The Stem-Cell Bill Hall of Shame

As you all know, on Tuesday the House of Representatives passed a bill that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cells are harvested from human embryos in the first stages of cell division, and destroys them in the process.

The justification for these vampiric efforts to extend and improve our lives at the expense of innocent human beings is the promise of cures for every manner of disease and defect, from Alzheimer's to Diabetes. Of course, none of these supposed benefits is even close to materializing. And, of course, these justifications ignore the fact that embryonic stem-cell research is simply unneccesary. As I have written before, adult stem-cell research is rapidly reaching the status of proven technology that is producing results, without sacrificing unborn human lives.

All of the arguments for permitting ESCR boil down to "let us do evil so that good may come of it." And the temptation to do so is powerful. The good of eliminating all these diseases is so desirable, and the beings whom these experiments would obliterate are literally invisible. But the moral law is quite clear: The end cannot justify the means. It is bad enough that our national conscience has become so vitiated that a majority of our Representatives could fall for the temptation, but it is especially painful that a large number of Catholic congressmen would do so. They ought to know better. In fact, they have no excuse for not knowing better, as our bishops and the Holy See have repeatedly condemned ESCR. Those who voted for this bill have the blood of innocents on their hands.

The complete roll call of the House vote may be found here. But we should take particular note of the Catholic representatives who voted in favor of the measure. These are the Catholic House Democrats who voted for the bill:

Joe Baca (CA) Xavier Becerra (CA) Timothy Bishop (NY) Robert Brady (PA) Mike Capuano (MA) Dennis Cardoza (CA) William Clay (MO) Jim Costa (CA) Joe Crowley (NY) Henry Cuellar (TX) Peter DeFazio (OR) Bill Delahunt (MA) Rosa DeLauro (CT) John Dingell (MI) Mike Doyle (PA) Anna Eshoo (CA) Lane Evans (IL) Charlie Gonzalez (TX) Raul Grijalva (AZ) Luis Gutierrez (IL) Brian Higgins (NY) Maurice Hinchey (NY) Ruben Hinojosa (TX) Paul Kanjorski (PA) Patrick Kennedy (RI) Dennis Kucinich (OH) James Langevin (RI) John Larson (CT) Steven Lynch (MA) Ed Markey (MA)

Carolyn McCarthy (NY) Betty McCollum (MN) James McGovern (MA) Cynthia McKinney (GA) Mike McNulty (NY) Robert Menendez (NJ) Michael Michaud (ME) George Miller (CA) James Moran (VA) John Murtha (PA) Grace Napolitano (CA) Richard Neal (MA) David Obey (WI) Frank Pallone (NJ) Bill Pascrell (NJ) Ed Pastor (AZ) Nancy Pelosi (CA) Charlie Rangel (NY) Silvestre Reyes (TX) Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) Tim Ryan (OH) John Salazar (CO) Linda Sanchez (CA) Loretta Sanchez (CA) Jose Serrano (NY) Hilda Solis (CA) Ellen Tauscher (CA) Mike Thompson (CA) Nydia Velazquez (NY) Peter Visclosky (IN) Diane Watson (CA)

And here are the Catholic House Republicans (remember, they belong to the "pro-life" party) who voted for the bill:

Sherry Boehlert (NY)
Ginny Brown-Waite (FL)
Mike Castle (DE)
Vito Fossella (NY)
Connie Mack (FL)
Jon Porter (NV)
Clay Shaw (FL)

Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware should fall under particularly heavy opprobrium, as he was one of the chief sponsors and cheerleaders of this legislation.

You may want to call or write to some of these representatives, especially if they're from your state. At the very least you should take note of them for future reference. The mid-term elections are just over a year away...

The Dumbest Argument For Expanding
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

With all of the arguments going back and forth among the pundits and politicians regarding the expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the dumbest justification I've heard yet is this:

"If we don't increase funding for stem-cell research, we'll fall behind other countries!"

Of course, this begs the question of whether or not embryonic stem-cell research is good or bad. If something is intrinsically evil, do we really want to be "leaders" in it? If destroying human embryos in order to extract their stem-cells is killing innocent human beings, do we really want to be in the forefront of such wanton slaughter?

Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine it's say, 1939. Dr. Mengele and his colleagues are just gearing up some interesting medical research in Germany. Of course, one distasteful aspect of this research is that it involves live human beings, but hey, progress comes at a price. Those in the forefront of science can't afford to be squeamish. Imagine doctors and scientists in the U.S. start demanding to be allowed similar experiments on our own "undesirables". Their rallying cry: "We have to have our own live-experimentation program, or else we'll fall behind the Germans in science! We want Americans to make the first breakthroughs in live experiments!"

Such an argument would have been condemned practically before it was uttered then. But it is actually given a serious hearing today. Thus far have we have fallen, not just morally, but intellectually as well.

Our Relationship with The Trinity

Homily for Trinity Sunday




Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity: we call to mind and celebrate the mystery of God, who is One God, yet three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Sometimes I've heard priests say that this is their least favorite Sunday to preach, because preaching on the Trinity is so difficult. I know what they mean: certainly the Trinity is not easy to understand or explain. But we must make the effort to understand it, because it is at the heart of who God is. Being a mystery, it is something we cannot completely comprehend. But that does not mean we can't understand it at all - God would not have revealed it to us if it were utterly beyond our understanding.

Now, in the New Testament you will not find the word "Trinity", nor will you find anything like a detailed explanation of the Trinity. but nonetheless, the Trinity is found implicitly throughout the New Testament. Notice, in our second reading, from St. Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians: St. Paul refers to each person of the Trinity in a different way: the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. It's clear that St. Paul understands that somehow, God is One, yet Three.

There is a sense in which it would be accurate to say that God didn’t have to reveal the truth of the Trinity to us. The central tenet of our faith is that Christ, the Son of God, became one of us and was given up as an offering for us, suffering in expiation for our sins, and that he died and rose again so that we too might rise to new life in Him. One doesn’t need to know about the Trinity to understand this. But yet the Trinity is held as one of the most profound and important teachings of our faith. Why is this? Why did God reveal the Trinity to us?

The answer is this: God revealed the Trinity because he loves us. In the Gospel we are told that "God so loved the world that He sent his only Son"... Now one of the surest signs of love is the desire to be known. We want to be known by those we love: that is “built-in” to the very nature of love. Think for a moment of your own relationships with your loved ones: Did you ever try to tell your husband or wife something really important, and they didn’t get it? Have you ever felt, or even said to someone you love "You don't understand me"? You know how frustrating and hurtful that can be. That's because we desire to be known by those we love. Well, we are like that because God is like that: God was not content that we know merely what He did: He wants us to know who He is, and the Trinity is at the heart of who God is.

Now, when we think about the Trinity, we tend to get stuck on how God can be one, and yet be three. And we all know that one is not three: If I have three bananas in one hand (I was going to use apples but I like bananas much better than apples) and one banana in the other, no one is going to think they're the same. The key to understanding the Trinity is that it is not a math problem. (And that's a good thing, at least for me, because math was never my strongest subject.) The key is that we're not saying we have three bananas in one banana. Or that we have One God in three Gods. That's just nonsense, and God doesn't want us to think nonsense about the most important mystery of His existence.

No, we say, and the Church has held from the very earliest time, that God is three Persons having One Nature. And if we can get to the bottom of what these words mean, then we'll be well on our way to understanding the Trinity.

Now the nature of something is what it is — it's "whatness". For example, we can see that this [holding up the book of the Gospels] is a book. And we can see that the sacramentary [pointing to a server holding up the sacramentary] is also a book. These two things are different; they are distinct. But nonetheless we recognize each as being a book. They share a common book-nature, the same book-ness. Or look at one another. Each of us is different. In fact, we're each unique. But because we are unique, that doesn't mean that we are all isolated and incapable of relating to each other. No, in fact we do all relate to one another. That's because while each of us is distinct and even unique, we all share the same human nature. We recognize that human-ness in one another. We are all distinct persons, but we share the same human nature.

We can see then that things can be distinct, but yet share the same nature. Well, it's similar with the Godhead. God is three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Each Person is distinct. But each Person partakes of the same Divine nature. Each Person of the Trinity is equally God: they are equal in Majesty, equal in Glory, equal in Power, and equal in Authority. And through the Son, Jesus, we are in relationship with each of the Persons of the Trinity. We are in relationship with God the Father, who created us and is the source and origin of all things. We are in relationship with the Son, who is God's very thought and Word - God's Word, which is so infinite and profound that is has being as a Person. And we are in relationship to God the Spirit, who is God's own life and love: the life and love of God, which is also so infinite and profound that it has being as a Person.

Now that we know what a nature is, the question is "how do we know a person?" Well, if I were to introduce you to John Smith, I might say, "this is John Smith. He's 36, he's a convert to the faith, he's an accountant, and he's married with 3 kids." After that, you'd feel that you know a few facts about John Smith, but you wouldn't say that you knew him. No, you know someone by spending time with him, by talking to him. We get to know someone by sharing our lives with one another.

