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.
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.
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?
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.
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.