Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 09/20/2007 4:09:05 PM PDT by wagglebee
Since the election of Pope Benedict, the Church has been renewed by an abundance of blessings flowing from the Vatican. In case you did not hear, the Pope's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has just released its answer to the question of providing nutrition and hydration (i.e., food and water) to persons in so-called vegetative states. Even though a child can figure out that it's not right to starve people to death, the Vatican set the issue to rest this week. In its technically-precise language, the CDF vindicated our beloved Terri Schiavo by saying that no one can dare to commit or justify such an atrocity as her killing by any interpretation of Catholic teachings. Period.
The CDF responded to a question from the US Catholic bishops who asked whether it was morally obligatory to give food and water to a patient in such a state. The response was unambiguous: "Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented."
That was not all. The bishops further asked whether food and water could be withdrawn from the patient if there was no chance of recovery. Again, the CDF was unambiguous: "No. A patient in a 'permanent vegetative state' is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means." And just to be sure that no stone was left unturned, the accompanying note said that this is always and everywhere true "in principle" even if there are truly exceptional circumstances where it is not morally obligatory to provide food and water. Such a case would be, for example, when the person's body is in such a state that it is physically unable to assimilate food and water. There would be no moral obligation to try and force nutrition into the person in that case, but clearly this is an exceptional circumstance which does not in any way undermine the principle of absolute respect for life in its most vulnerable moments.
How many of us, at the time of Terri Schiavo's death, actually heard even so-called "good Catholics" say that they should just let her die because "no one should have to live that way" and other nonsense like that? The real message of this declaration is that no one should have to think that murderous way any more.
The Vatican has spoken with the clear voice of conscience and has also vindicated all of us who fought for Terri's life and dignity, not because we were pro-life activists, but because we are Catholics. Anyone who advocated her death in 2005, whether by sloppy reasoning or culpable agreement with the atrocity, needs to seriously repent and re-evaluate his conscience in light of the Church's teaching. After this declaration, there is no excuse for not getting it right.
Most culpable of all were the so-called "Catholic" theologians, false priests, such as Richard McBrien and John Paris, who shamelessly advocated Terri's death when she was being sold to her killers for thirty pieces of silver. Now that the CDF has made clear what any child knows, this would be the time for them to take a refresher course on actual Catholic teachings.
Amen!
Pro-Life Ping
Catholic Ping
Ping!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
I’m glad they have done this. But I doubt it’ll make a hill of beans difference to the screwed up people like Michael Schiavo and the court system down there (as well as other places where this is happening).
They already know the truth, but suppress it in unrighteousness.
Please pray for a listener’s Mom,we are fighting for her life right now and Terri’s sister is helping but the lastest news is not good,Thanks,Fatima
At the time, I was a very frequent poster on a joke site that had a large political board; I was very much in the minority and the liberals and the theological hooligans that dominated the site (the owner was SB and even he kinda let them run wild) just had a heyday over the case.
I believe that Ms. Schiavo was murdered slowly and painfully over many years and that the legal system there, in spite of the now Catholic Jeb Bush’s efforts, showed its blackened soul to the nation; and the nation’s legal system showed its blackened soul to the world.
I concur. It did not surprise me at all that Pope John Paul died shortly after Terri. I fear that our country is going to go through a period of deep tribulation as Israel did when she rejected God and His blessings. May the Lord preserve us all. As I type this, a college athlete is charged with killing her newborn baby and then going to work afterwards. We will reap what we have sowed.
Oh, but you cannot say that, sir.
The Sainted Calvin will shrivel your unworthy soul. You cannot reap what you have sowed. It isn’t, well, unfair.
Sorry.
The spirit of our times is mixed. With JPII and now the German Shepherd who is exceeding all our expectations, we are making spiritual headway. I think that we’ll make more headway that we’re losing.
**I fear that our country is going to go through a period of deep tribulation as Israel did when she rejected God and His blessings. May the Lord preserve us all.**
I join you in this fear. May the Lord bless the United States as we try to bring an end to abortion.
Blessed Mary ever virgin, be our intercessor!
It is long overdue.
Best regards,
I concur. And I'm glad the Vatican has spoken out. And when Terri's slow death wasn't fast enough for her 'husband' (I use that term loosely), the courts ordered that it be sped up by starving and dehydrating her completely. I couldn't agree with it then, as a supposed compassionate way to 'let' Terri die, and I disagree more vehemently now. Let? It didn't let her go, it forced her to go and in a gruesome way. A way we don't treat animals.
