The Saturday Times continues their Schiavo coverage with a front page catch-up Michael basher. Innuendo, unanswered questions, no mention that the trust fund is virtually depleted - why now?
As we noted, as of last Monday, his personal story was not newsworthy.
Well, I'm seeing my brother and his wife and son and my mother tomorrow.
I'm going to hug and kiss them so much they'll have to turn the garden hose on me to put me down.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | March 26, 2005 at 12:13 PM
I've heard that 8 years after Terri suffered this tragedy, her parents were o.k. with Michael dating other women and even encouraged him to do so. He even brought the girl to meet the Schiavo's.
Anyone know if this is true?
Posted by: Les Nessman | March 26, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Les - Yes, it is true
TM - This is a Michael basher? Obviously Michael would disagree with most of the Schindler's assertions. But I don't think he would find fault with this article. It is factually accurate and does a pretty decent job of balancing the claims on both sides.
Posted by: MattR | March 26, 2005 at 12:58 PM
My jaw dropped in the first few paragraphs from the front page:
The parents get a pass (parental love), where he is (maybe) stubborn, in love with someone new, burdened, or just true to his promise.
Yeah, I bet he loved it.
And remember, until last Tuesday, this was not newsworthy at all.
Anyway, I can take comfort in the near-certainty that if I had deemed this sotry to be fair and balanced, folks would be screaming about, for example, the non-mention of the trust fund.
Posted by: TM | March 26, 2005 at 01:27 PM
This is the risk of handling a life-and-death matter via a lower standard of evidence.
This case required only "clear and convincing" evidence and no jury. The main evidence to which I refer is the evidence of Terri's supposed wishes and the interpretation of her remarks to apply to the situation.
Posted by: Bostonian | March 26, 2005 at 02:36 PM
I don't see much of a michael basher. there's also bnashing of the parents.
Is this bashing?
And who does this bash?
Clearly both sides have thier views.
One thing I don't understand is why the parents say they oppose cremation as Catholics.
Posted by: gt | March 26, 2005 at 02:45 PM
"The Christians never burned their dead, but followed from earliest days the practice of the Semitic race and the personal example of their Divine Founder. It is recorded that in times of persecution many risked their lives to recover the bodies of martyrs for the holy rites of Christian burial."
Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04481c.htm
Posted by: Ripper | March 26, 2005 at 03:10 PM
Here is a pro-tubist who thinks the Times is trying to be even-handed.
Posted by: TM | March 26, 2005 at 03:48 PM
Ripper,
And?
I ask again, why do they say that as a Catholic she should not be cremated?
Posted by: GT | March 26, 2005 at 04:06 PM
Ripper,
From that same article you quote:
, it must be remembered that there is nothing directly opposed to any dogma of the Church in the practice of cremation,
It can't be much clearer. There is nothing in Catholic teachings that says no to cremation. So why do the parents claim that?
Posted by: GT | March 26, 2005 at 04:09 PM
This particular article may not be the most blatant example of 'Michael bashing', but I am very uneasy in general with the amount and intensity of the rumors concerning him getting major air time from all media outlets. If even some of the innuendo is true, then I won't have much compassion for him. I would like to see more solid proof instead of just allegations, is all.
Posted by: Les Nessman | March 26, 2005 at 04:14 PM
Maybe, just telling readers of "a girlfriend of eight years with whom he has two children," together with the details of the disagreements with the Schindlers, constitutes bashing.
Posted by: Joe Mealyus | March 26, 2005 at 06:19 PM
GT, cremation was officially a mortal sin for Catholics until 1962. The Church still frowns on the practice (they link it to 'pagan ritual', and I think they require it be done only after a full liturgical funeral. Michael, seems ready to incinerate it immediately--which is very suspicious if true.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 26, 2005 at 07:42 PM
GT: It =used=to=be= against Catholic practice to have cremation for a couple reasons. The theological reason had to do with it being a gnostic practice that denied a =bodily= resurrection (people think it's some kind of "spiritual" everlasting life, whereas the Catholic Church teaches that one will be =physically= resurrected).
However, as people have noticed that the first Christians have long since returned to dust, and that all things are possible with God, cremation no longer has the implication that one disbelieves the resurrection of the body. So the Church does not go against cremation now, but still requires a reverent disposal of the ashes in a colombarium (whatever it's called). No shooting them into space or using them in compost.
The practical objection to cremation is that it can hide foul play. Say, the next-of-kin denies an autopsy, immediately has the body cremated, and then the suspicion of wrong doing by said next-of-kin comes to light... law enforcement cannot investigate. As the Church is interested in justice (as well as mercy), using cremation to thwart justice is an obvious no-no.
Posted by: Meep | March 26, 2005 at 07:46 PM
Meep,
Yes it "used" to be. Not anymore. Not for 40 years. The parents made this up.
Posted by: gt | March 26, 2005 at 10:17 PM
'Yes it "used" to be. Not anymore. Not for 40 years. The parents made this up.'
Have a clue, GT. The parents are old enough to remember the ban on cremation as mortal sin. Plenty of Catholics are traditionalists and follow the old teachings. And, the Church still frowns on the practice, even if it has officially lifted the ban.
Perhaps your time might be more constructively used contemplating why you continually jump to the conclusion that YOUR judgment ought to rule other people.
Especially when you don't have any first hand knowledge, and they do.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 27, 2005 at 04:03 PM
They can follow whatever they want. Doesn't change the fact that what they claim (that Terri should not be cremated because she is a Catholic) is false and made up.
Kind of like your arguments.
Posted by: gt | March 27, 2005 at 04:23 PM
How do you "know" that the trust fund is depleted? $750,000, even merely invested in T-Bills, should last a hell of a long time, esp when it's not being spent on any special care.
Posted by: Greg D | March 27, 2005 at 05:48 PM
How do we know?
Because the special Guardian appointed to report to Gov Jeb Bush said so in his memo.
Posted by: gt | March 27, 2005 at 06:40 PM
Where is this memo?
And has an accounting been done of how the funds were spent?
Posted by: Greg D | March 29, 2005 at 03:27 PM