Free Republic

Hey NYer, check out what I found in the archives! I had forgotten about Svend assaulting a pro-life priest who was protesting on parliament hill:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03091602.html


Catholic League Shows Robinson's Hate Crime Legislation Destined to Attack Faith

League warns that C-250 "is an illiberal and illegitimate use of the criminal law."

OTTAWA, September 16, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Civil Rights League has issued a list of nine objections to including the term sexual orientation in current hate crimes legislation. The list, faxed to Members of Parliament who are scheduled to vote on the legislation on September 17, points out that the bill's sponsor - homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson - has already demonstrated that he intends to use the legislation to restrict religious freedom.

Citing Robinson's conduct toward Catholic priest, Fr. Tony Van Hee - a peaceful protestor on Parliament Hill, the CCRL warns MP's that Bill C-250 is meant to criminalize and suppress opposition to homosexual conduct and lifestyles. Those who state publicly that homosexual acts are immoral will be liable to prosecution for inciting hatred, even if they also insist that the homosexually active persons must be treated with respect and compassion. "This," the League protested, "is an illiberal and illegitimate use of the criminal law."

The League recounts: "Mr. Robinson objected to a sign held by a peaceful protestor on Parliament Hill: "Homosexuality - objective disorder tending to deviant acts." When Mr. Robinson threatened to have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove it, the protestor did so himself. The sign was later replaced with one that read, "Sexual orientation. Defeat of reason. Protecting disorder." Mr. Robinson seized that sign and threw it over a wall when the protestor declined to remove it. It was later reported that the RCMP were investigating the legality of the signs."

The League stressed, "Existing law is sufficient to stop people from advocating violence against homosexually inclined or active just as it is sufficient to stop people from advocating violence against reporters or teachers."

"The problem is not with making it illegal to incite hatred," explained Thomas Langan, President of the League. "Advocating hatred is always seriously wrong. But laws making it illegal must respect fundamental social, religious, and legal traditions, as well as relevant political realities. Bill C-250 fails on all counts."

"Parents who object to homosexual conduct, like those supporting the School Board in Surrey, B.C., will not react kindly if police are sent to their doors to investigate accusations that they are inciting hatred," warned Langan. "This will bring the administration of justice into disrepute and undermine public support for government and public education."

For the full text of the League's objections, see
http://ccrl.ca/resources_CCRL_C250.html

If Svend was, of his own admission, not feeling well upstairs, what does that say of his private member's bill?

Here is Vere's reply over at Envoy Encore: -------------------- Not Just Abortion The Church vs. Dean on other pro-life issues Pete Vere

Over the past couple of days, Catholics for Dean has challenged me to go beyond the abortion issue and compare Dean's record on other pro-life issues to Catholic social teaching.  As I have already pointed out, such an action is moot.  The right-to-life is the fundamental right upon which all other rights within Catholic social teaching are derived.

Nevertheless, if we are to objectively examine these secondary issues, the Republican record still withstands any comparison to that of the Abortion party. For next to abortion, the stability of marriage stands as the most important issue within the right-to-life movement.

This is why I found the following "definition of pro-life" proposed by "Catholics for Dean" so disingenuous:

Catholic Social Teaching says that in order to be "pro-life" one must oppose ALL violations of human life and the dignity thereof. This includes not just abortion, but also capital punishment, euthanasia, infanticide, and most wars. In 1992, Vatican Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini stated that "among the individuals and groups against legalized abortion in the United States, there are some who support the continuation of capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction." In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II said that our society is more and more tainted by a "culture of death," in which society has become indifferent toward human rights. In a January 27, 1999 mass in St. Louis, the Pontiff called for all Christians to be "unconditionally pro-life."

Applying the Church's teaching, it is obvious that George W. Bush is NOT pro-life. Even though Howard Dean does not oppose abortion, he is still more pro-life than Bush due to his opposition to the Iraq war and his partial opposition to capital punishment. So pay no attention to those claims that Howard Dean is not pro-life. Just say, "Well, he's more pro-life than Bush."