I do remember debating with some of the enlightened during these times. Some of them were waxing lyrical about the euphoria that one experiences during the last few days of dehydration.
Funny, though, none of them wished to experience that euphoria. I wonder why.
I agree. Terri Schiavo was made to die in way that we wouldn’t treat an animal. If an animal is really that sick, you euthanize it but you don’t starve and dehydrate it to death. Euthaniasia is illegal to do to humans.
IIRC, wasn’t it Bishop Lynch (of Clearwater) who stood silently by as Terri was being fought over in the courts, and eventually starved to death by her husband? If I indeed have the correct bishop, I wonder which rock he’ll crawl under now?
I don’t know... I couldn’t stomach listening then :(
The Vatican has it wrong when it makes such broad and definitive statements because one simplistic solution cannot apply appropriately to all in an infinite number of complex situations including one where there is a missing cerebral cortex. This also completely disregards to the point of being uncaring about a family’s ability to even provide the needed care, i.e. money.
With all due respect to the Vatican I think it’s bowing to a lot of American political pressure. And I am a good Catholic.
Flame away including insults about the quality of my Catholicism.
You have it exactly backwards. The "American political pressure" is all on the side of euthanising the weak and helpless. The Vatican is speaking out against the "American political pressure" and in favor of respect for life, from natural conception to natural death.
I've had this argument even with members of my church, who thought they were well-meaning - that she didn't know, that it's not inhuman. Prompting me to say that I couldn't imagine anyone treating a pet this way and calling it humane. And thankfully euthanizing humans is still illegal and the distinction is made between pets (no matter how dear they are to us) and our loved ones. At least for now.
Sickening, isn't it? Funny how these macabre ideas are good for other people. Folks wouldn't treat their pets this way, would scoff at the notion that one would even suggest it, but not scoff for Terri. It would somehow be blissful for her. Euphoria? Ugh. Just disgusting. Prisoners of war, or torture, persons stranded in the desert or at sea who are rescued never complain that we've interrupted their euphoria. I've heard it described by survivors (such as on the discovery channel) as more delirium than euphoria.
A friend of mine talks about how God puts such things in front of us, and if we don't do what our faith compels us to do they are opportunities missed.
I couldn't agree more.
You mean how a court awarded Terri Schiavo money for her rehabilitation and her estranged, adulterous husband spent it to kill her?
Are you suggesting that we adopt a policy where someone is left to die simply because of financial considerations? And if so, where do you draw the line?
If someone's grandmother has say $1 million in the bank and a house that's paid for, but her medical expenses for Alzheimer's will go through all of the money in six or seven years, should her heirs be permitted to kill her to get the money?
With all due respect to the Vatican I think it’s bowing to a lot of American political pressure.
Quite the opposite, the Church is following the guidelines set for it by the Lord two thousand years ago, try reading the last portion of chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew. Politics is being taken over by the culture of death, the Church is leading the fight against it.
and
"If someone's grandmother has say $1 million in the bank and a house that's paid for, but her medical expenses for Alzheimer's will go through all of the money in six or seven years, should her heirs be permitted to kill her to get the money?"
It's unfortunate that these are the only considerations you may have for an issue that can affect any Catholic regardless of economic or social status.
No, how about the average middle class $35K - $40K per year with little savings, borderline health care, brought up all the kids to be good Catholics and one of the teens in the family is on life support after being hit by a drunk driver and there's little hope for recovery?
Have you actually read what the Vatican issued?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1897412/posts
You seem to have fallen into the culture of death’s trap that defines water and nutrition as life support. They are totally different subjects and to use one to justify the other is wrong. The Church has very clear and consistent teachings on both matters.
What we are reaping is our growing slavery to sin, which causes us to sow more evil, which only increases our slavery to sin. A vicious cycle, indeed. God doesn’t need to hurl a meteor at us. Our punishment is the sin itself and the misery we embrace. It will get exponentially worse until the world is lying face-down in the mud and there is no other plea but for God’s mercy.
The other side will argue that funds were awarded for damages against the doctor for economic damages and no stipulations were placed on how the money was to be spent. From the legal paper trial this appears to be true. However, the money was “earmarked” and I use the term earmark liturally because in testimony in court of law the medical damages (funds) being sought against the doctor were stipulated for her medical care rehabilitation. This is supported by Michael Schiavo himself and his expert witnesses who testified that the money would be used for expensive rehab, a special house, special van, etc. When the jury awared the funds, the expectation of the court, the Schindlers, and even Terri herself (since the lawsuit was brought on behalf of Terri) was that money was to go towards her medical care and rehab.
