Refine Search

Freedom of Worship Triumphant

By “Awake!” correspondent in Brazil

HOW would you feel if you were at a meeting with fellow worshipers of God and suddenly the police burst in with an order to close that place of worship? That is exactly what happened to Jehovah’s Witnesses in Cachoeiras de Macacu and Japuíba, in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil, on Sunday, June 13, 1976.

Why had such a thing occurred? Because certain Witnesses made use of their Biblical and legal rights to refuse a blood transfusion for their injured boy.

What Had Happened

On Friday, June 11, seventeen-year-old César de Souza Corrêa shot himself accidentally with a hunting rifle. His parents took him to the hospital at Cachoeiras de Macacu, where he arrived around 8 a.m. to receive medical attention.

The nurses and doctor on duty discovered that young César had suffered an internal hemorrhage with serious loss of blood. César’s father, Octávio Luiz Corrêa, begged a surgeon and personal friend, whom he had called in, to do all he could to save his son. However, on the ground of conscience, the father objected to the use of blood transfusions as a means of prolonging the boy’s life. At the same time, Octávio did nothing to obstruct proper medical attention. Nor did he enter the operating theater. Sad to say, though, César died during the operation, in spite of being given a transfusion over his father’s objections.

As usually happens in these cases, public opinion was whipped up and accusations of ignorance, fanaticism and the like were heard. Possibly influenced by public opinion and his own high esteem for human life, which he considered neglected, Mr. Justice Celso F. Panza passed sentence (Decree No. 5/76) on June 13, 1976, thereby closing two Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses and prohibiting their preaching about God’s kingdom in the municipal area.

Soon it was pointed out in the public press that the court’s action was unconstitutional. For example, Dr. Benjamim de Moraes, professor of penal law at Rio de Janeiro Federal University, said, in a statement to the newspaper O Globo, that the judge “went too far from the standpoint of the Constitution.” After quoting Article 153 of the Brazilian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience, he affirmed: “In all certainty, this judicial action will be reversed at a higher instance.”

Dr. José H. Dutra, criminologist and professor of penal law, stated: “By overstepping his position, Judge [Celso] Felício Panza . . . supplanted, it seems, the two other Powers: legislative and executive, contradicting the position defined by Montesquieu a long time ago. . . . Evidently, the course to be taken is a court injunction, since Jehovah’s Witnesses are in their obvious and absolute rights.”

Among other lawyers, Dr. Themístocles Cavalcanti expressed his belief that the question, once submitted to a higher court, would be decided in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (O Globo, June 15 and 21, 1976) And this really happened, to the joy of all who love liberty and justice.

Freedom of Worship Triumphs

Jehovah’s Witnesses made use of their right to ‘defend and legally establish the good news.’ (Phil. 1:7) Through a local overseer, L. Lehký, they applied for a court injunction. (No. 188/76) It was signed by four lawyers.

In an outstanding summary, attorney Dr. Antônio Augusto de Vasconcelos Neto said: “The sentence [which ordered the Kingdom Halls closed] exceeded the limits of authority conferred upon the Judge, that is, handling specific cases in the interest of juveniles. I do not know of any law which authorized the Judge to issue a writ ordering the police to close all halls where a religious sect operates, whose operations have been duly authorized by the competent authorities. . . . The writ to close all places where Jehovah’s Witnesses meet, is against the constitutional principle of freedom of religion and the jurisdictional limits of the Judge.”

Noteworthy, too, was Document No. 274/76 because of its clear defense of freedom of worship. It was issued on behalf of the Judicial Department of the Ministry of Justice by Dr. José Antonio Marques, and reads:

“Initially, as the illustrious Chief of the Office of the Holder of this Portfolio indicates in his communication, the Church that it is intended to outlaw, exists world wide and all over Brazil.

“Next, it is to be noted that the closing of the churches does not mean the extinction of the cult, the end of the religious rules observed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Christian religion was even practiced in the Roman catacombs and the more its followers were persecuted the more it spread in all the world.

