Acting on ethical subjects before they enter a legislative debate
A number of analyses were opposing themselves before the conclave in the heart of the Catholic Church as to the direction which ought to be taken by the institution in front of the growing secularization of the world - especially in Europe. John Allen, of NCR in a recent article, quoted three principal directions which could influence the college of cardinals, which we could describe as the « democratic » school, the « proclamation » school, and the « disengagement » school.
The analysis differs only on the strategy which ought to be adopted in reply to public disaffection for the Church and its message. The public success of some bestsellers such as the Da Vinci Code tend to portray the Church as an opaque and anti-democratic institution. In face of this poor public imago, some reform ought to take place, as much in order to change the image of the institution, as to give the image of a Church closer to the preoccupations of the faithful.
Belgium published in 2002 an Act relating to euthanasia, which allows physicians to kill patients in terminal phase at their demand without being prosecuted, as I related in one of my previous posts of the month of February. In the latest study on the incidence of the Act, the Belgian Federal Commission for the Evaluation of euthanasia established that only 1/3 of all euthanasias committed in the country are reported. This proportion is similar to that in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been also legalized. The Commission found nevertheless that the risk of applying « mercy kiling » mostly to the oldest patients was not present. It might be noticed, however, that the 2/3 unreported euthanasias may well cover vulnerable populations. The other fears that were evoked at the time was that legalizing euthanasia for terminal phase patients would entail the risk of what is called the « slippery slope », an ever-increasing widening of the scope of euthanasia. As if to confirm these fears, in July 2004, a bill was introduced to open the field of euthanasia to patients suffering of dementia and to children (minors). Read my previous post to find a link to that bill.
All the Belgian political parties (in that including the two Walloon and Flemish Social-Christian parties) were favourable to the authorization of euthanasia, differring only on the extent of that authorization. The attitude of the Catholic Church in Belgium has been somewhat subdued during the debates on euthanasia. Many church-going faithful, were favourable to a limited authorisation of euthanasia, in the framework of the « state of necessity », a Belgian legal concept which entails the possibility of doing an evil to obtain a greater good.
However, the bishop of Namur, a city in the French-speaking part of Belgium, and an opponent to euthanasia Mgr. André-Mutien Léonard publicly regretted in a conference at the Vatican, in the month of February, that a true debate on euthanasia did not take place in the heart of the Church of Belgium, and that it did not take place either in the Belgian society.
It appears, retrospectively that the silence of the Church of Belgium on the question of euthanasia during the debates in Parliament favoured an unilateral view of the question. According to Belgian sources, this silence of the Cardinal of Brussels Godfried Danneels caused him to lose almost all his chances in being a pappabile in the recent conclave. And that gave the impression that euthanasia was in the order of things in a « modern » society. Cardinal Danneels, when accused of inaction, often claimed that he « did not have the political troops » to act on ethical subjects. Despite this fact, Catholic physicians who had informed Cardinal Danneels claimed that they were not supported by the Church.
The Belgian evolution illustrates the dangers of leaving the debate on ethical subjects such as therapeutical cloning and euthanasia in the hands of the civil society, alone. When the Church disengages from the ethical debates of the only arguments in the field remain those which are often promoted by pop culture (as for instance in One million dollar baby of Eastwood, or Mar adentro two films which feature a positive image of euthanasia).
The appeal of pop culture, and mass media takes over when there is no counterbalancing discourse. The fear of being accused of proselytism and of obscurantism has long time been a limiting factor in continental Europe for avoiding to take part to political debates.
There is however a place for the Church’s intervention in ethical debates. As former Cardinal Ratzinger, recalled in a speech in November 1992 (available in French only), the separation of State and the Church originates in Christian principles. It might be added that in those ancient times of theocracy, it was Pope Innocent III, in the XIIIth century, who edicted that foundation of democracy: Quod omnibus tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (what touches everybody should be discussed and approved by everyone). But besides this historical commitment of the Church to Common Good, there are other reasons for the Church to make its voice heard. In a secularized society it is easy to loose track of the more fundamental values and of the need of keeping in mind the Common Good.
The Church, in the specific context of the XXIst century Europe, where diffidence towards organized politics reigns, is one of the few institutions which has a capacity of proposing an alternative view of society and politics. Where politicians have been discredited with corruption and thirst of power, new men, living a simple and modest life have a new and enlightening task in teaching rules in a new language.
When the elementary moral rules have dissappeared from public life, then it becomes an urgent need for a new word unstained by compromission to be heard. It is this message that Pope Benedict XVI sought to communicate in his homely on Saturday 7 May 2005, and which you may read (Italian text) here: http://www.vatican.va/gpII/bulletin/B0263-XX.01.pdf
That is the principal reason for which "reform" cannot be heard within the magisterium as far as question of faith or morals are concerned.
