LEARN ALL ABOUT THE ASSAULT ON HUMAN LIFE BY VISITING THIS WEBSITE


Medical Card – Directions to Protect and Preserve Life
“Brain Death” – The Simple Truth
“Brain Death” – It’s NOT Death! 
Beyond “BRAIN DEATH” (pdf) 
Catholic World Report (pdf) 
CWR Essay (pdf) 
The US UAGA 2006 (pdf)
Choose Life – Not Death (pdf)
Excision of Vital Organs (pdf) 

DO YOU WANT TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR?

ORGAN DONATION QUESTIONAIRE

MEDICAL CARD WITH INSTRUCTIONS DOWNLOAD

kidguard

MISSION STATEMENT:

Life Guardian Foundation is an organization founded and dedicated to educate the public that life of the human person is a gift. Respect is owed to every human person regardless of their state of health throughout their entire lifespan from conception until his or her natural end.
Read More….Click Here

Directions To Protect and Preserve Life

Your “refusal” for organ donation must be documented.

Upon registering at the DMV your verbal decline, stating “no” when asked whether or not you wish to be an organ donor, is not honored. According to the language of the law, Revised Anatomical Gift Act (2006), you must “opt-out,” documenting your “refusal” in writing using “explicit language,” otherwise, it is “presumed” that you have consented to be an organ donor to be utilized for the purpose of “organ transplantation, education and research.”

Document your decision of “refusal” for organ donation, make known your wishes to have your life protected and preserved and ensure, that in the event that you cannot speak for yourself, your family and loved ones will speak on your behalf. It is a matter of life and death 


         1. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE FOR POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE   Click Here
         2. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE FOR DEPENDENT PERSON WHO IS A MINOR OR MENTALLY          INCAPACITATED PERSON   Click Here 
         3. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE; TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE LIFE OF EVERYONE [OPT-OUT          CARD]   Click Here 

Yes, I would like to order the Directions to Protect and Preserve Life including the OPT-OUT card download for a donation of $2.00 each (click here to be taken to our digital download page). 

CRITICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING “BRAIN DEATH” AND ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION

For over forty years there has been a deadly code of silence pertaining to “brain death.” Behind closed doors a controversy raged. Many of those in the medical field opposed this reinvention of death. The controversy continues…

“Brain death” was invented for the sole purpose of organ transplantation, living human medical experimentation and a means in which measures to sustain life could be legally withdrawn. It was the first legal form of euthanasia in the US. This deadly code of silence has been broken.

It is time to inform the Public of the Truth….

Order Your Book Today!

Finis Vitae Book

  Finis Vitae, ‘Is “brain death” true death? are the Proceedings of the “The Signs of Death” symposium conducted at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), February 3-4, 2005, which occurred at the specific request of His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II’s message to the participants was very clear: “Each human being, in fact, is alive precisely in so far as he or she is ‘corpore et anima unus’, (body and soul united) and he or she remains so for as long as this substantial unity-in-totality subsists.” This book must be read by every physician, priest, minister, emergency medical personnel, every parent and every teenager before any consideration of the issues surrounding organ transplantation.

Yes, I would like to order the book “Finis Vitae” for a donation of: $20/ea. Soft Cover (plus $8/S&H)

Order The Booklet in Printed Format Today!

Booklet includes 5 brochures and directions to protect and preserve life.Brochures:
• Facts About Being An Organ Donor 
• Do Your Organs Belong To The Government? 
• Make An Informed Decision 
• Manipulation of Beginning and End of Human Life 
• Catholic Teaching on Death and Organ Transplantation

Directions to Protect and Preserve Life for:
• Power of Attorney for Health Care
• For Dependent Person Who is a Minor or Mentally Incapacitated Person
• To Protect and Preserve the Life of Everyone

Yes, I would like to order the printed booklet in the following quantity for a donation of $3.00 per booklet. (Includes shipping/handling charges):

Yes, I would like to order the printed booklet (Spanish Language Version) in the following quantity for a donation of $3.00 per booklet. (Includes shipping/handling charges):

CRITICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING “BRAIN DEATH” AND ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION

For over forty years there has been a deadly code of silence pertaining to “brain death.” Behind closed doors a controversy raged. Many of those in the medical field opposed this reinvention of death. The controversy continues…

“Brain death” was invented for the sole purpose of organ transplantation, living human medical experimentation and a means in which measures to sustain life could be legally withdrawn. It was the first legal form of euthanasia in the US. This deadly code of silence has been broken.

91: Brain Death and Organ Donation, What Patients Need to Know | Dr Paul Byrne

Listen to Dr. Byrne’s interview on Dr Dan Speaks here

Judge rules Jahi McMath may not be dead

Jahi McMath is alive in New Jersey. A death certificate was issued on Jahi on December 12, 2013. Now, four years later a judge in California has ruled that Jahi may not be dead. Read Dr. Byrne’s article on renewamerica.com in full here

Charlie Gard in a system of death-July 12, 2017

Charlie Gard is almost one year old. Charlie has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). This condition is rare; however, Charlie’s parents love him and wish to protect his life. Charlie’s doctors have preserved Charlie’s life. Charlie’s brain and muscles have been affected. Read Dr. Byrne’s article on renewamerica.com in full here

Charlie Gard in a system of death-July 12, 2017

Charlie Gard is almost one year old. Charlie has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). This condition is rare; however, Charlie’s parents love him and wish to protect his life. Charlie’s doctors have preserved Charlie’s life. Charlie’s brain and muscles have been affected. Read Dr. Byrne’s article on renewamerica.com in full here

For Immediate Release: Does the Government Own Your Organs? What You a Don’t Know Can Kill You | Dr Paul A Byrne MD

How aware and prepared are you REALLY for this: Your loved one becomes unconscious and suddenly you find yourself pressured to consent to organ donation, …. but what the experts are not telling you is that organs only come from LIVING donors who are dissected alive without anesthesia?

Why is brain death not based on sound medicine?
What really happens during organ harvesting?
Why do you need to know about the “apnea test” and what it does to you or your loved ones?
Why is only one side of the story being told?
How can you REALLY give informed consent?
What are your constitutional rights?
How is brainwashing employed to coerce donors’ families to feed the organ industry?
Are you opted in by law without consent?
What age group is at the most extreme risk?
Is there any way out?
What specifically can you do NOW to prepare and protect yourself and your beloved family members?

Pioneering inventor of the Premie ICU and of Premie blood pressure systems, and founder of the field of neonatology, Dr Paul A Byrne MD joins Reluctant Preppers to draw back the curtain and expose the medical/industrial/government collusion that will set your heart pounding, and send you running to warn your loved ones! Do not miss this one! Share it with everyone you care about!

