Category Archives: Euthanasia

This is the final in a four-part series on ethics at the end of life.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had this to say about the end of life:

Why, aside from the demands of religion, (is it) more praiseworthy for a man grown old, who feels his powers decrease, to await his slow exhaustion and disintegration, rather than to put a term to his life with complete consciousness? In this case, suicide is quite natural, obvious, and should by right awaken respect for the triumph of reason.

And this:

To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death of ones own free choice, death at the proper time, with a clear head and joyfulness, consummated in the midst of children and witnesses: so that an actual leave-taking is possible while he who is leaving is still there, likewise an actual evaluation of what has been desired and achieved in life, an adding-up of life all of this in contrast to the pitiable and horrible comedy Christianity has made of the hour of death.

Contrast Nietzsches moral vision about the end of life with that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writing during the Nazi era and in awareness of its euthanasia campaign against what the Nazis called life unworthy of life:

If we nevertheless must say that self-murder is reprehensible, we can do so not before the forum of morality or of humanity, but only before the forum of God. The self-murderer is guilty before God alone the creator and lord of the persons lifeUnbelief hides from people in a disastrous way the fact that even self-murder does not deliver them out of the hand of God, who has prepared their destiny. Unbelief does not recognize, beyond the gift of bodily life, the Creator and Lord who alone has the right to dispose over creationThe right to self-murder breaks down only before the living God

At one level these two Germans the 19th century Nietzsche and the 20th century Bonhoeffer hardly could seem more different in their moral vision. Nietzsche favors suicide as a proud act of self-assertion before one falls into exhaustion and disintegration, an evocative term that aptly describes many peoples dying process. Bonhoeffer says precisely the opposite, that self-murder is reprehensible.

But at another level they appear to agree. It is only the demands of religion (Nietzsche) and only the living God (Bonhoeffer) that bans self-murder. Still today, it is true: The main reason for banning the hastening of death which in the context of rule of law and patient autonomy can only be informed-consent, advance-directed, voluntary assisted suicide is the belief that the Creator and Lord alone has the right to dispose over creation. Where that belief fades, the moral norm against hastening death also will fade.

The main reason for banning the hastening of death is the belief that the Creator and Lord alone has the right to dispose over creation.

There are, in fact, other good reasons not to give ground here. It should certainly be sobering that Nietzche went on to argue that physicians have a duty to participate in the ruthless suppression and sequestration of degenerating life, including the dying. Physicians indeed took the lead in engineering an involuntary euthanasia campaign in Nazi Germany that took more than 100,000 lives, which is the main reason Bonhoeffer took up the subject, and which he fiercely opposed.

Sometimes today one runs into accounts of medical personnel believing it to be their heroic responsibility to end the lives of patients they consider to be suffering too much or otherwise living on too long. Many medical ethicists believe it is not good for the medical profession to integrate killing into their work under any circumstances both we and they need to know that their job is to be for life, period. Here the ancient Greek Hippocratic Oath combines with the biblical tradition to set a moral boundary that many medical professionals still find to be properly impermeable. Physicians heal and comfort, never kill.

I was glad for that clear boundary as we undertook at-home hospice care for my father during his last 10 days of life. Everyone involved our private doctor, the hospice nurse who visited a few hours a week, the social worker and chaplain who offered their support, the home health aides whom we paid to keep us and Dad company overnight for the last week, and all family members understood that we were going to keep vigil for Dad until he drew his last breath.

I was glad for that clear boundary as we undertook at-home hospice care for my father during his last 10 days of life.

Some of these moments were excruciating, grievous and even horrifying. Dad himself, in some of his last lucid comments, wondered why it was taking so long for him to die. He was ready. Yet he, too, understood that no one caring for him was going to hasten his death, and as a loyal Catholic Christian he supported this decision and never challenged it.

Dad died in the morning of Dec. 28, 2020. He went when it was his time. Not a moment before.

I am glad my family and those who worked alongside us shared a moral consensus that death would not be hastened, but that our father must be made as comfortable as possible and must die in the company of his family. While it was excruciating, I preferred the in-home hospice care experience with my father over the hospital setting I have endured with other deaths. In some ways, it was a turning back of the clock to an earlier era. It was just us, Dad and God, until he took his last breath.

