THE LETTERS OF BERLICCHE AND THE EULOGY OF MADNESS ABOUT EUTHANASIA, CATHOLICITY AND "LAY BELIEVERS"

.

An atheist can also feel right and right euthanasia and express the reasons at any location. I do not dispute the freedom of thought and expression, both sacrosanct and guaranteed for all. But how well these ideas can be considered firmly grounded in Christian roots and in the Enlightenment or in modernity?

.

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

.

PDF interview print format
.

.

.

Michel pacher [1435-1498]. Munich, Old Pinakothek, from the monastery of Novacella: «Agostino, the Devil and the Book of Vices " (1480)

in this period of uncertainty and social confusion due to the covid19 pandemic, it seems strange and out of place to propose a referendum on euthanasia, almost as if it were a topic to be resolved quickly, like the pandemic.

.

I don't want to go into it in long legal discussions, of which I am not an expert, I just want to become a careful observer of the surrounding reality. I don't even like to end up in controversy, as already explained in the past in our book dedicated to super saucepans of cybernetic theologians, however, I feel I have to say something about the effects that the collection of signatures for the referendum is having on the Catholic faithful. Especially after having endured the antics of a priest who "as a priest" said "yes to Euthanasia" and to whom Father Ivano Liguori dedicated precise and severe words.

.

We are obviously talking - again on the subject of supercazzole of supercazzolari - of the team of adult Catholics that, based on acute and in-depth research on Wikipedia which confirm their outlandish theories, they agree to sign easily for the referendum. Then, if anything, they head to Mass without batting an eye, to receive communion, convinced that they have done their utmost; convinced that religion is one thing and politics one thing (!?).

.

Leafing through days ago The Corriere della Sera, among the letters sent to Aldo Grasso I came across the undefined category of the "lay believer", in fact, he called himself a reader. I won't go into judging the person who wrote the letter, of which I have no knowledge and desire to express my judgments. I repeat: I do not know him, apart from the name that I will gladly omit, and I don't even know his education level. Actually though, from the content of the topics offered, I seem to notice that between the lines there is an evident confusion in the contents: confusion maybe a little’ sought and a little’ spontaneous.

.

In this text it seems to re-read an argument that recalls the interlocutory writing of the character Berlicche, in the best known Letters of Berlicche of C. S. Lewis. In this book the little devil Berlicche, while retiring, teaches the youngest Malacoda, which will replace it, to insinuate non-existent but apparently well-founded doubts and thus lead man to sin. The argumentative mode seems very similar to me. The author of that letter is not comparable to the devil, but his writing and arguing recall the idea as described by Lewis.

.

The central reason I would like to focus on lies in the fact that it appears to contain a small summary of what the mainstream cultural holds as sacred truths regarding euthanasia. Above all it is a summary of what the mainstream he believes he is unquestionably aware of the relationship between Catholic morality and euthanasia. Writes the Author: «[…] as a lay believer I ask the uncompromising believers ". The letter begins with the words "lay believer", which does not clarify anything of the writer's knowledge of faith and morals. Even assuming that by layman we mean Greek laos (people), one perceives immediately and intuitively that the writer has not been ordained bosomes, nor is he the son of some religious institute and subsequently ordained a priest. Therefore, logically, it is evident that the Author is not a presbyter. Baptized or not, the writer therefore presents himself as a non-priest who says he believes in something. Subsequently it seems to read one of his contrasting with the so-called "uncompromising believers". Therefore, if there is a conflict, it means that the Author believes he is more understanding, reasonable and open compared to "closed-minded" hardliners. What kind of believers will they be, if he defines himself as a lay believer and by contrast, uncompromising? From here it does not seem to be able to give a certain answer, although at the moment we have not had any clarifications about the content of the author's beliefs. Continuing the reading, however, we have some clarification: «[…] it is permissible for man to extend life for months / years by delegating all vital functions to a machine?».

.

The first question shows a picture of ideas that the Author offers with a series of suggestive questions. Here the rhetorical question technique is used: that is, within questions that are asked as conscientious and scrupulous questions, suggests answers that seem self-evident and that can be deduced from the same questions. So, admitted and not granted that they are, the Author begins with a topic of a medical scientific nature (vital functions / machine). The argument expressed, however, seems a bit’ mistaken. Which means prolonging life and being attached to a car? We would have expected at least a series of explanations with concrete examples and scientific arguments with which it is shown that the existing therapies would have done nothing but delegate all the vital functions to a machine.. All this is instead absent.

.

