When everything we do and endure has eternal value, then, and only then, can we muster the strength to watch our loved ones suffer, and suffer a similar fate ourselves.
New York and Massachusetts legislatures are preparing to join ten states in legalizing assisted suicide. Others are likely to follow. As Cardinal Seán O’Malley predicted in January, “There’s no doubt that the next major assaults in the next twenty-five years are going to come from those pushing physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. A society that allows parents to kill their children will eventually allow children to kill their parents.”
Catholic and secular organizations in both states have joined forces to defeat these odious bills. In the public square, arguments against assisted suicide are typically secular rather than religious, including those offered by the New York State Catholic Conference and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. The arguments, all practical in nature, center on what the bills fail to prevent, on negative outcomes for individuals and society, on the potential for bad actors to coerce innocent people.
These responses are all relevant and important. But it is fair to ask if they alone are powerful enough to change minds, or, more urgently, to capture imaginations and hearts. These secular, practical arguments are akin to a boxer throwing only jabs at a taller opponent: their effectiveness is limited, and they have no chance of knocking him out.
Practical arguments also have limited impact because they fight in the opponent’s ring, where he sets the parameters and dimensions for the contest. In this case, as the heroic Dr. Wesley J. Smith, who has given his whole career to fighting euthanasia, explains, the opponent has selected a “quality of life” ethic for the match. When the “quality” of a person’s life wanes due to age or illness—when living life as one wishes is no longer practical—it is right to throw in the towel.
By emphasizing quality of life, the opponent can land his most fearsome punch: generating pity for the terminally ill cancer patient, whittled to skin and bones, whose suffering is unbearable and whose death is imminent. The voter reacts viscerally to the image; uncatechized, he sees no real difference between letting nature takes its course versus hastening the inevitable with a cocktail of pills. He stops thinking about practical counter arguments such as what legal euthanasia can do to society or how it can be abused. He then pulls the lever in favor of assisted suicide.
The “quality of life” ethic has seized the popular imagination as the dominant worldview. It is repulsively utilitarian, as it instrumentalizes human life to what a human being can produce and endure. When productivity halts or pain spikes out of control, the reason for living vanishes. Each person who says, even jokingly, “If I lose my marbles when I get older, just shoot me,” is unwittingly promoting this perspective.
In this ethos, arguing on practical grounds that the ninety-four-year-old suffering with Alzheimer’s should continue living will not persuade most adults. The only counterpunch that has a prayer of knocking out this worldview is the ethic that the doyens of progress have rejected: the sanctity of life ethic born of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Life is sacred because it comes from God, the loving and beneficent creator, who made us for the purpose of living in His love for all eternity. This fact does not eliminate suffering or alleviate the physical and mental plights of cancer and Alzheimer’s patients. It rather puts suffering and life into a context that makes sense, and that makes life worth living—all the way to the bitter end.
Does the sanctity of life ethic, which hinges on God’s existence, stand a chance as America grows more post-Christian by the year?
Yes. First, God alone elevates human life to transcendental status whereby life receives more meaning than merely living for survival’s sake. Life is sanctified in Him. Consequently, God is the guarantee that prevents human beings from turning against one another. In Cardinal O’Malley’s words, “Once human life is no longer sacred and the government can continuously move the goalpost, more and more people are in danger.” This same thought was expressed in different words 248 years ago: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Second, the decline in religious practice does not coincide with losing a vision of life as purposeful—or even sacred. The Pew Research Forum’s latest survey indicates that nearly three-quarters of “Nones,” those without religious affiliation, prize a connection to something bigger than themselves. In their hearts, most people do not think their lives are meaningless, nor do they live as if they and their children are Darwinian accidents.
Life is worth living because it participates in the life of God, who is love itself. This vision once held the imagination of citizens in the same lands that now seek euthanasia as the most ironic kind of “lifestyle choice.” And it can do so again because it lifts us out of the depressing malaise that secularism offers. When everything we do and endure has eternal value, then, and only then, can we muster the strength to watch our loved ones suffer, and suffer a similar fate ourselves.
