Having Your Cake And Eating It

I think it's been pretty clear to most of my readers that I don't think much of Michael Schiavo. I find his story about Terri's "wish" to not be kept alive incredible, I find his efforts to portray himself as the caring husband unbelievable, and his attempt to portray Bob & Mary Schindler as the villains of the conflict contemptible. Furthermore, if, as I suspect, it was his actions which put Terri in her current state, his behavior would have been despicable.

These sentiments, as they have found their way into my writing about Terri, have prompted some to accuse me of "hating" Michael or of being uncharitable towards him. This, of course, is false. I don't hate Michael: I think he is pursuing an evil course of action against an innocent third person, and as such, it is my duty, and that of every other decent person, to try to stop him. If he relented from his relentless pursuit of Terri's death I'd be perfectly content to let him go about his life and never utter another word about him.

But I am not, in charity, obliged to pretend his actions and stated intentions are somehow less evil than they are, or to make believe that whatever good Michael might do in other spheres of his life somehow makes up for or negates the evil he is inflicting on Terri. That is, it would be silly for me to say, "Michael is nice to the child he had by his girlfriend, so he must be a decent guy, and he must have a point in wanting Terri dead." It is not charity to ignore or make light of evil actions or designs, especially when they involve the life of an innocent person.

Which brings me to my point. After reading today's article "The Guardian", by Wesley J. Smith, I realize now what it is about Michael's actions and statements that I find so reprehensible: It is that Michael is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

The Schindlers have not made their allegations of abuse (which are founded on medical evidence), or disputed Michael's claim to be acting upon Terri's wishes out of some desire to hurt him. They have not challenged his self-touted image as the caring husband because they have some ill-will toward him. They're doing so, and I have taken up their cause, because his claims and image are false.

It was Michael who went to the court and, in effect, said, "my wife told me she didn't want to live like this, so please let me kill her." It was Michael who claimed that he was acting out of his love towards Terri. It was Michael who went on Larry King Live and tried to convince us that he was the caring and long-suffering husband.

And, as the Schindlers told me last week, they find his claims to be false and his pose as the loving husband to be unbelievable. I was convinced of that by what the Schindlers told me, what I read in court documents and medical testimony, and by Michael's own performance on Larry King.

The Schindlers told me that the first court-appointed guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, found Michael to be incredible. Now, as Smith's article makes clear, Pearse's report and recommendations substantially support Bob & Mary Schindlers' statements to me:

Bob & Mary told me that Michael withheld treatment from Terri for an infection. The treatment consisted of a routine course of antibiotics. Mr. Pearse found that "Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. "

Furthermore, the Schindlers, in their account of the initial dispute that caused their estrangement, said that it became clear to them at that point that Michael didn't intend to follow through on his promises to seek rehabilitation for Terri. Mr. Pearse saw it the same way. Smith wrote:

Pearse confirmed the charge by the Schindlers that once the medical malpractice money was in the bank, Schiavo began to refuse medical treatment for Terri, writing:

After February 1993, Mr. Schiavo's attitude concerning treatment for the ward apparently changed.

And there were signs that that attitude had changed even earlier, as Mr. Pearse reported that Michael "admitted to the guardian ad litem that he had at least "two romantic involvements" after Terri's collapse. " Pearse concluded:

"It is apparent to me," Pearse wrote the court, "that he has reached a point that he has no hope of the ward's recovery and wants to get on with his own life." Smith adds: To say the least. At the time of Pearse's investigation, Schiavo was already living with the woman who would become the mother of his children.

Michael has proclaimed repeatedly his love for Terri. But men who love their wives stick by them, even when they are sick, disabled, or debilitated. Men who love their wives seek to have them treated if they are sick or disabled. They don't deny treatment in spite of doctor's urgings. And if love isn't sufficient or it is crushed under the weight of grief or despair, then duty and honor would urge any decent man to stay the course. As Mary Schindler once said to me, "if Michael loves her so much he could start by keeping his vows to her."

Michael is trying to have it both ways: he is seeks to exercise the prerogatives of a husband, when in fact he has not lived up to the responsibilities of a husband. He seeks the moral standing that a husband would have vis-a-vis his wife, but he has constructively not lived as Terri's husband since before he began his efforts to bring about her death.

When Michael took his vows to Terri, he committed himself to bear the burdens of marriage as well as enjoy its benefits. If he won't fulfill the one, he has no moral basis on which to enjoy the other. He can't have it both ways.

Mr. Pearse, as I wrote in my interview with the Schindlers last week, found that Michael's claim that Terri wouldn't want to live in her condition wasn't credible, saying:

his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

The portrait of Michael that emerges from the Pearse report could hardly be at greater variance from his own representations. Upon scrutiny, his claims crumble into dust. He wants to be trusted as a loving husband, but we see a man who threw aside his marriage vows a long time ago. He wants us to believe that he has her best interests at heart, but he refused her routine treatment for illnesses having nothing to do with her primary disability. He wants us to believe that he is trying to live up to a promise he made to Terri, but he is revealed to have broken promises that he made repeatedly before he got the money in his hands.

He can't have it both ways.

Terri's Parents To Go On Larry King

Bob & Mary Schindler will be appearing on the Larry King Live program this Friday night. The show airs at 9:00 PM EST.

The Schindlers were able to persuade Larry King to drop his demand that they give him an "Exclusive" interview, that would have prevented them from going on other similar shows.

It will be interesting to see how Larry treats them in comparison to how he handled Michael Schiavo last week.



New Guardian ad litem Appointed

The court has appointed a new guardian ad litem in Terri's case, Mr. Jay Wolfson. The Schindlers had opposed his appointment out of concern that he was carrying "baggage" that indicated he might be prejudiced in this case. Apparently Mr. Wolfson has made statements in opposition to "Terri's Law".

However, the Schindlers say that it is too soon to tell what he is going to do or recommend in her case. He has agreed to visit Terri accompanied by Mr. Schiavo, and another visit accompanied by the Schindlers.

Forensic Pathologist: Terri Was Likely Abused

Some have tried to dismiss the Schindlers' allegations that Terri's brain injury was the result of abuse. They have labelled those allegations as "11th hour", when in fact the Schindlers have been trying to get someone to pay attention to them for years. Judge Greer, oddly, ruled them "irrelevant". Others have rejected them as baseless.

But in fact, as forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden makes clear, the allegation of abuse is squarely founded on medical evidence:

"[The] bone scan describes her as having a head injury. That's why she's there. That's why she's getting a bone scan," Baden explained, "and a head injury can cause, lead to the 'vegetative state' that Ms. Schiavo is [allegedly] in now."

The doctor who completed her bone scan, Dr. W. Campbell Walker, reported "This patient has a history of trauma".

Dr. Baden also stated that Terri's injuries should have been investigated long ago:

The trauma could be from an auto accident, the trauma could be from a fall, or the trauma could be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It's something that should have been investigated in 1991.

Not only weren't they investigated then, but they still haven't been investigated now, 12 years later.

To paraphrase Judge Greer, it would be "interesting" to know what happened to her...

All Souls Day: Do Animals Go To Heaven?

Yesterday afternoon I went to visit my parish elementary school. As Sunday is All Souls Day, and since it only falls on a Sunday every seven years or so, I decided to make that the subject of my talks with the fourth and fifth graders.

So, after talking a little about All Souls Day itself, I talked to them about Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, and how we might end up in one of those places. All this talk of the Last Things led inevitably to the question in every child's mind: "Do Dogs and Cats (and, in one case, birds) go to heaven?" Fortunately I was not asked about hamsters, goldfish, lizards or turtles.

After a moment's consideration, I took a deep breath and plunged in: I said, "Well, I know you've probably heard that they do, and I'm sure you really want them to, but dogs and cats, and other animals, don't go to heaven when they die. Now that doesn't mean they go to hell, either," I added. "When they die, they just die, and they're gone."

The kids were universally skeptical about my assertion. They weren't buying it, not one bit. One girl asked, "Why not?" I explained that animals didn't have souls like people do. "Animals aren't like people," I said. "Animals don't think like we do, they don't make choices like we do. They don't," I concluded, "love like we do." One boy immediately objected "my dog loves me, I know he does." I replied, "I'm sure he does, in a way. But your dog doesn't love you like your mother does, does he?" The boy reluctantly conceded my point.

Another girl said, "I think animals will go to heaven, because God made everything alive to give Him honor and glory, and because of that everything that's alive will go to heaven." I had to admit she had made a good point. She'll probably grow up to be a theologian someday. If she were a boy she'd have probably ended up a Jesuit. But then I came up with a good retort: "Well, I don't think everything alive will go to heaven. After all, bacteria are alive, and I'm pretty sure there won't be any bacteria in heaven."

Finally, another girl said, "I know my cat is going to go to heaven because I love her very much." At that, I threw in the towel. How can I possibly argue with a child's love? So I said, "well, if you love your cat that much, maybe, just maybe, she might be able to go to heaven."

ACLJ To Enter Case On Behalf of Terri's Parents

The American Center for Law and Justice, a legal foundation specializing in constitutional law and the protection of human life, announced that they are intervening on behalf of Bob and Mary Schindler, the parents of Terri Schindler Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, has filed suit in a Florida circuit court to have "Terri's Law" overturned as unconstitutional. The Florida legislature passed "Terri's Law", which enabled Governor Bush to intervene to save Terri, last Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union and pro-euthanasia organizations have intervened on behalf of Michael Schiavo and Felos.

"This is a very important case involving the state's ability to act to protect human life," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "We believe the lawsuit is legally flawed and that both the legislature and the Governor are well within their constitutional authority to take actions to save the life of Terri Schindler Schiavo. We are asking the court to permit the parents to intervene on this legal challenge and we're hopeful the court will agree."

