The Cult Masters: Misogynists – and More

When Anthony Cekada expounded his views on Schiavo, very few Catholics -- traditional or otherwise – agreed with his monstrous conclusions.¹  Even within the SGG cult center, people were up in arms about it.  One parishioner, a woman, wrote to Erroneous Antonius at the time, asking him to clarify some things that he said (that were obviously WRONG).  But in doing so, she was careful not to offend him; and she showed him the utmost respect and deference possible.  And how did Tony respond?  As you might expect, Arrogant Anthony basically told her to “shut up and obey.”

His reply was vintage “Tony.”  After summarizing (and justifying) his position on Schiavo, he castigated her as follows: “Finally, the larger problem I see is that lay traditionalists like you are trying to turn something into a mortal sin that isn't.  You have no business doing so. You don't have the training in moral theology that priests have, and you certainly don't have the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles.  But this doesn't stop you from boldly expressing your ‘opinion’ on the moral issues in the Schiavo case, because in the practical order you simply cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that you do about certain subjects, chief among them, moral theology.  I am supposed to make the distinctions for you between right and wrong, because I have the training, the sacramental graces and the experience to do so.  But because [you] do not have the humility to recognize this in practice, you will go on endlessly arguing for your ‘opinion,’ rendering exchanges like this a waste of the priest's time, and in the process, I fear, turning traditional Catholics into members of the Church of Lay Opinion.”

She doesn’t have “the training in moral theology that priests have” or “the confessional experience we do in applying moral principles”?  [Well, we certainly hope to God that she doesn’t have Checkie’s “training”!!]  She “cannot accept the fact that a priest probably knows a lot more that [she does] about certain subjects, chief among them, moral theology”?  [Moral theology?  Are you kidding, Tony?  I wouldn’t trust your “moral theology” (or Dannie’s) more than that of the Marquis de Sade’s!]  She doesn’t “have the humility”? [Gulp!!  Tony, are you “for real”??])  Can anyone ever imagine a more condescending and sarcastic collection of dung than this?  What kind of depraved lunatic (other than Big Don’s deranged “prefect”) could come up with such crap?  Tony insinuated that Terri Schiavo was “brain dead” and was “obviously shutting down.”  Tony, it is YOU who are brain dead – or, at least your conscience is dead.

The foregoing excerpt, by the way, was part of several correspondences between this woman and Cekada.  [Click here to get to its beginning, then scroll down to “Fr. Cekada’s (unemotional?) Reply,” and then to point “4” to get to the part that we excerpted.]  As we said, this is vintage “Tony” -- and just one of the many examples of the Cheeseburger’s trademark arrogance.  But it is more than that: it is misogyny.  (That’s undoubtedly why he came out in favor of Michael Schiavo’s “right before God” to starve and dehydrate his wife to death: she was a woman.)  And, although the Checkmeister is arrogant, sarcastic, and condescending with both men and women, he is especially so with the latter.

Of course, Dannie and Big Don are misogynists as well – but their misogyny goes far beyond simply “trash-talking” to women.³   At both cult centers, women are treated like slaves; plus, they are expected to dress like Amish bag ladies -- even at “social” gatherings. At “church picnics,’ for example, the womenfolk (including girls) are expected to wear dresses (not pants or shorts), whereas the men can wear almost anything (including shorts) – but God help the women if they wear shorts or pants.²  It’s also interesting to note that at “summer camp,” the boys play games that are basically recreational, whereas the girls’ “games” are top-heavy with things like sewing, flower arranging, and other tasks that they’ll later be called upon to perform as cult slaves.

Then there’s the workload:  at both SGG and MHT, there’s a small army of women to do the cleaning, cooking, and “sacristan” work.  At SGG, for instance, there were at one time two nuns and one lay woman serving as sacristans.  All three of them quit.  The one nun, the primary sacristan -- habitually overworked (and habitually verbally abused) by Dannie -- left in disgust, while the other had a nervous breakdown.⁴  (Both of them, by the way, have left the religious life altogether, and are now “laity.”)  The other (lay) woman left in disgust too (after seeing how Dannie treated the nuns).  And that’s only the sacristans.  In addition to them, Dannie has a corps of slaves who clean, cook, and iron for him (including church “vestments” and altar linens). ⁵

At both cult centers, too, there’s no “crying room” per se.  At SGG, the mothers must tend to their infants in a vestibule that is unheated in the winter and un-air-conditioned in the summer.  And if they take them back there during the sermon, they’re not allowed to re-enter the church until after the sermon.  (There are no chairs in the vestibule, either – only a hard bench (with no back) – and, behind it, a large picture whose frame jabs the middle of one’s back while sitting.  (It probably came from the local furniture store’s Marquis de Sade collection.)

