www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Culture of Death

Does the culture of death subsist in the Democrat Party?

Sadly---it seems so, huh?

Lord have mercy on us all!

In Him Who calls us,
+Fr. Gregory

Will the Democrat Party recommend painless and peaceful solutions to all starving people in the world? Will that mean that we would be considered a peaceful and loving nation if we began to withhold funds for all those food agencies? Maybe Michael Schiavo can be our new poster boy along with his clique of congressional supporters?

Beware of those powers that seek control via judicial avenues while ignoring the vote/voice of the people. Abortion on demand, legalized gay marriages, legal starvation, homosexuality protection, condoms in schools, anti-Democracy, "planned parenthood," etc.

And they dare consider the US as not having a heart.

I would love to see the day when these folks meet up with the 40+ million folks who they allowed to be killed in the tsunami bloodbath of the abortion mills/extermination chambers.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray to God for us!

I was surprised - and pleased - to see that 1/3 of the Democrats voting actually voted FOR the Schiavo bill. I was also pleased to hear a Democrat caller on C-Span who stood up for the idea of protecting life. Although I must admit I wondered why she is a Democrat! :rolleyes:

When one of the Democrats debating the bill said, "How many children are going to bed hungry tonight because we're here debating this one life?" I told my husband, "I would be willing to let my children go to bed hungry tonight if it meant that one life would be saved."

He agreed, and also commented that since the Democrats kept complaining about Medicare and starving children and other such issues, they were taking the attitude of, "Well, we can't fix these other problems so why should we fix this one?"

Tammy

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Considering that President Bush, when he was Governor of Texas, signed into law a bill (SB 1260) that permits hospitals to cut off life support based upon (1) a prognosis that the subject patient will never recover and (2) the patient's inability to pay -- regardless of the expressed wishes of the patient or his family -- I'd say the culture of death subsists in both political parties.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I recall reading in several magazines that President Bush has been quoted as saying: "I'm born again!" or words to that effect. My question is: Born again to what? The Holy Father has more than once warned society to cease embacing the "culture of death."

Theophilos,

You bring up a good point. But this now gets into ethical problems. Are you talking about life support or feeding? Removing artificial means of sustainment or withholding food intake?

- - -

From USA Today 2/24/05:

"No one can say with a moral certainty who will recover from an illness," says Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who attended the Rome conference.

There is no demand in Catholic teaching for "therapeutic obstinacy" � endless, burdensome interventions that can do no more than "eke out a few more days of life," Doerflinger says. "

- - -

Of course, sustaining one's life artificially is different than whether they get fed or not. We all need food or we will starve. The culture of death refuses to see the difference between allowing nature to take its course and forcefully withholding food from someone.

Starvation, to some, is a peaceful and painless way to die.

- - -

From FoxNews.com

Vatican Paper Slams Decision
Tuesday, March 22, 2005

"I confirm the moral judgment doesn't change, because it remains an illicit and serious act � even more serious since it appears the decision over who lives and who dies has become a question for a court," Sgreccia said.

- - -

So, here we have it. Your life depending on the question of the courts. Totalitarianism ignores the voice of the people and the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Parties find means to control and decide people's fate by judiciary acts.

What would you think if the courts tomorrow decide that those with Greek names must be starved to death?

Here is an interesting question. I fully agree with the Church's continued attempt to overcome the culture of death. The problem is that most Catholics find themselves agreeing with it only in part, and if they do not like where the Church objects to a certain portion of that culture, they say the Church has no right to indicate it's disagreement with the state. Such treason runs throughout America.

When it was with the war in Iraq, and the war was declared to be without justice by the Church, the conservative response was: the state is the sole authority in determining this, not the Church.

What about the case with Terri? Once again the Church contends that the state and its decision is not the final determining factor if an action is moral or not. The state says it is legal and perfectly right to starve her to death. The state claims the right to determine if this is an extraordinary means or not to keeping her alive, and to follow her so-called decisions given to her "husband." The Church consistently states that the state has overstepped its authority and it is not the final arbitor.

The conservatives who claim to be pro-life when the Church responds in a way which suits their objectives, will proclaim the authority of the Church over and above the state's decision. But once they have already undermined the authority of the Church and says it has no business in telling the state how to deal with its citizens, what do they expect but the state to continue this claim?

Now the Church has been consistent. The Church says it has the authority to determine when a state oversteps its bounds, and perpetuates a culture of death. The hate and propaganda surrounding the Iraq war, and the lack of proper just war ethics in performance of the war (shock and awe) is every bit a failure to regard life as the case with Terri Schiavo, if not moreso because it was a willed mass destruction of hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives, without any attempt to secure their safety or to distinguish civilians from proper military targets.

Perhaps we must consider the fact that the US supports death at all costs, and it is not the moral authority conservatives or liberals, republicans or democrats want to claim for it. When the Church decides injustice is being done, we must decide, in the end, who we will follow, the tyrany of the state, or the Body of Christ.

I have a question raised by Theophilus's post. What are the Catholic criteria of "artificial" and "obstinancy", do costs provide a measure of artificiality and obstinancy?

As a conservative Republican, I do not believe that all Democrats are pro-death and all Republicans are pro-life.

Ray Flynn is a pro life Democrat. Bob Casey Jr. of PA is a pro-life Democrat. There is a pro-life Democrat website. Godspeed to them.

Our nation has been hijacked by a secular leftwing (not liberal, leftwing) judiciary hellbent on decreeing the law from the bench. They must be stopped. Congress has the Constitutional authority to create and disband federal courts. States have the right to create and disband their own courts. The Congress has Consitutional authority to remove certain items/agendas from the jusrisdiction of the Supreme Court.

End the death penalty? Fine. Just today I was reading a quote from Cardinal McCarrick saying that he was going to try to convince Bush to oppose the death penalty. Cardinal McCarrick and others should be far more concerned with ending abortion and safeguarding the rights of Terri Schiavo and others in her condition.

This bunch still doesn't have its priorities straight, and I won't apologize for my statement. Terri Schiavo has been ordered to undergo a death penalty for the crime of being a burden to her husband.

The solution is to elect pro life legislators to Washington and hold their feet to the fire. It CAN be ended.

Meghan Cox Gurdon wrote a tremendous piece today on National Review Online. Check it out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gurdon200503220755.asp

Here's something posted at OC.net from an inquiry to the OCA communications office.

This comment seems to view the moral issue here as highly contingent on the medical and related facts of the case - about which there seems to be too much jonbenet-ramsey-izing. The comment is also interesting in that it seems to consider persistent vegetative state in the same category as terminal illness, while the remarks posted by Joe seem to view them are having an intrinsic difference. Am I reading this correctly?

Can any of the Deacon's or clergy offer some guidance here? Is there an intrinsic difference in Cathoilic theology? Would a living will that includes instructions to withdraw feeding in the case of a persistent vegetative state be considered immoral in the Catholic church?

Here is relevant teaching.

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
ON "LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE:
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS"

Saturday, 20 March 2004

More here.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-02-040-f

How about them Clinton appointed judges?

In the circuit court, Judge Wilson, the dissenter, was appointed by Clinton. Judge Carnes in the majority was appointed by Bush pere. Hull also in the majority was appointed by Clinton.

I find it interesting that the reason for dissenting was to hear the case, not necessarily to let her live.