Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of the Diocese of Madison and Paul Ryan's bishop, has a superb essay in the Diocese of Madison's Catholic Herald. In the Catholic Church, bishops have the primary responsibility for teaching Catholic doctrine involving the faithful in their diocese.
I'll reproduce Bishop Morlino's essay in its entirety:
As the liberals' misrepresentation of Ryan's views demonstrates, liberals will do anything to avoid debating these economic issues on their merits.
Ryan's conservative economic views are well within the bounds of Catholic social teaching, as are the honest (non-socialist) views of those who favor more liberal policies. I would propose that Ryan's view-- his prudential judgement-- is more in keeping with the basic Catholic principles of subsidiarity and solidarity than the statist views of his liberal opponents.
I'll reproduce Bishop Morlino's essay in its entirety:
Subsidiarity, solidarity, and the lay mission
Bishop's Column
Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012
Dear friends,
It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States. It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church.
It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.
However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.
Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.
Where intrinsic evil is not involved
In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.
However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.
We can disagree on application
As one looks at issues such as the two mentioned above and seeks to apply the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.
Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics.
Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of. Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said, Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt. (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)
Peace and reconciliation in coming months
I obviously didn’t choose the date for the announcement of Paul Ryan’s Vice Presidential Candidacy and as I express my pride in him and in what he has accomplished, I thought it best to move to discussion of the above matters sooner rather than later. No doubt it will be necessary to comment again on these principles in the days ahead for the sake of further clarification, and be assured that I will be eager to do so.
Above all, let us beg the Lord that divisions in our electorate will not be deepened so as to have a negative impact on pre-existing divisions within the Church during this electoral season. Let there be the peace and reconciliation that flow from charity on the part of all. Thank you for reading this. God Bless each one of you! Praised be Jesus Christ!
Bishop Morlino provides an eloquent synopsis of classical Catholic social teaching. The grounds for such teaching are the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Solidarity is respect for all men as brothers-- the Golden Rule-- and subsidiarity is the principle that good should be done on a scale as close to those in need as possible. Both are essential Catholic social doctrine.
In matters involving intrinsic evil (abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc), there is no room for disagreement among faithful Catholics. Evil is to be opposed, always and everywhere.
In matters that do not involve intrinsic evil-- such as the question as to how to best provide assistance to the poor-- the Church recognizes the need for prudential judgement. As long as the intention is to help the poor, there is great room for differences in approach to helping. In politics, the Church does not prescribe means. It prescribes ends, and, within ethical bounds, leaves the means to the prudential judgement of those charged with making such decisions.
Socialism is not Catholic social doctrine, notwithstanding the spin of the Catholic left. In fact, socialism, as a violation of subsidiarity, is specifically denounced (#15) in Catholic social teaching.
For those acting in good conscience, the debate on Medicare and other government programs to help those in need is about prudence, not good and evil. If specific policies were pursued for political ends, rather than for the purpose of helping those in need, that would be evil.
What would be evidence of evil intent in this debate? Gross intentional misrepresentation of the views of others for political gain would seem to be such evidence.
The debate hinges on this: which side of this debate-- conservative or liberal-- has the best prudential judgement? What steps are necessary to ensure the solvency of the social safety net? How can the poor and needy be cared for best-- by statist solutions or by market-based solutions? How will insolvency of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid affect the people dependent on the programs? Is it ethical for the government to spend each year a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue? Is it ethical to leave tens of trillions of dollars in debt for our children to pay?
Ryan's conservative economic views are well within the bounds of Catholic social teaching, as are the honest (non-socialist) views of those who favor more liberal policies. I would propose that Ryan's view-- his prudential judgement-- is more in keeping with the basic Catholic principles of subsidiarity and solidarity than the statist views of his liberal opponents.
Absolutely correct! Catholics always make better politicians because of their intrinsic morality. Silvio Berlusconi is a great example. That's the kind of man we need in the US.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Silvio would make a perfect Republican candidate. He has undoubted unblemished moral principles. He once stopped doctors from starving to death a brain dead woman by political decree, correctly noting that since she was still menstruating, she could continue to fulfill a function by having babies.
Delete" from starving to death"?
Deletedo you realize what you have written?
do you agree with starving someone to death?
@bach:
ReplyDelete[Silvio... once stopped doctors from starving to death a brain dead woman by political decree...]
To readers: the woman, Eluana Englaro, was in a Persistent Vegetative State, which means that she was in a persistent coma that was so deep that the doctors who examined her found no evidence for awareness.
She was not "brain dead". Brain dead means that the entire brain is biologically dead, and it means the same thing as clinical death. People from whom organs (e.g. heart) are donated are brain dead.