David P. Gusheeis a leading Christian ethicist. He serves as Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and is the past president of both The American Academy of Religion and The Society of Christian Ethics. Hes the author ofKingdom Ethics,After Evangelicalism, andChanging Our Mind: The Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBTQ Christians. He and his wife, Jeanie, live in Atlanta. Learn more:davidpgushee.comorFacebook.

Also in this series:

Ethics at the end of life: How medicine and technology have changed the context of dying

Ethics at the end of life: The first ethical issue is not who decides but who accompanies

Ethics at the end of life: The ultimate ethical issue is whether we wait for death

Visit link:

Ethics at the end of life: Which moral vision shall govern at the end of life? - Baptist News Global

A petition signed by some 60American prelates asks to postpone the debate scheduled for next June on the refusal of Eucharistic communion to politicians who promote abortion and euthanasia. The initiative comes a fortnight after the Roman reframing of pro-life bishops.

On May 21, 2021, FSSPX.News reported on the Roman disavowal received a few days earlier by American pro-life bishops.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), had written to them in order to discourage them from establishing a line common to all American prelatesconcerning the refusal of sacramental communion to politicians encouraging abortion or euthanasia.

Stimulated by the Roman intervention, some 60bishops - including several of those considered to be progressive in the United States - have just written to the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), asking him to postpone any discussion on the topic.

Having before our eyes the text sent on May 7, 2021 by His Eminence Cardinal Ladaria, we respectfully ask that all the work on discussion and commission, at the level of the Conference, bearing on the theme of Eucharistic dignity and other questions raised by the Holy See, be postponed until the entire body of bishops can meet, say the signatories.

A letter in the form of a petition was signed by several American cardinals, Wilton Gregory of Washington, Blase Cupich of Chicago, and Sean OMalley of Boston.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, would have been the originator of the letter, but his name has since been withdrawn from the text, at his request, specifiedaspokesperson for the archdiocese who did not wish expand more on the subject.

In the Vatican, several senior officials of the Secretary of State confirmed to The Pillar news site that the text of the 60bishops had been communicated to the Vatican before its publication by Cardinal Cupich, who had come to Rome in person.

The same high prelate had also intervened successfully last January, in order to persuade the Holy See to bypass a fairly critical statement with regard to the new American administration, which was to be published by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles and president of the USCCB, the very day of the inauguration of Joe Biden as president of the United States.

Several bishops rushed to the aid of Abp. Gomez, in particular the Archbishop of San Francisco, Msgr. Salvatore Cordileone, who spoke to express his pain at the controversy aroused and at the maneuvers of those who want to interfere in the normal operation of the USCCB.

But the president of the Episcopal Conference does not seem ready to give up: in a memorandum sent on May 21 to all the bishops, the prelate, who does not mention the petition received a few days earlier, specifies that the discussion on Eucharistic communion will take place in June as planned, at the next meeting of the USCCB.

I am grateful for the way the Doctrine Committee approached its work and for the good advice we have received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: so I look forward to our plenary meeting, concludes the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

You don't have to be a psychic to understand that conservative and progressive prelates are polishing their weapons on the eve of a meeting that promises to be under high tension.

Read the rest here:

Refusal of Communion: The Discussion Heats Up Among American Bishops - FSSPX.News

Authorities announced this week theyre seeking information about a paralyzed French bulldog named French Fry found abandoned in a park in Boston earlier this year.

French Fry, a roughly 3-year-old female dog, was discovered in Peters Park in the South End neighborhood of the city on a weekend in late April, the Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL) said in a statement Wednesday.

Witnesses reported seeing a man and woman with French Fry for a short time before walking away from the dog. The two individuals were wearing masks, making it difficult for people in the area to describe any identifying features, according to the statement.

The ARL Law Enforcement Department obtained surveillance video of the area and is in the midst of reviewing it to try and identify the dogs owners, the animal protection organization said.

After finding the French bulldog, a good Samaritan brought the animal to a nearby veterinary clinic, where staff confirmed the dogs hind limbs were paralyzed, her left eye had hemorrhaged and she had an elevated body temperature, according to the ARL.

Given her paralysis, French Fry was brought to another veterinary hospital for a neurological exam and MRI, which revealed she has intervertebral disc disease (IVDD), which can be common in the breed, officials noted. The dog was subsequently euthanized to end her suffering.

Given the severity of the disease and the further possibly life-threatening complications which may have developed, surgery was not an option for French Fry, and the decision for humane euthanasia was made in order to end her suffering, the organization said.

