Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael, has married his long-time live-in mistress.
In a Catholic church.
This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
There ought to be a law against that kind of thing.
And in fact, there is.
Canon law specifically provides an impediment to prevent exactly this thing. It’s known as the impediment of crimen (Latin, "crime"). If you bring about the death of your spouse with a view to marrying another person and then you attempt marriage, the impediment of crimen makes that new marriage automatically invalid.
The Code of Canon Law provides the following:
Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.
Further, only the pope can dispense from the impediment of crimen.
Now, when Michael Schiavo and his long-time mistress (with whom he has had children while his wife was in the hospital) applied to be married in a Catholic church in Safety Harbor, Florida then either the pastor took steps to contact Pope Benedict and have the impediment of crimen dispensed–and B16 did that (fat chance!)–or the pastor authorized an invalid union under Church auspices between Michael Schiavo and his mistress, Jodi Centonze.
Either way, this must be clarified. If the pope dispensed from crimen in this case then, given the gravely scandalous nature of this union, the fact of the dispensation must become public or, to mitigate the grave scandal done by the invalid union, the competent ecclesiastical officials must make clear that the union was invalid and that the Church’s law prohibits precisely this kind of thing.
You may be thinking, "Well, there’s not a lot that could be done at this point, is there?"
And you’d be wrong. There is a canon law procedure for handling this situation.
CANONIST ED PETERS HAS THE STORY.
This situation is simply so outrageous that action must be taken by the competent Church authorities.
First, if a dispensation from crimen was not granted by the pope (as is overwhelmingly likely) then the parties are in an invalid union and they need to be made aware of this fact.
Second, members of the general public who are scandalized (in the popular sense) by the spectacle of the Catholic Church putting its blessing on a kill-your-wife-to-marry-your-mistress marriage must be given the message that the Catholic Church really takes seriously the culture of life and will not put its blessing on this kind of murderous immorality.
Just imagine what many non-Catholics must be thinking at this very moment: "I don’t see how the Catholic Church really believes in a culture of life if it’s willing to marry people who have killed their spouses in order to marry their mistresses. All its talk about protecting human life is just talk. They don’t really mean it. When push comes to shove, they’re totally happy uniting wife-killers and their mistresses in the bonds of holy wedlock."
Third, members of the Catholic Church need to have a cause of scandal (in the technical sense) removed. As medicine is now able to dramatically prolong life, many more Catholics will find themselves in the same situation as Michael Schiavo: Their spouse will be unable to advance their own interests for medical reasons, they will have power of attorney for their spouse, they will meet someone who they would like to marry, and then they will be tempted to use that power of attorney to bring about the death of their spouse "with a view to entering marriage with a certain person."
In other words, the Church must clarify this situation in order to avoid more disabled spouses in hospitals getting euthanatized so that the non-disabled spouses can get married to someone they have their eye on.
Lives really are at stake here.
If the competent ecclesiastical officials (possibly involving those in Rome) do not clarify this situation then people will die.
Those wishing to contact relevant individuals to request a public clarification of the matter may contact:
Rev. Stephen Dambrauskas, JCL
Promoter of Justice
Diocese of St. Petersburg
905 South Prospect Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756-4039Phone: UPDATE: 727-344-1611 Also: 727-446-2326 / 442-8884
Fax: 727-446-4287
E-Mail: tribsp@tampabay.rr.com
They may also contact:
His Excellency Pietro Sambi
Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036
Sounds like the priest who officiated at the non-wedding, the pastor who allowed the non-wedding to take place in his parish, and Bishop Lynch are also guilty of “crimen”. It always amazes me how people without spines are able to stand up.
I can see contacting the Papal Nuncio, but I can’t imagine contacting anyone in the diocese. They’re probably in cahoots. Birds of a feather, usually flock together.
After listening to Al Kresta’s show yesterday, it sounded like the “newlyweds” may have had the backing of the local bishop.
It was also mentioned that the “bride” is divorced and there wasn’t an annulment. Another strike against the “marriage.”
It appears to me that the “groom” wanted to “stick it to” the Church and they had several all too willing accomplices.
If doctors practiced medicine the way the “all too willing accomplices” misdid their duties, they could be sued for malpractice. Hmmm…
How do they know there wasn’t an annulment? Doesn’t seem like the easiest information to obtain.
Just as disturbed by this as anyone, but is it clear especially for canonical purposes that Michael did what he did in order to marry his mistress?
I called the tribunal office at the number Jimmy provided and asked for Fr. Dambauskas. I was told that he wasn’t there, and given the number for the “pastoral center,” 727-344-1611. The receptionist put my call through to the voicemail of the diocese spokesperson, Vickie Bedard. I left a message and a callback number.
I’m going to continue to follow up with Vickie Bedard, but I’m also going to continue to try to reach Fr. Dambauskas directly.
It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson–oops, I mean Michael Schiavo–killed his wife in order that he could “marry” his mistress in the Catholic Church. He could have civilly divorced Terri and “married” his mistress civilly, as Terri’s family begged him to do. Terri’s family also agreed to take all responsibility for Terri’s care and treatment. But Michael refused, just as, years earlier, he had ordered the cessation of Terri’s physical therapy. It makes one wonder if he were afraid of what Terri might have said if she had recovered.
Keep it up, Steven. If you’re willing to write back about what this brings about, I’d for one like to read it.
Thanks for putting this on your blog, Jimmy. Read this thru a link at popular spiritual site … and was in shock. Why weren’t these details of Michael Schiavo’s life w/his adulteress more known earlier … like the baptisms of their children? Bishop Lynch & the church pastor have to be called to account by The Vatican, or else all Catholic Church spiritual leaders (and any lay people remaninging silent) are deserving of outrage & condemnation.
Thomasina, my initial thought was the same as your comment.
However, the way I’m reading the code of cannon law that Jimmy provided, it doesn’t seem to matter whether the guilty party killed them in order to get married. The way I read it is the scenario is if they’re considering marrying someone and they kill their spouse. It doesn’t require linking that the explicit purpose of killing their spouse was to marry another just that they’re considering marriage and kill their existing spouse.
In my opinion, Mr. Schiavo clearly both intended on marrying his mistress and brought about the death of his wife.
I suppose Catholicism doesn’t account for cases where the wife’s brain has turned to gelatin and is being kept alive artificially. Think about it, at the time those laws were written Terri would have died, period.
Mistress, adultress…for crying out loud the woman was experiencing a living death. Her husband fought to carry out her wishes and you loonies want to have him punished for going on with life?
Kudos to the church that married them for having the sense that so many “followers” lack.
Dear anon.,
Catholicism accounts for the dignity and sanctity of human life even when society and you do not.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Yuggoth is way ahead of us. We send an unmanned spacecraft to them, they send a manned one to us.
Dear Anonymous,
Do you really want to have a conversation about this, or are you just venting?
The Florida bishops were clear that the withdrawal of ANH from Terri cannot be presumed to be murder:
While withdrawal of Terri Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration will lead to her death, if this is being done because its provision would be too burdensome for her, it could be acceptable.
and
We urge people to refrain from excessive rhetoric and misguided zeal, against which Pope Pius XI cautioned. There are many unanswered questions in this case, and it is necessary to presume upon the best intentions of all involved until shown otherwise.
If the bishops have fully investigated the facts of this case and refrained from calling Michael’s act “muder,” then it is specious to argue he should be denied a Catholic marriage on these grounds.
In case you wondered
Canon lawyer Ed. Peter’s discuses the canonical issues regarding the Schiavo-Centonze marriage. I am sure many when they heard of…
Rick,
Why did you leave this line out of the quote:
If it is being done to intentionally cause her death, this would be wrong.
The Florida Bishops did not fully investigate the issue. Read their statement it basically says “we don’t know, so think the best” but Terri Schiavo was still murdered.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
“Mistress, adultress…for crying out loud the woman was experiencing a living death.”
Sin is a living death.
“It is necessary to presume upon the best intentions of all involved until shown otherwise.”
Michael Schiavo:
1) From day 1 refused to allow any tests to determine the extent of Terri’s brain damage.
2) Ordered her physical therapy halted shortly after it began
3) Ordered that she be fed through a tube rather than orally, even though she was capable of being fed orally
4) Made no mention of Terri ever saying she wanted to die, until many years after she was hospitalized–RIGHT AFTER SHE RECIEVED A LARGE MALPRACTICE SETTLEMENT–which, of course, then would have been his.
“Best intentions?” I think it has been clearly shown that Michael Schiavo’s intentions were the worst. As I commented above, what was he afraid she would say if she recovered enough to speak?
The Vatican didn’t find the case so complex as to defy analysis. The Vatican clearly recognized what was going on and said so.
The Fla. bishops have no excuse. All they had to do–in order to figure this issue out–was listen to the Vatican. You know, the way they’re supposed to.
The Vatican didn’t find the case so complex as to defy analysis. The Vatican clearly recognized what was going on and said so.
The Fla. bishops have no excuse. All they had to do–in order to figure this issue out–was listen to the Vatican. You know, the way they’re supposed to.
This sort of thing happens more often than anyone ever mentions. Why is Terri’s case of such import?
“Why is Terri’s case of such import?” So that “(t)his sort of thing happens” LESS often.
Dear Anon,
Every case of murder is a crime, espeacially one committed in front of us. It should alarm you that you are so desensitized to the torture and murder of a defenseless woman.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
speechless with horror.
I think its important to remember that even the children of a sinful extra-marital affair such as that of Michael Schiavo and his mistriss deserve every sacrament that anyone else is entitled to — THEY DID NOT CHOOSE THEIR PARENTS. We must PRAY FOR THEM that they will rise above the unrepentant sin of their parents to be more than nominal Catholics.
There will be another hurricane season for Florida…and perhaps it may behoove Lynch to move his offices to another area, say Oregan, where killing is in vogue and fun.
Whoops. I forgot.
“Every step you take. Every move you make. Every bond you break….I’ll be watching you…”
-GOD (with the assistance of The Police)
I can’t imagine what these evil cretans are thinking when they do these things-like killing one’s wife,&/or winking at &/or helping said man while he kills his wife and/or those implicated in blessing the murderer and his scarlet woman in a faux marriage…all in the name of the Catholic Church.
God will not allow the smear campaign against His Church for too much longer. Hence, the natural disasters and scandals He allows for our own purifications that act as a great warning for those of us who have the common sense to realize that we are living on borrowed time and we will all be judged by Almighty God for our sins. I pray for all those who have been involved in this murder and the cover-up. I don’t envy the Judgement and Punishment they will face from God. I think all of us should become more outspoken and active against these daily happenings of euthanasia. Priests for Life have a great Will To Live form that I hope everyone will use instead of the dangerous Living Wills being pushed. The Will To Live lets you have hydration and nutrition, whereas the other assume you don’t want it….
This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
As far as I know, it hasn’t been established that he killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
Sure, what he did was wrong, but I think we ought to cut him a little charity.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church we’re supposed to put the best interpretations on people’s actions.
God Bless
Huh?
“It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson–oops, I mean Michael Schiavo–killed his wife in order that he could “marry” his mistress in the Catholic Church.”
Nah…I think he killed her for the money. Does that change the situation?
Excuse me a moment while I go throw up.
Torture and murder of an innocent…I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.
I’m not the least bit desensitized to “torture and murder”. I am a quality of life advocate. Schaivo was obviously brain dead. The autopsy confirmed everything her husband had said. Honestly, what is wrong with letting go of a life that only exists because technology forces it to be. For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support–should that ever become necessary.
Would my spouse’s follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
Folks, get it straight. Terri died as the result of several court decisions that stated that there was clear and convincing evidence that SHE wanted to die under her circumstances. How did Michael then cause her death? Under these decisions, her death was wrong because it was suicide, not homicide. Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What’s different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
Chris,
Please give us the best interpertation of Michael Schiavo’s actions. Breaking his marriage vows and the torture and murder of his helpless wife.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Inocencio, which Anon are you addressing? My comment showed up anonymously, but I agree with you!
Diane Kamer,
author of the anon double post two posts above Inocencio’s post.
Inocencio, which Anon are you addressing? My comment showed up anonymously, but I agree with you!
Diane Kamer,
author of the anon double post two posts above Inocencio’s post.
I have no idea why my posts keep showing up as double posts. I assure y’all I’m only posting once each time. Maybe it’s a Mac Thang? :p
Blessings (and with great trepidation, fearing this post will also double itself)…
Diane
I have no idea why my posts keep showing up as double posts. I assure y’all I’m only posting once each time. Maybe it’s a Mac Thang? :p
Blessings (and with great trepidation, fearing this post will also double itself)…
Diane
Dear anon,
If your spouse removed food and water and won’t let anyone else care for you or feed you, then yes that is murder. Quality of life? Who decides? When did it become acceptable to kill the weak and helpless among us?
Celine,
A husband suddenly remembering that his wife did not want food and water while she is helpless after he is awarded over a million dollars for her care is not clear and convincing evidence.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
You are forgetting one key fact: there is a strong basis in catholic moral philosophy for asserting that withdrawal of food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state is not euthanasia, as these means are considered extraordinary or disproportionate. You people all seem to forget this little detail.
But Tony, Terri was disabled, not PVS. The autopsy did not support Michael Schiavo’s claims and the legal irregularities were mind boggling.
Brain dead and alive only because of medical science is different from killing the weak and helpless. I’m not advocating that we go out and kill all the disabled individuals we meet. I’m saying that if your brain is dead and all that keeps you going is food and water…well, that’s not a quality of life I would want. Many handicapped and injured people can at least communicate and enjoy life. This woman had lost the capacity to think and feel on the level that you and I know it.
Damn her to hell for suicide or damn her husband for following her wishes and proceeding with life…either way I think it is cruel. They are BOTH victims not criminals and their personal situation isn’t anyone’s business.
If there is a God, this is between him and the two of them. I’m inclined to think if he’s as merciful as people say…that he would go easy on them. There are far worse things in this world than what either of them did.
Torture and murder of an innocent…I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.
Just war is a different issue than euthanasia.
I’m not the least bit desensitized to “torture and murder”. I am a quality of life advocate. Schaivo was obviously brain dead. The autopsy confirmed everything her husband had said. Honestly, what is wrong with letting go of a life that only exists because technology forces it to be.
A person who is brain dead is not able to breathe on their own, now is their heart able to beat on it’s own. Terri was completely functional physically. She was just like the profoundly retarded residents that I worked with while in college. They were fully functional human beings who simply had no cognitive abilities.
For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support–should that ever become necessary. Would my spouse’s follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, he would be guilty of the sin of murder, and you would be guilty of committing suicide.
“I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.”.
I am opposed to torture of any kind (I think Bush is wrong on this), but I support the war on terror, both in Iraq and elsewhere.
Your charge of hypocrisy is nonsense.
Or do you see no difference between murder (unjustified killing) and war (justified killing of bad guys)?
Terri Schiavo had NO TERMINAL ILLNESS. She was NOT DYING. She was STARVED to death. People were not allowed even to OFFER her food or water by mouth.
The vast majority of human beings can live without a respirator, but ANYONE will die without food and water.
Should we let infants die because they can’t feed themselves? How about the elderly? Paraplegics? Those suffereing from Multiple Sclerosis or Parkinsons?
I am only thankful that this anonymous poster does not hold power of attorney for ME.
Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What’s different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
A respirator is artificial, as is a heart machine. Food and water are considered natural.
