adventus.org » Morality

Euthanasia — Pro and Con

Fr. Silvain Cloutier — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:05:23 +0000

Bloc MP Francine Lalonde has introduced her third private member’s bill, C-384, to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. This fall, federal deputies will talk about these medical acts to accept or refuse it. It is important for us to know more about Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Human Lifes are in danger.

- Bill C-384 (pdf)

There are people pro and people con.

Pro…
Most Quebec MDs in favour of legalized euthanasia: survey

In survey of its members released Tuesday, the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists found that 84 per cent of responders are ready for a public debate on the issue and 74 per cent “would certainly favour or probably be favourable” to euthanasia within a legal framework.

Euthanasia is already being practised, doctor says (in Quebec)

-Dr. Death comes to town this fall

Con…

- Doctor decries euthanasia bill

“We must not abandon these vulnerable people through assisted suicide and euthanasia, but instead embark on a quest to find better ways to maintain their dignity and quality of life”

Quebec doctors urge colleagues to battle euthanasia

- Say “No” to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (pdf)

- Innocent would die

- DOSSIER EUTHANASIA — ASSISTED SUICIDE (Declarations and documents to help us in our reflection from the Catholic Church of Montreal)

- Canada’s Catholic Bishops Ask Parliament to Oppose Legalizing Assisted Suicide

- Letter asking Members of Parliament and all the people of Canada to reflect on the possible consequences of Bill C-384

“It is also legitimate for someone to refuse medical procedures that are found to be especially burdensome. But what is never acceptable is the direct and intentional killing of the depressed, handicapped, sick, elderly or dying,” Archbishop Weisgerber says.

And you ?

As Canadians, we have to think about this law and act to defeat it! We should protect the lives of others, the most vulnerable in our society.

Priests for Life of Canada is calling on “all parishes across Canada involved in this effort to defeat this legislation.” How ? Write a personal letter to your federal deputy or to the prime minister of Canada against this law! Post a personal letter as soon as possible !

Umbert

Fr. Silvain Cloutier — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:28:13 +0000

After Dilbert the most valuable office employee, there is Umbert, the unborn. As his website says, “the world’s most loveable baby hasn’t yet been born”

The Unborn Child Finally Has a Voice of His Own!

Meet Umbert the Unborn, the pre-natal comic strip character that is winning the hearts and minds of people throughout the country. Created by Gary Cangemi in 2001, Umbert appears weekly in the National Catholic Register and over 100 other publications serving nearly a million readers and growing.

Umbert is a pre-born infant of yet undetermined gender whose mother’s womb is his private universe, playground and think-tank from which he can anticipate life and the world that awaits him.

Umbert is a feisty, outspoken baby who loves life and wants respect. Umbert often appears in various stages of development from a single cell to a near term baby. Umbert the Unborn is an upbeat, funny and sometimes poignant cartoon about human life in all its glory and potential. Umbert’s purpose is to give a voice, personality and humanity to the unborn child and to change the hearts and minds of the “born” and the way we view life before birth.

A need for Repentance and the Gift of Forgiveness

Fr. Stephen Otvos — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:52:55 +0000

Recently, I discovered a clip from the television show, E.R. It showed a man facing the end of life with the burden of a perceived sin causing him great anxiety. He shares his distress with a so called spiritual councilor who cannot respond to his need for absolution, He states at one point “I need a real chaplain, who believes in a real God and a real hell.” What he wants is objective religious truth, what he was getting was subjective feel good new-age. Very intelligent script for a TV show. Here’s the clip from: ER

The new Law of happiness

Father Thomas Dowd — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:59:39 +0000

The Beatitudes represent the opening lines of the Sermon on the Mount, which St. Matthew places as Jesus’ first major speech within his ministry. Each of the Beatitudes begins with the word “Blessed”, as in “Blessed are the poor in spirit” or “Blessed are the meek”. The word “blessed” does not quite capture the ancient Greek word, however, which is the word “makarios”. “Makarios” is often translated as “happy”, but it does not mean a simple human contentment, but a happiness that is rock-solid and overflowing. In French, the word we use to translate “makarious” is not hereux, but bienheureux, i.e. “really and truly happy”.

