As President Bush prepares to veto stem cell research legislation, I though it would be a good time to publish an email exchange I had with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput last year. The Archbishop is a thoughtful, humane man, and in recent days he has had useful things to say regarding the immigration issue here in Colorado. However, the email exchange highlights a problem faced by anyone who attempts to argue for a policy in the public forum on the basis of purely religious reasons. Public debate in an open society has to take place on the basis of commonly ascertainable facts. Religious positions
qua religious are based on personal experiences or divine revelation. This isn't to say that religious voices should be excluded from the public forum; it is to say that in a representative democracy religious leaders need to play by the same rules as everyone else.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:45 PM
To: Archbishop Chaput
Subject: Schiavo
Dear Bishop Chaput:
According to physicians who have actually examined Terry Schiavo, her cerebral cortex has not merely atrophied but liquified. While lower-level brain functions continue, there is no consciousness such as we would recognize in humans or even higher-level vertebrates. She is not self-aware. She is unable to recall the past or anticipate the future--let alone form preferences with respect to it. Given these facts, which every single judge in the case have relied upon, it seems more ghoulish than humane to insist that her body continue when her mind is long gone.
Sincerely,
__
On Mar 23, 2005, at 4:40 AM, Archbishop Chaput wrote:
__, from our perspective, it is never permissable [sic] to starve someone to death by refusing simple help like food and water. Additionally, there are doctors who would strong disagree with what you have written about Terry Shiavo's condition.
+cjc
6/22/05
Dear Archbishop Chaput:
As it is always a matter of Christian charity to give the sinner an opportunity for repentance , I bring to your attention your reply to my March 22nd email. During the Schiavo debate, those on your side of the question attempted to muddy the waters by relying on junk science. (Your phrase: "doctors who would strong [sic] disagree with what you have written.") As it turns out, what I wrote in March was confirmed by Mrs. Schiavo's autopsy. See: <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-061505schiavo_lat,0,125708.story?coll=la
-home-headlines>
Additionally, I would point out that your remarks beg the question about Mrs. Schiavo's level of self-awareness ("starve someone"). My remarks were: "While lower-level brain functions continue, there is no consciousness such as we would recognize in humans or even higher-level vertebrates. She is not self-aware. " Resorting to emotionally charged language about "starving someone to death by refusing simple help like food and water" is not a good faith response to the question I raised. Let me raise it again more explicitly. Was there really a "someone" there in the hospice bed, and, if so, what commonly available evidence was in place to back up such an assertion?
What is really at stake in the Schiavo case, however, is the question of how religious groups should interact with civil society. Rejecting both the medieval notion of the divine right of kings and Hobbesian sovereignty based on brute force, the framers of the US Constitution founded their republic on the basis of the informed consent of those governed. The truth would out when the parties concerned exposed their reasons to rational scrutiny, and government policy would be based on the reasoned decisions of the electorate. Hence, the importance of 1st Amendment freedoms. Insofar as it refuses to give reasons but nonetheless demands that the community as a whole adopt preordained courses of action, religion constitutes itself as an enemy of the open society.
We live at a time when a great deal of content is rapidly disseminated, and this presents the temptation of picking and choosing narratives on the basis of how they fit with our prejudices, their ability to console us, or what have you. Acquiescence to this kind of thing leads not so much to a "postmodern" as to a post-factual society, and it's not just the professionally religious who succumb. We have, for example, seen its disastrous results in the Iraq war where more than 1,700 young Americans have been sent to their deaths for a vengeance-pipedream--and there is no end in sight.
In conclusion, Archbishop Chaput, please do not address me "from our perspective" but meet me on the common ground of truths available to us both. As citizens we share this responsibility toward one another.
Sincerely,
On Jun 21, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Archbishop Chaput wrote:
Dear Mr._____,
I have received your e-mail. It looks simply like an attempt to justify yourself.
The fact that someone is not self-aware doesn't mean that depriving them of food and drink does not starve them. Terry Shiavo was starved to death by the refusal of simple help like food and water.
Mr. _, from the tone of your letter, I don't think you really want to discuss this; you want to lecture me on why you are right and I am wrong. You're certainly free to do that, and I welcome your doing it if you wish, but I don't know how we can really have a conversation.
May God give you peace.
+cjc
6/22/05
Dear Archbishop Chaput:
The point of my message was that good faith debate in civil society requires that one give reasons. Some would gather from the petulant tone of your response that you are either unwilling or unable to do so. If this is indeed the case, and you are unwilling to play by the rules of honest debate in an open society, then I would encourage you to refrain from speaking publicly on these matters. However, my working assumption is that someone in your position is quite capable of defending his views--if he chooses to do so.
As to your response, I am saddened to notice that you have chosen to attack me personally rather than answer the question I have now raised with you twice. I documented that the facts from the Schiavo autopsy were on my side. You replied that this was mere self-justification. Archbishop Chaput, please pay close attention to the logical trap you have fallen into. On one hand, it's simply an example of the ad hominem fallacy, i.e., changing the subject from the facts to the character of the person asserting the facts. At a deeper level, such a habit of thought is troubling in any person in a position of power, because it forecloses the possibility of his being challenged or changed by the truth. Once truth-telling is written off as perversity, the door is open for all sorts of personal and institutional cruelty.
So let's try this a third time. What are your reasons for saying that a severely brain damaged patient who is neither aware nor capable of forming preferences with respect to the future should be kept alive contrary to her previously expressed wishes and those of her legal guardian (her husband)? If your objection is merely to the pain caused by depriving someone of food and water, there are two difficulties: (a) that of explaining how unconscious beings can be described as experiencing pleasures or pains and (b) why such an objection can't be turned round to show that active euthanasia is preferable to merely passive euthanasia.
I thank you for your prayers and assure you of my own best wishes.
[The Archbishop chose not to respond to this message.]