Terri actually could eat by mouth. She was ordered to be fed through a tube by her husband. He didn’t want her fed by mouth. The doctors complied.
Tony A:
Food & water (i.e. nutrition) are *never* an extraordinary or disproportionate means. Nutrition is an ordinary means to sustain life. Any catholic moral philosophy text that you’re reading isn’t catholic or moral or philosophy. It is insanity to assert otherwise. If you believe otherwise, stop eating & drinking!
Ashton
Justified war = justified killing. So murder is okay as long as the cause seems just? Innocent men, women and children die in every war. I suppose it is mainly okay because it is a crusade against nonbelievers anyway.
Hmmm..reminds me of a You Might be a Fundie if list I saw (particularly #7):
10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
****7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!*******
6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”
3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.
AND…there is a big difference between “profoundly retarded” and being left with only a brain stem.
As for the comparing infants to a brain dead woman…that’s too looney to even go into. If you can’t see what a straw man that one is you’re batty.
“and their personal situation isn’t anyone’s business.”
You sound like the parents who beat their kids then resent intervention because it’s their personal family and not anyone’s business.
Michael Schiavo does not fit the definition of a victim in any way, shape or manner. He has exerted an enormous amount of control in every aspect of this situation.
Food and water via artifical means are definately extraordinary means for most of the Third World, thus, for most of the world. In the good old world of US Catholic blogging it isn’t. We’ve got great healthcare and all the tubes, water and liquified food we can handle. Thank God Catholic medical ethics offers a broad view of such issues in order to allow for the most wide understanding of such troubling questions.
And not only this, we have access to every little detail of every life in the US, just so we can judge every situation just as God would. In fact, I think He reads all the blogs just to get the straight poop.
I continue to be saddened by the profound lack of charity by so many Roman Catholics.
Beating children and honouring the last wishes of an incapacitated loved one. Okay, I see the connection.
That’s why a husband has power of attorney. So that he can have the control to fulfill his obligations…even if that obligation is to remove life support. I would want it done for ME, personally, and I wouldn’t want the state, religious zealots or any of my extended family trying to intervene. I’m very happy to have a spouse that I know would pull out whatever plug was necessary. I’d do the same in return. NOT because I’d want my spouse DEAD but because it is what we promised each other.
I agree with Andrew. The means used to keep this woman alive were extraordinary, although, I would add it would be extraordinary for POOR people in the USA too.
I guess the “moral” catholics of this world need to focus on important thing like personal matters between husbands and wives before they can attend to such trivial matters as WAR, POVERTY and overall INEQUITY in healthcare worldwide.
I sure am sorry I can’t be so moral myself. I guess I haven’t got my priorities straight.
And I guess judge not lest ye be judged only applies to the “other” people. Moral Catholics have the high and lofty purpose of directing the rest of us because of their superior connection to all things moral and spiritual. We lowly common sinners need their guidance and couldn’t POSSIBLY judge our Moral Catholics because..well…we’re just not holy enough.
Don’t you just love cowardly fundamentalist atheists?
It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson–oops, I mean Michael Schiavo–killed his wife in order that he could “marry” his mistress in the Catholic Church. He could have civilly divorced Terri and “married” his mistress civilly, as Terri’s family begged him to do. Terri’s family also agreed to take all responsibility for Terri’s care and treatment. But Michael refused, just as, years earlier, he had ordered the cessation of Terri’s physical therapy. It makes one wonder if he were afraid of what Terri might have said if she had recovered.
My thoughts exactly. Even though the media reported Terri’s condition was brought about by an “eating disorder” I can’t help but wonder what Michael did or didn’t do to bring about said disorder or the state which lead to her disability in the first place. Michael’s rush to end her life and his blocking anything – therapy, oral feeding – that could help her survive and get better (however slightly) sends up red flags. Or at least it should for any rational person.
And, no matter what anyone says, Michael lost his “right” to be Terri’s provider and caregiver the second he thought about cheating on her. He broke the sanctity of their marriage vows, which I’m sure contained “in sickness and in health” in them somewhere.
He is a purely selfish, self-satisfying man and a control freak. He is also mean and vindictive and spiteful. He made sure Terri died so her parents couldn’t have her. Isn’t that the sign of an abuser? If they can’t have their girlfriend/wife…no one can. Not even people who are willing to care and pay for her medical needs.
As someone bluntly commented elsewhere, I hope this new “wife” has a living will…
To Our Brave Anonymous Poster-
You have conveniently avoided addressing the fact that Terri Schiavo was not allowed to have food or water even OFFERED to her by ordinary means. Not by cup or by spoon.
That is ORDINARY CARE, which she was denied.
She was STARVED. TO. DEATH.
The feeding tube is not even an issue.
Hey Anon…
You seem to like to talk, and yet, not once do you address about the suspicious actions of the husband. In order to win your side, you have to stop talking past us, and actually talk to us.
Because we’re all ready to forgive… so long as the husband is willing to admit that he done wrong. Too bad you’re judgmental on us.
Nick
“I guess the ‘moral’ catholics of this world need to focus on important thing like personal matters between husbands and wives before they can attend to such trivial matters as WAR, POVERTY and overall INEQUITY in healthcare worldwide.”
*sniff, sniff*
There’s a troll lurking. If anyone who has that to say about me and my fellow parishoners clearly has nothing worth saying.
I’ll make a suggestion – why don’t some of the mods clean up this drivel and ban the IP.
Let me get this straight – we don’t need to keep disabled people alive via artificial nutrition/hydration because the people in the Third World don’t have access to it?!?!? Are people really making this argument?
Soooooooo….I guess we shouldn’t do open heart surgery, etc. either because people in the Third World can’t have the same treatment.
The latest in Catholic teaching is that artificial hydration and nutrition is to be considered normal care if it is available. Artificial hydration and nutrition may be withheld, but only if the patient is already terminal, and the hydration/nutrition is an excessive burden.
Look, if you’re Catholic, you are bound to accept the Church’s teaching on this matter, and the Church has, in recent years, made that teaching clear. It explicitly did so in the Terri Schiavo case.
Of course, war and poverty are big issues. We need to evaluate wars, poverty, and end of life issues according to the Church’s teaching. Some people come to different conclusions regarding the moral legitimacy of various wars, and of course how most effectively to tackle poverty is largely a prudential matter.
The accusations of judgmentalism are just ridiculous. We are called to make moral judgments, but not to judge the state of someone’s soul. If we are not supposed to make moral judgments, you can throw out half the Bible.
The moral theologian at the local seminary (a good orthodox man) does not find the Schiavo case to be an easy call. Reasonable faithful people may disagree in his opinion. So play nice.
To me, it all hinges on the testimony of the doctor that pronounced her brain dead, a doctor who, IMHO, has a certain whiff of the Kevorkian about him. In hearing the case, the courts heard his testimony but refused to hear testimony from a man this same doctor had diagnosed as brain dead – obviously the good Dr. was wrong. There are cases of people who have been declared brain dead, (and a lot less responsive than Mrs. Schiavo,) who were found to be very much alive & alert but unable to respond.
Also, why give morphine to a “dead” woman to ease her suffering? The dead don’t suffer.
The doctor who pronounced her “PVS” is a well known euthanasia advocate up here in Minnesota. ‘Nuff said.
If he killed her why isn’t he in jail? You could not have had any more public a murder. This is hardly a case of crimen, no matter how much you nutwings want it to be.
AND…there is a big difference between “profoundly retarded” and being left with only a brain stem.
Yes. Terri was like the former, and not the later.
The 12:31, 12:37 and 12:41 posters seem to be good at sniping without the whole picture and unable to make their logic consistent.
I made the abuse analogy because of the unsupportable statement that Michael Schiavo was a victim.
None of those three seem to have read anything other than the headlines during March. That is, they did not read how federal regulations were blown off (not once but several times), the conflict of interests, did not read the autopsy report which did not support Michael Schiavo’s claims. Did not read the Vatican statements.
No, instead they consider sniping to be an adequate response.
Ashton wrote:
“Food & water (i.e. nutrition) are *never* an extraordinary or disproportionate means. Nutrition is an ordinary means to sustain life. Any catholic moral philosophy text that you’re reading isn’t catholic or moral or philosophy. It is insanity to assert otherwise. If you believe otherwise, stop eating & drinking!”
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I’ve argued this on Mark Shea’s blog until I became blue in the face!
The develoment of the casuistry in this area is well laid out in “The Catholic Tradition and the Use of Nutrition and Fluids” by John J. Paris, S.J., in Birth, Suffering, and Death, edited by Kevin Wildes, 1992, Kluwer Academic Publishers. I can’t seem to find my copy right now, so unfortunately, I cannot be more specific at this point.
I will repeat an earlier post, to summarize the essence of this position:
The basic principles of Catholic moral teaching concerning illness and dying require that we distinguish. We must do what we can to sustain meaningful human living, but when our therapies cannot restore a person to meaningful life, we may allow the person’s body to die. When thinking about these difficult decisions, we use a distinction that enables us to sort out the relevant facts. We used to refer to this distinction as the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means. For reasons I won’t go into the words “ordinary” and “extraordinary” came to be used in the medical profession differently from the way we used them in making moral decisions, so we changed our terminology to avoid confusion. We now distinguish between proportionate and disproportionate means. (The word “means” denotes all means used to help the sick person.)
We are required to use the means proportionate to securing a good outcome in medical treatment – e.g., the means necessary to restore an unconscious person to conscious living. If a person who is unconscious or suffering terribly from an incurable cancer has no chance of recovery, we may judge that the means used to keep the person’s body alive are only prolonging a death agony and therefore are disproportionate. We, then, may discontinue using these means. The means we discontinue are called disproportionate, which means they are no longer proportionate to a reasonable end. We are still absolutely required to provide whatever care we can that will make the person as comfortable as possible and free from pain. But, when there is no hope of cure and there is no conscious life, we may let a person die.
There used to be a dispute as to whether providing nutrition (food) and hydration (water) could ever be disproportionate. This dispute was resolved decades ago as follows: if a person is unconscious with no hope of recovery so that nutrition and hydration are provided by tubes, or other technology (the person simply cannot eat or drink even with assistance), then the means of providing nutrition and hydration may be judged disproportionate and discontinued. It must be determined that the person is in such a state of unconsciousness that he/she cannot feel pain. If these conditions are not present, we are obliged to provide nutrition and hydration. If these conditions are present, we may withdraw the disproportionate means of providing nutrition and hydration and allow the person’s body to expire.
If I am in error on this issue, then so are the vast majority of catholic moral theologians. I would refer you to the doctoral dissertation of Daniel Cronin from the Gregorian in 1958 (later archbishop of Hartford, Mass.): after a thorough review of over 50 moralists from Aquinas to the 1950s, he concluded “even natural means, such as taking of food and drink, can become optional if taking them requires great effort or if the hope of beneficial results (spes salutis) is not present”.
As merely one example, consider moralist Albert Moraczewski, O.P. “There appears to be no strict ethical obligation to provide nourishment by such technological interventions as intubation.”
Gerald Kelly S.J. stated in 1950 that “no remedy is obligatory unless it offers a reasonable hope of checking or cusing a disease”.
Fr. Robert McManus, asked to advise Biship Gelineau (Providence, Rhode Island) on a case involving a catholic in a persistent vegetative state for 2 years on the morality of removing life-sustaining nutrition and fluids: “The medical treatments which are being provided the patient, even those which are supplying nutrition and hydration artificially, offer no reasonable hope of benefit to her. This lack of reasonable hope or benefit renders the artificially invasive medical treatments futile and thus extraordinary, and disproportionate and unduly burdensome. Moreover, the continuation of such medical treatments is causing a significant and precarious economic burden to [the patient’s] family. It must be unambiguously clear that the primary intention of removing what has been competently judged to be extraordinary means of artificially prolonging the patient’s natural life is to alleviate the burden and suffering of the patient and not to cause her death.”
In 1987, the pro-lfe committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference declared that “laws dealing with medical treatment may have to take account of exceptional circumstances where even means of providing nourishment may be too ineffective of burdensome to be obligatory.” (The Right of the Terminally Ill, 1987).
Take what the Texas bishops adopted in their official guidelines on the use of nutriton and fluids in Catholic hospitals in 1990: patients in a persistent vegetative state can have such treatment withdrawn. They claim this is “not abandoning the person. Rather, it is accepting the fact that the person has come to the end of his or her pilprimage and should not be impeded from taking the final step”.
There has always been an opposing view which (at least until Pope John Paul’s speech in the Spring of 2004), was a minority one. Richard Doerflinger, (vice president of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) is in this camp, contending for years that tube-feeding is not an extraordinary means. But even he admitted that (prior to 2004) there was enough of a debate about the Catholic position that a person could choose which side to take: continue or discontinue tube-feeding. He merely claims that John Paul’s address sealed the issue. Even if you accept this view, it’s a bit rich to simply ignore the nuanced history of the casuistry in the area.
That last (overly-long) post was me. Sorry.
For me, it boils down to this:
As of the wedding, priests of the Diocese of St. Petersburg have provided more sacramental care for Mr. Michael Schiavo than they did for Terri after her injury.
Moreover, Mr. Schiavo routinely denied her access to the sacraments of the Church that he now avails himself of. About which, of course, the Ordinary of the Diocese of St. Petersburg uttered. not. a. peep.
Forgive me if I have little patience for tut-tutting about the lack of charity among Catholics. If you don’t want to relitigate the case, more power to you–but try to at least recognize the problematic aspects to the sacramental angle.
Tony A,
Nice post; you are correct that this is a relatively new issue, and one that has been debated for some time. However, as you also alluded to, Pope JP II and the Vatican, within the last ten years or so, with increasing force, came out against the “artificial nutrition/hydration as extraordinary means” thesis.
Even if this may not yet be regarded as “completely settled”, that is clearly the teaching of the Magisterium at this time.
The only time artificial nutrition/hydration may be withheld (if available) is if the patient is ALREADY terminal and the artificial nutrition/hydration is more of a burden to the patient than a benefit.
Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What’s different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
The difference is that the court order which removed her feeding tube included a prohibition on trying to feed her by mouth.
What was the deal there? Were they afraid she would choke before she could die of dehydration?
If we did gave this stame treatment to a dog, the same people cheering having it done to Terri would be up in arms.
“Brain death” is a legal fiction; it is not a medical condition. It was a legal fiction created in order to justify medical procedures which make live people dead. Check out Dr. Paul Byrne’s “Understanding Brain Death” at the American Life League site.
As to the expense of keeping “someone like Terri” alive – it’s much less expensive than providing “normal” meals in any facility; formula needs no preparation, only a bit of storage space (no refrigeration), no staff to prepare or clearn up, no extra dining room or assistance at dining (such as those patients in nursing homes regularly receive). Feeding tubes cost very little – they average $75 apiece and can be kept in place for a month — longer if the patient is given good hygenic care around the stoma. Feeding pumps are provided free by the companies producing the formula and are easier to use than your average digital alarm clock.
Sorry – forgot to close the tag. I hope you can fix that.
Dale, yes, that is exactly the point.
It is not at all clear to me that the impediment of crimen applies to Michael Schiavo. According to the University of Navarre/University of St. Paul translation of the Code of Canon Law, the impediment applies to a person “with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed…his or her own spouse….” Canon 1090(1). The notes to canon interprets this to mean “that the action should have been perpetrated “with the intention of contracting marriage.”
