[sinkspur]

Since you maintain that any application of moral theology to present reality stopped with the pronouncements of Pius XII, it's not surprising that you would equate a feeding tube with an IV.

You seem to be saying that unless a human can receive sustenance orally, any other method is "extraordinary", burdensome, and therefore not mandated.

In 1962--which is when time stopped for you--feeding tubes were considered extraordinary means of preserving life. So was open heart surgery and angioplasty. None of the three could realistically be classified as such today.

To say that a particular action may not be a mortal sin is beside the point. Christians are not called to simply avoid serious sin; we are called to give life the benefit of the doubt, especially when there are caretakers who are willing to assume the "burden" of attending to that life.

There is still considerable theological debate over end-of-life issues. But arbitrarily ending the life of an otherwise healthy woman without a clear and compelling indication that she would have chosen the same in an identical circumstance is morally problematic, to say the least.

If the casuistry of not crossing the line into mortal sin is your idea of moral courage, one is left to conclude that your standard for Christian witness to the world is very low.

[te lucis]

In 1962--which is when time stopped for you

No, no. Time stopped for him a ways before that. Time stopped for me in 1962, which incidentally is 8 years before I was born.

[B Knotts]

Thank you, sinkspur.

[TAdams8591]

GREAT refutation.

[annalex]

Thank you.

[nickcarraway]

Hey, don't argue with him, he's on your side!

[8mmMauser]

Sinkspur, this is really making me nervous. I find myself agreeing with you!

Catholics we saw at Pinellas Park KNEW the truth. We were a mix, Catholics with a common understanding, whether sede vacantists, traditionals, novus ordo. They knew she was being fed by whatever means like any human being, and it was the simple feeding and drink withdrawn solely as a means to murder her. They knew she was no different in that respect from any child relying on parents to feed it. I think most theologians here would agree that if one withdrew food and drink from a helpless baby until that baby starved and dehydrated in agony to death, it isn't Catholic behavior. It is murder. Yet that is what they did and all, on both sides on the scene, realized it.

Many suspected she may well be able to eat normally if they let her try. And they knew the murderers were not about to let her try. What Fr. Cekada portrays is of those who KNEW what happened there, and reject it in favor of argument supporting their presuppositions. To intentionally accept the lies about Terri and feeding tubes by default and to reject the truth when offered projects a bias held by Fr. Cekada. This argument couched in all the elaborate polemic one can imagine cannot erase the plain truth. Terri was systematically, doggedly murdered by evil people. We can choose the side of good as Catholics or we can choose the side of evil. I chose the side of good.

We on the scene had access to facts, not just opinions and we distributed them as we received them. Those who disagreed were obliged to cast the facts aside, while knowing they existed.

No matter how one cuts it, we hope to recognize Faith, Hope, and Charity, not Faith, Hope, and Pride. When we start accepting man over God, we get this dilemma.

That Fr. Cedaka gives any credence whatsoever to the other side, knowing what I witnessed, is simply bone chilling. It transcends misunderstanding of the truth and defaults to the other side.

[AnimalLover]

PING