A few days ago, several thousand people attended the funeral of Piergiorgio Welby in a Rome square. Many had gathered not to say goodbye, but to protest the Catholic church’s decision to deny him a religious funeral. But why would the church do such a thing? After all this is Italy.
Welby wasn’t just any Italian. He was a staunch advocate of euthanasia, an idea that doesn’t bode well with the Pope. Even more so, Welby was paralyzed and had asked his doctor to die. His doctor responded by administering a sedative and detaching his respirator.
Pope Benedict had weighed in on the situation and condemned it declaring that life was sacred until it’s "natural sunset." The local parish had granted the religious ceremony, but Rome stepped in and put the kibosh on the matter.
One priest was disgusted by the decision citing that the church is rife with hypocrisy by allowing religious weddings for people less deserving:
We [the Church] have allowed funerals for [former Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet, [former Spanish dictator Francisco] Franco and for Mafiosi, but we refuse a funeral for a man just because he asked to die.
I find this an open and shut case. The decision by the Pope is abundantly ignorant and void of intelligence. The Pope claims that all life is sacred until it "natural sunset." What exactly does that mean? Welby was on life support. Isn’t that artificially avoiding the natural sunset? Shouldn’t his decision to go off of life support be praised as he is clearly facing his fate naturally without the aid of technology?
What do you religious folk make of this? When replying, please include your religion because I’d like to see the opinion of all faiths here.
Thanks to Simon for the tip off!
Related posts:
- Happy Gai Jatra My Fine Hindu Friends!
- Pope Surrenders To Darwin; Quickly Changes Subject
- Monty Python–Every Sperm Is Sacred
- Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life
- Marine Corps Declares Kids Find Jesus Boring
December 28th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
How is death by lack of respirator any different from being strangled by cancer cells? You know the church is really trying to get back to it’s grassroots in regards to policy. You know, supporting psychopaths who just so happen to be catholic.
For great reference.
http://www.tv.com/penn-and-teller-bullshit!/holier-than-thou/episode/415462/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;4
Oh well, I’m dying with dignity.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Well, in the Pope’s defense, I think it was Jesus who said, “Quitters never win.”
December 29th, 2006 at 3:48 am
No I think it was Jesus who said, “Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man.” Wait… no… that was Star Trek… I get the two confused alot.
As for this, if one of my cats is living in constant pain, can’t move and eat, then I would have the Humane Society called in if I didn’t have it put down in a similar manner, sedative that you don’t wake up from. If, however, I’m suffering life in constant pain, can’t move can’t eat, won’t recover, hell in this case can’t breath without a pump into my chest… I’m expected by the church to just tough it out and wait for my ‘natural sunset’? If my options are slow, painful, death or quick, painless, good-night forever shots, dose me up and let me die with some dignity.
December 29th, 2006 at 6:16 am
Political decision.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I’m all for people having the choice to die on their own terms.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:26 am
I’m of the opinion that any sane person deserves to have the decision to go painlessly, without fuss, and on their own terms.
I fail to see why others have an issue with this. It doesn’t have anything to do with them. What someone chooses to do with their life is their business, and since euthanasia doesn’t negatively impact on the community (it actually brings positive benefits in terms of health systems) what’s the problem?
Gasmonso brought up a good point. “Natural” and “artificial” life are not clear-cut in today’s world. Medical advances mean that someone who would have be dead at 5 now survive until medicine can’t sustain them any further. Does that therefore make their life “artificial” and therefore fly in the face of God’s wishes? Why does the death of a drug addict, due to the abuse of a natural substance, allow him the choice of a religious funeral, while Mr. Welby is forced to endure and play a waiting game reliant on a machine?
Life is sacred, in whatever sense you wish it to mean. As such, you treat it with respect. A mangled vegetable hooked up to everything medical science can muster… requiring daily bathing, toileting, cleaning and tube feeding whilst draining the economy of funds which could be better used for the living — is that respect for life?
Quite personally, I call it perverted.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Hi guys, news directly from Italy.
The pope should stay at home and pray for him cruelty!
That poor man has been tied to the bed for years, slowly dying…
He just asked to end the treatment he was having against his will (since he was completly sober)…
in many other country there wouldn’t have been such problems, but due to bigotry and the pope (and his “sons”) he lost everything, and the medic that has done that action now under investigation and will be probably banned from the medics registry…
why doesn’t the pope goes to french like the old days?? that would rock!
December 29th, 2006 at 10:49 am
The majority of people under Vatican influence are overwhelmingly opposed to assisted suicide. Therefore, the decision was made to reflect this.
