CathInfo.com

LOT - I am not a feeneyite.  

Ambrose is a serpent(he has two tongues); my encounters with him lead me to believe this.  He "usurps the keys" by declaring "publicly" that I am "no longer a member of the catholic church" because I place guilt on Pius XII and apply consequences that follow.  

Canon 7 on the sacrifice of the mass Trent 1562 - "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathama."  

Tradition has to make a choice.  Do you want Pacelli and "rythm"(albiet for "grave reasons")?  Or, do you want the traditional mass(pre 1954)?  You cannot have both.

I am not a sedevacantist.  I believe in the theory of privation(Peter wept "outside the walls").

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: + PG +

Lover of Truth - I appreciate you sticking your neck out there defending Cekada about the Shiavo case.  I agree with you/Cekada.

This is what LoT wrote and I may be wrong, but his understanding of Catholic theology is my understanding.  Therefore, ITA with him as well.


Regarding the Terri Schiavo issue.  It is obvious that she was entitled to water, they watered a plant in the room she was in but would not give her a drop.

 That being said, and obviously I could be wrong, I believe Father Cekeda's point was that a person is not obliged to undergo extraordinary means to be kept alive.  That is it.  And he is correct.  Catholic theology teaches that one is not obliged to be kept alive by extraordinary means.  They can chose to be kept alive that way but don't have to.  

 He did not deny that Terri wanted to be kept alive or that she had a right to be.  He just used the situation to present Catholic teaching on the issue IMO.

 Now, some might say having a tube shoved in your nose is common now and not extraordinary.  But I claim that the contrary could be true and being fed through your nose though common can still be considered extraordinary or unduly burdensome.  

 She, would IMO, according to Catholic theology, have the right to refuse such treatment.

2Vermont,

Fr. Cekada publicly supported allowing Terri Shiavo to die by withholding food and water.

Fr. Cekada ignored evidence that Terri Shiavo could have swallowed on her own, with assistance, and that no tube was necessary.  He scandalized and shocked many Catholics with his ideas on this case.

Quote

During subsequent hearings in early 2005, 33 others � including 14 physicians (6 who are neurologists) submitted testimony declaring Terri had been misdiagnosed, while none were submitted by Felos to contradict their findings. Again, Judge Greer refused to consider the growing and glaring evidence. Consider what neurologist Dr. James Gabel, M.D., M.S., F.A.H.A, reported:

�Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. The parts of Terri Schiavo�s brain which would allow her to perceive pain, her thalami, were clearly intact and visible on her CT scan images shown by her own husband, Michael Schiavo, on national television. The parts of Terri Schiavo�s brain, which would allow her to swallow on her own, were also intact, and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one�s own saliva.�

In short, Terri was not dying. She was not suffering or receiving any type of life support. She was simply disabled and unable to feed herself.

Terri could have been fed orally and by law she should have been. Granted, she might have needed swallowing therapy to stimulate the muscles in her throat that had not been used for many years, but this would have been a relatively short and simple treatment. Yet Judge Greer refused to even consider it, incredibly noting that �Terri might aspirate food into her lungs and die a cruel and painful death.�

SOURCE

Interesting.  I did not realize this.  

The main issue, which did not have to do with Terri is life support.  Being kept alive by a machine.  A Catholic can refuse to be kept alive artificially.  

I believe it is at least debatable as to whether one could have refused to be kept alive by a feeding tube or not either expressly at the time or previously in a will.  

Not sure how a valid recent Pope would rule on the issue.  I merely grant that such a process could be considered an undue burden in Catholic theology based even upon current technology.  I'm not sure either way.    

Quote from: Fr. Cekada

Like the IV drip mentioned by the moral theologian McFadden (whom I quoted elsewhere), one could maintain this procedure would be morally compulsory "as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period."

"Surely," however, "any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship." (Medical Ethics, 1958, p.269.)

Reverend Cekada seriously misrepresents Fr. McFadden' s true position on the matter of feeding a patient  in need. In the first place, Fr. McFadden was writing about an intravenous drip inserted by needle into a patient's vein, not a PEG. Secondly, he was considering this procedure as it was inflicted 50 years ago, when such means were much more complicated and problem-prone.

But most importantly, Fr. McFadden  goes on to state his posit ion about removing such an IV line which is already in place and serving the patient. When considering the case of a terminally ill cancer patient with an IV already in place (note that Theresa Schiavo was not terminally  ill),

Fr. M cFadden says:

Quote from: McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274

In actual medical practice, however, l 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 deat h within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient bad been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering Second, doctors who received permission, possibly  from a hospital chaplain, to act in this fashion in this specific type of case would  not appreciate all of tbe fine moral distinctions  involved, and soon they  would be carryingover the practice to countless cases wherein they regarded the preservation of a life as useless.Third, it is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right
to decide whether or not he shall continue with a useless and extraordinary  means which will prolong his intense suffering It would be rash, indeed, to pose the question to him in his present condition, and it might be equally rash for others to make the decision for him. Who but God knows what goes on in the mind of such a person? Who but God knows what spiritual  benefit such sufferingmay hold for the patient-on the basis of intentions made before the suffering became so intense but at a time when the patient anticipated them as a proximate reality. Finally, who is willing to assume the responsibility for acting as if the patient  bas spiritually prepared himself
for death? If medical opinion believes that the patient could survive a few weeks, it may very well be that the patient himself believes that he will completely recover. If such be the case, even the fact that the person  has
received the Last Sacraments is no guarantee that they have been rightly and fruitfully received. (Fr. Joseph  McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274)

Thus, Fr. McFadden predicted in his second point above exactly what has come to pass today, i.e. that doctors would become accustomed to withdrawing food and water from patients whose lives they deem not worth prolonging. It is amazing that Reverend Cekada could overlook this conclusion ofhis own source, Fr. McFadden.