Does the Government Own Your Organs? What You Don’t Know Can Kill You | Dr Paul A Byrne MD

              American Life League
                       Presents
Dr. Paul Byrne 4-Part video instructional series: 

Click here for more videos

CURRENT NEWS:

Patient Advocacy Association Announces Medical Malpractice Conference October 17-19, 2016

Dr. Byrne appears on Mic’d Up on Church Militant website on May 27, 2015

Dr. Byrne to speak at St. Mary Magdalen Church in Brentwood on October 8, 2013 Click for more details

Dr. Byrne appearing in Da Tech Guy Blog on subject of Brain Death

Do you really want to be an organ donor?
By Paul A. Byrne, MD

Bioethics experts challenge the ‘Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006)’ – 4-14-09
By Paul A. Byrne, MD

Final Exit – Euthanasia in America – 3-29-09
Discussion on euthanasia in America hopefully with Dr. Paul Byrne and Ron Panzer of Hospice Patient’s
Alliance.

Parents Accuse Hospital of Killing Son to Harvest Organs
By Kathleen Gilbert

PITTSBURGH, PA, March 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ohio couple filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing doctors of removing a breathing tube from their 18-year-old son, who had suffered a brain injury while skiing, in order to harvest his organs.

Michael and Teresa Jacobs of Bellevue, Ohio, parents of Gregory Jacobs, maintain that their son’s death was caused, not by his injury, but by doctors removing his breathing tube and administering unspecified medication in preparation for organ removal.

The charges were filed against Pittsburgh’s Hamot Medical Center doctors and a representative of the Center For Organ Recovery and Education (CORE).

The parents also say the CORE representative directed that Jacobs’ organs be removed in the absence of a valid consent.

“But for the intentional trauma or asphyxiation of Gregory Jacobs, he would have lived, or, at the very least, his life would have been prolonged,” says the lawsuit. “Gregory was alive before defendants started surgery and suffocated him in order to harvest his organs,” which included his heart, liver and kidneys.

The suit maintains that Jacobs “experienced neither a cessation of cardiac activity nor a cessation of brain activities when surgeons began the procedures for removing his vital organs.”

The parents filed the suit in the U. S. District Court in Pittsburgh seeking more than $5 million for their son’s pain and suffering, medical bills, funeral expenses, and punitive damages.

The lawsuit comes only weeks after neurologist Dr. Cicero Coimbra told a Rome “brain death” conference that, “Diagnostic protocols for brain death actually induce death in patients who could recover to normal life by receiving timely and scientifically based therapies.” 

Coimbra referred to the so-called “apnea test,” whereby living patients who cannot breathe on their own have their ventilator removed, and are deemed “brain dead” if after ten minutes patients do not resume breathing. The problem with the test, said Coimbra, is that otherwise treatable patients sustain irreversible brain damage by oxygen deprivation during that ten minutes.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

“Brain Death” Test Causes Brain Necrosis and Kills Patients: Neurologist to Rome Conference
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022504.html

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022306.html

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethicists Unanimous at Conference
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

New England Journal of Medicine: ‘Brain Death’ is not Death – Organ Donors are Alive
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081406.html

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

ROME, February 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If a patient is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, can he or she be considered dead? Can a person who is “dead” wake up and go on later to finish a university degree? Can a corpse get out of bed, go home and go fishing? Can he get married and have children?

These are among the real-life stories of patients declared “brain dead” presented by medical experts at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death” criteria held near the Vatican in Rome last week. Ten speakers, who are among the world’s most eminent in their fields, sounded a ringing rebuke to the continued support among medical professionals and ethicists for “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

Dr. Paul Byrne, the conference organizer, told LifeSiteNews.com he was delighted with the success of the conference, that he hopes will bring the message that “brain death is not death” inside the walls of the Vatican where support for “brain death” criteria is still strong.

Dr. Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, compared the struggle against “brain death” criteria with another battle: “I’m sure that slavery was at one time well-accepted in the United States, and that people saw big benefits to slavery. And yes, it was difficult to go away from that but it was absolutely essential.”

“Slavery was doing evil things to persons. This issue of ‘brain death’ was invented to get beating hearts for transplantation. And there is no way that this can go on. It must get stopped.”

Participants came from all over the world to attend the Signs of Life conference, with speakers from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Poland, the US, Brazil and Italy. The conference hall was packed to standing-room only with physicians, clergy, students, journalists, and academics. Clergy included two senior officials of the Vatican curia: Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sergio Cardinal Sebastiani, the President Emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Two senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were also present. Conference organizers told LifeSiteNews.com that they had expected no more than a hundred to attend and were surprised but very pleased with the crowd of over 170 for the one-day event.

Conflicting voices on “brain death” criteria are still battling in the Church. In February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers roundly denounced “brain death” as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters. The speakers said that using “brain death” for the purpose of organ harvesting results in the death of helpless patients. The PAS convened a second conference in 2007 with different speakers who, with only two dissenting, supported “brain death” for organ transplants. Papers from the 2005 conference that opposed “brain death” were excluded without explanation to their authors.

During a Vatican-sponsored conference last November on organ transplantation, at which not a single speaker raised their voice against “brain death,” Pope Benedict XVI warned in an address that “the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.” But on the Monday following the Friday organ transplant conference, only the PAS conference report in favor of “brain death” was posted to the Vatican website and not the Pope’s warning.

Dr. Byrne said that a major function of the Signs of Life conference was “to support Pope Benedict,” whose address in November, he said, had started to turn the Church against “brain death.”

“It’s here to demonstrate clearly that ‘brain death’ never was true death. What we’re trying to do is come back to the truth and protect and preserve the life that comes from God.

“When there are attacks on life, then we, as physicians, defend it and that is what this conference is for.”

The Signs of Life conference, sponsored privately by various pro-life organizations, including Human Life International, the Northwest Ohio Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, American Life League and the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani, stood in opposition to the second PAS conference, which was titled, “The Signs of Death.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder
Read Story (Click here)

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
Read Story (Click here)

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher
Read Story (Click Here)
 

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethicists Unanimous at Conference
By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

ROME, February 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If a patient is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, can he or she be considered dead? Can a person who is “dead” wake up and go on later to finish a university degree? Can a corpse get out of bed, go home and go fishing? Can he get married and have children?

These are among the real-life stories of patients declared “brain dead” presented by medical experts at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death” criteria held near the Vatican in Rome last week. Ten speakers, who are among the world’s most eminent in their fields, sounded a ringing rebuke to the continued support among medical professionals and ethicists for “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

drbryne


Dr. Paul Byrne, the conference organizer, told LifeSiteNews.com he was delighted with the success of the conference, that he hopes will bring the message that “brain death is not death” inside the walls of the Vatican where support for “brain death” criteria is still strong.

Dr. Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, compared the struggle against “brain death” criteria with another battle: “I’m sure that slavery was at one time well-accepted in the United States, and that people saw big benefits to slavery. And yes, it was difficult to go away from that but it was absolutely essential.”

“Slavery was doing evil things to persons. This issue of ‘brain death’ was invented to get beating hearts for transplantation. And there is no way that this can go on. It must get stopped.”

Participants came from all over the world to attend the Signs of Life conference, with speakers from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Poland, the US, Brazil and Italy. The conference hall was packed to standing-room only with physicians, clergy, students, journalists, and academics. Clergy included two senior officials of the Vatican curia: Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sergio Cardinal Sebastiani, the President Emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Two senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were also present. Conference organizers told LifeSiteNews.com that they had expected no more than a hundred to attend and were surprised but very pleased with the crowd of over 170 for the one-day event.