Interestingly, Jesus taught the Beatitudes while on a mountain. This is not an accident, and is meant to evoke the image of Moses, who descended from Mount Sinai holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments. The Beatitudes are often considered to be the completion of the Law of God. Curiously, however, the Beatitudes are not written like your typical commandments. The Ten Commandments are written as a set of do’s and don’ts, as in “Do not kill” or “Do keep holy the Lord’s day”. The Beatitudes, instead, are written like simple statements of fact. In reality, however, the two kinds of statements go together. For example, imagine I were to say “Don’t eat the mushroom. It is poisonous.” I have made two statements: the first is a commandment, and the second is an explanation of the commandment. Each statement, however, completes the other. In some ways, the second statement is the more important. If all I say is “that mushroom is poisonous,” it implies that it should not be eaten. The explanation completes the commandment by giving its reason, while the commandment makes explicit the “do” or “don’t” in the statement. So it is with the Beatitudes. They do not replace the Ten Commandments, but they point out the real goal of the Ten Commandments, and provide a set of statements that have implicit within them a code of behaviour for all of life.

When we look at the Beatitudes, however, we sometimes see a contradiction. “Happy are those who mourn”…does the make sense? By definition, isn’t a person who is mourning unhappy? To understand these statements, then, we need to grasp them within their cultural context. In the original language and cultural mindset of Jesus’ time, to make a strong statement in one sense automatically implied its opposite. This is true even today in some things: the statement “it is hot” automatically implies it is not cold. A good way to understand the Beatitudes, then, is to pay attention to their opposites:

“Happy are the poor in spirit” becomes “Miserable are those attached to earthly possessions”. Isn’t it true that an inordinate attachment to material things brings all kinds of misery, such as jealousy, workoholism, and even fear of loss?

“Happy are those who mourn” becomes “Miserable are those who can never let go”. Mourning is a natural and healthy process, by which we achieve closure when we experience loss. If a person is unable to let go, however, it means they can never stop living in the past to start looking forward again.

“Happy are the meek” becomes “Miserable are the arrogant”. The meek will inherit the earth, but those who bully others can only take: they are not *given* anything.

“Happy are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” becomes “Miserable are those who hunger and thirst for evil things”. People can try and fill themselves up with all sorts of stuff — food, drugs, money, fame — but in the end these just leave emptier. A fulfilled life does not get filled from the outside, but has a fullness that comes from the inside.

“Happy are the merciful” becomes “Miserable are the merciless”. People who bear grudges, who refuse to forgive, and who take revenge, are the real prisoners. They are prisoners of their own hate, and it eventually poisons all their relationships.

“Happy are the pure in heart” becomes “Miserable are those who take things for granted”. Purity of heart is often interpreted to mean sexual purity, and it can mean that, but is a broader sense it means the ability to focus on what is really important in the present moment. How many of us put off until later even the good things that are being presented to us right now? How many of us miss out on the beauty of the present moment, or taint it with selfishness?

“Happy are the peacemakers” becomes “Miserable are the warmongers”. There are people in this world who have a deep need to feel offended, or to offend others. Peacemakers get to be part of the grand family of the “children of God”. Warmongers, on the other hand, end up alone.

“Happy are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” becomes “Miserable are those who have no spine”. It isn’t always easy to stand up for what is right — yes, we can wind up persecuted. But who will ever trust us with what is truly important if we don’t have the inner strength to hold on to it in the first place?

Perhaps you see other forms of “beatitude-opposites” that help bring some or all of the actual Beatitudes into greater clarity. If so, please share them! The Beatitudes represent the goal of all real morality: the inner strength to do what is right in all circumstances, and the inner freedom to love unconditionally. Yes, the Beatitudes are a new Law, but the best law of all: a law that sets us free!

The Day Humanity Became Cheap

Fr. Eric Nicolai — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:05:19 +0000

Some of you may remember January 28th 1988: it was that awful day in which the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment on the Morgentaler Case, thereby removing the abortion provision from the criminal code. I was working on my Masters back then, and I was sure the judgment wouldn’t last. Well it’s been 20 years. Since then the doors have been swung wide open to the progressive degradation of human dignity in Canada. The issue of abortion has been almost completely absent from public debate in this country, which is why it is heartening to see David Frum’s article in today’s National Post. It is the kind of debate that we need to hear. And if you’re up to reading some heart-wrenching stories of women who have gone through abortions and if you’re ready to hear some of the deep scars they have been left with, read the recently-published diaries put together by Yvonne Floraczak-Seeman, called A Time to Speak. Mrs. Floraczak-Sleeman, who herself had 5 abortions, puts together the 14 most commonly-heard myths about abortion (a simple procedure, its legal so its ok, it’s my body, it’s just cell tissue, whatever) and answers them with the testimonies of people who have lived through this horror. If you want a glimpse of some of these stories, listen to a recent interview with her on Catholic Answers. It really brings home why it is a good thing to do some penance for all the victims of the tragedy of abortion.

