gladius_veritatis
Level 5
Reputation: 1057
(Likers: 98 / Critics: 65)
Group: Users
Posts: 7,953
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
|
“She was not dying. She had no terminal illness. She was not on life support system. She was not alone, but rather had loving parents and sibling ready to care for her the rest of her life. She had not requested death… Terri’s death was not at all peaceful and beautiful. It was quite horrifying. She was dehydrating to death, and looked it. Her face had an expression of dread and sorrow. In my sixteen years as a priest, I never saw anything like this before..” This is a direct quote from Fr. Frank Pavone, who is the national director of Priests for Life, and who spent much of the last two weeks of Terri’s life at her bedside.. I excerpted it from a leaflet that was handed out to me and to others attending a talk at a recent Northern Kentucky Right to Life meeting. The official coroner’s report as to her cause of death, by the way, was starvation and dehydration.
The talk was given by Bobby Schindler,Terri’s brother. He not only confirmed Fr. Pavone’s words, but added even more graphic (and sad) details to them. Terri had a look of disbelief on her face – a look of “dread and sorrow,” as Fr. Pavone put it – toward last. Her skin, her lips cracked and bled from lack of moisture. As her eyes receded into their sockets from dehydration, blood poured out of them. The agony that she felt toward last was unspeakable. Folks, this is not “emotionalism”; this is fact. Fr. Cekada, I’ll repeat it for you: this is not emotionalism; this is fact. Did you hear me?
Let me give you another excerpted bit of fact: “In 1990, at the age of 26, Terri Schindler Schiavo suffered a neurological injury. For several years, Terri received rehabilitative therapy and care, was able to move her arms and legs, and even responded to others with simple words like “no,” “yes,” and “stop that.” But in 1993, less than a year after her husband, Michael Schiavo, received funds from a medical malpractice settlement that were to be applied to her medical treatment, he removed his wife from therapy and initiated a long series of steps towards euthanizing her. Terri was not terminally ill, nor was she ‘brain dead,’ nor in a ‘vegetative state.’ She was disabled. After a number of years, Michael Schiavo was successful in obtaining a court order granting him the ‘right’ to withdraw all nutrition and hydration from Terri. After 13 days, on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41, Terri died of dehydration.”
Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother, confirmed another thing in his talk that day – something which I had heard in the past but wasn’t sure as to whether it was “official fact”: When the paramedics first came in answer to the initial 9-1-1 call, they found her face-down on the carpet. Her husband made no attempt to turn her over so that she could “breathe easier.” Additionally, at the hospital where they ran tests on her that day, they discovered several broken bones in her body – including several fractured ribs. So it seems that her condition was not the result of a “bad reaction” to something ingested but was the result of physical violence. This is all documented medical fact. No, Fr. Cekada; no, Bp. Dolan – the hospital was not engaging in calumny or detraction; it was just stating medical fact.
I might also point out that Terri Schiavo was able, by the way, to swallow – and did swallow (including the “Species” of the Holy Eucharist). This, too, is public knowledge. And let me also point out that the question of whether she was able to swallow or not – though she was -- has absolutely no bearing on the case. Now this, as well as all the other foregoing information, was at the disposal of -- and available to -- the erudite Fr. Cekada when he wrote his celebrated treatise on the Schiavo case.
What did you do with your “Cliff’s Notes,” Father C., when you wrote your famous, exhaustively researched “treatise”? Armed with just a fraction of the information available, anyone who had come to your conclusions would have to be either a) brain dead (in which case he could be legally dehydrated); b) stupid (not yet a candidate for dehydration); c) well-intentioned but confused; d) premeditatedly wrong; or e) a little clouded in judgment from having had too much wine at the Grand Finalé the night before. Which one is it, Father: a, b, c, d, or e?
With someone of Fr. Cekada’s caliber and credentials, it is inconceivable that he would have attempted such a serious analysis of an equally serious subject without getting all his facts straight beforehand. I feel that he did, but I don’t want to draw any conclusions from that. I don’t want to paint him into a corner; that serves no useful purpose. Instead, I invite Fr. Cekada to re-look at things and then to come to a different conclusion. I think that it would be prudent for him to take a different stance rather than adhere to his present position.
