About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
“Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning.“
Specifically, then, what is it?
“Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions.“
So nobody knows what God wants? What is the purpose of these comments?
“[W]e are called to treat life as sacred.“
When, where, and by whom? God does not treat life as sacred. God allegedly killed almost everyone on earth in his flood, went on to kill various individuals as punishment, and stood by and allowed Job’s family to be destroyed for the purpose of winning an argument. What is sacred to God appears not to be “life” but how it is lived–i.e., righteously or unrighteously (except in the mind-numbing case of Job, in which even righteousness cannot save Job and nothing but God himself is sacred).
“…because of their culture of ‘death’…“
Do you mean that the rest of us, who are not Christians, are happy living around, causing, and socially promoting death?
“…the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them.“
I can at least half agree with this. Using the state to promote Christianity is not a good idea. However, I still find it historically inaccurate, scripturally unsound, and theologically hypocritical to claim some “culture of life” for Christianity.
“It is not God’s fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God’s standard.“
No, but it is certainly God’s fault for setting the standard and the penalty. The standard being, “Behave as I tell you to,” the penalty being, “or else I kill you.”
“One cannot infer that God was indifferent to the lives lost because God judged the need to renew creation.“
God actively and deliberately killed almost every living thing on the planet, according to the story. He makes Hitler look like a pansy.
God created everyone, then said he loved them, then told them how they had to behave (with the empty gesture of “free will” thrown in), and then when they failed to live up to his standard, he made them mortal (i.e., “the Fall”). Now they had to die, instead of living long, luxurious lives in God’s backyard, the “Garden of Eden.”
But even mortality didn’t scare them away from misbehavior. So this time he killed almost all of them, as I said, actively and deliberately, and mercilessly. He did the same thing again, on a much smaller scale, at Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s quite clear that God doesn’t give a rat’s behind (as Funky has taken to saying) who is on the earth, so long as whoever it is, they’re doing what he wants them to do. If everybody on earth is misbehaving, God has no problem with killing them all and trying to replace them with people who will behave as he wants. One can be glad, at least, that after the flood God learned his lesson and realized that this technique won’t work, because people are always going to misbehave.
Of course, his next big scheme was hardly any more praiseworthy. He couldn’t reform humanity by killing us all, so he got himself killed in a bizarre bid for our attention, along with a new and unimproved ultimatum. This time, you have to recognize and validate, by your “faith,” the Divine Suicide, or else, well, you’re already gonna die, so this time, if you don’t play along, then after you die, you’re gonna be tortured by fire (because even though God has promised not to destroy us with water, he still has fire at his disposal), or some metaphorical equivalent, depending on your interpretation. Either way, God has a (metaphorical) gun to our heads, and is not a nice guy.
Oh, sure, there’s salvation and there’s mercy, but only if you play along. Worship this guy who created us and now holds us hostage with his omnipotence. What if I don’t want to play along? What if, as I’m explicating now, I think the whole thing is disgusting and manipulative? It’s like forced Stockholm syndrome. It’s especially strange, too, since God is supposed to be perfect, but he somehow finds a way in his perfection to still have a persistent need and desire for humans to play along with his deadly game.
It was not a brilliant move on God’s part to give us the ability to think for ourselves, but still require us to reach a particular conclusion, a conclusion which, strangely enough, the vast majority of humans have not managed to reach on their own. Are we free but just too stupid to be right? Or is God an inept, murderous sociopath with borderline personality disorder?
“ We are not here just to exist, we are here for a purpose and can choose to subvert seriously that purpose.“
Yes, we are here to be God’s playthings. Not a game I want to play.
