March 2005 Archives

And may God forgive us for what we have become.

Terri Schiavo died this morning after suffering through the longest public execution I'm aware of. Please pray for her soul.

God bless,
Jay

A federal appeals court has agreed to reconsider an appeal made by Terri Schiavo's parents, the Schindlers. This is actually a surprising move by the court - most doubted they would move in this direction. It isn't a win for the Schindler's yet, but it is a move in the right direction and opens the door to a possible miracle in this case.

Please continue to pray for Terri Schiavo as well as the other participants in this case, including Michael.

God bless,
Jay

Our culture continues to restrict the freedoms of Christians. The Colorado Supreme Court threw out a jury sentence because the jurors discussed Bible passages. Personally, I have a problem with the death penalty, but it's ridiculous to ban a jury from discussing morality, faith, and religion when debating whether to take a man's life.

Freedom? As long as it doesn't involve Christ, the one who can truly free us. At this point, it is difficult for a committed Christian to be a doctor (all doctors are required to take courses on abortion) or a judge (the litmus test Democrats use to approve judges includes an analysis of their morality). How long until other professions (like politician) will be blocked? The war continues, and we are losing.

God bless,
Jay

The newest Catholic Carnival: Easter Joy and Terri Schiavo is now up at Living Catholicism.

As always, it's an excellent collection of Catholic thought. This one focuses on Easter and several posts tie in Terri Schiavo's starvation. Take a few minutes and enjoy.

God bless,
Jay

He is risen indeed! Alleluia

A happy Easter season to you and yours.

God bless,
Jay

Welcome to Holy Thursday when Christ washed the feet of the apostles in a lesson that was sure to live with them forever: you must serve. This Holy Week we are getting to witness the reality of our deaths (appropriate for Lent) in the woman of Terri Schiavo, who is slowly starving to death during the holiest time of the year. Through her agony we can see a little of the passion of Christ, who also died a horribly painful death. Through Terri Schiavo’s parents, we see the witness of Mary at the foot of the Cross, watching a child die in agony.

The question for Holy Thursday is, how can we better serve not only Christ, but also our fellow man? I think the answer was given by Christ in a new commandment:

John 13:34. [Jesus speaking] “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

As we approach Easter’s joy, remember to serve others – particularly those disabled and in need like Terri Schiavo – through prayers, acts, and words. I think if nothing else, the ordeal of Terri Schiavo has shown us how far our culture has fallen. How corrupt we have allowed our nation to become. Perhaps through true Christian service such as caring for the poor and sick, we can begin to regain some of the love for life our nation began with.

God bless,
Jay

PS – I put up our Good Friday colors early, because I won’t have a chance later today or tomorrow.

There’s been a lot of “spin” around the condition that Terri Schiavo is actually in and whether she could be rehabilitated. I think Fox News clarified matters when Sean Hannity interviewed a doctor who was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 1999 for his work on patients like Terri Schiavo. Take a look:

HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize (search) in medicine?
HAMMESFAHR: Yes.
HANNITY: In 1999? For your work...
HAMMESFAHR: ... in patients like Terri. For brain injury and stroke patients. We discovered how you get these people better, and we did it for 10 years with Medicare. We got evaluated by the state of Florida and we first discovered a technique that works in people like Terri.
HANNITY: This is what I want to talk about. You have spent, unlike Robert Wexler, who was commenting on medical issues this weekend, you spent how many hours with Terri?
HAMMESFAHR: I spent about 10 hours with Terri across three separate occasions, and I spent a lot of time with videotapes, the medical record which is in boxes and boxes and boxes. for about a year. And of course, you know, I spending time interviewing the family and people who actually have seen her. So I've spent a lot of time with her.
HANNITY: Do you believe she is aware, conscious and responsive?
HAMMESFAHR: Terri is completely aware and conscious and responsive. She is like a child with cerebral palsy. We have kids in the Pinellas County school system every day that are much worse than her, that we're educating.
HANNITY: Doctor, wait a minute. I've got to get this straight here.
You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this very work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?
HAMMESFAHR: Absolutely.
HANNITY: Could she talk one day?
HAMMESFAHR: Yes.
HANNITY: Then how is it possible we're in this position if you have examined her, you were up for a Nobel Prize. I -- this is mind boggling to me.
HAMMESFAHR: I don't understand it myself. You know, this is a -- this is a case of a terrible error that's happened and it's a grievous case.
You know, what struck me about Congress, in the last couple of days is that there we have physicians who examined the videotapes, examined the same evidence I had, examined my records, my evaluation of her, stepped forward and said, this is not a person in a coma. This is not a person in PVS (a persistent vegetative state). We have to stop this.
HANNITY: All right.
HAMMESFAHR: It just goes to show, you do not want your medical care delivered by a judge.
HANNITY: Well, this is what I want to understand. This is your area of expertise that got you nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in medicine, the Nobel Prize.
And you're saying after a thorough examination of 10 hours total with her, and an examination of records and an examination of records and an examination of tapes regarding her, that she could be rehabilitated. What about all of these other people that have said that that's not possible, how can we have disparaging?
HANNITY: It's not all of these other people. There's four people on the other side, who say she can't be rehabilitated. All were paid individuals. Three by George Felos...
HANNITY: ...and you're not paid?
HAMMESFAHR: I was not paid. Now, if you look at the people who are on Terri's side and stepped forward, at last count, two weeks ago, 33 M.D.s, brain injury specialists from around the country, places like UCLA, Tulane, LSU, Boston University --Thirty-three physicians has stepped forward to say that this person can be rehabilitated. She's not in PVS, not in a coma. And the -- Judge Greer ignored this.