First of all, note the absence of any mention of the Church's teaching (or Governor Dean's history) with regards to homosexual unions so-called.  I will deal with this issue in more detail a little further down.  Nevertheless, given how prominent this issue is within the right-to-life movement, its absence from a (proposed) "definition of pro-life" is rather telling.  The debate is being framed.  This suggests that rather than an honest comparisson of both parties when it comes to pro-life issues, "Catholics for Dean" is seeking to co-opt the pro-life vote into supporting the Democrat Party.  However, abortion affects how the Democrats approach all other life issues as well.  For example, concerning...

Capital Punishment

Vice President Gore, asked by NBC's Tim Russert whether he agreed with the current prohibition on federal executions of pregnant women, laughed and said, "I'd want to think about it." (Meet the Press, July 16, 2000) On July 17, "Mr. Gore said he favored allowing a pregnant woman to choose whether to delay her execution until she gave birth. 'The principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case,' he said." (The New York Times, July 18) Gore's position implicitly repudiates the innocent child principle embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, both of which flatly prohibit the government from taking the child's life.

Euthanasia

Earlier this week, Dean criticized Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) for signing Terri's Law that allowed him to ask doctors to reinsert her feeding tube.

"What business is it of the government to interfere with a private family matter with a right-to-die case?" asked Dean. "I am tired of people in the Legislature thinking that they have an M.D. with what they really have is a B.S."

He said Florida residents should be "embarrassed" by Bush's decision.

Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre said the governor found Dean's remarks "shameful."

"Gov. Bush doesn't think that it's appropriate for a presidential candidate to be so flip about a serious issue that involves not only protecting the rights of the disabled, but also the fundamental right to life that is guaranteed in the Florida Constitution," DiPietre said.

Pamela Hennessy - spokeswoman for Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler - called Dean's comments "a monumental display of bad taste in every way imaginable."

"Obviously, he doesn't know every aspect of the case," Hennessy told the Cybercast News Service, "and I think he's using it as platform just to take a swing, verbally, at Gov. Bush."

She was not surprised that Dean would oppose the fight to save Terri's life and provide her with the medical and rehabilitative care that her estranged husband Michael has denied.

Dean is on record supporting assisted suicide, Hennessy explained.

Meanwhile, President Bush said in late October that he agreed with his brother's decision to save Terri's life.

"Yes, I believe my brother made the right decision,'' President Bush said in response to a reporter's question at a news conference

Infanticide

"For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way," Bush told religious leaders, members of Congress and other abortion foes at a signing ceremony at the Ronald Reagan Building. "Today at last the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child."

There was sharp criticism from Democratic presidential candidates.  Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts called the law "a step backwards for women." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a physician, said it would "chill the practice of medicine and endanger the health of countless women." Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut called it a triumph for "the political agenda of right-wing Republicans." Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said it threatened a return "to the dark days before Roe v. Wade."

War

Interestingly enough, the GOP aren't as weak here as one would think.  As Jeff Miller notes, who authorized Clinton's war in Kosovo -- which Howard Dean supported? Where did the Holy Father stand with regards to Clinton's military action here? Was the skirmish this past fall between Dean and Clark ever resolved over whether or not Dean had invited Clark to be his running mate?  These are all questions the Abortion Party may wish to consider before throwing stones at the GOP over Iraq.  Matthew Rothschild makes the following interesting allegations in The Progressive concerning a current DNC front-runner whom the Dean campaign has reportedly woo as a running mate: 

During the Kosovo war, Clark also repeatedly targeted Yugoslavia's TV headquarters, killing twenty people there.

"At least 1,200 civilians have died in NATO accidents," Steven Erlanger of The New York Times reported at the end of the war.

On May 27, 1999, The Wall Street Journal ran an article that said: "On the sensitive topic of civilian casualties, Gen. Clark emphasized that no air war was perfect and that, to prevail, the (NATO) ambassadors should brace themselves for more collateral damage."

During the war, Clark also fobbed off the problems facing the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Kosovo whom the Serbs predictably forced out after NATO started the bombing. Refusing to drop relief supplies to the refugees, Clark said, "Our view on this is that, frankly, this is a problem that's caused by President Milosevic. He needs to address this problem."

But again, from a pro-life perspective these are merely tertiary issues when comparing Dean and his fellow Abortion Party presidential candidates to the Republican President Bush.  Let's get back to the more important -- namely the sanctity of marriage as opposed to homosexual unions.

