Your "conscience" versus Church teaching

[LilyM]

hmmm. Can you think of an example of how a baby suffering before it dies as being beneficial? It’s a bit of stretch for me to be honest.

I guess you could say that all the people who suffer and die of cancer has spurred us on to find cures etc, but still it’s really a stretch for me.

I think it part of the human condition to want to alleviate the suffering of others.

Like I said, sometimes the purpose is known only to God alone. Perhaps the benefit might simply be that He takes His beloved to Himself (which is surely the best place for anyone) that much sooner. It’s a matter of trusting that He who created the universe and laid down His laws for our guidance knows what is best for us.

Of course it’s part of the human condition to want to alleviate suffering - and it’s often a good instinct like the instinct to eat is. Sometimes, however, just like in the case of someone whose good instinct to eat crosses over the line into gluttony, our instinct to alleviate suffering leads us to forget that often good does come out of suffering, so it’s not invariably a bad thing.

 

[LilyM]

Then why capital punishment? Why go to war and kill people? These are two things that are “ok” in given circumstances by the RCC.

Surely your “thou shalt not kill” would apply here?

Again - the baby - suffering, doesn’t know why. What good?

Why does ‘thou shalt not steal’ not apply (probably) in a case where you’re stealing to support someone who’s starving? Why does ‘honour thy father and mother’ not extend to condoning their sins?

Some rules have some exceptions.

God, who doesn’t want us to be ignorant of His law, gave us an infallible authority - the Church - to instruct us clearly in it, including permissible exceptions. It’s not for us to question that what God tells us is good or permissible is so, and that what He tells us is wrong and impermissible is also so - even if He alone truly knows the reasons.

 

[chaz0426]

And the reason I have tells me that God commanded us not to kill - and also that good can come even out of terrible suffering. And the faith I have tells me that God can and will bring His own purposes to fruition even in terrible circumstances if only we stop assuming that we know better than Him. Which altogether tells me that it is right to not kill someone merely to alleviate a small part of their suffering.

like my earlier posts saying “because God say so” is a poor valid reason in a logical sense. Yes I believe the church is ultimate truth but I’m also trying to stress to try and reason the church’s decisions that just say “because the church says it’s wrong or God says it’s wrong”

Where in the bible does it explicitly say ending suffeirng or euthanasia in a sense is wrong (don’t point to euthanasia as murder either unless you can validly claim it is an act of murder and why so without saying “God said so”)

Just trying to shed light on some of the reasons the church concluded such things and to think. It builds faith too.

what if the church said “tomorrow at 5am all catholics must venture to San Francisco and jump off the golden gate bridge to your death”

would you gladly do using the reason “the church said so” or claiming “because the church said so, God said so”

Just put more light into your reason is all I stress, I’m not saying your wrong or justifying killing or euthanasia.

Also in some situations there may not be a right answer and your obliged to act in what you personally feel is right out of pure goodness and selflessness and with good intentions and love that means to end suffering at all costs and the line between euthanasia and murder is hard to define.

just find that a lot of people on here are really closed minded in the faith and just rely on what their told rather than to try and understand it.

If you are truly interested in the church and the faith and have time try to read works by St. Thomas Aquinas, John Pual II, and/or other theologians. Try to understand how the Church came to be. It will strengthen your faith and defense of it.

 

[chaz0426]

Like I said, sometimes the purpose is known only to God alone. Perhaps the benefit might simply be that He takes His beloved to Himself (which is surely the best place for anyone) that much sooner. It’s a matter of trusting that He who created the universe and laid down His laws for our guidance knows what is best for us.

Of course it’s part of the human condition to want to alleviate suffering - and it’s often a good instinct like the instinct to eat is. Sometimes, however, just like in the case of someone whose good instinct to eat crosses over the line into gluttony, our instinct to alleviate suffering leads us to forget that often good does come out of suffering, so it’s not invariably a bad thing.

I see what your saying but thats why I presented a special case were common sense and any logical person can deduct and conclude that no good of the suffering would come out of this rather it would cause much distress for the person deciding to end his life or not and the person suffering at his hand. Allowing him to suffer would do what good? It would be certainly noble of him to say leave me be and let what happens to me happens but try being in that situation with unimaginable pain and you’ll see how strong the temptation is.

Severe Burns are proven to be the most excruciating physical pain and worst possible deaths possible

 

[thomfra]

Why does ‘thou shalt not steal’ not apply (probably) in a case where you’re stealing to support someone who’s starving? Why does ‘honour thy father and mother’ not extend to condoning their sins?

Some rules have some exceptions.

God, who doesn’t want us to be ignorant of His law, gave us an infallible authority - the Church - to instruct us clearly in it, including permissible exceptions. It’s not for us to question that what God tells us is good or permissible is so, and that what He tells us is wrong and impermissible is also so - even if He alone truly knows the reasons.

Yes. I agree there are exceptions. Rightfully so. But why not exceptions for killing to end suffering?

 

[LilyM]

like my earlier posts saying “because God say so” is a poor valid reason in a logical sense. Yes I believe the church is ultimate truth but I’m also trying to stress to try and reason the church’s decisions that just say “because the church says it’s wrong or God says it’s wrong”

Where in the bible does it explicitly say ending suffeirng or euthanasia in a sense is wrong (don’t point to euthanasia as murder either unless you can validly claim it is an act of murder and why so without saying “God said so”)

Just trying to shed light on some of the reasons the church concluded such things and to think. It builds faith too.

what if the church said “tomorrow at 5am all catholics must venture to San Francisco and jump off the golden gate bridge to your death”

would you gladly do using the reason “the church said so” or claiming “because the church said so, God said so”

Just put more light into your reason is all I stress, I’m not saying your wrong or justifying killing or euthanasia.

Also in some situations there may not be a right answer and your obliged to act in what you personally feel is right out of pure goodness and selflessness and with good intentions and love that means to end suffering at all costs and the line between euthanasia and murder is hard to define.

just find that a lot of people on here are really closed minded in the faith and just rely on what their told rather than to try and understand it.

If you are truly interested in the church and the faith and have time try to read works by St. Thomas Aquinas, John Pual II, and/or other theologians. Try to understand how the Church came to be. It will strengthen your faith and defense of it.

Funny you shoul mention John Paul 2. In this context his Salvifici Doloris has much to say about the redemptive value of suffering - even in such cases as a parent losing their child. If you’re interested, read it yourself, you can do so online at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

Very simply, as the title implies, all suffering has salvific value. It is an aid to redemption - as Christ’s own suffering was. St Paul himself actually REJOICES in his suffering, since it ‘makes up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ’ by joining with them (as members of His body our sufferings become part of His own).

Thus even the suffering, all unaware, of a baby, because it is joined with His through that baby’s membership of His body, becomes of immense value and worth as part of His saving act of sacrifice. For those of us who are adults and consciously CHOOSE to join our sufferings to those of Christ, of course, their value is all the greater in that the merits of our gracious acceptance are joined with the merits of HIS gracious acceptance of His sufferings.

Now there can be no doubting that ‘the Bible says so’ if you must have your answer in such terms. It says so when Jesus said ‘whoever follows me must take up his cross daily and follow me’ - and then lived that out by not running away to escape His own suffering.

That cannot mean other than that a follower of Jesus, who must imitate Him, must expect and accept a certain amount of suffering. It means that alleviation of suffering is not an end that justifies every means used to achieve it.

 

[thomfra]

Thus even the suffering, all unaware, of a baby, because it is joined with His through that baby’s membership of His body, becomes of immense value and worth as part of His saving act of sacrifice.

What does this actually mean?

 

[LilyM]

What does this actually mean?

