Luxembourg: euthanasia, preposterous legislation”Even in unfortunate existential circumstances, the life and dignity of the human person should never be violated”, the Bishops’ Conference of Luxembourg in a recent press statement on euthanasia reiterated the claim. “Euthanasia’s legalization and regulation is one of the upcoming items on MPs’ agenda”, pointed out archbishop Msgr. Fernand Franck. “An exigible right to euthanasia is being planned. This will radically change the conditions regulating human coexistence in Luxembourg. The symbolic power and the message that legislation conveys must not be underestimated. Mercy killing, as envisaged by the draft-bill in question, will rapidly be viewed as normal and as a legitimate possibility that society grants to its citizens. The current legal framework, along with social pressure, will oblige those who do not wish to avail themselves of euthanasia to explain the reason for their choice”. The archbishop recalls that “when society, represented by a third party – that on the basis of the draft bill must always be a doctor – consents that a person be murdered out of an act of his own will, this very society is taking a stand on the value of life. In reality, with euthanasia, society is speaking against the value of life. An Act on euthanasia is unconceivable and unrealizable unless society takes a concrete stand regarding the value of individual life. The serious responsibility that is linked to this decision will be placed on physicians, even though they didn’t request it (and also against the explicit will of the Medical Association)”. This way in which society views life is the object of Church reflection, that is deeply convinced that society ought to ascribe meaning to each human life and that it must actively work for its protection. To this meaning of existence corresponds the draft-bill on palliative treatment and assistance, whose claims are the exact opposite of the draft bill on euthanasia, even in its modified version. There is a blatant incompatibility between the two bills, in terms of social policy”. “The Church of Luxembourg thus calls upon the single MPs to refrain from giving citizens a message in favour of life and one that is against it”. Portugal: the happiness of a gift In view of the upcoming festivities, Christmas exhortations conveyed by Portuguese bishops to their congregations were marked by concern for people living in dire straits. Before the current economic crisis, Msgr. Antonio Marto, bishop of Leiria-Fatima, expressed his hope that “Child Jesus may arouse in all of us feelings of compassion and mercy and solidarity for those who are experiencing difficult and fragile situations: the poor, the sick, the elderly, the lonely people, the unemployed, the homeless, the outcast, those who were rejected are those who are in a state of despair”. The Archbishop of Braga, Msgr. Jorge Ortiga urged parishioners “to look at reality with open eyes and acknowledge the suffering of the many fellow-citizens, to whom the present is reason for concern and the future is viewed with terror”. According to the President of Portugal’s Bishops Conference (CEP): “The only concrete answer to the suffering that can meet the basic needs of so many people resides in the joy of giving and helping”. While Msgr. Manuel Pelino, Bishop of Santarém, reiterated the need “to oppose a social environment that is spoiled by consumerism and materialism, by vanity and cupidity, by pointless noise and social dispersion. These factors do not promote the spiritual experience and the inner richness that paves the way to the encounter with the mystery of God”. Lastly, in his first Christmas message to the diocese of Portalegre-Castelo Branco, also Msgr. Antonino Dias, highlighted, “Jesus, from the onset, proved to be unwanted for his stands on injustices and despotism. Jesus is like a pebble in the shoe of the powerful of the earth, of the egoists, of the greedy, of the violent, of the exploiters, of those who believe that they rule over world economic resources and feel authorised to exploit their neighbour, the manipulators of people’s consciences and those who incessantly claim the enforcement of new rights on the basis of privileges and facilitations”.