It's the same way with God. We are in relationship with the whole God: We are in relationship to the Father, we are in relationship to the Son, and we are in relationship to the Spirit. And we will come to know these three Persons of the Trinity by living our relationship with them. We do that by spending time with God, by inviting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into our lives and hearts. We do that by talking to God: by prayer. But I would encourage you, I would urge you, from now on to make a point from time to time of praying to each of the Persons of the Trinity: to pray to the Father, to pray to the Son, and to pray to the Holy Spirit. It is by giving our life to the Trinity that we will be taken up into the life of the Trinity. And within that life, we will not just know about the Trinity, but we will know the Trinity itself, living in their communion of love.

Protecting Judges From Criticism!!?

Last week, Federal Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were brutally murdered in their home earlier this year, testified in congress for better protection of Federal judges (LRR). Among other things, she asked for the government to pay for installing security systems in judges' homes.

Now, I am all in favor of providing better security for judges. I would have no problem with the government providing judges with home security systems, or even personal bodyguards for that matter. Furthermore, I think that anyone convicted of attacking a judge, or attempting or even plotting an attack, should receive a mandatory life sentence, period. I think that actually killing a judge might be one of the rare instances which might justify the death penalty. Why? Because an attack on a judge is, in essence, an attack on society and civilization itself.

But Judge Lefkow, in her remarks to Congress last week, went beyond denouncing outright attacks on judges, saying:

In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," she said. "It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them.

She then characterized remarks critical of activist judges, by christian conservatives such as Pat Robertson, as "lesser attacks" which are also dangerous.

I thought this aspect of Judge Lefkow's remarks problematic, but I was prepared to let them go. After all, I can't fault her for being sensitive to attacks on judges. But in today's Chicago Tribune, another pundit weighs in, demanding greater protection for judges, and compares those critical of judicial activism to racist extremists and the crazed killer of Judge Lefkow's family:

Recently our judges have been endangered not only by litigants and racist ideologues like Matthew Hale, who was convicted of soliciting Lefkow's murder. They have come under attack by people who ought to know better.

Prominent members of Congress have launched intemperate and personal attacks against individual judges and against the judiciary in general, holding them responsible for rulings with which they disagree--rulings about abortion, the right to die and same-sex marriage, for example. Most recently Christian Coalition founder and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson, on a national talk show, compared judges to terrorists.

So now, criticizing a judge's decisions, or the tendency of some judges to engage in activism from the bench, is the same as plotting a judge's murder. And notice the issues the author lists: abortion, "right-to-die", and same-sex marriage. If you're one of the benighted rubes who think that suctioning a baby out of its mother's womb is wrong, or that starving and dehydrating an innocent woman is inhuman, and that marriage is by its nature something between a man and a woman, then you are a problem. Any minute now, you're going to descend on courthouses in bible-thumping mobs, demanding judges' heads.

As I said before, I'm all in favor of protecting judges, and of severe punishments on those who actually attack them. But this op-ed is a not-very-thinly veiled attempt to use Judge Lefkow's tragedy to advance an ideological agenda. And to protect judges we don't need to turn them into a special mandarin class who are beyond all criticism.

Schindlers In Rome, Meet with Cardinal Martino

The Schindler family is in Rome this week. They were invited to accompany Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, as part of a pilgrimage affiliated with that organization.

Yesterday, they met with Cardinal Renato Martino, the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Cardinal Martino had denounced the removal of Terri's feeding tube in the strongest possible terms, calling it "tantamount to murder", and "a violation of the principles of Christianity and civilization." In their meeting yesterday, Cardinal Martino said that Terri's death was "an insult to human dignity."



The Schindlers With Cardinal Martino

Today, the Schindlers attended the general audience of Pope Benedict XVI, and were able to greet him:



Hat tip to Amy Welborn

Cardinal Martino told the Schindlers yesterday, "We can expect from Benedict a very great and convinced defense of life".

For The Real Traditionalists

A reader directed me to the Society of St. Pius I, which was formed to promote the real Roman tradition, as exemplified by their Patron of happy memory, Saint Pius I.

From their website:

Unlike other wimpy neotraditionalist groups who attach themselves to various other Piuses, we at the SSPI make absolutely ZERO compromises with modernism. We reject not just one, but BOTH “Novus Ordos”—the Novus Ordo of 1970 promulgated by Paul VI, and the Latin Vulgate Mass of 400 A.D. promulgated by Innocent I and Pope Gregory I, which we call the “Vulgar Mass”...

Fact: Latin is NOT the original language of the Church!

It’s a VERNACULAR language that was foisted on the Roman church by Pope Victor I (A.D. 190-202), who was an AFRICAN priest--NOT a Roman!!!

The earliest liturgies at Rome as described by St. Justin Martyr were in GREEK. But once Victor made the change in language, that OPENED THE DOOR a century later to a barrage of changes in the rite of Mass itself, from which the Roman Rite has NEVER recovered.

They are currently looking for Greek-speaking priests "who may have said the liturgy of St. Justin Martyr in their youth."

The Society of St. Pius I - “To be any more Trad, you’d have to be Jewish!"

Corporate Welfare?

When it comes to economic matters, I'm pretty conservative. I'm pro - Free Market: I think government regulation of business ought to be kept to a bare minimum, and that most taxation of business is foolish (because, in reality, businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do) and counterproductive.

But, on the other hand, I think businesses have certain duties and obligations towards their employees, their customers, and to society as a whole. Among them is the duty to honor their word and their obligations.

So I am appalled that a Federal bankrupcty judge has allowed United Airlines to simply abandon its pension plan (and in consequence, it's current and future pension benificiaries) and dump it off on the Federal Government, that is, on the taxpayers. Yes, I know that United has had problems - mostly caused by the blindness of its own management, and the avidity of its employees' unions - but how is it that the obligations of its underfunded pension plan are the government's responsibility?

Just as the owners of the company (the shareholders) are the ones who reap the benefits when a company does well, so too should the owners of the company bear the responsibility for meeting the company's obligations when things go badly. The rewards and the risks go together. For the company and its shareholders to have reaped their profits over the decades when United was profitable, and then to shift its obligations off onto the taxpayers when things go bad, is despicable.

How can anyone, especially conservatives, look at this and call it anything other than corporate welfare? How can one possibly square this sort of thing with free-market principles?

Do-It-Yourself Wedding Vows, Redux

My previous post about do-it-yourself wedding vows seems to have sparked some dismay, and even disbelief. Apparently the idea that the Church can and should define the manner in which its members ought to be married seems oppressive and unreasonable to some.

One commenter asked, very reasonably, whether the Church would "discount" the marriage and lives of those putatively married with self-created vows "because of a technicality". Another commenter worried that we could go back to the era of "Gosh, Father, I got a couple of words out of order in the 47th Hail Mary! Does my rosary still count..." .

Firstly, neither the Church nor I advocate the sort of rubricism envisioned by the comments excerpted above. But the sort of thing I was referring to in my previous post was much more serious than slipping up on a technicality or two. We're not talking about how many candles are lit on the altar, or whether Dad gets to walk the bride down the aisle. I was trying to convey my point in a humorous, tongue-in-cheek way, which I suppose is always prone to misinterpretation.

The Rites of the Church are intended to confect or minister sacraments, and the sacraments are the principal source of sanctifying grace for the Church. The Church, as custodian of the sacraments, which were entrusted to Her by Christ, is very concerned that their integrity be safeguarded. This is for your own good, so that you in fact receive the very sacraments instituted by Christ, and not some counterfeit. Therefore, the Church's rites are normative for the manner of receiving or ministering the Sacraments with which they are associated. The instructions contained in the liturgical books of the Church, and their associated rubrics, have the force of law and are binding upon all Her members. The Church has the right to bind her members in this way, because she has been entrusted with the sacraments, and because of the Power of the Keys given to the apostles. That is why the duty to marry according to the laws of the Church is one of the Precepts of the Church.

The Sacrament of Marriage, like all other sacraments, has certain essential ingredients. They are Fidelity & Indissolubility, Communion, and Openness to Children. A couple must give consent to one another publicly, before the Church's designated representative and witnesses, in a manner expressing sincere intent to undertake those essential ingredients, in order to validly enter into a sacramental marriage. If one or both parties does not intend the good of Fidelity, for example, then the marriage is not valid. An essential ingredient is missing. The Marriage Rite of the Church is designed to contain or embody all of these aspects, so that all of the necessary ingredients, or goods, are represented. If the couple sincerely intends what the vows given by the Church contain, there can be certainty on their part and among the faithful that they are indeed sacramentally married. This kind of certitude is a Good Thing.

