Vatican City, Dec 16, 2019 / 05:06 pm (CNA).- A priest must say clearly to a person opting for assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia that he is committing a grave sin, a Dutch cardinal told CNA this week.
For the same reason, a priest cannot be present when voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is performed. This might imply that the priest has no problems with the decision or even that “these morally illicit acts are not such in some circumstances according to the teaching of the Church,” Cardinal Willelm Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht and an expert on euthanasia issues, told CNA.
A medical doctor before his vocation, Eijk dedicated his doctorate dissertation in the mid-1980s to the euthanasia laws. He leads a flock located in one of the countries with the most liberal euthanasia bill in the world.
Cardinal Eijk explained to CNA that “a priest must clearly say to those who opt for assisted suicide or [voluntary] euthanasia that both of these acts violate the intrinsic value of the human life, that is a grave sin.”
The cardinal did not deny the possibility of spiritual accompaniment. Still, Eijk stressed that “the priest must not be present when euthanasia or assisted suicide are performed. This way, the presence of the priest might suggest that the priest is backing the decision or even that euthanasia or assisted suicide are not morally illicit in some circumstances.”
Cardinal Eijk made a distinction between voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. He said that “with the assisted suicide, it is the patient who takes the drugs the doctor intentionally prescribed to him to commit suicide. Then there is voluntary euthanasia, when the doctor himself gives the drugs to end the patient’s life after the patient’s request. However, the responsibilities of the patient and the doctor are the same in both cases.”
In detail, Cardinal Eijk says that “the patient’s responsibility is equally grave both in assisted suicide and [voluntary] euthanasia because he has made the initiative to end his life, and this is the same both if he puts an end to his life or if a doctor does it.”
Physicians are equally responsible in both cases, too, the cardinal said.
Performing euthanasia, the doctor “directly violates the value of his life, that is an intrinsic value. Helping in assisted suicide, the doctor cooperates with the patient’s will, and this means he shares the patient’s intention. For this reason, even mere cooperation is an intrinsically evil act, as grave as if the doctor personally ended the life of the patient.”
Cardinal Eijk conceded that “assisted suicide is perhaps less psychologically heavy for the doctor. However, there is not a significant moral difference between the two things”.
Cardinal Eijk also addressed the issue of an eventual funeral for people who opted for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
“If a patient asks the priest to administer him the sacraments (confession or anointing of the sick) and plans a funeral before the doctor ends his life upon his request or he commits suicide, the priest cannot do so,” Eijk said.
He added that there are three reasons for this prohibition.
The first one is that “a person can receive the sacraments only when he is in a good disposition, and this is not the case when a person wants to oppose the order of creation, violating the intrinsic value of his life.”
The second reason is that the person “who receives the sacraments puts his life in the merciful hands of God. However, who wants to personally end his life wants to take his life in his hands.”
The third reason is that “if the priest administers the sacraments or plans a funeral in these cases, the priest is guilty of a scandal, since his actions might suggest that suicide or euthanasia are permitted in certain circumstances.”
Eijk also explained that a priest can celebrate the funeral of a person who died by assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia in only some circumstances, though suicide is always illicit.
“Since ancient times, the priests accepted to celebrate funerals of people who committed suicide or asked for euthanasia in cases of depression of any other psychiatric diseases. In these cases, because of their disease, the freedom of the people is diminished, and so ending the life cannot be considered a mortal sin,” Cardinal Eijk sais.
He adds that the priest must “prudently judge whether he is in front of a case of diminished freedom. If so, he can celebrate the funeral.”
To combat the pro-euthanasia trend, the Church must “announce that God made the human being in his image in his totality, soul, and body. The Second Vatican Council constitution Gaudium et Spes described the human being as ‘a unity of soul and body.’ This means that the body is an essential dimension of the human being and is part of the intrinsic value of the human being. So, it is not licit to sacrifice human life to end the pain.”
The cardinal also added that palliative care is a positive response, and the Church often recommends to ask for palliative care, while “there are many Christian or religious groups that provide palliative care in specialized centers.”