Here is where Howard Dean stands:

I’m proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant same gender couples the right to enter into civil unions. This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy: the right to inherit property, obtain child custody, visit a partner in the hospital, and control a partner’s affairs upon death.

The Republican Party seems eager to run against me because of my role in enactment of this historic law. I welcome that debate -- I can’t wait to ask the President of the United States why he doesn’t support equal rights. I can’t wait to ask him to repudiate the GOP-authored Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional, mean-spirited law that stoked fears of homosexuality and pitted one group of Americans against another.

Here is where the Catholic Church stands:

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”. [...]

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

In short, when pro-life issues are examined as a whole, a well-formed Catholic conscience simply is not capable of supporting any of the current Democrat presidential candidates. Thus the only option for practicing Catholics in the next election among the two major parties is President Bush and the GOP.

Anyone catch this response from Catholics for Dean? (Just for the record, I agree with Vere when he calls them "Katholics for Dean")

---

Dear editors (of CatholicCitizens.org and EnterStageRight.com),

Please allow me to respond to Pete Vere's recent assessment of the site, CatholicsforDean.com.

Because my orthodoxy and personal morality are in question (e.g. I am "skipping to Hell"), I will answer primarily with quotes from the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," with brief comments about what I take these quotes to mean.

My first concern is that Mr. Vere repeatedly implies that abortion is an issue for Catholics only. For instance, by stating that, "To a practicing Catholic, what lay in a woman’s womb is not just some anonymous blob of cancerous tissue," Vere unwittingly endorses the common view that the pro-life movement is a case of Christians trying to impose their morality on everyone else. To the contrary, the Pope teaches:

"The Gospel of life is not for believers alone: it is for everyone. The issue of life and its defence and promotion is not a concern of Christians alone. Although faith provides special light and strength, this question arises in every human conscience which seeks the truth and which cares about the future of humanity. Life certainly has a sacred and religious value, but in no way is that value a concern only of believers. The value at stake is one which every human being can grasp by the light of reason; thus it necessarily concerns everyone."(section 101)

I do not contend that Mr. Vere does not agree with the above, but I would argue that his rhetorical approach to this issue ignores this teaching. If the pro-life movement is ever to gain traction with the 50% or so of Americans who remain pro-choice, it will be by patiently and persistently challenging the philosophically groundless claim that human life and personhood begins when the fetus leaves the womb. As long as right-to-life is seen as an exclusively Christian issue, our society will remain evenly divided and the right-to-abortion will remain. Mr. Vere's hateful condemnations, along with the overtly (and hypocritical) Christian rhetoric of President Bush so closely and widely associated with the pro-life movement in this country, are severely hurting the cause of bringing the Gospel of Life to our entire society.

In particular, I believe Mr. Vere makes a serious error in claiming that Catholics must cut off all connections with the Democratic Party. As he well knows, Governor Casey remained a Democrat even after he was silenced at the convention in 1992. I cannot speak for the good Governor, but I believe that striving to rebuild a strong voice in the Democratic party is exactly was Catholics ought to be doing. Not only is moving over to the Republican Party contrary to Catholic social teaching on virtually every issue other than abortion, but it also directly abandons the urgent cause of helping the pro-choice half of our troubled nation see the truth about abortion "which every human being can grasp by the light of reason." Will the Democratic Party be more likely to listen to a large and unified group of its fervent supporters, or an estranged group proclaiming allegiance to the opposing party at all costs? Granted, the Catholic voice in the Democratic party has been supressed for over a decade now, but is that any reason to give up this most important fight?

In addition, it is not I but the Holy Father who has proclaimed that the Christian commitment to life must not end with opposing abortion. Tell me whether the demands of the following paragraphs are generally better fulfilled by Democrats, the party of working people, or Republicans, the party of the wealthy. (Excuse my editorial labels of the parties--please do make this judgment as objectively as you can.)
"87. By virtue of our sharing in Christ's royal mission, our support and promotion of human life must be accomplished through the service of charity, which finds _expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment. This is a particularly pressing need at the present time, when the "culture of death" so forcefully opposes the "culture of life" and often seems to have the upper hand. But even before that it is a need which springs from "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6). As the Letter of James admonishes us: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled', without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (2:14-17).

