EUSTATHIUS, bishop of Sebaste. — B. at the beginning of the 4th century, d. after 377. In the dogmatic field he was restless, straying into semi-Arianism and later denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These errors earned E. the admonitions of his friend and later opponent St Basil the Great. After the break with him, E. became the leader of the Macedonians. E. nonetheless merits credit for introducing into Cappadocia the manner of life of monks, a seed which Basil gathered to give it definitive consistency through his work and his rules.
EUSTATHIUS, bishop of Thessalonica. — Lived in antiquity, wrote various philosophical and theological works in the second half of the 12th century. He is one of the most important figures of the Byzantine period; he was, it is said, a deacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and later bishop of Thessalonica; as a deacon he wrote works of a secular character (commentaries on Homer, Pindar, etc.), while as bishop he entered practical life and his works took on a topical character. In them one notes the author’s efforts to reform monastic life and elevate the moral and cultural level of the convents. He did not, however, attain the goal he set for himself, because precisely on account of this informing activity he was forced for a time to leave Thessalonica. Among the works of the second period, besides the Letters, the Homilies and the Discourses, a series of writings is remembered from which his tendencies and his purposes as a reformer emerge (PG, 135-36). His commentary on Homer was published by Stallbaum (7 vols., Leipzig 1825-30).
EUSTOCHIUM, saint. — Third daughter of the distinguished Roman matron Paula and the senator Toxotius, she consecrated herself to God while still very young. The first information about her is directly connected with St Jerome’s second sojourn in Rome (382-85). It was precisely in the house of Marcella on the Aventine, which had by then become the spiritual centre of the Urbe, that the young girl first met the holy doctor, who had recently arrived from the East with St Epiphanius and St Paulinus of Antioch. E. soon became the object of Jerome’s care; at the mother’s invitation, he wrote for her the admirable Letter 22, De custodia virginitatis, justly defined as the canon of virginity. In the spring of 386, together with her mother, she left Rome for the East; they reached Jerome in Antioch and, after visiting the most famous monasteries of Egypt and the Holy Places of Palestine, settled definitively in Bethlehem, leading a strictly ascetic life there. E., who had a perfect command of Greek and Latin, soon mastered Hebrew as well, so that Jerome had in her a valuable assistant in transcribing codices. Later the master dedicated to her his commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel. After the death of Paula (404), for whom Jerome wrote an affectionate epitaph, she herself took charge of the women’s monastery founded by her mother, which she governed for fifteen years. Finally, in 419, just one year before the death of the master, she too died serenely in the land that had seen the birth of the Redeemer.
Emanuele Romanelli
EUSTORGIUS, saint. — He is said to have been bishop of Milan between 343-50. He is praised by St Athanasius and St Ambrose as a zealous and fervent orthodox; but unfortunately no other certain information is known about him. There exists a biography written by Landolf in the 11th century according to which E. was sent from the East as governor of Milan. At the death of Protasius he was acclaimed bishop, but he refused to accept the dignity without the approval and consent of the Emperor. He therefore went to Constantinople, from where he returned with privileges for the city and transporting the bodies of the Magi. During his episcopate the two synods against Photinus were held in Milan in 346 and 348. He is commemorated on 8 September.
Agostino Amore
EUSTRAtiUS. — Metropolitan of Nicaea, lived in the 11th-12th centuries, d. after 1177. A dissident and anti-Latin, he wrote several philosophical and theological works and polemicized with the archbishop of Milan, Peter Grossolanus. He was deposed for his errors concerning Christology. Part of his writings were edited by Demetrakopoulos, ‘Εκτὰ βιβλιοθήκη, I, Leipzig 1866, p. 47 sq. The acts of his trial in ‘Αθηνάτω, 4 (1875), pp. 227-33.
EUSTRAtiUS, patriarch of Constantinople. — Successor of Eutychius (d. 582). He is the author of a treatise against adherents of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul until the resurrection (v. Fazio, Bibl. cod., 171), published by Leo Allatius, De utriusque Ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpétua in dogmate de Purgatorio consensione (Rome 1655, pp. 319-580; missing in PG). Previously he had written a lost work: On the Soul and the Holy Angels. He is also the author of a life of the patriarch Eutychius (PG 86, II, 2273-2390).