Eijk also said that to combat the West’s pro-euthanasia trend, the Church “must do something against loneliness. The parishes are often welcoming communities where people has social bonds and take care the one with the other. In the hyper-individualistic contemporary society, human beings are often alone. There is a huge solitude in our Western society.”
The Church “spurs to form communities not to leave people alone. A person who lives in solitude, lacking the attention and the care from the others, is less able to bear the pain,” the cardinal said.
Eijk added that the Church “announces a Christian spirituality and a lived faith. This implies that you can also join to the suffering Christ and bear the pain with him. So, we are never alone.”
[…]
What? More?
Too much of an echo chamber for the illuminati? Three comments and a question:
FIRST, the synodal style, by itself, is something for the next conclave to think about, twice. In 2028 Cardinal Grech might even be awarded two minutes to say his piece. One key innovation, here, is “consensus,” and we ask, “consensus about what”? A second devolution is the meaning of the word “alongside.” As successors of the Apostles (apostello: “sent”), the ordained bishops are firstly the guardians of the Deposit of Faith, which is our institutional, charismatic, sacramental, and personal incorporation into the life of Jesus Christ (the Mystical Body of Christ).
SECOND, yes, to some credible process to get the ordained clergy and the laity to support and leaven each other within the “universal call to holiness.” But, what still of Vatican II—which Grech mentions—which retains clarity about the vital “difference in kind as well as degree” (Lumen Gentium). Also a distinction between the realm of Revelation (Dei Verbum) and the realm of the world (Gaudium et Spes).
THIRD, so, in the full text of this initiative (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-03/grech-a-new-path-to-help-the-church-walk-in-a-synodal-style.html), why are the terms “Synod” (of Bishops) and “Assembly” used interchangeably? In a deeper way, the presence of the entire Communion of Saints (!) already happens at each celebration of the Mass—as an “extension and continuation” (St. John Paul II, drawing from St. John Chrysostom) of the one event of Calvary. The center of universal human history; not simply an episode within one narrative among many.
So, yes, to reinvigorating a religious and therefore fully human alternative to a post-World War II, post-modern, and flat-earth world moving backward into global spheres of influence. But, alone, the synodal “style” does not replace content. This by procedurally substituting (?) the vertical altar with horizontal roundtables of various sizes.
QUESTION: What does the synodal “style” have to offer to what is, in fact, a new Apostolic Age?
By then we will have a different Pope and this “Synodality” nonsense would have been tossed into the trash can of history and forgotten, where it belongs.
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.
If not before. Most sons of men have their plans perish long before they die. If the plans happen to persist after the death of the planner, it is only because someone else made it his plan. (John Kennedy had less to do with the moon landing than he is usually credited.)
The question, then, is whether the new pope will take up Francis’s plans. That, of course, is completely unknowable. Many people point to the number of cardinals Francis has appointed, but ALL of the cardinals who elected Francis had been appointed either by Benedict XVI or by John Paul II. As we see, this did not guarantee the election of a like-minded pope. Even so, it is by no means certain that the next pope will change even the most obviously disastrous aspects of Francis’s papacy.
Team Francis, Cdls Grech, Hollerich, Cupich, Farrell, Roche, Tobin, how can we neglect McElroy are pressing forward despite hopeful expectations of the more traditional Catholic. 2028. The Synodal Church sails on regardless of passenger recalcitrance, disenchantment and turmoil.
Where does she sail? Paradise Island. A dreamy place where the brutality of rigorist legalism doesn’t exist. Where good is evil and evil is good. Didn’t Zoroaster foretell the day? A truly happy place in the minds of the enlightened progressives freed from tradition. That insufferable past.
Perchance Leviathan [wasn’t the bronze serpent an effigy?] himself will providentially wreck her, the survivors a new beginning.
“The brutality of legalism doesn’t exist …” except if we need it to enforce the synodal dance. After all, as Cardinal Grech reminded us, this is an expression of “the ordinary Magisterium.” And if a cleric said it, it must be true. Expect this process to be somewhat like the Vatican’s survey last summer: we want to “hear” you until what you start to say is not what we want to hear.
So when are we supposed to stop Synodaling and share the Word of God with someone else?
“Putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”
(Ephesians 4:25)
Idiots.