The sanctity of life ethic attracts. If we are going to halt the euthanasia menace, then we need to offer this ethic as our leading argument. Haters of religion have convinced us to keep religious arguments out of the public square. If we do, we play right into their hands, because God alone has the power to halt the Culture of Death.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
ACI Prensa Staff, Feb 15, 2024 / 18:30 pm (CNA).
In a Feb. 14 statement, the Ecuadorian Bishops’ Conference expressed its profound concern and disagreement with the Constitutional Court’s recent dec… […]
Vatican City, Feb 16, 2022 / 08:30 am (CNA).
As euthanasia and assisted suicide spread across Europe, doctors are promoting life-affirming palliative care with the Vatican’s support.“The first great value is… […]
Amanda Achtman’s last photo with her grandfather, Joseph Achtman. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Amanda Achtman
CNA Staff, Nov 5, 2023 / 06:00 am (CNA).
When the Canadian government began discussing the legalization of euthanasia for those whose deaths were “reasonably foreseeable,” 32-year-old Amanda Achtman said something in her began to stir. Her grandfather was in his mid-90s at the time and fit the description.
“There were a couple of times, toward the end of his life, that he faced some truly challenging weeks and said he wanted to die,” Achtman recalled. “But thank God no physician could legally concede to a person’s suicidal ideation in such vulnerable moments. To all of our surprise — including his — his condition and his outlook improved considerably before his death at age 96.”
Achtman said she and her grandfather were able to have a memorable final visit that “forged her character and became one of the greatest gifts he ever gave me.”
The experience of walking with her grandfather in his last days led Achtman to work that she believes is a calling. On Aug. 1, she launched a multifaceted cultural project called Dying to Meet You, which seeks to “humanize our conversations and experiences around suffering, death, meaning, and hope.” This mission is accomplished through a mix of interviews, short films, community events, and conversations.
Amanda Achtman speaks during the Evening Program at St. Mary’s Cathedral during “The Church as an Expert in Humanity” event in Calgary Sept. 23, 2023. Credit: Edward Chan/Community Productions
“This cultural project is my primary mission, and I am grateful to be able to dedicate the majority of my energy to it,” Achtman told CNA.
Early years
Achtman was born and raised in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. She grew up in a Jewish-Catholic family with, she said, “a strong attachment to these two traditions that constitute the tenor of my complete personality.”
Her Polish-Jewish grandfather, with whom she had a very close relationship as a young adult, had become an atheist because of the Holocaust and was always challenging her to face up to the big questions of mortality and morality.
“One of the ways I did this was by traveling on the March of Remembrance and Hope Holocaust study trip to Germany and Poland when I was 18,” Achtman said. “My experiences listening to the stories of Holocaust survivors and Righteous Among the Nations have undeniably forged my moral imagination and instilled in me a profound sense of personal responsibility.”
Shortly after her grandfather’s death, Achtman discovered a new English-language master’s program being offered in John Paul II philosophical studies at the Catholic University of Lublin in Poland.
“Immediately, I felt as though God were saying to me, ‘Leave your country and go to the land that I will show you — it’s Poland.’ At the time, the main things I knew about Poland were that the Holocaust had largely been perpetrated there and that Sts. John Paul II, Maximilian Kolbe, and Faustina were from there,” Achtman explained. “I wanted to be steeped in a country of saints, heroes, and martyrs in order to contemplate seriously what my life is actually about and how I could spend it generously in the service of preventing dehumanization and faithfully defending the sanctity of life in my own context.”
On Sept. 23, 2023, Amanda Achtman organized a daylong open-house-style event called “The Church as an Expert in Humanity” in Calgary, Alberta. Participants added ideas for how we, the Church, can prevent euthanasia and encourage hope. Credit: Edward Chan/Community Productions
The rise of euthanasia in Canada
In 2016, the Canadian government legalized euthanasia nationwide. The criterion to be killed in a hospital was informed consent on the part of an adult who was deemed to have a “grievous and irremediable condition.”
