Wednesday, August 2, 2017
A serious question
I'm going to ask a serious question and I hope some of you will answer it. What is the Catholic argument against physician assisted suicide? No, don't go away, because this is a serious topic, not just practically but also theologically, and I have yet to see any Catholic argument against it. I have, of course, seen arguments that are said to be against it, but really all the arguments I've seen against it are actually against something else other than physician assisted suicide - usually euthanasia.
There was a recent post at America magazine that illustrates this ... How Catholic health care is fighting against the campaign for physician-assisted suicide. The article has a scary photo at the top of an anesthesia mask .... no anesthesia masks are associated with PA suicide. It goes downhill from there. Some quotes ...
[P]alliative care is becoming increasingly important as technology allows people with serious chronic conditions to live longer than ever before. The dilemma is that reliance on such technology can result in a greatly diminished quality of life for patients. For some, ending one’s life early with a cocktail of prescription drugs may seem more appealing than living attached to tubes or in intense pain.
PA suicide isn't for people with chronic conditions, it's only for people who are terminally ill and who have less than six months to live.
In 2012, physician-assisted suicide advocates tried unsuccessfully to bring an Oregon-style law to Massachusetts by means of a ballot referendum. During the campaign, the archdiocese partnered with several other groups, including disability rights organizations, who were afraid that the law would put the elderly, the disabled and other vulnerable populations at risk by pressing them to request lethal doses of medication.
This red herring is often brought up in arguments against PA suicide - the idea that somehow the government or doctors or people's families are going to start euthanizing disabled people. PA suicide has nothing to do with people being disabled. It is only for people who are terminally ill with less than six months to live. And PA suicide cannot be chosen by one person for another or forced on someone by another.
One side argues that patients who have these fears should be able to avoid the suffering by ending their lives early. But given the church’s rich history of finding meaning in suffering, especially in death, end-of-life care infused with Catholic values may be uniquely situated to provide an insight into the fears and concerns that accompany dying.
I cannot express how awful I think it is that the church would try to impose its questionable views of suffering on everyone else, including non-Catholics.
Another argument I've often seen raised is that doctors should not kill patients. Docs don't kill PA suicide patients, they give patients some pills which they usually take later at home. And, let's be honest - doctors already kill patients. I've personally known 3 people whose families and doctors decided to end their lives (often without their consent) by depriving them of water until they died of thirst. If the church doesn't want docs killing people, why doesn't it jump on this creepy practice?
So, I'm hoping someone here will tell me what the actual argument against PA suicide is, keeping in mind that PA suicide is only for people who are terminally ill with less than six months to live, who are of sound mind and who decide of their own free will to do this.
Please tell me that the real reason isn't that God owns our lives and thus we don't have the right to end them (No One Should Have The Right To Die Until God Is Done Toying With Them ). As this article in Christianity Today mentions, there are only six examples of suicide in the bible, and none of them show the person being condemned by God for taking their lives. Jesus never mentions it in the gospels, either, so I'm unaware of any biblical back-up for the belief that God is against suicide. And even if he was, why would believers have the right to take away the option of PA suicide from people who aren't believers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteCatholics aren't the only Christians who teach against suicide, assisted or otherwise. It has been a consistent Christian position from the beginning. I was taught that it was a 5th commandment issue, "Thou shalt not kill" includes oneself. There are a couple of Scripture verses which point out that our life is not our own, that it belongs to God:
"I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and delivered Himself up for me." (Galatians 2:19-20).
"For if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's." Romans 14:8
To me these are beautiful and comforting thoughts, that we belong to God who made us, and that he will take care of us until he calls us home. Sorry, I am not going to tell you that the reason the church is against suicide isn't that God owns our lives, because I believe that he does.
But certainly not to toy with us.
This post is a good discussion of the subject. The author isn't Catholic. It is a couple of years old and was written at the time of Brittany Maynard's illness and assisted suicide, but is still relevant. People say that assisted suicide isn't a slippery slope, but I don't see how that can be avoided. With the way healthcare is monetized, the "right to die" would quickly become the "duty to die". If we look at other countries who have allowed assisted suicide (and euthanasia), there are problems which have surfaced.
