Topic awaiting preservation: Shaivo: the real story. (Page 1 of 2)

The real story behind Shaivo's death is not the pathetic and self-serving media circus fomented by the frothing neanderthal fundamentlaists, but elsewhere.

Where you ask?

In Washington DC.

Dumbya has been handed the biggest defeat in his deplorable career.

Indirectly, so has the xian right.

Despite legislation to the contrary, very specialized legislation, the courts in the United States have reminded the politicians they are not in ultimate control.

At least not at this point.

Dumbya tried to impose right-wing xian principles on the people. The whole weight of the powerful US government, turned to try to subvert the rights of a husband in favour of right-wing xian biases.

The courts, at several levels, told him to get stuffed.

It was clear the fight was over when Jeb backed down from his threat to take custody of the poor woman. He had read the writing on the wall and read it to his illiterate brother.

It was a victory for free-thinkers and realists.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I'd be curious to know how far you have delved into this specific case, court transcripts, reports, etc.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, and that is fine, but before you go off on this religious right thing, think a little bit. The question was not about whether she had the right-to-die but whether that right-to-die can be dispensed on the heresay of an estranged husband, which court transcripts show had some questions unanswered or ignored, questions of abuse raised by caretakers and doctors and statements made on his part which were never given consideration.

There were divisions among doctors, including a nobel leureate neurologist who claimed the possiblity of a recovery. She was denied any sort of rehabilitation and put in a hospice, a place for the terminally ill. She was treated with less respect in her dying than we give our pets and convicted criminals and "terrorists" at gitmo.

But what's done is done, and I am not going to argue and defile her death with an ignorant, one-liner toting bigot like yourself who sees the 13 day starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman as some sort of victory. You are a turd.

I leave you with this for your unholier than thou "free-thinking" ego:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/nazieuth.htm

Ramasax

Well, we have heard from the rabid right, who were clearly at the centre of this controversy and without whom the poor woman would long ago have been released from her suffering.

Besides Rama, if the kingdom of god is so much to be desired, why delay her attendance there?

Anyone with a more reasoned response?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Well you're both right. But both stuffed with rhetoric.

Actually this line is wrong

quote:

---

It was clear the fight was over when Jeb backed down from his threat to take custody of the poor woman. He had read the writing on the wall and read it to his illiterate brother

---

Jeb didn't back down his attempt to take custody was thwarted by the courts.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Agreed Bit, like his brother he was told to get stuffed by the courts.

However, I argue he saw the handwriting and was smart enough to not take some further steps he might have planned.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

2005.
The year the liberal platform went from sharing the wealth to sharing a brain.

Honestly, you want to know what the only thing worse then living for 15 years in a vegetative state is?
Starving to death!
Seriously, this has to be about the most ridiculous argument in the history of the world. As if this women hasn't been through enough, but just as one last act of unbelievable unfairness, its decided that she should die in the least humane way possible.

Congratulations idiots, you win again.

I'm definitely not part of the religious right. I'm not even part of the right, and I'm avowedly atheist. But America was born as a country where the rights of one person are supposed to outweigh the wishes of everyone. Even if its 280 million to 1. I can't tell you that she wanted to live in a vegetative state. But I think I can be pretty sure she didn't want to be starved to death, nor did the doctors who were supposed to be carring for her have the right to do it.

Goodbye freedom!

The real tragedy is, that a person has died.

The rest, is just comedy.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The real tragedy is, that a person has died.

The rest, is just comedy.

---

The real tragedy is both sides of the political spectrum using this poor woman's plight as a piece in their game.

At least she now she is at peace out of the hands of fundie nutjobs and husbands with (potential) agendas.

A deeply unpleasant business all round.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

This is for such cases that I'm in favor of euthanasia, and if need be ( to die in human conditions ) active euthanasia.

All very touching, but avoiding the point of the thread, which is the fact the Theocratic government tried to subvert the courts and the courts said "No Way".

If we wish to discuss the pros and cons of the Shaivo case itself, I recommend a new thread for that purpose.

It astounds me all you "Constitutionaly Focussed" types appear to have failed to have seen what went on here.

Your president tried to step outside his authority, according to 4 constitutional lawyers and was given a through spanking by the courts.

I don't think anything of this nature has taken place since the Magna Carta.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

There is no plight - lots of people will now realize if you don't want your spouse making the decisions, you better get it in writing.

quote:

---

The real tragedy is, that a person has died.