At this point, we’ll stop giving any more specific examples of the cult masters’ misogyny, because we think that we’ve covered enough of that ground.  We’ll just summarize by saying that Dannie and Tony do their utmost to intimidate women, and to make them feel (and be) subservient – almost to an Islamic extent.  Just as Tony contended in Terri Schiavo’s case, it’s the husband who “has the right before God” to determine “what’s “best” for his spouse.   And if a wife complains, then she is “a raging feminist.”  These women-haters have lost all sense of proportion of what women and womanhood are all about.

But the cult masters are not content with just being misogynists, because “it takes more than misogyny to run a cult.”  As cult masters, they must “lord it over” not only women, but everyone.  After all, that’s what cults are all about: making everyone subservient to their will, even to the extent of superseding the authority and autonomy of the family itself – dictating to them what they can and can’t do – even away from the cult center.  And that’s exactly what has happened: according to comments received on Pistrina, the MHT cult forbids TV in peoples’ homes, no going to movie theaters, no internet (unless nuns give permission) – you name it.⁶

Lately, even more comments have been surfacing about MHT; and they paint a dark picture -- a lot like SGG, but perhaps even worse (if one can imagine that!): substandard academics, unqualified teachers, overly strict rules, cruel punishments, etc.⁷   What they say, of course, is not surprising, and only confirms what many have known for years: that both SGG and MHT are incompetently run “mediocrity mills,” staffed by amateurs, and run by self-serving predators. But it is encouraging to see the recent spate of comments, because it is corroboration coming from those inside his cult -- and in writing.  

It’s encouraging because it’s evidence that people in Brooksville are finally starting to wake up.  It’s evidence that Big Don’s stranglehold on the MHT cult is loosening (just as is Dannie’s at SGG).  It is known that people at MHT have for some time been disgruntled.  But now they’re talking.  And they’re leaving.  And all of this is being noticed.  More and more, people are beginning to recognize MHT for what it is -- a CULT -- and are finding the courage to come forward and speak out.  Our hope, of course, is that even more of you find the courage to get out of the cult.  But when you do, you must “not go gently into that good night.”  Be vocal.  Let others know – and why.  Do not “wimp out” and slither away sheepishly and silently, as so many traddies are wont to do (no doubt, out of a false sense of “respect for the clergy” – which only enables these lepers to perpetuate their mischief). Do not jeopardize your souls by staying with them.  Reject them.  Leave them.  You, your souls, and your wallets will be glad you did.   

_______________________________

¹ Donald Sanborn, MHT’s deranged rector, did, however -- as we reported the other week in our “special edition” article.  (We normally publish only every other week, and last week was an “off” week; but we found a “note” of Big Don’s that had once been included on a website, but which “someone” later erased to “hide his tracks.”  Fortunately, we had copied it before it was erased – so we published it.  Click here to see it.)

² Funny, though: when they’re away from the cult center, the cult masters tolerate “pant suits.”  When Dannie was in Argentina, for instance (doing some unnecessary Confirmations – a pretext to get away from the cold cult center and enjoy the Argentine spring), he had his picture taken in front of a group of women, many of whom were in pant suits.  ((Cick here for that.)  There, where he was “just visiting” (and hence not its “cult master”), there was no need for him to control and manipulate by enforcing his “no pants” rule there.  (On the contrary: he was there to play Santa Claus and to please them.  Therefore, he was not about to do anything to offend them.)

But back home at the cult center, not only must they wear dresses, but dresses that meet SGG’s “modesty” requirements: hemlines well below the knee, collars that hug the neck, and sleeves that are “long enough” – and definitely nothing “sleeveless.”  (That’s too “provocative.”  But boys watching porn on the school computer isn’t: that’s just a case of “boys will be boys”!)  And, of course, opened-toed shoes and “flip-flops” are also verboten, because it would be immodest for a woman to show her “bare feet.”  (Dannie, you’d better cover up the Blessed Mother’s feet on all those statues!  Get the womenfolk to knit her up some socks.)

