The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) - Day 296: The Sin of Euthanasia (2024)

Episode Date: October 22, 2024

We continue our examination of the fifth commandment, taking a closer look at the sin of euthanasia. Fr. Mike emphasizes that whatever the motive, the action of ending a life in order to eliminate suffering is still a sin. He also emphasizes that palliative care, however, is an important and special form of charity and love. Today’s readings are Catechism paragraphs 2276-2279. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Hi, my name is Father Mike Schmitz and you're listening to the Catechism in a Year podcast where we encounter God's plan of sure goodness for us, revealed in scripture and passed down through the tradition of the Catholic faith. The Catechism in a Year is brought to you by Ascension. In 365 days, we'll read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, discovering our identity and God's family as we journey together to our heavenly home. This is day 296, we're reading paragraphs 2276 through 2279. As always, I'm using the Ascension edition of the Catechism, which includes the Foundations of Faith approach, but you can follow along with any recent version of the Catechism of

the Catholic Church. You can also download your own Catechism in your reading plan by visiting ascensionpress.com slash C-I-Y. And lastly, you can click follow or subscribe in your podcast app for daily updates and daily notifications today is day 296 we're talking yesterday you know we had well this is all serious obviously yesterday we talked about abortion and today we're going on to euthanasia and so the recognition is only four paragraphs but the recognition of these last few days today and the next couple days

are going to be very, very, uh, again, let's give the context. It's always serious, but we live in such a, in a world where these issues, issues of euthanasia, of abortion tomorrow, of suicide, they, these things touch our lives and they're not just, I don't want to say small things that touch our lives as if the first couple commandments We talked about aren't are small as if they as if they are small. They're not small But there's something there's something that is gravely disruptive about these sins What I mean by that is is they break our hearts, right? They they I mean it will say like this I can get away with skipping Mass in some ways, right?

I can get away with not resting on taking that, that, that rest on the Lord's day. And it doesn't break my heart, right? It doesn't necessarily, I don't necessarily feel it in the depths of, of grief, but these sins, and maybe I should, and then keep that in mind. Maybe I should because they are sins directly against the Lord. But here we have yesterday again abortion here We have today euthanasia tomorrow suicide and these sins Directly affect our hearts and in a different way is that makes it make sense

I just you probably knew all that already I just wanted to to note it before we go any further. So as I said, there's four paragraphs today We're talking about euthanasia, which is essentially euthanasia itself is a Greek word right that means good death so you that EU is good and then Thanatos or Thanos would be would be death you like wait a second like the Marvels yes that's like Thanatos Thanos death it's a euphemism really and it was just funny because euphemism means good words or I guess theme would be Femi or would be speaking so good speaking or good words euphemism for killing another innocent human being or sparing their

life in some way like that that's what be the idea behind it is euthanasia or this kind of idea of a good death and yet we know that anytime we take another innocent human life it is not a good death it is murder we're talking about that today so as we launch into this let's ask the lord to be with us to keep our our our ears open that we can hear Actually what he wants to teach us then we can keep our hearts open so that we can have the courage to live what we hear And that is so necessary for all of us. So let's pray Father in heaven we give you praise and glory and we thank you We thank you for bringing us to this day for bringing us to this moment

Lord god for all of those people around us who suffer We give you praise and glory and we thank you. We thank you for bringing us to this day, for bringing us to this moment. Lord God, for all of those people around us who suffer, all those people whose suffering seems like it is unending, for all those people and families who feel like they have a death sentence and they're simply waiting out the death and are tempted, tempted for this euthanasia, tempted to murder others out of compassion or to murder themselves out of pain, out of fear.

We ask that you please send your Holy Spirit of wisdom to prevent them from doing this. Send your Holy Spirit of truth that they can see clearly in the midst of what might be foggy and very, very unclear road ahead. We ask that you please send your Holy Spirit into their lives right now and be with them. Be with all of us that we not only hear the truth

and know the truth, but we can also live the truth if we ever get to that moment. That if we ever face that temptation, help us to face it with grace, with your help, the help that comes from you. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. It is day 296. We're reading paragraphs 2276 to 2279. Euthanasia. Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

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. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary,

or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate. It is the refusal of overzealous 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. 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. All right, there we have in paragraphs 2276 to 2279. There are, man, I mean, it's just, let's break it down because there's so many good points here. They're made quickly, right? The church is just teaching. It's not giving an argument. The argument's already been given. What is the argument? The argument is human nature. The argument is the dignity of the human

person. That's the argument. We've already established this. If this is true, then abortion is wrong, right? If this is true, then euthanasia is wrong. If it is true that all life comes from God and that God is the one who decides, right? God is the one who creates life. He is the one who can end life. Then, we as human beings may never, may never, intentionally end the life of an innocent human being. Not only that, who are the kind of people who are euthanized? Well, paragraph 2276 says it right away. Those whose lives are diminished or weakened, that's it.

