Recent Topics of Study:

Patristic Thought on the Role of Secular Medicine

By Alexander M. Laschuk, Eparchy of Toronto

Throughout its the history of Christianity, theology and the secular thought haves had an animated and, at times, strenuousstrained n relationshipexchange between its theology and the secular thought of the cultures in which it existed. The place of secular philosophy in the lives of Christians and the Church was a topic for many of the Fathers’ writings.1 A This relationship between secular philosophy and Christian thought has been tense at times. Ffew early Christian writers held that secular philosophy should be exalted above the Christian faith contrary to; this thought was present in writersand these writers, such as Gnostics, who used Platonic concepts to reinterpret the the Christian Scriptures. TWhile this thought was condemned as heresy by Fathers of Patristic sourcesthe Early Church, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons., Imany in the Early Church manysome also held to the opposite extreme which rejectedwould dispensed entirely with pre-Christian philosophy thought entirelyentirelyin favour of the new revelation. This is reflected in the writings of Tertullian writes from this position, especially when he rhetorically askinged: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?”2 (ANF) However, as the Early Church developed, there was to developed a third, (and more mainline,) attitude towards secular thought which adopted much of secular teachings but always maintained them with in the perspective of the Church’s teachings.3 (HRM, 19-20)

This adoption acceptance of secular thought by Christians was notby no means limited to what is contemporarily defined as philosophy. Christians Another area of knowledge that was readily adopted secular medicine, for example example by the Christians was secular medicine.4 The Early Christian converts who came to the Church brought their previous cultural attitudes and practices to the Church to their new lives as Christians. The Greek converts, for example, kept their particular Their perspectives rrespect foregarding health and medicine were no exception to this statement and the Greek converts especially had a great respect for the medical profession. (SHEOT, 148).5 This respect for physicians was shared bynot limited to the converts from Hellenism. The other major group in the Early Church, those who were from the Judaic traditionJews, who provided another second source for Early Christian thought on medicine – mainly, the onethat presented in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Old Testament describes God as the source of both sickness and health, and this is echoed in the deutero-canonical writings: “HonorHonour physicians for their services, for the Lord created them; for their gift of healing comes from the Most High.”6 (Sirach, 38:1-3) These writings deuterocanonical tradition also saytells the reader to “give the physician his place, for the Lord created him; do not let him leave you, for you need him.”7 (Sirach, 38:12) Greek and Hebrew thought thus both had a reverence for physicians which influenced many of the the converts to the Early Church.

The influence of this thought is obvious evident in early Christianity where there was emerged a clear understanding belief that sickness was something to be healed. This healing thought iwas evident supported in the evangelical account as becausewhere Jesus used divine power to healed the sickthose who suffered from illness. Further, At the same time, however, Jesus also told His apostles about the ‘final’ illness of that Lazarus’ illness was one that that “This illness [that of Lazarus] does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”8 (John 11:4) The Early Church, thus, also recognized that there was a possible redemptive aspect to suffering, and this was kept in a dynamic complementary relationship with any the desire for healing.9 (SHEOT149) This distinctive Christian thought on suffering caused illness to generally be regarded as being something to be healed, but only in relationalways in perspective to both the Will of God and most importantly to one’s salvation.

The relationship between early Christianity and medicine was so strong that many in the Early Church itself were physicians, including St. Luke the Evangelist. (Col 4:14: “Luke the beloved physician”, NRSV).10 This tradition continued through the history of Christianity (especially in the Byzantine East), where many faithful Christians were known to practice medicine. This included lay people, deacons, priests, and bishops, and the laity. Medicine, as such an important part of life, naturally became a subject for writing in the Patristic period. Medicine and physicians were considered by the Eastern Fathers as to be blessings from God which intended to be shared were especially to be shared iin acts of charity. Because of this charitable aspectis, medicine and hospitals were often targetedexercised and set up at towards the poor.11 (LE, 104) Physicians were considered to have a profession like any other man, and they were listed by St. Basil as among the types of artisans. 12(LE, 105)

The Cappadocian Fathers , especially, wrote frequently on medicine. St. Gregory the Theologian (also known as St. Gregory Nazianzus) defined medicine as “a system and an art; the fruit of philosophy, laborlabour, and industry.”13 (SR,GN,13) He St. Gregoryhad himself had studied medicine along with his friend, and fellow Cappadocian, St. Basil, and like the majority of the Eastern Fathers, he saw close connectionsrecognized a relationship between the body and the soul.14 (SH,RM,22) St. Gregory mentions that both he and St. Basil “showed great zeal in caring for the sick.”15 (SR, GN, 13) This care was obvious as St. Gregory emphasized describes medicine as a kind of charity, and he exhorting encouraged the faithful and physicians to provide for the sick with “food, shelter, clothing, and the necessary medicines.”16 (SR, GN, 18) He even called leprosy the “sacred disease, ἱερὰ νόσος” since those who suffered from this disease should be given honour and charity.he 17 considered those who suffered from it to be deserving of great honour and charity. (SR, GN, 18)