With the ACLU and pro-euthanasia groups mobilizing to support Michael and to challenge Terri's Law, it's welcome news that some "big guns" are also coming in on the side of defending her life, and the lives of all the disabled. They'll be fighting an uphill battle, as it's already been made clear that the Florida courts are disposed to take at face value whatever Michael Schiavo and his pro-death doctors say.

I'm Back Home Now

I just wanted to let all of you know that I'm back in Michigan now. I had an incredible experience in Florida with the Schindlers, Msgr. Malanowski, and their supporters.

Everyone was wonderful to me. Msgr. Malanowski was particularly generous to me. He is truly an outstanding priest.

I'll try to put together some sort of summary of my experiences and reactions to what I saw and took part in, but right now I'm still in a whirl.

Also, even though I'm no longer in Florida, I'm still closely in touch with the Schindlers, trying to make sure that they are heard. So I'll keep you updated as to further developments with Terri.

Thanks to everyone who helped me to get there, and for all your support and prayers.

Larry King To Hear Schindlers' Side?

A rumor has been going around the internet to the effect that Larry King Live is going to have Bob and Mary Schindler on the show next Thursday.

While the Schindlers have been in discussion with the Larry King show about an appearance, it's not a done deal yet. The problem is that Larry King wants another Exclusive!, like he had with Michael. If the Schindlers agreed to that, they would not be able to go on other shows, such as O'Reilly or Good Morning America, etc.

The Schindlers want to get their side of the story out there. Bob feels as though he has "been slandered" by Michael and wants to respond. But he and Mary are not willing to muzzle themselves in perpetuity for the privilege of going on Larry King's show.

No doubt, the power of Blogdom is in large part responsible for the fact that Larry King approached the Schindlers in the first place. The pressure of the e-mails and calls, combined with Michael's self-immolating performance, may have gotten someone at CNN to wake up and realize that Larry King's puff-piece method of advocacy journalism just won't cut it when it comes to life and death issues.

Now Revised: Complete With Part Two!

Schindlers Respond to Schiavo's Larry King Love-Fest

[ For those readers who have already read Part I, scroll down to "Part II" ]

Sorry to miss posting an update yesterday. It was kind of a crazy day, with more things to do than I had time to do them, including travelling, which limits my access to the Internet.

I watched the whole Larry King interview with Michael Schiavo Monday night, and I took note of a number of issues he addressed which didn't seem consistent with things that either Terri's family told me, or that I had read.

While Michael was on Larry King, Terri's father Bob Schindler was on Hannity & Colmes, so he didn't see the interview. Terri's mother Mary watched the first few minutes, but she said she turned it off because she couldn't stand to watch Michael lie on TV.

I questioned Bob and Mary about several of the claims that Michael made on the Larry King show, and they had quite a bit to say in response.

CNN trumpeted their interview with Michael Schiavo Monday night as an "Exclusive". I guess that means that Bob & Mary Schindler's response, which I present to you here, is also an "Exclusive!".


Part I

I started off by asking them, "Michael claimed that after he won his settlement, you confronted him in Terri's room at the nursing home, and demanded money. Is that true?" Bob replied categorically that that is not what happened that day. "I never asked him for money, ever," Bob said. Bob admits that he got into an argument with Michael that day, but it was over Michael's promise to use Terri's settlement money for rehabilitation.

Bob and Mary had gone to visit Terri, and found Michael sitting in her room at the nursing home, reading a book. After some small talk, Bob said to Michael, "We can use some of that money now to take Terri to Shands [the Shands Medical Center at the University of Florida in Gainesville] for rehab." Bob explained to me that the doctor who oversaw Terri's treatment in California, a Dr. Youngling [Bob isn't sure of the spelling], recommended that they take her to Shands. Michael alluded to this treatment in his Larry King interview, saying that the attempts to stimulate Terri using implants didn't work. Bob and Mary confirm that those treatments didn't work as hoped, but that the doctor had nonetheless observed some improvement in Terri's condition, and he recommended they take her to Shands for a different course of treatment. Bob had wanted to bring her to Shands right away, but Michael insisted on waiting to do so until after he received a settlement.

Michael received the settlement in January of '93, and this confrontation took place in February. "A month had gone by since he [Michael] had gotten the money, and he hadn't done anything yet," Bob explained, nor had Michael said anything about what he planned to do.

Mary said that Michael appeared to ignore Bob, so Bob repeated his remark. At this point, Mary said, "Michael looked up, threw his book against the wall, then he stood up and kicked the tray table by Terri's bed, and went into the hall." The Schindlers followed him into the hall, and Bob, angry at this point, reminded Michael that he had "promised to use the money for Terri's rehab." Michael then ran down the hall, turned back and yelled at Bob and Mary, "I'm going to call my lawyer, and you'll never see your daughter again." At this point Michael's lawyer was not George Felos. Felos only became involved once Michael sought Terri's death.

Bob repeated to me that he has never asked Michael for any of Terri's settlement money. He said, "I tried to remind him of his promise." A promise, Mary added, that Michael had made under oath. This promise may not be legally binding, but the Schindlers certainly regard it as morally binding.

About a month after this incident, the Schindlers were informed that Michael had cut off their access to Terri's medical information. Terri's doctors and nurses were not to discuss Terri's medical condition with the Schindlers. Bob & Mary are still denied access to medical information about their daughter.

They learned later that shortly after this, Michael gave a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order for Terri. This struck the Schindlers as odd, since Terri was in no danger of death. Also, up to this point Michael had yet to say anything about Terri's supposed wish not be kept alive in her condition.

The nursing home staff was sympathetic to the Schindlers, and frequently gave them information in spite of Michael's medical "gag order." In July of that year, Bob & Mary were told that Terri had a serious urinary tract infection. The nursing home staff also told them that Michael had ordered the nursing home not to treat the infection, which treatment would have consisted of a simple course of antibiotics. The staff were worried, because left untreated, the infection would eventually cause sepsis and Terri's death. Bob and Mary were powerless to do anything, but fortunately the nursing home eventually gave the antibiotics anyway, and Terri recovered.

At this point, Bob & Mary made their first attempt to have Michael removed as guardian. In his deposition for this proceeding, Michael admitted that he had ordered the nursing home to deny Terri treatment for the infection, and that left untreated, the infection would have caused Terri's death. Bob and Mary then explained that when asked in the deposition if he would do something like that again, he said he couldn't "because the law prevented him from acting in that way." When asked why he did it, he responded that he "didn't think Terri would want to live like this." Notice that Michael said he didn't think so. Bob said, "he had the perfect opportunity there to talk about Terri's 'wish' not to be kept alive, and he didn't." In fact, it was another 5 years before they heard anything about Terri's supposed wish not to be kept alive.

The judge denied the Schindler's petition to have Michael removed as guardian. 3 years later (1996), they tried again to have Michael removed as guardian, and were again refused. This in spite of testimony from the administrator of Terri's second nursing home that Michael had given similar orders to them to deny potentially life-saving treatment to Terri. Fortunately, that nursing home also decided to go against Michael's wishes and administered appropriate medications.

I would add that this was not the last of Michael's attempts to cause Terri's death by denying medication for perfectly treatable ailments. When Terri developed pneumonia earlier this year, Michael's attorney George Felos asked the judge if medication could be denied to Terri for the pneumonia. He wanted her to be removed from the hospital, returned to the hospice, and "allowed" to die "naturally". Fortunately, even Judge Greer thought this beyond the pale and ordered her treatment continued.

I also asked Bob and Mary about Michael's claim that Bob had offered him $700,000 to walk away and let them take care of Terri. Bob admitted that after Terri's feeding tube was restored the first time, he did offer Michael money, but that it was more like $500,000. Bob explained, "that was our attorney's idea [at that time their attorney was Jim Eckert]. He thought that since Michael was after Terri's money, let's give him what he wants to make him go away." I asked Bob and Mary how they intended to come up with the money. Bob replied, "we didn't know. Jim [their lawyer] thought we could raise the money somehow, but first we had to get Michael to agree to the idea." I asked him if any pro-life or other "right-wing" group ever offered him money for that purpose. He laughed and said no, nothing like that ever happened.

Furthermore, as to the contention that the Schindlers are being put up to their defense of Terri's life by "right-wing" pro-life groups, Bob & Mary Schindler dismiss it as ridiculous. "The first offers of assistance we got from national pro-life or conservative groups was about two weeks ago", Bob said. Furthermore, the assistance offered was in terms of organization and mobilizing grass-roots support, not financial support. "We actually approached a couple of organizations back in 2000 after the first trial", Bob added, "but they weren't interested in getting involved at that time."

Indeed, the Schindlers have fought for more than a decade with little more than their own resources and some local help. After the first trial in 2000, "Professionals For Excellence", a local organization of conservative professionals, offered some help, and since then have occasionally contributed the expertise of their members in publicity, legal opinions, and other organizational assistance. According to Bob, Pat Anderson, their lead attoney, has worked on Terri's case largely pro bono with some occasional grants from legal foundations.

The Schindlers started the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to get the word out about Terri's plight and to raise money to help defray the considerable expenses they have incurred in their efforts to save her. In the past three years, Bob Schindler estimates that the foundation has raised "about $40,000." "In addition to that," Bob continued, "Msgr. Malanowski [the priest who has been offering spiritual support and guidance to the family for the past few years] raised about another $10,000."

Far from being well-financed pawns of "right-wing" groups and pro-lifers, Bob and Mary have been crying out for years to get someone to listen to them, someone to help them. Finally, within the last few weeks, they've begun to be heard, and there has been an outpouring of support for which they're truly grateful.


