Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 20, 2012, 07:02:09 PM

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 20, 2012, 07:02:09 PM
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Elizabeth on April 20, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
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 suicide 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.  

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 20, 2012, 08:10:42 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth
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)


That's not what it was about at all, and he even said what kind of man her husband was, it was irrelevant.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 20, 2012, 08:16:27 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: insidebaseball on April 21, 2012, 08:40:06 AM
Then why insert yourself into such a emotional issue at such poor timing.  I quess any publicity is good in some peoples eyes.  It's all about me, ego. DUH!
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Telesphorus on April 21, 2012, 08:46:39 AM
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 21, 2012, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: Elizabeth
SJB used to fight me about my position on Schaivo, both here at Cathinfo and at Bellarmine Forums in 2006.


So what?  It is plain to anyone with eyes to see that you still harbor notable resentment in his regard.  Although it is entirely your affair, you might consider asking yourself: do you control the situation or does it control you?

Quote
My intense opposition to Fr C's position caused the ire of a number of posters on Bellarmine.


Do you want a medal?

Why are you inserting this irrelevant information into this thread, at this time?  
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 21, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
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. 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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 21, 2012, 09:25:29 AM
As for the actual topic of this thread, the attempted derailment of which I admittedly went along with however momentarily, the completely incorrect and harmful nature of Fr C's stance has been amply demonstrated in multiple places.  Revisit it if you must, but it is unlikely to convince Fr C of the error of his ways or do much more than unnecessarily and unprofitably get some people fired up again.

Fr C was both wrong and obstinate; he was shown to be both wrong and obstinate; he is not likely to admit either or see the light.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Alex on April 21, 2012, 09:43:56 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Sede Catholic 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 circumstances of this particular case is to misapply Catholic teaching.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Elizabeth 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".  
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 21, 2012, 11:20:37 AM
What everyone else has said. She was murdered.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti 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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute 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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 21, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: Canute
Where did Fr. Cekada say this, and what EXACTLY did he really say?


He said it within an email exchange with Mrs. Cathy Beil.  The exchange may be found several places online.  Here is one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1393366/posts#47

Fr C's being wrong and acting as he did (and does) is not as much of a surprise or disappointment as seeing that otherwise-sane and decent people still try to defend his position and behavior.  Life is full of mysteries.

Quote from: Cekada
3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."

He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.

Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.

4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't...


I included point number four because it is immeasurably ironic that Fr C is telling this to other people, considering he now does the exact same thing with respect to assistance at Masses offered una cum Benedicto.  That, however, is another kettle of rotting and rotten fish...

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


That is because he said it within the exchange I have linked, not within an article.

His conclusions are all wrong; he was and is as pompous as the day is long and will never, ever admit either that he is/was wrong or apologize to those who deserve it.  C'est la vie.

He will never see; his followers are very likely to never see; let it be, refusing to allow such people and situations affect your peace of mind and heart.  All that needed to be said or could be said has been said.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 03:42:57 PM
Quote from: Sede Catholic
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 circumstances of this particular case is to misapply Catholic teaching.


Irrelevant what the husbands living conditions were sin or not.

Modern Medical Machinery kept her alive.  

GODs will was not being done, Machines atifically preserved her life.  Period.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 03:46:46 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
As for the actual topic of this thread, the attempted derailment of which I admittedly went along with however momentarily, the completely incorrect and harmful nature of Fr C's stance has been amply demonstrated in multiple places.  Revisit it if you must, but it is unlikely to convince Fr C of the error of his ways or do much more than unnecessarily and unprofitably get some people fired up again.

Fr C was both wrong and obstinate; he was shown to be both wrong and obstinate; he is not likely to admit either or see the light.


Shiavo was in a Vegetatve State, preerved life ONLY by Machines.

Do you have $80,000 per year to spend on a vegetable?

Why is that life valuable when ONLY modern machines, NOT God's will, keep the life fucntioning as a vegetable?



The Schiavo case was scrutinized by more judges, doctors, ethicists, legislators, and chief executives named Bush than any other right-to-die dispute in history.
History!
And in truth, Father C was/is spot on.


Your is a personal problem it sounds like.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: Alex
Quote from: Cupertino
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.


Food and water, via a tube, done with Only a Modern machine, is what then, pray tell, if not Extraordinay means?

Schiavo, GOD rest her soul, was Brain Dead. A Vegetable.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 03:53:57 PM
What IF, for arguements sake, Terrys Husband was honest, when he said that Terrys wishes were for HER to NOT be kept alive if ever a vegetable, by artificial machines?
I know those are mine and my wife's wishes for ourselves.
They are for most other people as well....



So what if... Then what?  
You would dishonor them and betray their directives?
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 04:02:43 PM
We made the decision to take my Father off of medicine that wouldve prolonged/preserved his life which was coming to an end, last Summer.

It was his wish to do so.  
It was hard, but there is and was peace.



NO One I know, in their right mind, wishes to be kept alive, as a vegetable, by machines.  No one.  
My WIFE has that permission for me.  My parents can not intervene in that decision!





None of you give a dam* about any Iraqis being murdered en mass, the 4 million Orphan children there or 1 million dead Afgani citizens, andthose fighting to evict the occupiers from their country.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 04:23:11 PM
One thing I learned is that the husband possibly denied her parents the right to care for her, signing a waiver over for care/expense etc to them.

If that is the case, then it presents another wrinkle.  And is another issue altogether.


IMO, it goes back to Terri's wishes for her own life, and whether an artifical machine should be responsible for prolonging her life, when in a vegetative state.

Again, I know of not one person, who wishes for a life under such a condition, confined to a machine for life, as a vegetable.

Michael Schiavo testified that Terri told him in the mid-1980s that she would not want life support after the couple had watched a movie depicting a patient on a ventilator.
Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law also testified that Terri had made statements to them regarding mechanical life support.
Judge Greer found this testimony to be clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would deny herself the provision of a gastric feeding tube in the event of a profound disability and ordered that her tube be removed.




All of us need Wills and written medical directives to avoid such agony for our families.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute on April 21, 2012, 05:20:27 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Canute
Where did Fr. Cekada say this, and what EXACTLY did he really say?


He said it within an email exchange with Mrs. Cathy Beil.  The exchange may be found several places online.  Here is one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1393366/posts#47

Fr C's being wrong and acting as he did (and does) is not as much of a surprise or disappointment as seeing that otherwise-sane and decent people still try to defend his position and behavior.  Life is full of mysteries.

Quote from: Cekada
3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."