³ But between the two, we must say Sanborn is more the misogynist, based upon what this Pistrina commenter had to say:  “Every other traditional chapel I've been to has wished the parishioners who are mothers a happy Mother's Day both in the bulletin and from the pulpit during the weekly announcements. Nothing from MHT this morning. Is this indicative of how they feel about mothers?”  Even Dannie -- misogynist that he is -- wishes the women a “Happy Mother’s Day,” because he realizes that it is good “public relations.”  But the depraved wretch in Brooksville can’t even do that.

⁴ The former was made a “novice” nun by Dannie (as if he had the authority to do so!); but he never made her a “full-fledged” nun.  He always had some reason to say that she wasn’t “ready” to take her “final vows,” so he “postponed” them indefinitely.  Although she habitually worked long hours every day as sacristan (and choir director) -- from early in the morning ’til late at night (often past midnight) -- Dannie was never satisfied with her work; and he would verbally berate her on a regular basis. Eventually, after taking this abuse for years, she “had enough,” and quit.   

The nuns, by the way, were housed off-site.  An on-site convent was presumably built for them (or, at least, that’s what Dannie told his parishioners); but after it was built, it was used instead to house priests.  The nuns had to drive to SGG everyday from this off-site convent -- a small, inferior rented facility – adding “commute time” to an already long day.  The “sacristan” nun once told of a instance when she was so tired when she got home from working at the church, that she fell asleep in her car.  (And, by the way, she – not “the parish” -- paid for the car.)

We might also add that there was at one time a third nun, Sr. Gerard Vincent (an older nun, who taught at the school), who died previously.   She fell and broke her hip.  But, after a too brief recuperation period, she was “pressed back into service” – and fell again.  This time, she didn’t recover.  Shortly afterward, she died.  Meanwhile, when Dannie had “sinus trouble” (that he didn’t want to put up with), he got himself operated on (followed by a leisurely “convalescence” at the Bishop’s Lodge in sunny Santa Fe, New Mexico).  Nothing, it seems, was too good for Dannie.  (The operation, by the way, didn’t help – another waste of parishioners’ money.)

⁵ One parishioner’s wife was once talked into “helping out” with the ironing.  She was given an altar linen (that was soaking wet) to iron.  She started to “wring it out,” but was told that it had to be ironed “wet.”  She asked why, but was told, “that’s the way it has to be done.”  She then asked if she could take the work home with her, but was told, “No, it has to be done here.”  As one might expect, she quit.  The cult masters make sure that the work is as “labor intensive” as possible (and that the slaves are given no latitude in making it easier on themselves).  The emphasis is not on how efficiently a task can be done, but on maximizing its degree of oppressiveness.

During Holy Week, especially, the tasks were “make work” projects.  The Altar of Repose had to be different every year, and required the work of several people for almost a week to build.  (The nun in charge of it worked past midnight most of the week to finish it – only to see it used for one day and then torn down the next.  She, by the way, was the one who “left in disgust.”)  Another “make work” task was stripping leaves (which were very “sticky”) from eucalyptus branches, to be scattered on the floor during one of the processions – then to be quickly swept up before the following service, so that Dannie wouldn’t get any of them “stuck” on his shoes.  Adults and kids alike were “recruited” to do this task.  Holy Week (as usual) was one long, exhaustive ordeal.

⁶ A recent Pistrina article has reprinted some of the insane rules at MHT (from an old Christ or Chaos article), which bear out what recent commenters have had to say.  (Click here to see article.)

⁷ Here’s what one had to say: “The little children that attend Mass on Sunday's at MHT are like nothing I've ever seen before. Even kids as little as one, two, and three are expected to sit/kneel, stand still, and assist at Mass like the adults. Not even a religious book to keep their attention. If they so much as try to turn around one little bit, the parents are all over them. It's crazy! Kids that small can't be expected to sit perfectly still and not be distracted by things going on around them. I'm all for kids assisting respectfully at Mass, but the behavior I see there is just not normal! It's weird!”

