« Webmonkey Makes New York Times Look Tacky | Main | A Few New Facts, A Few New Allegations, and What Passes for Democracy In Our Student Senate »

What is it about the Papal Eulogies?

True, today the world lost a pope, but it's always nice to know that when it comes to the faceless orthodoxy of major American newspaper op-ed authors, the old-time religion is alive and kicking. Just look at the New York Times:

The long, bitter fight over the unknowing Terri Schiavo was a stark contrast to the passing of this pontiff, whose own mind was keenly aware of the gradual failure of his body. The pope would certainly never have wanted his own end to be a lesson in the transcendent importance of allowing humans to choose their own manner of death. But to some of us, that was the exact message of his dignified departure.

"Some of us" obviously meaning "editorialists who just can't resist getting our licks in, no matter how nonsensical." Since when was "the transcendent importance of allowing humans to choose their own manner of death" the value of any major religion, much less Catholicism? Death is, if anything, the great despiser of choice, showing little care to any man's wishes as to his "manner of death." That's hardly a Catholic concept: ever since the days of Norns or Moire, man has known that Atropos is not a gentle mistress.

But hey, the New York Times will draw its own lesson, and that's not going to stop them from singin' that old time secularism, even if they could have had the grace to shut up.

Worse yet is the Washington Post:

He could be -- and was -- called conservative in matters of Catholic doctrine, in his determination to maintain such institutions as the male celibate clergy and in his strict adherence to the church's positions on birth control and abortion. He provoked debate and dissent within the church with his stands in these areas, as well as opposition from outside, including from these pages, for policies that affect the temporal realm, especially in matters of population control.

(emphasis added) In the obligatory "conservative" paragraph, the Post can only focus on one thing: sex and its consequences. H. L. Mencken once wrote that Puritanismwas "[t]he haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." When did modern liberalism become the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might disapprove of some act of sex?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What is it about the Papal Eulogies?:

» Idle thoughts on the papacy from Glorfindel of Gondolin
I'm not a Catholic, so I don't usually think about the Pope very often. Now that John Paul II has passed away, though, I'd love to eavesdrop on some of the furious political maneuvering that must be going on in... [Read More]

» Idle thoughts on the papacy from Glorfindel of Gondolin
I'm not a Catholic, so I don't usually think about the Pope very often. Now that John Paul II has passed away, though, I'd love to eavesdrop on some of the furious political maneuvering that must be going on in... [Read More]

» LAT on JPII from ProfessorBainbridge.com
The LA Times criticizes John Paul II's papacy for failing to fall into line with elite Blue State opinion on sex, sexuality, gender, and the rest of the politically correct tenets of modern left-liberalism. Indeed, virtually every article on the [Read More]

Comments

I'm trying really hard to hold my peace this weekend. Not easy for someone who's "part of the new ideology of evil."
Well... since the end of the Cold War, it's the only thing the church has been conservative about. Poverty? Debt relief? Obligations of the rich? Capital punishment? War in Iraq? They're positively pinko. (You know, like Jesus.) But the church's knickers have been a positive snit about sex. It's their big-visibility issue (or group of issues). So I'm not entirely sure that every time someone mentions the church's conservatism and cites evidence concerning sex really means anything. Sometimes, at least, things are what they look like.
Yes, TtP... opposition to euthenasia, a very sexy issue indeed. It's not the only thing the Church has been conservative about. It is, however, what really gets people like the Post in a twist.
I have no idea where you're going with this, but with regard to this bit... "The pope would certainly never have wanted his own end to be a lesson in the transcendent importance"... I saw some reports that he had refused to be returned to hospital at one stage. (ah yes, here we go.. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3236088a12,00.html) Which certainly involved him making a choice about the manner of his death. You might believe that only editorialists care about the Pope, but I'd rather think that for those who accept his authority over life, death, euthansia and everything in between his personal decisions at this stage become rather interesting. All world religions have something to say about death (and most maintain that suicide gets you damned, which seems like a major value to me)Since all of us die, those of us who are religious presumably take an interest in what our religion of choice says on the subject. The Catholic church has a lot to say about death, including things like last rites and extreme unction. Other religions suggest witholding medical care in some or all circumstances, and some forms of treatment, comdemning to an early death those who would otherwise live. Some believe that life should be maintained in any circumstances for as long as possible. Personally, as Yossarian put it 'I'm going to live forever or die trying'
The ignorance of the media (and, less culpably, as resultant therefrom) in reporting and analysing the principles which underlie Catholic teaching on end of life ethics is most unfortunate. It begins with the fact that there is no set of "last rites" in the Church, and that the official changes to the understanding of the Sacrament of the Sick (which is not limited to the terminally ill, let alone the imminently dying) have been in place for decades and are not kept secret. The "freedom to determine the manner of one's death" is a phrase of little worthwhile application. Adding "transcendent" to it may make it amenable to Justice Kennedy, but it only adds to its vacuity, given that it's doubtful most people who believe in assisted suicide believe in much that's "transcendent" to begin with. For people interested in a good statement of Catholic principles relevant to a case like Schiavo's, I recommend this site: http://www.pacatholic.org/bishops'%20statements/nutr.htm Other relevant issues to undertake would be the traditional distinctions in action theory between acts and omissions, the principle of double effect, etc. These are complicated doctrines, and worthy of debate. But simply lumping together the many and varied types of "end of life decisions" under "he got to decide, so he's a hypocrite for saying others shouldn't" is so simple-minded that its repeated invocation by sophisticated people beggars belief.
Fortunately I didn't say any such thing. I only said that people - especially Catholics - would want to take account of the Pope's example when drawing their own conclusions. I only cited last rites and such to show that the Church does have a position on death. It might not make it a major value (Tony's point), but it's certainly something religion is intrinsically tied up with.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students