He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.

Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.

4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't...


I included point number four because it is immeasurably ironic that Fr C is telling this to other people, considering he now does the exact same thing with respect to assistance at Masses offered una cum Benedicto.  That, however, is another kettle of rotting and rotten fish...

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


That is because he said it within the exchange I have linked, not within an article.

His conclusions are all wrong; he was and is as pompous as the day is long and will never, ever admit either that he is/was wrong or apologize to those who deserve it.  C'est la vie.

He will never see; his followers are very likely to never see; let it be, refusing to allow such people and situations affect your peace of mind and heart.  All that needed to be said or could be said has been said.


Thanks for the link! I don't know if I agree with your conclusions, though.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 21, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from: Ceknute
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.


This is a good illustration of the groupie mentality of the staunch Cekada defenders. Ceknute hasn't really followed the Schiavo debacle, doesn't really know what Cekada has said, yet defends everything he does with vigor. Even Bp. Sanborn backed away when he learned that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow, as she received communion from a visiting priest.

The fact is that Mrs. Schiavo died from dehydration, imposed by the court, and defended by Fr. Cekada ... and now, just as arrogantly and ignorantly, by his lone supporter, John.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 21, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
Quote from: Cupertino
What meanness and rancor to publicly refer to someone mistaken on this as being "for murder". That is sick.


Absurd. I never said this.

What's sick is to not call a spade a spade. She was murdered, he thought it was a moral death, and denied the facts. What is even more sick is the way she was killed.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 09:00:49 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Cupertino
What meanness and rancor to publicly refer to someone mistaken on this as being "for murder". That is sick.


Absurd. I never said this.

What's sick is to not call a spade a spade. She was murdered, he thought it was a moral death, and denied the facts. What is even more sick is the way she was killed.



You sound more like a Whiny female more and more, as you post.
Knee jerk, emotional, immature and adolescent juvenile drama.


Can you not read?

Michael Schiavo testified that Terri told him in the mid-1980s that she would not want life support after the couple had watched a movie depicting a patient on a ventilator.
Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law Also testified that Terri had made statements to them regarding mechanical life support.
Judge Greer found this testimony to be clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would deny herself the provision of a gastric feeding tube in the event of a profound disability and ordered that her tube be removed.


It is not murder.  It would be suicide, except for the fact that it was GODs will that she suffered brain traum, fell into a coma and shouldve died at that point.
Her family was under no obligation or compelled to continue her life via machinery. She also had that desire and expressed it to 3 different family members.

I posted the actual testimony used in court. It is on the other Terri thread.
This isnt about Schiavo, its about YOU, your ego, one upping a priest you dislike, and your own wish to play GOD and mad scientist, arguing like a Talmudic Jew over what is and is not a vegetable or vegetative state.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 21, 2012, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Some Lying Troll
You sound more like a Whiny female more and more, as you post.
Knee jerk, emotional, immature and adolescent juvenile drama.


Actually, I'm a male. You are the one who sounds like a whiny female.

Quote
It is not murder.  It would be suicide, except for the fact that it was GODs will that she suffered brain traum, fell into a coma and shouldve died at that point.
Her family was under no obligation or compelled to continue her life via machinery. She also had that desire and expressed it to 3 different family members.


God doesn't will that anyone suffer brain damage, you need to be more specific and state this it is His permissible Will, meaning He allowed it to happen even though He did not agree with it.

Quote
This isnt about Schiavo, its about YOU, your ego, one upping a priest you dislike, and your own wish to play GOD and mad scientist, arguing like a Jew over what is and is not a vegetable or vegetative state.


More lies. I never claimed to dislike Father Cekada.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 09:05:59 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Some Lying Troll
You sound more like a Whiny female more and more, as you post.
Knee jerk, emotional, immature and adolescent juvenile drama.


Actually, I'm a male. You are the one who sounds like a whiny female.

Quote
It is not murder.  It would be suicide, except for the fact that it was GODs will that she suffered brain traum, fell into a coma and shouldve died at that point.
Her family was under no obligation or compelled to continue her life via machinery. She also had that desire and expressed it to 3 different family members.


God doesn't will that anyone suffer brain damage, you need to be more specific and state this it is His permissible Will, meaning He allowed it to happen even though He did not agree with it.

Quote
This isnt about Schiavo, its about YOU, your ego, one upping a priest you dislike, and your own wish to play GOD and mad scientist, arguing like a Jew over what is and is not a vegetable or vegetative state.


More lies. I never claimed to dislike Father Cekada.


Makes more sense youre a female.  
Explains the overly emotional hysteria like attachment to this issue.

Of Course GOD wills her brain damage, she was stricken with IT!
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 21, 2012, 09:08:45 PM
Quote
Makes more sense youre a female.  
Explains the overly emotional hysteria like attachment to this issue.


I'm a male, get that through your head.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 21, 2012, 09:15:21 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote
Makes more sense youre a female.  
Explains the overly emotional hysteria like attachment to this issue.


I'm a male, get that through your head.


Sorry.
Were it me, Id have your testoterone levels checked.  Testosterone production and HGH production does down significantly after 30 years of age.
You seem overly emotional. Especially on these and other issues.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 21, 2012, 10:18:16 PM
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote
Makes more sense youre a female.  
Explains the overly emotional hysteria like attachment to this issue.


I'm a male, get that through your head.


Sorry.
Were it me, Id have your testoterone levels checked.  Testosterone production and HGH production does down significantly after 30 years of age.
You seem overly emotional. Especially on these and other issues.



Yes, if it were me, I'd have YOUR testosterone levels checked. You are very emotional and irrational, John.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 21, 2012, 10:20:28 PM
Thank you SJB, for refuting John's slander of me.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Ambrose on April 21, 2012, 11:12:59 PM
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/23/9659886-could-sleeping-pill-ambien-awaken-man-from-vegetative-state
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Telesphorus on April 22, 2012, 01:29:27 AM
The stomach tube is no more extraordinary than a necessary medicine, or a tracheotomy.

The support for the murder of Terry Schiavo indicates psychopathy.  

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 09:12:28 AM
Quote from: Canute
Thanks for the link! I don't know if I agree with your conclusions, though.


You are welcome for the link and you are free and encouraged to draw your own conclusions.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
Do you have $80,000 per year to spend on a vegetable?


Even if I do and am willing to do so, and even if I have $8 million set aside expressly for that very purpose, that is not germane to the present discussion.

Moreover, unless I am mistaken, her family was more than willing to cover the necessary costs.

