Recent posts

#1

The Bookstore / Re: Normandt' Catholic Meditat...

Last post by Normandt - Today at 04:30:35 AM

132. Jesus in our life


Jesus says:
"This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mark, chapter 1, verse 15

If the kingdom of God is near, we are also close to God. Very often, when we make a small mistake, we think we are very far from God.

But God did not move. He did not make this mistake for us and by us. However, he is right next to us. He remains close to us. More than that, he is in us. He Loves us and he wants us to be in him too.

The best way to remain holy is to realize everything with Jesus, to keep him close to us, everywhere, to include him in our research, our thoughts, our activities. In spite of the fault, any fault, let's return constantly to God.

Jesus will convert us if we invite him to be our Lord and Saviour. We can also invite him to make himself present in the lives of all the people around us, at work, at home, at school, in the parish church, at the grocery store, in our travels.

Keeping Jesus in our life guarantees us a simpler life, with an increase of peace and joy. Others will see and benefit from it.

The new American Bible, 2011-2014
Book: ... for Love, Normand Thomas

#2

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 04:28:37 AM

Perhaps there's no logic.

The case against Fr Cekada's position, and mine, seems to be that Terri Schiavo was murdered because she wasn't given food and water which she was incapable of eating and drinking anyway.

An argument like that is impossible to counter.  She was killed because she wasn't given the opportunity to do something she couldn't do.

What can anyone say? 



 

 

#3

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 04:22:10 AM

You could not have researched the case extensively and not known that

a)she was able to breathe normally and not by machine as you claimed
b)she was not in a coma, as you implied
c)her mouth was not kept moist, unlike what you claimed

None of my posts have been based on emotion or rumor. Besides Fr. Cekada's own criteria of principle, Church teaching, and theology books, my only other sources have been court documents and eye witness accounts. 

I provided a link to a discussion where a lawyer points out that most doctor testimony accepted in a court of law is not based on physical examination of a patient.

I provided a link to a court document forbidding the administration of food and water normally. We are discussing the topic based on Church teaching, which says that ordinary means must always be at least supplied, which they were not. The claim that she could not take food and water normally was highly contested not just by her family, but by members of her medical team and a medical examination clarifying the question was requested and denied in a different ruling by the judge.

I never once, let alone repeatedly, claimed that she was certainly able to take food and water orally. I said the fact is that they were not supplied to her. Not even in the tiniest most manageable amounts.

Alright, she could breathe without the aid of a machine.  And she was diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, as the autopsy report states.

She could not take food or fluid orally and needed a feeding tube.  You keep saying that food and water was not supplied to her.  But why would they be if she couldn't eat or drink and had to be fed through a tube?

This is the point in your argument that I don't understand.  You say you never said that she was "certainly able to take food and water orally".  And then you say she was denied food and water, even the "tiniest most manageable amounts".

But if you can't say with certainty that she could take food and water orally, how do you define the amount of food and water you think she could take?  She could manage ice chips and some Jello - for 15 years.  But if these weren't to keep her mouth moist, then it seems a bit of a stretch to refer to these as food and water.

You say that the claim she couldn't take food and water orally was contested.  Then how much food and water could she take and why did removing the tube end her life?

I've read many claims about this case and I doubt we'll ever agree.  But the claims of murder, execution and euthanasia are ridiculous and evidence enough of emotionalism.

You still haven't researched enough to know that the reference to ice chips in the debate was to the fact that even these were forbidden to be placed on her lips to alleviate some of her suffering as she slowly dehydrated and starved.

So we'll never know if she could have taken even that much water.

Fr. Cekada claimed her husband had the authority to do this.

Which no Catholic principle, teaching, or theology book has ever taught.

We will certainly never agree if you think it is "ridiculous" and "emotional" to even claim she was euthanized. It's the conclusion that, as far as I know, every single traditional Catholic priest in the world came to besides three.
And two of those did not defend the actions denying her even a tiny amount of water at the end of her life.

Have you read the autopsy report?

I'm still trying to understand your logic and have asked Bonaventure to help explain it.

Here's the problem I have - again.

You keep saying that Terri Schiavo was euthanised because she was denied food and water after her feeding tube was removed.

But she couldn't drink water or eat food, which is why she was on a feeding tube in the first place.

Please explain .....

Also, a human being can't survive much longer than three days without water. Please explain how Terri Schiavo survived  13 days without water as you claim above.

#4

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 04:09:10 AM

But why are you so emotionally invested in denying what her doctors and the autopsy report said?

You're really going to go with, "Just trust the doctors," after the past four years?

And yet Dr Gebel gets a pass? 

