Free Republic

Thank you for your post and adding the link to this thread. I am a traditional Catholic but not a sedevacantist.

The erroneous views on Terri Schiavo that are held by priests like Fr. Cekada are a great source of confusion for traditional Catholics and Novus Ordo Catholics alike.

We are truly in chaotic times.

My Jesus Mercy!

This is an excellent article in defense of life according to Catholic teaching! Thank you for posting it. I also thank you for your response to the debate started by Fr. Cekada concerning Terri Schiavo's death.

If we call her death murder, he considers us emotional idiots, who get all our information from the liberal media. And yet rather than answer questions posed to him, he launches a personal attack on the Catholic who questions him.

This is a tragic crisis not only for the Schiavo family but for all Catholics. We are confirmed to be soldiers of Christ. Are we permitted to shrink from the fight simply because a priest tells us it is okay?

St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions which have been given us. He says that even if an angel from heaven should appear and teach contrary to what the Church has taught, let him be anathema.

I always thought Fr. Cekada agreed with that. Unfortunately, he agrees only if we are questioning priests, bishops, or even the pope, who are not of his mindset.

My Jesus Mercy!

For those interested in this case I share the debate that led Dr. Gebel to refute Fr. Cekada who holds that Terri Schiavo should have had her feeding tube removed and that Michael Schiavo had every right to do so.
__________________________________________
Dear Father Cekada,
I am writing to beg you to clarify your comments concerning the death of Terri Schiavo.
You quoted the 16th-century Dominican theologian Vittoria as follows:

"If a sick man can take food or nourishment with a certain hope of life, he is required to take food as he would be required to give it to one who is sick. However, if the depression of spirits is so severe and there is present grave consternation in the appetitive power so that only with the greatest effort and as though through torture can the sick man take food, this is to be reckoned as an impossibility and therefore, he is excused, at least from mortal sin.”

How do we know what state her spirits were in?

Has it been proved that there was grave consternation in Terri’s appetitive power?

Was Terri’s feeding achieved only with the greatest effort and through torture?

If the answer to all this is ‘I don’t know,’ or ‘no,’ then every Catholic should fight such a murder.
No doctor ever made such claims about Terri Schiavo. As a matter of fact, those on the side of Michael Schiavo bragged about how healthy Terri was, saying this showed that she had been given great care.

But even if all of the above were true, the theologian you quoted said that even then, one who denies such essentials “is excused, at least from mortal sin.”
Vittoria is saying then, that some sin could be involved.
And that is if all of the above were true. If it is not, then Vittoria clearly states: "If a sick man can take food or nourishment with a certain hope of life, he is required to take food as he would be required to give it to one who is sick.”

Terri’s survival for 15 years is solid proof of her “certain hope of life.”

Terri was not in a coma, she was not terminally ill. She was not hooked up to any life support machines. The only support Terri needed to stay alive was the same support necessary to all mankind, nutrition and hydration. The issue here is why food and water was denied this disabled woman.

Michael Schiavo and the courts have always stated that the sole reason for denying her food and water was so that she would die. This was a healthy human being who was starved to death because she was mentally disabled.

The Church has always had the highest respect for life. The examples you have given prove that. Your interpretation of them is troubling indeed.

You claim that the adulterous husband, who denied his Catholic wife not only food and water, but access to the Sacraments had the “sole right before God” to withhold her food and water. Terri’s mother was told she would be arrested if she so much as placed an ice chip on her dying daughter’s lips.

As to the expense of Terri’s food and hydration, such treatment can and is often administered at home. Even if that were not the case the story of Dives and Lazarus verses the Good Samaritan is very clear.

The elderly, the ill, and the disabled of America have every reason to fear. Though the plaque on the statue in New York Harbor says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” these are empty words when the strong dispose of the weak and the culture of death has become the law of the land.

We offer our prayers for Terri’s immortal soul, while remembering the words of St. Matthew, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul."
I look forward to hearing from you Father.
May God bless you,
Cathy Beil
P.S. I am still hoping to read those documents you told me about in February.
_________________________
Father Cekada's Reply:
_________________________
Dear Cathy,

Thanks for your e-mail.

