Secularization

Secularization is a generally discussed and a worldwide phenomenon today. The word secularization comes from the Latin word secularis, which means worldly or profane. In the Christian world this term was used to differentiate the Christian concepts of supernatural from all that was mundane or profane, and was widely invoked to assert the superiority of the supernatural or the sacred.

Before defining it, we have to make a clear distinction between secularization and secularism which is sometimes confusing. Secularization is a process of decline in religious activities, beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions that occurs primarily in association with, or as an unconscious or unintended consequence of, other processes of social structural change. It need not necessarily deny God or the supernatural, but indifferent to it. Secularism is an ideology; its proponents consciously denounce all forms of supernaturalism and the agencies devoted to it. Secularism may contribute to the process of secularization, but much less than the other causes.

Briefly defined, secularization is the process in which religious consciousness, activities, and institutions are loosing their social significance. Steve Bruce defines it in a threefold way: (1) the declining importance of religion for the operation of non religious roles and institutions such as, those of the state and the economy; (2) a decline in the social standing of religious roles and institutions; and (3) a decline in the extend to which people engage in religious practice, display beliefs of a religious kind, and conduct other aspects of their lives in a manner informed by such beliefs.

In a pre-modern European society, a structure of religious values, norms, symbols and convictions overarched the nexus of society almost like sacred canopy. But today, on the first level of meaning, these religious connections become increasingly marginalized, with its sphere of competence becoming limited to only the church. It indicates that religion becomes marginal to the operation of social system, and that the essential functions for the operation of the society become rationalised, passing out of the control of agencies devoted to the supernatural.

Sociologists use this term to indicate a variety of processes in which the various social institutions became gradually distinct from one another and increasingly free of the matrix of religious assumptions that had earlier inspired and dominated their operation. This constitutes the second level of meaning.

The third level of meaning points to the personal sense of religion of the people. Religion has gradually been losing its influence even in the minds of people. This process is accelerating. It finds expression in official disaffiliation from the Church or in reduced membership in the Church or a decline of members actually participating in church activities.

To unravel completely the complex tissue of casual agencies contributing to secularization would be tantamount to reconstructing the entire web of social history. Any trend as pervasive and persistent in the course of human affairs as this one must be extensively related to all other facets of social change. We may note here only three specific aspects contributed to this process.

First are the things that favour differentiation, for example increase of population, technological progress, political centralization, scientific discoveries, and the influence of capital in the age of exploration. The application of science, particularly to productive activities, and the evolution of new techniques reduced man’s sense of dependence on the divine. As society became industrialized and urbanized, increasing proportion of people began to be removed from nature. Thus the possible intervention of religion in to everyday life became less plausible. Man’s increased capacity to asses and supply his own needs led to the assumption that social well-being depended not on God’s providence but on social planning.

Secondly, there are the secularizing functions of some Judeo-Christian ideas such as God’s absolute transcendence. These ideas demystified the world. Secularization found here unintended theological legitimation.

Thirdly, we may note the role of the elite in the autonomous spheres, those who as the ‘professional vanguard’ knew how to systematically eliminate religious and, in part, ethical factors when defining economic, political, legal, and academic problems.

In its crudest form, secularization says that industrial society produces rational persons and that rational persons reject religion. However, most sociologists recognize that secularization is a multidimensional phenomenon at both religious and socio cultural levels. At the cognitive level there has been decline of religious content in arts, literature, and philosophy, while science has become autonomous. At the experiential level, of individual consciousness, many persons understand the world and live out their lives without reference to religious interpretations in which they no longer believe.

Just as religious institutions have ceased to be central in society, and just as society no longer endorses religious goals as its primary ends, religious consciousness appears to have diminished.

The Church is always aware of the threat of secularization. Pope John Paul II writes in his Encyclical Redemtoris Missio: “The temptation today is to reduce Christianity to merely human wisdom, a pseudo-science of well-being. In our heavily secularized world a “gradual secularization of salvation” has taken place…” Pope Benedict XVI has declared that ongoing secularization to be a fundamental problem of modern society. He argues, while speaking of secularization, for the necessity of certain moral principles for maintaining a free state as well as for the importance of a genuine reason and authentic religion, in order to uphold the state’s moral foundation. He insists that proponents of secular reason and religious conviction should learn from each other, even as they differ over the particular ways that mutual learning should occur.

