An ancient Chinese proverb says: “An opinion writer does not live by divorce alone but by every word uttered on myriad subjects.” This does not lessen the importance of writing about divorce.
I will soon write a piece titled ‘Divorce is not the problem’, and another piece highlighting chinks in some of the armour proudly put on by individuals on both sides of the divide. Today, however, I turn my gaze, though not to graze, to nearer and more familiar – though not necessarily less mysterious – pastures, namely the Vatican.
The Vatican told us anyone looking for a new lease of life thanks to a transplant from one of the Pope’s organs is hoping for a bit too much. Mgr Georg Gaenswein, the Pope’s private secretary, wrote to a German doctor on the matter.
It seems that the good soul (the doctor, not the Pope’s secretary, though even he is a good soul) was trying to recruit more organ donors by telling them that even the Pope is listed as an organ donor.
Mgr Gaenswein confirmed that Cardinal Ratzinger has possessed an organ donor card since the 1970s when he lived in Germany. But, alas, this card was rendered void when he became Pope in 2005, his secretary said. It seems there is at least one act of charity the Pope is barred from doing by the fact of becoming Pope.
Those who find this prohibition somewhat difficult to understand find no comfort in the words of the Vatican’s Minister for Health – to use the secular equivalent of the official title – the Polish Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski.
He told the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, that it was understandable that a pope’s body remains intact because it belongs to the entire Church (Excuse my ignorance for not understanding).
“It is also understandable in view of possible future veneration,” he said, referring to possible future sainthood.
Perhaps for the future it could be said that anyone who lives and dies in odore sanctitate should not be allowed to donate organs. Otherwise, we could be faced – according to this line of strange reasoning – by the awesome prospect of having walking relics possibly doing either sublime or naughty actions.
This could create massive theological and pastoral problems for those who think that Mgr Zimowski’s line of reasoning is a reasonable one.
I strongly agree, though, with the Polish archbishop on at least one of his statements: “This doesn’t take anything away from the validity and the beauty of the gift of organ donation.”
When together with a group of others we launched a very successful campaign for organ donation in Malta, we had to tackle many ‘religious’ objections:
“What will happen to me at the Last Judgment? Will I rise again without a kidney?” some asked.
“Is not organ donation a desecration of the human body?” others objected.
The Maltese bishops issued a statement supporting the campaign and a number of well-known priests and religious took a front-line position supporting the campaign.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on the subject. It states that organ transplants “are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient”.
It adds: “Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him have not given their explicit consent.”
Even if the Pope is barred from donating his organs after death (the Vatican said nothing about donating organs while he still lives) the duty that calls each one of us still stands.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt