Posted on 07/05/2019 5:55:23 PM PDT by ebb tide
On the one hand, the bishops of Belgium are reminding their flock and pastors that a dying person, who is fragile for that very reason, needs the proximity as well as the material, psychological and spiritual aid of family, friends, neighbors and pastoral workers, from priests to parish volunteers.
On the other, they aim to broadcast a message of “unconditional love” that leads them to ask pastors to remain “close” to the dying person, even when euthanasia has been asked for and access to the procedure has been granted, and even unto accompanying the victim up to the very end.
Commentators in the Belgian press have underscored that according to the directives, “rituals and prayers” such as the “Unction of the sick,” or Extreme Unction, and the receiving of the Viaticum – Holy Communion given when death is imminent – can be offered to people who are living their last hours before euthanasia.
The guidelines are not quite that explicit, speaking more of the duty to stay “close” to a dying person, even when euthanasia is going to take place. They state that “you can pray for that person and, if it is possible, pray together with that person” in that situation. “However great our human powerlessness, we always entrust our fellow man to Him who is the source of all life and whose mercy knows no bounds,” the bishops write.
They do not speak of the value of prayer – or the absence of it – when a suicidal act has been decided upon and is going to place.
Pastoral care givers in particular have already interpreted the bishops’ guidelines to mean that there is no fundamental difference in the approach to a dying person who has chosen euthanasia and one who has not, even though the guidelines do remind care givers that euthanasia is contrary to the Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder.”
In its opening paragraphs, Your hand in My Hand feebly states: “We respect the laws that are voted for in a state of law. Yet it is our right and duty in a pluralistic, democratic society freely to express our opinion as Christians and to make our critical voice heard on fundamental issues relating to life and death.” The bishops thereby recall that numerous documents have been issued regarding euthanasia.
But they also speak out against “unreasonable obstinacy” in treatment, the very words used by the powers that be to justify Vincent Lambert's “right” to die in France. The concept is ambiguous, to say the least.
The bishops’ guidelines contain many sociological and psychological passages, but very little about an assessment of one’s own life at the supreme hour of death, indirect allusions to an examination of conscience, and confession of one's faults, and nothing at all about particular judgment of the soul at death and the Last Judgment, Heaven, Hell and Purgatory.
Now if pastoral care means anything at all, it consists in giving immortal human souls the opportunity to receive the necessary help, in particular through the sacraments, to die in a state of grace and thus to be saved by repenting their sins (another absent word) and accepting the mercy of God.
References to God's mercy are rightly very prevalent in the document, but it is presented as a mercy without requirements on the part of the dying person, and the word and clear notion of repentance are conspicuous by their absence.
"Choosing euthanasia" is suicide; a mortal sin.
Ping
My great uncle, who had been on dialysis for a couple of years chose to take himself off of it. He and we knew he’d have about a week to live because of his decision. He was assured by a priest that this was not suicide and not a sin, which was a comfort to him.I know this is not the same as choosing euthanasia, but he was choosing to let himself die so it is pretty close. Providing comfort to the dying is something that priests are supposed to do.
It's not "pretty close". That's a completely different scenario.
That's always been the case.
What you can't do, is murder yourself or set somebody else up to murder you.
Cutting off somebody's nutrition/hydration to make them die faster, for instance is euthanasia. Taking a deliberately lethal drug overdose is euthanasia. Which is murder.
I understand. By refusing life-prolonging medical measures he was choosing to let himself go rather than being helped along. He had a condition, kidney failure, that if untreated, would kill him. He declined the treatment after a couple of years. I know that it was not suicide and it was not assisted suicide. It was letting nature take its course. I was holding him when he took his last breath. I understood why he made the decision he did and I can’t argue with it.
As an aside, a day or two before he died, he sat up in bed, pointed to the blank wall in front of him and said, “I want to go there.”
They are different scenarios, I agree, but I don’t know that they are “completely different”. One is “if I don’t do this I die” and the other is “if I do this I die”. I have no idea what people who choose euthanasia are facing or dealing with. I do not know what happen to their souls when they meet God. But I do believe that comforting them cannot hurt.
That’s not euthanasia. Patents have the right to refuse treatments which are futile or of very little efficacy, or which have become intolerably burdensome.
That’s always been the case.
"Comforting" one who is intentionally killing himself is very hurtful.
((((Hugs))))
I still admire her strength and courage that allowed her to keep going despite her problems.
As for me, ten years after her death I met and married a widow. We've now been married for nearly twenty years. It's been a good marriage, But I'm still inspired by how my first wife dealt with her problems. She faced them, and didn't wallow in self-pity. Should the need arise, I hope I will do the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.