*AAHhh…*da Pope ain’t posted here for years!
:p:D
The Pope should be the most un-pittable living person on the planet, right?
At least in the top 5.
Not if you have an axe to grind.
Now I can’t decide if the OP is a clueless moron who really doesn’t understand what the Pope is saying and its relevance to Catholic doctrine, or a cretin who is just pretending that he doesn’t. But I think the general designation “cretinous moron” nicely covers it.
He’s the Pope. It’s his job to offer Catholics advice on ethical decisions such as end-of-life care.
Of course, and not only that, but there have been unwise decisions rendered by the Catholic church in the past that need to be changed or clarified. The cretinous moron with a severe reading comprehension problem who started this thread is apparently unaware of Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical called the Gospel of Life, which declared in no uncertain terms (see point #15) that the suffering of the terminally ill is wrongly considered to be an evil, because suffering is pretty gosh-darned godly, and it’s wrong to consider that to be a reason to cease all possible life-saving efforts.
This is the kind of dogmatic bullshit that Pope Francis has felt compelled to counter, motivated particularly by advancements in medicine that have made extreme but counterproductive life-saving measures increasingly possible. These facts are known to the growing population of intelligent persons who have expressed their preferences in a living will, and to those few who have blazed legal trails by going to court to seek permission for euthanasia at an appropriate time, before they lose the ability to express anything at all and become locked in unimaginable horror from which they cannot escape.
It’s only unfortunate that Francis still supports the traditional church prohibition against euthanasia under any circumstances, something that our comprehension-impaired OP has also failed to recognize. The imbecility and dishonesty of the OP is about on a par with that of some of the worst of our few remaining cretinous morons, most of whom, thankfully, have been banned.
OK, so if any bishop, priest, catechist, deacon, lector, cantor, chorus director or chorus member anywhere has a belief that’s actually against official doctrine, canon or epistolar teaching, you consider that… what, the position that’s more stupid is “Church doctrine”, whichever of the two it happens to be? And since when is a doctor a chuch official?
“Rome’s” position has never been that you have to keep someone hooked up to machines that will keep their body lasting beyond any decent life. Part of the concept of “the good death” is death that’s accepted. To a Catholic, death is not something that you should seek, but it is something you should accept. It is not the end of joy, but the beginning of new joy. Refusing to let someone move on just because we can do so is torture and not something “Rome” has ever said was right. Ever.
As for the suffering thing: we are called to accept it inasmuch as it cannot be palliated. And what JPII was saying was that active euthanasia is wrong, not that you have to torture people. There is an enormous difference between the two.
I live without living in me,
and such a high life I expect,
that I die cos I die not.
Sure, when you say it like that it sound wrong. But let’s try this on for size: “The belief of an organization is that which those in authority teach and those who can act actually do in practice. The doctrine of a church is what the majority of the Church believe it to be.”
I don’t myself know how widespread this belief of prolonging life at all costs was. I do know I’ve heard stories about it, but that’s it. Still, I don’t find the above paragraph to be an untenable position.
And, ultimately, what you call the belief is immaterial. It is good that the Pope is repudiating that belief. I am glad to hear it, and hope it means that those stories I have heard about will stop.
Finally, while I am a Christian, not an atheist, I am not Catholic. But I join the repudiation of the OP. I have my quibbles with the Church, but what the Pope is saying is good.
It doesn’t matter to me whether you believe he is changing the beliefs of the Church or not.
John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical, cited above, appears to promote exactly that. For example, from section 15:
In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable … All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.
On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope.
Among the points I get out of this is that (a) suffering is good, but it takes religion to understand this, (b) efforts to reduce suffering by withholding treatment in hopeless terminal cases are fundamentally “misguided”, and (c) implicitly, only God should control the time and manner of death, irrespective of suffering, and the patient should always have hope regardless of what doctors say.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but ISTM he’s pushing the traditional Catholic doctrine, which is counter to the enlightened medical view and that of most patients who have exercised living wills.
This is a book that I read some time ago that is an account of how a bright and promising young neurosurgeon dealt with this issue when he was afflicted with terminal lung cancer. In the final stages of the disease, he made his peace with the world and declared himself ready to die, and was allowed to so at the time and place of his choosing. I’m pretty sure J-P II would not have approved.
Sometimes there is, but sometimes there is no difference at all. As in this court decision on euthanasia, regarding those persons who are …
… grievously and irremediably ill, physically disabled or soon to become so, mentally competent and who wish to have some control over their circumstances at the end of their lives," Smith writes … She argued the legislation could force a person to take their life sooner than they want to in order to kill themselves while still physically capable.
And Smith says the risk of incarceration denies the right of freedom to relatives who assist by taking their loved ones to jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide is legal.
Following the ruling the person at the center of the case made this statement:
She said, quote, “I’m deeply grateful to have the comfort of knowing that I’ll have a choice at the end of my life. This is a blessing for me and other seriously and incurably ill individuals. This decision allows me to approach my death in the same way I’ve tried to live my life: With dignity, independence, and grace” …
And yet, not only would J-P II have been adamantly opposed to such a ruling, but even the much more enlightened Pope Francis is opposed.
OK then, Fine. The decision for when enough is enough will remain with those it has all along - patients, families and doctors. New guidance will at least enable Catholics to feel better about saving a bit on healthcare costs.
So you approve of extending “life” beyond all bounds of mercy?
No, where’d you get that idea?
You implied that saving money is the primary concern. Never mind, you didn’t imply it. You flat out said it.
No, sorry. It’s just like a “perk” of being a Catholic in this respect. Ending suffering is the primary benefit. Catholics just get to end more suffering sooner.
And feel good about it, cause the Popemeister says it’s OK.
Wow. You really are dense.
For better meter:
“I shot the pontiff, but I did not shoot the cardinal”
Been a while since I’ve been on the boards.
Fist bumps to all the atheists carrying my water.