The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

More on the Terri Schiavo Case

August 30th, 2006

In a response to my last column I received the following e-mail from Poland:

Your Excellency,

On August 30th, 2006 in your column, in the article entitled: "The Society of St Pius X, "Americanism" and various sede groupies" you stated: "There was an interesting case of this last year with regards to the appalling suffering of Terri Shiavo - the Dolan / Cekada / Sanborn group adopted the "pull the plug on her" approach. Why ? You ask - simply because John Paul II had said in an allocution to medical experts in Rome in 2004 that hydration and nutrition even though supplied by artificial means must be considered ordinary means of supporting life."

Could you provide any source proving that they really stated this? I have nothing in common with the sedes in question, but I think we should be honest even if we speak of our worst enemy, and what you wrote is a very serious accusation.

In fact I wish I had made up that statement, it was something of a cause célèbre in the sede world in the USA last year. Do a Google search with the terms "Cekada on Schiavo" and plenty of articles will pop up for you (None of them written by myself).

For example at this address or this address you can find adequate evidence for the truth of what I stated. Cekada and Sanborn both advocated the pulling of Mrs Schiavo's tubes. Here is an e-mail purporting to be from Fr Cekada hismself:

----Original Message-----
From: Fr. Anthony Cekada <frcekada@...>
To: Fr. Anthony Cekada <frcekada@...>
Sent: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:37:39 -0500
Subject: Schiavo/Ext Means

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 an online message forum at this address we read the following entry:

>From: Juxta Crucem <juxtacrucem@...>
>Reply-To: traditionalcatholicsclub@yahoogroups.com
>To: traditionalcatholicsclub@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Traditional Catholic's Club] introduction - Mike

>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:46:25 -0700 (PDT)

>Thanks, Mike ...

>Unfortunately, "possible", "perhaps", and "if" are simply too inconclusive for me. I was hoping there was something more concrete.

>I just read Fr. Cekada's opinion on the Terri Schiavo case in his Letter to the Editor of the Remnant. He mentions Bishop Dolan having the same opinion. Is that position the consensus among the sedevacantists or does the CMRI hold a different opinion?
>Juxta Crucem!

My original statement was that Sanborn, Dolan and Cekada approved the pulling of the tubes and I think I have adequately demonstrated that such was their opinion over a year ago (as gruesome as it is in my opinion). Indeed their position caused so much uproar in their churches that they eventually soft-pedaled on the issue - the articles they had written are now all yanked from their sede websites (and I can see why).

+TF