The heartbreaking case of Charlie Gard, the 10 month old British infant who suffers with Mitochondrial Depletion Syndrome, is garnering worldwide attention.
Everyone, it seems – from ordinary persons to leaders both religious and civic – has a strong opinion.
That Charlie’s situation has come to concern so many is in itself a great blessing as the entire world desperately needs to learn the valuable lesson it contains, if only we have ears to hear.
Thus far, however, it doesn’t appear that many are paying attention to what matters most.
In my own reading, I have encountered commentators of various stripes – Catholic, secular, political, pro-life, etc. – making questionable claims about the matter.
For example, I am seeing comments along the following lines:
– Unless something changes, Charlie will die a martyr
– The child has been sentenced to a court-ordered killing
– This is a case of euthanasia
While allegations of this sort are very effective in fanning the flames of emotion, they are hyperbole at best; none of them being entirely true.
What is true is that God, in order to bring about a greater good, has allowed this precious child to be born with a fatal illness, the progress of which, it seems, medical science is unable to forestall.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, gracious patron of the homoerotic arts and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, issued a statement last week, saying in part:
“We should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration … We do, sometimes, however, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs … We must also accept the limits of medicine and … avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.”
Like him or despise him, insofar as he is quoted above, Archbishop Paglia is right.
For many years, a priest friend of mine served as a hospital chaplain. His ministry, wherein he was regularly called upon to care for people in the severest, and oftentimes final, crisis of their lives, was demanding on a number of levels.
One of his greatest challenges was engaging those who were struggling to let go of their terminally ill or injured loved one; taking extraordinary measures to prolong their earthly life at a time when all indications are that death (and the Lord) are calling.
His pastoral efforts often involved helping these persons embrace the reality that we were not created for this world – a rather tall order at this time when our culture’s attention is overwhelmingly directed toward things temporal, and it is commonplace for men to cling to this earthly life as if this is all there is.
Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. (Baltimore Catechism)
From all of the commentary that I’ve read concerning the fate of Charlie Gard, Catholic and otherwise, no one seems to be stressing this point; not as if to lecture his poor parents, but for the edification of their readers.
Let me be very clear: I wouldn’t wish to spend even a moment in Charlie’s parents’ shoes given the difficult decisions they are forced to make. Without going into personal details that I prefer not to share, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the weight brought to bear by a child’s suffering. My heart and my prayers go out to them most sincerely.
With that having been said, one of the important truths missing from the conversation thus far is that all of our children belong not to us, but to God.
Charlie has been Baptized. He is destined for Heaven.
Does that make letting him go less painful for those who love him?
No, but it does place illness, death and mourning in its proper context; a context that most commentators – even Catholic ones – seem not to have.
Eternal life is where our hope lies. And yet, every time I’ve encountered the word “hope” in reference to Charlie, it concerns his only hope to live on this earth.
At present, most of the ink spilled on this story concerns the rights of the parents to determine Charlie’s fate; his treatment and how, when and where he should die.
There is most certainly truth to this; the family has a God-given sovereignty and hierarchical structure all its own, but it must be presented in a fully Catholic way lest it inadvertently play into the hands of those who see nothing wrong with mothers killing their own offspring in utero.
The rights of the parents vs. the authority of the State
As I write, the U.K. courts have determined that Charlie’s parents are not even allowed to bring him home to die; much less to the United States or elsewhere (e.g., Bambino Gesu in Rome) for care.
This, in my view, is an outrageous abuse of power that should be denounced.
The courts have stated that their ruling is motivated, not by financial concerns, but by the opinions of medical experts who believe that moving Charlie could cause him greater suffering.
At this point, the cost of caring for Charlie is a non-issue given the money already raised and the services pledged.
As such, while the medical experts may be wrong in their assessment, I do not doubt their good will, nor do I doubt that the court is motivated to rule for the reason given.
That, however, does not justify their decision.
While we should strive to eliminate the unnecessary sufferings of others, suffering in and of itself is not man’s mortal enemy; neither is death. The avoidance of each at all costs suggests a deficient sense of the supernatural, and it’s an attitude reflected in much of the reaction to Charlie’s situation.
