ccs178 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:So.....because the church said it was Ok, that means that Terri thought it was ok? Nevermind, it's not about Terri and her wishes anymore.  :rolleyes:

Your point: cremation is against Terri's religion...

Fact: Terri is Roman Catholic
Fact: Cremation is not against Roman Catholic Canonical Law
Fact: Cremation is not against Terri's religion.
Fact: Instead of admitting you are wrong, you tried to change your point.


:wave:

That is not wholly correct. It very well may be against her religion.

Observer Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Also, if he was to do what she wished....then why is he having her cremated....which is against her religion?

<a href='http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/26/73839.shtml?j=896903&e=burnsk73@yahoo.com&l=143149_HTML&u=16875033' target='_blank'>Terri Will Be Cremated against her religious beliefs.</a>

Quote:In 1963, the Catholic Church lifted its prohibition forbidding Catholics to choose cremation. Canon 1176 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states, "The Church earnestly recommends the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed, it does not however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching."

<a href='http://www.cathcemchgo.org/cremation.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cathcemchgo.org/cremation.htm</a>

Quote:TITLE III: CHURCH FUNERALS

Can. 1176 §1 Christ's faithful who have died are to be given a Church funeral according to the norms of law.

§2 Church funerals are to be celebrated according to the norms of the liturgical books. In these funeral rites the Church prays for the spiritual support of the dead, it honors their bodies, and at the same time it brings to the living the comfort of hope.

§3 The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burial be retained; but it does not forbid cremation, unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.

<a href='http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c1166-1204.htm#par2406' target='_blank'>http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c116...204.htm#par2406</a>

That took all of 30 seconds to verify. That makes me wonder how much her parents are ignorant of or have lied about.

I think you'd better re-read those Cannon passages. There is a major caveat there. Is the cremation being considered for reasons outside of the Christian faith. And, you will note, the Church still strongly advocates burial.

BTW, is she a Traditional Roman Catholic or a Novus Ordo Roman Catholic?

The parents have simply said she is Roman Catholic and the Code of Canon Law that governs the Roman Catholic Church is pretty clear that it does not forbid cremation. It seems to me that Michael is cremating her out of his family tradition, but that is just conjecture on my part because no specific reason has been given. I'm pretty sure he isn't doing it for any new age/pagan death ritual, so the caveat wouldn't apply. If you have any credible evidence that would invoke the caveat then feel free to add it, with appropriate documentation to back it up, of course. Otherwise it is just useless speculation introduced in an effort to obfuscate. To try to introduce the Traditional or Novus Ordo angles is immaterial because her parents would have made it a point in their filings and apparently they didn't.

Observer Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:So.....because the church said it was Ok, that means that Terri thought it was ok? Nevermind, it's not about Terri and her wishes anymore.&nbsp; :rolleyes:

Your point: cremation is against Terri's religion...

Fact: Terri is Roman Catholic
Fact: Cremation is not against Roman Catholic Canonical Law
Fact: Cremation is not against Terri's religion.
Fact: Instead of admitting you are wrong, you tried to change your point.


:wave:

That is not wholly correct. It very well may be against her religion.

No, it is pretty clear based on what we know. You might be confused or see a gray area due to extraneous points that you, but not her parents, have tried to interject...but that's you.

ccs178 Wrote:I think you'd better re-read those Cannon passages. There is a major caveat there. Is the cremation being considered for reasons outside of the Christian faith. And, you will note, the Church still strongly advocates burial.

BTW, is she a Traditional Roman Catholic or a Novus Ordo Roman Catholic?

The parents have simply said she is Roman Catholic and the Code of Canon Law that governs the Roman Catholic Church is pretty clear that it does not forbid cremation. It seems to me that Michael is cremating her out of his family tradition, but that is just conjecture on my part because no specific reason has been given. I'm pretty sure he isn't doing it for any new age/pagan death ritual, so the caveat wouldn't apply. If you have any credible evidence that would invoke the caveat then feel free to add it, with appropriate documentation to back it up, of course. Otherwise it is just useless speculation introduced in an effort to obfuscate. To try to introduce the Traditional or Novus Ordo angles is immaterial because her parents would have made it a point in their filings and apparently they didn't. [/quote]
he isn't doing it for any new age/pagan death ritual, so the caveat wouldn't apply.

Nowhere in the Cannon Law does it say "oustide of the Christian faith" means "new age/pagan death ritual." There are many other areas where that would apply. And I have no idea what was in her parents petition to the courts. But I assure you, the distinction between Traditional and Novus Ordo Catholicism would only be apparent in subtleties of faith and not pointed out by title. For instance, I profess to be a Catholic. It is against my religion to be cremated. The Cannon Law adopted as a result of Vatican II may say it is no longer forbidden, but I am a Traditional Catholic who adheres to Church Law prior to Vatican II. I reject Vatican II and its teachings. And because Vatican II was a Pastorial Conference and not a Dogmatic Council, I have that priviledge. Now, I ask, what is the distinction of the victim and her parents?