“The death request needed to be made in writing before two independent witnesses after a mandatory time of reflection. And, consent could be withdrawn any time before the lethal injection,” Achtman explained.
Then, in 2021, the Canadian government began to remove those safeguards. “The legislative change involved requiring only one witness, allowing the possible waiving of the need for final consent, and the removal, in many cases, of any reflection period,” Achtman told CNA.
“Furthermore, a new ‘track’ was invented for ‘persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.’ This meant that Canadians with disabilities became at greater risk of premature death through euthanasia. Once death-by-physician became seen as a human right, there was practically no limit as to who should ‘qualify.’ As long as killing is seen as a legitimate means to eliminate suffering, there is no limit to who could be at risk.”
Euthanasia — now called medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada — is set to further expand on March 17, 2024, to those whose sole underlying condition is “mental illness.” Last year, Dr. Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons testified before a special joint committee that his organization thinks euthanasia should be expanded to infants with “severe malformations” and “grave and severe syndromes.”
Renewing the culture
Achtman followed the debates around end-of-life issues in Canada and wanted to figure out a way to restore “a right response to the reality of suffering and death in our lives.”
“The fact is, our mortality is part of what makes life precious, our relationships worth cherishing, and our lives worth giving out of love. That’s why we need to bring cultural renewal to death and dying, restoring our understanding of its meaning to the human condition.”
At the Sept. 23, 2023, open-house event called “The Church as an Expert in Humanity,” there were table displays of ministries in the diocese who are doing the best work on suffering, death, grief, and caregiving. Credit: Edward Chan/Community Productions
On Jan. 1, 2021, Achtman made a new year’s resolution to blog about death every single day for an entire year in a way that was “hope-filled and edifying.”
It ended up being very fruitful to Achtman personally, but she said “it also touched a surprising number of people, inspiring them to take concrete actions in their own lives that I could not have anticipated.”
The experience, Achtman said, made her realize that it’s possible to contribute to cultural renewal through things like coffee shop visits, informal interviews, posting on social media, being a guest on podcasts and webinars, organizing community events, and making videos.
“Basically, there are countless practical and ordinary ways that we can humanize the culture — wherever we are and whatever we do the rest of the time.”
The Dying to Meet You project
When it comes to the mission of Dying to Meet You, Achtman told CNA that “God has put on my heart two key objectives: the prevention of euthanasia and the encouragement of hope” and added that “the aim of this cultural project is to improve our cultural conversation and engagement around suffering, death, meaning, and hope through a mix of interviews, writing, videos, and events.”
Achtman said the project is an experiment in the themes Pope Francis speaks about often — encounter, accompaniment, going to the peripheries, and contributing to a more fraternal spirit.
“There is a strong basis for opposition to euthanasia across almost all religions and cultures, traditionally speaking,” Achtman said. “Partly from my own upbringing in a Jewish-Catholic family, I am passionate about how the cultural richness of such a plurality of traditions in Canada can bolster and enrich our value of all human life.”
To that end, one of the projects Achtman has in the works is a short film on end of life from an Indigenous perspective to be released mid-November.
“It’s not so much that we have a culture of death as we now seem to have death without culture,” said Achtman, who hopes her efforts will help change that.
An inspiring hometown event
This past Sept. 23, Achtman organized a daylong open-house-style event called “The Church as an Expert in Humanity” in her home city of Calgary, which took place at Calgary’s Cathedral, the Cathedral Hall, and the Catholic Pastoral Centre. The morning featured a ministry hall of exhibits with 18 table displays of ministries throughout the diocese doing the best work on suffering, death, grief, and caregiving. In the afternoon, there were three-panel presentations.
The morning of “The Church as an Expert in Humanity” in St. Mary’s Cathedral Hall in Calgary, Alberta, featured a ministry hall of exhibits with table displays of ministries in the diocese doing the best work on suffering, death, grief, and caregiving. Credit: Edward Chan/Community Productions
The first involved Catholics of diverse cultural backgrounds speaking about hospitality and accompaniment in their respective traditions. It included a Filipino diaconal candidate, a Ukrainian laywoman working with refugees, an elderly Indigenous woman who is a community leader, and an Iraqi Catholic priest.