Part II

Michael Schiavo went into some detail on Larry King describing the circumstances of the injury which caused Terri to be in her present state. Michael claimed that he woke up in the middle of the night, then heard a loud thud. He went out into the hall, he said, and saw Terri lying in the hallway. She was, he said, unconscious. Michael then stated that he called Terri's brother Bobby, who lived in the same apartment complex as Terri and Michael. He then said that Bobby told him to call 911 and that he would come over. Michael claimed that he was holding Terri in his arms when Bobby arrived. The paramedics arrived a short time later and began to try to revive her. I asked the Schindlers how his account meshed with what they knew happened at the time.

Bob Schindler replied "that isn't what happened at all. What happened was that Michael called us first, and I answered the phone. He told me that Terri had collapsed and was unconscious. I told him to call 911. Then I called Bobby and told him to get over there. I said 'something's going on over there, get over there right now.'" Bob also said that Michael's claim that he was holding Terri in his arms was untrue. "When Bobby arrived at their place," Bob explained, "he found Terri lying face down in the hallway, with her feet over the threshold of the doorway, as though she had been coming out of the bedroom. Her hands were clutched around her throat, and her breathing was gurgling. Michael was sitting on the couch in the living room; he was a total basket case."

Michael also said on "Larry King Live" that Terri was bulimic prior to that night, and that her bulimia was possibly the cause of the potassium imbalance which was discovered when she was in the hospital. Bob & Mary also find this assertion incredible. Bob's reaction was "Poppycock!" Terri, they said, was quite healthy and had a healthy appetite prior to her injury. None of her friends or family ever saw any signs of any eating disorder, and there was no medical evidence of it found in her examinations.

This "potassium imbalance" is frequently touted as the explanation of what caused Terri's collapse. But it is an explanation that explains nothing. Indeed, doctors for the Schindlers testified in court, and reiterated at their news conference last Friday (October 24, 2003) that the potassium imbalance was only detected after she was brought to the hospital. This is after the paramedics had been working on her to revive her. Part of such treatment is the injection of various drugs and electrolytes to try to stimulate the heart. These injections were very likely the cause of the potassium imbalance. The potassium imbalance was an effect of her collapse and subsequent treatment, and not the cause of anything.

Terri's heart stopped for several minutes that night, and that stoppage caused the brain damage that led to her current condition. It is frequently asserted in press accounts that Terri had a "heart attack." This too is false. There was no heart attack, and again, doctors have testified to that effect. A heart attack causes the release of certain enzymes into the bloodstream. These enzymes are readily discovered in tests and are used as the "markers" of a heart attack. No such enzymes were found in Terri's bloodstream, nor any other evidence of a heart attack. Terri's heart was and is quite healthy: there was no heart attack.

So what happened to cause Terri to lose consciousness? No one is sure, because there was never a proper investigation. The Schindlers do not accept Michael's version of what happened to Terri. Also, Bob related, "it's in the medical record that when Terri was brought into the hospital she had bruises around her neck." Doctors for the Schindlers have testified that those bruises were consistent with manual strangulation. Furthermore, skull x-rays and head CT scans done about a year after her injury indicated fractures to the occipital region which have never been explained. These fractures are consistent with trauma to the head.

The theory that Terri was strangled gains plausibility when one considers that friends and siblings of Terri's testified that they were aware that Michael had abused Terri prior to the night of her injury. Bob & Mary were not aware of this themselves before Terri's injury. "I found out afterwards," Bob said, "that they [Terri's friends and brother] had been keeping that from me." But, Bob, explained, Terri's best friend, Jackie Rhoades, testified at the 1996 guardianship hearing that she knew Terri was being abused, that she frequently saw her with bruises on her arms and legs, and that Terri was afraid of Michael. Jackie further stated that Terri intended to divorce Michael, and that she and Terri were making plans to do that. Terri's brother Bobby also testified to his knowledge of Terri's abuse, and corroborated much of Jackie's testimony.

These allegations and the evidence behind them have been brought to court in the Schindlers' suits to have Michael removed as guardian, but have never been properly investigated. Judge Greer dismissed these allegations with a wave of his judicial wand, saying that "it would be interesting to know what happened," but that it was "irrelevant to this case." Judge Greer disregarded Jackie's and Bobby's testimony, saying that it was hearsay. That ruling will prove to be interesting in light of the judge's ruling regarding other secondhand testimony in this case.

On the Larry King Show, Michael also contended that he was not after Terri's settlement money. As evidence of this he said that he had offered three times to give that money to charity. Bob and Mary Schindler confirm that he did make such an offer, but only once. During the first effort to remove Terri's feeding tube, in 1998, the Schindlers received a letter from Michael's lawyer George Felos containing the offer. But that offer, they explained, was contingent on their agreement to remove Terri's feeding tube. "He said he'd give the money away if I agreed to kill my daughter," Bob explained. He added that the letter stipulated that the offer to give the money away was off the table after 10 days.

Why, I asked, did Michael make such an odd proposal? "Well, that's interesting," Bob answered. "See, the court appointed a guardian ad litem to determine Michael's fitness as guardian. His name was Richard Pearse. Pearse said that Michael had a conflict of interest as guardian because he stood to inherit the money in Terri's fund if Terri died. Pearse said that Michael couldn't be impartial in his decisions." "So," Bob continued, "that offer and the letter was Felos' attempt to remove the appearance of conflict."

Mr. Pearse, in his role as guardian ad litem, also found that Michael's testimony regarding Terri's purported wish not to live if she required artificial support was "not credible." So what happened to the perspicacious Mr. Pearse, as a result of his observing Michael's obvious conflict of interest and the flimsiness of his story regarding Terri's wishes? He was removed as guardian ad litem by Judge Greer, at Felos' request.

Michael has repeatedly asserted that he so doggedly pursues Terri's death because he is trying to "honor her wishes", because he loves her. Michael asserts that he heard Terri voice this wish while watching a television show that involved a person in a vegetative state. I asked Bob & Mary about this "wish" of Terri's. "She never said anything like that", Mary answered. "Not to any of us." When was the first time you ever heard about this wish, I asked. "It was in 1998," Bob replied, "during the first trial" [to remove Terri's feeding tube]. "We never heard anything about that before." The reader will recall that Michael had an opportunity to explain that "wish" during the 1993 court proceedings, but for some reason did not.

But, I asked, Michael said that his story has been corroborated. And some defenders of Michael emphasize that the court found his testimony "clear and convincing". What about that? "What the court found so convincing," Bob replied, "was that Michael brought out his brother and sister-in-law, and they corroborated him. And Felos brought them out at the last minute, shortly before the trial. They weren't on the original witness list. Felos blindsided us."

I was, frankly, astonished. I'm no lawyer, but I know enough to find that somewhat irregular. Didn't your lawyer object? I asked. "Oh, yeah, Bob said. "She objected all over the place. They weren't on the witness list, and they were never deposed before the trial, but the judge allowed them in."

You'll recall that Judge Greer disallowed the testimony of Jackie Rhoades and Bobby Schindler regarding Terri's abuse, because it was hearsay. But Michael's testimony, and that of his never-deposed brother and sister-in-law, were allowed in, and found "clear and convincing". It would seem that in Judge Greer's courtroom, some kinds of hearsay are more convincing than others.

Michael has repeatedly avowed his continuing love for Terri. He did so again on "Larry King Live". Bob & Mary find his love of a rather strange variety. "If he loved her so much," Mary said, "he could start by keeping his marriage vows to her," obviously referring to Michael's live-in girlfriend, with whom he has fathered two children. Furthermore, they find his protestations of love unbelievable in light of his almost total neglect of her. "In the beginning he used to visit her a lot," Mary told me. "But after '93, he visited less and less often."

Bob related that while he was still working [he is now retired], he used to visit Terri at the nursing home "once or twice a week" on his way home from work. He and Mary, he added, visited Terri together on the weekends. "We never saw him at the nursing home," Mary said, "and he was never listed on the sign-in sheet."

Nursing home staff complained to the Schindlers that they could never reach Michael. "They needed to talk to him about things concerning her care," Bob said. "But they'd leave messages and he didn't call back." The director of Terri's second nursing home, David Cross, testified in the 1996 guardianship hearing that he "had a difficult time" with Michael. The state, Bob explained to me, requires that nursing home administrators have monthly meetings with family representatives regarding patient care. Mr. Cross testified that Michael never asked for or came to such meetings, and that created problems for the nursing home's compliance with the law. Cross also testified that Michael never made arrangements for state-required annual physicals either, forcing the nursing home to arrange them itself.

Bob and Mary assert that since 2000, Michael has rarely visited Terri. "The only time he visits Terri," Bob said, "is when a hearing is coming up, and then Felos stages a visit so Michael can say in court that he visited her recently."

I wondered if Michael didn't visit Terri because he feels like he has "moved on" with his life. Larry King asked Michael why he didn't just move on, why he didn't just divorce Terri and marry his girlfriend. Michael said that he's "content with the way things are," with his girlfriend. He told Larry he had no plans to marry her.

"Right," Bob said in an ironic tone. "He said under oath at the 2000 trial that as soon as Terri died, he would marry his girlfriend."

Advocates For Terri to Appear on Fox News Tonight!

Tonight Dr. Bill Hammesfahr, a doctor specializing in the treatment of stroke and brain injuries, will appear on the Hannity & Colmes program. Dr. Hammesfahr has testified at various hearings for Terri, stating that he believes that Terri is not in a Persistent Vegetative State. At the press conference last Friday, he explained that Terri is able to move her limbs on command, and that she can swallow. This, of course, flatly contradicts the opinions of the doctors who testified for the husband. Dr. Hammesfahr has come to these conclusions after spending approximately 25 hours with Terri, observing her and administering tests.

