Thursday 31 December 2015

PRIEST SUSPENDED OVER HOVERBOARD SINGING

Article submitted by James:

Catholic priest suspended for riding 'hoverboard' during Christmas Eve mass





A Catholic priest has been suspended from service after singing a song at Christmas Eve mass while riding a so-called 'hoverboard'.
The priest was delivering his sermon at Our Lady of Miraculous Medal in BiƱan Parish, Philippines, when he hopped on the self-balancing scooter and glided around the church's nave, singing.
In a statement, the Diocese of San Pablo said: "That was wrong."
The priest has apologised for his mistake and vowed it "will not happen again", the statement added, before confirming he would be out of the parish to "spend some time [reflecting] on this past event".

Reaction from followers and fans on Facebook has been mixed.
Some accused the diocese of being "judgmental" in fearing the use of new technology in worship, while others claimed it was a good way to reach out to the younger generation.
One follower, Kathryn Bynane, commented that she believed Jesus himself would have liked to give the hoverboard a try, had he been given the opportunity.

The priest rode a 'hoverboard' in the nave of the church Credit: YouTube
But others praised the church's decision.
Leonard Villanueva thanked the diocese for addressing "liturgical abuses", while Maurus Osb said the priest had displayed a "poor sense of judgement".

Others agreed that it showed a lack of respect.

PAT SAYS:

It was Christmas. It was at the end of Mass. It was the Philippines.

The Filipinos, like the Chinese, love gadgets, karaoke and singing.

Their priest who is obviously a warm and loving man was singing a Christmas song for his congregation as part of the Christmas joy and spirit. 

There was no "liturgical abuse". Mass was almost over.

Maybe Santa Clause had brought him his hoverboard.

I would applaud the priest's humanity and warmth.

It was CHRISTMAS !!!

Those opposing him are members of the Scrooge Brigade - SO HEAVENLY AS TO BE NO EARTHLY USE.

I wish we had more priests like him.

.....And he must be doing good - his church was full - and full of young people.

Wednesday 30 December 2015

DERRY DIOCESE - HERO - NERO - ZERO AND GIRO

HERO - NERO - ZERO AND GIRO

The priests of the Catholic Diocese of Derry have four bishops living among them whom they nickname: HERO, NERO, ZERO and GIRO.

HERO:

The priests call the retired Bishop of Derry Eddie Daly "Hero" because of his world publicised picture waving a white hankie during The Troubles in Belfast.

HERO
NERO:

The Derry priests call Bishop Seamus Hegarty "Nero" as they regard his as a bit of a dictator.

NERO
ZERO:

They call the retired auxiliary bishop of Derry "Zero" as they think that he was unremarkable as a person and a bishop. In fact one of his Maynooth classmates told me today that he was an "also ran".

ZERO
GIRO:

The Derry priests call their current bishop Dickie McKeown "GIRO" as he is famous for running marathons and bicycle riding.

GIRO
They clergy are famous for their often sarcastic and caustic wit.

So in Derry these days the clergy talk of:  HERO, NERO, ZERO and GIRO.


Tuesday 29 December 2015

THE DOWN AND CONNOR "DISAPPEARED"

SEVERAL DOWN AND CONNOR REMAIN AMONG THE "DISAPPEARED" AS WE PREPARE TO BEGIN A NEW YEAR.


JOHN MC MANUS
Father John McManus was publicly readmitted to priestly ministry by the bishop Noel Treanor during two Masses in Portaferry and Ballygalget just before Christmas and yet he has received no appointment and is listed on the D&C website as c/o the bishop's house. The c/o Bishop's House title is normally reserved for priests who are "off the mission". After nearly 5 years in the wilderness and with the shortage of priests in D&C you would imagine there are plenty of holes for him to fill?

The parish priest of Dromaroad in County Down - Father Peter Donnelly - is also among the "disappeared" even though he was found NOT GUILTY by a court of abuse charges. Where is Peter?