Although the dogs condition was deemed genetic, abandoning an animal is a felony in Massachusetts, punishable by up to 7 years in jail and a $5,000 fine, the group noted. The ARL said it understands that dealing with pets medical issues can be financially and emotionally overwhelming.

However, with options and resources available, including surrendering animals, no pet should ever be abandoned, the organization asserted.

Anyone who recognizes French Fry has been asked to call ARL Law Enforcement at (617) 426-9170, ext. 110 or email cruelty@arlboston.org.

Read the original post:

Paralyzed French bulldog French Fry found abandoned in Boston park; Authorities want to know who left her t - MassLive.com

An industry-wideshortage of the main drug used for euthanasia is forcing veterinarians to conserve supplies and consider using alternate methods to humanely end animals lives.

Pentobarbital, the active ingredient in the most commonly used euthanasia drugs for horses and small animals, has been in short supply since the beginning of the year. It was added to the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations list of animal drug shortages this month. The shortage was not reported widely at first; veterinarians around the country began to notice the issue as they tried to replace dwindling supplies, only to learn the drugs were backordered and largely unavailable.

None of us knew. I went to order a bottle; it was out of stock, said Jill McNicol, DVM, of Cool Springs Equine LLC in Leetonia, Ohio. She soon learned from her drug distributor representative that they, too, were scrambling to fill orders.

In response, organizations including the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Equine Practitioners and the Companion Animal Euthanasia Training Academy are urging veterinarians to conserve supplies by adhering strictly to dosage guidelines and have shared guidance on alternative euthanasia methods.

The AAEP is aware of the shortage and has published guidelines for preferred humane euthanasia methods that offer practitioners a number of alternatives, including gunshot, captive bolt or several other combinations of drugs, spokesperson Sally Baker said.

The AAEP joins the AVMA and other veterinary organizations in closely watching how the pentobarbital shortage may affect veterinary care, Baker said in an email. We are not at this time receiving phone calls from our members about this issue, and so right now practitioners appear to be managing the situation. The AAEPs euthanasia guidelines provide information to veterinarians about options other than pentobarbital for the humane euthanasia of horses.

Horse owners should recognize that those alternative methods, while they may involve a different process from pentobarbital euthanasia, are humane in a veterinarians trained hands.

I would encourage horse owners to bear with their veterinarian and be open to alternative methods that this shortage will inevitably necessitate, said Bonnie Kibbie, VMD, cVMA, cIVCA, of Balanced Care Equine in Unionville, Pennsylvania. The AAEPs guidelines for humane euthanasia and accepted methods are well-researched and designed to minimize animal suffering. Things like gunshot or captive bolt sound scary, especially compared to a simple injection, but when done correctly are instantaneous and do not cause suffering or pain.

While veterinarians hope the shortage will be resolved this summer, the FDAs Center for Veterinary Medicine said it is too soon to speculate on exactly when pentobarbital and pentobarbital combination drugs will be readily available again.

FDAs Center for Veterinary Medicine is aware of the issue and has reached out to sponsors/manufacturers of pentobarbital products to determine the extent of the shortage and possible avenues for resolution, spokesperson Anne Norris said in an email. Although we continue to evaluate the situation, it appears that various market factors are impacting the supply of finished product.All parties are working cooperatively with the FDA and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to address the availability of pentobarbital active pharmaceutical ingredient. This is an ongoing process, and until the agency learns more, it would be premature to speculate about when the shortage will be resolved.

Euthanasia solution is still being manufactured, she noted.

Until the supply chain is back to normal, however, veterinarians are taking extra steps to preserve their supplies.

To conserve euthanasia solution, a wise choice is to dial back how much is used, CAETA founder Kathleen Cooney advised in a recent blog post addressing the shortage. When euthanasia is warranted to end patient suffering, only using the recommended dose is called for.Many practitioners give a little extra to ensure death is complete, but its really not needed.

McNicol, who treats both small animals and horses, says she and her fellow veterinarians have been able to stretch supplies thus far by adhering strictly to AVMA guidelines, and they are getting new orders, albeit infrequently. Veterinarians are doing their best to ensure that the euthanasia process remains as smooth as possible for animals and their owners alike, she said.

From a veterinarians perspective, we deal with [medication shortages] often; its just usually not so impactful, McNicol said. The reason pentobarbital has been used so long is its worked so well.

Most of the alternative drug combinations that can be used in place of pentobarbital solution involve anesthetizing the animal first, which, particularly for small animals, changes the look, the time and potentially the cost of the process, all of which could be upsetting for the pet owner.

