• Government has overstepped its bounds, once again meddling in affairs that should be left to market forces?

No

• the law puts undue burden on small business who now have to pay a higher premium to insure their employees?

No

• the law does not do enough to help children born deaf or severely hard of hearing?

Nope, not that either

So what is the complaint? It comes from Audism Free America:

The notion that being deaf is an affliction and an abomination which alienates one from society and leaves (one) dependent and isolated is a myth,” the petition states. “We do not wish for your state to be mislabeled as promoting eugenics and linguistic and cultural genocide.

Taken from “Ear-implant law draws dissent“, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

What this petition seems to be saying is that deafness is not a disability but just another part of cultural diversity. Therefore, to mandate a procedure that could enable children who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to hear more is like trying to bleach African-American skin white so that African Americans can fit into a white culture better.

Such a ridiculous statement has its roots in modernism, the philosophy that truth is created by personal experience and perception. Modernism celebrates diversity, not because every human person has innate dignity, but because every individual has his own truth. In the case of the petition from Audism Free America, modernism is saying, “Who are you to call deafness a disability. From our perspective, deafness is normal and hearing is an abomination.” Yes, I have heard some proponents of “deaf culture” take the argument that far.

The problem with Audism free America’s position is that deafness is a disorder. Human nature includes the five senses as a normative and universal constituent. In other words, the senses make up part of what it means to be human, and a diminishment of the senses is a diminishment of something that a human person should have (however not a diminishment of their humanity or dignity). Therefore, deafness is a disability based on the standard of human health. Modernism does not believe in disability because it does not believe in a universal standard of human life or of human health.

The problem comes in how we look at disabilities. We tend to look at people with obvious and severe disabilities and say they are disabled and we are not. I have been around severely disabled people all of my life, and I have learned that there is no “they” and “us.” Fallen human nature is fallen for all of us. Disability is not a matter of having one or not having one, but a matter of degree and of kind. People who are disabled in one area of life are also extremely able in other areas of life. The term “disabled” becomes a problem only when we let it define a specific segment of the human family.

One can see the same line of thought in the homosexuality movement. The Church calls same-sex attraction “disordered” because it is opposed to the universal human purpose of sexuality. Modernists see this as an insult that alienates a specific segment of the population. However, the Church realizes that every person’s sexuality is disordered to one degree or another, so calling same-sex attraction disordered is actually a statement of solidarity, not one of divisiveness. Again, modernists rankle because they do not believe that a standard for “normal” sexuality even exists.

I had friends in high school and college who were deaf and hard of hearing, and I learned sign language in the course of our friendship. One of these friends had been brought up in the “deaf world” and had a difficult time relating to the “hearing.” The others tried very hard to interact with everybody, and counted a number of the “hearing” among their friends, even those who did not learn sign language. It was not the deafness that isolated them. In the case of my one friend, it was his desire to see his deafness as something that set him apart and his consequent unwillingness to form relationships with those who would not share his unique “culture.” He had implicitly bought the lie of modernism.

In the end, the petition from Audism Free America isolates deaf people from the rest of us by accentuating the differences rather than acknowledging the fact and universal nature of disability. And their modernist bent would keep children from getting help to overcome their disability. That is just not acceptable.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While many medical care professionals are caring, compassionate individuals who diligently care for all patients no matter what their state, utilitarian attitudes continue to creep into the medical culture. Evidence can be found in articles such as, “The undead” from the December 9, 2007 issue of The Sunday Times.

The overarching attitude is that to live in a state of unresponsiveness is a terrible cause of suffering. The author of this article borders on adopting this attitude,

More certain is the grim reality of hospital wards and long-term care homes where the persistently vegetative and the minimally conscious languish, sometimes for decades.

To write this article I have had the sobering experience of witnessing the plight of patients with severely impaired consciousness – the intubations, the double incontinence, the stricken semicircle of wheelchairs parked before the unwatched day-room TV. And I have met the anguished families of those who are denied final grieving and closure for a loved one condemned to what appears a living death. All too often I have spoken to a wife or husband, or mother or father, who will travel anything up to two hours each way by taxi, every day, to spend time with an unresponsive child or spouse.

There is no doubt that an unresponsive state causes suffering for the patient and for the family. However, as I explored most recently in “The Language of the Culture of Death,”, suffering can have great value. The quote above shows how much a patient’s suffering can draw her family toward love.

The article offers anecdotal evidence that unresponsive patients are often neglected. They are given poor care and no therapy. It is almost as if the medical establishment says, “Oh well – he’s not really alive anyway. Let’s not waste our time.”

Up to 12,000 people under 40 in this country suffer traumatic brain injury every year, and there are serious deficiencies in their rehabilitation, according to Professor John Pickard, head of neurosurgery at Addenbrooke’s hospital, Cambridge: “The tendency for patients to be left to languish on general medical, surgical and orthopaedic wards continues to their detriment.” The shocking term being used by campaigning neurologists and neurosurgeons is that unknown numbers of patients are being just “warehoused”.