Saint Mary Faith Enrichment evenings

Father Thomas Dowd — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:56:46 +0000

Welcome to all those attending the Faith Enrichment evenings being held at St. Mary parish in Greenfield Park, as well as all those who can’t make it but want to follow the evenings “at a distance” over the Internet. You can find copies of the Powerpoint slides, as well as audio files for the main presentations and question and answer periods here.

Evening 1: Who is God?

Evening 2: If God is good, why is there evil in the world?

Evening 3: If God is good, and there is evil in the world, what has God done about it?

Evening 4: If God is good, and there is evil in the world, and God is doing something about it, how do we get with the program?

Preventative Repentance

Fr. Eric Nicolai — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:18:57 +0000

It has been said that there are certain anniversaries that nobody likes celebrating. While here in Canada some mused about changing the abortion law (or lack of it), the debate is heating up in the UK, especially since this past Saturday October 27^th was the 40^th anniversary of the law on abortion in England. The “father” of this law was Lord David Steel who recently reflected rather pensively on what he brought about, and declared to the Guardian that there are now far too many abortions. Which means in cold numbers, 194,000 in England and Wales, and up to 200,000 if you include the women coming in from Ireland. But of course with that he added that by saying this he nevertheless felt no regrets, and did not feel it necessary to change the law. But he did admit that abortion has become too easy since it is often used “when things go wrong”.

But in any case he said, far be it from him to be repentant for what he did. All he wanted was a greater sense of responsibility. But what is surprising in all this is that he actually blamed the Catholic hierarchy; for him, the “no” to contraception would contribute to the recourse to abortion as a substitute or a back up for a “botched” contraception.It is rather difficult for me to imagine these pious Catholics, and Catholics who supposedly obediently don’t use contraception because of an “imposition” of the bishops, yet then can tranquilly go and have abortion. It would appear to be more honorable to suggest that their own previsions simply failed. While the law may have sought to avoid clandestine abortions, it ended up banalising life itself as something entirely disposable. A letter signed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor and Cardinal Keith O’Brien stated:

“The 1967 Act was intended to solve the problem of illegal abortion, on the basis that it was a major cause of death in pregnant women. Yet our countries now perform nearly 200,000 abortions every year.”Whatever our religious creed or political conviction, abortion on this scale can only be a source of distress and profound anguish for us all. There is nothing to stop our society from acting now to foster a new understanding and approach to relationships, responsibility and mutual support.”

Fixing up Canada

Fr. Eric Nicolai — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:22:53 +0000

The National Post currently has an ongoing “Fixing Canada Series”, in which a number of prominent writers are being asked a simple question: If you had the power to change a single thing about Canada, what would it be?Raymond de Souza recounts the different proposals in today’s Post. Among them it is worthwhile reading Michael Coren’s impassioned plea to remedy’s Canada’s lack of any sort of abortion law. Coren has written often in pro-life magazines and papers; however it is one thing preaching to the choir, and quite another publishing this stinging blow to what he calls the Canadian feminist movement, and simply “Canada’s attitude”, by which we can suppose he means the government that finances abortion. This comes on the heels of a debate about a pregnant Winnipeg woman who was murdered because she did not want to have an abortion, and yet the killer could not be charged with double homicide. Here’s how he begins:

It is tragically ironic that the most vital and profound issue facing this country is considered by many of its citizens and most of its establishment to be at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous digression championed by zealots. The issue is, of course, abortion. And Canada is almost unique in the civilized world in having no abortion law at all. In other words, any unborn child can be aborted and in most of the country the taxpayer will finance the procedure.Can we, however, genuinely regard ourselves as part of a “civilized world” if we treat our most vulnerable with such indifference? What is supposed to be the safest place for a human being — the womb — has been transformed into a slaughterhouse for humanity, with more than 100,000 abortions in Canada each year.

The rest can be found here. Also worthwhile is the column by Fr. Raymond de Souza on that Winnipeg woman. Let’s hope the debate continues, for the silence on this central question is really deafening. As one reader said: A culture of life is a culture leading to great endeavours. A culture of death, which includes abortion, is a dead end. Whatever else we can think of improving will only be cosmetic.

“Woman Overjoyed By Giant Uterine Parasite”

Fr. Benoit Morrier — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:05:45 +0000

Pro-lifers (including myself obviously) often ask “what’s the difference between killing a baby when it’s in the womb and killing it when it isn’t?”.

The Onion has the answer. Of course, the article is a satire. But the truth is that many people do see the in-womb fetus as some sort of sub-human, alien life form (”It is just a ball of cells”).

