Author Topic: Schiavo Again (Read 7740 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #15 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 cuм 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #16 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 circuмstances 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #17 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #18 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #19 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?

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #20 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #21 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.

Canute · « **Reply #22 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 cuм 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.

SJB · « **Reply #23 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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #25 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 ѕυιcιdє, 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 тαℓмυdic Jєω over what is and is not a vegetable or vegetative state.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #26 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 ѕυιcιdє, 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 Jєω over what is and is not a vegetable or vegetative state.

More lies. I never claimed to dislike Father Cekada.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #27 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 ѕυιcιdє, 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 Jєω 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!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #28 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.

JohnChrysostom · « **Reply #29 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.