There are a lot of ways we can make death more humane by accompanying people in their last suffering, but not by hastening their end. At least that's my point of view.
Most people want the right to decide about this stuff, and some of the people who have championed these PA suicide bills have been Catholics, like Jerry Brown and Justin Trudeau. They both decided that despite their religious affiliations, everyone that they represented (California and Canada) deserved the right to decide for themselves if they needed to do this. Brown said this when he signed the bill for CA ...
Delete“In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death,” Brown wrote in a signing message. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”
You can hear Justin Trudeau explain why he chose this for Canada, based on his father's experiences ... Trudeau on why he’s pushing for physician-assisted dying
You have a problem here in that you want to know why the Catholic Church opposes physician-assisted suicide, but you are unwilling to accept any answer that relies on Catholic teaching on suicide!
ReplyDeleteOf course, one major reason the Catholic Church opposes physician-assisted suicide is that it is suicide. I think you are going to have to present a much more detailed argument as to why the Catholic Church is mistaken to condemn suicide than to say that Jesus didn't condemn it and to cite an article claiming those in the Bible who committed suicide (including Judas!) weren't punished for it.
Aside from the moral views on suicide that the Catholic Church upholds, I think some of the "slippery slope" arguments are quite reasonable. I think that the aim of medicine should be to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients, not to kill them. In general, I think the Catholic Church has been quite reasonable in not requiring "extraordinary measures" to prolong life.
You say: " I've personally known 6 people whose families and doctors decided to end their lives (often without their consent) by depriving them of water until they died of thirst."
I have a hard time believing this, but if true, it sounds like homicide to me. I don't see why it should in any way be an argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide.
David,
ReplyDeleteIt's true I don't think Catholic teaching should be able to dictate policy for everyone in the area of health care. But I am interested in what the Catholic idea that suicide is wrong is based on.
Slippery slope arguments argue against a hypothetical situation instead of the actual issue. This was often the church's argument against marriage equality - the fear that if gay people were allowed to marry, soon people would be marrying their siblings or their pets.
I must fix that - it was three people not six and it's true. One was a lady who had terminal breast cancer, a friend of my mom's. One was a friend of mine. And one was the daughter of a friend. This is actually a common thing ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/withholding-food-and-drink-from-terminally-ill-patients-has-transformed-end-of-life-care-8268641.html
http://journals.rcni.com/doi/pdfplus/10.7748/ns2010.12.25.14.43.c8154
But I am interested in what the Catholic idea that suicide is wrong is based on.
ReplyDeleteI think you are probably aware of what the Church teaches about suicide. You just don't like it. But let me ask you: Do you believe that every human being has the right to commit suicide whenever he or she chooses? Or do you only believe in physician-assisted suicide under very specific circumstances (terminal illness with short life expectancy)?
From the little I know, end-of-life care issues can be complex. For example, giving food or even water by mouth may be a choking hazard. So there may be reasons to refrain from feeding or even hydrating a dying person. But withholding both food and water to deliberately cause death (especially without the consent of the patient) seems to be deliberate killing? Why not administer a lethal dose of barbiturates and get it over with immediately? Withholding hydration so that a person dies of thirst (even if the person is unconscious) seems to me just as much deliberate killing as administering a lethal dose of some drug or poison. (I do think different rules may apply when a person is in a persistent vegetative state. In that case, I am not sure a "real" person is present.)
Remember, I'm an RCIA person so my knowledge of church teaching is kind of sketchy. I know from popular culture that the church hasn't liked suicide in the past and didn't used to bury suicides, though I think that's changed. But I don't know why the church believes that. I know of nothing in the bible that would support it.
ReplyDeleteI do think people have the right to commit suicide, though of course it is a sad decision. People kill themselves for a number of reasons. Some Buddhist monks have set themselves on fire in religious/political protest, some Japanese soldiers have killed themselves because of losing face. Internet activist Aaron Swartz killed himself because he was facing decades in prison. Robin Williams killed himself because he was facing a terrible illness.