That He literally identifies with us - in that sense of ‘whatsoever you do to the least of these, that you do to me’. Our suffering literally becomes His suffering. Like I said, it doesn’t require our consciousness of suffering, since we are all part of His body by virtue of baptism.

 

[terryobrien80]

Has anyone mentioned that a conscience needs to be a properly formed conscience?

I’ve heard people justify stealing because their kids need things and maybe they’re out of work. These people actually thought it was okay. Were they justified in following their conscience? No, because their conscience was obviosly illinformed

Any “conscience” that leads one to do things that are intrinsically evil is illinformed and not justified in following.

CCC 2370: …“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil"
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[iamrefreshed]

It’s really quite simple.

Obedience to church teachings will form my proper conscience.

That’s how the Holy Spirit works.

It’s not something that ‘happens’ to you. It’s something you allow into your life by following the way of Christ.

Really, where’s the disconnect for people?

 

[iamrefreshed]

is there a justification for hastening death. I.e. not killing outright, but helping them along? i.e. if treatment for example would mean the person would suffer longer, and still die. But not treating would mean they would die sooner.

That’s an outrageous statement.

How does one “not kill outright” but “help them along”? Do you hold the knife and they supply the push?

Our suffering belongs to God along with everything else. His to decide.

 

[thomfra]

That’s an outrageous statement.

How does one “not kill outright” but “help them along”? Do you hold the knife and they supply the push?

Our suffering belongs to God along with everything else. His to decide.

It’s not outrageous.

Pallitive care in most hospitals for some terminal cancers actually hastens death.

The same for neo-natal units with babies that they know will not live - where they have “feed on demand”. i.e. they don’t let babies suffer and be hungry, but they don’t put them on machines and drips which could extend their lives by a few weeks.

 

[thomfra]

It’s really quite simple.

Obedience to church teachings will form my proper conscience.

That’s how the Holy Spirit works.

It’s not something that ‘happens’ to you. It’s something you allow into your life by following the way of Christ.

Really, where’s the disconnect for people?

Have you ever heard of a “moral dilemma” before? This is what we are discussing here.

 

[JRKH]

thomfra,
You have hit one of the hot buttons and of course there are many opinions. Here is one more.

Any true Catholic must, in good conscience, declare that we must follow Church teaching and that Euthanasia is wrong at any time. Therefore you cannot help end the person’s suffering in the case you have given. However, None of us can declare with full knowledge how we would react in that situation.

Jesus declared Love as the rule of our life. Love even for our enemies. Yet we are permitted under Church Law to serve in the military and to kill our enemies. Likewise we are permitted to kill in self defence or the defence of another. How can this be squared with the Rule of Love?

It is necessary to recognize the difference between the ideal for which we strive and the realities which we sometimes face. A person who finds themselves in your scenerio must quickly weigh many choices and try to determine the higher good. He must also recognize that he will have to live the results of that decision for the rest of his live. For myself, I can only say that I hope my Dear Lord would guide me and I would make the correct choice.

Jesus said that there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your fellow man. If I made a choice to end this person’s suffering even though I “know” I am committing a mortal sin by doing it; if I make this choice out of love for this person, am I not, in a sense, laying down my life for that person? Am I not risking my own soul out of love to save another?

Very tricky and difficult questions. May God grant that none here are faced with such a situation.

Peace
James

 

[LilyM]

It’s not outrageous.

Pallitive care in most hospitals for some terminal cancers actually hastens death.

The same for neo-natal units with babies that they know will not live - where they have “feed on demand”. i.e. they don’t let babies suffer and be hungry, but they don’t put them on machines and drips which could extend their lives by a few weeks.

Well, your first example comes under what is called ‘double effect’ - ie the intention of the palliative care measures is not to kill, nor to improperly hasten death, but to do things like alleviate pain or other side effects of the illness, with the occasional and unintended effect that the person has a too-strong dose of medication or what have you, and dies.