This is scary, folks. A judge has ordered this woman starved and ignored some of the evidence. I’ve been thinking about the oddities of this case and I thought I would point out a few:

• It would be “cruel and unusual punishment” to starve a mass murderer to death, but this innocent woman gets exactly that.
  
• Kevorkian is sitting in prison right now for helping people commit suicide, but Michael Schiavo has somehow gotten a court to order his wife be murdered (convenient, since he’s been living with another woman for years).
  
• It’s ironic that Michael Schiavo didn’t “remember” his wife’s desire to die until after he was awarded the $1.3 million settlement and after he met his new “fiance” (can you have a fiancé if you’re already married and not Mormon?)
  
• The Democratic Party just can’t help being Democrats. It seems like they get every single moral issue exactly wrong. How can that be possible? Even a blind dog finds water every now and then.
  
• Her husband was awarded over $1 million in order to help rehabilitate her; he’s never given her any of the rehabilitation treatments, but decided she needs to die. And a judge agreed.
  
• Judges now have the power to starve you to death, even if you (a) aren’t dying, (b) are able to be rehabilitated according to experts, and (c) are no longer the only person your spouse pretends to be married to. What we have here is a theocracy, one that adheres to the Culture of Death and the sacraments of abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality and euthanasia. What’s next?
  
• A contract in Florida isn’t valid for anything worth more than $500. But a couple of people with suspicious motives can testify that they overheard you say you wanted to die and you’re toast. I’m thinking the elderly should think twice about retirement destinations.
  

What a moral disaster! Furthermore, this signifies the depths to which our morality has fallen. May God forgive us.

God bless,
Jay

As you may have noticed, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have decided to increase their fight against the death penalty in the U.S. I think it's important to note why this is - it provides an interesting insight into the "Catholic mind" in the US, so to speak.

Catholics often use the term "Culture of Life" which refers directly to a culture that respects life and gives persons the dignity they deserve. Encapsulated in this thought are the issues of abortion and euthansia (which is what people often see as the "Culture of Life" issues) along with the death penalty. The Bible does not say the death penalty is evil and the Church does not teach this. However, the Church's mission is to save souls - and those most lost are just as important as those living as God asks.

So we look at the "ends" of the death penalty. Primarily the death penalty functions to serve justice by taking the life of a person. This effectively ends this persons ability to reconcile with God and beg forgiveness for their sins. In other words, this may condemn a man who would have eventually come back to God after years in prison.

Does the Church recommend absolute leniency in death penalty cases? No, not in any way. The point is that we can now incarcerate a man for life, thus punishing him for his crimes. However, this punishment still allows for the possibility of forgiveness from God should the criminal seek it. The death penalty removes this possibility.

In addition, over the last few years we've seen several cases where DNA evidence has overturned a death penalty verdict. In other words, an innocent man was about to be executed. These men were released, but how many other innocents were wrongly convicted? Again, by simply incarcerating them for life you have the option of releasing them should new evidence come to light. If they had been executed earlier, there would have been no chance to overturn their wrongful conviction.