Quote
Your is a personal problem it sounds like.


While it is true that I do not hold Fr C in esteem for myriad reasons and have no problem saying so, my understanding of this matter and the truly repugnant nature of Fr C's manifestly-incorrect position happens to be in agreement with many others at whom you cannot throw such a meaningless, impotent comment designed to muddy the waters.  He was wrong and the vast majority of the Catholic world knows it; only the blindest of sycophants still fail to see and accept the reality of the situation.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 10:38:46 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
Do you have $80,000 per year to spend on a vegetable?


Even if I do and am willing to do so, and even if I have $8 million set aside expressly for that very purpose, that is not germane to the present discussion.

Moreover, unless I am mistaken, her family was more than willing to cover the necessary costs.

Quote
Your is a personal problem it sounds like.


While it is true that I do not hold Fr C in esteem for myriad reasons and have no problem saying so, my understanding of this matter and the truly repugnant nature of Fr C's manifestly-incorrect position happens to be in agreement with many others at whom you cannot throw such a meaningless, impotent comment designed to muddy the waters.  He was wrong and the vast majority of the Catholic world knows it; only the blindest of sycophants still fail to see and accept the reality of the situation.


It IS Germaine, when the Public is Paying for such care.

Liberals like you have no limitations with regard to money and care, provided it is Other peoples money, ie Those of us that actually work for a living.


The Care you mention cost the public over $750,000 per year subsidized BY Medicaid, paid BY all of us that pay insurance premiums to have health insurance.
No wonder costs increase annually, and level of care goes down.
Patient care at the hospice where Terri lived cost 80,000 per year and was paid by the Tax paying public, Not her family.
"For two years, Medicaid has covered other medical costs, including prescription drugs, the attorneys have said in published reports."
The malpractice lawsuit helped to finance her carfe as well.

"Medicaid's share of Schiavo's care "is a big chunk," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who until this year was involved in the case as a state senator. "
The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast Inc., which operates Woodside, was cited in 1996 for nearly $15 million in payments for ineligible beneficiaries and patients who may not have been terminally ill.




The reality of all of this is that You and others, still wont address any real pertinant issues that I brought forth, which doesnt surprise me, as youre Cowards.


Ms. Terri Schiavo's Wish, made Publically to 3 Family Members including her Brother prior to her Coma, was NOT to have her life preserved via artifical Machinery.

Why would you or anyone so dishonor her, by demanding she live a life only provided by such machines?   Why wouldyou betray Her public wish?
 



Ive read your posts Mr. Gladius, and come to the conclusion that You are a  Judas....doing his work, not for money but for terrible pride and ego, the devils work.  
As I see it, you are a betrayer, a gossip telling liar,  terrible sinner and overall evil wicked person, and should be excommunicated for your calumny.
Were there a visible Church, such would be the case, and we would all be the better for it.  
You are a sad and pathetic man, Gladius.  It is Sunday, and that is the Nicst thing that I can say to you and about you.  
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 10:50:22 AM
Quote from: Telesphorus
The stomach tube is no more extraordinary than a necessary medicine, or a tracheotomy.

The support for the murder of Terry Schiavo indicates psychopathy.  



The 'tube' you describe was the one Ms. Schiavo Made Clear to 3 Family members that she would NOT wish to have her life preserved On, You hypocrite.

Her care required a Hospice which cost the public $80,000 per year, which was subsidized by Medicare/US Public.

She could not clean herself, wipe herself, move herself, feed herself, medicate herself, and was in a vegetative state.

Whether she was or wasnt a vegetable, is an argument for Talmudic Jews.
The more discerning amongst us, know that she made directives TO Family Members to Not be kept alive on any machinery.

Do NOT dishonor her or other loved ones wishes with your selfish ideals and overly moralistic drama of what is and is not right.


None of you give a dam* about the 1 million innoent people the USA has killed in Iraq or 1 million Afgani women and children we have killed there either.
Most of you hypocrites make me sick.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 10:58:36 AM
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
None of you give a dam* about the 1 million innoent people the USA has killed in Iraq or 1 million Afgani women and children we have killed there either.


Why do you think this?  It happens to have nothing to do with this thread and is also manifestly false.  If you'd care to discuss it further, it'd be best to open a new, separate thread. If you do so, it is likely that you will be quickly made aware that your accusation is contrary to truth and charity, and even basic decency.

Quote
Most of you hypocrites make me sick.


Why only "most"?  Is there some brand of hypocrite or hypocrisy that does not make you sick?
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
None of you give a dam* about the 1 million innoent people the USA has killed in Iraq or 1 million Afgani women and children we have killed there either.


Why do you think this?  It happens to have nothing to do with this thread and is also manifestly false.  If you'd care to discuss it further, it'd be best to open a new, separate thread. If you do so, it is likely that you will be quickly made aware that your accusation is contrary to truth and charity, and even basic decency.

Quote
Most of you hypocrites make me sick.


Why only "most"?  Is there some brand of hypocrite or hypocrisy that does not make you sick?


Because Ive followed this forum for more than a few years.
No one gives a damn, least of all, you.
Youre too busy trying to pass indictments and sentences for priests you have personal issues with, like them not hiring you.
You give new meaning to the term Judas.


And Now you actually have the gall to even mention charity and decency?
You are shameless. Truly.

Maybe Israel would be a more appropriate permanent destination for you. You would fit in quite well Im sure,  could be Kibbutzing with fellow apostates in no time.

There are Some decent catholics and fellow humans here.  
The rest slither here, telling lies, engaging in calumny, deceit, and do Marxs work as agents ala Bella Dodd.  They know who they are.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
The reality of all of this is that You and others, still wont address any real pertinant issues that I brought forth, which doesnt surprise me, as youre Cowards.


While you are welcome to this opinion, it is false.  We've gone over this issue many times before you were here.  It has been discussed in depth and in detail both here and elsewhere.  I, for one, simply have little interest in reliving a hot-button issue the repeated discussion of which does little more than get people unnecessarily and unprofitably fired up -- which is clearly happening in your case.  If you prefer to see us as cowards, so be it.  Perhaps your time would be put to better use in another pursuit or on another forum?

Quote
Ive read your posts Mr. Gladius, and come to the conclusion that You are a  Judas....doing his work, not for money but for terrible pride and ego, the devils work.  
As I see it, you are a betrayer, a gossip telling liar,  terrible sinner and overall evil wicked person, and should be excommunicated for your calumny.


