Father Frank's Rants

DUTY TO DIE 592

A ‘right to die’ UK legislation looms. Canterbury’s ex-Archbishop Carey now backs it. A bold move. Well, the priest has one bolder. A ‘duty to die’ also exists. Putting an end to your useless, burdensome and obnoxious life may be a genuine moral obligation. The likes of odious Anglican prelates like Carey, Welby, Sentamu & that gang certainly should consider it. Does it apply to them? Maybe even to the whole grotesque, rotten and apostate General Synod of the C of E? Should self-destruction be their duty?

Not as loopy as you think. Distinguished, elderly philosopher Baroness Mary Warnock said that if you suffer from dementia, if you are wasting people’s lives then…a duty to die may be in order. Huh! Sounds like another Maggie Thatcher. Ruthless kind of lady. Still, she is on to something, methinks.

Warnock’s argument hinges on people, mostly the sick and the old, ‘wasting the resources of the NHS’ and being ‘a burden to their family or the state’. Strictly utilitarian, capitalist viewpoint. Predictably, she leaves out a duty to the Almighty. (Who cares about the Will of God in godless Ukania these days? Only Islamists, I am tempted to say.) But let us be fair: the Creator has claims too, why not? Unlike the Utilitarian bunch of course God does care for the sick and the old but…what about the spiritually demented, those who cause havoc with people’s souls, the unworthy shepherds who scatter the sheep, who mislead and corrupt God’s people? They are more than a burden. They become a liability. A disgrace to faith. A scandal and a stumbling block. Should they not, on being made aware of their wretchedness, consult their conscience? Should they not seriously conclude: yes, I am useless, I have a duty to die?

Tricky because suicide is a grave sin. Liberal Christians no longer hold that, so naturally it would not deter the wretches under discussion, but faithful believers stand on sacred tradition. Does that render a duty to die impermissible then?

Remember, suicide is wrong for three reasons: a) it is a sin against society; b) a sin against God; c) a sin against natural, God-implanted self-love.

Tentative answer: a) ‘society’ here means the Church. The churchmen in question are diseased members. They harm the Church, hence, objectively speaking, there can be no sin but merit if they self-destruct; b) no sin against God obtains if the sinners by their crimes are undermining God’s rights or cause; c) self-love is overridden when a sinner’s soul is, like in Dorian Grey’s portrait, overlaid with blots and felonies. Therefore I conclude that the imputation of suicide is inapplicable.

Yet, a duty to die looks odd. Does it not contradict Christian ethics? As death is an evil, how could there be an obligation to pursue it? Surely morality demands that good is to be pursued, not evil! But that idea rests on a dubious, non-theistic conception. The Gospel does not consider death an absolute evil, an evil per se. Jesus warns: ‘Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear rather him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.’ (St Matthew 10:21) The point is that the body is only a temporal, not an eternal good. A duty to die affects only the material part of yourself, the body. The substantial, final judgment concerns the soul, the essential person. And that resides with God, not with man.

However, it is unlikely the polluted, culpable conscience of the miserable churchmen above would induce them to recognise their dire condition. Like most impenitent sinners they would want to carry on forever but…is there perhaps a duty to die even when you, selfish bugger, prefer to live?

Overriding personal freedom…morally impossible? But some duties are incumbent on you even if you don’t cherish them or seek to avoid them. Paying taxes is a duty, despite most people disliking it and trying to dodge it. Serving in the Army may become a duty in wartime even if young men abhor it. And so on. Hence no mere subjective disinclination to fulfil a duty can nullify the duty itself.

It is back to nonagenarian Lady Warnock. Assisted dying is the operative phrase. An ‘advocate’ should be appointed to act on your behalf to decide. Actually, to help you die, even when you are no longer able to choose. She puts it neatly: ‘….rather brutally, you’d be licensing people to put others down’.

My favourite female MP, Nadine Dorris, has accused the lady of giving moral authority to ‘immoral views’. And even the Canterbury man, the pusillanimous Welby disagrees with assisted dying. But why? I surmise for two reasons. First, given the largely geriatric nature of Anglican congregations, he fears the oldies’ rapid flight. Few enjoy the thought of being euthanized against their will. Second, bare self-regard. He knows he and his ilk should be next. And he has no hurry to meet his maker, given his appalling record as a pseudo-leader of Christianity. As to Nadine, I love her but I am with Warnock, if it means euthanizing the Anglican top brass.

But whose duty will be to forcefully put down the unwilling, squalid gang? The priest must decline the burden. Not because he lacks the guts but because, he fears, he might enjoy it and that is not spiritually good. I think the job may fall to Anglican traditionalists, the Forward in Faith brigade and the sturdy evangelicals of Reform. After the General Synod fools legislated for bishopesses, reactionaries must thirst for revenge. Yet, it is not that but justice.

King Charles II’s quip, alas, is now true: ‘Just as Presbyterianism is no suitable religion for a gentleman, Anglicanism is no fit religion for a Christian.’

Revd Frank Julian Gelli

Like