The Vatican on the Schiavo Case

[RadioWryn 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._woman_religion

Of the major faith traditions, the Catholic position on Schiavo's care is the most definitive. The Vatican (news - web sites) newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Monday condemned the withdrawal of the feeding tube, saying only God can decide whether a person should live or die.

"Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God? Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?" the paper said in a commentary.

A year ago, Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II said that feeding and hydrating a patient in a persistive vegetative state was "morally obligatory" and called withdrawal of feeding tubes "euthanasia by omission."

This is of note to me because the Vatican has taken a pro-choice stance on abortion rights. What makes the Schiavo case that different (unplanned pregnancy versus an unplanned vegatative state) from abortion?

This is an interesting case, perhaps setting a precedent for the value of life in the 21st century.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Which Vatican are you talking about? The Vatican has never, to my knowledge, issued an opinion or decree that was in any way, shape, form, or fashion "pro-choice" on abortion.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Vatican has never taken a pro-choice stance on abortion. In fact, the teachings of the Catholic Church are probably the most consistently pro-life of all Christian denominations, to include abortion, birth control, the death penalty and euthanasia.

I agree with you, though, that this is somewhat surprising because a person is being kept alive, not temporarily but has been for years and will be for years, and the Church generally does not support unnatural means of creating life or ending it.

[AUJarhead 70]

This doesn't sound like "pro-choice" to me:

The Holy See

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I am not Catholic, so please treat this as a question: What is the Vatican's position on Living Wills? This whole Schiavo mess would have been avoided had she simply left a Living Will or Advanced Medical Directive. I know that was the first thing I did when Carl and I married - he and my family are both WELL AWARE of my wishes. But if you are Catholic, can you agree to this? Can you instruct doctors to end care that only serves to artifically prolong a terminal condition? If someone is brain dead and has a Living Will that says no heroic measures, or if you have a Do Not Rescesitate order, is that against the position of the Church?

[RadioWryn 0]

I am not Catholic, so please treat this as a question:  What is the Vatican's position on Living Wills?  This whole Schiavo mess would have been avoided had she simply left a Living Will or Advanced Medical Directive.  I know that was the first thing I did when Carl and I married - he and my family are both WELL AWARE of my wishes.  But if you are Catholic, can you agree to this?  Can you instruct doctors to end care that only serves to artifically prolong a terminal condition?  If someone is brain dead and has a Living Will that says no heroic measures, or if you have a Do Not Rescesitate order, is that against the position of the Church?

152071[/snapback]

I'm not Catholic, just a good southern Baptist. Not sure. I apologize for my misinterpretation of the Catholic Church's stand on abortion. Didn't mean to start fire.

[AUJarhead 70]

I am not Catholic, so please treat this as a question:  What is the Vatican's position on Living Wills?

152071[/snapback]

Jenny, I think this is a great question, but I don't have a great answer. I couldn't find anything from the Vatican, but according to USAToday, Roman Catholic Hospitals will honor the living wills for now.

USAToday

Catholic hospitals reassure patients about living wills

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Roman Catholic hospitals are reassuring patients they'll honor living wills in the wake of a papal pronouncement that hospitals should never remove feeding tubes from patients in persistent vegetative states.

I'll make a note to ask my priest this question this weekend after church, and I'll get back to you.

[CCTAU 3,342]

This is kind of an odd statement. Does this not take on the ultimate act of faith. The decision IS in God's hands. Just like manna from heaven for the Israelites, he can sustain her life without a feeding tube if it is his will. I now see that the Vaticans faith is a little weaker. GET A LIVING WILL. There are people out there like her parents, whose whole reason for you living is not your peace, but theirs. My wife has told me over and over again, if she is in any way trapped inside her body, let the body go.

And I am very disappointed with the president and the republicans trying to make this into a pro-life issue. This is a state issue and has been decided as such. Do not let your loved one's suffer for your own peace...EVER.

[Tiger Al 0]

I am not Catholic, so please treat this as a question:  What is the Vatican's position on Living Wills?  This whole Schiavo mess would have been avoided had she simply left a Living Will or Advanced Medical Directive.  I know that was the first thing I did when Carl and I married - he and my family are both WELL AWARE of my wishes.  But if you are Catholic, can you agree to this?  Can you instruct doctors to end care that only serves to artifically prolong a terminal condition?  If someone is brain dead and has a Living Will that says no heroic measures, or if you have a Do Not Rescesitate order, is that against the position of the Church?

152071[/snapback]

I'm not a priest but will try to make a slightly informed guess. First, living wills have no bearing theologically/morally. It's simply a secular, legal instrument. If you chose something that the Church felt was morally wrong, it wouldn't support that decision. That doesn't mean you can't or won't do it as we are given, by God, free will.

