Death With Dignity lives on in Oregon.

[Pure]

To Colly, and an important doc setting out The Culture of Life

Hi Colly,
you said,

A "culture of life" that makes no room in its scope for situations where life has lost all joy and become an unremitting hell of pain and suffering, is not admirable to me.

The 'culture of life' is a somewhat coherent set of positions, summarized for Catholics in John Paul's encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae" (Gospel of Life) in 1995. Probably the phrase was around before that, but JP dramatized and explained it, and it was picked up by the 'right', Bush, Rove, and Co and evangelicals. It includes opposition to abortion and euthanasia, but also to war and capital punishment and other things. The Evangelical folks have mostly agreed, and now use the phrase, but they vary their "Culture of Life," for example, to include capital punishment.

Interesting also is the Pope's clear statement that the public and the legislators--not to say the doctors--are just plain wrong [at sections 3,4, 20]; the democratic process is corrupt and its outcome, morally erroneous. I don't know about the Pope, but for some of the Christian Right, if some SC judges overturn what liberal legislators have allowed by way of, say, abortion, that's just fine. The government and the true churches then could attempt to educate the public to bring them around to the truth, and to electing legislators with non-erroneous views.

Anyway, here's key parts of the doc, for you or anyone interested. The 'end of life' part is highlighted at article 15.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html


Ioannes Paulus PP. II

Evangelium vitae

{1500 words of excerpts from over 30,000}

To the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women religious, lay Faithful, and all People of Good Will, on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life

1995.03.25




The incomparable worth of the human person
[…]

2.The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart's expectations while infinitely surpassing them.

Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.
[…]

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this "Gospel", the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

For this reason, man--living man--represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church. 4

3.Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale[.…]

...a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and-if possible-even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems.

4. All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline.

Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defence and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and contradicted, [...]

11. Here though we shall concentrate particular attention on another category of attacks, affecting life in its earliest and in its final stages, attacks which present new characteristics with respect to the past and which raise questions of extraordinary seriousness.

It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as "crimes"; paradoxically they assume the nature of "rights", to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel. Such attacks strike human life at the time of its greatest frailty, when it lacks any means of self-defence.

12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin.

This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak:

15. Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.

Various considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of which converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation brought on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor. Such a situation can threaten the already fragile equilibrium of an individual's personal and family life, with the result that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those close to the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if misplaced compassion.

All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.

On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally.[...]

20. This [subjective] view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus soci- ety becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds.

At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life. […]


This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part.

In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.

The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: […]

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).[…]
"And from your face I shall be hidden" (Gen 4:14): the eclipse of the sense of God and of man

21. In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death", we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism ….

28. This situation, with its lights and shadows, ought to make us all fully aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the "culture of death" and the "culture of life". We find ourselves not only "faced with" but necessarily "in the midst of" this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You are right, people never want to let go - living people that is, I saw it a few times, but what about those who are diing? A living person looses one, a diing person looses everyone. This is a really complex, and yet fascinating discussion, and I need to be more in a mind to talk to it. Shang, as you have quoted, suggests (though I know horsey has a wider perspective) that we are all judeo-christian (Hell reference).

Goodness, humans have not changed since they were born of the universe.

Please clarify the statement "seperation could be eternal, depending on your religion'? I do not understand that.

Some religions hold that suicide is a sin. For a devout believer then, you rloved one isn't only gone, but has departed with sin. Some fundamentalist groups would hold that a person whose final act was a deliberate sin won't make it to heaven, thus the act cuts them off from their family even beyond the grave.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I understand your objections to Bush, but would find this debate more welcoming if you might refer directly to Bush and his policies rather than generally to the idea of a culture of life. While I recognize that President Bush uses that term, I do not believe that he owns it or that his and Mr. Ashcroft's actions fairly reflect the concept. Many other voices within the broad umbrella of groups comitted to a view of life as sanctified or precious do not embrace the types of actions or ideas you describe.

