Please phone and write to save Terri’s life
Florida: Clearwater: On January 21, 2005 the parents of Terri Schiavo were turned away from the Federal Supreme Court which refused to hear their daughter’s case. This means that the way is clear for the husband of Terri, Michael Schiavo, to have his wife’s feeding tube removed, so that she will starve to death. An exact date for this event has not been set.
Additionally, on December 29, 2004 Terri’ss parents lost their appeal on behalf of saving their daughter on the grounds that to murder her in such a way is a violation of her religious beliefs. The judge did not issue a written statement, only the verdict. It is believed this action was taken because there is no explanation possible in this violation of freedom of religion. It is not known if the Appelate court which originally heard the case, would re-hear it, due to the fact that no written decision was given, or if the Florida State Supreme Court would also re-hear the case.
Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, also believe they have grounds for appeal, since their son-in-law Michael Schiavo did not provide his wife Terri with an attorney to defend her during his aggressive legal pursuit of her demise, and he also has spent half a million dollars awarded for Terri’s care for his own legal counsel, leaving another million dollars for his own use, should Terri die. These are conflicts of interest, and grounds for additional legal action.
A critical write-in campaign has been begun for people to call, fax, e-mail or write to Florida’s Governor Jeb Bush, 400 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Fl 32399, or phone # (850) 488-4441, or fax # (850) 487-0801 and e-mail is www.jebbush@myflorida.com For more information go to: www.terrisfight.org
Note 95.
Dawn, essentially you brush off Missourian’s arguments with the retort “well, that’s your opinion.”
In actual fact however, the scriptural exhortation to “consider our own evil” does not mean that we either quit thinking, or that we should consider all ideas morally equal. We try to avoid intellectual and moral relativism on this blog as much as possible.
If you challenge someone and they respond, you are expected to meet that response. If the challenge lies outside of your area of expertise, don’t be afraid to say so. Ask for clarification instead.
Responding that other people see things differently merely states the obvious. Couching the response in the Christian vocabularly however, lends it an appearance of authority that it does not in fact possess.
Dawn,
Again, from the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, “God keeps man free, never forcing his will. Contrary to it, Satan seeks to possess the human will, to enslave it. If the law conforms to the divine truth revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, then it also stands guard over human freedom: ‘Where the Spirit is, there is liberty’ (2 Cor. 3:17). Therefore, it guards the inalienable rights of the personality. Those traditions, however, which do not know of the principle of the freedom of Christ, often seek to subject the human consciousness to the external will of a ruler or a collective.
The law and order of a particular country is a special version of the common worldview law characteristic of a given nation. The national law expresses the fundamental principles of relations between persons, between power and society and between institutions in accordance with the peculiarities of a given nation moving in history. The national law is imperfect, for imperfect and sinful is any nation. However, it establishes a framework for the people’s life if it translates God’s absolute truths into and adjusts them to the concrete historical and national existence.”
The kinds of abuses you outline in Ireland are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, and should be contrary to the teachings of the Roman Church as well. Sin which harms no one other than the sinner should be reserved outside the legal realm. Prostitution is a sin to Orthodoxy, yet most Orthodox countries have legal prostitution. The Orthodox tradition is much less prohibitionist than a Calvinist tradition, again because Orthodoxy has no history of Millenialism.
Roman Catholic societies are also usually fairly tolerant of most sins from a legal standpoint, while teaching against them. If you have spent any time in Latin America, as I have, then you would have noticed that legal authorities are very tolerant of many vices. At the same time, however, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church provide a framework for their overall legal system.
The case with Ireland is fairly unique. It is a symptom of the pecularities of Irish culture and history, combined with the Roman Catholic Church having entirely too much temporal power. The Church should not be called upon to exercise temporal power, or to function as jailers. Power corrupts, which is why the direct participation of Orthodox clerics in the political process is prohibited, as is too close a collusion between Church and State.
In other words, I wouldn’t generalize too much from Irish experience. The key thing is this statement, “The national law expresses the fundamental principles of relations between persons, between power and society and between institutions in accordance with the peculiarities of a given nation moving in history.” The fundamental principles so expressed must come from somewhere – be it Marxism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or generic ‘Christianity’ in the American sense. The specific outworking of those ideals, even in an Orthodox context, will be unique in time and place. If you have no coherent set of principles to draw from, then you create a vacuum which will be filled by some kind of ideaology.