As stated, I believe that the State is overstepping its bounds in this case.
That said, however, it is not exactly true that the State has no authority in scenarios such as this.
It is not uncommon for human beings to require substantial medical care (or to have other needs), the procurement of which would be impossible apart from the assistance of the State or other civil authority. That assistance, however, has limits.
The State, for its part, has the authority to act as the custodian of public resources, but hand-in-hand with this authority is the duty to do so in service to the common good; with the common good understood as that which best allows the society and its members to attain toward the end for which each was created.
A similar understanding of the rights of parents applies as they have the authority necessary to decide what best serves their children, and it too comes with a corresponding duty toward the common good of the family.
At times, the decisions faced by both the State and the family, even where good will exists, can be fraught with great difficulty; i.e., easy answers do not always exist.
In many ways, the case of Charlie Gard is one such situation, but make no mistake:
The difficulty associated with this situation is exponentially greater than it would be if only we had not forgotten the following:
“No society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 3)
The State and the family alike are “societies” vested with a certain authority and ordered according to God’s most wise design.
The Holy Father, Leo XIII, continues speaking specifically of the public order, but note very well that his words apply equally to the family:
“Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. There is no power but from God.” (ibid.)
The remedy to the over-reaching State in the case of Charlie Gard isn’t to call attention to the rights of the parents, properly speaking, but to the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King – He who guides both nations and individuals as He speaks through His Vicar on Earth, the pope, and His Holy Catholic Church.
At present, the nations of the world have no room for Christ the King; from the time of Vatican Council II on forward, neither have the Bishops of Rome.
This being so, of course the U.K. courts and the parents of little Charlie are struggling and at odds.
Painful though this situation is for his parents and no doubt many others who love them, God, in order to bring about a greater good, has allowed this precious child to be born with a fatal illness.
Maybe part of that greater good is helping a wayward world recognize just how lost we are as individuals, families, and nations apart from the “sweet and saving yoke of our King.” (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 3)
It would have been immensely preferable had Paglia said nothing. What he said, in many ways, is what is pragmatically worked through in most instances, UNLESS political and ideological assumptions play a strong role.
In this case, with socialized medicine that inevitably must emphasize ever expansive ‘rationing’ or resources, and in which governmental bureaucracies are heavily intertwined, there was the additional violation of subsidiarity in the depths when government agencies and courts precluded the parents’ desire to use resources granted to them to pursue other potentially beneficial options.
Indeed, if one searches one can encounter testimonies of parents who have found treatments that seem to reverse this malady, although such varies on a case-by-case basis due to distinct phenotypes and unique biochemical factors.
Nonetheless, Paglia spoke a rather obvious, general principle as though it were being thrown into a neutral context, which it was not.
Had he been prudent (perhaps someone who promoted the ‘art’ he promoted in his own cathedral is not capable of anything but counterfeit prudence), he would have either added that ‘parents should always be granted the ultimate determination in these contexts’, or he should not have spoken at all.
The suppression of the complete or full truth, if deliberate, is evil, and if done in ignorance will, nonetheless, augment evil.
The UK has very liberal abortion “rights”. If a mother could legally and willingly permit her unborn child to be killed, surely loving parents should have absolute rights regarding the final days of their beloved child who has been inflicted with a terminal illness. Apparently, the UK courts can turn their compassion on and off like a faucet as they see fit. Every child, born and unborn, has intrinsic value regardless of the perception of the mother. Charlie can fell the love and warmth of his mother and father. In eternity, he will know the eternal love of Our Lord and Our Lady. May God grant this family peace and consolation.
Who can imagine the joy of this precious child of God when his final breath is taken and he immediately beholds the face of God and will enjoy this ineffable vision throughout eternity. We are the ones to be pitied.
I have been following Charlie’s case with special interest, since I have a friend who works as a nurse in that hospital (though not in that department and with no relation to his case at all). First thing I asked her was, “do you know if he has been baptized?”.
However, though I can see what you are trying to say, I have some disagreements:
On the, according to you, “questionable claims”:
-Unless something changes, Charlie will die a martyr.
