Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics !!!
____________________________
Dissertations

Free fantasy rape videos.

Free anime rape videos. Free videos rape non-consent. Free rape videos. Free rape fantasy videos.

i need details on theological asceptic benefits to christainity

Did anyone notice Schiavo married his concubine on the Anniversary of Roe vs Wade? You think that was a coincidence? I don't, after all the dirty tricks he pulled after Terri suffered her barbaric death, slapping back at her family and the Catholic Church. Michael Schiavo is a sociopath and he gets his kicks by hurting others.
What does the Catholic Church think about a spouse that leaves their beloved ? spouse in life or death distress faced down, flat on their face while the EMS is on the way. Wouldn't most people turn their spouse over and clear their air way?
Schiavo left Terri faced down, nobody with loving intentions would do that unless they wanted their spouse to die.
I am really appalled and angry at the inaction of the Catholic Church in Terri's case, especially that Lynch fella. They handled this like they did the Presit and Bishops molesting little boys. Sorry, but they did. MUTE about the issues. Good that Terri's sister finally lashed out at them in her speech two weeks ago.
How dare this Catholic Church give Schiavo and his mistress a blessing in the church. Disgusting. I know why I am Episcopalian. Atleast at my Church, we practice what we preach.
Sorry, I will never get over what happened to Terri and her blood family.

I have taken no offense from either of you Nick, or Inocencio.
I simply believe what I have stated and will not serve a Vicar of Christ, even with Apostolic succession, who is, based on his long failure to act against injustices he KNOWS are happening within his scope of responsibility and over which he has direct responsibility and obligation to administer justly, incompetant.
Our present Pope and his immediate successor have demonstrated their incompetance over their Rotal Tribunal and with their direct authority over Canon Law to REQUIRE JUSTICE for all those affected by the other tribunals, which the Pope can SHUT DONE INSTANTLY, if he desired but rather the last two do nothing while marriages are destroyed.
If that does not anger a person who calls themselves Catholic then, they ARE NOT Catholic, period.
If there is even ONE marriage that has been unjustly destroyed, there should be a path to seek justice that is open to them within the Church legal system, at the cost of the Catholic Church, to hold those acountable, who call themselves Catholic, lay or cleric.
There is no such access and this is extremely grave sin.
When a person has, successfully, defended their Sacrament in a Tribunal system intent on nullity, which this one is, at least in the U.S., and wherever decadent Western ideas about marriage have slithered, they should have credibility within the Church, especially among the clergy, and their accusations should be thoroughly and vigorously investigated and those guilty should be held accoutable propertionatelyto their culpabilty and the damage done to the marriage and individuals.
Since 1991 I have sought justice in the Catholic Church and been completely refused. Now some of my witnesses are dead and evidence/testimony is lost/forgotten, even though the Rota twice ruled in favor of the Sacrament.
I have not ever sought vengeance but I demand full resitution for the injustices I and my surviving family members and friends suffer, due to an unjust divorce that was initiated when at least one Catholic priest, without speaking or attempting to contact me for a view of both sides of our mareriage stories, told my wife to divorce me, that she would get an annulment and then proceeded, after the divorce was completed over my strenuous but futile objections, to submit an annulment petition that was perjured and hid the fact that my wife had been seeing her new man when we still lived together and that this adultery was the real REASON for our divorce(unbeknownst to me till much later) and the REASON for seeking an annulment--to normalize this
relationship. And this is the TIP of the iceberg.
Since 1991 the Catholic Church has encouraged this adultery and all that supports it.
You do not have to believe it but it is true.
These facts are known to others, including a Catholic Pastor, who is a close friend and the Godfather of one of our five children. So the Church could very easily check my credibility but for fifteen years has taken the low road. These facts have been presented to countless Bishops and Cardinals, in the U.S. and Rome. They have been sent to both the Rota and the Papal Signatura
and my local Ordinaries, Cardinal O'Connor and Cardinal Egan. Every single door is shut to me and to the truth and to what really goes on behind the scenes in marriage cases. I know of many cases not very different than mine but no one cares.
Under these circumstances I can come to no other conclusion than massave corruption or simply mental paralysis at the likely gravity and scope of what the Church would find with a very vigorous and wide reaching review of its annulment cases.
There, I have tried to remove the emotion with an incling of some of the background.
Karl
PS,
Should any of you care to present thses accusations to your own Ordinaries or even Cardinal Egan, I would be more than willing to address any of their possible inquiries, but I doubt it really would mean anything to any of them because if it did, they would be morally obliged to actually do someting about it more than talk. I have been that route
before only to be crushed with disappointment each time when the Bishop does nothing
and I hear nothing further.