And here’s what another had to say: “We are parents who just had issues with Queen of All Saints and MHT with Sandborn and Selway. .. they are nothing but a pharasiac bunch of uncharitable, controlling freaks.  We had our children in their school over the last two years after long years of Catholic homeschooling...the last two tears was a parent's worst nightmare...they try to usurp all parental authority...We rejected their cultish school and church; they do nothing to help these poor children to practice the 12 Catholic virtues but teach them,materialism, and all sort of nonsense...Sandborn is the meanest arrogant man and Selway has temper and denial issues....The vice principal is like Lady Macbeth" -- look like an innocent flower but be a serpent under it"  Most of the false nuns are there...mean and controlling and spoiled. The whole thing is a joke.

Will write a whole article about them soon. They are not Catholic period. Sandborn hates children and indoctrinated the 5 main,families him,and Selway control.  Selway told us that only those obeying Sandborn will go to heaven. That includes the family clique and his own.  How presumptuous!!!  Selway would lie to your face all,the time...he favors his family. He is a pathetic daddy's boy who never left his family. So are the false nuns there. They squeeze all the money from good working families to ndulge into luxuries...so fake!!! Selway only drink perrier water! They have no proper school building, labs, gym, etc, no qualified teachers since, yet they charged tons of money for their controlling uncharitable family run school. Glad and thankful to God to be out of the evil cult!!”  

No doubt, Big Don (and his hard-core bootlickers) will reject both of these comments as “scurrilous lies” and “slander” – especially the latter, whose spelling and grammar they’ll criticize as well.  But, regardless of that, the input is genuine – and true.  Plus, there were several others who mirrored the sentiments of these three.  So, Big Don might get away with dismissing one of them – but not all of them.  There are just too many for him to play the “denial” game – and there will be more.  (Actually, in the past, there have been many who have quitted the MHT cult center; it’s just that now they are becoming more vocal about it.)  So, Donnie, as your buddy, Tasteless Tony, might put it, “You’re toast!”

Terri’s Death – Its Psychological Effects (and Consequences)

Editor’s note:  As some of you discovered, we posted a “special edition” last week (which would normally be an “off week”).  Today’s post is our usual bi-weekly offering.  Our next article will be, as it normally is, two weeks from now.  Also, we want to inform our readers that we have fixed a "problem" on our blog: heretofore, one was not able to comment "anonymously," because of a design error (that we weren't aware of, and which someone brought to our attention).  That has now been remedied.

In the article before last, we described the physical suffering that Terri Schiavo endured during her last days.  But what about her mental suffering.  Many experts agree that, as bad as physical pain is, the psychological pain is often far worse – especially when – slowly, methodically, and knowingly -- one is being put to death against his or her will.  One is tempted to compare the psychological effects of her ordeal with that of a condemned prisoner.  But this is not a valid comparison, for the simple reason that, for one thing, a condemned prisoner is guilty of a crime, and deserves to die.  Terri wasn’t – nor did she deserve her fate.  She was an innocent lamb, whose only “crime” was that – in Tony Cekada’s words -- she was “a burden on society.”

Tony might also want to claim that, in her diminished mental state, she was incapable of experiencing any “psychological trauma,” and wasn’t “responsive.” Well, perhaps she could not form complete phrases or sentences; but she was not, as Tony implies, an unfeeling “vegetable.”  Here is what Fr. Frank Pavone (who was at her bedside) had to say: “I told Terri she had many people around the country and around the world who loved her and were praying for her.  She looked at me attentively.  I said, ‘Terri now we are going to pray together, I want to give you a blessing, let's say some prayers.’   So I laid my hand on her head.  She closed her eyes. I said the prayer.  She opened her eyes again at the end of the prayer.  Her dad, who has a mustache, leaned over to kiss her and said, ‘OK Terri now here comes the tickle.’  She smiled and laughed [our bold emphasis] and after he kissed her I saw her return the kiss.  Her mom asked her a question at a certain point and I heard her voice.  She was trying to respond.  She was making sounds in response to her mother's question, not just at odd times and meaningless moments.  I heard her trying to say something but she was not, because of her disability, able to articulate the words.  She was certainly responsive.” ¹