I do believe that it is possible for my own suffering to serve a moral purpose. I recognize that not everyone believes this. Because I recognize that not everyone believes this, I feel that the best answer is for the government to confine itself to resolving conflicts of human rights and responsibilities and for the church to handle the question of morality. In the case of assisted suicide, I perceive no conflict of rights; there is no other person involved whose rights are affected so substantially by the person who elects to die that that other person's rights should take precedence. I still believe life to be sacred and a culture of life to be important; however, I do not feel that the church has the right to legislate it in this case. In some ways legislation of all morality is antithetical to the development of moral character and spiritual determination. Goodness lies in choosing good, not in being preventing from doing anything else. When it will harm no one else, I generally think it better to let people choose their own actions.



I beg your pardon, but I certainly do not. I stated that I personally consider suicide a sin. I would never suggest that any other specific person must believe this, or that everyone believes this or anything else given as my personal opinion.

Shanglan

Js, last post notwithstanding, I have never heard the term used before it was used as a blanket policy statement to cover a wide range of massively intrusive policies that violate just about every right citizen's take for granted as well as a huge intrusion of the fed into reserve powers of the state, shang.

Let me clarify, in my posts, it was this policy statement and it alone I reffer to. I meant no connotation of the term beyond the President's policy statement. I was ignorant of the fact other connotations exist and the the term has another specific connotation.

 

[Pure]

Note to Colly,

It's pretty clear that the phrase 'culture of life' was disseminated to millions in 1997, by the Pope's encyclical. It seems that it was picked up by the evangelicals, immediately.

Based on these two groups, it appeared in Bush's speeches in 2000 and ultimately the Republican Party Platform of 2004 (with a meaning closer to that of the evangelicals, in that capital punishment advocacy--instead of opposition, as with the RCC--was included).

From Wikipedia, I think a fair account:

======
[start excerpt]
Following the promulgation of the Pope's encyclical, The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute was founded in the United States to promote the concepts behind the Evangelium Vitae. It was recognized and blessed by the Pope in 1997.

The "culture of life" entered the mainstream of US politics on October 3, 2000, during the U.S. presidential election. It was cited by George W. Bush during a televised debate with Vice President Al Gore in which Bush expressed concerns that a newly-approved contraceptive pill would cause more women to have abortions, while his goal was to make abortions more rare and to "promote a culture of life." Bush went on to say:

Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors or allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors.

Sure, we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. [1]

As the media pointed out, this was a direct borrowing from Pope John Paul II's language. His invocation of the phrase was seen as an attempt to reach out to moderate Catholics who dislike abortion, while not coming out so strongly against the practice that it would alienate voters.

It was, however, criticised by some Catholics for being inconsistent with Bush's strong support for the death penalty and his repeated authorisation of executions while serving as Governor of Texas. He returned to the same theme on a number of other occasions during his campaign, stating that "I think the next president must talk about a culture of life."

The "culture of life" has repeatedly been invoked by politicians during Bush's terms as President of the United States. Notable instances included:


George W. Bush signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, surrounded by members of Congress.the summer of 2001, when a major political controversy occurred over the federal government's position on stem cell research and President Bush faced accusations of backtracking on his earlier "culture of life" rhetoric;

March 2003, when the US Congress passed a bill prohibiting partial-birth abortions which proponents cited as advancing the "culture of life";

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April 2004, which defined a violent attack on a pregnant women as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her unborn child - this was promoted as improving the rights of the unborn, hence advancing the "culture of life";

The US presidential election, 2004, when the phrase was incorporated into the platform of the Republican Party, referring to the party's opposition to abortion, stem cell research involving the destruction of human embryos and euthanasia.

The Terri Schiavo controversy of March 2005, when the phrase was used in support of legislative and legal efforts to prolong the life of a brain-damaged woman.

[end wikipedia excerpt]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's pretty clear that the phrase 'culture of life' was disseminated to millions in 1997, by the Pope's encyclical. It seems that it was picked up by the evangelicals, immediately.

Based on these two groups, it appeared in Bush's speeches in 2000 and ultimately the Republican Party Platform of 2004 (with a meaning closer to that of the evangelicals, in that capital punishment advocacy--instead of opposition, as with the RCC--was included).

