Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
That is absolutely correct.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“the direct taking of life is a never morally acceptable.””
In this context its not morally acceptable. But there are cases where the taking of life IS morally acceptable.
“Medical science and psychology” has already determined that some people who opt for death either by physician assisted suicide or by self inflicted suicide are competent to make this decision and, therefore, culpable.
What I find astonishing is that the parish council wants to force the priest to disobey Church law on this kind of matter. The priest should replace those people w/ real Catholics.
Good for him.
When the Catholic church takes this kind of stand and sticks with it, they’ll see their numbers increase.
People don’t respect those with no convictions.
Strike the PC word “euthanasia” and substitute the REAL word it is - SUICIDE [which has ALWAYS been a mortal sin], so the priest was correct in his action ...
Can’t be buried in a Catholic cemetery either ...
I bet this man wasn’t suffering nearly as much as Pope John Paul II was in his final days.
A church ceremony is not a necessary part of a funeral. And that’s the way it is.
For whatever reason this man seems to have willingly rejected his Church and chosen his own solution.
His family should be chastised for disreguarding the mans wishes.
There is where the failure lies, in their hypocrisy.
the dutch are thick headed, good choice in this matter for standing his ground and making a statement about life..
so, there are still catholics in holland..
People want it both ways. They don’t attend Mass for years, give nothing to the collection, die in a state of Mortal Sin and then the family expects a full-blown Catholic funeral with a priest presiding.
If you’re Catholic, you know those aren’t the rules, euthanasia being just one reason for refusal. The media we cannot expect to understand, but they will rant against any legitimate decision by the Church.
The Church is, after all, a private institution with certain membership requirements, so to speak, and protests and maligning the priest are tacky ways to respond. Keep your own house in order and think ahead to your own burial and leave these affairs to the proper authorities in the Church.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
I am so joyful to hear about a priest like this. If only we had more priests like this, like the one that decided that major pro-abort, pro-death Ted Kennedy deserved a Catholic funeral.
This situation lays bare the corruption and bankruptcy of euthanasia.
Facts:
1. X was terminally ill.
2. X was advised by all appropriate professionals about euthanasia.
3. X willingly signed papers asking for euthanasia.
4. X was never subjected to any undue pressure.
5. X faced no pressing financial burden.
6. X did not choose euthanisia out of fear.
7. X had other real options for dealing with his illness and everntual death and he understood those options.
8. X was at all times mentally and psychologically.
9. X was euthanised.
10. X’s family wants a Catholic funeral Mass and burial.
Catholic Teaching:
11. He who makes the rational and informed choice to reject God’s gift of life by asking to be deliberately killed is guilty of self-murder and rejectionof God.
12. He can also share in the responsibility for the sin of the person who carries out the euthanasia (the medical professional or loved one).
13. He also gives witness to others that he rejects God’s gift of life.
14. Such grave and defiant rejection of God is a choice that the Church must repect and does respect by refusing to offer a funeral Mass for him who is well-informed, has real options, is pyshologically stable and free of undue pressures and fears, yet who freely and rationally chooses death over life.
Dilemma:
15. Should X have a funeral Mass and Catholic burial?
Argument:
16. The Church should have compassion on anyone who faces such a difficult situation. After all, the Church teaches that “grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship and suffering” can diminish one’s responsibility for choosing suicide. Of course X faced all of those, so X is not morally culpable for his suicide and therefore a funeral is appropriate.
Response:
17. There is no evidence that X experienced “grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship and suffering” - in fact, the law and medical ethics rules prohibit euthanasia of a person who faces any such conditions.
18. If the family is now saying that X faced these conditions, then why did the family allow the euthanasia to proceed?
19. If the family is now saying that X faced these conditions, then they are also saying that X did not freely and rationally choose euthanasia.
If a society wants to affirm that suicide is a sound and rational option for those facing great fear, pain, and pyschological pressure, then that society should state that plainly. Meanwhile, most of us will stick with counseling, friendship, charity, and palliative care as the only options that are not barbaric.
I second that!