Conflicting voices on “brain death” criteria are still battling in the Church. In February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers roundly denounced “brain death” as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters. The speakers said that using “brain death” for the purpose of organ harvesting results in the death of helpless patients. The PAS convened a second conference in 2007 with different speakers who, with only two dissenting, supported “brain death” for organ transplants. Papers from the 2005 conference that opposed “brain death” were excluded without explanation to their authors.

cardinal


During a Vatican-sponsored conference last November on organ transplantation, at which not a single speaker raised their voice against “brain death,” Pope Benedict XVI warned in an address that “the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.” But on the Monday following the Friday organ transplant conference, only the PAS conference report in favor of “brain death” was posted to the Vatican website and not the Pope’s warning.

Dr. Byrne said that a major function of the Signs of Life conference was “to support Pope Benedict,” whose address in November, he said, had started to turn the Church against “brain death.”

“It’s here to demonstrate clearly that ‘brain death’ never was true death. What we’re trying to do is come back to the truth and protect and preserve the life that comes from God.

“When there are attacks on life, then we, as physicians, defend it and that is what this conference is for.”

The Signs of Life conference, sponsored privately by various pro-life organizations, including Human Life International, the Northwest Ohio Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, American Life League and the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani, stood in opposition to the second PAS conference, which was titled, “The Signs of Death.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021607.html

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022404.html 

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher
By Hilary White

ROME, February 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While he said that he could not predict the future, Professor Josef Seifert told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) on Friday that a conference on “brain death” criteria last week had possibly opened a door to moving opinion in the Vatican away from support for the use of the criteria for organ transplants.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com the day after the conference, Professor Seifert said, “I’m not a prophet. On the other hand, if one believes in the Catholic Church as I do, then one must assume that earlier or later the truth will triumph and that the Church will not teach something false on central issues of faith or morals. And if that is so, and if what we say is true, I trust that it will be formulated.”

Professor Seifert is a philosopher and the rector of the International Academy for Philosophy of Liechtenstein and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life and was a speaker at the ‘Signs of Life’ conference held last week near the Vatican.

The conference was organized by Human Life International (HLI) and the American Life League (ALL), as well as the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani and other groups, to address the growing opinion in academia, medicine and even within the Church that “brain death” is a legitimate diagnosis. The conference speakers, including eminent neurologists, jurors, philosophers and bioethicists, were united in their denunciation of the “brain death” criteria as a tool in the determination of death.

Speaking at the conference on the original formulation of the so-called 1968 Harvard Criteria that created “brain death,” Professor Seifert told participants, “We look in vain for any argument for this unheard of change of determining death … except for two pragmatic reasons for introducing it, which have nothing to do at all with the question of whether a patient is dead but only deal with why it is practically useful to consider or define him to be dead.”

The two “pragmatic reasons” cited by the Harvard Report, he said, were “the wish to obtain organs for implantation and to have a criterion for switching off ventilators in ICUs.” He said these must be rejected because they “possess absolutely no theoretical or scientific value to determine death.” This conclusion was amply supported by clinical neurologists, and neurocardiologists, who told participants that a patient who is declared “brain dead” by the standard criteria, is, quite simply, still alive.

To LSN Professor Seifert responded to comments made in September 2008 by Francesco D’Agostino, professor of the philosophy of law and president emeritus of the Italian bioethics committee, that opposition to the “brain death” criteria in the Church is “strictly in the minority.” A 2006 document, entitled “Why the Concept of Brain Death Is Valid as a Definition of Death,” was signed by Cardinal Georges Cottier, then theologian to the papal household; Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, at the time president of the Pontifical Council for the Family; Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Professor Seifert, however, said that he did not agree with the assertion that there is a universal consensus in the Church supporting brain death. He pointed to the act in 2005 by Pope John Paul II in convening a conference to discuss “brain death” as evidence that the subject is far from closed at the Vatican. Indeed, continued interest was signaled last week by the presence at the Signs of Life conference of Cardinals Arinze and Sebastiani and two representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“There’s no official church teaching at all against the conclusion that all the speakers reached yesterday that the brain death definition is not correct,” he said.

He also said, however, that the matter of whether there is a universal consensus among medical professionals on “brain death” is not a central concern for the Church. “For the Magisterium of the Church it’s a question of whether it’s a fact or not.”

Professor Seifert also noted the address by Pope Benedict XVI in November to the participants at a Vatican sponsored conference on organ transplants in which he did not use the term “brain death” but pointedly referred only to “actual death.”

The Pope said that “the main criterion” must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death,” a strong indicator that he does not accept the concept of “brain death” as indicating actual death, according to Seifert.

Professor Seifert said, “One could hope that this speech prepares the way for formulating this even more clearly with reference to brain death. Many people like the organizer, Dr. [Paul] Byrne, who organized the conference, interprets this statement in this way. Now it may be wishful thinking, but it may also be correct.”

The idea that there is a majority opinion among theological and ethics experts, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in the Church in favor of “brain death” is irrelevant, he said, in the search for the truth.

“The same happened in the case of Humanae Vitae. There was a minority and a majority and the majority report said you should admit the Pill and contraception. But the Pope followed the minority report. A majority opinion is never what dominates and what should determine Church teaching is rather the truth. In the light of reason and also of Revelation, and not simply the opinion of a majority of people.”

“Particularly not the majority of scientists,” he added, “who are very fallible individuals.”

“Normally there is much more common sense in simple people than in academicians and professors who all have their theories. It’s very rare, I think, to have academicians to have the same simple pursuit of truth than among non-academicians.”

He warned that the “brain death” theory has the characteristics of an ideology.

“It’s clear that [transplantation] is a million or billion dollar business and it is clear that also it is useful for many patients.” He said that motives such as fame for transplant doctors and researchers and money are among the “vested interests that could obscure the truth.”

“For that reason, I think, if there’s a majority in favor, it doesn’t say much.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Click Here to Read
 

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother
By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, February 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bernice Jones came to Rome last week to tell the world that doctors killed her son by removing his organs. “Brain death is not death” and “organ donation is very deceptive,” the bereaved mother told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Thursday.

Mrs. Jones was attending an international conference on the dangers of so-called “brain death” criteria and related her experience of losing her son, Brandon, who was declared “brain dead” and used as an organ donor.

“Families are led to believe that their loved ones are dead,” Jones told LSN, “but in fact they are alive. You must be alive to be a vital organ donor.” Families, she said, are being deceived by doctors and hospital administrators, “by everyone who is involved in organ transplantation.” The declaration of brain death “is a deception, a violent deception, that your loved one is dead.”

Jones described what she characterized as a betrayal of principle by medical professionals at a hospital in their home state of Washington, whose priority she argued is no longer the care of the patient at hand but the procurement of organs for transplants. Although she declined to name the hospital, she said, “It happens at all hospitals.”