Fr. Cekada can regain much goodwill by reconsidering that position and amending it the way he should. After all, his soul is just as important to God as mine is (and in some parishioners’ minds, a lot more!) – which leads me into “where I’m going” with this correspondence: so far, things have been of a “confrontational” nature (on my part) and a “damage control” nature on the part of the SGG clergy.
I believe that the time for confrontation and damage control is over – not that they didn’t play their part. I had to be confrontational to get everyone’s attention, and I got it (from as far away as Australia!). I made some good points, and I do not apologize for any of them or for the manner in which I presented them. As I maintained in both of my previous letters, what I did was the just and charitable thing to do – a kind of “tough love,” if you will. But there were some of you who took me the wrong way, and it caused you to “shut me out” – to reject what I said.
Did I enjoy shutting myself out from all the parishioners that I came to know and respect over the years? Did I do all of this to “win my point”? Was all of this a kind of “mid-term exam” for some sort of ecclesiastical “debating team” that I had to win? To answer is a resounding “hell no!” I have lost (or lost contact with) many good folks at SGG. I don’t revel, glory, or take solace in that. Just the opposite: I miss my friends, including some of the sweetest children I have ever known. And because I love them, I don’t want to see them suffer -- either physically or spiritually; hence, I would risk a thousand friendships rather than risk that.
We had (and have) real problems at SGG. Eamon Shea warned of them as early as Christmas 2008. What has happened since? Numerous people (especially children) have been victimized, and immoral behavior at the school has resulted in what it usually does. Will any of these problems be fixed?
Well, concerned parishioners have been reacting: quite a few of them have now recognized the problems brought to light and have responded by taking their children out of the SGG school and/or have actually left the parish. Some have reduced or withheld financial support for the school/church; and virtually the entire school faculty has registered their dissatisfaction with Mr. and Mrs. Lotarski. Because of this and other parishioners’ complaints, the decision has been taken to relieve Mr. Lotarski of his responsibilities as school principal, but to keep him and Mrs. Lotarski on as teachers.
Is this a solution? In my mind, it is perhaps a good half-measure. Under ordinary circumstances, Mr. and Mrs. Lotarski would not only have been relieved of their duties, but terminated as well; and at least two of their children would have been expelled from school. Perhaps the “half” measure was taken to give the Lotarskis some time and room to “transition.” After all, times are tough these days; and the Lotarski family is a large one. Keeping them on for some time gives them time to decide where they’ll go and what they’ll do for the long term. [A luxury NOT enjoyed by those who speak truth to power at sgg.org/cult - added by Eamon.]
In their “reduced” roles, will their behavior improve? Will things get better? I don’t know. Personally, I think that they should seek a place somewhere else to make a fresh start; they have too much “baggage” here to contend with. The change of venue will (hopefully) facilitate a change of heart. Mr. Lotarski needs to learn that intransigence and steadfastness are two different things. A change in attitude on this and other things will make his family whole and wholesome again, and get him and his children closer together again – especially one who should be near and dear to his heart.
Those of you who remain at SGG will just have to wait and see how things turn out. With Fr. Ramolla in charge of the school, its focus and its mission ought to improve. How well the Lotarskis will “execute” in their new positions there remains to be seen. Surely things need to improve. With the new arrangement in place, the Lotarskis are no longer in a position of administrative authority; and certainly they will be under scrutiny to ensure that they don’t employ their past modus operandi from here on.
One must hope and pray that the new administrative arrangements result in some real progress – in both the disciplinary and academic areas. The school kids’ “grapevine” has surfaced some strange notions, picked up who-knows-where, that need “recalibration”: apparently, it’s a “sin” to ride a rollercoaster or (for dating couples) to “hold hands.” I could hazard a guess as to where such notions came from, but I won’t. Let’s just say that in future, a more common sense approach on such things is in order to avoid the tendency to be “over-scrupulous.” If such a common sense notion of morality had been in place in the past, for example, maybe the immorality that has taken place in the school would never have happened.
Speaking of common sense, some of it should have been applied with regard to a rumor that got wide circulation recently: it was bandied about that Eamon Shea, who was in Cincinnati recently, was there to do a little “serial killing,” namely, to randomly “pick off” parishioners at the parish picnic on Sunday, September 20, with a .45 caliber pistol that he owns! How’s that for a whopper?! I guess it took on some credence based on what Fr. Cekada said about Mr. Shea’s being “mentally ill” back around Christmas 2008. During Mr. Shea’s recent stay, he stayed at my house; I can assure you, folks: Mr. Shea is alive and well, and in eminently good mental health (and his gun never made it out of its holster!).