Sometimes when people are very ill, their families decide they should die. I would find this hard to justify, especially if the person was not suffering. This is what happened with Terri Schiavo, whose husband had her feeding tube removes, causing her death by dehydration. It seems to me that giving a person a drug overdose would be more honest and more humane, but I think people like the fiction that the patient died of "natural causes".
The Church has not only "not liked" suicide, it has condemned it from the start. Judas committed suicide. Jesus said it would have been better for him if he had not been born (Mark 14:21). Peter was as deeply into existential trouble, but was forgiven three time. So suicide is seen as giving up on God, which is a sin that can't be forgiven because it leaves no time for repentance.
ReplyDeleteThe Church forbids Christian burial for suicides. That is to discourage the living from following suit. But it recognizes that people aren't always totally responsible for what they do. So it assumes the deceased was somewhat deranged and gives them funerals. That is to comfort the mourners. Actually, whatever is going to happen to the suicide is already in the hereafter and out of the Church's hands.
In dealing with people who commit suicide and their survivors, the Church is trying to thread a needle. It is not a solution to throw away the needle and use the thread to tie things up instead of sewing them.
I think a physician helping a person die is akin the the executioner in a prison. Physicians are supposed to do no harm. The medical profession has "not liked" suicide from the start. Why differentiate killing by impulse of the patient from killing by impulse of the state? Both do harm.
As to what people "want": When I was 12 I wanted a new Schwinn bike and was going to die if I didn't get it. My parents couldn't afford it. I did not die. When I was 20 I thought it would be nice if someone gave me a million dollars. No one did. Now I think it would NOT have been a good idea if someone had. Last year, enough Americans wanted Trump to become president, and he did. We know how that turned out. I am not impressed by people's ability to want what is good for them.
Judas was not in trouble because he committed suicide but because of selling out Jesus. And it's only in one version that he commits suicide - in another he dies from exploding intestines (Acts 1:18–19).
DeleteI know the church has a history of being against suicide - what I am wondering is why. Can anyone point to some biblical mentions of the badness of it?
I read a study that showed most people who commit suicide do so out of fear of pain and the indignities of debilitation they see coming.
ReplyDeleteThe medical profession needs to do a better job explaining how it will help the patient deal with these things. Way too often docs tell people that we'll just have to see how it goes or cross that bridge when we come to it.
Doctors need to discuss contingencies. It's gonna take longer than a 15-minute office visit.
Also, your oncologist is THE worst person to talk to about this in my experience. They've always got one last thing they want to try. It's really important to understand the odds of treatment and set limits with these people.
And palliative care needs to start much sooner than six months before you die.
Whatever the Church says can readily be found in the online searchable catechism.
The goal of the present efforts to change the law seem to be not so much to make suicide possible as to make it socially acceptable. Methods to commit suicide painlessly are no doubt easily googlable. But by making it physician's assisted suicide, one pulls in society itself as a participant and source of approval. Interesting that an act of the supremely autonomous individual requires getting the ok of society. If I wanted to kill myself, the only physicians I'd need would be Doctors Smith & Wesson or google a tidier exit. So the legislation seems to seek something else.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Stanley. Suicide we have always had with us. Suicide as a Good Thing or a Choice is something new. When bishops get their knickers in a twist over moves to decriminalize or legalize parts of it, they are thinking of the slippery slope: If it becomes legal for some, isn't the next step to make it mandatory for some -- the expensive poor on Medicaid, the permanently impaired? Whoever. But you're already half way down the slippery slope when the kids can say, "Mom, you don't want to be a burden on your children, do you?"
DeleteI have reached the stage of life when you spend a lot of time in Hospice with friends. They know they are dying, and every time I've been there (but one) they are more at peace with it than are their relatives. The one exception was a man who was dying and knew his wife would be right behind him. He was worrying about her, not himself. Good end-of-life care to ease the pain and eliminate the indignities should be a right,
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe question of suicide versus the prolonging of terminal suffering is a tough one. Two friends have recently recounted to me what they experienced while attending to their parent's final moments in a hospice. In both cases the parents were (or would have been) suffering and it both cases my friends were given a bottle of morphine so that they could immediately administer a dose to their suffering parent should the need arise. In both cases, they admit to being tempted to give their parent an overdose, which they both believed could be chalked up as a "mistake" on their part and for which they would face no punishment.