1. The Vittoria quote was intended to (a) show the origin of the teaching
on extraordinary means and (b) provide some examples of what were considered
extraordinary means.

2. It was the quote from Pius XII that provides the general principle that
must be applied and that defines the term "extraordinary means" ‹ those
which involve "grave burdens for oneself or another."

This, not the Vittoria quote, was the starting point for my discussion.

3. Providing nutrition and hydration artificially on a permanent basis does
indeed constitute a grave burden:

"Routine medical practice today utilizes intravenous feeding in in a
countless variety of cases. Certainly the physician regards this procedure
as an ordinary means of safeguarding life. It is obviously capable of being
carried out , under normal hospital conditions, without any notable
inconvenience. For these reasons, I would regard recourse to intravenous
feeding, in the case of typical hospitalized patients, as an ordinary and
morally compulsory procedure.

"The above statement applies, as stated, to routine hospital cases and where
the procedure is envisioned as a temporary means of carrying a person
through a critical period. Surely any effort to sustain life permanently in
this fashion would constitute a grave hardship."Charles McFadden OSA,
Medical Ethics, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: 1956), imprimatur by Cardinal
O'Hara.

Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed
permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement
to continue their use.

4. Below is a letter to The Remnant that expands upon some of my original
remarks.

5. I lost the note regarding the documentation you mention. Did it concern
SSPX's use of the John XXIII Mass, or was it something else?

In Christ,

Father Cekada
_______________________
Note: Father Cekada’s letter to the Editor of the Remnant Newspaper is at the end of this post.
_________________________________________

I replied to Father Cekada’s email:
___________________________________________
Dear Fr. Cekada,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my questions. From that reply, it appears that we agree that Vittoria’s teaching did not apply to Terri Schiavo and that you used it only to: (a) show the origin of the teaching on extraordinary means, and (b) provide some examples, none of which applied to Terri Schiavo.

You wrote, “It was the quote from Pius XII that provides the general principle that must be applied and that defines the term "extraordinary means" ‹ those which involve "grave burdens for oneself or another." This, not the Vittoria quote, was the starting point for my discussion.”

I have read the document from which that quote came. Again Father, I would ask you to clarify the relationship between that document and Terri Schiavo. The quote was taken from Pius XII’s Address to an International Congress of Anesthesiologists.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_31resuscitation.html
The issue here was not concerning food and hydration. The questions the pope was addressing were three and all of them were restricted to resuscitation, not food and drink.

Since you refer to that example however, I would ask you to again read other sections of the same document. Although the pope says that resuscitation is not necessary in all cases he stresses the fact that, “…There is not involved here a case of direct disposal of the life of the patient, nor of euthanasia in any way: this would never be licit. Even when it causes the arrest of circulation, the interruption of attempts at resuscitation is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and one must apply in this case the principle of double effect and of "voluntarium in cause."

Of course, everyone knows that in Terri Schiavo’s case the withdrawal of food and water was the direct cause of her death. Hers was not a matter of resuscitation.
In the same paragraph as the quote that you used to justify Terri Schiavo’s murder, the pope said this, “We shall willingly answer these three questions. But before examining them we would like to set forth the principles that will allow formulation of the answer.
Natural reason and Christian morals say that man (and whoever is entrusted with the task of taking care of his fellowman) has the right and the duty in case of serious illness to take the necessary treatment for the preservation of life and health. This duty that one has toward himself, toward God, toward the human community, and in most cases toward certain determined persons, derives from well ordered charity, from submission to the Creator, from social justice and even from strict justice, as well as from devotion toward one's family.”
The quote you used follows those words. Now we already know from Vittoria’s statement that food and water was not extraordinary in the Schiavo case and Pius XII was not speaking of food and water, but about resuscitating a patient with artificial means. Terri Schiavo did not need resuscitation. She was not on a respirator, which was the machine these anesthesiologists were concerned about, when they asked clarification from Pius XII.