Bill, I would disagree that I endorse passivity as a course of action at all. However, it may be that we disagree as to what we consider to be the best course of action.
First, I would ask that each of us consider what our general goals for living might be. For me, in accordance with the principles of United Methodist teaching which encourage individual conscience and reasoning, governed by the Bible, that would be: 1)spiritual growth, so that through my example, testimony, and works reflect Christ’s love into the world (so that I would be able to face my Creator in the hereafter), 2)to encourage others to know Christ, to live in his Word and to grow in him, 3)to prayerfully seek those ways in which I can seek the greatest change, the greatest service, and the greatest good to His people on this earth.
So, how then, do I believe we as Christians should go about it to effect the GREATEST POSITIVE CHANGE? Again, I look to the example of Christ and the Apostles. But before we do that, let me ask each of you one question: has anybody ever tried to sell you something that you just DIDN’T want to buy? Really. I mean, whether it’s a telemarketer, a car salesman, a demonstrator in a store, an insurance salesperson, or whatever, haven’t we ALL been approached by somebody who tried to sell us something – who tried to convince us HOW GREAT THEIR PRODUCT WAS – and we just didn’t buy into it? Well, why didn’t you buy?
Probably, I bet the answer a lot of times was some combination of 1)you felt you didn’t need what they were selling, 2)you knew this person didn’t know you and was just trying to “sell” you on something, and 3)you didn’t feel that this person was REALLY vested in your personal well being.
As Christians, when we go to “take action”, we often do the same thing as these sales people, often to our detriment! Do we really convince people that Christ loves and forgives them? Do we really go far towards reducing evil? Poverty? Crime? Hunger? Despair? Immorality? Why not?
Christ and the Apostles took a different approach – they didn’t take the “hard sell” that we so often do. When we look at the Gospels, it would appear that (and perhaps I’m wrong) but in each instance of Christ teaching, he fed people, or forgave them, or healed them, or blessed them, or simply showed them compassion. Each of his miracles (with exception of his walking on water) was conducting with the purpose of rendering aid to someone in need. This doesn’t mean he failed to confront people – he did – but he confronted people in a spirit of compassion, pity, and humility; not self-righteousness, anger, and contentiousness. And how many did he convert in his life? And in his death?
Interestingly, many of Christ’s problems emerged because he wasn’t willing to “take more action” – because many believed that the Messiah would come to free them from bondage in a much more direct, physical manner. So again, it might be worth 1)considering what our goals are (are they truly Christ-like?) 2)considering how to go about them (are THEY truly Christ-like?) and then 3)proceeding (in a manner which is Christ-like).
Simply my opinion, and hopefully we are continuing to pray God’s will and Christ’s peace for the Pope.
Glen, this is really a remarkable passage from the Russian Church – I confess I know really nothing of the Russian Orthodox Church, how it differs from Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, etc.
However, I did want you to know that there were some of these asylums in Australia as well (interestingly, where there is also legal prostitution).
Have to run for the moment, but I am enjoying this friendly discourse and find it mutually beneficial. Best regards.
Dawn, Christ was not just the “sweet Jesus” you depict. Read the Woes against the Pharisees.
Moreover, in note 101, you project a modern secular concept of “separation of church and state” on first-century Palestine, in which government and religion were two sides of the same coin. We have to understand the Bible in its original terms before we can teach from it.
So a Christian tells someone who is embracing their “right” to kill themselves (a “right” that, based on what Dawn wrote above in Note 94, she embraces since if someone has a “right” to choose life then by extension they also have a “right” to not choose life) that what they are about to do is a sin against God, that God loves them and wants their life to go on until He calls him or her home at a time of His choosing, not theirs, this Christian is equivalent to a car salesman forcing a used Ford on someone who doesn’t want it.
There is a saying in the Talmud, “Those who are compassionate when they should be cruel, will end up being cruel when they should be compassionate.” Dawn expresses a great deal of compassion in her comments. However, with regards to what I read in her comments as a “right” to not “choose life” her compassionate is, sadly, leading her into a place of great cruelty.