“From the standpoint of the Constitution, Document No. 5/76, issued by Dr. Celso Felício Panza, is unsustainable, as it is opposed to Article 153 §5 of the Federal Constitution.”

The decisive judgment was rendered on the afternoon of October 26, 1976. The somber atmosphere in the courtroom of the First Civil Chamber of the Law Courts in Rio de Janeiro, Palace of Justice, gave rise to serious reflections. Around 4 p.m. the session began. Several representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses were present, including two lawyers, H. S. Silva and O. do N. Paula.

When the chief judge asked whether there was a lawyer for Jehovah’s Witnesses present, O. do N. Paula asked to be heard, and he presented a brief oral defense, based on the summary of the defense counsel. In turn, the judges of the Venerable First Civil Chamber decided unanimously in favor of the appeal and declared the sentence issued by Dr. Panza null and void, permitting at the same time the reopening of the Kingdom Halls and the preaching of the Kingdom message in the municipal area of Cachoeiras de Macacu. Once again freedom of worship was triumphant.​—See Diário Oficial of Rio de Janeiro State, November 11, 1976, part III.

Important Questions Involved

For the benefit of sincere persons who wish to reason on such incidents, we list here some vital questions relative to this case.

Q. What is the viewpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding life?

A. “Jehovah as the source of life has decreed that human life is precious, sacred. (Gen. 9:5; Ps. 36:9) . . . We who are lovers of life, holding every day of life sacred, endeavor to conduct our daily affairs and associations in a way that will merit the approval of the One who gave life to humankind.”​—The Watchtower, July 15, 1975, pp. 447, 448.

To Jehovah’s Witnesses death is no blessing. It is an “enemy” that will soon be done away with by God.​—1 Cor. 15:26, 54; Rev. 21:4.

Q. As it was not his own life but that of another human being, what considerations moved Octávio, a Witness, when he rejected the blood transfusion for his son?

A. Every Witness loves his children deeply. In this case, Octávio and his wife have always cared well for their eight children and an adopted daughter. Therefore, when Octávio made his decision, he took into consideration: (1) his parental responsibility before God, which is well defined in the Holy Bible and by the laws of this country; (2) the wishes of his son as a person.

According to Dr. Jean Chazal, honorary president of the International Association of Juvenile Judges, “The child, since it is a person, must always be treated as an individual and not as an object.” (Les droits de l’enfant, quoted in Rights of Juveniles by A. Cavallieri, p. 20) Certainly this is true in the present case of a minor who was a Witness. A judge having such high esteem for the person of a minor, would never force a blood transfusion on him against that person’s will and conscience.

Q. Why did Octávio Corrêa refuse the blood transfusion?

A. Basically because of the Bible’s prohibition as to the use of blood for nourishment or to prolong life. The Great Encyclopedia Delta Larousse (Portuguese) says: “Blood is living tissue that runs in the circulatory system and whose main functions are: 1) to carry needed nutritive substances and oxygen to all tissues in the body; 2) to collect and take residues, useless or dangerous to the cellular activity, to the excretory organs (kidneys, lungs, skin, etc.).” (P. 6079) Thus, blood nourishes and cleans the body.

Jehovah God, who knows more about blood than anyone else, prohibited the eating of blood. His Word, the Bible, states: “Only do not eat flesh with its life in it, that is, the blood.”​—Gen. 9:4, Pontifical Bible Institute, Rome, Paulinas Editions, Brazil.

The apostles of Jesus Christ and early Christian elders obeyed this divine command. Under the direction of God’s holy spirit, it was required that Christians “abstain from meat presented to idols, blood, strangled meat and illegitimate relationships.”​—Acts of the Apostles 15:20; 21:25, The Jerusalem Bible, Brazilian Edition.

Q. By rejecting a blood transfusion, did Octávio Corrêa not restrict the surgeon’s professional liberty to choose the best treatment for his patient?