In our service of charity, we must be inspired and distinguished by a specific attitude: we must care for the other as a person for whom God has made us responsible. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to become neighbours to everyone (cf. Lk 10:29-37), and to show special favour to those who are poorest, most alone and most in need. In helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned-as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death-we have the opportunity to serve Jesus. He himself said: "As you did it to one of the least of these my breth- ren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40). Hence we cannot but feel called to account and judged by the ever relevant words of Saint John Chrysostom: "Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not neglect it when you find it naked. Do not do it homage here in the church with silk fabrics only to neglect it outside where it suffers cold and nakedness".113

Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. We need then to "show care" for all life and for the life of everyone. Indeed, at an even deeper level, we need to go to the very roots of life and love.

It is this deep love for every man and woman which has given rise down the centuries to an outstanding history of charity, a history which has brought into being in the Church and society many forms of service to life which evoke admiration from all unbiased observers. Every Christian community, with a renewed sense of responsibility, must continue to write this history through various kinds of pastoral and social activity. To this end, appropriate and effective programmes of support for new life must be implemented, with special closeness to mothers who, even without the help of the father, are not afraid to bring their child into the world and to raise it. Similar care must be shown for the life of the marginalized or suffering, especially in its final phases."

I'll close with a few relevant tidbits about Howard Dean. Although he unfortunately supports the right to choose, he has gone well beyond the call of duty as Governor of Vermont to implement "appropriate and effective programs of support for new life," reaching out to mothers "afraid to bring their child into the world and to raise it" and helping these mothers choose life.

Gov. Dean provided health insurance for nearly every child and greatly improved education throughout the state, both of which take away some of the biggest worries that new mothers face. He also pioneered an innovative early childhood intervention program in Vermont, Success by Six, which resulted in 89% of pregnant women entering prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, under this remarkable program, 91% of families with a new birth now receive a community visit, and parents who need it get help and support. As a result, 81% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% by the time they start kindergarten, and child and sexual abuse decreased by 45%. Of particular importance (considering that 4 of 10 teen pregnancies end in abortion), teen pregnancy decreased by 49% during Dean's time in Vermont, and Vermont now has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Dean has already announced his intention to expand all these programs to a national scale. Do I dare ask Catholics to help him make that happen?


Sincerely, Tim Huegerich

Maximilian wrote: "The individual who has been on a non-stop campaign of complaining about Fr. Aulagnier's transfer is Peter Vere, and the person posting this item to some blog was Peter Vere, and the person comparing the SSPX transfer of Aulagnier to the consecration of a gay episcopal bishop was Peter Vere." Here is what was initially written: "And there are punishments for all those who, publicly, diverge from the official line: Fr. Aulagnier was reduced to complete silence and exiled to Canada for having approved of our Apostolic Administration and for having attended my episcopal consecration." As far as I know, Vere is neither in charge of an Apostolic Administration nor has he been consecrated a bishop. Therefore, the evidence suggests that Bishop Rifan is the one making the claim here. This would be consistent with other evidence such as the fact Bishop Rifan was the subject of the interview in which the claims were made.

Why Was Terri Denied Holy Communion?

Pete Vere, JCL

By now, most of you are familiar with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation down in Florida. Now that her life has been spared through the intervention of the Florida State Legislature and Governor Jeb Bush, many of us can sit back and reflect upon the events as they unfolded.


From my own perspective as a canon lawyer and a baptized Catholic, the incident I found most troubling throughout this drama was the denial of Terri’s right to the sacraments. Terri is a baptized Catholic. As such, she enjoys certain basic canonical rights. Thus we should find it troubling that Michael Schiavo and his attorney George Felos – neither of whom are Catholic – were capable of denying Msgr. Malanowski permission to administer the sacraments to a dying woman. And even more troubling was the Diocese of St. Petersburg’s apparent refusal to back Monsignor up. Where was Bishop Lynch when the police threatened this eighty-year old priest with arrest?