Again, you are welcome to your opinion and I shan't enter into an exchange about it at this time or in this thread.  You are not the first to say such things to me; it is very likely that you will not be the last.  Perhaps some of what you say is true; perhaps none of it is.  That said, it is absolutely certain that I a sinner and a terrible one, but that is something I address with God, who alone is able to help me in that regard.  Pax tecum.

Quote
You are a sad and pathetic man, Gladius.  It is Sunday, and that is the Nicst thing that I can say to you and about you.  


It IS Sunday and I wish you and yours a peaceful, spiritually-profitable one, your feelings about me aside.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
The reality of all of this is that You and others, still wont address any real pertinant issues that I brought forth, which doesnt surprise me, as youre Cowards.


While you are welcome to this opinion, it is false.  We've gone over this issue many times before you were here.  It has been discussed in depth and in detail both here and elsewhere.  I, for one, simply have little interest in reliving a hot-button issue the repeated discussion of which does little more than get people unnecessarily and unprofitably fired up -- which is clearly happening in your case.  If you prefer to see us as cowards, so be it.  Perhaps your time would be put to better use in another pursuit or on another forum?

Quote
Ive read your posts Mr. Gladius, and come to the conclusion that You are a  Judas....doing his work, not for money but for terrible pride and ego, the devils work.  
As I see it, you are a betrayer, a gossip telling liar,  terrible sinner and overall evil wicked person, and should be excommunicated for your calumny.


Again, you are welcome to your opinion and I shan't enter into an exchange about it at this time or in this thread.  You are not the first to say such things to me; it is very likely that you will not be the last.  Perhaps some of what you say is true; perhaps none of it is.  That said, it is absolutely certain that I a sinner and a terrible one, but that is something I address with God, who alone is able to help me in that regard.  Pax tecum.

Quote
You are a sad and pathetic man, Gladius.  It is Sunday, and that is the Nicst thing that I can say to you and about you.  


It IS Sunday and I wish you and yours a peaceful, spiritually-profitable one, your feelings about me aside.


Still wont address my issues, the real issues, like her explicit directives TO 3 Family Members to NOT be on and machines for life support.

Now you call it reliving a hot button?  For GODs sake man, it was her Wish, and it was never mentioned here on this forum, or in any media among the pro lifers that dont mind killing millions of brown people, but took issue with Schiavo.

I cant debate facts, facts are not debatable.

Ive seen you in action here on this forum Mr Gladius.
Your actions make Saul Alinsky and Bella Dodd blush.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 11:27:36 AM
John,

I think we are agreed that neither your opinion of me as a man nor my opinion of Fr C as a man has anything to do with the topic that is the focus of this thread.  You think I am wrong; I think he is wrong.  C'est la vie.

If you and others wish to discuss this case, that is your and their prerogative.  I have already done so and do not feel the need to do so again.  Conclude from that whatever you wish.  For my part, sir, I wish you well.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 22, 2012, 11:47:32 AM
Why are we all wasting time on John, who violates forum rules with his uncharitable behavior? Just leave him to himself and ignore him.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
John,

I think we are agreed that neither your opinion of me as a man nor my opinion of Fr C as a man has anything to do with the topic that is the focus of this thread.  You think I am wrong; I think he is wrong.  C'est la vie.

If you and others wish to discuss this case, that is your and their prerogative.  I have already done so and do not feel the need to do so again.  Conclude from that whatever you wish.  For my part, sir, I wish you well.


Actually I think it has everything to do with this thread. Almost anyway.

This thread is about Ego, Pride, Vanity and denigrating a Priest who had an educated opinion based on years of training learned At the SPPX Seminary, that others here disagreed with, and that became the battle cry to rally the posse and smear away.

Life by means of machinery is a question we all ponder and make. Its Not necessarily GODLY, and is not morally obligatory.
It is not about right or wrong, but moral and immoral according TO GOD's law, facts and human dignity according to ones wishes and directives to family members.
I dont wish to ever have my life sustained via machinery, Any machinery and gave my family that directive.
I dont expect my parents to intervene and usurp my wifes role if they disagree with her, if she becomes a sinner, or makes poor life decisions.


The only issue that I can see any sane merit, and one not discussed, is whether one suspends life provided BY machinery,  ONCE the machinery is the viable and only means of support, and has already been given.  
However, that too, went against Ms. Schiavos directives and wishes.




Mr. Gladius,
You worked tirelessly in trying to destroy an entire Parish, one where people made life decisions to travel interstate, move and relocate their lives and careers.
You aired dirty laundry publically, (some perhaps true but most not true), only to make a point and to spite a man that refused to hire you, and forbid your presence, and for no other reason than that, you worked unsuccessfully to destroy that man and that Parish.

Maybe GOD can forgive you, but I cannot.  Anyone that would do such a thing is a wicked and vile person, that I cannot call a man.
I too wish you well, in the same sense I wished Judas well, on his road to Hell.
May GOD have mercy on you, for the damage you caused to a Priest that has worked trielessly to defend our Faith,  our Mass, to offer Sacraments, to give his life for Trads.
If anyone were to ever do such a thing to any Parish, in any Rite, any affiliation whether Sede, SPPX, SPPV, Independent, Feenyite et al, that person is abomitable.

 
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 22, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
While some here disagree/d with Fr C, many people around the world also did so.  Their writings on the matter are easily found and speak for themselves.

Quote from: JohnChrysostom
The only issue that I can see any sane merit, and one not discussed, is whether one suspends life provided BY machinery,  ONCE the machinery is the viable and only means of support, and has already been given.


So, it would appear that you think the use of machinery is a problem.  Is it always a problem, in se?  If not, where do you draw the line?  Is it morally permissible to use machinery, i.e., modern tools and technology, for now-common surgeries, or for assistance that is normally of a relatively short duration, etc?  If a gunshot victim, for example, were going to die without undergoing a surgery that employs modern tools, should we let him just bleed out, justifying our inactivity with the cry that it is God's will and that prolonging life with the aid of machinery is both morally unacceptable and fiscally irresponsible?  Is not amputation an extraordinary measure, at least from some perspective?

Is the length of the time of the suspension/prolongation of life the only problematic characteristic?  How about the invasive nature of a particular procedure?  If a man would die unless a diseased organ is removed, should we just express our regrets, offer him the Last Rites, and go our merry way?

Modern trauma medicine makes daily use of means that some could and would argue are extraordinary.  Whether or not that is so, said means are unquestionably expensive in many cases.  Indeed, during the 1950s many modern procedures would have been extraordinary in the sense that such things were not then possible.  Some of the heretical sects in the USA argue along precisely such lines, which is why they refuse to have their children helped even when it is easy, safe, and common to do so.

