Author Topic: Schiavo Again (Read 20142 times)

SJB · « **Reply #80 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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #81 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.

SJB · « **Reply #82 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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #83 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?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #84 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?