The failure to make the distinction between the two conditions (PVS is alive, brain dead is dead) is common among laypeople, who don't understand the medicine.
However, bachfiend is a physician (a pathologist) and he knows the distinction very well. He simply lied in his comment, to mislead you.
Scumbag.
Michael,
DeleteNo. I wasn't trying to mislead your readers. I was continuing the anonymous joke of comparing Republicans to the scandal and gaffe prone Silvio Berlusconi. It wasn't that the woman was brain dead or in a persistent vegetative state (which had lasted 17 years without improvement before she eventually died - and at postmortem was shown to be irreparable and due to severe diffuse axonal injury), it was because Silvio Berlusconi had made the outrageous comment that she could still give birth to a son. Perhaps it might have been Silvio's idea of a 'joke', but even then he deserves condemnation.
I find Berlusconi's view far more defensible than either:
Delete1) Intentional misrepresentation of brain death and PVS by a medical professional in order to make a political point
2) Advocacy for starving handicapped people to death.
Michael,
DeleteSo you think that a woman who has been in a persistent coma for for 17 years could fulfill a function by having children? That would be unethical and illegal, and a clear case of statutory rape.
Gawd! It was a joke! You're demonstrating the conservative tendency to see everything in black and white, quibbling over 'brain dead' and 'being in a persistent vegetative state for 17 years' and 'starving someone to death' (which I didn't attempt to trivialize), and refusing to discuss Berlusconi's comment that the woman could still have babies.
@bach:
DeleteIs it ever ethical to starve a handicapped person to death?
Michael,
DeleteI'll answer your last question when you comment on Silvio Berlusconi's suggestion that a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 17 years could still fulfill a function and have babies.
I don't know or care what Berlusconi says or believes. Italian politics is not an interest of mine. From my perspective, the woman's fertility or lack thereof has no bearing on her right to life, which is absolute. It is a grave sin to kill her by starvation.
DeleteAnswer my question: Is it ever ethical to starve a handicapped person to death?
Michael,
DeleteSo you don't think that it's tasteless to suggest that a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 17 years, is incapable of giving consent, but could be artificially impregnated so as to have babies, as Silvio Berlusconi suggested?
My answer as to whether it's ethical or not. It depends on the handicap. It's never ethical to starve children with trisomy 21 for example. In many countries, the only way a conscious but physically incapable person can end his or her life is by refusing to accept food and fluids, and by extension, this is also applies to the legal guardians of patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves.
If the patient had been in a PVS for a month or a year, then withdrawing food and fluids would not be justified. But 17 years? With no improvement or possibility of improvement? When do you stop?
Silvio Belusconi is a joke.
@bach:
DeleteSo you're saying that it's only for severely and chronically handicapped people that you defend starvation.
Michael,
DeleteI defend the right of conscious but physically incapable people to end their lives by refusing to accept food and fluids, if that's the only way of accomplishing it. And by extension, I defend the right of legal guardians to make the decision for the patients if they're incapable of making it for themselves, provided there's no hope of recovery (and 17 years is more than adequate).
Also, by your continual refusal to comment, you do think that Silvio Berlusconi's 'joke' of a woman in a PVS for 17 years could still fulfill a function by having children wasn't tasteless? That you actually agree with the anonymous tongue-in-cheek joke that Silvio Berlusconi was an ideal role model for American politicians?
"If the patient had been in a PVS for a month or a year, then withdrawing food and fluids would not be justified. But 17 years? "...
Deletethe father of the girl wanted to suspend food and fluids not after 17 years but just after the first diagnosis of PVS in 1994; then he had to wait the legal procedures and so we have the 17 years passed.
bach,
Delete"the right of legal guardians to make the decision for the patients"...
And tell me, when a patient has not a familiar legal guardian? do you think that a judge or a doctor could decide for the patient without family relatives?
Domics,
DeleteAnd your evidence that her father was insisting that she should be allowed to die immediately after the diagnosis of PVS was made?
But anyway. That's not the point. The point was, which both you and Michael missed, was the tastelessness of Silvio Berlusconi in commenting that she could still fulfill a function by having children.
@bach:
Delete[I defend the right of conscious but physically incapable people to end their lives by refusing to accept food and fluids, if that's the only way of accomplishing it.]
So you assert that suicide under some circumstances should be legal. All circumstances?
Consider this:
Imagine that two people are brought to an emergency room.
The first is an 20 year old woman who is upset because her boyfriend left her. She wants to kill herself.
The second is a 20 year old woman in PVS, whose guardian wants to remove feeding because the guardian says that would be her wish.