The argument I've always heard for the death penalty (and the one I personally used for years) is that it provides a deterrent to crime - particularly violent crime. Studies, however, do not agree with this notion. In fact, adding the death penalty does not reduce violent crimes in any noticeable amount. Interestingly enough, those on death row are much more likely to be African-american even though African-americans only make up about 12% of the US population. This factoid doesn't prove anything, but certainly suggests there is an inherent bias against African-americans within the system.

Personally, when I see certain stories - for example the rapist/murderer in Florida - it is easy to say "He should get the death penalty." However, even the worst offenders in our society should have the option of repenting. And I believe that ultimately "justice" can only be served by a merciful God. Thus, a culture of life respects human life to the point where even the state won't take it.

God bless,
Jay

First, a quick update: a Federal Judge will rule at 3:00 PM today whether to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Let's pray that he does.

Another question that you may be able to help with: Why should a spouse ever be able to starve the other spouse to death? I understand the argument where a patient can be taken off of life support (brain dead, etc). But this isn't that type of case. Mr. Schiavo has been given permission by judges to starve his wife to death because she has been disable. To make matters worse, her parents are simply asking that he turn her over to them and not worry about it. But no, Mr. Schiavo is determined to kill his wife - I just don't understand why that is ever legal.

Any person would die without food or water (and it's a horrible way to die), so where did Terri Schiavo lose her Constitutional right to life. And what does this say about those disabled people who need help on a daily basis. In other words, if we can simply kill another by starving them to death, where do we draw the line? What if Terri Schiavo could swallow and thus only needed someone to help feed her by mouth, rather than a tube. Would she still deserve to die? This is terribly slippery slope.

And for the record, I think it's important to note what the newscasters are glossing over:

• 1st Michael Schiavo sued and won over a million dollars so that he could give her the rehabilitation she needed. In the case, doctors testified that this would help her.
  
• Next, Michael Schiavo decided (after getting this money) that she really didn't need the rehabilitation, so she has never gotten it (just a tiny bit at first from my understanding of the case).
  
• Then a few years later, Michael Schiavo meets his current live in "fiance" with whom he has two children
  
• Seven years after the accident that left Terri disabled (and after he had proposed to his new fiance), Michael Schiavo and his brother remember conveniently that Terri wanted to die if left in this condition. There is no other evidence other than the oral testimony of these two and Michael's sister-in-law that Terri wanted to be starved to death.
  
• Michael begins a long court process to kill his wife. When he begins there is a significant amount of money left from the settlement that will become Michael's only if Terri dies. I have seen nothing that explains how much of that money is left, but I'm betting little.
  
• Terri's parents - the Schindler's - repeatedly ask that Michael simply turn Terri over to them for care and go on with his new life. He refuses and they are the ones fighting for Terri's life.
  

Last night someone made the comment that according to Florida law, a contract for over $500 was only valid if in writing, but this husband can starve his wife to death on nothing but hearsay. And Governor Bush also pointed out that if Terri had committed a terrible crime he could pardon her, but the courts won't allow him to save an innocent woman.

Personally, it's very sad to me that our culture had declined to this point. Much prayer is needed.

God bless,
Jay

At 1:00 PM EST today our country will begin starving a disabled woman to death. The sheer statement is horrifying in its implications, but it is unfortunately true. Today, Congressional subpoenas were issued by the US House in a last-ditch effort to delay the murder. And Terri's parents have another legal appeal in the Florida court system this morning, but as their attorney states, "everything is a longshot" at this point.

I do ask that we all pray today for Terri, for Michael, and for our country. A week before the crucifixion of Christ, we have another murder of an innocent woman, her only crime is being unable to speak. Consider fasting with Terri in some small way, perhaps give up your favorite foods or eat less than you would prefer. And pray; all things are possible with God.

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE AT 1:22 PM EST: A Judge has delayed the removal of Terri's food and water. The US Congress subpoenaed Terri in order to give them time to act and this requires that she be protected at least until next Friday.

More and more I talk with people who have joined a local “community church” – in other words a church not affiliated with any specific denomination. This seems a logical next step for the protestant movement, since it allows greater individual ability to interpret Scripture without oversight, but I think there are a few issues that are especially problematic in this type of church.

