CathInfo.com

You brought it up, and I agreed with you. It's a separate issue.

To which Fr. Cekada replies roughly as follows:

1.    His article presumes that the medical facts of the case are correct, and does so with all confidence, given the qualifications and the number of doctors who testified to them.  In any case, even if the facts did not turn out to be exactly right, this would only change the judgment of this particular case, and not the moral principles—Fr. Cekada’s point of interest.

2.    Certainly one could not trust the husband to have taken any moral principles into account in deciding the fate of his wife.  But a lawful act can not be forbidden on the grounds that the person acting would have acted the same way even if it had been unlawful.  Certainly Mr. Schiavo would not have given much weight to the presumed will of his wife, but neither is he strictly obliged to do so.  It is not like writing a blank check to say that a husband, no matter how rotten he is, is still the husband, and that he alone has the right to decide, in any morally neutral matter, on behalf of his wife who is incapable of acting for herself.

3.    If the extraordinary/ordinary character of the use of feeding tubes in such cases is up for discussion, then this demonstrates that their continued use cannot be made obligatory under pain of sin.  Theoretical judgment belongs to Catholic moral theologians and not to sentimentalists.

4.    The life which continues as long as the tubes are left in place is also very painful, both for the patient and for other persons, for many long years.  This isn’t a question of some kind of quantitative evaluation of pain (which is impossible) but rather of the morality of allowing death to occur by removing means which have been judged by moral theologians to be, at least probably, extraordinary.  The suffering of death, even though it may be eased, is an evil.  This evil may be permitted in the face of a proportionate good.

5.    A priest may not allow, out of any political motive, the consciences of Catholics to be seriously perverted.  It is not clear that Terri Schiavo was killed unlawfully, and there is nothing that allows the opposite to be claimed.

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: SJB

You brought it up, and I agreed with you. It's a separate issue.

Glad we settled that!

There was never a dispute. You brought it up.

Quote from: Canute

So we can conclude that you have no credible response to make to what Daly said and that you have conceded defeat, on this thread at least.

For what it is or is not worth, your overeager (?) use of a word like "defeat" and the fact that you have chosen to remain silent in the face of my telling you that your impatient "screaming" in the email thread serves no good purpose tend to make one think you are emotionally invested in this matter in a way that affects the conclusions you have drawn or are willing to draw.

Quote from: Canute

So we can conclude that you have no credible response to make to what Daly said and that you have conceded defeat, on this thread at least.

Did anyone ever expressly disagree with Mr. Daly's thesis/perspective?  If not, it is probable that most readers will realize that your comment, as worded, means nothing.
....
However, it is an easily-discoverable and well-known fact that the majority of the Catholic world, including learned priests and world-class doctors, disagreed with Fr C's take on this matter and were scandalized by the way he handled it, at the time and ever since.