As the previous Terri Schiavo thread threatens to reach 500 posts, I thought I’d start a new thread. Please use this thread to continue any discussions started on the three previous extra-huge Schiavo discussion threads.
To start us off, a few links:
The Gimp Parade has a collection of links to articles by disabled activists about the Schiavo case and its related issues. From Harriet McBryde Johnson’s Slate article:
There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms. Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can’t justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
I think Johnson has a good point regarding changing preferences. However, if we accept that point, then why does it make a difference whether or not someone leaves a living will? If someone who is not yet disabled lacks the information needed to make an informed choice about life while disabled – and it seems to me that is probably true – then they don’t magically become more informed if they leave their wishes in the form of a living will, rather than in the form of talking to their spouses and loved ones.
See also this Washington Post article, which respectfully quotes disabled activists on both sides of the Schiavo issue (is that fair because it doesn’t pretend that all disabled activists agree, or unfair because it gives undue prominence to marginal dissenters from a genuine consensus?), and this critique of the disabled rights argument by Cathy Young. (Like Young, I just can’t get over my belief that there is a substantial difference between being disabled and having no cerebral cortex to speak of). Both links via Disability Law.
An “Alas” reader George F pointed out this article, “Before the Circus,” by a journalist who visited Terri Schiavo several years ago.
Back then, both sides were civil to one another. No one disputed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and had been for a decade. Or that an eating disorder probably had led to Terri’s cardiac arrest and collapse, not physical abuse by Michael as some now contend.
Nobody was a murderer, an abuser, an adulterer, a fanatic, a liar. They were just family, trying their best to do right by their daughter, wife, sister. […]
After all these years, what haunts me is something Terri’s brother once said: “If Terri knew what this had done to this family, she would go ballistic.”
And he told me that before things spun out of control.
And, finally, a Schiavo-inspired post from the blog Transterrestrial Musings, which is noodling about with the question of self and soul. If we replaced someone’s brain with a mechanical brain, but the person still “feels” like herself, then does she still have a soul?
To the degree that I understand the concept of the soul, I can’t believe that it is associated simply with a body, living or breathing. To the degree that I believe in souls, I think of it as a different word for “mind.”
And yet another link: This newspaper article looks at events from the point of view of workers and residents in the Hospice. Via Thrown Back.
Ragged Edge has much better coverage of the disability perspective than my little blog. This article addresses the persistent question of why so many disabled folks insist that, cerebral cortex or no, Terri’s case IS one about disability rights.
Regarding what Amp says here:
This is the problem of the living will and the advanced directive. I’ve had the repeated experience in my life of getting — physically speaking — to a state of bodily impairment I didn’t think would be good to live with and then simply realizing that, regardless of my situation, I am not done with this life yet. This is the common experience of disabled folks. Despite this, no disability activist I am aware of has been advocating against legal documents defining the personal choices of individuals. If you want to bet your life on how you’ll feel about a situation you’ve never been in and put it into writing, that is your choice.
But this is not what happened in the Schiavo case. As Johnson states, there was genuine dispute about Terri Schiavo’s personal wishes. And in the end the courts decided that casual comments she made based on a movie her sister-in-law could not even recall the name of (or any details to identify what movie it might be) were enough to have her killed. It may very well have been a movie like Million Dollar Baby, which purposely dramatized spinal cord injury and it’s aftermath so grimly — and also so inaccurately — that euthanasia seemed a logical response. Propaganda rather than a living will decided Schiavo’s fate.
Blue, first of all, thank you for this link. As a non-disabled (or maybe I should say not yet disabled?) person who has been trying to understand the disabled activist case regarding Terri Schiavo for a while, I found that the single clearest, most helpful thing I’ve yet read.
That said, I really don’t think that the article “addresses the persistent question of why so many disabled folks insist that, cerebral cortex or no, Terri’s case IS one about disability rights.” I mean, it sort of addresses that issue. It explains why disabled rights activists must care, and are right to care, about how Terri’s case is talked about and thought about in society.
But the article doesn’t lay out any philosophical basis for saying that it’s wrong to consider someone dead once their cortex is dead. And it really bends over backwards to assume nothing but the worse about anyone who they disagree with. For most disabled people, it is irrelevant if they will never recover, just as the article says; but for someone who is, in every way that counts, dead, it does matter that they will never recover.
The article seems to assume that anyone who thinks the lack of a cortex matters probably believes that anyone with a serious disability who will not recover would be better off dead. That’s just not true.
You’ve been misinformed (probably by propoganda). The court heard testimony that, at multiple situations such as (for one example) the funeral of a relative who had been kept alive past hope of recovery, Terri emphatically said she wouldn’t want to be kept alive that way.
The casual comment based on seeing a movie was on the “save Terri” side; there was testimony that Terri had seen a movie about Karen Quinlan (sp?) and said that she didn’t think KQ’s treatment should have been halted.
Especially now that the Terri Schiavo case has happened, it seems to me that this distinction between a living will and spoken comments to spouses, relatives and friends is weaker than ever. Almost everyone now knows that saying “I’d hate to be kept alive like that” may someday be used as evidence in court.
I admit, I am not myself disabled, only the sister of a disabled person. So I guess it’s hard for me to understand the paranoia (even if often justified) of being euthanized against one’s will.
I guess what I would want, as a pro-choice type person, is to know what limits we should place on keeping people alive. I have heard of anti-abortion people smugly proclaiming that even ectopic pregnancies (which inevitably kill both mother and fetus) should not be ended. Is this the type of stance that disability rights advocates want to take for fear of the slippery slope?
And, yes, I have to admit that the following paragraph made me feel very defensive as a non-disabled person:
We’ve heard from many disability advocates whose physical disabilities have gotten worse over time while their mental state has remained the same. I realize how foolish this question will sound at first glance, but do we have testimony from people who suffered severe mental impairment? I suspect many disabled people are projecting their own situations onto Terri Schiavo’s but assuming they will retain their same mental capacity.
In my experience with my clients, writing down such a preference is often made with no more reflection than the “acual comment” Terri’s parents talked about. (Thank you, Amp, for pointing out the inaccuracy there.) It is very easy, and very common, to say exactly the same sort of unreflective thing in writing.
But….is this necessarily the wrong answer? Terri wasn’t capable of changing her mind, because she had no mind to change. There is the occasional younger person who becomes severely disabled, but most of my clients who are thinking about such things are elderly, and what’s going to happen to them is an unstoppable slide towards total disability, a very painful one, probably as a result of cancer. And there really is a point on that slide where further treatment just makes everyone miserable, more miserable than they need to be. In other words, this was – obviously – a very unusual case.
I don’t know if Terris’ parents’ website is still up, but if it is, I’d read it with extreme caution. There are many just plain inaccuracies there, and I have to assume that that was deliberate. It isn’t intended to inform, it’s all about advocacy.
Does anyone notice how quiet Michael Schiavo still is? I respect that in him. I imagine he doesn’t want his new lady and their children exposed to any more media attention than necessary.
Thanks for the interesting link and comments, blue.
People with disabilities can fear with more than a little justification that some attitudes to their care are very dangerous – to them, their loved and loving ones, and society at large. And I’d share many of those fears, and I’ll go on opposing both euthansia and assisted-dying.
To label Terri as “disabled” is in my view stretching the word way beyond its legitimate boundaries.
Of course some people change their minds about what degree of medical intervention they want and in what circumstances; others do not. But does that justify assuming that any one person would have changed their mind – I think not.
I’m wary of absolutes – most of the time we end up having to balance several different principles – and we have to draw a line somewhere, and provide a way to decide where each case lies with respect to the line. It’s common to provide as part of that decision process a “presumption” often “rebuttable” – so the general rule is “this side of the line if there’s no evidence one way or another”, but “that side of the line if there’s evidence to such-and-such standard of proof”.
I could accept as a starting point a presumption along the lines of “medical treatment and care should be continued” but that it should be rebuttable by the patient’s wishes in exercise of a right of self-determination.
I think that to insist that the only acceptable evidence of wishes (of someone who is unable to express, let alone form, current wishes) is that it should be WRITTEN, is going too far and unreasonably curtails the right of self-determination.
And this is where I return to what happened: the legislators had legislated, the court considered Terri’s wishes applying the legislated standard of proof (which happened to be the highest), made a determination, and eventually after many attempts to overturn it, ordered implementation.
Hi there, Across, I’m over here now (Edinbugh) for a bit. (Ordinarily I’m in California.) Maybe I should rename myself?
Florida requires, as you point out, a very high standard: “clear and convincing” evidence of the person’s wishes. The default is to continue treatment. This is as it should be.
However, as Mnemosyne points out so acutely, extreme positions produce ridiculous results:
This is in fact the “official” position of Roman Catholic right-to-life folks. Or, in a more nuanced form, the entire affected fallopian tube can be removed, but the misplaced pregnancy cannot be cleared out with a drug (which can be done now, preserving not only the mom’s life but her fertility) because that would be murder.
When does common sense kick in?
It doesn’t.
A woman who wishes to have her 8-month fetus dismembered and removed does not belong in the same category as the woman who will die within a day of an ectopic pregnancy (hey, that was me in 1980) if something radical isn’t done immediately. Terri Schiavo and the blind student who just got an MD similarly cannot be treated alike.
blue, I loved your reference. It really opened up my head.
How would the Schiavo case be viewed if the issue were reframed? Two examples:
Jay Nordlinger of National Review prints this letter today:
And another:
OK, I screwed up the links somehow. Sorry about that.
I would say we would have had an even greater media frenzy if Terri had been a lesbian etc..
However, while this points out issues that need to be looked at for the future, it really would not ( OK, SHOULD not ) have changed the case that we just saw. The law would stipulate that the parents were the legal guardian and that there was nothing to disqualify them from that standing. The parents view of Terri’s wishes would have been granted.
Jack, your hypothetical doesn’t make sense. You cast the parents as guardians, and seem to assume that it was the guardian (in the real case) who made the decision.
stop stop stop. It wasn’t “Michael Schiavo’s view” of what Terri wanted that mattered. He wasn’t even the most important witness in the court’s determination. It was what the court decided, by “clear and convincing evidence”, that Terri wanted.
It follows that if Terri had been a lesbian, or a Buddhist, or a fire-worshipper, or whatever, it shouldn’t and probably wouldn’t have made any difference.
Uh huh – no.
The parents’ EVIDENCE (if they had any) might have been ACCEPTED.
(to Susan – I hope you’re enjoying being this side of the pond again. Now you can enjoy the inanities of a British election!)
Across,
Well, if we could warm Scotland up a bit….
Terri’s parents’ evidence was accepted as it was. It just wasn’t as convincing as the evidence arguing the contrary conclusion.
(How – and even more why anyone would live in this climate is quite beyond me.)
Susan – we live here because it’s character building.
Even so, I’ll enjoy the next 4 weeks in the Mediterranean.
What if it were Terri’s purpose to cause everyone to rethink these issues? I’d say she was successful. What if it was Terri’s purpose to simply make her family happy by being alive in some sense? If so then some men exercised their free will and Terri didn’t or maybe did fulfull her life’s goal. Maybe this was a test for Michael and/or Judge Greer and they failed. Maybe Terri was supposed to do her pennance on Earth for some time. My point is here that all things follow God’s grand plan. We exercise our free will and make choices through out our lives. God already knows what we are going to do and we all have to live with the concenquences of our choices. The choices we make help to develop our Spiritual beings either towards goodness or evil. My mother, after a lengthy illness, refused food and water on her own. It was not easy for me as she also wanted to be brought home and I cared for her until she died. I wanted her with me no matter what shape she was in. I was willing to care for her even though my children were small. She, on the other hand, did not want to be a burden and did not want to live bed ridden. She sufferred before she died. I am sure she did her pennance then and went straight to heaven or what ever anyone perceives heaven to be. If Terri could not feel pain, discomfort, or even know she was disabled, what difference would it had made if she were allowed to live? If not for Michael, then why not for the family? I perceive the ultimate conflict in this situation is the one concerning the power struggle that ensued. I too had once been married to a control freak and when I observe Michael S. I have memories which make parts of the family’s testimony seem plausible concerning this husband. In summary, for my spiritual self, I would prefer to error on the side of life than on the side of death. My LW will say to resucitate.