Dawn,
Practically speaking, the term ‘Eastern Orthodox’ refers to all the national churches who are in communion with each other and who remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Calcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. This includes the churches in Greece, Russia, Ukraine, and Serbia.
I originally came into the Orthodox Church through a Greek parish. Later, my wife and I switched to a parish of the OCA, which has Russian roots. The full document I have been quoting is at the following link: http://www.mospat.ru/chapters/e_conception/
I think a lot of what is in that document will surprise you.
The Russian Church seems to have been the most progressive of all the Orthodox Churches in terms of compiling its teachings into clear and concise documents. I have never found anything referenced in the teachings of the Russian Church that I would consider to not be universal in its message. I would love it if the American jurisdictions of Orthodoxy would compile a similar document, but that has just not happened yet. To get the same information on Orthodox teaching, but from American sources, I would have to comb the Greek Archdiocese server, the OCA server, the Antiochian server, etc. In the end, I would compile a list of information that was almost identical to what I would have gotten going straight to the Russian documents.
Glen, thank you for the URL. While I can’t say whether or not the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church would align perfectly (or even well?) with those of my faith, I have added the URL to my “list of favorites” so that I can learn more: one of the basic precepts of the United Methodist Church is to embrace reason as a way for us to understand and grow closer to God and (so I believe) His people as well.
Thank you again for the link so that I can read more.
I think what I was actually doing Bill was setting forth the concept that Christ recognized that (and he even stated this, when he stated that His kingdom wasn’t of this earth) He would exercise his authority only in spiritual matters. Note he didn’t interfere with the business of money changers, prostitutes, tax collectors (or anybody else) at any other time – in fact, he sat down and ate with them in an effort to demonstrate God’s love and compassion.
Comment 107:
Daniel, as I understand, my Church has not come out with a position against living wills, or removing someone from a respirator or feeding tube, so long as we have reason to believe that 1) their recovery is unlikely (such as in the case of brain death) and 2) it would be the person’s wish. In the United Methodist Church, faith is partnered with reason so that it is a rare thing for the Church to declare that it “knows God’s will.” In general, my Church’s doctrine is that the only One who knows the Lord’s will is the Lord, and that we may pray about it, discuss it, attempt to discern it, but that humanity is not the Infinite and Almighty God, and there are limits to what we may know.
Therefore, I would never declare to another person that their action “was against the will of God.”
http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1659
Daniel, Glen
Grab my hands, disconnect my keyboard, turn off my computer, keep me from typing…. please.
I am fighting an overwhelming urge to write an essay on why I left the UMC after having been raised in it.
Stop me, stop me, somebody stop me….
I’m glad you left the UMC. You belong in the Orthodox Church. Take deep breaths and walk around some. The urge will pass.
Dawn, in other words, we can know nothing, do nothing, but if we pray hard enough everything will turn out OK because that is God’s will. O, but God’s will is going to be done anyway, so why even bother with that–just don’t make a fuss. Such an attitude is an affront to all of the faithful down through the ages from St. Stephen, the protomarytr to the nameless marytrs in the Sudan today. Not to mention all of the confessors of Christ who have endured hardship, torture, and pain as a witness to the truth of God’s love. Your idea turns man into a spineless automaton and has nothing to do with God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel or the Church. It might as well be, “Hey, whatever turns you on man! Go for it dude. Who am I to judge.” Your belief also leads to the idea that God is a cosmic sadist and we are his puppets.
Where do you draw the line? Who has to be killed in what manner by whom before you would stand up and say, enough!
To be Christian is to confront evil where ever it is. Yes, we must confront evil with love and forgiveness and an understanding that our own nature is corrupted by sin, but confront it we must, even unto death. In fact, a genuine confrontation with evil will lead more often than not to disruption and pain rather than acceptance by others. After all, Jesus said that the world would hate those who followed Him just as the world hated Him.
People are capable of recognizing the truth when it appears. We can make consistent moral judgements based on an understanding of immutable reality revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, His saints, and His Church. We have a God given responsibility to both live and proclaim that truth in every situation and circumstance possible.
Thanks for the intervention Glen
Your technique worked. Breath…… Breath….. Breath….. AHHHHHH. Very good.
