the Semantics of Suicide Aid in Dying

God, PR and the right to die in California

Comments (0) By Matthew Fleischer Wednesday, Apr 18 2007

...continued from page 3

Adams will have to wait to impose his morality — AB 374 easily passed through committee with a 7-3 vote. But the religious outrage that surfaced at the hearing appears to have foreshadowed the growing opposition to come.

For nearly two months after Fabian Núñez first announced his support for AB 374, California’s most powerful religious figure kept his mouth shut. Finally, on the Tuesday before Easter, the second anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s death, Cardinal Roger Mahony stepped to the pulpit to break his public silence. The timing was not coincidental. Allusions to Pope John Paul’s teachings on the sacrosanct nature of suffering were scattered throughout Mahony’s homily. Invoking the memory of the late pope, the cardinal insisted that AB 374 is “nothing more than an assisted-suicide bill” — later declaring, “If Pope John Paul were standing here right now, he would point out that euthanasia, which is the same thing as assisted suicide, is both senseless and inhumane.”

Cardinal Roger Mahony (Reuters/Lucas Jackson)

Assembly Speaker Fabian N��ez (AP/Rich Pedroncelli)

More About

Of course, assisted suicide and euthanasia aren’t the same thing. Assisted suicide is the voluntary taking of one’s own life to end suffering, whereas euthanasia is commonly understood to entail someone else doing the killing — possibly without the recipient’s consent. “I’m pretty sure the cardinal knows that difference,” says Núñez. “He’s conflating the two to galvanize the masses. We do that all the time in politics. But this isn’t politics, this is religion we’re talking about.” (Archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg maintains that the difference between euthanasia and suicide is negligible. “The end result is the same,” he says, “the taking of a life.”)

Núñez has good reason to play close attention to Mahony’s words. During the same homily, the cardinal saved some of his strongest language for the speaker. “What really troubles me is Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez’s support for AB 374,” Mahony said. “This cathedral is in his Assembly district. I live here. I’m one of his constituents. Many of you who live downtown are constituents of this Assembly district. And so we should be troubled that Fabian Núñez, who has worshipped here in this cathedral, has somehow not understood the culture of life but has allowed himself to get into this other direction, the culture of death.”

Núñez, who has worked closely with Mahony on immigration issues, was blindsided. “I expected him to say something,” says Núñez, “but nothing so visceral and dogmatic. I mean, ‘the culture of death’ — that’s horrific. My kids attended Catholic school all their lives. How am I going to explain this to them?”

Indeed, the ferocity of the attacks seems strange. After all, Núñez is both pro-choice and a supporter of gay marriage — if those positions allowed for cordial diplomacy in the past, why not assisted suicide now? Though Mahony’s homily briefly mentioned the same disability-rights arguments that have been largely disproved by the Oregon experience, the real answer appears to be no less than preserving the legacy of the pope himself. “This is a good opportunity to recommit ourselves to the ideals of John Paul II, but especially his culture of life,” said Mahony.

A culture of life that just happens to believe human suffering serves as redemption for the murder of Jesus Christ and for the sins of man. “The person who lives his suffering in the Lord grows more fully conformed to him and more closely associated with his redemptive work on behalf of the church and humanity.”

These are the words of Pope John Paul II’s “The Gospel of Life,” an apostolic letter that expands on his earlier “The Christian Meaning of Suffering.” In citing his objections to AB 374, Mahony quoted from this text freely and even said he gave a copy of the letter to Fabian Núñez, hoping it would change his position.

But Núñez has other ideas. “I was elected to represent the citizens of California, not the Catholic Church or the pope,” he says. “Even if I wanted to put my religious views into law, that would be completely irresponsible. That’s not who I am.”

Despite the prospect of a protracted battle with the church in his own backyard, Núñez vows not to be swayed. “If you look at my track record, when I want to get something done, it tends to happen. After these recent events, I’m now more committed to getting this bill through than ever before.”

It won't be easy. On this past Wednesday, April 18, AB 374 was put on “suspense” in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, most likely meaning that its backers felt they lacked enough support to allow a vote on the Assembly floor. Essentially, it's a delay tactic, and once the bill is released from suspension it will go directly to a floor vote. Núñez has until May 30th to change a few minds. If he's able to do so, the bill then needs to pass a floor vote by June 8th — the last day before the summer recess. From there it would head to the Senate and then on to Governor Schwarzenegger — who, by the way, is Catholic.