---

quote:

---

All very touching, but avoiding the point of the thread,

---

No, it is not avoiding the "point" of the thread - it is rather illuminating it.

A human being has died. Irregardless of which side has done what, what agenda is being pushed, etc, the real story here is that a human being has died. Both sides seem to be forgetting/ignoring this.

Or have we come to a point, where the death of a human being is of less worth than a quick story, or agenda? Let us honor and mourn the passing of a human life, then we can discuss the various angles, pros, cons, etc around it.

But doing this in the reverse order is a real tragedy.

What I really don't understand is how the courts can overlook the circumstances of the status of Michael Schaviro's marriage to Terri. He now and was projected as a loving husband who is grieving and loved his wife very much. But you who are married out there as I am, took the vows to love your spouse in SICKNESS and in HEALTH till DEATH do you PART. So Terri's husband left her long ago for another woman. Does he love this other woman too the same way he loves Terry? He has made a mockery of the marriage. Two years after his wife's incident, he found another woman and has lived with her since and has two children from her like in married state. He was even accused of stalking another woman afterwards. He is projected as a faithful loving husband and he isn't. What does it mean to be faithful today? Faithful loving husbands don't treat their wives like this. They stick by them if its true love. He lived in a state of adultery till her death. Put yourself in his place. Would you do the same thing to your spouse. He has been cheating on his wife for years. I don't believe his tears of grief is really sincere.

We don't even let dogs starve to death and we are accused of this, we are cited by city officials. Human life is sacred and Terri's life was sacred to some people. Even in Terri's state of mind, her suffering mattered to many. In the mystical or supernatural Terri's state had a purpose. We cannot understand the ways of God. So we should not tamper with what God's design is. And in the aftermath of this whole ordeal, if something good was supposed to result, it will be that Terri's death was not in vain in that laws can be changed to give defenseless persons more rights. And if this is what God used Terri for then, then it was her destiny.

Below are sites that show how God uses souls even in an incapacitated state. I saw this on TV awhile back and there was a video movie on this little Girl. I know some of you are not believers, but its still is something to think about.


http://www.littleaudreysanto.org/
http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/audrey.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7561/audrey.html

Cool what God can do huh, Jade? And yeah, that one line of their vows did seem to be passed over, but what is death? She was artificially supported by machines of every kind, and without them, she would have died physically. But was she already dead mentally? No brain activity=death in medical lingo. It was possible that she could have changed in a week, month, year, but after a while, isn't it kinda naive to think that she will change after about 15 years of being in that state? So was it bad for her husband to want to move on? I really don't think that he should have had sex with another woman, but why should he have to look after an empty shell? She was gone, and he waited for two years for her to come back. If he was really so sex crazy do you think he would have waited that long?

You're right Webshaman. It is a tragedy that a woman has died. It is really sad that people are using her death to debate about such things. What gets me is that they can't seem to stop arguing. On the news today, they said the family is going to court again. The problem: her husband wants to cremate her and her family wants to bury her. Well, we shall see what the courts think about a husband's rights, again.

I really do think that both sides loved her. I don't get the inclination from either side that they hate each other, they just want to do the best for Terri. I just hope that she can find peace now that she is out of this whole struggle.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I think for the most part, Catholics don't cremate. Its not that its against RC beliefs, its just that in their idelogy about the sacredness of the physical body. I don't know if those are Terri's wishes or her husbands ion how to be buried. But he should honor her faith as a practicing Roman Catholic, which she was.

quote:

---

She was artificially supported by machines of every kind.

---

False, she had a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not life support and not "machines of every kind." It is a tube going into her stomach to provide sustenance, food and water, which she was denied by the courts and her "husband." Nurses have testified that Terri was able to drink through her mouth in the beginning, even consume jello, but it was not until seven years after the initial incident, and Michael had won the million dollar malpractice suit, which he claimed was to be for her care for the remainder of her life, that he moved her from a rehabilitation center to a nursing home, made them connect a feeding tube, discontinued all forms of therapy, did not allow her to go outside, kept her bedridden with no form of stimulation, and started claiming that she had wanted to die.

I have followed this case for over four years, and it is appalling to me how nearly everyone has fallen for the media distortions. That is both deply saddening as I mourn deeply this woman's life, and deeply troubling for the future.