It takes a little effort’ to understand, whereas there is indeed an objective condition in which a person can delegate all vital functions to a machine that, without any medical intervention, nurses and operators, can by itself take care of its vital functions completely. The indefinite machinery, it may perhaps completely replace the heartbeat, the pulmonary exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide and also the production of secretions of the internal organs? The person who needs this machine, more reasonably it will need an auxiliary technology but never a completely replacement one. In fact, as is known from the concept of the machine itself, it can never and in no way completely replace the integrity of a man's functions, it can only help him live a difficult but still satisfying life, until its natural fulfillment. This person, even if atheist, it can enhance moments of suffering, of pain and addiction as moments in which it expresses all its uniqueness and beauty, where auxiliary technology can make him discover hidden talents and resilience abilities that not even he knew he possessed.

.

There is to remain quite perplexed faced with the question posed, almost as if euthanasia were the only and authentic solution to a lifestyle in which the support of another person or technology is requested. But if so, also the person who lives with prosthetic legs or arms, he may feel he is living an unworthy life and ask to unplug the car and be killed. A quel point, any subjective interpretation of "life worth living" would have free rein and should be taken seriously without even discussing it, replacing the value of the person understood as a moral and legal subject.

.

So far I have not cited any text of the Catholic confessional tradition. Just think only of the Aristotelian ethics of virtues, whereby man experiences harmony in the right virtuous means that helps him to live the tragic moments of life without falling into despair; but also going to philosophers close to the Enlightenment, regarding the centrality of the person I think back to the Kantian lesson of the second categorical imperative, inserted inside the Foundation of the Metaphysics of Costumes:

.

«Act in a way that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of each other, always also as an end and never simply as a means. " (I. Side, Foundation of the metaphysics of morals, BA 67-68)

.

Therefore keep a person alive it means recognizing its centrality, uniqueness and purpose: each person is a propulsive center of ideas, values, creativity, actions that must be accompanied at any moment of one's life and not murdered by an arbitrary and ideological act.

.

Going further, the picture of the arguments becomes complicated:

.

“We should not consider creating an artificial life as a 'mortal sin', contrary to the will of God who had set the time for a natural death? Pulling the “plug” will not mean placing the destiny of one of his creatures back into the hands of God? The two thieves crucified on Golgotha ​​had their legs broken to hasten their death, as the beginning of Passover is imminent. To the crucified Christ, as per prophecies, they were not broken because his Father gathered him to himself in spirit before this extreme torture. It would have been euthanasia "?

.

The Author of the letter immediately it moves from a more or less medical-scientific analysis to a more or less theological one, dwelling on the terms of sin, vita, will of God, predestination. E, in two lines, it claims to propose its own schematic synthesis of the Christological mystery of the Cross and of the Redemption. Needless to say: the two floors, the medical scientific and the theological one, they are assimilated and placed in a rather confusing way. I suspect that the anonymous writer has no notion of the biblical terms and of the Trinitarian mission. He is in fact convinced that he has invincible arguments to support his thesis, that, If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me now that I can say euthanasia in nature. That said, it is clear that the answer is no to all the questions asked. But to answer, we “uncompromising believers” - that we are so insane as to believe in Tradition, to Scripture and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - we must draw precisely on the content of the deposit of faith that constitutes us precisely as "uncompromising believers", according to the Author's meaning. So the answer is no, because giving health to a person who is suffering is not creating artificial life. The man, indeed, it cannot create anything, but only build, manipulate, reworking an existing subject. In Genesis and the second Book of Maccabees [cf.. 2 Mac 7, 28] all this is clear, even to a simple textual analysis: God creates from nothing (in Hebrew only), man builds, produce. Furthermore, God does not first predict what will happen next, that is, definitively the precise date on which a man will die. God indeed, according to Catholic theology, it lives in a state of simultaneous eternal present. He lives in a timeless state in which there is neither before nor after. Therefore he cannot prefix something before or after Him.

.

Unplugging is the act of killing a person wrongfully in need of support and therapy; I don't understand how this can be called a typical act of God's plan. In the logic of the anonymous Author, Jesus, to stay in God's plan he would have to kill the paralytic whom the four friends lowered from the roof onto his little bed [cf.. MC 2, 1-12], the blind people of Jericho who asked him to listen to him [cf.. Mt 20, 29-34], or even murder the centurion's servant, suffering and paralyzed on the bed. Maybe, perhaps the Evangelists did not really understand what Jesus meant. But our anonymous Author understood it better, about two thousand years later, donating "pearls of faith" not uncompromising on the de readers page The Corriere della Sera.

.