The second was called “Tell Me About the Hour of Death,” where participants heard from two doctors, a priest, and a longtime pastoral care worker.
The third panel focused on papal documents pertaining to death, hope, and eternal life. A Polish Dominican sister who has worked extensively with the elderly spoke about John Paul II’s “Letter to the Elderly.”
Later, an evening program was held in Calgary’s Catholic Cathedral and included seven short testimonies by different speakers that “were narratively framed as echoes of the Seven Last Words of Christ.” Among the speakers were a privately sponsored Middle Eastern Christian refugee, a L’Arche core member who has a disability, and a young father whose daughter only lived for 38 minutes. Afterward, Calgary’s Bishop William McGrattan gave some catechesis on the Anima Christi prayer, with a special emphasis on the line “In your wounds, hide me.”
“The day was extremely uplifting and instilled the local Church with confidence that the Church indeed is an expert in humanity, capable of meeting Christ in all who suffer with a gaze of love and the steadfast insistence, ‘I will not abandon you,’” Achtman told CNA.
Calgary’s Bishop William McGrattan listens to the seven testimonies echoing the seven last words of Christ during the evening program. Credit: Edward Chan/Community Productions
Our lives are not wholly our own
Many believe euthanasia is compassionate care for those who suffer. Shouldn’t we be able to do what we want with our own lives? And can suffering have any meaning for someone who doesn’t believe in God?
Achtman said these questions remind her of something Mother Teresa said: “If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other,” as well as the John Donne quote “Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.”
“Our lives are not wholly our own and how we live and die affects the communities to which we belong,” Achtman said. “That is not a religious argument but an empirical observation about human life. If someone lacks ties and is without family and social support, then that is the crisis to which the adequate response is presence and assistance — not abandonment or hastened death. As one of my heroes, Father Alfred Delp, put it, a suffering person makes an ongoing appeal to your inner nobility, to your sacrificial strength and capacity to love. Don’t miss the opportunity.”
Amanda Achtman pictured with Christine, an 88-year-old woman who got a tattoo that says “Don’t euthanize me,” which is featured in a short four-minute documentary. Credit; Photo courtesy of Amanda Achtman
The mission continues
Achtman also organized a “Mass of a Lifetime,” a special Sunday Mass for residents of a local retirement home, on Oct. 15.
Attendees at the Mass of a Lifetime event, a special Sunday Mass for residents of a local retirement home held on Oct. 15, 2023, in Calgary, Alberta. Credit: Amanda Achtman
“I was inspired by a quotation of Dietrich von Hildebrand, who said: ‘Wherever anything makes Christ known, there nothing can be beautiful enough,’” Achtman said. “Applying that spirit to this Mass, we made it as elaborate as possible to show the seniors that they are worth the effort.”
Achtman also recently produced a four-minute short film about an 88-year-old woman named Christine who got a tattoo that says “Don’t euthanize me.” It can be viewed here:
Throughout 2023-2024, Achtman told CNA, she is basing herself in four different Canadian cities for three months each “in order to empower diverse faith and cultural communities in the task of preventing euthanasia and encouraging hope.” She started in her hometown of Calgary and is off to Vancouver this month.
In addition to her work with the Dying to Meet You project, Achtman does ethics education and cultural engagement with Canadian Physicians for Life and works to promote the personalist tradition with the Hildebrand Project.
We read from 248 years ago: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
The cultural drift began at the very beginning. Even the more rationalistic term “unalienable” was an edit supplied by Benjamin Franklin, replacing Jefferson’s originally proposed/drafted “sacred and undeniable” (Paul Johnson, “A History of the American People” [New York: Harper Perennial, 1999], 155).
“The sanctity of life attracts”.
It should but it’s an uphill climb these days.
I’m with Cardinal O’Malley re the next major assaults for the next twenty-five years. We’re already well on the way.
