I think the issue of " Mortal Sin" being addressed by The lawyers

for the parents of Terri Shiavo is very wrong. They argued that allowing Terri to die was jeopardizing her soul and forcing her to commit a mortal sin as a reason to reconnect her feeding tube.As a former Catholic , who was raised Catholic and educated in Catholic Schools, I find this argument offensive. First of all , it is no legal argument and violates the separation of church and state.Secondly, Terri could never be held accountable for letting herself die as she has no cognizance and cannot make a decision. That would be as silly as holding someone accountable for their own murder!
I could understand considering any Catholic doctors and nurses guilty of a mortal sin if they believed they were contributing to a murder(which I DO NOT think this is)and contributed to the removal of the tube. But to use the argument that Terri herself will be damned for all eternity if the tube isn't reinstated is just ridiculous, and offensive. I have even less respect for her parents than ever ,having read what was argued before Judge Whitmore. They deserved the verdict they got!

them to say she shouldn't be involved in an action that goes against her faith.

They have argued that Terri, as a Catholic, would have changed her mind about wanting her nutrition and hydration stopped (which her husband and his lawyer argue she "wants" because she once said she didn't want to be kept alive with tubes all over ) if she had heard that His Holiness Pope John Paul II has spoken against denying nutrition and hydration to anyone.

They haven't said this should apply to anyone else, not even to other Catholics.

A person with no cerebral cortex is NOT competent to participate in her own murder. She cannot consciously "sin".Her lawyers used the religious argument that she would be forced into "mortal sin" Any Jesuit would tell you there cannot be sin without intent. A CVS or even a mentally disabled person cannot have intent to sin.

death before she was disabled -- her husband claims she requested death in this situation -- and if her death is carried out, she will in effect have committed suicide, assisted by others, of course.

I don't need a Jesuit to tell me there can't be sin without intent ;-) but I imagine they're arguing that she had intent when she made the wish to die instead of living with tubes. She no longer has the ability to carry out the intent but if it's carried out for her, it could be a mortal sin, because she didn't specify more carefully what she wanted done or not done.

It wouldn't be a sin if it were refusal of "over-zealous" measures, but it's refusal of "ordinary care" and, as I just posted, the Catechism says:

"Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/200 ...

"But such decisions about the artificial extension of life through medical means are not really about killing, only letting die. In cases where, as the Catholic catechism puts it, hydration or feeding amount to "disproportionate means" to sustain the life of someone who already lacks cognitive function, to omit such treatment may well not amount to a direct act of killing, but rather an acknowledgment of our "inability to impede" imminent death."

mind or indeed would have ,NO judgment can be levied. There is simply NO way of knowing at this point. Speculation as to what future action she may have taken is futile.
The inclusion of the "mortal sin element " is a violation of the principle of Church and State as it is requiring a State entity to enforce a personal religious principle at the sacrifice of state and federal law. An individuals religious belief has never trumped the law. Witness the poisonous snake handlers who believe they must survive such exposure to be saved or the many cases of intervention in the cases of children being deprived medical treatment as the result of parental beliefs. We also do not permit human sacrifice in the practice of your religion.
The principle of mortal sin applies to no one except Catholics and the definition is both being wrongly applied and is a violation of the law in this case. It is appalling that anyone would see fit to abuse their religion in such a manner.
Research has proven the parents legal expenses are being underwritten by the same RW cabal that was used to bring down Pres. Clinton, and bought Paula Jones.The family's spokesman is Randal Terry who advocated the murder of physicians who perform abortions. These people are not grieving parents but SICK people , who have declared that they would subject their daughter to this treatment, even if she had left written instructions ,and had all her limbs lost to gangrene and needed heart transplant surgery. They stated this under oath. This is why the husband won't turn over custody and refused a million dollar offer from them with money provided by the RW.

If it's true that she would have changed her mind based on the situation she is currently in, God knows that.

I think saying that proceeding on the current path endangers her soul makes God sound like a vengeful bureaucrat who would condemn one of his beloved children on a "technicality."

Every time I hear someone say this it makes me nuts. If this is really going against what Terri would want and she's being killed unjustly, then she is a martyr who will be welcomed by God w/ open arms.

Her expressed wishes were to refuse treatment, which is completely consistent with the Catholic Catechism (and this argument, as the current statements have to do with 'with holding' this feeding---not refusing).

We as Catholics (or those wishing to understand Catholicism) need to be cognizant of the Churches history, "we" were originally opposed to "life support" on principle.As Catholic ethecists and scholars explored the issue OVER years the position changed. Understanding this allows one to understand that the church will be in flux about this for some time.

published in 1994, which was the first new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 400 years, she would read that we may refuse "over-zealous" treatment but

"Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted."

Nutrition and hydration are surely "ordinary care" and not "over-zealous" treatment.

"living will" , and they are currently provided with them on entry to a hospital, unless they otherwise indicate, the feeding tube WILL be disconnected as a matter of course as if it considered "an extraordinary measure" . I know this as my MIL was starved to death because she had terminal cancer. I did not realize this as I was under the impression the morphine drip was nutrition. They would not inform be otherwise without a battle. They didn't lie, they just didn't answer my questions when I asked what the nutrition was. Finally they told us, and I was upset. But that is the definition of a feeding tube.
I was asked to sign such a document when I entered the hospital for such surgery. I also refused for my father as I wanted to make the judgment call.The cessation of feeding is also utilized when the patient cannot afford to pay, and there is no hope of survival or improvement. This is customary in many states.That is why the child was terminated in Texas.

living wills "to protect patients" -- the living wills are often used to protect the hospital from having to provide care for someone who outlives their insurance, or has none to begin with. It's all about their bottom line, not your life.

It's frightening to know we all will likely have to deal with people looking out for their corporate bottom line when we are trying to negotiate a peaceful death for ourselves, not a premature death and not a prolonged dying.

Try to die at home is my best advice. Pray for a massive stroke to take you out.

that a person with no cerebral cortex could commit a mortal sin prospectively.

Does anyone even know whether Ms. Schiavo belonged to a parish or attended church on a regular basis to begin with? She was embarking upon the fertility treatment merry-go-round before she collapsed. I thought that the Church frowned upon many types of fertility treatments, including artificial insemination, and that IVF was completely off the table because of the frozen embryos left behind.
If she was so rigidly devout, wouldn't she have accepted being 'barren' as God's will, and not sought help from science to conceive a child?

sin, not mortal and venial. Does any one here think that Terri meant to cut herself off from the Lord? None of us here has the facts, but my personal opinion is that it's time to let her go home.