Nine years ago, Mrs. Jones’s son suffered an accidental gunshot wound to the head and was declared “brain dead” upon arrival at the hospital. He was immediately prepared for the removal of his organs.

Mrs. Jones said, “While my family and I thought that our son was being treated for his well-being, to preserve and protect his life, he was not, he was being treated to be an organ donor.”

“His vital organs were being procured not for his benefit but to benefit someone else.”

24 hours after the family was told Brandon was dead, Mrs. Jones had an intuition that her son was still alive. Later investigation revealed that the hospital had told the family her son was “brain dead” but, without the family’s knowledge, had kept him alive on a respirator for 20 hours while flooding his body with fluids and drugs in preparation for what his mother described as a live “dissection” that brought about his death.

Legal consent, she said, was obtained while the family was in deep shock over the accident. Jones’s husband signed the consent forms over her objections and the family, still in shock, was told to go home. During their time at the hospital, the family was introduced to a woman whom doctors referred to as an “organ procurement agent.” This woman used what Mrs. Jones described as a standard “script,” speaking soothingly to the family about Brandon’s altruism and desire to help others, to induce them to sign the consent forms, copies of which were not given to the family.

Mrs. Jones was later to learn that these procedures are standard for organ retrieval. “All of the organ donor families I have spoken to received the same script,” she said. Organ procurement officials approach the family when they are at their most vulnerable, she said. “It’s always when you’re not mentally, emotionally capable” of making an informed decision.

Prior to obtaining his organs, Brandon was given paralysing drugs to keep him from moving. He was anesthetised during the removal process. Mrs. Jones said that the diagnosis of brain death is a sham. “If he is supposed to be dead, why does he need paralysing drugs to keep him from moving? Why does he need anesthesia?”

Brandon Jones was given, without his family’s consent, what is called an “apnea test” by doctors, to determine brain death. Doctors remove the ventilator for two minutes from a patient who requires assistance breathing. The heart rate decreases and after two minutes without oxygen, “brain death” is declared.

The apnea test as a diagnostic tool was specifically denounced at the conference as unethical by Dr. Cicero Coimbra, a neurologist from Sao Paolo, Brazil. The test, he said, which cuts off oxygen to the brain, will bring about severe, irreversible brain damage in patients who, with proper care, would otherwise have had a good chance of survival.

Mrs. Jones believes doctors who are motivated by the desire to obtain organs use the apnea test knowing that it will induce severe brain damage while the body is prepared for organ removal.

Despite the harm it does, the apnea test, she said, is administered without the family’s consent. “We were in with our son, and they told us to leave the room, that they had to perform a test. They did not ask permission to do this.”

“If a family was made aware of what an apnea test consists of, no family member would ever consent to this.”

She described what happened to her son: “For two minutes they took the ventilator away from him. They wait for the pulse to go down but the heart continues to beat. Then they put the ventilator back on. Now, in this two-minute timeframe, they pronounce the patient dead.

“Before they put them back on the ventilator they pronounce the patient dead. It’s a prerequisite to being able to declare a legal but fictional death.” This “death” is what she has described as a “convenience death, invented to schedule and regulate the actual time of real death.”

Brandon died, she claimed, while his organs, including his still-beating heart, were removed in surgery. “Our son had been dissected alive and in doing so, killed.”

Mrs. Jones is the founder of an organization of parents and families who have undergone this experience and which is dedicated to bringing to the public eye the danger of the “brain death” criteria. The Life Guardian Foundation is dedicated to educating the public that “life of the human person is a gift.”

The group calls it “irreverent” to use terms such as “brain dead,” “vegetative state,” “terminal condition,” and “imminent danger of death.” “Such designations have been proposed and are actively used for the sole purpose of demeaning and shortening life, as well as to hasten the death of a human person.”

Mrs. Jones said that in her research after her son’s death that “there is no scientific validation for ‘brain death’. Absolutely none, whatsoever.”

Vatican in “Firestorm” over Brain Death Criteria for Organ Transplants
By Hilary White

ROME, November 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com ) – Dispute within the Vatican on the approval of so-called “brain death” criteria for organ transplants remains sharp, according to a senior Vatican correspondent. Sandro Magister, a leading Italian journalist and expert on the Vatican, wrote this week of the internal dispute over support and opposition to “brain death” criteria, the definition of death that allows vital organs to be removed from patients while their hearts are still beating.

Magister points out that in September this year, L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, published on its front page a long article by the philosopher Lucetta Scaraffia. Scaraffia, who is the vice-president of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics, called into question the Vatican’s approval of “brain death” criteria for organ transplants.

That article, said Magister, “raised a firestorm” of debate within the Vatican, coming as it did in the immediate lead-up to a generously financed international conference on organ transplants, sponsored in part by the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV). That sponsorship had outraged pro-life advocates around the world who said that, given the problems surrounding organ transplantation, the PAV had no business promoting it. Judie Brown, a member of the PAV and the head of American Life League, had written to Academy head Archbishop Fisichella asking that the conference be postponed or cancelled altogether.

Nevertheless, Magister said, the “predominant approach” towards organ transplantation by the Vatican has been “agreement with the practice of transplanting organs after the confirmation of brain death.” It was perhaps with this “agreement” in mind that Scaraffia wrote in L’Osservatore Romano that a declaration of “brain death: cannot be considered the end of life in light of new scientific research.”

The unease of the pro-life movement with “brain death” was sustained by Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the transplant conference, in which he pointedly insisted that organ donation must remain “a gift” of the donor and that organs cannot be taken from vulnerable persons without their consent.

“The main criterion,” the Pope said, must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.”

The Pope is likely to have been referring to the L’Osservatore Romano article when he told the Transplant Conference, “Science, in recent years has made further progress in the determination of the death of a patient.” In the question of determination of death, the Pope cautioned, “there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness. Where certainty cannot be achieved, the principle of precaution must prevail.”

At the same time, however, Magister says that “pressure was applied” to Pope Benedict to attempt to force him to confirm “brain death” as a valid criterion. Magister pointed out, as evidence of the dispute within the Vatican, that Bishop Marcélo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), immediately following the Pope’s address hastened to post to the Vatican website the findings of a group of scholars at a 2006 conference of the PAS who supported “brain death” criteria.

Bishop Sorando did not also post the suppressed findings of the 2005 conference on the same topic where a majority of participants opposed ‘brain death’ as a true definition of death. There was a more selective invitation to pro-organ transplant scholars for the 2006 conference.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

The Demise of “Brain Death”: Commentary by Dr. Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091803.html

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
By Hilary White

ROME, February 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An conference set to take place in Rome this week on “brain death” seeks to clarify the position of the Catholic Church on the removal of vital organs from patients.

In November 2008, a high-profile conference on organ transplants, held in one of Rome’s most prominent conference halls, steps away from St. Peter’s Basilica, and sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, caused an uproar when it declined to address the ethical problems of “brain death” criteria.

Hundreds of letters and appeals to the Pontifical Academy for Life from pro-life advocates around the world went un-answered and the conference went ahead with no mention of any of the controversy surrounding the use of these and other criteria that allow the removal of organs from living patients.

