« Diaconate W/Protestant Spouse? | Main | Catholic Bumper Stickers »
January 24, 2006
Michael Schiavo Kills Wife Then Marries Mistress In Catholic Church
(Jimmy Akin)
Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, has married his long-time live-in mistress.
In a Catholic church.
This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
There ought to be a law against that kind of thing.
And in fact, there is.
Canon law specifically provides an impediment to prevent exactly this thing. It's known as the impediment of crimen (Latin, "crime"). If you bring about the death of your spouse with a view to marrying another person and then you attempt marriage, the impediment of crimen makes that new marriage automatically invalid.
The Code of Canon Law provides the following:
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.
Further, only the pope can dispense from the impediment of crimen.
Now, when Michael Schiavo and his long-time mistress (with whom he has had children while his wife was in the hospital) applied to be married in a Catholic church in Safety Harbor, Florida then either the pastor took steps to contact Pope Benedict and have the impediment of crimen dispensed--and B16 did that (fat chance!)--or the pastor authorized an invalid union under Church auspices between Michael Schiavo and his mistress, Jodi Centonze.
Either way, this must be clarified. If the pope dispensed from crimen in this case then, given the gravely scandalous nature of this union, the fact of the dispensation must become public or, to mitigate the grave scandal done by the invalid union, the competent ecclesiastical officials must make clear that the union was invalid and that the Church's law prohibits precisely this kind of thing.
You may be thinking, "Well, there's not a lot that could be done at this point, is there?"
And you'd be wrong. There is a canon law procedure for handling this situation.
CANONIST ED PETERS HAS THE STORY.
This situation is simply so outrageous that action must be taken by the competent Church authorities.
First, if a dispensation from crimen was not granted by the pope (as is overwhelmingly likely) then the parties are in an invalid union and they need to be made aware of this fact.
Second, members of the general public who are scandalized (in the popular sense) by the spectacle of the Catholic Church putting its blessing on a kill-your-wife-to-marry-your-mistress marriage must be given the message that the Catholic Church really takes seriously the culture of life and will not put its blessing on this kind of murderous immorality.
Just imagine what many non-Catholics must be thinking at this very moment: "I don't see how the Catholic Church really believes in a culture of life if it's willing to marry people who have killed their spouses in order to marry their mistresses. All its talk about protecting human life is just talk. They don't really mean it. When push comes to shove, they're totally happy uniting wife-killers and their mistresses in the bonds of holy wedlock."
Third, members of the Catholic Church need to have a cause of scandal (in the technical sense) removed. As medicine is now able to dramatically prolong life, many more Catholics will find themselves in the same situation as Michael Schiavo: Their spouse will be unable to advance their own interests for medical reasons, they will have power of attorney for their spouse, they will meet someone who they would like to marry, and then they will be tempted to use that power of attorney to bring about the death of their spouse "with a view to entering marriage with a certain person."
In other words, the Church must clarify this situation in order to avoid more disabled spouses in hospitals getting euthanatized so that the non-disabled spouses can get married to someone they have their eye on.
Lives really are at stake here.
If the competent ecclesiastical officials (possibly involving those in Rome) do not clarify this situation then people will die.
Those wishing to contact relevant individuals to request a public clarification of the matter may contact:
Rev. Stephen Dambrauskas, JCL
Promoter of Justice
Diocese of St. Petersburg
905 South Prospect Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756-4039Phone: UPDATE: 727-344-1611 Also: 727-446-2326 / 442-8884
Fax: 727-446-4287
E-Mail: tribsp@tampabay.rr.com
They may also contact:
His Excellency Pietro Sambi
Apostolic Nuncio
3339 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20008Telephone: (202) 333-7121
Fax: (202) 337-4036
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Canon Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfbfe53ef00d83459f94669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Michael Schiavo Kills Wife Then Marries Mistress In Catholic Church:
» In case you wondered from The Curt Jester
Canon lawyer Ed. Peter's discuses the canonical issues regarding the Schiavo-Centonze marriage. I am sure many when they heard of... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 24, 2006 10:20:41 AM
Comments
Sounds like the priest who officiated at the non-wedding, the pastor who allowed the non-wedding to take place in his parish, and Bishop Lynch are also guilty of "crimen". It always amazes me how people without spines are able to stand up.
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 5:22:01 AM
I can see contacting the Papal Nuncio, but I can't imagine contacting anyone in the diocese. They're probably in cahoots. Birds of a feather, usually flock together.
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 24, 2006 5:52:01 AM
After listening to Al Kresta's show yesterday, it sounded like the "newlyweds" may have had the backing of the local bishop.
It was also mentioned that the "bride" is divorced and there wasn't an annulment. Another strike against the "marriage."
It appears to me that the "groom" wanted to "stick it to" the Church and they had several all too willing accomplices.
Posted by: John F. Kennedy | Jan 24, 2006 6:08:20 AM
If doctors practiced medicine the way the "all too willing accomplices" misdid their duties, they could be sued for malpractice. Hmmm...
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 6:26:00 AM
How do they know there wasn't an annulment? Doesn't seem like the easiest information to obtain.
Just as disturbed by this as anyone, but is it clear especially for canonical purposes that Michael did what he did in order to marry his mistress?
Posted by: thomasina | Jan 24, 2006 6:53:35 AM
I called the tribunal office at the number Jimmy provided and asked for Fr. Dambauskas. I was told that he wasn't there, and given the number for the "pastoral center," 727-344-1611. The receptionist put my call through to the voicemail of the diocese spokesperson, Vickie Bedard. I left a message and a callback number.
I'm going to continue to follow up with Vickie Bedard, but I'm also going to continue to try to reach Fr. Dambauskas directly.
Posted by: Steven D. Greydanus | Jan 24, 2006 6:54:20 AM
It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson--oops, I mean Michael Schiavo--killed his wife in order that he could "marry" his mistress in the Catholic Church. He could have civilly divorced Terri and "married" his mistress civilly, as Terri's family begged him to do. Terri's family also agreed to take all responsibility for Terri's care and treatment. But Michael refused, just as, years earlier, he had ordered the cessation of Terri's physical therapy. It makes one wonder if he were afraid of what Terri might have said if she had recovered.
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 7:56:16 AM
Keep it up, Steven. If you're willing to write back about what this brings about, I'd for one like to read it.