PETER DONNELLY
Father Paul Symonds is also listed as c/o Lisbreen. After allegations made against him the police decided on no action. Then Bishop Treanor referred him to a Church Court in Dublin before a priest judge - Father Paul Churchill. Rumour from the Dublin Tribunal is that the case finished last October and that Father Symonds was given some time to appeal. Father Symonds is well thought of in the Belfast ecumenical community. But no up to date news?

PAUL SYMONDS
What of the old legal adage: Justice delayed is justice denied ?




Thursday 24 December 2015

MOTHER TERESA AND THE SAINT "FACTORY"








Mother Teresa not really much of a role model


Eamon McCann


It’s not the fact that Mother Teresa has been credited with cures for which there is no known disease that renders the plan for her canonisation ridiculous. The ridiculousness lies in canonisation itself.
Not even the pope is authorised to hand out ceremonial passes to paradise. To qualify for canonisation, you have to have made the cut and be resident in heaven already. If you’re not in, you can’t win. All of which renders the elaborate ceremony planned for next year redundant – apart from its propaganda value, which is, of course, the point.



Propaganda has always been the name of the canonisation game. The main reason medieval popes came up with the idea was so the church could take control of the selection of role models for society at large. It’s about shaping the world the way you want it to be, about power and influence, not holiness and prayer.
What model of society does the Albanian nun exemplify? Twenty years ago, in January 1996, writing for Hot Press ,I phoned the Los Angeles district attorney’s office to check whether there had been progress in persuading Mother Teresa to hand back a million dollars stolen from the poor.



Not a lot, assistant district attorney Paul Turley told me. Front for fraud The money had been filched from the pockets of pensioners and small savers by the notorious conman, Charles Keating, head of what turned out to be a front for fraud, Lincoln Savings and Loan.


Charles Keating

Keating had siphoned $225 million from the accounts of thousands of victims, and had bunged a million of this loot to Mother Teresa. (The closest Irish equivalents of US savings and loan associations are credit unions.)
Four years earlier, in 1992, Turley had appealed to Teresa: “If you contact me, I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.” Any developments since, I wondered?
“She has ignored us,” Turley told me. “We have honestly given up on this. It is obvious she is determined to keep it.”
Sentenced to 10 years, Keating may have taken comfort from contemplation of the crucifix on the wall of his cell personally blessed by Pope John Paul and delivered by a messenger from Mother Teresa.
It has commonly been suggested, including in recent days by commentators sceptical about Mother Teresa’s sanctity, that in this and similar matters she had been blinded by intense religiosity, her mode of thought too other-worldly to appreciate mundane stuff like money.
As an excuse for the criminal offence of knowingly receiving stolen property, this would be laughed out of any court in the land. Thomas “Slab” Murphy had a better defence.
A more subtle argument advanced by Catholic traditionalists is that what matters most at a time of ideological turmoil and creeping secularisation within the church is the unwavering adherence and global witness she gave to the teachings of the church now most under siege, on contraception, divorce, abortion etc. It is this, they suggest, which, despite all, makes her a suitable role model for the times we live in.
But this won’t wash either. The journalist Daphne Barak quoted Mother Teresa in April 1996 in Ladies’ Home Journal, commenting on the break-up of the marriage of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. “I think it is such a sad story. Diana is such a sad soul . . . You know what? It is good that it is over. Nobody was happy. I know I should preach for family love and unity, but in their case . . .” Then her voice “trailed off”.



The masses are told under pain of hellfire that they must unquestioningly obey the rules of the church, but when it comes to the useful rich and glamorous, immutable laws of God can be amended on the instant.
In October 1994, Mother Teresa sent a message to the UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, pleading for outright rejection of contraception and abortion. “Every child is a gift from God. If you have a child you think is unwanted, give that child to me. I will find it a loving home where it will be cherished as a blessing.” Dishonest opportunism The Cairo conference was to hear that up to 40,000 children under 12 were dying every day of malnutrition or preventable disease. Mother Teresa’s order was not running any adoption operation anywhere in the world. Her statement was not off-the-cuff or a flight of holy fantasy. It was a written declaration, widely distributed. It was dishonest, manipulative opportunism for which it is hard to find adequate words. “Despicable,” maybe.
In the year before her death in 1997, as a team of doctors flown in from around the world tried by extraordinary means to bring her back to health, one Irish newspaper carried the headline, “World Unites in Prayer For ‘Living Saint’.”
We may hope there’ll be a lot less of that sort of thing in 2016.