Pope Benedict XVI, however, in his address to the conference, warned that organ transplantation can be a source of abuses of “human dignity.”
 
“The main criterion,” the Pope said, must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.”

Immediately following publication of the Pope’s address, however, the Vatican website posted articles defending the use of brain death criteria in determining death for purposes of organ transplants.

In early September, as news of the organ donor conference was starting to make the rounds of the pro-life community, L’Osservatore Romano broke ranks and published an article by Lucetta Scaraffia, a professor of contemporary history at the Rome university La Sapienza, outlining the dangers of the brain death criteria.

In response, the director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, backpedalled away from the position taken in the article, saying it is “not an act of the Church’s magisterium, nor a document of a pontifical organism,” and that the reflections expressed in it “are to be attributed to the author of the text, and are not binding for the Holy See.”

This week’s conference has a large task ahead in convincing the Vatican to shift direction in its support of brain death criteria. In 1985, a statement from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences upheld the use of “irreversible coma” as a legitimate criterion for a definition of death for organ removal. This was reiterated in 1989 with another statement from the same academy, reinforced with a speech by John Paul II. John Paul II reinforced this position in an address to a world congress of the Transplantation Society, on August 29, 2000.

Sandro Magister, a reporter on Vatican affairs wrote in September, “In this way, the Catholic Church in fact legitimated the removal of organs as universally practiced today on people at the end of life because of illness or injury: with the donor defined as dead after an ‘irreversible coma”‘ has been verified, even if he is still breathing and his heart is beating.”

Magister quoted Francesco D’Agostino, a professor of the philosophy of law and president emeritus of the Italian bioethics committee, and a member of the “ecclesial camp,” saying, “Lucetta Scaraffia’s thesis is present in the scientific realm, but it is distinctly in the minority.”

Dr. Paul Byrne is one of the organisers of this week’s conference, provided LifeSiteNews.com with an advance copy of his presentation. He intends to argue the case that the use of “brain death” criteria results in the removal of organs from living patients, and is tantamount to murder. (To find out more about his presentation see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html)

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria

Exclusive: Sources Reveal Internal Uproar over Vatican Conference Promoting Organ Donation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08090513.html 

Vatican Newspaper: Brain Death and thus Organ Donation Must be Reconsidered
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08090310.html 

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html A Must See:
Interview with Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death and Organ Transplantation

The Face of Pro-Life: Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death and Organ Transplants
Blog – “New” 
Click Here to post your comments


© 2018 Life Guardian Foundation. All Rights Reserved. 

kidguard
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

SHAME ON THE CRITICS OF Pope Benedict FOR HIS RECENTLY PUBLISHED ESSAY

APRIL 15, 2019

Benedict’s Essay: The Voice of a True Father

JIM RUSSELL

CRISIS MAGAZINE

Why the uproar from some Catholic pundits regarding the recently released essay on the abuse crisis from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI?

I think it’s pretty simple—regardless of what else one thinks of Benedict (and most of the critics were never fans of his), he speaks and write with a voice that is truly paternal. The man has fully lived out his priesthood as “Father” and even in his nineties, he has a father’s care for the faithful. Benedict’s voice is a unique mix of theological clarity, precision, and paternal affection.

Many would rather ridicule and criticize his words instead of accepting them as they would from a loving father. But it’s precisely because of his unique voice that the critics are hard-pressed to dismiss him. Let’s take a brief look at his essay on the abuse crisis, originally published in German for a modest monthly Bavarian publication called “Klerusblatt” and addressed largely to fellow German clergy.

But first we need to keep in mind that Benedict is addressing these German clerics from his own lived experience and memory.  Benedict will conclude his essay focusing on a truly “interior” landscape that can provide a basis for a more practical nuts-and-bolts response of the Church to the abuse scandal.

In short, he’s a German theologian primarily looking at the issue as a theologian of his age and experience would be expected to do.

He lays out his thoughts in three major sections: he presents the “wider social context” of the scandal that is crucial to understanding it; he then examines the effects of this context on priestly formation and life; and then he presents some “perspectives for a proper response” to the issue by the Church.

In the first part, Benedict gives us a glimpse of how he personally encountered this context in concrete times and places as a member of the German clergy. Likely, given his audience, he presumes this will be of interest to his countrymen and brother priests.

So, while some have objected to some of his comments as seemingly out of place, in context they do make real sense—they are literally a part of his past, not just mere anecdote or speculation. We need to keep in mind that when Benedict talks about the “Sexual Revolution” he lived through that revolution in Europe, not the United States. In his country, it took shape as aggressive sex education took hold in German schools. He references another example of an Austrian sex-ed “suitcase” of resources that was prevalent in the late 1980s; he notes the influence of sex and porn films shown openly in German cinemas. He refers to a 1970 German billboard featuring a fully naked couple embracing.

For Benedict, the sexual license that overwhelmed culture arose largely from that 1968-era “revolution” that we in the United States definitely know all too well. But then Benedict references something that I for one had not properly considered or understood about this period of social upheaval. He mentions that the “physiognomy” of this era included the serious push to normalize and legalize pedophilia itself.

Readers, take note of that. It’s an important reminder that sex “experts” of the day sometimes did not stop at recommending the normalization of homosexuality and fornication as “healthy” human experiences, but that even pedophilia itself was being touted in similar fashion by some unapologetic voices of that time.

Then Benedict focuses on his experience as a theologian living through the absolute undoing of moral theology that took place in the same era. The move was from natural law and its moral absolutes to moral relativism and the “proportionalism” that became the darling of Catholic clergy and moral theologians of the 1960s and beyond. This compelled Pope John Paul II to defend the Church’s truth in his encyclical “Veritatis Splendor.” Moral theologians in Benedict’s sphere were determined to reject the existence of any absolute moral evil, and this further eroded the sense of morality among Catholics in general and even clergy in particular.

Benedict notes the perennial value of martyrdom and witness to the absolutes of both faith and morals. He lived through the attempt to weaken the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the final arbiter of such matters. In the face of this weakening Benedict calls us back to faith in God and to an awareness of our existence as “image of God.”

In the second part, Benedict illustrates how 1960s radicalism affected the priesthood and seminary formation. Tradition and traditional morality and theology all were readily jettisoned in seminaries that featured “homosexual cliques” which had a major impact on these environments. “Pedophilia” (a word which Benedict appears to use here as a catch-all for clergy sex abuse) arose as an issue of concern in the 1980s, which posed a problem as the newly constructed 1983 Code of Canon Law had not made an adequate provision for addressing such matters.

Benedict notes that Church justice emphasized “guarantorism,” in which the rights of the accused, not the victim or not even the good of the Faith itself, is held as the principal value. He suggests that canon law needs to provide a “double guarantee” that includes “legal protection of the good at stake.”

In the third part, he asserts that the experiment of coming up with a “new” kind of Church to solve these problems has actually been tried and failed. The real answer is only found in the Church founded by Christ, not re-made by us.

The landscape for a true solution will necessarily mean that we need a culture and society that includes God. “Absence of God” is what Benedict says ultimately brings about a society that begins to excuse even pedophilia. Clergy and laity often don’t like to speak about God.

