Picture of Terri claimed to have been taken just 14 hours before her death...not the picture of peace, calm & beauty that Felos claims. Doesn't look like Euphoria to me!!
Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit
You are wrong. It's called Viaticum and it's different from the Eucharist and one of the most sacred rites of the church. Nor is it the same as last rites, where a priest anoints a dying person with oil and prays for their salvation (I'm not Catholic, but part of my family is and learned of it's importance last year when my step Grandmother died).
While it can be given by a lay person trained in ministering to the sick, if possible it should be performed by one's priest (in Terri's case this was entirely possible since the priest was nearby and even attempted to do this but MS had 3 cops barring the door).
You can find a description of the ritual here: http://www.rcab.org/Healthcare/mmViaticum.html
But I'd like to call your attention to this quote: "should the dying Christian hold on to life, he or she should be given the opportunity to receive the eucharist as viaticum on successive days, frequently if not daily.” Terri was denied this. Now, you can come back and tell me the judge ruled the way he did because we was unaware of this and was honoring the wishes of her "guardian" who was also obviously unconcerned with her welfare. MS knew she was a devout Catholic, his snide comments to the contrary nonwithstanding, and at the very least she would want her priest to be with her AS IS HER RIGHT.
This is precisely why the state should stay out of religion and why Greer should not have ruled the way he did. He had no authority to put conditions on her religious practices (and should have told MS this) which he clearly did by mandating that she could only have 2 visits by her priest. He even ruled that her priest was not allowed to give Terri Holy Communion...the hospice chaplain had to hold his hand as a surrogate SO THEY WOULD NOT VIOLATE A COURT ORDER. So tell me which part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" did Greer's judgeship give him the authority to ignore? Because the way I read it "free exercise" means whatever practices her religion deems necessary and important cannot be denied her. I don't read anywhere in the 1st Amendment (or the entire constitution for that matter), the phrase "unless you're incapacitated" (in fact the Americans with Disbilities Act protects against this kind of discrimination) or "under guardianship" or "unless ruled differently by probate judges in Pinellas County, FL" or anything remotely similar. It's actually pretty straightforward. Ironic that our very first right as citizens is the very last one denied her don't you think?
Cindie
No. It assumed a fair judgement.
"Not at the time. If we object to Michael's sudden recollections, what possible rational basis can we have for accepting theirs years later?"
Simple there was no case for them to testify in until years later. Michael is who brought up the case years later. Not these 2 witnesses. They were simply testifying because Michael brought up the issue.
Intent will always lose to the plain language of the bill, as it should. That bill was worthless, I hate to say. DeLay and Frist think they can use it as a sword against the judiciary, but I think he's got a hard row to hoe on that one, politically speaking - the support just isn't there, not so long as most folks think the right end was achieved.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
LOL. If DeLay was serious about assigning blame for why the federal court action went nowhere, he'd resign immediately.
"Whether the Plaintiffs may bring claims in federal court is not the issue confronting the court today, however. The issue confronting the court is whether temporary injunctive relief is warranted."
For a dead woman. Pardon me if I'm not impressed by the lengths to which DeLay and Frist extended their efforts.
"Sure they have - those parameters are just not as narrow as legislators want you to believe. Congress and the state legislators have been abdicating their responsibilities to the courts for decades now, and they generally prefer it that way - they take the credit for the things that people like, and they get to blame the courts for whatever goes wrong. It's perfect. Well, perfect for spineless legislators, anyway, which is most of them."
Please pay attention to what is going on. Most of the judges will rule that narrow is too narrow and not narrow is not narrow enough depending on what they want. Neither should be the case. All should rule on the laws, not on their agenda, but most rule on their agenda and the laws are pushed aside.
According to one of her lawyers, Terri attended Mass the evening before(Saturday) she was found on the floor in distress. This attendance was an habitual event.
"Jeb Bushs political aspirations has just received the kiss of death."
Some might say he pulled his own feed tube and is in for a long. slow death of his political career.
You keep stating that, and I know that. It does not change the fact that the law required a de novo review(again admitted by the court) which was not done.
Thanks for the ping. It's a sad day...
He already decided by 1993 that he didn't want Terri to come back, as evienced by his destroying her cats and her wedding rings. Funny he didn't remember her wishes for years after that.
"Sure they have - those parameters are just not as narrow as legislators want you to believe. Congress and the state legislators have been abdicating their responsibilities to the courts for decades now, and they generally prefer it that way - they take the credit for the things that people like, and they get to blame the courts for whatever goes wrong. It's perfect. Well, perfect for spineless legislators, anyway, which is most of them."
Terri's law was too narrow, so it was ruled unconstitutional.
The law that the US legislature passed was not narrow enough so the judges ignored it.
Face the facts, the judges are ruling, not according to the law, but according to what they want.
There are many, many, many more rulings that are the same. When narrow, they are unconstitutional, if they are not narrow, they are ignored by the judiciary.
Yes, the patron saint of the saturnalia!
Meanwhile, her contemptuous plans for population control embraced by (and sometimes forced upon) the very same black population she is loathesome of, much to their (unknowing?) detriment. Well, embraced by 'enlightened' women of every race and creeed as 'liberating'. Sad.
Let's not forget Ruby Ridge. Janet Reno took the trial of the FBI agent out of the state's jurisdiction only to have it tried in Federal court where he could escape a murder charge.
In any legitimate proceding, if a guardian wants to do something which might not be in the ward's best interest, a guardian ad litem is supposed to be present to oppose the action and force the guardian to prove, over the GAL's objection, that the action is, in fact, in the ward's best interest.
When Terri had guardian ad litems that opposed what Michael was trying to do, he had them fired for opposing him despite the fact that it was their job to oppose him.
Net effect: in most proceedings, Terri had zero representation by anyone who didn't want her dead.
Picture of Terri claimed to have been taken just 14 hours before her death...not the picture of peace, calm & beauty that Felos claims. Doesn't look like Euphoria to me!!
"As Mark Levin said what did you expect them to do? Storm in and grab her. That is not how the laws work."
That seemed to be the way the law worked for Elian Gonzales.
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.