All that came to mind today when I read Wesley J. Smith's report on the FT blog about a bill before the California legislature that would require Catholic nursing homes to allow euthanasia. Writes Smith:
If A.B. 374 becomes law, Catholic and other religiously oriented nursing homes will be forced to choose between shutting down, selling, or cooperating in assisted suicide. That this could cause untold misery for thousands of helpless sick and elderly people matters to its authors not a whit. The culture of death brooks no dissent.
To be sure, the FT symposium was hugely controversial, with some people closely associated with the magazine leaving it angry that the publication even suggested that ceasing to support the US constitutional framework is on the table. That said -- and having just finished P.D. James's "The Children of Men," which I was reading in tandem with Corrie ten Boom's "The Hiding Place" (about how she and her Christian family were sent to the concentration camp for hiding Jews) -- I do wonder at what point the "culture of death" will have progressed so far into law (either by judicial fiat or democratically) that morally responsible people will in some significant sense have to become enemies of the government. The Holocaust didn't happen all at once, and it wasn't imposed on the German people. It involved a gradual process of desensitizing them to the sanctity of life, and getting them to slowly but steadily accept the concept of "life unworthy of life." For the German Cardinal Clemens von Galen, that day came in 1941, when he delivered a stunning speech denouncing the Nazi government's forced euthanasia program. For the Lutheran pastor-martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that came earlier, in the 1930s, when he returned to Germany and organized church resistance to the Nazi program.
Might that day come to the United States? If so, how will we know it? And what will it mean for Christians, Jews and others, whatever their political orientation, who understand what's going on, and refuse to go along? Thoughts?
UPDATE: A conservative Catholic friend and reader of this blog e-mails:
I like to fantasize about a Catholic bishop saying something like this:
“Hell is going to freeze over before we give in. Come and get us. Sue us out of existence. Send the police to shut our homes down and put our patients on the street. I promise you: the cameras will be rolling while granny clutches at her IV stand as some jackboot drags her off, weeping, to a lice-infested state-run sewer. I’m sure your opponents will be only too happy to have that footage available when election-time rolls around.
“And when it’s all over, the taxpayers of California will have the privilege of shouldering even more of the healthcare burden than they do already, I’ll get to dump one of my biggest moral, financial, and administrative problems on somebody else, and you’ll look like stupid jerks. I’ll be laughing my [expletive] off at you while I try to decide what to do with all my new-found spare time and money. Enjoy it while you can, mongoloids!”
(Wow, it felt really good to write that.)
Of course, you have to be a man to play chicken with the badguys.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Watsy: A point worth considering. But I have a lot of experience in this arena. Definitions are often changed from common meanings. For example, "counseling" as defined in AB 374. One would think it would mean therapy to overcome a mental condition that could distort decision making. But in AB 374, it merely means a consultation to determine whether distorted thinking exists. "Capacity" doesn't mean competence, but merely means the ability to communicate health care decisions. Etc.
Also, I have also butted heads with both Assemblypersons in question and they have butted heads with me. We all have bumps. Thanks.
Rod, you asked for thoughts in the original post. This is what has been most on my mind. Regardless of the merits/demerits of this particular bill, I am greatly disturbed that people who think of themselves as conservatives are putting into play the idea that they might refuse allegiance to the constitution of the United States. I didn t read the original symposium, so this is the first I ve heard of it. I love my country, and I m appalled that anyone would cast it away so easily. Like most states, it was founded in evil and bloodshed and enriched by shameful means. It is contentious, vulgar, and often mean. This has been true ever since its birth. We got our land via genocide, just for starters. So the idea that we sometimes do wrong under cover of law is not new. Nevertheless, America is still the most beautiful place on earth, and our constitution is still the last best hope of freedom. Comparing our present government to Nazi Germany seems to me hysterical and self-dramatizing. How does calling for an overthrow of the government from the Right differ from subverting it from a Stalinist perspective? How can conservatives, of all people, believe one can call on those forces and not reap disaster?
I quote you A Man For All Seasons: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! Everyone is still free to work through the law. Convince the voters of California to amend or reject this law, if that s what you want. If you don t like the judges we have, work for a government that will appoint new ones--bearing in mind, as you do, that other citizens who disagree with you and will work against you have a legitimate right to do so. I have no sympathy for right-wing factions who were willing to embrace power when they thought it would serve their ends, but would now damn the entire nation because they are affronted in some particulars. What bunker are they going to crawl into once they ve de-legitimized America? I d be a lot more upset about this if I thought the rest of the country shared this hysteria. I suspect that even the alarmists are exaggerating for purposes of propaganda. That is a very, very dangerous game to play at this point. Meanwhile, I have faith that my fellow citizens are not ready to give up on their country, and that while the heralds of doom are having their hissy fits, the rest of us will still be going to the polls and finding a way to get along with each other and preserve this glorious republic of freedom.
Oh, see Professor Bainbridge on this topic. (And Wesley Smith's response -- the man gets around.)
Franklin, There's no greater compliment than saying that you trust a person. Thank you. BTW:I trust you, too. You are a man of honor. Singalaris said, Convince the voters of California to amend or reject this law, if that s what you want. If you don t like the judges we have, work for a government that will appoint new ones--bearing in mind, as you do, that other citizens who disagree with you and will work against you have a legitimate right to do so. Mr. Smith, That was my point to you. You may not like the people writing the legislation. You may be right about them. They might be snakes. If your objective is to get the people who read that publication upset, then calling names will easily do the trick. However, if your objective is to expand your circle of influence, then you might want to think again about how you put things. One of the freedoms in this country that I value most is the freedom to practice my religion and the freedom to not be forced to practice another. I rarely side with the religious right on current issues because I do not see the government interfering in their right of practice. If I did see that happening, I would join them in the fight. I think that there are many people just like me in our country. To reach us so that we can hear and evaluate your concerns, you must frame your issue using a rational and respectful tone. You might, already, do that in publications read by the multitudes.
Wesley, as you must already know from your comments, the public review process needs voices like yours to raise the issues that are important to you in any given piece of proposed legislation. My frustration, which you go full tilt, is in commentary that seems to rush right past that public access to the process and makes assumptions that just cannot be supported. And when I write "supported", I mean it in the personal reaction sense as well as the rational, evidentiary sense. Maybe it's unfair of me to see lack of evidence as proof of lack of effort, but when you (general and specific) publish commentary on the legislative process, it would help the following dialogue immensely if you could at least mention whether you've raised your concerns with the authors of the statute. Just knowing that you are aware of this access can go a long way to mitigating in-kind reactions. For the record, I am a registered Democrat in a Democrat-machine city, and I never pull the big lever. I take all my rights and duties of citizenship very seriously, and if I seem to unfairly hold others to that standard, I at least can show that my walk matches my talk. I experience the process from the inside. That doesn't make me an expert, but it does qualify me to point out when others show ignorance of the process. I'm glad you showed your bumps. It reassures me more than I can express.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.