Recent posts

#1

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

Last post by Baylee - Today at 06:44:29 PM

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

If it is "nearly impossible" to conclude extraordinary means, then how do you explain why Father Cekada came to that conclusion? He certainly didn't make a lot of friends by doing so.  In fact oftentimes his opinion on this is held against him to this day.  I witnessed it here on the "SV and Akita" thread. He may have been wrong, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely and objectively weighed the teachings and evidence to come to what he believed to be the correct traditional Catholic teaching. Even if everyone else concluded differently. Again, I know there is so much more to read about this case, but I remain unconvinced it's an open and shut case ofmurder.

#2

The Coffee Pot / Re: interesting purchase you m...

Last post by Lynne - Today at 06:40:39 PM

https://www.etsy.com/listing/1596053262/midnight-mass-incense-balsam-smoked?ref=yr_purchases

Lovely smell......

Oh boy! Just bought it too. 

[but to her being refused even regular food and water.]

#3

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

Last post by Baylee - Today at 06:28:07 PM

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.

Why do you keep repeating the same falsehood?

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

[extreme]

#4

Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: Distingushing Atheism from...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:23:07 PM

Is Islam, atheistic or a mere (extreme) heresy that denies the second Person of the Trinity and the Trinity for that matter? And are all other religions, atheistic (as in denying God in some form)?

Islam is a descendant of the Christian sects that believed that Our Lord was a great prophet but not God Incarnate.
All other religions are false to one degree or another, as there is only one true Church, the Catholic Church. There are no atheistic religions, but there are various degrees of truth about God or His revelation in all non-Catholic religions.

[but to her being refused even regular food and water.]

#5

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

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 05:17:52 PM

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.

Why do you keep repeating the same falsehood?

#6

Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Engaging with the Eastern ...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 05:17:15 PM

L.T.B.
It isn't "fine" at all. The differences between us are essential and not due to tribalism. Christ only founded one Church with Peter at its head, not a series of "autocephalus" national "churches" based on one's country of origin or ethnic group.
Catholics and Orthos are not two brothers, but two different species; one belonging to the Mystical Body and one belonging to a man made organization, that apes the true Church.
It is not ridiculous at all to hold that those who actively participate in the religious services of a false religion, are by that very fact, making a public manifestation and avowal that this religion is the one true Church.
The bowing and kissing of icons during a non-Catholic religious service is in fact manifesting one's adherence to this non-Catholic sect. The very same icon can be venerated outside of said religious service, as long as it is a saint of the Catholic Church. If one were to venerate an icon say of "St. Pothius" who was the originator of the Greek schism, even outside of a religious service, would be the equivalent of honoring him for his sinful actions and it would be participating in his sin. 
The receiving absolution from a non-Catholic minister one one's death bed, is a merciful provision by the Catholic Church for its children who have no other certain means to obtain forgiveness of their sins and peace of souls in their final moments.

#7

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

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 04:35:51 PM

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

#8

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

Last post by ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez - Today at 04:08:26 PM

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?

["reflexively]

#9

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

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 04:07:46 PM

Because whether or not any of that were true, the fact remains that she was denied even attempting ordinary means. The doctors never even tried to administer food normally to her. There was a court order in place  and an armed police man on guard at all times to make sure that no one could even try to give her water.

"The failure to supply the ordinary means of preserving life is equivalent to euthanasia."

I don't know why you persist in saying such things. 

Terri Schiavo could not take food or water by Ordinary means.  Why do you say that her doctors didn't even try?  Of course they tried.

And the armed guards were there to prevent the protesting crowds outside from attempting to storm the hospital with food and drink, as they had threatened to do.

Terri Schiavo's brain had atrophied to half its normal size.  And her cerebral cortex was only capable of "reflexively regulating the bare essentials of life".

There was no possibility of a recovery.  She was blind, and in a "persistent vegetative state" according the the doctors who examined her, unlike the doctor referred to by you and Bonaventure.

There was nothing Ordinary about any of this.

Wow, it's truly astonishing how you refuse to research this case at all or read any of the links provided before making statements.

There was an armed guard in the room making sure she didn't receive any water or nourishment whatsoever from her priest and family, including Holy Communion.

I have researched the case, extensively, which is why I know that your argument is based on emotion and rumour.

When will you address the point I have repeatedly made that Dr Greber never examined Terri Schiavo in person?

When will you address that fact that she could not take food and fluid orally according to the doctors who examined her?  I have pointed this out repeatedly and all you do is repeat the same false claim?

You keep claiming that Terri Schiavo was capable of taking food and fluid orally when she clearly wasn't.

Why do you do this?

And why were her parents and priest trying to make her drink water when she clearly couldn't?

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.

[This would still be a case of euthanasia.]

#10

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

Last post by Baylee - Today at 02:34:34 PM

But even if a feeding tube were somehow extraordinary means in this case, which it was not by any definition of the term used in Catholic theology

and even if it could have been ascertained that she would not have wanted to accept that extraordinary treatment, which it never was

and even if it were true that she could not eat orally, which many close to her deny

and even it were true that she had miraculously survived being unable to swallow her own saliva for 15 years

and could therefore not swallow even a tiny amount of water

This would still be a case of euthanasia.

Because whether or not any of that were true, the fact remains that she was denied even attempting ordinary means. The doctors never even tried to administer food normally to her. There was a court order in place  and an armed police man on guard at all times to make sure that no one could even try to give her water.

"The failure to supply the ordinary means of preserving life is equivalent to euthanasia."

I will go back and read his statements as well as his posts here.  I'm still not seeing a shift, but a logical clarification given the reactions he got from others who insisted that this was a case about euthanasia.

Failure to supply someone with ordinary means of preserving life is euthanasia and that indisputably happened in this case.

I need to go back and look at all of the Church quotes provided re: ordinary and extraordinary means from both Fr Cekada and elsewhere.

Yes.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.  He writes to Dr Gebel (you left out this part when you quoted him earlier):

If what you seem to be claiming is true and Terri Schiavo was somehow able to eat and drink by natural means, there is no dispute that those who cared for her would have been obliged to provide her with food and drink. To have withheld these would have been a mortal sin (unjust direct homicide) against the Fifth Commandment.

However, my writings on the Schiavo case centered on something else: the principles that Catholic moral theology would apply to removing a feeding tube.

And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.