Front Line Moral

Authentic Catholic Moral Analysis and Commentary

Tag: Moral Life

Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

Posted by on in Uncategorized1 Comment

Graphical Abstract

Schwab, C., Domke, L.M., Hartmann, L. et al. Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. Clin Res Cardiol (2022). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5#citeas

My observations: In making medical-moral decisions about healthcare, the patient is entitled to know and freely assess the risks and benefits of the vaccine to himself/herself and to those over whom they have care. This is a complex issue and a person might make a moral decision to take the vaccine. No one has a moral obligation to be vaccinated. It is prudent to consider the benefits and risks. The strongest statement from the Holy See regarding the need for vaccination indicated that it should be considered for the protection of others. It is now known that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus. Under the current circumstances, it would be prudent to make sure one is consulting with medical professionals who are well-read in this area and are willing to discuss forthrightly the risks associated with the vaccine in particular circumstances.

Pius XII Had It Right

Posted by on in Uncategorized1 Comment

Recently, in the Diocese of Lake Charles, we celebrated the White Mass for Medical Professionals. It is called the White Mass because of a physician’s white coat. In the diocese we have formed a Catholic Medical Guild and are applying for guild membership with the Catholic Medical Association. I have been asked to serve as the charter chaplain of the guild. My work in the field of bioethics is one of the reasons, I suppose. Another is the fact that I am already a member of the Catholic Medical Association. I was asked to preach at the White Mass and in my preparation I had the opportunity to reflect on some of the basic principles of Catholic medical morality.

The homily was based primarily on the Gospel for that week, the 30th Week in Ordinary Time. The Gospel came from Luke 18:9-14, describing the contrast between the Pharisee who speaks of his own righteousness and the tax collector who is humble and asks for God’s mercy. This gave me the opportunity to speak about the great blessing of Catholic health care.

Tax collectors, as portrayed in the Gospel, were regarded as sinners. But the Gospels do something interesting here. The Lord grants saving grace to tax collectors. Those tax collectors rise up to become harbingers of the mercy of God. Those mentioned in the Gospel were disposed to repentance when confronted with the truth. The Apostle Matthew, Zaccheus, and the unnamed figure in our Gospel today are the clearest examples. It is on account of Matthew’s invitation to dinner that we hear the Lord’s insight into the human need physical and spiritual healing.  “While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ On hearing this, Jesus said, “’It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” (See Matt. 9:9-13)

The key to preservation of mercy in the new dispensation is the priority of the dignity of the human person, male and female, made in the image and likeness of God. Showing mercy and the respect for individual human dignity are inseparable. These concepts were elegantly restated numerous times by the Supreme Pontiffs beginning in the late 19th century, particularly in the pontificates of Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, and Pope St. John Paul II. The Progressivism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, which led to the eugenics movement with very harmful results, here and abroad, were rebutted by the Popes appealing to the sacred truths of creation and redemption demonstrating the dignity of the human person. The essential characteristic of this teaching was that the community was made for man, not man for the community!

For Centuries, Catholic health care has succeeded in maintaining the proper balance in justice which holds to the priority of persons over things. A priority of the dignity of the individual person over any artifice which would turn human persons into subjects subordinate to the social whole. The pressure is particularly acute in these days to disregard the just aspirations of Catholic administrators, physicians and other professionals, and their patients, summed up in the all-important physician-patient relationship. While it is possible by an abuse of the capacity for freedom to succeed in moving persons to second place behind oxen in pits, or temple treasuries, or corporate profits, or government interests, in Christ’s new creation the common good cannot exist without the priority of persons over things.

In a famous 1952 address to the Medical Community, Pope Pius XII clarified the order of interests among the field of scientific research, the good of the community, and the rights of patients. He stated

“Science is a great good, an excellent value that cannot be despised and whose promotion is a morally noble act. Yet it does not represent the highest value to which all other values must be subject.”

“The patient’s personal right to physical and spiritual life in keeping with his human integrity, as well as retaining confidence in his own doctor, are values that exceed the interests of science. These values might appear banal in relation to scientific breakthroughs, yet medicine cannot exist without them.” Gonzalo Herranz Rodriguez, (1952 Address by Pope Pius XII to the Medical Community https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/1952-adress-by-pope-pius-xii-to-the-medical-community-2631, October 22, 2022.)

He states, “the community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities”, and that the common good, public health and social well-being are most important values.

However, the good of human persons cannot be sacrificed for these goods. There is an intangible individual sacredness of far greater value than the medical interests of the community. (See, Rodriguez) “It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to the usefulness of society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.” (Pius XII, Address)

This is the revelatory logic of the lesson spoken in Mercy to the Pharisees: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

This priority of persons over the goods that Pius XII referred to as the common good, public health and social well-being is important and when this order is violated, grotesque injustices are produced.