Interestingly enough, the doctor who was the chief medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford, saw Terri for about 45 minutes.

This is a show anyone who wants to hear all the facts about Terri should definitely see.

Also, Pat Anderson, the principal attorney for the Schindlers, will be appearing on Greta van Susteren's show, On the Record. She will address the legal issues involved in defending Terri's life.

I know some like to beat up on Fox for being "right wing", but it seems to me, at least here, that they're providing the balance so sorely lacking in places like CNN.

Hannity & Colmes is on at 9:00 PM EST. Greta van Susteren is on at 10:00 EST.

Challenge The Media Machine

As I've mentioned before, Terri's husband Michael Schiavo is going to be on Larry King tonight. The Larry King Show has made no similar invitations to the Schindler family, either to appear opposite Michael or on another segment or night.

Let Larry King know how intellectually and morally dishonest this is!

The page I linked above has contact information for the show. You might also want to call in and ask some of the questions that Larry probably won't.

You can get the real story about Terri at Terri's Fight.

Judge Consistently Rules in Husband's Favor:
But He's Really A Nice Guy

So says an article on the AP wire that was published in many newspapers yesterday. According to the article, the judge (Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer) is a "prudent jurist who probably agonized over his decisions."

Hmm, I wonder? Did he "agonize" over his decision when the Schindlers asked for an investigation of the circumstances surrounding Terri's injury, citing medical evidence that Michael Schiavo (Terri's husband) may have caused it? He dismissed the Schindlers request, saying that "it would be interesting to know what happened, but it's not relevant to this case."

How are the circumstances of Terri's injury "not relevant" to the question of Michael's fitness as guardian?

Was it "prudent" of Judge Greer, for all intents and purposes, to ignore the 13 doctors (several of whom specialize in treating brain-unjured patients) who have testified on behalf of the Schindlers? They testified that Terri is NOT in a persistent vegetative state, and could be at least partially rehabilitated. But Judge Greer ignored them, and backed Michael up in his refusal to allow any attempts at therapy.

The article also states that Judge Greer ruled in favor of Terri's death because "Michael Schiavo showed `clear and convincing` evidence his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially..."

I'm sure it was very "prudent"of the judge to accept that "clear and convincing" evidence: that evidence consisted of little more than Michael's assertions. And it's at least curious that Michael gave no indication of any desire of Terri's not to be kept alive until after the Schindlers began questioning and contesting Michael's decisions as guardian.

So, Judge Greer is "conscientious." He may very well be. But given the summary way in which he has dismissed the substantive objections and evidence raised by the Schindlers, I find it hard to accept that description of Greer. And even if he is, being conscientious doesn't mean he's right.

This is the sort of "puff piece" we can expect to see more and more of as the pro-death movement ramps up to turn public opinion back toward Michael and his lawyers. As I mentioned in my previous post, the effort to polish Michael's image is already under way. This effort will extend to Michael's attorney, and here, to Judge Greer as well. In order to make the effort to end Terri's life acceptable, those seeking it are going to be portrayed as "nice guys" and even noble crusaders.

The pro-death advocates were dealt a unexpected blow by last week's passage of "Terri's Law." They're going to hit back, as hard as they can with whatever they can. George Felos, Michael's attorney, wil file briefs today seeking to overturn Terri's Law as unconstitutional. I'd be willing to bet that he wins this round, as he'll be appearing before one of Judge Greer's colleagues in the same Circuit.

This isn't over by a long shot.

Husband Michael to Do Some Image-Polishing

Watch out! Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, is going to be making the rounds of the national press during the next week. The purpose of this is to portray Michael as and reinforce his image as the victim of unfair attacks, and as being solely motivated by his deep care for Terri and his desire to carry out her wishes to be killed.

The first stop of this train will be his appearance on Monday night's "Larry King Live" show. Larry King is slotted to have Michael on for a full hour, unopposed by anyone from the Schindler family. I think that I can safely predict that this will be a virtual love-fest between Michael and Larry. No similar invitation has been extended to the Schindlers, which seems to me to demonstrate where he is coming from regarding Terri. And, as the Most Intellectually Dishonest Media Personality In America Today [TM], he can be counted on to ask only fawning softball questions of Michael.

Michael has claimed to be in hiding due to death threats against him. This claim is almost certainly part of his effort to acquire a more sympathetic image. For a man in hiding, he is acting mighty peculiar: He has been seen in the last 24 hours at a local shopping mall and restaurant.

You can also expect, now that the ACLU and Euthanasia organizations have pledged to enter the fray on Michael's behalf, that the drumbeat portraying him as a victim and noble-minded humanitarian will only increase. They want to cast Terri's case as a "right to die" issue. To do that they will do everything in their power to portray Michael as the heroic figure, challenging us narrow-minded extermists who want to interfere with his "rights".

Michael's attorney, George Felos, has a well known affinity for the pro-Euthanasia movement. This movement's adherents have a fascination, one might almost say a fetish, with Death. They seek to widen the acceptable boundaries within which society will find death acceptable. To forestall that effort, we must be vigilant against their attempts to coopt the language of rights and compassion.

So What Am I Doing?

I imagine some of you might wonder what I'm actually doing while I'm here. And since so many of you have generously contributed to getting me here, I want you too know what you have helped to accomplish.

Firstly, Msgr. Malanowski is very grateful that I'm here. He had all but exhausted himself in the past two weeks in being with the family and their supporters for 18-20 hours a day. Because I'm here, he's been able to take a break. He took a long nap Friday afternoon, and feels much better for having gotten some decent sleep. He's very grateful to all of you for helping me to get here.

Msgr. Malanowski has told me that one of the greatest disappointments he has had is the lack of support from local clergy or the diocese. I am the only priest, besides monsignor, that has been with the family or at the Hospice keeping vigil with Terri's supporters since the feeding tube was removed. I can't tell you how happy people are to see me when they come here to join the supporters: they're truly grateful to see a priest with them "on the line".

I spend most of the day with the family or supporters. Sometimes leading prayer, sometimes answering questions or clarifying points of Catholic teaching. Sometimes I take part in discussions with the family and their supporters on matters of strategy. I actually feel quite privileged and honored to be so trusted by them so quickly, both in a spiritual and a more prudential sense. I was a stranger to them a week ago. But they have welcomed me and taken me into their confidence in a touching way. That, I have no doubt, is the power of the priesthood at work.

Because a large number of the supporters and vigil-keepers are Evangelicals, there are frequent opportunities for Ecumenism and Apologetics in the best senses of the words. I have had a number of fruitful conversations with Protestants concerning questions about the Catholic faith. I think these are very fruitful because the bona fides of those present is established by their very presence. No one doubts the good faith or will of those here to support Terri, so a lot of baggage is left behind at the outset. I've been told that there have already been a number of conversions or re-versions as a result of these encounters. My own day was made today when I was able to convince several Protestant ladies to join me in praying the Litany of the Sacred Heart. I have a devotion to the Sacred Heart, and love the litany. I explained what it was to the ladies, and invited them to join in. At first they were skeptical, but after a little while they were joining in the responses with evident good will. Now that's ecumenism!

I would very much like to see Terri, but the list of authorized visitors is limited to family, some long-time friends, and Msgr. Malanowski. And all of them are only allowed to see Terri with one of the husband's designated "minders" present. So Bob and Mary have told me that it will be all-but impossible for me to get in to see Terri. But I can pray for her, and lead her supporters in prayer, and give comfort, advice, and support to Terri's family. I know I'm being of real help, and that's enough.

Florida Report: The Persistently Vegetative Press

As I mentioned in my last post, On Friday afternoon the Schindlers held a press conference. All of the local TV news operations showed up, and most of the local radio and print outlets were represented. Unfortunately, none of the national news organizations (CNN, Fox, or the Big Three networks) covered it. The experience of seeing the news conference and then watching the news coverage was an object lesson in media bias at work.

Now, before I cast about with opprobrium, I will say that some of the media reports have been very fair and accurate. The Schindlers aren't looking for fawningly sympathetic coverage, but they would like what they say to be accurately presented and not ignored. I was most impressed by the local "Bay News 9" coverage. They included in their report a substantial quote from one of the doctors at the press conference, who said that in his medical judgment Terri was NOT in a persistent vegetative state. The CBS affiliate also did a decent job. The worst coverage was by the local NBC affiliate, Channel 8. They showed footage of one of Terri's doctors explaining her brain scans, but with the anchor's voice-over comments, not the doctor's words themselves. The anchor concluded with the observation that the doctor's treatments were not recognized by some association of disability physicians. They failed to mention that the effectiveness of his treatments was recognized by the Florida Board of Medicine. The intent of the Channel 8 piece was clearly to "report" on the news conference while conveying the message that it wasn't to be taken seriously.

I was also impressed by a young reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, who was working on a story about the faith of the Schindlers. He spent almost two days with us at the hospice and elsewhere, and interviewed Bob and Mary and the other Schindlers for several hours. His article will be published in Sunday's paper, and I'm looking forward to reading it, as he was obviously intent on doing a good job on the story.

Unfortunately, some reporters just won't do that kind of work. I met a woman here who does Traffic & Weather for a local radio station. She has become quite friendly with the Schindlers, and is very supportive of Terri's cause. She got fed up one day with the news anchor for her station when he reported Terri as being brain-dead. She spoke to him afterwards and explained that Terri isn't brain-dead, she is disabled with a brain injury. He was unconvinced, so she gave him all sorts of information: court testimony from doctors, sworn statements from people who have seen Terri respond purposefully to those around her, etc. Well, several days later, he reported another story about Terri, and again described her as brain-dead. This time she really let him have it, and she demanded "didn't you READ any of the material I gave you?" He replied by saying, "oh, come on, we don't need to read all that stuff, it's all in the papers anyway." She then asked him, "are you a reporter, or do you just plagiarize what the newspapers say?" All too often, that's how your news gets made.

