In today's Gospel we read of an unusual event:
Our Saviour weeps. Yes, the Son of God sheds tears. Whoever weeps must be
either in physical or mental anguish . . This is the reason for the tears of
Jesus, for the tears of God. . . . Tears for the misrule, the injustice and
man's willful refusal of Him and the resulting evils, which, in His divine
omniscience, He foresees and which in His justice He must decree. . . . It is a
fearful thing when man sets his will against the will of God, and it is because
of this that Our Lord is lamenting over Jerusalem.
 |
| Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen |
The
passage above is the opening of a remarkable sermon [full text here] delivered August 3rd,
1941, in the city of Muenster in the German state of Westphalia. It is one of a
series of sermons that summer by Bishop Clemens August von Galen harshly
criticizing the policies of the Nazi government of Germany, at the same time that Hitler’s Wehrmacht
was thundering toward Moscow. In his
homily of August 3rd, the Bishop of Muenster (dubbed the “Lion of
Muenster” because of his outspoken bravery in the face of the Nazi tyranny) went
on to say:
For the past several months it has been reported that, on
instructions from Berlin, patients who have been suffering for a long time from
apparently incurable diseases have been forcibly removed from homes and
clinics. Their relatives are later informed that the patient has died, that the
body has been cremated and that the ashes may be claimed. There is little doubt
that these numerous cases of unexpected death in the case of the insane are not
natural, but often deliberately caused, and result from the belief that it is
lawful to take away life which is unworthy of being lived. This ghastly
doctrine tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give
legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and
the incapacitated.
Bishop
Von Galen stresses that these people are not being put to death because of some
crime they committed, or because they represented a threat of some kind:
No, these are not the reasons why these unfortunate patients are
to be put to death. It is simply because that according to some doctor, or
because of the decision of some committee, they have no longer a right to live
because they are ‘unproductive citizens’. The opinion is that since they can no
longer make money, they are obsolete machines . . .
He
reminds his flock in forceful terms that murder is violation of God’s
commandments:
. . .there are sacred obligations of conscience
from which no one can release us and which we must fulfil even at the price of
death itself. At no time, and under no circumstances whatsoever, may a man,
except in war and in lawful defence, take the life of an innocent person.
But
he also give a very common-sense argument against the destruction of the
infirm, one accessible to people of all faiths, or no faith at all:
Here we are dealing with human beings . . . unproductive—perhaps!
But have they, therefore, lost the right to live? Have you or I the right to
exist only because we are ‘productive’?
. . .
Once admit the right to kill unproductive persons . . . then none
of us can be sure of his life. We shall be at the mercy of any committee that
can put a man on the list of unproductives. There will be no police protection,
no court to avenge the murder and inflict punishment upon the murderer. Who can
have confidence in any doctor? He has but to certify his patients as
unproductive and he receives the command to kill.
Once
the state, or a committee or, ahem, a panel created by the government has
the power to declare one human life not worth living, then it can decree death
for any one of us, because it will no longer recognize that we have an inherent
right to exist. If it has the power to remove such people from their unwilling
families, it will have removed one of the last meager checks on totalitarian
tyranny. At the same time, it will necessarily corrupt the medical profession,
because doctors will be transformed from healers to dealers in death. Who indeed can trust his doctor in such a
world?
I was reminded of Bishop von Galen’s
sermon by this story [here],
about a young mother whose disabled child has been taken from her by the state,
which refuses to lift a Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNR) on the baby, even though
the mother has not been declared unfit. A lower court has already sided with
the state against the mother and her family. This case did not happen in Nazi
Germany, however, but is taking place right now in my own State of Maine. And, while it doesn’t involve active
euthanasia, that is the direct killing of the child, forcing the
unwilling family to stand by helplessly while “care providers” allow the child
to die is not that far removed. Fortunately, a collection of advocacy groups
including the
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland
have filed amicus briefs on the mother’s behalf, and are providing her
with legal help in her appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. As recounted in the Fox News story, a brief filed by the group echoes the Bishop’s
argument cited above [italics mine]:
State officials,
according to the attorneys on behalf of the girl's mother, have an interest in
affirming the medical profession as one that heals and does no harm.
"Allowing a physician to mandate that a mother agree to a DNR does not
properly respect that duty," the brief continues. "The
integrity of the profession depends on its ability to utilize the best
practices, with the best information, to promote patient well-being. In
contrast, a physician-mandated DNR would be fraught with uncertainty and
risk."ADF Senior Counsel Steve Aden said the state is effectively arguing
that the girl’s mother is unfit to make medical decisions for her child and
called upon the state’s highest court to preserve the value of life.
The brief also argues forcefully for the rights of
parents to control the care of their children.
There
have been some positive developments in this case the past couple of days:
Governor Paul LePage has said that regardless of the court’s decision, he will
not allow the DNR order to be put into effect against the mother’s wishes (I’m
not looking to make this a political ad, but I can’t help but point out that
there are real consequences of electing candidates who are pro-life . . . or
not). That will help in this particular
case, but the legal precedent will be set by the court – and even a favorable
decision now can be overturned later. And
of course if LePage is re-elected (the oddsmakers don’t favor it), the next
governor, regardless of political affiliation, is likely to act
differently. In future cases where the
state removes a child from his or her parent, there is a good possibility that families
here will be in the position described by Bishop von Galen: “We shall be at the mercy
of any committee that can put a man on the list of unproductives. There will be
no police protection, no court to avenge the murder . . .” There is a persuasive argument that such committees
are also mandated in the federal Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).
Bishop von Galen’s allegations were
considered so shocking at the time that German authorities banned publication
of his sermons, and allied planes dropped them in leaflet form onto German
troops in the hopes of rousing their consciences against their government. After the war, participation in the
euthanasia program was one of the atrocities for which Nazi doctors were tried
by the Nuremburg Tribunal [here]. And yet today respected public officials feel
no shame about asserting the government’s right to remove those whose lives
they consider “not worth living” from their families and allowing (or even
causing) those people to die. We need
more von Galens, and not just in the pulpit (although assuredly we need them
there); we all need to find a little “Lion
of Muenster” somewhere inside and roar in defense of human life. Nothing else will prevent our slide into a
society where none of us can trust our doctor, or be sure that loved ones won’t
be taken away from us to be discarded like “obsolete machines.”
Note:
Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on 9
October 2005; his feast day is March 22nd.
No comments:
Post a Comment