First, it’s important to note the reasoning behind creating a community church. I once attended a very large Southern Baptist church where the pastor served several times as president of the Southern Baptist Association. The Association as a group achieves two main objectives as far as this discussion goes: (1) it forces member churches to abide by a common creed or doctrine and (2) it collects dues and helps expand the association/church membership. The pastor I spoke of recently left his church and formed a new “community” church. This allows him to remove both of these stipulations, which is problematic in my mind.

In other articles, I’ve discussed whether it is ever okay to split off and form your own church, so I’ll leave that alone here (after noting that I think it is wrong to intentionally cause division within the Christian community). But splitting off to form a community church causes other issues. The biggest issue involves doctrine. Whether protestants realize it or not, their beliefs are guided by a specific doctrine that they trust in. For example, sola scriptura would clearly be a doctrinal belief of virtually all protestants. And individual denominations have other specifics that comprise their doctrine of belief. For example, the Southern Baptist Association believes that infant baptism is wrong, but the Methodist church believes it is correct. In other words, each denomination has a pretty clear doctrine that all member churches must abide by.

This is not true in a community church. In fact, in the community church the doctrine is whatever the current pastor preaches from the pulpit. And there is virtually no limit on what the pastor may develop as doctrine provided he can convince church membership that he is correct. A new pastor effectively means a new doctrine – it’s inevitable that some differences will exist in their two interpretations of Scripture.

In effect, this takes the division of Christianity to a new, unprecedented level. No longer do we have multiple denominations (who have the ability to come together and discuss their faith), we now have a new, unique denomination in virtually every city, all preaching their own, personal version of Christianity. It is very difficult to engage this type of church because typically only the pastor knows what the church really believes (and that could easily change over time).

Personally, I’ve heard some very odd teachings purported to be from Scripture that have been taught in these small churches. As the population grows, more become susceptible to whatever motive the pastor has in mind. The argument can be made that this is where Christian churches first began teaching that homosexuality and abortion are acceptable. At this point, the average Christian (I think all will agree) doesn’t know enough about his/her Bible or the history of Christianity to argue with someone who knows enough to twist it to their own use. It also moves us closer to a model where each individual Christian has their own set of doctrines, whether realistic or not, and thus puts themselves as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture (relativism taken to its full potential).

I think I’m surprised there hasn’t been more criticism aimed at these churches by protestants as well as Catholics. As they grow, they are tending to take members from other protestant churches and effectively change the belief system of these individuals. On a side note, I’m also surprised at the number of Christians who don’t mind changing their beliefs – I know of a friend who liked a new church and began attending, even though that church taught infant baptism, when he believed it was wrong. This apathy toward doctrine is why we are now seeing the rise of these community churches.

Let me know what you think – especially if you are protestant.

God bless,
Jay

I'm actually just getting back from a trip, so I haven't been able to point this story out. But now I'm back.

Apparently, Michael Schiavo was offer $1 million dollars to turn Terri over to her parents. The person offering the money believes that stell cell research (he didn't indicate whether it would be embryonic or not) could improve Terri's condition. Michael has simply decided to turn down the money and continue his quest to kill his wife.

Isn't this the oddest story? For all practical purposes, Michael has another wife and has had one for quite some time now. If there is a chance Terri could recover, why would Michael say no?. Clearly he can't make the argument that Terri wanted to die - she would have wanted to be healed more. This is another piece in the puzzle that continously points to one motive in this case. From the beginning it was suggested that Michael had something to do with the reason Terri is in her current state. In my mind, this would be the only reason he would continually push for her death: to keep her quiet.

Also, it irks me that news organizations continually suggest that Terri is being kept alive "artificially" or that "life support" is being used. If we accept this definition, then we are all on life support and are artificially keeping ourselves alive. Why? Terri is simply getting food and water. Period. She isn't on life support at all - she's getting food and water through a tube to prevent her from choking. Food and water is not artifical life support.

In the final review, this is a problem of hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of a man trying to kill his wife and acting as if it were the "right" thing to do. The hypocrisy of a judge expected to serve justly who refuses to hear appeals he doesn't agree with. The hypocrisy of a nation that offers the "right to life" to everyone who (a) has been born, (b) doesn't have a disability, and (c) can function in a utilitarian manner that we equate with value. And it's also the hypocrisy of all of us, who pretend to love life and sit by while another person's is taken.