“We make decisions every day that may prolong or shorten our lives. As long as we deliberately don’t destroy our life or other’s, we are not acting against God’s will.“
How do you define “deliberately”? What about someone who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day, knowing that it reduces life expectancy, but doing it anyway, for the pleasure of smoking them? What about someone who has a heart condition that makes strenuous physical activity dangerous and, despite this knowledge, decides to climb a mountain anyway, because the potential high of the experience outweighs the prospect of death? What about a woman who has been told that childbirth will likely be fatal for her, but conceives anyway? What if the smoker dies young, the hiker falls dead on the mountainside, and the woman does not survive childbirth? Did those individuals “deliberately” destroy their lives?
Now, what if the smoker knows nothing of cancer or heart disease, the hiker knows nothing of his heart condition, and the woman knows nothing of her ability to give birth? Does the situation change?
Can our knowledge about ourselves and about the world create ethical barriers against particular actions? Is self-destruction okay if it is carried out in ignorance?
“If I use my reason and conclude that pharmaceuticals will work better than prayer, which most evidence supports, than I am not acting against God’s commandment.“
How do you know that? Which commandment of God addressed pharmaceuticals?
“[M]odern medicine is a product of human freedom utilizing God’s creation.“
How do you know that it is a product of “human freedom” rather than a product of human sin? Wasn’t the original human sin the direct result of the exercise of human freedom beyond the realm of knowledge made acceptable by God?
If it was a sin for Adam and Eve to reach for knowledge that they hoped would make them more like God (in the knowledge of good and evil), then why is it not a sin for modern humans to reach for knowledge that they hope will make them more like God (in the power to give and take life)?
And finally, back to the heart of my original question: For Christians who are faced with the prospect of loved ones on life support, the question of when God has given or taken the right to life is not merely an abstract one. Christians who want to make a decision that properly reflects their beliefs will need some knowledge or help or rationale. How, specifically, can a Christian know when it is okay to pull the plug, to not resuscitate, or to stop trying? Or, is the decision, as I suspect, entirely subjective, unaided by Christian texts or traditions, and left wholly to the conscience of the person making it? If so, how is the Christian in this situation unlike anyone else in the same situation, and what good does it do to bluster with words about God’s intent or desire for life if no one can even know what God specifically wants, or whether God specifically wants anything at all?
“[Morality] is based on deliberation on the moral values that were established by God and what the kingship of God should entail. It is also a leap of faith, since we see but in part.“
You still offer nothing in the way of specifics. Also, by making morality dependent on God, you perpetuate the hypothesis that non-theists cannot be moral.
“I don’t have enough time to explain.“
That’s not an answer, either.
“If you read the context of Noah, you’ll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary.“
Why do you assume I haven’t read the context?
The “sin of humankind” only made the flood “necessary” because God deemed it so. God had to decide that not living up to his standard warranted death for every living thing on the planet. I.e., as I said above, God seems quite clearly to care little for life itself and much, much more for how that life is behaving–righteously or unrighteously.
“Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor. “
The accuser had the idea; God did not have to go along. (Or, if he did, what kind of God is that?) But God did go along, and was quite willing to sit back and watch as Job’s life and his family were destroyed, simply to prove a point.
“You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some “bad” theology as well.“
If you’re going to get into a discussion with me, don’t expect to make comments like that and have me play nice (or at all) afterward. Your job is not to tell me that I misunderstand you or your argument. Your job is to make a better argument, which you have not done.
“Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning.”
Specifically, then, what is it?
It is based on deliberation on the moral values that were established by God and what the kingship of God should entail. It is also a leap of faith, since we see but in part.
“Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions.”
So nobody knows what God wants? What is the purpose of these comments?
We are fallible, but should continue to study and learn from scripture and experiences, past and present.
“[W]e are called to treat life as sacred.”
When, where, and by whom? God does not treat life as sacred. God allegedly killed almost everyone on earth in his flood, went on to kill various individuals as punishment, and stood by and allowed Job’s family to be destroyed for the purpose of winning an argument. What is sacred to God appears not to be “life” but how it is lived–i.e., righteously or unrighteously (except in the mind-numbing case of Job, in which even righteousness cannot save Job and nothing but God himself is sacred).
