'Experts' Teaching Scandals and Catholic 'Confusion'

Dianne Irving’s Comments
November 11, 2003
Reproduced with Permission

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!" [Catechism of the Catholic Church, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm]


NOTE: There have recently (finally) been several well-researched, responsible, and thoughtful articles published on the Terri Schiavo case, including an excellent one yesterday, Our Sunday Visitor's interview with Father Germain Kopaczynski on the Church's teachings on such issues [http://www.osvpublishing.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=871] It is painful and difficult for many to try to point out substantial errors in Church teachings that are daily being spun and processed through the media, and none of us relishes it. Yet, precisely because so much error on the official teachings of the Church is now being publicly processed around the globe it is approaching what the Church itself refers to as "scandal", and unfortunately it seems incumbent on those who observe such errors in doctrine to likewise point it out whenever possible through the media as well.

It is hardly a mystery why so many Catholic "ethicists" are making contradictory claims, as noted in the Nov. 9, 2003, OSV story, "Are food and water Ôextraordinary means'? Catholic ethicists weigh in on the debate over Terri Schiavo's life" [http://www.osvpublishing.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=870] (fully copied at the end of this e-mail) -- or why they are so confused. But according to this OVS article, it would seem that they have been guided and directed by the unofficial NCCB "reflection paper" on nutrition and hydration (1992) -- just as apparently have Fr. Murphy who presented erroneous testimony before the Schiavo court, the Florida parish priest who provided "inserts" on this issue via partial quotations from the 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" for his parishioners, and many others. As the OVS article states the issue:

"So, what does the Catholic Church teach about providing assisted nutrition and hydration to incapacitated patients like Terri Schiavo? ... Many of these medical advances have raised complex bioethical questions that have not yet been fully resolved."

It needs to be pointed out that one of the classic (and most successful) strategies in dissident American Catholic theology has been to "claim" that there is "great confusion" about an issue, and thus one is left to ponder one's subjective conscience all alone. As is often suggested, "If in doubt, just do it"! However, most often than not there really is no such "confusion" at all -- in fact, the official teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (which is not per se congruent with the NCCB or the USCCB) is absolutely clear in Her official teachings from the Vatican and the Magisterium. The problem is that some influential American moral theologians simply personally disagree with those clear and unambiguous official teachings, and thus scandalize the faithful by trying to claim such "confusion". The OSV article goes on to interview Church officials about this "confusion":

" ... Some U.S. bishops have issued statements or taken positions on artificial nutrition and hydration, but some of those statements and positions have been contradictory. According to Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the U.S. bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the most authoritative document on assisted nutrition and hydration is a 1992 resource paper titled 'Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections.' That document was reviewed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was later praised by Pope John Paul II."

It would be informative to know precisely in what document this 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" was "reviewed by the CDF" and precisely what the CDF stated -- not to mention the document containing Pope John Paul II's "praise". But suffice it to say that the 1992 NCCB document on nutrition and hydration to which Mr. Doerflinger refers, to which he was a contributing author, is simply a "reflection paper", which states itself in its own "Introduction" that it is not to be confused with or supersede in authority the USCCB's statements on nutrition and hydration in their 2001 Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services. Indeed, many of the references cited in the 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" are taken from secular bioethics leaders, one of whom has been involved in promoting euthanasia for years (e.g., bioethicist Dr. Ronald Cranford in footnote #21, who also happened to have been hired by Michael Schiavo's attorney Felos to testify before the Schiavo court in favor of removing Terri's feeding tube).

In the words of that very same 1992 NCCB document on nutrition and hydration to which Mr. Doerflinger refers: "In what follows we apply these well-established moral principlesÊ[i.e., discussed earlier in the "reflection paper" and derived from the USCCB document] to the difficult issue of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to persons who are seriously ill, disabled or persistently unconscious. We recognize the complexity involved in applying these principles to individual cases and acknowledge that, at this time and on this particular issue, our applications do not have the same authority as the principles themselves." [http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutqa.htm]

That is, this very section in that very same 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" to which Mr. Doerflinger refers states unambiguously that these "reflections" do not supersede in authority those moral principles articulated in the USCCB document. Indeed, the "Conclusion" of that very same 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" on nutrition and hydration to which Mr. Doerflinger refers actually states, in agreement with the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives, that, "In this document we reaffirm moral principles that provide a basis for responsible discussion of the morality of life support. We also offer tentative guidance on how to apply these principles to the difficult issue of medically assisted nutrition and hydration. We reject any omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death. We hold for a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to patients who need it, which presumption would yield in cases where such procedures have no medically reasonable hope of sustaining life or pose excessive risks or burdens.

