[/quote]

Neither Cain, Drolesky, or Plumb would weigh in here on a thread and immediately use the phrase "the cult of Dolan/Cekeda" and then make a point of repeating the phrase.

And it may be best not to make claims about Fr. Ramolla saving people, whilst it appears that his seminarians were subjected (albeit unwittingly) to such a perverting and dangerous environment.

BTW, I am not saying everything at SGG was/is perfect. It isn't there. It isn't at Fr. Ramolla's chapel. It isn't anywhere. But I don't think it is worthwhile or valid to introduce your inflammatory phrase "the cult of Dolan/Cekeda", let alone proceed to promote Fr Ramolla's safe haven in comparison.

If you are here to promote Fr. Ramolla, as was your stated intention; why not just do that? Why start off by criticizing Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Dolan, and Fr. Cekada, and then continuing in that vein?

[/quote]

I will make one response on the Dolan/Cekeda topic and let others have the last word as I see how these fruitless discussions go.   :argue:

Cain, Droleskey and Plumb agree with the phrase, I can vouch for that.  As would the 100 or so who left immediately when they had someplace else to go.  There is a reason all this has happened and it certainly goes right back to the policies of Dolan/Cekeda  ignoring all legitimate complaints from their captive audience.  This is a fact that cannot legitimately be denied.  I do not use the phrase loosely, though it can be taken wrongly and misunderstood as it will.  I say this while admitting I would probably go to that Church were it the only Church in the world, despite being deprived of the graces and indulgences that all gain from the Leonine prayers which are not said at that Church and despite the fact that they refuse to offer Masses unless you give them $20 or more.  But I would not have my children in their school or leave them alone on their premises.  

I leave you with the last retort to the position I hold based upon the facts.  

Remember the purpose of this thread was to get opinions on whether it was in good taste and the Catholic thing to do for the editor of the Four Marks to publically pick a side between Bishop P and Ramolla, rather than avoiding the issue entirely or presenting both sides of the issue.  Would a good Catholic editor have interviewed all parties involved instead of picking a side?  My opinion on the topic should be obvious without my saying anything.  I do not like the "us against them mentality".  But if you are going to do it you should do it right.  This is not some blog but what the editor considers to be a classy and professional newspaper that the clergy and laypeople are edified by.  As she told me it is not meant to be a gossip paper yet she picked one side over the other without doing due diligence, which shows a lack of integrity and intellectual honesty.  If what I say is true, and I am sure there will be doubters, am I right to think as I do and to be disappointed that she cannot uphold the standards she would rightly impose on others?  

I do not use the phrase loosely, though it can be taken wrongly and misunderstood as it will.

If you are aware it can be taken wrongly and will be misunderstood maybe you are best not to use it; and you should be prepared to explain exactly what you mean by it.

Remember the purpose of this thread was to get opinions on whether it was in good taste and the Catholic thing to do for the editor of the Four Marks to publically pick a side between Bishop P and Ramolla, rather than avoiding the issue entirely or presenting both sides of the issue.  
 

 :rolleyes:

While you are preaching for us to remember the purpose of the thread, don't forget that you began the derailing by criticizing Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Dolan, and Father Cekada. Look back for yourself if you have already forgotten.

It doesn't sound like you even read the Four Marks as there was a scathing attack on Fr. Cekada in an editorial a few months ago about the Schiavo affair and stating Fr. Cekada was for killing Shiavo, something putrid to that effect.

For those who may not remember or even seen this, here is Fr. Stephanich in The Four Marks, Nov 2008 (see page 3):

Would someone please attach the Four Marks article that the initiator of this thread and Lot are so concerned about?

Btw, if this is such a big deal, why are the concerns just being raised now?

I don't see it available online yet and I haven't seen the hardcopy. I'd like to see it as well.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cupertino

It doesn't sound like you even read the Four Marks as there was a scathing attack on Fr. Cekada in an editorial a few months ago about the Schiavo affair and stating Fr. Cekada was for killing Shiavo, something putrid to that effect.

For those who may not remember or even seen this, here is Fr. Stephanich in The Four Marks, Nov 2008 (see page 3):

Funny, SJB. You say you don't care what I have to say. Then you continue to read my posts, quote me, and respond with something (respond, I say, not necessarily reply).

Here you quote me about Fr. Cekada and Plumb, and you give an article from Fr. Stepanich that doesn't mention Fr. Cekada.

What's the deal with you?

Can you explain how you care and not care at the same time?

What's the deal with you? Fr. Stephanich said Terry Schiavo was exterminated. Here's what Fr. Cekada said:

Dear Cathy,

Bishop Sanborn is doing something on the Honorius/Liberius question. I'll forward it to you when it's completed.

As regards your comments on the Schiavo case:

1. In the quote, Pius XII enunciated the general moral principles to be applied, not merely particular ones applicable only to the narrow question of resuscitation.

Otherwise, you would have to maintain that his statements like "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means" or "life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" apply only to the specific case of resuscitation, and that in other cases therefore: a) One is not held to use even ordinary means to preserve life and b) Life is not subordinated to spiritual ends.

Good luck.

2. The expense of Terri Schiavo's maintenance was "socialized" through wealth redistribution ‹ $750,000 via the litigation/insurance company shakedown, and other hidden costs we can only guess at via tax and other insurance subsidies.

(This should be obvious to anyone with the last name Brueggemann.)

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.

Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.

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.

You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.

But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects ‹ chief among them, moral theology.

I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.

But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Be assured of my prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Father Cekada

SJB, Fr. Stepanich did not mention Fr. Cekada in that article as believing that Schiavo should be exterminated. That is your own terribly false thinking.

1.  Letting someone die by removing extraordinary means used to keep him alive is  NOT extermination, nor is it a sin.

2.  A person who mistakenly thinks a person is being kept alive by extraordinary means and removes that means, does not think he is exterminating the patient, is not guilty of any sin, and does not believe in extermination.

Do you believe both of these statements are true?

The question was whether there were any extraordinary means in use. Nobody, except possibly Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine, agreed with Fr. Cekada. He (Cekada) told me he'd like to write a "longer article" but his books were "still packed away." I defended him simply because I thought he was just wrong on the facts. Since then however, he's never corrected himself on the facts, even though Bp. Sanborn backed away when he heard Ms. Schiavo could and did receive communion from a priest who visited her.

Now here is a poster on another forum who makes a very interesting point about the imprudence of Fr. Cekada's remarks and the real scandal they caused:
 

What Fr. Cekada was attempting to do, if I understood him, was defend Catholic truth against liberal distortions, without fully analyzing the entire case for all possible moral failures. That remains an accurate comment on Mr Tribbe's efforts, but I see now why Fr. Cekada's intervention produced such a reaction - he did not limit himself to the point of moral theology mentioned - he said in his original intervention:

Quote from: Fr. Cekada

"Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.

It was no such thing...

That (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.

I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.

Quote from: Fr. McFadden

In actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.