Karl,
The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:26) and pillar and bulwark of Truth (1Tim 3:15). You are correct the Sacred Scriptures do not lie.
Christ laid Himself down for Her "that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
Again, I understand you are hurt and angry. But we remain responsible for our actions no matter what has been done to us.
Please understand that as a Catholic I am obedient to the Pope and not you as the voice and Vicar of the Truth. I know my response will make you upset but you are in my prayers.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Karl...
Friend...
Dude...
If you are being "written off", it's not because of your experience, but because of your tone.
If you simply wrote about your experiences, without your presumption on who-reeeaaalllly-knows-JESUS, without your adding "rapists with Roman collars", without your gesticulating wildly thru verbose clap-traps, we would all have some empathy for you--we could even have helped you.
But it seems like you don't need our help.
I'm sorry you're so bitter. I pray the joy of the Lord will return to you, regardless of which church you attend.
P.S.: Here's a little unsolicited advice: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's at most public libraries.

Nick,
I guess you prefer the rapists with Roman collars
to the guy who has seen what liars those collars represent!
That is fine with me. It simply means to me that you have no idea who Jesus Christ is, which is what I anticipate with those 'who call yourselves Catholic' but are so in name only for the most part.
A Catholic, Nick, seeks truth in what all men say and sifts for the truth, sometimes through anger and even stark hatred. I believe that is what Jesus did. He did have the advantage of knowing everything already, which I believe made it easier for him to suffer as he did because he already knew the end game, personally.
I remain Catholic, it is the Church that has wandered further than I. I do not claim perfection. I am obliged to not support the putrid behavior of the Church regarding marriage and I will not, as best I can.
I remain as faithful as I can. Go ahead and be cynical if you want, but do so at your own peril as it belies your own possible bias in favor of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
It should mean something to you, if you are Catholic, that I remain faithful to the vows that we made, at Holy Innocents Church in, Pleasanville, NY. We were married in 1980. My wife abandoned our marriage in December 1989. She returned to the Catholic Church BECAUSE of me.
I have been written off by many, who care nothing for the Splendor of Truth but who call themselves
authentic Catholics; in fact I would say by the large majority of people I speak or correspond with. To me it is simply an indication of the truth I speak and the cost of speaking it. Truth is very painful to accept when it contradicts ones investment in the gossomer lies regarding marriage that the Catholic Church practices.
Karl

Karl...
Were you a Catholic when you were married?
BTW... your bully-based logic does not work here. Best to share your experience outside of your anger, so we don't be tempted to write you off.

Dear All,
First I really should have stated that what happened to Terry Shiavo IS reprehensible, as is
I believe the priest's decision to "marry" an unrepentant murderer in a Catholic Church.
When a person's or an institution's action lead to
a person's death or their wish to die or even drives them to considering suicide or worse attempting it the responsibility and culpability lies with both. If such a conclusion is not true than scripture is ERRENT AND FALSE AND REPREHENSIBLE when it claims that a person who divorces his wife FORCES her to commit adultery. It either means it forces it or it means it does not force it and it(the scripture)is a lie.
When the Catholic Church forces a divorce, which IT DOES IN THE UNITED STATES(AND I DO NOT CARE WHY, SINCE THAT IS ONLY IMPORTANT TO FOOLS WHO CARE LITTLE FOR TRUTH) it forces all UNWILLINGLY DIVORCING SPOUSEs into a divorce system for which there is NO DEFENSE. That is a FACT, where any disputation is only by an idiot, in the vast, vast majority of cases where there is an innocent spouse.
The innocent spouse, in most cases if he is the husband, loses all his right's if he has little or no money and if he denies the states authority over his SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE. He then is left, literally with nothing and is forced to subsidize his wife's adultery, while many times he is destitute, quite literally. When this goes on for years and years as he watches the Catholic Church encourage his wife's adultery and encouraging her with her new man as they brainwash children against their innocent father, it destroys those relationships and destroys the man. Some times such men are imprisoned when they cannot pay for their indentured servanthood/slavery at the hands of the state, their wife and her lover and the Catholic Church, which REQUIRED the divorce for access to the TRIBUNAL SYSTEM.
There have been numerous, dare I say many fathers
in these positions who have killed themselves or their spouses and even their children, from desperation. These men HAVE BEEN MURDERED, THEY HAVE NOT

Karl-
I feel your pain. but I don't follow your logic.
Some (maybe a lot) of people in the Church are in apostacy, but that does not mean the Church is in apostacy.
If the wrong decision was made about your situation (which I can't possibly know), then I can understand your feelings, but not your actions.
If you are convinced that the Catholic Church is truly apostate (and therefore can't be the True Church), and you have left the church over this incident, then why do you care, any more, what the Church says?
If you remain in the Catholic Church, then you must still believe that she is the Church Christ founded. In that case, she SHOULD be defended in spite of the shortcomings of some (or even many) of her individual members.
If you remain a Catholic, I ask you to stay and work for true reform in the Church. Pray for those you think have done you wrong. If the situation is as you say, then your wife and her partner are headed in the wrong direction, and need your prayers.
I will pray for you, and for all involved.
All of us here want to see the sacrament of marriage given proper reverence, especially in the Church.