Recognizing that judgments about the benefits and burdens of medically assisted nutrition and hydration in individual cases have a subjective element and are generally best made by the patient directly involved, we also affirm a legitimate role for families' love and guidance, health care professionals' ethical concerns, and society's interest in preserving life and protecting the helpless." [http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutconc.htm]

In other words, the fact is that even that 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" on nutrition and hydration states unambiguously that it's authority on this issue does not supersede that of the official USCCB document, Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services. And both documents agree that unless nutrition and hydration are excessively painful or cannot be successfully processed, they are considered "ordinary means" and are morally obligatory for faithful Catholics, and should thus be applied to incompetent patients whether or not they are in a coma or in a PVS.

It is also to be noted that not even the documents of the USCCB are the final word on official Church teachings, but rather the official teachings of the Vatican and the Magisterium are the official teachings of the Catholic Church. The moral authority of such NCCB/USCCB teachings is addressed in a book by Jesuit Fr. Thomas J. Reese, A Flock of Shepherds: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (Kansas City: Sheed &Ward, 1992). Quoting from the review of the book on the Georgetown website: "The NCCB/USCC operates within the theological and canonical framework of the Roman Catholic church. To many people brought up in the pre-Vatican II church, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops is an anomalous body in the Catholic church. It does not fit easily into the traditional hierarchical model of the church that places the pope at the top of the pyramid with bishops, priests, and laity at successively lower levels in the church. A few scholars, such as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have questioned the teaching authority and canonical status of episcopal conferences. In 1983 when discussing a draft of the pastoral letter on peace with the American bishops, he said that 'A bishops' conference as such does not have a mandatum docendi [a mandate to teach]. This belongs only to the individual bishop or to the college of bishops with the pope.' ... In 1988 the Vatican issued a working paper(instrumentum laboris) on the theological and canonical status of episcopal conferences that took a similar tack. The draft document severely limited the authority of episcopal conferences." http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/publications/p-flock.htm

With absolutely no mention of the many official teachings of the Church on nutrition and hydration, e.g., The Declaration on Euthanasia, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html, as well as the Charter for Health Care Workers at:Êhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/rc_pc_hlthwork_doc_19950101_charter_en.html?GRAB_ID=2\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=42\&PAGE_ID=3940608, Mr. Doerflinger then goes on to contradict his own previous statement that the 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" is "the most authoritative document on assisted nutrition and hydration", and to reassert the "confusion":

Doerflinger told Our Sunday Visitor that the document does not have the status of definitive teaching but rather is pastoral guidance based on conclusions about the most morally responsible course. A person holding a contrary position cannot be said to dissent from Church teaching, he said, until there is clear and definitive Church teaching on the subject.

Church teaching says that nutrition and hydration must never be withdrawn in order to cause or hasten a patient's death, but may be withdrawn if they are judged to be useless to the patient or impose excessive burdens on the patient, Doerflinger said.

The usual presumption in favor of nutrition and hydration also applies to persons diagnosed as in a PVS, he said, adding that one must not make discriminatory judgments about the value of the disabled person's life.

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either the 1992 NCCB "reflection paper" is "the most authoritative document on assisted nutrition and hydration", or the document "does not have the status of definitive teaching but rather is pastoral guidance."Ê Either there is no "clear and definitive Church teaching on the subject", or "Church teaching says that nutrition and hydration must never be withdrawn in order to cause or hasten a patient's death". Either the Church would conclude that nutrition and hydration should be withheld from Terri Schiavo, or the Church would conclude that it should be afforded Terri Schiavo. Which is it? Curious minds want to know.

No wonder there is so much confusion about what the official teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church are -- even among Her "ethicists" and "officials". They don't USE the official teachings of the Magisterium. One wonders if they have even read them. This continuing self-imposed "confusion" and erroneous "teaching" in the public and international media, in my opinion, is "scandalous", as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (above).

