The Catechism on Euthanasia

Since Terri Schiavo has reportedly been a devout Catholic, and because of her husband's intent on starving her to death (with the apparent eager support of judges), we would do well to review the official Catholic teaching on euthanasia.

The following is an excerpt from the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church. The section on euthanasia is clear and informative. Though it necessarily contains some ambiguities, judge for yourself how the Church would view Terri Schiavo's case. It seems crystal clear to me.

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

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.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

What Is Truth? (Aristotle vs. Tommy Smothers)

In a previous short post, I quoted the definition of truth according to an ancient philosopher.

Aristotle:

If a man says of what is that it is, or if he says of what is not that it is not, then he speaks the truth; but if a man says of what is that it is not, or if he says of what is not that it is, then he does not speak the truth.

On the TV Land awards show the other night, we were treated to a definition of truth from another great philosopher.

Tommy Smothers:

Truth is whatever you can get others to believe.

A primer on Triduum (Link to "A Voice From Eden")

a voice from eden: A primer on Triduum


An excellent, concise article about the annual Lord's Supper, "Good Friday," and Easter from my friend Vox at "A Voice From Eden."

Please read this!

Yawning and Sex

Well shut mah mouth!

I never heard this connection between Yawning and Sex.

It's late and I'm getting sleepy. I think I'll . . . I'll . . . *yaaaaawn!* . . . get to bed now. After a cold shower.

Overcoming "Troubling Catholic Issues"

A non-Catholic Christian emailed me the other day:

I have some friends in many different churches including catholics but they all hold conservative family values that christianity was famous for.

. . . [H]ow have you been dealing with troubling catholic issues: "queen of heaven","papacy","praying to many gods" - not official position but one could honestly and successfully argue it has been supported by the catholic church or at least by less than honest bishops within the church.

My reply is below:

I like conservative-family-values Catholics, too. It's a shame there are so many unfaithful ones, though. I heard a guy from Massachusetts say that his state has a lot of "Kennedy Catholics," but hardly any Catholic Kennedys.

Don't think I've never questioned or hesitated over "troubling Catholic issues." I have. One thing that simplifies the process is to understand the authority issue. That's the biggie. But then, over time, the "troubling" issues clear up through research or contemplation and are no longer troubling. That's not to say that some things -- a lot of things -- are never fully understood. Not everything is meant for comprehensive understanding in this life. It's far easier for a flea to understand Algebra II than for us to understand how God can make something out of nothing.

The common Protestant objections to Catholicism, however, can be overcome. Most are refuted through gaining a proper understanding of the Church's teachings, correcting what "they say" she teaches.

Mary is in fact the "Queen of Heaven," in the sense that she gave birth to (is the mother of) the King of Kings. Queens aren't queens only when they're married to the king; we also have queen mothers, who are queens by virtue of the fact that their son is king. This is the case with Mary, who is naturally exalted because of her Son the King, who is the ultimate Exalted One.

To say that ANY of Mary's titles imply she is a "goddess" is to clearly violate the First Commandment, and that's a big one.

The pope is merely the bishop of Rome. Of all the world's bishops (the successors of the apostles), the Roman bishop alone holds the "keys of the kingdom," for he is the successor of Peter, who, along with Paul, ended up in Rome. Jesus gave Peter the keys, and it was upon Cepha that the Church was founded. Christ is the true foundation, but in His absence Peter is given the "keys" (a symbol of genuine authority, an allusion to Isaiah 22).

The idea of a man "filling in" for Christ for certain responsibilities is not such a terribly difficult concept really. Even [non-Catholic] ministers administer bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. They validly baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." They claim to make "binding and loosing" decisions in the church. They believe they teach authoritatively what Christ taught since they're teaching straight from God's Word. I know it's not exactly the same, but they do claim to possess some kind of divinely given authority, to one extent or another.

"Praying to many gods." That's not good! Catholics are the ultimate Christian defenders of the truth that there is only ONE God. That is fundamental, foundational. Anything else is unthinkable.

But just as you asked me to pray for you the other day, and I asked you to pray for me, so it is that one might ask Mary or another saint to pray for him. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person avails much, so if (that's the key word, "if") Jesus' mother is now with God, and has attained the holiness we're all striving for now, who better to pray for us?

