At 9:05 a.m. on March 31, 2005, Theresa Marie Schiavo – aged 41 years – died at The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. Terri, as the media called her, died of dehydration when food and water were denied her by court order. Her death marked the culmination of a sustained effort by her husband, Michael, to remove his wife’s feeding tube.

    In the course of protracted court battles, Terri’s feeding tube had been removed twice before by order of Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Court Judge George Greer – from April 24 to 26, 2001, and from October 15 to 21, 2003. The long and determined efforts of her husband, Michael, to secure her death, and the opposing efforts of her parents to keep her alive, made headlines in the press throughout the world for weeks.

The controversy generated by this conflict reached from the highest echelons of government to the common man on the street. Many people had strong opinions on the rightness or wrongness of the way in which Terri died, and they expressed those opinions forcefully. New Order Catholics looked to their clergy for guidance and for leadership. Interestingly enough, the court did, also.

Fr. Murphy Testifies

    Michael Schiavo first petitioned the court to order the removal of his wife’s feeding tube (called a PEG, for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) in May of 1998. When the trial of this petition finally began on January 24, 2000, Mr. Schiavo’s attorney, named George Felos, called upon a priest of the diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, to testify as an expert witness concerning the modern Catholic Church’s teaching about end of life care and treatment issues in general, and about the application of those teachings to the case of Theresa Marie Schiavo in particular. The priest’s name was Fr. Gerard Murphy. Fr. Murphy stated under oath that he was at that time both diocesan chaplain and statewide chaplain for the Catholic Medical Association, formerly certified as a national chaplain, and he claimed extensive training and experience in pastoral care.

What is remarkable is that Fr. Murphy was one of the first persons that attorney George Felos, and the court itself, turned to for information and guidance. They wanted to know the Catholic Church’s assessment of Michael Schiavo’s petition to remove his wife’s PEG and thus end her life. Excerpts from the clergyman’s testimony in the official court transcripts are enlightening. Quoting below from the court transcript, “Q” introduces a question from Attorney George Felos, while “A” denotes the answer of Fr. Murphy:

Q What factors does the Catholic Church take into consideration in determining whether a treatment is an ordinary action as opposed to extraordinary or proportionate as opposed to disproportionate?

A It’s not the procedure. It’s the perception of the patient. Is the procedure, is it too emotionally draining? Is it too psychologically repugnant? Is it too expensive? Does it offer no hope of treatment – of recovery or little or no hope? Based upon all those factors, then you make your moral decision based upon those issues.

Q In some of the literature I’ve read, I come across the terms burdensome and useless. That is a Catholic is not required to have a medical treatment if it is burdensome or useless. How do those concepts fit in with the ones with what you just mentioned?

A Maybe if I gave an example it might be easier. You look like kind of a healthy guy. Say you caught pneumonia this flu season. You go to your doctor. He would prescribe a course of antibiotics for you. You would be better soon and back on the road. But as a case I actually handled in Bayfront, St. Petersburg, many years ago, a woman in her late seventies was filled with cancer in the bronchial tree. She was dying. She came down with that pneumonia and the daughter insisted that the mother be treated for that pneumonia. I said why are you doing this? What do you hope to accomplish?

Q Does the Church then permit the consideration of whether or not the patient has any hope of recovery in whether the treatment may help the patient recover in considering whether it is ordinary or extraordinary?

A Yes.

Q Let’s take a case that medical treatment, or artificial life support may be medically beneficial. If artificial life support may be medically beneficial, if the patient deemed it too psychologically or emotionally burdensome for himself or herself, could such a patient refuse artificial life support and still be in compliance with the Church’s teachings?

A Yes. ...

Q I want you to assume, Father Murphy, for the purposes of this question that Theresa Schiavo told her husband that if she were dependent on the care of others she would not want to live like that. And also Theresa Schiavo mentioned to her husband and to her brother and sister-in-law that she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Assuming that information to be correct, father [sic], would the removal of Theresa Schiavo’s feeding tube be consistent or inconsistent with the position of the Catholic Church?

A After all that has transpired, I believe, yes, it would be consistent with the teaching of the Catholic church [sic].

Q How would you define, Father Murphy, a practicing Catholic?

A Off, that’s a tough one.

Q Let me rephrase it. Does the church have any particular definition of what a practicing Catholic is?