I think it would be difficult to prove that Michael Schiavo killed Terri with the intention of contracting marriage. For one thing, he has asserted all along that his intention in killing her was a mercy killing and/or that because she was PVS, she was already dead for all practical purposes. Furthermore, if my memory serves, he expressed this intention before he met his putative wife. No doubt it is true that after he met his then-girlfriend, he wanted to get along with his life and marry his girlfriend.
The marriage is eyebrow-raising to be sure, but if the existence of the impediment isn’t manfestly can’t be readily proved, I think one has to presume that the marriage is valid until demonstrated otherwise.
“isn’t manfestly can’t be readily proved”
Should read “isn’t manifest or can’t be readily proved.”
Just who can say or present any evidence that tube feeding for Terri was any kind of burden?? This had been going on for years in her case. She could show her discomfort for other physical conditions, but actually showed desire to be fed in what became usual and expected by her. This wasn’t something suddenly begun that was also suddenly measured as being traumatic for her. Rather, during the time that she was not prevented by the “husband” from going out into the world with her family, she was easily fed, showed a recognition of when it was time for her to be nourished and easily was taken to the mall and for other visits with no problem. This type of feeding is done for toddlers who then participate in all other activities for their age. To the contrary, this timely feeding is less burdensome than, say, having to either feed oneself in a condition such as MS or Parkinsons or cerebral palsy or have someone with much patience take this responsibility. Now, if any toddler, being fed in this way due to disabilities, would be controlled and kept in a dark room with no stimulation and later this behavior was discovered (as we read of rather often these days), they would be immediately removed from such persons and such persons would be prosecuted for neglect and abuse.
Now, everyone was aware of the “husband’s” repeated thuggery with others … stalking to create physical harm … losing control with anger against other family members, etc. Very sad, then, that a bishop and priests should align themselves with one of such a known history as well as siding with the powerful euthanasia movement – very influential in Florida – with those judges and attorneys who actively promote what is manifestly against Church teachings. Remember, no one from the diocese offered the family any kind of emotional support, but to the contrary, priests were forbidden to get involved. So, this additional sin should come as no real surprise for such direct opposition to Church teachings.
Since the bishop got rather annoyed when he was bombarded before re: his rejection of his expected episcopal responsibilities, I say, hopefully he will be “annoyed” again about this.
I think Patrick Rothwell has a good point. I also think the Canon law provision does not require that murder be committed–only that the person “bring about the death” of the spouse. No Court in this Country would order the removal of the feeding tube without some plaintiff (Michael Schiavo) asking for it. To put the blame on the Court alone, as some have done to excuse Michael’s actions here.
Both Bride and Groom should have worn black, to reflect the nature of their hearts.
My only placation is in believing that Terri is in Heaven now. Perhaps even at this moment she is praying for the two of them, I must do the same, though I am less inclined to feel charitably disposed to doing so.
God Bless.
Well, if it were a dog and not a woman, the dog would have been euthanized humanely without the need for starvation. We reserve that kind of suffering for humans in an effort to be “kind”.
Tony A.-
All that material failed to address the fact that Terri Schiavo was not allowed even ORDINARY care in the provision of food and water by mouth.
If a person can eat, drink and swallow, even with assistance, they are by definition, not dead.
Patrick, simply the fact that Michael Schiavo had an adulterous relationship, fathering two children, while insisting on the perogative of a husband in regard to Terri should have been an impediment.
Arguments about giving Mr. Schiavo the benefit of the doubt don’t apply to marriage. If there is a prudent doubt about whether one if the parties is not free to marry, then the marriage cannot be celebrated.
Here are contacts at the Vatican (from their website @ http://www.vatican.va)
Vatican Switchboard: +39.06.6982 (fm USA it is 011 39 06 6982, I think)
Internet Office of the Holy See email address: office@net.va
there is a strong basis in catholic moral philosophy for asserting that withdrawal of food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state is not euthanasia, as these means are considered extraordinary or disproportionate. You people all seem to forget this little detail.
You seem to forget the little detail that you have told these lies before, Tony A.
He was on the topic on Catholic and Enjoying It, too. He went so far as to assert that this has been the rule for centuries — when PVS has not been a diagnosis for that long.
For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support–should that ever become necessary. Would my spouse’s follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
If, by “life support” you meant artificial breathing and maintaining your heart beat, or feeding that caused actual damage, no.
If you mean you don’t want to be feed and live out a normal lifespan, yes.
Food and water via artifical means are definately extraordinary means for most of the Third World, thus, for most of the world.
Time was that all surgery was extraordinary means — before anesthetic. Nevertheless, many operations are not extraordinary now.
Furthermore, if my memory serves, he expressed this intention before he met his putative wife.
He moved in with her shortly after he received the malpractice money, about the time when he “remembered” what Terri said. Obviously, he had met her earlier.
He went so far as to assert that this has been the rule for centuries — when PVS has not been a diagnosis for that long.
And feeding tubes have only been around for decades, not centuries.
You seem to forget the little detail that you have told these lies before, Tony A.
This is not arguing, this is shutting down discussion because you are uncomfortable with another person’s input, which, by the way, is very valid. I can submit names of those in this field who say these very things. The discussion is not closed, even by the papal alloucution. This needs to be followed for sure, but the discussion is not finished. That would be in the area of dogma and doctrine. And no one here seems to be deny the truths of things like the Holy Trinity,
A court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Florida found that TERRI wanted that feeding tube removed.
You may – and many of you obviously do – disagree with that conclusion. You think Terri didn’t want it removed. I’d ask you what evidence you have for that view. At any rate, the court found what it found, and that’s what we have for determining facts which are in dispute. Anyone with a better idea is welcome to offer it.
You may then say that it was immoral for TERRI to want the feeding tube removed, that that desire was in effect suicide. That conclusion is clear neither under Church nor under civil law.
Legally, Michael did not bring about his wife’s death. She did.
Italics off.
The Terri Wars utterly depleted and infuriated me last spring and I have no intention of rehashing and rebutting points everyone went over and over to the point of exhaustion during Lent 2005.
The point of this post is not whether Michael S. had the right to have his wife’s feeding tube removed (according to the laws of the US, he did; the laws of God – well that’s another matter) but whether he had the right to be married in a Catholic Church.
“Look, if you’re Catholic, you are bound to accept the Church’s teaching on this matter, and the Church has, in recent years, made that teaching clear. It explicitly did so in the Terri Schiavo case.”
Bingo. That is the issue. (Certainly not the war, although the usual suspects go into predictable automatic Bush Derangement Syndrome mouth-frothing at the drop of a hat.)
One of the last things Pope JP II did was to issue a statement condemning the withholding of water and food from Terri and asking that her life be spared. Michael S. utterly ignored the Pope.
He.Ignored.The.Pope.
Not the advice of some obscure parish priest or nun. The Pope.
He basically gave the finger to the Supreme Pontiff (not to mention the wishes of her family, who were perfectly willing to care for her) and put the country through hell because Michael just could not be happy until his Terri was 6 feet under. To hell with what anybody else thought or felt or said.
And now he returns to the Church he spit at less than a year ago – for the sacrament of marriage, and his parish priest is happy to perform the ceremony. And there are Catholics defending this?
Pah. I think I’m going to puke.
Are there really Catholics out there defending this slimeball after he denied his dying spouse access to the Eucharist?
“A court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Florida found that TERRI wanted that feeding tube removed.”
A court of COMPETENT (dripping with sarcasim) jurisdiction also allowed someone to sue McDonalds because their coffee was hot (isn’t coffee supposed to be hot?), allowed a prisoner to sue the because the peanut butter was not crunchy enough, and allowed someone to sue Applebee’s (I think it was) for embarasing him by singing “Happy Birthday” to him at the request of the man’s friends. There are so many cases like this across the US that I don’t know how we can assume that a court is COMPETENT just because they have attained such a position.
BTW if Terri had been an animal been denyed nutrition and hydration, Michael would have spent 18 months in prision. Isn’t it sad that animals have more rights than people.
Susan,
I’m sure that people had similar discussions about Jesus shortly after Pilate ordered his execution. It is possible for the courts to do evil, as they demonstrably have produced evil (and not just in this country). I would disagree with your few facts wholeheartedly. The court was not competent. The judge had a history of pro-euthanasia cases. The case came down to a matter of Michael’s word versus the parents. Michael had a clear conflict of interest. He did not make an objectively concentrated effort at Terri’s rehabilitation after her accident. The diagnosis of PVS is not well understood and therefore not well applied. I ask you: what evidence do you have for thinking that Terri wanted to die? Do you think that a court in a different area would have ruled differently? Michael’s lawyer sure did (as evidenced by the amount of effort expended by his lawyer to keep the case at this particular court).
Even if Terri wanted to die, Michael had all the legal marbles. There was *no* written testimony by Terri. Michael petitioned the courts in order to kill his wife. No other reason for that particular lawyer. Terri may have wanted to die, but Michael did everything to ensure it. Legally, Michael killed her (and yes, at least Oregon says this isn’t a crime, but it doesn’t change the nature of the act).
The hospital was ordered to not feed Terri orally (though she was certainly able to function in this manner). Michael ensured that Terri would not be fed through extraordinary (and yes, this is a point of contention in the thread) or ordinary means. Shame on the doctors, shame on the law, shame on Michael, but most of all, shame on that diocese.
“Patrick, simply the fact that Michael Schiavo had an adulterous relationship, fathering two children, while insisting on the perogative of a husband in regard to Terri should have been an impediment.”
But it isn’t one.
“Arguments about giving Mr. Schiavo the benefit of the doubt don’t apply to marriage. If there is a prudent doubt about whether one if the parties is not free to marry, then the marriage cannot be celebrated.”
This is not the case according to Father Rob Johansen. I think he is basically right, here.
“However, as relevant as those questions are, and as repugnant as Schiavo’s mockery of the Sacrament is, I think that even if a priest or bishop were inclined to try to prevent Schiavo’s wedding, they’d have a hard time doing so, at least as Canon Law is currently understood and practiced in the US.
You see, Canon 1058 provides that “all can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law”. In my Canon Law classes, I was taught that, in the absence of nearly certain knowledge of a canonical impediment (that is, those specifically enumerated in law) this meant that the right of Catholics to marry in the Church is nearly absolute. I and my fellow priests were taught that, in order to prevent a couple from marrying, you pretty much needed a smoking gun to justify it. Why? Because of Canon 18:
Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.
In other words, unless the couple were related too closely, or one party was in religious vows or Orders, had perpetrated a fraud on the other party, had openly and expressly denied some aspect of the Catholic doctrine of marriage, had been convicted of murdering his/her previous spouse, or demonstrably fit one of the other defined impediments, you had to let them marry. You could urge a couple to delay their marriage, or you could even personally decline to witness it, but you could not refuse it altogether without a very serious reason, which you had better be able to prove.”
http://thrownback.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_thrownback_archive.html#113806303843412656
Someone said that Michael met his now-wife after he received malpractice money and that therefore, he met her earlier. That may be so, and it looks bad, but it does not prove that he murdered his wife for the purpose of marrying his girlfriend. He may be a scumbag murderer, but I am not convinced that the marriage is canonically invalid. Whether it should be is another matter.
So, to all of those anonymous posters who insist that Terry Schaivo wasn’t murdered:
A man has a dog. The dog is denied food and water. A neighbor calls the police to report. The man gets arrested and stands trial for animal abuse and neglect.
Funny how we get up in arms about a dog being mistreated, but we are supposed to do the “Christian thing” and turn the other cheek about the deliberate murder of a fellow human being.
Canon Law allows for the ethical removal of life support measures. A person who has indeed suffered brain death can safely have a respirator removed. HOWEVER a person who has a brain injury does not equal a person who has suffered brain death. AND the delivery of food and water to a disabled patient is not a comfort measure. It is a NECESSARY MEASURE. By denying Terry such a basic human necessity as nourishment and hydration, her husband commited murder.
He would have been charged for killing a dog in such a manner. Plain and simple fact.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Patrick, other than your say so, “But it isn’t one” please explain your response.
Andrew O.P.: Stating a fact about Tony A. is hardly “shutting down the discussion”. “Please try to control your leaps of illogic.” (Spock to McCoy)
Was George Felos,America’s Creepiest Lawyer (yeah, plenty of stiff competition for that title, I know) Michael’s best man? Would have been appropriate.
anon: ” I am a quality of life advocate… For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support–should that ever become necessary.”
Ah, death! Nature’s miracle cure and hope of the medical insurance companies! There’s no disease that death cannot fix and no condition too pervasive that it can’t change (except of course more death).
Anon, if you are so considerate to spare the world the “burden” of your drooling, brain dead presence, why not spare us the burden of your present state of brain dead frothing?
For your blessed consistency sake, I think you should follow suit with the other culture of death believers and plead the right to perpetual silence.
Andrew OP, all I can say is–God help the Dominicans!
God bless,
Diane
Donna,
Felos as best man would have been very appropriate.
Why “God help the Dominicans” Diane? Because I disagree with a clearly unfinished bit of theological and ethical teaching? That is what Dominicans do my friend, we fight through the issues and try to come to reasonable conclusions that sometimes are at odds with the documents that come out of Rome. Please read your Church history. As well as understanding the hierarchy of truths within the teachings of the Church. Dominicans are not the blind defenders of every Papal statement. We often times write them!
To those who think food and drink in Terri’s case constituted unnecessary extraordinary means, they need to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church more closely.
Look carefully: “One’s inability to impede death is merely accepted” implies that this is a case where the person will die, regardless of treatment. That is clear. You don’t accept your inability to impede death when treatment is all that is needed to keep a person alive. Such a person is not terminally ill. They’re going to die eventually like the rest of us, but it’s not going to be as a result of their current condition!
Terri Schiavo was NOT TERMINALLY ILL. The outcome of her condition was NOT DEATH, REGARDLESS of whether she had food and water.
I think Tim J. is suggesting that it hinges on whether she could be given food orally and that she was never even offered it, probably based on reports that she could swallow–but while that’s also a good point, I don’t see it as the main point.
The main point is that she was not terminally ill.
In contrast to this, we might have the cases of those who ARE terminally ill, and whose outcome WOULD be death, regardless of what treatments they were getting. For example, a person whose lungs (bronchial tubes) are becoming increasingly incapacitated until they will finally become non-functional to the point where even a ventilator won’t help, will eventually die from this condition. This person does not need to stay on a ventilator. Why? The outcome of all of this treatment is going to be death, regardless, and the ventilator is an extraordinary means for prolonging death.
In Terri’s case, she was not terminally ill. Her death was not being PROLONGED by feeding her, because there was no imminent prospect of death regardless of whether she was fed. Her death was deliberately CAUSED.
Why did Michael Schiavo purport to do this? To eliminate suffering? I don’t think he would even admit she could be capable of suffering, but if this was his motivation:
…And she would have had to have been terminally ill.
Was the treatment (administering food and fluids through a tube) extraordinary means?
Pope John Paul II said that it was not. Food and fluids are a basic necessity of life. They’re not a treatment intended to heal any condition; they are needed by everyone. The Catholic Church has elaborated on the concept of “extraordinary means” by defining which kinds of means are proportionate or disproportionate. It is all written in the context of REMEDIES, however. When you read this document, and find where it is talking about disproportionate means, it is clearly instructing us in the way of remedies and treatments–which food and water are NOT. Were we feeding Terri Schiavo in order to heal her? Was the food and drink, “medicine”? No! We were feeding her because she needed food like everyone else.