Karl,
I understand you are angry. If you think the Church is in apostasy, then your problem is with Christ not the Church or Jimmy. He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against Her even if you think they have.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Karl,
My heart goes out to you, but I can't help but think that there's another side to the story here. Perhaps one of the canon lawyers on this board can look into your case?

Karl, that is ridiculous.
Firstly, ASSUMING that the church does allow plenty invalid annulments (I don't actually know or don't have any solid facts to back up so I'll just assume) there is no possible way you can prove that that implies that the Church murders spouses. Your premises are ridiculous and so is your conclusion.

This is really no big deal. The Catholic Church murders spouses each day through invalid annulments and allows and encourages their living slavery by failing to hold their criminal spouses accountable through excommunication.
That same church refuses even any attempts at justice for abandoned spouses who have successfully defended their sacramental marriages in Rome, so I honestly do not see the big deal.
I would this day take a lethal injection, as an innocent man, rather than face my life each day, as the Catholic Church accepts my adulterous wife and her lover, who force me to subsidize their adultery and are completely accepted in the Catholic Church as the parents of OUR children and as a MARRIED COUPLE, although they are adulterers who remain unrepentant after 16 YEARS.
The Catholic Church is only being consistant in its destruction of what marriage means.
The Catholic Church is in APOSTACY and Jimmy defends it here, thus showing his incompetance as a THEOLOGIAN and lack of love as a Catholic layman.
In my opinion this man is a disgrace but perhaps one day he will repent and help those of us abandoned by the Church he defends, so wrongly and so vociferously.
Karl,
a victim of the Catholic Church and its LUST
to normalize adultery, through false annulments!!

This is really no big deal. The Catholic Church murders spouses each day through invalid annulments and allows and encourages their living slavery by failing to hold their criminal spouses accountable through excommunication.
That same church refuses even any attempts at justice for abandoned spouses who have successfully defended their sacramental marriages in Rome, so I honestly do not see the big deal.
I would this day take a lethal injection, as an innocent man, rather than face my life each day, as the Catholic Church accepts my adulterous wife and her lover, who force me to subsidize their adultery and are completely accepted in the Catholic Church as the parents of OUR children and as a MARRIED COUPLE, although they are adulterers who remain unrepentant after 16 YEARS.
The Catholic Church is only being consistant in its destruction of what marriage means.
The catholic church is in APOSTACY and JImmy here defends here, thus showing his inconpetance as a THEOLOGIAN and lack of love as a Catholic layman.
In my opinion this man is a disgrace but perhaps one day he will reoent and help those of us abandoned by the Curch he defends, so wrongly and so vociferously.
Karl,
a victim of the Catholic Church and its LUST
to normalize adultery, through false annulments!!

"The Michael" was a typo. I don't mean that
Mr. Schiavo now has the power of "The Donald"...

Thanks Nerina for your comment on the feeding tube. I have to winch when media members and others who wouldn't know a hippocampus from a hippopotamus claim that the autopsy supported the Michael's claim that Terri was (aack!) brain-dead. If you don't understand medical matters,
ask, but don't pontificate.

"Susan seems to me to have engaged in" a script.
"All around the web now, the majority viewpoint on a particular blog, whatever the persuasion, will scream 'troll' at any dissenter." If you have spent any time reading THIS blog, you know that doesn't apply here.

>>In fact, she has not responded to anyone's comments other than to pursue whatever her agenda is. I consider her a troll in the definition that a troll aims to stir up trouble and is not interested in a discussion. Since she acts like a troll, I intend to not feed the troll.

"(They weren't just pouring mashed potatoes down her throat, you know. This is a fairly sophisticated medical situation.)"
Of the many laughable comments Susan has made in this thread, I think the above one is most revealing about her knowledge of Terri's condition. Actually, Susan, a feeding tube (whether inserted through a nasal passage or through the abdominal wall into the stomach or small intestine in a very simple, short surgical procedure) is a very simple device. As a nurse, I've administered countless feedings with this device and can deliver a complete "meal" in about 10 minutes. The tube is then capped off until the next feeding is due.

Susan,
Re-hashing the court proceedings around Terri Schiavo's starvation is useless at this point, and the longer it goes on, the more apparent that becomes.
The reason we are discussing the moral implications of the whole situation is to help assure that faithful Catholics (as well as others) don't make this same gravely immoral decision, though it may be legally open to them.
In this sense the decision of the court could not be less relevant.
People clearly will decide for themselves, but if they care to do what is right, rather than what is easy (or merely legal), they should recognize that providing food and water can not reasonably be considered "heroic measures", but is simply the least that human beings should expect of one another.

