Parents Lose Appeal

...which brings us back to the question of what we want and what is right.

If, for example, I were a priest, I might want to get married and/or have sex but accept it wouldn't be right.

And who are we to judge?
 
I'm not sure there's too much difference between a feeding tube and, say, a ventilator. Both are used, in the worst case scenario, to provide patients with the ability to survive despite their inability to otherwise consume the sustenance they provide (whether that be oxygen or food).

If this had happened before the invention of the feeding tube, she would have died within days, and it would have been seen as God's will. Yet apparantly it's now God's will that artificial technology of varying complexity is to be used to keep a person alive for as long as possible regardless of any extenuating circumstances, such as, for instance, that person's own wishes.

BTW, Wikipedia's entry is a good overview of the case. I hadn't realised the heart attack that caused her brain damage was brought on by bulimia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
 
Who says that it isn't right for priests to marry or have sex? Why is it fine for priests innthe Orthodox churches, high Anglican churches and others to do so and not in the Catholic church? I can't find anything in the ten commandments (anybody's version).

While I take an entirely different point of view to you on the issue of Terri Schiavo, I understand the foundation of your opinion upon it. What I don't understand is the analogy of clergy marrying.
 
Before the Norman Conquest priests were commonly married in England . Clerical celibacy was however a hot topic for the first Norman Archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm .

I should be interested to know the biblical justification for this ?
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Apr 1 2005, 10:18 AM


If this had happened before the invention of the feeding tube, she would have died within days, and it would have been seen as God's will. Yet apparantly it's now God's will that artificial technology of varying complexity is to be used to keep a person alive for as long as possible regardless of any extenuating circumstances, such as, for instance, that person's own wishes.
Click to expand...
Good point, Gareth.
 
The analogy with priests marrying and/or having sex was intended to be over-simplistic.

While it is allowed in other churches, if Catholics believe theirs is the "one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic" church, and the Vatican decrees that it is wrong, then whether we agree with it or not it is wrong, whether or not the Vatican is legally or morally right or wrong.

It's what makes being a Catholic so f*cking difficult!
 
For Catholics (as I'm sure I don't really have to tell you, Brian), the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is His representative. If the office of the Pope holds that it is not allowed, then only by special dispensation in special circumstances, may the situation be reviewed.

I understand that there are married priests in certain parts of the world as there would otherwise be no priests. And I know of a recently ordained priest in Scotland who is already married.

As I said, the analogy was meant to be over-simplistic, but in situations in which the value of life is the issue then the Catholic Church's view will not change.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Apr 1 2005, 10:18 AM
I'm not sure there's too much difference between a feeding tube and, say, a ventilator. Both are used, in the worst case scenario, to provide patients with the ability to survive despite their inability to otherwise consume the sustenance they provide (whether that be oxygen or food).

If this had happened before the invention of the feeding tube, she would have died within days, and it would have been seen as God's will. Yet apparantly it's now God's will that artificial technology of varying complexity is to be used to keep a person alive for as long as possible regardless of any extenuating circumstances, such as, for instance, that person's own wishes.

BTW, Wikipedia's entry is a good overview of the case. I hadn't realised the heart attack that caused her brain damage was brought on by bulimia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Click to expand...
What a stunning lady
 
Whatever the storm raging around her and the issue, she's now at peace.

What HAS sickened me is the immediate jumping on the bandwagon by the appalling Bush, who - oblivious to any irony - intoned about America standing for the 'culture of life'. Ah, presumably as long as it's just Christian life, Mr President? Not to be applied to all those yellowy or browny non-Christians outside the USA, then? Presumably Muslims are the spawn of Satan and are infinitely dispensable. And presumably all those bad, bad boys (mostly browny to blacky-coloured) in your jails, awaiting a good ole fry-up in the chair, are beyond the reach of your 'culture of life'? Yeah, I think I've got the picture, thanks...
 
I think he found he couldn't ride two horses at once, Mo.