The reporter from the NBC affiliate repeatedly asked most of the people who spoke at the news conference "why are you doing this? Why are you saying all of these things here and now? He said this in a tone of real bafflement. He couldn't understand why the people at the press conference would want to tell the world how their knowledge and experience of Terri gives the lie to the established party line that Terri is a vegetable. The best response to that question came from Bob Schindler himself. He said, "we've been saying these things for years and we've been ignored. We've been ignored by you and ignored by the courts. I've stood here again and again and said that Terri isn't in a vegetative state, only to see you report that she is. You guys have been killing us. You guys have been killing Terri."

Some of the reporters did a double-take when Bob said "you guys have been killing Terri." But during the course of the news conference, I saw comprehension dawning on some of their faces. And most of them were very attentive during the doctors' talks, and asked questions which indicated they had been paying attention. So perhaps, just perhaps, some of them might realize that simply parroting the lines given by Terri's husband and his attorney isn't sufficient, and has done real harm up till now.

The truth will save Terri. Let's pray and work to get the Truth out!

Florida Report: Is Terri a Person?

I arrived in St. Petersburg Wednesday afternoon with no problems. After picking up the rental car and checking in to my hotel, I got on the phone to Pete Vere and Msgr. Malanowski. Msgr. came out and over dinner, he brought me up to date on what was happening.

I have to say, Msgr. Malanowski is very impressive. He is zealous, energetic, and courageous. His courage was demonstrated on Tuesday night: He went in to visit Terri and give her Viaticum. When the husband-mandated "minder" (family members and Msgr. Malanowski aren't allowed to see Terri without one of Michael's representatives present) realized what he was about to do, she cried foul and told Msgr. he couldn't do that. He asked the police what would happen if he did it anyway. They replied that they would arrest him. His response was "so lock me up", or something to that effect. But then they added that they would physically prevent him from giving Terri communion. It was only the certitude that he would fail that dissuaded him, not the prospect of being arrested. Bob Schindler (Terri's father) told me that he saw a side of Msgr. that night that he'd never seen before, and told me how he felt "unworthy" of the friendship and support of such a good and holy priest. I know priests half his age (he's 81) who don't work half as hard as he does. My primary reason for being here is to help him out: to allow him to take a breather. On Wednesday, he hadn't slept 4 hours in the last two days. Well, for the past couple of nights he's been able to go home at a decent hour, and is finally getting some sleep. As you can see by the time code on this post, I'm the one burning the midnight oil now. But that's not a big deal for me, as I'm a night-owl by disposition.

Today was a very busy day: The Schindlers learned about the ACLU's announcement that they would come in the side of Terri's husband, to defend his right to kill her. Of course, that't not the way they phrase it. They use noble-sounding phrases like "right to die", or "death with dignity". Of course, Terri wasn't dying when they pulled the feeding tube, and I don't see what dignity there is in dying of starvation and dehydration, in a way we don't even use on our most heinous criminals. The Schindlers also hosted a news conference to respond to husband Michael's announcement Thursday that he would never give up his effort to see Terri dead. The Schindlers had three doctors, two nurses, and numerous family there to testify to what Terri's real condition is. I'll go into greater detail about that in a future post, probably later today. But in a nutshell, their testimony was:

(a) Terri is responsive to those around her, in distinctive ways (she responds to different people differently).
(b) All three doctors testified definitively and convincingly that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State or coma. They all but begged the reporters present to stop reporting her as "brain dead" or PVS.
(c) Terri would almost certainly benefit from rehabilitative therapy, which therapy husband Michael has steadfastly denied for 10 years.

A lot has been happening in the last couple of days. I could write pages to try to cover it all. I'll go into more detail about specific issues in future posts, but for now I want to try to convey the understanding which, I think, lies at the heart of the Schindler's efforts to save Terri.

One of the things that struck me very quickly is how level-headed, reasonable, and calm the Schindlers are. That might seem a strange thing to say, but when I arrived I didn't know what to expect. I only had spoken to Bob on the phone up to that point, and he sounded exhausted. I was half-expecting to meet people rendered emotional wrecks by their week-long ordeal of watching their daughter dying. They've also been portrayed, by the husband and his attorneys, and by unsympathetic media, as everything from religious fanatics to pathetic simpletons.

But they weren't, and aren't. They're very normal, solid people. They've been represented as people in denial of their daughter's sad state, blinded by their emotional attachment to her. But that is simply not the case. They are quite realistic about Terri's condition: she is severely brain damaged, and will almost certainly never come close to substantial recovery. But they see that the person they know and love as Terri is still there. And they cannot understand why the fact that she won't recover amounts to grounds for ending her life.

Much of the argument about Terri and the withdrawal of food and water has focused on the issue of Terri's "recoverability". Those in favor of "letting Terri die" say that she won't recover, her situation is hopeless, so why prolong such a limited and "meaningless" life. Those trying to save Terri frequently argue to the effect that Terri could recover, that you can't definitely say that it is impossible that she could recover, and therefore her life is to be preserved. Now, I think that the latter position is vastly morally superior to the former. But I think the whole issue of Terri's recoverability is a red herring. To argue about that is to argue around the real issue.

People develop all sorts of conditions, varying in severity, from which they will never recover. Some of those conditions severely compromise a person's "quality of life". For example, a man who has advanced Congestive Heart Failure has such compromised cardiac efficiency that he won't be able to walk to the mailbox and back without stopping to catch his breath. This is without doubt a serious impairment of his quality of life. Furthermore, Congestive Heart Failure is a progressive and degenerative disease. It will only get worse, and ultimately it will kill the patient. By the criterion of recoverability, you could justify killing people once they're diagnosed with CHF, because they won't recover.

Another unrecoverable disorder is Down's Syndrome. People with Down's Syndrome won't "get better". The best you can hope for is to teach them enough skills so they can function in society, and many Down's patients will never even reach that point. But we don't (yet) kill the mentally retarded because they won't recover. Most of us still have sufficient vestigial humanity to recognize that killing of the retarded is inhuman and barbaric.

Why is that the case? Well, I believe it is because we recognize the humanity of the Down's sufferer. We recognize that, in spite of the limitations, this is a human person. And, contrary to a commenter on Amy Welborn's blog, personhood is not a "value judgment", which we (whoever "we" are) "choose to attribute to some objects and not others. " This attitude is not only monstrous, it is not even rationally coherent. Firstly, if it is a "value judgement", then who is empowered to define or mediate the values constitutive of it? What person is authorized to decide which values count and which don't? Or will these values be decided by some sort of societal consensus? If so, what percentage of agreement is necessary to grant personhood to a certain "object" or group of objects. If I decide that you aren't a person, on what basis could you refute me? If 60% of the population decides that Mexican illegal immigrants aren't persons, then can we kill them? And before you pooh-pooh such a scenario, let me remind you that in our own country, not too long ago, certain groups of people were commonly held to be "non-persons" by the majority of their neighbors. Furthermore, we only need to look at the slaughter that has occurred in the Balkans to see where a socially constucted idea of personhood leads you. It leads inevitably to the brutish, violent, striving for domination of one over the other. It leads directly to Auschwitz, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the plains of Ukraine in the 20's, and the Apartheid of South Africa.

No, personhood is inherent in the human being. To separate personhood from human identity is as disordered as separating eating from nutrition, or separating sex from... ohhh.... procreation. It is this way because God made human beings that way. And God made Terri Schiavo that way. Those who know and love her see her as a person not because they are deluded, but because they look beyond what she can or cannot do, to see who she is.

We are not very good at focusing on what things are. We tend to see everything in functional terms. We are what we do. We are what our power can perform. And looking at Terri, who can do very little, those who can think only in terms of function see a non-person. She is broken, and can't be fixed. She is useless, and uselessness is The Very Worst Thing. Since she's no use to herself or others, she may as well die.

But that is not how God sees things. Remember that when God created the first man, He called him "very good." He said that before Adam had done anything. Adam's being was a good thing. And just so, Terri's being is a good thing. Not because of what she can do, but because of who she is. One of Terri's cousins asked me the other night, "why is it that some people want Terri dead because she doesn't meet their 'standard' of minimum humanity? We know who she is, and we love her. And she knows we love her, and she can receive that love. Why do they want to deprive us of the ability to give her our love? Why do they want to deprive her of receiving our love?" I didn't have a ready answer to that. After thinking a few moments, I said, "They can't, or won't, see who she is. They only see her limitations, and imagine that is all there is to her."

Only in the case of people do we somehow imagine that the solution to problematic people is their destruction. We find certain unborn children problematic, so we solve the problem by destroying them. We find certain disabled people problematic, so we seek their destruction. The solution to the "problem" of Terri's disability isn't to destroy her, but to see beyond her limitations, to see who she is.

We've Won a Victory, But The Battle Isn't Over

As Mark Shea has reported, Terri's husband and his lawyer aren't about to just give up in their efforts to see Terri Schiavo dead.

I spoke to Mr. Schindler (Terri's dad) last night, and he sounded exhausted. He isn't able to get any information about his daughter except through the husband. Furthermore, Terri is still being denied Viaticum. So she's not out of the woods yet.

I'm leaving for Florida later this morning. I will do my best to keep you all posted on what happens there. But keep praying and keep up the pressure on the judges and politicians. It's especially important that we recognize and thank those in positions of power when they do the right thing. So let Jeb Bush and the Florida legislators who voted for Terri's Law know you appreciate them!