Now one might contend that any input from Fr. Pavone (or the Schindler family) will be “subjective” or “biased.”  However, the same could be said for input from the “Michael Schiavo” side too.  Plus, we can say this: that Fr. Pavone and the Schindlers had nothing materially to gain – either from keeping Terri alive, or from her death – but Michael Schiavo did.  By her death, he stood to gain (as American Digest reported) six to eight million dollars (in book publishing and movie rights, and speaking engagement fees).  The Schindlers offered him a million dollars if he would let them bring Terri home and take care of her at their expense -- but he refused, because he could make much more from her death. Michael Schiavo, then, had everything to gain by lying, but nothing to gain by telling the truth.  For these reasons, then, we think that input from the Schindler side is the more accurate.²

So, is there any evidence of psychological trauma in Terri’s ordeal?  Yes, there is. And what kind of horror might she have experienced?  Most experts (in the fields of torture and of those facing certain death) agree that its mental pain and anguish are generally much more than the physical pain, and that there is a whole kaleidoscope of terrifying emotions that the victims experience: fear, bewilderment, disbelief, morbid apprehension, despair, helplessness – you name it.  In Terri’s case, just imagine how all these feelings were magnified by the fact that she was unable to communicate those feelings – to vocalize them.  Just imagine her frustration (not to mention, her terror) at not being able to do so.

So, that being said, what evidence is there of psychological trauma?  Again, we refer to eye-witness testimony.  Bobby Schindler (her brother), who was there at her bedside, said, “What will be forever seared in my memory is the look of utter horror on my sister’s face when my family visited her just after she died.”  This same view was echoed by many others, including Fr. Frank Pavone: “The night before she died, I was in her room for probably a total of 3-4 hours, and then for another hour the next morning -- her final hour. To describe the way she looked as ‘peaceful’ is a total distortion of what I saw.  She was a person who for thirteen days had no food or water.  She was, as you would expect, very drawn in her appearance as opposed to when I had seen her before.  Her eyes were open but they were moving from one side to the next, constantly darting back and forth.  I watched her for hours, and the best way I can describe the look on her face is ‘terrified sadness.’  Her mouth was open the whole time.  It looked like it was frozen open. She was panting rapidly.  It wasn't peaceful in any sense of the word.  She was panting as if she had just run a hundred miles.”  Again, one can only imagine the unspeakable horror that Terri experienced as she wasted away. ³

But, regardless of how much mental anguish that Terri suffered – or how aware of it she was, the “bottom line” on this is that NONE of it was necessary: since the Schindlers were willing to take care of Terri (and pay Michael a million dollars just for being allowed to do so), there was absolutely no legitimate reason for him to have her put to death – but he did.  His reason, as we said earlier, was MONEY.  Like Tony, he was only thinking of the money.  But was this his only reason?  Perhaps there was another one: what if she had recovered – at least to the point where she could “communicate”?  After all, she was making progress in her rehabilitation (until her husband put a stop to it); and there’s no way of Michael’s being certain to what degree she might have recovered.  Was he afraid that, if she recovered “enough,” she might “say something” (or communicate it in some other way) – something that might be “incriminating”? ⁴

The thing that supports this theory even more so is that he not only had her put to death, but had her cremated as well.  Of course, Terri’s family -- being devout Catholics -- bitterly opposed this; but Michael ignored their pleas.  Why?  What possible motive could he have to deny such a harmless request, and have her cremated?  Because he was also afraid that something “forensic” might turn up – that’s why.  Remember those bone scans that showed the fractured bones?  They were clear evidence of “trauma.”  Perhaps other forensic evidence might have turned up too; and that, along with those bones scans, might have been enough to point an incriminating finger at him.  So, he probably wanted to make sure that NOTHING of that nature remained.  He was bound and determined to erase every shred of evidence that he could. ⁵

All of that is “bad enough.”  But the real tragedy of Terri Schiavo’s death is what it set in motion: it kicked into high gear the “right-to-die” movement. What Roe vs. Wade did for abortion, the Schiavo case has done for euthanasia.  Bobby Schindler, who now works tirelessly for the pro-life cause, says this: “Yes, things have changed – they’ve gotten worse. Exactly how many persons are being killed like Terri every year is difficult to know, although I think the numbers would shock us. What we do know is that we have a very active and aggressive right-to-die movement.  There are many dynamics involved to successfully convince our general public that it’s ‘okay’ to dehydrate and starve a human being to death.  If I had to point to one of the major accomplishments, it is how the right-to-die forces have been able to reclassify feeding tubes as ‘medical treatment.’  However, just as effective is how they’ve influenced the masses to buy into the notion that some persons are in fact, not persons. Consequently, these human ‘non-persons’ have no ‘value’ and can be killed.”  “Even more frightening,” He adds, “is how this ideology has impacted and been accepted in our culture, in particular, our health care community.  This, along with changes in public policies, now puts life and death decisions in the hands of physicians, hospitals boards, and ethics committees – basically strangers – in the place of family members.”