Sick and handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. So think about this. What, not only, what about a culture that not only tolerates but celebrates abortion? What kind of culture is that, that not only tolerates but celebrates abortion? It is a culture that is dead set on,

you know, in the name of compassion, right? I would say it's weaponized compassion in the name of compassion towards the moms. And again, moms should be helped. Yeah, absolutely. Families should be helped. These newborn children, and they should be helped to grow. Like, again, if the individual or the couple

can't take care of the baby, then the local community should, a family should. The parish should be helping. That's one of the reasons why Catholic Charities was the leader in adoption agencies in so many ways until there's some laws now, of course, on the books that has shut down the adoption wing of many areas of Catholic Charities. Needless to say, what happens when abortion is not only tolerated but celebrated? The culture

gets distorted. Euthanasia is very similar. What happens in a culture that begins to see euthanasia as not only an answer, but the compassionate answer. Okay, when you get too weak, when your life, your health is too diminished, when you're not living a life that we think, that we think is worthy of life, then that's when we can take your life, or we can help you take your own life. I mean, I think to consider this, that there is such a thing, the difference here is a quality of life ethic versus a sanctity of life ethic. A quality of life ethic would look at paragraphs 226

and 227 and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're talking about people whose lives are diminished, lives are weakened, they're sick, they're handicapped, they're a burden on other people or even they themselves are in pain. Listen, the compassionate thing, they don't have a look at their quality of life. What kind of that's the phrase, right? What kind of quality of life would that be? And if we are actually going to base the value of someone's life off of what we call the

quality of their life, then our culture is in a nosedive But if we continue to hold on to this reality that one's life is not worth anything because of the quality of the life but because of the sanctity of life then yes the weak they're worth fighting for the the Handicapped are worth fighting for it this sick are worth fighting for, or even caring for. I'm not saying even caring for, or caring for, because that's the reality. Paragraph 2277, whatever its motives and means. So my motive is because I care about this person. I don't want to see them suffer. That's a good motive, but the action of directly ending someone's life is not a good action. Whatever its motives, its motive could be though,

could be I don't want this person to be a burden to the state. That's all they are. This person is simply a burden to the taxpayer. And that is actually an argument that some people make in favor of euthanasia. We're just spending all this money to keep them alive. But it says here, whatever its motives and means,

direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of the handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. That is, it can never be tolerated, it can never be celebrated. We can never, as a church, accept it and as a culture we need to fight against it. In so many incredible ways we need to fight against this. Going on, paragraph 2277 continues, it says, 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 the respect to do to the living God his Creator. So an act or omission, which by itself or by intention causes death in order to eliminate suffering, that's euthanasia and that is murder so withholding something like water or nourishment which is Ordinary care is so omitting those things in order to cause death in order to eliminate suffering That's murder now at the same time paragraph two two seven eight Specifies this it says that discontinuing some medical procedures can be morally legitimate. Now what does that mean? What kind of medical procedures? It says medical procedures that are

and gives four terms or four kinds of medical procedures that could be terminated or could be discontinued and that would still be legitimate. So discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome, those things can be legitimate. And so that's the idea, it says in the next part of that sentence, it is the refusal of overzealous treatment. So an example could be this.

Here is someone who has cancer. And maybe they've gone the normal route. Maybe they've done whatever they could in the ordinary way and maybe they've even maybe they've even gone and had you know chemotherapy and And maybe they had some remission. Maybe they didn't but someone comes along and says well There's this other procedure that that could work. We don't know if it could work The percentage of it working or failing is whatever, you know, it's not very good, but why not try it? The person doesn't have to try everything.

They could actually discontinue chemotherapy and say, no, I have cancer. I'm accepting. See, it says here, here that one does not will to cause death, one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. And that is such a huge distinction. We're not talking about withholding food and water from someone, we're talking about a procedure that is dangerous or burdensome or extraordinary

or disproportionate to the expected outcome. Again, goes back to the cancer example. You could say, hey, if you're on this experimental drug, you could get another three months. You could get another nine months. And the person has to ask the question, okay, I could get another nine months, you know, you could get in another nine months and the person has to ask the question. Okay, I Could get another nine months but nine months of what right because the side effects of that drug could be extreme and so

Discontinuing certain medical procedures that are burdensome dangerous Extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate and that's the kind of thing again to the expected outcome can be legitimate and that's the kind of thing that again that the the heart of this is so in critically important now in paragraph 2 2 7 8 the last line that's last sentence says the error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith so the idea of I have this compassion that I hate seeing someone in pain therefore I really want to end their pain and I'm willing to even consider ending their life. That's what it means. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith, right?