As the conclusion, I would to like to present a theological refection on this issue. Many thought that by secularization religion would disappear. But we can see in the contemporary world a shift form secularity to spirituality. In spite of the exploration in to the secrets of nature we are not able to escape the supernatural. But at the same time we should not forget the fact that every walk of life such as morality, law and politics are undergoing an intense secularization. This should impel religion to discover its real role and fulfil it in a fitting manner. 

ബെഫാന

ക്രിസ്മസുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട നമ്മുടെ ഓര്‍മകളിലെ മനോഹരമായ ഒരു കഥാപാത്രമാണ് സാൻ്റാക്ലോസ്!! പുഞ്ചിരിക്കുന്ന മുഖവും, വെളുത്ത പഞ്ഞിതാടിയും, തിളങ്ങുന്ന ചുവന്ന കുപ്പായവും, പറക്കുന്ന റെയിന്‍ഡിയറുകള്‍ വലിക്കുന്ന വണ്ടിയുമൊക്കെയുള്ള ഒരപ്പൂപ്പന്‍! അദ്ദേഹം ക്രിസ്മസ് രാത്രിയില്‍ ധാരാളം സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമൊക്കെയായി നമ്മെ സന്ദര്‍ശിക്കുമെന്ന് വെറുതെ വിശ്വസിക്കാന്‍ നമുക്കൊക്കെ ഏറെ ഇഷ്ടവുമാണ്. ഉത്തരധ്രുവത്തിലെ ഏതോ അജ്ഞാതഗ്രാമത്തില്‍ വസിക്കുന്ന, ഒത്തിരി മാന്ത്രിക വിദ്യകള്‍ കൈവശമുള്ള ഇദ്ദേഹം ക്രിസ്മസ് ആകുമ്പോളേക്കും ലോകത്തിലുള്ള എല്ലാ കുട്ടികളുടെയും കണക്കെടുപ്പു നടത്തും, എന്നിട്ട് അവരുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തിന് അനുസരിച്ച് അവര്‍ക്കുള്ള സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമായി ക്രിസ്മസ് കാലത്ത്, പറക്കുന്ന റെയിന്‍ഡിയറുകള്‍ വലിക്കുന്ന തൻ്റെ മനോഹരവാഹനത്തില്‍ ലോകം മുഴുവന്‍ ചുറ്റി കറങ്ങും. ഇങ്ങനെ പോകുന്നു ക്രിസ്മസ് അപ്പൂപ്പനെ പറ്റിയുള്ള നമ്മുടെ വിശ്വാസങ്ങള്‍! ക്രിസ്മസ് അപ്പൂപ്പനെപ്പറ്റി ധാരാളം കഥകള്‍ കേട്ടിട്ടുള്ള നമ്മള്‍ ഒരുപക്ഷെ അധികം കേട്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്ത, ക്രിസ്മസുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ഒരു കഥാപാത്രമാണ് ബെഫാന! ക്രിസ്മസ് അമ്മൂമ്മ എന്നു വേണമെങ്കില്‍ നമുക്കിവരെ വിളിക്കാം! യൂറോപ്യന്‍ രാജ്യങ്ങളില്‍, പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് ഇറ്റലിയിലാണ് ബെഫാന ഏറെ പ്രചാരത്തിലുള്ളത്.