If not Orthodox, then at least something like the Wesleyan Church which is pretty much the Church I was born into and have fond memories of. Tackling huge theological issues involved in an intelligent choice of denomination is daunting. The Orthodox seem to have a more secure theological anchor. I am sympathetic to the desire for orthodoxy which leads Protestants to strive to be ruled solely by Scripture but that rule has not prevented schism after schism.
Some truly bizarre practices have developed from Prostestanism.
It all makes my head hurt. I can’t support the current UMC though that is for sure.
Dawn, study your own history. English abolition came out of Methodist circles. The early Methodists knew slavery was evil, and eventually moved a nation to abolish it. If they followed the counsel of modern Methodism, they would have had plenty of discussions about how evil slavery might be, but would have done nothing to stop it.
I know my Church’s history and wouldn’t disagree with you at all about abolition. However, I strongly suspect Methodists – given their belief systems as defined by their Church – wouldn’t endorse calling others murderers, leave threatening, hateful messages on people’s VM, or “confront” through otherwise hateful language and action. Confrontation of evil is one thing – confrontation THROUGH evil is another.
What are you arguing here, that evil should not be confronted, or that a person should not return evil for evil? If the latter, well, yes. That should be obvious.
Dawn, no one here defends the vituperative over-reaction to injustice. However, it is understandable that people get down right mad and loose control. Even St. Nicholas in the First Council of Nicea got so angry that he punched Arius-an over reaction that caused him to be expelled from the Council and very nearly defrocked.
The fact that there are people who react in evil ways to the Terri Schiavo case does not in any way invalidate the necessity to proclaim and act upon the truth, in fact just the opposite. We should have the courage and moral consistency to renounce such acts and do whatever we can to stop them.
Notes 110 and 117. Well, 117 first. Dawn, yes, confrontation of evil through evil is in itself evil. 110: I understand how you’re interpreting those verses, but we have to take them in context, since the Bible is composed of stories/contexts woven into one great story/context, not individual aphorisms. When Jesus points out that his kingdom is not of this world, he means that it is a greater kingdom which does not need to compete with earthly kingdoms to keep its authority. That authority comes from God, which is what Jesus points out when he says in the same passage that Pilate would have no authority over him unless it had been given to him by God. This means that God’s (and therefore Jesus’, since he is the Son of God) business is greater than and incorporates the business of earthly kingdoms. In other words, Jesus executes his authority in all matters, not just in “spiritual” ones (this, as I already pointed out, is a secular distinction anyway).
Mrs. Schiavo was nothing more than a political pawn for both of the Bush Administrations. As the mother of a handicaped child I would not have wanted him exploited by the media, as Mrs. Schiavo was. I love him way to much to let that happen to him.I’ve been with him in a media situation before and they are ANIMALS. THANK YOU.
PAM
Pam,
So you’d rather that your son’s wife could starve him to death in private, and no one would get involved?
The Schindler’s wanted help. They got it. The problem was – the help was ineffective. That is my beef with the Bush Administrations, both in Washington and in Florida- don’t get involved only to fail.
Was this case manipulated for political gain? Probably. I am sure that the motives of many of the actors was far from pure. That doesn’t take away from the essential justice of their ultimate aim, which was to stop a woman from being starved to death. If the Schindlers hadn’t wanted to save their daughter, then none of this would have happened.
The Vatican, the Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and even some of the more liberal mainline denominations opposed what happened to Terri. In fact, most of the advocacy groups for the disabled did as well.
As the mother of a disabled child, I would think that you would be more sensitive to the potential catastrophe that can arise from deeming a person’s life not worth living.
I have criticized the Bush Administration bitterly over foreign policy, economic policy, judicial policy, fiscal policy, and more besides. But I will not criticize the administration or Congress for trying to save Terri’s life. It was the right thing to do morally.
I criticize them for failing. Effort isn’t good enough in life and death situations. If Terri’s parents wishes, the ethical guidance of all major Christian churches, the law as passed by the State of Florida house and senate, and the doubts surrounding the motivations of her husband (shacked up with another woman with children) aren’t enough for you – then I fail to see how anything I could say would have any effect on you.