Sunday 20 December 2015

FATHER JOHN MCMANUS RESUMES MINISTRY

Fr John Mc Manus: Priest cleared of abuse claims resumes duties


VIA BBC NORTHERN IRELAND



Father John McManus
Image captionFather John McManus was cleared of abuse allegations

A senior priest who was cleared of abuse allegations more than three years ago has returned to his duties.
Fr John McManus, from Portaferry, County Down, stepped aside in March 2011 during an investigation.
In June 2012, the Public Prosecution Service decided he had no case to answer.
Fr McManus told parishioners he was "delighted and privileged" to be joining them in celebrating Mass.
"The last time I celebrated Mass in this Church of Saint Patrick was on 9 March 2011, Ash Wednesday, when I informed you that I had requested administrative leave from ministry for the duration of the necessary inquiries.
"Since then, I have been very much at home living here among you.
"I wish to thank especially my family, my neighbours and friends of all faiths and none for their support and kindness shown to me during this time."

Safeguarding

Police conducted an inquiry after a complaint was made to the Diocese of Down and Connor's child safeguarding office.
Fr McManus was a former press spokesperson for the diocese and a member of its committee that oversees the safeguarding of children.
He celebrated Mass in Portaferry on Saturday and Ballygalget on Sunday along with Bishop of Down and Connor Noel Treanor.

Bishop Treanor said Fr McManus had co-operated fully with a "thorough investigation by the police and the Public Prosecution Service", as well as an inquiry within the Catholic Church.
He told churchgoers that the "canonical judicial inquiry concluded that there were not and are not any safeguarding issues that prevent his return to ministry".
"I wish Fr John many happy years of fruitful ministry after the past four and a half years, during which time he has been supported by his family, by friends and by you, his parishioners."

BISHOP PAT SAYS:


John McManus has been found NOT GUILTY of the allegations that were made against him by both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. 

The police and the Prosecution Service decided that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute him and a lengthy Catholic Church enquiry also cleared him.

That means that in civil and church law he is innocent and therefore he must be fully treated as innocent.

It is NOT a question of whether you like John McManus or not. I have spoken to people, especially former seminarians of whom he was in charge in St Malachy's who do not like him. I have seen comments on other Blogs from people who do like him.

I am not one of his fans. My main experience of him was in the context of the Father James Donaghy case - the case of the PP of Bangor who is in prison for sexually abusing young men. I believe he played a less than helpful role in that case.

When he stepped down from active ministry in 2011 he was the Chancellor of the Diocese of Down and Connor.

While he has been away his replacement, Father Eugene O'Hagan has had the title "Chancellor Ad Interim".

Eugene (centre)


Is Bishop Treanor not morally bound at this stage to restore him to his former position as Chancellor?

Why would an innocent man de deprived of the position he held before the now declared unfounded allegations against him.

As of today - on the Down and Connor website Father McManus is still listed as c/o Bishops House and Father O'Hagan is still listed as Chancellor.

Where is Father McManus ministering today?

Come  on Noel. Put your "money" where you mouth is!

