← The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz)
The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz)
Day 296: The Sin of Euthanasia (2025)
00:21:50
We continue our examination of the fifth commandment, taking a closer look at the sin of euthanasia. Fr. Mike emphasizes that whatever the motive, the action of ending a life in order to eliminate suffering is still a sin. He also emphasizes that palliative care, however, is an important and special form of charity and love. Today’s readings are Catechism paragraphs 2276-2279.
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:06]
A
Hi, my name is Father Mike Schmitz and you're listening to the Catechism in a Year podcast where we encounter God's plan of sure goodness for us, revealed in scripture and passed down through the tradition of the Catholic faith. The Catechism in a Year is brought to you by ascension. In 365 days, we'll read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, discovering our identity and God's family as we journey together to our heavenly home. This is day 296. We're reading paragraphs 2276 through 2279. As always, I am using the Ascension edition of the Catechism, which includes a foundations of faith approach, but you can follow along with any recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also download your own Catechism in a Year reading plan by visiting ascensionpress.com ciy and lastly, you can click follow or subscribe on your podcast app for daily updates and daily notifications. Today is day 296. We're talking yesterday, you know, we had. Well, this is all serious, obviously. Yesterday we talked about abortion and today we're going on to euthanasia. And so the recognition is only four paragraphs. But the recognition of these last few days, today and next couple days are going to be very, very. Again, let's give the context. It's always serious, but we live in such a. In a world where these issues, issues of euthanasia, of abortion, tomorrow of suicide, they. These things touch our lives. And they're not just. I don't wanna say small things that touch our lives as if the first couple commandments we talked about are, are. Are small. As if they, as if they are small. They're not small. But there's something, there's something that is gravely disruptive about these sins. What I mean by that is, is they break our hearts, right? They. They. I mean, we'll say it like this. I can get away with skipping Mass in some ways, right? I can get away with not resting on taking that, that. That rest on the Lord's day. And it doesn't break my heart, right? It doesn't necessarily. I don't necessarily feel it in the depths of grief. But these sins. And maybe I should. And then keep that in mind, maybe I should because they are sins directly against the Lord. But here we have yesterday, again, abortion. Here we have today euthanasia, tomorrow, suicide. And these sins directly affect our hearts in a different way. Does that make sense? I make sense. I just. You probably knew all that Already I just wanted to. To. To note it before we go any further. So, as I said, there's four paragraphs today we're talking about euthanasia, which is essentially. Euthanasia itself is a Greek word, right? That means good death. So you. That EU is good. And then thanatos or Thanos would be. Would be death. You're like, wait a second, like the marvels. Yes, that's like thanatos, Thanos, death. It's a euphemism really, which is funny because euphemism means good words. Or I guess fem would be. Femi would be speaking. So good speaking or good words. Euphemism for killing another innocent human being or sparing their life in some way like that. That's what be the idea behind it is euthanasia, or this kind of idea of a good death. And yet we know that anytime we take another innocent human life, it is not a good death, it is murder. We're talking about that today. So as we launch into this, let's ask the Lord to be with us, to keep our. Our ears open, that we can hear actually what he wants to teach us, that we can keep our hearts open so that we can have the courage to live what we hear. And that is so necessary for all of us. So let's pray. Father in heaven, we give you praise and glory. And we thank you. We thank you for bringing us to this day, for bringing us to this moment. Lord God, for all of those people around us who suffer, all those people whose suffering seems like it is unending, for all those people and families who feel like they have a death sentence and they're simply waiting out the death and are tempted, tempted for this euthanasia, tempted to murder others out of compassion or to murder themselves out of. Out of pain, out of fear. We ask that you please send your Holy Spirit of wisdom to prevent them from doing this. Send your Holy Spirit of truth that they can see clearly in the midst of what might be foggy and very, very unclear road ahead. We ask that you please send your Holy Spirit into their lives right now and be with them, be with all of us, that we not only hear the truth and know the truth, but we can also live the truth if we ever get to that moment. That if we ever face that temptation, help us to face it with grace, with your help, the help that comes from you. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. It is day 296 we're reading paragraphs 227-62279. Euthanasia. Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus, an act or omission which of itself or by intention causes death in order to eliminate suffering, constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate. It is the refusal of overzealous treatment. Here one does not will to cause death. One's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able, or if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity. If death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such, it should be encouraged. All right. There we have in paragraphs 2276 to 2279, there are man. I mean, it's just. Let's break it down, because there are so many good points here. They're made quickly, right? The Church is just teaching. It's not giving an argument. The argument's already been given. What is the argument? The argument is human nature. The argument is the dignity of the human person. That's the argument. We've already established this. If this is true, then abortion is wrong. If this is true, then euthanasia is wrong. If it is true that all life comes from God and that God is the one who decides. Right? God is the one who creates life. He is the one who can end life, then we as human beings may never. May never intentionally end the life of an innocent human being. Not only that. Who are the kind of people who are euthanized? Well, paragraph 2276 says it right. Away those whose lives are diminished or weakened. That's it. Sick and handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. So think about this. Not only. What about a culture that not only tolerates but