Now, if you start monkeying around with the Rite, you risk obscuring the essential goods. If you go too far, you can obscure them so much that they're indiscernible. In the example of self-written vows I gave below, I defy any of my readers to find the good of fidelity and the good of openness to children within them. Those vows would be patently invalid. If a couple got "married" with such vows, the Church would judge the marriage invalid, not because it wants to "discount" whatever good the couple has lived in their life together, but because an essential ingredient is missing. The lack of that essential ingredient must be remedied. Fortunately, such things can readily be remedied. One such way is the procedure known as convalidation.

Is it possible to come up with other formulations of marriage vows which would contain the same meanings as those supplied by the Church? Of course it is. That is why, as some commenters noted, Catholics can, with permission from their bishop or his designate, get married in non-Catholic churches. But the permission is required. Why? To make sure that (a) the couple is properly prepared and disposed to enter a sacramental marriage, with all its essential ingredients, and (b) to make sure that the marriage rite celebrated in some way actually reflects the goods contained in the sacrament. If a Catholic man wants to marry his Baptist fiancee in her Baptist church, such permission will be readily granted, because we know (at least so far) that, while the Baptist church does not share our view that a christian marriage is sacramental, nonetheless the rite expresses the goods contained in a sacramental marriage. If you ask for episcopal permission to get married by a Wiccan priestess in a sunset ceremony invoking Gaia and the spirits of the four winds, you'll be disappointed.

But the real question is why would you want to use "do-it-yourself" vows in your Catholic wedding ceremony? To express your individuality? Sorry, but that's not what a wedding ceremony is about, at least for Christians. To make the ceremony "more personal"? Sorry, but wrong again. Such an attitude is indicative of the modern American privatistic attitude about marriage, rather than a Catholic understanding. The wedding is not about "me & thee", it is about the couple being united in Christ through the Church, which is the only way we are brought into union with Christ in any form.

In approaching the Church for any sacrament, a certain degree of humility is required. We need to recognize that we are in need of Grace, Grace which only Christ can give us, Grace which He has chosen to give us through his Church. To say, in effect, "I can come up with something better than Christ's Church", does not speak of such humility.

Are You Reading The Anchoress?

If you aren't, you should be.

Today at the The Anchoress there are two excellent posts: one is on the increasingly incredible mythology concerning Hillary Clinton being propagated by the MSM.

The other is a great essay combining themes concerning the vigor and growth experienced by orthodox dioceses, as compared to the moribundity of "progressive" ones, the left's constant drumbeat about "theocrats", and Terri Schiavo. If you wonder how these ideas could be combined into a coherent essay, then you really ought to read it, and be impressed.

Planned Parenthood:
Why Let The Law Get In The Way Of Giving Out Contraceptives?

John Bambenek has a story about the local (Champaign, Illinois) Planned Parenthood chapter planning an Emergency Contraceptive giveaway next Wednesday:

Free Emergency Contraception!!

Emergency Contraception is for you when you want it.

The Great EC Giveaway
May 11 5:30-7:00 p.m.

At Planned Parenthood Of East Central Illinois
302 East Stoughton
Champaign

No exam, no hassle, and NO MONEY!!

Fill out a short application and receive a box of Plan B - absolutely free!

Tell your friends, bring them with you, and come yourself.

Hey, why bother with things like prescriptions and other burdensome, oppressive stuff like that? We just want to give away contraceptives. Don't worry about things like risks and side effects. Stock up on some "Plan B" for the next time you have casual sex and that "emergency" strikes.

Lovely, isn't it?

Do-It-Yourself Wedding Vows

In the '70's and '80's it was all the rage for couples to write their own wedding vows. While I've never personally been subjected to it, some of you out there have no doubt witnessed couples getting up in front of their wedding guests and embarrassing themselves with this kind of drivel:

You are the sunshine of my life, the star around which my world turns. I wake each morning with your name on my lips. I want to make you complete, to actualize your potential. I want to energize you the way you energize me. I love you just the way you are. I promise to always give you space to be yourself. I promise to be your equal, your partner. We will walk side by side, as co-discoverers in our journey. I promise to keep on truckin' with you down the road of life. I will give you the best of me, all of my positive energy, and I will always be open to receive your positive energy. We will be Peace for each other.

Well, if your wedding vows consisted of this kind of maundering, and you were permitted to do so by Fr. Feelgood at an allegedly Catholic wedding, guess what? You're probably not married, after all.

That's right. Using vows of your own composition, rather than those prescribed by the Church, potentially invalidates the wedding. Acccording to the canon lawyers I have spoken to, unless the self-composed vows are a fairly close approximation of those provided in the Ritual (in which case, why bother with writing your own?), they are quite possibly defective, thereby rendering the marriage invalid.

So, if you, or someone you know, got married in a ceremony which featured such "groovy" vows, it might be a good idea to talk to your parish priest and see if you need a convalidation.

Wedding - Bell Blues

According to this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, brides in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are singing the blues because the Archdiocese is discouraging the cherished tradition of the bride's father walking her down the aisle at the wedding.

Apparently, the prospect of proscribing this custom had one mother "nearly choking on her astonishment at the suggestion of change". One father was described as getting "teary just thinking about it."

There's quite a bit of high dudgeon at Amy Welborn's as well. Commenters on the story are ascribing this change, variously, to "Feminazis", and "liberals".

As at least one commenter there correctly pointed out, the tradition of the bride's father walking her down the aisle at a wedding is of English origin, and is, generally, not observed outside of English-speaking countries. The whole business of the bride making a grand entrance last of all is part of the whole "it's bad luck for the groom to see the bride before the wedding" superstition. Needless to say, neither element is at all Catholic, nor even particularly Christian.

But the one thing missing from the Inquirer article, and something I'd be surprised at if Fr. Dan Mackle (head of the Office of Worship for the Archdiocese) actually omitted from his discussion, is what the Rite actually says. Fr. Mackle taught the Introduction to Liturgy course in my first year of Theology at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, and we discussed this matter in class.

The Instruction from the "Rite For Celebrating Marriage During Mass" provides:

ENTRANCE RITE

19. At the appointed time, the priest, vested for Mass, goes with the ministers to the door of the church, or if more suitable, to the altar. There he greets the bride and bridegroom in a friendly manner, showing the that the Church shares their joy.

Where it is desirable that the rite of welcome be omitted, the celebration of marriage begins at once with Mass.

20. If there is a procession to the altar, the ministers go first, followed by the priest, and then the bride and bridegroom. According to local custom, they may be escorted by at least their parents and the two witnesses. Meanwhile, the entrance song is sung.

The instruction for the "Rite For Celebrating Marriage Outside Mass" has identical provisions on these points.

Note that the actual rite presupposes that the bride and groom process in together and are greeted at the entrance of the church together. If you've ever been to a Catholic wedding in a non-Anglo country, that's usually what you'll see.

So, what the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is trying to do is bring the practice of weddings into consistency with the Universal Church.

Admittedly, it would appear that they have done so in a hamfisted and insensitive way. You can't expect people, conditioned by decades of American custom, TV shows and movies, etc., to just accept such a change overnight.

Personally, I think the entrance rite of the Catholic rite of marriage, as indicated above, is a much better exemplar of the sign and meaning of the whole marriage ceremony and the sacrament of marriage than the Anglo-Saxon custom. As many others have pointed out, the Anglo-Saxon custom has led to a diminution of the groom's role to that of mere appendage in the rite. It has also led to the distortion of the wedding becoming "the bride's day", with the bride as "Princess" whose every whim must be honored.

What I do, when I meet with a couple I am preparing for marriage, is to point out to them that the American custom is not actually part of or really consistent with the Catholic rite. I show them the part of the instruction I excerpt above. I tell them that I would really prefer that they use the Catholic rite as provided, for all the reasons explained above. Then I leave the decision up to them.

Of the 20 or so weddings I've done, two couples have decided to celebrate their wedding according to the Catholic entrance rite. Interestingly, they were two of the more seriously "gung-ho" Catholic couples I've married. Which suggests to me that the place to start in getting Catholics to follow the authentic Catholic rite isn't in preparing them for marriage, but in evangelizing and instructing them to be truly faithful Catholics.

Habemus Papam!

Today, in Rome, the College of Cardinals assembled in conclave elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the 264th successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

He has chosen Benedict XVI as the name by which he shall now be known by the Church and the world. At about 6:40 PM Rome time he came out on the central loggia of St. Peter's to impart his first blessing urbi et orbi, upon the Church and the whole world.

Just as there has been a torrent of idle speculation regarding who would be the next pope, we'll now see another bout of speculation as to what our new Holy Father is going to do. Given Cardinal Ratzinger's reputation, we soon can also expect to see a stream of complaints from those for whom he will be too "conservative" and "traditional". Of course, to call a Pope "conservative" is no pejorative, as the Pope's whole office and charge is to conserve the Tradition, the Deposit of Faith.

