Here in the UK I’ve been noticing more news items covering issues relating to assisted suicide and euthenasia. I sat down this morning and did a quick survey of the official positions of a number of denomonations to see if they differed, and what was characteristic about each posistion. It then struck me that I’ve not seen much comment in OC/IC forums on the topic. I know that when I lived in the states in the 80s and 90s assisted suicide and euthenasia were hot topics, looking back, I’m not sure I can remember it being discussed then (in OC/IC forums) either.

Why is that then?

Part of me wonders if it is due to the fact that our liberal/progressive attitudes don’t see this as an issue worth investigating in our communities. But then, there is a compelling argument to be made that suggests that on the contrary – this is a topic worthy of exploration – it affects a number of ethical issues, as well as issues surrounding the local community, relationships with others, and even a sense of our OC/IC identity.

On the other hand – I have noticed over the years that the issues that “matter” in OC/IC forums are frequently not issues considered relevant beyond the boundaries of a small group of OC/IC clergy. This inward looking positioning (conscious and unconscious) is I think detrimental to the community as a whole. In this light then it is not entirely surprising that – in a search of OC/IC sites this morning no mention is made of assisted suicide, euthenasia, or end of life issues.

But curiously enough – I’ve seen on more than one occasion mention of support for a woman’s right to choose. So it would appear that in addition to exploring (arguing) about matters that are only of interest to a small clique of clergy, making sure to hit those “hot button” issues that might attract bums on seats is important . . . . This leads to a rather uncomfortable thread of thinking though.

What I’m interested in at the moment, however, is not necessarily the why’s and why nots of this being discussed in OC/IC forums – but what people within the community think about assisted suicide and euthenasia: how do OC/IC folk resopnd to them, how does it fit within our theology, our tradition?

I was working on my thesis this morning and while considering aspects’ of Nestorius’ warning about the possible excesses of the title Theotokos – found myself thinking about the Roman Catholic idea of Mary as Mediatrix. I wondered to myself if it was not a bit prophetic on Nestorius’ part to raise issue with the title Theotokos, and went in search of some clarity on the use and meaning of Mediatrix. I found this, among others.

One element of this that surprised me was the heavy emphasis of Mary’s suffering at the cross during Christ’s crucifixion – and that it was in this moment that she truly becomes “mediatrix” and dispensor of grace.

My reading of the patristic sources suggests a . . . . counter argument . . . (perhaps not the best term). Mary’s importance as the subject of devotion emerges in the Late Antique period and is not focussed on her suffering, but instead on her becoming the Theotokos – the one who bore the one who is God – it is in this moment, according to the patristic sources, that Mary becomes the source of “super-abundant grace” (St. Proklos Hom. 1.1).

Patristic writers variously pointed to John’s account of Mary at the foot of the cross, as a demonstration of her post-natal virginity (because in vs. 19.26-7 Jesus – her only son, hands her into the care of John, and not for example James); or a fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy (Lk. 2.35) that her heart would be pierced by a sword.

From an OC/IC perspective I wonder if the use of Mediatrix and it’s complimentary title Co-Redemptrix are actually helpful titles – after all, Nestorius held that the term too readily lent itself to excessive Marian devotion, distorting the true image of Mary as a woman, participating in the economy, and thus her real value in the tradition.