Be kind to your vet, she said. Ive put down a lot of animalsa lot of horses, a lot of small animals over the yearsand its still tough. When its harder on us, its harder on the client; when its harder on the client, its harder on us.

Link:

The Chronicle of the Horse - The Chronicle of the Horse

Photo credit: Piron Guillaume, via Unsplash.

In an essay in Slate in March 2020, Dahlia Lithwick bemoaned a legal strategy to protect women and unborn children from abortion. Her commentary was on the legal case of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, decided by the Supreme Court, which ultimately rejected by a vote of 5 to 4 the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that required abortionists to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their abortion clinic.

The legal issues raised are labyrinthine, although the principles are very straightforward. Louisiana required abortionists to be close enough to a hospital in which they had admitting privileges to protect the safety of the women undergoing abortion. Regulations of this nature are common for physicians performing dangerous procedures outside of a hospital setting and the rationale is quite obvious. Should a woman who was a victim of abortion suffer severe bleeding during the procedure, it is obviously vitally important that she be near a hospital and that the doctor involved in the procedure have privileges at that hospital to care for the complication caused. The law also had the effect of making it more difficult for abortionists to commit abortions in Louisiana which obviously protects unborn children who would otherwise be their victims.

Abortion proponents characteristically lobbied against the safety and welfare of women just as they of course lobby against the lives of the children who are aborted. Lithwick inadvertently gets to the heart of the issue:

Once again, womens reproductive freedom is more concerned with doctors than women. Following the briefing and oral arguments inJune Medical,the Louisiana case that calls into question the continued force ofPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyandWhole Womans Health,its now quite clear that the primary questions opponents of reproductive freedom are asking have nothing to do with maternal autonomy or decision-making, and everything to do with abortion providers and whether they are bad people and unfit doctors.

That abortionists are unfit doctors is self-evident. The practice of medicine by its very nature precludes the deliberate taking of innocent human life. Deliberate killing is never a medical procedure, and merely because a licensed physician commits it for profit in a legally sanctioned environment doesnt make abortion a bona fide medical treatment.

The medical profession should take a clear stand on this issue: doctors who deliberately kill whether by abortion or by physician-assisted suicide or by euthanasia are not practicing medicine when they kill. Medical practice always entails the maintenance of health, the treatment of disease, and the relief of suffering. Ending the life of a patient or of the child in his mothers womb is neither the maintenance of health nor treatment of a disease nor the alleviation of any suffering. It is simply the killing of an innocent unwanted child.

I am realistic, of course, and I realize that in our current political and moral environment the practice of abortion will continue to be sanctioned widely by the medical profession. Abortion is generally sanctioned in the U.S., physician-assisted suicide is gaining acceptance in many nations and is permitted in several states, and euthanasia has been accepted in many countries and undoubtably will eventually be accepted in the United States. Their acceptance as medical practice is a grave development and reflects shame on our culture and particularly shame on the medical profession.

If abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are to be sanctioned in our rapidly degenerating culture, I plead with the medical profession to wash its hands of any kind of deliberate killing. If the American people insist upon abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia, doctors as healers should refuse to play any role.

Go here to see the original:

Are Abortion, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia Medical Practice? - Discovery Institute

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

Sign up for afree trial to The Week magazineby Monday and youll get a free coffee table book, The Art of The Week, as well as your first six issuesfree. The Art of the Week contains more than 250 sketches and paintings by our cover artist Howard McWilliam, spanning more than 30 years of political coverage. Visit theweek.co.uk/offer and enter promo code HOLIDAY

In this weeks episode, we discuss:

A company which rents out clothes instead of selling them is experiencing a surge in demand as lockdown comes to an end. Is fashion about to undergo the sort of cultural shift as music, with people subscribing to subscribing to a library instead of owning individual outfits or tracks? And if people really are willing to borrow clothes, how will this affect what we wear?

A surge in demand for consumer electronics, combined with disruption to supply chains and a combination of freak circumstances has led to a severe shortage of microchips. The knock-on effects has resulted in delays to production lines building everything from cars to games consoles - and is likely to lead to higher prices

A private members bill which received its first reading in the House of Lords this week proposes legalising assisted dying in England and Wales for adults who are terminally ill, mentally competent and in the final six months of their life. Its the first time the issue has been debated in Westminster for more than five years - and while it is unlikely to become law without government backing, it restarts the debate at a time when public opinion appears to be shifting.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped on theGlobal Player,Apple podcasts,SoundCloudor wherever you get you get your podcasts.