In doing so, we must again re-centralize the Eucharist in the Church. Benedict says: “What is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament.”

Lastly, Benedict states we must rediscover the “Mystery of the Church” and once again profess to live as its “martyrs”—as real witnesses. To do so means that whatever sin and evil remain in our midst can not prevail over the “indestructible” Church founded by Jesus Christ, the “first and actual witness for God” and the first martyr.

Benedict’s message is clearly not intended as a magic-bullet solution for the abuse crisis. For others to criticize it for merely being what it really is—a loving word of encouragement from a spiritual father—is to miss the boat entirely on his intention and on the true value of what he has written. Even at his advanced age—or perhaps precisely because of it—his words provide a kind of consolation and encouragement that fathers are especially good at in challenging times. All is not lost. He knows we’ve been through a lot because he himself lived through it. But there is a way forward.

And some fundamental words of wisdom from a spiritual father who still loves us—remember God, and love Jesus in the Eucharist—could help us all heal a little bit faster.

Tagged as Clergy Sexual AbusePope Benedict XVISexual Revolution

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

HERE IS AN ANALYSIS that will certainly lead to discussion, this of Ratzinger, seeing how distant it is from what is being said and done today at the top levels of the Church regarding the scandal of sexual abuse, from a perspective that is essentially judicial and that wobbles between the two poles of “zero tolerance” and due process. A due process that is entirely different from the one – “so-called” – evoked by Ratzinger, because it instead concerns the defendant’s rights of defense, the presumption of innocence until the definitive verdict and the proportionality of the punishment, and which it is helpful to gauge for how it is being employed today in regard to cardinals and archbishops implicated in abuse.

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

12 apr 19

“Zero Tolerance” Farewell. But “Transparency” Is Still a Long Way Off

Apuron

by Sandro Magister

*

What the current leaders of the Church have not been capable of saying – before, during, and after the February 21-24 Vatican summit on sexual abuse committed by consecrated ministers – has been said and written by “pope emeritus” Benedict XVI in the “notes” that he made public on April 11, after having informed cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin and Pope Francis.

Joseph Ratzinger has gone to the the root of the scandal: the sexual revolution of ’68, the “collapse” of Catholic doctrine and morality between the 1960’s and 1980’s, the downfall of the distinction between good and evil and between truth and lies, the proliferation of “homosexual clubs” in the seminaries, the imposition of a “so-called due process” that rendered untouchable those who justified these novelties, including pedophilia itself, in the final analysis a departure from that God who is the Church’s raison d’être and the sense of direction of every man.

As a result, in Ratzinger’s judgment, the Church’s task today is to rediscover the courage to “speak of God” and to “prioritize” God over all, to return to believing that he is really present in the Eucharist instead of “downgrading it to a ceremonial gesture,” to look at the Church as full of weeds but also of good wheat, of saints, of martyrs, to be defended from the discredit of the Evil One, without deluding ourselves that we can make a better one one our own, entirely political, which “cannot represent any sort of hope.”

It is an analysis that will certainly lead to discussion, this of Ratzinger, seeing how distant it is from what is being said and done today at the top levels of the Church regarding the scandal of sexual abuse, from a perspective that is essentially judicial and that wobbles between the two poles of “zero tolerance” and due process.

A due process that is entirely different from the one – “so-called” – evoked by Ratzinger, because it instead concerns the defendant’s rights of defense, the presumption of innocence until the definitive verdict and the proportionality of the punishment, and which it is helpful to gauge for how it is being employed today in regard to cardinals and archbishops implicated in abuse.

Concentrating the analysis on this last point, here is what results.

*

Until last autumn the formula “zero tolerance” was one of the most recurrent in the words and writings of Pope Francis, to express how to oppose the sexual abuse of the clergy on underage victims.

But since then it has gone missing. Vanished from the final document of the synod on young people; vanished from the subsequent apostolic exhortation “Christus Vivit”; vanished from the speeches and documents of the summit on abuse held at the Vatican from February 21 to 24.

On the contrary, at the beginning of that summit Francis distributed to the participants 21 of his own handwritten “points of reflection” that didn’t agree at all with “zero tolerance.”

Point 14, for example, said:

“The principle of natural and canon law of presumption of innocence must also be safeguarded until the guilt of the accused is proven.”

And point 15:

“Observe the traditional principle of proportionality of punishment with respect to the crime committed. To decide that priests and bishops guilty of sexual abuse of minors leave the public ministry.”

The provisions adopted in these last two months against five cardinals and archbishops who ended up on trial for abuse committed or “covered up” fully confirm this change of stance.

There is not one provision that is the same as another. And only in one case did it consist of the convict’s reduction to the lay state, when instead, by virtue of “zero tolerance,” this should be the sanction to be imposed on all, including on those who committed only one act of abuse on a single victim many years ago.

*

The only one reduced to the lay state, as is known, has been ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick. None, however, of the other four who were sanctioned before and after him.

Australian cardinal George Pell and French cardinal Philippe Barbarin, both sentenced by the secular courts of their respective countries and both awaiting an appeal process, received very different treatment in the ecclesiastical forum, more severe with Pell and more impartial with Barbarin, as Settimo Cielo has documented:

> With Pell and Barbarin the Pope Uses Two Weights and Two Measures

The pope appeared even more indulgent with Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, limiting himself to accepting on March 23 his resignation as archbishop of Santiago, Chile, the day after he was summoned to court for covering up abuse.

And still different from the preceding was the treatment of the former bishop of Agaña on the island of Guam, Anthony Sablan Apuron (in the photo), convicted in definitive form last February 7 with a sentence made known on April 4 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith – to serve these three penalties: “the privation of office; the perpetual prohibition from dwelling, even temporarily, in the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Agaña; and the perpetual prohibition from using the insignia attached to the rank of Bishop.”

*

Since the island of Guam, in the Pacific, is a territory of the United States, Apuron is the first United States archbishop so far hit with a definitive canonical conviction for sexual abuse, six days before that February 13 on which McCarrick was laicized.

But that’s just it, unlike this last, Apuron was not reduced to the lay state, in spite of the fact that he was found guilty of  “crimes against the sixth commandment with minors.” He can still celebrate, albeit far from Guam and without wearing the episcopal insignia.

And this contrasts glaringly with the “zero tolerance” that is the guideline of the Catholic Church in the United States from the 2002 “Dallas Charter” onward, when the president of the episcopal conference was none other than that Wilton Gregory whom Pope Francis promoted as archbishop of Washington on the very day of the publication of the mild sentence against Apuron.

But how did it come to this epilogue?

In the first instance, the case of Apuron was adjudicated by a jury headed by Cardinal Raymond Burke, a canonist of illustrious renown, he too from the United States but very attentive to the guarantees to be ensured for the defendant, appointed to this role personally by Pope Francis.

This first trial concluded on March 16 2018 with a guilty verdict on the abuse of minors and with the removal of Apuron as archbishop of Guam.