The consistent throwing in of ‘faith’ as legitimate evidence is really disturbing. Not only is it incredibly Christian-centric, it’s also incredibly disrespectful of people with alternative beliefs.
What exactly is it that makes people feel so entitled to throw facts to the wind in lew of proselytizing? Not only is it insulting, it’s downright fucking annoying after a while. I feel molested by each and every post I read that goes on and on about what God would dictate/think/judge on issues. Please stick to the facts, thanks.
Catholic,
Are you aware of the violence involved in being resucitated at any cost?
If you are 70 or 80 yrs old and your LW says to resucitate, you know that when they do, they will be breaking your ribs and other bones to get your heart beating again? It is a not an even trade.
If Catholic wishes resuscitate in her living will that is her choice. A lot of that is subjective, and it is quite difficult to anticipate how we would feel about events that we can at this point only anticipate. From my limited point of view, I do not have a warm fuzzy feeling about M. Schiavo, only my opinion. Conversely, there is a lot I did not see first hand, the role of a guardian is not often an easy one.
It’s time for me to update my will for other reasons; the Schiavo matter is a catalyst, to include an appropriate clause.
So in my own case, I will do the best to make decisions so my daughters will not have to. All considered, it promises to be similar fun to write the will, as to having bronchitis, and doing income tax. Suppose I should start the will, while I’m finishing up the other two, for even more intense pleasure.
Kim, congratulations on the use of the f word, it does liven things up a bit. As far as feeling molested, I don’t see quite how, frankly after a week of bronchitis I wish I could feel some molestation from reading this stuff. Usually, all I get is irritation.
For the most part agree or not, this is interesting, and most posts seem to come from a more intelligent cut of the population, than from what I’d seen on some yahoo message boards.
While I can not locate a link to the original story, there was a man who died in Oregon in similar circumstances. He was on the Oregon Health Plan, which was cut severely a few years ago. He could not afford to buy his anti-seizure medication, had a grand mal seizure that broke major blood vessel(s), and went into PVS. After some months in ICU and hospice, his feeding tube was disconnected, and he died.
The irony of saving less than $20 per month in medication then spending over a $1,000,000 in hospital and hospice costs has been addressed by very few people in our state. However, the state legislature has reversed itself on paying for medications for adult patients.
Though he knew about his condition, and did his best to cope, he was young and left no written directives. His family was devastated, but agreed with the decision to disconnect life support. They couldn’t have afforded to pay for his care, or a lawyer, and I guess didn’t have the nerve to set up an internet site and beg for money. Where were the protestors at his bedside? Where was the media, the state governor, the federal government, the president of the US?
Which brings me to my point. This happens every day in our country. Someone’s feeding tube is disconnected without conscious volition on the patient’s part, without written directives. We had a media circus around the Schiavo and Schindler families, but nothing for those who are unable to exploit the internet and stir the pot. For those of you who are concerned disconnecting life support may become common, it already has become so. For those of you who are concerned that directives may be overturned in the future, I don’t think you need to worry. Only the noisey get the attention.
My personal views? For heavens sake, don’t anyone attempt to prevent my husband from kicking the plug out. I’ve promised to do the same for him.
Kim,
It’s not only the tossing in of THE ONE TRUE FAITH that’s offensive. It is the ignorance about one’s own faith that is truly appalling. I think it is safe to say that Catholic beliefs is a Catholic. It is my understanding of Catholicism that suicide is an unredeemable sin that condemns one to hell. Cb’s mother committed suicide by refusing food and water, yet Cb writes:
She sufferred before she died. I am sure she did her pennance then and went straight to heaven…
This flies in the face of the tenets of Cb’s own religion. It makes the tossing in of faith over fact so much more offensive when the writer then shows itself to be above its own faith. You know, according to my religion X, but I can believe Y and be absolute in my faith that I can do Y even though my religion explicitly refutes that.
We’ll all be a lot happier here if we stick to our own knitting and leave off judging other people.
Jake, Cb’s mother didn’t commit a sin if she – the mother – thought what she was doing wasn’t a sin. Even if she was wrong. According to Catholics. Intention is everything. None of us has met Cb’s mother, and Cb is certainly entitled to think well of her.
Kim, someone stating their own beliefs is only “incredibly disrespectful” if that person is trying to force that belief on you. If the other person just makes a simple statement of his or her own position, any offense you feel has its roots somewhere in you, I would think. For example, if I state that I believe in God (I do), do you find that “insulting” and “annoying”? Whyever? I don’t feel insulted and annoyed when you say that you don’t (if you don’t).
I will say further that if one does believe in God, that fact – the existence of God – has to be taken into account in making decisions. If it isn’t, I’d question the sincerity of the belief. Does this bother you for some reason?
This end-of-life stuff is a very personal decision. That’s why everyone went to so much trouble over Terri Schiavo – to make sure that her own opinion, not the opinion of her husband, not the opinions of her parents, not the opinion of the Pope, not the opinions of a bunch of wise-acres here on the internet , Terri’s opinion – was respected, and her own decision carried out.
If Cb wants to be kept alive at all costs, that is its right, both legally and morally, whatever the reasons for the decision.
I want to thank each of the contributers to this discussion. The ideas and thoughts of each of us are important.
I am sad for Terry S. I am sad that she was emotionally disturbed enought to develop an eating disorder. I am sad that she suffered extreme brain damage as a result of her heart attack which was in turn a result of her e.d.. I am sad that her life turned into a public circus as well as a private torment to her family and husband.
I understand why the conservative christian activists felt obliged by their beliefs to become involved in what truly was none of their business. Yet I am offended by their very temerity; did not their god give humankind the right to choose in what to believe? Do not they themselves recognize that sometimes their god’s answer to prayers is a resounding NO?
I am outraged at our government for their blatent grasping for political collateral at the expense of Terry and her family. And I am once again disgusted with our media’s relentless pursuit of “dirty laundry”.
If we accept that Terry’s conscious brain was dead, that she would never recover consciousness, and that she made her wishes known in regard to her care in such a situation, then we must accept the outcome of the litigation.
It is sad her parents could not see beyond their will for her.
For myself and my family, her situation served as a catalyst for discussion. We all understand each other’s wishes more clearly now. God(s) willing, we will find the strength to accept the inevitable if it should come.
In regard to medical science, I must quote Jurassic Park; just becaus we can doesn’t mean we should.
Thanks for reading my first blog.
This is the crux of the issue right here:
Seems you’re more than willing to impose your wants and beliefs on others while at the same time reserving your own right to choose. That is exactly the “difference” you inquired about.
Susan,
Thanks for the correction. It is always good to learn new things.
I don’t feel insulted and annoyed when you say that you don’t (if you don’t).
Wow, that’s a first for me. Most people do feel insulted if you say that you don’t believe in god. And it is almost understandable. For a lot of people, saying that you don’t believe in god strikes at the core of their self-identification and, as such, is not only insulting but also threatening.
Oddly enough, Susan, I’ve followed your posts and seen the occassional references to devout catholocism. I even considered posting that you were one of the few within these discussions that has seemed consistently capable of seperating the two. It’s likely that a great deal of my spleen venting in the last post was due to having just read the Michael Schiavo is everyman thread, in which the bible is thumped with a fervor.
Perhaps I should more clearly define my position, that I think that spiritual beliefs while often being a very core part of a person are for the edification and comfort of the person that has them, not for the spewing of everyone around them. Religious diatribes, no matter how poetic or poignant are misplaced in these discussions, as they are attempts at avoiding facts and using unproven hypothesis in lew of genuine logic, debate and understanding of a subject.
As the squid said, if I had come out swinging everytime a person in these threads started proselytizing with anti-Christian or anti-God rhetoric that was supportive of a different religion or worse yet no religion and used that as the basis for my arguments on the Schiavo case, I’m sure it would have shocked and offended many of the more sermonizing types into some really caustic posts.
That said, the constant interruption of the discussion by these posts has just worn thin on me.
Dan,
Sorry if the use of the word fucking offended, it simply was the most appropriate epitaph I had at the moment to vent away the genuine feeling of religiously motivated belief-molestation I feel when reading some of these posts. Couple that with being in the later stages of my first trimester and having a nasty cold, and I tend to be a bit edgy and biting in my commentary.
Check this one: http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/wf-Schiavo.pdf
Maybe the response to question #40 is in their favor, other than that I can but wonder why they put this on their site. But then again, I guess it’s intended for their devoted followers, sharing their definition of conflicting “evidence”, being disabled, etc.
Kim,
I took no offense at all, kind of got a kick out of it. Growing up in an Irish Catholic midwest farm family, I learned a lot of epitaphs (we called em cuss words), bet I know a few you might not. One was Sh_t & Molasses.
Bronchitis is making me a grouchy also. I just wonder, if any of us would be writing any of this if we were all on the beach somewhere sipping a drink of what ever. Hopefully, I’d have enough sense to leave the notebook in the room.
Kathi, thank you, I’d have to agree with everything you say about the Terri situation. The part everyone seems to have been anxious to avoid talking about, but one important lesson for the living, is eating disorders can kill. It’s important that anyone with an eating disorder get treatment immediately. And yes, my family and I have done some talking about what we would want too, and my clients no longer start for the door when I mention Advance Directives for Health Care. So there is that too. Some good may come out of this deplorable tragedy.
Squid, my man, I can’t imagine why anyone would be offended by your statements of non-belief.
In extensive discussions of this topic (I’ve been around a long time, and once I was an undergraduate even) I’ve heard this statement on innumerable occasions, and I’ve never been offended by it. Interested, yes. I always ask someone making that declaration to expain to me the god he or she doesn’t believe in. Invariably I find that I don’t believe in that god either, so we have that much in common, for starters. If you were here, we could go out to the pub (I’m temporarily in Scotland) or the Starbucks, your choice, and have a great talk. If by any chance you’re in Edinburgh, notify me immediately. Really. It’s an oldie, but it’s still one of the most interesting discussion topics around.
Kim. Oh, you’re pregnant. If this helps at all, you’re at the very worst part. Things only get better from here. Yes, I know all those women hobbling around big as houses look miserable, but they’re not as miserable as you are. Hang in there. (For all I know this is your fifth child and you already know all this.)
I find religious ranting and raving nearly as distasteful as you do, possibly because the hidden – but not very well hidden – message is usually I am better than everyone else or some such. And because I am better than everyone else everyone has to do as I say. Jesus of Nazareth, whatever else you may think about him, loathed people like that, and said so on every available occasion, which is a big part of why he got killed. That type hates being called on it.
I’m on holiday, that’s why I have time. But I post anyway even when I’m not. Probably I’m feeling a bit isolated when I’m not on vacation. When I’m at home I work a lot, and I raised a seriously disabled child, now 23. In the course of that experience I sort of lost touch with a lot of my friends, and my kid was so odd that most of my neighbors avoid us now. And I work alone. Possibly I should join a firm, if only for company. I’m with my elder daughter and her family in Edinburgh now, and she has a 4 year old and a 1 year old, so actually I don’t have as much time to post as I do at home.
The discussions on this blog are certainly a cut above the ordinary, and for this forum, we thank you, Ampersand.
An article from Socialist Worker on disability activists and well-known liberals like Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader siding with their enemies: Liberal allies of the right in Schiavo case
Susan,
This is my second pregnancy, in fact! To give you a bit of background, I’m one of Amp’s housemates (my husband, daughter and I live in the garden-level apartment of the house), mother to the lovely Sydney Quinn, whom often makes pictorial appearances on the blog after Amp and my husband have gone on wacky snap-shot binges.
Interestingly enough, I was probably the most hesitant in the house with regards to concluding that Terri Schiavo’s wishes were being honored. I started out with a healthy dose of skepticism and finally came to the conclusion like you, that ultimately we had to put our faith in the courts that they reviewed the case (which they did repeatedly) to the best of their abilities to discern what she would have wanted. I would not have objected if the courts had decided the case warranted more scrutinization, but they did not, and this decision alone, when considering the seriousness of the case was enough to convince me that each of the courts had done their job and there wasn’t anything left to conclude.
