| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Terry Shiavo's grave | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 21 2005, 08:29 AM (1,322 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 21 2005, 10:34 PM Post #76 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I don't think one ever judges another's principles. One can judge one's own. One can compare and contract one's principles with another's. But judge a man's principles? This is not ours to do. What to do if one is stealing from another? First, this is an action, not a principle. Second, I would assume you would stop the theft. I assume your implication is, though, that people were justifed in trying to stop Mr. Shiavo because they believed what he was doing was wrong just as one is justifed in stopping a robbery. The problem is, though, none of those who believed Schiavo was wrong knew for sure he was. They surmised and speculated and developed judgements based on what they surmised and speculated. Hence, they did not KNOW what he was doing was wrong. Based on facts they had gotten through the exploitation of this tragedy, they judged -- something they had no right to do. Let us go back to the theft question, and put in more in the context of what happened here. Suppose you see a man walking out of your neighbor's house with the TV. You assume a theft. You ask the guy what he is doing. He tells you, indeed proves to you, he knows the neighbor. He then states that the neighbor said he could have the TV and he had just come to pick it up. Now what do you do? I would argue most of us would let the guy take the TV because we have no way to know that what is happening is, in fact, a theft. We could be wrong in letting him take it. It could very well be a theft. But we do not have enough facts to assume our original assumption was correct. So, we would likely allow the guy to take the TV. In the same way, none of us knew whether Schiavo was acting out of true principles and doing what he truly believed to be right or whether it was all a lie. What surprised me most about this entire fiasco was the action of the religious community. They lost faith in God whom they claim is the True Judge and the One Who can see into a man's heart and then deal with what is there. There was no consensus among the religious community about whether Mr. Schiavo was acting morally or not. Indeed, even among the most conservative Christians, there was debate with good people lining up on either side. No one, no human, knew enough to condemn Schiavo, because no one truly knew what was in his heart. No one truly knew what his wife had wanted. No one had any knowledge of any of this that they could point to as fact. In such a situation, no one had the right to judge him. A person with faith in God who truly believes in God as the final judge might have decided that he, himself, would have done things differently, but knowing he did not have the facts would have set aside any judgement of Schiavo himself knowing that God would take care of all of it in the end. If Schiavo was acting on principle, doing the best he could in a tragically and immensely difficult situation and standing up to all of the pressure he was facing and doing what he thought was right, God would know that and God would judge his actions good. If, on the other hand, Schiavo was nothing but a con man, acting out of the extreme selfishness and self interest some have accused him of, God would judge him as having sinned and handled that as well. But those who claim to have great faith in God did not trust God to be the judge and chose, instead, to become the judges themselves and to condemn a man they never met, never spoke to, knew nothing about except what they heard in sensationalized accounts and exploitative news coverage. I believe that those who have judged and so publicly condemned this man are guilty of the greater sin -- the sin of lacking faith in the God they claim to believe in and in God's promise of justice and mercy. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 21 2005, 10:50 PM Post #77 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The problem with your analysis is that we CAN know that it a bad thing to intentionally kill a human being through starvation and dehydration. It does not matter what his principles are. Would you have let him shoot her in the head? Or smother her with a pillow? Real question! You also jump to a radical conclusion in assuming that anyone lost faith in God. God can take care of eternal justice -- it is entirely in our jurisdiction to take care of temporal justice. We don't judge anyone definitively, but certainly we ought to make judgments about people's actions (including our own). No loss of faith, and no sin (and please show me where a loss of faith is a sin, let alone such a great sin). It seems to me that you are the one who is making a judgment about people's hearts -- I am only judging Schiavo's actions. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 21 2005, 11:06 PM Post #78 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, Thumps. You cannot KNOW this. There are people equal to you in their theological training, in their sincerity, in their compassion and in their knowledge of the facts and the nature of the death who disagree with you. Indeed, there were leaders, theologians and thinkers of your own Church, all good men and women of sincere heart, who disagreed with each other on this. You can decide that you, yourself, believe it is wrong. You can decide that your principles would not lead you in the same direction. You can argue your point with those who disagree; but you cannot objectively KNOW it is wrong. Because you cannot KNOW it is wrong, you cannot judge that Schiavo did wrong and hence you cannot condemn the man. Disagree with his decision? Yes. Condemn him as so many have? No. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jun 22 2005, 03:17 AM Post #79 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree with you that the headstone is an act of defiance and stubbornness, but I believe stubbornness to be only a secondary manifestation of ego. To be honest, his choice of action regarding the headstone is almost more indicative to me than anything else during the whole incident that he wasn't truly acting in a spirit of love. If he loved her, he wouldn't allow her final resting place to be exploited to further an argument. While I disagree with the statement, it could be argued that while she lived, he had no control over whether she and her condition were being exploited by the media and various people to make their points. Now, in an action that he had total control over, he had the opportunity to lovingly stop her exploitation, or to continue it for all time. As I said, I think his choice is very telling. Bitter, stubborn, contentious love is such an alien form of love that it really is something other than love altogether, I think. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jun 22 2005, 03:54 AM Post #80 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"Might I suggest, Thumps, that those of us for whom our Christianity actually means something should maybe focus on Christian charity when considering judging any of the principals in this immense and complicated tragedy and try not to judge -- leaving that to God, who will be all just and all merciful. " "I don't think one ever judges another's principles. One can judge one's own. One can compare and contract one's principles with another's. But judge a man's principles? This is not ours to do." "There are people equal to you in their theological training, in their sincerity, in their compassion and in their knowledge of the facts and the nature of the death who disagree with you. Indeed, there were leaders, theologians and thinkers of your own Church, all good men and women of sincere heart, who disagreed with each other on this." Sorry for the snipping from multiple posts, Rick, but I wanted to address a common thread through these comments. It's a commonly stated opinion that just because God is the ultimate judge of our hearts, that we therefore have no right to judge, condemn, or reprove the actions of others. This might sound good, but it is also very, very wrong in terms of any classical theology, Catholic or Protestant. In fact, we are commanded to do the exact opposite. In speaking of fellow members of the body of believers, we are charged with the obligation to upbraid, reprove, and yes, condemn, principles espoused and actions taken by the individual, to point out their straying from the truth of God. This is a major obligation for any believer, lay or clergy (i.e., regardless of the believer's advanced theological education or not) toward other believers, and it has historically been an important part of pastoral care (this aspect of pastoral care has certainly been downplayed in the last thirty years of liberal relativist theology, but thankfully, the trend is reversing to a more classical viewpoint). But what if a person is not part of the "body of believers"? Are we told not to judge their motivations and actions, since they're not part of the same community? Again, there is certainly not a prohibition of speaking out against their principles and actions, but rather we have an obligation to speak out against them and to present Christ as the alternative to them. That we are to offer our opinions regarding the principles or actions of others, either inside or outside the family of faith, is a concept that runs continually through the Gospels and the remainder of New Testament scripture to the point that it is indisputable. Proof-texting of individual passages can offer specific quotes that seem to dispute this, but the entire continuum of the NT clearly reflects the overriding point that in so doing, we are not seeking to "play God" or to deny his authority for ultimate spiritual judgment. A large part of teh NT is exactly this; writings that condemn and reprove various principles and actions taking place within various churchh bodies. Paul did not say "oh well, it's not for me to judge the actions of those Corinthians or Galatians, ultimately God will judge whether their actions are Godly or not." Christ had no problem calling out the hypocrisies and ungodly principles and actions of the Sanhedrin. He didn't second guess himself, worrying that by chasing the moneychangers out of the temple, that he would be denying these people of the ability to put food on the table for their children. There are principles and actions that we are called to stand up for, and principles and actions that we are called on to denounce. But what if, as you say, sincere believers fall on both sides of this, or any issue? This isn't uncommon; it happens all the time. Just because two sincere believers interpret someone's judgment differently doesn't mean that all believers opinions should be muzzled. And it certainly doesn't mean that only those opposed to the issue should be muzzled. Similar to one of the first issues you & I debated online, both sides must search their heart and prayerfully consider an issue, and then act according to their understanding to advance what they believe to be the correct approach. Who's right? Ultimately, God will illuminate us, but until then, we do our best to act in accordance with the double scriptural command to love, while still reproving and condemning when necessary. It is an equal sin to wrongfully condemn when uncalled for, as it is to fail to condemn when it is. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 22 2005, 04:34 AM Post #81 |
|
First of all, thanks Rick for replying to the question...although regarding the quoted statement you made, I think we know it is wrong to starve and/or dehydrate someone just as we know it's wrong to directly kill someone with any other means. Regarding the rest of your posts, Dwain and IT (obviously) said everything I would have said, and then some...far better than I could have articulated the argument, as well. They are wise words regarding our obligation to uphold wrong actions based on flawed principles. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 05:59 AM Post #82 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I said a few things in Ax's cited thread... Here's the high points: 1. Jeb is a true believer in the Schiavo case. 2. Jeb is a very good politician. 3. Jeb will break Mr. Schiavo monetarily, if possible. why? See reasons 1&2. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 22 2005, 06:06 AM Post #83 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If Jeb has decided to break Michael monetarily, he'll do it because of reason #1, not reason #2. He'll do it because he thinks Michael deserves it. Jungle justice. If W were in the same position, he'd break Michael monetarily for reason #2, and another reason ... revenge. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 06:13 AM Post #84 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