Read more:

Fashion for rent, a chip shortage and euthanasia - The Week UK

The edifice of public support for euthanasia is built on a lie, that people know what they might want in the face of dying. The truth is almost all of us dont, especially in a culture where there is a marked taboo around death.

Our inability to consider broader risks in the wake of the pandemic highlights our aversion to even consider facing our mortality. This feeds further misconceptions about painful death and end-of-life care, corrupting informed debate about assisted dying.

It is quite the contradiction when hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on suicide prevention, yet the act is deemed perfectly rational in the face of life-limiting illness. Existential suffering remains at the heart of both.

There is overwhelming public support for assisted-dying laws. Public surveys in recent years hover around ninety per cent in favour.

Only this month South Australia passed a Bill in its Upper House. Victoria and Western Australia already have laws permitting assisted dying. Draft legislation in Queensland offers earlier access and includes the amorphous concept of mental trauma as a category. New South Wales is likely to introduce a bill in the coming months.

Doctors and religious groups are increasingly the last line against laws for assisted dying, defending what French author Michel Houllebecq calls the honour of civilisation. The Australian Medical Association is officially opposed but says it will cooperate with the public will, as long there is a right for individual doctors to undertake conscientious objection.

Yet the public arent entirely aware that the pain most people associate with choosing an early death is usually more psychic than physical.

We wrongly associate those who choose euthanasia with intolerable physical pain, but they usually report an existential suffering, of being a burden or feeling abandoned by loved ones, says Associate Professor Leeroy Williams, President of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine.

The existential torture is worsened in a society that does not have obvious idioms to process suffering. The modern climate is more therapeutic than religious.

The steep rise I see in diagnoses like post-traumatic stress disorder is in part because a psychological language replaces a lost metaphysical one. This is especially the case if life is framed as a quest for pleasure and its associated parallel, an avoidance of suffering.

In a pandemic era when the application of science in public policy has become central, one branch of medicine remains sidelined in the euthanasia debate.

That is the practice of palliative care. While doctors saving lives rightly enjoy hero status, helping people die better is neither sexy nor well paid.

Williams says its not just the public. Most health professionals are also poorly trained in end-of-life care. Monash University devotes one day in a six-year course to its medical students. Other medical schools or training programs dont fare much better.

Yet in the past two decades managing nerve or bone pain has become more advanced. The delivery methods for artificial feeding have improved. There are also better strategies for minimising vomiting associated with cancer medications.

It is also the branch of palliative care that is best aware of the inaccuracies associated with giving a prognosis. Many patients are told they only have six or twelve months to live, yet survive years or even decades. A sizeable minority of patients, as much as between 15 and 20 per cent I am told, who are under palliative care are discharged home and not to the Pearly Gates.

Given how poor our feelings are in computing probability and mathematics, you can bet a percentage of sufferers who go through with assisted dying would have otherwise survived. This is especially the case in the draft laws drawn up in Queensland where if youve received advice that death is likely within twelve months the assisted dying laws may apply.

Discussions about death are taboo in Western culture, something that is brought into striking contrast when burning pyres of corpses are broadcast from India. Cultures like India more readily accept that death is thoroughly intertwined with life.

In a world where assisted dying is legal, doctors are forced to contend with a new medical environment where assisted dying becomes thoroughly intertwined with the curing of illness. The so called double effect of increasing pain medications like morphine knowing they are likely to induce death, something I have undertaken in hospital wards and in nursing homes, is in a very different legal and moral territory.

While politicians and well-meaning advocates are cautiously assuring us of the opposite, there can be little doubt there is indeed a slippery slope.

In Netherlands there is now the tired of living movement where there are demands that any elderly person over a certain age should be allowed to administer drugs leading to their death. In Belgium, fifteen thousand deaths have occurred throughout the process since the law was instituted in 2002.

There are multiple cases being fought in Europe over people euthanased for diagnoses like autism, deemed a form of unbearable suffering and therefore meeting the legal test.

It is generally accepted that people should be allowed to do what they like with their bodies and their lives as long as they dont harm others.

But a key facet of modern conservatism must be placing limits on the corrosive hyperindividualism of progressives, including many on the moderate side of the Liberal party.

This principle of autonomy reaches its zenith for rational suicide.