O Lord, when will this affliction of walking talking and ending up actually doing and producing NOTHING will end!!!!!!
The church is being manipulated from the top.
I’m hoping that by 2028 the Synod on Synodality will be a vague memory that only about two or three Catholics will remember with embarrassment, if he or she is unfortunate to remember it at all.
Malice in Wonderland
Hilarious!!!
And perfect..,
How best to manage the worldwide Church? Circular roundtables of layered synodality (local, national, continental)?
Two comments and a question:
FIRST, a thought experiment…what if in 2025 we are tutored by the inner circle that the Council of Nicaea (1700th anniversary) was really in management of inclusion, rather than a recalling of what was/is believed from the beginning and, therefore, a rejection (non-inclusion!) of Arianism (read Pachamama, Fiducia Supplicans, etc.)? AND, then in 2026 or so, we read that the protocol for electing a subsequent pope is modernized to involve, in some way, the advice or even consent of the 2028 Assembly.
SECOND, about management of such a community-based (or Lutheran) remodel of the ecclesial Catholic Church of the Apostolic Succession (with a validly ordained priesthood and stuff like that), clearly rooted in Matthew (28:19) and in Pentecost (Acts 2:1-31)—“listening” to Benedict XVI we hear that the message is not to “turn back”, but rather “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II” (The Ratzinger Report, 1985):
“But the Church of Christ is not a party, not an association, not a club. Not setting the clock back, but setting in right. Her deep and permanent structure is not democratic but sacramental, consequently hierarchical” (49). “Real reform is to strive to let what is ours disappear as much as possible so what belongs to Christ may become more visible…what the Church needs in order to respond to the needs of man in every age is holiness, not management” (53).
QUESTION: Does the replacement of Synods of Bishops with mongrel-democratic Synodality teach/imply/ signal and morph that the process of management IS holiness?
What, exactly, about the post-synodal Study Group #9 possibly anguishing over how to elevate today’s theologians and maybe an Assembly above the Church’s magisterium(?)—that is, assigned to develop “Theological criteria [?] and synodal methodologies [?] for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal [?], pastoral [?], and ethical [?] issues.”
My walk toward Christ is full of failures. My desire has been to follow him, but I fall short of that on a daily basis. I take the responsibility of sharing the message of the Good News with my neighbors seriously. I firmly believe that the role of the Church is to be the bridge between Good and all of humanity. The Church is supposed to serve as community to unite believers as one body in Christ. She is the beacon that clearly, without hesitation and full of clarity, announces the teachings of Christ to the world.
Anything, any movement, any teaching that attempts to move the Church from her purpose is heretical and must be cast out. In my weakness, I strive to walk in truth. I am not in a position, and I am unworthy to condemn another, but I know Jesus Christ and choose to walk with him. I ignore everything else.
Amen brother! You’re for sure on the right road.
YADA YADA YADA!!
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!
FURTHERMORE – asxovvnddiuertn434&&9999v330fgjv..!!
AND THIS TIME – I MEAN IT!!!
LOL, I can’t help but agree
Sounds like you’re all ready for the Jubilee of Synodal Teams!
The Synod was a “meeting about meeting” we were told. I guess the post-Synodal Synod will be a meeting about meeting about meeting. Just think of it this way: it’s the Vatican’s version of Festivus.
Serious question. Has a single parish made a single change because of the Synod?
Ours has not, not that I can tell
“The goal is not to add work upon work but to help Churches walk in the Synodal style” according to Cardinal Grech.
Help Churches walk in the synodal style. Hmm… that sounds eerily like “I’m from the Federal Government and I’m here to help.” More to the point, the 2028 Synod will be where the teeth come out to “help Churches walk in the Synodal style.” Well, that could prove problematic for Churches faithful to Tradition that exhibit bureaucratic resistance to walking in the Synodal style.
It is my prayer that Mssrs. Johann du Toit and Ken T are correct in their prediction that post-Francis, synodalism will be discarded. I am not so optimistic. I fear that 2028 will be the beginning of the final crackdown. The Church of Accompaniment directing us to accompany together into the cattle car taking us to banquet of rotten fruit compliments of the Synodal Way.