Posted by: Karen | Jan 24, 2006 7:58:27 AM
Thanks for putting this on your blog, Jimmy. Read this thru a link at popular spiritual site ... and was in shock. Why weren't these details of Michael Schiavo's life w/his adulteress more known earlier ... like the baptisms of their children? Bishop Lynch & the church pastor have to be called to account by The Vatican, or else all Catholic Church spiritual leaders (and any lay people remaninging silent) are deserving of outrage & condemnation.
Posted by: Tim M. | Jan 24, 2006 8:36:30 AM
Thomasina, my initial thought was the same as your comment.
However, the way I'm reading the code of cannon law that Jimmy provided, it doesn't seem to matter whether the guilty party killed them in order to get married. The way I read it is the scenario is if they're considering marrying someone and they kill their spouse. It doesn't require linking that the explicit purpose of killing their spouse was to marry another just that they're considering marriage and kill their existing spouse.
In my opinion, Mr. Schiavo clearly both intended on marrying his mistress and brought about the death of his wife.
Posted by: Ken Crawford | Jan 24, 2006 8:47:41 AM
I suppose Catholicism doesn't account for cases where the wife's brain has turned to gelatin and is being kept alive artificially. Think about it, at the time those laws were written Terri would have died, period.
Mistress, adultress...for crying out loud the woman was experiencing a living death. Her husband fought to carry out her wishes and you loonies want to have him punished for going on with life?
Kudos to the church that married them for having the sense that so many "followers" lack.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 9:09:34 AM
Dear anon.,
Catholicism accounts for the dignity and sanctity of human life even when society and you do not.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jan 24, 2006 9:27:37 AM
Yuggoth is way ahead of us. We send an unmanned spacecraft to them, they send a manned one to us.
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 9:30:53 AM
Dear Anonymous,
Do you really want to have a conversation about this, or are you just venting?
Posted by: CaeliDS | Jan 24, 2006 10:08:51 AM
The Florida bishops were clear that the withdrawal of ANH from Terri cannot be presumed to be murder:
and
We urge people to refrain from excessive rhetoric and misguided zeal, against which Pope Pius XI cautioned. There are many unanswered questions in this case, and it is necessary to presume upon the best intentions of all involved until shown otherwise.
If the bishops have fully investigated the facts of this case and refrained from calling Michael's act "muder," then it is specious to argue he should be denied a Catholic marriage on these grounds.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 24, 2006 10:19:06 AM
Rick,
Why did you leave this line out of the quote:
If it is being done to intentionally cause her death, this would be wrong.
The Florida Bishops did not fully investigate the issue. Read their statement it basically says "we don't know, so think the best" but Terri Schiavo was still murdered.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jan 24, 2006 10:26:55 AM
"Mistress, adultress...for crying out loud the woman was experiencing a living death."
Sin is a living death.
Posted by: Kevin Jones | Jan 24, 2006 10:27:58 AM
"It is necessary to presume upon the best intentions of all involved until shown otherwise."
Michael Schiavo:
1) From day 1 refused to allow any tests to determine the extent of Terri's brain damage.
2) Ordered her physical therapy halted shortly after it began
3) Ordered that she be fed through a tube rather than orally, even though she was capable of being fed orally
4) Made no mention of Terri ever saying she wanted to die, until many years after she was hospitalized--RIGHT AFTER SHE RECIEVED A LARGE MALPRACTICE SETTLEMENT--which, of course, then would have been his.
"Best intentions?" I think it has been clearly shown that Michael Schiavo's intentions were the worst. As I commented above, what was he afraid she would say if she recovered enough to speak?
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 10:35:57 AM
The Vatican didn't find the case so complex as to defy analysis. The Vatican clearly recognized what was going on and said so.
The Fla. bishops have no excuse. All they had to do--in order to figure this issue out--was listen to the Vatican. You know, the way they're supposed to.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 10:40:33 AM
The Vatican didn't find the case so complex as to defy analysis. The Vatican clearly recognized what was going on and said so.
The Fla. bishops have no excuse. All they had to do--in order to figure this issue out--was listen to the Vatican. You know, the way they're supposed to.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 10:40:52 AM
This sort of thing happens more often than anyone ever mentions. Why is Terri's case of such import?
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 10:41:35 AM
"Why is Terri's case of such import?" So that "(t)his sort of thing happens" LESS often.
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 10:46:28 AM
Dear Anon,
Every case of murder is a crime, espeacially one committed in front of us. It should alarm you that you are so desensitized to the torture and murder of a defenseless woman.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jan 24, 2006 10:50:28 AM
speechless with horror.
Posted by: Lida | Jan 24, 2006 10:52:39 AM
I think its important to remember that even the children of a sinful extra-marital affair such as that of Michael Schiavo and his mistriss deserve every sacrament that anyone else is entitled to -- THEY DID NOT CHOOSE THEIR PARENTS. We must PRAY FOR THEM that they will rise above the unrepentant sin of their parents to be more than nominal Catholics.
Posted by: C.J. Steele | Jan 24, 2006 11:02:56 AM
There will be another hurricane season for Florida...and perhaps it may behoove Lynch to move his offices to another area, say Oregan, where killing is in vogue and fun.
Whoops. I forgot.
"Every step you take. Every move you make. Every bond you break....I'll be watching you..."
-GOD (with the assistance of The Police)
I can't imagine what these evil cretans are thinking when they do these things-like killing one's wife,&/or winking at &/or helping said man while he kills his wife and/or those implicated in blessing the murderer and his scarlet woman in a faux marriage...all in the name of the Catholic Church.
God will not allow the smear campaign against His Church for too much longer. Hence, the natural disasters and scandals He allows for our own purifications that act as a great warning for those of us who have the common sense to realize that we are living on borrowed time and we will all be judged by Almighty God for our sins. I pray for all those who have been involved in this murder and the cover-up. I don't envy the Judgement and Punishment they will face from God. I think all of us should become more outspoken and active against these daily happenings of euthanasia. Priests for Life have a great Will To Live form that I hope everyone will use instead of the dangerous Living Wills being pushed. The Will To Live lets you have hydration and nutrition, whereas the other assume you don't want it....
