www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Micheal Shiavo's other woman... God Have Mercy!

Greetings,

I think Satan once again triump over Terri Shiavo.. God Have Mercy upon her and her family , friends and supporters.


She's the other woman in Michael Schiavo's heart
JAMIE THOMPSON
Published March 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They met by chance at a dentist's office.
Neither was searching for love, friends say.
She had been through a divorce.
His wife lived in a nursing home.
The years had left him heartbroken and lonely, friends say.
He bonded with the new woman over dinners and long talks. It was complicated, but they fell in love, friends say.
Still, Michael Schiavo has always made it very clear:
"He has one wife, and her name is Terri," said a family friend, Gloria Centonze. "He does not refer to anyone else as his wife, and never has."
How, then, to explain Jodi?
READ MORE:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/26/news_pf/Tampabay/She_s_the_other_woman.shtml

Interestingly enough, it was HER parents who first encouraged Michael to date and see other women, according to an article in the Miami Herald: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11215317.htm

"During a January 2000 court battle in which Bob and Mary Schindler sought to wrest Terri's guardianship from Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers repeatedly conceded that their daughter's brain damage was extreme.

''We do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state,'' Pam Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court. Later, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, asked Mary Schindler, ''Is Terri in a vegetative condition now?'' to which she replied, ``Yes. That is what they call it.''

Whether or not Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state has become a hotly contested flash point in the raging debate surrounding the severely brain-damaged Florida woman, whose feeding tube was removed last week.

Many of the Schindlers' supporters insist Terri is very much alert. Michael Schiavo has also been cast by detractors as an adulterous, heartless husband who wanted to remove Terri's feeding tube in order to access her trust fund.

But testimony from court files documenting the 12-year struggle over Terri Schiavo's fate tells a far more complex story.

Beyond accepting that their daughter was in a vegetative state, the Schindlers had, years earlier, encouraged Michael to date. When the Schindlers later accused Michael of greed, he offered to donate Terri's entire trust fund to charity.

Up until a bitter falling out in 1993, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were united in efforts to rehabilitate Terri.

They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw.

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

This is the part that always gets glossed over. Michael Schiavo originally sought rehabilitation. After the falling out he changed his mind and wanted death for Terri Schiavo. Why did he change his mind? Why were there no accounts of Terri not wanting to be left on a feeding tube before this time period? There are many unanswered questions.

But none of this changes the primary issue. It is always wrong to murder someone by dehydration and starvation. A feeding tube providing food and drink is not considered to be advanced life support. This is what must be kept at the center of attention in these cases.

According to the doctor who invented the peg tube (the type of feeding tube used on Terri), he never imagined it would be used for patients like her. Personally, I do think that this sort of treatment is an extraordinary measure that one can morally dispense with.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/feeding_tube_doctor_2

Thats interesting... here is another article that is related with the feeding tube.

Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:22 p.m. EST
Nazis Used Starvation to Kill

Confounding all conventional wisdom and human experience, many liberal groups and even some medical experts have argued for Terri Schiavo�s death.

READ MORE:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/26/183127.shtml?j=896903&e=randyfermo@yahoo.com&l=143149_HTML&u=16875026

Dear Friends,

Personally, I don't see how anyone can refer to Michael Schiavo as Terri's "spouse" any longer - on principles of common law alone, he is the spouse of another.

What is really ludicrous about this case is how those clamouring for Terri's death have come out to say that she cannot be "happy" in her state and therefore it is morally justifiable to let her die . . .

How can anyone define for another what "happiness" is, for one thing?

To let someone die slowly by starvation and dehydration - how does that contribute to the happiness of anyone?

How can that be said to be a moral perspective?

And the parents who gave birth to Terri - they have no say in the matter? They can only watch helplessly as their daughter dies?

And the implications for all those elderly and frail seniors who require all sorts of assistance in order to live - has anyone been in a seniors' home lately to see how the people there live, what they look like and how helpless they are?

They all remind me of Terri.

No, just because a court or even a justice system has said this is the course to follow doesn't mean it is the moral course to follow.

