Pope Benedict to Terminally Ill: Suck it Up!
Pope Benedict XVI in Lourdes, France
September 15, 2008
Photo: Carsten Koall/Getty Images
That was the message from Pope Benedict XVI during an open-air mass at Lourdes, a site popular among Catholics who believe that they can be healed through divine intervention rather than through scientific medicine. I wonder how much of a money-maker this site is for the Catholic Church because of how much is spent by the desperate and of course by curious tourists, but thus far no one has regrown a limb or experienced any other clear miracles.
In his homily, the pope said the ill should pray to find "the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God." The Vatican vehemently maintains that life must continue to its natural end. ...The pope urged the ailing to remember that "dignity never abandons the sick person."
"Unfortunately we know only too well: the endurance of suffering can upset life's most stable equilibrium, it can shake the firmest foundations of confidence, and sometimes even leads people to despair of the meaning and value of life," the pope said. "There are struggles that we cannot sustain alone, without the help of divine grace," he said.
Source: Breitbart
It would probably help to remember that while people today tend to assume that physical pain is evil in itself, traditional Catholic doctrine teaches that pain can have important spiritual, emotional, psychological and even physical benefits for the person in question. Whereas we tend to think of pain in a medical context, which is to say a sign of damage which needs to be repaired, there are other "models" of pain which treat it as something very different.
Most of these models of pain can be found in religion, but there are a couple of secular contexts in which we can find remnants of the idea that pain can be good — for example, in athletics (“no pain, no gain”) and some initiation rites. In most models of pain, there has to be a community of people involved. It's never just a single person alone with their pain; there must also be a means for that person to share what they have learned or experienced so that an entire community can benefit.
According to Ariel Glucklich in her book Sacred Pain: Hurting the Body for the Sake of the Soul, the experience of pain and suffering creates an altered state of consciousness in which a person’s own sense of “self” becomes diminished. As a result, a new “presence” can enter, and this presence can create stronger bonds to a religious community or even “God.”
It's probably clear that all of this can be important in a religious community; even if you think it's daft, from a religious perspective it can make a lot of sense. The problem is, though, that it doesn't necessarily make much sense or have to be very important outside religious communities. This is critical because if this religious model of pain plays any role in the efforts to ban euthanasia, then what we have is an effort to impose religious categories and perspectives on secular matters. Individual religious believers are free to find religious meaning in suffering at the end of life, but they can't prevent non-believers from ending their suffering sooner on the assumption that they should be finding meaning or God in their pain.
Comments
“they can’t prevent non-believers from ending their suffering sooner on the assumption that they should be finding meaning or God in their pain.”
Why can’t ‘they’?
All morality, and in essence laws, must have their foundations some place. Claiming those morals that stem from religion should be banned from our laws is foolish; morals stemming from other sources do not have some overriding power over morals stemming from religion.
Most believe, mistakenly, the First Amendment bans all viewpoints stemming from religion in government. Our laws against murder should then be removed, under this logic, because laws against murder stemmed quite directly from the Ten Commandments. Reductio ad absurdum!
It’s not about power, it’s about the government not giving preference to any religious beliefs.
To be more specific, it bans laws based on religion.
Right, because there were no laws against murder before the Ten Commandments. Murder is still legal in countries where the Ten Commandments never became the basis of law.
Absurd indeed.
An issue that should be left to the person going through the pain, isn’t it?
For an additional discussion of this topic, check this link out at “God is for Suckers”:
http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2008/09/17/pope-says-to-accept-death-at-the-hour-chosen-by-god/
Why can’t ‘they’?
Because “‘they’”, the individual religious believers to which Austin was referring (I’m not sure what the scare quotes were for.), don’t have the right to impose their silly, superstitious beliefs on others.
Claiming those morals that stem from religion should be banned from our laws is foolish;
1. Who claimed that?
2. What morals that you think stem from religion shouldn’t be banned?
“morals stemming from other sources do not have some overriding power over morals stemming from religion.”
Stipulating that any such thing exists, nor do morals stemming from religion. Where does that leave us, Skippy?
This idea of god’s will in medicine can be traced back to the church condemning vaccines that prevent people from getting diseases like small pox. They said it is god’s will that these people die from horrible diseases. This of course is nonsense. Why should we let people suffer if it is in our power to eliminate the suffering?
Also I wish everyone would stop trying to use the Ten Commandments as the original idea for morals. This is an insult to people from other parts of the world that developed moral systems with no idea that these commandments even existed. I must remind every one that the punishment for breaking one of these commandments was death. Remnants of the Bronze Age model of morality.
On a lighter note. Does the Pope remind anyone of the Sith Emperor in the Star Wars trilogy? Every time I see him I keep expecting Darth Vader to show up.
“Does the Pope remind anyone of the Sith Emperor in the Star Wars trilogy?”
Luke, I am your holy father.
Yeah, I’ve been refering to him as Pope Palpatine I for a few years now.
Seth did you just copy an paste and not read what adam said?
2. What morals that you think stem from religion shouldn’t be banned?
Our laws against murder should then be removed, under this logic, because laws against murder stemmed quite directly from the Ten Commandments.
Your third comment doesn’t make any sense… Are you saying that there is no such thing or what? You say there are no morals from other sources and none from religion? Are there no morals? skippy? you aren’t very bright.
Why should I care what a Nazi Pope thinks! Weren’t the Romans the ones that crucified Jesus? Why would he leave the Romans to carry on his teachings! My feeling is that once a Nazi always a Nazi! The Roman Catholics were in league with Hitler and helped Nazi’s escape from the Allies! The Catholics should have been tried along side the other Nazi war criminals!
“Terminally Ill” sounds like an awesome name for a rap group.
Todd: yeah, but how long are they likely to last?
I never hear the Pope mentioning keeping people alive by artificial means. Why should we even perform life saving surgery? After all, didn’t their god either give the patient the disease with the intention of killing him slowly and painfully, or allow the devil to do it? Who are we mere mortals to go against the almighty? It would be interesting to present this idea to His Holiness, the next time he needs surgery.
“Your Holiness, we cannot operate on your heart because it is our sincere belief that god is calling you home and we have no right to interfere with god’s will.”
That would go over big!