ReplyDeleteOne of my friends was simply given the bottle with instructions and was then left to his own devices. The other had a nurse who sat with him much of the time. Although both knew what the proper dose was supposed to be, in the second case the nurse was "pushing" the dosage, telling my friend that his father was in pain and needed an additional dose each time he simply stirred.
My impression is that while assisted suicide is illegal, it might be one of those things where "X is categorically forbidden, so be discrete."
I think that we all want to ease suffering. But Catholics don't quite believe in the absolute freedom of "being of the right mind". After all, all sin is perpetrated by responsible adults who thought it was a good idea at the time. The idea of a transcendent morality assumes that people, while responsible for their actions, nonetheless do not necessarily act responsibly in terms of a larger moral order that exists not as a set of arbitrary rules, but as a model for the best possible life.
I don't know what I would do if someone handed me that bottle of morphine and then winked and left the room. I know with my own bouts of depression in the past that there were definitely times that I would have taken it. And I could definitely have made and excellent argument about why I should take it.
But assisted suicide is one of those things that I don't believe is properly cast as a personal decision. At the least, it needs the assistance of the physician. It also needs the assistance of the family (in most cases). I think the question is more properly phrased as "assisted suicide in the social context of all of those who could or should be contributing to the support of the sufferer". One can, after all, kill oneself whenever one wishes. (Although RE Google, there is really no surefire way of killing oneself painlessly). But one can't kill oneself independently and separately from the group one occupies. And therein lies a flaw in the way that this topic is usually discussed. The moral life of an individual cannot, ever, be separated from the moral life of the group.
We had a bottle or morphine and no supervision. Dad was unresponsive, but we administered every two hours or 90 minutes at the end in case. It was not a problem.
DeletePhysician assisted suicide is legal in five states now and will probably eventually be legal in all states because it is very popular in the polls. Most people do want to have the ability to decide what will happen to themselves at the end of their lives.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, as you point out, patients are already being "killed" by themselves or by family members or by their doctors, but in disingenuous ways that often lead to a lot of guilt and anguish and also fear of legal consequences. PA suicide makes legal and out in the open what is already often happening, and it puts the responsibility on the patient themselves, instead of on their family.
My mom died in the hospital overnight. She had lung cancer and suffered a lot, but she was a fighter and would not ever give up on getting better. That was her choice and I'm glad she was able to do what she wanted. When my elderly cats got sick with cancer and liver failure, I had to decide for them when they were suffering so much that they would rather be dead - it's a horrible decision to have to make for someone else. I would rather see these choices be in the hands of the people who are the patients.
OK, I read the catechism. Apparently suicide is wrong because the church thinks it's wrong. No biblical back-up except 'Thous shalt not kill' which is pretty thin, given the interpretations of that commandment and the fact that both God and 'good' people are killing each other right and left in the OT .... come on, people are advised to kill children who are sassy to their parents!
ReplyDeleteCrystal, So you don't accept Jesus's words about Judas biblical backup. OK.
ReplyDelete"Most people do want to have the ability to decide what will happen to themselves at the end of their lives." Yeah, even the ones who are killed by falling off their horses chasing the hounds. I do want to decide to get a good night's sleep tonight, but what if my neighbors want to have a fight that ends up with someone calling the SWAT team? So much for what people want.
I want Trump to be gone.
"but in disingenuous ways that often lead to a lot of guilt and anguish and also fear of legal consequences." Yes. Killing someone often produces that effect.
Some people want to tiurn in their human nature for something else. I bet they don't get it.
Tom,
DeleteJesus did not say anything about suicide when speaking about Judas (and Judas had not yet died), plus Acts has another version of how Judas died (not suicide). And Judas is not the only person in the bible to have committed suicide, yet the others are not considered beyond the moral pale.