A Certainly. We have what we call Easter duty, which means sometime from Lent to Trinity Sunday, in that three or four month window, a Catholic is required to receive holy communion. If necessary, confession. Catholics are mortally [sic] bound to assist at mass. Attend mass every Sunday. Every holy day of obligation. Certainly those are all criteria for a practicing Catholic.

[Note: According to Father Murphy’s own criteria, about 80% of modern church members are not practicing Catholics.] ...

Q Now Father Murphy, if a patient is in a permanent vegetative condition, maintained by artificial life support, and the patient’s intent is not known, can a loved one who has the best interest of the patient at heart authorize removal of artificial life support consistent with church teachings?

A I think in a case like this where so much time and effort has elapsed, I think, yes, it would be consistent. You have to remember, the church will always uphold the ideal. One of the things they will do is hit the brakes, as it were, to make sure nobody is rushing into judgment. Trying to push the patient out of the picture. In view of the length and effort here, I would say yes. What you would hope for is somebody who cared about the best interest of the patient to make the decision for them.

Q And such a decision by that – a decision to remove the feeding tube by such a person would be consistent with the church teachings?

A I believe so from my understanding of the church teachings.

Q Isn’t it true that feeding tubes are routinely removed from unconscious patients in hospitals and nursing homes?

A Definitely hospitals. I’m not certain about every nursing home. Definitely hospitals.

(Taken from proceedings of the Sixth Judicial Circuit State Florida in and for Pinellas County Probate Division, Case No. 90-2908-GD3 1)

Eighteen days after hearing Fr. Murphy’s testimony, on February 11, 2000, Judge Greer ruled that Theresa Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and he ordered it removed. According to doctors, this would cause her death in approximately one to two weeks.

Bishop Lynch Makes a Statement

    Many people blamed Judge Greer for ordering the death of Theresa Marie Schiavo. One man has been charged with offering $50,000 to anyone who would kill the judge. Yet, considering the fact that this judge turned, even from the start, to a modern Catholic clergyman as an expert witness to instruct the court as to the application of the Catholic Church’s teaching with regard to the Theresa Schiavo case, it is small wonder that the judge ruled as he did. In fact, is it not more remarkable that he so often stayed his own order to remove the feeding tube to afford Theresa’s parents the opportunity to appeal his decision? Now, I do not mean to justify Judge Greer’s decision; I am convinced it was a grave miscarriage of justice. But I hold the modernist church and its clergy most responsible for the fate of Terri Schiavo.

The testimony of Fr. Murphy coincides with the conduct of Bishop Robert Lynch of the Diocese of Saint Petersburg. Pro-life groups had sought for years to induce Bishop Lynch to issue a statement in defense of Theresa Schiavo. When he finally did so, on August 12, 2003, they regretted that he had not remained silent. His message was not the clear call to preserve her life which they had expected. Rather, as is often the case with the modernist clergy, Bishop Lynch straddles the issue.

Here is the text of Bishop Robert Lynch’s statement which appeared in the diocesan newspaper:

STATEMENT OF BISHOP ROBERT N. LYNCH CONCERNING THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE

    In this nation, many families face end-of-life issues each day involving loved ones and family members. Most of these decisions are made quietly with the assistance not only of medical doctors and health care professionals but often with the advice of members of the clergy and counselors. Few decisions reach the level of public notice as the case involving Terri Schiavo. Despite the prayers of many, myself included, her family has not been able to come together to make a single, unified, mutually agreed upon decision concerning Terri’s situation. Now the matter is approaching a legal climax with judges making decisions properly reserved for families. How sad.

    Some in Terri’s family believe that her condition calls for the removal of her feeding tube and others do not. Even physicians, who have evaluated Terri’s condition, with varying degrees of access for clinical analysis, disagree on her condition. In Florida, when families cannot agree, trial judges are permitted to act as proxies and make decisions about life-prolonging procedures. In so doing, we ask our judges to make decisions that they might not make for themselves or their loved ones, but ones that clear and convincing evidence shows the individual would make for herself or himself.

    Proper care of our lives requires that we seek necessary medical care from others but we are not required to use every possible remedy in every circumstance. We are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community. In general, we are only required to use ordinary means that do not involve an excessive burden, for others or for our ourselves. What may be too difficult for some may not be for others.

    Our Catholic Church has traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is “too painful, too damaging to the patient’s bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient’s mental life, or too expensive.” [cf. “Life, Death and Treatment of Dying Patients: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Florida, 1989]

    In these most difficult cases, our Church teaching is that there should be a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.

