Posted on 03/26/2005 4:12:10 PM PST by wagglebee
Jewish halacha (law) also prohibits what they are doing to her.
My Orthodox rabbi said it is clear and without any doubt.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 14
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The left seems more than happy to make the case that Bush and Rehnquist should be under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, perhaps Terri Schiavo should be also.
The judicial branch has exceeded the law and the other two branches have not stopped it from doing so.
To me, that is another form of anarchy.
Aribrary and capricious decisions by judges, who are not being held accountable except by other judges.
That is correct
I LIKE IT!!!!
Yes but that's why they won't allow it!
If a little baby crawled out into a busy highway and sat in
the middle of the road, I'm quite sure that Governor Bush
would risk a jaywalking ticket to rush into the street and
save the child even if the Don't Walk sign was flashing !!!
Terri is an innocent and helpless child right now. Therefore, she
desperately needs someone to bravely risk arrest for jaywalking
to save her life from that evil mob of monsters who are blatantly
attempting to murder her ... in plain view of the entire world !!!
Jaywalk NOW Jeb !!!
Dammit... Jaywalk NOW !!!
I don't think Judge Greer was interested in making a distinction between unleaven bread and the Body of Christ.
As a Roman Catholic receiving communion is the highlight of my life. To deny Terri shows how low these snakes can go. I salute you sir for your service to our country.
isn't Jeb a Catholic?? You would think this would cause him to be very ticked off!! This is a religous freedom violation!! BIG TIME!!!
This old vet too.
>I heard this earlier. The Host is unleaven bread and violates the no feed ruling according to the lawyers.<
The Host is primary to the Catholic faith. You cannot have a ruling that is in such flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
You would think.
http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=27828
Will Terri Again be Denied Communion?
03/14/05
I found the news disturbing. Fr. Rob Johansen had just gotten off the phone with Bob and Mary Schindler, who most of us know as the parents of Terri Schiavo.
The culture of death can hardly wait. Come March 18th, the Florida woman must be executed! And she will not be comforted by the Holy Eucharist — known as Viaticum when shared with the dying — as she faces a slow and horrible death by starvation and dehydration.
"Without hearing arguments or evidence," Fr. Johansen shared, "Judge Greer denied the Schindlers' request that Terri be allowed to receive Viaticum by mouth. Judge Greer ruled that if Terri is to be given Communion, it must be done via her feeding tube." But how is the Eucharist to be administered via Terri's feeding tube when in a previous decision, Judge Greer ordered it removed?
"Besides being cruel and bizarre," Fr. Johansen noted on his blog, "[since] only the tiniest fraction of the Host or the tiniest drop of the Precious Blood need be placed on her tongue, [this order] serves to preserve Michael Schiavo and George Felos's contention that Terri cannot receive anything by mouth." It also represents a gross violation of one of Terri's most fundamental rights as a Catholic. And although I am not expert in civil law, it would also seem to violate Terri's civil right to freely practice her religion.
In November of 2003, I penned an editorial for Catholic Exchange and the Wanderer under the headline "Why Was Terri Denied Holy Communion?" At the time I hoped it would never become necessary to revisit this issue. But the culture of death has dictated otherwise. For the culture of death has no respect for the Eucharist — which is the Real Presence of He who authored the Culture of Life. And the only Catholics whom the culture of death wishes to receive Holy Communion are pro-abortion politicians.
Yet all Catholics enjoy certain rights under canon law. Among the most fundamental is the right of every baptized Catholic to the sacraments. Canon 213 is clear: "Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments." There are very few limitations of this right, and canon 223 requires that such exceptions pertain to the common good while canon 18 requires that they be restricted to as few cases as possible. Neither applies in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation.
Reception of the Holy Eucharist is not merely just another spiritual practice of the Catholic faith. Rather, following the Church's sacred Tradition, the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the centrality of the Holy Eucharist to the spiritual life of Christ's faithful. This is found in canon 897 which states:
The most august sacrament is the Blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God's people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the body of Christ is perfected. The other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are bound up with, and directed to, the Blessed Eucharist.
In short, the Eucharist is both the source and the summit of our spiritual life as Catholics. All our actions should flow from the Holy Eucharist, and all our actions should ultimately be directed toward the Holy Eucharist.
When the Holy Eucharist is administered to a dying person, this is known as Viaticum or "food for the journey." Canon 921 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes the basis for seeking Viaticum as follows: "Christ's faithful who are in danger of death, from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by Holy Communion as Viaticum." Under canon 864 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Catholic faithful were bound by ecclesiastical precept to seek Viaticum when the danger of death presented itself.
Although the 1917 Code of Canon Law no longer binds under precept, it is clear that Christ's faithful remain bound in spirit to seek Viaticum when the danger of death arises. This is in keeping with the canonical principle of canon 21, which states that "[L]ater laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them." Additionally, when interpreting any canon it is important to follow the canonical principles of canon 17. One of these principles is "recourse to parallel places, if there be any...." In the case of administering Viaticum, canon 708 from the Code of Canons of the Eastern [Catholic] Churches speaks of "the obligation of receiving the Divine Eucharist in danger of death..." [italics added]. Thus the reception of Viaticum is both an essential right and an essential obligation of all Catholics in danger of death.
Viaticum is not food for the body but food for the soul. And as such, every Catholic who faces death enjoys the right to receive our Lord as food for the journey. Denying the Holy Eucharist is a gross violation of Terri's civil and religious liberties.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Pete Vere is a doctoral student with the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University. He recently co-authored Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law (Servant Books) with Michael Trueman and More Catholic Than the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor) with Patrick Madrid. He lives with his wife and two daughters in Ottawa, Canada.
I'm fairly certain that was Last Rites, not Communion.
and rightly so!
How about Felos saying that today "Terri never looked so beautiful" and "I have never seen such a look of peace on her face." It's like the world is upside down to me. I honestly cannot wrap my mind around this. Saw a couple of pundits saying they were mad that some on the cable news shows were using the word 'starvation' rather than 'withholding food' - saying it incited divisiveness and words were important, stuff like that. Thank God one of the pundits had the common sense to ask "well, if withholding food and water isn't starvation, what is it??" -- think that was Cal Thomas.
I have been wondering all day how this is going to affect to morale of our men overseas!
"Any man lives with another woman and fathers two children with a woman not his wife can hardly be deemed to be advancing his wife's wishes."
Great point.
Whatever happened to freedom of religion, as assured us in the Bill of Rights? I would think that this alone would be grounds for an emergency appeal to a higher court. How on earth could anyone deny a dying, especially as the result of a murder, last rites? I would have thought they could have made an appeal based on the Pope's having said that what they are doing is wrong, knowing that as a Catholic she would have not had the tube removed once the Pope spoke against it.
again.....sorry to hear that....my dad is a WWII vet, saw action and is a dvout Christian and does not take that position.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.