Thursday 17 December 2015

MONSIGNOR HOEY - AN INTERESTING MAN


Monsignorr Augustine Hoey will celebrate his 100th birthday on December 22. But that is no excuse, clearly, for letting standards slip. In Walsingham, where he went to live at the age of 97, he leads a busier life than many have ever led. His figure is a familiar and striking sight to villagers as, impeccably dressed in cassock and cloak and his trademark Cappello Romano, he makes his way to each of Walsingham’s churches to carry out his exacting daily round of intercessions for Christian unity.
“Well, I just carry on much as I always have done,” he tells me when I ask about his routine, as if, at pushing 100, nothing could be more natural. “I am on a sevenfold Office, so I get up at 4.30am for the Office of Readings at 5 am and continue from there, ending with Compline back at my house at 8 pm.”
Walsingham, he says, is a village the size of a postage stamp. “And yet it has seven different Christian plots – Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Methodist – so the divisions of Christianity are very visible here. I believe that Our Lady weeps at these divisions. So I pray in each of them daily for Christian unity.”
And in between the prayers? “Oh well, of course, plenty of people come to have their confessions heard, and so I see people and direct people and that sort of thing. But that’s only what I have always done.”
Mgr Hoey was appointed a Chaplain to His Holiness by Pope Francis last month, to the delight of his countless friends and much, he says, to his own surprise. He is talking to me in his house in the centre of Walsingham, where his desire for a life directed to intercession was awakened in a moment of intense spiritual encounter during his first visit in 1937, when he cycled there with his college chaplain when he was up at Oxford. “I was caught,” he says.
I had written to him asking if I could come and interview him. I had not met him before, but had once heard him preach, memorably and without notes, when he was already well into his nineties. Little did I expect that he would himself type and sign a letter of reply by return of post.
“I shall be very happy to welcome you,” he wrote. “Don’t expect anything special. I shall be 100 in December so my memory is all over the place… and there is also the strong possibility that I may have died.”
In the event, I find him very much alive, kind and warmly welcoming, his memory intact.

Mgr Hoey’s life is now immortalised in a recently published memoir, Trembling on the Edge of Eternity (published by St Michael’s Abbey Press). He has spent most of it as an Anglican priest and monk of the Community of the Resurrection.
He converted to Catholicism and left his community at the age of 79 (the catalyst being the ordination of women in the Church of England). He was ordained as a Catholic priest and became an Oblate of St Benedict at the suggestion of Cardinal Basil Hume, who later asked him to assist at Westminster Cathedral, which he loved. (“I have him to thank for everything,” he says.)
Mgr Hoey is well known as a confessor. People flock to him from great distances for counsel and absolution. They say he expects Christians to be totally committed in their discipleship, yet remains deeply compassionate and quite unshocked by sin.
His life has been packed with prayer and with people. He is a bon vivant with friends in high places. Yet he is equally at home living in the slums of Sunderland, Manchester or the East End of London.
He is drawn to high drama and to silent, hidden prayer.
It is remarkable that Mgr Hoey should have made it to 100. He has never been healthy and very nearly died from pneumonia at the age of three. He has narrowly escaped violent death, too, on several occasions. He recalls the time that his East End clergy house took a direct hit during the Second World War when he was giving instruction for Confirmation and the occasion, years later, when he was preaching in a packed church in a colliery town in South Yorkshire and a vast coping stone fell from a pillar, missing his head by inches. “I felt the draught as it came past my face and, mir-aculously, fell with the most terrible crash on a space on the floor where no one was sitt-ing. I really don’t know why I am still here.”
We talk about the great parish missions which he organised for decades from the 1950s and for which he became famous.
A year of meticulous planning would come to fruition when he and his team descended on the chosen parish. They stayed for up to

a week visiting every home several times, preaching in the streets and the churches, praying and performing. The missions were dramatic affairs which drew people nearer to God by engaging their hearts. Real undertakers and a real coffin would be produced when the theme was death; a live rabbit for a children’s mission teaching how to pray.

He talks about his time in South Africa where his community sent him in the late 1950s during the worst days of apartheid (“The Africans had so much to teach us Europeans,” he says. “Tranquility, how to be still… no sense of time, except for the sun.”)
I ask him about his friendship with the Queen Mother and he tells me of his gratitude when she arranged for him to live in the Charterhouse in London when he left the Community of the Resurrection and, for a while, had nowhere to go.
His face glows with pleasure as he talks. Especially so when he describes the friends he made in the houses of prayer he set up for his community in the 1970s, first in a block of flats in the slums of Manchester and later in the east end of Sunderland.

