This is not a good time for religious freedom in American law. More and more, U.S. courts are explicitly embracing arguments that religious freedom extends only to those religious practices that are confined and compartmentalized. Religious practices are explicitly receiving reduced protection if th
America Staff
Posted inNews
Ethical Analysis and the Facts
Irresponsible
In the column Food for Terri Schiavo (ethics notebook, 11/24), John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., notes that some assertions made about Terri Schiavo’s actual condition seem to be irresponsible. We believe that some of his assertions are also irresponsible.
Without acknowledging that the Second District Court of Appeal, in Lakeland, Fla., published an opinion containing findings of fact about the Schiavo case, he opineson the basis of conversations with a swallowing expert at the Mayo clinicthat most patients on tube’ or peg’ feedings can, with care, swallow. From that conversation he concludes we should let volunteers spend time feeding Terri Schiavo to help her taste the sweet and cool. Nowhere in this scenario does Kavanaugh note that the court found with clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavounlike most patients being tube fedhas for 10 years been in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure.
Lest there be doubt of the extent of destruction to Terri Schiavo’s brain, the court writes, The only debate among the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.
More irresponsible than his failure to comment on the Court of Appeal’s findings was Kavanaugh’s attack on the neurologist whom he quoted from a New York Times article as saying, There’s never been a shred of doubt that she is vegetative, and nothing’s going to change that. Kavanaugh advises that the physician might want to rein in his hubris. Kavanaugh also notes that this physician spent a mere 45 minutes examining Terri Schiavo while another physician, [who] after more than 25 hours with her, judged her not to be vegetative. Kavanaugh concluded from this evidence that the first doctor needs not only humility but also further training.
Ronald Cranford, M.D., the first physician, is perhaps the premier expert in the United States on patients in a persistent vegetative state. He is the neurologist who testified as an expert witness in such landmark PVS cases as those of Brophy and Cruzan. He has served on the American Academy of Neurology’s task force on PVS, chaired the Academy’s ethics committee, which set the norms and standards for treatment of patients in that condition, and served as a consultant to the U.S. president’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine. His statement in The New York Times is exactly the same conclusion to which the trial court came after reviewing the detailed medical evidence presented in the case.
Kavanaugh does not identify the physician who purportedly spent 25 hours with Terri Schiavo and pronounced her not vegetative. The Florida Court of Appeal identifies three physicians who so opined. The New York Times article identifies a fourth physician who had provided an affidavit that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative condition. Only one of the four is trained in neurology. The Court of Appeal noted that even that physician’s proposed treatment vasodilation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapyis worthless for patients like Terri Schiavo. In the court’s words, such treatment cannot replace dead tissue.
The trial court, after an extensive review of the medical evidence, concluded that the judgment of those physicians who believed Terri Schiavo was not in a permanent vegetative state was incorrect. That finding, as the Court of Appeal noted, was entered several years ago and has [four times] been affirmed by this court.
An essay entitled Brain Death, Pro-life and Catholic Confusion, co-authored by Dr. Cranford, which was published in America in 1982 (12/4/82), stressed the importance of clarity and precision of terminology with regard to such critically important issues as brain death and persistent vegetative condition. Its conclusion remains an imperative for those who provide ethical analysis or commentary on public policy: [O]ur task…is to be informed on developments in medicine, to consult widely and wisely in this area and to formulate positions that are both prudent and in accordance with [the reality of the human condition].
We believe that John Kavanaugh’s article fails to meet those standards.
John J. Paris, S.J.
Posted inNews
Letters
From One Who Was There
As one who actually participated in the Second Vatican Councilas a private consultant during the first period and as an official of the council in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity for its three other periodsmay I add a few reflections of my own to the articles you published by Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., and John W. O’Malley, S.J.?
Both articles contain many positive observations and insights. Still, neither quite conveys the notion of the council as a process, an event in which there was a growth in understanding and a willingness to open up to new horizons while maintaining the great tradition and truths of the faith.
Cardinal Dulles speaks of efforts at harmonizing different opinions and points out thus there were, at times, compromises and even deliberate ambiguities. That was openly recognized by Pope Paul VI. In various addresses he gave during the council, as its head and leader, he indicated ideas for interpretation that are still valid. Often these are not even adverted to, much less used by commentators since then.
Twice in the final homily at the session for promulgating documents held on Dec. 7, 1965, the pope spoke of questions still seeking answers, which in the postconciliar period the church could address with generous and orderly energies. In his words: Since the council had not intended to resolve all the problems raised, some were reserved for future study by the church, some were presented in restricted and general terms, and therefore they remain open to further and deeper understanding and a variety of applications.
No one would deny that after the council, there were some radical interpretations of it and its documents that went beyond what the council said or wanted. In my years of working for the Holy See and in ecumenical dialogues of various types, I myself had to struggle with this extremism, which could cause confusion and misunderstanding and lead to the polarization that often followed. However, in his presentation of the situation, Cardinal Dulles does not clarify enough either the myth or the reality, and so the confusion continues.