As a Catholic, no, you couldn't agree to this any more than you could agree to let your husband have sex with another woman and it not be adultery.

The other things you asked, I'm not sure of. Here's a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'm sure it may give you some answers to the other questions.

[Tiger Al 0]

This is kind of an odd statement. Does this not take on the ultimate act of faith. The decision IS in God's hands. Just like manna from heaven for the Israelites, he can sustain her life without a feeding tube if it is his will. I now see that the Vaticans faith is a little weaker. GET A LIVING WILL. There are people out there like her parents, whose whole reason for you living is not your peace, but theirs. My wife has told me over and over again, if she is in any way trapped inside her body, let the body go.

And I am very disappointed with the president and the republicans trying to make this into a pro-life issue. This is a state issue and has been decided as such. Do not let your loved one's suffer for your own peace...EVER.

152079[/snapback]

But, what if His will is carried out by the doctors and nurses who invented the feeding tube and inserted it? Manna for thought!

[Tigermike 3,051]

There are so many people on both sides using her condition to push their point of view or their agenda. It seems that most have forgotten all about Terri.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

They have TOTALLY forgotten about her. People are taken off feeding tubes every day in this country and around the world - why are THEY not news? I too am disappointed that the whole pro-life movement and the Repubs (including Pres Bush and Jeb) have jumped all over this. Leave it to politicians to twist something to fit an agenda. I can be pro-life for the unborn, but can be pro-choice when it comes to a rational, competent adult making a decision about whether or not to choose life or death either for themselves, or on behalf of someone for whom they are responsible who can't speak for themselves.

That is my whole point about Living Wills - why would anyone NOT want one, other than squeemishness about facing your own mortality? If you have a strong opinion about this - YOU NEED AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE!!!

I feel for her parents, but they need to wake up. We had a case similar to this in Houston - a baby was born with a terminal genetic defect, and was put on life support. Doctors said he had NO NO NO chance of living, and the vent was jsut causing him to suffer needlessly. But the mom would NOT let them disconnect the vent. St Luke's called FORTY OTHER HOSPITALS to see if any of them would take the child or would provide any other diagnosis other than the one St Luke's doctors made. NONE would take him. Finally the courts ordered the vent disconnected. But the mom says they killed him, that he would have gotten better.

I wonder what it would take for Terri's parents to grasp that she will TRULY NOT get any better? How many doctors? How many experts?

[MDM4AU 336]

For Information regarding Terri Schiavo, click: terrisfight.org

Some of what you will find at the above sight:

Is Terri in an unresponsive coma and hooked to life support machines?

.

Absolutely not! Terri is purposefully interactive, alert, curious, lovely young woman who lives with a very serious disability. She lives free of any life support machines and receives nutrition through a tube that is connected only at meal times.

---

Read a detailed narrative of a visit with Terri

For more MYTHS about Terri, click HERE

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Of the major faith traditions, the Catholic position on Schiavo's care is the most definitive. The Vatican (news - web sites) newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Monday condemned the withdrawal of the feeding tube, saying only God can decide whether a person should live or die.

I have another "Catholic" question: How can the Vatican be opposed to using artificial means to PREVENT life (meaning condoms or other birth control) but have no problem with using artificial means to CONTINUE life? If getting pregnant is natural and God's Will, shouldn't Teri be allowed to live or die "naturally" if it is God's will, with no feeding tube? If God should be allowed to decide when Teri dies, wouldn't keeping the feeding tube in thwart God's will if she is supposed to die according to God's plan for her?

I think CCTAU alluded to this above - TigerAl's argument that God gave the doctors the ability to use a tube to keep her alive so that is God's will doesn't hold up if you say that doctors created birth control too, but a practicing Catholic can't use it. To me, if you can use a feeding tube, you could take the Pill. Both are man made means to have control over "life".

[Tiger Al 0]

Since yesterday I did some reading because I'm fairly familiar with the Church's position on the "beginning" side of life but not so much on the "end" side of life.

In a nutshell, I think the Church's overarching opinion on life is that it is God's gift and, as such, it's creation can't be manufactured or hindered and, once that gift is received, should be nurtured, respected and supported. At what point would the Church say that it's OK to pull the plug? I don't know.

Some reading:

Evangelium Vitae

Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act,[14] these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilization but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman's womb, and these so-called "spare embryos" are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple "biological material" to be freely disposed of.

Familiaris Consortio

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" self-giving, without manipulation or alteration [90].

Humanae Vitae

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church [10].

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy" [11], and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of the husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life [12].