I hate that she didn’t have a living will, I hate that we don’t allow euthenasia such as we have in Oregon, but ultimately I came to the conclusion that whatever moral issues I have about the actions of the Schiavo’s, the Schindlers, the lawyers and in general manners of euthenasia, the only opinion that truly mattered was that of Terri Schiavo. Being that I’ve attempted very much to restrict my own moralizing, I’m grouchy at people who don’t, and worse yet, people who flagrantly moralize and leave all fact behind. On this board, that seems in most cases to be people that are thumping their bibles while they do so.
Hope that provides a bit more insight!
Best Regards,
Kim
Well, good luck with this pregnancy too, Kim!
There is a certain cast of blog posters – fortunately rather rare on this blog – who just scream the same thing over and over, “based” on their personal view of morality. These folks just don’t listen to reason, or to anything else. You can explain the rule of law to them a hundred times, but it never registers; they want the rule of Themselves. This comes, often enough (but not always) cloaked in “morality,” but in fact it is not a moral claim, it is a claim of personal infallibility, which is anything but moral.
These people should logically be criticizing Terri Schiavo as a suicide, but that’s too complicated for them, so they demonize her husband, the courts, you, me, whoever.
The courts determined, after several exhaustive trials, that Terri wanted that tube pulled. That’s how we determine disputed facts here, and I personally don’t have any suggestions for a better method, so we go with that. Whether I agree with it or not. Because it’s not my life, it was hers.
That’s what bothers me about the moralizers. They are perfectly free to hold and implement their own decisions about their own lives. What is not legitimate is to force those opinions on other people. The Peter Singers of this world are just as obnoxious as the bible-thumpers; however, that type hasn’t shown up on this blog.
Susan,
Your statement that intention is everything in the Catholic Church needs a bit of qualification. As the Catholic catechism puts it: ‘no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.’ There are serious sins that remain serious sins whoever commits them and whatever they think about them. Even non-Catholics cannot be excused by invincible ignorance, an ignorance of the law that cannot be removed by any effort that the person can reasonably be expected to make. Murder, I think, would come in this category. It is a serious sin even if the person who commits it has managed to convince himself that it is not.
Then there are serious sins that are sins for everyone but that non-Catholics would not be at fault for committing if they did not think they were sinful. Contraception, I think, would come in this category. It is considered a sin against the natural law but not against the basic principles of natural law.
Then there are serious sins that are sins only for Catholics. Missing mass on Sunday would be one of these.
Which category does suicide fall in? Not the third, obviously, but I am not sure if it would come in the first or second.
For Catholics there is a further complication. If they commit a sin in the second category, believing that it is a sin and knowing that the Church teaches that it is a sin, then they are guilty. If they genuinely do not believe it to be a sin and are unaware that the Church teaches that it is a sin they are not guilty. But what if they know that the Church teaches that it is a sin but they genuinely do not believe it to be sinful? There is no clear Catholic teaching on this situation. Some theologians and priests say one thing, some another. The catechism could be interpreted either way.
Thinking about the Catholic teaching on serious sin has made me wonder if it explains the behaviour of the Schindlers. I have been horrified by their treatment of Terri but perhaps it is explained if they thought they might be keeping her out of Hell for a while. Terri was a Catholic but she did not attend mass regularly and I understand she used contraception. Therefore it is quite likely that she was not in a state of grace when she had the heart attack. If she never had a functioning mind after that she would have been incapable of contrition. The Schindlers may have thought that they could be delaying her eternal torture for a few years. This is pure speculation on my part. I have read nothing to suggest that they thought that way at all but it would explain a lot.
Washington Post
This is, of course, the same Phyllis Schlafly who earlier this week said:
Schlafly
Good thing she’s tone deaf b/c the cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.
Kim, do you know my friend ideath? Ouroboros?
Just checking. I know Oregon’s bigger than one small town.
Phyllis would benefit by a refresher course in high school civics, which she obviously failed the first time around.
That’s not precisely true, Katherine. Or, it may be true enough, but we don’t know which sins those are exactly. First, you’re assuming that all these cases are more clear-cut than they tend to be; second, you’re assuming everyone is sane and furthermore in full possession of his or her faculties.
For example, it is allegedly a “natural law” that suicide is gravely sinful, but it is not a “natural law” that cutting off artificial feeding tubes is suicide – quite the contrary. Theologians disagree quite a bit on that one. Suicide is gravely sinful, but….what if you are too mentally ill at the time to form a fully sane judgment? The Church will excuse that, just as the law excuses murder in the hopelessly insane. It is a “natural law” that murder is gravely sinful, but when is deadly force justifiable in self defense? in war? in family feuds? is it murder to turn off the respirator? What if the murderer is a paranoid schizophrenic, and really believes the victim is a grave danger to himself? what if this happens in a cultural context in which the killing is expected and accepted by everyone for some reason, as elderly parents were said to be abandoned on the ice by the Inuit? Doesn’t the intent of the parties bear in on this situation?
In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes the “big picture”, the easy calls, just as everyone else does. It’s pretty obvious to the normal person that if someone who is perfectly sane and in control of himself jumps on a stranger out of a dark alley in peacetime, in one of the modern western industrialisms, and slits his throat, this is not exactly OK. But when we get to the tough questions, all this business of intent comes into play to muddy up the waters.
For this reason among others Jesus instructed us not to judge other people. If some hierarchs in the Church have forgotten this piece of advice, well, maybe they should go back and re-read the gospels.
Susan,
Although we haven’t always agreed, I also have a learning disabled child (daughter of 28), so it appears we might have a couple of things in common.
It seems the subject has changed a bit, to Catholism. I really wasn’t trying to be mean, when I hurled that phrase back to you, but I did. I don’t consider myself a shining example of a devout Catholic.
Since then, I’ve thought about what it means to be a good Catholic, the best I can come up with, is trying to act in the manner in which Christ would have. He seemed not to bent on materialism (getting ticked at some vendors doing business in church on Sunday), he was not especially enthused over rock tossers or groups of many picking on one, his choice of friends I believe included working class, and an ex-prostitute. From what little I know he seemed not to give a damn about what the generalized popular view of society was at the time.
He had courage to literally die for his convictions. All in all he is a tough act to follow morally. Then there are miracles.
So for me on the Schiavo matter, I wonder what Christ would say. It’s a tough question, with limited information, from over a thousand miles away, and with only my puny human brain to think with. I’m not even going to guess what he might have, said. My base instinct on the matter is that wrong was done.
dan,
What would Jesus do, huh. Well, now you’ve made me think some.
This question makes me think of a story. I don’t know if anyone remembers James Kopp – you can still Google him and get a website praising him as a hero and a martyr. I have some astonishingly right-wing Catholic friends, and I actually knew Jim, and corresponded with him some while he was hiding out in France.
Jim was into shooting abortion doctors. He winged a few, and finally he killed one, by accident he said, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. How many times can you shoot people from a distance before you kill one? This is an accident? The authorities caught up with him, and he won’t be seeing the outside of a prison, ever, I hope. While legally sane, Jim’s actually nuts. He said if they let him out he’ll do it again, and I for one believe him.
There are actually people who idolize this man, analogizing his killing of a physician by shooting through his lit-up kitchen window with a high-powered rifle to the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. Jim killed a mass murderer, is how they see it, and as a result some unknown number of innocent babies survived. Believe me, I’ve heard all the arguments.
But no matter how I twist my head around, I just can’t see Jesus out there in that guy’s back yard in the dark with a rifle in his hands.
Is Terri’s case like that? What would Jesus have done about Terri? I picture him there, and he miraculously heals her…but that’s not the answer. He’s not available for that usually these days. And he didn’t have to deal with technology like ours. In his time, Terri would have died that first night, end of story.
Does he stand at her bedside and say, keep this empty shell of a body alive for another 40 years, her soul is still in there, she has something to learn yet, and something to teach?
Perhaps he does. Yes, perhaps.
But this isn’t a Christian country in the sense that the ideals of Jesus guide the state. (There is no such country, and never has been, to my knowledge.) If it were, I think we could all agree that this would be a very different place, and I don’t personally think the survival of Terri Schiavo would be the biggest change. (There’s the little matter of wars of aggression, for example…) And while most people think love is a good thing, not everyone thinks it “practical” (whatever that may mean).
I think we did the best we could, given the givens. But now I too, like you, wonder if somehow the wrong side won.
Susan,
I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not saying that the status of particular sins is clear-cut for the Catholic Church. I am sure theologians could probably spend years arguing about every case. I was disagreeing with what I took to be your view of Catholic teaching, that nothing can be a sin if the person committing it thinks it is not a sin. This is definitely not the Catholic view. I mentioned murder as an example of a serious sin that remains a sin whoever commits it. On reflection, it was not a good example because of the difficulty of deciding whether a particular killing constitutes murder.
Yes, you are right about mental illness. The Catholic Church would say that a person who is so mentally ill that they are incapable of forming a normal judgment about the morality of an action could not be guilty of serious sin.
The suicide that Jake was talking about, however, that of Catholic beliefs’ mother, did not involve mental illness, as far as we know. Neither did it involve a feeding tube. It seems to have been a straightforward suicide, though carried out for the most charitable of motives. Any Catholic priest, if consulted at the time, would have said that this suicide involved grave matter. Most would, I think, add that it might well be a mortal sin, even if Catholic beliefs’ mother thought it was the right thing to do. Like Jake, I am puzzled that this does not seem to have occurred to Catholic beliefs.
I should add that I am not myself a Catholic. I do not believe that there is such a thing as mortal sin or such a place as Hell. As I see it, Catholic doctrines are untrue and the cause of enormous suffering in the world. I am glad Catholic beliefs is not worrying about her mother, although I am puzzled by it, and I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the Schindlers may now be worrying about Terri.
Ah, but Katherine, we don’t know the whole story. You assume that mental illness was not involved, but that’s only an assumption. There are any number of other factors which we do not know, and which bear very much on this situation.
This is a confident statement. There are something like 40,000 Roman Catholic priests in the United States. It is my experience that you can find a priest who will say anything whatever that you want him to say if you look long enough, and sometimes you don’t have to look too far at all.
Furthermore, if the mother sincerely believed she was doing the right thing, then it wasn’t a sin. According to the Catholic Church, officially. She may have been mistaken in her belief, but that’s an entirely different matter. There is no way, according to Catholic theology (about which I know quite a bit, by the way) that you can commit a sin if you really and truly believe that you are doing the right thing. Suicide is “objectively” gravely sinful (whatever that may mean) but that does not mean, according to the Church, that everyone who deliberately destroys himself has committed a grave sin, or any sin at all.
Saying that “murder” is always a sin, of course, assumes the conclusion, as you recognize.
If you are not a Catholic, perhaps you don’t know as much about Roman Catholic theology as I do, who have been a Catholic for sixty years, and have studied theology.
In my OPINION: T. Schindler’s mistake was not in not leaving a living will but in not leaving a living creep.
For anyone to even remotely imply that at it’s root she committed suicide by eating disorder is simplistic and repugnant. Ditto for blaming her parents for causing her to be emotionally dysfuctional.
My concern about this whole case is this: In the absence of my leaving a credible and tangible directive (readable or viewable) to allow me to die with no intervention or comforting supports in the event of a catastrophic health condition, or in the absence of my having been duly convicted of a crime, should any court in this land have the legal power to orchestrate my death, especially by what I consider to be a cruel and unusual punishment?
There are legal minds who have questions as to Judge Greer’s efficacy in reviewing all evidence and making a truly objective ruling. If this is indeed the case, then laws need to be changed to prevent such . Thinking people are aware that judges and juries are not perfect and are influenced by unconscious biases and overt agendas. Innocent persons languish in prisons for years, put there by the best available evidence at the time (which often did not have the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ applied), only to be freed later because of DNA evidence or the recanting of witness testimony. Who knows how many of the innocent have been executed? To my way of thinking, one is too many.
It is also my opinion that individuals who “label” others with whom they disagree are resorting to art of “smearing,” reprehensible method of attempting to discredit those against whom they cannot launch a well analyzed rebuttal.
Interesting reading at: http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/03/25/cast-of-characters-in-the-schiavo-case/
It occurs that most of us on here have really struggled with this, I don’t envy the judge, at all, tough position, so easy to toss a nay word at him. I think not so easy to sit in his shoes.