Apuron nonetheless had recourse to an appeal. And at the Vatican a new canonical process began, this time headed by Francis himself, according to what was revealed at the press conference of last August 26, on the way back from Ireland:

“The archbishop of Guam appealed his sentence and I decided – because it was a very, very complex case – to make use of the right that I have, hear his appeal on my own, and not to send him to the appeal court that carries out its work with priests.  I took it up personally.  I set up a commission of canon lawyers to help me, and they told me that, in a short time, a month at most, they would offer a ‘recommendation’ so that I could make a judgement.  It is a complicated case on the one hand, but not difficult, because the evidence is extremely clear; from the standpoint of evidence, it is clear.  But I cannot pre-judge.  I am waiting for the report and then I will pass judgement.  I say that the evidence is clear because that is what led the court of the first instance to its verdict.”

That brings us to the definitive guilty verdict of February 7 of this year. Against which however Apuron continues to protest that he is innocent, the victim “of a pressure group that has planned to destroy me” by recruiting accusers “even behind offers of money.”

In effect, a detailed report published on September 20 2017 on “Vatican Insider” had given a troubling description of the power struggles at the top of the archdiocese of Agaña, before and after the opening of the trial against Apuron, struggles that were not calmed but became even fiercer during the phase of receivership of the archdiocese entrusted by the Vatican to then-secretary of “Propaganda Fide” Savio Hon Taifai and to coadjutor bishop Michael Jude Byrnes, now promoted as ordinary.

That some of the accusations made against Apuron were inconsistent had also been observed by the jury headed by Cardinal Burke, which however had upheld a couple of crimes as proven, with the consequent condemnation.

During the February 21-24 summit, various voices – including that of Cardinal Reinhard Marx, archbishop of Munich and a member of the council of cardinals that assists Francis in governing the universal Church – were raised to call for the relaxation of the pontifical secrecy that precludes access to the proceedings of canonical trials.

But so far nothing has changed, on this. And if there is really the desire to overcome the unjustifiable rigidity of “zero tolerance” in the name of the defendant’s rights of defense and the proportionality of punishments, the much-lauded “transparency” must also be put into practice, with the publication not only of the final sentences, but also of the course that led to them.Condividi:

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Because he refuses to acknowledge himself as an heir of God’s plan for the human race, man is condemned to the hell of individualism living in liberal globalization in which individual interests confront one another without any law to govern them besides profit and pleasure at any price.

‘As a bishop, it is my duty to warn the West’: An interview with Cardinal Sarah

04/09/2019 at 9:24 AM Posted by Kevin Edward White

CATHOLIC CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS WEBSITE

Cardinal Robert Sarah 

The Vatican cardinal discusses his hard-hitting new book in this exclusive interview with La Nef

Cardinal Robert Sarah, Catholic Herald (US), April 5, 2019

Cardinal Robert Sarah is publishing the third of his book-length interviews with Nicolas Diat: The Day is Far Spent. An unflinching diagnosis, but one full of hope in the midst of the spiritual and moral crisis of the West.

1) In the first part of your book, you describe “a spiritual and religious collapse.” How does this collapse manifest itself? Does it only affect the West or are other regions of the world, such as Africa, also affected by it?

The spiritual crisis involves the entire world. But its source is in Europe. People in the West are guilty of rejecting God. They have not only rejected God. Friedrich Nietzsche, who may be considered the spokesman of the West, has claimed: “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him…” We have murdered God. In view of God’s death among men, Nietzsche would replace him with a prophetic “Superman.”

The spiritual collapse thus has a very Western character. In particular, I would like to emphasize the rejection of fatherhood. Our contemporaries are convinced that, in order to be free, one must not depend on anybody. There is a tragic error in this. Western people are convinced that receiving is contrary to the dignity of human persons. But civilized man is fundamentally an heir, he receives a history, a culture, a language, a name, a family. This is what distinguishes him from the barbarian. To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices.\

From Him we receive our nature as man and woman. This is intolerable to modern minds. Gender ideology is a Luciferian refusal to receive a sexual nature from God. Thus some rebel against God and pointlessly mutilate themselves in order to change their sex. But in reality they do not fundamentally change anything of their structure as man or woman. The

In this book, however, I want to suggest to Western people that the real cause of this refusal to claim their inheritance and this refusal of fatherhood is the rejection of God. From Him we receive our nature as man and woman. This is intolerable to modern minds. Gender ideology is a Luciferian refusal to receive a sexual nature from God. Thus some rebel against God and pointlessly mutilate themselves in order to change their sex. But in reality they do not fundamentally change anything of their structure as man or woman. The West refuses to receive, and will accept only what it constructs for itself. Transhumanism is the ultimate avatar of this movement. Because it is a gift from God, human nature itself becomes unbearable for western man.

This revolt is spiritual at root. It is the revolt of Satan against the gift of grace. Fundamentally, I believe that Western man refuses to be saved by God’s mercy. He refuses to receive salvation, wanting to build it for himself. The “fundamental values” promoted by the UN are based on a rejection of God that I compare with the rich young man in the Gospel. God has looked upon the West and has loved it because it has done wonderful things. He invited it to go further, but the West turned back. It preferred the kind of riches that it owed only to itself.

Africa and Asia are not yet entirely contaminated by gender ideology, transhumanism, or the hatred of fatherhood. But the Western powers’ neo-colonialist spirit and will to dominate pressures countries to adopt these deadly ideologies.

2) You write that “Christ never promised his faithful that they would be in the majority” (pg. 34), and you go on: “Despite the missionaries’ greatest efforts, the Church has never dominated the world. The Church’s mission is a mission of love, and love does not dominate” (pg. 35). Earlier, you wrote that “it is the ‘small remnant’ that has saved the faith.” If you will pardon a bold question: What is the problem exactly, seeing that this “small remnant” does in fact exist currently and manages to survive even in a world hostile to the faith?

Christians must be missionaries. They cannot keep the treasure of the Faith for themselves. Mission and evangelization remain an urgent spiritual task. And as St. Paul says, every Christian should be able to say “If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). Further, “God desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). How can we do nothing when so many souls do not know the only truth that sets us free: Jesus Christ? The prevailing relativism considers religious pluralism to be a good in itself. No! The plenitude of revealed truth that the Catholic Church has received must be transmitted, proclaimed, and preached.

The goal of evangelization is not world domination, but the service of God. Don’t forget that Christ’s victory over the world is…the Cross! It is not our intention to take over the power of the world. Evangelization is done through the Cross.

The martyrs are the first missionaries. Before the eyes of men, their life is a failure. The goal of evangelization is not to “keep count” like social media networks that want to “make a buzz.” Our goal is not to be popular in the media. We want that each and every soul be saved by Christ. Evangelization is not a question of success. It is a profoundly interior and supernatural reality.

3) I’d like to go back to one of your points in the previous question. Do you mean to say that European Christendom, where Christianity was able to establish itself throughout the whole of society, was only a sort of interlude in history; that it should not be taken as a model in the sense that in Europe Christianity “dominated” and imposed itself through a kind of social coercion?

