I wrote the first version of this on
May 15, 2013, and it was addressing the issue of clericalism and avoiding it in
the context of SB 303. By that time, we
had seen the TCC further support SB 303, Bishop Vasquez of Austin testify in
favor of it (using language dangerously close to “death with dignity”), and
other Catholic and Catholic-led organizations (such as our local CPLC) support
and testify in favor of it. But we had
also had many faithful, well-formed Catholics oppose it (as well as many
faithful Protestants; but I am writing from a theologically Catholic
viewpoint).
I was asked, how can this happen;
why are so many Catholics supporting this?
What do we do about it? Why do
the Bishops support it? Surely they are
not wrong. Look at how many groups
support it.
Support of something because the
clergy do is the error of clericalism. Support of something because others are is
the logical fallacy called the
bandwagon approach. Neither is a
legitimate reason to support something; neither is “proof” or “evidence” of
anything other than that these people support it and these people do not. It says very little about the merits of the
thing in question. And that is not a sufficient
basis morally to determine whether you can support something or not.
Can we disagree with our Bishops’
Conference? Yes. If they are wrong, you are morally obligated
to do so. Here’s how to go about
determining what to do in these cases.
But first, a Bible History lesson.
St. Paul Warned Us about This
The Epistle from the readings for Mass on May 15, 2013,
spoke to me and inspired me to write the first version of this that day. Paul
spoke of situations like what we see here in Texas (and in Ireland; more on
that later). Paul was speaking to the early
Bishops here in Acts 20:28-33 (I like the Knox Version):
"I have never
shrunk from revealing to you the whole of God's plan. Keep watch,
then, over yourselves, and over God's Church, in which the Holy Spirit has made
you bishops; you are to be the shepherds of that flock; there will be men among your own when I am gone, and will not spare the
flock; there will be men among your own number who will come forward with a
false message, and find disciples to follow them. Be on watch then;
do not forget the three years I spent, instructing every one of you continually,
and with tears. Now, as then, I commend you to God, and to his gracious word,
that can build you up and give you your allotted place among the saints
everywhere."
(Emphasis added.)
Our Bishops are supposed to instruct
us, but James 3:1 cautions them, “Do not be too eager, brethren, to impart
instruction to others; be sure that, if we do, we shall be called to account
all the more strictly.” They have a heavy burden and they need our
prayers.
The TCC’s Support of SB 303 Was & Is Error; Supporting SB 303 because They Did Is Also Error: the Error of Clericalism
What
is Clericalism Anyway?
The TCC released a letter in support
of SB 303 in 2013 to which the electronic signatures of all of the active Bishops
of Texas were affixed. TAL and other
supporters, including the CPLC and TCC itself, continually point with pride to
this (and to justify their support of the re-election of Bob Deuell). Some rely on it as “proof” that this was a
pro-life bill bettering the law. I am
asked, "What do you think of this? Why would you or I oppose SB 303
since the Bishops support it; that’s proof it’s a good bill, right?"
That is no such proof at all and that is not a morally legitimate basis
for supporting legislation. Supporting
something simply because the clergy does is the error of clericalism.
Consider the following from Catholic author, Mark Shea:
“We laypeople are called
to obey our bishops in matters of faith and morals. And we are called to honor
our bishops as spiritual fathers. But we
are not required to approve everything they do, especially when it contradicts
the clear teaching of the Church. [NB: Most recently in the magisterial teachings of
St. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI]. If a bishop, like former Bishop
Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, specifically commands something clearly
contrary to the teaching of the Holy Church, such as “Remove your pants and
bend over,” our right and proper office as laity is to raise our voice and call
the cops. Indeed, we laypeople must do it, because we are the cops, the
investigators, the prosecutors, the jailers.
"But mark that: We
laypeople have to hold them to account in light of the Tradition, not in
light of the tenets of the secular world, nor in light of what lawyers and
psychologists say, nor in light of what the “Repeal Vatican II!” crowd says.