I believe once Christ said, something like “Whatever you do to the least amongst you, you also do to me”. So if Terri, was least, so far in mental strength in that situation, was she freed to go to her spiritual home as her former self probably did state, or was her life ended prematurely, denying her some elemental joy felt each time her family came near. Tomorrows science will be better, someday we may find things that would have changed our view of this situation entirely. It’s really quite a quandary, maybe what counts is that anyone with conscience did agonize. Maybe it’s a test of all of us, that we gave enough of a damn to care, and struggled with what was right.
One figure I always thought a bit more villainized than he should have been in history is Pontius Pilate, from what I remember, he argued, and eventually gave Christ over, but only after pressure, and he washed his hands of the matter. So perhaps he was a man of some conscience, maybe what counts, is that he once agonized, does he now reside with Christ?
dan, as you probably know, there are two ancient (and contradictory) traditions about Pilate.
All we know for sure, from the historical record, is that he was removed from his post a few years after Christ died, for unnecessary cruelty and corruption. Considering the rather low standards of the Roman occupying power for required honesty and compassion, he must have been quite a piece of work that even Rome couldn’t tolerate him.
The one tradition says that shortly after that he killed himself. The other tradition says that he became a Christian.
Perhaps he is us. We’re not quite sure, but like Pilate, we do agonize about it, so I think there is something worth saving in Pilate and in us too.
Susan, I agree, although I didn’t remember that about him. I don’t hold any respect for anyone who would shoot at a doctor simply because he or she performs abortions. I imagine, those same doctors may have also saved some lives.
Thinking about Terri, in the last days, bothers me, as I’m somewhat visual in nature, and they say that a body bleeds at the eyes. I remember what Christ said about doing to the least we do to him. To be honest it does form a lump in my throat, a tear in my eye, and I really don’t like that.
We have a friend, female, an ex-stripper. I was going to invite her to my wifes surprise birthday party (as a friend, not entertainment), and all of her friends I asked about it told me not to, later my wife told me that I was wrong, that I should have invited her. That is what I felt also at the time, but I was weak, and went with their view.
Later on I ran across the woman, and apologized to her. She said she understood, adding that society kind of sucks. So you see in my view, I was not a very good Catholic, for not inviting her. I guess there are always diverse ways of looking at things.
dan,
Well, you’ve very right – there are always diverse ways of looking at things, and it’s sometimes hard to find the right path. As to your friend, you were trying to find the right thing to do, the loving thing to do, and maybe you got it wrong. But I’d think that you get credit for trying.
You say that Jim was wrong to shoot the abortion doctor because the doctor probably saved many lives as well.
I say that as a society, we can’t live with people who decide to shoot at anybody in the dark of night for any reason whatever. For that same reason. That there are a lot of ways of looking at things. For Jim, Dr. Slepian was a mass murderer, and taking him out was a virtuous act. For someone else, someone like me who occasionally defends people who don’t want to pay their taxes may be a traitor to the Homeland, and then I get shot. For someone else, Ampersand, who runs a mildly liberal blog, is the Antichrist, and then he gets shot. And so forth, until the only guy left is the guy who’s the quickest draw with an AK47, and God alone knows who’s been caught in the crossfire.
I have to oppose that for the same reason that I defended the cessation of Terri’s feeding tube: I believe in the rule of law. I’m pledged by oath to believe in it and defend it, but I believe in it anyway. It’s not the Kingdom. It’s a slimy, dirty business. It makes a lot of mistakes. But it’s the best we have, and the alternative, so far as I can see, is a society where people ambush one another in supermarket parking lots with shotguns, or shoot through lighted dining room windows late at night.
So even if Dr. Slepian had spent all day every day performing partial-birth abortions, I can’t approve of what Jim did.
There are heroes, moral heroes, who break the law in a good cause, and who are willing to suffer for that. (I don’t include Jesus here, because that whole “trial” was trumped up, and the charges were fabricated.) I can respect that. I think. But I’m personally glad that Jim Kopp is locked up.
In response to Katherine:
They may have believed that, but it would be a very bizarre belief, and most of all, not actually supported by Catholic orthodoxy. Just so it’s clear, I’m not here to “defend” that orthodoxy, I only have experience of it from being raised a Catholic, in fact I am quite busy undoing the effects of a strict upbringing, so whatever non-flattering opinions of Catholicism I may have now, I do know some little bit about it.
The “state of grace” in the Catholic doctrine is not dependent on acts, so it’s not dependent on sins, it’s believed be a gift from God, and the believer can only accept it or refuse it. They cannot engender that state themselves.
Amongst other things, as everyone knows, Church disapproves of contraception, homosexuality, sex before marriage, and encourages believers to go to mass every Sunday – but ignoring these teachings is in no way presented as an entry ticket for hell. In fact there’s nothing in official teachings that says, if you do this and follow all the rules even on the most venial matters, you’ll be guaranteed a place in heaven; if you don’t do this, you’ll go straight to hell.
Not even with suicide – priests still officiate funerals for suicides, and they don’t prounounce words of hellfire condemnation for the deceased, not just out of respect for the relatives and friends attending the ceremony, but because no priest can do that. Not even the Pope can do that. Sure, unlike Protestant churches, Catholicism insisnts on figures of religious authority to the point it gets close to personality cult, but not even they are not supposed to pronounce divine judgement on the salvation of a single individual.
The Pope even forgave the man who tried to kill him. How could Terri’s parents think that use of contraception could be worse than attempted murder?
Not even murder is considered automatically unforgivable. Nothing is unforgivable, in Catholicism. It’s all up to divine mercy, ultimately. The preaching on sins, coupled with the sacrament of confession and absolution, is supposed to be an indication for believers, and also work in terms of social control, like a set of laws, a bit like Islamic shariah but without the actual physical punishment for violations – even with the most serious offenses are committed, the judge sentence remains unscrutable because the judge is believed to be God, not those who are believed to be its representatives.
So, it’s quite unlikely Terri’s parents had that sort of belief if they knew anything about Catholicism, besides, even if they had gotten such a warped version of it to be really convinced their daughter would be going to hell, it would not really make sense for them to believe keeping her in that state for another forty years would change anything.
(It feels surreal to be even saying that…)
Honestly, I don’t think her parents, for all they can be criticised for, were that much of a walking caricature, really. I would imagine a far simpler explanation for their behaviour: an extremely obstinate refusal to accept what had happened to their daughter. That would seem to me a more likely and more understandable reaction, even if the outcomes were not, really.
I enjoyed reading your comments very much, Susan.
“In his time, Terri would have died that first night, end of story.”
Exactly. Amazing how that little detail gets completely forgotten by those who think that if Jesus had been in the place of judges (!) he would have definitely “ruled” differently.
Not to mention, no one, believer or not, can say what Jesus would have done if he’d been there, because it’s impossible to answer that question without bringing our own individual beliefs, experiences, habits and social and cultural background into the answer. Unless we believe that our thoughts and convictions can be the direct product of divine intervention – not even inspired by, but 100% straight from the mind of God; which is a bit of a dramatic statement to make for anyone who is, um, not God…
So anytime someone says, Jesus would have or would not have done this, they’re not answering the ‘what would have Jesus done’ question, but ‘what would Jesus do if he was me’, which is the same as, ‘what would I do if I was Jesus’. So we might as well be honest and just say, this is what *I* would have done and this is how *I believe* the teachings of Jesus should be *interpreted*, and leave all other speculations about the actual behaviour of Jesus out of it.
Sorry to get so pedantic on you all. I always thought, it’s quite frustrating already that Jesus spoke in parables that have been passed on via second-hand reports and translated and re-translated across different languages and eras, but that’s not reason enough to go and complicate it even further by *trying to guess* what else he *might* have said in very specific terms on very specific issues he didn’t have to deal with at the time…
Whatever happened to individual moral conscience? That’s still acknowledged even in Catholic catechism. People make their own decisions. It’s “dangerously” close to relativism for the teachings of such an authoritarian church, so that’s probably why they don’t advertise it that much, but it’s there.
Just another thing – on the suicide vs. removing feeding tube debate, and on the gospel teaching about not judging others, what Susan writes is the way I understood it too, though I’m not a theological expert.
I also recall hearing about a theological debate on the fate of Judas, there are those who suppose he might still have been saved, also because his betrayal was instrumental to the grand masterplan…
So even with clear-cut suicide with no “mitigating circumstances”, while it’s definitely considered a sin, it’s not considered an unforgivable one, because, again, the idea is, only God can know what’s in the heart of an individual, the ultimate absolution is in the hands of God. So even someone who always lived by “the rules” has no “guarantee” of anything. There’s a lot of parables on this in the gospels. And besides, the idea in Catholicism is everyone is a sinner, so everyone has to accept they can only have faith in divine mercy.
Catholic teachings can be very stifling, but, to be fair, it must be said that there is also a great emphasis on that concept of forgiveness.
Also, on the specific case and pronouncements of the Vatican: statements of that kind are not dogma, they are as much political stances as anything, besides, the Cardinal who condemned the removal of the feeding tube said even for the Pope, all would be done to keep him alive. But the Pope went and decided he would not go to hospital and would not accept to be kept alive artificially when he knew he was dying anyway. So that kind of screwed up the cardinal’s statement a bit.
But seriously, apart from that, there are indeed disagreements even in Catholic circles because no one can draw a direct equivalence with removing artificial life support with murder or suicide. Terri’s case is not about euthanasia. And it’s not clear at all that a feeding tube for a person in a vegetative state is *not* an unnecessary life support measure like breathing machines. Many, even in the Catholic church, argue it is.
There was a case in Italy a few years ago when a man, whose wife was in hospital with terminal cancer, broke into the hospital room with a gun, to threaten anyone who’d get in his way, got to his wife’s room and pulled the plugs of the equipment that was keeping her alive. She was in great pain and had expressed to her husband that desire not to unnecessarily prolong her suffering, but the doctors would not take such a step themselves (laws are a lot muddier in Italy on this). The courts recognised this and acquitted the husband. He went home to mourn his wife and asked journalists to leave him alone, he never even said anything outside of court. It was a sensational case, but basically everyone recognised the extreme sadness and pain of the situation, how the husband had acted out of compassion, and I don’t even recall a single word of condemnation from the Vatican. I may have missed it, but I honestly don’t recall them taking a position on that. Maybe because it wasn’t a politically hot case and there was no dramatic divergence of opinions and no political involvement? I may be cynical, but I get that impression.
dispassionate,
So, you want a legal requirement that directions about end of life care be in writing or on videotape. Not such a big change in the law as all that. Write your elected representative. At the State level, please, the federal government has no proper place in this debate.
So what, in your view, do we do with people who have neglected to provide us with that evidence? Do we keep them alive by whatever means, for as long as we can? That, too, can be written into law (though you might give a thought to just who is going to pay for all this when my generation, the boomers, are all on life support). You might include that thought in your letter to your state senator and representative.
As you note in your name, there is no reason to rant and rave here. Do be prepared, however, to lose this one if the majority of your fellow citizens are of another opinion.
Susan,
It may well be true that you know a lot more about Roman Catholic theology than I do but it is possible to know something about a religion without belonging to it or even liking it.
You say that: ‘There is no way, according to Catholic theology …. that you can commit a sin if you really and truly believe that you are doing the right thing.’ Perhaps that is true but presented like that, without any explanation, the sentence gives a misleading impression of Catholic teaching. It depends, I suppose, on what you mean by ‘really and truly.’
Invincible ignorance does remove guilt but invincible ignorance is not always present. No one can be invincibly ignorant of the basic principles of natural law and some would argue that invincible ignorance of the sinful nature of an act is not possible for a Catholic who knows the teaching of the Church about that act.
Even where invincible ignorance is possible it may be that the ignorance is vincible. Vincible does not mean unreal or insincere; it refers to an ignorance that could be removed by actions that the person could reasonably be expected to make. It does not remove the guilt from a sinful act. Some forms of invincible ignorance do reduce the guilt but other forms do not and may even increase it. As the catechism puts it: ‘Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”? Feigned ignorance here refers to affected ignorance and not pretended ignorance.
I would like to correct something in my last post. I meant to write: ‘Some forms of vincible ignorance do reduce the guilt but other forms do not and may even increase it.’