സാൻ്റാക്ലോസ് സുന്ദരനായ ഒരപ്പൂപ്പനാണെങ്കില്‍ ബെഫാന അങ്ങനെയല്ല. വികൃതമായ മുഖവും, നീണ്ടു വളഞ്ഞ ചുവന്ന മൂക്കും, നീണ്ടു കൂര്‍ത്ത കീഴ്താടിയും, കീറിപറിഞ്ഞ, പല കഷണങ്ങള്‍ തുന്നിപിടിപ്പിച്ച പഴയ വസ്ത്രങ്ങളും ഒക്കെയുള്ള ഒരു വൃദ്ധസ്ത്രീ. കയ്യില്‍ നീണ്ട ഒരു ചൂല്‍ ഏപ്പോഴും കാണും. നമ്മുടെ ലുട്ടാപ്പി കുന്തത്തില്‍ എന്നപോലെ ഈ നീണ്ട ചൂലില്‍ ഇരുന്നാണ് അവരുടെ ആകാശയാത്ര. സാൻ്റാക്ലോസ് ക്രിസ്മസിനാണ് സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമായി എത്തുന്നതെങ്കില്‍ ക്രിസ്മസിനു ശേഷമുള്ള എപിഫനി (ജനുവരി 6) തിരുനാളിനോട്‌ അനുബന്ധിച്ചാണ് ബെഫാന സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമായി എത്തുന്നത്‌. ലാറ്റിന്‍ പാരമ്പര്യം അനുസരിച്ച് മൂന്ന് രാജാക്കന്മാര്‍ ഉണ്ണീശോയെ കണ്ട് കാഴ്ച സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച്‌ വണങ്ങിയതിൻ്റെ ഓര്‍മദിവസമാണ് അന്ന്. പാരമ്പര്യമനുസരിച്ച് ബെഫാന എത്തുന്നത്‌ ഈ തിരുനാളിന്റെ തലേരാത്രിയില്‍ ആണ്. ഓരോ വീടിന്റെയും ചിമ്മിനി വഴി അകത്തു പ്രവേശിക്കുന്ന ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മ നല്ല കുട്ടികള്‍ക്കായി മധുര പലഹാരങ്ങളും ചീത്ത കുട്ടികള്‍ക്കായി കരിക്കട്ടകളും നല്‍കുമെന്നാണ് വിശ്വാസം. അതിനായി കുട്ടികള്‍ തലേദിവസം തന്നെ ചിമ്മിനിയോടു ചേര്‍ന്ന് തങ്ങളുടെ സ്റ്റോക്കിംഗുകൾ കെട്ടിത്തൂക്കി ഇടുകയാണ് പതിവ്.

ബെഫാന എന്ന കഥാപാത്രത്തിന്റെ ഉത്ഭവത്തെപറ്റി ധാരാളം കഥകള്‍ പ്രചാരത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ട്. അതില്‍ ഞാന്‍ കേട്ടിട്ടുള്ള ഒന്ന് ഇങ്ങനെയാണ്.

ബേത്ലേഹെം പട്ടണത്തിലെ പേരുകേട്ട ഒരു സത്രം സൂക്ഷിപ്പുകാരി ആയിരുന്നു ബെഫാന. യേശുവിൻ്റെ ജനന കാലഘട്ടം. പേരെഴുതിക്കുവാനായി യൗസേപ്പും ഗര്‍ഭിണിയായ ഭാര്യ മറിയവും ആ പട്ടണത്തില്‍ എത്തിയിരിക്കുന്നു. തന്റെ ഭാര്യക്ക്‌ പ്രസവസമയം അടുത്തപ്പോള്‍ ഗര്‍ഭിണിയായ മറിയത്തെയും കൊണ്ട് യൗസേപിതാവ് ഒരു മുറിക്കായി ബെഫാനയുടെ സത്രവാതില്‍ക്കലും മുട്ടി. എന്നാല്‍ മറ്റെല്ലായിടത്തും എന്നപോലെ അവിടെയും അവര്‍ക്ക് സ്ഥലം ലഭിച്ചില്ല. അങ്ങനെ ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മയും അവരെ നിരാശരാക്കി.. യൗസേപ്പിതാവാകട്ടെ മറിയത്തെയും കൊണ്ട് ഒരു കാലിതൊഴുത്തില്‍ അഭയം പ്രാപിച്ചു.

ദിവസങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ശേഷം കാലിതൊഴുത്തില്‍ ജനിച്ച ദിവ്യശിശുവിനെ അന്വേഷിച്ച്, ഒരു നക്ഷത്രത്തെ പിന്തുടര്‍ന്ന്, ദൂരദേശത്തുനിന്നും മൂന്നു രാജാക്കന്മാര്‍ അവിടെ എത്തി. ഇവര്‍ ഒരു രാത്രി തങ്ങാന്‍ തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തത് ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മയുടെ ഈ സത്രം തന്നെ ആയിരുന്നു. കാരണം ആ പട്ടണത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും മനോഹരമായതും, സൗകര്യങ്ങള്‍ ഉള്ളതും, നല്ല പരിചരണത്തിന് പേരുകേട്ടതും ആയിരുന്നു ഈ സത്രം. അവരില്‍നിന്നും ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മ അറിഞ്ഞു,  തങ്ങളുടെ പട്ടണത്തില്‍ ഒരു കാലിത്തൊഴുത്തില്‍ ഒരു ദിവ്യശിശു പിറന്നിരിക്കുന്നു. പറഞ്ഞു കേട്ട കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ഒക്കെ കേട്ടപ്പോള്‍ അമ്മൂമ്മയ്ക്കു മനസ്സിലായി, അവര്‍ ആ രാത്രിയില്‍ ഒരു ഇടത്തിനായി തൻ്റെ വാതില്‍ക്കലും മുട്ടിയിരുന്നു. ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മയ്ക്ക് ആകെ നിരാശയായി. എങ്ങനെയെങ്കിലും ആ ദിവ്യശിശുവിനെ ഒന്ന് കാണാന്‍ അവര്‍ ആഗ്രഹിച്ചു. രാജാക്കന്മാരാകട്ടെ അവരെ തങ്ങളുടെ കൂടെ ചെല്ലാന്‍ ക്ഷണിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. എന്നാല്‍ പിറ്റേന്ന് ജോലി തിരക്ക് കാരണം രാജാക്കന്മാര്‍ പുറപ്പെട്ടപ്പോള്‍ ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മയ്ക്ക് അവരുടെ കൂടെ പുറപ്പെടാനൊത്തില്ല. നാളെ ആയാലും പോകാമല്ലോ എന്നവര്‍ ഒരു നിമിഷം ചിന്തിച്ചു പോയി.

പിറ്റേന്ന്  ഒരു സഞ്ചിനിറയെ മധുരപലഹാരങ്ങളുമായി ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മ ദിവ്യശിശുവിനെ അന്വേഷിച്ചിറങ്ങി. പക്ഷെ കാര്യങ്ങളൊക്കെ മാറിമറിഞ്ഞത് പെട്ടന്നായിരുന്നു. നിര്‍ഭാഗ്യകരം എന്നുപറയട്ടെ, ആ രാത്രിയില്‍ മാലാഖയുടെ നിര്‍ദ്ദേശ പ്രകാരം യൗസേപ്പിതാവും മാതാവും ഉണ്ണിയേശുവിനെയും കൊണ്ട് ഈജിപ്തിലേക്ക് പലായനം ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. പക്ഷെ ഇതൊന്നുമറിയാതെ ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മ തൻ്റെ സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമായി ഉണ്ണിയേശുവിനെ അന്വേഷിച്ചു നടന്നു. കുറെ അലച്ചിലിനൊടുവില്‍ അവര്‍ക്ക് മനസ്സിലായി ആ മഹാഭാഗ്യം തനിക്കു എന്നെന്നേക്കുമായി നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു.

ഒരിക്കല്‍ ഒരു ദിവ്യശിശു തൻ്റെ സത്രത്തില്‍ ജനിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അവസരം നഷ്ടപെടുത്തി. ഇപ്പോഴിതാ, തൻ്റെ അശ്രദ്ധ കൊണ്ട്, ആ ശിശുവിനെ കണ്ട് കാഴ്ചകള്‍ സമര്‍പ്പിക്കാനുള്ള അവസരവും താന്‍ നഷ്ടപെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്നു.