In the Remnant article you wrote, “Moral theologians categorize as extraordinary those treatments that are physically painful, invasive, repulsive, emotionally disturbing, dangerous, rarely successful, expensive, etc.”
None of the above applies to Terri Schiavo except “perhaps” expense, but then her “husband” had received a large amount of money for her care.

You then quote from a 1956 article concerning temporary intravenous feeding and permanent, "The above statement applies, as stated, to routine hospital cases and where the procedure is envisioned as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period. Surely any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship."Charles McFadden OSA, Medical Ethics, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: 1956), imprimatur by Cardinal O'Hara.

Surely you would agree Father that medicine has advanced tremendously since 1956. Technology has come far in the past 50 years. What constituted a grave burden in 1956 is not necessarily a burden today.

Many extraordinary procedures from 1956 are ordinary today. In 1945 a Gallop Poll showed that most people had never heard of television, it was extraordinary. Today it is an ordinary, albeit evil influence in many homes. In past decades, women often died in childbirth. At risk mothers today might be put in a hospital till the birth, which is very expensive. Premature babies cost millions as modern technology devises ways to keep these little ones alive in prenatal units around the world. According to your teaching these innocents should be taken off the machines for the expense is a drain on society.

What about the pregnant woman, who learns that her unborn child is going to be severely disabled imposing a heavy burden on their families or on society. According to your teaching, that mother would have the right to, if not abort the child, to starve it after its birth. Based on hardship and expense and that child should not live.

Your entire thesis seems to be based on cost. And so I ask Father, what is the price of life these days? What is the dollar amount that we finally tell our suffering loved ones is too much?

I thought Traditional Catholics, more than most, were aware of the great benefits derived from sacrifice. We know that grave burdens, embraced as Christ embraced His for us, lead us to an eternal reward.

You also did not address the issue of why Terri’s mother was threatened with arrest if she so much as put an ice chip to her dying daughter’s lips. Surely that was not considered extraordinary?

You wrote that, “Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement to continue their use.”

The only thing that was proved to be permanent was that Terri would be disabled. There were nurses and doctors who came forward and testified that she could swallow. She did not drool; she was able to swallow her own saliva. But her adulterous, “husband,” only 3 months after receiving over a million dollars for her care, ordered all rehabilitation stopped. When he found out that a nurse was feeding her Jello, he had her fired. Judge Greer said in 2003, “I do not want anyone feeding that girl!”

Since when is rehabilitation considered extraordinary? The sole purpose of rehabilitation is so that the person can do on their own what they cannot at that time.

You wrote in the Remnant article, “Nowadays the latter burden ‹ extraordinary expense ‹ is mostly hidden, because "someone else pays for it" ‹ i.e., you and I and everyone else foot the bills through health insurance premiums, doctor malpractice premiums and high taxes. This is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself ‹ but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.”

But it was Michael Schiavo who imposed such a burden on society, not his suffering wife, Terri. He got the money and then wanted rid of the reason for his windfall.

None of our care would be so expensive if it weren’t for people like Michael Schiavo, who sought to benefit from his wife’s misfortune and then be rid of her once that benefit was his.

You wrote, “Had Terri Schiavo not received a $750,000 ³malpractice² settlement ‹ i.e., some trial lawyers shook down an insurance company, which in turn calculated that it would be cheaper to pay them and the Schiavos off, rather than gamble with the Oprah-watching idiots in the average jury pool ‹ you can bet that her husband and parents would not have sold off their own houses to sustain her for all this time.”

With all due respect Father, we do not know this. And to claim such as a reason or excuse to decide such an issue is relying on one’s own thoughts and emotions rather than facts. The outcome of such a bet will have no bearing on our duty to the weak of the world.

You wrote, “Instead, you and I ‹ not merely the Schiavos or the Schindlers ‹ got stuck with the "grave burden" of paying for it. If something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this.”