The act is fundamentally at odds with the field of mental health which frames suicide as pathological. There is a marked societal contradiction in prioritising suicide prevention and euthanasia simultaneously. We consider existential suffering unacceptable when there is no defined life-limiting illness, yet perfectly rational in the alternative setting.

But we live in a culture that struggles to process suffering and avoids all confrontation with death. Few people know what they might think about death when faced with its stark reality.

The polls suggesting widespread euthanasia support, views which inform enthusiastic legislation, wrongly assume the opposite.

Read more here:

The lies of euthanasia - The Spectator Australia

TRAVERSE CITY, MI A black bear that caused mischief in Traverse City for months before it was relocated in April apparently got homesick, the Associated Press reports.

A radio collar indicates that the bear trekked 90 miles back to Grand Traverse County from the Alpena area, according to AP and the Traverse City Record-Eagle.

The bear had raided bird feeders and trash cans, and evaded several capture attempts by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources before he was finally lured by birdseed in April. Wildlife officials gave him a lip tattoo, ear tag and an electronic collar before he was taken to the less populous eastern Lower Peninsula.

RELATED: Black bear making mischief in Northern Michigan city for months captured by DNR

The DNR used weekly plane flyovers to track the collar heading back west.

For some reason he likes the Lake Michigan coast, said Steve Griffith, a wildlife biologist for the DNRs Traverse City office.

Sightings of the ear-tagged bear have been reported by residents, but there hasnt been any plundering any birdfeeders or trashcans.

Hes stubborn. But hopefully hes a little bit reformed, Griffith said. Well keep our fingers crossed.

In April, Griffith said the DNR might have to consider euthanasia if the bear showed up in neighborhoods again.

Michigan is home to approximately 12,000 black bears. About 10,000 live in the Upper Peninsula, while 2,000 are in the Lower Peninsula, according to the DNR.

The bears can be attracted to residences by the smell of birdfeed even if the feeder is currently empty grills, trash and pet food, Griffith said.

READ MORE:

$25.3M mixed-use development to provide year-round housing in downtown Traverse City

Northern Michigan wildfire continues to burn on third day, now 78% contained

Surprise winner tops Torch Lake for Michigans Best Inland Lake in Northern Michigan.

Rare tick is becoming more common in Michigan, and it could give you a red meat allergy

Two Michigan men fined $8.5K for poaching hundreds of walleye, panfish, perch

Man who allegedly stomped parakeet to death charged with felony animal killing

Continued here:

Homesick black bear treks 90 miles back to Northern Michigan town after DNR relocation - MLive.com

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has urged US bishops to proceed with caution in their discussions about formulating a national policy "to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils."

Cardinal Luis Ladaria, congregation prefect, reiterated what he said he had told several groups of U.S. bishops during their 2019-2020 "ad limina" visits, namely that "the effective development of a policy in this area requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions."

In the letter to Archbishop Jos H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Ladaria also insisted: such a policy cannot usurp the authority of an individual bishop in his diocese on the matter; the policy would require near unanimity; and it would be "misleading" to present abortion and euthanasia as "the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics."

Subscribe to your daily free newsletter from UCA News

Thank you. You are now signed up to Daily newsletter

The letter, dated May 7 and obtained by Catholic News Service in Rome, said it was in response to a letter from Archbishop Gomez informing the doctrinal congregation that the bishops were preparing to address the situation of Catholic politicians and "the worthiness to receive holy Communion."

Cardinal Ladaria warned that without the unanimity of the bishops, a national policy, "given its possibly contentious nature," could "become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States."

The cardinal also suggested the discussion "would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, reflecting their obligation to conform their lives to the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ as they prepare to receive the sacrament."

Given the importance of the issue, which goes beyond the boundaries of the United States, Cardinal Ladaria also said, "Every effort should be made to dialogue with other episcopal conferences as this policy is formulated in order both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church."

The cardinal's letter also mentioned a reference by Archbishop Gomez to a letter then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent in 2004 to then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington about Catholic politicians and Communion. The letter, Cardinal Ladaria said, was in "the form of a private communication" to the bishops and should be read only in the context of the formal 2002, "Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life."

When the U.S. bishops made their "ad limina" visits to the Vatican in 2004, Cardinal Ladaria said, "it was clear that there was a lack of agreement regarding the issue of Communion among the bishops."

