Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian 
English 
Spanish 
Portuguese
Question
Good morning Father Angelo,
In this rubrica, in today’s (20th October 2017) answer to the question «Two misleading questions asked in good faith by one of our visitors on abortion and euthanasia» you wrote that «4. Finally, you ask me if a woman who performs a direct abortion to protect her health is at risk of damnation. From an objective point of view, she commits a grave sin. Our consciences, on the other hand, are judged by the Lord and for this reason I abstain from judgment. However, I am convinced that the Lord gives everyone time to repent and reach salvation».
Paraphrasing your answer, you think that a direct abortion to protect one’s health is “a grave sin” and therefore the woman is damned “from an objective point of view”, unless she repents of having protected her health by aborting; did I get it right? In essence, your answer is «Yes, she is damned unless she repents».
«6. Regarding the hypothetical case you brought up to me: either unbearable pain or euthanasia (which is equivalent to suicide) we must say: let’s do everything we can to ease the pain.
In general, euthanasia is not an option because nobody owns my life.
Euthanasia is like taking the place of God’s natural order and it is objectively a grave sin”.
…. «we do anything to ease the pain»…
I wonder: what if that «anything» wasn’t enough to ease the pain anyway? I conclude that, since “euthanasia is to be excluded because nobody owns my life”, I would have no other choice but to accept the atrocious pains without hope of recovery (possibly in the spirit of “an authentic immolation like that of Christ on cross”), otherwise – by deciding to put an end to my atrocious suffering – I would go directly from the hell of a terminally ill cancer to the hell destined for those who dared to “make ownership of their own life”: Did I understand correctly?
Thank you for any clarifications and best regards,
Marco
Answer from the priest
Dear Marco,
1. you went too far in with your conclusions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church recalls that “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.” (CCC 1735).
Before the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Congregation of the Clergy with reference to the so-called ‘Washington case’ had said: “The particular circumstances associated with an objectively bad human act, while they cannot transform it into an objectively virtuous act, can make it more or less grave or subjectively justifiable” (26.4.1971).
This always remains valid.
2. Men should take this approach as God, from whom nothing is hidden, considers that even more than we do.
Therefore, none of us is allowed to say that a person is damned for what he has done. No one can replace God, and we canot even say whether someone is objectively damned.
Because there is only the judgment of God “Like a stream is the king’s heart in the hand of the LORD” (Prov. 21:1).
This is the only judgment that matters.
3. You try to force me to give my judgement, while the Lord said: “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven” (Lk 6,37). And continued: “Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you” (Lk 6, 38).
4. Since this measure is necessary for our salvation, let us always try to have it in our works and words. I need it and we all need it.
May this measure always abound in you, I remind you to the Lord and bless you,
Father Angelo
03 March 2018 | A priest replies – Liturgy and pastoral care – Pastoral section