Is that Catholic teaching or emotion? My family and I are unduly burdened by the unfair tax laws and the inflated insurance and medical rates we are bound to pay. And yet that immorality pales in comparison to the execution by starvation of Terri Schiavo.

As far as Michael Schiavo’s sole right before God to decide her fate, you wrote, “In the Schiavo case, however, the civil courts examined the matter and repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo's rights.”

Yes Father and these same civil courts have given mothers the right to kill babies in their womb. I don’t think they have shown competence in natural or moral law and I would hope that our priests would look fully at the issue before giving credence to the immoral civil courts.

You condemn those who oppose her execution and wanted her adulterous “husband” removed as guardian as being “emotional.” You write as an alternative to this adulterous husband, “Assign headship of the wife to the relative deemed most worthy by the majority of members of an Internet chat room?” Isn’t that emotional rhetoric Father?

You say, “Even a wicked husband retains certain rights before God.” I agree Father, but let us not forget while guarding that wicked husband’s rights -- his wife who has been violated by his refusal to grant her care and by his infidelity, also retains certain rights before God.

You wrote, “The tendency of so many traditionalists to resolve moral or theological questions ‹ be it the Schiavo case, the Indult, excommunications, schism, heresy, the Fatima consecration, the sede vacante dispute, etc. ‹ by following emotional reactions, rather than by seeking out an objective principle that the Church has laid down, makes them ripe for deception by the ignorant and manipulation by the cynical.”

I couldn’t agree more. And it was on this discussion we had in February that you were going to send me information that proved me incorrect in using the example of Pope Liberius’ excommunication of St. Athanasius and the condemnation of several councils of Pope Honorius I as a heretic. You said that I couldn’t use those examples to compare the situation of the church today. I was trying to resolve an issue by seeking out an objective principle the Church already laid down.

You also promised to send me information that would refute my belief that the ordinary magisterium is only infallible when they teach in union with the each other. My information came from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the body of bishops is infallible and each bishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire Episcopal body.

Again Father, I thank you for your reply and look forward to hearing from you.
God bless you,
Cathy Beil
______________________________________
Fr. Cekada’s (unemotional?) Reply
_____________________________________
Dear Cathy,

Bishop Sanborn is doing something on the Honorius/Liberius question. I'll forward it to you when it's completed.

As regards your comments on the Schiavo case:

1. In the quote, Pius XII enunciated the general moral principles to be applied, not merely particular ones applicable only to the narrow question of resuscitation.

Otherwise, you would have to maintain that his statements like "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means" or "life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" apply only to the specific case of resuscitation, and that in other cases therefore: a) One is not held to use even ordinary means to preserve life and b) Life is not subordinated to spiritual ends.

Good luck.

2. The expense of Terri Schiavo's maintenance was "socialized" through wealth redistribution ‹ $750,000 via the litigation/insurance company shakedown, and other hidden costs we can only guess at via tax and other insurance subsidies.

(This should be obvious to anyone with the last name Brueggemann.)

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were very generous in spending everyone else's money.

Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.

3. A wicked husband still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his "domestic and paternal authority."

He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello, unless and until an ecclesiastical or civil court, for a grave and just reason, legitimately impedes him from exercising his right.

Compromise on that principle, and the family is toast.

4. Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.

You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.

But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your "opinion" on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects ‹ chief among them, moral theology.

I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.

But because do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your "opinion," rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.

Be assured of my prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Father Cekada
__________________________

I asked Fr. Brendan M. Dardis from St. Pius X Church in Cincinnati to read Fr. Cekada’s opinion on Terri Schiavo. Fr. Dardis actually went to Florida, led Rosary processions, and spoke with Terri’s parents and her brother. He based his opinions on Catholic Teachings and the facts of Terri’s case. Note his title and read what he wrote an article entitled: EXTRAORDINARY MEANNESS:

"You have asked for my reaction to Fr. Cekada's opinion contained in a recent bulletin concerning Terri Schiavo's death. I have read his words which he set forth "for the record." My first impression is that he suffers from cognitive dissonance.

