Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Ceknute

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.

OK, so I withdraw the large bold letters.

But I don't withdraw my challenge to SJB, and I extend it to anyone here:

Go through the five points John Daly made about Fr. Cekada's moral principles on the Schiavo case that I quoted above, and tell me where they are wrong.

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

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.

There are lots of people who disagreed with Fr, I know, but many of these portrayed him as an accessory to murder.

Do you believe that?

To counter these conclusions, we are convinced that the provision of food and fluids is not simply —or strictly — "medical care," but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life.

Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply "to allow the patient to die" : what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration.

We are talking about "jello and ice chips," food and hydration, not a ventilator. The fact is Mrs. Schiavo was dehydrated to death via court order and Fr. Cekada said it was morally permissible.

It is an undisputed fact that he scandalized and embarrassed many traditional Catholics. Nobody agrees with him, except you, and you are proving to everybody why they all thought Cekada was completely wrong in his typical shotgun style analysis.

Thanks for your comments.

I've just quoted a few of them above as a starting point in hopes of clarifying for you what I have been trying to find out here.

Almost everywhere in traddieland, Fr's supposed opinion on the Schiavo case has been violently criticized and portrayed as favoring or supporting "the murder of Terry Schiavo."

But when I read and re-read what Fr. actually WROTE, I don't find any evidence at all for these criticisms and accusations.

My thinking is that if Fr's supposed opinion really DESERVED such violent criticisms, including favoring murder, someone should be able to go through the very FEW things he wrote on Schiavo and pick out the EXACT moral principle where he was completely wrong.

"Tactlessness" is something else that doesn't effect the issue of whether he was right or wrong on the moral principles.

And if you're referring to Fr's letter to Dr. Gebel, I don't think Fr. was out of line.

I've had a few know-it-all doctors try to lecture me with their ideas about Catholic morality, and I found it really satisfying to see one put in his place.