As an aside, many also raise serious questions about Terri’s religious rights. Was Terri’s constitutional freedom to practice her religion, which the First Amendment ought to protect, violated? Indeed, this question should trouble every Catholic living in America. Because my legal training does not extend to civil law, however, I will limit my following commentary to the denial of Terri’s canonical rights. Nevertheless, as a concerned Catholic I would welcome the response of a qualified civil lawyer.


Of the canonical issues involved, the first concerns Terri’s right to the sacraments. The Church considers this a fundamental right of all those who are baptized or received into her membership. As canon 213 clearly states: “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments” (emphasis mine). There are very few exceptions where this right may be limited, and even then only in view of the common good (cf. canon 223) and according to an application of the law that is restricted to as few cases as possible (cf. canon 18). Neither applies in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation.


Beginning with the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, Terri may receive this sacrament more than once. Yet certain individuals in Michael Schiavo’s corner have reportedly attempted to deny Msgr. Malanowski permission to repeat the administration of Extreme Unction, claiming that this sacrament may only be administered once. Obviously these individuals are not familiar with the Church’s teaching concerning this matter, since the only sacraments that cannot be repeated are Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. In other words, the sacraments that leave an indelible mark upon one’s soul.


One may even repeat the sacrament of marriage. For the death of one’s spouse dissolves the matrimonial bond and allows the surviving spouse to enter a valid sacramental marriage with another. Of course, if one killed one’s spouse in order to marry another particular individual, the marriage would still be invalid. For as canon 1090 states: “§1 One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts marriage. §2 They also invalidly attempt mariage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either’s spouse.” While such incidents are fortunately rare, they nevertheless still happen in our day.


Yet returning to my initial point, Anointing of the Sick does not leave an indelible mark upon one’s soul. It may therefore be repeated. In fact, when necessary it should be repeated. With merely the most elementary of research, this would become apparent to even a non-Catholic attorney with no background in canon law. For canon 1004 §2 is clear concerning this issue: “This sacrament [Anointing of the Sick] can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered, again becomes seriously ill or if, in the same illness, the danger becomes more serious.” Starvation and dehydration obviously increase one’s danger of death.


Let us now turn our attention to the more serious abuse of Terri’s canonical rights, namely, that of denying her the possibility of receiving Holy Communion. Reception of the Holy Eucharist is not merely just another spiritual practice of the Catholic faith. Rather, following the Church’s sacred Tradition, the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the centrality of the Holy Eucharist to the spiritual life of Christ’s faithful. This is found in canon 897 which states:


“The most august sacrament is the Blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is for ever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God’s people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the body of Chris is perfected. The other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are bound up with, and directed to, the Blessed Eucharist.”


In short, the Eucharist is both the source and the summit of our spiritual life as Catholics. All our actions should flow from the Holy Eucharist, and all our actions should ultimately be directed toward the Holy Eucharist.


When the Holy Eucharist is administered to a dying person, this is known as Viaticum or food for the journey. Canon 921 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the basis for seeking Viaticum as follows: “Christ’s faithful who are in danger of death, from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by Holy Communion as Viaticum.” Under canon 864 §1 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, the Catholic faithful were bound by ecclesiastical precept to seek Viaticum when the danger of death presented itself.


Although the 1984 Code of Canon Law no longer binds under precept, it is clear that Christ’s faithful remain bound in spirit to seek Viaticum when the danger of death arises. This is in keeping with the canonical principle of canon 21, which states that “...later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.” Additionally, when interpreting any canon it is important to follow the canonical principles of canon 17. One of these principles is “recourse to parallel places, if there be any...” In the case of administering Viaticum, canon 708 from the Code of Canons of the Eastern [Catholic] Churches speaks of “..the obligation of receiving the Divine Eucharist in danger of death...” Thus the reception of Viaticum is both an essential right and an essential obligation of all Catholics in danger of death.
But what if the individual either lacks consciousness or has fallen into a persistent vegetative state, as is alleged in Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s situation? Although much evidence suggests that Terri is merely severely brain-damaged and not in a persistent vegetative state, let us assume the latter for the sake of the argument. Does not canon 922 state the following: “Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be unduly delayed. Those who have the care of souls are to take assiduous care that the sick are strengthened by it while they are in full possession of their faculties”?