St. Gregory does not only discuss the conduct of medical practitioners, but also discusses the conduct of the patient. The patient must be completely open with the physician, and most importantly obedient obeyto their instructions. To do anything less, in the opinion of St. Gregory Nazianzus, is to risk death. He recognizes that there are patients who will strive to no end for healingalways insist upon medical treatment, regardless of whether or not it is warranted by their situationthe futility of their situation.18 (SR, GN, 22) “He is He is insistent in his demands for new medicines in the belief that they will help him, or he promises himself better days after the sweat of the crisis has passed.”19 (SR, GN, 22) In the opinion of Gregory tThis hypothetical kind of patient errs is in error by making medicine an end in itselfactually going againsthindering the proper goal of medicine.

While St. Gregory’s interests rested primarily in the theoretical aspects of medicine, while, St. Basil was more knowledgeable concerned inwith not only the theory andbut also the praxis of medicine. (SR, GN, 13) St. Basil founded a hospital outside of Caesarea; it was here that where the sick and the poor were tended without discrimination.20 (SR, GN, 13) In fact, St. Basil was in fact said to have learned medicine out of his desire to help the poor as and so the study was “necessary for him by his physical delicacy, and his care of the sick.”21 (GN, eulogy) St. Basil describes physicians as properly being concerned with charity, for it is “Humanity [that] is the regular business of all you who practice as physicians.”22 (Letter) Also, in he recognizeding the connection between spiritual and bodily health and spiritual health, Basil specifically placed an acceptance of secular medicine within his Larger Rule.23 (SH, EOT, 155)

The Fathers had such esteem for medicine that they often used medical analogies in their writings; the most obvious of these metaphors would be St. Clement of Alexandria’s analogy of Christ as physician.24 (SH,RM,30) St. Gregory of Nyssa also frequently wrote on about physicians and often madeused regular medicine incal allusions in his writings. His medical allusions are in fact the most pronounced In fact, aamongst the fathers Fathers he uses medicinemedical allusions the most in his allusions, despite even thoughthis St.Gregoryhe havingdid not no formally study of medicine. (SR,GNY,150) He was friends withhad many physicians amongst his friends, and held the medical profession in good esteem as because it combated death. He held Tthis high regard was also held as because many physicians worked practiced charity by going beyond physical healing andby also concentrated on the spiritual problems of their patients. He St. Gregory felt thought that physicians werehad been given this skill to cure, by God, in order to aid mankind; and he had personally experienced this spiritual healing from physicians.25 (SR, GNY, 150-1)

Secular medicine was thus not regarded as a limitless tool. Healing was recognized as coming from God, and was frequently used in conjunction with spiritual healing. St. Gregory Nazianzus, himself a physician, attested to the miraculous healing of both his father and his sister. He described himself as both a physician and healer not only when he practiced medicine, but also when he used engaged in prayers of intercession.26 (SR, GN, 24) God freely chooses to work healingheal through physicians, and it waswho? the Church?the Church recognized recognizes that at times he God heals without their skills of manphysicians.27 (SH, RM, 23) While Although there was occasional conflict between monastics and physicians occasionally came into conflict, the bishops, priests, deacons, and monks of the Church frequently studied medicine as part of their education and practiced it in conjunction with their ministry.28 (SH,EOT,153)

This synergy between secular and spiritual healing was made obvious when in some cases locations it was possible for hospitals and shrines to bewere located in the same placeat the same location. Some sick patients would go to the hospital first, where the doctor would often refer them to the shrine next door when this was appropriate and . Likewise, ; other those patients who camewould go to the church first,first where they werewould be informed told to go tothat the hospital when this was more fitting for their ailment.29 (SH, EOT, 155) Physicians and saints both thus recognized their abilities to heal as gifts from God, and worked in conjunction with each other’s’ skills.

The fFathers thus clearly recognized limitations to medical science. It Medicine is reliant on God for to be able to healing, and any who think otherwise are described as “worthless physicians” byas described by the prophet Job.30 (Job 13:4) There are often situations where a physician is unable to cure an illness, and in some of these cases the illness has can instead been cured by a saint.a monk who has been given the charism of healing.31 (LE,119) St. Basil tells us that at times the cause of illness at times lies beyond this world, reminding his audienceus that “various infirmities . . . do not all have causes against which the use of medicine may be deemed effective.”32 (LE, 121) Most importantly, however, a A person’s relationship with God rather is more important than their bodily health is more important. St. Barsanuphuius reminds us that health is restored to the sick by God only when He wills it to be so, but God always tends to wills towards what is spiritually most spiritually beneficial for us.33 (LE, 121) That being said, there are situations where it is may not be most beneficial for one the person’s salvation for their body to be healed. Sometimes Aa greater response to God’s love can besometimes be made possible when a person is physically ill than when they are well;found by those ill where many have been converted to Christ’s love and mercy upon their deathbeds.

