the title of the Holy Father’s latest exhortation says: do not forget to “rejoice and be glad”.

Thank you for your attention!

Vincent Kemme MSc

Founder and chairman of ‘Biofides’, society for biology and faith

Editor in Chief of ‘Acta Medica Catholica’ and Cathmed.be

Spokesperson of the president of FIAMC