This canon speaks of the ideal, namely, that the individual in danger of death receive Viaticum before losing consciousness. Its intention is obviously to stress the urgency with which Viaticum should be administered when the danger of death arises. This canon speaks nothing of how a pastoral agent should proceed if the individual merely possesses partial-consciousness or if the individual loses consciousness completely. Similarly, both the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches express the ideal, but are silent concerning the other possibilities mentioned.


Fortunately, the Church does not leave us without a means of resolving this pastoral and canonical dilemma. For drawing upon the Church’s great canonical tradition, the Roman principle of “favorabilia amplianda, odiosa restringenda” applies in such situations. English-speaking canonists commonly – although not literally – translate this revered principle as “favors are to be multiplied, and burdens restricted.” Without question, the favorable interpretation is to administer Viaticum to Terri Schindler-Schiavo.


Moreover, keep in mind that Viaticum is usually, although not always, intimately linked to the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. Therefore, canon 1005 offers another parallel place to which a pastoral agent may have recourse. This canon states: “If there is any doubt as to whether the sick person has reached the use of reason, or is dangerously ill, or is dead, this sacrament is to be administered.”


Finally, let us look at the reason why Michael Schiavo and his legal team continue to deny Terri her fundamental right to receive the Holy Eucharist. According to most press reports, they allege that allowing Monsignor Malanowski to administer Viaticum to Terri would “cause her distress.” As an aside, I am by no means a medical expert but it is inconceivable to me how someone who is truly in permanent vegetative state could experience distress at receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. What adds to my incomprehension is that these same individuals reportedly allege that Terri feels no distress from her starvation and dehydration. But setting aside this medical marvel, it is not inconceivable that someone in a persistent vegetative state could find the Holy Eucharist comforting since Viaticum is primarily food for the soul and not for the body.


Nevertheless, this is a significant admission on the part of Michael Schiavo and the legal and medical team assisting him. For if Terri possesses sufficient consciousness to potentially find reception of the Holy Eucharist distressing, then for pastoral and canonical purposes she also possesses sufficient consciousness to find Viaticum comforting. At the very minimum, Mr. Schiavo and his team have raised a doubt of fact concerning Terri’s condition. Thus following both the Church’s canonical and pastoral custom, a pastoral minister must err on the side of administering the Sacrament.

For as I have already stated, Viaticum is not food for the body but food for the soul. And as such, it is the fundamental right and obligation of every Catholic in danger of death to receive Our Lord as food for the journey. Thankfully, just as Michael Schiavo and the Florida judiciary prevented Msgr. Malanowski from providing Terri with food for the journey, so too did God, through the intervention of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature, prevent Terri from making this journey.

I'm not sure if I'm on or off either, or how to use it. NYer, please add me to the ping list and please ping Fr. Johansen's news about Terri's advocates appearing on Fox!

Please Ping others on Terri's list. Fox news to counter CNN tonight. Please see a couple entries back or go to Fr. Rob Johansen's blog at http://thrownback.blogspot.com

From http://thrownback.blogspot.com

Advocates For Terri to Appear on Fox News Tonight!

Tonight Dr. Bill Hammesfahr, a doctor specializing in the treatment of stroke and brain injuries, will appear on the Hannity & Colmes program. Dr. Hammesfahr has testified at various hearings for Terri, stating that he believes that Terri is not in a Persistent Vegetative State. At the press conference last Friday, he explained that Terri is able to move her limbs on command, and that she can swallow. This, of course, flatly contradicts the opinions of the doctors who testified for the husband. Dr. Hammesfahr has come to these conclusions after spending approximately 25 hours with Terri, observing her and administering tests.

Interestingly enough, the doctor who was the chief medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford, saw Terri for about 45 minutes.

This is a show anyone who wants to hear all the facts about Terri should definitely see.

Also, Pat Anderson, the principal attorney for the Schindlers, will be appearing on Greta van Susteren's show, On the Record. She will address the legal issues involved in defending Terri's life.

I know some like to beat up on Fox for being "right wing", but it seems to me, at least here, that they're providing the balance so sorely lacking in places like CNN.

Hannity & Colmes is on at 9:00 PM EST. Greta van Susteren is on at 10:00 EST.

