Raoul76
Reputation: 1960
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 5,439
|
| Quote: | The big dispute presently concerns when a person is alive or dead. This involves the concept of brain death. The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Consequently, it is permitted, so they say, to remove any or all organs from a person who is still breathing and whose heart is still beating, so long as they are proven to be brain dead. This has actually become big business, and a "living corpse" like this is worth probably more than $80,000 for its internal organs.
This practice is not only disgustingly inhuman. It is manifestly anti-God and immoral. Death is the moment at which the soul leaves the body. This is known only to God, the creator of life. While a person is still breathing, even artificially, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life. His body is being maintained in life by the circulation of blood. He is still a human being. It is true that if his brain is dead he will never think again, and he will not have the reflexes and reactions that depend upon brain function. However, this does not mean that he is not alive. It just means that there is a permanent irreparable impairment to his human activities. It is not for man to decide that he is not a man and that he is not alive. Consequently, he must be treated as a living person. Hence no essential organs can be removed until well after all respiration and cardiac action have ceased. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott] |
These assertions are merely personal opinion. "While a person is still breathing, EVEN ARTIFICIALLY, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life..." So someone who has merely an appearance of life given to him by medical manipulation is to be treated as being alive? If you give a corpse electro-shock and it does a little dance, that is how this priest defines life? Through mere appearance?
That statement right there shows the lack of qualifications of this priest when it comes to medicine -- and if I can see through it, considering my equal ignorance in the field, it must be really bad.
Like I said, the Church can defer to doctors when it comes to these matters.
|
.........................
A general rule is that all my posts before 2011 are dangerous to read. At the time I was nothing short of a frothing Pharisee. Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith, both of which are true teachings, as well as Fatima and Lucy's later revelations, which I now see are of continuing paramount importance in the history of the Church.
I also apologize for my lack of prudence when speaking about clergy in the past, I didn't know where the line was and often judged intentions instead of actions and words. My deepest apologies to Pius XII especially, who I judged in the harshest light and accused of being a communist infiltrator. This was not intentional slander but my true belief at the time. I still have problems with his pontificate, but no proof of any intentional malice. I even insulted the Church itself by questioning his Holy Week reforms, for which I am, again, bitterly sorry. I also spoke unforgivably about Pius XI, suggesting or saying outright that he was also an infiltrator who was in effect working towards Vatican II.
I also apologize with profoundest regret to Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay, the nuns who left CMRI, for assuming malign intentions about all or some of them, and for saying the nuns were witches; Father Cekada and the SSPX priest Fr. Boulet for suggesting or saying they were deliberately intellectually dishonest, Bp. Vezelis for spreading a rumor about him that is not verified; I also apologize to Fr. Martin Stepanich, Mgr. Fenton, Father Brian Harrison, Cardinal Newman, De Lugo, Suarez, Erasmus, and anyone else I have forgotten, for saying or suggesting they were heretics and/or infiltrators due to my former errors. I was also very harsh on Dietrich von Hildebrand and Cardinal Gibbons due to my beliefs at the time, however, in their case, there was reason for concern, I just would not call them heretics, perhaps some of their ideas would have the theological note of "ill-sounding." During all this time, I was under the influence of major scruples, probably without even knowing what that meant, and had a distorted, extreme view of the Crisis.
|
| Posted Apr 21, 2012, 9:23 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Raoul76
Reputation: 1960
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 5,439
|
| Quote: | | The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. |
And here is an admission that there is MORE proof that brain-death is real death, than there is to the contrary.
|
.........................
A general rule is that all my posts before 2011 are dangerous to read. At the time I was nothing short of a frothing Pharisee. Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith, both of which are true teachings, as well as Fatima and Lucy's later revelations, which I now see are of continuing paramount importance in the history of the Church.
I also apologize for my lack of prudence when speaking about clergy in the past, I didn't know where the line was and often judged intentions instead of actions and words. My deepest apologies to Pius XII especially, who I judged in the harshest light and accused of being a communist infiltrator. This was not intentional slander but my true belief at the time. I still have problems with his pontificate, but no proof of any intentional malice. I even insulted the Church itself by questioning his Holy Week reforms, for which I am, again, bitterly sorry. I also spoke unforgivably about Pius XI, suggesting or saying outright that he was also an infiltrator who was in effect working towards Vatican II.
I also apologize with profoundest regret to Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay, the nuns who left CMRI, for assuming malign intentions about all or some of them, and for saying the nuns were witches; Father Cekada and the SSPX priest Fr. Boulet for suggesting or saying they were deliberately intellectually dishonest, Bp. Vezelis for spreading a rumor about him that is not verified; I also apologize to Fr. Martin Stepanich, Mgr. Fenton, Father Brian Harrison, Cardinal Newman, De Lugo, Suarez, Erasmus, and anyone else I have forgotten, for saying or suggesting they were heretics and/or infiltrators due to my former errors. I was also very harsh on Dietrich von Hildebrand and Cardinal Gibbons due to my beliefs at the time, however, in their case, there was reason for concern, I just would not call them heretics, perhaps some of their ideas would have the theological note of "ill-sounding." During all this time, I was under the influence of major scruples, probably without even knowing what that meant, and had a distorted, extreme view of the Crisis.
|
| Posted Apr 21, 2012, 9:25 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