Do both have the right to suicide? Would you allow both women to kill themselves? Would you stop the healthy woman, but allow the handicapped woman to die?
If so, then your defense of the "right" to suicide only applies to the handicapped, whose lives you obviously value less than the lives of healthy people.
Starving handicapped people to death is a gruesome violation of the most basic human right-- the right to life-- done to the most vulnerable people. It is an atrocity.
Michael,
DeleteYou really are stupid. I've given you my answer. I don't think that it's ethical to starve all handicapped people to death. I also agree that forcing a conscious person to undergo death by starvation and/or dehydration is not pleasant for the patient, but in many countries the only way a conscious but physically incapable individual can bring about his or her earlier death as release from a painful or progressively worsening state, such as terminal motor neuron disease, is to refuse to accept food and fluids.
Your two scenarios are idiotic as usual. A despondent 'suicidal' 20 year old presenting in casualty is never suicidal. It's just a cry for help. And parents would never present in casualty with a 20 year old daughter with PVS and a feeding N-G tube, requesting for it to be removed. What drugs are you on, making you think that that would ever happen?
I don't share your religious prohibition of suicide. I think that in some, certainly not all, circumstances, it can be justified. But it has to be a conscious decision by the patient (or the legal guardians if incapable), there's no hope of improvement and existence is without possibility of improvement. Rare cases.
You still haven't commented on Silvio's tasteless joke about a woman in PVS for 17 years being still able to fulfill a function by having children. That was the purpose of the initial anonymous comment; what a good role model Silvio Berlusconi would provide for America - a scandal and gaffe plagued politician.
Answer my hypothetical.
DeleteWhich of the two women should be starved, if either? If you choose to starve one but not the other, why do you select the one?
Because she is handicapped? Because you judge her life to be worth less? Because she is "life unworthy of life"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life)
You still haven't commented on Silvio's tasteless joke about a woman in PVS for 17 years being still able to fulfill a function by having children.
DeleteI suspect that is because he agrees with Silvio, but doesn't want say it out loud.
It's an old rhetorical trick to demand that someone repudiate a statement of someone else, in order to deflect attention away from the issue at hand.
DeleteShall I ask you to repudiate all of the statements by Nazi theoreticians that are virtually identical to those of modern euthanasia proponents?
Do you believe that the lives of severely handicapped people are unworthy of life?
Are you willing to repudiate genocidal policies that arise from the same moral judgements you are making?
It's an old rhetorical trick to demand that someone repudiate a statement of someone else
DeleteYou adopted Silvo's view in your own post. bach isn't asking to to repudiate someone's statement, he's asking you to clarify your support for Silvio's statement.
And it is only a "rhetorical trick" if you don't want to simply repudiate the statement. It only makes your argument suspect if you continuously evade answering.
"I support Hank Landsberg"
"Do you support his driving a mower over puppies?"
"No."
See? The "rhetorical trick" ends right there. But since you seem unwilling to say that a woman in a coma for seventeen years still has a use because she could have babies, this problem persists for you. And I think it persists because you agree with Silvio on this point but know you would look stupid for saying so in public.
Michael,
DeleteYou really are incredibly stupid. I'll answer your hypotheticals yet again; if I were in Emergency receiving these two hypothetical patients - the despondent 20 year old expressing suicidal ideas and the 20 year old with PVS and a N-G feeding tube brought along by her parents seeking to have it removed - I'd starve neither.
The despondent 20 year old because she wasn't really suicidal, and the extremely unlikely 20 year old with PVS because I wouldn't have the authority to do so; I'd be obliged to refer it to a higher authority, which is what happened with the Italian case, and is also in the process of occurring in Adealide, South Australia, with the parents of a son with PVS following a car crash seeking Supreme Court approval to withdraw feeding.
'Life not worth living'? Again it depends on the disability. The scandal of the Tiergartenstrasse-4 'euthanasia' program was that many if not most of its victims were entirely capable of and many loudly did protest that their lives were worth living.
I don't see any problems with euthanasia provided it's a conscious deliberate decision by the patient in cases where there's no hope of recovery and existence is a misery without possibility of mitigation. And it should be a considered process, not to be made on the spot. In cases where the patient is unable to decide, as in the patient with PVS for 17 years, then even more considered deliberation is needed, to make certain the right decision is made, and the courts not individual doctors are the appropriate ones to decide.
Again, all you had to do was to note that Silvio Berlusconi's joke was in extremely bad taste, worse that Akin's comment about the impossibility of pregnancy following rape(perhaps not ...), and then given your views about PVS and euthanasia. But you didn't and still refuse to do so.