It seems as though we have begun to witness this with the mRNA vaccines. We are still trying to catch up to the reality of injuries and deaths from the vaccines. I have seen quite a bit of evidence from various scientific and governmental sources indicating that the vaccines can cause injury (and that is not to say that they cannot ever be used morally). In Catholic bioethics, this is why we require informed consent and hold that one cannot be required to take a vaccine, or any prophylactic or curative treatment for that matter, as a general rule. The primary reason that many prominent people in the Church exhorted and even required submission to the vaccine was the claim that it would protect others. Now we know that the vaccines never did afford protection from transmission of the virus. To the extent that the claim for the protection of others was employed to mitigate against a person’s prudential judgment in refusing the vaccine, the official argument for the vaccine was empty and baseless. Sadly, this lapse in moral judgment also caused injuries. In itself it was always contrary to the good of the person and therefore against Catholic moral principles.

End of Life Decisions

Posted by on in UncategorizedLeave a comment

Health Care Decisions and the End of Life

A Brief Guide

By Fr. Edward J. Richard, MS

Decisions affecting treatment and care at the end of a person’s life can present extraordinary difficulties for those involved.  The public recognition of issues about treatment and care at the end of life has made almost everyone aware, if not fearful, of the possibility of becoming dependent upon other people and technological help to sustain one’s life when a life threatening condition befalls oneself or a loved one.  The impending sense of loss can become entwined with other emotions surrounding serious questions about appropriate care of the seriously ill or dying person.  Since many families do not discuss these matters beforehand, decisions often have to be made when the result is a matter of life and death.  There are many questions that could be clarified beforehand by a loving and frank discussion within the family.

            Many people these days make statements about not wanting to be “put on a tube” or “hooked up to a machine.”  They fear that their lives will be prolonged needlessly when there is no chance of getting better, an idea that has been planted in many minds by supporters of euthanasia.   Other times people make these statements because they do not want to “be a burden” to the rest of their family or to a particular relative who will have the most responsibility for their care.  How many people will make decisions to forego treatment because they think the requirements of caring for them will be too much of an inconvenience upon their children or other close relatives?  In this regard a little bit of concern and a desire to be of Christ-like service to those we are close to can make a world of difference in assuring that loved ones live and, when the time comes, die surrounded by love.

            Hospitals and other health-related institutions are required to make inquiries of a person about future treatment decisions when that person is admitted.  This is one way people become acquainted with the practical realities of what are called “advance directives” or “advance declarations” for health care.  Usually, the hospital forms appear to be quite simple and straightforward since the person is asked just to mark the form beside each type of treatment that one would like to refuse.  For example, the form typically provides the person with the opportunity to refuse, in advance, such things as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, dialysis, ventilator, insulin and antibiotics, and even food and water when it is administered through a tube because the person becomes unable to swallow.  No one is required to check anything off the form and can request all beneficial treatment.  The hospital is directed not to provide any kind of treatment the patient marks off usually without regard to the moral circumstances that are involved in the case.  Failure to provide any of these can and usually will result in the patient’s death.  These are the same kinds of questions that are covered by the so-called “Living Will” and “Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Decisions.”

            In most cases, health care professionals will try diligently to conform to the wishes of the patient or the person who is making decisions for the patient.  However, in some cases, family members disagree among themselves or with hospitals over the level of care to be given in a situation.  Some of the more troubling cases end up being decided by courts.  Often these situations can be avoided by discussions with one’s family and physician.  At the same time, though, consumers of medical services should be aware that more health care providers are willing to disagree with patients or their family members, especially when the physician and hospital agree that a treatment should not be given even if the family would like it.  In some form or other, more and more hospitals are adopting policies known as “medical futility” policies in order to give them the legal right to refuse treatment to a patient because they do not think that the patient will benefit from it.  This can be based on the judgment of medical personnel to the effect that the patient’s quality of life will not be sufficient after the treatment to merit prolonging the life of the patient.

            There are certain guidelines provided in the authentic teaching of the Church that will be helpful in these decisions whether or not the patient has an advance directive of any kind.   These guidelines come from teachings by the Pope or from a Vatican Congregation that has teaching authority, from bishops, and from committees of the bishops’ conference which help explain and apply the authentic teaching of the Church.