Well, similarly to the Holly Innocents, yes. They did not knowingly and willfully accept giving their life for Christ, but died as a consequence of hatred to Him and God’s Law. It is not having a fatal illness that makes him a martyr, of course it is not, nobody says that!. It is not missing the very remote chance of a cure due to disagreements in medical circles, that is not either!. It would be being actively disconnected from his breathing support that makes him another victim of the culture of death.
-The child has been sentenced to a court-ordered killing.
Nope, the court has allowed the hospital to retrieve ventilation, which is not the same as forcing them to do it (I have not read the court sentence but that is to my understanding what transpired from the news). The responsibility for that remains in the hospital. The fact that the courts have granted the hospital permission to retrieve ventilation equals in practical terms to condemn him to a provoked death and not a natural one, that is killed vs died. In this sense it is not far fetched to speak about a court-ordered killing. More appropriately court-supported killing if you wish. If the hospital has not done it yet it is because of the social pressure.
-This is a case of euthanasia.
It is as long as the hospital removes breathing support. I would not argue the doctors saying that in their judgment they do not see any benefit on another treatment and they would not implement it. That is their professional judgment
and they are entitled to it. But there is an abyss between them admitting they do not know and cannot do any better and them not letting other doctors with an equally (at least) respectable professional judgment in other hospitals try, more
so when it is his parents wish. Again, that is not even the discussion in this point: we are talking here about the hospital wanting to remove breathing support.
So those claims do not seem to me questionable as long as they are not deprived of context.
On your comment that the state can decide if they spend the resources considering the chances of success, agreed, the state is not obliged to provide exceptional means in a case that is judged hopeless. However, this is not the case, since the parents can provide for themselves through the donations they have received.
So, in my opinion, what we have here is:
1. Parents who have the means and intention to seek alternative treatment -which in itself is not aggressive or invasive- prevented by first the hospital and then the courts from taking their child to receive it. This is usurpation of parental
rights and right to seek medical attention and decide on one’s treatment.
2. A hospital not only denying a person’s right to seek cure with other doctors somewhere else but also wanting to remove breathing support before natural death. This is euthanasia.
Paglia’s “aggressive medical procedure” or the “excessively burdensome to the patient or the family” simply do not apply here. Thousands of people have been generous and have not found burdensome to donate to his parents for his cause. And as I said, as far as I understand the treatment is not aggressive at all. So we are left with points 1. and 2. which to me are more than enough to judge this matter as clearly a moral wrong.
So, yes, because Charlie has been baptized this battle can be fought with the peace and joy of knowing that he has already won big. But that does not mean that we do not need to fight it for others who are going through that constantly without the media attention and without Baptism.
Why can’t the pioneers of this new treatment go to this London hospital & directly treat the baby there, rather than having to put him & his parents through the trauma of a long & risky plane flight to the USA?
I think it is a shame that children born with life-threatening conditions & their parents are not given the protection & right by law to attempt to provide, by private means, a treatment that has had good results in other children. Governments, on the other hand, are willing to spend huge amounts of taxpayers money in helping transgenders to have babies they are not naturally equipped to have under the pc heading of Human Rights. What about the Human Rights of Charlie & his parents who aren’t even demanding NHS money to be spent (as are transgenders) but just want to go the extra mile to procure the best possible treatment for him before they may have to say goodbye.
I don’t know if they are Catholic, but it would be great if someone could bring some Lourdes water to his bedside. Our Lady has intervened before on countless medical lost causes, maybe in this centenary year of Fatima she will again.
Well put, imp. Paglia came off as an automaton of bloodless Big Brother.
In all I have read in both Secular and Catholic press about this case, I had not been able to determine if Charlie had been baptised until I read this. Thanks for that Louie. At least you know what is most important.
Subsidiarity
I too have been supporting this case for many months. He is just one of many, many people who are being denied basic care in order to induce intended death, by hospitals controlled by states run according to the dictatorship of atheistic positivist ideology. Parents and family who want to care for their sick child (whatever age) are being actively prevented from saving their life. Charlie’s case is unusual in that the family with the help of others have managed to get high-level public and political attention. Our world is in apostasy and satan rules men’s hearts.