"Pray" is not always synonymous with "worship." To a lot of people, prayer is the highest form of worship (since they don't believe in the true sacrifice of the Mass), but "prayer" often means lesser things. Even in the KJV, it is frequently used of people making requests of others (e.g., Genesis 13:8: "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee . . . "). Making requests of someone is not worship. We do honor Mary (Jesus did that, too) with great esteem, but she is "merely" the highest exalted creature. God alone is the Creator; He alone is not created. So in fact it glorifies HIM when we exalt and bless that which HE created, and exalted, and blessed. Mary's prophetic word is true: "All generations will call me blessed" (Luke 2).

If someone spoke glowingly of your parents, your brother, your wife, or your children, that would not detract from the glory that's due to you. Just the opposite: it would bring honor to [you]. You would be pleased, because they are your family.

A Catholic "prays to," or speaks to, Mary and the other saints because they enjoy a special closeness to God. And, biblically, that's an advantage when it comes to answered prayer.

Finally, there are bishops who are corrupt. There have even been scandalous scoundrels who became pope. Jesus said there would be both wheat and weeds in His Church (Matthew 13:24-30). But never in 2,000 years has any bishop or pope changed (reversed) any Catholic dogma. Even when certain popes held a particular heretical view, they could not declare it as official doctrine. Not a bad record, especially when you compare it to certain self-appointed "apostles" of recent history.

One of many big differences between modern false "apostles" and the Catholic Church's bishops in union with the pope is this: one tries to restore the truth, and the other preserves and transmits the truth. The first believes the truth is always being lost and needs to be found; the second believes truth is always faithfully passed on and needs to be believed.

Hannity's Prediction

Sean Hannity, on his radio program today, predicts Terry Schiavo's feeding tube will be reinserted before tonight's edition of Hannity & Colmes (9:00 p.m. Eastern).

I pray he's right.

Death Is Unnatural

This morning on WBAP's Mark Davis Show, Dr. Dean Adell said he couldn't understand why those who believe in a better life after death are so bent on keeping people like Terri Schiavo alive. Don't you believe her afterlife will be better?

I growled.

We were not created to be dead. Death is unnatural, a result of sin. We were made to be a composite of body and spirit. At the moment of death, our spirit is separated from our body.

Even when our spirit, or soul, "goes to heaven," that is not the final state of our being. We will be awaiting the resurrection. We'll attain our perfected state then, when our soul and body are finally reunited.

In the meantime, we should try to keep it together.

Starvation: When Nature Takes Its Course

During last night's debating over the life of Terri Schiavo, I heard a culture-of-death apologist on TV make the argument about letting "nature take its course." In other words, let's not try to save and rehabilitate Ms. Schiavo.

I don't remember the name of the congresswoman who made that remark, but I just found a comment on the Democrats.com Blog that restated the argument:

Would you want to live for years if you were in Terry's condition? and
Would you want to be the husband or wife for years of someone in Terry's condition?
Has anyone here set up a living will, and if you have, have you instructed that if you end up in a similar condition as Terry that you want to keep the tubes in for years or have them removed and let nature take its course??

Miffed about the comment I heard on TV, I told the person next to me that the same argument could be made about newborn babies. They will starve to death if you don't feed them. Oftentimes we use factory-made formulas in "unnatural" plastic bottles to feed them, but we consider it our responsibility.
We feed babies the way babies have to be fed. We must also feed brain-damaged people the way brain-damaged people have to be fed.
Neither action is "unnatural" in the sense of tampering with God's natural order for mankind. I wonder if those same people who are concerned with "nature" also condone homosexual acts, contraceptive sex, abortion, human cloning, and fetal stem-cell research.
To answer the other questions posed in the above-quoted comment: No, I would NOT want to live for years in Terri's condition; and no, I would NOT want my spouse to live for years in that condition.

That's not to say that suicide or murder is the answer. We have to endure our sufferings -- whatever they are -- in a way that glorifies God and purifies of our souls. "Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted" (Matthew 5:4).

And yes, taking away Ms. Schiavo's supply of nutrition is murder. Many people would dehumanize her by saying she's in a "persistant vegetative state." I'm no farmer, but I've never seen vegetation that could see, hear, sit up in a chair, smile, and express itself in grunts. Terri Schiavo is not a mere piece of meat, a soul-less lump of tissue prevented from seeing corruption because of pumps, machines, and gadgets. All she needs is food and water. That sounds natural to me.

