- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,444
- 56,154
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Interview about euthanasia with Gerhard Cardinal Müller by Lothar C. Rilinger
The right to life is regarded as a human right—as a right that everyone also views as fundamental—and ultimately it belongs to everyone, at least theoretically. Preborn human beings—even if they were capable of it—cannot always invoke this right; it is only granted to them selectively, only if the mother agrees with it. This withdrawal of the human right to life is manifested not only in abortion law. This legal restriction of the right is being discussed also in connection with active assistance in dying, and this restriction has already become a legal reality in several European countries. Whereas after the last World War there was still a generally accepted taboo against debating the legalization of killing within the framework of active assistance in dying, the ethical debate developed gradually and now includes the legalization of killing by third parties, if someone wishes it. The ethical dimension and relevance of this debate are immense.
For this reason the dogmatic theologian and ecumenist Gerhard Cardinal Müller agreed to inform the public about his view of how active assistance in dying should be classified ethically and legally.
Rilinger: Is the human right to life assigned to human beings by a political elite, or is this right intrinsically inherent in every human being, born or preborn?
Cdl. Müller: Every human being is conceived by and born of his father and mother. He proceeds from their bodily generative power and—we hope and pray— encounters parents and relatives who welcome him full of love and respect and thus communicate to him a primordial confidence in the goodness of being. The state is only the organizational form of societal life, but it is not the creator of life, let alone the master and owner of the inhabitants of its territory. We are free citizens, not vassals of potentates and slaves in the workplaces.
Any state perverts its limited authority in questions concerning the common good, if those who guide its fate behave like tyrants and have themselves worshipped as gods. For the true God, as the Judeo-Christian tradition believes in him, is the Creator of life who generously guarantees freedom. He also establishes the inalienable dignity of every individual human being by predestining him to eternal salvation. The topic of human dignity is not some abstract reflection accessible only to the brightest philosophical brains. After the atrocious crimes of totalitarian states—in the twentieth century, no less, which claimed to be so enlightened—the fathers and mothers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of German formulated the inalienable dignity of every human being and fundamental human rights as the basis of a constitutional democracy. These fundamental rights precede all positive legislation as a critical standard.
Any state and any international organization that denies and restricts [1] the right to physical integrity, which is already given in man’s rational, corporeal, and social nature, and [2] the right to free will and freedom of conscience in matters of religion and ethics, is automatically perverted into a system of injustice. Fundamental rights must be derivable from man’s rational nature and cannot be decreed “from above” in a positivist and arbitrary way by the governmental authority through a majority decision or the dictates of a ruling oligarchy. The “political-medial class” cannot prescribe what philosophers have to think and what the faithful may profess—not yet. Moreover the subtle pressures to conform in one’s convictions and opinions about religious, spiritual, and moral life conjure up the danger of a totalitarian dictatorship in modern dress. This is true also for the countries of Europe or the European Union, which wrongly conclude from their self-understanding as parliamentary democracies that they can restrict or even abolish fundamental rights by majority decisions. To mention one terrifying example: It is and remains a crime against humanity when governmental agencies deprive parents of their natural right to care for their children, just because they prudently do not accept certain individually debatable measures in the coronavirus crisis.
Rilinger: The Fifth Commandment forbids killing. Under what conditions, though, could the killing of human beings nevertheless be justified?
Continued below.
Is killing ever good? A conversation about active assistance in dying
The right to life is regarded as a human right—as a right that everyone also views as fundamental—and ultimately it belongs to everyone, at least theoretically. Preborn human beings—even if they were capable of it—cannot always invoke this right; it is only granted to them selectively, only if the mother agrees with it. This withdrawal of the human right to life is manifested not only in abortion law. This legal restriction of the right is being discussed also in connection with active assistance in dying, and this restriction has already become a legal reality in several European countries. Whereas after the last World War there was still a generally accepted taboo against debating the legalization of killing within the framework of active assistance in dying, the ethical debate developed gradually and now includes the legalization of killing by third parties, if someone wishes it. The ethical dimension and relevance of this debate are immense.
For this reason the dogmatic theologian and ecumenist Gerhard Cardinal Müller agreed to inform the public about his view of how active assistance in dying should be classified ethically and legally.
Rilinger: Is the human right to life assigned to human beings by a political elite, or is this right intrinsically inherent in every human being, born or preborn?
Cdl. Müller: Every human being is conceived by and born of his father and mother. He proceeds from their bodily generative power and—we hope and pray— encounters parents and relatives who welcome him full of love and respect and thus communicate to him a primordial confidence in the goodness of being. The state is only the organizational form of societal life, but it is not the creator of life, let alone the master and owner of the inhabitants of its territory. We are free citizens, not vassals of potentates and slaves in the workplaces.
Any state perverts its limited authority in questions concerning the common good, if those who guide its fate behave like tyrants and have themselves worshipped as gods. For the true God, as the Judeo-Christian tradition believes in him, is the Creator of life who generously guarantees freedom. He also establishes the inalienable dignity of every individual human being by predestining him to eternal salvation. The topic of human dignity is not some abstract reflection accessible only to the brightest philosophical brains. After the atrocious crimes of totalitarian states—in the twentieth century, no less, which claimed to be so enlightened—the fathers and mothers of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of German formulated the inalienable dignity of every human being and fundamental human rights as the basis of a constitutional democracy. These fundamental rights precede all positive legislation as a critical standard.
Any state and any international organization that denies and restricts [1] the right to physical integrity, which is already given in man’s rational, corporeal, and social nature, and [2] the right to free will and freedom of conscience in matters of religion and ethics, is automatically perverted into a system of injustice. Fundamental rights must be derivable from man’s rational nature and cannot be decreed “from above” in a positivist and arbitrary way by the governmental authority through a majority decision or the dictates of a ruling oligarchy. The “political-medial class” cannot prescribe what philosophers have to think and what the faithful may profess—not yet. Moreover the subtle pressures to conform in one’s convictions and opinions about religious, spiritual, and moral life conjure up the danger of a totalitarian dictatorship in modern dress. This is true also for the countries of Europe or the European Union, which wrongly conclude from their self-understanding as parliamentary democracies that they can restrict or even abolish fundamental rights by majority decisions. To mention one terrifying example: It is and remains a crime against humanity when governmental agencies deprive parents of their natural right to care for their children, just because they prudently do not accept certain individually debatable measures in the coronavirus crisis.
Rilinger: The Fifth Commandment forbids killing. Under what conditions, though, could the killing of human beings nevertheless be justified?
Continued below.
Is killing ever good? A conversation about active assistance in dying