Then the document clarifies what can be considered in determining which kinds of treatments are disproportionate. It is key to remember, we weren’t giving Terri food as a medicine to heal her. If food could be considered a healing medicine, then we could argue about whether the feeding was disproportionate.
One might object that a feeding tube itself is a treatment, and in light of this, argue on grounds to consider the feeding tube itself as disproportionate. But still you have this problem: The goal of the feeding tube is to feed her, and the result of the feeding tube was successful as expected.
If a person were completely responsive, talking, and moving around, but could not eat, is there any QUESTION that a feeding tube is not an extraordinary means? It is relatively simple, is not terribly costly–especially when you consider that Terri’s parents were willing to incur all of these costs, and compare these costs to other “treatments”–the degree of risk is quite low, and Terri was not in “the state of a sick person”.
The feeding tube never fell short of expectations. It fed her just fine. Is the feeding tube disproportionate to the results foreseen? Who can prove that it imposed strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which Terri gained from this technique? On the contrary, the reports are innumerable that it was a relatively simple procedure and that Terri did not suffer unduly from being fed through the tube.
Feeding Terri through a tube had the aim of getting her fed, and it accomplished that. None of the teaching about disporportionate means applies to the use of her feeding tube, though people mistakenly argue from the vantage point that one has to do with the other. Feeding any spry and alert person through a feeding tube accomplishes the same result–and who would question whether that was proportionate, in such a case? If a relative of yours expressed the will to live and needed a feeding tube in order to do so, would you tell him or her that the feeding tube is disproportionate? No, because the end result is to feed your relative, not to heal him or her. The fact that Terri was brain-damaged does not change this basic point, to which her brain damage is irrelevant . The end result of the feeding tube was the same for her as it is for anyone else.
The most important points to me, from above:
1) “One of the last things Pope JP II did was to issue a statement condemning the withholding of water and food from Terri and asking that her life be spared. Michael S. utterly ignored the Pope. He.Ignored.The.Pope.”
2) He denied his dying wife the Eucharist. Her parents could not even let a CRUMB or a DROP touch her lips.
And Catholics are defending his “Catholic” marriage why???
ALSO:
3) The ONLY evidence that she supposedly would have wanted the tube removed was a random comment she made after watching a TV movie. With no other witnesses but him.
4) SHE WAS NOT TERMINAL.
5) He refused a civil divorce. It seems every single thing he did was to torment her parents, NOT to “save” her from anything.
Andrew,
God have mercy on you because you certainly are not preaching God’s Truth.
Dominicans are not the blind defenders of every Papal statement. We often times write them!
Well at least you got the blind part right.
Dear anonymous:
1) My opinions on these issues are pretty much the same as yours. That said, I don’t think you are obtaining much here. There are places where you can have interesting and productive discussions on ethics even with people who base their morals on religion. This is not such a place, at least not for people like you and me. Come here to get an understanding of the Catholic Church, expert canon law advice, and funny science fiction posts. Do not come here to try to persuade faithful Catholics to opinions opposed to their Church’s, unless you want to waste your time.
2) If, despite point 1), you want to continue posting and arguing, I’d like you to take on a nickname. It’s one of the basic tenets of Internet politeness, which shouldn’t be denied even to people with whom we disagree on every level.
Yes, it’s me, your great “bogeyman” who made these arguments before on Mark Shea’s site. Since I stated up front I was basically doing a cut and paste job, what’s the point of “outing” me? Everything I have to say is in that post. It summarizes hours and hours of torturous and frustrating debate. To repeat myself, and get all worked up, at this point would be pointless.
God bless the Dominicans for all the great work they do. I’m really looking foward to reading Timothy Radcliffe’s new book. And God bless the Jesuits. I owe them such a great debt. And let us all pray that the rigidity, lack of charity, and theological illiteracy that so pervades parts of the Catholic blogosphere may be lifted.
Let me translate some of Tony A’s terms:
“Rigidity”: Faith
“Lack of Charity”: You correct my errors
“Theological Illiteracy”: You disagree with me
“Do not come here to try to persuade faithful Catholics to opinions opposed to their Church’s, unless you want to waste your time.”.
Nihil –
You must know that I and many others here will consider this a great compliment.
Thank you.
Certainly courts, like all other human institutions, do bad things, wrong things. Anyone who has a better means of deciding disputed facts is more than welcome to make suggestions.
I don’t have to have evidence for anything. Both Terri’s husband and her parents were able to, and did, drag all the evidence they had into court before the judge. He decided that it was “clear and convincing” that she did not want to keep that feeding tube in place. That holding was reviewed in NUMEROUS appellate court decisions, and always upheld.
What did Terri want? You don’t know, and I don’t know either. I didn’t know her. When we collectively had to make a decision on that point, it was taken to court, and the court decided she wanted the tube unhooked.
All complaints here are based, so far as I can tell, on the fact that the writers don’t like the decision the court came up with. Well, I don’t like the decision in the OJ Simpson criminal case. (On the basis of nothing much.) But I’m not ready to overturn our entire legal system on that basis. Even if the LA court made a mistake, well, courts make mistakes, we all know that, it’s just that this process is the best we have.
You people want to make it MANDATORY that EVERYONE be hooked up to feeding tubes until they die of other causes, regardless of their own wishes? Write your elected representatives. The law on this point can be changed. You want to be sure that YOU are hooked up to a feeding tube until you die of other causes? Write it down for us.
“All complaints here are based, so far as I can tell, on the fact that the writers don’t like the decision the court came up with.” You must have been very selective in which comments you read in order to come to that conclusion.
“But I’m not ready to overturn our entire legal system on that basis.” This is a straw man; no one made any such suggestion.
Susan-
I think if you will look back at the comments here, you will see that most people are not arguing the legality of the court’s decision, but the morality of the act of starving Terri Schiavo to death.
We are under one law as citizens of the state, but under another law (a higher law) as faithful Catholics. Obviously, if Michael Schiavio wanted to get married in a civil ceremony, there was nothing to impede him.
His behavior as a Catholic, though, falls under a different authority. There is now serious doubt as to whether he (and others) properly submitted to that authority, even though he sought the benefits (the sacraments) of being under that authority.
The wishes of the patient in the matter, if they are at odds with the teaching of the Church, are not the deciding factor in the morality of the act, even if they do decide the legal question.
So, what would you suggest, bill912?
That this particular judge not be a judge? And you will pick over all the trial judges in the nation on the basis of what criteria? That everyone be mandated to have feeding tubes whether they want them or not? What? I am honestly confused.
I get it that everyone or nearly everyone here is unhappy with the way this case came out, but I can’t figure out what the consensus is as to what should be done about this, or what should have been done. That Terri’s husband not hold the belief (later validated by a court) that she would not want to continue in her condition? (I don’t think anyone here knows Michael Schiavo well enough to say with certainty that his belief on that point was not an honest one.) That even if he did believe that that he be determined to violate her own wishes? That Terri should not have wanted the feeding tube disconnected? Well, that’s interesting, but not too important, what other people think about what Terri wanted. I’m not sure I’d want the continuation of artificial feeding myself under those circumstances, and as has been pointed out here, it isn’t yet settle Church law that I have to want that. Not to mention civil law, which holds no such thing.
Those who think the court decided wrongly disagree with the numerous appeals courts who found that Judge Greer did his job in a legal and workmanlike manner. If you will read the documents, you will find that at least one appeals court went to the extra trouble of watching ALL the videotapes of Terri (not just the snippets we saw online), hours of it, and ended up agreeing with Greer as to her current condition, even though their decision did not depend on that.
Maybe Greer was wrong. That’s certainly possible. As I said, courts are wrong all the time. But Judge Greer did what I have not done: he listened to DAYS of testimony on the question of what Terri wanted. He made his decision on that basis. I, who have not heard that testimony, who know only what I read on the internet, have in all good conscience to give him at least the benefit of the doubt.
Let me ask you all this: what if Judge Greer was right after all? What if Terri really did want that tube disconnected? You may think than an unwise decision, or a morally wrong decision, but to what extent are you prepared to substitute your opinion for hers, and why? And does that mean that EVERYONE will be connected to these tubes until they die of something else, regardless of what they want?
Regardless of your answers to these questions, I personally do not see why Michael should not get married in the Church. The decision to unhook the tube was in fact made by Terri. Or so the court held.
I’m all for getting angry, but let’s get our facts straight first.
OK, Tim, but as I’m reading here, the teaching of the Church isn’t exactly totally settled on this point. If in fact it is not, then Terri’s decision is not clearly against that teaching. In fact, it was held that she made that decision BEFORE the Pope made his statement about artificial feeding – years before. And even after that there is some room, I think at least, for individual decision.
Whether or no, I don’t see why we here are anxious to hold Terri Schiavo to Roman Catholic teaching (as we perceive it, rightly or wrongly). There is a greater Judge who has taken up that question.
Would those here FORCE Terri to live by Catholic teaching? And why or how would they do that? We don’t do that in other areas, thank God, or every home would have the Roman Watchers in it.
If we assume, as I think we must, that Terri wanted that tube disconnected, it is far from clear to me that Michael, in seeking to carry that wish out, violated Catholic teaching. (I’m not even sure TERRI was wrong, let alone those who assisted her.) In any case, the argument against his marriage seems attenuated at best.
“So what would you suggest, bill912?”
1) Actually read the comments you comment on, so you don’t make false generalizations like the one I quoted.
2) Don’t set up straw men.
“Both Terri’s husband and her parents were able to, and did, drag all the evidence they had into court before the judge.”
I was under the impression from interviews with Terri’s parents and their lawyers that not all evidence was presented before the court (or jury?) (because it was ruled not germane or whatever) and certain lines of inquiry/investigation into Terri’s state of health were specifically barred by the courts. Was this misinformation from Terri’s folks and their lawyers?
Susan,
Why must we assume Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death? Because Michael told a court that he remembered (after being awarded over a million dollars for her care) some comment he claims she made. Her father, mother, brother and sister were sure that Terri would have wanted the most basic care and food and water. They were willing to provide it for her. Michael Schiavo clearly was not going to let anyone provide any therapy but he asked a court to let him use the award money for his court cost.
Catholic Teaching is very clear that we respect the dignity and sanctity of human life. What could be more clear than feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty? Starving to death a helpless person is murder, even if you think it is their wish. And those here who point out it is not settled teaching are doing back flips to get around Pope JP II writings.
Michael Schiavo asked a court to block ANY feeding of Terri. An analogy would be to remove someone from a ventilator and in case they could breath on their own, then make sure all the oxygen in their room was removed. That is murder plain and simple.
Michael Schiavo asked that he be allowed to starve his defenseless wife to death and this judge ordered it done. If you don’t think he did this because he wanted to marry his mistress and keep whatever award money was left you need to open your eyes.
So pardon us if we see the fact that Terri was tortured to death and you close your eyes to it.
You use the term “artifical” feeding? What is your definition of natural feeding? Is using a spoon “artificial” means of feeding?
Lord, have mercy on all of us.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
If he killed her why isn’t he in jail? You could not have had any more public a murder. This is hardly a case of crimen, no matter how much you nutwings want it to be.
Michael used the court system to garner state-sanctioned murder for his wife.
If a mother had starved and dehydrated her son to death, it would be murder. If a man starved and dehydrated his dog to death, it would be animal abuse leading to murder. Michael did everything in his power to make sure Terri died a slow, horrible death, and made sure he had the blessing of judicial and government officials before doing so.
And I’d rather put my life in the hands of one of these “nutwings” than the likes of you or Michael. At least they won’t chomp at the bit to have me killed.
Susan, if you want to stick to facts, you should also consider the following facts:
Michael Schiavo did not make a care plan (required by Federal regulations) for at least 2 years, made legal only because Greer signed off on it.
Terri was admitted to a hospice without meeting admission criteria, in fact bypassing the normal admission routine.
Felos, chairman of the board of that hospice and Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, had a clear ethical conflict of interest which Greer did nothing about, only after others raised a fuss
there was apparently another conflict of interest with the insurance company (that I just learned about recently and haven’t thoroughly read up on yet)
casual comments were included as evidence when presented by Michael Schiavo or his family, and excluded when presented by a friend or caregiver of Terri
The autopsy did not support Michael Schiavo’s claim of an eating disorder.
That’s a partial list.
“Catholic teaching is very clear that we respect the dignity and sanctity of human life. What could be more clear than feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty?”
“Come, O blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink”…”Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me”…”Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink”…”Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to Me.” Matthew 25: 34-35, 40, 41-42, 47. Looks pretty clear to me, too.
What I meant to add to my partial list above was that the multitude of court decision who looked at Greer’s work simply looked to make sure that he dotted his i’s and crossed the t’s. None of them looked at the original evidence.
Wouldn’t you love to have “Promoter of Justice” be your job title?
I had to have a minor operation recently, and it took me three hours to give the Advance Directive enough teeth to thwart those ghouls at the insurance company.
Patrick Rothwell is right: murderer, liar, adulterer, and slimeball though Michael Schiavo undoubtably is, canon law requires proof that the murder was committed with the intent to marry a specific person, in order for the impediment to exist. A letter or sworn testimony that he said, “I’ll kill her so we can get married” would be evidence enough, but in the absence of that it would probably have been impossible to prevent the marriage. Reasonable presumption would not suffice to prove intention and the existence of the impediment, although they’re a perfectly proper basis for an evaluation of Schiavo’s general character.
Evidence for your conclusion, Elinor?
Thank you bill912 for asking that. I don’t see that either Elinor or PR read my article, including discussion of this very point, from two years ago, in THIS ROCK.
Ed,
Was wondering if you have an update as to what affect the calls and inquiries are having? I haven’t recieved any answer from my query sent to the “promoter of justice.”
Joe
Elinor-
Michael Schiavo had been referring to his live-in as his “fiance” for years.
Had he civilly divorced Terri and allowed her to live, he would have been free to re-marry, but the large cash settlement Terri received would then have gone toward her continued treatment, which he would have been disqualified from supervising.
In order for the cash settlement to become his, Mr. Schiavo had to remain married to Terri until her death. This he arranged. It was the only scenario in which he would end up with the cash AND still get the girl.
He clearly caused the death of his wife with a view to marrying this other woman.
Even this cursory examination should throw up a host of red flags to anyone interested in the truth.
Jimmy is right. Catholics deserve an explanation.
Tim is right.
As I said earlier, it may not be written law, but the second Michael cheated on Terri he was going against his marriage vows.
Think about it: Terri was in a hospital with a severe illness, meanwhile her husband is seeing and fathering children by another woman. Does this not bother those of you who defend Michael? Instead of practicing the fidelity he promised Terri on their wedding day, he chose to leave her because she could not provide for his physical needs and because he was to selfish to care for Terri when she needed it.
On top of that, he selfishly prevents Terri’s parents from taking over her care…despite their being willing, ready, and able to do so.
And he waited how long to disclose Terri’s wishes about dying? Long enough to secure a cash settlement and set him – and his mistress – up for a good life.
There is no logical argument left to defend his actions. He intended to get rid of (i.e., murder) Terri so he could get on with his life. Getting married to his mistress is part of that, and therefore one of the reasons he was so eager to stop Terri’s nourishment.
As a parishioner of Espiritu Santo Catholic Church, I was truly sick to my stomach when I first heard the news that M. Schiavo was married at our parish. It occurred just minutes after 200 children received the Sacrament of Reconcilliation for the first time. Many of us are disillusioned and feel betrayed by our leaders.
