James J. Walter

Assisted nutrition and hydration and the catholic tradition

Whether or not it is morally permissible to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration in severely brain-damaged patients was hotly debated this year in the case of Terri Schiavo. Our article focuses on how the Catholic tradition has addressed this kind of dilemma over the last 25 years. It recognizes four unacknowledged shifts concerned with: (1) the method of reasoning about our moral obligations; (2) the general context of construing our obligations to seek medical interventions; (3) the presumption to use artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH); and (4) our normative obligation to use ANH.[The author explores areas of consonance and contrast in the backgrounds and methodologies of Edward Schillebeeckx and Ivone Gebara, especially as these are illumined in their respective approaches to the symbol of the cross. While both critique the ways that this central Christian symbol has functioned to contribute to oppression, they diverge in their views of its inherent redeemability. The juxtaposition of the thought of Schillebeeckx and Gebara on this issue reveals a fundamental tension in the Church and in theological thought today, even as it expresses a potentially unifying intuition.]

Reply to Professors Paris, Keenan, and Himes

The authors suggest that their esteemed colleagues misunderstood the central argument of their Theological Studies article, which tried to make clear that, among a variety of documents written during John Paul IIs papacy, four significant and unacknowledged shifts were made that cumulatively appeared to challenge, but not alter, the long-standing Catholic tradition on the use of technologies to preserve life. The authors restate that argument.