Pray for Terri, and pray for me. Pray especially for Msgr. Malanowski, who has labored so hard on Terri's behalf.

I'm Going to Florida: Here Are the Details

As Mark Shea and others have reported, I am going to Florida to be of assistance to Terri and the Schindler family in whatever way I can.

I am still working out some of the logistical details, but at this point I can say that I have spoken to my bishop, James A. Murray of Kalamazoo, about this matter, and have explained my intentions to him. He has graciously given me leave to go. I have consulted with Msgr. Malanowski, who has been the priest closest to the Schindlers, and he and the Schindler family have asked me to come. I'm also grateful to Mr. T. Edward Carey, Chancellor of my diocese, for assisting me in finding a priest to cover at my parish, and to my brother priest, Fr. Massimiliano Camporese, for agreeing to help out in my parish.

I am going down first thing in the morning on Wednesday. I'm not sure how long I'll stay.

Many of you have emailed me or left comments on my blog offering your financial support for my trip . I am very grateful and humbled by this outpouring of support. I will be very grateful for that assistance, and I promise that any funds given to me over and above what is needed for my expenses will be donated to the Schindlers and/or the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.

Many of you have asked where to send donations. I can receive donations online through PayPal. Just click on the PayPal icon below:

You can use either a credit card or an "instant transfer" from your checking account. It's better to use the instant transfer, because I get charged a fee for credit card transactions. But I'll accept the money any way it comes!

If you wish to send a donation via US Mail, send it to:

Fr. Rob Johansen
St. Joseph Catholic Church
211 Church Street
St. Joseph, Michigan 49085

Thank you for your generosity!

One other thing I would add: If you're feeling in a giving mood, I might suggest that you offer some financial support to Canonist Extraordinaire Pete Vere. Pete has been doing yeoman work in helping the Schindlers and getting the word out about Terri's plight. He's been of invaluable help to me in making my arrangements. His wife is due to have a baby any day, and he's given up his vacation in order to devote the time to Terri's cause. He's done all of this at some financial cost to himself as well. He's too humble to ask for himself, but you might e-mail him yourself and ask him if he'd be willing to accept your help.

Pray for Terri, and pray that I can be of help down there!

We Throw Away Things That Are Broken

Homily for The 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Isaiah 53:10-11
Hebrews 4: 14-16
Mark 10: 35-45

Holding up a large screwdriver in my hand, I ask a child in the congregation: What am I holding in my hand? "A screwdriver", she answers. That's right, a screwdriver. A screwdriver is a very useful thing. You can do all kinds of useful things with a screwdriver. It's a tool, an instrument. Asking another child in the congregation: Now, suppose I was using this screwdriver, and I put so much force on it that I broke it, and I couldn't use it anymore? What do you suppose I'd do with it? "Throw it away, I guess", he answered. Throw it away! That's right, I'd throw it away, and get another one. That's what we do when a tool or instrument breaks: We throw it away. There are few things more useless than a broken screwdriver. A tool is a thing. Tools are things we make for a practical purpose: when they don't fulfill their practical purpose anymore, they're useless, and we get rid of them.

Now, when I was in the seminary, one of the things I learned was a basic principle of morality: You should NEVER treat persons as if they were things. It is always wrong to treat persons like things. There are very good reasons for this: Firstly, we make things, as I said before, for a practical purpose. We make things to suit our own convenience. But persons are not here for our convenience! YOU are not here for my convenience. Pointing at a woman's husband, and addressing her: In a certain sense, HE is not here for your convenience. Human beings are created by God, in His image and likeness, and put here because they are goods unto themselves. We are, by our very existence, goods in and of ourselves. Even if you never did anything that appeared useful in the eyes of the world, you would still be a good unto yourself.

Now, that things are different than persons, and should be treated differently, is really just common sense. After all, we don't treat tools like we treat people. We don't... well, I was going to say that we don't get emotionally attached to our tools, but I know that some of us men might get attached, a little. Addressing a man in the congregation: But even so, we know the difference: Would you trade your child for new circular saw? "No", he answered. No, of course not.

But even beyond common sense, there are even deeper reasons why we must not treat persons like things. You see, God thought that human beings were so important, so valuable, that He gave his Son, gave Him up to death for us. He thought we were so precious that He became one of us: He took our nature upon Himself and united His Divinity to it. Think about that for a moment: Our human nature, in Christ, is united with the Divine nature. That means that human nature is elevated, by Christ, to having infinte dignity and worth. That is why the great christian writer C.S. Lewis said, "Next to the Sacrament of Our Lord, the person sitting next to you is the holiest thing you will ever set your eyes upon."

We heard, in our reading from the Letter to the Hebrews, that Jesus Christ is our great High Priest. Now the essence of the priestly office is to be an intermediary: A priest acts as an intermediary between God and His people. And so Christ is our priest and mediator. But consider this: God Himself, in the Blessed Trinity, is in no need of an intermediary for Himself. The persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are in perfect intimacy and communion with one another. There could not be any mediation between the Persons of the Trinity. This means that Christ's priesthood subsists in his humanity. It is in His humanity that Christ is Priest and Mediator for all of creation. Our human nature, the nature that Christ took upon Himself, is the same nature which bore Christ's priestly office. And we are united with that nature. We are in communion with that nature. And so, in Him, human nature is elevated to the infinte majesty, dignity, and worth of His Priesthood.

Human beings are of inifinte dignity and worth, and so can never be treated as mere things. But unfortunately, we are in danger of losing sight of this truth in our society. In some circles, I would say that we have already lost sight of it. I imagine that many, if not most of you, have heard about the woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, who has had her feeding tube removed by a judge's order and even as I speak, lays dying. Up until this week, when the news media reported on the situation at all, they simply parroted the arguments of those wanting Terri to die, that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." But a number of doctors and other health care professionals have testified that she is in fact NOT in a persistent vegetative state. They have further testified that they believe she could be at least partially rehabilitated. But her husband (that's right, her husband), has refused any efforts at rehabilitative therapy. Some reports have indicated that Terri is terminally ill. That is false as well. If she dies, she will die not of any disease, but of starvation.

Unless someone in authority intervenes, Terri will almost certainly die within a week. She will die because a judge has ordered her to die. Her husband, who has refused any kind of rehabilitation, stands to inherit about $800,000 when she dies. That money was supposed to go to Terri's care and treatment, but he has used it to pay for lawyers in order to seek her death. He also has said that he wants to move on with his life, and marry his live-in girlfriend. Terri is in the way, her life has become inconvenient, and for that she is going to die.

Terri's body is "broken", and so her husband, his lawyers, and the judge, want to throw her away. Terri is is being treated like a thing, to be discarded when it has oulived its usefulness. But persons aren't things. They can't be thrown away, and they certainly cannot be replaced. What is happening to Terri is certainly an injustice. It is a horrific and merciless cruelty. We treat condemned criminals with more mercy and compassion. But even worse, this is a crime against the dignity and worth of the human person. This is an affront to the Lord of Life, who gave our human natures infinite worth by uniting them to Himself.

By our baptism we all share in the priesthood of Christ, so we must be sanctifiers of the world. We must sanctify it by our prayers. We must pray for Terri, her family, and all who are threatened by the failure to respect the dignity of life. We must pray for Terri's husband, for his lawyers, and for the judges in this case, that the grace of Christ may penetrate and soften the hardness of their hearts: That they will see that Terri, although her body is broken and wounded, is nonetheless of infinite worth.

We must sanctify the world by our actions. We must act to see to it that human life is always respected. We must stand up for Terri and all like her. We must stand up by making sure our laws protect the helpless and weak. We must stand up against those who seek to discard the weak because they are weak. We must stand up against those who would deprive the voiceless of justice because they cannot speak for themselves. We must be witnesses to the worth and dignity of the human person which has been granted us in Christ, so that never again in this land will anyone have to suffer as Terri has.

Our Lord tells us in the Gospel that we must be the servants of all. We must especially be the servants of the weak, the helpless, those who cannot speak for themselves. Terri Schiavo is all of those things. We must be people who speak out for her, and those like her, who are in danger because they seem to be useless or a burden. By our baptism we all share in the priesthood of Christ, and so we must be intermediaries: We must mediate Justice. We must mediate Mercy. We must mediate Compassion. We must mediate Truth.

We have in Christ a high priest who sympatizes with our weakness. He will give us strength to act, to fight, to stand up. He will give us courage if we falter. If we seek to witness to Him, to His Truth and Love, he will give us grace and timely help. Let us approach the Throne of Grace, that we may be the ministers and heralds of Christ a world in desperate need of Him.

Support "Terri's Bill" In the Florida Legislature

Many of you have already heard about the bill to save Terri and others like her introduced in the Florida legislature today.

This bill needs YOUR support!

Call and/or write James King in the Florida Legislature and demand that emergency legislation be passed immediately--today--to create a moratorium on starving/dehydration such as Terri is being forced to endure.

Phone: (850) 487-5229 or (850) 487-5030

E-mail: king.james@leg.state.fl.us

Time is running short. Act now!

Update From Florida

Canonist Pete Vere was at the prayer vigil for Terri Schiavo last night, and is providing updates at the Envoy Encore blog.

In spite of the "gut-wrenching" atmosphere there yesterday, there was some good news, namely that the lawyers for the husband and Terri's family have reached an accomodation that at least restores Terri's pastoral visitation "privileges". I would quibble with the word "privilege", as I think it is a fundamental right that no one has the authority to deny. But the fact is that Msgr. Malanowski, who had been regularly visiting Terri, has been allowed to resume his visits. So Terri will at least not die without spiritual comfort and assistance.