അന്ന് മുതല്‍ ബെഫാനയമ്മൂമ്മ താന്‍ ഉണ്ണിയേശുവിനു കൊടുക്കാന്‍ തയ്യാറാക്കിയ സമ്മാനങ്ങളുമായി ലോകം മുഴുവനുമുള്ള കുട്ടികളെ അന്വേഷിച്ചു നടക്കുന്നു.

Ethical Issues in Organ Donation

My last post was on Organ Donation. Encouraging responses and comments I received from the readers, especially from my professors and friends of Alfonsiana, gave confidence to me to reflect and learn more about this issue. This post is one of the results of my further research in this field.

Since organ transplantation is now an established part of medical practice, we need to think about the ethical issues in this regard. The decision to donate an organ is an ethical decision, one which involves thinking about the ethical issues from different perspectives. As we know, from the stand point of the donor, organ donations are of two different categories: Donation of organs by a living donor and donation of organs by a dead donor (cadaver). The goal of this article is to provide a discussion which will help us to think through the ethical issues related to organ donation and transplantation. 

Catholic Church on the Ethical Issues Related to Organ Donation

While admiring Organ Donation as a beautiful and noble act expressing the culture of life, Blessed Pope John Paul II reminds us that it must be “performed in an ethically acceptable manner, with a view to offering a chance of health and even of life itself to the sick who sometimes have no other hope” (Evangelium Vitae, No. 86). The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, they 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 (No. 2296). Pope John Paul II in his address to the First International Congress of the Society of Organ Sharing, in 1991, said: "This splendid development is not of course without its dark side. There is still much to be learned through research and clinical experience, and there are many questions of an ethical, legal and social nature which need to be more deeply and widely investigated".

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) has similar teaching on organ donations from the living, specifying however that the donation will not sacrifice or seriously impair and essential functioning of the donor. It offers some important specifics on such procedures from the dead, e.g., only competent medical authorities ought to determine that a person has died, to avoid conflicts of interest the physician determining death ought not be a member of the transplant team (Directives, 62. 64). 

We discuss: 

1. Is it morally allowed to donate and transplant an organ to another? (We consider here both living and cadaver donors) 

2. Issues connected with donor 

3. Issues connected with recipient 


1. Is it Morally Allowed to Donate and Transplant an Organ to Another? 

The moral principle of totality points to the duty of a person to preserve intact the physical component of that integrated whole. A simple expression of the principle of totality means, that the parts of the physical entity, as parts, are ordained to the good of the physical whole. From the medical perspective, the principle of totality would mean that “all the parts of the human body, as parts, are meant to exist and function for the good of the whole body, and are thus naturally subordinated to the good of the whole body” So the principle of totality demands the moral obligation of a person to preserve his ‘bodily integrity’. Any indiscriminate removal, disposal or mutilation is against this principle. This principle seems to prohibit any donation of organs by a living donor. But theologians interpret ‘bodily integrity’ distinguishing between anatomical and functional integrity, maintaining that only the latter is essential for bodily and personal integrity. 

Theologians Benedict Ashley and Kevin O’Rourke opine that the concept of functional integrity is the key factor in addressing the morality of transplants between living persons. They acknowledge that the donor runs a risk in giving an organ, but this is acceptable if it does not impair his own functional integrity (e.g., if he donates one kidney, his functional integrity is not impaired because he still has a functioning kidney). The transplant would be immoral if the organ’s removal were to impair the donor’s functional integrity. In this context donation and transplantation, according Gerald Kelly, is justified by the principle of fraternal charity or love when doing so is of great benefit to the recipient, with the proviso that the harm suffered by the donor is limited and morally acceptable. 

According to moral theologians, for example Germain Grisez, organ transplants from the living can be justified by the principle of double effect. According to this principle an action having two effects, one good, the other bad, is morally good provided that the action is not morally wrong for other reasons, that the evil is not intended, that the evil is not the means to the good, and that there is a ‘proportionate reason’ for tolerating or accepting the bad effect. 