The depersonalization of these patients is much to their detriment, especially since mounting evidence shows that the assumption that a patient is in a “persistent vegetative state” is often wrong.

The biggest, most tragic clinical myth about brain injury today is that PVS can be reliably diagnosed by bedside observation alone. It has in fact been known for at least a decade, ever since a key survey of brain-injured patients, that misdiagnosis of the condition runs at more than 40%, a statistic originally calculated by Professor Keith Andrews, former head of the Putney hospital, and confirmed by recent surveys in Europe and North America. This means that valuable rehabilitation strategies are routinely neglected, and misdiagnosed patients end up on unsuitable wards or in care homes where their needs are neither understood nor met.

One rehabilitation psychologist pointed out that consciousness needs to be exercised just like a muscle. If a patient is neglected and denied treatment (as was Terri Schiavo, for example), there will be no progress toward awareness. If consciousness is exercised (balanced with periods of rest), consciousness can strengthen. Patients who are neglected due the assumption that their lives are useless are denied this chance.

However, even patients who have no chance for recovery deserve better than they often get. Loss of awareness does not mean loss of human dignity or personhood. Once again we see the weakness of the naturalistic “personal autonomy” ethic that is trying to replace the ethic of human dignity. As the article points out (after a quick anecdote),

Even minimally aware patients can retain emotions, personality, a capacity to suffer – and, as the young biker showed, attitude.

While the main point of this article was to point out that patients are often misdiagnosed with PVS, and that doctors are devising scans that can offer a more accurate diagnosis of the extent of brain damage, the article also brings up the question of the treatment of any unresponsive patient.

The Cambridge project is not, however, without potential ethical and social problems. Scanning for minimal consciousness in those who appear vegetative can in some cases yield ambiguous results. Evident brain reactions can sometimes be fickle: now here, now gone. Some experts worry the technology could have drastic consequences for relatives where there is scant prospect of a patient’s return to interaction. At the Putney hospital, which houses more than 220 brain-injured and neurological patients, I was told by a research psychologist about a patient in a PVS of about three years’ duration, known as Mrs K, whose family might well be devastated if a scan were to reveal indications of awareness.

The main reason for removing nutrition and hydration from unresponsive patients is to release the family from the obligations of love – to “allow them to get on with the grieving process.” However, these people are not in “the dying process.” Their bodies are not shutting down. They are not brain dead (which leads to the failure of bodily functions). They are simply unresponsive. When nutrition and hydration are removed, these patients die of thirst just like any fully responsive person denied of food and water would.

More heinously, the article points out that there is increasing pressure to declare PVS patients dead so that their organs can be harvested. The attitude that feeds this pressure is that their lives are useless, so their death may as well benefit someone who has a chance to live a “real” (productive) life. This is the same attitude that attempts to justify cannibalizing unborn babies to benefit the health of “really living” human beings.

Brain damage that leaves a patient unresponsive causes great suffering from everyone touched by it. We need to decide if that suffering will draw us to love or if we will give in to the philosophy that would devalue our loved ones in their time of greatest need.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A woman close to my wife’s family is dying of cancer. She is incoherent and has stopped eating or drinking. One of her sons wants to keep her alive for another month. He wants to reduce her pain medication so she is more coherent and have her go through another round of chemotherapy. The question of whether or not to give such treatment is very valid. At this point, the burden of such treatment and the suffering caused by reducing her pain medication would probably outweigh any benefit. It would be morally acceptable in this case to cease all treatment and to allow her to die. Unfortunately, the arguments in favor of doing so have all been couched in the Culture of Death. While the conclusions may be valid, the language used to argue for those conclusions are horribly wrong.

• “That’s no way to live” – the assumption with this argument is that the present value of a person’s life is measured by the person’s ability to do the things the person used to love doing. An ethics worksheet promoted by our Catholic hospital system even goes so far as to ask what things you enjoy doing and to decide if you’d want to go on living being unable to do those things. Life has value no matter what we are able or unable to do. In fact, in our success-obsessed world, life may finally take on its true meaning when we are unable to do anything.
• “Just put her out of her misery” – the assumption in this statement is that suffering is always bad. This assumption is found everywhere in the medical community. Compassionate people do not wish to see others suffer. Suffering is not something that Christians seek out (mortification and self-denial are not quite the same thing as the kind of suffering we are talking about here). However, we must also realize that suffering can have great value. Suffering can make us more compassionate, can atone for our sins and the sins of others, can draw us closer to God, and can teach us how to receive the love and care of others. Loved ones who watch a family member or a friend suffer learn what it means to truly love through the most difficult times. It is OK to feel relief when someone dies – gladness that they are no longer suffering. However, it is not OK to hasten their death so that they will not have to suffer.
• “Let her die with some dignity” – this statement misunderstands what dignity is. Dignity does not come from our abilities or from our self-determination. Dignity comes from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and especially that we are created with the ability to give and to receive love. Someone who is suffering, who is incoherent, and who is at death’s door dies with dignity when she is surrounded by people she loves and who has loved her. Whether she is aware of their presence or not, the love that she has built in her lifetime comes to bear on her moment of death. This is what it means to die with dignity.

