CathInfo.com

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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.

You are not going to let the "subject drop", because you really never took it up in the first place! Nor have I seen anyone else but JC (and one other) bring in some intellectual information all of which is ignored by the rest. SJB mostly argues like a child, merely making barren denials without substance.

Nobody has ventured to maturely make a rejoinder to my post about the hypothetical case for the sake of principle. What is everyone afraid of? It appears to me the fear is once it starts to be methodically covered, their case against Fr. C will slowly and methodically slip away. One must, in that case, only respond with things like, "No, it isn't" to try to maintain a status quo.

This is a Prideful bunch, and I dont mean that in a nice way.
Pious as angels, proud as devils.
A Sin, and Vice.  And they have it in loads.  And it shows in how they treat others and themselves.


Schiavo was difficult emotionally for some due to the husband who was by all accounts a low life.
And her loving caring parents who couldnt and didnt want to let go.


But her directives to have NO machinery assist in preserving her life were made clear in Testimony by 3 family members (incluiding her husbad).
And that is how her life shouldve been lived.  Machines at the outset were bad.
I told my wife 1 month. After that pull the plug. I dont want them.

GOD wills this.
Not a machine. Not modern science or medical community.

...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.

Quote from: John

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.

Ignorance and arrogance, Usher John; they go hand-in-hand. You argue like a feeneyite ... does Fr. Cekada know you're on here making a fool of yourself?