Many people have their lives prolonged or improved by means of often-expensive, frequently-invasive procedures, many of which were not known or available in the recent past.  Many would not only not survive without such procedures, they would not survive during the recovery period, either, without the assistance of very expensive modern technology.

As a final consideration, do you think it normally takes a person who is supposedly so weak that she is being mechanically suspended at death's door thirteen days to succumb once food and water have been denied?  If her whole system is more or less useless and she is being artificially kept alive, does it make sense that her cause of death would be dehydration after 13 days, rather than the more or less immediate failure of some aspect of her system which some would have us believe was more like that of the living dead than that of a fairly normal, modestly-healthy human being?

Do you think you would last thirteen days without food and water?

Quote
I too wish you well, in the same sense I wished Judas well, on his road to Hell.


You knew and communicated with Judas? :wink:  [BTW, Judas liked to quibble about money, too.  Just sayin'...]

All kidding aside, I take no offense and only ask that, for the benefit of others and yourself, you kindly refrain from any further remarks in my regard (within this thread, anyway).  If you cannot restrain yourself, please be considerate enough to start a new, separate thread wherein you may vent your spleen to your heart's content.  Pax tecum :)
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 01:52:30 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
While some here disagree/d with Fr C, many people around the world also did so.  Their writings on the matter are easily found and speak for themselves.

Quote from: JohnChrysostom
The only issue that I can see any sane merit, and one not discussed, is whether one suspends life provided BY machinery,  ONCE the machinery is the viable and only means of support, and has already been given.


So, it would appear that you think the use of machinery is a problem.  Is it always a problem, in se?  If not, where do you draw the line?  Is it morally permissible to use machinery, i.e., modern tools and technology, for now-common surgeries, or for assistance that is normally of a relatively short duration, etc?  If a gunshot victim, for example, were going to die without undergoing a surgery that employs modern tools, should we let him just bleed out, justifying our inactivity with the cry that it is God's will and that prolonging life with the aid of machinery is both morally unacceptable and fiscally irresponsible?  Is not amputation an extraordinary measure, at least from some perspective?

Is the length of the time of the suspension/prolongation of life the only problematic characteristic?  How about the invasive nature of a particular procedure?  If a man would die unless a diseased organ is removed, should we just express our regrets, offer him the Last Rites, and go our merry way?

Modern trauma medicine makes daily use of means that some could and would argue are extraordinary.  Whether or not that is so, said means are unquestionably expensive in many cases.  Indeed, during the 1950s many modern procedures would have been extraordinary in the sense that such things were not then possible.  Some of the heretical sects in the USA argue along precisely such lines, which is why they refuse to have their children helped even when it is easy, safe, and common to do so.

Many people have their lives prolonged or improved by means of often-expensive, frequently-invasive procedures, many of which were not known or available in the recent past.  Many would not only not survive without such procedures, they would not survive during the recovery period, either, without the assistance of very expensive modern technology.

As a final consideration, do you think it normally takes a person who is supposedly so weak that she is being mechanically suspended at death's door thirteen days to succumb once food and water have been denied?  If her whole system is more or less useless and she is being artificially kept alive, does it make sense that her cause of death would be dehydration after 13 days, rather than the more or less immediate failure of some aspect of her system which some would have us believe was more like that of the living dead than that of a fairly normal, modestly-healthy human being?

Do you think you would last thirteen days without food and water?

Quote
I too wish you well, in the same sense I wished Judas well, on his road to Hell.


You knew and communicated with Judas? :wink:  [BTW, Judas liked to quibble about money, too.  Just sayin'...]

All kidding aside, I take no offense and only ask that, for the benefit of others and yourself, you kindly refrain from any further remarks in my regard (within this thread, anyway).  If you cannot restrain yourself, please be considerate enough to start a new, separate thread wherein you may vent your spleen to your heart's content.  Pax tecum :)


There are Lots of Stupid, ill informed people, including Trad Catholics.
Father C just happened to speak what many Trad Priests already KNOW about this issue, and life supporting machines as they relate to life.

A  hand tool, used in surgery, is different than an electronic, computer and driven, operated MACHINE, as it alone does not sustain or prolong life beyond a surgical procedure!!!

You are trying to argue, like a Talmudic Jew, what is and what is not machinery, its merits, whether it has its place.
If One trusts IN God alone, one does not place his hands and fate on machinery.


Terri Schiavos wish & Directive, like most sane people, is NOT in anyway to maintain the support of Life, from an ELCTRONIC MACHINE.
You know, the kind that required electricity, where one is in a vegetative state.

Some of those heretical sects, also refuse Vaccinations, directed and run by JEW Companies, that innoculate us with poisons and slowly kill and dumb us.
It is all evil, all of it.  Medicine is about MONEY, not saving Lies.
We dont trust in men or machines but in GOD.



My points:

1. Terri Schiavo told 3 seperate people she desired to NOT be sustained life via Machinery, if her life was at that point. It was.


2.  No one has the right to Usurp said directives, dishonor and betray them by refusing those directives for a dignified life.

3. Machinery in any sense is not arguable. If it is electronic, its a machine.


Some wish to be Called TO GOD when it is their time, they trust in HIM,  and wish to NOT have a Machine artifically postpone/Prolong the inevitable.  
Doctors gave Terri about 10 years left to live on that machine, in vegetative state.  
Yes it is normal, for a vegetable to live 10-13 days with no food and water.

And Lastly, let me correct my statement. Were I to wish Judas well, as I would and do to you, it is on his path To Hell for his betrayal.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on April 22, 2012, 03:25:08 PM
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 22, 2012, 06:20:53 PM
Quote from: John
There are Lots of Stupid, ill informed people, including Trad Catholics ...


I think you are ill informed. You've made it manifest here in just a matter of a few days.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 06:30:37 PM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: John
There are Lots of Stupid, ill informed people, including Trad Catholics ...


I think you are ill informed. You've made it manifest here in just a matter of a few days.


Dont like the message, attack the messenger.
Its all you have, because you have nothing else.

No facts because facts arent debateable.  
I brought them. You bring horse manure and attacks.

My case rests.  Not once have you respnded to one of my points and I only asked for it, on 6 differrent occasions.


Terri Wished and made clear her directive to 3 family members to NOT have any machinery assist in preserving her life.
Why would you r anyone wish to dishonor her unless youre a sick Jew that gets off playing mad scientist?


Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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...
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 22, 2012, 07:08:29 PM
Fr. Iscara wrote that article in the early 1990's. It is at odds with Cekada's lonely viewpoint.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 07:26:25 PM
Quote from: SJB
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 22, 2012, 07:41:09 PM
What you quoted is at odds with Cekada's opinion.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 09:59:58 PM
Quote from: SJB
What you quoted is at odds with Cekada's opinion.


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

Quote
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 22, 2012, 10:04:47 PM
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.

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 08:12:21 AM
Quote from: JohnChrysostom
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.



A feeding tube is no more a "machine" then a spoon is a "machine."

Here is what you quoted, and if you were not such an emotional and apparently challenged individual, you might see that Fr. Iscara is speaking of some who is in the process of dying.

Quote from: Fr. Iscara
...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.


Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 08:20:16 AM
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?




Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 23, 2012, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: SJB
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?







8th time I have put this out.

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.
Your methods are cowardly.  




1. Do we dishonor and betray a loved one, or Terri in this case, who made it clear she had no wish to have life sustained via machinery?

2. Do you know anyone that wishes such a fate, to have their life sustained by Machinery, post accident and/or coma or vegetative state?



Stop the emotions and start the logic.



Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 23, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
Edit..quote not working




'A Machine is a tool consisting of one or more parts that is constructed to achieve a particular goal. Machines are powered devices, usually mechanically.'
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 23, 2012, 11:28:32 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_10yYjoTIYE0/SXNkq0R1amI/AAAAAAAACWY/GjE_P_RU6Jo/s400/tube+feeding+system.jpg)

If this is not a machine, than I dont know what a machine is.

'A Machine is a tool consisting of one or more parts that is constructed to achieve a particular goal. Machines are powered devices, usually mechanically.'






'A persistent Vegetative state is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness.
It is a diagnosis of some uncertainty in that it deals with a syndrome. After four weeks in a vegetative state (VS), the patient is classified as in a persistent vegetative state. This diagnosis is classified as a permanent vegetative state (PVS) after approximately 1 year of being in a vegetative state.'[1]



Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: On April 20th, SJB
I am answering you, Cupertino, on a discussion forum. This issue has been discussed before in detail (much like the feeneyite discussions) and then you pop in and defend the indefensible. Then you whine when we call you on it.

If you want to defend Fr. Cekada's scandalous position (and behavior) on this issue, then expect to be challenged.


Likewise, expect to be challenged.

Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?

Yes, No, or "I don't know"?

If "Yes", give support for what you say.



Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: Crazy Usher John
You still defy me ...


Who writes like this other than a delusional person?
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 12:56:41 PM
From Fr. Stephanich, The Four Marks, 2008
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute on April 23, 2012, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: On April 20th, SJB
I am answering you, Cupertino, on a discussion forum. This issue has been discussed before in detail (much like the feeneyite discussions) and then you pop in and defend the indefensible. Then you whine when we call you on it.

If you want to defend Fr. Cekada's scandalous position (and behavior) on this issue, then expect to be challenged.


Likewise, expect to be challenged.

Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?

Yes, No, or "I don't know"?

If "Yes", give support for what you say.



Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.


SBJ's quote does not answer Cupertino's question. It only tells us what Fr. Iscara is "convinced" of.

To repeat:

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute on April 23, 2012, 01:16:17 PM
And SJB's article from Fr. Martin Stepanich doesn't address Cupertino's question either:

Quote from: Cupertino

"whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 23, 2012, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: SJB
From Fr. Stephanich, The Four Marks, 2008


While Fr. Stepanich's training alone does not necessarily make him correct, there can be no doubt that his training is immeasurably superior to that of Fr C (which is not necessarily Fr C's fault, considering the insanity of the post-V2 era).  I only mention this because JC, whose tongue and its endless offerings are more akin to Fool's Gold than the genuine article, seems to think that being trained at Econe carries some kind of notable weight.  Even if we are so kindly-disposed as to grant that it does, that weight, compared to Fr. Stepanich's, would be like a small rock compared to Mont Blanc.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: JohnChrysostom on April 23, 2012, 01:26:28 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: SJB
From Fr. Stephanich, The Four Marks, 2008


While Fr. Stepanich's training alone does not necessarily make him correct, there can be no doubt that his training is immeasurably superior to that of Fr C (which is not necessarily Fr C's fault, considering the insanity of the post-V2 era).  I only mention this because JC, whose tongue and its endless offerings are more akin to Fool's Gold than the genuine article, seems to think that being trained at Econe carries some kind of notable weight.  Even if we are so kindly-disposed as to grant that it does, that weight, compared to Fr. Stepanich's, would be like a small rock compared to Mont Blanc.


And what?
That you as a layman and Seminary dropout,  are somehow more qualified than a trained Priest, Canon Law expert and theologian?



The Schiavo case was very sad.  All of us had emotions with her plight and lifes ending.

But again, no one, not even you,  will address the fact, after 8 attempts of mine, as to Why ANYONE would betray Ms Schiavos wishes to NOT be assisted at Life through Artificial Machinery, and telling/giving this Directive to 3 Seperate Family Members.

Machinery that is mechanical and powered by electronics and electricity.



If that was her wish, why would you or anyone seek to betray it?
Maybe I  shouldnt ask YOU that question though.


 
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute on April 23, 2012, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: SJB
From Fr. Stephanich, The Four Marks, 2008


While Fr. Stepanich's training alone does not necessarily make him correct, there can be no doubt that his training is immeasurably superior to that of Fr C (which is not necessarily Fr C's fault, considering the insanity of the post-V2 era).  I only mention this because JC, whose tongue and its endless offerings are more akin to Fool's Gold than the genuine article, seems to think that being trained at Econe carries some kind of notable weight.  Even if we are so kindly-disposed as to grant that it does, that weight, compared to Fr. Stepanich's, would be like a small rock compared to Mont Blanc.

My point is that the quote from Fr. Stepanich posted by SJB doesn't address the exact question that Cupertino asked:

"Whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"

Cupertino may be on to something very important there.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: Crazy John
Machinery that is mechanical and powered by electronics and electricity.


Are you Amish? Anyway, I've never heard of machinery that isn't "mechanical," as even an Amish sawmill is a "machine" that is "mechanical."

Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 23, 2012, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: Canute
My point is that the quote from Fr. Stepanich posted by SJB doesn't address the exact question that Cupertino asked:


I understand and understood your point.  I was making a separate point, not responding to your own.  No biggie...

Quote
Cupertino may be on to something very important there.