Posted by: Maureen Braun | Jan 24, 2006 11:06:40 AM
This is extremely problematic for the obvious reason: namely, that the Church seems to be putting its blessing on the marriage of a man who killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
As far as I know, it hasn't been established that he killed his wife in order to marry his mistress.
Sure, what he did was wrong, but I think we ought to cut him a little charity.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church we're supposed to put the best interpretations on people's actions.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan | Jan 24, 2006 11:15:16 AM
Huh?
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 11:21:48 AM
"It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson--oops, I mean Michael Schiavo--killed his wife in order that he could "marry" his mistress in the Catholic Church."
Nah...I think he killed her for the money. Does that change the situation?
Posted by: Dave Mueller | Jan 24, 2006 11:25:49 AM
Excuse me a moment while I go throw up.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jan 24, 2006 11:28:29 AM
Torture and murder of an innocent...I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.
I'm not the least bit desensitized to "torture and murder". I am a quality of life advocate. Schaivo was obviously brain dead. The autopsy confirmed everything her husband had said. Honestly, what is wrong with letting go of a life that only exists because technology forces it to be. For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support--should that ever become necessary.
Would my spouse's follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 11:38:01 AM
Folks, get it straight. Terri died as the result of several court decisions that stated that there was clear and convincing evidence that SHE wanted to die under her circumstances. How did Michael then cause her death? Under these decisions, her death was wrong because it was suicide, not homicide. Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What's different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
Posted by: Celine | Jan 24, 2006 11:39:56 AM
Chris,
Please give us the best interpertation of Michael Schiavo's actions. Breaking his marriage vows and the torture and murder of his helpless wife.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jan 24, 2006 11:40:06 AM
Inocencio, which Anon are you addressing? My comment showed up anonymously, but I agree with you!
Diane Kamer,
author of the anon double post two posts above Inocencio's post.
Posted by: diane | Jan 24, 2006 11:40:59 AM
Inocencio, which Anon are you addressing? My comment showed up anonymously, but I agree with you!
Diane Kamer,
author of the anon double post two posts above Inocencio's post.
Posted by: diane | Jan 24, 2006 11:41:26 AM
I have no idea why my posts keep showing up as double posts. I assure y'all I'm only posting once each time. Maybe it's a Mac Thang? :p
Blessings (and with great trepidation, fearing this post will also double itself)...
Diane
Posted by: diane | Jan 24, 2006 11:42:57 AM
I have no idea why my posts keep showing up as double posts. I assure y'all I'm only posting once each time. Maybe it's a Mac Thang? :p
Blessings (and with great trepidation, fearing this post will also double itself)...
Diane
Posted by: diane | Jan 24, 2006 11:43:24 AM
Dear anon,
If your spouse removed food and water and won't let anyone else care for you or feed you, then yes that is murder. Quality of life? Who decides? When did it become acceptable to kill the weak and helpless among us?
Celine,
A husband suddenly remembering that his wife did not want food and water while she is helpless after he is awarded over a million dollars for her care is not clear and convincing evidence.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Jan 24, 2006 11:49:20 AM
You are forgetting one key fact: there is a strong basis in catholic moral philosophy for asserting that withdrawal of food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state is not euthanasia, as these means are considered extraordinary or disproportionate. You people all seem to forget this little detail.
Posted by: Tony A | Jan 24, 2006 11:58:04 AM
But Tony, Terri was disabled, not PVS. The autopsy did not support Michael Schiavo's claims and the legal irregularities were mind boggling.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:02:31 PM
Brain dead and alive only because of medical science is different from killing the weak and helpless. I'm not advocating that we go out and kill all the disabled individuals we meet. I'm saying that if your brain is dead and all that keeps you going is food and water...well, that's not a quality of life I would want. Many handicapped and injured people can at least communicate and enjoy life. This woman had lost the capacity to think and feel on the level that you and I know it.
Damn her to hell for suicide or damn her husband for following her wishes and proceeding with life...either way I think it is cruel. They are BOTH victims not criminals and their personal situation isn't anyone's business.
If there is a God, this is between him and the two of them. I'm inclined to think if he's as merciful as people say...that he would go easy on them. There are far worse things in this world than what either of them did.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:02:43 PM
Torture and murder of an innocent...I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.
Just war is a different issue than euthanasia.
I'm not the least bit desensitized to "torture and murder". I am a quality of life advocate. Schaivo was obviously brain dead. The autopsy confirmed everything her husband had said. Honestly, what is wrong with letting go of a life that only exists because technology forces it to be.
A person who is brain dead is not able to breathe on their own, now is their heart able to beat on it's own. Terri was completely functional physically. She was just like the profoundly retarded residents that I worked with while in college. They were fully functional human beings who simply had no cognitive abilities.
For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support--should that ever become necessary. Would my spouse's follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, he would be guilty of the sin of murder, and you would be guilty of committing suicide.
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 24, 2006 12:04:02 PM
"I suppose you are opposed to the US war and tactics, then? I would hope so, if you are so enraged by a right to die case. Anything else would be hypocritical to say the least.".
I am opposed to torture of any kind (I think Bush is wrong on this), but I support the war on terror, both in Iraq and elsewhere.
Your charge of hypocrisy is nonsense.
Or do you see no difference between murder (unjustified killing) and war (justified killing of bad guys)?
Terri Schiavo had NO TERMINAL ILLNESS. She was NOT DYING. She was STARVED to death. People were not allowed even to OFFER her food or water by mouth.
The vast majority of human beings can live without a respirator, but ANYONE will die without food and water.
Should we let infants die because they can't feed themselves? How about the elderly? Paraplegics? Those suffereing from Multiple Sclerosis or Parkinsons?
I am only thankful that this anonymous poster does not hold power of attorney for ME.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jan 24, 2006 12:04:54 PM
Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What's different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
A respirator is artificial, as is a heart machine. Food and water are considered natural.
Terri actually could eat by mouth. She was ordered to be fed through a tube by her husband. He didn't want her fed by mouth. The doctors complied.
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 24, 2006 12:08:48 PM
Tony A:
Food & water (i.e. nutrition) are *never* an extraordinary or disproportionate means. Nutrition is an ordinary means to sustain life. Any catholic moral philosophy text that you're reading isn't catholic or moral or philosophy. It is insanity to assert otherwise. If you believe otherwise, stop eating & drinking!