It is difficult to watch someone we love deteriorate and suffer before they die. Moral discernment during these difficult times is complicated by our compassion, concern and personal suffering. That is why the Church gives us moral guidance through the principle of ordinary and extraordinary means of treatment.

The problem with the statements above is that they are often made by faithful Catholics. We have adopted the language of the Culture of Death. The teachings of Christ’s Church help us to take solace not only in a life well lived, but in a death suffered in integrity, hope and love. The Culture of Death treats human life in a utilitarian way, giving it value only as much as it is productive. It adds burden to death by making us guilty for any suffering experienced by the dying and by making us think that we have an obligation to control a person’s death. Catholics need to frame arguments about end-of-life issues in the Culture of Life and the hope given to us by Jesus Christ.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While it is true that the term “in principle” does connote possible exceptions, such a phrase does not give moral theologians and ethicists freedom to allow for any exceptions they see fit. There is a hierarchy of moral truth:

• Moral laws: these are inviolable – derived from the way God made us as human beings (natural law) and by His Divine Revelation that instructs in our relationship with Him.
• Moral principles: these are derived from moral law in order to give us direction for following it. Since they are human formulations, they may be revised. However, because they are derived from the inviolable moral law, they are very solid and are changed carefully and rarely. They must remain true to the moral law.
• Moral formulations (theories & models): these are attempts to apply general moral principles to very specific circumstances. They may be argued and changed, but always with the goal of staying as true to moral principles as possible. The Ethical and Religious Norms – ERDs – fall here.
• Prudential decisions: these are individual choices in an attempt to attain the greatest good to which the moral law guides us. Here is where we as individual get it right or get it wrong. Prudential decisions should be oriented toward fulfilling the moral law, using the principles and theories/models/formulations to get there. These choices are choices of conscience, which should be formed by the moral law, principles and formulations.

Dr. Hardt seems to lose sight of this hierarchy when he states:

When interpreting and applying the documents of the Holy See, there are a number of traditional norms, some dating back to the early days of church legislation. Most of these norms were collected in the Rules of Law (Regulae Iuris) in the Libro Sexto of Pope Boniface VIII in 1300. Many of the rules are repeated in one way or another in the present Code of Canon Law. Two canons of the present code are relevant for our study:

• Canon 18: “Laws which establish a penalty or restrict free exercise of rights . . . are subject to strict interpretation.”
• Canon 52: “A singular decree has force only in respect to the matters which it decides and for the persons for whom it was given.”

Hence, the application of the CDF response, because it limits the free exercise of rights, will only apply to a restricted number of cases, specifically to patients with a firm diagnosis of PVS. Some commentators have sought to extend the statement to people with other pathologies, such as advanced Alzheimer’s disease or acute dementia. But the response concerns only patients who are diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, not to all patients who are unable to assimilate food and water without artificial assistance. If the CDF wanted to extend this teaching, it could use another form of communication, for example, an Apostolic Instruction. Moreover, because the questions were presented by the U.S. bishops, the response applies only to them and the ecclesiastical communion for which they are responsible, not, for example, to the church in Canada or Australia.

The laws and decrees to which these canons refer are laws and decrees of canon law, or of specific legislation. They do not refer to statements that reiterate or clarify moral law or moral principles. Moral decisions often “limit freedom” when freedom is incorrectly defined as the ability to choose whatever you want to choose. However, when you define freedom truly, as the power to choose what is good, such statements actually lead us to true freedom. Statements such as the one to the American bishops from the CDF are part of the ongoing teaching of the Church about the universal moral law.

Dr. Hardt talks about certain presuppositions made by the CDF that would lead to certain exceptions to the general principle:

Presuppositions of the CDF Response
When applying the CDF response, some of its presuppositions can be called into question, potentially disposing of more exceptions on the part of care givers than are indicated in the CDF response. Following is a consideration of some of these presuppositions as they relate to the tradition of the church on this matter.

The CDF proposes that ANH “does not involve excessive expense.”

The majority of the authors of the CDF response come from countries in which universal health coverage is a given. The situation here in the U.S. is obviously different and often poses significant financial hardships for the caregivers of patients in PVS, third-party payers or the civic community. The possibility that the immediate caregivers may not be financially burdened does not mean that the cost of caring for patients in PVS is negligible. The vast majority of patients who receive ANH in the U.S. receive their care in hospitals or long-term care facilities, both of which may very well impose “excessive expense” on one or all of the entities mentioned above.

