All I remember about her is that she was rather plump. Probably cooked up real nice.
Under Catholic rules if you kill a person in that circumstance YOU go to hell and eternal torment. So, basically, you’d be asking someone to trade the dying man’s hours of agony for an eternity of their own agony. At which point they start thinking you’re the monster for demanding someone go to hell (literally), either the pilot taking his own life or someone else taking his life.
See, the problem is you’re NOT looking at it from the Catholic viewpoint where the afterlife is a very real thing. You’re so completely locked into your viewpoint you are unable to see where someone else, operating under a different set of rules, arrives at a completely different answer to the problem than you do.
I have a hard time with the idea of suicide, but in this case the pilot was simply choosing how he would die. It’s like those poor people who jumped out of the WTC. They had a choice, die by fire, and perhaps feel the pain for a measurable amount of time, or jump and die instantly when you reached the ground.
This has been mentioned several times in this thread, is it certain that this is the official Catholic viewpoint on a circumstance like this? That there are absolutely no circumstances where a mercy killing is acceptable?
I’ve done a check on google but all references seem to refer to Euthanasia in a medical environment not the extraordinary circumstances such as that in this thread.
Well, if you did this act, or any act, and then later confessed your sin and truly repented, you can go to heaven. Doesn’t matter what you did.
Of course God will decide if you truly repented.
Except for suicide, which naturally you can’t confess to a priest if you’re successful. This is why suicide is often touted by Catholics as the only True Mortal Sin.
But at the risk of derailing this thread, the entire concept of Eternal Damnation for such petty sins is thoroughly stupid. What kind of monster would God be if he allowed such a thing to exist?
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is called “the unpardonable sin”. Suicide is not the “only true mortal sin”. The catechism passage is below, bolding mine.
Suicide
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. **Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. **
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
To make a long story short, suicide is no longer a mortal sin, as the church nowadays recognizes mental illness. HOWEVER, the church does consider participating in someone else’s suicide to be the same thing as murder. It’s like, by handing the guy the gun, you’re basically aiding and abetting.
What exactly is ‘Blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit’?
I was mulling over this thread at Mass today and I was reminded of another true scenario I once read about. An English police officer attended the scene of a road-traffic collision, a car had hit a lorry and the driver was trapped by his lower legs but otherwise OK. It happened in a rural area and while waiting for the Fire Brigade and an ambulance to arrive the officer was talking to the driver who was in pain from his trapped legs but otherwise fine when they both smelled something burning. Something in the engine compartment had caught fire, the officer was unable to put it out and despite his frantic efforts and the efforts of several members of the public who had stopped to help they were unable to release the driver and had to retreat before the fire leaving him to his fate.
Now English officers are unarmed but what if this happened somewhere where the officer was armed, would the clean and merciful thing to do not be to shoot the driver when it was obvious they were not going to be able to save him.
Is the Catholic Church really against a mercy killing in those circumstances?
Ok that’s fair…in the context of this specific scene in a dramatized non-fiction movie, at least.
But, regarding this scene, I think the religion angle is a red herring. It was a moral decision by Canessa, made on the spot during a time of severe, sudden trauma which nobody had time to process yet. And the pilot wasn’t the only person in need of help (indeed, the pilot was beyond help) so it’s not like Canessa had any time to rethink the consequences of that decision – so the fact that he left the pilot to die alone doesn’t mean anything because other people needed his help.
Can’t help but wonder how the real Canessa felt about this decision, though I guess it must be overshadowed by other, deeper traumas such as the search party abandoning them, as well as the primary issue the survivors faced regarding, y’know, nutrition.
Religious dogma aside, I think that’s a poor example. The five seconds it would take for the copper to draw his gun (don’t English cops carry guns now?) would be five extra seconds he could utilize to try and free the victim, as futile as it turned out to be.
Case in point: Last Christmas, in Los Angeles, an off-duty cop rescued an old man from a burning vehicle, with milliseconds to spare. Had he chosen to give up and empty his gun into the flaming wreckage instead, at the very least he probably wouldn’t have endeared himself to the media.
And yet he and others were unable to save him, five seconds extra or not.
Edited to add: English, Scottish and Welsh officers are unarmed as standard.
I am not a Catholic but to the best of my knowledge no, there are no acceptable mercy killings under their official ethical system. If there are any Catholics who have different information I encourage them to speak up.
Of course, there are instances of individual Catholics killing people, but that in no way invalidates the existence of official rules.
Yes.
I’m genuinely surprised at that and I guess its one of those issues where the Church and myself part ways.
I don’t doubt you, but I have an ex-colleague who’s an ex-priest, I’ll have to talk to him on this issue the next time I see him.
From Nando Parrado’s book “Miracle in the Andes,” which I highly recommend:
“They found (pilots) Ferradas and Lagurara still strapped in their seats…Ferradas was dead. Lagurara was conscious but gravely injury and in terrible pain…Canessa and Zerbino managed to remove the cushion of his seatback, and this relieved some of the pressure on his chest, but there was not much more they could do for him. They fed him some snow to ease his thirst…Lagurara begged for more snow, and the doctors fed it to him, then they turned to leave. As he realized the hopelessness of his situation, Lagurara pleaded with the boys to bring him the revolver he kept in his flight bag, but Canessa and Zerbino ignored him and headed back to the passenger cabin.”
He, among many other injured passengers, continued to moan and plead through the night, an ordeal that the author was spared because he was in a coma. His friend called that night “Dante’s Hell.”
P.S. The pilot died by the next morning.
Re what they were thinking when they turned away from the pilot. It’s clear in Parrado’s memoir that in the first days and week, they all considered rescue to be imminent. His sister lay dying for several days, and he writes:
“As I lay with Susy, I felt a terrible helplessness and a sense of urgency. I knew she was dying, and that the only hope was to get her to a hospital soon. Each moment lost as an agony for me…I never stopped praying for their arrival, or for the intercession of God…”
(Susy died on the 8th day)
Note that even with his own sister, whom he loved dearly, assisted suicide never seemed to enter his mind, even to relieve her suffering. Because he wanted her, everyone, to focus on SURVIVING. It’s important to know that most of the survivors had some sort of injury from the crash – from broken limbs, to wounds that would turn gangrenous, to head trauma. One poor fellow survived for weeks after being impaled through his gut, and walked around with his intestines literally hanging out.
Parrado writes:
"Above all, we remained comrades in our suffering. We had lost too many friends already. Every life was precious to us.
“Breathe once more,” we would tell the weaker ones…“Live for one more breath.”
It’s my belief (and his, too, I believe) that this focus on living, on surviving, saved him and the others. Had they started wishing for people to die, even to end their own suffering, or allowed severely injured or depressed people to kill themselves, it would have been an indirect admission that rescue was not around the corner. Once they gave up that hope of rescue, the toll on his pysche, the toll on the group psyche, might have been insurmountable.
How many real-world examples are there of disasters/accidents occurring to a group of people, whereupon the non-injured survivors start immediately killing the (seemingly) mortally wounded? To be honest, I’ve never heard of such a thing other than during wartime.
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
Looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the “deliberate refusal” to accept God’s mercy and forgiveness (no. 1864). Six species of this sin have been identified over time as (1) Despair; (2) Presumption; (3) Impenitence or a firm determination not to repent; (4) Obstinacy; (5) Resisting divine truth known to be such; and (6) Envy of another’s spiritual welfare.