It is a shame how the West fought Nazism only to later come around to the Nazi perspectives on what is to be done with the weak, the dependent as in abortion and now the case of Terri Schiavo.

There is something terribly wrong with this whole thing.

I get sick to my stomach thinking about it and I can't imagine what Terri's parents are going through.

When King Charles I was beheaded in 1649, the people feared that God would punish Britain for regicide (ie. the killing of a king).

When Parliament restored the monarchy, it appointed the date of the king's death as a day of fasting to implore God not to punish Britain for its regicide.

Perhaps a similar measure will be in order here?

Alex

FYI

The Administrator has stated in the recent past that he will not tolerate anyone speaking of a possible irregularity in a couple�s marriage. Let's leave that discussion.

Deacon John,

Could you please clarify your statement?

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean to say that we cannot discuss Michael's relationship with another woman and his fathering of two children outside of his marriage with Terri? Or are you saying that no mention should be made of the internal strife that existed between Terri and Michael prior to her "accident"? Or both?

I was confused by your post.

Thank you!

Gordo

Dear Father Deacon John Montalvo,

As this is your ruling on the matter, I submit to it and apologise to you, the Administrator and all posters of this forum for having broken the rules here with respect to this matter.

My primary purpose was not to call into question anyone's marriage, but to indicate, as so many news stories and public commentary already is, that Michael Schiavo is living with someone with whom he has children.

On a legal plane, the question is how does this impact on one's spousal status with the first wife, assuming that one cannot be married to two women at once under the law.

I was not calling into question a spousal relationship, only the issue of WHICH spousal relationship legally exists in this case.

The courts seem to be saying that a spouse has absolute control over the situation.

If I have given offense in this, or have broken the Administrator's rules, I apologise and wish to withdraw my comments, if that is possible.

Alex

Alex, CHRIST IS RISEN---AND IN OUR VERY MIDST! It seems (to my poor understanding) that we are obliged during the course of our lives, to make value judgments from time to time...and that this is not actually to judge the person or the person's heart or conscience as it stands before God. In moral issues, it seems that we should give the benefit of the doubt...while at the same time not refusing to see the obvious and that which is public knowledge? (The obligation here would seem to be: be wise as serpents and innocent as doves?) In this case (Michael Shiavo's)---it seems that we cannot help but see an obvious flaw in the system. If indeed, Mr. Shiavo is living with someone and has fathered children with this woman...then this is public knowledge and we must (while not condemning the sinner) certainly find that this 'situation' is less than the Christian ideal and not something to be imitated or blessed. I think your comments have followed this logic and are consistent with what a believer must do, in my humble and fallen opinion.

In the Risen Lord Jesus,
+Fr. Gregory

Bless, Father Gregory,

If YOU are fallen, then push me over the cliff without a parachute!!

To read your words, Father, at any time is like the gentle breeze of the Spirit over one's heart!

Kissing your right hand and bowing low before you,

Alex

Only up to a point, as the comment is raised in the legal context...
...and this statement is at odds the facts of the case - notably the very fact that the parents were able to contest in court the decision of the spouse. What the law says is that clear and compelling evidence of Terri's wishes is the controlling standard. And this is what the court judged.

Father Gregory,

I felt the same with way with OC. Thanks for being around.... padre... and pray for us always .

Dear djs,

Well, if you read my comments without "reading into them" you would see that I'm posing questions, not affirming anything.

Thank you for sharing your legal insights!

The parents were indeed allowed to contest the issues, but failed. They have failed a number of times.

The court has decided in favour of the "clear wishes of Terri."

So, do you believe that her wishes are "clear?"

How does the U.S. court system view the role of the spouse, even after he or she is living with another? What does you common law affirm in this respect?

Do you believe that the judges are imposing no personal values whatsoever in making their rulings in this case?

In other words, do you believe the law here is deciding in a value-neutral fashion?

Have some lunch first!

Alex

Moe,

Your opinion is at odds with the teaching of Church I refer you to:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutindex.htm

The teaching is clear, even if it requires surgery to insert, a feeding tube cannot be considered extraordinary.

Fr. Deacon Lance