The pope is a politician in addition to religious leader, a horrible combination. That’s the real issue the way I see it. I cry “foul” on those grounds alone, the assisted suicide issue aside.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:52 am
I think he would only have a valid point if the guy actually requested some sort of artificial way to die. All they did was REMOVE the artificial life they were providing him.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I think (but am not certain) that the catholics view this as just another form of suicide, and they’ve never been very fond of that. Having nearly lost a brother to suicide, I’m not either. In talking to my brother, who made it a little ways through medical school before his suicidal depression caused him to quit, he told me that the medical community is starting to view suicide as something that happens to people, not something that people choose to do. He and I are inclined to agree, because after a year or so of therapy and medication (which he is off of now), suicide’s the last thing on his mind.
So, I understand the catholics being wary of supporting euthanasia. How do you go about deciding when someone is enough within their right mind to make that kind of decision? If you’re too strict about it, you’ll still have people genuinely suffering who just want to die but can’t, and if you’re too lenient about it, you’ll have people giving up hope too easily and “choosing to die” when what they’re doing should be viewed as committing suicide and should be stopped. Ick. The situation is sticky all the way around.
That said, I’m generally in favor of euthanasia. If it can be determined that a person isn’t just giving up hope too easily, that he really has no hope, and that, barring a miracle, all his future has in store for him is pain and misery, I say let him die peacefully.
For the devoutly religious sufferers, this just means they get to see their God sooner, which would be viewed as a good thing, I would think. Indeed, I’ve heard people in my religious community (protestant, baptist) say that they not only have no fear of death, but that they look forward to it, so they can finally be in heaven with the God they worship. Of course those people aren’t running home to put a bullet in their heads, because there’s “work” that God has for them to do while they’re still alive. But, given that they view their own death to be a good, liberating thing, how could they deny someone else putting action to the same view? My guess is that they think the other person would be giving up to easily, “selfishly” choosing to die rather than stick it out to see what God might have in store for them. I don’t agree with that, but I can see that argument being made.
And then what about people who receive a terrible prognosis and refuse any form of treatment? Surely they’re not denied their religious funeral, are they? Hell, they could even claim the religious high ground, claiming that they’re relying on God to heal them, not the evil human-worshiping doctors and scientists! ;-) I guess that’s not quite the same as actively choosing to get a needle-full of death juice though, is it? Hmph.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:00 am
D’oh, that long-ass post above is mine. I forgot to log in. Ten thousand apologies.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Is it just me or are people missing the point entirely? The issue isn’t assisted suicide or choosing to die naturally or whatever. The issue is the pope’s political decision to deny funeral rights based on popular views held by his followers.
Yeah, I’m sounding like a broken record now. The pope is a politician, and this shows it.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Anyone remember the music video for Metallica’s One?
Anyway, the church always played politics. And in Italy Bene has a big say on matters. The church is like any other NGO.
December 31st, 2006 at 9:03 pm
If Mr. Welby was a practicing Catholic (and it sounds like maybe he was) then what’s the big deal about the Pope’s decision? It’s not like the Pope gets to deny him a funeral… it just can’t happen in a Catholic church. If you’re an obedient Catholic, don’t complain about the Pope’s actions and decisions. If you think the Pope and his church is hateful, bigoted, greedy, backwards or whatever… then LEAVE the church! Really, I mean, if the Pope had instead made the “correct” decision on this matter then the church would /still/ be hateful, bigoted, greedy, etc…
And yes, of course the role of “Pope” is a political position, just as it has been for the last 10-15 centuries. The head of any large organization is, ultimately, a political position, regardless of whether the person obtains the position through democratic election, selection by the elite/few, or by overt violence. That person, in that role, will have to act in ways that serve to maintain support amongst (at least some) members of that group. The Pope is no different in this respect.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
As a person who lost a relative, I can tell you this: I wish she would have been given the ability for a painless death via sedative. Her last moments were on a respirator because her Lupus had her on the ropes, and it wasn’t until her 4th pulmonary arrest that she gave permission to be taken off of the respirator and everything else. She died “naturally” a day later.
If I am to use the trail of logic according to the pope, my godsister commited suicide because she refused help and would be refused a Catholic burial.
Where is the sanity behind that? But I digress.
The big deal is the fact that in Mr. Welby’s eyes, he possibly thought that he was doing what was right and righteous for himself, and also thought god would be okay with it. But, it just went against what his Pope believed was righteous.
Personally, I think the pope needs to calm down and look at humanity through clearer glasses instead of the rose tinged coke bottles he perches on his nose.
January 31st, 2007 at 4:32 am
in agreement with Arktis, the pope is political, swaying to the tune of public opinion (or what he thinks it is) like John Kerry. Who cares about a catholic funeral, Welby certainly didn’t when he made the decision.
Religion and all it’s ritualistic trappings get in the way of the very personal relationship between an individual and his God.
Being “allowed” to die should not be confused with euthanasia.
My humble opinion folks
February 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Watch subject. Bush is forever saying that democracies do not invade other countries and start wars. Well, he did just that. He invaded Iraq, started a war, and killed people. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
Our country is in debt until forever, we don’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren’t living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Everybody should have a choice and as far as I am concerned should not be judged for what they choose to do even if it means euthanasia.
Just because I was brought up a Catholic, dosen’t mean I agree with being told,these are the rules and regulations and you have to stick by them. Does it mean that if you disobey the rules you are thrown out of the club? Whatever decision a person chooses to make should be between him and his maker and nobody else. The church still wants to have power and control over the people and yes, maybe they had to be seen to be saying something!
July 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
As a Catholic, albeit somewhat ‘funky’ one, I nonetheless have no problems in accepting practically all of the writer’s arguments —give and take some inocuous pen punches about the Pope being “a hypocrite”, “cruel”, or “old fashioned”— and neither have the top Church authorities, by the way.
I am sure that the issue was discussed by Cardenals who weighed in the hipocrisy, cruelty, and anachronicity of the decision regarding this case, no less than the Pope, and that he himself would agree with many of the adjectives casted upon him and/or the Church. His predecessor John Paul II was the one who asked humankind for forgiveness for the many sins of the Church throughout the centuries.
The Church concerns itself with rules in the longer-possible foreseeable term, as applicable to as many different cultures/places as possible and in as many circumstances. Its refusal to grant the official blessing to the Church burial of this euthanized man is to be seen along these simple straightforward lines: NO OFFICIAL CHURCH BLESSING TO EUTHANASIA NO MATTER WHAT.
In my opinion, the Vatican wanted to keep silent on this pathetic issue but was forced, by the media et al (et al meaning ‘giant pharmacorps’), to speak up.
The Church can give Christian burial to a dictator who killed thousands if he wants a Christian burial and was a Christian during his life, because by giving it the message sent on this complex issue —despite all its ambiguity— is: we are all sinners, we all need redemption, we can get redemption if we try.
The main question opened up is: do we get redemption only if we repent of our sins? Answer is YES, according to Catholic dogma. A follow-up question: does requesting a Christian burial show repentance on the part of a dictator?
Church answer might be: the confesion is a private matter, as a sacrament, and not a public show, nor does it stand for a justification of military and political acts.
The ‘individual’ is weighed in with the ‘communal’ in the other scale, and the decision is made aiming at the closest balance possible, but with the communal prevailing in the Body of Christ, the community of the faithful, represented by the Catholic Church. Or so She says.
I agree with euthanasia but in these terms: give the long-suffering individual all the pain killers necessary to ease or eliminate the pain and, if they weaken the heart and bring about a sooner death, all the better. Help with a respirator for some weeks/months/years, depending on the official medical data on average time-span of recovery of lung function for each case. Then, if nothing else works, administer sedative and disconnect machine.
But I am aware that there will be overnight a thousand-fold unnecesary and hurried disconnections thanks to the “benevolent” and anti-Pope efforts of PharmaCorps dud/ettes, the organ traffic dudes, and the stem cell idem. What would I do if I were the Pope? Probably what he is doing: consulting the issue with others, and not only with Catholics (there are secondary channels, the Cardinals).
Jane Doe, “raped” and sorrily forced to make a “painful but necessary personal decision solely due to the woman”, opened the way for a million abortions a year in the US, even after she admitted the judicial decision was based on a lie because she was never raped, not that it mattered at that point. The grave doubts over the termination of life, gave way to the casual use of abortion as method of birth control, and the renaming of the unborn as fetal “matter”, “matter” as in wort, as if he were a wort.
These issues probably weighed in heavily in the soul of the “evil emperor” Pope Benedict the XVI. As for name-calling, he has probably read all about the evil Borgia Pope, and about evil Nazi-collaborator Pius XII. Alexander the VI is being un-demonized by secular Italian writers. As for Pius 12th, Jewish scholars have recently undertook the undemonization themselves. Benedict has more pressing issues to contemplate than a handful of adjectives which, in these unwitty dully materialistic times could never match the adjectives used in prior centuries by the great and formidable minds that attacked the church.
The Pope has to deal with Evil, and with power and religion mixed together. And he is in the midst of it all.
Maria Eugenia, Alhambra, California