"The way out of clericalism is more
fidelity to the Holy Church, not less. This problem will be solved by
returning to the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, pure and undefiled,…”
I mentioned in my last post about the Arian Heresy and
how most of the Bishops of Europe were in some way tainted by it. Read some history about that and the role the
laity played.
We have a moral obligation to look
into these things on our own. God Bless the Bishops. I will not
assume any bad motives here, nor should you. Perhaps they relied too much
on their staff, “expert” opinions, and fellow lobbyists’ talking points, rather
than really delving into the nuts and bolts of the legislation in detail.
(Each group used almost identical bullet points, but without reference to the
actual language of the bill. Again, when
confronted with the bill language that contradicted those bullet points, they
simply pointed back to each others’ endorsements and the bullet points. See my
“Circular Firing Squad” post.)
As an attorney, I know that there is
a big difference between the theoretical and the practical as applied.
The law is complicated. Legislation frequently has both intended and unintended
consequences. It is often difficult to grasp this and take it all in when
one is busy doing the myriad other tasks one must do. (That said, if one
is supporting, lobbying for, and testifying for this legislation, and telling
their flock or friends to do likewise, one should undertake this task. Not
every task can be delegated.)
How
Do We Combat Clericalism? Know the
Issues and Study the Legislation
In light of all of this, we, the
laity, must work through legislation and Church teaching on our own and not
rely solely on endorsements regardless of from whence they come. How do we make decisions about this
independently?
First,
get the facts. Here let’s address a
misstatement of fact about SB 303. It is
not true that all the Bishops supported
SB 303. What I do know is that the one Bishop who I know actually read
the bill in its entirety, Bishop Emeritus Gracida from Corpus Christi,
vehemently opposed it and wrote on this issue early on his blog. See the
first comment by “abyssum” which is his blog name.
Second, be informed about the underlying
issues. Bishop Gracida has continued to write not just about SB 303
but these end-of-life, refusal of care issues, and all manner of pro-life issue. His blog is an excellent resource for
information from people with many different professional backgrounds. Read!
Third,
look at the language of the bill yourself, not just SB 303 but whatever bills
come up in the future that you are asked to support or oppose. I read and analyzed SB 303 (as I have other
bills) and encourage everyone to do the same. The bill language is here.
Bishop Gracida used his own
intellect and his own analysis to read the language of the bill, look to Church
teaching, and arrive – bravely – at a different conclusion than the TCC
represented. This is a blueprint for us
to follow as lay persons.
Fourth,
if you find it helpful, consider a detailed analysis by someone who knows how
to analyze legislation and is not tied to a particular group.
Know Authentic Church Teaching on the Issue. A Case Study: SB 303
Fifth,
consider official Church teaching
from the Magisterium. For a time, the supporters of SB 303 pointed to one
or two paragraphs of a USCCB “directive” and claimed it provided support for
the language of SB 303. That was not
true. This directive was not even aimed
at drafting legislation. (NOTE: This “directive” itself is suspect
as in footnote 19 it says: “It is recommended that a sexually assaulted woman
be advised of the ethical restrictions that prevent Catholic hospitals from
using abortifacient procedures.” So, let the woman know if she wants an
abortifacient, we can’t give it to her, she’d better go someplace else.
That alone tells us this is a flawed document.
We do not counsel women to get abortions!)
Instead, look to official Church
documents. In this context, pay special attention
to what St. Pope John Paul II (a favorite among pro-lifers) and the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (“CDF”) say about this issue. Addresses
by the Pope, Encyclicals, and documents from the CDF trump anything coming for
the USCCB or TCC. I cite both documents
and extensively quote one here.
Sixth,
what about this idea that the language for SB 303 came from these documents
cited by the TCC in a letter it released after the final hearing on SB 303 last
year? Summarily put, those documents provide
moral support for the OPPONENTS of SB 303!
Let’s look at each reference by the TCC. The first quote in the TCC document is from
Pope Pius XII is concerning the provision of ordinary means – that is,
nutrition and hydration. That is
required under Church teaching. It is
only human to do so. The problem is that
SB 303 – like current law – allowed for the withdrawal of artificially administered
nutrition and hydration against a patient’s or family’s wishes. (See
this to understand how that is the case.)