It is certainly true that financial burden on the relatives of a comatose or incapacitated patient is one consideration when determining whether a treatment is ordinary or extraordinary. However, such financial burden needs to be severe to qualify the treatment as an extraordinary means. Furthermore, such families should not face the burden of medical care alone. They should have the help of the community. Finally, the great expense in America is not really associated with feeding and hydration. It is rather due to the exorbitant way in which patients are charged – including full doctor charges for brief visits. The added expenses for sustaining treatment are truly a social justice issue. The changes need to be made in the medical establishment, not in the decision whether or not to offer sustaining treatment.

The CDF proposes that the purpose of ANH “is not, nor is it meant to be, a treatment that cures the patient, but is rather ordinary care aimed at the preservation of life.”

The CDF’s suggestion that ANH is not meant to be a treatment that cures a patient is not congruent with human experience in the hospital and long-term care setting. When families, in consultation with a clinical care team, initiate ANH for a loved one, it is usually done so with the intent and hope for substantive recovery. Moreover, persons are increasingly designating in advanced directives or by oral communication their clear desire to not receive ANH if there is no hope of cognitive recovery. These wishes reflect an attitude recognized in moral theology as psychic aversion (horror mentis). This attitude arises because people feel that such care does not truly benefit a patient in a permanently comatose condition and that it will often place a burden upon the loved ones giving care. As mentioned above, it is not unreasonable to interpret the CDF response as recognizing the possibility of this attitude.

Dr. Hardt splits hairs here to point out a difference that doesn’t really exist. The CDF’s statement that food and water are not given as a treatment indicates that the food and water themselves have no medicinal value. Dr. Hardt is referring to the desire to extend someone’s life in hope that time will heal the person. This does not put food and water into the realm of curative treatment. Why does this difference matter? A patient is able to deny any curative treatment that does not hold much hope of being effective. However, food and water may not be denied because they are basic to human life. Even if there is not much hope of recovery, food and water must be administered. If an extraordinary form of curative treatment is denied, the result may be death due to the illness. However, if food and water are denied the death is due to starvation or dehydration. There is a big difference here.

Hundt’s claim that moral tradition has held that patients may deny life support in order to avoid the form of suffering called “psychic aversion” on behalf of loved ones is also questionable. Life support that replaces or aids a failing bodily function may be considered extraordinary care, since the organ has failed anyway. However, giving someone food and water that the body is able to use and that the body needs for survival is not extraordinary and may not be refused by the patient. It is exactly the attitude that a person’s suffering poses and undue burden on loved ones that the Church’s moral tradition has sought to avoid. It is not permissible for me to kill off my grandmother because I’m sick of waiting around for her to die. It is equally not permissible for my grandmother to refuse ordinary means of sustaining her life so that she does not burden me. A person’s suffering and life have value – they are not burdens.

The CDF proposes that if ANH is removed, the cause of death “will be neither an illness nor the ‘vegetative state’ itself, but solely starvation and dehydration.”

Here, the CDF offers an interpretation of what kind of act constitutes euthanasia. This interpretation is at odds with the traditional teaching of moral theology. When life support is removed because it does not offer hope of benefit or imposes an excessive burden, the cause of death is the pathology which is no longer abated or circumvented. This is at the heart of the distinction between the licit removal of life support and passive euthanasia. This distinction has been explained by several Catholic moral theologians of the past, and its misconception, as expressed in this document, would call into question the removal of any form of life support under any conditions.

Here again Hundt fails to differentiate between “life support” that takes over for a failing (or failed) bodily system and a mechanized method of ordinary sustenance. If a disease or bodily trauma has caused my heart to stop, I may be on life support that keeps my heart beating in hope that my body may heal in time. Taking me off such life support because that hope is too small to balance the burden on me and my loved ones would be morally licit because the disease or trauma has stopped my heart and turning off life support would do nothing more than allow death to take its course. Taking away food and water is not the same. The absence of food and water would kill me whether or not I had the disease or trauma.

While this is an important distinction, I’m not sure Hundt is correct in claiming that it is at the heart of the differentiation between licit and illicit (he is oversimplifying). If there is hope of recovery or if the burden of a heart machine is not excessive, it would not be illicit to remove it either.

The CDF proposes that if care is “prolonged over time,” it may constitute an excessive burden.

The CDF response does admit that caring for a PVS patient over time may be a notable burden. This is similar to the recognition of family burden offered by Pope John Paul II in his original allocution on care of PVS patients. The bishops of the United States issued some “talking points”—in the form of a Q&A—when they released the response they had received from the CDF, and they suggest that the main burden for the care givers will be financial. They also suggest that Catholic health care facilities and the Catholic community should offer assistance and provide “concrete examples of the Church’s commitment to human life.”6 Once again, given the psychic aversion to continuing care for comatose people who will never recover consciousness, it is questionable whether the Catholic community will respond to this challenge.

Once again Hundt brings up psychic aversion. There is no doubt that the emotional and moral suffering of a family with a seriously ill loved one is very real and intense. However, this is not the kind of suffering that may be considered as part of the burden of treatment. This is suffering caused by the illness, not suffering caused by the treatment. What people suffering from psychic aversion need is support and counseling, not the death of their suffering loved one. Only when they see the beauty of the person’s life and the value of their suffering will psychic aversion be properly dealt with. To allow ordinary means of sustenance and treatment to be denied due to the burden of psychic aversion would lead only to guilt that they wanted their loved one to die.

Medical ethics in our area are often carried on by people like Dr. Hundt. These “ethicists” fail to understand the proper role of the magisterium. They also often take very myopic views of moral tradition and fail to apply principles such as “growth through suffering.” The fact that Catholic hospitals are rationalizing their way to the Culture of Death should scare us all.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

First Joyful Mystery: The Annunciation “The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary . . .”

Jodi received the phone call at about 8:30 on a Friday morning. It was our adoption agent asking permission to share our name and information with another agency that had an emergency situation and needed to place a baby right away. Of course, we said yes. At 11:00 she received a call from that adoption agency telling us that we had been chosen by the birth mother. That evening, Jodi and I called the agent back and we talked about the details regarding how to proceed: paperwork, traveling, working with the interstate agencies, and the steps toward finalizing the adoption. Now, Jodi and I have not really been waiting long for a child, compared to some couples who have struggled with infertility. We have only been trying for about three years, and we have only been in the adoption “pool” for only three months. So, our journey toward parenthood was rather quick. However, in those three years the longing in our hearts has grown tremendously. We so much ached for this expansion of our marital love, for the fulfillment of our vocation. As the good news sank in, I thought about all the times in the Bible that God had brought life out of barrenness. Abraham’s wife, Sarah, bore Isaac. Manoah’s wife was infertile until she bore Sampson. Elizabeth bore John the Baptist “in her old age.” And Mary, who as far as we know was not infertile but who was a virgin who did “not know a man,” conceived Jesus. They too knew the longing that our hearts experienced. Ironically, Mary knew it best, even though as an unmarried woman (and possibly a consecrated virgin) she had no reason to expect pregnancy. Her longing was the longing of all of Israel waiting for their messiah. I don’t believe that she felt the desire explicitly all her life, but I can easily imagine the dammed-up desire of the entire Hebrew people (indeed of all of humanity) throughout history suddenly rushing into her heart at the Angel’s words. How painful and joyful that news must have been – the satisfaction of the desire of her heart that she had not even been fully aware of until just then. We knew it well on the day we received our own annunciation.

Second Joyful Mystery: The Visitation “Immediately Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth…”

At the close of our phone conversation with the adoption agent, he said, “So when can you be here? If you can be here on Monday …” Monday! That gave us only the weekend to get plane tickets and to get ourselves together for a journey. The preparation that weekend was frantic but joyful. We had the opportunity to celebrate our good news at a family birthday party on Saturday night. Mass that Sunday was especially filled with feelings of gratitude. Monday was a long day of flying and layovers, though the journey went smoothly. We arrived at our destination late Monday night and got to the hotel room too tired to do anything but sleep, but almost too excited to sleep. What must have Mary’s trip to Elizabeth been like? She was not traveling to receive her promised child. Instead, she was traveling to complete an act of love, to care for her cousin in her pregnancy. I have always admired this about Mary. However, now I know what kind of act it really was. Mary’s heart must have been bursting with joy, with the Good News that she had received from the Angel and with the sense of the new life inside her womb. She must have been aching to share that news with somebody. Yet, she suppressed her desire to make the journey to care for Elizabeth first. I can clearly picture her packing for her journey. I can feel the almost painful excitement, bordering on impatience, as she worked, and then as she waited for the long journey to be complete. Did Mary have anyone to celebrate with before she met Elizabeth? How many prayers of Thanksgiving and Praise must she have uttered as she traveled? Then, when she meets Elizabeth, Elizabeth greets her with, “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as soon as the sound of your greeting met my ears the child in my womb leapt for joy. And blessed are you that believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord.” The dam in Mary’s heart bursts and she pours forth the words of praise and wonder that have been forming in her heart during the entire journey:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.
My spirit rejoices in God my savior,
For He has looked with favor on his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed.
The almighty God has done great things for me.
His mercy endures form age to age,
And holy is His name…

Oh how this same song was streaming from our hearts as we tried fruitlessly to sleep that night, realizing all of God’s goodness.