In the meantime, for those who don't wish to be confused and who are interested, I would suggest reading the truly official teachings of the Catholic Church on euthanasia and nutrition/hydration -- until some further clarification from the Magisterium -- by going to the following documents and reading them yourselves:

1. The Declaration on Euthanasia, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html

2. The Charter for Health Care Workers at:Êhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/rc_pc_hlthwork_doc_19950101_charter_en.html?GRAB_ID=2\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=42\&PAGE_ID=3940608

3. Quite a number of these and other formal Church documents directly relevant to nutrition and hydration can be found in the excellent testimony by two Catholic theologians in their rebuttal of Fr. Murphy's erroneous testimony before the Schiavo court: http://www.terrisfight.org/Framesets/RecentFrame.htm

Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. (nihil obstat, May 1997)


http://www.osvpublishing.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=870
Our Sunday Visitor
Nov. 9, 2003
Are food and water Ôextraordinary means'?
Catholic ethicists weigh in on the debate over Terri Schiavo's life
By Ann Carey

[Bonus coverage: When in doubt, keep a Ôbias for bios,' priest says: "The life of Terri Schiavo might be severely circumscribed by her condition, but it's the only life she has." Ñ Father Germain Kopaczynski -- by Ann Carey. Click here to read it.

The complicated legal and medical issues in the Terri Schiavo case grow more complex every day. An emergency Florida law that empowered Gov. Jeb Bush to order Terri's feeding tube restored six days after it had been removed is facing legal challenges, and doctors are arguing publicly over the extent of her brain damage.

Equally complex are the moral questions surrounding Terri's situation and that of other brain-damaged patients.

Catholic ethicists being quoted in newspapers and appearing on television are voicing a variety of conflicting moral opinions on Terri's case. Some are siding with Terri's husband, who has been fighting a legal battle to have her feeding tube removed, saying that Terri would not have wanted to continue life in her condition.

Other Catholic ethicists agree with Terri's parents that the diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) is questionable and that, whatever the diagnosis, supplying nutrition and hydration is ordinary treatment for any person able to assimilate the nutrition and whose death is not imminent.

So, what does the Catholic Church teach about providing assisted nutrition and hydration to incapacitated patients like Terri Schiavo?

Since Pope Pius XII, the Church has taught that one is never obliged to use extraordinary means to sustain life. But with the advances in technology and medicine in the last few decades, what once was considered extraordinary treatment has become ordinary, particularly in developed countries like the United States. Many of these medical advances have raised complex bioethical questions that have not yet been fully resolved.

The Catholic Church has not spoken specifically about assisted feeding for unconscious persons or those said to be in a PVS, although sources say the Vatican is working on a statement to be issued next year. However, Pope John Paul II has said that nutrition and hydration should be considered ordinary treatment.

Episcopal confusion

Some U.S. bishops have issued statements or taken positions on artificial nutrition and hydration, but some of those statements and positions have been contradictory. According to Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the U.S. bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the most authoritative document on assisted nutrition and hydration is a 1992 resource paper titled "Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections." That document was reviewed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was later praised by Pope John Paul II.

Doerflinger told Our Sunday Visitor that the document does not have the status of definitive teaching but rather is pastoral guidance based on conclusions about the most morally responsible course. A person holding a contrary position cannot be said to dissent from Church teaching, he said, until there is clear and definitive Church teaching on the subject.

Church teaching says that nutrition and hydration must never be withdrawn in order to cause or hasten a patient's death, but may be withdrawn if they are judged to be useless to the patient or impose excessive burdens on the patient, Doerflinger said.

The usual presumption in favor of nutrition and hydration also applies to persons diagnosed as in a PVS, he said, adding that one must not make discriminatory judgments about the value of the disabled person's life.

Not worth saving

Jesuit Father Patrick Boyle, who teaches moral theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., told Our Sunday Visitor that providing nutrition and hydration by a gastrostomy tube is not burdensome, useless or expensive. The tube is implanted in the abdomen in a relatively simple operation, is not painful for the patient and has demonstrated its usefulness by sustaining Terri Schiavo for many years, he said.

Therefore, Father Boyle speculated that the only motive for wanting to stop Terri's feedings would be the belief that her life is not worth saving. "That is a position totally contrary to the Church's understanding of life," he said.

Likewise, Franciscan Father Germain Kopaczynski, education director for the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told Our Sunday Visitor that the real issue in the Schiavo case is whether a disabled person should be valued.

"I've always thought that a Catholic view -- a culture of life -- will always try to include the dependent in its care," he said. "It's an inclusive ethic, whereas a culture of death will try to exclude the dependent by defining them away, by saying, ÔShe's a vegetable.' So, are we going to include the dependent or exclude them? These are tough decisions, but I believe that's the battle being fought here."

Ann Carey is a senior correspondent for Our Sunday Visitor.

Top