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.