CathInfo.com

Quote from: Cupertino

I was not quoting you, SS. Relax.

You were clearly implying that is what I said.

Quote

As I already explained, your words effectively amount to making him look like he is for her murder

Again, that is absurd. I said he had a twisted view on her murder, meaning he thought her death was moral, when it was actually not. I never accused him of supporting murder, nor do I think he is a bad priest.

Quote

To know something is truly "twisted" you have to know what it really looks like untwisted. And, SS, you show that you really don't know because there is no substance to your discussion at all.

With all due respect, the arguments that support her death have been refuted before. I know that liars like John C who rely on ad hominem attacks and spreading lies about other people keep producing arguments that are irrelevant and untrue, such as that no one here cares about the lives lost in war.

I would provide further arguments, but this topic has been convered before and Tele and several others such as SJB and Sede Catholics have already made proper arguments. I am going to let this subject drop. If you want to continue it, that's up to you.

The SPPX supported Father Cs position.
I linked the Priest who wrote a treatise on it, well explained and eloquent dealing with extraordinary measures in life. Here it is
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SPPX-Priest-on-Schiavo-Ordinary-Vs-Extraordinary-Means



No one here gives a damn about millions of brown children being murdered overseas by our troops.
I asked you once, Ill ask you again.
What have YOU done for them personally? What have You done to protest?  To send aid? To care for them?  Im putting YOU on the spot.  

You make a statement, Now support it.  
Its Not an ad hominuem, if its True.

Go for it...

Fr. Iscara wrote that article in the early 1990's. It is at odds with Cekada's lonely viewpoint.

No where is it at odds with what Father Cekada wrote.

They were both educated & trained at the same Seminary, or did that escape you?






Father Iscara wrote this:

...it is morally justifiable to withhold antibiotics and artificial nutrition and hydration, as well as other forms of life-sustaining treatment, allowing the patient to die.28

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.

In some very particular and extraordinary instances (as examples, in the case of a patient in a terminal condition to whom the artificial nutrition imposes a pain excessive in proportion to the very short span of life remaining, or in the case of an irreversibly demented patient who keeps tearing apart the feeding tubes and causing himself serious wounds, and who cannot be continually restrained) the inconveniences may become so burdensome that the artificial nutrition might be considered an Extraordinary, Non-obligatory means of preserving life.

What you quoted is at odds with Cekada's opinion.

I think this is in line with what Father C wrote.

In some very particular and extraordinary instances (as examples, in the case of a patient in a terminal condition to whom the artificial nutrition imposes a pain excessive in proportion to the very short span of life remaining, or in the case of an irreversibly demented patient who keeps tearing apart the feeding tubes and causing himself serious wounds, and who cannot be continually restrained) the inconveniences may become so burdensome that the artificial nutrition might be considered an Extraordinary, Non-obligatory means of preserving life.

You still defy me and wont answer me regarding Ms Schiavos Directives to 3 Family Members to NOT have to sustain life from  artificial machinery.
 
This is the 7th time I have put this forth.
You are a Coward. And an imbecile.