I hope everyone is familiar Jesus' fitting parable about the sheep and the goats:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

The Apostle Pack

In a recent vital sermon, David C. Pack, founder of the Restored Church of God (RCG) in Wadsworth, Ohio, humbly explains for nearly four-and-a-half hours that Jesus has appointed him to the highest position of "apostle." He says there have been perhaps three apostles in the last 800 years or so. The most recent apostle was the late televangelist Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, who died in 1986.

While David Pack holds such titles as "watchman" and "apostle," he is not the biblically prophesied "Elijah to come." John the Baptizer was a kind of "Elijah to come" (Matthew 11:10-15), but that role was ultimately and definitively fulfilled by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.

Apostle Pack also reveals that the prophesied, end-time "two witnesses" of Revelation 11 will be two members of his Restored Church of God. Because they will submit to God's government on earth, these two greatest prophets of all time will "report" to the higher-ranking Apostle Pack, who will certainly train them before they begin their mission.

I learned all sorts of great things listening to Pack's "coming out of the apostolic closet" sermon. He even predicts that he will be "attacked" by others because of this new truth. In fact, he says he is the "most attacked" person in the world next to the deceased Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.

I suppose a blog post like this is part of that prophesied persecution. See, he is right after all! Amazing!

My interest in the Apostle Pack stems from my memories of him when I was a youth in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). I was big into basketball, and so was he. (He is just plain big at six-feet-seven.) He coached the Akron, Ohio, team, and -- thanks to my clutch free throws in overtime -- our Toledo team defeated his for the district championship in 1991. Soon afterward, he coached our district all-star team. And if I recall correctly, I gave him reason to stand tall with pride by scoring a few three-pointers for him.

Because of these basketball memories, and a morbid curiosity, I subjected myself to hearing some of Apostle Pack's online sermons. In a way, he is a captivating speaker because he demonstrates a certain kind of logic, and he speaks as one having authority, not as the WCG "splinters." He is set apart from "the splinters" in his apparent zeal and conviction in his message.

What is amusing, however, is that he never adequately explains how he is different from "the splinters." Apostle Pack (then Pastor Pack) left the Worldwide Church of God in 1993 to join a splinter group called the Living Church of God, from whom he later split to form his Restored Church of God. As a second-generation splinter, he does not number himself among "the splinters," for he alone is "extending the apostle's [Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's] ministry."

The plain truth is that if only Apostle Pack would annoint his eyes to see, he would be forced to admit that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong splintered from a splinter from a splinter from a splinter -- going all the way back, like everyone else, to the Church that Jesus built: the Catholic Church.

I made the point in a previous post that the only reason Pack can give for his claims of exclusivity is that he "goes by the Bible." All a person needs to do is "blow the dust off" his Bible and "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good"; if you do that, then, according to Pack, you'll be left holding only his doctrines.

There is one other reason offered by the Apostle Pack: he is faithful to the teachings of the Apostle Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, a claim he can "prove" with many quotations from Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. Even so, how do we know Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was God's apostle? Simply because the teachings of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong "go by the Bible."

In other words, you must read and interpret the Bible for yourself (with God's assistance, of course), and then you must judge the fidelity of the teachings of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Apostle Pack. If in your judgment they agree with the Bible, then you must agree with them; if you determine they don't agree with the Bible, then "it's just not your time yet." You're not among the "called," but you will be given the opportunity to repent in another resurrection when God finally opens your eyes.

Too many sad souls are playing pin-the-tail-on-the-apostle and neglecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They are so enraptured with the idea of being unique and set apart that they don't think to be orthodox and faithful to the one gospel message transmitted by the Church through its 2000-year history.

Amidst all the religious confusion in the Christian world, we can find our way to the Truth by knowing the Scriptures (cf. Mark 12:24) and knowing "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Stay close to the tradition of the true apostles, and to their successors the bishops. If you remain faithful to the Church's deposit of truth, then you will never be deceived by a false apostle's Pack of lies.

Catholic Answers Special Report: Chick Tracts

Catholic Answers Special Report: Chick Tracts

Catholic Seminarian Comments on Living Church of God

This blogger, a Catholic seminarian soon to be ordained, comments on the Living Church of God.

Same Sex Marriage Myths Abound!