The whole thing has been turned into a hideous media and political circus. I realize now that Mrs Schiavo was a Catholic: what is the Catholic stance on the withdrawal of artificial contrivances to prolong life, Mo? I've made a living Will (and I'm clearly not a Catholic!) to preclude the use of any artificial interventions or resuscitations in the event of me ending up in a PVS or similar state, so that's me sorted, but as the Bible was written well before such contrivances were imagined, what's the story on what's considered acceptable to do or not to do? In, for example, the case of this and previous Popes, is there a point at which the good man is allowed to simply drift away in a natural state of dying, or are constant intrusions made to simply keep him going, albeit unconscious or unresponsive, at all costs? (Nothing critical from me going on here, just wondering what the coda is.)
 
Bush toned it right down when polls showed that 70% of US citizens were against the political intervention. Can it be that America is stirring against the religious right-wing nutters? I do so hope that they are.
 
Brian, is there a likelihood of some sort of interreligious savagery between non-liberal (say fundamentalist) Christians and their Muslim counterparts? It seems to me that in a very short space of time, positions in both camps are becoming more radicalized and polarized, the Christians being volubly assisted by Bush at almost any opportunity.

He seems to be constantly squaring up for attacks on any belief not in line with his neo-Con fundamentalist views, to the point that surely anyone not in that camp must be feeling distinctly uneasy in the USA. Maybe 'uneasy' is the wrong word - maybe outraged or inflamed could fit the bill with some groups of society? He appears determined to assume the mantle of Defender of the Faith (his version thereof) over the appointed religious leaders of the huge amounts of Jews and non-fundamentalist Christians, such as the Quakers, let alone non-Christians such as Mormons, Muslims and more minority faiths in the US, such as Hindus and Buddhists. His constant banging of a very basic, simplistic Christian drum daily, in a political public arena, must surely be earning him some serious enemies outside of those tenets? He's entitled to his own belief, but as President, he seems to be going beyond any reasonable call of office to promote it at every public call - the Schiavo case is one instance, but there are many others - Iraq became Saddam the Devil versus George the Devil-slayer, in a mad real-life version of a Gameboy.
 
The Jews in America give a lot of financial support to candidates in all elections. (So do gentiles, but there are some very big Jewish backers.) Included in these backers are some Zionists who have had tremendous influence over US policy on Palestine. But so do the fundamentalist Christians who interpret a part of the Old Testament as saying that all the Arabs should be kicked out of Palestine - if not, they, the Christians in the US bible belt will not be saved at Armageddon, which is just around the corner.

Dubya has been cuddling up to the fundamentalist Christians, who have had a disproportionate say in policy. The shenanigans over Terri Schiavo are a good example. Over a number of years judges at all levels have ruled that she has the right to die and both Dubya and his younger shrub have tried to impose new legislation to overturn the legal decisions.

As I've posted elsewhere, Bush was taken aback by the polls over Terri Schiavo and it really is to be hoped that we may go back to the separation of church and state over there - which is what the constitution says should be the case.
 
Yes, but back to my question! :brows: Isn't he likely to be losing support, with his constant public support for the fundamentalists, from the powerful Jewish lobby, and isn't he in danger of igniting a violent backlash from other religious groups who may feel threatened - ideologically and physically - by his support for a faction which feels it is the only, one, true, way?
 
He may not lose support from the powerful Jewish lobby, for reasons. I don't foresee a violent response from the Quakers. :lol: Seriously, there won't be a violent backlash from any of the other religious groups, because they are not that way inclined and because, as usual, it's not really about religion. The fundamentalists, creationists and god-botherers have been recruited by the extreme right by their pretending to believe in the same extraordinary things.

There is now just a possibility of change.

This makes interesting reading:

A hint of change?
 
Picture of Terri Schiavo before her heart attack.

1283433.jpg
 
It's not loading for me, Brian. I'll try it later - thanks for the reply. No, I didn't think the Quakers would be too keen on an armed response! :lol: Thinking more of the radicalized Muslims in the country, and whether the Judaic bloc would feel he was over-promoting a vision which didn't sit well with their own.
 
Worked a treat, Brian, many thanks for that. A lot of very interesting articles in there, including allusions to a US-UK cover-up on the whereabouts of 170,000 tonnes of contaminated GM wheat, I note, apart from the furore in the US about politics-religion-medicine. Good stuff.
 
Back
Top