Read the following pro-abortion arguments found on this forum and weep :

“I am for abortion in a case that the baby is sick and the parents can’t provide for the proper treatments/medications, in a situation of rape, or the mother is too young to have a baby( I believe you should be 18+). If for some reason a woman is having a girl and decides that she wanted a boy and gets an abortion i feel that is wrong because of the fact that every human being shall be treated the same and loved for who they are.”

“Abortion is bad like murder but w[h]at if a woman was raped and she became pregnant?? Put the baby up for adoption or make an abortion?? Adoption is really sad because sometimes the child will never know who their real parents are…”

“It’s a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body. Pro-life people often say that you shouldn’t have sex unless you’re willing to deal with the consequences. Well, abortion is a way of dealing with it. Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.”

“I find it highly irritating how pro-lifers don’t seem to give a **** about the mother at all and only seem to care about the fetus, which is unwanted. And the people who say things like ‘well you shoudn’t have had sex’ make me want to scream.”

The person who wrote this last comment has a point, at least regarding the attention and compassion pro-lifers should have towards women who are considering an abortion. (Cf. this excellent First Things article).

And this one actually made me laugh:

“Isn’t it cute how pro-lifers have to make up statistics in order to get people to support their cause? If abortion was really so evil, wouldn’t the actual facts be compelling enough on their own?”

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica (II ii, Q.15 art. 3), offers the only reason I can fathom for why most people don’t see abortion for the evil it is : sin makes you stupid.

(If you’re a sinner, you know what Aquinas says is true. If you don’t consider yourself a sinner, then it’s definitely true).

Christianity and the concept of “person”

Father Thomas Dowd — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:14:38 +0000

I recently had the chance to read a book lent to me by Professor Lucian Turcescu, a colleage at Concordia University (love the bow tie, Lucian). It is based on his doctoral thesis, and is entitled Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons. While his work is necessarily quite technical, the theme itself is quite fascinating, in that he argues that our modern Western concept of “person” depends on an intellectual tradition that flows directly from Christianity.

The concept of “person”, of course, is extremely important for (among other things) human rights theory. If we get this concept wrong, in other words, we risk seeing a degredation of a proper respect for our fellow human beings. So what is a “person”, anyway?

As it turns out, the ancient Greek philosophical tradition did not actually have a well-developed concept of “person”. The root word of “person” is the Greek word prosopon (in Latin, persona), which meant the mask worn by actors in the theatre to represent the different roles they might play. This view is wholly unacceptable to establish any sort of human rights concept, however, because it implies that the value of an individual is not based on who he is, but simply on what he does. It eventually leads to a utilitarian view of the human person, in which those who are sick or otherwise weakened lose some or all of their dignity has human beings.

Enter the Greek-speaking Christians, particularly Gregory of Nyssa and his fellow Cappadocian thinkers. Debates were raging around the nature of God at the time, particularly the concept of the Trinity. How can God be one and three at the same time? The eventual formula agreed at the council of Nicea (325 A.D.) was “One God in three Persons”. But what, exactly, did this mean? The defense of this statement of Christian faith required the Cappadocians to clarify the concept of “person” itself — and in doing so, they laid the foundation for all of modern human rights theory (and, I might add, the notion of the solidarity of the human race).

The first thing that was rejected was the word prospon to describe the concept of “person”, primarily because it was too easy to misunderstand in the concext of the Trinity. It would be too easy, for example, to declare that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were merely different roles (or masks, if you will) exercised by God depending on his current activity. This is heresy called “Sabellian modalism”, and it effectively denied the Trinity as such. Of course, a side-effect of this theory has been already described above, in which this theory reduces the source of dignity of persons to merely the roles they play (a very dangerous notion).

The Cappadocians strongly supported the Nicean formula, which described God as three individuated substances (one could say as three individuals) sharing one substance/nature (in Greek, ousia). Each Person could be understood as fully divine because each possessed the divine nature, without somehow “dividing up” that nature. Think of cats: what makes a cat a cat is that it shares that nature of cathood with other cats. At the same time, I can look at this cat or that cat without somehow thinking that the nature of “cathood” has been divided among them (that would be silly). The birth of a new cat does not somehow make other cats less “catty”. In an analogous way, the presence of the three Persons in the One God does not diminish God in any way, and what permits each to truly be divine is that they share the divine nature.

