Thursday, December 28, 2006

Catholic Church Denies Funeral to Euthanasia Advocate

ROME --Several thousand people, some chanting "shame, shame, shame," attended a lay funeral in a Rome square yesterday for a paralyzed man who was denied a Catholic service because he had asked to die.

Pope Benedict entered the debate over the death of Piergiorgio Welby by condemning euthanasia and saying life was sacred until its "natural sunset."

Welby died on Wednesday after a doctor gave him sedatives and detached a respirator that had kept the victim of advanced muscular dystrophy alive for years.

The lay service for the 60-year-old, an eloquent advocate of euthanasia, was held outside the parish where his family, particularly his devoutly religious mother, had wanted a religious funeral.

...

The local parish priest had favored a religious service but he was overruled by Rome's Vicariate, or bishop's office, which said Welby had repeatedly affirmed his desire to end his own life, which is against Catholic doctrine.

...

"I was shocked by the decision not to give him a religious funeral," Father Gianfranco Formenton, told Radio Radicale, the organ of the party that defended Welby's right to die.

"We [the Church] have allowed funerals for [former Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet, [former Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco and for mafiosi, but we refuse a funeral for a man just because he asked to die," the priest said.

Speaking at the Vatican on Christmas Eve, just as the lay funeral was ending on the other side of Rome, Pope Benedict underlined the Church's position on euthanasia.

"The birth of Christ helps us to understand how much value human life has, the life of every human being, from its first instant to its natural sunset," he told pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square for his weekly blessing.

Welby was confined to his bed and communicated mostly via computer that interpreted his eye movements. He had been asking to die for months.

The crowd at the funeral applauded during speeches by those who supported his right to die, including his wife, Mina, and former European Commissioner Emma Bonino. His coffin was then driven away for a cremation.

"The Vatican's position appears incomprehensible and devoid of human pity," said Gavino Angius, a senator from the largest party in the ruling center-left coalition.

Mourners protest, via Religious Freaks.


"Natural sunset." There's nothing "natural" about keeping someone on a respirator against his will.

Religion's just fine when it agrees with modern morality: don't murder, don't steal, great. Any idiot knows that. It's when moral questions become difficult -- i.e. when people actually crave guidance -- that it utterly fails. Slow to change, the world's religions have not kept up with changing technologies and scientific understanding. Euthanasia, stem-cell research, organ donation, condoms -- traditional religious leaders are stuck in the past.

3 comments:

Stephen said...

Slow to change, the world's religions have not kept up with changing technologies and scientific understanding.

This can be simultaneously a weakness and a strength; flip sides of the same coin.

Surely you acknowledge that not all change constitutes progress? Sometimes conservative institutions (e.g., church, law) perform a valuable social service by applying the brakes and at least slowing down the rate of change.

I will not defend the Church for making a public example of this one individual. But euthanasia is an instance where we should not move with undue haste, and the Church has a legitimate role to play in the debate.

Aren't you a democrat? Don't you believe in free speech, in the airing of multiple points of view in public discourse? Why should the Church be an exception to that arrangement: not permitted to take a stand, not permitted to voice dissent?

There are cases (as here) where I would argue that euthanasia is probably acceptable. (Though I would want to reserve final judgement, since I'm too far outside of the situation, able to access only such information as the media chooses to provide.)

But I worry that, if euthanasia is legalized, there is considerable potential for abuse. Let's not be naive here. Perhaps you are aware of the issue of elder abuse?

I worry that elders who already feel they are a burden, who may already be suffering from depression, will be easily manipulated into agreeing to euthanasia. The Church's conservativism is not necessarily a bad thing if it causes society to slow down and contemplate how this will play out in real-life situations involving vulnerable individuals.

Jewish Atheist said...

Aren't you a democrat? Don't you believe in free speech, in the airing of multiple points of view in public discourse? Why should the Church be an exception to that arrangement: not permitted to take a stand, not permitted to voice dissent?

They have a right to take whatever stance they want. That's not the same as being right about whatever stand they want. Nobody's trying to censor the church or force them to do anything.

But I worry that, if euthanasia is legalized, there is considerable potential for abuse. Let's not be naive here. Perhaps you are aware of the issue of elder abuse?

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of review process -- a panel of doctors, perhaps, or at most a judicial review. You can't do away with the whole idea because some people might abuse it though.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm modern and up to date. I am promoting euthanasia for atheists and homosexuals.