Katherine,
Dishonest ignorance isn’t honest ignorance? How startling.
monica
Indeed they are. I suppose political figures (that’s who we’re talking about here – surely you didn’t imagine that most Cardinals are spiritual leaders?) are entitled to make political statements. And we’re entitled to take them in the spirit in which they’re given.
monica, you’re my kind of Catholic.
It will be interesting to see what they have to say about the results of the autopsy. Doubt if it settles much of anything, suppose it might give rise to new arguments.
Susan,
“I say that as a society, we can’t live with people who decide to shoot at anybody in the dark of night for any reason whatever. ” Your quote there, and I agree 100%, other than for defense of life.
Self defense, and defense of ones family, friends etc.. Didn’t want to be missunderstood, as to including beyond that.
Yes, I would kill in self-defense. I think. (I’m not all that good a shot except at close range, but I could try I suppose.) I’d unhesitatingly kill in the defense of one of my children or grandchildren, and I’d figure I’d improved the gene pool thereby. Someone who’s too dumb not to know that you don’t get between a grizzly and her cubs….well, too dumb to live, I’d think.
Would Jesus kill in self-defense? Well, he could have and didn’t, so I guess we have our answer. I’m not sure what to make of this information. I have a ton of rationalizations, but they all sound kind of thin….
Monica,
It is certainly true that the Catholic Church teaches that it is never possible to say that any person has gone to Hell. We can never know in what state of mind a person has died. This is as true of Terri as of anyone else. I did not mean to suggest that the Schindlers were convinced that she was going to Hell, only that they might be worried about it. Of course, as you say, keeping her alive for another forty years would not have changed anything but if they thought there was a serious possibility that she might be facing eternal torture they would surely want to delay it as long as possible. I would if it was one of my children. Wouldn’t you?
The teaching of the Catholic Church about mortal sin and Hell is really very simple and straightforward. Sanctifying grace is a gift from God but anyone can forfeit it by committing a mortal sin. All the sins you mention, contraception, homosexual acts, sex before marriage and missing Sunday Mass without a good reason or a dispensation, are grave matter. That is, they can be mortal sins if the other conditions for a mortal sin are fulfilled. One mortal sin is enough to send a person to Hell. Mortal sins do vary in gravity but any of them, if you die before being forgiven, will see you into Hell. Those who are guilty of the more serious mortal sins will be tortured rather more than the others, that is all.
Of course all these sins can be forgiven. All sins can be forgiven. The trouble is, no mortal sin can be forgiven after death. All the forgiving must take place while the sinner is still alive. A Catholic can be forgiven by receiving the sacrament of penance but if they have committed a mortal sin since they last went to confession and are unable to see a priest before they die their only hope of forgiveness is an act of perfect contrition. Opinions differ as to how difficult it is to make an act of perfect contrition. It used to be generally thought that it was very difficult. At any rate, it is certainly not something that you can be sure that you will be able to do. Apart from anything else you may not have enough time.
Most Catholics, when faced with this teaching of the Church, say that God can, if he wants, forgive people without an act of perfect contrition. I don’t think they would be so eager to claim this if they realised all the implications but, in any case, such an exceptional act on the part of God cannot be counted on.
The Catholic catechism explains the teaching on the nature of mortal sin in articles 1854-1861, on Hell in articles 1033-1037 and on the necessity of the sacrament of penance or an act of perfect contrition in articles 1452-1453.
I am glad to hear that you are recovering from your upbringing and wish you well in your escape from Catholicism.
We can only do our sincere best. As to doing what Jesus would have done: most of the time, we do what we feel like, or think is best based on our conscience or scruples. That’s about my standard mode of operation. Could I do self-defense, sure, that’s another benefit of growing up on the farm.
I’ve come to wonder, if the brain damaged in one area can have other sections take over in even a limited capacity. We do our best with todays science, and our legal system. It’s not the best, but it could be a lot worse.
An elder in my family, actually a very bright guy, in his last years mentioned to me, that the whole world was linked together, and he did not understand that. He had not mentioned that to me before, I think it was something he realized, when he had time to ponder on things other than business or other things strictly logical. I remember feeling that also, but not at a time near death.
I tend towards the side in this that would have given Terri back to her parents for care. That is more a feeling, than a logical assessment of our laws. Sometimes, I think that instinct is not the worst guide, that’s coming from a guy who works in the computer field.
I suspect Ms. Scindler’s sentiments may quite close to yours given her perspective on the matter. I think it is to her credit that she deferred to rule of law rather than taking the law into her own hands when fighting what she perceived to be the murder of her child.
Please be very specific as to which of my opinions constitute , “rantings and ravings.” Without specificity, I might be forced to draw the conclusion that you are indulging in “smearing.”
I do not consider expressing my opinions to be a win-lose situation, they are simply…my opinions…read them if you like; ignore them if you don’t like . And, why on earth should I need to be, “prepared”? for others to disagree with me. It happens and they are entitled to disagree.
Susan….
Complicated? Bizarre describes a sentiment that , “people should logically be criticizing Terri Schiavo as a suicide.” If indeed Terri had been a botched suicide, for anyone to “criticize” her would be , putting it mildly, unkind, especially since none of us experienced her circumstances.
Correlational studies have been conducted that suggest links between eating disorders and depression, eating disorders and impulse disorders, eating disorders and certain personality disorders, eathing disorders and other mood disorders, and finally eathing disorders and any combination of the above. The correct term for for multiple pathological conditions existing simultaneously is ‘co-morbidity.’
The key word here is correlation, which can suggest but not prove a theory. Scientific (empirical) proof of a theory comes from experimentation,which would be unethical and illegal if humans were used in experiments to research causes of death.
There is no empiral proof that eating disorders are a chosen method of commiting suicide.
For you to imply that Terri intentionally chose one as a method of suicide is a dubious theory made on generalizations, based on limited media excerps and with no first hand knowledge of the individual and , ultimately, based on a layman’s very limited knowledge of and experience with symptomatology and psychopathology.
How can you presume to do this?
It takes years of supervised training and first hand experience in the mental health field to develop the seasoned clinical judgement and diagnostic expertise necessary to make mental health assessments. And, still we sometimes make errors.
In reading the thread on this board I have discovered that you frequently make references to your professional experience, and background; therefore, I feel it only fair to make you aware of mine. I will do it only once.
My undergraduate degree is in liberal arts with a history major. I believe this gives me plenty of background to know how to go about working with my elected representatives to change or improve laws. It also give me a clear understanding of when the system of checks and balances might be teetering on the edge of imbalance.
My graduate degrees are in psychology. I am a 57 year old practicing psychologist married to a 57 year old psychologist turned administrator.
We have three daughers and two wonderful grandhildren.
Daughter #1, age 37, is a certified registered nurse practitioner. She diagnoses and prescribes for her own patients much as a family practice physician would, but also knows when and how to refer patients that are outside the scope of her practice.
Daughter #2, age 28, is a practicing attorney, who made law review and graduated in the upper quadrant of her class, and who once patiently explained to me the difference between arguing point-0f-law as opposed to point-of-fact and why the Supreme Court ruled as it did in the last presidential election. I trust her legal judgement, and I trust her ethics. After all, I watched her grow up.
Daughter #3, age 25, is a graduate student seeking a doctorate in psychology and counseling.
Susan, I will cheerfully concede that you know a great deal more about the practice of law than I do. Is it possible for you to concede that I know more about psychopathology and mental health practice than you?
If Mr Schiavo is a sensitive,compassionate, and loving person, and if he was acting out of concern for the ‘quality’ of Terri’s life as well as for securing her wishes, I wonder did he carefully consider and factor in the potential for disastrous personal emotional damage to his children and companion that continuing a highly charged, imflammatory, and very public battle might cause?
I believe that there is no way he can protect his family from the cruelty of the scorn and ridicule of those who will inevitably tell them in no incertain terms that they believe Mr. Schiavo is a murderer. I shudder to think of worse possibilities. The quality of those children’s lives will never be the same, and they are among the ‘living’ .
When you do what I do for long enough you form perceptions about people not only by what they say, but by how they behave, by their body language and demeanor, and by other’s reactions to them and by other’s observations of their behavior. Abusive situations tend to have certain subtle markers (or red flags) that are much more discernable to those who know what to look for. All I have learned about this man’s behavior and activities taken as whole and over a period of time sends up red flags for me.
Additionally, all I have learned about the “inbred” interlocking business and professional relationships in Pinellas County FL that may have affected the finding of the complete truth in this case is frankly scary. I hate to criticize my part of the country because it has so many redeeming qualities, but one has to be born and bred in the South to truly appreciate the awsome power of the “good ole boy system” to bury truth, pervert justice, and see to it that the “menfolk” dominate where it really counts. It is truly the remarkable woman who can beat them at their game, ’cause they don’t play fair. It is a cultural phenomenon that I have watched all my life; there hasn’t been much improvement and it still sickens me. Guess I ain’t very dispassionate about that.
Susan: I am not easily categorized so don’t call me names or you just might elicit a high quality “Five Star Bitch” rant the likes of which you have never read. OK?
Interesting reading at;
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/03/25/cast-of-characters-in-the-schiavo-case/
Good Lord!
Administrator, please take out the blockquote from all but the first paragraph in my previous post….unless you like having that thing streeeetched out down the page. I don’t know how I did that.
dp
[Fixed! Thanks for pointing out the problem. –Amp]
When you read To Kill a Mockingbird, were you pissed off at Atticuss Finch because he put his children through such a difficult time rather than quit?
And did you fail to understand that a parent who tries to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing, might actually be setting his (or her) children a wonderful example?
By the way, I didn’t notice Susan calling you any names. But if she did, the best response isn’t to threaten to escalate.
dispassionate,
You need a new handle.
I’m glad you have great and accomplished kids and grandkids. So do I. Congratulations to both of us.
I wasn’t referring to Terri’s eating disorder when I mentioned “suicide.” I was referring to her desire not to be kept alive by feeding tube if there was no hope for her recovery. I don’t personally think of this as suicide, but blaming any of this on her husband, and calling it “murder”, is just a bit bizarre, since he didn’t make the decision, she did. If you think it a morally wrong decision, you’d have to blame that on her.
I don’t know the “cause” of Terri’s (or anyone else’s) eating disorder. From what you say, neither does anyone else. There would seem to be a number of possible links to other conditions.
I’ve never met Michael Schiavo. I don’t know if you have, but it would be an odd professional in your field who would deliver a diagnosis on a patient he or she had never met. I don’t know what his motivations were. I think it best to assume good motivations in everyone until the contrary is proven, and I don’t see any reason to make Mr. Schiavo an exception to that rule.
I didn’t call you names. You did call yourself one though (“Five Star Bitch”). You would know best, I suppose. I haven’t seen any evidence of it, however.
This has been quite a civil discussion, and I hope it stays that way.
Let’s try this over, since we seem to be coming loose from the facts again.
1. It is the legal right of every mentally competent person, and has been the legal right of every person in our tradition from time immemorial, to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, for any reason or for no reason, regardless of what anyone else thinks about that. This right, now styled “the Constitutional right of privacy” is a thousand years older than the Constitution.
2. More recently, and in light of advances in medical technology, it has been made possible for a person to refuse medical treatment in advance, in case that person is mentally incapacitated at the the time in question.
3. Terri Schiavo did so, according to the verdict of a trial court which heard all the evidence anyone could come up with on both sides. The court found this by “clear and convincing evidence.” This verdict was affirmed upon numerous appeals. You may not like this verdict. There are many court verdicts I do not like. However, this is the way we do things here, and I for one am not willing to overthrow this system in favor of the Sole Omniscient Rule of Whoever Disagrees on Some Blog.
4. Terri Schiavo was an adult. Her parents disagreed with her decision. There’s nothing unusual about that. My parents disagreed with a number of my decisions, and my adult children, too, do not think it necessary to get my approval for all their decisions.
5. After much fussing about, Terri’s decision was implemented.
This was not
1. A decision Michael Schiavo made.
2. A decision that anyone with severe brain damage (or any other disability) should be killed.
3. Strictly speaking, a verdict on Terri’s medical condition at all, except that it was found to be extremely unlikely that she could recover function to any significant degree, and that was the condition that she herself placed on taking the action which was taken. This was all about what Terri wanted.