He may be.  I suppose it is possible that we will all find out as things progress.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: Canute
To repeat:

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"


Indeed.


Your question is directed at what Raoul76 said. Ask him to explain it.

Now the very strange JohnC character has quoted Fr. Iscara (not understanding what he was quoting, apparently), and here he is once again:

Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.


Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 23, 2012, 03:53:12 PM
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: SJB
Your question is directed at what Raoul76 said. Ask him to explain it.


If that is your true conviction, then fine, why don't you follow through with it, since in another thread I directed the equivalent to you!


I don't need to explain things I didn't say. It's irrelevant anyway.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Sede Catholic on April 23, 2012, 06:02:51 PM
It has been falsely claimed on here by the poster calling himself John that Terri Schiavo's brother claimed she

wanted to not have such treatment.

This is untrue.

Terri's brother DID NOT SAY THIS.

http://www.terrisfight.org/terri-s-wish/

Quote
Judge Greer dismisses testimony of Terri's parents, siblings, Terri's life-long girlfriend and closest friend in Florida, all testifying that Terri never made any statements regarding situations if she were to become disabled


Terri's brother Bobby and Terri's sister Suzanne are both FULL TIME pro life workers.

That is what they spend their lives doing:

http://www.terrisfight.org/meet-terri-s-family-2/



Terri's parents and brother and sister were all ignored by the court, as you would expect in this evil age.


Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Sede Catholic on April 23, 2012, 06:49:52 PM
The poster John may have innocently made a mistake about this.

He has posted many posts in a relatively brief period. So mistakes will occur.

It may be a completely innocent mistake.



I do not know who the poster John is in real life.



I should not have phrased my post in a way that implied that the poster John had been dishonest.

It may just be a mistake made by the poster John accidentally.  

I apologize to you, John.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 24, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
SJB, I have seen you cite about 3 times in the past few months about the ice chips and jello. I started this thread specifically to talk with SS, but he is finished, and you showed a great desire to be part of it from the beginning. I am asking my question of you because it pertains to the ice and jello and Schiavo.

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"


Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.



Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on April 24, 2012, 07:25:39 PM
Quote from: Fr. Iscara
Respiration is equally basic for the preservation of life, but its artificial maintenance is nevertheless a medical procedure which replaces a vegetative function impaired or suspended by disease —that is to say, every human being breathes on his own since the moment of birth, and there is no natural stage in the development of a human being when breathing has to be assisted, the present disease is —in consequence —the direct cause of the inability to breathe.

Consequently, its use in certain medical conditions might be considered as an extraordinary means, and its withdrawal —unlike the case of withdrawal of artificial nutrition —would be this time equivalent to letting the disease continue its course, to allow the patient to die. In the case of a patient in terminal condition, that is, when death is imminent, this withdrawal is morally permissible.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Canute on April 25, 2012, 07:48:34 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
SJB, I have seen you cite about 3 times in the past few months about the ice chips and jello. I started this thread specifically to talk with SS, but he is finished, and you showed a great desire to be part of it from the beginning. I am asking my question of you because it pertains to the ice and jello and Schiavo.

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"


Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.



Fr. Iscara is not contradicting himself when he says, also:

Quote from: Fr. Iscara
there might be circumstances in which, because of a subjective disposition, the ordinary means become extraordinary for a particular person; the excuse for not using them does not arise from the means themselves, but from the subjective moral impossibility of this concrete individual to use them.


That is why I am asking you my question, which you are not answering, SJB.

SJB, You keep on switching your argument back and forth between GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES and PARTICULAR MEDICAL FACTS of the Schiavo case.

When you've been pushed up against the wall on one side of the argument (Where are the errors in the moral principles Fr. Cekada's laid down?), you take evasive action and shift to bringing up supposed particular medical facts of the case (ice chips)

Now that Cupertino has really nailed you the question of a medical fact (dehydration rates) that would destroy your argument, you try to weasel out by quoting Fr. Iscara and trying to drag the discussion back to GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.

Just answer Cupertino's question:

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"

If you can't do that, you might as well get out of the debate, because you're wasting everyone's time.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: LordPhan on April 25, 2012, 09:02:07 AM
Quote from: Canute
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
SJB, I have seen you cite about 3 times in the past few months about the ice chips and jello. I started this thread specifically to talk with SS, but he is finished, and you showed a great desire to be part of it from the beginning. I am asking my question of you because it pertains to the ice and jello and Schiavo.

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"


Quote from: Fr. Iscara
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.



Fr. Iscara is not contradicting himself when he says, also:

Quote from: Fr. Iscara
there might be circumstances in which, because of a subjective disposition, the ordinary means become extraordinary for a particular person; the excuse for not using them does not arise from the means themselves, but from the subjective moral impossibility of this concrete individual to use them.


That is why I am asking you my question, which you are not answering, SJB.

SJB, You keep on switching your argument back and forth between GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES and PARTICULAR MEDICAL FACTS of the Schiavo case.

When you've been pushed up against the wall on one side of the argument (Where are the errors in the moral principles Fr. Cekada's laid down?), you take evasive action and shift to bringing up supposed particular medical facts of the case (ice chips)

Now that Cupertino has really nailed you the question of a medical fact (dehydration rates) that would destroy your argument, you try to weasel out by quoting Fr. Iscara and trying to drag the discussion back to GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.

Just answer Cupertino's question:

"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"

If you can't do that, you might as well get out of the debate, because you're wasting everyone's time.


You should have stopped long ago, you have now just advocated starving anyone who is even passed out, in a coma, or is paralyzed, as they would not be capable of feeding themselves without artificial means.

You have a moral duty to provide nutrition and water to this person so long as they are capable of recieving it. You are twisting things like a modernist.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 01, 2012, 11:14:11 PM
I know I originally said I wouldn't talk about this topic anymore, but then I felt like I'd be a coward for walking away. I'm not going to let this go.

Let's review a few facts about the case:

- Terri's husband was sick. He was having an affair at the time, and was potentially responsible for his wife's injuries in the first place.

- The judge in the case was a liberal

- The lawyer of Terri's husband was a New Ager

- The Bishop of the diocese was a liberal coward

- Even George Bush, as sick as he is, tried to stop her murder

- It took THREE WEEKS for Schiavo to die to death. You think that just because she was "brain dead" means she did not suffer?

I am sorry, Cupertino, but you are wrong. The facts are heavily against your argument, and Father Cekada, being a Traditional priest, should know better. Of course, I realize he is simply mis-informed on the facts, and thus is of good will, but good will does not make up for an illogical position.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on May 02, 2012, 06:25:15 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
I know I originally said I wouldn't talk about this topic anymore, but then I felt like I'd be a coward for walking away. I'm not going to let this go.