celebrates abortion? What kind of culture is that that not only tolerates but celebrates abortion? It is a culture that is dead set on now in the name of compassion. Right. I would say it's weaponized compassion in the name of compassion towards the moms. And again, moms should be helped. Absolutely. Families should be helped, these newborn children. And they should be helped to grow. Like, again, if the individual or the couple can't take care of the baby, then the local community should. A family should. The parish should be helping. That's one of the reasons why Catholic Charities was the leader in adoption agencies in so many ways. Until there's some laws now, of course, on the books, that has shut down the adoption wing of many areas of Catholic Charities. Needless to say, what happens when abortion is not only tolerated but celebrated? The culture gets distorted. Euthanasia is very similar. What happens in a culture that begins to see euthanasia as not only an answer, but the compassionate answer? When you get too weak, when your life, your health is too diminished, when you're not living a life that we think is worthy of life, then that's when we can take your life or we can help you take your own life. I mean, I think to consider this, that there is such a thing. The difference here is a quality of life ethic versus a sanctity of life ethic. A quality of life ethic would look at paragraphs 2 to 6 and 2, 2, 7 and say, no, no, no, no, no. You're talking about people whose lives are diminished. Lives are weakened. They're sick, they're handicapped, they're a burden on other people, or even they themselves are in pain. Listen, the compassionate thing, they don't have a look at their quality of life. What kind of. That's the phrase, right? What kind of quality of life would that be? And if we are actually going to base the value of someone's life off of what we call the quality of their life, then our culture is in a nosedive. But if we continue to hold on to this reality that one's life is not worth anything because of the quality of the life, but because of the sanctity of life, then yes, the weak, they're worth fighting for. The handicapped are worth fighting for. The sick are worth fighting for or even caring for. Not say even caring for or caring for, because that's the reality. Paragraph 2277. Whatever its motives and means. So my motive is because I care about this person. I don't want to see them suffer. Okay, that, that's a good motive, but the action of directly ending someone's life is not a good action. Whatever its motives, its motive could be, though. Could be. I don't want this person to be a burden to the state. That's all they are. This person is, is simply a burden to the taxpayer. And that is actually an. An argument that some people make in favor of euthanasia. We're just spending all this money to keep them alive. But it says this here. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of the handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. That is, it can never be tolerated. It can never be celebrated. We can never, as a church, accept it. And as a culture, we need to fight against it in so many incredible ways. We need to fight against this going on. Paragraph 2277 continues. It says thus, an act or omission which of itself or by intention causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and the respect due to the living God as creator. So an act or omission which by itself or by intention causes death in order to eliminate suffering, that's euthanasia, and that is murder. So withholding something like water or nourishment, which is ordinary care, is so omitting those things in order to cause death, in order to eliminate suffering, that's murder. Now, at the Same time, paragraph 2278 specifies this. It says that discontinuing some medical procedures can be morally legitimate. Now, what does that mean? What kind of medical procedures? It says medical procedures that are. And gives four terms or four kinds of medical procedures that could be terminated or could be discontinued and that would still be legitimate. So discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome, those things can be legitimate. And so that's the idea says next in the next part of that sentence, it is the refusal of overzealous treatment. So an example could be this. Here is someone who has cancer and they have. Maybe they. They've gone the normal route. Maybe they've. They've done whatever they could in the ordinary way. And maybe they've even. Maybe they've even gone and had, you know, chemotherapy and, and maybe they had some remission, maybe they didn't. But someone Comes along and says, well, there's this, this other procedure that, that could work. We don't know if it could work. The percentage of it working or failing is whatever. You know, it's not very good, but why not try it? The person doesn't have to try everything. They could actually discontinue chemotherapy and say, no, I have cancer. I'm accepting. It says here, here that one does not will to cause death. One's inability to impede it is merely accepted. And that is such a huge distinction. We're not talking about withholding food and water from someone. We're talking about a procedure that is dangerous or burdensome or extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome. Again, goes back to the cancer example. You could say, hey, if you're on this experimental drug, you could get another three months. You know, you could get another nine months. And the person has to ask the question, okay, I could get another nine months. But nine months of what? Right? Because the side effects of that drug could be extreme. And so discontinuing certain medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate. And that's the kind of thing. Again, the heart of this is so critically important. Now, in paragraph 2278, the last line, that last sentence says, the error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith. So the idea of I have this compassion that I hate seeing someone in pain. Therefore, I really want to end their pain, and I'm willing to even consider ending their life. That's what it means. