In much the same way that it has submitted to cultural trends on same-sex marriage, the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than taking a stand either way, has decided to recognise euthanasia in Canada as a “reality”. In church terms, this is known as being prophetic; or is it missional – I don’t know, this jargon is so confusing, isn’t it?

In contrast, the Anglican Church in North America states in its constitution:

God, and not man, is the creator of human life. The unjustified taking of life is sinful. Therefore, all members and clergy are called to promote and respect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death.

This would be a difficult idea for ACoC theologians to grasp since they are still divided on whether the concept of sin is a reality, let alone whether its only remedy is Jesus Christ – after all, we don’t want “to alienate people over a very sensitive and complex issue”.

From the Journal:

In a nod to changing times, the Anglican Church of Canada’s latest report on physician-assisted dying, rather than opposing the practice, recognizes it as a reality. The report offers reflections and resources around assisted dying and related issues, such as palliative care.

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down last year a ban on physician-assisted death for the “grievously and irremediably ill” as unconstitutional, notes the paper, entitled In Sure and Certain Hope: Resources to Assist Pastoral and Theological Approaches to Physician Assisted Dying, released Thursday, June 9.

In the wake of this decision, the paper states, “public debate concerning the legal ban on physician assisted dying is in some ways over.”

As a result, the authors continue, “our energy is best spent at this time ensuring that this practice is governed in ways that reflect insofar as possible a just expression of care for the dignity of every human being, whatever the circumstances.”

[……]

“A report like this is not going to please everybody because it doesn’t give a direct answer, and that will frustrate some people,” Hiltz said. “But…to give a direct answer is, in fact, to alienate people over a very sensitive and complex issue.”