Bishop Lynch has made a statement, as his Communications director indicated he would. The statement reads as follows:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF BISHOP ROBERT N. LYNCH
CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF
THE FEEDING TUBE OF TERRI SCHIAVO

With the news that the feeding tube has now been removed from Terri Schiavo, my own prayers and those of thousands of other people go out for Terri and for her family. May the author of all life look kindly on Terri and provide consolation and hope for those who love her.

I continue to believe that such decisions should not be made in the court system but must be made on a case-by-case basis by families and/or other responsible parties at the clear direction of each one of us well in advance of a crisis.

Let us pray that Bishop Lynch will take an even more active stance in opposing the injustice being done to Terri.

And So It's Begun...

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, in accord with the order of Judge George Greer, was removed at 2:00 this afternoon. Unless nutrition and hydration are restored, Terri will die within 10 days to 2 weeks. And she will die not of any disease, but because a judge has ordered her to die. She will die in spite of ample evidence that her condition is treatable and improvable.

Note that the story I link above persists in describing Terri's condition as a "Persistent Vegetative State", in spite of the fact that dispute over that description, and the substantial evidence against it, are the very essence of the controversy over her case. The Press and Media have been scandalously, shockingly lazy and/or prejudiced in their coverage of this matter.

Terri's parents released a videotape of Terri yesterday that clearly indicates that Terri is in nothing like a PVS. I wonder if that tape will make the major networks' evening news shows?

I called the Diocese of St. Petersburg this afternoon, and I spoke to a woman in the Communications department. I told her that I wanted to express my dismay at the injustice being perpetrated on Terri, and urge Bishop Lynch to take definitive, bold action in assisting the Schindlers in their efforts to save Terri. I said that the bishop needed to be the one leading the protest against this outrage. She indicated that she would relay my remarks to the bishop. She also told me that the Bishop was "very concerned" about the situation as well. She then went on to say that Bishop Lynch had met with Governor Bush today to discuss Terri's plight, and that he would be making another public statement later today. I also spoke to the Bishop's secretary, and repeated my statement. I also asked her whether or not Bishop Lynch had met with the Schindlers and spoken to them personally. She told me that she "wasn't at liberty" to discuss such matters, which didn't surprise me as most "pastoral" conversations are considered confidential. I also told her that I was especially outraged that the husband was denying pastoral care to Terri. She took my name and information and said that she would ask the Chancellor of the diocese to contact me.

It's my hope that Bishop Lynch will take a strong stand in this matter, and take charge in protesting the inhuman treatment of Terri. We must pray for Terri; for the husband, that his heart's hardness will be softened; and for Bishop Lynch, that he would have the courage and fortitude to stand up for human dignity.

By the way, I've seen some of your offers (thanks Rod, Cathy, Jim, Mark, et al.) to help pay my way down there to try to intervene, especially in the area of pastoral care. I'm certainly open to doing so. I'll have more to say on that matter as things develop.

Terri Schiavo Is Scheduled to Begin Dying Tomorrow

And, if her husband and the courts have their way, she'll do so without the benefit of pastoral care.

That's right. Her husband, the man who is eager to collect Terri's settlement fund and move on with marrying his live-in girlfriend, thinks that Msgr. Thaddeus Malanowski isn't "the kind of person" he wants visiting Terri. He's worried about Msgr. Malanowski's "integrity".

It would seem as though there is a singular lack of humanity in the Florida judicial bench. I have never heard of a patient being denied pastoral care before. I can't even imagine the kind of hardness of heart required to take such a position. Never have I witnessed such a concatenation of unjust judges: First there is Judge George "Persistently Vegetative" Greer, who seems almost as eager for Terri to die as her husband. Then there is U.S. District Judge Richard A. "I Wash My Hands" Lazzara, who refused to intervene to even delay Terri's death. And now Judge George "Without Benefit of Clergy" Greer has decided that Terri is so sub-human that she is to be denied even spiritual comfort and consolation.

The monstrosity of the injustice here is underscored by this refusal to allow Msgr. Malanowski's priestly ministrations. Even condemned criminals are given access to clergy. Think of that! Terri Schiavo, who is guilty of no crime, is being denied something we commonly provide to the most heinous of criminals. I cannot think of reprobation severe enough for Judge Greer and his cronies.

Judge Greer has repeatedly demonstrated his bias and unwillingness to entertain new evidence in the Schivo case. He has demonstrated wilfull intellectual dishonesty in continuing to describe Terri as in a "Persistent Vegetative State", when the principal evidence for that is simply the assertions of the husband and his lawyer. And Judge Greer's deprivation of pastoral care can only be described as a despicable abuse of judicial power. Judge Greer is manifestly unfit for judicial office. He is morally unfit for any position fo public trust.

What does it take to remove a judge in Florida? Floridians, remember this come election time! Make the removal of Judge Greer a campaign issue!

As a priest, I cannot imagine being in Msgr. Malanowski's position. I simply could not stand for such interference with my ministry. I would be inclined to seek every means possible to disobey the order and visit Terri. An unjust law is no law at all. Similarly, a capricious, inhuman, unjust and gratuitous judge's order is no order at all.

There is a long standing tradition in the Church of defying Caesar when he trespasses beyond his rightful authority. There is a well-established tradition of resisting Caesar when he attempts to deprive the Church of her legitimate prerogatives. And so, I reiterate the suggestion I made a couple of weeks ago: It is time to consider civil disobedience.

Perhaps it is time for persistent efforts at public pressure. Perhaps organizing sit-ins or human chains in Judge Greer's courtroom?...Maybe public outrage will get through the judge's leathern conscience and atrophied sense of justice.

And finally, if all else fails, do you think that the Schindlers might find, maybe, 500 to 1,000 people to surround the nursing home with a human chain, and prevent the authorities from dispatching Terri? Maybe to fill Terri's room with people on a 24-hour watch, so as to deny access to those who would end Terri's life?

The Florida Bishops have spoken out to slow down the rush to kill Terri. While I could wish their statement was written more forcefully, it nontheless is a good beginning. But the time for beginnings is past. The time for action is here. Several bishops and priests have made headlines by being arrested at abortion clinics. Are there any in Florida willing to risk arrest by picketing or otherwise interfering with the efforts to kill Terri?

Maybe, if nothing else, a determined effort to get a priest in to visit Terri? She deserves at least the same consideration we would give a condemned criminal.

Face-to-Face Confession?

Several people, both in my previous blog, and over on Amy's blog, have speculated that the availability of the Sacrament of Penance only in the face-to-face form is one reason for the decline in the use of the sacrament. I'm not sure about that, but what I am sure of is that the penitent should always have the option of going anonymously.

I've never encountered a confessional or "reconciliation chapel" which only permitted face-to-face confession, but gathering from your comments, such things must exist out there. If they do, they shouldn't. I quote from the relevant Canon:

Canon 964, s.1: The proper place for hearing sacramental confessions is a church or oratory.

s.2: As far as the confessional is concerned, norms are to be issued by the Bishop's Conference, with the proviso however that [emphasis added] confessionals, fitted with a fixed grille between the penitent and the confessor, always be available in an open place, so that the faithful who so wish may freely use them.

The canon makes clear, and I was, accordingly, taught in the seminary, that the penitent should always have the option of going to confession anonymously. Even at penance services and the like, when rooms not constructed as confessionals are put to use as such, I always arrange the priest's and penitent's chairs in such a way that the penitent can confess anonymously. It's simply the right of every Catholic to be able to do so at his/her discretion, not at the discretion of the priest.

Going to Confession

Amy Welborn blogged the other day about a very good Washinton Post article about the sacrament of Penance. Some of the comments there are especially enlightening.

A priest, Rev. William Byrne, chaplain at the University of Maryland's College Park campus, is having great success in popularizing the sacrament among college students:

"We have pretty solid lines, probably 30 kids on Sundays before Mass," he said. "The thing that makes me mad is hearing 40- to 60-year-old Catholics talk about 'Catholic guilt' " in the context of confession, said Byrne, who is 39. "I say that's baloney. We're the only ones who have sacramentalized the system of offering absolution and forgiveness for sin. Our emphasis is forgiveness."

I too have heard similar remarks about "Catholic guilt". Usually it comes from lapsed Catholics. I think in many cases that the phrase "Catholic guilt" isn't so much expressing feelings of guilt they're carrying around from the days when they were practicing Catholics, as much as the guilt they're carrying around today, as lapsed Catholics, for all the sins they haven't confessed, and their conscience nagging at them for drifting away from the Faith.

I note the fact that Fr. Byrne and I are the same age, and have a similar reaction to suggestions of "Catholic guilt". Perhaps it's a generational thing. I have no doubt that some people have had bad experiences, in which a priest berated them in the confessional. I hope such people can get past that experience to know the healing touch of Christ. We (that's you and me) have a duty to reach out to those people and reinvite them to the Sacrament of Christ's healing.

I consider the Sacrament of Penance one of the greatest gifts ever given to me. I can say with absolute confidence that I would not be a priest today without the many graces I have gained from it. In fact, I can point to one particular confession as an event which prompted me to start thinking about the priesthood.

I was in college, and had gone through what I call a "bad" period. I was beginning to take my faith more seriously: I had started again going to Mass regularly, and got involved in things like a bible study at the college parish. But I knew things weren't really "right" between God and me. I avoided thinking about it for a while (I hadn't gone to confession since 7th grade), but gradually the conviction grew that I had to go to confession. Luckily the college parish offered confessions every afternoon. So I went, and after a nervous beginning I just poured it all out. The priest's counsel was outstanding. He managed in a few minutes to help me to see the self-destructiveness of sin, and how Christ was inviting me to really and truly live again in Him. In that experience I really learned what mercy meant, and how much of that mercy was given to me. That priest later became my spiritual director, and was of great help to me in discerning my vocation.

