Dutch Priest stands ground after denying funeral to man who chose euthanasia

NORTH BRABANT, Netherlands, August 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Dutch priest is standing his ground after following directives from the country’s bishops that anyone who opts for euthanasia is not entitled to a church funeral, according to Radio Netherlands.

Father Norbert van der Sluis, from the parish of Liempde in North Brabant, denied the Catholic rite of funeral to a man who ended his life through euthanasia, reports ANP. Van der Sluis said that he felt bound to uphold the rules which the Dutch bishops have agreed upon.

The priest’s adherence to the Dutch bishops’ directives has sparked a local protest, caused the church council to halt a fundraising campaign to repair the church organ, and sparked outrage in the Dutch media.

Father van der Sluis’ parish council has reportedly demanded an apology from the priest and told him that he had better change his policy.

“If he does not, you’d better get another priest,” said a board member from the diocese of Den Bosch to the parish council.

Fr. John Lemire, the Chairman of Priests for Life Canada, told LifeSiteNews that the situation in Holland “is a very interesting and delicate situation” that affects not only the Church in Holland, “but the Church in general today.”

“The Church has firmly taught over the centuries that one is only morally responsible for rational decisions that he or she makes,” he said. “If medical science and psychology come to understand that a person is capable of making a rational decision to end his/her life, this then raises new questions and pastoral responses from the Church since a person would therefore be morally responsible for his or her decisions and the direct taking of life is a never morally acceptable.”

The family of the euthanized man has asked for another priest to preside over the funeral in the same parish. But Father van der Sluis has said that this is unacceptable.

“As a matter of conscience I cannot allow a fellow priest to say the funeral mass in my church,” he said.

Prominent conservative writer Wesley J. Smith has taken issue with the criticism that the priest is receiving. Refusing a funeral wouldn’t be my preference, but it was the priest’s, and doesn’t his conscience deserve at least equal respect to that of the decedent’s to receive doctor-injected death?” he said.

“Here’s the bottom line. All of this talk of ‘choice’ in the culture of death is just talk. It is really about enforced moral conformity.”

Our pastor explains it (paraphrasing) that a Catholic committing suicide may have changed his mind at the last moment; and we don’t know whether he did, or not. Therefore, providing a funeral, burial, etc. “just in case” is an act of mercy.

I don’t know if I buy it, but I do know that our Catholic Parish has more than one suicide buried in our Catholic cemetary, dating back at least 15 years. That includes a church employee — the minister of adult education.

Now, just this summer, a big, black, faux stone bench has shown up on the walk way into the main church with an inscription on it thanking “so and so” for “her years of dedication to the church school” from “the book club” proclaiming a curious wish of “going together” and a picture of a bouquet of balloons flying away. No scripture, no nothing.

I did not know this woman, but I’m told she was another suicide and the sister of the music minister/director.

Personally, I think that this is inappropriate for a Catholic church. What do you folks think?

1) The Pastor’s explanation for providing services for suicides.

2) The very prominent display of a memorial (reminder?) for a suicide (victim? participant?).

I find this disturbing.

This situation lays bare the corruption and bankruptcy of euthanasia.

Facts:

1. X was terminally ill.
2. X was advised by all appropriate professionals about euthanasia.
3. X willingly signed papers asking for euthanasia.
4. X was never subjected to any undue pressure.
5. X faced no pressing financial burden.
6. X did not choose euthanisia out of fear.
7. X had other real options for dealing with his illness and everntual death and he understood those options.
8. X was at all times mentally and psychologically.
9. X was euthanised.
10. X’s family wants a Catholic funeral Mass and burial.

Catholic Teaching:

11. He who makes the rational and informed choice to reject God’s gift of life by asking to be deliberately killed is guilty of self-murder and rejectionof God.
12. He can also share in the responsibility for the sin of the person who carries out the euthanasia (the medical professional or loved one).
13. He also gives witness to others that he rejects God’s gift of life.
14. Such grave and defiant rejection of God is a choice that the Church must repect and does respect by refusing to offer a funeral Mass for him who is well-informed, has real options, is pyshologically stable and free of undue pressures and fears, yet who freely and rationally chooses death over life.

Dilemma:

15. Should X have a funeral Mass and Catholic burial?

Argument:

16. The Church should have compassion on anyone who faces such a difficult situation. After all, the Church teaches that “grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship and suffering” can diminish one’s responsibility for choosing suicide. Of course X faced all of those, so X is not morally culpable for his suicide and therefore a funeral is appropriate.

Response:

17. There is no evidence that X experienced “grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship and suffering” - in fact, the law and medical ethics rules prohibit euthanasia of a person who faces any such conditions.
18. If the family is now saying that X faced these conditions, then why did the family allow the euthanasia to proceed?
19. If the family is now saying that X faced these conditions, then they are also saying that X did not freely and rationally choose euthanasia.

If a society wants to affirm that suicide is a sound and rational option for those facing great fear, pain, and pyschological pressure, then that society should state that plainly. Meanwhile, most of us will stick with counseling, friendship, charity, and palliative care as the only options that are not barbaric.

Btw: my view is that he should have a funeral because the whole charade that props up euthanasia as a rational and sound option is a grand lie propagated by the state and the medical doctors. When your (Dutch) government and your doctor (who works for that government, by the way) are telling you that suicide is a good thing, this can be persuasive especially to a person facing a serious illness that is painful or debilitating. Such a person is de facto vulnerable and afraid and facing serious pressures - and thus very susceptible to persuasion.

However, I do agree that if we take the euthanasia crowd at their word, the choice to ask for assisted-suicide is always made a person who is well-informed and under no undue pressure or coercion. Therefore, such a person rationally chose to reject God - and act of the free will. Why would the Church not respect that free and rational choice to reject God? A funeral is a statement that the deceased embraced and accepted God - and as such it would be wholly inappropriate under such circumstances.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.