The next quotes by Pope Paul VI also address ordinary means
and prohibit euthanasia. Both SB 303 and
current law run afoul of this.
Incredibly, the TCC’s quote from the CDF’s Declaration on Euthanasia says that a doctor is to take
account of the reasonable wishes of the family in interrupting
“disproportionate means” (which means extraordinary means, like chemo; that is,
things beyond food and water which are called “normal care” or “ordinary care”). Again, this is supportive of the opponents of
SB 303.
A quote not used by the TCC from this document, but
supportive of the position of opponents of SB 303, is:
When
inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in
conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only
secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is
not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach
himself with failing to help the person in danger.
(Emphasis added.) The full document is here.
The next reference by the TCC is St. JPII on foregoing
aggressive treatment. Again, that is
different than what opponents of SB 303 advocate. In other words, even when death is imminent,
we do not withdraw “normal care” – that is “ordinary care” – which is nutrition
and hydration. Again, SB 303 would have
continued to allow the withdrawal of this as does current law.
Finally, the TCC looks to a CDF document from August of
2007 apparently to support the idea that ALL the exceptions allowing for
withdrawal of ordinary care in SB 303 are morally licit. The document is here and the TCC quoted the
Commentary. If you read nothing else,
read this one.
You
cannot take that Commentary out of the context of the specific question it
was answering, which is exactly what the supporters of SB 303 did:
“Second question: When nutrition and
hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a
"permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent
physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover
consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a
"permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human
dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which
includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial
means.”
The language in the commentary
allowing for withdrawing nutrition and hydration assumes that - based on the
manner in which the hypothetical was phrased - that "competent physicians
judge with moral certainty that the
patient will never recover consciousness." That is, more than one
physician judges with “moral certainty that the patient will NEVER RECOVER consciousness.”
(Emphasis added.)
That language is no where to be
found in SB 303, but that is a required prerequisite in this hypothetical for
allowing the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration for the patient in a
persistent vegetative state. In other
words, the Church did not answer the question affirmatively for withdrawal of
food and hydration for all patients under any circumstance. .
Yet, SB 303 allowed for that as does
current law if those four broad, subjective exceptions were met for ANY PATIENT.
ANYONE can be victimized under current law and SB 303. Those four exceptions go way beyond Church
teachings which intend that this is only the rarest of exceptions. I give both
here for you to compare and contrast.
The Commentary from the CDF that the
proponents of SB 303 say provides “identical” language as the exceptions in SB
303 actually says:
“When stating that the administration of food and water
is morally obligatory in principle, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in
situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may
be physically impossible, and then ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.
However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available
remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means
necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded
that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food
and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the
possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial
nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may
cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications
in the use of the means employed.
“These exceptional cases, however, take
nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the
provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a
natural means for preserving life, and is not a therapeutic treatment. Its use
should therefore be considered ordinary and proportionate, even when the
‘vegetative state’ is prolonged.”
See the full document here.
There are more exceptions in SB 303
and they are not limited to a particular condition, not limited to being RARE
in their usage, not limited to the “moral certainty” required by the doctors
that the patient will “never regain consciousness.” Rather, the language
in SB 303 regarding exceptions states (in this one section 166.046(e); you find
these exceptions in other sections as well):
“…The attending physician, any other
physician responsible for the care of the patient, and the health care facility
are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 21st
calendar day after the written decision required under Subsection (b-1) is
provided to the patient or the surrogate unless ordered to do so
under Subsection (g), except that artificially administered
nutrition and hydration must be provided unless, based on reasonable
medical judgment, providing artificially administered nutrition and
hydration would:
(1)
hasten the patient’s death;
(2)
seriously exacerbate other major medical problems not outweighed by the benefit
of the provision of the treatment;
(3)
result in substantial irremediable physical pain or discomfort not outweighed
by the benefit of the provision of the treatment; or
(4)
be medically ineffective in prolonging the patient’s life.”