The root cause issue is truly the choice between The Objective Truth or subjective truthiness. When Jesus stated that He did not come to divide the world, He contended the world would converge upon His Truth (Way and Life) in fulfillment of
His desire that all men come unto Him.
I’m a prairie Grandpa NOT in touch with ALL the goings-on in education
and medicine. But —being a “long-range”, multi-change WWII vintage cradle
Catholic, I can EASILY still ask the question: “Where are the Priests —
young, in-“retirement” [ a Priest NEVER “retires” from his calling !] —
who have committed themselves to BE BESIDE the bed of a dying person?
And if these actually exist and remain active, please, speak out on
behalf of these souls “just this side of Eternity”.
Assisted suicide is not ONLY a “secular” issue. It touches on the moral,
metaphysical, and Spiritual/ Eternal dimensions of a person’s human existence and that person’s “last breath”.
But Secular thinking excludes these other dimensions, thus effectively
dehumanizing and de-peronalizing the individual, because having
“cancelled” the Sacred, i.e. the Holy TRINITY [ God the Father, God the
Son, God the Holy Spirit ] as Source of all Creation and Salvation from Sin.
Therefore, PURELY SECULAR arguments cannot stop assisted suicide.
There are people who are gravely ill and in great pain. The answer is not assisted suicide, but adequate pain medication. Hysteria over opiates have made many doctors reluctant to administer the necessary pain meds. We need to alleviate suffering.
Well, Will it works both ways. True, some doctors now are leery of prescription pain meds but morphine drips, not so much. There’s a difference between chronic pain control & terminal illness care.
In principle Bonagura’s sanctity argument is superior to the secular. Practically, apparently not, because of the affective prejudice of a largely godless culture. There is another tack argued by jurists that relies on traditional reasoning, that is, the unwritten common law.
Two cases are examples of arguments worthy of consideration, those of circuit court justice Robert Beezer in Compassion in Dying v State of Washington 1994, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Casey 1992. Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion questioned the fundamental right to an abortion as a right to privacy because it involved the life of another human being. Justice Beezer argued in his dissenting opinion on the traditional common law tenet that an individual owes his existence to the common good, an ancient principle as part of the fabric of a society.
Both arguments appeal to common law reasoning that has roots in natural law. Otherwise, or in any instance our global culture increasingly secular and individualistic requires a moral awakening to respond to reason or the spiritual sanctity approach.
I believe that at least a significant part of the problem is in the terminology we use, and don’t use, with regard to Euthanasia, and other moral issues.
The USCCB site, under the heading of Euthanasia has a seven-page document “To Live Each Day With Dignity” that mentions such things as violation of Hippocratic Oath, but nowhere in the document is the word sin used.
The CCC (#2277) calls euthanasia “Morally Unacceptable” but does not use the word sin.
There seems to be an extreme reluctance, at the national level, the diocesan level and the parish level to use the word sin, and to say that people are jeopardizing their eternal salvation with mortal sin.
When was the last time anyone heard St. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians, ” Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
This is not to advocate “Fire and Brimstone” homilies and documents, but to merely state the truth.
Alas, most people these days will not be persuaded by religious arguments on this issue and will react with angry cries of Christians trying to impose their morality on the state. Euthanasia proponents have always argued the issue in emotional terms, all the way back to “Life Unworthy of Life.” I can recall pro-death propaganda in media all the way back to newspaper stories about “mercy killings” in the 1940s. Even appeals to better medication and support for the suffering will not suffice now. Notice the growing numbers of people seeking euthanasia to preserve their: “autonomy.” That recent report on the assisted suicide of a (Catholic) Christian Democrat politician and his wife in their 90s is a sign of how far attitudes have already changed in Europe.
The game is over; our side lost. Prepare to defend your own lives.
There is an overlooked key here that always has application.
Atheist and non-natural law positions are never universal and always carry on with their integral inseparable and irreparable flaws. The attempts to impose as universal what is not universal and also flawed, is always complicated and always gets into trouble. They do not pre-qualify for good law or good society or good politics.