This is where we differ a bit...I see a political angle to extracting a pound of flesh. Politics is all about carrots, clubs, and the perception of power. In order to preserve the perception of power, I think Jeb has to pull out the club. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 06:14 AM Post #85 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Nothing to add, it was so good I just wanted to repeat it... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 07:09 AM Post #86 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Dwain, While I might argue with some of what you have said, overall I agree in principle with what you have said. I do not want to get into argument with you simply playing semantics on this one. However, I would argue that the principles you have laid out 1) require the individual doing the condemning to have adequate knowledge of the facts of the situation and morality of somone's actions (not reports from others -- especially when those reports are highly sensationalized, emotional and too often inbued with agendas that have nothing to do with the situation at hand), 2) do not call for politicial activist type condemnations and 3) require condemnation of the actions, not the human being. The problem I have with what has been done to Schiavo is NOT that there are those who condemned his actions -- even vehemently and with great passion -- but that they condemned and vilified Schiavo as a person, as a human being, and did so without any knowledge of him, as a person. That they attributed to him motivations which were speculative and, too often, completely out of left field, but were the worst type of assumed motivations (i.e. he tried to murder her years earlier), and that they denounced him as inherently evil. Condemn the action, if you wish and believe yourself to be correct. Work to change the law if you wish (for Schiavo was most scrupulous in following the law). But given the circumstances of this case and what you truly KNOW (as opposed to assume or have heard reported by others who do not KNOW either) do not judge and condemn the man. Leave that to God. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 07:15 AM Post #87 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Sometimes, prayers got to have feets. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 07:31 AM Post #88 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
In a very broad sense, you are right. But no, 89th, I don't think we know this under the circumstances of this particular situation. Schiavo was dealing with something that is on the "cutting edge" of medical ethics and morality, if you will. Not many years ago, his wife would not have lived much past her initial lapse into the PVS, if she even made it that far. She was being kept alive by medical technology and techniques that would not have been available until the last couple of decades of the 20th century. Christianity as long held that it is appropriate to let nature take its course. The problem we are currently facing as a society is how to decide when to allow this and under what circumstances, when science is capable of prolonging life almost indefinitely. While I believe there are long-standing Christian principles which can be applied, there are no long-standing principles that tell us how to apply them in the situation we now find ourselves. There is an ongoing debate on how we, as believing Christians, should deal with this new phenomenon, but we are not even close to consensus as to how any individual situation is to be handled, much less broader principles upon which to base decisions. It is a good debate and a necessary one. But the debate must be on the principles themselves, not focused on condemning a man as evil simply because he, in a situation which Christian morality has not had to deal with before, makes a decision which differs from the one we would make. In such a case, I believe we must give the benefit of the doubt to the one who has the traditional moral right to make a moral decision of this sort. And while we may wish to disagree with the decision Schiavo made, we have no right to condemn the man himself who found himself in a situation of tremendously complex moral, legal and political issues. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 22 2005, 07:46 AM Post #89 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, prayer is prayer. Actions may need to have feet; but prayer is prayer. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jun 22 2005, 08:18 AM Post #90 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"However, I would argue that the principles you have laid out 1) require the individual doing the condemning to have adequate knowledge of the facts of the situation and morality of somone's actions (not reports from others -- especially when those reports are highly sensationalized, emotional and too often inbued with agendas that have nothing to do with the situation at hand),..." This sounds correct, and to a degree it is. However, there is an inherent flaw in it, and a mistaken and, I believe, unfair, conclusion is drawn after accepting the flaw. The flaw is that while of course everyone wants to form their opinions on perfect information, or information as close to perfect as possible, such is rarely (if ever) the case. No one can ever really, truly understand every issue, sub-issue, and nuance of any situation. The best that anyone can do is to form their opinions and actions on the information at hand. The mistaken extrapolation from this is then that since we don't have perfect information, that is isn't appropriate to form any opinion or take any action whatsoever. This position is untenable at best; to adhere to it would only paralyze any action or discussion of any issue - which, as I've said earlier, would be a sin of omission as great and grievous as a sin of commission. As I said earlier, I believe this extrapolation is not only in error, but is unfair, as well - unfair because the "other side" of this particular issue feels no such constraint. Exactly like their opponents, they have based and formed their own opinions on information no more reliable or unbiased - in fact, their opinion is based on exactly the same data set - and yet they feel justified in holding forth with their beliefs, rather than not forming an opinion. If what you put forth were correct, no one would be justified in either decrying or supporting Michael Schiavo, because none of us is omniscient. We're all dealing with less than perfect information - and yet, we're charged with