[Jenny AU-92 0]

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

So in English, this says that if I use the Pill, then I am turning the joy of making love to my husband into a degrading act because there is no chance we will get pregnant from having said sex? That in order to give myself totally to him, I have to accept the fact that a child could be the result and plan accordingly, meaning skip that week of ovulation? That I can't just simply enjoy a monogamous sexual relationship with my husband for the sake of the bond it creates between us to be intimate?

If my interpretation is correct, and I am by no means saying it is, I just cannot accept that premise, especially coming from someone who (supposedly) has no personal basis for understanding about what "conjugal love" between a husband and wife in a loving relationship can mean both emotionally, physically and spiritually.

I genuinely don't mean to demean anyone else's beliefs - I really am trying to understand. TigerAl/AUJarhead, how do you reconcile yourselves to that tenet of your faith? Obviously you do not accept it, as neither of you have a very large family, and altho this is totally nosy, I am assuming that your marital relationship with your spouse is healthy (you both seem like good, happy guys and Jarhead just had another kid, so... ) Or do you accept and agree with that position by the Church?

But back to the original point - The Vatican says that once life is created and exists, it is okay to use any and every means possible, man made or otherwise, in order to sustain it. But my question would still be the same - how do you know that it is God's will to use the feeding tube - is the answer that He gave the doctors the knowlege and the means, so it is okay? That if He wanted her dead, all the feeding tubes in the world wouldn't change anything?

[Tiger Al 0]

I genuinely don't mean to demean anyone else's beliefs - I really am trying to understand. TigerAl/AUJarhead, how do you reconcile yourselves to that tenet of your faith? Obviously you do not accept it, as neither of you have a very large family, and altho this is totally nosy, I am assuming that your marital relationship with your spouse is healthy (you both seem like good, happy guys and Jarhead just had another kid, so...  ) Or do you accept and agree with that position by the Church?

Actually, I do accept it so I don't need to reconcile myself. Our family is small for a few reasons. We've actually had four children. Our first was a full-term stillborn girl. Then, Sherri miscarried at about 8 weeks. Our third and fourth ones (4 yrs old and 1 yr old) were fine...so far! We also married and began our family kind of late. We were both 34 when we married and are now 40. These are the only children either of us has had.

Remember, negative contraception doesn't equal positive pregnancy. There are times when we know that fertility is high so we abstain. It has its pros and cons, but isn't nearly as hard as most people make it out to be. And, when the time comes for "that talk" with my sons, I won't seem like I'm asking them to do the impossible by abstaining from sex because I can honestly say that mom and dad also practice what we preach. Of course, at that time, mom and dad may be too old to do the deed anymore, anyway!!!

So in English, this says that if I use the Pill, then I am turning the joy of making love to my husband into a degrading act because there is no chance we will get pregnant from having said sex? That in order to give myself totally to him, I have to accept the fact that a child could be the result and plan accordingly, meaning skip that week of ovulation? That I can't just simply enjoy a monogamous sexual relationship with my husband for the sake of the bond it creates between us to be intimate?

If my interpretation is correct, and I am by no means saying it is, I just cannot accept that premise, especially coming from someone who (supposedly) has no personal basis for understanding about what "conjugal love" between a husband and wife in a loving relationship can mean both emotionally, physically and spiritually.

I think I'm gonna leave this one alone for right now. I sense an offended tone there and I certainly don't want to risk that because these are beliefs that I ascribe to and I don't want this to degenerate into a clash between religions and who's going to hell and who isn't. I will say that until 1930, all Christian denominations shared the same view as the Catholic Church when the Anglican Church "allowed" contraception in certain cases.

Try this one out. He writes a more "English" explanation and that way, if you get offended, it will be him who offended you!!!

Contraception and Catholic Teaching

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Obviously you do not accept it, as neither of you have a very large family,

Al, I am so sorry - I owe you and Jarhead an apology for this one. I was being very shortsighted. There are certainly other reasons for not having large families. I wasn't thinking outside of the box. I could have chosen a better way to write this.

With regards to your acceptance of this church teaching, and regarding my other comments as well, I am not intending to come across as indignant when I write them. Surprised, maybe - I never knew the Catholic Church broke it down like that, and I am surprised mainly for the reason I stated - that a celibate person with no frame of reference feels knowlegable enough to make a pronouncement of God's will regarding what is and isn't acceptable within the confines of a loving marriage. It is genuine curiosity and desire to understand that makes me ask how you can accept that kind of guidance. I may disagree with a premise, and I will state why I disagree, but that is not a criticism of you if you do believe in it. It is just my opinion. It is not trying to understand your beliefs so I can make fun of you, or tell you that you are going to hell. (Your support for John Kerry already did that for you! (JUST KIDDING!!!) )

Please know that while I may bash and chastize you for your political beliefs, you pinko libbie , I would NEVER try to bash you or your religious choices and beliefs. No way would I get into a debate with you or anyone over who's going to hell and who's right and wrong. Unlike many of my conservative bretheren, I am not caught up in my religious superiority, and never in my life, with the exception of a few true cultist "religions", have I ever criticized someone for what they believe. I personally feel that when we all get to the Great Beyond, we will see that to some degree, everyone was right - nearly every major religion recognizes a Superior Being in some form - or even in many forms. Who's to say in the here and now who is right? I personally believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Savior, but I am not going to judge others if they do not. Nor will I judge you for practicing the tenets of your faith. I just do not believe that any one specific religion has a corner on the market.

