A New Low, Even for the US Bishops (Papal Food and Water "directive" will be "studied")

A New Low, Even for the US Bishops... Catholic Leaders Refuse Explicit Papal Directive on Nutrition and Hydration: Will "Study" Life and Death Issue for a Year

TAMPA BAY, May 3, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last month Pope John Paul II stated unequivocally that a person who is ill always has the right to food and water, even if it must be administered to him through a feeding tube. The Pope made it clear that removal of nutrition and hydration from patients in a vegetative state who are not otherwise dying is "gravely immoral". In Catholic language that means it is unambiguously forbidden.

The reaction of some prominent Catholic ethicists has been a reflection of the divide in medical ethics between the teaching of the Church and modern bioethics. Father John Paris, bioethics professor at Boston College, in an incredibly blunt statement of defiance, said the pope's remarks will have little impact. "I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away," Paris said. "It's not an authoritative teaching statement."

Father John Strynkowski, executive director of the secretariat for doctrine and pastoral practices, said that the USCCB office will "study" the pope's statement, but until they have finished, no changes in practice will likely be made in Catholic hospitals. His comments would seem to indicate that if the Pope's instruction were to be taken at face value, changes to policy would need to be made. "What's involved is a process of study and reflection, looking at the pope's statement in the light of previous statements," Strynkowski said. "Theologians will have to study that whole chain of documents." The process, he said, may take as much as a year.

The refusal to obey clear instructions from high authority in the Catholic hierarchy on key issues is not new to the Church in North America. Strynkowski's comments follow closely on the heels of the latest denial of official Vatican directives from Theodore Cardinal McCarrick. In response to high level directives on refusing pro-abortion politicians communion, McCarrick gave an almost identical comment to Fr. Paris' in an interview, "I don't think it was his eminence's (Arinze's) official opinion… this was not something that he reported as an official or even a personal statement."

Link to and text of SPT article:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/01/Tampabay/At_pope_s_word__new_S.shtml

The Terri Schiavo Case--At pope's word, new Schiavo cases?

It's unclear what impact, if any, will come from the pontiff's stance on sustaining life with feeding tubes.
By LISA GREENE, Times Staff Writer
Published May 1, 2004

Even people in a vegetative state have a right to food and water, and it is morally wrong to deny them a feeding tube, Pope John Paul II said last month.

It seems clear that the pope's words would apply to Terri Schiavo, the 40-year-old Pinellas County woman in a vegetative state who has been kept alive with a feeding tube for more than 14 years.

But whether the pope's remarks include thousands of other people with feeding tubes - not just those in vegetative states, but those with other diseases, such as dementia or terminal cancer - has become a heated debate.

U.S. Catholic leaders, and local Catholic hospitals, have had little to say on the subject, stressing the need for lengthy study and review of the pope's words. But others are split, from experts who say they could change policies at Catholic hospitals across the nation to those who say they will have little impact.

"That is an earthquake in terms of what it means for end-of-life care," said Arthur Caplan, chairman of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "This is a very important statement from the pope, although I think it's very erroneous."

But Father John Paris, Walsh professor of bioethics at Boston College, said the pope's remarks were tailored to a specific audience and will have little impact.

"I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away," Paris said. "It's not an authoritative teaching statement."

The pope's speech, Paris said, is "causing mischief" and being interpreted with too much alarm by those who aren't Catholic.

"The problem is that non-Catholics think when the pope says "Jump,' we all say, "How high?' " he said.

Although the pope's speech stressed reverence for life, Father James McCartney, assistant philosophy professor at Villanova University, said he is concerned it might be misinterpreted by some Catholics - with a very different effect.

"It might lead them to ask for physician-assisted suicide," McCartney said. "Because people will worry that they will be prolonged (with a feeding tube) for years and years, slowly dying."

At the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, theologians and bishops will study the pope's words before the bishops decide whether any policies at Catholic hospitals, nursing homes and health care institutions should change, said Father John Strynkowski, executive director of the secretariat for doctrine and pastoral practices. About 625 Catholic hospitals are in the United States.

"What's involved is a process of study and reflection, looking at the pope's statement in the light of previous statements," Strynkowski said. "Theologians will have to study that whole chain of documents."

The process probably will take about a year, Strynkowski said.

Not all of the pope's speech, which took place at a religious meeting called to discuss vegetative states, is controversial. One of his most important points was to emphasize that people in a vegetative state still fall under "the loving gaze of God" and must be treated with dignity, McCartney said.

"We can't lose sight of the fact that these people are still human beings," McCartney said.

The meaning of other points may need more interpretation. Strynkowski said, at first, that the pope's words should apply only to those in vegetative states.

"The pope's statement was quite precise, that he was dealing with patients in a vegetative state," he said. "Nothing beyond that."

But in the speech, the pope said giving water and food "always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act." When asked whether that passage would apply more broadly, as Caplan says it would, Strynkowski said he hadn't looked at that passage and couldn't respond.

"The way it's stated, it's broad," Caplan said. "I think if the pope really meant what he said . . . they will not be removing those things."

In Tampa, Dr. Ronald Schonwetter, chief medical officer at LifePath Hospice, said he thinks feeding tubes are medical treatment, not normal care. He's worried that patients and families will be confused about making end-of-life choices.

"Persistent vegetative state is not that common," Schonwetter said. "But it's the slippery slope - will it affect other chronic and terminal illnesses about not using artificial nutrition?"