Ashton
Posted by: Ashton Vaz | Jan 24, 2006 12:12:29 PM
Justified war = justified killing. So murder is okay as long as the cause seems just? Innocent men, women and children die in every war. I suppose it is mainly okay because it is a crusade against nonbelievers anyway.
Hmmm..reminds me of a You Might be a Fundie if list I saw (particularly #7):
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
****7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!*******
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:22:43 PM
AND...there is a big difference between "profoundly retarded" and being left with only a brain stem.
As for the comparing infants to a brain dead woman...that's too looney to even go into. If you can't see what a straw man that one is you're batty.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:25:22 PM
"and their personal situation isn't anyone's business."
You sound like the parents who beat their kids then resent intervention because it's their personal family and not anyone's business.
Michael Schiavo does not fit the definition of a victim in any way, shape or manner. He has exerted an enormous amount of control in every aspect of this situation.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:26:22 PM
Food and water via artifical means are definately extraordinary means for most of the Third World, thus, for most of the world. In the good old world of US Catholic blogging it isn't. We've got great healthcare and all the tubes, water and liquified food we can handle. Thank God Catholic medical ethics offers a broad view of such issues in order to allow for the most wide understanding of such troubling questions.
And not only this, we have access to every little detail of every life in the US, just so we can judge every situation just as God would. In fact, I think He reads all the blogs just to get the straight poop.
I continue to be saddened by the profound lack of charity by so many Roman Catholics.
Posted by: Andrew, O.P. | Jan 24, 2006 12:29:24 PM
Beating children and honouring the last wishes of an incapacitated loved one. Okay, I see the connection.
That's why a husband has power of attorney. So that he can have the control to fulfill his obligations...even if that obligation is to remove life support. I would want it done for ME, personally, and I wouldn't want the state, religious zealots or any of my extended family trying to intervene. I'm very happy to have a spouse that I know would pull out whatever plug was necessary. I'd do the same in return. NOT because I'd want my spouse DEAD but because it is what we promised each other.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:31:25 PM
I agree with Andrew. The means used to keep this woman alive were extraordinary, although, I would add it would be extraordinary for POOR people in the USA too.
I guess the "moral" catholics of this world need to focus on important thing like personal matters between husbands and wives before they can attend to such trivial matters as WAR, POVERTY and overall INEQUITY in healthcare worldwide.
I sure am sorry I can't be so moral myself. I guess I haven't got my priorities straight.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:37:47 PM
And I guess judge not lest ye be judged only applies to the "other" people. Moral Catholics have the high and lofty purpose of directing the rest of us because of their superior connection to all things moral and spiritual. We lowly common sinners need their guidance and couldn't POSSIBLY judge our Moral Catholics because..well...we're just not holy enough.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:41:40 PM
Don't you just love cowardly fundamentalist atheists?
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | Jan 24, 2006 12:52:00 PM
It appears to be clear that Scott Peterson--oops, I mean Michael Schiavo--killed his wife in order that he could "marry" his mistress in the Catholic Church. He could have civilly divorced Terri and "married" his mistress civilly, as Terri's family begged him to do. Terri's family also agreed to take all responsibility for Terri's care and treatment. But Michael refused, just as, years earlier, he had ordered the cessation of Terri's physical therapy. It makes one wonder if he were afraid of what Terri might have said if she had recovered.
My thoughts exactly. Even though the media reported Terri's condition was brought about by an "eating disorder" I can't help but wonder what Michael did or didn't do to bring about said disorder or the state which lead to her disability in the first place. Michael's rush to end her life and his blocking anything - therapy, oral feeding - that could help her survive and get better (however slightly) sends up red flags. Or at least it should for any rational person.
And, no matter what anyone says, Michael lost his "right" to be Terri's provider and caregiver the second he thought about cheating on her. He broke the sanctity of their marriage vows, which I'm sure contained "in sickness and in health" in them somewhere.
He is a purely selfish, self-satisfying man and a control freak. He is also mean and vindictive and spiteful. He made sure Terri died so her parents couldn't have her. Isn't that the sign of an abuser? If they can't have their girlfriend/wife...no one can. Not even people who are willing to care and pay for her medical needs.
As someone bluntly commented elsewhere, I hope this new "wife" has a living will...
Posted by: Amy P. | Jan 24, 2006 12:52:43 PM
To Our Brave Anonymous Poster-
You have conveniently avoided addressing the fact that Terri Schiavo was not allowed to have food or water even OFFERED to her by ordinary means. Not by cup or by spoon.
That is ORDINARY CARE, which she was denied.
She was STARVED. TO. DEATH.
The feeding tube is not even an issue.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jan 24, 2006 12:53:25 PM
Hey Anon...
You seem to like to talk, and yet, not once do you address about the suspicious actions of the husband. In order to win your side, you have to stop talking past us, and actually talk to us.
Because we're all ready to forgive... so long as the husband is willing to admit that he done wrong. Too bad you're judgmental on us.
Nick
Posted by: Nick | Jan 24, 2006 12:53:59 PM
"I guess the 'moral' catholics of this world need to focus on important thing like personal matters between husbands and wives before they can attend to such trivial matters as WAR, POVERTY and overall INEQUITY in healthcare worldwide."
*sniff, sniff*
There's a troll lurking. If anyone who has that to say about me and my fellow parishoners clearly has nothing worth saying.
I'll make a suggestion - why don't some of the mods clean up this drivel and ban the IP.
Posted by: AnotherCoward | Jan 24, 2006 12:55:30 PM
Let me get this straight - we don't need to keep disabled people alive via artificial nutrition/hydration because the people in the Third World don't have access to it?!?!? Are people really making this argument?
Soooooooo....I guess we shouldn't do open heart surgery, etc. either because people in the Third World can't have the same treatment.
The latest in Catholic teaching is that artificial hydration and nutrition is to be considered normal care if it is available. Artificial hydration and nutrition may be withheld, but only if the patient is already terminal, and the hydration/nutrition is an excessive burden.
Look, if you're Catholic, you are bound to accept the Church's teaching on this matter, and the Church has, in recent years, made that teaching clear. It explicitly did so in the Terri Schiavo case.
Of course, war and poverty are big issues. We need to evaluate wars, poverty, and end of life issues according to the Church's teaching. Some people come to different conclusions regarding the moral legitimacy of various wars, and of course how most effectively to tackle poverty is largely a prudential matter.