Third Joyful Mystery: The Nativity of Our Lord “…Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart.”

Our new baby was born before we even knew about her. We experienced her nativity when we picked her up from the foster home and held her in our arms for the first time. While we had nothing to do with giving her life, we knew at that moment that we were being called to be her parents, to nurture her and to love her. We experience this overwhelming epiphany again and again whenever we look into her beautiful face. Our hearts overflow with love. What must it have been like for Mary? Her baby too was born before she knew about Him. He was the eternal Word before He took on human nature. While Mary gave birth to His human nature, His Divine Person existed before all time. Yet, she accepted the overwhelming responsibility of being the Mother of God. She nurtured Jesus’ human nature and she loved Him. What must if have been like for Mary? We don’t know if she experienced pain in child birth. Popular Catholic tradition is that she did not, and that would make sense since pain in childbirth is a consequence of Original Sin. Would Christ, who conquered the effect of Original Sin throughout his earthly ministry and in His Passion, Death, and Resurrection, not come into this world already conquering sickness, suffering and death? Yet, if she did feel pain in child birth, Mary’s love would have made that pain meaningful, beautiful. Our love for our new baby daughter certainly transformed all of the pain we experienced facing our own infertility. All of that suffering was for her. It suddenly did not feel so much like suffering as we gazed into the peaceful face of our new baby daughter. What must it have been like for Mary? If our hearts overflow with love as we gaze at our baby, what must it have been like for Mary to gaze into the face of Love Himself? If our love for our daughter is almost painful at times, how unbearable must her love have been as she looked into the face of God? I am caught up in reverie as I watch our family accept our new baby daughter into their lives and hearts, as I see her fitting herself into our household and family. I have a new appreciation for Mary as she pondered the mystery of love in her own heart.

Fourth Joyful Mystery: The Presentation of the Baby Jesus in the Temple ”And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.”

The adoption of our daughter will not be complete until this summer. We await that day with a little apprehension, and wit
h eager anticipation. Most of all, we look forward to the day when we can present her to the Lord in Baptism. On that day we will allow Jesus’ grace to wash away original sin so that our adopted daughter may be adopted by God as His own child. When Mary and Joseph presented Jesus at the temple, Simeon and Anna gave them a glimpse into who their baby boy really was, and what kind of person he would be like: “Behold this child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted.” What will our baby daughter become as she grows up? Looking into her beautiful eyes I sometimes think I catch a glimpse of who she is, but it is elusive. It is only enough to make me wonder. When Mary said, “behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word,” she did not fully know what she was saying yes to. She was saying yes to whatever God planned for her. Her yes was an act of faith, of loving trust. I made my own “fiat” when I said “I do” at the altar. When I married my wife, I was saying yes to whatever God had planned for us. As we adopt our daughter, we continue to say yes. We say yes to whomever she is, whomever she becomes. We say yes in loving trust to the mystery.

Fifth Joyful Mystery: The Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple ”…and not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.”

Well, we haven’t actually lost our daughter yet, or left her anyplace. However, perhaps this mystery is the most relevant of all. Even though she was full if grace, Mary was still a human parent. She still struggled to grasp the mystery of parenthood, as well as the mystery of her Son. This is the challenge and the joy of parenthood. It is a mystery. It is cooperation in the very love of God. This was especially true for Mary, who was the parent of Love Himself. But it is also true for us. Marriage is a sacrament, a reflection of a divine reality. As we love each other, and as we love our daughter, we are sharing God’s love. This is an awesome reality. It is also an awesome responsibility. Are mere human beings capable of it? Only by the grace of God.

Conclusion
Isn’t God amazing? By coming to earth and taking on human nature, the Second Person of the Trinity has intimately tied Himself to human experience. In a very loose paraphrase of Pope John Paul II, Christ draws close to human experience. Now, as we go through the natural occurrences of human life, we are able to reflect on the Divine Life of God. Our human experience is given Divine meaning, Moreover, we are able to daily participate in God’s divine life. As we exercise love for each other, even (especially) in the family, we are also exercising our love for God, and experiencing His love for us. I hope the Holy Spirit continues to bring these truths to my mind. As we experience everything that people warned us about – stinky diapers, sleepless nights, changed schedules, changed lives – these meditations have turned potential suffering to great joy. God is great!

Who would have thought that such a little baby could give rise to such deep ponderings? It’s amazing what comes to mind during these 5:00 AM feedings…

In the love of Christ,

Jeff
(No pen name – this was a personal experience of the true author!)