Let's review a few facts about the case:

- Terri's husband was sick. He was having an affair at the time, and was potentially responsible for his wife's injuries in the first place.

- The judge in the case was a liberal

- The lawyer of Terri's husband was a New Ager

- The Bishop of the diocese was a liberal coward

- Even George Bush, as sick as he is, tried to stop her murder

- It took THREE WEEKS for Schiavo to die to death. You think that just because she was "brain dead" means she did not suffer?

I am sorry, Cupertino, but you are wrong. The facts are heavily against your argument, and Father Cekada, being a Traditional priest, should know better. Of course, I realize he is simply mis-informed on the facts, and thus is of good will, but good will does not make up for an illogical position.


You haven't discussed anything of principle here, SS. You are just acting like a liberal, expressing emotions as being some paramount way of deciding things. The principle of extraordinary means of preserving life, and the choice not to take it, does not exclude suffering. Who ever said it did or should?

It is also as if you really haven't read what I have written on the subject. Fr. Cekada did not declare a decision in the Schiavo case. He spoke on some principles and stayed away from deciding that case itself. He started out talking of the case because the news made it look like it was simply a case of a stomach tube, and after people contacted him to show that it was more complicated than that, he merely dedicated his time to covering the speculative principles surrounding extraordinary means. He did not finally apply them to the Schiavo case. Nor do I. I say it was complicated and I was not there to do my own investigating and interviewing. I have no judgment on that particular case either. I know that it was complicated, and the principles themselves reveal that at a distance, the case could be according to essential true principles, that is how close it is, especially when you know how theologians themselves have differed. It is an historical case that no Catholic need make profession of one way or the other.

You also contradict yourself in your final words by saying Fr. Cekada, "being a Traditional priest, should know better", and then immediately say he was "mis-informed".  Why "should" a traditional priest be well-informed on a controversial medical case occurring hundreds of miles away that has nothing to do with him or his own parishioners? No, he shouldn't; and, Fr. Cekada wasn't.



So he commented on a specific case of which he was ill-informed. His purpose was to shock traditional Catholics, not to inform.

Also, I disagree that Fr. Cekada is a man of good will, he manifestly is not a man of good will.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 02, 2012, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
You haven't discussed anything of principle here, SS. You are just acting like a liberal, expressing emotions as being some paramount way of deciding things. The principle of extraordinary means of preserving life, and the choice not to take it, does not exclude suffering. Who ever said it did or should?


You're the one acting like a liberal. You didn't even respond to one of my points, except about Father Cekada. You really do not know how to refute someone's points on this matter.

Quote
Why "should" a traditional priest be well-informed on a controversial medical case occurring hundreds of miles away that has nothing to do with him or his own parishioners? No, he shouldn't; and, Fr. Cekada wasn't.


If he was not well-informed, he shouldn't have bothered giving his opinion. The facts are all out there, regardless of how far away one lives.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: SJB on May 02, 2012, 10:48:30 AM
Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
And once again you completely ignore the fact that once he realized the case was complicated, he ceased talking about the case, and focused on principle. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in, SS?


You can keep repeating it, but we know it isn't true. Cekada made a judgment on the entire case, and scandalized thousands. That is a fact.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 02, 2012, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Cupertino
I tried to cover all your essential points. You don't even really try. How about handling first-things-first and the slew of points you have not addressed previously? Very hypocritical of you to complain about not responding to points.


That is a lie and you know it. You didn't respond to anything in my last post except what I said about Father Cekada. It seems to me that you are more interested in defending Father Cekada than actually producing any good arguments to back up your distorted views on the case.

And you say there are a slew of points I haven't addressed but you don't list any of them. Talk about hypocritical.

Quote
There is no such moral principle as not having bothered giving his opinion. You just made that up.


That is a ridiculous parody of what I said. I said that if he was ill-informed of tha facts, he should not have given his opinion. Or at the very least, he should have done some research. But no, he took the liberal route, and you're doing the same thing.

Quote
And once again you completely ignore the fact that once he realized the case was complicated, he ceased talking about the case, and focused on principle. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in, SS?


That is an absurd statement. You really don't know what you're talking about. You're either putting words in the mouths of your opponents on this topic, or are copying what Father C said. How about using your own arguments?
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 02, 2012, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: Cupertino
And I don't mean emotional points like whether the husband was a new-ager or an adulterer, or the bishop a coward, etc., etc. I won't address such irrelevancies.


Emotional points? Um, the husband being an adulterer would be a very important topic. I don't think I need to explain why. I never said he was a new-ager, I said his lawyer was.

As to your other points, first of all, you and JohnChrysostom argued against man-made machines. That is insane. Might as well take it a step further and say IVs in hospitals shouldn't be used because they're man-made.

A stomach tube cost too much money? Boo hoo. If money is more important to society than life - and sadly it has become that way - then all I have to say is that society has really gone down the drain.

Terri saying she wouldn't have wanted her life extended by a machine? How do we know she said that? Where's the proof? Why should we trust her husband, who was clearly a mental case?
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on May 02, 2012, 08:20:20 PM
Quote from: Rob Sheehan
This shows your incompetence to even talk about this subject. Just as you think Fr. Cekada was incompetent based on not knowing all the facts, you cannot think straight on the principles. Can the incompetent person judge what is incompetence? No. But they can surely have some grand "feelings" about it!


I know you can't respond, Rob, but I think it will do this forum some justice to cut through your fog. The above part of your post is so confusing that I'm not even going to bother dealing with it. I stand firm on my statement: Father Cekada shouldn't have commented on something if he didn't know the facts.

Quote
The principle about extraordinary means of preserving life has NOTHING to do with condemning man-made machines. It doesn't condemn them. It merely states the moral "option" to discontinue what is extraordinary means of preserving life for an extended period of time. You don't even know what the concept means even at this stage of discussion!


And that is once again an evasion of what I said. You and JohnC condemned using man-made machines for preserving life.

Quote
SS, don't try to judge a trained priest publicly to ruin his reputation when you don't even have the rudiments to think the principles through.


I am not trying to ruin his reputation. I am defending the truth. You are free to think what you want. Peace be to you as you leave this forum.

God Bless.
Title: Schiavo Again
Post by: Sede Catholic on May 10, 2012, 01:23:48 AM
The way Terri Schiavo was put to death was an obviously evil thing.

It was mortally sinful.