From Wikipedia, I think a fair account:

======
[start excerpt]
Following the promulgation of the Pope's encyclical, The Culture of Life Foundation & Institute was founded in the United States to promote the concepts behind the Evangelium Vitae. It was recognized and blessed by the Pope in 1997.

The "culture of life" entered the mainstream of US politics on October 3, 2000, during the U.S. presidential election. It was cited by George W. Bush during a televised debate with Vice President Al Gore in which Bush expressed concerns that a newly-approved contraceptive pill would cause more women to have abortions, while his goal was to make abortions more rare and to "promote a culture of life." Bush went on to say:

Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors or allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Sure, we can work together to create a culture of life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. [1]

As the media pointed out, this was a direct borrowing from Pope John Paul II's language. His invocation of the phrase was seen as an attempt to reach out to moderate Catholics who dislike abortion, while not coming out so strongly against the practice that it would alienate voters.

It was, however, criticised by some Catholics for being inconsistent with Bush's strong support for the death penalty and his repeated authorisation of executions while serving as Governor of Texas. He returned to the same theme on a number of other occasions during his campaign, stating that "I think the next president must talk about a culture of life."

The "culture of life" has repeatedly been invoked by politicians during Bush's terms as President of the United States. Notable instances included:


George W. Bush signing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, surrounded by members of Congress.the summer of 2001, when a major political controversy occurred over the federal government's position on stem cell research and President Bush faced accusations of backtracking on his earlier "culture of life" rhetoric;

March 2003, when the US Congress passed a bill prohibiting partial-birth abortions which proponents cited as advancing the "culture of life";

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act in April 2004, which defined a violent attack on a pregnant women as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her unborn child - this was promoted as improving the rights of the unborn, hence advancing the "culture of life";

The US presidential election, 2004, when the phrase was incorporated into the platform of the Republican Party, referring to the party's opposition to abortion, stem cell research involving the destruction of human embryos and euthanasia.

The Terri Schiavo controversy of March 2005, when the phrase was used in support of legislative and legal efforts to prolong the life of a brain-damaged woman.

[end wikipedia excerpt]

that's why I noted in my response your later post, which I read this morning, notwithstanding

 

[Pure]

Bush woos Catholics and Evangelicals--"culture of life"

A typical event-- united church and state

'Culture of life' emerging in America, president tells marchers

Jan 23, 2004
By Tom Strode

Baptist Press

Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)--America has made "real progress toward building a culture of life" in the last three years, and his administration will continue to support that effort, President Bush told thousands of pro-life marchers gathered near the White House Jan. 22.

Speaking by phone from New Mexico, Bush urged those participating in the annual March for Life to "continue with civility and respect to remind our fellow citizens that all life is sacred and worthy of protection. I know as you return to your communities you will redouble your efforts to change hearts and minds, one person at a time. And this is the way we will build a lasting culture of life, a compassionate society in which every child is born into a loving family and protected by law."

[...]
Southern Baptist public-policy specialist Barrett Duke took part in the march and said he was "especially impressed by the energy of this great gathering of people."

"After 31 years, Americans' burden to save the unborn from the gruesome practice of abortion has not waned," said Duke, vice president of public policy and research for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "Despite desperate attempts at indoctrination by pro-abortion forces, most Americans still believe abortion is wrong. [...]commitment to life for the unborn.

"Today's march showed, once again, that the commitment to end the abortion tragedy in this nation transcends practically every conceivable ethnic, religious and ideological barrier," he said.

Young people dominated the crowd, with many, if not most, of the marchers of high school age or younger. Judging by the signs, most of the marchers were Roman Catholics.

The marchers came to Washington this year at a time when many pro-lifers are pointing to encouraging signs for their movement. Recent polls have shown young people are more pro-life than older Americans and women are becoming increasingly pro-life. The abortion rate has declined. Bush and Congress have enacted some pro-life measures during his three years in office.

In his seven-minute telephone address, the president pointed to some of his administration's actions, including the November signing into law of a ban on partial-birth abortion, which involves the killing of a nearly totally delivered child normally in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy.

There are other pro-life measures that need to be enacted, including a comprehensive ban on human cloning, Bush told the marchers.
=========