Advocates For Terri to Appear on Fox News Tonight!

Tonight Dr. Bill Hammesfahr, a doctor specializing in the treatment of stroke and brain injuries, will appear on the Hannity & Colmes program. Dr. Hammesfahr has testified at various hearings for Terri, stating that he believes that Terri is not in a Persistent Vegetative State. At the press conference last Friday, he explained that Terri is able to move her limbs on command, and that she can swallow. This, of course, flatly contradicts the opinions of the doctors who testified for the husband. Dr. Hammesfahr has come to these conclusions after spending approximately 25 hours with Terri, observing her and administering tests.

Interestingly enough, the doctor who was the chief medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford, saw Terri for about 45 minutes.

This is a show anyone who wants to hear all the facts about Terri should definitely see.

Also, Pat Anderson, the principal attorney for the Schindlers, will be appearing on Greta van Susteren's show, On the Record. She will address the legal issues involved in defending Terri's life.

I know some like to beat up on Fox for being "right wing", but it seems to me, at least here, that they're providing the balance so sorely lacking in places like CNN.

Hannity & Colmes is on at 9:00 PM EST. Greta van Susteren is on at 10:00 EST.

Please PING Terri's list!

Exactly! That's why we need to write all weekend how Michael and Felos are whacked! I am composing mine right now , please give CNN facts on the link provided in an above post! Better yet, we need to email Fox and demand they put the Schindlers, Msgr Malanowski and some of the medical staff (who left the hospice after not being able to tolerate the lies surrounding Terri) on one of their shows on that same net. Let Fox destroy CNN in the ratings' war.

traditionalist, check markshea.blogspot.com I think Shea has posted it.

Stop fighting amongst yourselves. In your rage that no one can stop those two monsters, you instead turn your daggers on each other so you can have the satisfaction of taking your revenge on -someone-, anyone, for this injustice. That doesn't sound like what I've always respected about Christianity to me.

I have to agree with Qwinn here. A close friend of mine just got back from Terri's prayer vigil. She reports that soon after Terri was denied Holy Communion, Pat Anderson (Terri's attorney), the Baptist attorney who first took Terri's case (my friend forget her name, but she told me the Baptist attorney was a lovely lady), and Pete Vere (a canon lawyer who is covering the story for the Wanderer) -- all of whom were on the scene -- engaged in a tele-conference call with Chris Ferrara (an attorney and a traditionalist author who frequently writes for the Remnant, which is the Wanderer's main rival) to try and map out some sort of legal strategy.

I'm not sure where Pat stands on other faith issues, but some of the most vicious religious wars these past couple years have pitted Ferrara and Vere against each other. Throw a Baptist into the mix, and you can imagine what would normally happen. However, through the grace of God, this was not the case from what I was told. Chris, Pat and the Baptist are working closely to map out a legal strategy, and Vere is backing them up where civil law intersects with canon law. We need to follow their lead, pray for Terri, and do what we can to prevent this injustice.

As you say, Vere has been very open about his past, and his present, in which his leisure-time activities consist of horror novels, drinking games and WWF.

This is incorrect. Vere notoriously hates WWF because of the so-called "adult direction" (sex and ultra-violence) it has taken in recent years. He is a an old school purist. This is why, when he was professional wrestling reporter in Scanton, he refused to cover WWF or any hard core promotion -- even when they offered him the opportunity to meet some of the top talent in the industry. As for the drinking games, this has for the most part subsided since college. However, all the young trads were like that.

Maximilian. I have known Vere personally for quite some time. He is quite open about his past. This is something he never mentioned to my knowledge, therefore, I would be very interested in seeing Hermann's proof.

Before returning to active Catholicism, Pete Vere and his girlfriend obtained an abortion to correct (or rather destroy) the result of one of their errors in judgement, their unborn child.

Proof, please?

I suggest you read the entire piece. As Vere notes, the women know that abortion is wrong. Removing the censure is not the same thing as saying abortion is not a grave sin, a position of the Church that Vere supports. On the other hand, censures and penalties should be directed where they will be most effective. In this case, excommunicating the politicians and doctors who make abortion possible would do much more good than excommunicating the women who procure them.

PING!