I don’t have enough time to explain. If you read the context of Noah, you’ll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary. Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor.
“…because of their culture of ‘death’…”
Do you mean that the rest of us, who are not Christians, are happy living around, causing, and socially promoting death?
not all of you(and many “Christians” are like this too), but our hyper-individualism in the US does cause us to neglect the consequences of our actions on others.
“…the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them.”
I can at least half agree with this. Using the state to promote Christianity is not a good idea. However, I still find it historically inaccurate, scripturally unsound, and theologically hypocritical to claim some “culture of life” for Christianity.
The history of institutional Christianity is very tragic. I think we went seriously wrong when we allowed the Roman Emperor to make Christianity the official religion of the empire.
You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some “bad” theology as well. Have you ever read Greg Boyd’s “Letters from a Skeptic”? You might like it.
dlw
“It is not God’s fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God’s standard.”
No, but it is certainly God’s fault for setting the standard and the penalty. The standard being, “Behave as I tell you to,” the penalty being, “or else I kill you.”
As I’ve studied the matter, the commands for humankind were part of the covenantal relationship they had with the Lord God(Yahweh Elohim). They entailed primarily our acceptance that we are not God. Death and destruction of ourselves and others were natural consequences of our choices. God only ended the lives of those that were too far along to be saved and doing far more harm than good. This is a choice that God is uniquely positioned to make.
God actively and deliberately killed almost every living thing on the planet, according to the story. He makes Hitler look like a pansy.
God’s flood was not to exterminate an entire race. It was a consequence of the extent of humanity’s depravity. There is no comparison. Hitler was a social-reject with charisma that gave the Germans easy answers they were willing to listen to because of their long-standing economic duress and wrongful nationalism.
God created everyone, then said he loved them, then told them how they had to behave (with the empty gesture of “free will” thrown in), and then when they failed to live up to his standard, he made them mortal (i.e., “the Fall”). Now they had to die, instead of living long, luxurious lives in God’s backyard, the “Garden of Eden.”
We were cast out of direct community with God because we had sought become like God. Having such knowledge, we were a danger to ourselves and others if we remained conditionally immortal. That is why we were kicked out of garden, for our own good.
I’m so sorry I don’t have time to reply to everything. I would suggest that you consider checking out “Letters from a Skeptic”. I also would want to suggest that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of one’s theology or understanding of the OT by no means reflects one’s intelligence.
I hope others can do more justice to your questions than I can, as I am in need of devoting much time to prepare to leave to spend time studying and serving in Sweden and Ukraine.
dlw
How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with modern medicine?
Because modern medicine is a product of human freedom utilizing God’s creation.
Are those renounce medical and pharmaceutical technology in favor of healing by prayer actually right?
No — If I use my reason and conclude that pharmaceuticals will work better than prayer, which most evidence supports, than I am not acting against God’s commandment. Besides, when Jesus taught us how to pray, he added “thy will be done”.
How do we decide the will of God?. God doesn’t have a “will” for every decision in our life — though sometimes we talk like He does (Does God want me to buy this house? Or to change jobs?). But there are always a variety of actions that we can take that are in keeping with God’s will. We make decisions every day that may prolong or shorten our lives. As long as we deliberately don’t destroy our life or other’s, we are not acting against God’s will.
When do life-saving techniques stop being appropriate efforts and start being contrary to God’s wishes?. I don’t know that they ever are contrary to God’s wishes, but there reaches a point where they are no longer “life-saving” but “death-delaying”. I don’t know if it becomes sinful, but it certainly becomes futile.
Incidentally, John Kavanaugh (one of my favorite thinkers) makes some of these distinctions here in his essay on the Schiavo case (written about 18 months ago)
You still offer nothing in the way of specifics. Also, by making morality dependent on God, you perpetuate the hypothesis that non-theists cannot be moral.