However, I REALLY needed to know why this occurred and now I have some, although not all, of the answers. The bottom line is M. Schiavo is not Catholic (although he managed to marry not one, but two Catholic women) and therefore, Catholic Canon law does not apply to him.
There was the issue of a divorce on the part of his new wife but this supposedly this was dealt with prior to the wedding. I think the secrecy and silence is part of what is maddening and downright disturbing about this. The Diocese needs to address this publicly, sooner rather than later.
I can’t say that any of this information makes it easier to deal with but rather that it is out of our hands and into God’s.
I ask that all reading pray for Fr. Bob Schneider, the Pastor who also performed the ceremony; for Bishop Lynch, who – as Dale Price put it – allowed his Diocese to be more sacramental to M. Schiavo than it ever was towards Terri; for Terri’s family for having to endure yet another sordid chapter in this terrible tragedy and finally for M. Schiavo, that he comes to fully realize what he did to Terri. May God have mercy on his soul.
Very interesting, Anon for Now. I guess I was assuming, as many here seem to be assuming, that Michael was a Catholic. Of course as a non-Catholic canon law does not apply to him. (I think. I’m not a canon lawyer.)
As for Amy P’s adultery question, I try to put myself in Terri’s place. I’m a young woman, trying to get pregnant (as she was) and some horrible thing happens to me, and I’m incapacitated, never to recover significantly.
As it happens I did marry very young, we are still married, and I love him deeply. Speaking only as I would speak, if such a thing had happened to me, I would hope and pray that my young husband had the sense to fall in love again and start the family he and I could not have, even if I were still “alive.” As Michael did. I don’t think we can automatically assume that Terri wouldn’t have felt like that too.
Doesn’t Canon Law about marriage apply to non-Catholics when they are marrying a Catholic?
I believe that Dr. Peters is a Canon lawyer, and could answer the questions about its applicability under these circumstances.
Anyone interested in reading the actual court documents should check at http://abstractappeal.com/
where they are posted.
As for evidence, all legally admissible evidence that either party wished to present at the trial was presented at the trial. Numerous appeals courts held that no error was made in the exclusion of admissible evidence. (Not all “information” is admissible at trial, for reasons mostly having to do with its reliability or relevance.)
I suppose the canon law question would be – and I speak here NOT as a canon lawyer, which I am not – whether Michael brought about his wife’s death as a matter of canon law. As a matter of the law of Flordia, he did not. According to the law of the State of Florida, Terri herself was responsible for the discontinuation of artificial feeding. (It had been medically determined, and this was confirmed upon autopsy, that she could not ingest food or liquids by mouth without contracting pneumonia, which would have killed her.)
I don’t know whether this fact – that it was Terri’s wish that was respected – would have any impact on the decision under canon law. I know very little about that legal system.
Mary Kay is correct in her assessment of the court of appeals decision in the Schaivo case. Upper courts are not there to second guess the merits of any given case, but to determine whether or not the plantiff’s constitutional rights have been violated. The courts merely look at the procedural aspects of the case (did Terri’s parents have proper representation, were the rules of the Florida justice system followed, etc.) However the judge in the Schaivo case may have allowed personal ideology to color the outcome of the case, it was procedurally correct enough for the court of appeals to sustain the decision.
Further, however correct or incorrect the courts of this land are, they have no bearing on whether Michael’s acts were right in the eyes of the Catholic Church, nor on the Church’s response to his actions. A marriage blessed by a Catholic priest is not a right and Michael’s lack of prison stripes should not be a determative factor in whether or not he receives that blessing.
In other words, those who posit that because the justice system gave Michael a pass, so should the Church are just wrong. The Church must look at the event with fresh eyes, not allow local bishops to deem that what the courts decided is the final word on the subject.
Susan,
I repeat my question from above:
Why must we assume Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death?
You want us to accept that is her wish based on what?
Because Michael told a court that he remembered (after being awarded over a million dollars for her care) some comment he claims she made. Her father, mother, brother and sister were sure that Terri would have wanted the most basic care and food and water. They were willing to provide it for her. Michael Schiavo clearly was not going to let anyone provide any therapy but he asked a court to let him use the award money for his court cost.
Have you read the document that Karen quoted and linked to?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html
It gives a clear understanding of Catholic Teaching on the issues being discussed.
You would WANT your husband to sin against God and you by ignoring the wedding vows he took before God and the Church. If a spouse choses to marry after the death of their spouse, it is allowed “death do us part” but to ATTEMPT marriage while already married is committing a sin. That does not make sense and is not love.
Love wants the best for the other, which of course is eternity with God in Heaven.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
“It had been medically determined, and this was confirmed upon autopsy, that she could not ingest food or liquids by mouth without contracting pneumonia, which would have killed her.”.
Susan-
My wife is a speech pathologist, and sometimes works with clients who have problems swallowing. Using different physical therapy methods, she has actually helped teach people to swallow.
For a number of disabled people, swallowing is a learned skill that requires continued practice and therapy. If that therapy is removed (as in Terri Schiavo’s case) the patient can revert to the point that swallowing is not possible without aspirating bits of food, which could indeed lead to pneumonia.
With proper therapy, Terri might very well have been able to take food, but this was never allowed by Mr. Schiavo once his wife was placed on the feeding tube (which is a good deal cheaper than physical therapy, BTW).
She was certainly able to swallow before she was put on the feeding tube, and may have been able to continue taking food orally, had Mr. Schiavo been willing to pay for ongoing therapy.
I keep saying this, but I realize that some people here are incapable of understanding it. I say that Terri wanted that tube disconnected because a court of law found, after hearing evidence on both sides, that there was clear and convincing evidence that she did.
I’d like to know how those who disagree know that she didn’t.
At any rate, when facts (like Terri’s desires) are in dispute, what we do here is have a trial. Then the court determines the state of the disputed fact. If anyone here has a better way to determine the state of facts in dispute, he or she is invited to suggest it. Merely saying, as many here do, that Terri Schiavo, a total stranger, would want what I in my omniscience think she did want or should want is not a determination of fact.
I am not a physician. Those who understand such things have determined from the autopsy report that not only was Terri cortically blind – that is, the part of her brain that should have received visual images was destroyed – but she was unable to swallow, for the same reason, that the relevant portion of the brain was no longer present. No therapy known to me at least can restore destroyed brain tissue, though again I am not an expert in this area. A link to the autopsy report can be found at http://abstractappeal.com/
I’d like to say this too. This was a bitter intra-family dispute which unfortunately was dragged into the public view. Decisions like the ones the Schindler-Schiavo family faced are made by anguished families every day. I can only be glad that it was not my family which was in this spotlight.
The technology of artificial feeding – the devices, the asceptic technology, the liquid food – which kept Terri alive so long was invented during my lifetime, and is still unavailable to the vast majority of people on this planet. Anyone who collapsed before the invention of this device, and almost anyone in the third world even now, would die within days or weeks of the initial event. That’s just the way it is. It is only a few people who even have access to the feeding technology that kept Terri going for so many years.
Do we fear death so much? Is it even appropriate to cling to organic life with such energy and expense, while so many children in this world die because they have no clean water to drink, and no access to vaccination?
I know the assured people here, who know so much, will be quick to attack this kind of reasoning. But I’m just thinking, you know?
I’m a big fan of Humanae Vitae, not just for its conclusions, but for its assumptions. What HV says is, “come to terms with your body, make a deal with yourself as a mammal.” I for one do not understand how I can make any kind of deal with a whale or a redwood tree if I’m not willing to make a deal with my own body, with my rhythms and my mortality.
According the autopsy, Terri’s brain, or what was meaningful of it, died the night her heart stopped. I’m wondering if she didn’t make the right decision after all. Maybe it really was time to let go.
People keep saying this, but I realize that Susan here is incapable of understanding it. The question is not whether the court’s finding was wrong or right. The question is whether an impediment exists to prevent a valid marriage bond from being established between Schiavo and his cooky. I’m reasonably sure that Schiavo did kill his wife in order to marry this chick, but my reasonable deduction, or anyone’s, isn’t sufficient. Canon law requires proof, because the Church chooses to restrict the freedom to marry as little as possible. Of course he’s a murderer and a fornicator and an SOB generally, but if there wasn’t proof of his intention to kill her especially to marry that particular woman, there can be no impediment. I think, for instance, that if there were any evidence of his having talked about pulling the plug on Terri before he started to shack up with this one, that would offset the strong indications that Schiavo did indeed kill his wife in order to marry her.
Susan, you keep saying Terri wanted the tube removed because the court said so, this time adding hearing evidence from both sides. But there was nothing in writing and the court decision was based on Michael and his immediate family saying Terri had made a casual comment to that effect. So what it was based on was Michael’s word and he was hardly free from a conflict of interest.
“…if there wasn’t proof of her intention to kill her especially to marry that particular woman, there can be no immpediment.” Elinor, you made the same comment earlier. I asked you to provide some evidence to back up the claim.Ed Peters, who is a canon lawyer, thanked me for asking you to do so. I ask you again.
Susan,
What HV says is, “come to terms with your body, make a deal with yourself as a mammal.”
What are you talking about? Could you kindly cite where I will find your quote? If that is the understanding you came away with you might want to go back and read HV again.
And if you really want to know whether it is “appropriate to cling to organic life with such energy and expense” read the document Karen quoted and linked to it is not very long at all. It makes the Church’s teaching very clear and you won’t have to guess anymore.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
According the autopsy, Terri’s brain, or what was meaningful of it, died the night her heart stopped.
I don’t think the autopsy said that at all. In fact it could not conclude in certainty too much about the cause or even just how much Terri could have improved if the intensive therapy had continued. It negated even what was sworn to in court as to have been the cause. IOW, her late condition could have deteriorated due to her neglect by the guardian for all those years. The fact is today that if she had not been dehydrated and starved she had a prognosis of around 20 or 30 years. She would be living today still with those who wished her to and who would be continuing their loving care. The judge, the attorney and especially the husband had enormous conflicts of interest. The judge should have recused himself. This was a corrupt court used to facilitate the favored client according to the strong euthanasia movement. And this was noted by a governor, the pro-life president and congress. The so-called “legality” of this court’s ruling was greatly challenged by lawmakers with more experience and standing. In this case, it was obviously that God had placed life and death before the country and the culture of death gave it thumbs down. So, even with some form of a living will, it will make no difference if certain persons wish to give it a negative (death wish) twist. And those who favored this ruling are putting the nails in their own coffins.
To see people defending Michael Schiavo’s actions by saying that it is a private family matter, or that there are people starving in Africa is just beyond comprehension.
G.K. Chesterton was right;
“When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.”.
Chris K,
Excellent point!
This case seems eerily similar to Roe v. Wade, another case based on lies. Terri’s story was always portrayed as a “right to die” case by the media and used that way by euthanasia advocates.
Sadly so many people accept that portrayal and put nails not only in their own coffins but those of weakest among us.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Tim J,
I also, as Susan said, am “incapable of understanding it” because it IS beyond comprehesion.
Thankfully, we have the Church to guide us, IF we take the time to listen to her and read the documents rather than purposely remain ignorant.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Susan, you keep saying Terri wanted the tube removed because the court said so, this time adding hearing evidence from both sides. But there was nothing in writing and the court decision was based on Michael and his immediate family saying Terri had made a casual comment to that effect. So what it was based on was Michael’s word and he was hardly free from a conflict of interest.
MaryKay, you just disagree with the court’s decision, as do many here. That is of course our right. To disagree. I disagree with the verdict in the OJ Simpson case. However, I recognize that the people who heard ALL the evidence might possibly know more than I do about what really happened.
As for the canon law question, my only point was that according to what actually happened under Florida law, Michael Schiavo did not bring about his wife’s death in order to marry his new wife or for any other reason, or at all. Terri brought about her own death. Whether the canon courts would see it differently, I have no idea.
Susan wrote:
As for Amy P’s adultery question, I try to put myself in Terri’s place. I’m a young woman, trying to get pregnant (as she was) and some horrible thing happens to me, and I’m incapacitated, never to recover significantly.
As it happens I did marry very young, we are still married, and I love him deeply. Speaking only as I would speak, if such a thing had happened to me, I would hope and pray that my young husband had the sense to fall in love again and start the family he and I could not have, even if I were still “alive.” As Michael did. I don’t think we can automatically assume that Terri wouldn’t have felt like that too.
I’m Amy P’s husband. If something like that happened to her (God forbid), I’d make sure she got the best care possible, and spend every free hour by her side. After her death, I’d likely wait awhile before dating again.
I certainly would not start looking around before my wife was dead, much less get into an adulterous relationship and beget children.
“In sickness and in health” and “till death do us part” mean something.
Terri brought about her own death.
How??
OK, you guys, but I still don’t entirely understand your position.
Let us suppose that I am a Roman Catholic, and I decide that if I am in Terri Schiavo’s situation I do NOT want to be fed or hydrated by tube. And let us suppose that I write this down, so we don’t get into this dispute – which is really what this case was all about – about what I want.
So far as California law goes, I am well within my rights making such a determination.
What would the posters here think appropriate under the teaching of the Church? Perhaps I am a sinner by your definitions (or perhaps not, that’s NOT crystal clear). Would you use the force of law to PREVENT the unhooking of my feeding tube, keep it hooked up, against my wishes? If my husband supported my decision, would it be your position that he would be prohibited from marrying again in the Church afterwards?
I guess I’m trying to figure out whether you just disagree with the court, and think Terri wanted the feeding tube kept in (and if so, I’d be curious how you came to that determination, unless you knew her personally), or whether you think the tube should have remained in place REGARDLESS of what she wanted.
Terri brought about her own death.
How??
So far as our best efforts can determine, she did not want to live hooked up to that feeding tube, and would have wanted it disconnected. Upon our determination that that is what she wanted, it was done.
Susan, I can’t say it any more clearly than the first time.
The “it’s just your opinion” card is always a handy one to use. The decisions were procedurally correct. However the unanswered questions were compelling and there was no refutation of the irregularities.
Again, the feeding tube is a red herring.
Terri Schiavo was not allowed to have food or water offered in any form whatever.
That makes it either murder or assisted suicide, either of which is clearly opposed to Catholic moral doctrine.
There’s been an awful lot of confusion about this case.
This case, as you will discover if you actually read the court documents, was not about what Michael wanted. And it wasn’t about what Terri’s parents wanted. It was about what Terri herself wanted, so far as we can tell what she wanted.
Once the court had made the determination that what Terri wanted was to get rid of that feeding tube, Michael had no more power to alter that than Terri’s mother did, or than I did. Michael was offered I think $1 million late in the game by someone or other to turn custody over to Terri’s parents, an offer which exhibited the widespread misunderstanding on this point. Michael had no power over the decision at that point.
Terri tends to get lost in these discussions. But she was a real woman, an adult before whatever happened to her happened, and she apparently said several times – not just to her husband, who of course would be the one she would be most likely to confide in – but to other people as well, that she would not want to be kept alive artificially in the condition in which she eventually found herself.
I’m not at all sure that I don’t agree with her in my own case. I’m not convinced that the teaching of the Church is iron-clad on this point. See the discussion above. However, again according to testimony, Terri was not practicing her faith at the time of her collapse, and Roman Catholic rules might not have been dispositive for her, whatever those rules may be. Whatever you think or I think about it, she certainly had the right to make this determination for herself.