@bach:
Delete['Life not worth living'? Again it depends on the disability. The scandal of the Tiergartenstrasse-4 'euthanasia' program was that many if not most of its victims were entirely capable of and many loudly did protest that their lives were worth living.]
No, bach. The scandal of the T4 program was that it was murder.
Killing handicapped people is murder.
@bach:
Delete[I don't see any problems with euthanasia provided it's a conscious deliberate decision by the patient in cases where there's no hope of recovery and existence is a misery without possibility of mitigation. And it should be a considered process, not to be made on the spot. In cases where the patient is unable to decide, as in the patient with PVS for 17 years, then even more considered deliberation is needed, to make certain the right decision is made, and the courts not individual doctors are the appropriate ones to decide.]
Euthanasia is deliberate killing of an innocent person. The fact that it is voluntary does not mitigate the fact that it is killing.
Killing innocent people is always wrong, even if they want you to kill them. Suicide is wrong, just as murder is wrong.
Killing is wrong, and killing people who are handicapped or suffering is especially wrong. It is a particularly egregious form of killing.
There are many ways to alleviate suffering. Pain can always be controlled. Depression can be treated. People can be given access to family and friends. Our goals should be to alleviate suffering, not to kill the sufferer.
After the Nazi atrocities, what is that we still don't understand about this stuff?
Michael,
DeleteWell, it's your opinion that euthanasia is always wrong. It's not true that suffering can always be alleviated. Euthanasia should be retained for the rare cases where suffering is permanent and not able to be adequately relieved and has to be a conscious voluntary decision.
'The scandal of the T4 program was that it was murder'. That's exactly what I said! The victims were often capable of and loudly did protest that their lives were worth living.
By the way ... when are you going to get around to conceding that Silvio Berlusconi's joke was just in very poor taste, and finish this discussion.
You did not say that T4 was murder. You implied that killing might be acceptable for victims who were incapable of loudly protesting.
DeleteKilling any handicapped person is murder.
Regarding Berlusconi, I was quite clear before. I don't care what he said. I won't be pulled into a "you need to refute what that guy said" ploy.
I won't help you deflect opinion away from your odious ideas about killing handicapped people.
it seems at the end that Bachfiend is very clear:
Deleteif Hitler had eliminated only people who where not capable or that can not protest loudly,
well Bachfiend would have agree with Hitler...
Michael,
DeleteWell, you certainly do care what I say, twisting any comment into exactly the form you want, even if it is distorted beyond all recognition.
Accepting a limited controlled form of euthanasia for patients with terminal cancer with uncontrollable pain or nausea doesn't mean I support the Tiergartenstrasse-4 'euthanasia' program, which wasn't designed to be a euthanasia program; it was designed to be a murder program. In 1939, the Nazis decided that they needed 100,000 beds for the expected wounded soldiers from the invasion of Poland, and that's how many they decided to kill.
If euthanasia is ever acceptable, it depends on the the circumstances on a patient by patient basis. When I was a resident (the equivalent of a slightly more advanced intern) at the local children's hospital, I heard of a child who had severe intra-abdominal adhesions causing almost continuous bowel obstruction. Whenever the surgeons operated to release an adhesion and relieve obstruction, new adhesions were created in a vicious circle. So the decision was made after a lot of discussion, to make the child comfortable and allow him to die.
Twenty years later, a baby was born with long segment Hirschsprung's disease - extremely long segment, because at operation the surgeons couldn't find any segment of the bowel with ganglion cells. So for the next 8 years, the child was maintained on total parenteral nutrition, and eventually developed liver failure as a complication. So the Australian government funded a combined liver, pancreas and bowel transplant (I don't know what the outcome was).
I still fell uncomfortable with the first episode. I think that allowing the baby with Hirschsprung's to die would have been a reasonable option, if it had been made soon after birth.
And anyway, allowing to die isn't the same as killing. I disagree with killing handicapped people. Also, you're wrong when you state that killing a handicapped person is murder. It isn't. It's homicide. The actual charge in a court of law might range from murder to manslaughter or less.
And all you had to do with Berlusconi's comment was to note 'what a jerk!' and then commented that in your opinion his actual decision was correct. No problems. You still refuse to do so.
just to remember:
Delete"2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. "
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
And Egnor will resolutely refuse to answer. That's what he does: when faced with any sort of challenge he either blusters or refuses to answer. Think of what he's like in a classroom!
ReplyDeleteas when I asked:
Delete"when a patient has not a familiar legal guardian? do you think that a judge or a doctor could decide for the patient without family relatives?"