The Schiavo case may be seen, and so the case has been made by some, as a question of theology over a person. As a professed Catholic, the theology promulgated by the faith Ms. Shiavo ascribed to when she could has a very clear answer to the question being asked on her behalf — that food must not be refused in the face of death.
Can a person’s theologies be legally and practically real grounds for action? What if no direct wishes or opinions on the issue are expressed, only the indirect nod of Church belonging? Here it must truly be asked whether theology is a thing that can be soberly taken seriously; whether theology is a "canopy" that hangs over a person in entirety, in system, or an accidental creature of personal opinion. If theology is to be accounted as a real thing of any importance, it surely has some dominion, some answer regarding a silent adherent’s consent.
What then if, at the prospect of fifteen years trapped in a motionless body, Schiavo abandoned Catholic theology consciously and decided to die. Suppose she even told her doctors and signed a paper. Should society respect her wishes as they vacillate, or should it press on her the dignity of holding to her principles? Often a person is thankful for being pushed slightly to endure and live up to her beliefs. Perhaps society take this role, the stubborn coach.
Suppose also that she didn’t know or accept this particular notion of Catholic theology. Is she still responsible for it by virtue of alignment with the Church, as an American citizen is responsible to a law he is not aware of? This speaks to whether a theology is a matter of personal determination primarily or one that calls upon the authority which promulgates it.
I propose that these questions of authority are not accidental but absolutely central to the practice of theology in general; theology collapses in the face of any rigor of justification. Its gems are only discoverable ultimately when tacit authority is lent it. Theology could only be the Queen of the Sciences; in any other capacity she would utterly collapse and be lost.
Theological Power of Attorney
Especially in this day and age where church membership and religious affiliation is becoming less and less binding and permanent, I can’t see how such a practice would be accepted.
It seems that, if I might try to dress your questions in legal garb, you are asking if the Church should function as power-of-attorney in medical decisions. You can call it theology or creedal subscription, but when it comes right down to it, it’s the church leadership that would make the call. When the law wants someone to interpret/apply the theology they will ask the pastor, priest, cleric, etc.
Put this way, my gut says this is not a good idea. In my will I assign power of attorney in two spheres — medical and financial. The church would never be assigned power of attorney in the financial realm, so I don’t see why they should be assigned this kind of authority in the medical realm. I can’t imagine, in the case of a person who dies without a will, having the church step in and distribute her estate for her. Yet I cannot differentiate between that scenario and the one proposed by asmallclone. Surely theology has as much to say about where our money should be spent as it does about how to treat the infirm.
I suppose one could explicitly assign power-of-attorney to his/her minister. That would, in essence, accomplish what the initial post proposes. I’ve never heard of this being done, and now I’m wondering why not? Either we ourselves don’t attribute much authority to our creedal and denominational subscriptions, or the ministers don’t want to get involved!
The moral of the Terry Schiavo story is, WRITE YOUR LIVING WILL NOW. Frankly, I cannot conceive of anyone authoring a legally binding document stating that, in case of total physical incapacitiation, they wish to spend 15+ years in a bed on life support.
It makes me wonder if Christians really believe in a glorious afterlife.