If you simply think the court was wrong, that she didn’t want that tube removed, I’d ask you how you know that. Did you know her? Why is the testimony of her parents more convincing than the testimony that convinced the judge at trial? Did you attend the trial, or have you at least read the trial transcript? Or are you just repeating things you’ve read on the internet?
What if the court was right, and she really DID want that tube out? Are you saying that she shouldn’t be allowed that? Legally? (If so, you’re wrong.) Morally? And why would you think you can impose your moral judgment on a woman you’ve never met? Should Church law (or your conception of it) be imposed by force on … who? Everyone who was raised a Roman Catholic, regardless of how they feel about it now? Everyone period, regardless of their own beliefs?
Michael Schiavo may well be a jerk. I’ve never met the man. Her parents may be jerks, for all I know. I try not to make that determination about people I don’t know; others here are less reticent. Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant.
So, Tim, if I understand you, if I am brain-damaged so that I cannot eat by mouth (ALL the medical evidence about Terri says that) and I have left directions that I not be fed by tube, it is your position that that desire should not be honored? Is this only if I am a Roman Catholic, or is this regardless of that? You would MANDATE artificial feeding for everyone?
Susan, that last post was in response to your 4:33 post.
You keep saying that Terri brought about her own death when there is NO evidence of that and you have no basis for saying that. You have the court’s decision based only on her estranged husband’s word for that. btw, what do you mean by OUR best efforts and OUR determination?
You keep saying that Terri brought about her own death when there is NO evidence of that and you have no basis for saying that. You have the court’s decision based only on her estranged husband’s word for that. btw, what do you mean by OUR best efforts and OUR determination?
The court in Florida found that there was “clear and convincing evidence” for that proposition. They did not base their decision only on the husband’s word; they had other testimony as well. I did not attend the trial; I never met any of these people. However, I have no good reason for thinking that this judge did not do his best to weigh the evidence and reach the correct decision. His procedures were repeatedly upheld on appeal.
Mary Kay, you just disagree with the judge. You don’t think Terri wanted that tube pulled. I don’t know why you think that, unless you knew her, but you think that. You are well within your rights, of course. But we don’t determine disputed facts by putting them to a general vote. We do it here by trials, and one was held.
“WE” and “OUR” means us here, us Americans, living under the rule of law. Not the rule of What Internet Chat Lines Think, and not the rule of Blog. The law makes plenty of mistakes, and may have made one here. I didn’t know Terri, and I don’t know of my own knowledge what she wanted. (Neither do you.) But this is the best method anyone has come up with yet. If you have a better idea, feel free to tell us what it is.
Numerous appeals courts held that no error was made in the exclusion of admissible evidence
One witness testified that Terri had told her, at the time of Karen Ann Quinlan’s death, that Karen’s parents were wrong to take her off the ventilator.
The judge said that since Karen had died in a given year, Terri had been too young to say what she had said. He was wrong. The year he gave was the year Karen was taken off the ventilator, but she didn’t actually die for years.
And, the courts of this country have upheld, in a separate case, the death by starvation and dehydration of a woman legally incompetent but conscious and literally begging and pleading for food and water.
I think rather less of the legal system in this country than you do.
If laws need to be changed, that’s what we have legislators for. I’d suggest you write yours.
Mary, as I said to Mary Kay, if you have a better idea about how we might run this society besides the rule of law, please, now’s the time. Let us know what it is. As you have correctly observed, a lot of things don’t come out right under our current system, or don’t come out, at least, in a way that pleases you. (Or me, necessarily.)
Susan, having read over these posts, I’ve noticed that several people have repeated said the following that you seem to not comprehend:
1. There is NO evidence that Terri made an informed decision. The court took the estranged husband’s work about a casual comment that Terri made.
2. This is NOT about the feeding tube. This is about normal nutrition and hydration. Your claim about all medical evidence is based on the autopsy, which was done after 15 years of medical neglect and several days of dehydration. There was a point where Terri took food by mouth but her estranged husband put a stop to it.
3. Your references to “Terri’s situation” seem to be something very different than what the posters here are referring to. You seem to be wanting to talk about an end of life situation, whereas Terri was disabled, not terminally ill.
Those are the main ones. There may be others.
On the issue of Michael Schiavo’s not being Catholic: Jodi Centonze is, and canon law is binding on her.
The impediment is not merely that the killer can not marry the person intended, but that that person can not marry the killer.
(Perhaps we should bring back the old rules, where both adultery and the promise to marry, and the promise to marry and killing the spouse, were enough to bring about the impediment, in order to prevent the questions raised here about intent.)
The “other people” besides the estranged husband’s word were his brother and sister. Too much conflict of interest.
We and Our does not include all Americans. There were many, many groups who had major concerns about how Judge Greer handled this. Some of those concerns resulted in Felos resigning from being chairman of the board. So you can’t just dismiss them all.
Mary is correct in that Judge Greer got the dates wrong and did not allow that evidence based on his wrong dates.
If you have a better way… Actually, there was a better way. There was much basis for a Federal review of Terri’s case but that got squashed.
You apparently have a question that you’d like to discuss. It might be good to just ask it without referring to the Schiavo situation because you’re obviously not listening to what anyone says about that specific instance.
Mary, as I said to Mary Kay, if you have a better idea about how we might run this society besides the rule of law, please, now’s the time.
Susan, a man is acquitted of child molestation because the police improperly destroyed some evidence.
Would you let him baby-sit for your children?
If not, do you have a better idea yourself?
We are entitled to criticize the judgments in particular cases. We are allowed to declare them wrong. We are even allowed to apply rules other than civil society’s in the arena where those rules apply, such as canon law in the Church.
Susan:
Did you know her? Why is the testimony of her parents more convincing than the testimony that convinced the judge at trial? Did you attend the trial, or have you at least read the trial transcript? Or are you just repeating things you’ve read on the internet?
I’ve read the trial transcripts, Susan. The only evidence presented that it was her wish was her husband and his siblings saying she’d said, “I don’t want to live like that” after watching a movie about someone on life support. The judge apparently found them truthful-sounding. I’d need better evidence than that, but *shrug*
If you simply think the court was wrong, that she didn’t want that tube removed, I’d ask you how you know that.
Actually, the proper answer is, “I don’t know.” The judge didn’t have to decide between testimonies of what she said and neither do we. On a very personal basis, I’m well-acquainted with friends of the Schindlers who think highly of their integrity, but you’re right that no one really knows.
Legally, when something is that obscure, and so bitterly contested, there really should be a higher standard of evidence imo.
But as this isn’t a legal discussion, I won’t go into my thoughts on that, or the medical aspects of the case. Instead, I’ll address your moral question which I think a lot of people haven’t quite grasped in jumping in to correct the facts of the case.
Let’s get rid of the distracting issues by imagining a hypothetical situation where everything is clear cut.
Mrs. Brown asks her husband Mr. Brown to remove her feeding tube if she goes into PVS. This fact is well testified and universally accepted. Something happens to Mrs. Brown, which leaves her profoundly disabled, and finally the diagnosis is made that she is in PVS. Her husband plans to carry out her wishes. While doing so, he meets Ms. Black and forms an attachment with her. Together they seek the removal of the feeding tube.
Since it was Mrs. Brown’s own request, are Mr. Brown and Ms. Black at fault, as in the canon law section quoted above?
The answer is yes. As surely as if Mrs. Brown had asked to be shot in the head and Mr. Brown had complied. If removing a feeding tube is immoral, it’s still wrong for Mr. Brown to do it, no matter if it’s his wife’s wish.
This isn’t a legal question, mind you.
Of course, some are also claiming that removing the feeding tube wasn’t wrong according to Catholic tradition. I think they’re all the wrong path, but it should be pointed out that in this case the Vatican itself intervened to condemn the action, so there can be no doubt where the Church stands on the canonical status of this marriage.
Once the court had made the determination that what Terri wanted was to get rid of that feeding tube, Michael had no more power to alter that than Terri’s mother did, or than I did. Michael was offered I think $1 million late in the game by someone or other to turn custody over to Terri’s parents, an offer which exhibited the widespread misunderstanding on this point. Michael had no power over the decision at that point.
No, that’s a misunderstanding. Michael did have the power. Actually, if Terri had asked to have the tube withdrawn and Michael hadn’t wanted it, it wouldn’t have happened. It’s an odd point of law, but true.
Thanks,
Eileen
PS – The anon who says Terri was declared brain dead needs to do some serious studying. No one argued Terri was brain dead. They argued she was PVS.
Elinor and Patrick Rothwell seem to be slipping over the second bit of that section Jimmy quotes.
Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together – italics mine
i.e. It doesn’t matter if you brought about the death of the spouse with the aim of getting married. Bringing about the death of the spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation counts too.
There’s no doubt that Michael Schiavo and Jodi Centonze mutally morally co-operated to bring about Terri’s death.
Susan:
As others have said, there was no hard evidence that what Terri wanted was to die. There was no living will, no note scratched on a piece of paper, no journal or blog entry.
I am not going to pretend to “read” Terri’s mind. My issue with this case (aside from Terri’s death) are the circumstances surrounding it. The judge was clearly biased in his evidence. He listened to Michael’s testimony regarding casual comments and remarks made about Terri, but refused to listen to the medical professionals (i.e. nurses) who worked with Terri. Or Terri’s family, who knew her longer than Michael did.
Terri’s family contests she was a faithful Catholic, and therefore would follow Church teaching on such an issue. I don’t think Michael ever disputed Terri’s faith outright, but he didn’t give it any consideration in his decision. In fact, he denied her the Eucharist! He stepped on the Sacraments and made sure his wife wouldn’t receive them…so he’s such an expert on her death wish but knows nothing about her religious beliefs? I don’t believe that. He knew *exactly* what he was doing.
As for Terri being unable to swallow, that is a reflex most humans know, and as someone pointed out earlier, something Terri could have been capable of doing had Michael not stopped her physical therapy and insisted on the feeding tube. That she couldn’t swallow at the time of her death doesn’t mean she was that way for the past 15 years…Michael’s decisions regarding her care (or lack thereof) caused that.
Michael failed in his role as husband to Terri. Period. He did not honor his marriage vows – which need to be honored regardless of the faith one professes – and he had an affair and children with a woman while his wife was ill. Not dead. *Ill*.
My grandfather had a stroke in 1988. From that time until his death in 1993, my grandmother cared for him 24/7 – she fed, washed, clothed, lifted, cooked meals according to his strict diet, and supervised his physical therapy so he could retain some basic functions. While his illness wasn’t as severe as Terri’s, it would have been worse had my grandmother not sought appropriate medical care for him.
He probably would have been given a feeding tube (or some other nutritional assistance) had he not worked with therapists to regain his speech and swallowing capability. Throughout that entire period, my grandmother never thought once about straying because that’s “what my granfather would have wanted.” She remained faithful to her vows until the day my grandfather died and never remarried.
“In sickness and in health” is not a relative clause of the vows. It means unconditional support. I would never carry on an illicit affair (and all such affairs are illicit) while my husband was ill, and probably not immediately after his death, either.
Let us suppose that I am a Roman Catholic, and I decide that if I am in Terri Schiavo’s situation I do NOT want to be fed or hydrated by tube. And let us suppose that I write this down, so we don’t get into this dispute – which is really what this case was all about – about what I want.
Church teaching sites “ordinary means” (i.e., food and water) as being required for all Catholics. Those who faithfully adhere to Church teaching would not create a will specifying those “ordinary means” be denied them upon illness. It’s as simple as that.
As Donna pointed out, the Pope made a request to save Terri’s life and it was summarily dismissed by Michael. The utmost authority on Church teaching was basically told to shove off because Michael wanted Terri to die…but on Terri’s behalf.
There’s a phrase in the court of law: reasonable doubt. In some states, the shadow of reasonable doubt is enough to get a suspected murderer acquitted. And you know what “reasonable doubt” is? Something that disputes presented evidence. The statements and testimony by Terri’s family, that of the nurses, and the behavior of Michael all lend themselves to “reasonable doubt.” But that was overlooked by the judge and lawmakers who decided to believe Michael’s word over anyone else’s.
And, in case you’re wondering, here’s one of the pieces of testimony (one of the casual conversations that worked so well for Michael in this case) that wasn’t heard in court:
A medical worker heard Michael as, “When is that
b!$ch going to die?”
If that doesn’t give you insight into his true nature, I don’t know what will.
Terri brought about her own death.
How??
So far as our best efforts can determine, she did not want to live hooked up to that feeding tube, and would have wanted it disconnected. Upon our determination that that is what she wanted, it was done.
What a crock! God help us when such estimations of how to run our current court system become common. If there were any “best efforts” made they were on the pro-life side. The physicians “hired by the court” spent no measure of time with Terri whatsoever. They had no idea what her current status re: stimuli reaction or swallowing ability were since there were no recent tests allowed by the euthanasia court there. The physicians who had actually treated similar cases with successes and spent hours with Terri (would have spent more but were forbidden by the court) were ignored. The judge who had the final thumbs up or down decision on this precious life did not once visit his “victim”. The judge admitted himself that the very information that he used to base his decision on had been in error, yet did not allow his own error to force his re-examination. The nursing staff that had spent years “up close and personal” with Terri had their depositions ignored or dismissed by the court that related to the threatening behavior by Michael (to them as well as to Terri) and Terri’s response to his visits. The missing positive charting notations by caregivers were ripped out by Michael… a felony right there. The improper, illegal admission of Terri to this hospice facility … at a time when her prognosis was 20 years and when the policy is for patients with terminal prognosis of 6 months or less, was illegally done by the conflicted euthanasia attorney with attachments from his position on its board. And, finally, when the lead attorney over all these final court decisions disregarded the order by congress to review these years of mismanagement and manipulation and conflicts of interest and rendered his undocumented decision immediately, one can say that the corruption ended monumentally.
So, Susan, your assessment of this court, blatantly dismissing all of this evidence, is what “our best efforts determined”. Well, following that illogic it would seem that a little warning is advisable here for you out of concern. Pray that you are never injured or hospitalized in this part of Florida (that appears to have a few too many citizens to support) with the inability to communicate just how much you’d like to live … and turned over to this judge, this euthanasia attorney, this legislative group, this hospice facility, and … this court system.
chris K,
Your message is a list of the “information” available on the web from one side of this controversy. There are two sides to every controversy, especially this one.
To list only a few of the errors in your information (and I get this from reading court documents, not from reading the parents’ website):
1. The “testimony” from the caregivers about Michael’s inappropriate behavior was discounted by the court because, among other reasons, the caregivers in question (who were only two women) did not behave as they would have if they were telling the truth. For example, they did not disclose any of this to Terri’s parents at the time. There’s a lot more on this in the documents. These two women are not credible. They were probably seeking publicity, is my guess.
2. It would have been legally improper for the judge to visit Terri, for reasons I won’t go into, except to say, that’s not how we do it.
3. If any of the bias or felonious behavior you allege could have been proven upon appeal, the original judgment would have been reversed. That it was not means that these allegations could not be proven, which means they are just that, allegations made by one side. You’ll forgive me if I don’t believe everything I read on the internet.
I’d recommend that you read the actual file before making any more of these crazy statements. People here are simply repeating things they’ve read on the parents’ website or elsewhere. The parents’ website contained numerous misstatements of fact, and was misleading generally (when compared to official records of what really happened). I’m not blaming the parents for this. I’m just saying that it can be unwise to take people who are under that amount of emotional pressure too literally. They were hardly in the mood to be objective.
