The Sacredness of the Human Person: Cessation of Treatment

Cf. Singer Peter , “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life”, Pediatrics 72, 128–129 (#1, July 1983).

An excellent discussion of the difference between reverence and such attitudes as valuing and respect is to be found in: Stith Richard , “Toward Freedom From Value,” The Jurist 38, 48, (1978), pp 62–69.

Capital punishment is not an exception to this. Rather, the Holy One has commanded that, for the double desecration involved in a murder (the outer desecration of the victim and the inner desecration of the murderer), an outer destruction of the desecrator take place.

This comparison with a church building is set out clearly by St. Paul when he speaks of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. In discussing the desecration of the Christian by fornication, he is, of course, speaking of a desecration of what is holy as well as sacred. Cf. 1 Cor. 3: 16-17 and 6: 19-20; 2 Cor. 6: 16.

Thus, already in the 4th Century the Church solemnly condemned castration of oneself in service of “the higher end” of chastity.

Allocution to anesthesiologists (Nov. 24), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49, 1027–1033 (1957). (English translation: The Pope Speaks 4, 393-398 (1958).

In a church, there exist degrees of sacredness. The Most Holy and the Most Sacred can, at need, be transported elsewhere. The sacred objects directly involved in the sacrifice (altar stone, the altar table itself if consecrated, the chalice and paten) and those used as repositories for the Holy (ciboria, tabernacle) can also be moved. When these things are gone, as well as such sacred places as the confessionals and baptismal font, and even such reminders of the sacred nature of the church as, say, stained-glass windows have been removed, the essential nature of the building as sacred has changed, though it does not, even so, lack all sacredness: people would rightly be outraged if the empty husk of the building were made into a brothel, or if latrines were dug therein. The destruction of this less sacred object is permissible only in view of protecting the greater sacred that is constituted by human life and health. One may object that this seems doubtful in terms of practice, at least. Cannot one just clear the ground for so me secular use, or for sale for such use? Thus, we read that St. Paulinus of Nola sold the sacred vessels of his church in order to feed his poor. But, he did this not for secular reasons but precisely through his realization of the sacredness of Christ's poor.

In re Conroy, 486 A 2d 1209 (N.J., 1985).

This has (as have the other quotations in this Section) been taken from: McCormick Richard A. , S.J. , The Critical Calling: Reflections on Moral Dilemmas since Vatican II, Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press (1989), pp 373.

Critical Calling, p 377.

Critical Calling, p 377.

Critical Calling, p 384.

Critical Calling, pp 378–382.

“The Sacredness of Human Life”, 2nd annual Cataldo Lecture in Medical Ethics, Worcester Memorial Hospital, Worcester MA, March 8, 1989.