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Response: The Church does indeed still teach about purgatory.Many people think that the Second Vatican Council abolished the teaching on Purgatory, or at least that post-Vatican II theology has moved beyond it. These people may even see purgatory as an archaic concept, focusing too much on punishment and sin rather than on God’s love. However, Second Vatican Council actually affirmed the belief in Purgatory. In the seventh chapter of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (The Sacred Constitution on the Church), the Council states:

Until the Lord shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him (cf. Mt 25:31) and death being destroyed, all things are subject to him (cf. 1Cor 15:26-27), some of his disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are purified, and others are in glory beholding ‘clearly God himself triune and one, as he is”; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God (LG 49).

. . .

Fully conscious of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the pilgrim Church from the very first ages of the Christian religion has cultivated with great piety the memory of the dead, and “because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (2Mc 12:46), also offering suffrages for them (LG 50).

Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, instituted by Pope John Paul II in response to the Second Vatican Council’s call for a renewal in catechesis, explicitly teaches about Purgatory in articles 1030-1032 & 1472. The second edition includes the term “Purgatory” in its glossary, defining it as:

A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven.

So why do some people believe that the Church no longer teaches about Purgatory? I believe that there are a couple points of confusion. The first point of confusion is between Purgatory and “Limbo.” The concept of Limbo is a theological theoretical construct to try to explain what happens to babies who die without the benefit of baptism. The concept of Limbo is an attempt to explain the apparent paradox between the necessity of baptism for salvation, as stated by Christ himself, and the great merciful love of God, which we find it hard to believe would allow him to condemn innocent but unbaptized babies to the eternal loneliness of hell. Limbo was thought to be a place of eternal bliss, where these unbaptized souls enjoy the goodness that comes to us through creation as a sign of God’s love, but are unable to fulfill their happiness by being in God’s presence in an intimate and personal way.This concept was never officially taught by the Church. It was a model used by theologians to account for both sides of the paradox. Therefore, people have always been free to accept or reject it (and as far as I know, people are still free to make this choice). This concept has fallen out of favor with theologians, and is rarely taught today. The truth is that we really don’t know much about God’s judgments – and the Church is always hesitant to define what specific people are in heaven or hell since only God can truly judge the heart. That is why the process of canonization of a saint, which declares that the saint is definitely in heaven, is so complex and careful. We do not know what happens to unbaptized babies. We can only speculate because this is not something that God has chosen to reveal to us. However, the Church does officially teach about Purgatory.

The second point of confusion is between the Church’s teaching about what Purgatory is and theological speculation about how Purgatory will be experienced. Sacred Scripture reveals to us that nothing that is imperfect can be in God’s presence. However, we also know that most of us will die somewhat short of perfection (did you catch the understatement?). Since the effects of grace include healing our sin-damaged nature and elevating it to perfection so that an intimate relationship with God is made possible, we believe that we will truly be perfect as we stand in God’s presence. If we die before the process of conversion to perfection is complete, we believe that God, in His mercy, will complete the process of perfection within us as long as we die in “friendship with God” – without mortal sin. This process of completion is what Purgatory is. Our belief in this act of Grace is validated by Sacred Scripture. The fact that the term Purgatory does not appear in the Bible is beside the point. The term is just a label the Church placed on this concept that is indeed found in the Bible (I’ll post the scripture verses here in the near future). What we do not know, and can only speculate on, is the experience of Purgatory. Purgatory used to be seen as a waiting room or a jail cell where the soul pays reparation for the “temporal punishment for sin” by “doing time.” In fact, some devotionals used to assign a specific number of years in Purgatory for each sin, and a certain number of years that could be taken off of our sentence in Purgatory for an act of indulgence. I do not know much about this practice, and if anyone knows more about it I would really appreciate if you could explain it more clearly by leaving a comment for this post. The vision of Purgatory as a waiting room or a jail cell has somewhat fallen out of favor among post-Vatican II theologians. One reason is the awareness that Purgatory is experienced before the resurrection of our bodies. Without a body, a soul does not experience time in the same way we do now.

One theory that I am personally attracted to is that perhaps Purgatory is actually the experience of the Beatific Vision before our souls are perfectly able to accept God’s love. The effect is like walking outside into the brilliance of a sunny day, especially in winter when the sun reflects off the snow (this happened to me just today). Until our eyes adjust, the light hurts our eyes and causes us pain. Once our eyes adjust, we are able to appreciate the beauty of the sunny day and we are hesitant to go back into the relative darkness of the house. In the same way, God’s glory burns into our imperfect soul and causes suffering because we are not perfectly oriented to receive God’s love. Once our imperfections are burned away, then we are able to enjoy the glory of God’s love. I like this theory because it seems to make sense within human relationships. God intended marriage to be a sign of His relationship with us. When I am not perfectly in tuned to my relationship with my wife (in other words, when I am loving her imperfectly), I sometimes find her love annoying. I cringe when she interrupts my activity and tries to talk with me. I balk when she asks me to do things that are good for me, such as not to forget to take something with me or to do something (and anyone who knows me knows that I need such reminders frequently). In other words, because I am not loving my wife perfectly, her love for me causes me suffering. Only when I focus on burning away the imperfections in my love for her am I able to fully appreciate the beauty of the love that she has for us. Since God’s love for us is infinitely more intense, it stands to reason that it would cause infinitely more suffering as it forces us to face the imperfections of our love for Him. However, this is not a suffering of evil, and it is not eternal suffering. It is a suffering that burns away our imperfections
in the fires of love and drives us to attune ourselves to love Him more perfectly, and therefore to receive His love more perfectly. Once this process is done, our “time” in Purgatory is over and we are able to “enter into” the Beatific Vision and enjoy His glory. Keep in mind that this is just a theory to explain how we might experience Purgatory. The important thing is that what Purgatory is has been defined for us by the Church.