4. A decision about whether she “died” the day she had her heart atttack.
5. Judicial tyranny, unless you think courts shouldn’t make the decisions we’ve told them to make. (Imagine the chaos if every court decision had to be validated by popular vote!)
It is legitimate to believe that the court made the wrong decision. I, for example, think OJ Simpson murdered his wife, on the basis of nothing much. But the rule of law means that I accept the decision of the court, even though I disagree.
It is legitimate, though irrelevant, to believe that Michael Schiavo is a snake-in-the-grass.
It is legitimate to think Terri made a mistake or made the morally wrong decision. However, it’s none of your business.
It is legitimate to believe that Christian (or other religious) principles were violated in this case. For good or ill, however, we do not run this secular society according to religious principles. Perhaps we would be better off if we did, but we don’t. That was a decision the Founders made very early on. They knew a lot about the rule of Established Churches, and didn’t like it much.
If you are unhappy with the laws in question here, it is legitimate that you write your elected representatives to ask that they be changed. But the law as it stood was followed in this case.
If you would want a different result in your own case, please execute an Advance Directive to that effect, so that we don’t get into a messy fight if something like this should happen to you.
I’ll ask a question here. Was Terri considered to have “died” the day of her heart attack by the court? I also don’t know if they considered her cognitive abilities 100% gone or say 99% gone. Just curious, maybe somebody here has the answer to that.
Katherine:
No, not really, because first of all, as I said, I really cannot see the logic of such reasoning about physically “delaying” a torture that is supposed to be eternal, it would be a very absurd and contradictory belief to have; secondly, and most of all, I don’t believe in spirituality in those terrifying horror-movie terms.
But even though my own beliefs are entirely my own, I can assure you, from the catechism and Catholic schooling on religious and spiritual matters as I still remember it, the teaching about spiritual salvation wasn’t put in such crude and extreme terms, and there was no encouragement towards the idea that anyone should give up any and all hope for a person, especially a person they love.
Even in the worst cases, nevermind poor Terri who did nothing in her life that would even remotely justify that belief. (Of course, we may never know, but we’re not talking of a murderer here, are we?) Besides, even in the strictest religious view, how could her fifteen year calvary not count as abundant expiation already? Honestly, I don’t think anyone can have that sort of belief you imagine the Schindlers might have had, without being a really heartless bastard (sorry).
When I talked of priests officiating funerals for suicides, I thought the implication would be clear: even if in the Church’s teachings they committed a sin against themselves, against the gift of life, against God, and even if a suicide obviously did not have time to repent and be administered the sacrament of absolution from a priest — the funeral is celebrated, requiem masses are also celebrated, rosaries are recited, parents and relatives and friends do still pray for the soul of the deceased, and pray for divine mercy and, in Catholicism, for the intercession of saints and the Virgin Mary and the lot. Just like with anyone who dies of any other causes than suicide.
Why is that? Because even for suicides and unrepentant sinners, there is always that hope of divine mercy, and no one can tell to whom it’s been denied.
So your claim that “no mortal sin can be forgiven after death” is not really true. If it was true that the Church teaches that in such absolutely certain terms, then no one would be officiating funerals for suicides and saying prayers for them, because it would be useless. No one would even be praying for people in vegetative states or comas either, because they wouldn’t have that awareness that’s necessary for confession. You fall into a coma, you’re damned because you didn’t get the chance to confess to a priest? That’s a very cruel distortion of a teaching that is not really *that* obsessively hung up on technicalities. Of course the teaching is, sins should be repented by the sinner, but absolution and last rites can be and are administered even in absence of consciouness, and most of all, there is no way to exclude that possibility of salvation even for the worst offenses that are not repented – even for Judas betraying Jesus and then killing himself – because, even in a church so centralised and with a Pope figure that is supposed to be infallible on spiritual dogmas, God alone is still believed to be the only one who’s omniscient, God alone is believed to be the one who can save, and God alone is believed to be the only one who’s most merciful.
I’m not saying this is what I personally believe, I’m saying this is what is ordinary teaching and practice in today’s Catholicism, in my experience, in Italy, where I grew up. I knew at least a couple of people who died that way, killing themselves, and they did receive the same sacraments as any other deceased, if they were Catholics and had been baptised, of course — which is still most of the population here, even if the vast majority don’t go to mass except once in a while and don’t practice every teaching and definitely don’t follow Catholic teachings on sexual matters.
Besides, another important point, since you mention the catechism: apart from that little detail on individual moral conscience (which many priests today, at lower level of hierarchy, those who actually live a little more in touch with ordinary men and women than the top cardinals – invoke very often in terms of issues like contraception and sex and homosexuality, as a way not to criminalise people who come to them being troubled about that part of the Church teaching), there is another classic tenet of that catechism you seem to have missed: the distinction between venial and mortal sins; and further degrees of seriousness within that distinction.
You said you imagine Terri’s parents worried about her soul because of sins like contraception and not attending mass. If those are among the most serious sins, then priests in my country have been lying to millions of people only to not drive them away from their church (without even succeeding in that goal, besides). It’s entirely possible, in theory, but somehow, since that position has been invoked not just privately in confession, but also publicly, in debates on these matters, and what with the Vatican being right next door, I guess they “get away with it” because it’s compatible with the official orthodoxy.
Not attending mass is definitely not considered a sin that puts one straight away in danger of hell, that would be a caricature of Catholicism, and frankly there’s so much there to criticise already without needing to make things up about it.
On contraception, it is obviously more insisted upon in public pronouncements from the Vatican than missing mass, but again, priests have been invoking individual moral conscience on that too, and even publicly defended their position, and they haven’t been excommunicated, so draw your own conclusions from that.
Moral teachings on these matters are not considered spiritual dogmas, it’s two different branches of the doctrine. This has been also stated clearly to me by priests who are not heretics or dissenters or excommunicated, but ordinarily practicing mass, with degrees in theology from Vatican universities and the lot.
So, while it’s true that, like Susan says, you can get Catholic priests to say even conflicting things on these matters , and there is also debate within the Church, the point is, it happens because those areas are not about absolute dogmatic beliefs on basic spiritual matters for which disagreement is not a matter of “debate” but of outright heresy (on the existence of God, Jesus as son of God, the Holy Trinity, the resurrection of the dead, etc.).
Catholicism is a rather authoritarian religion, indeed, very centralised in a church that also happens to have had a political role and financial activities, a massive institution affected by scandals and corruption, as many institutions of power are, but, even with this huge contradiction of political power that has so often gone against the very spiritual teachings it is supposed to uphold, even with the contradictions in those very spiritual teachings alone (for instance: while it’s true that no Catholic authority, not even the Pope, grant themselves the right to declare a person “damned”, they grant themselves the right to declare some people beatified or saint, and some of those decisions have been very much debated – recently the Pope canonised an Austrian emperor who hadn’t exactly lived the life of St Francis, to use an euphemism) — even with all this, its teachings on spiritual matters alone are not *all* that absurd and absolutist as you suppose they are.
I’m not saying this to defend anything, believe me, it’s just my experience. I don’t claim to be an expert about Catholicism just because of being raised a Catholic, and I am very aware of those different positions within the church itself, but if we’re talking spiritual salvation and the afterlife and sins and God’s mercy, well, those are some of the very basics, and I think I got them. I had the principles of catechism taught to me directly by representatives of my own church, and of course they may have brought their own interpretations and selective focus to it just like the catechism itself is an interpretation of the gospels, and ultimately, it’s all interpretation anyway, but they were priests (and nuns) and they were supposed to know what they were talking about when they preached the official teachings.
And I very much suspect that, if the Schindlers had gone to any of those Catholic priests with that belief that their daughter was going to hell for taking the pill and not going to mass, they would have got a good talking to.
Actually, there were voices within the Catholic church that were disagreeing even with their position as a whole.
Besides, while I really do not appreciate the positions Terri’s parents took, especially how they allowed into this political activists and fundamentalist groups who transformed this from a private, painful, delicate decision to a massive global media circus, I actually cannot bring myself to suppose they can be possibly that ruthless to think of their daughter as a criminal with no chance of salvation. I guess they just saw her as the victim of that very unfortunate event that got her on a hospital bed for fifteen years. I think they were genuinely in pain for her, and genuinely convinced that keeping her alive was the best for her. I do not sympathise with the effects of their convictions, nor with the way they disregarded their daughter’s own dignity and right to have her preferences upheld by her husband and the courts – because that’s what, as far as we know, it comes down to – but I do think that behaviour comes from a refusal to accept that their daughter wasn’t really either “theirs” or “there” anymore. It’s all very sad, but I don’t think there’s any need to look for outlandish explanations other than the simple obstinacy of emotional attachment of parents to children. (And how that has been exploited by fundamentalists, of course, but that’s another matter.)
Sorry for the length and repetitions, hope I haven’t bored anyone to bits…!
I want to go back to something dan said. You’ll have to excuse me if this is a little muddled. My thoughts are a bit muddled.
dan has said, and I feel myself in some kind of agreement at least, that somehow the solution we all arrived at in the Schiavo case was not what Jesus would have done.
And yet, the answer we got was the right answer under our legal system.
I believe in our legal system. Not that it is perfect – far from it – but that among the legal systems which have been tried in historical times, it seems to work at least as well as the others, and better than most. That is, it administers justice much more often than not, and keeps order as well as personal liberty. Order, safety, justice, freedom – these are good things in the natural order, I think we’d all agree.
Perhaps….I don’t know. The Church got into bed with the State when Constantine converted. Instead of being an illegal spiritual movement, Christianity became an instrument of civil order. In some parts of the dark ages in Europe, Christian bishops were the only source of authority going. Pope Leo the Great ruled Rome, the city, and turned away invading barbarians, simply because there was no one else there to do it, and the alternative was chaos and mass slaughter. Was Leo wrong? I don’t think the citizens of Rome thought so. Is governing a city, a state, a nation, the proper business of the teachings of Jesus? I’m wondering about that.
The legal system says that shooting a man in self-defense is OK. Jesus says….something different, I believe. The legal system respects Terri Schiavo’s decision about removing her feeding tube. Jesus says….? I’m not sure. He certainly respected individuals and their decisions…..but all the same…. hard to say, on this one.
Jesus said, don’t worry about money, don’t worry about tomorrow. But I’ve raised four children, and that’s all very well, but I’ve been concerned to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, college tuition, and you don’t get any of that without worrying a bit.
And yet, and yet….Jesus is saying something profound here, something counter-cultural in the most extensive sense possible. Running contrary to every culture, every economic system, every state. And yet the people who take him literally, like St. Francis of Assisi, seem to last, while who remembers What’s-His-Name, who was Holy Roman Emperor in his time, or Innocent III, the Pope? For that matter, who would know or care who was king or procurator in Judea, or Emperor for that matter, in the time of Jesus, if it were not for Jesus himself?
I’ve worked very hard all my life, and I’ve been quite “practical.” I haven’t made my money looting banks, or by any dishonesty. And I’ve certainly provided for our children, as my husband has also.
And yet, and yet…..Jesus seems to be up to something else entirely. I don’t think the Roman Catholic monks or religious I know are any closer to this vision than I am, by the way.
I cannot resist the feeling that we have all somehow or other missed the boat. But I’m not sure what that means, even if it’s true.
Oh one more thing, by the way.
We who are Roman Catholics would appreciate it if you-all who claim not to be Catholics, or not to be Catholics any more, would leave off telling everyone “what the Catholic Church teaches.” I would modestly suggest that as self-defined outsiders, you may not be the best authorities on that topic.
monica, I’ve never met Terri’s parents, but I’d have to agree. The articles I’ve read about PVS support that. The person is there. She opens her eyes, and seems to look at you. There’s no one home, but memory and love supply the rest. It’s a very powerful illusion.
It’s hard to let go of kids. Even healthy, successful kids. It’s especially hard to let go of injured or disabled kids. But Terri was a competent adult when she made her decision, and the courts respected that, and respected her.
Susan:
Exactly. You know, I actually was expecting the Vatican to stay out of this case, or at least not speak out to the press on this, as I thought, especially with the Pope dying, they wouldn’t want to get in potentially contradictory situations, and most of all, wouldn’t want to get involved in a legal matter being discussed in another country. Boy was I so naive! They’ve been doing that all the time, I should have learnt by now what to expect in terms of Vatican politicking.