Erik Peterson
EUTHANASIA. — From Greek εὖ ‘well’ and θάνατος ‘death’. In the current sense it means: ‘merciful, painless killing of an incurably ill patient tormented by unbearable suffering; it can be carried out at the patient’s voluntary request or under coercion by others.’ The problem can be considered particularly from the standpoint of medical deontology, criminology, psychology, and Christian morality. From the perspective of medical deontology, since the aim of medicine is to preserve human life for as long as possible, opposition to death cannot be admitted, as it is essentially opposed to the aforementioned aim; moreover, there cannot be absolute certainty of the incurability of the illness, given the possibility of a mistaken diagnosis, the unforeseen resources of the organism, and the continuous progress of therapeutic means. On the other hand, medicine possesses the best means to alleviate suffering, which can be used extensively without appreciable harm to the patient’s life.
From the criminological standpoint, the problem presents numerous aspects and leads to conclusions that are clearly negative regarding the practice of euthanasia and its possible legalization. In almost all past and present legislations, both the hypotheses of participation in suicide and of homicide with consent are considered punishable, albeit with a reduction of penalty in view of the determining motives. Even generically disregarding the victim’s condition of illness, if the type of infirmity is such as to invalidate self-consent, this becomes ineffective, as it is not an expression of free will. Heteroconsent, in the case of the incapable, is illicit both because of the patient’s lack of will and because of the serious risk of hidden, selfish, and criminal motives on the part of those involved.
To consider euthanasia a ground for the non-punishability of the active subject (as some today advocate, proclaim, and even implement in sensational trials—an indication of a current abhorrent tendency) would be socially imprudent and extremely dangerous. Indeed, it is easy to see how often, with such laws, the apparent end of good would become a mask for more base interests; that is, how often the so-called merciful death would be the arbitrary anticipation, in the flourishing field of advanced delinquency, of a death otherwise too slow in coming to satisfy the desires of those involved.
From a psychological examination, investigating the determining motives, the end of euthanasia, even when it appears as the seemingly pious desire to end the patient’s unbearable suffering, is most often not altruistic. A deeper analysis reveals the motive to be rooted in the selfish comparison of not wanting to endure another’s suffering or in the desire to be freed from the burden of painful care. Christian charity is thus destroyed, and social philanthropy resolves into the most banal egoism.
From the standpoint of Christian morality, euthanasia is unacceptable as a violation of the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill,” which stands as an insurmountable barrier to warn that God alone is the absolute master of life and that it is not lawful to take the life of oneself or another. Even pagans (Pythagoras, Cicero) clearly understood and expressed in their works the concept that it is illicit to depart from life without the command of Him who gave it (Cicero, *De senectute*, 20, 73; *Somnium Scipionis*, 3, 7).
With regard to deep anesthesia, it is morally licit, provided that it does not hasten death and allows the sick person, at least intermittently, the lucidity to attend to the supreme interests of the soul and to regulate his duties of justice (v. ANESTHESIA).
From a practical standpoint, efforts are currently being made in America to achieve the legalization of euthanasia, whether voluntary or coercive. In New York, there exists an “Euthanasia Society” supported by a large group of adhering physicians; it has organized an “American Advisory Council” composed of one hundred members, including numerous Protestant clergy, prominent politicians (such as Senator John H. Comstock of Nebraska, who in 1937 had already proposed a bill in his state to legalize “voluntary” euthanasia), and leading exponents of negative eugenics (Margaret Sanger). They are actively working and pressing for a “proposed bill to legalize euthanasia” to be brought before the New York State Assembly.
Bibl.:
Bial, E., *Morselli, L'uccisione pietosa*, Torino 1943;
Del Vecchio, G., *La morte benefica*, ivi 1928;
Pineau-Valenciano, M., *La mort par pitié*, Parigi 1931;
Kiesstein, Ch., *L'enthousiaste*, Leggi 1935;
Seremin, L., *Appunti di morale professionale per i medici*, Roma 1947, pp. 118-27, 342-54;
Sullivan, J. V., *Catholic teachings on the morality of euthanasia*, Washington D. C. 1949;
Flesch, G., *L'è, di fronte alla scienza e alla morale*, in *Redenzione*, 1952;
Oddone, A., *L'uccisione pietosa*, in *Città Cattolica*, 1950, I, pp. 245-57.