What he says is absolutely true.  There is a general “pro-death” mentality nowadays.  How many times have you heard someone say, “If something happens to me, I don’t want to be resuscitated”; or, “If I have a stroke, I don’t want to live,” etc.  The general mindset nowadays is – to use Tony’s words -- not to be “a burden on society.”  Many of our nursing homes, for instance, are little more than death factories, where patients deemed too “incapacitated” (either mentally or physically) are not fed, i.e., they are starved to death.  (Sometimes, they’re even denied hydration, as Terri was.)  This is especially true in hospices, where the terminally ill are routinely denied both food and water (especially the latter, to hasten the onset of death, thus making the process more “cost effective”).⁶

The SGG and MHT cult-masters can take grim solace in knowing that they helped make all this happen.  That they could have cared so little about Terri is not surprising, because they never cared as well about those SGG school kids so grossly mistreated back in 2009, nor about those being abused at MHT now.  They only care about themselves.  We hold out little hope that these maggots will ever change – but maybe their parishioners will.  Perhaps what happened to Terri will one day make them realize what the cult-masters are all about.  If so, then – at least for them – Terri’s death will not have been in vain.

___________________________

¹ Dr. William Polk Cheshire (a Florida neurologist), corroborates this too, and also says that Terri was certainly capable of feeling pain.   (Click here for more of what Dr. Cheshire said.)  Michael Schiavo’s lawyer trumpeted out several medical “experts” to testify that Terri was in a “PVS” (Persistent Vegetative State); but, as Dr. Cheshire’s testimony shows, she was NOT in a state of PVS.  (Please note too that Dr. Cheshire takes a “pro death” stance in cases of PVS, so he is not a pro-life “professional witness” hand-picked by the Schindlers to testify.  He simply stated that Terri was not in a state of PVS, and therefore didn’t warrant having her life terminated.  He made this admission under absolutely no “pressure” from either the Schindlers or any “pro life” source.)

² Schiavo’s vested interest in her death is a prime reason to doubt his credibility.  When he testified that Terri told him that “if anything happened to me, I would not want to be kept on life support,” two of Terri’s girlfriends (and one of Michael’s former girlfriends) refuted that testimony  (The judge in Terri’s case, George W. Greer, by the way, accepted his testimony and discounted theirs – even though he [the judge] got the facts wrong about the testimony.  For more on this, click here.)  We might also add that Michael Schiavo’s lawyer’s outlandish statement -- “She looked beautiful.  I’ve never seen such a look of beauty upon her” – is reason enough to make one discount anything coming from that quarter.

³ There is, indeed, more evidence that Terri was aware that she was being intentionally put to death -- and, in addition to that, that Michael Schiavo lied and/or changed his story several times during his testimony.  But, in the interest of saving space, we have not included it here.  There is also evidence that there was much misinformation put out about Schiavo, not only by Michael Schiavo and his lawyers, but by the mainstream media as well.  (For those who wish to read more, click here and here.)

⁴ Although several “medical experts” held out little hope for Terri’s cognitive recovery, there were several who did hold out that hope.  One must remember too that many (if not most) of those in the “no hope” camp were hand-picked by Michael Schiavo.  Also, the general climate in the “mainstream media” being what it is, one can be sure that they were of the same mindset -- and eager to publicize only their point of view.  Plus, it is by no means certain that she couldn’t recover.  There are many examples -- especially in recent years) -- of patients thought to be “brain dead” who completely recovered.  (The fact is, even with today’s “advances” in neurological knowledge, the brain is still a largely uncharted domain, and no one can say with certainty that there is “no hope” of recovery – in ANY case.)