In Italy, a cardinal publicly called for boycotting the referendum we’re going to have in June, on the law on assisted reproduction that was passed last year, which has been much criticised because of it being too restrictive, reactionary and Vatican-compliant. A cardinal calling for a boycott of a regular election process. Go figure.
I think they’re going to get another reminder of how little even Catholics appreciate that kind of thing.
Well, I guess I am more a secularist especially on social and political matters, but I try hard not to throw the baby with the bathwater and there’s much I still appreciate in there, even if I’m not a fan of the institutional aspects, as you might have guessed.
monica,
The Church should not be running the state, for the reasons I stated above. Where this argument leads I’m not sure yet. But getting the state into bed with the church is a bad deal for the church.
I hope I didn’t give an idea that in the Schiavo case we should have done as Christ would have. I don’t know what he would have said or done. We can look at what he used to say and do, and take it from there. I figure if we approach it with as much wisdom, kindness, and courage as we can muster, then that isn’t too bad. He might well have walked in and struck up a conversation with her, wouldn’t that have been “cool”?
I remember the old Latin Masses, I didn’t know Latin, but the sounds of it still haunt me today. Maybe it’s the fact that I was there with my family, just a little kid, loved and protected, it gave me the feeling that I didn’t have to understand the words to get the message. So when I look up at the stars in the sky, it tends to remind me, that I’d better work at the things from the aspect of kindness, rather than smarts.
I agree on the separation of church and government. From my libertarian viewpoint the government is best left out of much it has butted its nose into, and does not need to educate us as to our morality, whatever that should be.
Susan, have to add I very much appreciate your point by point summary of the case, it’s frustrating how it all has been muddied up.
On the notion of judicial arbitration according to existing laws as ‘judicial activism’, there’s also a great post by Adam Felber:
Oh, I also enjoyed reading your “muddled” thoughts, they’re not muddled at all, in fact, they do strike more than one chord.
Susan:
Absolutely agree. It’s a very bad deal for the state too. In Italy we also have official separation of church and state but in practice, because of the fact the Vatican is right here, and because of reciprocal political interests between certain political groups and the church hierarchy, there’s always been all sorts of meddling. It hasn’t done much good to anybody, except those few who profit from it.
dan,
Yeh, I remember too. The loved and protected IS the message.
The details aren’t so easy, are they. Jesus, who wasn’t in government, didn’t feel the need to compromise around human nature, human weakness. Probably he wouldn’t have compromised anyway.
I want to live like that, but I’m not sure how it’s done.
Maybe that’s it, just those singular all too rare of times, when we have that love and protection. The sound of the Latin Mass was beautiful, and I have a good feeling of it now. I don’t think that the feeling or repeating of it can be found in a book. Maybe if you can find it often, you are doing ok as a Catholic and a person.
For me Catholicism is a lot about family and tradition. I’m not a scholar in it, but think most of us have a good inner feeling when we are doing things somewhat right.
As to how it might relate to the Schiavo case, maybe if all involved had tried to catch that inner feeling, it might have been much simpler. Just a thought, I’ve gotten pretty philosophical, and opened up quite a bit on here.
Monica,
What I wrote was a true account of the current teaching of the Catholic Church even if you are not prepared to accept it as such. Of course Church teaching has changed a lot in the past and has, in many ways, become less inhumane and less unreasonable and it may change even more in the future. I very much hope it will. That does not change the fact that, right now, the Church teaches that there is no forgiveness after death for mortal sin and no forgiveness before death except by an act of perfect contrition or the sacrament of penance.
Of course prayers are offered for suicides. That is because they are always given the benefit of the doubt. Suicide is grave matter but that does not necessarily mean that a mortal sin was committed. Suicides may be mentally ill or so depressed that they are not able to exercise free will. They may not intend to kill themselves at all. They may be able to make an act of perfect contrition in their last conscious moments. Who knows?
I am well aware of the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Contraception and missing Sunday mass, however, are both considered grave matter and therefore potentially mortal sins.
You write:
I cannot help but feel angry at your suggestion that I have made this up. You have the right to think me mistaken, of course, but I have made nothing up. Please read Article 2181 of the catechism to see that missing Sunday mass is grave matter.
By coincidence I noticed yesterday a question about missing mass on a website where Catholic priests answer questions about the Church. A questioner wanted to know how serious a sin it was to miss mass because he was worried about spending a long time in Purgatory. He was given the blunt answer: “I fear that missing Mass deliberately on Sunday will land you not in Purgatory but Hell. … I am sure Hell is filled with those who refused to obey this Commandment.”?
You see, Hell is filled with the missers of mass and all the other people who have died without getting their mortal sins forgiven, the masturbators, the homosexuals who lived with their lovers, the teenage rape victims who took the morning after pill, as well as the murderers. That is Catholicism, Monica, whether you like it or not.
Katherine, leave off.
It’s obvious that you have a lot of anger towards the Catholic Church. Maybe justified anger, who can tell. I hope you get over it and get on with your life.
However, you don’t know as much about Catholic theology as you think you do, and your semi-informed rants and raves are a bit of a bore to those of us who are better informed. (Not to mention non-Catholics, who, I suspect, couldn’t care less.) Your “opinion” seems to be mostly rage. There are a number of Catholic blogs of every stripe who would adore this stuff; you might try joining one of them.
This isn’t the place to launch on the massive effort of educating you better on theology, and I personally don’t have the time right now, being on holiday and having better things to do (like playing with my infant granddaughter).
Can we talk about something else besides how pissed off you are at the Church for their theological teachings which you don’t understand very well? Just a thought.
dan,
Well, Terri was obviously alive until a week or two ago, on that level. The court found, on the basis of extensive medical testimony, that she was in a Persistent Vegitative State, meaning, I think, that her “higher” brain had been destroyed, and all that was left were more or less automatic functions like breathing, digestion, all that, which are controlled by brain matter in or around the brain stem, which had not been destroyed. Someone in PVS has no consciousness, and no possibility of it, for the same reason that someone who has lost both legs cannot walk. The organ which is supposed to act is gone.
Notice that none of this says anything about the “soul”, which is a matter not available to science.
That’s still living I guess, but from a human standpoint it’s not much of a life.
Susan,
Well, I see you have taken time off from playing with your granddaughter in order to insult me.
My last post was addressed to Monica not to you. I shall not take the matter further unless Monica would like to.
It is very easy to state that someone knows nothing about a subject without pointing out any actual mistakes they have made so that they can explain what they have said. That sort of attack can only be ignored.
You have given your view of Catholic theology. “The loved and protected is the message.” I suppose everyone will have to judge for themselves whether that view of the Church is correct.
Katherine, why am I not surprised that you plan to ignore me? You’re good at it. Ignoring.
Your view of Catholic theology is so fundamentally off that we’d have to start from scratch to fix it, and I suspect you’d ignore that too.
Anyway, you’re certainly entitled to your views. Like, who can stop you? I don’t suspect that you noticed that your caracature of Catholic theology might be insulting to the Catholics here. (Like are we such morons as to believe this junk?)
Dear me, Susan, just what exactly is it that you want me to do? First you say that I should not say any more about the Catholic church at all. Now you seem annoyed because I intend to ignore you.
I think you should get back to playing with your granddaughter. Believe me, if my granddaughters were here for me to play with I would not waste any time talking to you.
Katherine, you’re barking up the wrong tree here, I’m not in the least interested in “defending” any religion per se, my own beliefs are my own private business, what I do care about is the difference between the right to criticise and object to any religion, any belief, religious or not, in the world, especially on religiuos aspects that affect social and political issues – which is very much a healthy and necessary thing in a secular democracy, and I’m very much on the secular side of the debate – and the actual knowledge of the very basic teachings of a religion on the very basic spiritual matters.
I wouldn’t dream of telling a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or you name it what their religion “really teaches” because I wasn’t raised Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu. Experience is not a matter of reading a text on the internet. I’ve read the Koran, is that enough to substitute the experience of growing up as a Muslim? I don’t think so. I certainly wouldn’t dream of assuming that. I will of course, like everyone else, have every right to *criticise* or object to teachings of any religion or religious denomination, be it the one I was raised in or not, but I wouldn’t even dare to go and tell a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu person that I’m the one who knows best about what their religion “really” teaches in terms of spiritual beliefs, and they’re the ones who “got it wrong”. I wouldn’t even think of doing that to anyone who was raised in a different background, whether we’re talking religious or ethnic or national. I wouldn’t be able to tell someone from North Dakota, oh this is how it really is to be raised in North Dakota, because I wasn’t raised there.
Do you know what I mean here?
So for you to brandish a chapter of the catechism to me and even come and quote what you read on a Catholic blog or forum on the internet, is so funny I can’t even describe it.
Go on believing the entirety of Catholicism is that ridiculously medievally cruel caricature, which amusingly sounds very similar to how the fundamentalist evangelicals picture it (but of course to them all other religions are satanic, even practising yoga is “delving into the occult”).
I am not in the last bothered by your patronising, frankly I couldn’t care less, but when I’m telling you you are misrepresenting something, it’s based on my experience as an ordinary Catholic in an ordinary Catholic country which also happens to be the sharing a piece of its capital city with the seat of the Catholic church.
I am not in the least interested in “watering down” Catholic teachings, if that’s what you’re suggesting with your patronising “whether you’re prepared to accept it or not”. I am not interested because *now* I no longer practice any religion and I have no delusions that the Catholic church is going to modernise or reform on all the issues that create most internal and external debate. But what I’m talking about is not a “watered down” version of Catholicism, it is *exactly* what I was taught along with my siblings, school mates, and most of my friends coming from the same background. Taught by people who were *officially* in charge of teaching that kind of thing, and who — even with all the existing disagreements and different approaches and trends at individual or group level within that church, and there’s lots of differences within — were still upholding an orthodox body of teachings, not a radically dissident view.
Aagain, even for all the ugly and reactionary gay-bashing from the Vatican, the point about sins and hell is still the same as for suicides and murderers and the gravest ‘offenders’ in the Catholic *official* view: no one has the right to tell anyone who “goes to hell” and who doesn’t, because not even the fricking Pope is supposed to be a substitute for God.
In ordinary preaching by ordinary priests who are in contact with ordinary people, matters of sexual inclination and practice are no longer even brought up in the same sentence with the world “hell” since, well, the fifties. Individual moral conscience is what’s increasingly brought up on those matters. Because even the official pronouncements on those matters are moral doctrine, not spiritual dogma. This is not my own personal belief, it’s what I heard with my own ears from priests and theologians. In fact, there is also a theological debate on whether hell as such exists, and how it reconciles with the belief in the infinite divine mercy. But aside from theological debate, talk of hell itself, nevermind in such ridiculous terms as you picture it, has basically left the building in ordinary Catholic practice in ordinary churches, at least where I live, in Rome, which is rather close to Catholic headquarters, isn’t it.
The Catholic church is definitely an anachronistic institution in many aspects, but the *basic beliefs* in themselves are not that ridiculously medieval as you like to think.
And you don’t even see the contradiction between your acknoweldgement that even suicides are given funerals and prayed for, and your statement that they go straight to hell. I’m telling you, I think it’s highly unlikely Terri’s parents really had that belief their daughter was going to hell for trivial matters like taking the pill, for gosh’s sake, but even if they had been that crazy, it’s not consistent with official Catholic teachings and it would far more likely to come from the type of lunatic fundamentalists they associated with.
I may think the worst of the Catholic church, and a mix of good and bad of the beliefs and practices of Catholics worldwide, and if I were forced to pick a “label” I may see myself more as an “agnostic” today, but that is my own personal business and it is neither here nor there, because one thing is to criticise actual things, quite another to completely misrepresent them. I was raised a Catholic and I do know a little bit of what I’m talking about. That’s all.
I know I shouldn’t have bothered and I’m sorry for the digression. I don’t even mind misrepresentation of the actual teachings of a Church I don’t even follow anymore, but I do mind misrepresentation of what I am actually saying.
Katherine,
I’m Catholic, raised that way, planning on staying one. My wife was Presbyterian; she converted to Catholicism, and didn’t tell me. She explained later that she felt “more at home there”. Her church seemed to be from a richer part of the community, most wearing suits, the Catholic church was populated by a lot of blue jeans. Jeans are more her liking of dress.
