Sightings
Peace for Terri Schiavo
-- Martin E.
Marty
Today down the street at a hospice or in your
neighborhood hospital, one of many thousands of Americans is in a coma, or is
"brain dead," or in a "persistent vegetative state," or any of a score of
variations on the above. Unless the person is your patient, your relative,
your friend, or your fellow congregant who is regularly being prayed for, you've
never heard of this person, and never will.
In the language of the Christian majority, however,
"his name is written in the book of life," so no one needs to absolutize or
idolize utterly reduced "lives." More than half of them are under the care
of priests, ministers, rabbis, chaplains, trained and certified deacons, and lay
care-givers -- all of them pastors.
Who is a pastor, what does he or she do, and what does
it mean to be under pastoral care? The pastor is trained in medical
ethics, consults experts, and has thought through the theological implications
of what is going on, since such circumstances are constants in the pastoral
world. The pastor really, really cares about life, each life under
pastoral care, valuing the life to come and the life that is. The pastor
no doubt knew the "brain-dead" patient when he was hearty. She knows the
one who is now in a "persistent vegetative state" back in good days and
bad. Dealing with persons in comas is part of the regular rounds for
pastors.
Though not a parish pastor since 1963, I still get to
do pastoral acts, thanks to such conveniences as autos and jets, plus
snail-mail, e-mail, and telephones that make possible "virtual pastoral
calls." Even at the margins, I will get calls that say: "Marty, your
friend XX is slipping away. You agreed to phone a final prayer. We
are going to let her sleep tomorrow." That is not "physician-assisted
suicide." It is natural and godly. Or: "XX can't hear you anymore;
she's really gone, except for the tubes. You and she agreed you'd talk to
the family as we look ahead."
Oh, yes, the family. Pastoral care regards the
patient in context, and knows that the family will outlive the dying
member. Over a period of time a pastor, a chaplaincy-circuit, a
congregation will study the issues and make personal decisions with which
families have to live. The pastor will do all he or she can to help a
family find courage to make the right decision, the freedom from guilt that goes
with any choices -- all of them always bad -- and then to help them look ahead
to the life that is really life. The family can blend back into society
and know that they also will be cared for spiritually in tough
times.
It's too bad that because good pastoral activity is
personal and private, most citizens do not know about it, or for good enough
reasons of their own do not avail themselves of it. Really too bad is
when, whatever wonderful pastoral care may go on behind the curtains, the
patient becomes a "case," an "object," a "thing" to be fought over, exposed to
public view, used for a variety of political and religious and other
causes. Really, really too bad is when the family and their supporters are
tempted and expected to spend their subsequent years in frustration and fury,
wreaking vengeance (on whom?), nursing resentment, seeking more power, dividing
and distracting the citizenry.
With sympathy for her family, both sides of it, most of
us will turn when the time comes and say: Terri Schiavo, rest in peace and let
the people say, Amen.
----------
... and to other interested readers of this blog. For Rob's query about a faithful Catholic's proper relationship to the teaching authority of the magisterium, click here. Two excellent places to begin for those interested in pursuing this issue:
1. Judge John T. Noonan Jr.'s new book, A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (2005). Click here.
2. Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (2003). Click here.
(Thanks to Cathy Kaveny for recommending these books.)
I touched upon the issue in chapter 5 of my book Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy (2003). Chapter 5 is titled Catholics, the Magisterium, and Same-Sex Unions: An Argument for Independent Judgment. Click here.
A while back, I indicated on this blog that I was sympathetic to the position of Gene Outka, a Christian ethicist at Yale, on stem cell research. (For my earlier posting, and a quotation of Outka's position, click here.) A bill that affirms Outka's position--a bill proposed by some Republicans--will be considered in Congress. This report is from the this morning's online Chronicle of Higher Education:
U.S. House to Vote on a Bill That Would Loosen Bush's Restrictions on Embryonic-Stem-Cell Research
By KELLY FIELD
Washington
Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to
allow a vote on legislation that would liberalize President Bush's
policy on stem-cell research, the bill's chief sponsor confirmed on
Friday.
The vote is expected to occur in a few months. The legislation,
if enacted, would allow researchers to use federal funds to study stem
cells derived from embryos that were donated by fertility-clinic
patients. The bill would not allow the use of federal funds for
research on stem cells from embryos created through cloning.
Rep. Michael N. Castle, the Delaware Republican who originally introduced the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (HR 810)
in 2004, said on Friday that he was "pleasantly surprised" that House
leaders had approved his request for a vote. "I didn't necessarily
expect this to happen," he said.
The Republican leaders, including the House speaker, J. Dennis
Hastert of Illinois, are known for their strong opposition to abortion,
an issue to which stem-cell research has been tied. Opponents of the
research say that embryos are human lives and that destroying them to
obtain the stem cells is tantamount to murder.
While the House leaders could still alter Mr. Castle's bill, or
replace it on the legislative calendar with another stem-cell measure,
their agreement on a vote marks a shift within the Republican Party,
which only last August adopted a platform endorsing the existing
restrictions on federal support for the research. Under the current
policy, federal funds can be used only for research on colonies, or
lines, of embryonic stem cells that existed in August 2001, when Mr.
Bush announced the policy.
[To read the whole report, click here.]