"At that time, the development of a national policy was not under consideration, and Cardinal Ratzinger offered general principles on the worthy reception of holy Communion in order to assist local ordinaries in the United States in their dealings with Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions," he said.

"Cardinal Ratzinger's communication," he said, "should thus be discussed only within the context of the authoritative doctrinal note which provides the teaching of the magisterium on the theological foundation for any initiative regarding the question of worthy reception of holy Communion."

The 2002 note said, "Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."

The 2002 note did not, however, mention reception of the Eucharist.

Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter, which was never published by the Vatican, said, "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest -- understood in the case of a Catholic politician as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws -- his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."

"When 'these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,' and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the holy Eucharist, 'the minister of holy Communion must refuse to distribute it,'" Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, quoting from a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on the issue of Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Writing to Archbishop Gomez, Cardinal Ladaria said the U.S. bishops need an "extensive and serene dialogue" among themselves and between individual bishops and Catholic politicians in their dioceses who do not support the fullness of the church's teaching to understand "the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching."

Only after both dialogues, the cardinal said, the bishops' conference "would face the difficult task of discerning the best way forward for the church in the United States to witness to the grave moral responsibility of Catholic public officials to protect human life at all stages."

"If it is then decided to formulate a national policy on worthiness for Communion, such a statement would need to express a true consensus of the bishops on the matter, while observing the prerequisite that any provisions of the conference in this area would respect the rights of individual ordinaries in their dioceses and the prerogatives of the Holy See," the cardinal said, citing St. John Paul II's 1998 document on bishops' conferences.

Cardinal Ladaria specifically pointed to paragraphs 22 of the document, "Apostolos Suos," which says bishops' conferences may publish doctrinal declarations when they are "approved unanimously," but "a majority alone" is not enough for publication without the approval of the Vatican.

He also cited paragraph 24, which says the bishops' conference cannot hinder an individual bishop's authority in his diocese "by substituting themselves inappropriately for him, where the canonical legislation does not provide for a limitation of his episcopal power in favor of the episcopal conference."

More here:

US bishops warned over politicians' support for abortion, euthanasia - Union of Catholic Asian News

Stealing the show with life hacks for teens Bye-bye Magpies? Port boss issues SANFL ultimatum Disturbing rate of SA Aboriginal children sent to court Drilling company to exit Adelaide after massive debt restructure SA medicinal cannabis cancer trial wins $1.5 million funding

A bid to seize the agenda on euthanasia coupled with the latest failed foray into shop trading reform smacks of a Government seeking a legacy and, writes Tom Richardson, getting its timing all wrong.

Politics is all about timing, as the well-worn clich goes.

Steven Marshall has, generally speaking, timed his run in government to perfection.

That is, if youre in the governing during a global pandemic is a Great Thing camp.

But, of course, weve seen around Australia time and again that incumbents during the coronavirus era have been returned and in the case of Western Australia returned so emphatically that the Liberal Party was reduced to a minor partner in a Nationals-led Opposition of just six MPs.

So while it certainly has its challenges, politics in the Age of COVID-19 has certainly favoured the party in government.

Which stands to reason its a bit like when the work-from-home edict went out last year, and all of a sudden all those extraneous noises in our collective lives were immediately silenced.

For me, the litany of extra-curricular activities to which I had to remember to ferry my children on any given day were all of a sudden shut down, as our familys focus shifted solely to adjusting to that strange new reality.

That situation, I guess, was a microcosm of what was happening in domestic politics.

Suddenly, all the issues that tend to dominate the news agenda were thrust into the background, if not forgotten entirely.

Which means, for an Opposition, that theres not a lot to talk about.

But 2021 is proving different to its much-maligned predecessor.

While COVID rages on worldwide, locally it has settled into its political niche.

Perhaps its fatigue, maybe just a greater understanding of what living with COVID entails, but there appears to be a renewed interest in the life of the state BC (beyond coronavirus).

Which is why issues such as voluntary euthanasia have once again found their way to the forefront of public debate.

Current and former MPs and supporters who have attempted to legalise euthanasia. Photo: Tony Lewis / InDaily

Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation, whose passage through the House of Assembly became an unfortunate own-goal for Marshall in the past few days, elicits strong responses in the community, both for and against.

Yet, successive polls suggest that euthanasia is supported by a strong majority of South Australians.

Thats as may be, but every MP is entitled to vote according to their own conscience and belief on the Bill as indeed they should.