I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules.
I would remind you that the bishops and preist are charged with administering canon law, not the law of Florida.
BTW -- would you hire someone acquitted of child molestation to baby-sit for your children?

I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules.
First of all, how do YOU know what my concept of Roman Catholic moral rules is? How do you know if I am personally even interested in that? Why did you even bring it up? Hopefully when you cross examine someone "in real life" you actually stick to the remarks and don't wander so much. Besides your getting off topic and mixing oranges with apples, since you brought it up, most citizens of Florida still expect to have their religious rights respected, which include having one's representative of faith, that is, ALL faiths, allowed to administer spiritual care during the dying process without threat of arrest. Your legal world that you defend is truly frightening. Rule by the powerful over the helpless without reference to the Constitution. You don't operate within the 9th circuit by any chance?
Obviously all of the factual evidence which you spin - like duly sworn affidavits being dismissed because persons didn't seem to be truthful - your words:
the caregivers in question (who were only two women) did not behave as they would have if they were telling the truth.
Uh oh! Sounds like you've been reading Felos' books where he can look at those in incommunicado and channel their "real" desires and hidden meanings to his own "vision" of life.
It would be pretty difficult for the public to read all of the records of this case since they are not all available. How convenient.
Another arrogant assumption you make re: the knowledge of what witnesses spoke and what was hidden is that it can come from many many sources repeating the same facts. Why do you insist on something that just isn't true for most who have followed the facts ... particular websites that you apparently love to hate. You must be the one feeling compelled to read those websites since you seem to be on some mission of refuting their free speech and investigative prerogatives. And, yes, I do believe it's a good thing that you don't believe everything you read ... it IS obvious that you are very selective.
And how telling that you can't go beyond Greer's "local bar" awarding him immediately after the fact for your fantastic cudos for the judge. Some obvious attempt for PR by all the usual suspects who rubber stamped decisions for one another even when ordered to make a full review which should have taken at least several months. Must have had some real guilty consciences to try to whitewash the cronyism.
Everyone who has looked officially at the job he did has commended him.
No, not everyone, but nice try. You're getting too obvious.
He also, from the opposition, received numerous death threats. Whether or not he was correct, there is no reason to think he acted in bad faith.
Ahhh, poor little judge. Well, so does the governor receive death threats, so do judges all over the country, so does the president, so do conservative politicians, news commentators, etc. If a judge can't take the heat like everyone else who by their accepted position knows will be a part of the position then no one's to blame but themselves. He had a lot more protection throughout than his victim, Terri.
And there is great reason to believe that he acted in bad faith. In fact, loads of reasons. No, I didn't like the result and I didn't like, equally, the path taken to obtain it. I didn't like a judge who made, admittedly a pivotal error in the case but would do nothing about it due to the time he had already taken in piling decisions up based on that error. Obviously all of those decisions should have been dismissed and the hearing should have begun again at that point. A lot of citizens' hard earned dollars were thrown away due to his irresponsibility. If you don't see, by the MSM's reporting of the facts, that the political party line was adhered to in this case, rather than legal ethics, you have already probably bid on a certain bridge.
No, Susan, you will not change minds of those who are apparently much more well aware of the entire scenario here than you obviously are or are willing to admit to.
P.S. And Susan, you conveniently left out the part that included caregiver witnesses not coming forward due to the threats by their supervisors of being fired (as exemplified by the action taken against those who did courageously speak out) and ordered to speak to NO ONE about Michael's actions during visits. Appears to be a lot of threats condoned by this court. Oh, well, you don't seem to be too bothered by those little, unfortunate details that just may have gotten in the way of the determined outcome.
Back to the main topic. Odd how Michael joined the auspices of the Church he so distrusted for so long and tried to control by force of the state to carry out the major anointing of his latest life move. I guess we can add another attribute to his many qualities - hypocrit.

MaryKay,
Thank you very much for pointing out Susan is not Catholic. I missed her post stating that.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

She does seem to have a script and is either unwilling to or incapable of deviating from it.

Inocencio,
Susan said she's not Catholic, so I wouldn't expect her to understand Catholic teaching.
However, her (difficult to believe) obtuseness and unwillingness to engage in an honest dialogue make me exceedingly glad that I put my trust in God and that he has me in the Roman Catholic tradition rather than secular law.
What she's pulling with her most recent post is the expert/professional card and acting as if she does not understand that I'm referring to health regulations not legal sleight of hand, has demonstrated to me that she has no interest in discussion.
In fact, she has not responded to anyone's comments other than to pursue whatever her agenda is. I consider her a troll in the definition that a troll aims to stir up trouble and is not interested in a discussion. Since she acts like a troll, I intend to not feed the troll.