Your second comes from the fact that what doctors would call ‘heroic’ (drastic) measures need not be used to treat illness or prolong life when death is inevitable and near, (ie preserving life at any cost is not a necessity, not that this permits deliberately killing someone) as long as no suffering results from failure to adopt such measures.

 

[thomfra]

Well, your first example comes under what is called ‘double effect’ - ie the intention of the palliative care measures is not to kill, nor to improperly hasten death, but to do things like alleviate pain or other side effects of the illness, with the occasional and unintended effect that the person has a too-strong dose of medication or what have you, and dies.

Your second comes from the fact that what doctors would call ‘heroic’ (drastic) measures need not be used to treat illness or prolong life when death is inevitable and near, (ie preserving life at any cost is not a necessity, not that this permits deliberately killing someone) as long as no suffering results from failure to adopt such measures.

Ok. I can see the difference in how you have describes things here in case 2.

But case 1: In practice, doctors know that the drug levels which are given hasten death, (as well as alleviating suffering). At some point (apart from putting somebody under a general anaesthetic) you just can’t manage the pain, and the drugs are really just given to shorten the whole thing.

It’s a very fine line.

I can also see that allowing for euthanasia opens a whole can of worms which would be essentially unmanageable. So I am not necessarily for this.

 

[thomfra]

thomfra,
You have hit one of the hot buttons and of course there are many opinions. Here is one more.

Any true Catholic must, in good conscience, declare that we must follow Church teaching and that Euthanasia is wrong at any time. Therefore you cannot help end the person’s suffering in the case you have given. However, None of us can declare with full knowledge how we would react in that situation.

Jesus declared Love as the rule of our life. Love even for our enemies. Yet we are permitted under Church Law to serve in the military and to kill our enemies. Likewise we are permitted to kill in self defence or the defence of another. How can this be squared with the Rule of Love?

It is necessary to recognize the difference between the ideal for which we strive and the realities which we sometimes face. A person who finds themselves in your scenerio must quickly weigh many choices and try to determine the higher good. He must also recognize that he will have to live the results of that decision for the rest of his live. For myself, I can only say that I hope my Dear Lord would guide me and I would make the correct choice.

Jesus said that there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your fellow man. If I made a choice to end this person’s suffering even though I “know” I am committing a mortal sin by doing it; if I make this choice out of love for this person, am I not, in a sense, laying down my life for that person? Am I not risking my own soul out of love to save another?

Very tricky and difficult questions. May God grant that none here are faced with such a situation.

Peace
James

A very good post James. Very well answered methinks.

 

[thistle]

You didn’t answer the question though. What would you do in that situation? It’s a valid answer for anyone because it’s tough. Would you seriously do anything you can to allow suffering to continue and keep him alive? Would you seriously just stand there and watch the suffering and pain? Or would you just walk way and say good luck?

I’m not saying I’m for killing him in this situation but I’m not for keeping him alive either. I’m undecided.

It’s a valid argument though and one of the toughest Philosophical moral questions throughout history.

This is why a lot of people especially some military fall away from the church is because they were put in those situations and acted on their heart and were told they are going to hell and are wrong ect. Could you imagine going through that and being condemned and damned when you thought you were doing the best thing you can!?

I completely understand them.

It’s easy to sit there and say “oh it’s always wrong ALL the time”
can you justify that statement? Don’t use “because the church/bible/Jesus said so” either because for a lot of people outside the church that doesn’t fly.

You need to validly argumentatively reasonably justify your claim. That by no means is easy but if you can it can really change even pro-euthanasia people’s thinking.

I’m sure some theologians out there have, when I have time I’ll look into it.

challenging isn’t it.

Even if it was my son in the situation you describe I would NOT end his life.

 

[terryobrien80]

It’s not outrageous.

Pallitive care in most hospitals for some terminal cancers actually hastens death…

Ahhh, but is that the intent of thisd care? To hasten death?

 

[buffalo]

Suffering can be redemptive.