And, speaking of Mr. Shea, let me say this about him: I (and you) owe an enormous debt of thanks to him. He was the first to stand up to (and actively oppose) the corruption at SGG. For this he has been vilified; for this he has been labeled “mentally ill.” And for this, he has lost nearly every friend he has had at SGG – all because he stood up for what was right. And he has continued unceasingly to keep up that fight. Much of what I have said has come from him, and continues to. For those of you who have his e-mail address and/or his phone number, I ask you to contact him and give him some show of support or positive recognition.
Lastly, let me repeat once again that the time for confrontation has passed; and the time for cooperation is here – but real cooperation, not some cosmetic, “unreasonable” facsimile. Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada must ensure that the new corrective steps taken are meaningful and executed with sincerity and good will so that they do not become an empty gesture -- a cruel caricature of the real thing. If they are sincerely taken, that will produce a wonderful synergy, and St. Gertrude the Great once again will be great; but if they’re not, then it will become just one more in a long line of exercises in wheel-spinning.
I myself would like to take consolation in the fact that things appear to be getting better; but the things that have transpired in the past – the ploys, the temporary expedients, the seeming “responses” that have turned into inaction – all this sad experience has taught me to be wary. Mine will be a waiting game. For starters, until Mr. Lotarski finds a new opportunity somewhere else, I will be somewhere else. Additionally, Fr. Cekada will have to change his position on the Schiavo case (and apologize to my son); and he and Bp. Dolan will have to prove in a convincing way that their intentions are good.
They can do this by first repudiating their past conduct towards the parishioners who have suffered at their hands in the past (it wouldn’t hurt too if the endless fund-raising campaigns would cease). They need to stop condemning people on trumped-up technicalities, and stop divisive arguing about peripheral issues that are unresolvable without a proper magisterial hierarchy – more “spirit of the law, not letter of the law.” By their constant bickering and infighting, they and others have torn the traditional movement asunder; it is ironic that, by their actions, traditionalists who are so dedicated to the “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church” have been split up into so many warring sects – what an example for the sheep!
Based on their previous track record, do I expect them to change their behavior and perhaps apologize to the many people they have maligned? Well, a skeptic might answer that question with another question: how much of a chance does Frosty the Snowman have in Dante’s Inferno? I won’t say that I’m as skeptical as that; but I’ll bet that you won’t see me on the grounds of SGG for quite some time.
You never know, though; with God, all things are possible. The greatest wrongs can be righted. Judas did not learn this lesson; Mary Magdalene did. Where will Bp. Dolan, Fr. Cekada, and Mark Lotarski end up on the sliding scale between these two extremes? We shall see.
Of the three, I have the most hope that Bp. Dolan will end up closest to the “Magdalene” end. I remember from years past the eloquence and insight of his sermons, when there was more compassion and less confrontation. For Fr. Cekada, a big step in the right direction is for him to cease being a “slave” to his old stance on “Schiavo” (by the way, schiavo in Italian means slave). For Mr. Lotarski, a change of venue will enable him to do the right thing in a more face-saving way.
This correspondence will probably (and hopefully) be my last “epistle.” This “crusade” that I’ve been on has been quite an odyssey; and it has been a learning experience par excellence, and an overall good one (though not without pain and many sleepless nights). I feel like a publican who is trying to clean up the Sanhedrin (with a toothbrush!); and yes, I suppose I can be considered the pot calling the kettle black. But the kettle is black, and it needs quite a bit of cleaning.
From here forward, the cleaning must be a collaborative effort; the shepherds must be sincere, and both they and the flock must work together in a spirit of charity and cooperation, not confrontation and acrimony. SGG’s parishioners are certainly restless for some positive change (not to be confused with “Obama” change!). If that can happen, then there will be peace and tranquility; and, to paraphrase St. Augustine, those restless hearts will “rest in Thee.”
Jim Gebel
|
.........................
+ Vincit veritas +
|
| Posted Sep 25, 2009, 3:53 pm |
|
Ignored by: 2
|
|
|