The accusations of judgmentalism are just ridiculous. We are called to make moral judgments, but not to judge the state of someone's soul. If we are not supposed to make moral judgments, you can throw out half the Bible.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | Jan 24, 2006 12:57:30 PM
The moral theologian at the local seminary (a good orthodox man) does not find the Schiavo case to be an easy call. Reasonable faithful people may disagree in his opinion. So play nice.
To me, it all hinges on the testimony of the doctor that pronounced her brain dead, a doctor who, IMHO, has a certain whiff of the Kevorkian about him. In hearing the case, the courts heard his testimony but refused to hear testimony from a man this same doctor had diagnosed as brain dead - obviously the good Dr. was wrong. There are cases of people who have been declared brain dead, (and a lot less responsive than Mrs. Schiavo,) who were found to be very much alive & alert but unable to respond.
Also, why give morphine to a "dead" woman to ease her suffering? The dead don't suffer.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 12:58:24 PM
The doctor who pronounced her "PVS" is a well known euthanasia advocate up here in Minnesota. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | Jan 24, 2006 1:03:39 PM
If he killed her why isn't he in jail? You could not have had any more public a murder. This is hardly a case of crimen, no matter how much you nutwings want it to be.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 1:10:34 PM
AND...there is a big difference between "profoundly retarded" and being left with only a brain stem.
Yes. Terri was like the former, and not the later.
Posted by: Barbara | Jan 24, 2006 1:11:16 PM
The 12:31, 12:37 and 12:41 posters seem to be good at sniping without the whole picture and unable to make their logic consistent.
I made the abuse analogy because of the unsupportable statement that Michael Schiavo was a victim.
None of those three seem to have read anything other than the headlines during March. That is, they did not read how federal regulations were blown off (not once but several times), the conflict of interests, did not read the autopsy report which did not support Michael Schiavo's claims. Did not read the Vatican statements.
No, instead they consider sniping to be an adequate response.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jan 24, 2006 1:14:10 PM
Ashton wrote:
"Food & water (i.e. nutrition) are *never* an extraordinary or disproportionate means. Nutrition is an ordinary means to sustain life. Any catholic moral philosophy text that you're reading isn't catholic or moral or philosophy. It is insanity to assert otherwise. If you believe otherwise, stop eating & drinking!"
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I've argued this on Mark Shea's blog until I became blue in the face!
The develoment of the casuistry in this area is well laid out in "The Catholic Tradition and the Use of Nutrition and Fluids" by John J. Paris, S.J., in Birth, Suffering, and Death, edited by Kevin Wildes, 1992, Kluwer Academic Publishers. I can't seem to find my copy right now, so unfortunately, I cannot be more specific at this point.
I will repeat an earlier post, to summarize the essence of this position:
The basic principles of Catholic moral teaching concerning illness and dying require that we distinguish. We must do what we can to sustain meaningful human living, but when our therapies cannot restore a person to meaningful life, we may allow the person’s body to die. When thinking about these difficult decisions, we use a distinction that enables us to sort out the relevant facts. We used to refer to this distinction as the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means. For reasons I won’t go into the words “ordinary” and “extraordinary” came to be used in the medical profession differently from the way we used them in making moral decisions, so we changed our terminology to avoid confusion. We now distinguish between proportionate and disproportionate means. (The word “means” denotes all means used to help the sick person.)
We are required to use the means proportionate to securing a good outcome in medical treatment – e.g., the means necessary to restore an unconscious person to conscious living. If a person who is unconscious or suffering terribly from an incurable cancer has no chance of recovery, we may judge that the means used to keep the person’s body alive are only prolonging a death agony and therefore are disproportionate. We, then, may discontinue using these means. The means we discontinue are called disproportionate, which means they are no longer proportionate to a reasonable end. We are still absolutely required to provide whatever care we can that will make the person as comfortable as possible and free from pain. But, when there is no hope of cure and there is no conscious life, we may let a person die.
There used to be a dispute as to whether providing nutrition (food) and hydration (water) could ever be disproportionate. This dispute was resolved decades ago as follows: if a person is unconscious with no hope of recovery so that nutrition and hydration are provided by tubes, or other technology (the person simply cannot eat or drink even with assistance), then the means of providing nutrition and hydration may be judged disproportionate and discontinued. It must be determined that the person is in such a state of unconsciousness that he/she cannot feel pain. If these conditions are not present, we are obliged to provide nutrition and hydration. If these conditions are present, we may withdraw the disproportionate means of providing nutrition and hydration and allow the person’s body to expire.
If I am in error on this issue, then so are the vast majority of catholic moral theologians. I would refer you to the doctoral dissertation of Daniel Cronin from the Gregorian in 1958 (later archbishop of Hartford, Mass.): after a thorough review of over 50 moralists from Aquinas to the 1950s, he concluded "even natural means, such as taking of food and drink, can become optional if taking them requires great effort or if the hope of beneficial results (spes salutis) is not present".
As merely one example, consider moralist Albert Moraczewski, O.P. "There appears to be no strict ethical obligation to provide nourishment by such technological interventions as intubation."
Gerald Kelly S.J. stated in 1950 that "no remedy is obligatory unless it offers a reasonable hope of checking or cusing a disease".
Fr. Robert McManus, asked to advise Biship Gelineau (Providence, Rhode Island) on a case involving a catholic in a persistent vegetative state for 2 years on the morality of removing life-sustaining nutrition and fluids: "The medical treatments which are being provided the patient, even those which are supplying nutrition and hydration artificially, offer no reasonable hope of benefit to her. This lack of reasonable hope or benefit renders the artificially invasive medical treatments futile and thus extraordinary, and disproportionate and unduly burdensome. Moreover, the continuation of such medical treatments is causing a significant and precarious economic burden to [the patient's] family. It must be unambiguously clear that the primary intention of removing what has been competently judged to be extraordinary means of artificially prolonging the patient's natural life is to alleviate the burden and suffering of the patient and not to cause her death."
In 1987, the pro-lfe committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference declared that "laws dealing with medical treatment may have to take account of exceptional circumstances where even means of providing nourishment may be too ineffective of burdensome to be obligatory." (The Right of the Terminally Ill, 1987).