So far, so good. The basis of human rights is now set, in that the dignity of a person depends, not on what he or she does, but what he or she *is*. “Human” describes a nature, not an activity, so “human rights” are rights that flow from sharing that human nature, first and foremost. The Cappadocians, however, develop their concept of “person” even further, and in doing so diverge from some elements of the modern version of the concept. Or, more accurately, it is the modern version of the concept that has diverged from theirs, with potentially nasty consequences.

In our modern mindset we tend to think of a “person” not simply as an “individual human”, but as an “autonomous individual human”. There is some truth to this idea, in that to be an individual anything means to be this thing and not that thing. Again, think of cats: to be an individual cat means to be this cat and not that cat. However, for this “not-thatness” of an individual to be a truly defining element of its existence requires that it be completely distinguishable from the other, i.e. that its existence be independant. For humans, because we have free will, this independance means (in part) living with personal autonomy. Again, there is some truth to this notion, in that if we are not autonomous then we are not really free, and if we are not free then we are not really capable of choosing to love (which is our highest vocation).

What Gregory of Nyssa and his companions recognized, however, was that the concept of autonomy needed to be completed by the concept of relationality. For the Cappadocians, to be a true “person” meant to be in relation with others. If the concept of autonomous individuals, for example, were to be applied to the Trinity without this concept of relationality, then the Trinity would actually consist of 3 separate gods. What keeps the three individuals of the Trinity in their profound union with each other is their mutual relationality, lived in an autonomy that finds its perfection in eternal mutual love.

The Cappadocians, therefore, present a concept of person that necessarily includes an openness to relationality. In doing so they actually present a stronger foundation for human rights than the notion of mere autonomy. Some, of course, do not agree. For example, some argue that the reason we need human rights is so that people can truly become autonomous and this truly become persons, thus placing autonomy as the core concept for human rights. The problem with this argument, however, is that it once again reduces a human being to what he or she *does*. Granted, it is not exactly the same as the prosopon problem, in that what is at stake here is not what is done so much as the autonomy with which it is done. Nevertheless, it still boils down to action over being. What about, for example, people suffering from coma or mental illness? They are not totally autonomous, and may never be. Are they therefore less human?

By opening the definition of “person” to include relationality, therefore, the Cappadocians recognize that the dignity of human nature rests not only in autonomous loving, but also in the capacity of being loved. Relationality possesses both an active and a passive dimension, and as such it includes the good ideas of the concept of autonomy while preserving the idea that human rights reside in the very nature of humanity, rather than simply in the activity of its individuals.

Where this concept of relationality becomes really important, however, is in the attitude of mutual responsibility it engenders. Why, for example, should I love my neighbour? Because he is of the same tribe? Because he is of the same religion, or nation? Because I hope to gain something from him? The Cappadocians would answer: because he shares the same human nature as you. And since this nature includes relationality, it means that all human beings are, by nature, necessarily in a relationship with all other human beings, a relationship that finds its perfection in love.

Translation into regular English: if the Cappadocians are right, then charitable organizations like Doctors without Borders are among the peak achievements of civilization, because they exercise care for others simply because they are fellow human beings.

I think the Cappadocians are right, and I think their theory is actually empirically verifiable. Just think of the typical relationship between a parent and child. A newborn child is far from autonomous, and yet I have had many parents tell me that they never knew how much they were capable of love before their first child was born. It was like a “rush of love” as a new relationship was established — and a relationship with a highly non-autonomous being.

And there is one other empirical verification that I think is possible. I think it is inarguable that Western civilization has the most developed notion of universal (i.e. non-tribal) charity. Each culture has its organizations for the mutual assistance of the members of that culture, but very few have similar organizations for the aid of strangers. The West does, and I consider these organizations to be the true peak of Western civilization. I find it interesting that, as we in the West have tended to emphasize autonomy and self-determination, we have also tended to become more “tribal”. Still, even if it has forgotten it to a certain extent, the West is a highly Christian society in its origins, and those Christian origins include a concept of persons developed from theological debates concerning the Trinity. That concept of persons allowed the West to develop a more and more universal concept of charity, found today in groups like Doctors without Borders. So ask yourself: do you think that charitable organizations with a universal character are the signs of healthier side of a civilization? If you do, then you think the Cappadocians were right.

One final point, though: if the Cappadocians were right about the concept of persons, then it necessarily implies that they were right in understanding God as a Trinity. It is a sign that Christianity is truly a force that inspires civilization to be the best it can be. And it means that every time you give money to a charity with a non-tribal outlook, you are actually professing the belief, or at least the hope, that God is a Trinity after all. Let us therefore pray that the West may continue to have this Trinitarian outlook, that it may become more and more explicit, and that it may spread throughout the world as a more perfect basis for the love of God and neighbour.