I think it is clear that unplug is to disobey God's creative plan, which gives man life and freedom. Only He can call these gifts to himself, because he is its original Giver. It is up to us men only to guard these gifts of God. It should also be noted that the two thieves are broken their legs and Jesus Christ is not, because according to the interpretation of our Author he should have been spared the torture of the cross. To the crucified Christ, as per prophecies, they were not broken because his Father gathered him to himself in spirit before this extreme torture. And this would have been euthanasia?

.

I had a hard time not smiling in the face of this evident fallacy of a theological nature: in fact the Father sends his Son precisely to give his life on the Cross. This is the ultimate goal of the Trinitarian mission of the Incarnation. The Son is sent to generate an effect of grace and redemption in all humanity, through the torture and death of the cross. May the Roman soldiers not break his legs, it is absolutely accidental compared to the terrible sufferings already received and to the death of Jesus which was in fact imminent. The Father does not protect the Son from any pain, indeed Jesus himself is aware of this, of the arrival of his dramatic moment, when he decides to love to the end [cf.. GV, 13-1].

.

The argument does not even work from a logical point of view: if a person is on the cross and is called to himself in spirit, it means that he is already suffering and simply, as is normal, suddenly dies. In fact, the cross was a terrible punishment that was inflicted in ancient times precisely because it generated atrocious suffering and an identifying stigma on the condemned person.. Being crucified meant having previously suffered a large number of slaps, beatings, whipping, spitting and personal insults, after walking a long journey carrying a heavy wooden cross on his shoulders over a body already heavily wounded by a thousand pains. Then ended the journey to the point of raising the cross, the condemned man was nailed hands and feet with long spikes beaten with large hammers directly into the flesh. Eventually hoisted high, exposed to bad weather and atmospheric agents, till death, that given the set of violence suffered was imminent.

.

In the logic of the anonymous Author all this would not be thought of as a torture, I believe and hypothesize, but as a kind of cruise on a luxurious Costa ship, with lots of cocktail e happy hour. It is evident that speaking of taking away the torture of Christ suffering in the Passion exclusively because the Father does not allow the soldiers to break his legs, it shows that the story is unknown, nor the sanctioning institutions of Roman law of the time and least of all the basic notions of faith and Catholic theology. Why then do we launch ourselves into such a curious and imaginative analysis of the Passion of Christ? To the dear reader "lay believer", perhaps it will annoy him to hear that he is wrong about his Christological convictions, based on arguments of the Catholic faith? It would therefore not have been more prudent for him not to express himself on topics that he does not know in depth?

.

Perhaps the most comical part of this exchange correspondence to the reserve itself answer by Aldo Grasso, that by replying to the writer, he testifies that Umberto Veronesi himself - a well-known supporter of euthanasia - had had multiple testimonies from the sick, none of which «in the many years spent at the bedside of terminally ill patients, he explained, no one had ever asked him to die. Everyone had always asked him to heal; even against all evidence, even when it was clearly no longer possible ". What to say: honor the principle of non-contradiction!

.

All this long discussion of a public letter, readable by all and analyzed in a national newspaper, it is therefore destined to show the incredible mentality that underlies the culture of death, so defined by the Holy Pontiff John Paul II. A mentality that has its own dogmas and beliefs, ready to invent and modify ex new also concepts, objective ideas and notions in the biblical context, theological, doctor, juridical, ethical, moral in order to be considered absolutely unassailable.

.

Mind you: an atheist can also feel right and right euthanasia and express the reasons at any location. I do not dispute the freedom of thought and expression, both sacrosanct and guaranteed for all. But how well these ideas can be considered firmly grounded in Christian roots and in the Enlightenment or in modernity? These bizarre arguments are instead only the result of a total ideological reinterpretation that undermines the very freedom of thought and expression on which it presumes to be based. Indeed, a euthanasic mentality will tend to inculcate his ideas in an ideological and propagandistic way, proposing those that contradict it as “bigoted, uncompromising, medieval, confessional "without leaving the freedom to build a critical space in the conscience of man. Which is an intangible shrine and the original source of any freedom.

.

I conclude by greeting the unknown Author with affection clarifying that I am not angry with him, but publicly admitting that certain topics made me smile, right where there would be tears of blood to cry.

.

Rome, 20 September 2021

.

.

NOTICE

Dear Readers,

we had to "set rules" to comment on the articles, a very simple rule: just sign up. As in fact we have explained in the link to which we refer, having on average over two million visits per month The Island of Patmos is prone to receiving hundreds of spam messages generated by robots. To subscribe, just log in WHO and follow the instructions we have detailed for the less experienced.

.

.

.

.

Staff Blog

Father Gabriele

.

.

News from the Dominican Province Roman: visit the official website of the Dominicans, WHO

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

payable to Editions The island of Patmos

IBAN IT 74R0503403259000000301118
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanks [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

..

.

.