Take what the Texas bishops adopted in their official guidelines on the use of nutriton and fluids in Catholic hospitals in 1990: patients in a persistent vegetative state can have such treatment withdrawn. They claim this is "not abandoning the person. Rather, it is accepting the fact that the person has come to the end of his or her pilprimage and should not be impeded from taking the final step".
There has always been an opposing view which (at least until Pope John Paul's speech in the Spring of 2004), was a minority one. Richard Doerflinger, (vice president of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) is in this camp, contending for years that tube-feeding is not an extraordinary means. But even he admitted that (prior to 2004) there was enough of a debate about the Catholic position that a person could choose which side to take: continue or discontinue tube-feeding. He merely claims that John Paul's address sealed the issue. Even if you accept this view, it's a bit rich to simply ignore the nuanced history of the casuistry in the area.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 1:14:30 PM
That last (overly-long) post was me. Sorry.
Posted by: Tony A | Jan 24, 2006 1:16:29 PM
For me, it boils down to this:
As of the wedding, priests of the Diocese of St. Petersburg have provided more sacramental care for Mr. Michael Schiavo than they did for Terri after her injury.
Moreover, Mr. Schiavo routinely denied her access to the sacraments of the Church that he now avails himself of. About which, of course, the Ordinary of the Diocese of St. Petersburg uttered. not. a. peep.
Forgive me if I have little patience for tut-tutting about the lack of charity among Catholics. If you don't want to relitigate the case, more power to you--but try to at least recognize the problematic aspects to the sacramental angle.
Posted by: Dale Price | Jan 24, 2006 1:22:23 PM
Tony A,
Nice post; you are correct that this is a relatively new issue, and one that has been debated for some time. However, as you also alluded to, Pope JP II and the Vatican, within the last ten years or so, with increasing force, came out against the "artificial nutrition/hydration as extraordinary means" thesis.
Even if this may not yet be regarded as "completely settled", that is clearly the teaching of the Magisterium at this time.
The only time artificial nutrition/hydration may be withheld (if available) is if the patient is ALREADY terminal and the artificial nutrition/hydration is more of a burden to the patient than a benefit.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | Jan 24, 2006 1:28:16 PM
Furthermore, lots of families order that air given by respirators be withdrawn from their family members so that they die of asphyxiation, and everyone thinks that is just glorious. What's different about withholding food/fluids given by food-pump?
The difference is that the court order which removed her feeding tube included a prohibition on trying to feed her by mouth.
What was the deal there? Were they afraid she would choke before she could die of dehydration?
If we did gave this stame treatment to a dog, the same people cheering having it done to Terri would be up in arms.
Posted by: Tony Miller | Jan 24, 2006 1:30:01 PM
"Brain death" is a legal fiction; it is not a medical condition. It was a legal fiction created in order to justify medical procedures which make live people dead. Check out Dr. Paul Byrne's "Understanding Brain Death" at the American Life League site.
As to the expense of keeping "someone like Terri" alive - it's much less expensive than providing "normal" meals in any facility; formula needs no preparation, only a bit of storage space (no refrigeration), no staff to prepare or clearn up, no extra dining room or assistance at dining (such as those patients in nursing homes regularly receive). Feeding tubes cost very little - they average $75 apiece and can be kept in place for a month -- longer if the patient is given good hygenic care around the stoma. Feeding pumps are provided free by the companies producing the formula and are easier to use than your average digital alarm clock.
Posted by: Linda Robinson | Jan 24, 2006 1:34:53 PM
Sorry - forgot to close the tag. I hope you can fix that.
Posted by: Linda Robinson | Jan 24, 2006 1:35:58 PM
Dale, yes, that is exactly the point.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 1:40:27 PM
It is not at all clear to me that the impediment of crimen applies to Michael Schiavo. According to the University of Navarre/University of St. Paul translation of the Code of Canon Law, the impediment applies to a person "with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed...his or her own spouse...." Canon 1090(1). The notes to canon interprets this to mean "that the action should have been perpetrated "with the intention of contracting marriage."
I think it would be difficult to prove that Michael Schiavo killed Terri with the intention of contracting marriage. For one thing, he has asserted all along that his intention in killing her was a mercy killing and/or that because she was PVS, she was already dead for all practical purposes. Furthermore, if my memory serves, he expressed this intention before he met his putative wife. No doubt it is true that after he met his then-girlfriend, he wanted to get along with his life and marry his girlfriend.
The marriage is eyebrow-raising to be sure, but if the existence of the impediment isn't manfestly can't be readily proved, I think one has to presume that the marriage is valid until demonstrated otherwise.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell | Jan 24, 2006 1:42:57 PM
"isn't manfestly can't be readily proved"
Should read "isn't manifest or can't be readily proved."
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell | Jan 24, 2006 1:47:34 PM
Just who can say or present any evidence that tube feeding for Terri was any kind of burden?? This had been going on for years in her case. She could show her discomfort for other physical conditions, but actually showed desire to be fed in what became usual and expected by her. This wasn't something suddenly begun that was also suddenly measured as being traumatic for her. Rather, during the time that she was not prevented by the "husband" from going out into the world with her family, she was easily fed, showed a recognition of when it was time for her to be nourished and easily was taken to the mall and for other visits with no problem. This type of feeding is done for toddlers who then participate in all other activities for their age. To the contrary, this timely feeding is less burdensome than, say, having to either feed oneself in a condition such as MS or Parkinsons or cerebral palsy or have someone with much patience take this responsibility. Now, if any toddler, being fed in this way due to disabilities, would be controlled and kept in a dark room with no stimulation and later this behavior was discovered (as we read of rather often these days), they would be immediately removed from such persons and such persons would be prosecuted for neglect and abuse.
Now, everyone was aware of the "husband's" repeated thuggery with others ... stalking to create physical harm ... losing control with anger against other family members, etc. Very sad, then, that a bishop and priests should align themselves with one of such a known history as well as siding with the powerful euthanasia movement - very influential in Florida - with those judges and attorneys who actively promote what is manifestly against Church teachings. Remember, no one from the diocese offered the family any kind of emotional support, but to the contrary, priests were forbidden to get involved. So, this additional sin should come as no real surprise for such direct opposition to Church teachings.