---

Etheist is off in lala land claiming that the torture of this disabled woman, who was denied both PET and MRI scans to prove that she even was PVS, is some kind of victory. That has to be, in all my time on this forum, the only thing anyone has said that sickened me. As long as it is good for the agenda, who cares for facts and unanswered questions, and most importantly the torturous death of a human being, right? As soon as she died, you are on here with your smug attitude in celebration for your agenda.

You believe all you want the so-called Constitutional "experts" given to you by a media that has become a worthless mouthpiece of varying agendas. You believe all you want the testimony of court/husband appointed doctors while disregarding the words of tens of others. You believe what you want to believe, revel in your so-called victory, but you could never be more wrong than you are right now. The fact that you call the death of another human being a "victory" is despicable.

Your apparent perception that the courts are the be-all-end-all of power in this country and that the legislative and executive branches may never intervene is a tyrannical oligarchy, welcome to your new America. Look past the agenda that you are fed and see the reality of what is happening here. This is not about right vs. left, xian vs. atheist, but about life and the value of life thereof.

Not that I expect you to listen, but each branch of our government has a responsibility to respect the Constitution and our nation's laws, but the executive has the premiere responsibility to respect the Constitution and laws in the press of events as they occur.

The judicial branch is concerned primarily with preserving justice, the correspondence of our lives to the Constitution and the laws, in the past.

The legislative branch is concerned primarily with prospective justice, conceiving and enacting laws that will perfect the society's pursuit of justice in the future.

But the executive is pre-eminently concerned with ensuring that the political community respects the law, the Constitution, and the fundamental principles of that Constitution, in the only moment that really exists, the present. The executive acts, he does not judge what has been done, or consider what should be done in the future.

If the executive deems that something is occurring now, whether by mandate of the court or not, that violates that basic premises of the Constitution, he is bound by his oath to take action. Acting is what executives do. Unfortunately, brother Jeb is a spineless twit, he had the right, by law, to act in defense of her Constitutional rights, and he took a pass. This to me exposes him for the fraud he truly is.

The notion that judges' orders are self-executing is a dangerous notion that violates the whole understanding of the separation of powers. No branch of government, by itself, gets to dictate what the outcome will be in America.

We are supposed to have a system based on three equal branches, and yet what we saw in this case, as in many others, is a judicial dictatorship, where the will of the people as represented in the majority in the legislature, in the duly elected executive in the governorship, is having no efficacy whatsoever to protect the rights of the individual.

You seem to be concerned with limiting the power of the executive to contravene a court order, because of a very correct concern to limit executive power. But our founders understood that the place to limit executive power was in its illicit exercise, which happens all the time, not its essential and necessary exercise, protecting and defending the Constitution, as in this case.

Turn off the TV, turn off the radio, disconnect from the mouthpieces of your agenda, and do the research yourself, think for a change. The facts are out there. This will be my last post in this thread, you can either wake up and realize what is happening around you or stay in the confines of your happly little group-think agenda and be ignorant until the day comes when the state deems your "feeding tube" be pulled.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 04-01-2005 23:31)

First Michael Schiavo didn't walk with $1,000,000 he got $300K and $700K went to Terri's treatment. News Here

quote:

---

We are supposed to have a system based on three equal branches, and yet what we saw in this case, as in many others, is a judicial dictatorship, where the will of the people as represented in the majority in the legislature, in the duly elected executive in the governorship, is having no efficacy whatsoever to protect the rights of the individual.

---

This is also crap. So is all the future, past and present bullshit.

The courts make rulings based on exsisting law and in this case on every level the courts held to the fact that your legal guardian/next of kin has the authority to decide what happens to you if you don't leave specific intstructions to the contrary. This wasn't some arbitrary ruling it was based on current law as set by the legislature of FL. Federal law really had no basis to be involved in this case at any level.

Courts are not the be all - end all. They're the referees who makes sure everyone plays on the same field.

Ultimately it was determined that this was what Terri herself would have wanted as expressed to her husband. You can smear him as you want but never has any court (and this hit both liberal and conservative judges at some point in the process) ruled that there were sufficient mitigating factors to strip him of that authority. Moral Objections aside I haven't seen any significant legal expert say that the courts rulings were anything but well within their abilities and correct.

Oh as to the starvation thing. While terrible, this happens everyday. It's what happens when someone chooses to not recieve continuing treatment.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

(Edited by bitdamaged on 04-02-2005 02:08)

The real truth revealed:

From Court T.V. Web Boards:

18 Things We Learned From the Schiavo Case

1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.

2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.

3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.