(Emphasis
added.)
Besides the undefined nature of
these broad, subjective terms, there are other questions. What if the patient is willing to endure some
discomfort for the sake of life-sustaining artificially administered nutrition
and hydration? Well, they do not get to
make that decision.
In short, one cannot say that SB 303
has language from Church documents.
Seventh,
ask yourself where in any document is this decision to be made by a doctor or
hospital committee against the wishes of the family? These questions are
written as a directive to the moral issue for when this determination can be
made - RARELY made - based on the prerequisites SB 303 supporters and this bill’s
language ignore - but these questions and answers do not say that the doctor or
hospital makes the final decision. No matter how you look at it, SB 303
takes these final decisions away from the patient and his
family. How is that not a violation of the principle of
subsidiarity? Normally, pro-lifers
understand this principle and are unwilling to give these important decisions
to others to make. We would never (I
hope I can still say this) allow a law that said a doctor could decide whether
a pregnant woman has to have an abortion or not if there was a threat to her
health or a problem with the baby. Yet,
at the end of life we have a law that has just that effect – and SB 303 would
not have changed that.
An Analogous Situation in Ireland: A Warning for Us
This story came out this week that
the Irish Bishops’ Conference has lost its way, specifically on matters of
legislation:
Pro-life advocates in Ireland have denounced a statement
for voters by the Irish Catholic
Bishops’ Conference as “insipid” and out of touch with reality for omitting any
mention of the country’s pressing moral issues on the family and human life.
The
statement, issued ahead of the European Parliament and local elections,
mentioned “the fundamental values of human life” but gave no definition of
these, and made no mention, even in coded language, of abortion, euthanasia, or
“gay marriage.”
You may also be aware of problems with the German
Bishops’ Conference on matters of divorce and remarriage. Look at the example in the directive above
from the USCCB. So you see how the
contagion spreads.
Why would we assume that we in Texas are immune from this
sort of thing happening here with our own Bishops’ Conference with regard to
this issue. Look at the TCC’s Facebook
page. There is post after post where the
TCC wants convicted persons on death row given reprieves from their death
sentences. I am not necessarily a
proponent of the death penalty, but something is very wrong when they focus so much
on saving the lives of the convicted but refuse to accept a law that requires
“treatment until transfer” for sick patients in a hospital that wants to
withdraw their care against their will.
Where is the reprieve from death by dehydration and starvation for the
ill patient after the ethics panel at the hospital decides that it is futile to
continue care? It just makes no sense.
Conclusion & Action Item
You are under no obligation to support legislation based
on the position of a Bishops’ Conference.
You ARE under an obligation to learn about that legislation on your own,
to reconcile it with proper, faithful, authoritative Church teaching, and you
are obligated to make a morally correct decision. To rely only on the endorsement of the clergy
is the error of clericalism. St. Paul
warned of it. The Church has recognized
it as error. Resist the temptation to fall
into it.
Likewise, do not fall prey to the logical fallacy of the
bandwagon approach. It does not matter
who supports or opposes something. That
may be a good starting point, but you have to do the hard work of thinking
through these life and death issues.
This is all still highly relevant as this issue and other
pro-life issues will be coming up in the 2015 legislative session. You now have a blueprint to help you make
your own decisions.
Finally, what do you do to address what happened with the
TCC? What is the action item here? Of course, it is always important to pray for
your Bishop and your priest and those at the TCC. That is key and most fundamental. You can try to write a very respectful letter
explaining to your Bishop that support of SB 303 was wrong, asking him to
reconsider his support if/when similar legislation comes up in 2015.
But I have also been told that it is a good idea to write
a respectful
confidential letter to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, DC,
describing how your Bishop – and the Bishops in Texas who are part of the TCC –
are failing with regard to their obligation to actively uphold Magisterial teaching
on the sanctity of life particularly with regard to their support of this bill.
His Excellency The Most Rev. Carlo Viganò, Apostolic Nuncio
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Tel: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036
Thanks for reading!