May God forgive us all.

God bless,
Jay

I have not blogged about this as much as I should have, but I'll work on keeping it more updated on our website. The latest news on Terri is that Judge Greer will now deny any legal attempt to save Terri's life. He apparently has a God-complex and will only hear motions that accept his judgment that Terri does not deserve life.

I'm one of those who believes there are crossroads in certains points of human history. At those crossroads a culture can effectively change the course of history in one way or another. One crossroad was in 1973 (the year I was born ironically enough), when the Supreme Court decided that murdering the unborn was a "right" that all women should have (even if the fathers didn't agree). I believe we are now at another crossroad in the battle for life and, really, in the battle for our culture. Will we allow a judge to condemn a woman to death by starvation without any outcry? Will good men sit silently by while evil men distort reality and destroy our culture?

I know many have decided to "fast" with Terri for her life. At this point it seems on March 15th that Terri Schiavo's murder by the courts will begin. I encourage all of us to pray, to speak up in Terri's defense (to everyone we know), to pray, to fast with Terri for God's intervention, and to pray. This is an innocent woman condemned to die by a tyrant wearing judicial robes. Over the past 30 years we have seen this pattern of behavior again and again - it must be stopped now. You can also give money to help the fight.

Please, do not allow Terri to go gently into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying . . . and rage, rage against a definition of "human" that doesn't give human beings the diginity they deserve and the right to life they are guaranteed by our Constitution.

God bless,
Jay

Catholic Carnival XX: Silence is now online. It's another great collection of Catholic thought throughout the blogosphere. Be sure to check it out.

God bless,
Jay

I know that I have pointed to this site in the past, but the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology has several biblical courses available online for anyone and everyone to make use of. They include:

Beginner's Course No. 1: From Genesis to Jesus: A Journey Through Scripture

Beginner's Course No. 2: The Lamb's Supper: The Bible and the Mass

Intermediate Course No. 1: Covenant Love: An Introduction to the Biblical Worldview

Intermediate Course No. 2: Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God

Advanced Class No. 1: Reading the Old Testament in the New: The Gospel of Matthew

Advanced Course No. 2: 'He Must Reign': Rival Visions of Kingdom Restoration in the New Testament

I've said it before and I'll say it again...this site is a wonderful resource for anyone wanting to deepen their understanding of the Bible. I intend to start these courses and I hope that many of you will join me.

In Christ,
Joe

The Wall Street Journal featured an interesting review of a new book by Jaroslav Pelikan – a history professor at Yale – entitled Whose Bible is it? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages. I don’t know much about Mr. Pelican, but the review by George Sim Johnston made a few points I think are very important:

In the beginning, Mr. Pelikan reminds us, was the spoken word. The biblical God who speaks to man does not “write” anything until 80 chapters into the Old Testament. Similarly, Christ did not write anything (except on sand), nor did he tell his disciples to do so. When picking up a Bible, we should recall that its words were “heard long before they could ever have been read.” Faith, as St. Paul reminds us, comes from hearing.

Both the Old and New Testaments came out of a strong oral tradition . . .

We’ve been making these points, but it is nice to see others pointing this out as well. Another point:

When St. Paul in his letters quotes Jewish scripture, he is not referring to this official Hebrew Bible (compiled in 100 A.D.), which in any case did not yet exist, but to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture that had been made for Jews who lived outside of Palestine and no longer spoke Hebrew. The Septuagint contained several books, including Tobit and first and second Maccabees, that were not included in the Hebrew Bible. But it was this Greek version that became the Old Testament for all Christians – until, that is, Luther demoted those books to “Apocryptha,” which is why Catholics and Protestants have different Old Testaments.

Remember, this is a history professor at Yale, rather than a Catholic apologist – I don’t believe he is Catholic, in fact. And this review is penned exactly on the book, which might be a good read for non-Catholics interested in the history of the Bible.

The review makes several other important points and discusses that it took the Church until almost 400 A.D. to decide which books to include or exclude. But the two passages above should offer enough to make you want to learn more. The questions are: why isn’t spoken Tradition valid – after all this is what the Bible was based on for hundreds of years; Also, did Martin Luther really have the authority from God to remove books of the Bible? These are serious questions for non-Catholics who base their faith upon the Bible.

God bless,
Jay