Lastly, I must mention that the Church also still teaches the concepts of “temporal punishment for sin” and “indulgences.” Properly understanding what these things are is extremely important. To explain temporal punishment for sin, I give my students an analogy. Let’s say you are playing baseball with your friends in the back yard. Your parents have told you many times not to play baseball in the back yard because your yard is too small and you would be playing too close to the house. Sure enough, your disobedience results in the baseball breaking through one of the windows of the house. When your parents confront you with it, you are truly sorry for your disobedience and you beg their forgiveness. Despite their justified anger with you, your parents decide not to disown you. In other words, they forgive you. In fact, they may even be moved by your sincere tears to give you a hug and to bring you comfort in your obvious moral suffering. However, even though they forgive you, the consequences of your sin remain. There is still a broken window that needs to be paid for. A good parent is going to hold you accountable for these consequences, and make you pay for the window. More importantly, a good parent also realizes that the deeper issue than the broken window is that you have a tendency to disobedience. This tendency does not easily go away just because you “learned your lesson” this one time. In fact, without consequences for your disobedience this time, the tendency to disobey may actually increase. Therefore, you parents ground you for a month or two. Far from being a sign of unforgiveness, this punishment is an act of love that shows you that disobedience has consequences on your relationship with your parents. The punishment is intended to motivate you to change that relationship, to get rid of the tendency to disobedience. These consequences of sin, the direct consequences, the consequence for our own nature and the consequences on our relationship with God, make up temporal punishment for sin. God tells us that we must pay restitution for our sins, and then he adds another punishment (somewhat mysterious in form) to motivate us to get rid of our sinful tendencies to selfishness and disobedience so that we can perfect our relationship with Him. This is the punishment that must be made up for in this world or in Purgatory after we die. How can we make up for this punishment in this life? That’s where indulgences come in. The historical stain on the term indulgences makes people think of them as a payment to the Church that paves our way to heaven. This was a very real abuse of the practice of indulgences that Martin Luther and other protestors (many who did not separate with the Church but worked from within the Church to make the change) were right to protest. However, the historical abuse of indulgences does not remove the validity of the use of indulgences in the Church. Indulgences are simply spiritual practices that are designed to train our hearts to unite ourselves to God and to the Church. These practices are efficacious (I love that term) in giving us extra grace to form our hearts to love and to erase our temporal punishment for sin.

Why do they give us more grace? This is the point that many of our Protestant and Evangelical friends will have trouble with. The truth is that every spiritual exercise (prayer, devotion, sacrifice, suffering, etc.) can be a path to grace thanks to God’s mercy. However, Christ made the apostles, and therefore the Church, the stewards of grace that comes from Christ: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven.” Therefore, the Church has the ability to determine specific spiritual exercises to be especially efficacious in giving us grace.

Receiving these graces is very easy. The acts of indulgence are all explained in a little book called the Handbook of Indulgences. To receive the indulgence, one needs to:

1. Go to the sacrament of Reconciliation (to gain forgiveness for your sins)
2. Receive the Holy Eucharist (to be intimately united to Christ, the source of all grace)
3. Pray the Creed (to reaffirm your faith in all that God has revealed about Himself)
4. Pray for the intentions of the Holy Father (to unite yourself to the Church)
5. Have no attraction to sin (while this phrase is a bit vague, in moral theology it typically means that you have fully chosen to renounce sin through an act of the will – even if your sense appetite is still attracted to it)
6. Perform the act prescribed by the Church (the act is usually an act of prayer or devotion done in unity with the Church – for example, praying the Rosary in a Church building, going on a pilgrimage to a designated Church or cathedral)

That’s it! Christ’s grace is available to all so very easily! I hope you can see that the Church’s beliefs in Purgatory, Temporal Punishment, and Indulgences are not beliefs that dwell on sin and punishment. While it is important to be reminded of sin and its dangers and consequences, it is more important to move from an awareness of sin to an awareness of the Good News of God’s mercy and grace. These doctrines do just that.They are all about the abundance of God’s merciful love and healing grace.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.