I think that the relative speed with which the cardinals elected Pope Benedict XVI is an indication that the cardinals were of relatively the same mind. Divisions between "conservative" and "liberal" (such as they may be) didn't seem to manifest themselves in this conclave. What Cardinal Ratzinger was most concerned about, as indicated in his homily yesterday, is fidelity to Christ and His teaching, as handed down to us through the Church. That is also foremost in the minds of the cardinal electors, as they chose him to be the Successor to Peter.

Let us pray for Pope Benedict XVI, for this "humble worker in the Lord's vineyard", that he will lead us ever closer to Christ, and to greater fidelity to the Lord's call in our lives.

I Was In Philadelphia Yesterday

Last night, Friday April 15, I was in Philadelphia, for a Memorial Mass for Terri Schindler Schiavo. Terri and the Schindlers are originally from the Philadelphia area, and still have many family and friends there.

The Mass was held at Our Lady of Good Counsel parish in Southhampton, which is the parish in which Terri grew up. The Schindlers were there, as well as long-time Schindler friend Msgr. Ted Malanowski. Fr. Frank Pavone was also there, and I was honored to meet him for the first time.

Several of Terri's old friends offered remembrances of her at the end of Mass, and they were quite moving. It is amazing how this woman, who could not speak for the last 15 years, nonetheless touched the whole world.

Fr. Pavone also spoke powerfully, at the reception following Mass. He concluded by saying that Terri's death "is not the end of Terri's fight, it is the beginning of a new chapter! Death wll not have the last word!"

Indeed, it will not. Neither for Terri, nor for the rest of us.

As I'm Sure Most of You Know by Now...

Mae Magouirk is in the hospital, receiving re-hydration therapy and treatment for her heart condition.

I spoke to Ken Mullinax, Mae's nephew, on the phone yesterday, and he's very grateful for the outpouring of support and assistance from pro-life bloggers and our readers.

Ken's mother and uncle, who are Mae's sister and brother, are now being allowed to visit Mae, and obviously they are very grateful for that. Mae is recuperating, is lucid, and able to speak in complete sentences. Ken hopes to arrange some sort of joint guardianship for Mae, as he believes that Beth Gaddy and her brother, who are Mae's grandchildren, have shown themselves unfit to retain sole guardianship. He is also concerned that they are not disinterested parties, as they are the beneficiaries of Mae's will.

Keeping checking Blogs For Terri for further updates.

Sorry For the Silence

I'm sorry to have been away for so long. I've been travelling for the past week or so, and I simply haven't had time to keep up on my blog - not to mention the fact that my laptop, which I thought was working properly again, now seems once more to be guasto, as the Italians would say.

Anyway, I'll try to have some more stuff up during the coming week.

More On Mae Magouirk

Mae Magouirk, the Georgia woman who is being starved and dehydrated on the orders of her granddaughter, was lucid when she was admitted to the hospital two weeks ago after suffering an aortic dissection.

But now, according to Mae's nephew Ken, she is no longer. "But who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28," he told World Net Daily.

As I wrote yesterday, apparently Mae's granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, believes that it's time Mrs. Magouirk "moved on":

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

"Who would want to live like that?" We've heard that before, haven't we?

During the last couple of weeks, we've heard a constant drumbeat from the MSM, and seen a constant parade of pundits, telling us to make sure we get a living will, so that what happened to Terri Schiavo didn't happen to us.

But now, it appears that a living will is no guarantee, either. If a relative decides your life is no longer worth living, and a judge is willing to overrule your living will and make him or her guardian, you too could end up dying over 10-14 days, starving and dehydrating to death.

It becomes clearer and clearer: what many among us really want is not for these people to "have their wishes respected", or to "die with dignity". What they want is for these people — the sick, the aged, the disabled, the inconvenient — to just die.

It's Happening Again:

Georgia Woman Being Starved and Dehydrated

85 year-old Mae Magouirk of LaGrange, Georgia, is currently being deprived of nutrition and hydration at the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy. Mrs. Magouirk suffered an aortic dissection 2 weeks ago and was hospitalized. Though her doctors have said that she is not terminally ill, Ms. Gaddy declared that she held medical power of attorney for Mae, and had her transferred to the LaGrange Hospice. Later investigation revealed that Ms. Gaddy did not in fact have such power of attorney. Furthermore, Mae's Living Will provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal.

Furthermore, under Georgia law, if there is no power of attorney specifying a health care decisionmaker, such authority is given to the closest living relatives. Mae's brother, A. B. McLeod, and sister, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, are both still alive and capable of making such decisions. They opposed Mae's transfer to hospice, and are fighting to save her life. But in spite of the lack of a power of attorney, and the fact that there are closer living relatives who should be given precedence by Georgia law, Ms. Gaddy sought an emergency appointment as guardian from the local probate court. The probate judge, Donald Boyd (who, I am told, is not an attorney and does not have a law degree), granted Gaddy's request, thereby giving her the power to starve and dehydrate Magouirk to death, though such an action is contrary to the provisions of the living will.

I have spoken to Kenneth Mullinax, Mae's nephew, and he has confirmed all the above. He also tells me that he believes that Ms. Gaddy has no bad motives, but is simply misguided and mistaken. Mullinax said that Ms. Gaddy has testified in court that she has "prayed over" Mae, and is convinced that it is "time for her to go". Whether the fact is relevant or not remains to be seen, but apparently Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will.

Kenneth has told me that they need help in getting the word out, and bringing Mae's case to the media's attention. Given the amount of coverage of the Holy Father's death, that may be difficult. But we have to raise the visibility of this case. They have another hearing coming up, and Kenneth indicated that they also may need expert assistance, both legal and medical.

The similarities of Mae Magouirk's situation and Terri Schiavo's are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone's life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.

More information is available at Blogs For Terri. If you want to contact Kenneth Mullinax to get more information or to offer help, you may e-mail him at mockingbird@compuhelp.net.

Pope John Paul II Is Called Home




After 26 years as Pope, 46 years as bishop, and 58 years as priest,
Pope John Paul II has entered eternity.

May he rest in peace.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine:
et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Cum Sanctis tuis in aeternum:
quia pius es.

Inside Terri's Room





St. Pete Times Story: "Sense of Calm" Returns to Hospice

Terri Has Died

Terri's struggle for life has ended this morning.
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005



There will be more to say about Terri later; her life, her struggle, her death. But now is the time to mourn. Mourn for her. Mourn for her family. And mourn for our nation, which has failed to protect one of our weakest and most vulnerable.

Michael's Autopsy Gesture Is Really Empty

In the previous post I explained why Michael Schiavo's consent to an autopsy is meaningless, because an autopsy will not prove (or disprove) PVS.

Well, Michael's "consent" is even more meaningless than it appeared before.

Why? Because he has no choice in the matter.

According to Florida Statute, the county medical examiner must approve all requests for cremation. At the Pinellas County District Six Medical Examiner's site, we read:

XI. CREMATION APPROVAL (Florida Statutes 406.11(1)(c))

A. All requests for cremation must be approved by the Medical Examiner prior to the actual cremation.

1. Before authorizing the irretrievable disposal of a body by cremation, the Medical Examiner must be assured that no future question will arise about the cause or circumstances of the death of the individual.

2. The death, if previously unreported to the Medical Examiner, must first be verified as a non-Medical Examiner case according to Florida Statutes, 406.11.

The website then provides instructions on how to complete and submit the "Cremation Approval Form", which must be signed by the Medical Examiner prior to cremation.

Given the controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo's case, the allegations of abuse, etc., the Medical Examiner would be a fool to "sign off" on the cremation without an autopsy. So what we have here is a case of Schiavo/Felos spin. If Florida statute didn't require the M.E.'s permission, I'd bet that Michael would rush Terri's remains off to the crematory within an hour of when she's pronounced.

Hat tip to reader Sylvia for the story.

This is Surreal

OK, let me get this straight: Michael Schiavo has insisted for years that when Terri dies, there will be no autopsy and her body will be cremated. Three weeks ago, Judge Greer confirmed Michael in these decisions, ruling against the Schindlers' motions to allow an autopsy and ordinary burial.

Now, out of the blue, Michael says he will permit an autopsy. George Felos said Michael "wants definitive proof showing the extent of her brain damage."

So, Michael will permit an autopsy to determine the true extent of her brain damage after she's dead, but he won't permit additional exams or testing to ascertain her brain function while she's still alive.

Dr. William Bell, a neurologist whom I interviewed for my recent NRO piece, reacted to this development by calling it "bizarre".

Bizarre is an understatement. This is like something out of a Kafka novel.

And the problem is that this autopsy will, in fact, "prove" next to nothing. In an article at MedPage Today, Dr. Michael De Georgia, head of the neurology/neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said that the diagnosis of PVS "cannot be confirmed by autopsy." Another neurologist added:

The [pathologic examination of the] brain can't tell if there is a persistent vegetative state or not," says Harvard neuropathologist E. Tessa Hedley Whyte, MD. "The autopsy will show damage -- probably mostly scarring now -- and that damage will most likely correspond to some extent to what was seen on images."