First, he does not use, as one important element for proper interpretations, the speeches of Pope Paul VI that I have already mentioned nor the relationes of the various commissions to the plenary sessions of the council, all of which are published. Second, in expounding his 12 points, he generally opts for the most narrow interpretation of the ambiguous statements or legitimate differences found in the documents. The consideration of the role of the laity is also treated in a purely juridical way, without proper consideration of the moral obligations of those in authority in exercising that authorityan idea that permeates quite a few of the other documents (and, incidentally, is repeated incisively in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte [2001], No. 45). Nor is there any mention of the arrival of the lay auditors during the council’s third period and their contribution to developing a fresh understanding of both the doctrine and the reality of the lay apostolate.
One point I found particularly painful. The ecumenical problem is reduced to a word-battle about the meaning of subsists in the Catholic Church. No attention is given to be the excellent developments that have taken place over 35 years as Catholics and other Christians reflect together on the many treasures found in a wide array of the conciliar documents. In this we have the reality, not the myth.
With regard to subsists, the narrow interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Dulles adopts, was certainly not the view held by the theological commission or in the secretariat as we were drafting texts and responding to the bishops and as the bishops accepted its introduction into the text. We were influenced, for example, by the recognition of the fact that in many churches not in communion with the Holy See, by the celebration of the Holy Eucharist the Church of God is built up and grows in stature (Decree on Ecumenism, No. 15). Obviously we were not speaking of any second church of God.
This and other aspects of the mystery of communion, real even if imperfect between the Catholic Church and other Christians and their communities, indicate a deeper meaning than Cardinal Ratzinger will admit when discussing subsists. His view has been strongly contested by others, such as Cardinals Willebrands, Koenig and Kasper. Nor will these or others accept his restricted opinions on communion, even when these have been expressed in documents coming from his office.
As one who participated in many of the activities and debates of the council, I believe that there are clear signs of retrenchment from what the council said or left open for legitimate future developments, as Paul VI put it.
On the basis of my experience, I believe that many of the documents mentioned by Cardinal Dulles at the end of his article need further examination and even important rethinking as not corresponding well enough to the debates held in the council and the documents resulting from them.
Pope John Paul II, discussing his office and mission as successor of Peter in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, speaks of finding a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation, and proposes that pastors and theologians of our churchestogether of course[seek] the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned (No. 95). In his apostolic letter Novo Millennio Ineunte (January 2001), the same pope writes: To make the church the home and school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning (cf. Nos. 43-45). We are not involved in myths when we continue to engage the reality of that challenge 40 years after.
John F. Long, S.J.
Posted inFaith in Focus
A Mother’s Divine Office
Motherhood is monastic. Walking into Gethsemane Abbey during Night Prayer, I had to catch my breath. Not one to be swept up by hero worship, even of such a worthy figure as Thomas Merton (or for that matter, Kathleen Norris), I had braced myself to be critical. Nevertheless, entering the chapel, sea
Posted inLetters
Letters
Life Experience
For some time now, I have intended to write you to commend you on your excellent writing and articles on the sexual abuse issues in the Catholic Church. The report in Signs of the Times (7/29) about the remarks of Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz prompts me to write.
Current understanding among human development professionals includes the idea that each human person finds herself/himself somewhere on a continuum with regard to sexuality and affectional preference. That is, some people are more inclined to think of members of the opposite gender when they think of someone loving them; others think of persons of the same gender. And some people are emotionally attracted to members of both genders equally.
Bishop Bruskewitz focuses on two elements that I think are not indicated by the life experience of persons of either affectional preference. One element is to equate homosexuality with addiction (note his reference to persons suffering from drug addiction, alcohol dependence and kleptomania). Another troublesome element is his implication that persons who are attracted to persons of the same gender are driven to sexual promiscuity. To turn the tables, one might (erroneously) make the argument that it is not appropriate to ordain heterosexuals because they would likely be at risk of giving in to temptation of having sex with the wives and daughters of parishioners!
As a licensed counselor, I have met no person with a same-gender affectional preference who says that it is right to have sexual relations with children. Most gay people of my acquaintance want what most people want from a relationship: a special, monogamous relationship with the ability to love and be loved. And that does not always include genital sexual expression! Many persons of the gay affectional preference have been so rejected by their culture and/or family members that they certainly do not put themselves in the position to be rejected again. In sum, they are not pedophiles, nor are they sexual predators, in my experience.
One priest wrote in another publication, I believe God asks of homosexual relationships exactly what God asks of heterosexual relationships: truth, faithfulness, longsuffering, and the continuing forgiveness of the other. He then quotes Gal. 5:23: Against these there is no law.
We can all learn from one another. Your articles on this topic reflect good writing and pastoral sensitivity.
Louis Lowrey
Posted inBooks
The Poor’s Many Faces
At first reading I thought Ronald Hill rsquo s tack toward poverty somewhat puzzling coming from someone whose specialty is social science and public policy I had expected many more statistical tables and analytic categories Basically through a compilation of data from those he interviewed and
Posted inFrom Our Archives
Catholics and the 2000 Election: Catholic voters are now a looming presence on the fringe of both parties.
The year 2000 elections increasingly look like another turning point in American politics. The old issues that formerly ignited our passionscrime, defense, civil rights, balanced budget and abortionhave all but burned out. Neither party is clear about which new concerns will catch fire, even this la
Posted inColumns
A House of Cards: Imagine what this can mean for you!
I’ve been pre-approved, and that’s just the peace of mind I deserve. It’s a unique opportunity offered to me, Timothy J. McArty, because I’ve earned it. As a student of low culture and the written word, I’ve been collecting credit card solicitation letters for the past