LETTERS
2002 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
MAY 2002
NOTHING TO PRESERVE....
The proposed renovations of St. Charles do not touch the "excellent example of Mission Revival Stye" of the parish on the exterior. [See "Vain, Vapid, Fatuous, Inane, and Patronizing," March 2002 Mission.] What they do try to address is the drab interior.
The interior is gray stucco, highlighted (occasionally) with golden stars, poorly lit, columns blocking the altar, and a few niches with statues, flowers, and candles. There is nothing about the interior, with the exception of the high altar, to preserve. To call the interior of St. Charles "beautiful" is an affront to the word beautiful. The interior of St. Charles looks as if the diocese ran out of money and decided to "make do."
If I wanted to go to a concert of sacred music, then the 10 a.m. Mass is the one to attend. You are in gloomy surroundings, and the choir is celebrating the Mass, not the parish.
Since when is a parish "noted" for its "celeb status"? Is Dolores Hope, or Eric Estrada, or Alex Tribek or Andy Garcia a more or less important a member of St. Charles than any of the other 3,000 plus other parishioners?
If the diocese decided to tear down St. Charles, then there would be a story, but to "renovate" an unfinished 40 plus year-old structure -- that is not a story, unless you are going to investigate why it took so long.
And, yes, I do attend my parish church, St. Charles.
William Cinnamon,
received via e-mail
LOSS OF FAITH AND RESPECT
Bishop Clark appears to have a great admiration for Islam. [See "News," April Mission.] Let Bishop Clark and those of the same mentality get their heads out of the sand and ponder that in the Sudan, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc., Catholics and other Christians are being slaughtered by Moslems.
In the matter of the questionable speakers invited to spread their "every wind of doctrine" at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, Bishop Clark pleaded ignorance by saying, "I'm not so well informed as to presume to answer this question."
When we look at the present sex scandals and how some of our bishops covered up and moved molester priests from parish to parish, many of us in the pews have lost faith in and respect for these spiritual leaders who have failed us terribly.
Constantino N. Santos,
Atascadero
EVEN SWEETER AND MORE REMARKABLE
I just read your [November 2002] article, "Big Court Win," by Christopher Zehnder, concerning the Robert Wendland case. Mr. Zehnder interviewed me about the case in the fall of 2001.
I write you this letter both as a Christian (a lifelong member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and its predecessor American Lutheran Church), and as the attorney for the prevailing parties in this case, Florence Wendland and Rebekah Vinson.
I was quite intrigued by the comments ascribed to Jon Eisenberg, the attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of, among others, four organizations of Catholic hospitals. Mr. Eisenberg quoted from Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services: "A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose expense on the family or the community." He also cited Directive 60: "Euthanasia is an action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way."
"If when Robert Wendland was conscious, he had absolutely abhorred the life that he was ultimately reduced to," said Eisenberg, "and if he would have absolutely abhorred imposing the burdens on his family that they were suffering, seeing him in that condition, and if we had absolutely no doubt about that, I think the directive would fit his circumstance."
Eisenberg's words ring hollow. The keys words there are, "if we had absolutely no doubt about that." There were plenty of doubts expressed by the judge and justices who considered this case, and with good reason. Therefore, the directive Eisenberg cites did not fit this case at all.
First of all, Eisenberg, along with Rose Wendland's attorney and even the attorney appointed by the court to represent Robert's interests, made the arguments Eisenberg cites throughout this proceeding, but in reverse. They had precious little evidence to present concerning Robert's pre-accident wishes because Robert did not express, as the court found, in clear, precise, and inarguable terms that he would want to have his feeding tube removed if he were in the condition he ultimately found himself in. So the focus of the arguments throughout this case was on Robert 's wife and children not being able to accept the "new" Robert, i.e. their dogged determination not to accept and embrace him as a disabled person. The record is replete with evidence that Rose and the children were repulsed by Robert's disability, and demonstrates the deep-seated prejudice toward persons with disabilities that motivated them to attempt to bring about Robert's death. They talked about how they stopped visiting him because it was too difficult for them to see him as he was; they told the media that Robert never responded to them in any way and belittled his accomplishments when reminded of them. Indeed, on the day of oral arguments, Robert's youngest child, Robbie, even told a reporter that he didn't visit his father because in his father's hospital room he "could smell death in the air. It clings to you."