While an autopsy will likely show that Terri has had significant brain damage and loss of brain cells, Dr. De Georgia added that "there is no standard cutoff that says if you lose this many brain cells you are in a persistent vegetative state."

Michael Williams, MD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, puts it this way. "If you only had the brain to look at and you didn't know anything about the history of the patient, pathology alone cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state."

Dr. Bernardine Healy, a former Director of the National Institutes of Health, made a similar point today on MSNBC. She said that an autopsy will tell us what is physically there, but will tell us nothing about her neurological function.  In other words, an autopsy can tell us nothing about Terri's state of awareness or consciousness. She pointed out that there are very simple tests that can assess Terri's brain function now. But, of course, Terri would have to be alive in order for these tests to be performed.

It looks, then, as though Michael's consent to an autopsy is an empty gesture. It will give him and Felos a few more sound bites to fuel the MSM disinformation machine. Felos and Michael are allowing it because it can't cost them anything. The autopsy will reveal severe brain damage (which no one has ever denied), which they will attempt to invest with greater significance than it can have. What appears to be a concession in fact is part of the Schiavo/Felos/Greer campaign to prevent additional information from coming to light. Having precluded the possibility of obtaining the truly significant and relevant information which new neurological exams could provide, they are more than happy to give us pseudo-information which only serves their purpose.

Neurologists Say: Recording of Terri Shows She's Not PVS

You'll recall the audio recordings of Terri and her father which were posted at the Matt Drudge and the Family Research Council websites earlier this week. These recordings (actually two different versions of the same recording) were made last year, and include Terri's father, Bob Schindler, talking to Terri, and Terri making noises which seem to be efforts to respond.

I sent the recordings to the four neurologists I interviewed for my National Review Online article from last week, "Starving For A Fair Diagnosis": Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Florida; Dr. Thomas Zabiega, a neurologist in Chicago; Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at the Wake Forest University Medical School; and Dr. Peter Morin, a neurologist researching degenerative brain diseases.

Three of the four neurologists reported that they believed that Terri was responding to her father, and was attempting to form words. The fourth, Dr. Peter Morin, demurred, saying that he did not want to venture an opinion based on an audio recording without accompanying video.

The remaining neurologists all expressed confident opinions regarding what they heard in Terri's recording. Dr. Mack Jones said "She does appear to be responding to her father's questions and attempting to form words." Dr. Bell concurred, saying that Terri "did respond [to her father's voice] as she seems to pace her vocalization to his voice and not the reverse (his voice to
her vocalizations)."

Dr. Jones added: "If she responds in a like fashion to other close members of her family and not to strangers, it would be even more convincing that she recognizes her family and therefore demonstrates evidence of higher brain function."

According to the neurologists, if Terri verbalizes, that is, attempts to form words, that is clear evidence that she cannot be in a PVS. Dr. Bell explained:

Verbalization in general requires two phonemes with the intent of communication. "Papa" is two syllables and two phonemes and so is a verbalization regardless who is present to hear it, but "pa" would be meaningful if she said it if only her father was in the room. Just vocalizations that do not have set phonemic patterns are problematic, but if there is a definite vocalization to a question and silence when there is silence then this becomes a pattern in itself and this suggests at least conscious awareness and responses compatible with the minimally conscious state. The minimally conscious state suggests that portions of the cerebral cortex are still functioning.

Dr. Bell said that at one point he believes that Terri did verbalize, saying "hi". He added that "none of this is surprising," since, in his judgment, "she is not PVS, but in a minimally conscious state, despite what the courts say."

Dr. Zabiega expressed the strongest opinion, saying:

I believe she is making verbalizations on the tape.  In fact, around 45 seconds, when she is asked "How are you doing" she definitely changes her voice and says "good".  She appears to say "yeah" several times... then at the end of the tape when she is asked "do your ears hurt" she definitely says "no". Even if none of the words were discernible, the fact that her voice changes during the tape to different questions suggests she is understanding what is being said to her.  A patient in PVS does not respond and does not have any changes in verbal output. 

Dr. Zabiega adds, "Any clear-headed neurologist would rule out PVS just based on this audio tape. What she may actually have is aphasia, an inability to respond to questions which she understands.  Many people who are completely functional have aphasia after a stroke, and it can be tragic how they cannot communicate with others.  But we don't put them to death for it."

Indeed we don't , doctor. At least, not yet.

As It wrote in my NRO article, the history of the Terri Schiavo case is that of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer attempting to prevent additional information from being presented and considered by the authorities. For the 2002 evidentiary hearing, the Schindlers submitted affidavits by speech pathologists who testified that Terri did try to speak. Now these neurologists say much the same thing. Will they too be ignored?

Updated! New Version of Terri's "Exit Protocol"

With Additional Pages and Information

Documents Now Available for Download

Terri Now Without Food & Water for 135 Hours

I have received an updated version of Terri's "Exit Protocol", the document prepared by the staff of Hospice of the Suncoast, the organization that runs the Woodside Hospice where Terri is kept. the documents have been re-scanned, and the new scans are more complete. They now include the signatures of the clinical pharmacist and the doctor who prepared them.

There are also some pages that were not included in the original scans that were sent to me. the additional pages are:

The clinical pharmacist's notes of her conversation with Terri's physician of record, Dr. Victor Gambone.

The orders for medications signed by Dr. Victor Gambone

These documents are now available for download, so you can examine them for yourself. The links to the documents are included toward the end of this post.

Michael and Felos have appeared on national television several times, and told viewers that Terri wasn't going to be starved to death, but that she was going to be "allowed to die". I suppose in some Orwellian alternate universe that might be true, but now, in regards to Terri, it is a monstrous, flat out lie. Michael Schiavo said that Terri would peacefully slip away. That too is false. Terri will die a horrible, prolonged death. The documents I reproduce below demonstrates that.

The document I reproduce below was prepared by the hospice at which she resides, by their own doctors and pharmacists. It was produced in anticipation of the first time Terri's feeding tube was removed, in 2001. Anyone reading it with a rudmimentary knowledge of medicine will recognize that in Terri's case, and the cases of many others in similar situations, the so-called "treatment" that is given is in fact not treatment at all. It is a regimen of medication intended to perpetrate an illusion: the illusion that someone is peacefully "slipping away", when in fact they are dying in a painful and brutal way.

The document was given a name by those who wrote it. They called it Terri's "Exit Protocol".

I first published this document last September, when it first came to light. I republish it here so that all can see the truth of what is being done to her.


Terri's "Exit Protocol" Discovered In Hospice Documents

Cheryl Ford, RN, a nurse from Tampa who has been very active in the efforts to save Terri's life, recently undertook, on behalf of the Schindlers, a review of medical records from when Terri was first admitted to Woodside Hospice. Woodside Hospice is run by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. It is of interest to note that Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, was a member of the Board of Directors of Hospice of the Florida Suncoast until the Terri Schiavo case began to attract widespread public attention a few years ago.

In her research, Ms. Ford found a document titled "Exit Protocol" in Terri's file. The document is on Hospice of the Florida Suncoast "Patient Care Notes" stationery, and "Symptom Management Orders" stationery. It is dated April 19 & 20, 2001. This document lays out, in clinical detail, the procedures to be followed in bringing about Terri's death by starvation and dehydration.

I reproduce here the contents of this document. They are presented verbatim, except in several places where the notes duplicate themselves. It was sent to me in the form of an Adobe PDF document. The links for downloading it appear toward the end of this post.

The text of the document is in black type, my comments and explanations will be presented in red type


Exit Protocolxxxxxxxxxxxx00038

Patient Care Notesxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Hospice
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOf The Florida Suncoast

Date

4/19/01xxxxxxxxxxxxxClinical Pharmacy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxRe: Medication review and symptom management


Pt. is a 37 yo woman in a vegetative state with no apparent signs of distress. Enteral tube-feeding to be discontinued on 4/20/01.

Current Medications:

1. antacid suspension 1-2 tablespoons prn [prn = "as needed"]

2. Naproxen suspension 375 mg Q8* prn menstrual cramps. [Q8* prn = "every 8 hours as needed". Naproxen is a pain-relieving and anti-inflamatory drug. ]

3. Vitamin liquid daily.

Upon discontinuation of enteral feeding the following signs/symptoms may or may not occur. The following is a brief list of symptoms for which to monitor and recommended interventions.

1. d/c ["discontinue"] antacid. d/c Naproxen suspension.

2. d/c Vitamin liquid

3. Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg Q8* prn.

Wait a minute! George Felos, Michael Schiavo, and all the other advocates of feeding-tube removal have been saying repeatedly that dying by denial of nutrition & hydration is "peaceful" and "painless". They've both said so in interviews and press conferences, such as on Larry King Live. So if dying by denial of nutrition and hydration is, as Michael said, "painless and probably the most natural way to die", then why is medication needed for pain and discomfort?

