Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Schiavo Again  (Read 18657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Schiavo Again
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2012, 10:09:28 AM »
Mrs. Terri Schiavo was put to death because her husband wanted her life to end.

He was living in sin with another woman at the time.

So he had no care for her welfare or best interests.

It was horrific and mortally sinful.

Anyone can see that.

To not take account of the factual circuмstances of this particular case is to misapply Catholic teaching.

Schiavo Again
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2012, 11:10:20 AM »
Quote from: Alex



Providing food and water for someone is not an extraordinary means of preserving life, even when done artificially. Schiavo was murdered, plain and simple.


Yes, plain and simple!  Feeding tubes were more complicated 50 years ago, but even then water and food were not extraordinary and they never will be.

Our Lord's last words were, "I thirst".  


Schiavo Again
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2012, 11:20:37 AM »
What everyone else has said. She was murdered.

Schiavo Again
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2012, 12:10:16 PM »
Quote from: Cupertino
I asked you a specific question and your answer is "Isn't it obvious?" That is your level of principle in this, SS? Just shallow and emotional.


No, I think it is very obvious.

Quote
If you don't, you shouldn't be publicly suggesting a traditional priest, by name, is for "murder."


When did I say this? I said that Father Cekada supported her murder, thinking that it was a moral death when it was really a murder.

Quote
Can you tell us why it was not extraordinary means? Can you tell us about the morality when it is doubtfully extraordinary means? Does the principle "a doubtful obligation does not bind" take effect, or does the principle of "it is a sin to act in doubt that you are sinning"?


It's already been explained. Her husband was a jerk who wanted her dead, and she died a cruel death of starvation. Can you tell us why her death was moral?

Quote
Fr. Cekada didn't even evaluate whether Schiavo could be fed.


Precisely why he shouldn't have given his opinion, because he didn't know the facts.

Quote
So, SS, these are not rhetorical questions. If you are going to publicly say Fr. Cekada supports murder, you must have some intelligent depth to why you say Fr. Cekada, in principle, was mistaken.


Again, he didn't think it was murder, but it was.

Schiavo Again
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2012, 12:53:49 PM »
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
Did you ever hear of "extraordinary means of preserving life"? Do you know the details of the morality on that subject? If you don't, you shouldn't be publicly suggesting a traditional priest, by name, is for "murder." 

Can you tell us why it was not extraordinary means? Can you tell us about the morality when it is doubtfully extraordinary means? Does the principle "a doubtful obligation does not bind" take effect, or does the principle of "it is a sin to act in doubt that you are sinning"?


Fr. Cekada was so interested in shocking everybody that he ended up saying ice chips and jello could be withheld by the legal guardian, which would be giving the guardian the right to withhold food and hydration.


Where did Fr. Cekada say this, and what EXACTLY did he really say?

I can find only three articles by Fr. Cekada on the topic and he doesn't say this in any of them.