    If Terri’s feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.

This situation is tragic. I strongly recommend that

1. in the presence of so much uncertainty and dispute about her actual physical state, all parties pursue a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition;

2. Terri’s family be allowed to attempt a medical protocol which they feel would improve her condition;

3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know.

Please join me in praying for a peaceful, moral, legal and just resolution of this case.

    At some point in time, we will all face “end of life.” Each person has an uncertain future and we live in a world of constant technological changes and developments. When a person is not competent to make his or her own decisions, it is very appropriate for a family member or guardian to be designated as a proxy to represent the patient’s interests and interpret his or her wishes. Decisions made by those legally entitled to act for the patient must always be respected. For this reason, I wish to use this moment to remind all our Catholic people that it is extremely important for all to have designated a medical proxy to someone who is trusted and to leave a “living will” in which you indicate your wishes. It is also important to note that such proxies and medical directions can never “trump” or override appropriate moral considerations. In this regard, Catholic teaching notes that the proxy may not deliberately cause a patient’s death or refuse ordinary and normal treatment, even if he or she believes a patient would have made such a decision. I encourage everyone to

1. Become informed about the complexities surrounding end of life issues, discuss them with your families and doctors, and formulate your own wishes that could direct treatment;

2. Designate a medical surrogate to act on your behalf in the eventuality that your own competence is impeded at some time in the future.

3. Have in place and on file, with your family, medical surrogate, attorney, or perhaps even your pastor, a “living will.”

My prayer is that these words will help others in the future avoid the situation that surrounds the case of Terri Schiavo.

    When the feeding tube was removed from Terri for the third and final time, on March 18, 2005, Bishop Lynch was absent from his diocese. He was in Asia surveying the damage of the tidal wave. Before he left, he issued strict orders that none of his diocesan clergy was to go to the hospice where Theresa lay dying of dehydration. When Bishop Lynch returned after Terri died, he transferred out of his parish the priest who had conducted her funeral service.

Pastor Rice Urges the Judge to Leave

That George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, called on a priest to offer expert testimony in favor of withdrawing Theresa Schiavo’s feeding tube is the third most ironic aspect of the case. The second most ironic development in this case, however, is this: Judge Greer is/was a Baptist who elected to follow the counsel of the new order catholic clergy. Because of his decision in this case, he was urged to leave Calvary Baptist Church in Clearwater, Florida, by the church’s leader, Pastor William Rice, who found Judge Greer’s decision reprehensible. Here are some of Pastor Rice’s comments to the judge:

    "Like evangelicals across the world, we are horrified at the thought that a handicapped woman could be, in effect, starved to death before a watching world,"

    "I know right from wrong. I know what God thinks about human life. I know there is only one way to describe the prospect of starving a woman to death because she cannot feed herself. It is wrong."

    "Morality and truth must serve as our guide. Terri Schiavo is not on life support. She is not dying. Good evidence exists to suggest that she is responsive. All she receives is food and water, the same as you and me. Are we to conclude that she is less than human because she cannot feed herself? Can a month-old child feed himself? Is an elderly patient stricken with some debilitating disease and unable to feed herself suddenly less human? Do we now use an IQ test to determine if someone possesses the right to live? Isn't that God's choice? Only God can give life, and only He should take it away."

    "Tread carefully if you think this is simply about a dying woman being allowed to die peacefully. Remember when we were told that Roe v. Wade was simply about helping women who had been raped or whose lives were imminently threatened? Today, few abortions fall into that category, but millions of human lives have been sacrificed upon the altar of selfishness. And the slide down the slippery slope continues."

    "This case seems complex, but it is as simple as four words: 'Thou shalt not kill.' If you need a compass for this complex case, you'll find it there."

    There is one development even more ironic than Judge Greer’s “excommunication” by his Baptist pastor. Remarkably, some traditional priests have recently announced their approval of the court decision to kill Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation. They said that it was morally permissible for the court, at Terri’s husband’s instance, to deny her water and food unto death, because the PEG tube through which she had been nourished since her brain injury 15 years before was an extraordinary means of preserving her life. Thus, they said, the Terri Schiavo case was not a question of euthanasia, nor was it a prolife concern, but simply a matter of applying traditional Catholic moral principles. According to them, those Catholic moral principles judged her feeding tube to be an extraordinary means of preserving her life and so it was perfectly right to terminate her life by denying her such access to food and water.

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] appl