4. Signs of compromised skin integrity — continue vigilant skin care, provide moistener to lips, consult wound-care specialist if needed.

As the body dehydrates, the skin loses its tone and dries out. Left untreated, this will lead to cracking and bleeding. The lips are even more sensitive in this respect. "Vigilant skin care" is the liberal use of lotions and moisteners to mask these symptoms. The lips must be continually swabbed with special moisteners, and have lip balm applied to them. In the last stages, though, in spite of such measures, skin breakdown often occurs. Because of the body's debilitated state, normal healing mechanisms do not function. Hence the need to consult wound-care specialists to deal with ulcers and open sores.

5. Signs of dehydration
(A) dry lips, mouth. Swab saliva substitute inside mouth prn. (see next page)

After a few days without water, the body stops producing saliva, necessitating the use of a "saliva substitute" to avoid ulceration in the mouth, and a characteristic foul odor on the patient's breath. The cessation of salivation also leads to other complications which appear in the "pulmonary" section.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00039

Patient Care Notesxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Hospice
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOf The Florida Suncoast

Date

4/19/01xxxxxxxxxClinical Pharmacy Note — continued

xxxxxxxxxxxxxSigns of dehydration — continued

(B) decreased urinary output - no change in care plan.

While there may be "no change in care plan", one of the effects of dehydration is incontinence. The patient's diapers or "chux" pads will need to be changed more frequently, until such output ceases entirely.

6. Pulmonary
(A) Inability to clear secretions - reposition and swab mouth, consider scopolamine patch behind ear every 3 days.

Dehydration causes the natural mucus secretions of the mouth, nose, and throat to thicken, as the body struggles to protect these delicate membranes. The lack of saliva exacerbates this problem, preventing the normal swallowing of these secretions. These thick deposits can interfere with breathing. The use of the scopolamine patch promotes drying of these secretions, which prevents their build-up, but hastens the breakdown of the tissues.

(B) dyspnea ["difficulty in breathing"] — nebulize low dose 2-5 mg morphine sulfate Q4* prn.

In the last stages of dehydration/starvation, the patient's breathing will become difficult and labored. He or she may even begin gasping for breath, as even the lungs' ability to effect transfer of gases is compromised. Morphine nebulized into a fine spray relaxes bronchial passages and relieves these symptoms. However, because of the resultant decrease in respiratory efficiency, this may hasten death.

7. Multifocal myoclonus or terminal agitation (sometimes caused by electrolyte imbalance). Consider diazepam rectal administration 5-10 mg. May repeat in 4 hours if not resolved then daily - twice daily as needed.

Myoclonus is twitching or spasm of the muscles. Multifocal means "occurring in many different parts of the body". This is usually the result of imbalance in electrolytes, the chemicals, such as salt, potassium, and calcium, which make your bodies internal electrical "batteries" work. Nerve impulses and muscle contractions are governed by electro-chemical reactions utilizing these chemicals. Dehydration causes these chemicals to be out of balance, interfering with normal nerve and muscle function. This can result in nerves and muscles "firing off" uncontrollably, causing spasm. The patient will writhe and become extremely agitated. If you have ever had muscle cramps resulting from strenuous exercise (especially when you have sweat profusely), you have some idea what this feels like. Imagine having this happen all over your body, repeatedly. Diazepam (more commonly known as Valium) is a muscle relaxant

8. Grand Mal seizure, which is highly unlikely given current conditions and lack of contributing factors (meds). Recommend diazepam 15 mg rectally as indicated in seizure management orders.

In the final stages of starvation and dehydration, the same electrolyte imbalances which can cause muscle spasm can also lead to uncontrolled firing of neurons in the brain, according to a similar mechanism. This results in seizures.

Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate regarding this patient's care.


Date: 4/19/01xxxxxxxxxxPatient Name: Schiavo, Theresa

Physician/Staff Name/Title (print) Lisa Miller xxxMedical Record # 123235

Physician/Staff Signature (signed) Lisa Miller, Pharm. D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTeam Woodside


[Document 2]


Clinical PharmacyxxxxxxxRe: communication with physician

This document essentially reiterates some of the points which preceded, including:

2. Naproxen 375mg suppositories; 1 rectally Q8* prn signs of discomfort.
Once again Terri is prescribed pain medication.

3. Saliva subsitute to swab dry mouth prn. DO NOT SPRAY IN MOUTH. Presumably, this instruction is intended as a precaution against Terri aspirating the saliva substitute.

4. Rectal Diazepam 5-10 mg may repeat in 4 hours then once or twice daily prn multifocal myoclonus or terminal agitation.
Again, the possibility of "terminal agitation" would call into question the "peaceful" death that Felos and his water-carriers have rhapsodized about.


[Document 3— Symptom Management Orders]

This document is the actual medical orders, dated 4/20/01, 1:00 PM, submitted by Terri's physician of record at Hospice of the Suncoast, Dr. Victor Gambone. He is the same doctor that, in 2001, "certified" that Terri was terminally ill, and likely to die within six months. This document has a series of check boxes for different treatments under different headings. In certain places Dr. Gambone has added written remarks/instructions.

Pain

[checked] Morphine (MSIR) 5-10 mg IM (IM = intra-muscular; that is, injected into a large muscle such as the buttocks.) or by rectal suppository.

[checked] If no relief after reaching upper range, repeat dose in 1 hour and increase subsequent doses by 50% q 3 hour prn.

This goes beyond the use of morphine for improving breathing, as mentioned above. Here morphine is specifically being prescribed for pain — the pain she isn't supposed to be feeling.


Anxiety/Agitation

[checked] Lorazepam (Ativan) 0.5 - 1 mg IM q 6 hours prn.


Physician Name (please print)Victor Gambone xxPt. Name Theresa Schiavo

Date 4/20/01 (signed) xxxxxxxMedical Record #123235
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTeam Woodside


These documents can be downloaded as two Adobe PDF files. You can obtain them here:

Terri's Exit Protocol Part One

Terri's Exit Protocol Part Two — With Medical Orders

It seems to me that this document, especially in it's fuller form here, when taken in conjunction with Dr. Gambone's certification that Terri was "terminal", is at least suggestive of a tendency for the people involved at Hospice of the Suncoast to play fast and loose with the facts. Personally, I think it is suggestive of far more, because of the potential deception involved. Could this be evidence of a conspiracy to commit medical homicide?

I would observe, in conclusion, that most of the "treatments" described in this Exit Protocol are in fact not directed at easing the patient's true condition, but in masking the symptoms of dying by starvation and dehydration. These treatments are designed to create the appearance of a peaceful "slipping away", when nothing of the sort is happening. The medications hide the fact that the patient undergoes a lengthy and painful deterioration, in which his/her body wastes away cruelly. Remember this the next time you hear or read someone say that Terri should be "allowed" to die.

Would An Anullment Help Terri?

A number of people have e-mailed me over the last couple of days asking if an ecclesiastical anullment of Terri's marriage to Michael would help.

There are several problems with such an approach:

Firstly, tribunals in the United States ordinarily require that a civil divorce have been granted before the proceedings for an anullment may begin. I'm pretty sure that's just a procedural norm rather than anything essential. That's a good question for someone like canon lawyer extraordinaire Pete Vere to weigh in on, though.

Secondly, in order for an anullment to be granted, Terri or Michael would have to petition for one. Terri obviously can't, and I don't see how Michael could be induced to seek one. Michael is not Catholic, and I doubt he cares one whit what the Church thinks of his marriage.

I am unaware of any possibility of a mechanism by which an anullment may be sought for someone by proxy. Once again, that's a question a canonist like Pete Vere could answer.

Finally, though, and most crucially, an ecclesiastical anullment has no effect under civil law. Pronouncements by Church tribunals simply have no standing in the eyes of the government. So the Church could anull Michael and Terri's marriage, and in the eyes of the State of Florida, they'd be just as married as ever.

Another Explanation For Refusal To Restore Feeding Tube

A reader writes me to provide an alternate explanation for Judge Whittemore's refusal to restore Terri's feeding tube:

"If he denies motion, there can be immediate appeal with an almost automatic order to reinsert feeding tube."

Either that, he says, or Whittemore wants to avoid giving an opinion on the case. If he avoids making a substantive judgment, then he won't be on the record regarding his views on Terri's case.

"In short, he's a coward", my reader says.

Terri's 14^th Amendment Rights Are Being Violated

In a post at NRO's The Corner this morning, O. Carter Snead, general counsel for the President's Council on Bioethics, says that the federal judge's ruling this morning violates Terri's fourteenth amendment right to due process:

The state of Florida, through its judiciary, has ordered the termination of Terri Schiavo's life. This is an interest clearly protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, before Florida can order such action, it must accord Schiavo with the full measure of process that is due to her. Unfortunately, a review of the record shows that such process was never provided...