4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.

5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.

6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly editted videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.

7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistant vegetative state than experienced neurologists.

8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.

9) 15 years in the same persistant state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.

10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".

11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.

12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.

13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.

14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.

15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".

16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.

17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.

18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, democratic activist even though he is a conservative, republican, Southern Baptist.

[Posted with permission by the author, Liberal Veteran, from his post on the Democratic Underground.]

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

*sigh*

Yah, Truth hurts don't it Rama?

Reality even more-so.

But that latter hurt, you have yet to experience.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Jeez Eth you just don't get it. You have nothing to say here not regurgitated from somone else's boat.

I may not agree with Ramasax on much but the *sigh* was well deserved.

You keep posting a lot of words with nothing to say.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

One has first to listen/read/understand, Bit.

Then, perhaps, one may learn...if one is inclined to do so.

If not, then go ahead and wallow in whatever form of religious ignorance you enjoy.

Reason always takes precedence over faith.

This is why faith always take the violent road....recall Galileo?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Fucking idiot.

My faith is my own and I've never shared it on these boards. I tend to use logic more than anything else.

Reading someone eles shit and regurgitating it as your own is more idiotic than anything.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Bit: No need to be harsh with me. I went back and did a reread of Federalist papers 78-83, along with 47 and I appear to stand corrected on some things. Partial misinterpretation on my part. I apologize.

I do disagree on some minor points, such as the power of the executive (state not federal), under Florida law, to intervene under some circumsances, but that's cool. What's done is done and it matters not.

And to be clear, my sigh was not directed at you, just in case there was any doubt in your mind.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 04-02-2005 09:55)

No prob Ram.

I may disagree with you but ironically while on many issues Eth and I may agree, I hate people who just spout crap with no thought



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Just remember, even though I do tend to spout crap from time to time, I usually am thinking, so no need to hate me.

I just need a good flogging every now and then.

Ramasax

How about some good Shock therapy?

Where is Master Suho when you need him?

*wanders off, muttering "Left fence, right fence, offense, defense, human nonsense, where is the common sense?"*

WebShaman: It's time to use the SUHO1004 signal!!





(Edited by poi on 04-02-2005 14:04)

^ROTFLMAO!!!!

If only Master Suho would now post...that would be brilliant!

So let me see if I understand correctly; if I had plagiarized those 18 points they would have been received in a moire xian manner.

But since I was honest and did not, I am for the dunking stool.

I can only conclude from the ignorant response, that the 18 points made some of you uncomfortable.

Again, evidence that the truth hurts and it really hurts those trying to avoid it.

Well here is some more uncomfortable truth: there is a lot of airtime and paper being wasted on another death.

Some shrunken little man in Italy who, while he was in charge of a certain branch of socially subsidized superstition, had in his power the ability to save millions of lives and yet instead condemned millions of living and yet unborn people to agonizing deaths.

In his extreme ignorance he insisted the us of condoms be banned by the poor benighted folks who adhere to his version of mythology. Folks who, had he at least permitted, if not encouraged the use of condoms would not have spread or contracted AIDS which they pass on to their children.

This same man also condoned, by hiding and protecting them, the sexual abuse of children by his acolytes.

I keep hearing what humanity the fellow had...the letter 'in-' for some reason are left off.

One must hope the next person to live in those robes actually does find some humanity and cares for the people, not the dogma.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

parents arguing for custody of their daughter because her "husband" has an apparent conflict of interest in the matter (due to his live-in girlfriend and two children with said girlfriend) hardly seems like an example of religious right's defeat. more like common sense losing out.

ehthiest, i find your posts rather useless no matter what the content at this point, with your bias so obviously showing you're basically what the non-believers on the board would classify as gideon with a liberal viewpoint (no offense gid ). if you want to debate a point in an argument then go for it, but posting simply to try to illustrate your stereotypes seems to reek of a need for justification.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Read it as you will Fig, sometimes stereotypes are accurate.

Realty can he hard to deal with can't it?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Fig said:

gideon with a liberal viewpoint (no offense gid ).

---

Gee, thanks.

Actually, you are very right. Or left in this instance, but any way, I do really need to start thinking more before I post. Boy have I gotten a few rude awakenings as of late. But thanks for recognizing that, and if you could tell me if I get a little wierd and irrational, please do. Except my sig, I like it.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

(Edited by Gideon on 04-02-2005 19:23)

I must say that I didn't watch this whole case from day one and I don't know every single little detail of it. That being said, it did make me pose some questions to myself and made me worry a bit more about the state of our government.