“Most of the people in the block in Manchester should have been in prison because they were professional thieves.
They were terribly skilful. One wondered how they could possibly manage, for example, to steal three turkeys. But they were very open about it and very friendly. They used to come round and offer us the stolen food and they would offer to fix the electricity meter for us so that we could get £50 worth of electricity for £1. It was terribly clever, but we didn’t really feel we could accept.”
I ask if he ever felt it was part of his Christian duty to turn them in. “Oh good gracious me, no! They were terribly friendly and quite religious. They were always asking us to pray for various things. Then there was the woman on the other side. She was a bit faded – a prostitute, really – and she had an African live-in. They had terrible rows and then she would throw him out and pour buckets of water at him from the window. But they were such nice people.”
He has talked for over an hour and shows no signs of tiring. But another visitor is on the way to see him and I am aware that I must draw this delightful conversation to a close.

By the time I arrive back in London, he will be just setting out for Evening Prayer at the Anglican shrine…

Monday 7 December 2015

BISHOP TREANOR'S CHRISTMAS CARD

BISHOP TREANOR'S CHRISTMAS CARD

Noel


I was very pleasantly surprised to receive a Christmas Card this morning from Bishop Noel Treanor. It is the first time I have received a Christmas Card from the Bishop of Down and Connor since 1984 - 31 years ago.



It was also signed by Tony Farquhar - the auxiliary bishop. He has never before sent me a Christmas card 

Tony
The front of the card is taken from a stained glass window in St Malachy's college - the window of Saint Joseph - which was created by Richard King of the famous Harry Clarke Studion.

The inside of my card was, as I say, signed by both bishops:


The back of the card is also very interesting and inclusive. It shows the coat of arms of Down and Connor and the symbol of the 2016 YEAR OF MERCY that has been declared by Pope Francis:



There is a very interesting and very true quote on the back from one of the Vatican 11 documents Nostra Aetate (1965).

The quote says:

"We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than a brotherly fashion, for all are created in God's image. Man's relation to God the Father and man's relation to his fellow-men are so dependent on each other that the Scripture says: "he who does not love, does not know God" (1 John 4:8)

I am very grateful to Noel and Tony for this gesture of reaching out to me at Christmas and indeed in the Year of Mercy. It proves that these two Christian pastors are not only taking the Year of Mercy seriously. They are also taking Christ's command to love seriously. This is the only future for our Church - when its pastors and people live by the Gospel.

I am totally open to responding in the same spirit in which they have approached me.

Please God there will be fruits of this gesture in the Year of Mercy.


THANK YOU NOEL.  THANK YOU TONY.

Thursday 3 December 2015

DEATH WITH DIGNITY

I found this article very helpful and thought provoking. Pat.


DEATH WITH DIGNITY

By: Dr Peter Allmark - Northern General Hospital Sheffield


Dr Peter Allmark

It is commonly said that health care professionals should seek to ensure that terminally ill people in their care should die with dignity. This seems to involve two claims. The first is that lives without dignity should be ended. This might be by the withdrawal or withholding of life-preserving treatment, or by the direct administration of some life-ending treatment. Those who advocate non-voluntary euthanasia for the severely handicapped may endorse such a view, although it is unclear how death, either induced or natural, adds dignity to an “undignified” life. The second claim is that people should be allowed to make the choices necessary to procure a death with dignity. This second claim is the one more commonly used, often by those advocating assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. The idea seems to be that certain conditions are such that palliative treatment is insufficient to ensure a death with dignity and that therefore euthanasia should be used.

The phrase is not a transparent one, however, and its use has been attacked. Perhaps death itself is by definition undignified; or perhaps the word “dignity” is not one that can possibly apply to death. The main purpose of this article is to defend a conception of death with dignity. I begin with an examination of the words “dignity” and “death” and of the phrase “death with dignity”. I then turn to criticisms made of the application of this phrase in health care. Finally, I set out a conception of death with dignity that attempts to capture the meaning people give to it whilst avoiding some of the problems. The key element of this conception is that dignity is largely something that someone brings to death; it is not something that health care professionals can confer.