Then there is the practical play out how things are set in motion.
Putting these things squarely in view is a serious challenge. People are not fully prepared to elucidate the issues and they have difficulty exposing the minorities involved and protagonist roots, pushing alternative “conclusions” and modalities. It’s hard to tell “what’s coming next”. The debate is slowed and hampered by tactical arguing defying reasoning, where, eventually, the bad idea wins out by a kind of attrition and the marginal extra votes.
Or else, here is an example from Michigan of a total mobbing of a meeting. No-one could have provided for the unexpected. The common commitment to a democratic way is not shared. “Why debate anything?” If that is really the approach, anyone could have achieved the coup!
Per Fr. Morello above- Ideally the religious argument but in practical terms doubtful. (My uphill climb). Yes, natural law arguments may take us further.
Yes Cleo. Reason and the will are inclined by nature toward what is true and good, the natural law within. Our difficulty is in the effect of original sin, and the willful misdirection of our thoughts, acts etc to a due [good] end. Anyone has the potential to choose good, prayer for those we deal with can have its good effect.
Neither the secular nor the religious arguments will work with those who are already morally corrupt, that is, those in power in society. They hate their lives and the lives of others. We are fooling ourselves to think these are people of good will. They have lost all hope in the value of God’s gift if they ever believed in. We must look out for our loved ones and ourselves and not expect help from at large.
I note that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition does not argue against euthanasia on religious terms. I believe Margaret Somerville took the same stance.
Prof. Bonagura makes an excellent point.
All of these cultural issues — abortion, euthanasia, same-sex attraction, transing — should be argued from principle.
Otherwise, there is a danger of people settling for a compromise. And no compromise should ever be made with sheer evil.
We read from 248 years ago: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
The cultural drift began at the very beginning. Even the more rationalistic term “unalienable” was an edit supplied by Benjamin Franklin, replacing Jefferson’s originally proposed/drafted “sacred and undeniable” (Paul Johnson, “A History of the American People” [New York: Harper Perennial, 1999], 155).
“The sanctity of life attracts”.
It should but it’s an uphill climb these days.
I’m with Cardinal O’Malley re the next major assaults for the next twenty-five years. We’re already well on the way.
The root cause issue is truly the choice between The Objective Truth or subjective truthiness. When Jesus stated that He did not come to divide the world, He contended the world would converge upon His Truth (Way and Life) in fulfillment of
His desire that all men come unto Him.
I’m a prairie Grandpa NOT in touch with ALL the goings-on in education
and medicine. But —being a “long-range”, multi-change WWII vintage cradle
Catholic, I can EASILY still ask the question: “Where are the Priests —
young, in-“retirement” [ a Priest NEVER “retires” from his calling !] —
who have committed themselves to BE BESIDE the bed of a dying person?
And if these actually exist and remain active, please, speak out on
behalf of these souls “just this side of Eternity”.
Assisted suicide is not ONLY a “secular” issue. It touches on the moral,
metaphysical, and Spiritual/ Eternal dimensions of a person’s human existence and that person’s “last breath”.
But Secular thinking excludes these other dimensions, thus effectively
dehumanizing and de-peronalizing the individual, because having
“cancelled” the Sacred, i.e. the Holy TRINITY [ God the Father, God the
Son, God the Holy Spirit ] as Source of all Creation and Salvation from Sin.
Therefore, PURELY SECULAR arguments cannot stop assisted suicide.
There are people who are gravely ill and in great pain. The answer is not assisted suicide, but adequate pain medication. Hysteria over opiates have made many doctors reluctant to administer the necessary pain meds. We need to alleviate suffering.
Well, Will it works both ways. True, some doctors now are leery of prescription pain meds but morphine drips, not so much. There’s a difference between chronic pain control & terminal illness care.
In principle Bonagura’s sanctity argument is superior to the secular. Practically, apparently not, because of the affective prejudice of a largely godless culture. There is another tack argued by jurists that relies on traditional reasoning, that is, the unwritten common law.