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith. Right? I just want to end their pain does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. So again, your heart, the human heart that has compassion for others, that has compassion for the weak, has compassion for those who are suffering, that's a good. But the error of judgment into which we can fall in good faith because of that doesn't change the nature of the murderous act, just because it could be generally done out of compassion. Now, there's people who I already mentioned who could say they're costing the taxpayer money or whatever. The thing is, I don't want to be a burden, but there could be others who are genuinely moved by true compassion. That doesn't change the nature of, of the murderous act. Remember, we talked about this when the three aspects, the three elements of a moral act in order to be morally good, we consider the act itself. There is the motivation and the circumstances. So my motivation can be, can be great, real compassion that does not change the nature of the murderous act. At the same time, that's very, very different than the middle of paragraph 2278. We're discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome. That's legitimate. Why? Because here one does not will to cause death. One's inability to impede it is merely accepted. And that's a critical difference. In the first aspect or in euthanasia, I am discontinuing some ordinary treatment, or I'm giving some kind of thing that would kill the person that is murdered. In the other case, I'm merely accepting the fact that everything that is alive at some point dies and I cannot indefinitely stop death. So my inability to impede it is merely accepted. And I recognize that there's a limit, there's a limit to burdensome treatment or dangerous treatment or extraordinary or disproportionate treatment. Does that make sense? Hopefully it makes sense. Now it goes on to say that this decision though, should be made by the patient if he is competent and able. So that, that's so important that we don't, we don't want to hand those kinds of decisions over to policymakers, right? We don't want to hand those kind of decisions over to bureaucrats. We don't hand those kind of decisions over to anyone else. This is, this belongs to the patient if he's competent and able or family. It says here, those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. So that typically would be for the family of the patient, if that patient is not able to make those kinds of decisions for him or herself. And that's so important. We want to keep this at the most local level possible. Why? Because we're talking about life and death. We're talking about the death of a human being, an innocent human life. So this is so critical that we understand that there's limits. At the same time, this kind of decision is not immediately to be given, handed over to anyone other than the patient, patient's family, those immediately concerned with the well being of the person who is ill. Now, last note, Last note, paragraph 2279, it says, Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care, remember, that's different than burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate care. Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot legitimately be interrupted. So the use of painkillers to alleviate sufferings of the dying, even at risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means. I remember coming across a story about someone talking about, you know, have a little morphine. This, you know, this person's on morphine to, to numb the pain of their death. Why not just kick it up a little bit and then you hasten their death even more? That would be morally illicit, right? That would be. That would be euthanasia. That would be murder. But to allow morphine, to use morphine or whatever the drug is. I'm. I'm no doctor here. Whatever that drug is that can alleviate the suffering. So palliative care is a special form of love. In fact, that's the second to last sentence here. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. It's. It's a special form of love. As such, it should be encouraged. And that is, that is so important. You know, the Catholic Church, and not. Not only I mentioned at the beginning of this Catholic Church has not only provided adoption services around the world, but the Catholic Church has also invented the hospital system. The Catholic Church invented palliative care in so many ways. I mean, yes, there's other cultures that have their. Their own way of caring for their own old, caring for their dying, caring for their sick. But the ways in which there are so many good people who have been motivated by Jesus and by his concern for the poor, the outcast, the sick, the ones everyone else say, oh, that's life unworthy of life, or that is no quality of life at all. Those people motivated by Jesus who have come into the lives of those who are dying and journeyed with them from this life to the next is not minimal. It is incredibly significant. And so there are. I just want to. I know there's people who are listening, who are part of this catechism in ear community. This is your job. Doctors and nurses, medical staff. I know many of you actually work at palliative care treatment centers or hospice, where your job is to help people in those last days and last hours of their life. And I'm so grateful for you. This section of the catechism, although it deals specifically with the sins against human life of euthanasia in a backwards way, you know, kind of in a backwards way, it highlights the good work that you do. It highlights the fact that you're there when people are fighting, fighting, fighting against death. And you're there when people say, okay, I recognize My inability to impede it. And now I have to accept it. You're there for all that, and I thank you so much. Many of us have lived through this. Many of us have lived through it with family members, maybe with your parents, with your grandparents, with your children, with your siblings. Okay, we're going to fight this, we're going to fight this, we're going to fight this. And then at some point, it's okay, that was a good fight. And now I'm just merely going to accept the fact that we are unable to stop it. And so that, that transition, it's. It's all Catholic, it's all Christian. We fight against death because life is a good. And then at some point, at some point, we accept death because eternal life is a good. And this is. It's, it's all of a piece. But we come back to this again. Once again, what we have here, when it comes to the battle of euthanasia against euthanasia, we have two worldviews. And one worldview is a quality of life ethic that if your quality of life is not at whatever level some subjective person puts it, then it's life unworthy of life versus a sanctity of life ethic that says regardless of how weak or how sick you are, regardless of whether there's anyone here for you or whether you're all alone, your life is worthy of life. And not just worthy of fighting for, but your life. You have been purchased at a price by our Lord Jesus Christ, by his life and his death and his resurrection. From the strongest among us to the weakest, from the healthiest among us to the sickest, and from the most brilliant among us to the most challenged, every life is worthy of life. Jesus has declared this to be absolutely worth true. By his life, death and resurrection, we reject a quality of life ethic and we cling to and live out a sanctity of life ethic. Anyways, that's what I got today, you guys. I'm praying for you. Please pray for me. My name is Father Mike. I cannot wait to see you tomorrow. God bless.