Immediately after this case came finally to rest, Judge Greer was given an award for outstanding jurisprudence by his local bar association. He also, from the opposition, received numerous death threats. Whether or not he was correct, there is no reason to think he acted in bad faith. The only people who think he did are those who, like you, simply do not like the result, and cannot live with a result they don’t like without calling the judge names. I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules. Everyone who has looked officially at the job he did has commended him.
Anyone in Florida or elsewhere who is unhappy with our court system will be more than welcome in groups which seek to improve it, and to pass legislation generally.
Susan,
The fact remains Michael Schiavo asked a court to prevent his helpless wife from receiving food and water. A judge condemned Terri to a slow agonizing death.
The supreme court also ruled that the unborn can be executed at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. Neither ruling makes it right or moral just decriminalized.
And don’t worry we are taking steps to change both are political and legal system. Part of that effort is getting the word out about travesties of justice such as this case and ignoring desensitized people like yourself who want to close their eyes to the plight of the helpless and hide behind what some court has ruled.
All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. — Edmund Burke
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Let us suppose that I am a Roman Catholic, and I decide that if I am in Terri Schiavo’s situation I do NOT want to be fed or hydrated by tube. And let us suppose that I write this down, so we don’t get into this dispute – which is really what this case was all about – about what I want.
Church teaching sites “ordinary means” (i.e., food and water) as being required for all Catholics. Those who faithfully adhere to Church teaching would not create a will specifying those “ordinary means” be denied them upon illness. It’s as simple as that.
That’s not the question, even assuming that “Church teaching” on this matter is as cut and dried as you assert. (It isn’t.) The question is, would you force me to be artificially fed and hydrated against my will?
If you would, then you would have forced the same thing on Terri. It doesn’t matter to you what she wanted. The totalitarian mindset at work. At least we know where you stand.
If you wouldn’t, and still you protest what happened to Terri, you simply think the court was incorrect in their determination of what she wanted. Which is your right of course. (I’m hoping you have better evidence for this than claims you read on the internet, like, that you knew her personally.)
The fact remains Michael Schiavo asked a court to prevent his helpless wife from receiving food and water. A judge condemned Terri to a slow agonizing death.
The supreme court also ruled that the unborn can be executed at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. Neither ruling makes it right or moral just decriminalized.
Your facts are askew. Michael Schiavo asserted that his wife did not want the artificial life support she was receiving. (They weren’t just pouring mashed potatoes down her throat, you know. This is a fairly sophisticated medical situation.) The law of Florida, like all Anglo-Saxon law since 1066, allows every individual the absolute right to refuse medical treatment, even essential and life-saving medical treatment. The judge agreed with Mr. Schiavo about what Terri wanted, and acted to carry our her desires as he had determined them to be.
None of this makes any of this “right” or “moral.” You are absolutely correct about that. Judges are not in the business of determining morality, thank God, I don’t want most of them making my moral decisions for me. Judges are in the business of carrying out the law, which this judge did according to the numerous experts who reviewed the case.
Are you intending to change the law so that I have to remain hooked up to a feeding tube whether I want that or not? See above post.
Susan,
Your understanding is askew. Food and water are not medical treatment. If you can’t understand that you need to ask yourself why?
I am interested in making sure the law protects the diginity and sanctity of every human life and yes yours included.
You should read Karen’s above post and the document she linked.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Susan:
How can you say church teacing isn’t “cut and dry” when it comes to FOOD and WATER? For crying out loud…those are basic, everyday necessities. Not medical treatment. What about that can’t you understand? The POPE made a request for Terri’s life…was he wrong? Was he not up-to-date on church teaching? I think the Pope knows that of which he speaks about.
This is from EWTN(http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/end_of_life_decisions.htm):
The natural law and the Fifth Commandment requires that all ordinary means be used to preserve life, such as food, water, exercise, and medical care. Since the middle ages, however, Catholic theologians have recognized that human beings are not morally obligated to undergo every possible medical treatment to save their lives. Treatments that are unduly burdensome or sorrowful, such as amputation, or beyond the economic means of the person, or which only prolong the suffering of a dying person, are morally extraordinary, meaning they are not obligatory.
Tell me where you find evidence to dispute the church’s teaching in that paragraph.
Feeding Terri is not “unduly burdensome,” since her parents and siblings were willing to do so. Michael made that impossible.
And Terri was NOT dying when her tube was pulled. Therefore, food and water are ordinary means to keep her – and anyone else – alive. Any *faithful* Catholic would not create a will or directives that contradict such an obvious church teaching and commandment.
I’m all for the courts judging the law, but – as I said earlier – there is such a thing as “reasonable doubt” and there was a cartload of it in this case. Michael’s will is what won in court, not his looking out for Terri.
Susan, thank you for the link to the abstracts. The timeline there, like many blogs about Terri, is incomplete.
-It does not mention that Michael Schiavo hired as his lawyer, George Felos, who had published a book titled Litigation as Spiritual Practice and as the publisher’s blurb states, “George Felos became the legal advocate of Estelle Browning’s right-to-die”
-The timeline’s description of “aggressive treatment” and Felos’ right-to-die advocacy simply are irreconciliable.
-The timeline fails to mention that George Felos was chairman of the Board of Directors of the hospice where Terri was transferred and that he omitted to notify Terri’s parents of that fact. The time omits Felos’ resignation because others objected to this conflict of interest.
-The timeline fails to mention the multiple conflicts of interest. I find more each time I do further reading on this situation.
-The timeline fails to mention that Michael Schiavo failed to complete a care plan for Terri (made legal by Greer signing off on it).
-The timeline has no mention of a court order authorizing the transfer of Terri to the hospice.
-The timeline fails to mention that admission criteria specifying that an attending physician and hospice are supposed to certify that a person is terminally ill with a life expectancy in weeks and months, not years (Terri spent 5 years there)
-the timeline fails to mention that the hospice where Terri was transferred had been found in 1996 that “176 of the beneficiaries (hospice residents) were not eligible for hospice coverage” and “for 118 beneficiaries, we were unable to conclusively determine their terminal illness.” In other words, Suncoast hospice had a large number of people who should not have been in a hospice.
On to part 2
While it’s well established that Greer dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s, the above irregularities alone were basis for a Federal review of health and Medicare regulations.
People here are simply repeating things they’ve read on the parents’ website or elsewhere.
Susan, I’m afraid my previous estimation of good faith on your part goes straight out the window right there. And now I know what intellectual standard of honesty you’re holding to ie. none, I can also see why you ignored my answers to your questions to continue scoring cheap points about legal matters in a discussion of morality.
I may add that anyone who is so profoundly ignorant of the facts of law in this case as to say
Once the court had made the determination that what Terri wanted was to get rid of that feeding tube, Michael had no more power to alter that than Terri’s mother did, or than I did. Michael was offered I think $1 million late in the game by someone or other to turn custody over to Terri’s parents, an offer which exhibited the widespread misunderstanding on this point. Michael had no power over the decision at that point.
has no business telling *other* people they only get their information off things they read on the internet.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Are you intending to change the law so that I have to remain hooked up to a feeding tube whether I want that or not? See above post.
Why yes. We prefer that killing remain illegal.
Yesterday, I was under the impression that you had a question about Catholic teaching.
Or at least that was the best that I could figure from your flip-flopping from legalities to morality to personal “this is what I hope my husband would do” statement.
In fact, I asked you to phrase your question without referring to the Schiavo situation and Eileen also mentioned a theoretical situation. I don’t see that you responded to either request.
At this point, I see that you repeatedly express a fixation about the feeding tube. There are times when I think that your question is, “if someone says they don’t want a feeding tube, are you people going to mandate that they have one?” Of course, that is only an impression on my part, since you keep going back to the Schiavo situation.
This morning, when I was under the impression that you had a question about Catholic teaching, I started to send you an email to see if you were interested in continuing the discussion and noticed that your email address was a law firm. I looked it up and unless you are a different Susan, I would assume that you are an attorney. Given that, the fuzziness of your questions seem odd.
Given that, the non-response to a request for a theoretical situation and repeated return to the Schiavo situation seems to indicate that the point of your posts is not some general question about Catholic teaching, but a means of making some pointed comments about the Schiavo situation. (If I’m wrong about that, please ask the question that seems to have eluded clarification so far.)
Part of the stuckness is that you consider the court decision to be a done deal. In one sense, it is. Terri is dead. Greer dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s. However, the irregularities, of which I’ve listed only some, certainly indicate there was need for oversight.
You said several times yesterday that courts can and do, make mistakes. The result in this case was a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain and suffering for a disabled individual.
You keep saying to write the legislators to effect a change in the laws. I think the oversight mechanisms were in place (such as a Federal review). Additional laws would not have changed Terri’s situation. What was needed was oversight to ensure that the laws and regulations already on the books were carried out properly.
I haven’t even started on the morality issues because the irregularities can’t be just swept under the rug.
1. should’ve put my name on the 2:24 post
2. Eileen, your statement starting with, “I may add that anyone who is so profoundly ignorant of the facts of law in this case as to say…”
you should be aware that Susan’s email is to a law firm, which suggests that she is not the law neophyte that some of her posts suggest.
While it’s well established that Greer dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s, the above irregularities alone were basis for a Federal review of health and Medicare regulations.
Apparently the professionals who were in charge of this review do not agree with you.
This comment of Susan’s also leads me to believe she has less than a neophyte’s understanding of Catholic Teaching.
I’m a big fan of Humanae Vitae, not just for its conclusions, but for its assumptions. What HV says is, “come to terms with your body, make a deal with yourself as a mammal.”
Susan,
have you read the document DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA from the SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH? Because it makes Catholic teaching very clear.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Susan said she’s not Catholic, so I wouldn’t expect her to understand Catholic teaching.
However, her (difficult to believe) obtuseness and unwillingness to engage in an honest dialogue make me exceedingly glad that I put my trust in God and that he has me in the Roman Catholic tradition rather than secular law.
What she’s pulling with her most recent post is the expert/professional card and acting as if she does not understand that I’m referring to health regulations not legal sleight of hand, has demonstrated to me that she has no interest in discussion.
In fact, she has not responded to anyone’s comments other than to pursue whatever her agenda is. I consider her a troll in the definition that a troll aims to stir up trouble and is not interested in a discussion. Since she acts like a troll, I intend to not feed the troll.
She does seem to have a script and is either unwilling to or incapable of deviating from it.
MaryKay,
Thank you very much for pointing out Susan is not Catholic. I missed her post stating that.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Maybe if he for some reason was able to get an anullment of his marriage to Terri was granted by the bishop. He could be charged with murder and would not have been considered her husband.
Also the Pope needs to take a 2×4 to the Bishop inthat diocese to wake him up. I wish he would start cleaning house!
I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules.
First of all, how do YOU know what my concept of Roman Catholic moral rules is? How do you know if I am personally even interested in that? Why did you even bring it up? Hopefully when you cross examine someone “in real life” you actually stick to the remarks and don’t wander so much. Besides your getting off topic and mixing oranges with apples, since you brought it up, most citizens of Florida still expect to have their religious rights respected, which include having one’s representative of faith, that is, ALL faiths, allowed to administer spiritual care during the dying process without threat of arrest. Your legal world that you defend is truly frightening. Rule by the powerful over the helpless without reference to the Constitution. You don’t operate within the 9th circuit by any chance?
Obviously all of the factual evidence which you spin – like duly sworn affidavits being dismissed because persons didn’t seem to be truthful – your words:
the caregivers in question (who were only two women) did not behave as they would have if they were telling the truth.
Uh oh! Sounds like you’ve been reading Felos’ books where he can look at those in incommunicado and channel their “real” desires and hidden meanings to his own “vision” of life.
It would be pretty difficult for the public to read all of the records of this case since they are not all available. How convenient.
Another arrogant assumption you make re: the knowledge of what witnesses spoke and what was hidden is that it can come from many many sources repeating the same facts. Why do you insist on something that just isn’t true for most who have followed the facts … particular websites that you apparently love to hate. You must be the one feeling compelled to read those websites since you seem to be on some mission of refuting their free speech and investigative prerogatives. And, yes, I do believe it’s a good thing that you don’t believe everything you read … it IS obvious that you are very selective.
And how telling that you can’t go beyond Greer’s “local bar” awarding him immediately after the fact for your fantastic cudos for the judge. Some obvious attempt for PR by all the usual suspects who rubber stamped decisions for one another even when ordered to make a full review which should have taken at least several months. Must have had some real guilty consciences to try to whitewash the cronyism.
Everyone who has looked officially at the job he did has commended him.
No, not everyone, but nice try. You’re getting too obvious.
He also, from the opposition, received numerous death threats. Whether or not he was correct, there is no reason to think he acted in bad faith.
Ahhh, poor little judge. Well, so does the governor receive death threats, so do judges all over the country, so does the president, so do conservative politicians, news commentators, etc. If a judge can’t take the heat like everyone else who by their accepted position knows will be a part of the position then no one’s to blame but themselves. He had a lot more protection throughout than his victim, Terri.
And there is great reason to believe that he acted in bad faith. In fact, loads of reasons. No, I didn’t like the result and I didn’t like, equally, the path taken to obtain it. I didn’t like a judge who made, admittedly a pivotal error in the case but would do nothing about it due to the time he had already taken in piling decisions up based on that error. Obviously all of those decisions should have been dismissed and the hearing should have begun again at that point. A lot of citizens’ hard earned dollars were thrown away due to his irresponsibility. If you don’t see, by the MSM’s reporting of the facts, that the political party line was adhered to in this case, rather than legal ethics, you have already probably bid on a certain bridge.
No, Susan, you will not change minds of those who are apparently much more well aware of the entire scenario here than you obviously are or are willing to admit to.
P.S. And Susan, you conveniently left out the part that included caregiver witnesses not coming forward due to the threats by their supervisors of being fired (as exemplified by the action taken against those who did courageously speak out) and ordered to speak to NO ONE about Michael’s actions during visits. Appears to be a lot of threats condoned by this court. Oh, well, you don’t seem to be too bothered by those little, unfortunate details that just may have gotten in the way of the determined outcome.
Back to the main topic. Odd how Michael joined the auspices of the Church he so distrusted for so long and tried to control by force of the state to carry out the major anointing of his latest life move. I guess we can add another attribute to his many qualities – hypocrit.
I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules.
I would remind you that the bishops and preist are charged with administering canon law, not the law of Florida.
BTW — would you hire someone acquitted of child molestation to baby-sit for your children?
Susan,
Re-hashing the court proceedings around Terri Schiavo’s starvation is useless at this point, and the longer it goes on, the more apparent that becomes.
The reason we are discussing the moral implications of the whole situation is to help assure that faithful Catholics (as well as others) don’t make this same gravely immoral decision, though it may be legally open to them.
In this sense the decision of the court could not be less relevant.
People clearly will decide for themselves, but if they care to do what is right, rather than what is easy (or merely legal), they should recognize that providing food and water can not reasonably be considered “heroic measures”, but is simply the least that human beings should expect of one another.
“(They weren’t just pouring mashed potatoes down her throat, you know. This is a fairly sophisticated medical situation.)”
Of the many laughable comments Susan has made in this thread, I think the above one is most revealing about her knowledge of Terri’s condition. Actually, Susan, a feeding tube (whether inserted through a nasal passage or through the abdominal wall into the stomach or small intestine in a very simple, short surgical procedure) is a very simple device. As a nurse, I’ve administered countless feedings with this device and can deliver a complete “meal” in about 10 minutes. The tube is then capped off until the next feeding is due.
