Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Why Pope Benedict should be an organ donor
Once again a pope has let me down. The Vatican announced that Pope Benedict was no longer going to donate his organs for transplant on his death. The pope signed a German organ donor card in the 1970's and has been vocal in support of organ donation which he has called the "gift of life." However, his private secretary has clarified that the card became invalid "ipso facto" when he was elected pope. The president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, Archbishop Zimowski explained the decision noting that the pope's body belongs to the whole Church and needs to be preserved intact as it might be subject to "possible future veneration."
I was crushed. I had been praying that when the time came that I needed a kidney (I have kidney disease) I would get the pope's. Not that I wish for his demise; may he live a long and healthy life - and may I as well.
Everybody, it seems, no matter how aware they are of human suffering, has a reason to keep their body parts, even the ones they don't need. According to the Eurotransplant International Foundation, Germany has one of the lowest rates of registered organ donors, 17%. About twice as many Europeans in other countries are registered along with 37% of Americans. Even at the 37% rate of registered donors, organ donor waiting lists are astronomically high and growing. The US list has over 100,000 people on it, most waiting for kidneys. Four thousand people on the kidney waiting list die each year because an organ does not become available.
Is the pope setting a good example when he - or a Vatican official - decides that it is more important that a papal body be treated as an object of veneration rather than a source of saving several lives? After all, women are urged by the church to sacrifice their lives and their bodies in childbirth if life or health threatening complications occur during pregnancy. For women the obligation to give "life" is mandatory not discretionary - even if it means their death. In the pope's case, all that is being asked is that his heart, liver, kidneys, and pancreas be given to someone who is about to die if they don't get them.
There is something theologically suspect about the church's obsession with the papal person and body. For example, in Canon Law, there are only two offenses against bodies that are subject to automatic excommunication. One is the successful procurement of an abortion which takes the life of the fetus, an entity that the church has not definitively declared a person, but has held must be treated "as if it were a person." The second is the attempted (need not be successful) assassination of a pope. The rest of us, it seems, are less worthy of life.
As part of the push to promote a "culture of life" and in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice of his life on the cross for our sins it would be useful if the pope announced that the most sacred expression of respect for his body would be the donation of his organs on death to those in need. And, the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry should initiate a drive to register every citizen of the Vatican and every bishop of the church as an organ donor. In fact, it would be even better if church officials became living kidney donors and gave a spare kidney now when they are younger ( well, a few are) and healthier rather than wait till they are dying and the chances their organs will be useful are diminished. For every 10,000 living donations 3 people die. For every 10,000 births in the US 1.3 women will die; in the developing countries, the average rises to 4.4 women per 10,000 live births.
In fact, I have an even better idea. It would be great if those pro-life priests and perhaps every pro-life man who will never have to risk their life or health in childbirth or pregnancy were to donate their spare kidney to a woman on dialysis. Now that would demonstrate their solidarity and concern for women.
You do the math. Is a pope's body more sacred than that of a woman or of the person languishing on some kidney donor waiting list?
By
Frances Kissling
|
February 14, 2011; 6:36 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: What happens after freedom? |
Next: Freedom is a God-given legacy
Posted by: areyousaying | February 16, 2011 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It does seem a bit odd that it would be necessary to invalidate someone's organ donor card just because they subsequently became pope. It's a moot point anyway since he would probably be disqualified from donating based on his age alone.
Your comment that because an attempted assassination of the pope would result in an automatic excommunication, "The rest of us, it seems, are less worthy of life" is misguided. I think you may misunderstand the concept of excommunication. It is not a punishment or some sort of vengeful act. It is merely a method of clarifying to the public that certain individuals who claim to be Catholic yet reject a core teaching of the Church in a public way have in effect actually chosen not to be Catholic. An assassination attempt of the pope results in excommunication not because his life is somehow more valuable than the rest of us, but because of what the Papacy represents for the Church. The pope is considered to be leader of the Church here on earth. The attempted assassination of such an individual would be a very public rejection of that authority. Accordingly, if an attempted assassin somehow was unaware that his target was the pope, the excommunication would not apply.
Additionally, excommunication is not irreversible. If an individual acknowledges that whatever activity that triggered an excommunication was wrong, then that person would be eligible to rejoin the church.
Posted by: davivman | February 15, 2011 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"...The Pope's body belongs to the Church..." as do those of little boys: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021003676_3.html?hpid=sec-nation
Posted by: areyousaying | February 14, 2011 8:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Following the logic that a woman has the right to choose - don't we have the right to choose not to be a donor? This is implied in your argument that the person languishing on some kidney donor list is more sacred. Aren't we all sacred? Don't we all have freedom of choice? or is freedom of choice reserved only fir abortion and for finding a way to once more criticize the Pope and the Church.
Let's ask the question - What is a body - just cells. A fetus is after all - just cells.
I do care and am glad the Pope was a donor. I don't know if I care about papal protocol and relics etc. But I do care about the underlying issue and I don't understand why it is okay to advocate for saving a dying persons life and not allowing a life to develop? In the competition of rights in the social justice spectrum isn't the child in the womb the most defenseless, therefor deserving more of our protection and help?
Posted by: Mary370 | February 14, 2011 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The attempted assassination of such an individual would be a very public rejection of that authority."
So would a Grand Jury indictment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021403135_2.html?hpid=sec-religion