The money was never used for this purpose (very little if any) and instead of Michael honoring is sworn commitments, Michael went back on his word and used the money for other purposes.
On the great tradgies of this case was that court refused to hold Michael accountable for his sworn commitments. Michael even swore he would help Terri is a heartbeat if therapy presented itself that could possibily help her. Michael refused to honor this commitment as well and sabatoged every effort to consider therapy for Terri Schiavo.
Some the things Terri’s money was used for included the paying off of martial debts (loan) for Michael and Terri.
Felos petitioned that Terri’s trust pay for every cent of his legal services over a three year period. This including phone fees, mailing fees, depo fees, transcript fees, copying and printing fees, etc.
It sure was. I was on the scene during those times and met some close to the Bp. who were sure he would come to his senses. They drifted away shocked and dismayed at his silence in word and deed.
8mm
If God is merciful enough to provide a loving family willing to suffer financial hardship to preserve a life He created, He's certainly merciful enough to look after their needs as well. i.e., God has a slightly bigger printing press than the Federal Reserve. He's all powerful, and certainly aware of the financial hardship incurred in difficult medical situations. The person of faith will have his generosity returned tenfold. Agreeably, it's an awful test that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but it's really the ultimate question of serving God or mammon.
He actually arranged to be out of the country on a "fact-finding" mission on the Indonesian tsunami at precisely the time Terri Schiavo's passion reached its climax. His most public intervention was a Pontius Pilate, "can't we all get along" type imitation.
Yep, Lynch was Pilate and Greer was Caiphas.
Say it with us Bishop Lynch...
ready?
go...
A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
I would seem that Michael and court violated Terri’s religious faith.
Terri was raised Catholic and had a Catholic faith at some level.
Therefore in all moral and ethical fairness, Terri Schiavo should not have been starved and dehydrated to death.
If it was truly Terri’s wish not to want to live, then Michael should been able to refuse a ventilator for her or complicated invasive medical procedures.
However, Terri should have been entitled to food and water even if it was through a feeding tube.
Pulling it was inmoral and a violation of Terri’s faith.
However, the feeding tube removal was so important because Terri was biologically tenacious, me she wouldn’ die when Michael wanted her to.
Starving and dehydrating biologically tenacious patients is really to only way to kill them in a timely fashion.
All fine and dandy but my posts are not at all specific to the Schiavo case.
I'm not talking forsaking riches and/or wealth for a higher good. I'm talking about a choice between putting a roof over the kids' heads and food on the table for them or paying granny's nursing $5000 a month care bill.
BTW, there should be no doubt that a wonderful afterlife awaits someone that does forsake material wealth and riches in this life. I just had an aunt pass away that has every single thing she ever purchased in her entire 82 year life. She was brought up during the depression and, as with many from that time, she was always afraid she'd have nothing again so she kept everthing. Her and her deceased husband were millionaires but I don't really even think they realized it. They never gave to charity. They never offered to help out any family member. They were everything but generous much less caring. They never went to church. My aunt was baptized and brought up Catholic but they never went to church. In the end, they did not take one cent with them. I'm fairly confident that I'm the only person on earth praying for their souls because they direly need it.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/032707DenouncesBishop.html
If you haven't read this, you will want to. Sorry if you can't click on the link to go there. I'm still a "computer student".
We can't know how this period in history affected every individual. Nor could any of them understand the high rate of divorce we witness today, or the insane idea of same-sex "marriage".
As a result of anguish and worry she may have suffered through those years, a deep fear may have lodged in her mind.
We can't assume we know how each one of us perceive our lives.
Keep praying for them. We don't know how God judges any of us.
Thanks
For pity's sake...why not drop the baby off at the hospital or at a church? Have girls gone insane? Or is it because of "baby abandonment" laws?
At least Delaware and Maryland, thanks to the outrage of the public, have changed their laws to decriminalize baby abandonment and instead created "safe baby havens" so a desperate young girl can drop her newborn off at a hospital, no questions asked. We lobbied hard for those laws.
#2278 of the Catechism contradicts what the Pope is now saying about using artificial means to prolong life:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