What does it gain us to make the act of suicide, usually the act of someone who is terribly desperate or suffering unbearably, into some kind of ultra-sin of hubris and selfishness? Where's the compassion? Is being "right" more important than anything else? A rightness that depends only on an interpretation of one denomination's religious beliefs?
Movies have been pushing suicide as the fix by putting their characters in unbelievably horrid situations to which the only fix is killing them. "There's an alien in my abdomen about to burst out. Kill me, please." "The zombie apocalypse is here. We're about to be lunch. Please kill us." Interesting countertake on this was in Frank Darabont's movie, "The Mist". To save his son and three passengers from the experience of being shredded and eaten alive by monsters from a nasty parallel universe, the protagonist shoots the three adult SUV passengers with their consent and his son. Running out of bullets for himself, he steps outside and invites the monsters. But the mist clears to show the Army cleaning up the monsters and transporting survivors. Now his real agony begins. Even Stephen King preferred the change from his novella.
ReplyDelete"Is being "right" more important than anything else?"
ReplyDeleteWell, you are saying that people have a right to be right in the matter of life and death that is suicide. I am saying people are not more likely to be right than 2000 year old institutions. And, remember, the issue is life or death.
Surely you don't take the Acts description of Judas's death seriously. No one falls down and bursts. A bloated body -- left in the sun because a suicide was not worthy of burial under the old law -- might burst after it was taken down, or fell down, from the rope. And you have an awfully literal idea of saying something or nothing if you think saying he would have been better of he had not been born about someone you know is going to commit suicide is saying nothing. Too bad about him, what's tomorrow's weather supposed to be like?
That 2000 year old institution has been wrong about a lot of stuff, from believing the sun orbited the earth to believing slavery was a great idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think we can really rely on all the details in the gospels to be historically correct, any more than we can rely on Acts for that.
In our religiously pluralistic society, a majority of people believe that there is nothing wrong with a terminally ill person who has less than six months to live deciding that they would like to die a couple of months sooner because they are in terrible pain. That is just a fact.
No one is forced to do it. It's a choice. And I think that's what really bothers the church - the idea that people feel they have the right to make decisions about their own lives, despite what the church teaches. It's about power and influence.
I've got to stop - I'm getting too mad ;)
God's divine spark is inside our own being and our life: what right do we have to end it?
ReplyDeleteGod's loving presence is next to us as we live: what right do we have to hurt that love ?
God created us and started our life: what right do we have to terminate it?
God is not some being far away. God's life is intertwined with ours, and it is through him, with him and because of him that we live. With such a perception of our relation to God, the idea of suicide is abhorrent.
I have been blessed to witness several "good deaths", not free of pain but oriented towards the upcoming face-to-face encounter with God -- and I very much hope to have such a death when my turn comes. However, not having encountered "terrible pain" among the people close to me who have died, I do not know what I would do then. It's an unknown, and I mostly hope to be helped by the church, that is, by the friendly, loving, caring presence of people of faith at my bedside during my end of life.
I've read about the "good death" but it seems like a lot to expect of people. The people I've known who have died have usually been in distress at that point. I'm sure I will be terrified when my time comes.
DeleteIn our religiously pluralistic society, a majority of people believe that there is nothing wrong with a terminally ill person who has less than six months to live deciding that they would like to die a couple of months sooner because they are in terrible pain. That is just a fact.
ReplyDeleteThat a majority believes suicide is OK is a fact, That suicide is OK is a belief. It is not a fact.
I know. But the alternative is also true.
Deletecrystal,
ReplyDeleteIt is not a belief or teaching of the Catholic Church that something is morally wrong only if a biblical argument can be made against it. Similarly, no Catholic would argue that if Jesus did not specifically condemn a thing, then it cannot be considered wrong.
I don't have a lot of trust in institutions. The best I myself am able to do is to try to figure out what the most plausible and fact-based stuff about Jesus and his movement is. That's almost impossible, of course, but I can't simply auto-trust all the teachings created by the church that don't have any basis in what Jesus taught. I don't worship the church - it's just made up of fallible human beings.
