SS, it is pretty clear that Terri's husband put her in the state of serious injury.  I followed the case pretty carefully up to the end.

I think Fr C's position was more about the husband's right to determine the course of treatment.   I

 It is likely he never knew about what looked clearly like a case of attempted murder, or saw the tapes of Terri clearly not being in a vegetative state.  Or about all the money Michael (or whatever the monsterous husband's name is)

Also, the judges in Florida were corrupt as all get out; they suppressed much important evidence.  Caregivers were intimidated into silence.

I think something really bad happened to that bishop, and several others who got what they deserved...?   It was an assisted ѕυιcιdє case from the get-go with euthanasia lawyers and judges all around.

SJB used to fight me about my position on Schaivo, both here at Cathinfo and at Bellarmine Forums in 2006.  My intense opposition to Fr C's position caused the ire of a number of posters on Bellarmine.  

SJB used to fight me about my position on Schaivo, both here at Cathinfo and at Bellarmine Forums in 2006. My intense opposition to Fr C's position caused the ire of a number of posters on Bellarmine.

This is what you say, but it simply isn't accurate at all.

It really is obvious.  A living woman was put to death in the most horrible way imaginable, at the behest of an adulterous husband without respect to the wishes of her parents.  It truly is mind-boggling how anyone pretending to be Catholic could support it.

The reason the depraved public supported it, and why there was probably an audience among depraved Trads for that position, is that they think her life was not worth living, so they had no trouble seeing her mercilessly deprived of food and water until she expired.

Truly satanic levels of depravity operating.

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. That is what he believes, and nobody agrees with him.

You're not his friend by defending him, Cupertino. Mrs. Schiavo died because she dehydrated. The court allowed it to happen and Fr. Cekada defended that act by saying it was morally permissible.

Fr. Cekada scandalized thousands of traditional Catholics, and nobody agrees with him, yet he makes jokes about it. You think it's funny, we don't.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Isn't it obvious? Her parents wanted her to live, while her sick husband wanted her dead. Not to mention the coward bishop who left town while they killed her. What, Cupertino, was moral about it? Please explain.

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.

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 didn't even evaluate whether Schiavo could be fed. He didn't go an interview doctors and nurses. He stayed out of it. His concern was to get the principles across to Catholics about extraordinary means of preserving life, which was the whole question in the beginning of the Schiavo affair about removing a stomach feeding tube.

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. If "it's obvious" then you should know the principles of morality concerning extraordinary means.

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

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".  

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.