And, what if Terri had recovered to the point where she could have communicated what really happened when she had her “accident” – and before?  How much of Michael Schiavo’s testimony could she have refuted?  For that and other reasons, he would’ve had a powerful motive to make sure that she would never be able to “talk.”  (One of the many websites available – with several related “links” – asks, “What is Michael Schiavo afraid of?”  Good question!  For those with the time to investigate, it has some intriguing leads to explore.)

⁵ One might dispute our reasons given for her cremation, and say that the bone scan evidence was there, whether she was cremated or not.  Yes it is; but past evidence – especially written evidence, such as depositions, affidavits and yes, medical reports -- has often been successfully challenged, whereas current forensic evidence isn’t.  It can be examined and re-examined, as many times as one wants.  Also, there might be other evidence that a thorough autopsy could reveal: toxicology, for instance.  Michael Schiavo contended that her initial collapse (and subsequent oxygen deprivation) was the result of a “potassium imbalance” – but no imbalance was found.  However, there may be “forensic” ways to determine if oxygen deprivation was caused by smothering.  But we’ll never know, will we, now that she’s just a pile of ashes.  With cremation, all evidence is irretrievably lost.

⁶ The “Obamacare” healthcare plan, for instance, reportedly stipulates that, past a certain age, cancer care not be given, and the patient then left to die – because continued treatment would be “prohibitively expensive.”  More and more, health decisions are being made on the basis of cost, not the patient’s wellbeing – and being made by “administrators” with no medical expertise whatsoever.

Special Edition: A Letter by Donald Sanborn

Editor’e Note: Normally, we publish only every other week.  But today, we have – flash! – a special edition!  (We will, of course, publish next week, as usual, on our regular “bi-weekly” schedule; but we’re providing this “special edition” for your ADDED reading pleasure!)  Here it is:

In our last article, Schiavo: The Physiology of Dehydration, one commenter wrote in to ask if Donald Sanborn supported Cekada’s position on Schiavo. We said that he did; and two pieces of “proof” that we offered were 1) a letter written by Fr. Martin Stepanich to Thomas Droleskey (click here to see it), and 2) an excerpt from True or False Pope? (by Messrs. Salza and Siscoe).  The problem with that second source is that the “link” that we provided “does not work,” i.e., when one clicks on it, it says, “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”  (We’re not sure why, but we’re investigating.)

Another problem is that other corroborating sources that we were hoping to find on the internet (confirming Sanborn’s support of Cekada on Schiavo) also “did not exist.”  We just couldn’t find any.  Sure enough,  Pistrina Liturgica, in a later “comment,” confirmed, for instance, that a reference confirming Sanborn’s “Schiavo” support of Cekada -- in the original Wikipedia biography of Cekada – was no longer there.  Unfortunately, it had been removed.  Pistrina (and we) both suspect that a certain “someone” had it removed, because it was an embarrassment for him.  What we suspected was that Donnie had removed other references as well (about his support of Checkie on Schiavo); and, sure enough, he did: we scoured the internet, but could find nothing further.

But, in gathering information for another article, we (providentially!) came across something that we had copied (from the internet) some time back: a “note” written by Big Don himself that confirms that he did indeed support Checkie’s position!  (Click here for the website.)  Now, in scouring this website, you will exclaim, “But there’s nothing from Sanborn here!”  And you’d be right: there IS nothing there – because that “someone” had that removed too!  However (as we said), we providentially copied it before it WAS removed.  Here it is:

A NOTE ON THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO
 
by The Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
 
I WROTE ABOUT this subject a little over a year ago, but because much has been said in recent weeks about it, I feel I should say more.
 
The removal of the feeding tube is being styled by conservatives as a murder. This is false. A murder is a direct taking of an innocent life. But there was no direct taking of an innocent life here.
 
Terri Schiavo was suffering from the failure of a vital organ, namely her brain. This failure of her brain caused other failures, most notably the failure of part of her digestive function, namely chewing and swallowing. Therefore she could not receive and digest food in an ordinary fashion.
 
 Whenever a vital organ fails, we die. Whether it be the heart, the liver, the kidneys, or anything else needed for the basic functions of life in the body, we die when they fail. These life functions can, in certain cases, be artificially continued, e.g., by a respirator, for those who cannot breathe. But by the ordinary course of events, these people will die of the failure of these organs.
 