I just I just want to end their pain does not change the nature of this murderous act which was always be forbidden and excluded. So again your heart the human heart that is compassion for others that has compassion for the weak has compassion for those who are suffering That that's a others that has compassion for the weak has compassion for those who are suffering that that's a good. That's a good But the error of judgment into which we can fall in good faith because of that doesn't change the nature of the murderous act Just because it's done. It could be generally done out of compassion Now there's people who had already mentioned who could say they're costing the taxpayer money or whatever the thing is I don't want to be a burden, but there could be others who are genuinely moved by true compassion that doesn't change the nature

of the murderous act. Remember we talked about this, when the three aspects, the three elements of a moral act in order to be morally good, the way we consider the act itself, there is the motivation and the circumstances. So my motivation can be great, real compassion that does not change the nature of the circumstances. So my motivation can be can be great real compassion That does not change the nature of the murderous act

at the same time That's very very different than the middle of paragraph 2278. We're discontinuing medical procedures That are burdensome dangerous extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome Those that that's legitimate. Why because here one does not will to cause death, one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. That's a critical difference. In the first aspect, or in euthanasia, I am discontinuing some ordinary treatment or I'm giving some kind of thing that would kill the person. That is murder. In the other case, I'm merely accepting the fact

that everything that is alive at some point dies, and I cannot indefinitely stop death. So my inability to impede it is merely accepted, and I recognize that there's a limit. There's a limit to burdensome treatment, or dangerous treatment, or extraordinary, or disproportionate treatment. Does that make sense?

Hopefully that makes sense. Now it goes on to say that this decision though should be made by the patient if he is competent and able. So that's so important that we don't, we don't wanna hand those kinds of decisions over to policy makers, right? We don't wanna hand those kinds of decisions over to bureaucrats.

We don't wanna hand those kinds of decisions over to anyone else. This belongs to the patient if he's competent and able or family. It says here those legally entitled to act for the patient whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. So that typically would be the family of the patient if that patient is not able to make those kinds of decisions for him or herself and that's so important. We want to keep this at the most local level possible. Why?

Because we're talking about life and death. We're talking about the death of a human being, an innocent human life. And so this is so critical that we understand that there's limits at the same time. This kind of decision is not immediately to be given, handed over to anyone other than the patient, patient's family, those immediately concerned

with the wellbeing of the person who is ill. Now last note, last note, paragraph 2279, it says, even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care, remember that's different than burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate care, even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person

cannot legitimately be interrupted. So the use of painkillers to alleviate sufferings of the dying even at 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. I remember coming across a story about someone talking about you know we'll have a little morphine this you know this person's on morphine to numb the pain of their death Why not just kick it up a little bit and then you hasten their death even more that would be morally illicit, right? That would be that would be euthanasia that would be murder but to allow more to use morphine or whatever the drug is I'm no doctor here Whatever that drug is that can alleviate the suffering. So palliative care is a special form of love In fact, that's the second to last sentence here palliative care

It's a special form of disinterested charity. It's it's a special form of love as such It should be encouraged and that is that is so important, you know the Catholic Church And not not only I mentioned the beginning of this Catholic Church is not only provided adoption services around the world this, Catholic Church has not only provided adoption services around the world, but the Catholic Church has also invented the hospital system. The Catholic Church invented palliative care in so many ways. I mean, yes, there's other cultures that have their own way

of caring for their old, caring for their dying, caring for their sick, but the ways in which there are so many good people who have been motivated by Jesus and by his concern for the poor, the outcast, the sick, the ones everyone else say, oh, that's life unworthy of life or that is no quality of life at all. Those people motivated by Jesus who have come into the lives of those who are dying and journeyed with them from this life to the next is Is not minimal. It is incredibly significant And so there are I just want to I know there's people who are listening or part of this catechism in your community

This is your job doctors and nurses Medical staff. I know many of you work actually work at palliative care treatment centers or hospice where this, your job is to help people in those last days and last hours of their life. And I'm so grateful for you. This, this section of the catechism, although it deals specifically with the sins against human life of euthanasia, in a backwards way, you knowuthanasia in a backwards way, you know, kind of in a backwards way, it highlights the good work that you do.

It highlights the fact that you're there when people are fighting, fighting, fighting against death and you're there when people say, okay, I recognize, I recognize my inability to impede it and now I have to accept it. You're for for all that and I thank you so much you if though many of us have lived through this Many of us have lived through it with family members Maybe with your parents with your grandparents with your children with your siblings Okay, we're gonna fight this we're gonna fight this we're gonna fight this and then at some point it's okay That was a good fight and now I'm just merely going to accept the fact that we are unable to stop it and so that that

transition it's all Catholic it's all Christian we fight against death because life is a good and then at some point at some point we accept death because eternal life is a good And this is it's all the piece but we come back to this again once again What we have here when it comes to the battle of euthanasia against euthanasia We have two worldviews and one worldview is a quality of life ethic That if your like quality of life is not at whatever level some subjective person puts it then it's life unworthy of life is not at whatever level some subjective person puts it, then it's life unworthy of life. Versus a sanctity of life ethic that says regardless of how weak or how sick you are,

regardless of whether there's anyone here for you or whether you're all alone, your life is worthy of life. And not just worthy of fighting for, but your life, you, have been purchased at a price by our Lord Jesus Christ, by His life and His death and His resurrection, from the strongest among us to the weakest, from the healthiest among us to the sickest, and from the most brilliant among us to the most challenged. Every life is worthy of life. Jesus has declared this to be absolutely true by his life, death and resurrection.

We reject a quality of life ethic and we cling to and live out a sanctity of life ethic. Anyways, that's what I got today. You guys, I'm praying for you. Please pray for me. My name is Father Mike. I cannot wait to see you tomorrow. God bless.