Two cases are examples of arguments worthy of consideration, those of circuit court justice Robert Beezer in Compassion in Dying v State of Washington 1994, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Casey 1992. Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion questioned the fundamental right to an abortion as a right to privacy because it involved the life of another human being. Justice Beezer argued in his dissenting opinion on the traditional common law tenet that an individual owes his existence to the common good, an ancient principle as part of the fabric of a society.
Both arguments appeal to common law reasoning that has roots in natural law. Otherwise, or in any instance our global culture increasingly secular and individualistic requires a moral awakening to respond to reason or the spiritual sanctity approach.
I believe that at least a significant part of the problem is in the terminology we use, and don’t use, with regard to Euthanasia, and other moral issues.
The USCCB site, under the heading of Euthanasia has a seven-page document “To Live Each Day With Dignity” that mentions such things as violation of Hippocratic Oath, but nowhere in the document is the word sin used.
The CCC (#2277) calls euthanasia “Morally Unacceptable” but does not use the word sin.
There seems to be an extreme reluctance, at the national level, the diocesan level and the parish level to use the word sin, and to say that people are jeopardizing their eternal salvation with mortal sin.
When was the last time anyone heard St. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians, ” Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
This is not to advocate “Fire and Brimstone” homilies and documents, but to merely state the truth.
Alas, most people these days will not be persuaded by religious arguments on this issue and will react with angry cries of Christians trying to impose their morality on the state. Euthanasia proponents have always argued the issue in emotional terms, all the way back to “Life Unworthy of Life.” I can recall pro-death propaganda in media all the way back to newspaper stories about “mercy killings” in the 1940s. Even appeals to better medication and support for the suffering will not suffice now. Notice the growing numbers of people seeking euthanasia to preserve their: “autonomy.” That recent report on the assisted suicide of a (Catholic) Christian Democrat politician and his wife in their 90s is a sign of how far attitudes have already changed in Europe.
The game is over; our side lost. Prepare to defend your own lives.
There is an overlooked key here that always has application.
Atheist and non-natural law positions are never universal and always carry on with their integral inseparable and irreparable flaws. The attempts to impose as universal what is not universal and also flawed, is always complicated and always gets into trouble. They do not pre-qualify for good law or good society or good politics.
Then there is the practical play out how things are set in motion.
Putting these things squarely in view is a serious challenge. People are not fully prepared to elucidate the issues and they have difficulty exposing the minorities involved and protagonist roots, pushing alternative “conclusions” and modalities. It’s hard to tell “what’s coming next”. The debate is slowed and hampered by tactical arguing defying reasoning, where, eventually, the bad idea wins out by a kind of attrition and the marginal extra votes.
Or else, here is an example from Michigan of a total mobbing of a meeting. No-one could have provided for the unexpected. The common commitment to a democratic way is not shared. “Why debate anything?” If that is really the approach, anyone could have achieved the coup!
Michigan was the State that fought Kervorkian.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-total-coup-michigan-activists-upset-over-replacement-of-gop-chairwoman-with-ex-congressman/
Freemasonry – Fr Mitch Pacwa SJ
ParousiaMedia – Sep 16, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx7b3hiXdgw
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lifesite-league-democrat-power-grab-indiana/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
Per Fr. Morello above- Ideally the religious argument but in practical terms doubtful. (My uphill climb). Yes, natural law arguments may take us further.
Yes Cleo. Reason and the will are inclined by nature toward what is true and good, the natural law within. Our difficulty is in the effect of original sin, and the willful misdirection of our thoughts, acts etc to a due [good] end. Anyone has the potential to choose good, prayer for those we deal with can have its good effect.
Neither the secular nor the religious arguments will work with those who are already morally corrupt, that is, those in power in society. They hate their lives and the lives of others. We are fooling ourselves to think these are people of good will. They have lost all hope in the value of God’s gift if they ever believed in. We must look out for our loved ones and ourselves and not expect help from at large.
I note that the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition does not argue against euthanasia on religious terms. I believe Margaret Somerville took the same stance.