  1. Euthanasia is an action or omission which by its nature or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may be eliminated. (Declaration on Euthanasia, [DE])
  2. Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.  Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. (DE)
  3. The moral responsibility of self-preservation obliges everyone to use the normal means that medicine can offer for preserving one’s life. (DE)
  4. It is permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer.  Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide. (DE)
  5. If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk.  By accepting them, the patient can show generosity in the service to humanity. (DE)
  6. It is also permitted with the patient’s consent to interrupt these means where the results fall short of expectations. (DE)
  7. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “overzealous” treatment.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2278)
  8. When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. (DE)
  9. Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. (CCC 2279)
  10. A great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous, or disproportionate to the expected outcome (overzealous treatment)… and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life, such as feeding, hydration, and normal medical care. (John Paul II, Oct. 2, 1998)

Persons who are faced with difficult medical care decisions should make a great effort to know and understand the patient’s condition and to get whatever assistance one needs in doing so.  When a difficult decision must be made and there is a lack of clarity about what prudence dictates in a case, one might choose to call the Pro-life office to gain assistance in the matter.

‘No moral duty for anyone to be vaccinated,’ Dominican priest says – LifeSite

Posted by on in Uncategorized1 Comment

‘No one should be coerced to receive experimental medical procedures or treatments,’ wrote Father Ezra Sullivan. ‘Basic civil rights of people cannot be removed by the state for a mandate that delivers so little benefit.’
— Read on www.lifesitenews.com/news/no-moral-duty-for-anyone-to-be-vaccinated-dominican-priest-says/

The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life: Part II

Posted by on in UncategorizedLeave a comment

Part II: The Holy Eucharist, the Virtue of Faith and the Sin of Unbelief

The worthiness to receive Holy Communion is the subject of much discussion these days, especially in regard to public sinners, and particularly in the case of politicians who support and promote gravely immoral, intrinsically evil actions, such as the promotion of legalized abortion and the many variations which depart from the sanctity of marriage. The Church’s authentic teaching states explicitly that these notorious sinners are not to present themselves for Holy Communion. It is inconsistent with the very nature of God to suggest that Christ, and therefore those remade in his image, could choose such actions. By being known publicly for supporting such sins or engaging in them, one becomes a source of public scandal. Hopefully, what I have said so far about the moral life opens us to a new dimension in this discussion. The Eucharist is the food of the new Man, recreated in Christ’s image, not the old man corrupted by illusory desires. The fruits of the Eucharist include deepening our incorporation into Christ and commits us to the poorest among us, including the spiritual impoverished. We must recognize that there is such a thing as spiritual suicide and it is very easy for those of us with some responsibility to fall into the trap of committing spiritual euthanasia.

Unfortunately, the efforts made to address abuses regarding Holy Communion, while worthy, are likely to yield very little fruit without a rekindling of faith, the foundation of the Christian moral life. In the Church we are conditioned by the apparent lack of faith and loss of the virtue of religion. Indeed, I suggest that what we are doing here and across the diocese in the context of this entire event is an opportunity for God to enlighten our minds and liven our spirits. The truth of the Holy Eucharist is so austere and beautifully compelling that those who speak for the Church should have a deep concern for their own souls should they not attempt to present, explain and defend it, insuring that its power is being manifested in a lively expression of faith among the members of the parishes of the diocese. I do not wish to delve into that subject too deeply. However, I do hope that what I have to say here will encourage you hold to and express the truth of faith regarding this mystery.

Given the circumstance of a basic belief in the truth of the Holy Eucharist, that the Lord is truly present and that the Eucharist is to be worshiped with the adoration due to God, then, it is easy to accept and hold that serious sinners should not present themselves for Holy Communion and that those who are notorious public sinners should not be given Holy Communion by any minister of the sacrament as the law of the Church directs. The divine economy in that regard is this: God has created us to know the truth and the heart, at times, needs to be treated with an external remedy to recognize the interior injury. The illusions of false belief in the interior will not easily fall if the external acts of religion continue unhindered.  

Faith in the Eucharist – Divine and Catholic Faith

The matter of the moral question with respect to the Holy Eucharist begins with the virtue of Faith itself. First of all, as we have seen, it is because divine faith engenders the new man and, by its power we are to put to death the old man who lives according to the way of death. Widespread reports indicate that a sizeable number of those who identify themselves as Catholics do not hold the faith of the Church in respect to the Holy Eucharist. We need to believe in the Holy Eucharist. And, the widespread lack of belief in the Eucharist may well be the most damaging development in the entire history of the Church.

Given the characteristics of some of the problems that plague the Church, it is not surprising that notable clerics have suggested that it is up to the laity to rise up and rescue the faith, and we can only pray this will be so. This recovery, however, cannot happen without faith in the Holy Eucharist. It must be recognized as a moral imperative that each one of us must do everything within our means to bolster faith in the Eucharist of Christ. This is as basic and essential as the proclamation of the Kingdom itself. “Teach them everything I have commanded you.”