The general moral principle regarding medical treatments and life-support is that one is obliged to use ordinary means to preserve one's life, but one is not obliged to use extraordinary means to preserve one's life, although one may use them.
 
So the question in this case is: is it extraordinary means to preserve Terri Schiavo's life to keep a feeding tube in her for fifteen years?
 
I unhesitatingly respond yes, it is extraordinary. Why? Because the entire purpose of medicine is to aid the body to heal itself. When it becomes evident that the body will never heal itself in the case of the failure of a vital organ, then the prolongation of life becomes purely artificial. Think of a permanently brain-damaged person on a respirator, because he cannot breathe.
 
If a reliable physician should attest to this state of affairs, or many reliable physicians in case of doubt, it would be perfectly moral to remove the extraordinary means of life-support.
 
Medical treatments, furthermore, can be extraordinary for extrinsic considerations. For example, what might seem ordinary in itself, from a purely medical point of view, may be extraordinary from the point of view of the ability of the patient or of the family to pay for it, or to provide the care necessary to maintain the sick person in the kind of care he needs.
 
Here is where the Schiavo case becomes more serious. If the removal of a feeding tube, in a case where there is no hope of recovery, is defined as murder, then the State will be obliged to prevent the removal of feeding tubes and respirators and of many similar devices and treatments for tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are on them, at this moment as we speak. As medical science progresses, for how long will people be able to be kept alive by these extraordinary methods?
 
Now if the State is required to keep people in this condition indefinitely, the State is then also required to pay for their care. This could easily amount to $1000.00 a day or much more. So my question is, are all those who are calling Terri Schiavo's death a murder willing to pay the enormous taxes necessary to build facilities for these people on feeding tubes and respirators, and to care for them day by day? Would all of these people be willing to sell their homes and cars, and live in abject poverty, in order to keep all the Terri Schiavo's alive now and in the future? I doubt it. In such a case, I think that the common sense and reality of what extraordinary means signifies will dawn on them.
 
For if it is murder to remove these means, then it is intrinsically evil to remove them. But if it is intrinsically evil, it is something which we can never do or cooperate in for any reason. As a result, the whole family would have to become homeless, and sell pencils on the street, in order to keep a loved one on a feeding tube or on a respirator until he or she is 105, or perhaps more aged. Does this make any sense at all?

By the way, we left this “note” “just as it was” (in its original format, font, etc.), as it appeared on that website.  We don’t think that Big Don will be able to contend (or pretend) that it never existed, because it could be “unearthed” if need be.  (Anything ever written in “cyberspace” is there forever.  It can never really be “erased.”)  We have recreated it here to let Big Don know that – try as he might – he cannot erase all the evidence of his “Schiavo” support of the Cheeseburger.  We’d also like to add this: “Shame on you, Donnie!  You thought you could get away with it, didn’t you?!”  Well, he didn’t.  His attempt to cover up his involvement shows both his (attempt at) cunning and his cowardice.  But, as all can see, it was a futile effort.  Big Don blew it! 

Donnie, just as you did in the case of the SGG School scandals, when you IGNORED the facts that were readily available to you, and wrote your caustic letter to Mr. Brueggemann (see our post, A Tale of Two Letters), you did the same thing here with Schiavo.  Without bothering to check any of the facts in the case – facts readily available on the internet – you IGNORED them here too, and preemptively took Checkie’s side, citing the same erroneous “cost” and medical reasons as he.  Supporting his erroneous position was more important to you than telling the truth.

For instance, you claim that “the state” would be stuck with “paying the tab” for Terri’s care.  That’s a lie.  There was $750,000 set aside for her care (that Michael Schiavo chose to use for himself and his sleep-in girlfriend). And, as our next article will show, the Schindlers (Terri’s family) were willing to pay her expenses anyway.    You insinuated that Terri was on “life support.”  No she wasn’t.  She was not on a respirator or anything of that sort.  She was breathing on her own, without any such assistance – and she was making progress in her recovery, until Michael had it stopped.  While she was recovering, she was merely being fed through a feeding tube, which – contrary to what you infer -- is cheaper than conventional feeding.  (And, according to the nurses attending her, she was able to swallow anyway – another fact that was pointed out to you in person, which you privately acknowledged at the time, but publicly chose to ignore later on).  All this and more was readily available to you -- but you ignored it all.  Sanborn, you are a liar and a coward.