A few questions, comments, observations, etc. I had (will probably wander OT):

How long should the spouse of a patient in this (or similar) condition hang in there before it's deemed "OK" for them to move on with their lives? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years??
I'm a chick....I love the romanticised notion of my spouse sticking by my side, should I ever find myself playing the part of human produce. However, logically, I find it to be very selfish. Dooming someone I supposedly love to a lifetime of keeping the string of drool off my chest and wiping my ass, isn't something that really appeals to me. Especially if it's my poor judgment that's put me in that condition.

People have been really quick to play the God/Religion card here. While she very well may have been a Roman catholic, she clearly wasn't practicing. Her own vanity was partially responsible for her being in the state she was in. Isn't vanity a no-no?
Which brings me to the very angry, bitter priest. Being a priest, I had expected him to be a bit more forgiving and/or understanding, but that's not what I saw when he spoke to the media. He was very quick to point out how vile and evil the husband was. Who gave him the authority to pass judgment? God? To me, this gave me further proof of a problem that's endemic to all religions: Talkin the talk, but not walkin the walk; Not practicing what you preach; Do as I say, not as I do. Of course, all religions come with the built-in "We're only human" clause to get by lil issues such as this.

What I found very alarming, was the fact that our president and congress wanted to pass a law for one person. I'm sorry, but that ain't in their job descriptions. I was listening to a show on TV (can't remember which) and someone said:

"The president put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution, not the other way around"

As far as I'm concerned, that hits the nail on the head. I also find it rather ironic that the president is "all about life", yet he had no qualms keeping the electric chair busy while governing the Kingdom of Texas. Nasty double-standard.

To look at this from a bit of a spiritual/religious perspective: Maybe this was Ms. Shivo's purpose here? Could this not have been part of "God's Plan" for her? I don't expect an answer to that because no one here is qualified to answer that. Unless, of course, you are God (and I believe he/she/it is a registered member here).

For *me*, a life wasn't lost this week. It was lost 15 years ago. Being a parent and also someone who wouldn't want to 'live' like that, I can see both sides. I don't believe that either side should be vilified in this situation, though it all could have been handled very differently. Wasn't the road to hell paved with good intentions? However, I do feel some relief in the victory of our court system over our government.

On a side note: Ehtheist - While I enjoy taking potshots at Catholics as much as the next guy, I don't see this as being a "Catholic" issue. All religions have the same problems the Catholics have. Find a different soapbox.

won't argue that some sterotypes are accurate, if you read any posts i've had on religious-related discussions you'll see me agree with that point. i've had great discussions about religion, christianity, and other related issues on here with DL, WS, poi, and other folks whose viewpoints i don't agree with. but those discussions are a mutual give and take, learning about the other's viewpoints and understanding more of where they're coming from and why they believe what they believe. your posts are anything but.

chris

p.s. np gid


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

No argument Lacuna, it is merely a fact this time it is catholics instead of some jumped up southern baptist.

No doubt some other cult will orchestate the next scene.

Fig, I have never been shy about being anti-religion. If you can't learn anything about me from my posts, is that my problem?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

i have learned about you from your posts. you have no desire to listen to anything anyone who opposes your viewpoint might have to say, blanket-label anyone with religious beliefs, and seem to like to hear yourself talk. pretty much all i need to know.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

jade said:

I think for the most part, Catholics don't cremate. Its not
that its against RC beliefs, its just that in their idelogy about the
sacredness of the physical body. I don't know if those are Terri's
wishes or her husbands ion how to be buried. But he should honor her
faith as a practicing Roman Catholic, which she was.

---

Cremation is perfectly fine within Catholic doctorine (a poijt that has been clarified a number of times in recent years) and I've know plenty of Catholics who have been cremated (including my own mother).

See:
http://catholicism.about.com/od/cremation/

And many other resources:
http://www.google.com/search?q=catholics+cremation

There are, of course, Catholics who disagree with this as there are Catholics who want masses to still be said in Latin - I have a family member who travels all over the place to catch the one Latin mass being said each Sunday. I believe there is even a newsletter to keep people updated on it) but the Church moves on and adapts (if only just a little).

It does seem that we were too early to say at least now she can rest in peace - hopefully soon (or will there now be a fight over her ashes?).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

So be it Chris, personally I don't give a fig.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)