DeleteI wonder, Crysgal, if you think everybody else in this group auto-trusts the Catholic Church?
ReplyDeleteI'm not one who auto-trusts the Church, because, you know, human beings. But I do trust the Holy Spirit, who I believe sorts things out over time. I would sooner trust the Church in these matters, with all it's imperfections, than all the little magisteriums; the churches of me, myself, and I.
DeleteI know you guys are fairly critical - that's why we all were talking to each other at dotCommonweal instead of the National Catholic Register ;)
DeleteI suspect like a lot of other moral issues, church teaching on this developed from whatever "suicidal" situations the apostolic fathers faced.
ReplyDeleteIn classical society like in many other societies, I suspect there were situations where it was regarded not only as socially acceptable but even laudable to commit suicide. For example in India where wives were supposed to throw themselves on their husbands funeral fire.
Catholicism has not only faced quite a few different situations over time, but even today faces very different situations in very different societies (which we saw when the bishops discussed the issue of divorce0.
I suspect it would not take to much time and effort to begin to discovered the history of this. Sounds like a good master's thesis for someone.
When I took Father Richard McBrien's course on ecclesiology I got interested in excommunication in the early church and came across some interesting situations such as what to do with a traveling bishop who has no credentials. Turns out they treated them somewhat like we are beginning to treat Anglican and Orthodox bishops. O'Brien found that interesting.
So, Crystal, get busy on doing some research. I suspect without a great deal of trouble (like reading original languages) you could become an "expert" in this area, and know more that one in a thousand, maybe even ten thousand of the clergy, maybe even know more than most bishops.
Honestly I don't have much of an interest in this issue largely because of my psychological background. We know that a lot of suicides are really cries for help. That many people who attempt suicide once do not do it again if they get the social support they need. The problem with guns (we have more suicides than homicides) is that suicide by gun is more successful than most other methods.
ReplyDeleteI just think these situations are very complex; the person, their life history, their family, their physicians, their community etc. that it is difficult to predict what the effects of any given legislation might be.
True about cultural differences. In Japan suicide is viewed differently. One guy who has written a lot about suicide is Fr. Ron Rolheiser OMI. Here's the start of one of his articles, Our Misconceptions about Suicide ...
Delete"What are our misconceptions about suicide?
First, that suicide is an act of despair. Too common still is the belief that suicide is the ultimate act of despair – culpable and unforgivable. To commit suicide, it is too commonly believed, puts one under the judgement once pronounced on Judas Iscariot: Better to not have been born. Until recently, victims of suicide were often not even buried in church cemeteries ..."
I dunno. Adultery used to be illegal. Now it's a choice. You and your spouse decide what you want to do about it.
ReplyDeleteAbortion used to be illegal. Now it's a choice, subject to some restrictions by state law.
Suicide used to be illegal and in the olden days your property was confiscated by the state. Now it's essentially a penalty-free choice.
Physician assisted suicide/euthanasia is a choice in a few states. I expect it will eventually be legalized nationwide.
I'm not a black and white thinker. I cannot envision lots of situations where I'd have a hard time lowering the boom on people who want to exercise these choices.
But I think we are moving toward a society in which we hesitate to restrict choice because Americans have no shared moral compass. More than that, we seem increasingly unable to look at people in vulnerable situations and try to protect them--old people, sick people, children living with crazy parents or in poverty, fetal life, workers whp can't make enough to live on while the companies they work for make record profits, gender pay inequality, etc.
Sorry: I CAN envision ...
ReplyDeleteJean, you know that euthanasia is the killing of one person by another without their consent, that euthanasia is illegal in the US, right? Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are not the same thing. PA suicide has nothing to do with killing elderly people or disabled people or poor people.
DeleteOkay, PA suicide and euthanasia are different terms. But they are not unrelated, and it is not "nothing" to do with killing people who didn't (or can't) consent to it. Euthanasia used to be called "mercy killing". I'm sure that if PA was legalized, people could put it in their advanced directives that they would want to be put down if they were terminal and suffering. And if they had dementia or something, their family would have to make the call. In Holland they are already allowing the euthanasia of children under certain circumstances. It all starts with PA.
