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 succuмb 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 tecuм :)

There are Lots of Stupid, ill informed people, including Trad Catholics ...

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.

Fr. Iscara wrote that article in the early 1990's. It is at odds with Cekada's lonely viewpoint.

What you quoted is at odds with Cekada's opinion.

In some very particular and extraordinary instances (as examples, in the case of a patient in a terminal condition to whom the artificial nutrition imposes a pain excessive in proportion to the very short span of life remaining, or in the case of an irreversibly demented patient who keeps tearing apart the feeding tubes and causing himself serious wounds, and who cannot be continually restrained) the inconveniences may become so burdensome that the artificial nutrition might be considered an Extraordinary, Non-obligatory means of preserving life.

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I would provide further arguments, but this topic has been convered before and Tele and several others such as SJB and Sede Catholics have already made proper arguments. I am going to let this subject drop. If you want to continue it, that's up to you.

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

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

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


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


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

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

...it is morally justifiable to withhold antibiotics and artificial nutrition and hydration, as well as other forms of life-sustaining treatment, allowing the patient to die.28

To counter these conclusions, we are convinced that the provision of food and fluids is not simply —or strictly — "medical care," but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life.

Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply "to allow the patient to die" : what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration.

In some very particular and extraordinary instances (as examples, in the case of a patient in a terminal condition to whom the artificial nutrition imposes a pain excessive in proportion to the very short span of life remaining, or in the case of an irreversibly demented patient who keeps tearing apart the feeding tubes and causing himself serious wounds, and who cannot be continually restrained) the inconveniences may become so burdensome that the artificial nutrition might be considered an Extraordinary, Non-obligatory means of preserving life.

Quote from: John

You still defy me and wont answer me regarding Ms Schiavos Directives to 3 Family Members to NOT have to sustain life from  artificial machinery.

This is the 7th time I have put this forth.
You are a Coward. And an imbecile.

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