Saturday, May 7, 2016

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:

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, whichcontrary 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.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. At the risk of being repetitive, we again post the opinion of a genuinely trained, Catholic priest, Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara of the SSPX on this subject. (Emphases his.)

    Fr. Iscara's entire monograph is available HERE. Sanborn and Cekada are all wet!

    "...we are convinced that the provision of food and fluids is not simply —or strictly — "medical care," but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life.

    Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply "to allow the patient to die" : what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration.

    In consequence, it can be affirmed that the procedure is neither useless nor burdensome: it preserves life, and the material inconveniences that it provokes are certainly and abundantly compensated by the good that it preserves. Consequently, whatever the medical condition of the patient, artificial nutrition and hydration have to be continued."

  3. Bishop Sanborn wrote the following:

    "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"...

    This is a poor example in the case of Terri Shiavo. Had Bishop Sanborn taken the time to research the Shiavo case himself, he would never have written this letter backing Fr. Cekada. How do we know? Because this letter was written on A Web-site that has since been taken down, and nowhere to be found, except here on Lay Pulpit, thanks to great investigative work.
    I find it amazing how sure Bishop Sanborn was in his conviction to back up Fr. Cekada who has none of the following degrees: Canonical Lawyer, Medical Doctor or Scientist, and yet, Bishop Sanborn wrote endorsing Fr. Cedaka with the following statement, "I unhesitatingly respond yes, it is extraordinary”
    Why would Bishop Sanborn have backed Fr. Cekada, without any reservation?
    Could it be that all of the nine priests who left the Society of St. Pius X back in the early '80's believed his lies about being something he was not? Or could it be, that Bishop Sanborn failed his seminarians by having this alleged great theologian teaching in his seminary for all those years, only to find out he lied about his credentials?

    Hitler once said: “ If you tell a lie often enough, you begin to believe it, and "if you are going to lie, lie big.” Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, and Bishop Sanborn they forgot about Spartan Law, which is: DON”T GET CAUGHT” They did, and now Blogs such as: Lay Pulpit and Pistrina Liturgica, are unveiling their masks of deception.

    I absolutely know, and without any doubt, that without air, (suffocation), without water, (dehydration), and without food, (starvation). and in that order, the body created by God, will die.

    Medicine is not even an issue in this case.

    Terri Shiavo was murdered by depriving her body of the basic elements God gave us to sustain life.

    She was MURDERED by the likes of those who have an agenda to pursue for their Master, Lucifer. They used the likes of these idiotic self- proclaimed so called theologians like Fr. Cekada, who by their arrogant ignorance aided and abated in the evil crime to promote their Anti-Christ agenda. The Elitists played our clergy like a fiddle while they entertained their pride, and danced right onto their pulpits of principles to defend their cause for murder. Their sole purpose was to introduce Roe v Wade as the precedent to establish a future law for Euthanasia. By the murder of Terri Shiavo in a public arena they opened the doors to future murders of anyone they deem not worthy to live. Perhaps one day we will have a reality show called, “ Your Day to Die”.


    Long before there was a ROE V. WADE there was the clamoring from the elitists to be fearful of the impending Population Explosion. They had an agenda then, now, and long before The Crucifixion of Christ.

    I am truly sorry to say, that like Christ when He cried, “I thirst”, He was given gall by a Pagan soldier. While Terri Shiavo was given nothing in a so called civilized society. Not even the comfort of her mother, while she lie in the throes of an agonizing death from dehydration. All of this with the approval of a Catholic priest, and his bishop as they proclaim that water and food are extraordinary means.

    They say, “what goes around, comes around.” I would be fearful if I were Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn, or anybody, who sided with them on this particular case, lest this fate befall me.

  4. Well said, Shadow.

    Sanborn’s comments show that he knows NOTHING about moral theology -- or, more likely, doesn’t CARE about moral theology. The moral theology of Schiavo is so BASIC that even a CHILD could figure it out – but he (and Checkie) chose to IGNORE it. Big Don didn’t take the time to research the facts on Schiavo because he didn’t WANT to. His only interest was in showing support NOT for Catholic principles but for his cronies. His allegiance was to THEM, not to God. MHT and SGG are CULTS; and the hallmark of cults is that they are “right” and everybody else is wrong. That’s why fellow cult masters must show SOLIDARITY for each other, and back up each other’s LIES.

    The fact that NONE of them – all these years since, and with plenty of opportunities to do so -- have never retracted what they’ve said about Schiavo shows both their insincerity and their unconcern. What Big Don, Checkie and Dannie care about – what they’ve always and ONLY cared about -- is M-O-N-E-Y. Whether they’re just PAWNS of the elitists, or are equal partners in crime, the result is the same: they are evil men. The parishioners at SGG and Brooksville must come to this realization, and come to the harsh reality that all three of these lepers care only about THEMSELVES

    1. One thing we forgot to mention in our last response: the website that contained Sanborn’s note STILL EXISTS; it’s just Sanborn’s NOTE that has vanished. This makes its disappearance look all the more “fishy” and “sneaky” -- and adds credence to what Pistrina said about the reference to Sanborn’s “Schiavo” support of Cekada being erased from Checkie’s Wikipedia biography (not that any such “credence” is necessary; it’s always been COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Donny supported Checkie -- and the erased reference can, as we’ve said before, be “accessed” if necessary).

      Erasing an “embarrassing reference” from a website, by the way, is not something new: Thomas Droleskey did it on his “Christ or Chaos” website. A few years ago, he wrote a long diatribe, “Retracting Support for Paul Petko,” which, after we had proven it to be totally UNTRUE (and thus an embarrassment for him), he then WITHDREW from his website. Luckily, we copied that article too, before it was “erased.” So, this tactic, in the case of both of these scoundrels, has not worked – and will forever come back to haunt them.

    2. I watched (helpless) while the hospital decided mom was too "frail" to repair a hernia. She could no longer ingest solids or fluids because of it. The doctors told me the operation would probably kill her. My retort: If she's going to die from lack of food and hydration, why not try the operation? It might succeed.
      No..they just shook their heads. No.
      So the Catholic (sic) hospital gave her morphine for about 7 days until she died.
      I know why that happened. Because Medicare wouldn't pay for the operation; so the memo come down from the insurance company.
      Patient: old (84 yrs.); frail; consuming and no longer producing. Cut her off.
      It's 3 years later and there is hardly a day I don't cry about it and suffer over it. St. Michael defend us.

    3. Precisely! As we will mention in our next article, the emphasis is no longer on the patient’s well-being, but on “cost effectiveness.” We’ll be posting it tomorrow. Thanks for your input.