A 2019 EWTN/RealClear Opinion Research poll found that only 49% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. A Pew Research Center poll the same year placed the number even lower, reporting that “just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that ‘during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus.’” 

Perhaps even more disturbingly, 43% of the Catholics polled by Pew believed that the position of the Church itself is that the bread and wine the faithful receive at Holy Communion is merely symbolic. Michael Warsaw, https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/eucharistic-coherence, Nov. 6, 2021.

Michael Warsaw’s comments emphasize the point I made earlier about belief and practice regarding politicians and other public sinners. “This pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of Catholicism’s central sacrament might make the actions of pro-abortion Catholic politicians who present themselves for reception of Communion somewhat more comprehensible, if no less disturbing. After all, a Catholic who thinks the sacrament is nothing more than a symbol, not Jesus himself, is far more likely to be unconcerned about receiving Communion while breaking with Church teachings on moral evils like abortion.” Warsaw, “Eucharistic Coherence.”

As I have been saying the morality of the matter depends upon the virtue of faith and its grasp of the truth of the Holy Eucharist.

The virtue of faith is a supernatural gift that brings with it the gifts of knowledge and understanding of the heavenly mysteries. By the virtue of faith we are habitually enabled to accept everything that is revealed by God. To have faith is to think with assent or internal acceptance of the truths of faith. Faith contains specific articles and the assent to those articles is given on account of God Himself. He is the cause of faith. He gives the believer a sure knowledge of the divine mysteries. One cannot be said, both to have true faith, and to persist in doubt about the Holy Eucharist. One believes on account of God.

The Church understands and teaches, therefore, that there are identifiable truths revealed by God and, by God’s command, identified and defined by the authentic magisterium to be believed as a teaching of faith divinely revealed. These are such teachings as that of the One and Triune God, that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, and the Divine Foundation of the Church. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is one such teaching that must be believed with theological or divine and Catholic faith. To refuse to do so sets one in opposition to the teaching of the Church, but once one has been taught this truth, having received the faith, it constitutes a grave sin of unbelief and separates one from the Catholic Church. An obstinate denial of this truth or an obstinate doubt concerning the Holy Eucharist is called the sin of heresy. One’s profession of the Faith carries with it the moral responsibility of enlightening the mind and is expressed in the command of the will that the intellect assent to this truth. A person who does not believe the truth of the Holy Eucharist should not receive Holy Communion until doubt is resolved and assent to the truth can be given. Here we should be mindful predominantly of the immense truth and beauty of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist and less so on the alleged bad will of the sinner who cannot resolve the doubt.

Fr. Walter Farrell, the great Dominican Theologian from the last century, speaks of the great gift saying, following the words of Christ, “They tasted and lived, lived as men had never dared hope to live; lived by the life of God.” Companion to the Summa, Vol. IV, 301. He continues,” For eleven hundred years, it never occurred to men to challenge it directly; it was too close to dreams, too wholly reality, too vibrant with life to leave room for a doubt.” However, there appeared Berengarius who denied the real presence of Christ, suggesting that man created his own heavenly food moved by the symbol of the sacrament. Before he died, he came to know “the emptiness he had introduced into his own life, admitted it and received again the Bread of Life.” 301 As Fr. Farrell observes, it was five centuries before the Eucharist was challenged again. Among the three most prominent challengers, only the Swedish Reformer Ulrich Zwingli “dared to step as far off the path of life as Berengarius had.” But the effect grew and men “steadily lost the taste for this divine food…. [As men] forgot Calvary, what meaning had the living memento of that great gesture of friendship?….To eat this Bread, a man must approach humbly to a food that is his Master, falling down in adoration; he must be stripped of the fundamental selfishness that puts himself before God, or he eats it to his damnation…This is too much to ask of a world whose prescription for life is rather pride in self-sufficiency, satisfaction at whatever cost, and escape from life rather than a challenge to it.” Farrell, 301.

Farrell goes on to teach us that he Holy Eucharist is not something that we consider a mere nicety added to the divine perfection of our humanity. Humanity needs the Bread of Life. Man cannot live without it. It would suffice to have the Eucharist in desire to lead to the life of union with God. All of the other sacraments, including Baptism, are ordered to the Eucharist. And all of the sacraments including the Eucharist are given to the Church as causes, under the power of the Holy Spirit, to bring about the completion of man’s journey to happiness. And with the intention supplied by the Church, even an infant in baptism already receives the Eucharist by desire, implicitly. Farrell, 304.