Observer Wrote:

ccs178,Mar 30 2005, 05:54 PM Wrote:I think you'd better re-read those Cannon passages. There is a major caveat there. Is the cremation being considered for reasons outside of the Christian faith. And, you will note, the Church still strongly advocates burial.

BTW, is she a Traditional Roman Catholic or a Novus Ordo Roman Catholic?

The parents have simply said she is Roman Catholic and the Code of Canon Law that governs the Roman Catholic Church is pretty clear that it does not forbid cremation. It seems to me that Michael is cremating her out of his family tradition, but that is just conjecture on my part because no specific reason has been given. I'm pretty sure he isn't doing it for any new age/pagan death ritual, so the caveat wouldn't apply. If you have any credible evidence that would invoke the caveat then feel free to add it, with appropriate documentation to back it up, of course. Otherwise it is just useless speculation introduced in an effort to obfuscate. To try to introduce the Traditional or Novus Ordo angles is immaterial because her parents would have made it a point in their filings and apparently they didn't.

he isn't doing it for any new age/pagan death ritual, so the caveat wouldn't apply.

Nowhere in the Cannon Law does it say "oustide of the Christian faith" means "new age/pagan death ritual." There are many other areas where that would apply. And I have no idea what was in her parents petition to the courts. But I assure you, the distinction between Traditional and Novus Ordo Catholicism would only be apparent in subtleties of faith and not pointed out by title. For instance, I profess to be a Catholic. It is against my religion to be cremated. The Cannon Law adopted as a result of Vatican II may say it is no longer forbidden, but I am a Traditional Catholic who adheres to Church Law prior to Vatican II. I reject Vatican II and its teachings. And because Vatican II was a Pastorial Conference and not a Dogmatic Council, I have that priviledge. Now, I ask, what is the distinction of the victim and her parents? [/quote]
All that is known in that she is Roman Catholic. Whether or not she is a Traditional Roman Catholic is immaterial because it has never been introduced into the legal/ethical/moral debate by ANYBODY involved on either side. Even if she is then you'd have to make a distinction of what type of Traditionalist she is (Indult, Independent, or Sedevacantist). So, without that distinction having been made you have to fall back on the Canonical Law, which is very clear. Unless you can provide some evidence to invoke the caveat, unlike her parents, then it is irrelevant as well.

One thing I found odd, in your entire post you only mentioned Terri once and not even by name. Why is that?

ccs178 Wrote:All that is known in that she is Roman Catholic. Whether or not she is a Traditional Roman Catholic is immaterial because it has never been introduced into the legal/ethical/moral debate by ANYBODY involved on either side. Even if she is then you'd have to make a distinction of what type of Traditionalist she is (Indult, Independent, or Sedevacantist). So, without that distinction having been made you have to fall back on the Canonical Law, which is very clear. Unless you can provide some evidence to invoke the caveat, unlike her parents, then it is irrelevant as well.

One thing I found odd, in your entire post you only mentioned Terri once and not even by name. Why is that?

All that is known in that she is Roman Catholic. Whether or not she is a Traditional Roman Catholic is immaterial because it has never been introduced into the legal/ethical/moral debate by ANYBODY involved on either side.

Not so. She was introduced into the debate as Roman Catholic, that includes, not excludes, Traditionalists. Traditionalists are commonly referred to as Roman Catholic, just as Novus Ordo are commonly referred to as Roman Catholic.

Even if she is then you'd have to make a distinction of what type of Traditionalist she is (Indult, Independent, or Sedevacantist).

Not true. All Traditionalists reject Vatican II. A distinction between them need not be made, their beliefs are understood. Also, Indult is not Traditional, it is a hybred. And there are 26 Traditional Societies approved by the Vatican. The Society of St. Peter is one. Then there are Traditionalist within diocese. Most are not independent, nor Sede Vacantists.

Canonical Law, which is very clear.

No it isn't. And the mere fact that the family and their attorney plead that it is against their religion is enough for the courts to ask for qualifiers.

One thing I found odd, in your entire post you only mentioned Terri once and not even by name. Why is that?

I have no idea why you would find that odd. Although every single innocent life is very precious, this case is much bigger than Terri. It holds severe consequences for our entire society.

Sorry ccs for getting back so slow, but reading this, it is you that has no freaking clue. What do you have no clue about? HER religion. If her HUSBAND was religious.....he'd have NOT been with a ***** and had two kids. Yeah.....he's religious, uh huh. ....and Yes, I can judge. My sins I can repent for. His, he can't without denouncing his mistriss and bastards.

As far as her religion, you proved my point. Some Episcopals believe in homosexuality, some don't. I.e. some Catholics believe in cremation.......SOME DON'T!!!!! How in the HELL do YOU know WHAT she believes in?

My ENTIRE argument is, and always HAS been, what does Terri believe? Do you know? No. Do I know? No. Does her husband? Maybe, but it's speculative and may be downright criminal.

Yes ccs, he IS morally bankrupt. If you are that obtuse, well, don't EVER question my intelligence again. I couldn't care less if you "liked" me. It really doesn't matter to me. I am in the "Medical community of Georgia" .....Augusta. MCG, or "Medical College of Georgia" is in Augusta and the University of Georgia sends their Pre-Meds here.....because UGA doesn't have one. I know many doctors. They all say the same thing......it is hell for her and immoral to be dehydrated.