Since the bishop got rather annoyed when he was bombarded before re: his rejection of his expected episcopal responsibilities, I say, hopefully he will be "annoyed" again about this.
Posted by: chris K | Jan 24, 2006 2:04:32 PM
I think Patrick Rothwell has a good point. I also think the Canon law provision does not require that murder be committed--only that the person "bring about the death" of the spouse. No Court in this Country would order the removal of the feeding tube without some plaintiff (Michael Schiavo) asking for it. To put the blame on the Court alone, as some have done to excuse Michael's actions here.
Posted by: Gene H | Jan 24, 2006 2:07:25 PM
Both Bride and Groom should have worn black, to reflect the nature of their hearts.
My only placation is in believing that Terri is in Heaven now. Perhaps even at this moment she is praying for the two of them, I must do the same, though I am less inclined to feel charitably disposed to doing so.
God Bless.
Posted by: ukok | Jan 24, 2006 2:14:38 PM
Well, if it were a dog and not a woman, the dog would have been euthanized humanely without the need for starvation. We reserve that kind of suffering for humans in an effort to be "kind".
Posted by: Robin T | Jan 24, 2006 2:27:34 PM
Tony A.-
All that material failed to address the fact that Terri Schiavo was not allowed even ORDINARY care in the provision of food and water by mouth.
If a person can eat, drink and swallow, even with assistance, they are by definition, not dead.
Posted by: Tim J. | Jan 24, 2006 2:38:50 PM
Patrick, simply the fact that Michael Schiavo had an adulterous relationship, fathering two children, while insisting on the perogative of a husband in regard to Terri should have been an impediment.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 4:03:14 PM
Arguments about giving Mr. Schiavo the benefit of the doubt don't apply to marriage. If there is a prudent doubt about whether one if the parties is not free to marry, then the marriage cannot be celebrated.
Posted by: RC | Jan 24, 2006 4:45:35 PM
Here are contacts at the Vatican (from their website @ www.vatican.va)
Vatican Switchboard: +39.06.6982 (fm USA it is 011 39 06 6982, I think)
Internet Office of the Holy See email address: office@net.va
Posted by: Eamon | Jan 24, 2006 4:56:32 PM
there is a strong basis in catholic moral philosophy for asserting that withdrawal of food and water from a person in a persistent vegetative state is not euthanasia, as these means are considered extraordinary or disproportionate. You people all seem to forget this little detail.
You seem to forget the little detail that you have told these lies before, Tony A.
He was on the topic on Catholic and Enjoying It, too. He went so far as to assert that this has been the rule for centuries -- when PVS has not been a diagnosis for that long.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 24, 2006 5:35:51 PM
For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support--should that ever become necessary. Would my spouse's follow through be murder? Should my spouse be accused of murder for doing as I asked?
If, by "life support" you meant artificial breathing and maintaining your heart beat, or feeding that caused actual damage, no.
If you mean you don't want to be feed and live out a normal lifespan, yes.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 24, 2006 5:37:41 PM
Food and water via artifical means are definately extraordinary means for most of the Third World, thus, for most of the world.
Time was that all surgery was extraordinary means -- before anesthetic. Nevertheless, many operations are not extraordinary now.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 24, 2006 5:40:55 PM
Furthermore, if my memory serves, he expressed this intention before he met his putative wife.
He moved in with her shortly after he received the malpractice money, about the time when he "remembered" what Terri said. Obviously, he had met her earlier.
Posted by: Mary | Jan 24, 2006 5:43:15 PM
He went so far as to assert that this has been the rule for centuries -- when PVS has not been a diagnosis for that long.
And feeding tubes have only been around for decades, not centuries.
Posted by: Publius | Jan 24, 2006 5:58:53 PM
You seem to forget the little detail that you have told these lies before, Tony A.
This is not arguing, this is shutting down discussion because you are uncomfortable with another person's input, which, by the way, is very valid. I can submit names of those in this field who say these very things. The discussion is not closed, even by the papal alloucution. This needs to be followed for sure, but the discussion is not finished. That would be in the area of dogma and doctrine. And no one here seems to be deny the truths of things like the Holy Trinity,
Posted by: Andrew, O.P. | Jan 24, 2006 6:01:05 PM
A court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Florida found that TERRI wanted that feeding tube removed.
You may - and many of you obviously do - disagree with that conclusion. You think Terri didn't want it removed. I'd ask you what evidence you have for that view. At any rate, the court found what it found, and that's what we have for determining facts which are in dispute. Anyone with a better idea is welcome to offer it.
You may then say that it was immoral for TERRI to want the feeding tube removed, that that desire was in effect suicide. That conclusion is clear neither under Church nor under civil law.
Legally, Michael did not bring about his wife's death. She did.
Posted by: Susan | Jan 24, 2006 6:07:44 PM
Italics off.
Posted by: Publius | Jan 24, 2006 6:26:59 PM
The Terri Wars utterly depleted and infuriated me last spring and I have no intention of rehashing and rebutting points everyone went over and over to the point of exhaustion during Lent 2005.
The point of this post is not whether Michael S. had the right to have his wife's feeding tube removed (according to the laws of the US, he did; the laws of God - well that's another matter) but whether he had the right to be married in a Catholic Church.
"Look, if you're Catholic, you are bound to accept the Church's teaching on this matter, and the Church has, in recent years, made that teaching clear. It explicitly did so in the Terri Schiavo case."
Bingo. That is the issue. (Certainly not the war, although the usual suspects go into predictable automatic Bush Derangement Syndrome mouth-frothing at the drop of a hat.)
One of the last things Pope JP II did was to issue a statement condemning the withholding of water and food from Terri and asking that her life be spared. Michael S. utterly ignored the Pope.
He.Ignored.The.Pope.
Not the advice of some obscure parish priest or nun. The Pope.
He basically gave the finger to the Supreme Pontiff (not to mention the wishes of her family, who were perfectly willing to care for her) and put the country through hell because Michael just could not be happy until his Terri was 6 feet under. To hell with what anybody else thought or felt or said.
And now he returns to the Church he spit at less than a year ago - for the sacrament of marriage, and his parish priest is happy to perform the ceremony. And there are Catholics defending this?
Pah. I think I'm going to puke.
Posted by: Donna | Jan 24, 2006 6:44:27 PM
Are there really Catholics out there defending this slimeball after he denied his dying spouse access to the Eucharist?
