When I asked for the source for something Fr. Cekada had supposedly said about the Terri Schiavo dispute, Gladius supplied the following link to Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1393366/posts#47

I decided to copy Fr. Cekada's emails and post them below. Though he really "flames" the lady he's writing to in the last email, I can't figure out why anyone would say that he's wrong on the PRINCIPLES here.

----------

Email #1


Dear Cathy,

Thanks for your e-mail.

1. The Vittoria quote was intended to (a) show the origin of the teaching on extraordinary means and (b) provide some examples of what were considered extraordinary means.

2. It was the quote from Pius XII that provides the general principle that must be applied and that defines the term "extraordinary means" -- those which involve "grave burdens for oneself or another."

This, not the Vittoria quote, was the starting point for my discussion.

3. Providing nutrition and hydration artificially on a permanent basis does indeed constitute a grave burden:

"Routine medical practice today utilizes intravenous feeding in in a countless variety of cases. Certainly the physician regards this procedure as an ordinary means of safeguarding life. It is obviously capable of being carried out, under normal hospital conditions, without any notable inconvenience. For these reasons, I would regard recourse to intravenous feeding, in the case of typical hospitalized patients, as an ordinary and morally compulsory procedure.

"The above statement applies, as stated, to routine hospital cases and where the procedure is envisioned as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period. Surely any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship."Charles McFadden OSA, Medical Ethics, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: 1956), imprimatur by Cardinal O'Hara.

Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement to continue their use.

4. Below is a letter to The Remnant that expands upon some of my original remarks.

5. I lost the note regarding the docuмentation you mention. Did it concern SSPX's use of the John XXIII Mass, or was it something else?

In Christ,

Father Cekada

-----------------------

Email #2

Dear Cathy,

Bishop Sanborn is doing something on the Honorius/Liberius question. I'll forward it to you when it's completed.

As regards your comments on the Schiavo case:

1. In the quote, Pius XII enunciated the general moral principles to be applied, not merely particular ones applicable only to the narrow question of resuscitation.

Otherwise, you would have to maintain that his statements like "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means" or "life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" apply only to the specific case of resuscitation, and that in other cases therefore: a) One is not held to use even ordinary means to preserve life and b) Life is not subordinated to spiritual ends.

Good luck.

2. The expense of Terri Schiavo's maintenance was "socialized" through wealth redistribution -- $750,000 via the litigation/insurance company shakedown, and other hidden costs we can only guess at via tax and other insurance subsidies.

(This should be obvious to anyone with the last name Brueggemann.)

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.

Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.

3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."

He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.

Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.

4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.

You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.

But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects ‹ chief among them, moral theology.

I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.

But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Be assured of my prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Father Cekada

 

It is a land mine here on this forum, with the emotionally imbalanced and immature, ill informed, and misinformed, so watch where you step.

Terri told her BROTHER, Her SISTER IN LAW And Her HUSBAND that she had NO desire to live a life on a Machine, as a vegetable or not.  All testified IN Court to this fact.
That should be enough.

Here is in an example of your ignoring facts.  Her husband, and ONLY her husband, testified to this.

Quote from: SJB

John, you are in way over your head here and I guess that's why you're so arrogant.

I wont axe you for what specific issues Im over my head with.

Its obvious you are an emotional basket case, devoid Of any facts.

Scott Schiavo, Terri’s brother-in-law.
Scott testified that Terri sat next to him at a luncheon following his grandmother’s funeral at which he and the other relatives were talking disapprovingly of the grandmother’s care in her last days.
Terri said, “If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don’t leave me there. I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine.”



It was something that…knowing my grandmother, it was upsetting to see, to walk in to say goodbye to your grandmother and the machine has her lifting off the bed for air. Her chest pumping up.


Judge Greer says of Scott and Joan Schiavo’s testimony,
“The court…finds nothing therein to be unreliable.”
He then refers to Terri’s “statement” that “she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out,” which gives the impression that Terri made a specific statement about tube feeding. But here is the crucial portion of Joan’s actual testimony:
We had watched a movie one time on television. It was about somebody. I don’t remember. It was about a guy who had an accident and he was in a comma [sic]. There was no help for him. We had stated that if that ever happened to one of us, in our lifetime, we would not want to go through that. That we would want it stated in our will we would want the tubes and everything taken out.

George Felos, the attorney:

Q When you say "we" had stated it --
A Myself and her.
Q As best you can recall, what did Terri say in response to seeing that movie?
A She did not like the movie. Just the whole aspect of family and friends having to come and see their son or friend like that, she thought it was horrible.
Q Do you know what type of life support the person in the movie was on? Do you recall?
A No. I don't know all the different – I just know there was some tubes in him. Like what you call the breathing machine. The feeding machine. I don't know all the different names of the machines.

Quote from: Father Cekada

But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Oh the irony.