We see that Tthere has thus existedbeen a positive relationship between secular medicine and Eastern Christianity from the Early Church until the modern era. In fact, many historians trace the origins of the modern hospital to Christian Byzantium where public hospitals were frequently part of monasteries and staffed by monks.34 (SH,RM,34) Because they recognized God working through the skills of physicians, Christians have always had recourse to secular healing offered by the medicine of their time because they recognized God working through the skills of physicians.35 (LE, 102) Nothing, therefore, preventsstands in the way of Christians (past and present) from calling on physicians for healing and following their prescriptions, rather, this is advised, as it is in according to the advice of Sirach.36 (LE, 105) However, the Fathers do consider it sinful to solely haveput one’s faith solely entirely in medicine and the skills of a physicians since their power to heal only comes only fromthrough God. God does not need them to heal, and on occasion He healsdoes so without the medium of a physician (as is doneobvious through healing by prayers). To resort to physicians without first trusting in God is foolish and sinful.37 (SH, RM, 23) Likewise, when a patient attempts, at all costs, to preserve their his health as necessary a good in itself, this is idolatry and it ignores the redemptive quality of suffering.

The modern world seems to have lost the sense of the How the Fathers viewedThe view of secular medicine in the thought of the Fathers is something that has since been lost in the West. In the contemporary world, Western society has adopted an ideological view of health. No longer is Tthis ‘philosophy’ is no longer thought ofconsidered in relation terms of to religious belief where healing comes from God only when He wills it. The Fathers never regarded Hhealing was never regarded as a necessity, but it healing has become a ‘necessity’has become so in recent years. This post-Christian society has created made physical health ans the end in itself, and medicine has become a the servant to attain this end. Individuals desire health at all costs, or else see no value in their lives. Today mothers are inconvenienced by pregnancy and have doctors remove unborn children from their wombs, stopping their hearts. Patients insist upon their healing, regardless of the terminal state of their health. They have become the patient whom St. Gregory of Nazianzus considers to be hindering the true goal of medicine. (SR, GN, 22) When individuals cannot gain health, they turn towards escape methods such as euthanasia in order to remove themselves from any potential suffering or pain.

Suffering has lost its redemptive quality of suffering that iwas so intrinsic to the Christian experience.nity. It was in Christ’s suffering on the Cross that our salvation was gained, and the modern man isseems to be refusing resistingto sharinge in this suffering. This philosophyey would certainly be condemned by the Fathers, who often referred pronouncedto the physicians who worked only for personal gain toas be, heedless of the dangers placed on their patients.38 (SR,GNY,151) Our society has become committed to an ideal radically opposed to the Patristic thought on health, medicine, and healing. At a time when man has advanced greatly in science, it has not kept pace with its moralitythis advancement is not reflected in the progress or regress of morality. Medicine today is “grappling with the need to reintegrate much of what it does into the whole range of human life and concerns, that is, to humanize medicine.”39 (SH, RM, 25) The modern Christians today isare again called, as always, using the words of St. Diadochus of Photike, “to not place one’s hope in healing in them [physicians], but in our true SaviorSaviour and Physician, Jesus Christ.”40 (LE,120) The modern Christian must regain the notion of medicine and healing held by the Fathers, and it is only by doing so that the ‘culture of death’ can begin to be defeated in hope of a culture which recognizes tthat he can recognize the life it he has been granted by Godthrough the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

WORKS CITED:

St. Basil the Great. “Letters”. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Volume 8. ed. Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893. CLXXXIX. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cxc.html>. 6 November 2007.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus. “Eulogy of St. Basil”. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2.Volume 7. ed. Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893. XXIII, 6, 23. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxvi.html>. 6 November 2007.

Harakas, Stanley S. ““Rational Medicine” in the Orthodox Tradition”. Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 33 (1988): 19-43.

Harakas, Stanley Samuel. “The Eastern Orthodox Tradition”. Caring and Curing: Health and Medicine in the Western Religious Traditions. ed. Ronald L. Numbers & Darrel W. Amundsen. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Keenan, Mary Emily. “St. Gregory of Nazianzus and Early Byzantine Medicine”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 9 (1941): 8-30.

----------. “St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Medical Profession”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 15 (1944): 150-161.

Larchet, Jean-Claude. The Theology of Illness. trans. John & Michael Breck. Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002.

Tertullian. “The Prescription Against Heretics”. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity. ed. Allan Menzies. trans. Philip Schaff. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iii.vii.html>. 6 November 2007.

ENDNOTES: