From our Burying-The-Lead Department comes a surprising entry from John Allen Jr., ordinarily the Vatican correspondent who makes the National Catholic Reporter worth checking in on from time to time. (Indeed, I think his book All the Pope’s Men is must reading for aspiring apologists.)
In his current column for NCRep, Allen includes but a brief mention of the Terri Schiavo case and the extraordinary Vatican response to it apparently as an afterthought at the very end of his column (titled "A Short Note on Terri Schiavo"):
"So much has been written and said about the Terry [sic] Schiavo case in the United States that I hesitate to add anything here. It’s already well-known that the Holy See has been outspoken; three senior Vatican officials have appealed directly on Schiavo’s behalf, including Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace; Cardinal Javier Lozano Barrigan, president of the Pontifical Council for the Health Care Pastoral; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
"The American press, already accustomed to the engagement of religious conservatives on Schiavo’s behalf, has not given a great deal of attention to these Vatican interventions, treating them as largely pro forma.
"In fact, however, if one sees these statements through the lens of normal Vatican operating procedure rather than the particular contours of American debate, they’re really rather extraordinary. As a general rule, Vatican officials restrict themselves to enunciating general principles, treating particular cases, pieces of legislation or elections as something for local bishops to address. Readers will remember, for example, during the American debate over
[C]ommunion for pro-choice Catholic politicians, that Vatican officials outlined the general rules in
[C]hurch law but never even cited the name ‘John Kerry’ in doing so."
Now, granted, what Allen has to say about the Vatican response is a valuable insight into the Vatican’s usual modus operandi in cases like this, and into the Vatican’s suspension of it for Terri. But did he have to bury the blurb at the bottom of the column? And did he have to misspell Terri’s name? (Small peeve, I know, but I think it’s telling sometimes when journalists are not careful to double-check name spellings. I should note that Terri’s name is spelled correctly in the headline.)
GET THE STORY. (Scroll to bottom of page.)
Don’t assume TOO quickly that misspellings are author’s faults. Most are, but some aren’t. Signed, a burned author.
PS: I found Allen’s MAKING SAINTS quite interesting.
Mr. Peters:
Wasn’t “Making Saints: written by Newsweek’s Kennit Woodward?
Jimmy and Everyone:
I think that, in all fairness, we might have to admit that Catholic teaching on the Terri Schiavo matter, including what does or does not incude extraordinary care, is not set in stone. The Washington Post just had a good article about this actually, “Catholic Stance on Tube-Feeding Is Evolving”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3798-2005Mar26.html?sub=AR
Now, I happen to believe and side with the Vatican’s opinion on this matter. However, I do not feel at liberty to condemn my fellow Catholics who happen to disagree.
It seems there is room for some disagreement, and the Schiavo case is not one that, strictly speaking, touches upon the issue of euthanasia.
Or maybe I’m just being devil’s advocate.
Anyone care to read the article and share their thoughts on the matter?
Oh, how embarassing. You’re right. It was Woodward. Oh, well, I’ve read some other stuff by Allen, and found it informative in many ways. Now, excuse me while I go wash this blush off my cheeks.
If the Church is Our Holy Mother then I think it follows by default that Catholic teaching on this matter is set in stone. Loving mothers don’t let their children starve to death, it goes completely against a mother’s nature.
Eric,
I think, but am not sure, based on the article, that the Church sees a difference between someone who is terminally ill and someone who is otherwise healthy and severely disabled.
I think this case has caused a lot of people to question whether decisions made to NOT give a loved one a feeding tube were sinful. I think the teachings would agree that giving a dying patient a feeding tube would be a burden and not needed. But, honestly, would we not continue to let them have some ice chips, and do whatever could be done to not let them die merely from dehydration?
Obviously, Terri is not dying of any illness, ONLY dehydration. That’s where I think the husband’s argument for her right to die with dignity becomes euthanasia. It has been determined by the judges that her life as a disabled person has no value and it would be better for her to be dead. And that is what he claims she wants.
I also noticed in an article from Knight Ridder this morning that she is being given morphine to alleviate “symptoms-such as labored breathing-that might give the appearance of struggle.” It goes on to quote Dr. Morton Getz as saying, “In the instance when the family is present, you want to avoid any seeming discomfort.” But what is most puzzling to me is his next comment, “If the patient is truly vegetative, there is no suffering.” Michael’s attorney said that her second dose was given after hospice nurses reported “light moaning and grimacing and tensing of arms.”
This doesn’t add up in my mind. Either she is suffering or not. Why would someone not suffering or UNABLE to suffer, for that matter, need morphine.
I do think that large doses of morphine are used to ease the pain of those near death quite often. Providing relief and hastening death can be a very fine line for someone with say cancer or other extremely painful illnesses. I don’t think that would be considered euthanasia unless it was a dosage with the intent of causing death. However, the whole crux of Michael’s case is that she is completely unaware and vegetative. Wouldn’t that in itself negate the use of pain medication? Maybe someone with medical knowledge could fill me in on that.
This is mostly troubling to me because so many people are of the opinion that we should never interfere in personal medical decisions. I have overheard people in stores discussing it this weekend and there are many liberal articles about the government’s interferece as completely out of line.