CathInfo.com

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.