There is not a formula that will determine right conduct. When we face new circumstances, we deal with them in light of the past. This includes consideration of what Scripture teaches and similar situations in the past.
To state that all morality stems from God by no means says that someone who does not believe in God cannot be moral. That’s a non sequitur.
“If you read the context of Noah, you’ll see that it was the sin of humankind that made the flood necessary.”
Why do you assume I haven’t read the context?
It also helps to compare the flood account with the alternatives of its day. In most accounts, humans were annoying pests that the gods wiped out in large numbers frequently as part of their pest-population control. In the Genesis account, it is clear that it was because of the extent that humanity had turned away from God that it had to be judged.
The “sin of humankind” only made the flood “necessary” because God deemed it so. God had to decide that not living up to his standard warranted death for every living thing on the planet. I.e., as I said above, God seems quite clearly to care little for life itself and much, much more for how that life is behaving–righteously or unrighteously.
It is not God’s fault that humankind rebelled so thoroughly from God’s standard. One cannot infer that God was indifferent to the lives lost because God judged the need to renew creation. We are not here just to exist, we are here for a purpose and can choose to subvert seriously that purpose.
“Likewise, with Job, this was part of an adversarial relationship between God and the accusor. “
The accuser had the idea; God did not have to go along. (Or, if he did, what kind of God is that?) But God did go along, and was quite willing to sit back and watch as Job’s life and his family were destroyed, simply to prove a point.
The adversarial relationship between God and the accuser existed(and still exists to an extent). It also was the product of created beings subverting their God-given free-wills. God did not want us to be robots. We humans are subject to the privations of fallen spiritual beings, but God will never let anything happen to us that we and God cannot handle together.
“You seem to be misunderstanding the OT, however, and perhaps suffering from some “bad” theology as well.”
If you’re going to get into a discussion with me, don’t expect to make comments like that and have me play nice (or at all) afterward. Your job is not to tell me that I misunderstand you or your argument. Your job is to make a better argument, which you have not done.
my apologies. I was in a hurry and probably somewhat conceited.
dlw
Discernment of right conduct is more than just application of our forms of rational reasoning.
Being a Christian does not mean one has unmediated access to an infallible guide for right conduct. The Bible was never meant to be a blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable situation, as some make it out to be. And we Christians have not been teleologically led by the Holy Spirit in the development of our traditions.
I think at stake here is judging the consequences of our actions in light of the kingship of God. At issue with
euthanasia is the sort of life that someone has for the rest of their life, not whether they die or not.
As a Christian, I affirm that even a life with much reduced functionality can still be glorifying to God and we are called to treat life as sacred. However, we also need to bear in mind that we also believe that there is more beyond this life and that we will all be resurrected with new bodies like Jesus had. As such, the prolongation of our time alive in these bodies is not our highest callings. To allow for some applications of euthanasia does not reject a culture of life and if others abused euthanasia because of their culture of “death”, the best way to prevent them is to convert them to the culture of life, not wield the sword of the state over them.
dlw
ps, I summarized my idea to depoliticize abortion at my site, the Anti-Manicheist.
dlw
Response to:
“‘If suicide or murder are wrong because they contravene God’s
alleged desires for the course of a life, how can you not apply the
same reasoning to technological attempts to extend a life in the face
of otherwise insurmountable difficulties? I.e., if a person would die
without medical intervention, how is medical intervention also not a
contravention of God’s apparent desires? If ‘rights come from God and
God alone,’ then the right to live also comes from God and God alone,
does it not? How does one ascertain when God has removed that right,
beyond which point all human efforts to maintain life are in
opposition to the will or desire of God?’
“How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with modern medicine? Are
those renounce medical and pharmaceutical technology in favor of
healing by prayer actually right? How do we decide the will of God?
When do life-saving techniques stop being appropriate efforts and
start being contrary to God’s wishes?”