He's a traditional Catholic and a massgoer of SGG.

Oh good.  Perhaps you can help me understand the argument being put forward by queen.saints because I'm baffled by it.

Terri Schiavo could not take food and water by Ordinary means which is why she needed a feeding tube.

Queen.saints claims that Terri Schiavo was euthanised because she wasn't given food and water after her feeding tube was removed.

But she couldn't eat food or drink water which is why she needed a feeding tube in the first place. 

Can you explain queen.saints logic.  Because I can't.

PS Dr Geber never examined Terri Schiavo in person.

#5

The Coffee Pot / Re: To what are you currently ...

Last post by clau clau - Today at 03:42:30 AM

Dan Lebowitz - To Weather a Storm

#6

The Coffee Pot / Re: Catholic Memes

Last post by clau clau - Today at 02:20:31 AM

#7

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 01:32:32 AM

If it is "nearly impossible" to conclude extraordinary means, then how do you explain why Father Cekada came to that conclusion?

To quote Fr. Jenkins, "It is amazing – literally incredible".


I certainly do not try to explain it.

#8

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Russell Brand recites the ...

Last post by clau clau - Today at 01:04:16 AM

Yes he did. I saw the video.

https://www.tiktok.com/@russellbrand/video/7359185963660102945

#9

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 12:10:21 AM

You could not have researched the case extensively and not known that

a)she was able to breathe normally and not by machine as you claimed
b)she was not in a coma, as you implied
c)her mouth was not kept moist, unlike what you claimed

None of my posts have been based on emotion or rumor. Besides Fr. Cekada's own criteria of principle, Church teaching, and theology books, my only other sources have been court documents and eye witness accounts. 

I provided a link to a discussion where a lawyer points out that most doctor testimony accepted in a court of law is not based on physical examination of a patient.

I provided a link to a court document forbidding the administration of food and water normally. We are discussing the topic based on Church teaching, which says that ordinary means must always be at least supplied, which they were not. The claim that she could not take food and water normally was highly contested not just by her family, but by members of her medical team and a medical examination clarifying the question was requested and denied in a different ruling by the judge.

I never once, let alone repeatedly, claimed that she was certainly able to take food and water orally. I said the fact is that they were not supplied to her. Not even in the tiniest most manageable amounts.

Alright, she could breathe without the aid of a machine.  And she was diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, as the autopsy report states.

She could not take food or fluid orally and needed a feeding tube.  You keep saying that food and water was not supplied to her.  But why would they be if she couldn't eat or drink and had to be fed through a tube?

This is the point in your argument that I don't understand.  You say you never said that she was "certainly able to take food and water orally".  And then you say she was denied food and water, even the "tiniest most manageable amounts".

But if you can't say with certainty that she could take food and water orally, how do you define the amount of food and water you think she could take?  She could manage ice chips and some Jello - for 15 years.  But if these weren't to keep her mouth moist, then it seems a bit of a stretch to refer to these as food and water.

You say that the claim she couldn't take food and water orally was contested.  Then how much food and water could she take and why did removing the tube end her life?

I've read many claims about this case and I doubt we'll ever agree.  But the claims of murder, execution and euthanasia are ridiculous and evidence enough of emotionalism.

You still haven't researched enough to know that the reference to ice chips in the debate was to the fact that even these were forbidden to be placed on her lips to alleviate some of her suffering as she slowly dehydrated and starved.

So we'll never know if she could have taken even that much water.

Fr. Cekada claimed her husband had the authority to do this.

Which no Catholic principle, teaching, or theology book has ever taught.

We will certainly never agree if you think it is "ridiculous" and "emotional" to even claim she was euthanized. It's the conclusion that, as far as I know, every single traditional Catholic priest in the world came to besides three.
And two of those did not defend the actions denying her even a tiny amount of water at the end of her life.

#10

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 12:04:37 AM

Well...maybe it wasn't supplied because they knew she was incapable of eating and drinking on her own.

Thank you for admitting what is public record in court documents and all testimony from both sides of the discussion.

She was not supplied any ordinary means, including the tiniest amount of water for 13 days. Nobody but one person in the entire world is denying this, not even her husband.

This is not a false claim.

This would be like not just turning off someone's oxygen, but then covering their head with a pillow and saying, "This isn't euthanasia, because the doctors say she can't breathe on her own."

Except the doctors are often wrong in these pronouncements when it's actually tested, like they were with Ann Quinlan.

And as even awkward customer admitted earlier, keeping someone's mouth moist is "essential" even when they cannot eat or drink. But this ordinary means of preserving health was denied too.

Every "life-prolonging measure" was denied.