2. Ethical Issues Regarding the Donor 

2.1 Living Donors 

2.1.1 Consider it as an Act of Charity 

The magisterium of the Catholic Church and moral theologians agree that organ donation and transplants from living donors are morally justified and are indeed noble and good actions so long as certain criteria are met. According to Pope Benedict XVI, "organ donation is a unique testimony of charity" (Address to the participants of the International Congress 'A Gift for Life: Considerations on Organ Donation' on 7 Nov 2008).
People choose to be living donors, or choose not to be, for different kinds of reasons or for a mixture of reasons. In many cases the desire to donate an organ may be based on the wish to save the life or improve the health of a relative with whom there are already bonds of affection and love. In other cases, a person may wish to do something to save the life or improve the health of an unknown person in the community, based on more impersonal ideas of helping others or giving to the community. Such donors may consider that the potential personal disadvantages or discomforts of donating are more than outweighed by the potential benefits to the person needing a transplant. So, here donation may be considered as an opportunity to give of one’s self to another human being, even a stranger. On this view, organ donation can represent the highest capacity of human giving: the gift of life itself. Such giving benefits not only the receiver but also the giver and the society as a whole. 

2.1.2 Free and Informed Consent 

Free and informed consent is required when the transplant is from a living donor. Pope John Paul II teaches: "transplantation presupposes a prior, explicit, free and conscious decision on the part of the donor" (Address to the First International Congress of the Society of Organ Sharing). Pope Benedict XVI reminds: "In these cases, informed consent is a precondition of freedom so that the transplant can be characterized as being a gift and not interpreted as a coercive or abusive act". Voluntary and expressed consent involves a person making known his/her free offer to donate one or more of their organs and/or bodily tissue. Informed consent means that the donor must be clearly informed about the risks involved, health problems, if any etc. by a professional. 

2.1.3 The Functional Integrity of the Body

The body of a human being can never be considered as a mere object (cf. Deus Caritas Est, No. 5); to do otherwise would impose on it the logic of the market. The body of each person, together with the spirit that is given to each one individually, constitutes an inseparable unity upon which is impressed the image of God himself. It is necessary, then, that priority must be given to respect for the dignity of the human person and the protection of individual identity (Benedict XVI, A Gift for Life: Considerations on Organ Donation). The functional integrity of the donor must not be impaired by the donation, even if anatomical integrity is weakened. The burden or risk taken by the donor must be proportionate to the benefit received by the recipient.

2.1.4 Avoid Commercialism 

Donating organs for financial gain must be avoided. The World Health Organization has expressly argued against the practice. Paying for organs can constitute unjust moral pressure on the donor. It could invalidate any free consent or a contract. World Health Organization demands its member states to take appropriate measures to prevent the purchase and sale of human organs for transplantation. (Nos. 62-3 and 202-3) The Catholic Church clearly teaches that “economic advantages should not accrue to the donor” (The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 30). Pope John Paul II reminds: "The human body is always a personal body, the body of a person. The body cannot be treated as a merely physical or biological entity, nor can its organs and tissues ever be used as items for sale or exchange. Such a reductive materialist conception would lead to a merely instrumental use of the body, and therefore of the person. In such a perspective, organ transplantation and the grafting of tissue would no longer correspond to an act of donation but would amount to the dispossession or plundering of a body"(Address to the First International Congress of the Society of Organ Sharing). Pope Benedict XVI teaches: "Any reasons for the buying and selling of organs, or the adoption of utilitarian and discriminatory criteria, would clash in such a way with the meaning of gift that they would be invalidated, qualifying them as illicit moral acts. Abuses in transplants and organ trafficking, which frequently affect innocent persons, such as children, must find the scientific and medical community united in a joint refusal. They should be decidedly condemned as abominable"(A Gift for Life: Considerations on Organ Donation). The Catholic Health Association of Canada (CHAC) holds that the buying and selling of human organs, tissues and blood “contradicts the principle of charity which is part of the necessary justification for such transplantations” (Procurement and Transfer of Human Tissues and Organs, Working Paper 66). 