...The procedural irregularities that tainted the handling of Ms. Schiavo's case include:
The court's failure to appoint a guardian ad litem (following 1998);
The court's usurpation of the guardian's role (in direct violation of Florida law)...

These irregularities make it impossible to conclude that T. Schiavo's wishes under the present circumstances were proven by "clear and convincing" evidence, particularly in light of the presumption (under Florida law) that she would have chosen to receive life sustaining treatment...

And, most importantly for present purposes, it empowers the federal court to determine, DE NOVO, "any claim of a violation of any right of T. Schiavo within the scope of this Act, NOTWITHSTANDNG ANY PRIOR STATE COURT DETERMINATION AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH A CLAIM HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN RAISED, CONSIDERED, OR DECIDED IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS."

Thus, its seems highly improper for the federal court to determine on the basis of a two hour hearing that the Schindler family would not likely be successful on the merits in an entirely new trial, complete with extensive discovery, etc.

The law passed was intended to give Terri a de novo hearing — that is, one which would re-open all the issues of the case for consideration. It would seem that once again a judge is attempting to frustrate the intent of a duly elected legislature.

The Guardian's Report and Terri's Bedsores

Several people have e-mailed me, and a couple of bloggers, Bill McCabe and Steve Ely, have been arguing, about an apparent conflict between Jay Wolfson's guardian ad litem report and my National Review Online article.

In his report, Jay Wolfson wrote, as evidence of his belief that Terri had high quality care, that "It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore."

Whereas I wrote: "She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers [bedsores] on her buttocks and thighs... The presence of these easily preventable ulcers is a classic sign of neglect."

These statements would certainly appear to be in conflict. But this conflict is only apparent.

Jay Wolfson issued his report on December 1, 2003. He may very well have been completely accurate in his contention about Terri having had no bedsores up to that point. I will not dispute that.

However, Terri did develop bedsores, and I reported that fact, in March of 2004. This was over three months after Wolfson issued his report. So there is in fact no conflict.

Also, in relation to the larger charge of neglect, I think the evidence for that is substantial, as both my NRO piece and the blog post linked above make clear. For the neglect I do not fault the hospice: I fault Michael, for the hospice acts upon his instructions.

Federal Judge Declines To Rule Immediately:

Terri Now Without Food & Water For 74 Hours


Judge James Whittemore, after a more than 2 hour hearing, said he would not rule immediately on the Schindlers' request to re-insert her feeding tube pending new litigation. He did not indicate when he would issue his ruling.

Frankly, I am not surprised by this turn of events. I didn't think the judge would issue an immediate ruling. At the very least, one has to admit that the judge has had a great deal thrown at him in a very short time.

But what does disturb me is this quote from the judge:

"I will not tell you when, how or how long it will take,'' Whittemore said.

Do I detect a little judicial arm-flexing here? I'm certain that many judges, even those uninvolved in the Schiavo case, resent the hell out of Congress' legislation last night. But I'd like to believe that the judge isn't posturing while a woman's life hangs in the balance.

Haunting Audio of Terri's Voice

Matt Drudge and the Family Research Council have an mp.3 file of Terri making noises, which seem to be in response to her father's promptings. The recording was made last year.

Right now both the FRC and Drudge sites are loading very slowly, probably due to the heavy traffic of everyone trying to download these large files. Because of that, I'm linking to an alternate download site here, until the traffic on FRC and Drudge lets up. The mp.3 I link to is the FRC version, which is higher in quality and clearer. Thanks to Austin's Blog for the alternate source.

Now, I am no speech expert or neurologist, but in my opinion:

A. Terri does seem to be responding to her father's promptings. The noises she makes seem to be in response to her father's statements. They do not seem random. IF they are truly responses to her father, no matter how inarticulate, Terri cannot be in a Persistent Vegetative State.

B. Based on my conversations with the neurologists I have interviewed, Terri's noises seem consistent with their descriptions of vocalizations. True vocalization cannot be reflexive because it involves several different commands involving several different brain centers, all of a higher order.

I have sent the audio file to the neurologists with whom I consult, and asked for their opinion. When I receive replies, I will post the results.

Congressional Source: Bobby Schindler Was "Very Persuasive"

I have developed a couple of sources in Congress of late, and one of them was in a meeting of about 15 Congressmen last night with Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler. He has been in Washington for the past week lobbying for legislative action to save Terri.

My source said that Bobby was "very persuasive" in his meeting with the legislators. As he laid out the details of Terri's case, several times audible gasps could be heard in the room as they heard of the string of injustices and errors which have led to the judicially-ordered starvation of an innocent woman.

I have no doubt about Bobby's persuasiveness: He's a sharp guy, and knows the issues in his sister's case backwards and forwards. He could stand his ground with just about anyone in a debate about Terri. And the fact is, he's a genuinely good man.

Not to mention, he has the truth on his side.

House Passes Bill — Terri Can Get A New Hearing

I'm sure by now most of you have already heard, around 12:30 AM this morning, the US House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 686, "For the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo".

The vote was 203 for, 58 against.

Take note of the 58 against, and remember those names come election time...

I personally would have been happier with a broader bill, similar to the original House version, which remedied the status of a larger class of persons who are in situations similar to Terri. But, on the whole, this is a victory.

Now the Schindlers have to convince a Federal judge to order the re-insertion of Terri's feeding tube, and to agree to hear the merits of their case.

And there will almost certainly be a constitutional challenge to this law. But in the meantime, the Florida legislature can repair the defects in Florida law which are the underlying reason for this whole situation.

It's not over yet...

Terri's Starvation Commences:

Terri's "Exit Protocol" Begins

THIS POST HAS BEEN MOVED

I have moved the information in this post, since it has been updated.

The new post is available here: New Version of Terri's "Exit Protocol"

I have kept this post here as a marker in order to preserve the comments thread.


After a roller-coaster night and day, in which Congress first appeared to have abandoned Terri, then in which some Congressmen intervened in a last-ditch effort to prevent the feeding tube removal, and Judge Greer again demonstrated his singleminded intent to have Terri die, it comes to this.

According to reports at Blogs For Terri and from the Schindlers, Terri's feeding tube was removed at about 2:00 PM this afternoon.

Congress may intervene next week, but may not. What is certain is that from this moment on, unless someone can unsuccessfully undo the work of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer, Terri begins dying.

House Passes Incapacitated Persons Protection Act —
Senate Passage Will Be Difficult

Last night, in a move that infuriated some anti-life Democrats, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Incapacitated Persons Protection Act, which would give Terri Schiavo and others under threat of judicially-ordered death the right to a habeas corpus review in the federal courts.

However, in a phone conversation with Mary Schindler, she informed me that there is some oppositon to the measure in the Senate, and Bobby Schindler, who is in Washington lobbying for the bill, reports that Senate passage may be an uphill battle.

The ringleader of the opposition to this law, according to Bobby, is none other than Senator Ted Kennedy. That's right, the senior Catholic senator from Massachusetts is leading the opposition to a law that would give Terri the same rights as condemned criminals.

I suppose he's just being consistent, though. After all, since he champions the "right" to kill the innocent unborn, he would have to support the right of husbands and judges to order the deaths of innocent women.

To urge your senator to vote for The Incapacitated Persons Protection Act, go here.

Torturing Terri Schiavo

That's the title of an excellent article at National Review Online today by Andrew McCarthy.

McCarthy points out that Terri will be subjected to inhumane treatment that we would not be permitted to inflict even on known terrorists:

On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account — an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terri’s continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.

Michael Schiavo and George Felos went on national television Tuesday night to rhapsodize about the peaceful, painless death that Terri will experience when her feeding tube is removed. People who have actually undergone this process, like Kate Adamson say differently. She described her own feeding tube removal ordeal as "sheer torture".

Michael and Felos have uttered so many falsehoods in such rapid succession that one doesn't know where to begin in refuting them. But I'll have more to say about that later...

Terri Schiavo is Starving For a Fair Diagnosis

Today I have a new article on Terri Schiavo published in National Review Online.

The article, titled "Starving For a Fair Diagnosis", addresses the likely prospect that Terri has been misdiagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, and the failure of the courts both to ensure she was examined by fair and unbiased doctors, and to recognize the evidence of misdiagnosis when it has been presented.

I'll have some more stuff posted later in the day... so check back!

I'm Being Interviewed Today

This afternoon during the 4:00 PM (Eastern Time) segment, I'll be interviewed on KFUO Radio in St. Louis, concerning my article appearing today in National Review Online.

KFUO is a Christian station affiliated with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

The show is hosted by Pastor Todd Wilken.

For those of you outside of the St. Louis area, you can Listen Live On the Web (requires Windows Media Player).

I hope you'll tune in!