I understand if you don't want to discuss this further - even if I have honest intentions, others may not.

[CCTAU 3,342]

So. Is haveing my vas deferens clipped going against the religious beliefs. Cause I thought I was taking the knife for my wife. Now it seems that I am the condemned one..

[Tiger Al 0]

No harm, no foul, Jenny. Most people probably assume that we have other kids from other marriages. We're certainly not the norm. It's no problem, though.

I don't discount what the pope, or anyone, says regarding things simply because they aren't one thing or another. I've met quite a few drug counselors who have never been addicts or alcoholics and they are as effective as those who are recovering addicts. And I heard many people blow them off because "they haven't been there." Gynecologists don't have to be women to be good. You don't have to come from poverty to be able to understand it and help people overcome it.

And the pope speaks with the benefit of two thousand years of other people pondering these things as well, so he didn't really just wake up and decide this. Also, there is the "Sin of Onan" that is in Genesis 38:8-10. Many people believe that Onan was killed because he failed to fulfill his responsibility to his brothers wife, but if that were the reason for God's displeasure and Onan's subsequent death, Deuteronomy 25:1-10 has the punishment for that and it wasn't death. And again, until 1930 every Christian denomination believed and taught that contraception was wrong. I say all of this to say that JPII isn't on an island with this, so it's more than one little Polish Pope's opinion.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I wasn't just citing the current Pope - I tend to see the big picture of the 2000 years of the church's theology behind this. Like I said, this just intrigues me because no other religion has it laid out so specifically.

I do understand your point about not having to been there done that to "get it". I still am not sure I agree with it when it comes to sex and marriage, but I will concede the point. I guess emotions are as strong as addictions sometimes.

I want to continue this discussion - I am learning a lot!!! - but it is 5pm, and we are headed back to Alabama in the morning for Easter with my family and a second birthday party for Katie. (Spoiled brat!) Can we leave off until Monday?

Happy Easter!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Monday it is! For now, here's Scott Hahn's conversion story. I'm not trying to convert you, it's just that his story has the subject of contraception as a central theme. Happy Easter!

LINK

[tiger88 934]

This is kind of an odd statement. Does this not take on the ultimate act of faith. The decision IS in God's hands. Just like manna from heaven for the Israelites, he can sustain her life without a feeding tube if it is his will. I now see that the Vaticans faith is a little weaker. GET A LIVING WILL. There are people out there like her parents, whose whole reason for you living is not your peace, but theirs. My wife has told me over and over again, if she is in any way trapped inside her body, let the body go.

And I am very disappointed with the president and the republicans trying to make this into a pro-life issue. This is a state issue and has been decided as such. Do not let your loved one's suffer for your own peace...EVER.

152079[/snapback]

But, what if His will is carried out by the doctors and nurses who invented the feeding tube and inserted it? Manna for thought!

152087[/snapback]

That argument can be spun very easily in either direction. How do we know the judge isn't carrying out God's will. How do we know the doctors who are suggesting removal of the tube aren't carrying out God's will?

[tiger88 934]

I'm sorry but I just don't see a significant difference at all in using the rhythm method to attempt to avoid conception as opposed to regular contraceptives. In both cases you are trying to enjoy sex w/o the complications of becoming pregnant. In both cases you are trying to outsmart your own body. One's riskier, that's for sure.

[tiger88 934]

For Information regarding Terri Schiavo, click: terrisfight.org

Some of what you will find at the above sight:

Is Terri in an unresponsive coma and hooked to life support machines?

.

Absolutely not! Terri is purposefully interactive, alert, curious, lovely young woman who lives with a very serious disability.  She lives free of any life support machines and receives nutrition through a tube that is connected only at meal times.

---

Read a detailed narrative of a visit with Terri

 

For more MYTHS about Terri, click HERE

152206[/snapback]

Interesting stuff mdm. I wonder why her husband doesn't sign over rights to her family? He says her wishes were not to be kept alive like this and he feels obligated to help her. Does he have anything to gain other than one less wife if she dies? I know about his new family and stuff, but couldn't he just divorce her if he wanted to or would she have to consent, which isn't gonna happen?