DeleteKatherine,
DeleteNo PA suicide really isn't like euthanasia or mercy killing. According to the laws on the books in the states that have it, the person who chooses it can't sign up for it ahead of time. They have to do it when they have less than six months to live, and they have to be of sound mind, and they have to be examined and interviewed by a number of doctors first before being allowed to do it. No one else, no family member, can sign them up for this. And the law here isn't like the law in Holland, or even like the law in Canada. It's very specific and there's no room for creep.
If anyone actually wants to know what the law in California (and the other states) is like and how it works, here is a Q and A article in the LA Times about it.
The best I myself am able to do is to try to figure out what the most plausible and fact-based stuff about Jesus and his movement is.
ReplyDeletecrystal,
Why do you seem to believe that Jesus was the ultimate authority? Do you accept that part of Christianity but reject the idea that the Catholic Church and Christianity in general do not represent a genuine continuation of the "Jesus movement"? I think the vast majority of Christian denominations oppose suicide (including physician-assisted suicide). In fact, I think the majority of non-Christian religions also oppose both suicide and physician-assisted suicide. It seems that a great many adherents of various religions do support physician-assisted suicide, but when it comes to moral questions, which are we to take more seriously—the official positions of the religions, or a popular vote by their members?
It seems to me that our understanding of Jesus, even if it comes from the Gospels, comes from the Church, since it is the Church that created the Gospels, not vice-versa.
Yes, that's what I meant about it being almost impossible - trying to know about and follow Jesus means that the only real information you have about him, aside from personal religious experience, is stuff from the church.
DeleteI mostly pay attention to the gospels plus the writings of some people like Ignatius Loyola or Francis of Assisi, plus my own experience (spiritual direction). When I look at the the church I see so much badness ... antisemitism, religious wars, the inquisition, witch trials, power grabs, disinformation, sex abuse, mistreatment of women and LGBT people, etc .... that I am skeptical about how well the church is doing with carrying on Jesus' teachings.
Crystal, it seems like all your posts end up as an effort to rub our noses in the terrible things the hierarchy in the Church has done. Yup, they have, nobody here denies it, and I have faith that they have had to/will answer for it.
DeleteI think the disconnect I have with your approach is that, for all its horrors, the Church produced your SS. Francis and Ignatius (as well as the beguines, the Catholic Worker, L'Arche, the hospice movement, some real nice art, etc.).
You seem preoccupied with the Church's administrators--and I was in a seven-hour meeting yesterday that illustrated what a useless and soul-killing lot they can be, even though I'm sure God will show them mercy for wasting a day of my life--rather than what it means to live a Catholic life (and I realize how fecking condescending that sounds even as I write it and apologize in advance).
The wisdom of the Church isn't found in the Vatican or even the catechism. It's found in the hearts of the people who caught some bit of Jesus's example and said, I'll carry this forward.
I am certainly not a good Catholic or Christian, but I admire so many people in the Church, and I try to take what I can from it.
So do you, or you wouldn't be trying to save all those cats or protesting about what the Repubs are doing to poor people.
God loves us, no holds barred. You and me. Us heretics. The Church doesn't tell us we're going to fry in hell for our doubts the way the fundigelicals do. The Church isn't prepared to say anyone is in hell. Not even Judas Iscariot.
Write what you want. But there's my food for thought.
Maybe I feel about the church kind of how you feel about the Democrats? I look at the Democratic party and see its ideals, all the good stuff it has done, how it compares to the alternative, but when you look at it, you see all the ways it has failed. Maybe it's a kind of disillusionment?
DeleteProbably. But I think the party has changed, moved to the right. The Church has changed in that it doesn't burn people up anymore! :-)
DeleteCrystal started this post with the headline, "A Serious Question," but her responses makes clear she is not interested in "serious answers."
ReplyDeleteBrings to mind one of my speculations about the cancellation of dotCommonweal: Crystal Watson's inability to engage in serious arguments on serious questions. Add to that her unending and repetetive responses that cut off serious discussion by everyone else. Blog abuse!