The analysis differs only on the strategy which ought to be adopted in reply to public disaffection for the Church and its message. The public success of some bestsellers such as the Da Vinci Code tend to portray the Church as an opaque and anti-democratic institution. In face of this poor public imago, some reform ought to take place, as much in order to change the image of the institution, as to give the image of a Church closer to the preoccupations of the faithful.
Belgium published in 2002 an Act relating to euthanasia, which allows physicians to kill patients in terminal phase at their demand without being prosecuted, as I related in one of my previous posts of the month of February. In the latest study on the incidence of the Act, the Belgian Federal Commission for the Evaluation of euthanasia established that only 1/3 of all euthanasias committed in the country are reported. This proportion is similar to that in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been also legalized. The Commission found nevertheless that the risk of applying « mercy kiling » mostly to the oldest patients was not present. It might be noticed, however, that the 2/3 unreported euthanasias may well cover vulnerable populations. The other fears that were evoked at the time was that legalizing euthanasia for terminal phase patients would entail the risk of what is called the « slippery slope », an ever-increasing widening of the scope of euthanasia. As if to confirm these fears, in July 2004, a bill was introduced to open the field of euthanasia to patients suffering of dementia and to children (minors). Read my previous post to find a link to that bill.
All the Belgian political parties (in that including the two Walloon and Flemish Social-Christian parties) were favourable to the authorization of euthanasia, differring only on the extent of that authorization. The attitude of the Catholic Church in Belgium has been somewhat subdued during the debates on euthanasia. Many church-going faithful, were favourable to a limited authorisation of euthanasia, in the framework of the « state of necessity », a Belgian legal concept which entails the possibility of doing an evil to obtain a greater good.
However, the bishop of Namur, a city in the French-speaking part of Belgium, and an opponent to euthanasia Mgr. André-Mutien Léonard publicly regretted in a conference at the Vatican, in the month of February, that a true debate on euthanasia did not take place in the heart of the Church of Belgium, and that it did not take place either in the Belgian society.
It appears, retrospectively that the silence of the Church of Belgium on the question of euthanasia during the debates in Parliament favoured an unilateral view of the question. According to Belgian sources, this silence of the Cardinal of Brussels Godfried Danneels caused him to lose almost all his chances in being a pappabile in the recent conclave. And that gave the impression that euthanasia was in the order of things in a « modern » society. Cardinal Danneels, when accused of inaction, often claimed that he « did not have the political troops » to act on ethical subjects. Despite this fact, Catholic physicians who had informed Cardinal Danneels claimed that they were not supported by the Church.
The Belgian evolution illustrates the dangers of leaving the debate on ethical subjects such as therapeutical cloning and euthanasia in the hands of the civil society, alone. When the Church disengages from the ethical debates of the only arguments in the field remain those which are often promoted by pop culture (as for instance in One million dollar baby of Eastwood, or Mar adentro two films which feature a positive image of euthanasia).
The appeal of pop culture, and mass media takes over when there is no counterbalancing discourse. The fear of being accused of proselytism and of obscurantism has long time been a limiting factor in continental Europe for avoiding to take part to political debates.
There is however a place for the Church’s intervention in ethical debates. As former Cardinal Ratzinger, recalled in a speech in November 1992 (available in French only), the separation of State and the Church originates in Christian principles. It might be added that in those ancient times of theocracy, it was Pope Innocent III, in the XIIIth century, who edicted that foundation of democracy: Quod omnibus tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet (what touches everybody should be discussed and approved by everyone). But besides this historical commitment of the Church to Common Good, there are other reasons for the Church to make its voice heard. In a secularized society it is easy to loose track of the more fundamental values and of the need of keeping in mind the Common Good.
The Church, in the specific context of the XXIst century Europe, where diffidence towards organized politics reigns, is one of the few institutions which has a capacity of proposing an alternative view of society and politics. Where politicians have been discredited with corruption and thirst of power, new men, living a simple and modest life have a new and enlightening task in teaching rules in a new language.
When the elementary moral rules have dissappeared from public life, then it becomes an urgent need for a new word unstained by compromission to be heard. It is this message that Pope Benedict XVI sought to communicate in his homely on Saturday 7 May 2005, and which you may read (Italian text) here: http://www.vatican.va/gpII/bulletin/B0263-XX.01.pdf
That is the principal reason for which "reform" cannot be heard within the magisterium as far as question of faith or morals are concerned.
posted by dawnofeurope | 2:09 pm
<< Home