She growls a lot about the “archaic views of the church”, as she calls them, yet she likes to go there. I’m not saying she is right or wrong, I hope those in her former church “feel at home”.
So to me, it isn’t real important to know every little rule and regulation in my religion (I don’t). When I think of the universe created versus, me using copy and past to check my spelling in ms word before posting on here, then a little common sense coupled with conscience seems enough. If it isn’t, I guess that will be too bad about me.
My point of view on the Schiavo matter, tended towards letting her parents take over her guardianship. Just an opinion, from one that was not there. I didn’t think a lot of technical rights and wrongs in that, maybe just a so called “fuzzy thought”, as humans do and strive to have computers do.
Katherine, Susan, and Monica: I’ve really enjoyed the discussion of Catholicism, and I’ve learned a lot. But I’m worried that it’s now getting too heated and personal. Please try to tone it down a notch or two.
On the other hand, please don’t feel bad about about the “digression.” Personally, I’m very much in favor of digressions, especially when the base topic (in this case, Terri Schiavo) has already been so thoroughly discussed.
I think a bit of common sense will be welcome in analyzing Catholic “doctrine.” I’ve learned to use it, and it’s proven a good tool.
God is beyond our analytic skills.
I’d expressed an opinion on here once earlier, “that the human brain or our thoughts are not that linear”. I’ve also tended to not focus a lot on the more technical discussions of Catholocism. As there is some anonymity on here, I’ll tell a true story of why I might tend to think in the way I do.
I’d went out of town to get some supplies for my business. On the way home, I also decided to drop by the local strip joint. I went, & had a couple of beers. There was an older lady in there with her step daughter (they were watching the guys at one end of the place) I was watching the girls at the other end of the place, the lady meandered down to where I sat and singled me out as a guy to talk to. She said she was an astrologer, I thought great, she probably wants money to tell me some generalized crap I’d like to hear.
The lady and her step daughter started for the door and said I could join them at another bar for a lower priced beer. Being the pillar of strength that I am, I agreed, after all a cheap beer sounded ok.
At the next bar, the step daughter took my hand and started to “read my palm”. The older lady said, that’s not right, but I can do it if you want. I said sure, I’d had another beer, and wasn’t going anywhere, so why not humor her. She said I will not know anything unless I can communicate with someone on the other side. She pointed her long finger nails at my eyes, and drew them back, all in about a second.
Gazing into my eyes, she mentioned the lines on my hands (yeh it made sense), she then proceeded to tell me what I’d done in recent times, only I and another knew that, how I felt about it (I’d told no one), what I had emotionally agonized about, the right and wrong of it, of questions of morality I’d thought about. I broke her gaze when she started into my purpose of life on earth. At that point, I got scared, are you ready to have someone you’ve known for an hour tell you your purpose of life on earth? You see, I think she know. She bought me the beer, that was her “charge”.
Analytical I, got quite an education, from a place I did not expect it at all. After a few months, I needed some parts, looked for the lady, I couldn’t find the her or the bar I’d followed her to. The same for several more trips to that city over the next couple of years. There is much we don’t yet know of the mind or it’s workings, that is my opinion.
Dan,
It was nice to read a calm, friendly post addressed to me. Thank-you.
Did your wife really go through the whole process of conversion to Catholicism without telling you about it until it was done? That must have been quite a surprise.
Katherine, yes she actually did, if I remember correctly. At the end she told me, so I could be there. It was a surprise. She had always liked the old movies such as “Going My Way” with Bing Crosby in it. Hope I have the title right. Maybe I shouldn’t have been so much surprised.
My previous post probably has you wondering a bit. Really I’m only just typing on the screen to anyone reading, so I can say that it is true, I’m not delusional. Guess it can be taken at face value, frankly I’d have my doubts reading it. My wife has known the story I told for quite some time, having been married 30 years, we enjoy sharing a lot of things that others sometimes keep secret.
Katherine (and Ampersand), I didn’t mean to be unfriendly or for the discussion to get heated and personal, and I’m sorry if it came across that way, I honestly apologise. But I can’t help it if your post, Katherine, felt a tad patronising, and I think you should try and realise that. You said you were offended by the suggestion you were making things up, but even I accept that is the overall impression you got of a religion and I’m not objecting to your right to think the worst of it, when it comes to some actual facts, well I think I have a right to point out some inaccuracies based on what I know from direct lifetime experience. Not with an apologetic intent. Simply with a, you know, this is what I’ve known all my life intent.
But anyway, sorry again, religious arguments are the last thing I would ever want to indulge in. I don’t even know what I believe in and I find it very strange to have to explain an orthodoxy I don’t actually follow anymore but that permeated so much of my life. Very awkward. I wish I was a full-on atheist sometimes. It’d be more practical. Or maybe not… But you know, to make a slightly related parallel, say, even with a completely secular non-practicing Muslim, if you go and tell them, all your religion teaches is hatred and support for terrorism and all these horrible things, because you’ve read that in some “Why am I no longer a Muslim” book, and you’re not a Muslim yourself and never had any experience of living as such, that is the best way to put someone on the defensive and guarantee they’ll be a little annoyed, whatever their current relation with those religious beliefs. Religions are not just about beliefs but about cultural traditions too, experiences of life, family relations, community relations, community identities, and, if I’m allowed to get a little utopian here, it would be nice to try and learn to live side by side without demonising each other constantly based on the kind of binary thinking that says that if there’s something objectionable within a set of beliefs and traditions, that set of beliefs and traditions has to be entirely objectionable, monstrous, terrible, and their followers poor misguided fools, regardless of how that set of beliefs and traditions actually is known to and experienced directly, in so many different ways, some bad, some good, some a mixed bag.
Ok this is another digression, sorry. I just have seen so much of that attitude, it’s echoes of it, however unintentional, that annoyed me more than anything.
Why should I have become, “pissed off” because Atticus Finch taught his children good moral lessons (Oops! hope nobody labels me a “moralist”–but I just could not think of a better word.) and instilled a respect for life, truth, and standing up for one’s convictions in Scout and Jem? In my opinion, Harper Lee is not in the same league as Victor Hugo, but, did produce a quite exceptional fictional work which illustrates (again my opinion) the greatest theme in literature: the struggle between good and evil.
? NO, that concept was not lost on me at all. I don’t question whether or not MS believed he was doing the right thing, I question whether he actually was doing the right thing because I have seen no concrete proof of his wife’s wishes. (Oops! I now may be in danger of being referred to as an, “Absolute moralist”.
Nope, she has not called me any names yet, but has bandied the term “moralist” about quite in a bit in posts.
I acknowledge that this site is your property, and it is your prerogative to manage it in any way you wish, applying whatever standard you wish to, “escalation.”
I don’t recall rendering a diagnosis. I do remember saying (in essence) that there were aspects of this whole business that sent up, “red flags” for me. In my profession, “red flags” is a euphemism for the need for further exploration and discovery in a particular area–my area being the human psyche.
It says, “dispassionate reader,” not “dispassionate in all aspects of my being”. Thank you for the suggestion, but I’ll keep it.
Ditto! Let’s continue to work at that should we have future exchanges.
Dispassionate,
Just curious, what red flags did you note?
dispassionate,
So, you disagree with the verdict of the trial court. That’s certainly legitimate. I think OJ murdered his wife, so I disagree with the verdict of that trial court. However, no one is offering to go out and collar the guy on the basis of my opinion. That’s not how we do things here.
I have no quarrel with moralists. I like to think that I have a good set of morals myself. I’m just not ready to subvert the rule of law on the basis of the “moral” feelings some people, or maybe a lot of people, have about a particular court decision.
Have you met Michael Schiavo? (That’s certainly possible!) If not, wouldn’t all your “red flags” be based on some newpaper reporter’s writing, or some blogger? I’d still be interested in reading about them, though.
Hi dan,
Red flags…well let’s see……
Michael Schiavo did not articulate what he claims were Terri’s wishes very early in her injury when it became apparent that she was profoundly disabled and the prognosis was poor.
Several years later, in his initial efforts to secure removal of his wife’s feeding tube, an independent guardian was court appointed at the request of M. Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos. That guardian, attorney Richard Pearse, issued a report to the judge stating that M. Schiavo was not a credible witness to his wife’s end-of-life wishes because he waited several years before coming forward with the claim that she wanted to die should she ever be significantly incapacitated. Pearse also noted that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially from her death. Pearse was quickly removed at the request of Felos, Michael’s attorney. (To my knowledge, R. Pearse does not have a reputation as being unethical or incompetent. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt his judgement.)
Michael Schiavo brought forth his claim about her wishes only after a malpractice judgment of some 1.3 million was awarded. Big money often elicits big behavior changes. Go check out the fate of so many of your big lotto winners. Not appealing .
Why did he not declare her wishes that she would not have wanted to live in a severe or profoundly disabled condition at the very beginning?
Why, if she would have wanted to be let go, did he submit her to a procedure similar to deep brain electromagnetic stimulation and which had practically nil prospects of stimulating the kind or cortical regeneration that would make her even close to normal? If his motives were a desire to keep her with him because he loved her so, he still was not abiding by her (supposed) wishes!
In as simple terms as I can explain it, deep brain stimulation is induced by implating an electrode which gives a very specific portion of the brain electrical stimulation at the command of a calibrated device. A very rough analogy would be to a pacemaker for the heart. Deep brain stimulation often works well in patients with such illnesses as Parkinson’s to improve psycho-motor functions such as balance, ambulation, and motor nerve equilibration. It can allow for better motor control of the physical mechanisms that produce speech, thus allowing the individual to communicate effectively when speech becomes severely impaired. But Parkies have a brain malfunction and not the kind of massive cortical destruction Terri did. There have been no documented studies of profoundly cortical damaged patients making the leap from profound to normal from electrical brain stimulation. To expect that kind of improvement is unrealistic. A nurse would have known that and besides, he has alway been (allegedly) devoted to following her wishes in this matter…which were to let her go.
His actions in contrast to his statements about her (supposed) desire tells me that his actions during the years prior to the settlement were selfish whether his motives were pure or impure not. He fooled around a long, long time and tinkered with her, even though she (suppposedly) wanted to be let go. After he got the settlement , he couldn’t grant her wishes fast enough except her parents kept getting in the way.
And then finally….. too many different individuals who were in positions to observe these individuals extensively over time have made too many separate statements, which if each is taken alone might not trigger a concern, but if taken as a whole create a less than flattering picture. I just don’t see them all assembling and to study up on all the subtle markers and then strategically put them out…I do not see some massive conspiracy on their part.
It’s late and I’m becoming weary; but if you still want, ask, and tomorrow, I’ll give try to you some key phrases to Google and some interesting links about what sends up the red flags for the clinician. Anyway, if I list profile markers here, I could get accused of making a diagnosis. If I send you roaming I might only get accused of refering you to quacks
‘scuse some of the scrambled syntax in above post..was typing at warp speed.
dispassionate,
Interesting. The long time lag has puzzled me too. I sort of assumed he kept hoping, you know, and then finally gave up. But you’d think he’d have mentioned her wish not to be kept alive forever in PVS right from the beginning. On the other hand, maybe he did? He might have mentioned it to the family for all we know. Her parents wouldn’t be likely to mention that; it hurts their case. There are very many inaccuracies – inaccuracies of fact, I mean – on their website.
As I understand it, he didn’t end up getting much money if any, because it had all been spent. But that might just be because the parents held the thing up so much.
At any rate, the court’s decision about Terri’s wishes was not founded only on Michael’s testimony; in fact, the judge stated that Michael had diminished credibility in this matter, for the reasons you’ve outlined. Terri apparently also made these statements to Michael’s brother, and to her best friend. (I haven’t read the trial transcript.) In the end, the judge found the evidence “clear and convincing”, and he was upheld upon numerous appeals.
Is this “really” what Terri wanted? How can we know? We have a fact-finding mechanism – the court system – and we used it, and this is how it came out. I think we did the best we could. After all, Michael may be the worst man every born: that still doesn’t mean that Terri wouldn’t have wanted that feeding tube removed.
Let me correct my own statement to read as I originally intended:
I don’t question whether or not MS believed he was doing the right thing for him. I question whether he actually was doing the right thing for her because I have seen no concrete proof….. (I really must stop typing so fast)