>>In fact, she has not responded to anyone’s comments other than to pursue whatever her agenda is. I consider her a troll in the definition that a troll aims to stir up trouble and is not interested in a discussion. Since she acts like a troll, I intend to not feed the troll.<< That's a despicable comment. Susan seems to me to have engaged in good faith discussion here holding her own in arguing an unpopular viewpoint. All around the web now, the majority viewpoint on a particular blog, whatever the persuasion, will scream "troll" at any dissenter.
“Susan seems to me to have engaged in” a script.
“All around the web now, the majority viewpoint on a particular blog, whatever the persuasion, will scream ‘troll’ at any dissenter.” If you have spent any time reading THIS blog, you know that doesn’t apply here.
Thanks Nerina for your comment on the feeding tube. I have to winch when media members and others who wouldn’t know a hippocampus from a hippopotamus claim that the autopsy supported the Michael’s claim that Terri was (aack!) brain-dead. If you don’t understand medical matters,
ask, but don’t pontificate.
“The Michael” was a typo. I don’t mean that
Mr. Schiavo now has the power of “The Donald”…
This is really no big deal. The Catholic Church murders spouses each day through invalid annulments and allows and encourages their living slavery by failing to hold their criminal spouses accountable through excommunication.
That same church refuses even any attempts at justice for abandoned spouses who have successfully defended their sacramental marriages in Rome, so I honestly do not see the big deal.
I would this day take a lethal injection, as an innocent man, rather than face my life each day, as the Catholic Church accepts my adulterous wife and her lover, who force me to subsidize their adultery and are completely accepted in the Catholic Church as the parents of OUR children and as a MARRIED COUPLE, although they are adulterers who remain unrepentant after 16 YEARS.
The Catholic Church is only being consistant in its destruction of what marriage means.
The catholic church is in APOSTACY and JImmy here defends here, thus showing his inconpetance as a THEOLOGIAN and lack of love as a Catholic layman.
In my opinion this man is a disgrace but perhaps one day he will reoent and help those of us abandoned by the Curch he defends, so wrongly and so vociferously.
Karl,
a victim of the Catholic Church and its LUST
to normalize adultery, through false annulments!!
This is really no big deal. The Catholic Church murders spouses each day through invalid annulments and allows and encourages their living slavery by failing to hold their criminal spouses accountable through excommunication.
That same church refuses even any attempts at justice for abandoned spouses who have successfully defended their sacramental marriages in Rome, so I honestly do not see the big deal.
I would this day take a lethal injection, as an innocent man, rather than face my life each day, as the Catholic Church accepts my adulterous wife and her lover, who force me to subsidize their adultery and are completely accepted in the Catholic Church as the parents of OUR children and as a MARRIED COUPLE, although they are adulterers who remain unrepentant after 16 YEARS.
The Catholic Church is only being consistant in its destruction of what marriage means.
The Catholic Church is in APOSTACY and Jimmy defends it here, thus showing his incompetance as a THEOLOGIAN and lack of love as a Catholic layman.
In my opinion this man is a disgrace but perhaps one day he will repent and help those of us abandoned by the Church he defends, so wrongly and so vociferously.
Karl,
a victim of the Catholic Church and its LUST
to normalize adultery, through false annulments!!
Karl, that is ridiculous.
Firstly, ASSUMING that the church does allow plenty invalid annulments (I don’t actually know or don’t have any solid facts to back up so I’ll just assume) there is no possible way you can prove that that implies that the Church murders spouses. Your premises are ridiculous and so is your conclusion.
Karl,
My heart goes out to you, but I can’t help but think that there’s another side to the story here. Perhaps one of the canon lawyers on this board can look into your case?
Karl,
I understand you are angry. If you think the Church is in apostasy, then your problem is with Christ not the Church or Jimmy. He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against Her even if you think they have.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Karl-
I feel your pain. but I don’t follow your logic.
Some (maybe a lot) of people in the Church are in apostacy, but that does not mean the Church is in apostacy.
If the wrong decision was made about your situation (which I can’t possibly know), then I can understand your feelings, but not your actions.
If you are convinced that the Catholic Church is truly apostate (and therefore can’t be the True Church), and you have left the church over this incident, then why do you care, any more, what the Church says?
If you remain in the Catholic Church, then you must still believe that she is the Church Christ founded. In that case, she SHOULD be defended in spite of the shortcomings of some (or even many) of her individual members.
If you remain a Catholic, I ask you to stay and work for true reform in the Church. Pray for those you think have done you wrong. If the situation is as you say, then your wife and her partner are headed in the wrong direction, and need your prayers.
I will pray for you, and for all involved.
All of us here want to see the sacrament of marriage given proper reverence, especially in the Church.
Dear All,
First I really should have stated that what happened to Terry Shiavo IS reprehensible, as is
I believe the priest’s decision to “marry” an unrepentant murderer in a Catholic Church.
When a person’s or an institution’s action lead to
a person’s death or their wish to die or even drives them to considering suicide or worse attempting it the responsibility and culpability lies with both. If such a conclusion is not true than scripture is ERRENT AND FALSE AND REPREHENSIBLE when it claims that a person who divorces his wife FORCES her to commit adultery. It either means it forces it or it means it does not force it and it(the scripture)is a lie.
When the Catholic Church forces a divorce, which IT DOES IN THE UNITED STATES(AND I DO NOT CARE WHY, SINCE THAT IS ONLY IMPORTANT TO FOOLS WHO CARE LITTLE FOR TRUTH) it forces all UNWILLINGLY DIVORCING SPOUSEs into a divorce system for which there is NO DEFENSE. That is a FACT, where any disputation is only by an idiot, in the vast, vast majority of cases where there is an innocent spouse.
The innocent spouse, in most cases if he is the husband, loses all his right’s if he has little or no money and if he denies the states authority over his SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE. He then is left, literally with nothing and is forced to subsidize his wife’s adultery, while many times he is destitute, quite literally. When this goes on for years and years as he watches the Catholic Church encourage his wife’s adultery and encouraging her with her new man as they brainwash children against their innocent father, it destroys those relationships and destroys the man. Some times such men are imprisoned when they cannot pay for their indentured servanthood/slavery at the hands of the state, their wife and her lover and the Catholic Church, which REQUIRED the divorce for access to the TRIBUNAL SYSTEM.
There have been numerous, dare I say many fathers
in these positions who have killed themselves or their spouses and even their children, from desperation. These men HAVE BEEN MURDERED, THEY HAVE NOT< HAVE NOT< HAVE NOT, KILLED THEMSELVES. Those who put them in this position and keep them their are the murderers, not the trigger puller. THAT IS FACT. Disagree and you are knitpicking or are chosing to ignore what is going on in the US and in the Catholic Church. I have yet to meet or communicate with a truly good Canonist who does not have his head up the other end of his anatomy, by choice and training. A good Canonist would be endlessly berating the Catholic Church openly, in public, for what it is doing to marriage. They are all gutless, fools, who are overeducated for nothing. They would be assailing the Church with endless suits seeking justice for their wronged clients who have suffered so much in the Tribunal system. I am very angry with Jesus but He is God and has the final say, but He knows well of my opinion. The Church is WRONG in its dealings regarding marriage and furthermore, many know it in the Church but they lack the INTEGRITY to do anything about it but talk about it once in awhile. I hope it will change because even though the Church is an unrepentant adulteress, I still must try to forgive her as I do try to forgive my wife. That is what Jesus requires. Which I do try to do. The Catholic Church is the true Church it is just in very, very serious open and public error, just like my wife is. I do pray for both my wife and the Church but both are pig-headed, self-loving, closed-minded and filled with errors regarding how they understand marriage and deal with it. This Pope would do well to call a meeting of those of us annulment respondents who would like to have a word with him; without his other, fool advisors around to put their worthless two cents in(Bishops, Priests, Theologians, Canonists). I think he lacks the GUTS to do it and give us each and all whatever of his time we needed. Like his predecessor he seems to be all talk and little action. I have little respect left for him, now. Sadly, he still remians the Pope. Those like myself want only truth and justice, for that IS what Jesus teaches. And we would like to see the Church attempt to heal broken marriages, particularly if the Roman Rota has twice stated that these are SACRAMENTAL marriages, instead of accpeting the adulterous couples as "married", which is what John Paul II and the present Pope do and did, in writing. Karl
Karl…
Were you a Catholic when you were married?
BTW… your bully-based logic does not work here. Best to share your experience outside of your anger, so we don’t be tempted to write you off.
Nick,
I guess you prefer the rapists with Roman collars
to the guy who has seen what liars those collars represent!
That is fine with me. It simply means to me that you have no idea who Jesus Christ is, which is what I anticipate with those ‘who call yourselves Catholic’ but are so in name only for the most part.
A Catholic, Nick, seeks truth in what all men say and sifts for the truth, sometimes through anger and even stark hatred. I believe that is what Jesus did. He did have the advantage of knowing everything already, which I believe made it easier for him to suffer as he did because he already knew the end game, personally.
I remain Catholic, it is the Church that has wandered further than I. I do not claim perfection. I am obliged to not support the putrid behavior of the Church regarding marriage and I will not, as best I can.
I remain as faithful as I can. Go ahead and be cynical if you want, but do so at your own peril as it belies your own possible bias in favor of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
It should mean something to you, if you are Catholic, that I remain faithful to the vows that we made, at Holy Innocents Church in, Pleasanville, NY. We were married in 1980. My wife abandoned our marriage in December 1989. She returned to the Catholic Church BECAUSE of me.
I have been written off by many, who care nothing for the Splendor of Truth but who call themselves
authentic Catholics; in fact I would say by the large majority of people I speak or correspond with. To me it is simply an indication of the truth I speak and the cost of speaking it. Truth is very painful to accept when it contradicts ones investment in the gossomer lies regarding marriage that the Catholic Church practices.
Karl
Karl…
Friend…
Dude…
If you are being “written off”, it’s not because of your experience, but because of your tone.
If you simply wrote about your experiences, without your presumption on who-reeeaaalllly-knows-JESUS, without your adding “rapists with Roman collars”, without your gesticulating wildly thru verbose clap-traps, we would all have some empathy for you–we could even have helped you.
But it seems like you don’t need our help.
I’m sorry you’re so bitter. I pray the joy of the Lord will return to you, regardless of which church you attend.
P.S.: Here’s a little unsolicited advice: “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. It’s at most public libraries.
Karl,
The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:26) and pillar and bulwark of Truth (1Tim 3:15). You are correct the Sacred Scriptures do not lie.
Christ laid Himself down for Her “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”
Again, I understand you are hurt and angry. But we remain responsible for our actions no matter what has been done to us.
Please understand that as a Catholic I am obedient to the Pope and not you as the voice and Vicar of the Truth. I know my response will make you upset but you are in my prayers.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
I have taken no offense from either of you Nick, or Inocencio.
I simply believe what I have stated and will not serve a Vicar of Christ, even with Apostolic succession, who is, based on his long failure to act against injustices he KNOWS are happening within his scope of responsibility and over which he has direct responsibility and obligation to administer justly, incompetant.
Our present Pope and his immediate successor have demonstrated their incompetance over their Rotal Tribunal and with their direct authority over Canon Law to REQUIRE JUSTICE for all those affected by the other tribunals, which the Pope can SHUT DONE INSTANTLY, if he desired but rather the last two do nothing while marriages are destroyed.
If that does not anger a person who calls themselves Catholic then, they ARE NOT Catholic, period.
If there is even ONE marriage that has been unjustly destroyed, there should be a path to seek justice that is open to them within the Church legal system, at the cost of the Catholic Church, to hold those acountable, who call themselves Catholic, lay or cleric.
There is no such access and this is extremely grave sin.
When a person has, successfully, defended their Sacrament in a Tribunal system intent on nullity, which this one is, at least in the U.S., and wherever decadent Western ideas about marriage have slithered, they should have credibility within the Church, especially among the clergy, and their accusations should be thoroughly and vigorously investigated and those guilty should be held accoutable propertionatelyto their culpabilty and the damage done to the marriage and individuals.
Since 1991 I have sought justice in the Catholic Church and been completely refused. Now some of my witnesses are dead and evidence/testimony is lost/forgotten, even though the Rota twice ruled in favor of the Sacrament.
I have not ever sought vengeance but I demand full resitution for the injustices I and my surviving family members and friends suffer, due to an unjust divorce that was initiated when at least one Catholic priest, without speaking or attempting to contact me for a view of both sides of our mareriage stories, told my wife to divorce me, that she would get an annulment and then proceeded, after the divorce was completed over my strenuous but futile objections, to submit an annulment petition that was perjured and hid the fact that my wife had been seeing her new man when we still lived together and that this adultery was the real REASON for our divorce(unbeknownst to me till much later) and the REASON for seeking an annulment–to normalize this
relationship. And this is the TIP of the iceberg.
Since 1991 the Catholic Church has encouraged this adultery and all that supports it.
You do not have to believe it but it is true.
These facts are known to others, including a Catholic Pastor, who is a close friend and the Godfather of one of our five children. So the Church could very easily check my credibility but for fifteen years has taken the low road. These facts have been presented to countless Bishops and Cardinals, in the U.S. and Rome. They have been sent to both the Rota and the Papal Signatura
and my local Ordinaries, Cardinal O’Connor and Cardinal Egan. Every single door is shut to me and to the truth and to what really goes on behind the scenes in marriage cases. I know of many cases not very different than mine but no one cares.
Under these circumstances I can come to no other conclusion than massave corruption or simply mental paralysis at the likely gravity and scope of what the Church would find with a very vigorous and wide reaching review of its annulment cases.
There, I have tried to remove the emotion with an incling of some of the background.
Karl
PS,
Should any of you care to present thses accusations to your own Ordinaries or even Cardinal Egan, I would be more than willing to address any of their possible inquiries, but I doubt it really would mean anything to any of them because if it did, they would be morally obliged to actually do someting about it more than talk. I have been that route
before only to be crushed with disappointment each time when the Bishop does nothing
and I hear nothing further.
Did anyone notice Schiavo married his concubine on the Anniversary of Roe vs Wade? You think that was a coincidence? I don’t, after all the dirty tricks he pulled after Terri suffered her barbaric death, slapping back at her family and the Catholic Church. Michael Schiavo is a sociopath and he gets his kicks by hurting others.
What does the Catholic Church think about a spouse that leaves their beloved ? spouse in life or death distress faced down, flat on their face while the EMS is on the way. Wouldn’t most people turn their spouse over and clear their air way?
Schiavo left Terri faced down, nobody with loving intentions would do that unless they wanted their spouse to die.
I am really appalled and angry at the inaction of the Catholic Church in Terri’s case, especially that Lynch fella. They handled this like they did the Presit and Bishops molesting little boys. Sorry, but they did. MUTE about the issues. Good that Terri’s sister finally lashed out at them in her speech two weeks ago.
How dare this Catholic Church give Schiavo and his mistress a blessing in the church. Disgusting. I know why I am Episcopalian. Atleast at my Church, we practice what we preach.
Sorry, I will never get over what happened to Terri and her blood family.
i need details on theological asceptic benefits to christainity
Free fantasy rape videos.
Free anime rape videos. Free videos rape non-consent. Free rape videos. Free rape fantasy videos.
Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics !!!
____________________________
Dissertations