DEATH, DIGNITY, AND DEATH WITH DIGNITY

The word “dignity” is derived from the Latin, dignitas, meaning worthiness and nobility. It may be attributed to a broad range of things. In the first place, it may be attributed to humans, animals and, even, objects; hence one might speak of the dignity of a ballet dancer, or an old soldier, of a swan, and of a work of art. The term may also be attributed to actions; hence one might speak of someone conducting herself in a dignified way (often in the face of indignities, as I hope to show). The dignity of some people seems all-pervasive. For example, we might think of Jesus, Gandhi, and Mandela as possessing a dignity that belongs to them as a whole, rather than to them in a specific role, as it does to a ballet dancer or soldier.
“Dignity” appears to have two words that function as opposites, “undignified” and “indignity”. One important aspect in these two words, neither of which seem to function as a pure antonym, is the sense that they can convey of some type of insult or affront. This is true particularly of the latter term; we speak of “indignities” being inflicted on people or things. Such an affront will usually be imposed by another, such as when a swan is put into human clothes for an advertisement, or when Christ had the ironic term “INRI” nailed above his head on the cross.1You might affront your own dignity, however, where that dignity attaches to you as part of a role, rather than to you as a person. For example, a ballet dancer who uses her skills to make money as a lap-dancer might be said to affront her own dignity.
Let us turn now to the term “death” and then the phrase “death with dignity”. Kass suggests that the discussion of death with dignity conceals four senses of the term “death”.2
  1. Non-being—the rather mysterious state of being dead;
  2. Transition—the point at which one moves from being to non-being;
  3. Process—the period leading to death. This is not entirely straightforward as we are in this process from the moment of conception. In practice it usually means a period in which there is an awareness of what will end a particular person’s life and, roughly, when.
  4. The fact of mortality—death as a universal truth that attaches to us all.
“Dignity” is not a term that would apply to the first sense. One would hardly talk of the indignity heaped upon Shakespeare each year he carries on being dead, for example. The term might apply to the fourth sense if one were to say (in a quasi-existentialist way) that death is the indignity that makes life absurd, for example. But it is not clear what this would mean and it is obviously not the sense in which the term is usually applied in health care. Thus it would seem that the more common use of the phrase “death with dignity” attaches to the second and third senses of death. If this is so then we appear to mean dying with dignity when we use the phrase. This will be assumed in the rest of my discussion.

CRITICISMS OF “DEATH WITH DIGNITY”

The application of the phrase “death with dignity” in health care has been attacked. Ramsey suggests that death is an indignity, an affront to life, and that the phrase is, therefore, an oxymoron.3 His argument, however, makes two errors. The first is that it confuses the different senses of “death”. Ramsey moves from the quasi-existentialist belief that death is an indignity for all people, to the view that every person’s process of dying is undignified. This is not a justified move. The second error is that it mistakenly assumes that being subject to an indignity undermines one’s dignity. This is also unjustified, as I shall argue presently.
Coope has a far more robust critique.4 He suggests that it is not clear that the notion makes any sense at all. One can die in undignified circumstances (such as with trousers down in a brothel), but he questions whether one can die with dignity any more than one can be born or breathe with dignity.
He considers a common reply to this question: that dying with dignity is whatever the dying person thinks it is. Hence—for example, if someone thinks it is undignified to die in a confused state, or incontinent, or heavily dependent on others, then it is undignified for him. Coope suggests that the problem with this is that:
if no one understands the phrase “death with dignity” we likewise do not understand the sentence: “Smith thinks that this is a death without dignity”.5
This is slightly cryptic. The point seems to be, however, that this subjective notion of dignity cannot do any useful work in discussions about dignified death. For example, if we were to say that assisted suicide should be an option for all people to ensure they had (subjectively) dignified deaths, we would have to provide that option to anyone who felt their current situation required it to maintain their dignity. Hence, someone who felt that impotence, or hay fever, undermined their dignity would have the same right to assisted suicide as someone who felt that way about a terminal, wasting disease.
Coope goes on to ask whether there may be any more objective notion of death with dignity. He suggests that, in so far as there is, it is a disturbing one. In particular, it seems to be thought that being “ministered to as helpless” is undignified. Hence, the weak and the injured are subject to Nietzchian contempt for living lives beneath or without human dignity. He concludes that, whilst it might be possible to construct a satisfactory notion of death with dignity along these lines there seems to be no good reason to do so. Talk of death with dignity adds nothing to the discussion of how best to treat people who are dying, or living lives of poor quality.