I too firmly believe that confession needs to be offered frequently. It seems to me that for a parish to offer confessions "by appointment" only is to implicitly begrudge people the sacrament. The only time I ever say no to hearing someone's confession is if it's less than 10 minutes before I have to celebrate Mass: I need that time to prepare for Mass. But even then I urge the person to see me right after Mass. I say this not to take credit for myself. I think that is simply my duty as a priest.

There has been, in recent years, much talk of a loss of the "sense of sin" among Catholics. I don't know which Catholics are meant by that, but I can assure you that in my experience that attitude certainly isn't to be found in young people. I find them to be very aware of their sinfulness and need for forgiveness. I remember once, shortly after I was ordained, I went to Notre Dame to visit a friend who was on the faculty there. It was a fine evening and we were enjoying a walk around campus before we went to dinner, when we walked by the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. I noticed that confessions were scheduled to be offered in a few minutes, and decided on the spur of the moment to go. I took my place near the confessional, where there were about 8-9 college students waiting. The appointed time for confessions came and went, and no priest showed up. After waiting till ten minutes after the hour, and observing the students getting visibly restless, I resolved to step into the breach. I was dressed in "civvies", so I announced, "I 'm a visiting priest, and if the priest who's scheduled doesn't show up in the next 5 minutes, I'll hear your confessions." Well, he didn't show, so I stepped into the confessional. It was one of the most uplifting experiences I had had up to that time. Those students so clearly desired Christ's mercy, so obviously wanted holiness, and the means by which to become holy, that it "blew me away". Don't mistake me: they were in many senses typical college students, with the sins you might expect from them. But they knew their sinfulness, and wanted better. They were so open to what advice I could give them, it was humbling to me. I saw the power of the sacrament at work in them.

I went to confession frequently as a seminarian, and still do now. I usually go to confession about once a week. I tell people, if they ask me, that I go frequently because "If I skip confession for more than a week, I notice the difference. If I go for more than two weeks, my parishioners will notice the difference. If I go for more than three weeks without confession, everyone will notice the difference.

While in the seminary I learned a lot about the sacrament of confession, and in my final year there my classmates and I even "practiced" hearing confessions. But nothing could really prepare me for what a grace and blessing it is to hear confessions and be the minister of the sacrament as a priest. I have seen people come in to the confessional weighed down and oppressed by sin, and leave with tears of joy streaming down their faces. I have heard women confess the sin of abortion, and offered them the tender touch of Christ's forgiveness, and the possibility of knowing love and life once again. I have heard men confess terrible sins that were long hidden, which had shrunk and vitiated their lives, and seen them emerge whole and more nearly men again. And I have heard the confessions of men and women whose love for God, selflessness, and zeal for Christ have been so strking that, in hearing them, I thought "this person is a Saint, I have no doubt of it." Those people have left me humbled and grateful when they walked out.

Next to celebrating Mass, and holding Our Eucharistic Lord in my unworthy hands, the greatest privilege and grace I have is to be able to hear confessions and, acting in the person of Christ, be his instrument of mercy and forgiveness.

Here's an Eye-Opener!

Jesus words about "amputating" sin from our lives, discussed in my homily, seem pretty dramatic as is.

But Greg Popcak over at HMS Weblog gives us a little deeper explanation about just what Jesus says we might need to amputate. It will be an uncomfortable read for my male readers...

We Tend to Think of Hell As a Sort of "Cosmic Booby Prize"

Homily for the 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time

James 5:1-6
Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48


Bishop Murray once told the story of how, while he was still Rector of the Cathedral in Lansing, he had made all of his funeral arrangements: he bought a cemetery plot, made arrangements with the funeral home, and bought a gravestone. Well, then he was made bishop of Kalamazoo, and that made all of his plans useless, since bishops are buried at the Cathedral. So he had this gravestone he didn't need, and he didn't know what to do with it. He decided to set it up in his backyard: I've seen it; there it sits, with his name inscribed on it, and his date of birth. All it needs is to have that final date put on it. Bishop Murray told us how sobering, and edifying, having his tombstone there can be. How meditating on death can put things in the right perspective: it's a reminder that we're not going to be here forever; that sooner or later, we're going to shuffle off this mortal coil.

That might sound morbid to you. We don't like to think about death, we don't like to talk about death. We invest a lot of energy into trying to pretend death doesn't happen, into sanitizing it. But death is real, it's inevitable. The unavoidable fact is this: one day, me, you , everyone we know, indeed, even this very building, one day will pass out of existence. Our life as we know it will end.

And, if that weren't uncomfortable enough, I've got some even more difficult news for you: The fact is, that left to our own devices, you, me, and everyone you've ever known, is going to Hell. If we had to escape hell on our own steam, not one of us would make it. That's how dire our predicament is. "None is righteous, no, not one," St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans, and also "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Now, it's even less popular to talk about Hell than it is to talk about death. It's not Politically Correct to talk about hell. We certainly can't talk as though anyone might actually end up there! We're not supposed to talk as though the things we might do, or not do, could actually put us in danger of going there. But danger there is: St. Paul tells us in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the Kingdom of God?" And he warns us: " Do not be deceived." Unfortunately, we are all too good at deceiving ourselves. We might take the attitude, as someone once said to me: "I'm a pretty nice person. I try to be nice to people. I haven't done anything too bad. God will understand." Well, Our Lord didn't say, "Be nice to people." He said, "Be Holy, as I am Holy. Do not be deceived.

The problem is, we tend to think of Hell as sort of a cosmic booby-prize: something we get only if we're really spectacularly evil, like a Hitler or Stalin. But we can get ourselves to hell just as easily by negligence, laziness, and self-satisfaction as we can by being a mass murderer. And the fact is, Satan would much rather do it the slow, gradual, way: lull us to sleep; make us smug and stupid. A priest I know recently had a parishioner complain to him about one of his homilies: she said that she felt bad afterwards, and he shouldn't make people feel bad. In fact, she even went so far as to say "if you're not going to feel good after Mass, then why bother coming?" I'm not going to tell you what my friend said, but I'll tell you how I'd reply. I'd say that perhaps, if you are in need of conviction of sin , perhaps, if you are need of repentance, perhaps, if you are in need of making reparation for you sins, then perhaps you NEED to "not feel good" for a while. This woman's need to always "feel good", it seems to me, puts her in grave danger. Awareness of our own sins doesn't feel good. Repentance doesn't feel good. Penance doesn't feel good. But all of these things are indispensable if we are to heed Christ's call to be holy. Do not be deceived!

And Our Lord's words to us in our gospel today don't have much of "feel good" about them. For He tells us that we must be willing to amputate sin from our lives. If your hand causes you to sin, CUT IT OFF. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! The point is clear: we cannot compromise with sin. We must get rid of it, destroy it. To compromise with sin is to compromise with death. Better to enter into the Kingdom of God maimed, than to go to hell with your limbs intact. Better to enter eternal life as someone your coworkers thought "weird" than go to hell as someone who "went along". Better to enter eternal life as someone people called a "nerd" or "lame" than to go to hell with the "cool" people.

Our Lord is quite clear that there really is a hell, and that we could really be in danger of it. And there are all kinds of ways to make yourself a candidate for hell: In 1st Timothy, and in 1st Corinthians, St. Paul tells us that murderers, sodomites, kidnapers, perjurers, adulterers, and thieves cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. But before you breathe a sigh of relief and say "well, I never kidnapped anyone," wait, there's more: St. Paul also tells us that fornicators, drunkards and the greedy are in danger, as well as liars and slanderers. Have you ever spread gossip? Have you passed on a juicy story about someone?

And just in case some of us still feel left out of the list, Saint James tell those of us who are rich, to "weep and wail over your impending miseries." And before you think "well, I'm not rich," I ask you, Have you stored up your treasure on earth? Have you put more faith in your 401k than in God? Have you lived to serve not your neighbor, but your portfolio? Have you failed to pay the worker a just wage? Have you rationalized paying only the minimum wage (or even less) because that's "where the labor market is at?" If you have lived in comfort and pleasure, without taking thought for the homeless, the orphan, and the stranger, then you too are in mortal danger.

Do not be deceived! There is nowhere for any of us to turn to justify ourselves. There are none of us who can say "I am innocent." Not one of us can say "I have not murdered the righteous one". And there is only one way to escape the corruption that will overtake us just as surely as that which will consume our earthly possessions.

That escape is Christ. That escape is to place our faith and trust in Him. Our escape from sin and death and hell is His death and resurrection. Our way out is to desire Christ and nothing more. Our way out is to long for Christ and be satisfied with nothing less. If we take Him at His word, and desire to be holy, as He is, then He will be true to His word, and make us holy: and even more: He shall make us glorious, immortal, wondrous to behold. As dire as our situation is without Christ, with Him we have what the Church calls the sure and certain hope of eternal life. Sure and Certain. Sure and Certain Hope that, as grievous as our sins may be, as shameful as our failing may be, all can be overcome by His power, and washed away by His most Precious Blood. As dead as we might be apart from Him, we shall Have life abundant if we but feast upon Him who is the Bread of Life. If you hold fast to Him He will not let you go. If you belong to Christ, then truly I say to you, you will surely not lose your reward.

Sparse Blogging This Week

Sorry for the scarcity this week, but I'm in Plymouth, Michigan for the Priests' Convocation of the Diocese of Kalamazoo. This is a big pow-wow for the priests of my diocese to get together and talk about being priests. It's a great, and unfortunately infrequent, opportunity to see all of the priests of my diocese all together at once. I've been able to talk to some confreres that I ordinarily don't see very much.

I'll try to get something up in the next day or so. I've got all kinds of things I'd like to write about, but little leisure at the moment.