taking stances on just such a basis. No, we are called to use our soundest judgment, wisdom, and love, and reach a conclusion that we feel to be scripturally/theologically sound, and then to stand up for it. Yes, often people will be biased toward some opinion despite sound facts to the countrary. But just as often, people can use the false logic of doing nothing until and unless one has perfect information, to try to avoid taking a principled stand that may be difficult, messy, and run counter to their own biases. Of course, a decision to do nothing becomes a de facto decision in favor of one side of an issue, so in reality, the only thing these people are avoiding is their own consciences. "But given the circumstances of this case and what you truly KNOW (as opposed to assume or have heard reported by others who do not KNOW either) do not judge and condemn the man. Leave that to God." I think in an earlier post I wrote something like "barring some major miracle occurring in his life," etc. etc. I leave the door open to Michael Schiavo and have never passed eternal judgment on his soul. That's what I leave to God. I do, however, feel perfectly within my authority and charge to render opinion and judgment on his motivations, principles, and actions in any particular issue, as far as is consistent with what I determine is reasonably authoritative information. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 22 2005, 08:23 AM Post #91 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: That we can objectively KNOW it is wrong to kill an innocent human being is not a matter of theological training, or an appeal to the 6th commandment or the Code of Hammurabi, or to the Supreme Court, or to any external authority. It has nothing to with sincerity or a lack thereof. It does not matter how many folks you can line up who disagree and say "Yes, it is morally permissible to smother her with a pillow or shoot her in the head since she is no longer a 'person' by psychological standards of measurement or by some external philosophical definition". It also does not matter what our state of medical technology is. Morality is not historically relative. In fact, the developments in technology now give us an added burden to do what we have always been enjoined to do in protecting life and caring for the defenseless. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with a character assessment of an individual or speculation about his or her motives. True, it was a sensational and captivating case. True, we are not privy to medical documents and bio-metrical data. True, we do not know what happened when Mrs Schiavo collapsed, or why it took Mr. Schiavo so long to summon help, or why he started dating other women, or what his financial situation is, etc. Such speculations themselves are not odious, although it may be for some a fine line to walk between truly evaluating a case and judging the existential character of a person. But all of these considerations are ultimately red herrings. The fact is that he actively sought and achieved the goal of killing his wife through starvation and dehydration. She was innocent of any crime, entirely defenseless, and regardless of her state of "personhood", her essential vital forces were fully operational. She could breathe, produce blood gases, digest nutrients, arguably perceive her external environment, respond to stimuli, and such. In short, she was very much "alive". We can and do know that her life was taken from her. Had the nutrient and hydration not been artificially stopped, Mrs. Schiavo would probably still be alive today, and remain so until her own existential being decided that enough was enough. The principle of life resides within the individual, and no one has the right to deprive another innocent human being of it. To deprive someone of something that is intrinsically their own is a serious injury against justice. We can and do know that this is objectively wrong. And given the proportion of the great good of life to the act of unjustly depriving Mrs Schiavo of it, it is a far worse offense against justice than simply stealing a purse or a car. This is why all civilizations have held that murder is worse than stealing. And Schiavo was murdered with full consent of the courts, and full consent of all those "theological experts" that were complicit in rationalizing her murder. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 22 2005, 08:55 AM Post #92 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: I have entirely avoided the question of Catholic moral theology in this thread, since I do not think that it is necessary to argue the case. The case stands entirely on the merits of human reflection, common sense, and legal tradition. Yet even (for the sake of discussion only) granting your point that some Church leaders (can you list any bishop or cardinal who said, "whack her"???) or theologians might disagree with each other on the morality of the case, this is all the more reason from a standpoint of strict Catholic morality to "not act on an uncertain conscience". If you are going to play the Catholic morality card, then you must do justice to the Catholic moral tradition. First and foremost is "do good and avoid evil". To intentionally deprive an innocent human being of her life through withholding food and water (and WHY NOT just deprive her of air???) is to commit an evil act. I have no doubt that you could wheel out some Catholic moral theologian who fully supports your views. I have no doubt either that she or he would be working from a very different set of principles than the Catholic moral tradition. All, of course, in the utmost of "sincerity" or "compassion", but in so far as she or he was deviating from the depositum fidei or the Catholic moral tradition I would doubt her competency to discuss the matter as a qualified and bona fide Catholic theologian. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 22 2005, 09:06 AM Post #93 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I used a common saying, oft repeated by the black folks down here. I think it quite true. What do we remember Dr. Martil Luther King for? His prayer? It's true, the man spent a lot of time on his knees. His sermons? He delivered some of the best. Or are some of the most indelible images those of him marching in the streets? Taking on headfirst the Evil that he deemed to be in his world. Sometimes, prayers got to have feets.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









4:14 PM Jul 10