Crucial Hearings Today and Tomorrow

On Wednesday, the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) will go before Judge Greer regarding their motion for a stay on the removal of Terri's feeding tube pending their investigation of abuse charges against Michael Schiavo. Some have theorized that Judge Greer is legally bound to grant the stay, but what Greer will actually do is anyone's guess.

This afternoon at 3:00, the Schindlers attorney David Gibbs will once again go before Judge Greer, this time to request that further testing be done on Terri to ascertain her real condition. The Schindlers, as well as a number of doctors, have long disputed Judge Greer's ruling that Terri is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).

To back up their request, the Schindlers have affidavits from a number of doctors and other professionals with expertise in diagnosing and treating brain injuries. The Terris Fight website reported last weekend that 17 doctors had come forward to support the call for new testing. However, the Schindlers attorneys inform me that they will have more like 29 affidavits to present to Judge Greer today, some of them from well-respected neurologists.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, neurologists I have spoken to have all registered disbelief and dismay upon learning that Terri has never had MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) or PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans of her brain. Most neurolgists regard these tests as standard diagnostic tools for evaluating the extent of brain injuries.

Reading through the doctors' affidavits on the Terri's Fight website, one finds that many of these doctors say the same thing: Terri should be given the MRI and PET scans. They also make mention of the Functional MRI and SPECT tests, which are capable of actually measuring and mapping the function of the brain.

Will Judge Greer actually consider this evidence? Given his track record, one has little cause to be hopeful. But any reasonable person, seeing all of these doctors calling for the same thing, would be inclined to say: "Why not do these tests?" The question for Judge Greer isn't why these tests should be done, but why any reaonable person would refuse to allow them.

Judge Greer Rules Against Schindlers Across the Board:
Seems Intent on Her Death

Corrected and Updated 3/8/05, 1:50 PM EST: Based on a news story from the St. Petersburg Times and a follow-up call to Mary Schindler, I've made a few corrections. Thanks to Media Culpa for the heads-up.


I spoke with Mary Schindler on the phone last evening, and she gave me some discouraging news on yesterday's hearings in front of Judge Greer.

Firstly, Judge Greer is holding true to his stated intention to entertain motions only pertaining to Terri's "death process" and her final disposition:

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion to compel Michael Schiavo's deposition.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion for a divorce of Terri from Michael.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' motion to remove Michael as guardian.

Judge Greer heard, but did not rule on, arguments that Terri should be fed by mouth once the feeding tube is removed March 18.

Judge Greer denied, without hearing arguments or evidence, the Schindlers' request that Terri be allowed to receive Viaticum (Holy Communion for the dying) by mouth. Judge Greer ruled that if Terri is to be given Communion, it must be done via her feeding tube.

Judge Greer denied the Schindlers' motion to allow their daughter to die at their home, noting the parents can visit the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives.

Judge Greer denied the Schindlers request to have Terri's intact body interred: He confirmed Michael's order that Terri is to be cremated upon her death.

He denied the Schindlers motion to allow Terri to be buried in Florida. Michael intends to inter her cremated remains in Pennsylvania.

Judge Greer's rulings against the Schindlers on the matter of feeding by mouth and viaticum seem to me most indicative of his frame of mind: By precluding attempts, as a "last ditch" measure, to feed her by mouth, the Judge shows that his object is not merely to stop what he might argue (erroneously) is an "extraordinary" means of support, but to see to it that she dies. One might make an analogy to someone on a respirator: frequently respirators are removed from patients, but sometimes they continue to breathe on their own without support. It is as though a judge were to order not only that a respirator be removed, but that the patient's mouth and nose be sealed with duct tape, just to make sure he can't get any air by any means.

Judge Greer's order makes him an active accomplice in directly intending Terri's death. It becomes harder and harder to see how this can be described as anything but judicially ordered homicide.

And by confirming the order to have Terri cremated, thus precluding an autopsy, he certainly give the appearance of cooperating in an effort to make sure that the full truth of Terri's condition is never ascertained.

The order regarding Viaticum, besides being cruel and bizarre (only the tiniest fraction of the Host or the tiniest drop of the Precious Blood need be placed on her tongue), serves to preserve Michael Schiavo and George Felos' contention that Terri cannot receive anything by mouth. Of course, they have never permitted a swallowing test, so we just have to take their word for it. The last thing they want is the spectacle of Terri taking anything by mouth, as that might cause people to start wondering if Terri might just be able to eat.

From George Felos' standpoint, though, that should hardly make a difference: In Terri's '98 hearings, Felos infamously advocated what he called the "spoon test". The test of whether one is a person with a full right to life, he said, is whether he/she can raise a spoon to his lips unaided. If you have a relative who is paralyzed or otherwise unable to feed himself, watch out: In George Felos' world, they're fair game for his tender advocacy of their "right" to die.

If George Felos and Judge Greer get their way, Florida will be a very, very bad place in which to be unlucky enough to get sick, have a stroke, or become incompetent. Someone will be standing by, ready to relieve you of the burden of your existence.

A Medical Fraud

That's what the doctors in Michael Schiavo's employ, and Hospice of the Florida Suncoast seem to have perpetrated in order to get and keep Terri Schiavo in hospice care for over five years.

Dr. Victor Gambone of Tampa certified, on March 3 of 2000, that Terri was terminally ill, and that the course of her disease could be expected to end her life within six months of that date. (The document is not available online, but I will e-mail a copy of it to anyone who e-mails me and asks for it.) Dr. Gambone signed his name to the statement "I expect this patient has a limited life expectancy of six (6) months or less, if disease continues to take its usual course, and hereby certify this patient as eligible for Hospice care." 

The problem, of course, is that Terri was not then suffering from any disease process which could have been expected to end her life in the forseeable future. Nor does she suffer from any such disease process now. If she dies, it will be because she is starved and dehydrated to death upon the orders of her husband.

In order to be eligible for hospice care, ordinarily one must have a life expectancy of less than six months. So how did Hospice of the Florida Suncoast come to accept Terri as a patient when she didn't meet the criteria?

Oh, that's right... Michael Schiavo's attorney and "death-with-dignity" advocate George Felos was, until recently, thechairman of the Board of Directors of the Hospice.

You know the saying, it's not what you know but who you know...

New E-Report: A "Window" On The Faith & Culture

Deal Hudson was a thorn in the side of the Catholic Left during his tenure as publisher of Crisis magazine. With his new E-Report, called "The Window", he promises to continue to confound those who confuse their Liberalism with their Catholicism.

The inaugural issue of The Window is an analysis, in the wake of the '04 election, of "How the Catholic Left and Pro-Abortion Democrats Are Preparing for the 2006 and 2008 Elections." Make no mistake, those who would like to transform our Faith into something more closely resembling leftist ideology are wasting no time preparing for the next go round in the battle over Catholic witness in the Public Square.

Hudson, in this issue, offers a list of initiatives that "progressive" Catholic are undertaking even now. Among these initiatives are:

Overturn the Legacy of John Paul II — Left-wing Catholics and dissidents tell themselves that the papacy of John Paul II is a temporary set-back. They view the Catholic Church inevitably going "beyond" its dependence on the authority of bishops and the teaching of the Magisterium.

Hudson is spot-on here. Liberal Catholics have been saying for years that the pope is trying to "turn back the clock" to the pre-conciliar period, that he is "absolutist", etc., ad nauseam. Within a month after Pope John Paul II goes to his eternal reward, the NCReporter, America, and designated acceptable Catholics in the mainstream media, will be publishing articles calling for a more "flexible" Pope, who is more "in tune with contemporary society" (read: more accepting of contraception and homosexuality), who will "moderate" the Church's conservative turn under JPII. The articles are already sitting on their word-processors, waiting to go to press.

Leading Pro-Abortion Democrats Reach Out to Pro- Lifers — We have already heard messages along this line from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and new DNC chairman Howard Dean.

Of course, this is a smokescreen, but in order to prove their sincerity, the Democrats will

Showcase a Pro-life Candidate — A February 16th poll was released showing that Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr., son of the late Governor, would beat Senator Rick Santorum by five percentage points.

Bob Casey will be the poster boy in the Democrats "We Don't Want To Kill Every Unborn Child" campaign. There are already a fair number of pro-life Democrats at the local and state levels. But they have no influence whatsover in setting the Party's agenda. The proof of the Dem's sincerity will be their willingness to entertain any meaningful restriction on the abortion license. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. You shouldn't, either.

Build a Virtual Fence Around Parishes before Elections — We already saw this happen last year. Many parishes and some bishops constructively banned voters' guides which pulled no punches about the priority of life issues in Catholic teaching, such Catholic Answers "Voters' Guide For Serious Catholics". They will work all the more diligently in the next election cycle to see to it that the Catholic faithful continue to receive milk & water and pablum.

To subscribe to "The Window", you can send an e-mail to The Window at MorleyICC dot com .