Posted by: ken | Jan 24, 2006 7:00:36 PM
"A court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Florida found that TERRI wanted that feeding tube removed."
A court of COMPETENT (dripping with sarcasim) jurisdiction also allowed someone to sue McDonalds because their coffee was hot (isn't coffee supposed to be hot?), allowed a prisoner to sue the because the peanut butter was not crunchy enough, and allowed someone to sue Applebee's (I think it was) for embarasing him by singing "Happy Birthday" to him at the request of the man's friends. There are so many cases like this across the US that I don't know how we can assume that a court is COMPETENT just because they have attained such a position.
BTW if Terri had been an animal been denyed nutrition and hydration, Michael would have spent 18 months in prision. Isn't it sad that animals have more rights than people.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 7:07:57 PM
Susan,
I'm sure that people had similar discussions about Jesus shortly after Pilate ordered his execution. It is possible for the courts to do evil, as they demonstrably have produced evil (and not just in this country). I would disagree with your few facts wholeheartedly. The court was not competent. The judge had a history of pro-euthanasia cases. The case came down to a matter of Michael's word versus the parents. Michael had a clear conflict of interest. He did not make an objectively concentrated effort at Terri's rehabilitation after her accident. The diagnosis of PVS is not well understood and therefore not well applied. I ask you: what evidence do you have for thinking that Terri wanted to die? Do you think that a court in a different area would have ruled differently? Michael's lawyer sure did (as evidenced by the amount of effort expended by his lawyer to keep the case at this particular court).
Even if Terri wanted to die, Michael had all the legal marbles. There was *no* written testimony by Terri. Michael petitioned the courts in order to kill his wife. No other reason for that particular lawyer. Terri may have wanted to die, but Michael did everything to ensure it. Legally, Michael killed her (and yes, at least Oregon says this isn't a crime, but it doesn't change the nature of the act).
The hospital was ordered to not feed Terri orally (though she was certainly able to function in this manner). Michael ensured that Terri would not be fed through extraordinary (and yes, this is a point of contention in the thread) or ordinary means. Shame on the doctors, shame on the law, shame on Michael, but most of all, shame on that diocese.
Posted by: Bryan | Jan 24, 2006 7:10:11 PM
"Patrick, simply the fact that Michael Schiavo had an adulterous relationship, fathering two children, while insisting on the perogative of a husband in regard to Terri should have been an impediment."
But it isn't one.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell | Jan 24, 2006 7:11:10 PM
"Arguments about giving Mr. Schiavo the benefit of the doubt don't apply to marriage. If there is a prudent doubt about whether one if the parties is not free to marry, then the marriage cannot be celebrated."
This is not the case according to Father Rob Johansen. I think he is basically right, here.
"However, as relevant as those questions are, and as repugnant as Schiavo's mockery of the Sacrament is, I think that even if a priest or bishop were inclined to try to prevent Schiavo's wedding, they'd have a hard time doing so, at least as Canon Law is currently understood and practiced in the US.
You see, Canon 1058 provides that "all can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law". In my Canon Law classes, I was taught that, in the absence of nearly certain knowledge of a canonical impediment (that is, those specifically enumerated in law) this meant that the right of Catholics to marry in the Church is nearly absolute. I and my fellow priests were taught that, in order to prevent a couple from marrying, you pretty much needed a smoking gun to justify it. Why? Because of Canon 18:
Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly.
In other words, unless the couple were related too closely, or one party was in religious vows or Orders, had perpetrated a fraud on the other party, had openly and expressly denied some aspect of the Catholic doctrine of marriage, had been convicted of murdering his/her previous spouse, or demonstrably fit one of the other defined impediments, you had to let them marry. You could urge a couple to delay their marriage, or you could even personally decline to witness it, but you could not refuse it altogether without a very serious reason, which you had better be able to prove."
http://thrownback.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_thrownback_archive.html#113806303843412656
Someone said that Michael met his now-wife after he received malpractice money and that therefore, he met her earlier. That may be so, and it looks bad, but it does not prove that he murdered his wife for the purpose of marrying his girlfriend. He may be a scumbag murderer, but I am not convinced that the marriage is canonically invalid. Whether it should be is another matter.
Posted by: | Jan 24, 2006 7:18:31 PM
So, to all of those anonymous posters who insist that Terry Schaivo wasn't murdered:
A man has a dog. The dog is denied food and water. A neighbor calls the police to report. The man gets arrested and stands trial for animal abuse and neglect.
Funny how we get up in arms about a dog being mistreated, but we are supposed to do the "Christian thing" and turn the other cheek about the deliberate murder of a fellow human being.
Canon Law allows for the ethical removal of life support measures. A person who has indeed suffered brain death can safely have a respirator removed. HOWEVER a person who has a brain injury does not equal a person who has suffered brain death. AND the delivery of food and water to a disabled patient is not a comfort measure. It is a NECESSARY MEASURE. By denying Terry such a basic human necessity as nourishment and hydration, her husband commited murder.
He would have been charged for killing a dog in such a manner. Plain and simple fact.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Posted by: Staci | Jan 24, 2006 7:38:10 PM
Patrick, other than your say so, "But it isn't one" please explain your response.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Jan 24, 2006 8:02:06 PM
Andrew O.P.: Stating a fact about Tony A. is hardly "shutting down the discussion". "Please try to control your leaps of illogic." (Spock to McCoy)
Posted by: bill912 | Jan 24, 2006 8:26:52 PM
Was George Felos,America's Creepiest Lawyer (yeah, plenty of stiff competition for that title, I know) Michael's best man? Would have been appropriate.
Posted by: Donna | Jan 24, 2006 10:00:31 PM
anon: " I am a quality of life advocate... For the record, I have a living will stating that I wish to be removed from life support--should that ever become necessary."
Ah, death! Nature's miracle cure and hope of the medical insurance companies! There's no disease that death cannot fix and no condition too pervasive that it can't change (except of course more death).
Anon, if you are so considerate to spare the world the "burden" of your drooling, brain dead presence, why not spare us the burden of your present state of brain dead frothing?
For your blessed consistency sake, I think you should follow suit with the other culture of death believers and plead the right to perpetual silence.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Jan 24, 2006 10:48:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