First, the quotation from Vittoria is not applicable to the Schiavo case. She was not tortured by being fed; her torture began when she was prevented from being fed. The greatest effort was not being expended on her; she had won a million dollar lawsuit precisely for her care. Even the oral introduction of food and water was denied Terri Schiavo, a means of preserving life which can never, under any circumstances, be denied to an animal, much less a human person. Terri Schiavo was denied the most ordinary of means. Her death was not hastened by the removal of a feeding tube, it was caused by starvation. To deny that her death was anything less than passive euthanasia is absurd on its face, and her case sets a frightening precedent.

Second, to claim that Michael Schiavo had the sole right before God to determine his wife's fate would be laughable if it were not so tragic. He woke up in the arms of another woman the morning his wife's feeding tube was removed. He denied all therapies for his wife. He prevented all the standard diagnostic tests that could well have determined his wife's true state. His wife suffered serious ulcers on her buttocks and thighs because he prevented the nurses from turning her. Her teeth were rotten because no one was allowed to brush them and no dentist ever attended her. The husband stands to inherit the estate of his wife. At which point do unfaithfulness, abuse, neglect and greed create a conflict of interest so serious that one's marital rights are abdicated? Apparently, never.

Third, the means were not extraordinary. To whom, it should be asked, were Terri Schiavo's care and feeding overly burdensome. Her family offered to take care of her. To them she was not too burdensome. When her case became widely known, her husband was offered relief from a number of sources. He refused all such offers. Perhaps life was too burdensome for Terri herself. That sort of argument, however, can bear no moral weight because she was not in any apparent pain or discomfort and could not express her own desires. Or perhaps her life was too burdensome to society. Such an argument seems quite silly when one considers the rarity of her case.

Moreover, if we claim that the cost of food and a hospital bed are overly burdensome to our society, we are liars. Consider the cost of all the poor individuals in states the same or similar to Terri Schiavo's and compare that to the money spent on frivolous entertainments and sports in this society. Our duty is what has become a burden. The burden does not appear to have been too great on Terri Schiavo's husband either. He won a large malpractice lawsuit to pay for her care and was living in a fulltime adulterous affair. One can almost hear him groan under the great load he suffered.

Finally, we can consider what ought to have been done in Terri Schiavo's case. All the doctors and nurses who filed affidavits should have been listened to. The video clip you showed me was very strong evidence that Terri Schiavo was not in vegetative state, persistent or otherwise, but a thorough diagnosis was never arrived at. One does not lose one's humanity when one loses a human power, be it physical or cognitive. The noble course for Mr. Schiavo, if he could not bring himself to care for his wife, would have been to give Terri to her family. The armed police state stood between a sick woman and her mother, preventing the mother from bringing a glass of water to the suffering daughter. Anyone who countenances such a scene lacks moral clarity at best or is equivalent to the Nazi SS at worst.

I have copied a few remarks for you to read. The "Starving for a Fair Diagnosis" by Fr. Johansen is especially good on Tern's medical and legal history. The Statement from the NCCB on nutrition and hydration is also very good. It expands on Pope Pius XII's short statement, and it takes many modern medical advances into account. It is a wonder that the nation's bishops could have published something so good, considering how corrupt and modernist they are. The statement by Renato Cardinal Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, includes the opinion that "whoever stands idly by without trying to prevent the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo becomes an accomplice to murder." That very sentiment was what motivated my going to Florida (if we ever have a spare minute, I will tell you some good and some sorry stories from my trip). The Christian Medical & Dental Associations press release states: "Removing Tern's tube was done simply to remove a burdensome patient." Even the Protestants can get it right sometimes. Finally, the article by Wesley J. Smith shows how modern ethicists argue that one can be human but a non-person at same time and the connections between euthanasia and abortion—chilling stuff.