If Catholics aren't supposed to remove feeding tubes, Caplan and Schonwetter said, it's possible that patients at Catholic-run facilities might have to transfer to others to have a tube removed or that Catholic doctors might refuse to take out a tube.

Although the speech could be interpreted to include all patients, looking at it in the context of the pope's previous teachings makes it more clear that it is directed only toward those in a vegetative state, McCartney said.

Until the question is resolved, officials at some local Catholic hospitals and nursing homes, as well as at the national Catholic Health Association, said their policies remain the same. Catholic health institutions generally follow a set of religious directives sanctioned by the church.

Those directives hold that suicide and euthanasia are never acceptable but that life-prolonging procedures do not have to be used. Food and water, including a feeding tube, can be withdrawn if they do not provide nourishment or comfort to a dying person.

Feeding tubes provide liquid nutrition to people who can't eat. They generally are surgically inserted into the stomach. About 344,000 people in the United States have them, one national nutrition group said.

When patients and family members begin talking with hospital chaplains about feeding tubes, it's often just one of a host of hard questions they grapple with.

"Sometimes it's the first time people have begun to deal with mortality in a hospital setting," said Father Terry Fleming, director of pastoral care for St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa and St. Anthony's Hospital in St. Petersburg. "They ask very serious questions about the meaning of their lives."

But so far, Fleming said, family members have not asked about the pope's recent remarks.

"It's a case of waiting and seeing just how this will be interpreted," Fleming said.

[Last modified May 1, 2004, 01:10:35]

The pope's opinion on Iraq was NOT "don't go"! What you need to realize is that when the press says "Vatican states" or "Vatican opinion is", etc, that does NOT mean an official statement by the Pope. Any wise-ass, anti-American Cardinal, or even just an archbishop, who is in an official capacity in Rome can be quoted as "The Vatican". To really understand the Pope's position on the Iraq war, because the media reporting was completely distorted, confusing and contradictory, I had to go to the Vatican website and read HIS (PJP2) letter. It took me alot of searching to find it. And the key points were never quoted anywhere in the media that I saw.

Let me see if from memory I can give you the gist. First, he reiterated the Church's definition of Just War. He said every effort must be made to avoid war. He urged the Iraqi govt to cooperate fully with the UN. It was, it's true, a pretty "let's all try to make peace and get along" sort of letter. BUT, the important point is, the Pope NEVER went so far as to say the war was wrong. He said that the decision of a government to take that action weighs on the conscience of the leaders (Bush) and they must very carefully consider all the consequences, possibilities of civcilians being hurt, etc. In other words, the pope basically said, in his OFFICIAL LETTER (not the liberal Vatican talking heads): Avoid war at all costs, but if a govt decides no other option is possible for self-defense, and the just war principles can be applied by the country's leader in good conscience, it's up to them. He stopped short of saying one way or the other what the USA should do.

Interesting, the only reference I ever saw to this was a reporter's question to Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference. The reporter, in sort of an accusative tone to imply what warmongers we are, said "Sec. Rumsfeld, the Pope in his letter indicated it's a moral imperatative for the leaders of nations to consider ALL the consequences of any military action they might instigate, and that they bear a moral burden for decisions they make. How do you respond to that?" Without skipping a beat, Rummy said, "I have not seen the pope's letter, but if what you quote is accurate, I would agree completely."

I feel so furious with the Bishops, and all the aggrandized "ethicists," and "theologians," that I hardly know where to start.

I wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes before the throne of judgment!

Firstly, all of the aforementioned "whitened sepulchers" are full of cr@p. A year to "study" the Pope's words? A few years ago, Pope John Paul stated, in other than an encyclical, that the Catholic Church has not been given the authority by its Founder, Jesus Christ, to ordain women to the priesthood. He further stated that what he had just said/written had the force of Doctrine.

A very short time later, the NCCB wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asking for a clarification, which is something that is very rarely done. The head of the Congregation wrote back that it is a Doctrine (and therefore, eternal truth and unchangeable) of the Catholic Faith that no woman can be ordained. Of course there were libs who still insisted that women's ordination was still open for discussion.

There was no *year* of study and reflection. Here, the libs are either ignoring the Pope's elucidation of Catholic Doctrine, or dragging their feet. How many people stand to die within the course of that year? If the Bishops, etc., have questions about what the Holy Father meant, let them write another letter, and ASK HIM!

Secondly, I found EVANGELIUM VITAE (The Gospel of Life), online. Here the Pope proclaimed euthanasia to be doctrinally morally wrong:

Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors81 and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.82 Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves the malice proper to suicide or murder. (See #65)

Chapter III - You Shall Not Kill

Before I found the encyclical, I located the actual statement the Pope made, in which he stated that it's gravely wrong to withhold nutrition and hydration from a person diagnosed as being in a "permanent vegetative state."

The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.

Much has been written about this specific topic already. The NCCB, et al, just have to go over this reading list, which the Holy Father has provided here. Furthermore:

In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65).

Besides, the moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death.

To the Congress on Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State

By directly linking his statement with the doctrinal Evangelium Vitae, the Pope is clearly demonstrating that the withholding of nutrition and hydration is an example of euthanasia, and therefore always *doctrinally* wrong.

In other words, it's *Doctrinally* a mortal sin, folks.

I didn't have to be St. Thomas Aquinas to figure that one out, and I researched this during the course of an evening.

A whole year? They're full of it.

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.