And as, indeed, many of those who dont support the introduction of voluntary euthanasia have pointed out, its important that their voices arent silenced in the debate.

That, in essence, was what prompted last weeks party-room rebellion by a motley crew of mostly (but not merely) Right-aligned MPs, incensed that the Premier had unilaterally announced that the legislation would be fast-tracked by debating it in the time allotted for Government Business.

This was seen as the latest in a series of moderate-faction snubs to not merely the views of the partys conservatives, but to their right to properly present those views in the due process of parliamentary debate.

Initially, Marshall doubled down.

After all, were less than 12 months before an election, and while the euthanasia Bill is sponsored by Labor MPs in both houses, what better way to take some ownership of it than to effectively label it Government Business?

Ultimately thats a decision for the Premier we control the Government agenda, he said on Friday presumably not employing the Royal Pronoun, but its entirely possible.

However, at some point over the weekend the penny dropped that he is actually the leader of a minority government these days, and actively encouraging internal dissent may not be the wisest move less than 12 months out from an election.

So, the euthanasia Bill will be debated in private members time, and will pass parliament presumably after the traditional marathon late-night sitting sometime next month.

It already passed the Upper House last week, when Marshalls Treasurer Rob Lucas was among the minority who voted against it.

I just dont believe in euthanasia, Lucas told ABC Radio after the vote.

My position hasnt changed, and whilst my position was a majority for most of the duration of my parliamentary career, in recent years Ive had a minority position.

He noted I know its not shared by many in the media and many in the community, but reiterated that Ive got a preference for keeping people alive for as long as they can and thats just been my view.

Rob Lucas: likes deregulated shopping hours, dislikes voluntary euthanasia. Photo: David Mariuz / AAP

Lucas also has a view about shop trading hours.

And similarly, its a view hes maintained during his many years in parliament.

In fact, the zeal with which the Marshall Government has pursued the deregulation of shopping hours is no doubt driven by Lucass determination to deal with his political bugbear before he retires next year.

But, you know politics is all about timing.

As the well-worn clich goes.

And in a week dominated by parliamentarians determination to have their proper say on a euthanasia Bill that they acknowledge more than three quarters of South Australians want passed, maybe its not the best timing to push the whole shop trading deregulation should pass because its popular angle.

But, sure enough, Lucas chose that very week to launch his latest gambit in the eternal battle for more flexible shopping hours: a parliamentary bid for a referendum on the subject.

In the face of a political roadblock in the Upper House for his reforms, a poll of the people was necessary, he argued, because: We know that sensibleshoptrading hours reform has overwhelming public support.

Unfortunately for Rob, the same MLCs who blocked his reforms in the first place also get to vote on his referendum, which means the launch of his latest offensive went about as well as that rocket launch in Koonibba last year.

Get InDaily in your inbox. Daily. The best local news every workday at lunch time.

Thanks for signing up to the InDaily newsletter.

Personally, Im sympathetic to the arguments for deregulation.

Ive occasionally found myself on a Sunday morning, preparing to host a lunch and finding myself short of a crucial ingredient and having to wait until 11am for the local supermarket to open.

And sure, thats a bugger.

But its not life and death.

Moreover, while Lucas has maintained the rage on deregulation for his decades in parliament, the world around him has kinda moved on.

These days, we have this newfangled thing called the internet, which means if I want to shop for something in the middle of the night, I can and without leaving the house.

So while the added convenience of deregulation would be nice at times, its not the burning issue it was in the 1990s and perhaps isnt worthy of the states first referendum since that same era.

Still, the real purpose of this weeks renewed shop trading push was as much about politics as it was policy.

Which was evident when the Liberal Partys social media channel created a meme depicting Labor leader Peter Malinauskas as a puppet of the shoppies union.

Malinauskas, of course, was previously the boss of the shoppies union, so the argument seems to be that hes a puppet of an organisation he used to run.

But in any case, the morning after Marshall was forced to kowtow to a handful of pissed-off rebel MPs seemed an odd time to be asking questions about who runs political parties.

A bit like Lucas and his we must respect the majority call for a referendum, while opposing the majoritys views on euthanasia on deeply-held principle.

The timing is all off.

And, as the well-worn clich goes, politics is all about timing.

Tom Richardson is a senior reporter at InDaily.

Media diversity is under threat in Australia nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to contribute to InDaily.

Powered by PressPatron

See the rest here:

Richardson: Government times its run to imperfection - InDaily