I am sure you have found other good articles on this sad subject. There is certainly a plethora of choice. Don't forget that when we were in our mothers' wombs, we were all fed by a tube, we were unable to express our desires, we lacked the ability to speak and abstract, and we would have needed morphine every bit as much as Terri Schiavo needed her morphine drip to prevent our crying out in pain if our nutrition and hydration had been blocked."
4/14/2005
____________________________________
Fr. Cekada's article in Remnant:
To the Editor,

My letter on the Terri Schiavo case that appeared in your previous issue
was widely circulated and prompted many comments from traditionalists ‹
nearly all negative and emotional.

Most objections were rooted in misconceptions about extraordinary means,
or in a disgust with the actions of Terri Schiavo's husband.

I would appreciate the opportunity to expand upon both these points, and
then add a more general observation.

1. EXTRAORDINARY MEANS. The resolution of the moral issue in the case hinges
upon the definition of the term "extraordinary" ‹ not as the term is defined
by medical science, but rather as it is defined by moral theologians.

Pius XII's statement defines extraordinary means as those which "involve
any grave burdens for oneself or another."

The emphasis, then, is not on the specific procedure that is performed, but
rather upon the burden that results from performing it.

Moral theologians categorize as extraordinary those treatments that are physically painful, invasive, repulsive, emotionally disturbing, dangerous,
rarely successful, expensive, etc.

Nowadays the latter burden ‹ extraordinary expense ‹ is mostly hidden,
because "someone else pays for it" ‹ i.e., you and I and everyone else foot
the bills through health insurance premiums, doctor malpractice premiums and
high taxes.

This is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every
effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously
shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself ‹
but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.

Had Terri Schiavo not received a $750,000 ³malpractice² settlement ‹ i.e.,
some trial lawyers shook down an insurance company, which in turn calculated
that it would be cheaper to pay them and the Schiavos off, rather than
gamble with the Oprah-watching idiots in the average jury pool ‹ you can bet
that her husband and parents would not have sold off their own houses to
sustain her for all this time.

Instead, you and I ‹ not merely the Schiavos or the Schindlers ‹ got stuck
with the "grave burden" of paying for it.

If something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this.

2. WHO DECIDES? Mrs. Schiavo¹s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to
be) ‹ and not her parents ‹ had the right before God to determine whether
these means should have continued to be used.

A husband does not somehow automatically lose his headship of the household
or his God-given "domestic and paternal authority² if he becomes a moral
reprobate.

An ecclesiastical or civil court may for a grave reason, of course, prevent
him from exercising his authority.

In the Schiavo case, however, the civil courts examined the matter and
repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo's rights.

The alternative to this is what? Allow in-laws automatic headship over the
wife when they believe the husband is a "moral reprobate"? Have those
paragons of family values ‹ congressmen ‹ legislate the rules? Assign
headship of the wife to the relative deemed most worthy by the majority of
members of an Internet chat room?

Even a wicked husband retains certain rights before God.

3. EMOTION OR PRINCIPLE? The negative response to both these points was
almost without exception based on emotion.

This I find very disturbing ‹ because the first reaction a Catholic ‹ lay
or clerical ‹ should have when confronted with a complex moral or
theological problem is to find the principle that applies ‹ what, in other
words, is the standard the Church (not my emotions, directed by Michael
Savage) uses to separate virtue from sin, or truth from error, on any
particular issue.

In most cases, the right principle and the correct definition of its terms
can be found in a theology book somewhere, even though it may take some time
and priest with good Latin to find it.

The tendency of so many traditionalists to resolve moral or theological
questions ‹ be it the Schiavo case, the Indult, excommunications, schism,
heresy, the Fatima consecration, the sede vacante dispute, etc. ‹ by
following emotional reactions, rather than by seeking out an objective
principle that the Church has laid down, makes them ripe for deception by
the ignorant and manipulation by the cynical.

The reactions of so many in the Schiavo case make me fear that when it
comes to deceiving the elect, the Antichrist won¹t have to work too hard.

The Rev. Anthony Cekada
St. Gertrude the Great Church
West Chester, Ohio
www.sgg.org
www.traditionalmass.org