This comment of Susan's also leads me to believe she has less than a neophyte's understanding of Catholic Teaching.
I'm a big fan of Humanae Vitae, not just for its conclusions, but for its assumptions. What HV says is, "come to terms with your body, make a deal with yourself as a mammal."
Susan,
have you read the document DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA from the SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH? Because it makes Catholic teaching very clear.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cf...
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

While it's well established that Greer dotted his i's and crossed his t's, the above irregularities alone were basis for a Federal review of health and Medicare regulations.
Apparently the professionals who were in charge of this review do not agree with you.

1. should've put my name on the 2:24 post
2. Eileen, your statement starting with, "I may add that anyone who is so profoundly ignorant of the facts of law in this case as to say..."
you should be aware that Susan's email is to a law firm, which suggests that she is not the law neophyte that some of her posts suggest.

Are you intending to change the law so that I have to remain hooked up to a feeding tube whether I want that or not? See above post.
Why yes. We prefer that killing remain illegal.

I may add that anyone who is so profoundly ignorant of the facts of law in this case as to say
Once the court had made the determination that what Terri wanted was to get rid of that feeding tube, Michael had no more power to alter that than Terri's mother did, or than I did. Michael was offered I think $1 million late in the game by someone or other to turn custody over to Terri's parents, an offer which exhibited the widespread misunderstanding on this point. Michael had no power over the decision at that point.
has no business telling *other* people they only get their information off things they read on the internet.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

People here are simply repeating things they've read on the parents' website or elsewhere.
Susan, I'm afraid my previous estimation of good faith on your part goes straight out the window right there. And now I know what intellectual standard of honesty you're holding to ie. none, I can also see why you ignored my answers to your questions to continue scoring cheap points about legal matters in a discussion of morality.

While it's well established that Greer dotted his i's and crossed his t's, the above irregularities alone were basis for a Federal review of health and Medicare regulations.

Susan:
How can you say church teacing isn't "cut and dry" when it comes to FOOD and WATER? For crying out loud...those are basic, everyday necessities. Not medical treatment. What about that can't you understand? The POPE made a request for Terri's life...was he wrong? Was he not up-to-date on church teaching? I think the Pope knows that of which he speaks about.
This is from EWTN(http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/end_of_life_dec...):
The natural law and the Fifth Commandment requires that all ordinary means be used to preserve life, such as food, water, exercise, and medical care. Since the middle ages, however, Catholic theologians have recognized that human beings are not morally obligated to undergo every possible medical treatment to save their lives. Treatments that are unduly burdensome or sorrowful, such as amputation, or beyond the economic means of the person, or which only prolong the suffering of a dying person, are morally extraordinary, meaning they are not obligatory.
Tell me where you find evidence to dispute the church's teaching in that paragraph.
Feeding Terri is not "unduly burdensome," since her parents and siblings were willing to do so. Michael made that impossible.
And Terri was NOT dying when her tube was pulled. Therefore, food and water are ordinary means to keep her - and anyone else - alive. Any *faithful* Catholic would not create a will or directives that contradict such an obvious church teaching and commandment.
I'm all for the courts judging the law, but - as I said earlier - there is such a thing as "reasonable doubt" and there was a cartload of it in this case. Michael's will is what won in court, not his looking out for Terri.

Susan,
Your understanding is askew. Food and water are not medical treatment. If you can't understand that you need to ask yourself why?
I am interested in making sure the law protects the diginity and sanctity of every human life and yes yours included.
You should read Karen's above post and the document she linked.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

The fact remains Michael Schiavo asked a court to prevent his helpless wife from receiving food and water. A judge condemned Terri to a slow agonizing death.
The supreme court also ruled that the unborn can be executed at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. Neither ruling makes it right or moral just decriminalized.
Your facts are askew. Michael Schiavo asserted that his wife did not want the artificial life support she was receiving. (They weren't just pouring mashed potatoes down her throat, you know. This is a fairly sophisticated medical situation.) The law of Florida, like all Anglo-Saxon law since 1066, allows every individual the absolute right to refuse medical treatment, even essential and life-saving medical treatment. The judge agreed with Mr. Schiavo about what Terri wanted, and acted to carry our her desires as he had determined them to be.
None of this makes any of this "right" or "moral." You are absolutely correct about that. Judges are not in the business of determining morality, thank God, I don't want most of them making my moral decisions for me. Judges are in the business of carrying out the law, which this judge did according to the numerous experts who reviewed the case.
Are you intending to change the law so that I have to remain hooked up to a feeding tube whether I want that or not? See above post.