I am not ashamed to tell you that, as a Christian, a proponent of life, and a civil rights attorney, I found many of the comments from Robert's wife, children, and, indeed, from the attorneys on the other side of this case, extremely repugnant and offensive. Those in the disability rights community had the same reaction -- and with good reason.
Indeed, Rose's primary expert, Ronald Cranford, m.d., testified in 1997 that "Robert should die so that his family can grieve." He then went on to explain that Robert's status as a disabled man was just too much for Robert's family to bear, so Robert's life should end in order for them to get on with their lives. He even opined that the money expended for Robert's care would be better spent elsewhere.
Using the Catholic directives cited by Eisenberg -- and disregarding, for the sake of argument, all other overriding Christian principles -- the court's decision in this case was precisely correct. Robert's care was not "disproportionate" in any sense. Robert received food and fluids via a tube implanted in his abdomen, which caused him no complications. Robert's care was not burdensome at all upon his wife and children -- they stopped visiting him altogether in 1996 and had no financial concerns since his care was paid for by the state of California.
But every time I tried to argue, at the trial court level, that what Rose contemplated for her husband really amounted to euthanasia, I was stopped in my tracks by the objections of opposing counsel which were sustained -- incorrectly, in my opinion -- by the trial court judge. Rose argued throughout this litigation that Robert was "suffering," even though she offered no competent medical evidence to support her assertion. Inarguably, Rose's determination to remove the tube through which Robert received life-sustaining food and fluids would have constituted an act of euthanasia because it would have been an act that "of itself or by intention cause[d] death." There simply is no room for argument about that. And I always approached this case from that vantage point.
Therefore, I stand by my original statement: I was shocked and appalled, as a Christian attorney, by the participation in this lawsuit of several Catholic healthcare organizations.
Moreover, those organizations must take responsibility for their failure to fully investigate and consider all the facts and arguments in this case before deciding to take a stand. For instance, they have never, to this day, contacted me to get my clients' perspective. Had they asked, I would have made my clients available to meet with them so that they could ask questions and learn directly from my clients why they were adamantly opposed to Rose's proposal. No such request ever came. Therefore, I cannot state with any degree of certainty just what information the Catholic hospitals had available to them when they decided to participate in this litigation or confirm the accuracy of the information they did possess.
I never put on my client's case in the trial court. They prevailed there on a "motion for judgment." What that means is that, at the conclusion of the evidence presented by Rose and Robert's court-appointed attorney, I moved that the case be decided then and there because, having been given a full opportunity to present their best evidence, they could not meet their burden of proof. The judge agreed. So my clients never testified. I never called any witnesses to the stand. Indeed, I never even made an opening argument.
There remained the possibility, until Robert's death, that the court would order a re-trial in the lower court. So there was substantial evidence which I never introduced to the court. For instance, the trial judge never knew that Robert, contrary to Rose's contentions, had a close and loving relationship with his mother prior to the accident, and discussed the problems with his marital relationship with his mother and other family members. The judge never heard testimony from the witnesses I was prepared to call to impeach Rose Wendland's testimony about their family life, and the role she stated she played in her own father's death. Most importantly, the judge never heard the testimony of at least one of Robert's family members who insists that Robert stated unequivocally that, if he ever had a feeding tube, he would not want it removed and would under no circumstances ever have wanted to die by dehydration and starvation. Because the trial judge never heard this testimony, it is not in the official transcripts and was not available to the appellate and Supreme Courts, either.
Therefore, the victory in this case is even sweeter and more remarkable than it might have been had I actually presented my clients' case. For that, all glory goes to the Risen Lord whose hand can be seen upon this case from its inception.
Janie Hickok Siess, Esq., Lodi