False Traditional Clergymen Approve Terri’s Death
This pronouncement sparked an explosion of protests from the pro-lifers. The more conservative new order catholics have seized the
opportunity to heap ridicule upon traditional Catholics, citing these few clerics and their approval of Terri’s death as examples of the
consequences of “rebellion against the hierarchy” and “sedevacantism”. Before throwing stones, however, they should be mindful of their
own glass house; their own American bishops did precious little to save Terri Schiavo’s life. Bishop Lynch had much company.
Traditional Catholics were thunderstruck. They were utterly astonished that anyone professing to be a traditional Catholic priest could
hold such a view. It is true that a few loyalists had fallen into the habit over the years of accepting uncritically whatever these clergymen
said, and they simply acquiesced to their judgment of Terri Schiavo’s death seemingly without a ripple of conscience or concern. But
most traditional Catholics were shocked by these priests’ stamp of approval on what they considered to be Theresa Schiavo’s execution.
What are we to make of this? In order to answer that question, it is necessary to read the principal statements with responses. I offer
these statements reluctantly, partly because the quality of the initial statement is so cavalier, and the tenor of the responses so spiteful as
to be embarrassing, and partly because by replying to them I seem to invite a still more shrill and vitriolic reaction. Nonetheless, the issue
is of great importance and demands a response. Fortunately, others have already responded very capably, and to their words I will not
have much to add but for a few comments toward the end.
The remainder of this editorial will present the following texts:
[1] Rev. Cekada’s original statement, without his footnote references.
[2] Rev. Cekada’s “clarification” without his footnote references.
[3] Dr. James Gebel’s report in response to Rev Cekada’s statements.
[4] Rev. Cekada’s response to Dr. Gebel.
[5] my assessment of this exchange ...
- Jim Urling’s note
- Rev. Cekada’s concession
- Rev. Cekada’s deception by switching question ...
- Rev. Cekada’s deception by misrepresenting Fr. McFadden (1956 or 1958?)
- the N.O. blog’s stone throwing ... vs. sedevacantists
[6] Text of Fr. McFadden and Fr. Kelly on extraordinary/ordinary means to preserve life of dying persons
[7] application to Theresa M. Schiavo
[8] living wills v. durable power of attorney for medical care
[1] Rev. Cekada’s Original Statement: April of 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case and Extraordinary Means
by
Father Anthony Cekada
I HAVE BEEN repeatedly asked for my thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case. Here, for the record, is a brief summary of
my opinion.
Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-
show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.
It was no such thing – and this demonstrates how wary one should be of turning for moral guidance to the advertiser-
shilling blowhards of Fox News and the EIB Network.
Instead as Catholics we must turn to the teaching of theologians and the magisterium.
Here, the key issue is preserving a life by "extraordinary means,” a concept first developed by the 16th-century
Dominican theologian Vittoria as follows:
"If a sick man can take food or nourishment with a certain hope of life, he is required to take food as he would be
required to give it to one who is sick. However, if the depression of spirits is so severe and there is present grave
consternation in the appetitive power so that only with the greatest effort and as though through torture can the sick man
take food, this is to be reckoned as an impossibility and therefore, he is excused, at least from mortal sin."
"It is one thing not to protect life and it is another not to destroy it. One is not held to protect his life as much as he can.
Thus one is not held to use foods which are the best or most expensive even though those foods are the most healthful.
Just as one is not held to live in the most healthful place, neither must one use the most healthful foods. If one uses food
which men commonly use and in quantity which customarily suffices for the preservation of strength, even though one's
life is shortened considerably, one would not sin. One is not held to employ all means to conserve life, but it is sufficient to
employ the means which are intended for this purpose and which are congruous."
Other theologians subsequently refined and developed this teaching, until in 1957, we find Pope Pius XII explaining its
application as follows:
"Normally [when prolonging life] one is held to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons,
places, times and cultures -- that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another. A more
strict obligation would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of a higher, more important
good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends. On the other hand, one is not
forbidden to take more than the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health, as long as he does not fail in some
more serious duty."
These and similar passages in other authors led me to conclude that in the case of Terri Schiavo, the feeding tube, etc.
constituted extraordinary means.
(Consider the “grave burdens” that such means would increasingly impose on society, now that medical science can
keep the dying and unconscious going for years.)
This was also the conclusion of Bishop Donald Sanborn, who teaches moral theology – the branch of theology that
deals with ascertaining whether specific human acts are morally good or morally evil.
Accordingly, as regards applying the principles of Catholic moral theology: (1) One could have continued to employ
these extraordinary means to maintain Terri Schiavo’s life; however (2) one would not have been obliged to do so.
It is false therefore to claim that Terri Schiavo was the victim of “euthanasia” or “murder.”
Further, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo’s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) - and not her parents - had the
sole right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used.
My comments here, like those on the Iraq War, may cause consternation for some good lay people. But when it comes
to contemporary issues, my duty as a priest is to research the Church’s teaching, tell you what it is, and tell you how to
apply it.
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace.