Let us suppose that I am a Roman Catholic, and I decide that if I am in Terri Schiavo's situation I do NOT want to be fed or hydrated by tube. And let us suppose that I write this down, so we don't get into this dispute - which is really what this case was all about - about what I want.
Church teaching sites "ordinary means" (i.e., food and water) as being required for all Catholics. Those who faithfully adhere to Church teaching would not create a will specifying those "ordinary means" be denied them upon illness. It's as simple as that.
That's not the question, even assuming that "Church teaching" on this matter is as cut and dried as you assert. (It isn't.) The question is, would you force me to be artificially fed and hydrated against my will?
If you would, then you would have forced the same thing on Terri. It doesn't matter to you what she wanted. The totalitarian mindset at work. At least we know where you stand.
If you wouldn't, and still you protest what happened to Terri, you simply think the court was incorrect in their determination of what she wanted. Which is your right of course. (I'm hoping you have better evidence for this than claims you read on the internet, like, that you knew her personally.)

Susan,
The fact remains Michael Schiavo asked a court to prevent his helpless wife from receiving food and water. A judge condemned Terri to a slow agonizing death.
The supreme court also ruled that the unborn can be executed at anytime during the nine months of pregnancy. Neither ruling makes it right or moral just decriminalized.
And don't worry we are taking steps to change both are political and legal system. Part of that effort is getting the word out about travesties of justice such as this case and ignoring desensitized people like yourself who want to close their eyes to the plight of the helpless and hide behind what some court has ruled.
All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

chris K,
Your message is a list of the "information" available on the web from one side of this controversy. There are two sides to every controversy, especially this one.
To list only a few of the errors in your information (and I get this from reading court documents, not from reading the parents' website):
1. The "testimony" from the caregivers about Michael's inappropriate behavior was discounted by the court because, among other reasons, the caregivers in question (who were only two women) did not behave as they would have if they were telling the truth. For example, they did not disclose any of this to Terri's parents at the time. There's a lot more on this in the documents. These two women are not credible. They were probably seeking publicity, is my guess.
2. It would have been legally improper for the judge to visit Terri, for reasons I won't go into, except to say, that's not how we do it.
3. If any of the bias or felonious behavior you allege could have been proven upon appeal, the original judgment would have been reversed. That it was not means that these allegations could not be proven, which means they are just that, allegations made by one side. You'll forgive me if I don't believe everything I read on the internet.
I'd recommend that you read the actual file before making any more of these crazy statements. People here are simply repeating things they've read on the parents' website or elsewhere. The parents' website contained numerous misstatements of fact, and was misleading generally (when compared to official records of what really happened). I'm not blaming the parents for this. I'm just saying that it can be unwise to take people who are under that amount of emotional pressure too literally. They were hardly in the mood to be objective.
Immediately after this case came finally to rest, Judge Greer was given an award for outstanding jurisprudence by his local bar association. He also, from the opposition, received numerous death threats. Whether or not he was correct, there is no reason to think he acted in bad faith. The only people who think he did are those who, like you, simply do not like the result, and cannot live with a result they don't like without calling the judge names. I would remind you that Judge Greer was charged with administering the law of Florida, not your concept of Roman Catholic moral rules. Everyone who has looked officially at the job he did has commended him.
Anyone in Florida or elsewhere who is unhappy with our court system will be more than welcome in groups which seek to improve it, and to pass legislation generally.

Terri brought about her own death.
How??
So far as our best efforts can determine, she did not want to live hooked up to that feeding tube, and would have wanted it disconnected. Upon our determination that that is what she wanted, it was done.
What a crock! God help us when such estimations of how to run our current court system become common. If there were any "best efforts" made they were on the pro-life side. The physicians "hired by the court" spent no measure of time with Terri whatsoever. They had no idea what her current status re: stimuli reaction or swallowing ability were since there were no recent tests allowed by the euthanasia court there. The physicians who had actually treated similar cases with successes and spent hours with Terri (would have spent more but were forbidden by the court) were ignored. The judge who had the final thumbs up or down decision on this precious life did not once visit his "victim". The judge admitted himself that the very information that he used to base his decision on had been in error, yet did not allow his own error to force his re-examination. The nursing staff that had spent years "up close and personal" with Terri had their depositions ignored or dismissed by the court that related to the threatening behavior by Michael (to them as well as to Terri) and Terri's response to his visits. The missing positive charting notations by caregivers were ripped out by Michael... a felony right there. The improper, illegal admission of Terri to this hospice facility ... at a time when her prognosis was 20 years and when the policy is for patients with terminal prognosis of 6 months or less, was illegally done by the conflicted euthanasia attorney with attachments from his position on its board. And, finally, when the lead attorney over all these final court decisions disregarded the order by congress to review these years of mismanagement and manipulation and conflicts of interest and rendered his undocumented decision immediately, one can say that the corruption ended monumentally.
So, Susan, your assessment of this court, blatantly dismissing all of this evidence, is what "our best efforts determined". Well, following that illogic it would seem that a little warning is advisable here for you out of concern. Pray that you are never injured or hospitalized in this part of Florida (that appears to have a few too many citizens to support) with the inability to communicate just how much you'd like to live ... and turned over to this judge, this euthanasia attorney, this legislative group, this hospice facility, and ... this court system.

