Faith Fridays (Part II)
I don’t normally post twice in a day, but I’m doing so this day specifically for the benefit of those who might appreciate knowing better the crux of my stand on the topic of euthanasia. My earlier “Faith Fridays” post introduced the subject through my discussion of a book I’d begun reading — and eventually closed prematurely due to the author’s description of helping end the life of her dying friend. I guess in that sense, we are alike — we both took part in the premature ending of something; her, of a life, me, of reading her book. I want to clarify first that I feel no ill will towards Lamott. I feel deceived and disillusioned, yes, but I can take a step back from those feelings and know that no one is perfect, and not all consciences are formed in the same way or to the same degree. We all have distinct journeys that we travel. I realize that. But there are times when even Peace Garden Mama feels compelled to speak out on something controversial. I’ll drop the subject soon, but at the very least, I wanted to share what has helped form my ideals — straight from the horse’s mouth. I think most will find that it makes an awful lot of sense.
So, here is the explanation of the immorality of euthanasia from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that came out in 1995 that provides the meaty basis of what we believe. Whether or not you agree with what you think Catholics believe (there’s a lot of confusion out there, I realize), I challenge you to at least read this explanation, if you are at all interested in this topic, of what the church of my particular faith has to say about it. And if you agree or take issue, please leave a comment. I am always up for a respectful (key word) discussion about any topic of importance. And any life-death issue is certainly important. How can we learn and grow without such conversations?
To read the original discussion, go here first: faith fridays: when an author disappoints
The rest is pasted below.
With that, I wish you peace and blessings this weekend!
P. 549, Catechism of the Catholic Church
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission, which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interest must always be respected.
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
This book is a fine example of our culture of death. Palliative care and hospice help the person die with dignity.
Mary Catherine
Roxane, I wholeheartedly agree with you and with the Church on this topic. But this passage doesn’t say WHY we believe this, doesn’t address how the dignity of the human person is compromised by euthanasia. It just states that it is. I can already hear the arguments on the other side. How do we share the real foundation of our faith, not just the moral teachings, but the truth of human relationship from which the moral teachings flow?
I have not read the Catechism in years…may have to dust off my copy to see if I can find what I am looking for.
Peace, Monica
Monica, thanks for sharing your desire to probe further, and of course, whenever something is taken out of context, something will be lacking. I see the Catechism as a starting point. It is place to go to find out what we believe, and it covers just about any subject you can imagine. There is also, as you know, additional documentation included, mentions of at what councils these teachings were clarified, Biblical references, etc. So yes, there is always more to be explained than what is contained in any one page. But I think, as my blogging friend Jennifer @ Conversion Diary found, that when you read the Catechism as a whole, you discover the story of our faith laid out very cohesively, and all of the various parts, and they WHYS, begin to be revealed and to unfold. One tenet is connected to another, and that to another. So much of what we believe comes directly from natural law. And so few of us study philosophy and natural law that the best way to glean its wisdom is from others who have. The Church has incorporated natural law into itself in a beautiful way. But it is up to each of us to discover this beauty for ourselves. You’ll have to share the answer you’ve found when you find it — I would really love to hear it. It’s a refreshing thing when an individual probes and searches for themselves and comes up with an answer that is part of a larger truth but also is now part of their interior as well. Blessings!
P.S. I really think I need to share this, too. Last night my husband and I were talking about this discussion on euthanasia, and he zeroed in on one aspect of it that struck him. In the previous post that prompted this one, I wrote about a section of a book describing the human-initiated death of a person, and in that passage, the man, hours before his death, was described as “absolutely clear as a bell, brilliant as ever” and that he and the others were filled with emotion — quietly crying off and on but also laughing. My husband said, “So, let’s say they didn’t go through with it, and the next day he woke up and said something funny and brought laughter to the others in the house.” His point was that it is not up to us to quantify the value of the person and what they might offer to the world, even a small portion of the world, even when their needs are messy and they are no longer “strapping and strong.” Or, perhaps, even if they never were strapping and strong, could never speak, but simply existed. Who are we to decide each person’s beauty and gift to us? As a friend of mine was dying, she said at one point that death is exhilarating. She was a mother of four and it was hard for her to leave this world, but at some point, she let go and allowed the process to take place, even through great suffering. What if this man had had a chance to reach this place of exhilaration as he allowed God to take his hand and lead him to the other world without human intervention? Okay, done now, on to something lighter!
Roxane, Did you totally discontinue reading the book? Are you missing anything? I am just curious. Perhaps there is some small message that will be missed if you don’t finish the book.
Great discussion on this topic, lots of comments, very interesting:)
Far Side, yes, I did discontinue it. Well, for one thing, it was due back to the library, and this time, I wasn’t up to renewing. But if you end up reading it, please tell me if I’ve completely missed out. I watched an interview given by Anne Lamott and she said she always gives people a second chance. I’m not opposed to doing the same, but for now, I feel fine moving on. If I’ve learned nothing else at the ripe old age of 41, it’s that life is short, and if something doesn’t resonate with your insides, it’s okay to make a different choice. It’s okay not to finish a book. It’s okay to not stay in a toxic friendship. I had to learn this lesson through a fairly rigorous process of much self-reflection. I’ve come out at a different place from where I started. But even in that I try to maintain respect and to realize always that we are all children of God, all with hurts, all imperfectly moving through this life. I think Anne Lamott is a gifted writer. Nothing can change that, or the good works she’s produced out of a true love for her craft and of helping others along the way. But if in reading her, I begin to feel ishy, then I can choose to stop and find something that is just as beautiful but without the ishy factor. The same is true with my writing. I would never want someone to keep reading if they feel too conflicted with what I am saying. But seriously, if you end up reading it, I hope you will share your insights. I would welcome them. Blessings…Roxane
Hi Roxane,
When I read the original post, I had a similar reaction to your husband. The brilliant, clear as a bell part just struck me as further evidence that what they were doing was wrong (although if he had been mentally compromised or otherwise diminished, it was still wrong!)
And yes, the Catechism contains it all! I agree. I just sometimes wish we (Catholics) did a better job of including the primacy of relationship in our explanations to others. I was born and raised Catholic, but I remain so because I believe the Church speaks the truth about love and relationship, between us and God and between us and any other person. It’s above morality: it’s truth. Morality, it seems, turns people off, because they mistakenly believe that morality is what the Faith is all about.
Does that make sense?
Feel free to move on to something lighter! As you may have seen, my own blog does not come close to these topics, as I’ve always felt a little lacking in the ability to address topics of faith; but they are still important to me. Maybe I need two blogs…although I can barely keep up with the one I have!
Peace to you, Roxane; I’m so glad to have found you.
Monica
Monica, I have appreciated this discussion very much and the point you bring up is very well-taken. I agree that that is an extremely vital component of our faith — the relational aspects of living it out. I do think there are resources out there that answer the questions in a way the Catechism can’t and perhaps wasn’t intended to, but yes, definitely, we need to be able to express that and explain it, because it is precisely that aspect of our faith that is overlooked because of the apparent heavy-handedness of the “rules.” We need to come to why why these rules exists: because God loves us and wants the best for us, just as we parents have rules out of love for our children. If we don’t have any, our children become unruly and at risk of harming themselves and others. It’s an important thought and I’m glad you brought it up. Appreciate your contributions very much, and am glad I found you as well. I love being in the company of those who are moving through this journey with similar circumstances (namely, the handful of kids factor). Blessings! Oh, and I love your name. What a powerful name spiritually speaking!