In April of 2005, Rev. Cekada’s article was printed in The Remnant as a letter. The appearance of the letter evidently
provoked a hefty negative reaction. Soon thereafter Rev. Cekada sent to The Remnant a follow-up article. Here is the text
of that article:
Rev. Cekada's Follow-Up Letter to in The Remnant: May of 2005
To the Editor,
My letter on the Terri Schiavo case that appeared in your previous issue
was widely circulated and prompted many comments from traditionalists -
nearly all negative and emotional.
Most objections were rooted in misconceptions about extraordinary means,
or in a disgust with the actions of Terri Schiavo's husband.
I would appreciate the opportunity to expand upon both these points, and
then add a more general observation.
1. EXTRAORDINARY MEANS. The resolution of the moral issue in the case hinges
upon the definition of the term "extraordinary" - not as the term is defined
by medical science, but rather as it is defined by moral theologians.
Pius XII's statement defines extraordinary means as those which "involve
any grave burdens for oneself or another."
The emphasis, then, is not on the specific procedure that is performed, but
rather upon the burden that results from performing it.
Moral theologians categorize as extraordinary those treatments that are physically painful, invasive, repulsive, emotionally
disturbing, dangerous,
rarely successful, expensive, etc.
Nowadays the latter burden - extraordinary expense - is mostly hidden,
because "someone else pays for it" - i.e., you and I and everyone else foot
the bills through health insurance premiums, doctor malpractice premiums and
high taxes.
This is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every
effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously
shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself -
but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.
Had Terri Schiavo not received a $750,000 malpractice settlement - i.e.,
some trial lawyers shook down an insurance company, which in turn calculated
that it would be cheaper to pay them and the Schiavos off, rather than
gamble with the Oprah-watching idiots in the average jury pool - you can bet
that her husband and parents would not have sold off their own houses to
sustain her for all this time.
Instead, you and I - not merely the Schiavos or the Schindlers - got stuck
with the "grave burden" of paying for it.
If something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this.
2. WHO DECIDES? Mrs. Schiavo¹s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to
be) - and not her parents - had the right before God to determine whether
these means should have continued to be used.
A husband does not somehow automatically lose his headship of the household
or his God-given "domestic and paternal authority² if he becomes a moral
reprobate.
An ecclesiastical or civil court may for a grave reason, of course, prevent
him from exercising his authority.
In the Schiavo case, however, the civil courts examined the matter and
repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo's rights.
The alternative to this is what? Allow in-laws automatic headship over the
wife when they believe the husband is a "moral reprobate"? Have thoseparagons of family values - congressmen -
legislate the rules? Assign
headship of the wife to the relative deemed most worthy by the majority of
members of an Internet chat room?
Even a wicked husband retains certain rights before God.
3. EMOTION OR PRINCIPLE? The negative response to both these points was
almost without exception based on emotion.
This I find very disturbing - because the first reaction a Catholic - lay
or clerical - should have when confronted with a complex moral or
theological problem is to find the principle that applies - what, in other
words, is the standard the Church (not my emotions, directed by Michael
Savage) uses to separate virtue from sin, or truth from error, on any
particular issue.
In most cases, the right principle and the correct definition of its terms
can be found in a theology book somewhere, even though it may take some time
and priest with good Latin to find it.
The tendency of so many traditionalists to resolve moral or theological
questions - be it the Schiavo case, the Indult, excommunications, schism,
heresy, the Fatima consecration, the sede vacante dispute, etc. - by
following emotional reactions, rather than by seeking out an objective
principle that the Church has laid down, makes them ripe for deception by
the ignorant and manipulation by the cynical.
The reactions of so many in the Schiavo case make me fear that when it
comes to deceiving the elect, the Antichrist won’t have to work too hard.
___
Dr. James Gebel, Jr., a neurologist conversant with the medical and legal aspects of brain-damage cases, responded to Rev. Cekada’s
statements by conducting an investigation and issuing a report concerning the Terri Schiavo case. In light of the controversy generated by
the pronouncements of Rev. Cekada, I sought and obtained the permission of Dr. Gebel to publicize his report. I then sent the following
message to the moderator of a traditional Catholic internet radio station, Wes Steele at WFTSRADIO.COM, asking him to post the
report by Dr. Gebel at the WFTSRADIO website. From there the report was picked up and disseminated by other sites. Here is the
message I sent to Mr. Steele, followed by the text of Dr. Gebel’s report:
A noted neurologist, Dr. James Gebel, has concluded a study of the medical evidence pertinent to the case of Theresa Marie Schiavo –
or Terri Schiavo, as the world has come to know of her. Terri was the 41-year-old Florida woman who had suffered a brain injury in 1990
and who just recently was put to death by a court order obtained by her adulterer husband. Dr. Gebel has graciously granted permission
allowing his analysis to be posted on the WFTSRADIO website. May God bless Dr. Gebel for providing this information.
And I thank you, Wes, for making this study available to your listeners.
In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,
Fr. Wm. Jenkins
Click here to continue