Keep in mind, if there was a letter, signed by her, I'd be for this completely. However, there is something with this and the state is going along with it. By state, I mean government.

ccs, your argument reminds me of one that gets murderers off on circumstantial evidence. Weak, but apparently effective. How do you feel about letting a woman die for no reason? ....because her husband said that's what she wanted....and then recanted on Larry King Live???????





Dehydration is intolerable cruelty

The public media-circus starvation and deprivation of fluids of Terri Schiavo is shameful. The legalistic judicial circus is even more shameful.

Even people with only miniscule brain function experience thirst. Try depriving yourself of food or water for only 24 hours. The horrible agony of overwhelming thirst overrides the sensation of hunger by far.

Withholding nutrition is one issue; withholding water is patent cruelty - assuring that the patient will be in utter agony in the hours preceding, and at the moment of, death.

Even a heinous serial killer and rapist is legally protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Ms Schiavo's only "crime" is that she's not dead yet.

I am ashamed of the judiciary, the media and the medical profession for ignoring the human factor. Has kindness and compassion fled from our great land?

William Speir, M.D., Augusta

We could speculate everything from Traditionalism to alien abduction. None of it would matter.

You thinking you have the right to judge other people doesn't fit very well in Christianity, regardless of denomination. If you can't see or understand that then...well...I don't know what to say about that. Judge not lest ye be judged? Let he who hath not sin cast the first stone? Love one another as I have loved you? Any of that sound familiar?

I'm going to stop here, Kevin. You obviously have jumped into the deep end of reflexive emotional responses. I will say that you spend too much time in the debate talking about what you believe, not unlike Observer. Much more than what you say about Terri. It seems you are just looking for a soapbox to scream and trash people from and probably couldn't give a damn about her.

ccs178 Wrote:We could speculate everything from Traditionalism to alien abduction. None of it would matter.

You thinking you have the right to judge other people doesn't fit very well in Christianity, regardless of denomination. If you can't see or understand that then...well...I don't know what to say about that. Judge not lest ye be judged? Let he who hath not sin cast the first stone? Love one another as I have loved you? Any of that sound familiar?

I'm going to stop here, Kevin. You obviously have jumped into the deep end of reflexive emotional responses. I will say that you spend too much time in the debate talking about what you believe, not unlike Observer. Much more than what you say about Terri. It seems you are just looking for a soapbox to scream and trash people from and probably couldn't give a damn about her.

The debate was about principles and beleifs, and their effect on Terri. At what point should Terri's name been injected when discussing the Catholic position on cremation? Or the jury's responsibilities?

Legalize euthanasia and allow people to put this in their Will/Living Wills. If someone does not wish to remain on a ventilator, feeding tube, etc and wishes to die humanely...then using some sort of euthanasia is the solution.

So...according to the original post...this gentleman voted against it because there is no humane way to let her die. Now, humane is up for debate, but the fact that 'assisted suicide' or 'euthanasia' are illegal in this country seems to be the problem that most people have with this case. I believe most people respect her rights...they just disagree with how her life had to come to an end.

If somebody's Will specified no vent or feeding tubes with zero brain function (PVS) and the use of euthanasia as a humane ending........would that bother anybody here?

FlR, if it had been in a will, I'd have found something else to talk about and would be siding with the people that I have been arguing with.....who, ironically, I usually agree with on everything anyway.

I can't honestly sit here and say that I think what Kervorkian did was wrong. I do not think he should be sitting in prison when the government and Michael Schiavo basically just did the same thing, of course, they used more draconian measures. This thought didn't just occur to me recently either....it's something I have felt for a long time.

However, are they similar? That's where my problem lies. Kervorkian carried out his patient's wishes. The debate, at least to me, is the fact that everyone took Michael Schiavo's word, and I'm sorry, the life he has been living brings up many questions as to what's best for Terri. Quite frankly, I do not believe that she said what he "claims" she said. He lacks in moral character and it was shown just a little more yesterday when he refused to allow her real family to remain by her bedside while she slipped away.

RebelKev Wrote:The debate, at least to me, is the fact that everyone took Michael Schiavo's word, and I'm sorry, the life he has been living brings up many questions as to what's best for Terri. Quite frankly, I do not believe that she said what he "claims" she said. He lacks in moral character and it was shown just a little more yesterday when he refused to allow her real family to remain by her bedside while she slipped away.

Kev, I think this is the only point in which I really disagree with you on in this case.

While you don't believe that those were her wishes, a judge (following all procedures required by Florida law) ruled (based on all of the evidence presented by both sides) that those were her wishes. I have seen no credible claims that the judge is anything but unbiased, and therefore have no reason to doubt his determination. I hear conservative talking heads claiming that there is no way "clear and convincing" evidence was presented, but every appeals court has ruled that there was sufficient eveidence to support the judge's findings. Apparently, there are alot of people with no faith in our system. I think that more often than not, they are correct, especially in a case that has had this much adjudication.