And, in case you're wondering, here's one of the pieces of testimony (one of the casual conversations that worked so well for Michael in this case) that wasn't heard in court:
A medical worker heard Michael as, "When is that
b!$ch going to die?"
If that doesn't give you insight into his true nature, I don't know what will.

Susan:
As others have said, there was no hard evidence that what Terri wanted was to die. There was no living will, no note scratched on a piece of paper, no journal or blog entry.
I am not going to pretend to "read" Terri's mind. My issue with this case (aside from Terri's death) are the circumstances surrounding it. The judge was clearly biased in his evidence. He listened to Michael's testimony regarding casual comments and remarks made about Terri, but refused to listen to the medical professionals (i.e. nurses) who worked with Terri. Or Terri's family, who knew her longer than Michael did.
Terri's family contests she was a faithful Catholic, and therefore would follow Church teaching on such an issue. I don't think Michael ever disputed Terri's faith outright, but he didn't give it any consideration in his decision. In fact, he denied her the Eucharist! He stepped on the Sacraments and made sure his wife wouldn't receive them...so he's such an expert on her death wish but knows nothing about her religious beliefs? I don't believe that. He knew *exactly* what he was doing.
As for Terri being unable to swallow, that is a reflex most humans know, and as someone pointed out earlier, something Terri could have been capable of doing had Michael not stopped her physical therapy and insisted on the feeding tube. That she couldn't swallow at the time of her death doesn't mean she was that way for the past 15 years...Michael's decisions regarding her care (or lack thereof) caused that.
Michael failed in his role as husband to Terri. Period. He did not honor his marriage vows - which need to be honored regardless of the faith one professes - and he had an affair and children with a woman while his wife was ill. Not dead. *Ill*.
My grandfather had a stroke in 1988. From that time until his death in 1993, my grandmother cared for him 24/7 - she fed, washed, clothed, lifted, cooked meals according to his strict diet, and supervised his physical therapy so he could retain some basic functions. While his illness wasn't as severe as Terri's, it would have been worse had my grandmother not sought appropriate medical care for him.
He probably would have been given a feeding tube (or some other nutritional assistance) had he not worked with therapists to regain his speech and swallowing capability. Throughout that entire period, my grandmother never thought once about straying because that's "what my granfather would have wanted." She remained faithful to her vows until the day my grandfather died and never remarried.
"In sickness and in health" is not a relative clause of the vows. It means unconditional support. I would never carry on an illicit affair (and all such affairs are illicit) while my husband was ill, and probably not immediately after his death, either.
Let us suppose that I am a Roman Catholic, and I decide that if I am in Terri Schiavo's situation I do NOT want to be fed or hydrated by tube. And let us suppose that I write this down, so we don't get into this dispute - which is really what this case was all about - about what I want.
Church teaching sites "ordinary means" (i.e., food and water) as being required for all Catholics. Those who faithfully adhere to Church teaching would not create a will specifying those "ordinary means" be denied them upon illness. It's as simple as that.
As Donna pointed out, the Pope made a request to save Terri's life and it was summarily dismissed by Michael. The utmost authority on Church teaching was basically told to shove off because Michael wanted Terri to die...but on Terri's behalf.
There's a phrase in the court of law: reasonable doubt. In some states, the shadow of reasonable doubt is enough to get a suspected murderer acquitted. And you know what "reasonable doubt" is? Something that disputes presented evidence. The statements and testimony by Terri's family, that of the nurses, and the behavior of Michael all lend themselves to "reasonable doubt." But that was overlooked by the judge and lawmakers who decided to believe Michael's word over anyone else's.

Elinor and Patrick Rothwell seem to be slipping over the second bit of that section Jimmy quotes.
Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together - italics mine
i.e. It doesn't matter if you brought about the death of the spouse with the aim of getting married. Bringing about the death of the spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation counts too.
There's no doubt that Michael Schiavo and Jodi Centonze mutally morally co-operated to bring about Terri's death.