2.2 Cadaver Donor 

2.2.1 Criteria for Death 

Cadaveric organ donation requires that death must be declared by a competent authority before removing any organs for transplantation. In these cases respect for the life of the donor should be assumed as the primary criterion, in such a way so that the extraction of the organs only take place after having ascertained the patient's true death (cf. Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 476). The U.S. bishops’ ERDs make it clear that only competent medical authorities have the right to determine that a person has died. Blessed John Paul II several times declared that the responsibility to provide the criteria for determining that a human person had died was within the competence of medical doctors and scientists. He accepted the scientific community’s position that the criteria for determining this are (1) spontaneous cardiac and respiratory functioning and (2) the irreversible cessation of all functioning of the brain, including the brain stem, what he called the ‘neurological’ criterion (International Conference of Organ Transplant Specialists in August 2000). (However in recent years there has been a serious debate among scientists regarding the validity of the ‘neurological’ criterion. Several serious challenges, supported by evidence, have been leveled against it. This debate is continuing, but as of now the magisterium accepts the ‘neurological criterion’ as providing moral certainty that a human person has died) 

2.2.2 A Voluntary and Expressed Previous Consent 

A voluntary and expressed previous consent of the person is required, making known his/her free offer to donate one or more of their organs and/or bodily tissue, after death. Concerning cadaver donation, a person can express their wishes by some form of advanced directives. They do it in writing in the presence of two witnesses at least one of whom is a near relative. In case of no such consent or donor pledge form was filled before death, then the authority to give consent for organ donation lies with the person lawfully in possession of the dead body. 

3. Ethical Issues Regarding the Recipient 

3.1 Accept as a Gift 

The recipients of organ transplants should not "forget that they are receiving a unique gift from someone else: the gift of self made by the donor, a gift which is certainly to be considered an authentic form of human and Christian solidarity; says Pope John Paul II in hi address to the First International Congress of the Society of Organ Sharing. A joint document by the German Bishops’ Conference and the Council of the German Evangelical Church (1988), ‘Christians and the Ethics of Organ Transplants’, says: “...nobody i.e., no potential recipient, has a claim on organs or tissue of any person, living or dead. The sick should thus accept the tissue and organs freely offered by others as a gift (German Bishops’ Conference and the Council of the German Evangelical Church (1988), “Christians and the Ethics of Organ Transplants”, Catholic International, 15-30 April 1991, 373. This position is widely accepted. 

3.2 Free and Informed Consent 

Another moral issue involving the recipient is free and informed consent. A competent person who could possibly benefit from receiving a transplant should be adequately informed regarding the expected benefits, risks, burdens and costs of the transplant and aftercare, and of other possible alternatives. So, should the guardian(s) of an incompetent person. No unfair influence should be put on someone to be a transplant recipient. 

3.3 Consider as Extraordinary Means 

A potential transplant recipient and/or their guardian(s) should also consider their decision as extraordinary means of preserving life and should be sought as a last resort to save life. 

Conclusion 

There is a need for education of the general public and many health care professionals concerning the whole area of organ and tissue transplants. Many people are not well informed of the needs, the shortage of organs and tissues, and the great potential benefit of many people for transplants. Many have unfounded fears or reservations or are confused about some of the issues of being a donor. Health care professionals also need to be educated about the meaning of organ and tissue donation (CHAC, 43). Some have unfounded reservations about approaching individuals or families to consider organ and tissue donation. 

Organ donation, carried out under proper conditions, is a beautiful and noble expression of Christian charity: it gives dignity to the person who in death becomes a life-support for another; it shows noble concern for the respect of the life of others; and it implies a sense of communion with humanity. Pope Benedict XVI teaches: "Organ transplants that are in line with ethic of giving require the commitment of all sides to invest every possible effort in formation and information, so as to increasingly awaken consciences to a problem that directly affects the lives of so many. It would be necessary, then, to overcome prejudices and misunderstanding, dispel suspicions and fears and substitute them with certainties and guarantees, so as to create in all people an awareness, ever more widespread, of the great gift of life".
The Gospel proclaims that there is no greater love than to give one’s life for another (Jn 15:13). Jesus welcomes the good done to another as though it were done to himself (Matt 25).