DEATH WITHOUT INDIGNITY AND DEATH WITH DIGNITY

Coope’s criticism is a powerful one. None the less, the phrase “death with dignity” is in common currency; it has meaning for many people, most of whom would agree on the necessity of avoiding both the overly subjective and the Nietzchian objective interpretations. Is it possible to construct a conception of death with dignity that captures the sort of views people have whilst avoiding these two, unacceptable, polar positions?
When working as a care assistant I once looked after someone dying of lung cancer. He was on, what we called at the time, the “danger list”. This was an odd phrase as death in the short term was a certainty, not a danger. The quality of care on this particular ward was poor; in particular, pain control was badly managed. The routine was that the staff would wait for the pain to begin before giving inadequate amounts of morphine. Therefore, the man was frequently in severe pain. I recall him screaming. But each time the morphine took the edge off his pain he would make a great effort to get up, walk round, talk to other patients and staff, and eat at the dinner table with everyone else. Perhaps he should have been more angry (as I should have been)—but my memory is of someone fighting hard to maintain his dignity all the way to his death. What is interesting is that the events in this man’s death bear few hallmarks of what many think of as a dignified death—and yet it seems to me to have been so. I think that, in order to understand this, it is useful to draw a distinction between death without indignity and death with dignity.

1. Death without indignity

We have seen that “indignity” conveys the idea of an affront. Hence, a death without indignity would be one in which no such affronts occur. What would such affronts be? In the first place, there may be specific affronts, such as playing loud rap music to someone who loves only classical music, or jeering at someone who is incontinent, or using “baby names” to an old General. But there may be things that affront all people, in the way that lap-dancing affronts all ballet dancers, and dressing up, all swans. To understand this one would need to ask whether there is a dignity that all humans possess simply because of being human and, if so, how is it affronted?
A potential answer to this draws on an Aristotelian idea.6 The unique and essential feature distinguishing humans from other animals is rationality, the ability to reason and to act upon reasons. Human dignity would, therefore, arise from this feature. We would affront such dignity by failing to acknowledge this in an individual; instead treating them as an object or an animal. For example, if one were to engage in euthanasia without consent (“involuntary euthanasia”) then this would look like an affront to someone’s dignity (even if he would have chosen that option had it been offered); it looks as though one has “put someone down” like a dog. Another example of an affront to human dignity would be failing to tell someone of his terminal diagnosis in order to avoid upsetting him. This is an affront because it removes the ability for him to make choices about his own life. In more Kantian terms, we would be failing to recognise this person as an end in his or her own right. Not all affronts to human dignity will be imposed by human agents, however; disease processes that take away an individual’s ability to reason might also be seen in this way. A death without indignity will be one in which these types of affront do not occur.
On this account, dignity may be seen as a continuum. There is a basic level of dignity that all humans possess simply by virtue of being a member of a rational species. Some people, however, exercise their reason in better ways than others. They can be said to be living good lives. It is these people who possess the greatest degree of dignity; these are the people we admire and view as possessing dignity (or dignity to a high degree). What, then, can this account make of the notion of “death with dignity”?

2. Death with dignity

Whilst inflicting indignity on others is a moral failure, a failure to recognise their human dignity, it does not remove their dignity either in its minimal or fullest sense. If someone is subject to involuntary euthanasia, or lied to about his diagnosis, then he is wronged, affronted; but he may still live his life, and die his death, with (greater or lesser) dignity in the face of that indignity. Christ (and other martyrs) suffered great indignities but, none the less, died with dignity. Mohammed Ali is sometimes praised for the dignity with which he faces his Parkinson’s disease. People die with dignity because of their personal qualities, their virtues, whatever the circumstances in which they die: indignity is suffered; dignity is earned.
It follows that a dignified death will be something earned. Someone who lives a good life, lives virtuously, will die in that way. For the rest of us, death with dignity will be, like life with dignity, something to aim for but only partially to achieve. The potential for dying with dignity may also be lost in those who lose their reasoning capacities—for example, through dementia-inducing illnesses. Similarly, unbearable (and uncontrollable) pain or other suffering may undermine someone’s ability to reason and to choose and, hence, to die with dignity.
It seems, then, that health care professionals cannot ensure that someone dies with dignity. They can, on the other hand, contribute to a death without indignity. This will involve ensuring that, as far as possible, they respect people’s autonomy and use of human reason. It will also involve removing barriers to dignity that can be removed, such as (controllable) pain. On these occasions, health care professionals are making an indirect contribution to death with dignity. To return to my earlier example of the man dying in great pain, health care professionals could and should have removed indignities; in doing so they would have helped him to die without indignity. In the end, however, his strength of character was such that he had a dignified death; in other words, he had a death with dignity in the face of indignity. Indeed, perversely the indignities enabled him to demonstrate his dignity (J Gilbert, personal communication, 2001).
Does this account of death with dignity capture the sense people have of it? And does it do so whilst overcoming Coope’s criticisms? As to the first question, a recent “discourse analysis” (which included interviews with terminally ill patients and their relatives) showed that for them “death with dignity” does often signify simply a death without indignity.7 Even such things as dying in a decrepit room were of relevance here. But deeper notions of dignity were also a factor in people’s ideas of death with dignity. Self determination was a major theme; so was the idea that dignity was something that developed through one’s life through interpersonal relationships. The Aristotelian conception I have offered here seems to capture both the importance of minimising indignity, and the deeper sense in which dignity is something that belongs to someone and has developed with him or her.
Turning to the second question, it seems clear that the conception avoids being overly subjective. On an Aristotelian account, if someone is still capable of living an active reasoned life then he is capable of living with dignity. Therefore, someone who claimed that impotence or hay fever undermined his dignity would be in error. Contrariwise, it might be reasonable to claim that someone suffering uncontrollable pain, or depression, has had his dignity undermined to some extent.
However, this takes us onto the question of whether the conception could be guilty of Nietzchian contempt for the sick and injured. I do not think it could; the reason is that any “contempt” or criticism of people that is compatible with this conception of death with dignity is only for what is in their control. People will often not die with dignity. In many of these cases the lack of dignity arises from within; it is a character fault. In other cases it arises externally, as with dementia inducing illnesses. Only the former are to be criticised; they could have died with dignity but did not. (Perhaps also it is possible for someone who has not lived well to die with some dignity. The death of James Cagney’s gangster character, Rocky Sullivan, in the film, Angels with Dirty Faces, offers a fictional example of this. Rocky Sullivan acts like a coward in the face of the electric chair in order to prevent his becoming a role model to local youths.)
Whatever the case, health care professionals cannot ensure that people die with dignity. They can, on the other hand, try to ensure people die without indignity, in two ways. The first is by not imposing indignities—for example, taking choices away from people at the end of their lives. The second is by acting so as to minimise indignities, such as pain. But there would never be cause to criticise people who suffer such indignities, nor hold them in “contempt”, because they are not in control of whether or not they suffer them.

CONCLUSION

In the conception of death with dignity outlined, the term “death” has been taken to apply to the process of dying, and the term “dignity” has been taken to apply roughly to someone who lives well (in the Aristotelian sense of living in accordance with reason). It follows from this that dignity is a function of someone’s personal qualities and that a death with dignity is a personal achievement; it is not something that can be conferred by others, such as health care professionals. By contrast, indignities are affronts to personal dignity. They are things that prevent or impede someone from living with dignity, mainly because they prevent him from taking an active, reasoned part in his own life. Health care professionals have a twin role here; the first is not to impose such indignities, the second is to minimise them, wherever possible
Does this conception imply anything for the euthanasia debate (where the phrase is so often used)? It would seem to offer prima facie support for voluntary euthanasia. For example, someone might choose to end his life now whilst he is still capable of living and dying with dignity rather than suffer an illness that removes that possibility. But this support for euthanasia is fairly weak. It is clear that no matter how good someone’s character is, bad luck can remove his dignity. If this happens, it is far from obvious that suicide or euthanasia will rescue it. Furthermore, opting for euthanasia without good reason could presumably itself constitute an affront to human dignity.