Text 11007, 107 rader
Skriven 2005-04-03 16:22:18 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
-> EC>On the other hand is the sworn testimony of an ordained Catholic priest
-> EC>with a Master of Divinity degree and years of experience as a hospital
-> EC>chaplin that included dealing with many end-of-life situations.  He
-> EC>specifically laid out some of the qualifications and distinctions I
-> EC>spoke of earlier.  He also went further than Wolfson chose to go, by
-> EC>suggesting that Schiavo fit into those qualifications.  But that goes
-> EC>beyond the point at hand.  The point is that he testified that the
-> EC>opposition is not categorical.

-> I will extend you the courtesy of accepting you argue this in good
-> faith.  In the Catholic Church, the Magisterium does not extend to
-> priests.  It is exercised only by Bishops.  A priest cannot speak for
-> the Church -- and this one clearly shows why that is so.

He was not officially "speaking for the church."  He, you, I, and anyone
else can read words of the Conference and interpret what those words
mean.  I already went through a list of some of the qualifications and
exceptions that are right there.  But the fact that someone named
"Father Gerald Murphy" interprets the clear wording the same way I did
makes me more confident.  

Apart from my opinion, he was accepted as an expert witness by both
sides -- not to make church positions but to explain the preexisting
position. From the transcript:

"    Father Murphy, have you done any research or writing regarding the
opinions of the Catholic church as it concerns end of life care and
treatment issues? The religious and moral implications of that? 

          A Yes. I do quite a bit of writing and publishing. I have
written a series of pamphlets.. I have published articles in clerical
journals. Mostly because of my desire to educate. I find that most
people have no idea what the Catholic church teaches. Even Catholics.
And I think that is gives rise to grave misunderstandings and I have
real fears about that. 

                So I have taken to writing and public speaking about it.
We give talks around the dioceses. I take that very seriously and I do
quite a bit of that. "

He was even specifically asked to explain Directive 58.  And he
discussed the teachings of Cardinal Bernadine specifically on the matter
of food and water.  When he was asked his opinion as to whether
Schiavo's circumstances fell within one or more of those exceptions, and
he gave his opinion.  In that matter I certainly dont think he would say
that he was "speaking for" the church.  But on the general fact that the
prohibition is not "categorical," both the plain wording and his
explanation of the wording are pretty clear.






-> EC>Plus there is health care services Directive 58 from the National
-> EC>Conference of Catholic Bishops: "58. There should be a presumption in
-> EC>favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including
-> EC>patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long
-> EC>as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the
-> EC>patient. ("Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
-> EC>Services," Fourth Edition, 2001)"  Notice the key terms "presumption"
-> EC>(as opposed to a "categorical imperative") and "as long as" (as opposed
-> EC>to "whether or not").

-> And they have interpreted that to mean that a person cannot be killed by
-> depriving them of food and water.

Your interpretation requires ignoring those key terms entirely.  Saying
that the word "sometimes" means "always" or that "maybe" meand
"certainly" is not an interpretation.


-> EC>Plus there is the 1992 resource paper from the NCCB, "Nutrition and
-> EC>Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections."
-> EC>(http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutindex.htm)  It draws
-> EC>various distinctions, such as the issue of whether it will make recovery
-> EC>more likely, the issue of whether the method is "intrusive, painful, or
-> EC>repugnant" (an IV, for example, is far different from a surgically
-> EC>implanted tube that connects directly to the digestive system), and "a
-> EC>careful assessment of the burdens and benefits of nutrition and
-> EC>hydration for the individual patient and his or her family and
-> EC>community."

-> EC>So it is pretty clear that the general principle that food and water may
-> EC>be removed is covered by the guidelines.  No, they do not say
-> EC>categorically that ALL patients must WITHOUT exception be cut off from
-> EC>food and water.  That would be absurd.  But they also do not say NEVER.

-> No.  While YOU can read what you like into that, the clear directives of
-> the Catholic Bishops is that you cannot deprive a person of food and
-> water for the purposes of ending their lives.

I just got through pointing to the clear qualifications that apply to
that absolute-sounding "cannot."


-> It was false when written, as I have shown by posting several official
-> Catholic pronouncements on the issue -- two of them from the '80s before
-> she fell ill.

I'll look for them.  Prior to this past set of messages the only thing I
saw was a press release that referred to one employee of the USCCB.



--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)