————————————–
His initial statement is false. In GodÂ’s infinite love and wisdom, he
has given free will to the human race. The acts of suicide and murder
are not wrong in so far as they take away GodÂ’s desires for the
course of our life.
Think of it in terms of macro and micro life management. God desires
that we live out our lives in the pursuit of loving him and our world
(agape love) in parallel with God and others loving us. How we
fulfill this is up to us, with His grace and guidance, or by
ourselves in rejecting Him.
Murder and suicide are manifestations of rejected love. With faith
and hope, love blossoms. Prayer, medicine, and other medical
technologies give hope and manifest love from caregivers and others.
As far as when medical means are futile, the RCC says that ordinary
means should be maintained indefinitely, whereas extraordinary means
are optional, i.e., feeding and providing water for someone versus
employing an artificial breathing device.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church Reference ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN…G0015/ __P7Z.HTM ):
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, 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.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” 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.
2279 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.)
Which “initial statement” are you talking about?
The first statement:
“If suicide or murder are wrong because they contravene God’s alleged desires for the course of a life, how can you not apply the same reasoning to technological attempts to extend a life in the face of otherwise insurmountable difficulties?Ââ€
How does “free will” mean anything if, despite our alleged freedom, there is only one appropriate direction (toward God, in favor of God’s desire, etc.)? Are you denying that God has a “will” or a “desire” for human life? If so, how does that align with the fact that rejecting God is clearly wrong in your cosmology, because God does not want to be rejected? Is the rejection of God a sin because it contravenes God’s desire to not be rejected, or because the rejection of God is inherently sinful (i.e., not having anything to do with God’s desire)? If it is the former, then God clearly has a desire that we must follow, on pain of punishment, in which case our alleged “free will” is only a rhetorical gesture (and a rather empty one, in my opinion–we are free to choose what God tells us to choose, like Henry Ford saying the Model-T was available in any color you wanted so long as it was black). If it is the latter, and rejecting God is inherently wrong, with or without God’s desire on the subject, then what makes it wrong? Does that not indicate a standard of morality that is independent of God? If so, whence that standard?
I along with any other Christian, indeed, any believer in the God of Abraham, will tell you that God has a ‘will’.
Please recall Jesus’ statement (Luke 22:42): “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.†Look at this in fully human terms (Jesus was also fully God, but that will take this argument off subject). God’s will was that Jesus would essentially take the cup of death. (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:16) The will of the Father was that he accepted this, but he still had the free will to deny God, indeed deny himself.
GodÂ’s will is this:
‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mindÂ’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourselfÂ’ (Luke 10:27)
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
Again I say:
Think of it in terms of macro and micro life management. God desires that we live out our lives in the pursuit of loving him and our world (agape love) in parallel with God and others loving us. How we fulfill this is up to us, with His grace and guidance, or by ourselves in rejecting Him.
Murder and suicide are manifestations of ***rejected love***. With faith and hope, love blossoms. Prayer, medicine, and other medical technologies give hope and manifest love from caregivers and others.
Which “initial statement” are you talking about?
How does “free will” mean anything if, despite our alleged freedom, there is only one appropriate direction (toward God, in favor of God’s desire, etc.)?
Are you denying that God has a “will” or a “desire” for human life? If so, how does that align with the fact that rejecting God is clearly wrong in your cosmology, because God does not want to be rejected? Is the rejection of God a sin because it contravenes God’s desire to not be rejected, or because the rejection of God is inherently sinful (i.e., not having anything to do with God’s desire)? If it is the former, then God clearly has a desire that we must follow, on pain of punishment, in which case our alleged “free will” is only a rhetorical gesture (and a rather empty one, in my opinion–we are free to choose what God tells us to choose, like Henry Ford saying the Model-T was available in any color you wanted so long as it was black). If it is the latter, and rejecting God is inherently wrong, with or without God’s desire on the subject, then what makes it wrong? Does that not indicate a standard of morality that is independent of God? If so, whence that standard?