Susan:
Did you know her? Why is the testimony of her parents more convincing than the testimony that convinced the judge at trial? Did you attend the trial, or have you at least read the trial transcript? Or are you just repeating things you've read on the internet?
I've read the trial transcripts, Susan. The only evidence presented that it was her wish was her husband and his siblings saying she'd said, "I don't want to live like that" after watching a movie about someone on life support. The judge apparently found them truthful-sounding. I'd need better evidence than that, but *shrug*
If you simply think the court was wrong, that she didn't want that tube removed, I'd ask you how you know that.
Actually, the proper answer is, "I don't know." The judge didn't have to decide between testimonies of what she said and neither do we. On a very personal basis, I'm well-acquainted with friends of the Schindlers who think highly of their integrity, but you're right that no one really knows.
Legally, when something is that obscure, and so bitterly contested, there really should be a higher standard of evidence imo.
But as this isn't a legal discussion, I won't go into my thoughts on that, or the medical aspects of the case. Instead, I'll address your moral question which I think a lot of people haven't quite grasped in jumping in to correct the facts of the case.
Let's get rid of the distracting issues by imagining a hypothetical situation where everything is clear cut.
Mrs. Brown asks her husband Mr. Brown to remove her feeding tube if she goes into PVS. This fact is well testified and universally accepted. Something happens to Mrs. Brown, which leaves her profoundly disabled, and finally the diagnosis is made that she is in PVS. Her husband plans to carry out her wishes. While doing so, he meets Ms. Black and forms an attachment with her. Together they seek the removal of the feeding tube.
Since it was Mrs. Brown's own request, are Mr. Brown and Ms. Black at fault, as in the canon law section quoted above?
The answer is yes. As surely as if Mrs. Brown had asked to be shot in the head and Mr. Brown had complied. If removing a feeding tube is immoral, it's still wrong for Mr. Brown to do it, no matter if it's his wife's wish.
This isn't a legal question, mind you.
Of course, some are also claiming that removing the feeding tube wasn't wrong according to Catholic tradition. I think they're all the wrong path, but it should be pointed out that in this case the Vatican itself intervened to condemn the action, so there can be no doubt where the Church stands on the canonical status of this marriage.
Once the court had made the determination that what Terri wanted was to get rid of that feeding tube, Michael had no more power to alter that than Terri's mother did, or than I did. Michael was offered I think $1 million late in the game by someone or other to turn custody over to Terri's parents, an offer which exhibited the widespread misunderstanding on this point. Michael had no power over the decision at that point.
No, that's a misunderstanding. Michael did have the power. Actually, if Terri had asked to have the tube withdrawn and Michael hadn't wanted it, it wouldn't have happened. It's an odd point of law, but true.
Thanks,
Eileen
PS - The anon who says Terri was declared brain dead needs to do some serious studying. No one argued Terri was brain dead. They argued she was PVS.

Mary, as I said to Mary Kay, if you have a better idea about how we might run this society besides the rule of law, please, now's the time.
Susan, a man is acquitted of child molestation because the police improperly destroyed some evidence.
Would you let him baby-sit for your children?
If not, do you have a better idea yourself?
We are entitled to criticize the judgments in particular cases. We are allowed to declare them wrong. We are even allowed to apply rules other than civil society's in the arena where those rules apply, such as canon law in the Church.

The "other people" besides the estranged husband's word were his brother and sister. Too much conflict of interest.
We and Our does not include all Americans. There were many, many groups who had major concerns about how Judge Greer handled this. Some of those concerns resulted in Felos resigning from being chairman of the board. So you can't just dismiss them all.
Mary is correct in that Judge Greer got the dates wrong and did not allow that evidence based on his wrong dates.
If you have a better way... Actually, there was a better way. There was much basis for a Federal review of Terri's case but that got squashed.
You apparently have a question that you'd like to discuss. It might be good to just ask it without referring to the Schiavo situation because you're obviously not listening to what anyone says about that specific instance.

On the issue of Michael Schiavo's not being Catholic: Jodi Centonze is, and canon law is binding on her.
The impediment is not merely that the killer can not marry the person intended, but that that person can not marry the killer.
(Perhaps we should bring back the old rules, where both adultery and the promise to marry, and the promise to marry and killing the spouse, were enough to bring about the impediment, in order to prevent the questions raised here about intent.)

Susan, having read over these posts, I've noticed that several people have repeated said the following that you seem to not comprehend:
1. There is NO evidence that Terri made an informed decision. The court took the estranged husband's work about a casual comment that Terri made.
2. This is NOT about the feeding tube. This is about normal nutrition and hydration. Your claim about all medical evidence is based on the autopsy, which was done after 15 years of medical neglect and several days of dehydration. There was a point where Terri took food by mouth but her estranged husband put a stop to it.
3. Your references to "Terri's situation" seem to be something very different than what the posters here are referring to. You seem to be wanting to talk about an end of life situation, whereas Terri was disabled, not terminally ill.
Those are the main ones. There may be others.

If laws need to be changed, that's what we have legislators for. I'd suggest you write yours.
Mary, as I said to Mary Kay, if you have a better idea about how we might run this society besides the rule of law, please, now's the time. Let us know what it is. As you have correctly observed, a lot of things don't come out right under our current system, or don't come out, at least, in a way that pleases you. (Or me, necessarily.)