This comes from a good and principled friend of mine in Canada, John Coish, a Christian pastor in the denomination from which I came. I am reproducing this piece with his permission. He will soon have it published in some Canadian newspapers.

(I have not edited this, even though it contains Canadian misspellings, eh?)

Same Sex Marriage Myths Abound!

Myth: Only homophobic Neanderthals object to same-sex marriage.
Fact: Professors Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson, of McGill University are very qualified to rebut this argument. They noted in recent writings that, "One of us is a man, the other a woman. One is a Jew, the other a gentile. And one is gay, the other straight. Neither of us opposes gay relationships or civil unions for gay people."
In their writings Young and Nathanson agree that support for heterosexual bonding through marriage is essential to the well-being of any society. They contend that despite ambiguity in some of the social science evidence, "we do know by now that two parents are better for children than one and that families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers." They add: "That these facts are either ignored or trivialized by some advocates of gay marriage . . . says something about concern for children in our time."
(Quoted from Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment.)

Myth: Homosexual marriage is a rights issue.
Fact: People have the right in our society to conduct themselves immorally between consenting adults, ie. fornication, including multiple partners at the same time, adultery, and homosexual behaviour. People also have the right to express that such behaviour is not in the best interests of the individuals involved. However, while Christians state this behaviour is absolutely not in the best interests of the individual, family or society they also state that all neighbours should be treated with love and respect. Does this mean they must promote immoral behaviour as normal, participate or support such behaviour? Absolutely not--but they should still be friendly, helpful and kind neighbours. The issue at the heart of this argument is RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (STUPID). Paul Martin has a responsibility to promote healthy behaviour for society. Promoting buggery to our children as a healthy practice is utterly ludicrous from any positive perspective. Enemies of traditional Christian values want the government to promote homosexual behaviour to our children under the guise of anti-homophobia classes. Paul Martin will you stand up for the future of our children and the health of our nation instead of bowing down to the Charter and activist judges? (Constitutional history of same-sex rights see http://www.cgicanada.org/pastors/calvin.html)

Myth: Paul Martin must separate his moral viewpoints and his government ethics.
Fact: There is no such thing as business or government ethics. You either have ethics or you don’t. You cant go to church for a couple of hours and pretend to have morals and then go to work and ignore them. When you do that you are pretending to bow down to God for a few minutes and then bowing down to the manmade god of the Charter of Rights the remaining days. This is a perfect example of being without integrity or sincerity, of being Mr. Dithers. It would appear that Mr. Dithers has sold his soul to a new god based on man’s desires rather then on the will of the only true God – in effect exchanging one set of absolutes for another man made set.

Myth: Homosexuality is not a choice.
Fact: Homosexual behaviour is a choice or its rape. It really doesn’t matter if I’m attracted to every other woman or man in the world. How I behave is my choice. Some people are more inclined to be physically abusive then others, some are more inclined to be pedophiles, some are more inclined to be womanizers, some are more inclined to be homosexuals, so what? The fact is shown in one study after the next, that the greatest benefit for society is to have a strong traditional family unit. (For help in overcoming your same-sex attraction disorder write for our free book which includes support group information.)

Myth: Jesus did not speak against homosexuality.
Fact: Jesus pointed to creation as the ideal for marriage. Man and woman fit together perfectly and are designed for such activity. Jesus did not speak directly about homosexuality or pedophilia or beastiality for that matter, but God already had and the people he was addressing knew better. The problem was polygamy and wife swapping and he addressed it with creation – saying that creation demonstrated the sexual relationship that God intended for mankind.

I'm an English Genius!

English Genius

You scored 100% Beginner, 93% Intermediate, 93% Advanced, and 77% Expert!

You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Now that' s a nice way to start the day!

This is my score from a "commonly confused words" test.

Go on -- take the test for yourself!

I found the test through my friends at North Western Winds and Doxology.

I Hope This Guy Becomes Pope

I don't mean to speak prematurely or be disrespectful to JP2, but it would very interesting if Francis Cardinal Arinze was appointed as the next Pope. He is a Nigerian by birth, and a member of the Roman Curia.

Our local RCIA class uses his video teachings on the Catechism. He is down-the-line orthodox in his beliefs, he is straightforward with his clarity of thought, and he has the perfect twist of humor. He cuts through the crap of political correctness and speaks the truth.

See this blog post and you'll see a sample of why he would be great as the next Roman bishop.