A. The Medical Ethics Code indicates in Article 48 that it is the doctor’s prerogative to choose the treatment for his patient. But Article 31 also points out that the doctor has the duty to inform the patient of his diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the purpose of the treatment. It is obvious that such information is provided in order to obtain the patient’s consent. After all, who is going to pay for the treatment? Who really decides about the person and his welfare?

Article 32 §f of the Medical Ethics Code is limitative when it says: “The doctor is not allowed to: exercise his authority in such a way as to curtail the patient’s rights to decide about his person or welfare.” This ethical principle is confirmed by regulations of the civil and penal codes, and it shows that the physician is obliged to answer for any harm done to his patients.

Consider a doctor who is being treated by a colleague, perhaps a specialist. Will he not use his ‘rights as a patient’ and decide whether he will accept or reject the proposed treatment?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not curb the doctor’s professional liberty when they ask him to respect his own Code of Ethics and neither exaggerate the seriousness of a case nor proclaim a blood transfusion to be the infallible cure, which it is not.​—See Article 32, §d and Article 5, §e.

Q. Did not Octávio Corrêa work against science, or act ignorantly, when he rejected the blood transfusion for his son?

A. Dr. Arthur D. Kelly, former secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, declared: “No doctor can be positive that a person will die if he doesn’t get a transfusion or live if he does. . . . I deplore methods of trying to force a transfusion or any kind of treatment. You are putting yourself in the position of God.”​—Religion, Medicine and Law.

No informed doctor denies that good medical textbooks contain weighty warnings about blood transfusions. Some hospitals even hold discussions about the dangers of transfusions.​—See HED, magazine of Ernesto Dornelles Hospital, for March 1972, pages 87-108, and the medical journal Iamspe, October-December 1975, p. 28.

Are the following declarations unscientific?

Dr. Almeida Machado, Minister of Health, Brazil, stated: “The patient must have a minimum of safety when he receives a blood transfusion. . . . He should not be exposed to an inoculation of malaria, hepatitis, syphilis, Chagas’ disease.” (Veja, March 31, 1976, p. 54) And when giving evidence before the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee of the Consumer, in the House of Deputies, Dr. Machado said that contaminated blood “is producing more ill effects than all the prohibited medicines together.”​—O Estado de São Paulo, Nov. 26, 1976.

Dr. Baruch Blumberg, Nobel Prize winner in medicine in 1976, commented: “Especially in Brazil the sale of blood should be prohibited, because not only hepatitis but also many other diseases, such as Chagas’ disease and malaria, can be transmitted through transfusions.”​—Jornal do Brasil, Sept. 20, 1976, p. 4.

Q. From the medical point of view, what valid alternatives have Jehovah’s Witnesses to offer in the place of blood transfusions?

A. Jehovah’s Witnesses are grateful to scientists who discovered the so-called plasma substitutes, and also to doctors willing to use them, especially as blood expanders. Octávio Corrêa told the surgeon that he would permit the use of plasma volume expanders, such as saline solution, Ringer’s lactate, Haemaccel, dextran, PVP and others.

Not Fanatical, but Firm

This brief consideration underlines the following: Jehovah’s Witnesses are not fanatics, but their beliefs about the use of blood are firmly rooted in God’s infallible Word. They consider it absolutely vital to follow their Christian conscience, trained by his Word, even when their own life is at stake. Moreover, they appreciate the efforts of physicians and scientists to prolong life, whenever these efforts do not violate the Christian’s Scriptural obligation to ‘abstain from blood.’​—Acts 15:20, 29.

Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses are firm in their determination to obey Almighty God and his Word. Hence, they will continue to abstain from blood. Also, they will persevere in efforts to uphold freedom of worship. To this end, as true Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses follow the Bible’s counsel to pray “concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with full godly devotion and seriousness.”​—1 Tim. 2:1-5.