A society permeated by the Faith, the Gospel, and natural law is something desirable. It is the job of the lay faithful to construct it. That is in fact their proper vocation. They work for the good of all when they build a city in conformity with human nature and open to Revelation. But the more profound goal of the Church is not to construct a particular model society. The Church has received the mandate to proclaim salvation, which is a supernatural reality. A just society disposes souls to receive the gift of God, but it cannot give salvation. On the other hand, can there be a society that is just and in conformity with the natural law without the gift of grace working in souls? There is great need to proclaim the heart of our Faith: only Jesus saves us from sin. It must be emphasized, however, that evangelization is not complete when it takes hold of social structures. A society inspired by the Gospel protects the weak against the consequences of sin. Conversely, a society cut off from God quickly turns into a dictatorship and becomes a structure of sin, encouraging people toward evil. That is why we can say that there can be no just society without a place for God in the public sphere. A state that officially espouses atheism is an unjust state. A state that relegates God to the private sphere cuts itself off from the true source of rights and justice. A state that pretends to found rights on good will alone, and does not seek to found the law on an objective order received from the Creator, risks falling into totalitarianism.

That is why we can say that there can be no just society without a place for God in the public sphere. A state that officially espouses atheism is an unjust state. 

4) Over the course of European history, we have moved from a society in which the group outweighed the person (the holism of the Middle Ages) – a type of society that still exists in Africa and continues to characterize Islam – to a society in which the person is emancipated from the group (individualism). We might also say, broadly speaking, that we have passed from a society dominated by the quest for truth to a society dominated by the quest for freedom. The Church herself has developed her doctrine in the face of this evolution, proclaiming the right to religious liberty at Vatican II. How do you see the position of the Church toward this evolution? Is there a balance to be struck between the two poles of “truth” and “freedom,” whereas so far we have merely gone from one excess to the other?

It is not correct to speak of a “balance” between two poles: truth and freedom. In fact, this manner of speaking presupposes that these realities are external to and in opposition to one another. Freedom is essentially a tending toward what is good and true. The truth is meant to be known and freely embraced. A freedom that is not itself oriented and guided by truth is nonsensical. Error has no rights. Vatican II recalled the fact that truth can only be established by the force of truth itself, and not by coercion. It also recalled that respect for persons and their freedom should not in any way make us indifferent in relation to the true and the good.


Error has no rights. Vatican II recalled the fact that truth can only be established by the force of truth itself, and not by coercion. It also recalled that respect for persons and their freedom should not in any way make us indifferent in relation to the true and the good. 

Revelation is the breaking in of divine truth into our lives. It does not constrain us. In giving and revealing Himself, God respects the freedom that He Himself created. I believe that the opposition between truth and freedom is the fruit of a false conception of human dignity.

Modern man hypostatizes his freedom, making it an absolute to the point of believing that it is threatened when he accepts the truth. However, to accept the truth is the most beautiful act of freedom that man can perform. I believe that your question reveals how deeply the crisis of the Western conscience is really in the end a crisis of faith. Western man is afraid of losing his freedom by accepting the gift of true faith. He prefers to close himself up inside a freedom that is devoid of content. The act of faith is an encounter between freedom and truth. That is why in the first chapter of my book I have insisted on the crisis of faith. Our freedom comes to fulfillment when it says “yes” to revealed truth. If freedom says “no” to God, it denies itself. It asphyxiates.

5) You dwell at length on the crisis of the priesthood and argue for priestly celibacy. What do you see as the primary cause in the cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests, and what do you think of the summit that just took place in Rome on this question?

I think that the crisis of the priesthood is one of the main factors in the crisis of the Church. We have taken away priests’ identity. We have made priests believe that they need to be efficient men. But a priest is fundamentally the continuation of Christ’s presence among us. He should not be defined by what he does, but by what he is: ipse Christus, Christ Himself. The discovery of many cases of sexual abuse against minors reveals a profound spiritual crisis, a grave, deep, and tragic rupture between the priest and Christ.

But a priest is fundamentally the continuation of Christ’s presence among us. He should not be defined by what he does, but by what he is: ipse Christus, Christ Himself. The discovery of many cases of sexual abuse against minors reveals a profound spiritual crisis, a grave, deep, and tragic rupture between the priest and Christ.

Of course, there are social factors: the crisis of the ‘60s and the sexualization of society, which rebound on the Church. But we must have the courage to go further. The roots of this crisis are spiritual. A priest who does not pray or makes a theatre out of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, a priest who only confesses rarely and who does not live concretely like another Christ, is cut off from the source of his own being. The result is death. I have dedicated this book to the priests of the whole world because I know that they are suffering. Many of them feel abandoned.

We, the bishops, bear a large share of responsibility for the crisis of the priesthood. Have we been fathers to them? Have we listened to them, understood and guided them? Have we given them an example? Too often dioceses are transformed into administrative structures. There are so many meetings. The bishop should be the model for the priesthood. But we ourselves are far from being the ones most ready to pray in silence, or to chant the Office in our cathedrals. I fear that we lose ourselves in secondary, profane responsibilities.

The place of a priest is on the Cross. When he celebrates Mass, he is at the source of his whole life, namely the Cross. Celibacy is a concrete means that permits us to live this mystery of the Cross in our lives. Celibacy inscribes the Cross in our very flesh. That is why celibacy is intolerable for the modern world. Celibacy is a scandal for modern people, because the Cross is a scandal.

The place of a priest is on the Cross. When he celebrates Mass, he is at the source of his whole life, namely the Cross. Celibacy is a concrete means that permits us to live this mystery of the Cross in our lives. Celibacy inscribes the Cross in our very flesh. That is why celibacy is intolerable for the modern world. Celibacy is a scandal for modern people, because the Cross is a scandal.

In this book, I want to encourage priests. I want to tell them: love your priesthood! Be proud to be crucified with Christ! Do not fear the world’s hate! I want to express my affection as a father and brother for the priests of the whole world.

6) In a book that has caused quite a stir [In the Closet of the Vatican, by Frédéric Martel], the author explains that there are many homosexual prelates in the Vatican. He lends credibility to Mgr Viganò’s denunciation of the influence of a powerful gay network in the heart of the Curia. What do you think of this? Is there a homosexual problem in the heart of the Church and if so, why is it a taboo?

Today the Church is living with Christ through the outrages of the Passion. The sins of her members come back to her like strikes on the face. Some have tried to instrumentalize these sins in order to put pressure on the bishops. Some want them to adopt the judgments and language of the world. Some bishops have caved in to the pressure. We see them calling for the abandonment of priestly celibacy or making unsound statements about homosexual acts. Should we be surprised? The Apostles themselves turned tail in the Garden of Olives. They abandoned Christ in His most difficult hour.

We must be realistic and concrete. Yes, there are sinners. Yes, there are unfaithful priests, bishops, and even cardinals who fail to observe chastity. But also, and this is also very grave, they fail to hold fast to doctrinal truth! They disorient the Christian faithful by their confusing and ambiguous language. They adulterate and falsify the Word of God, willing to twist and bend it to gain the world’s approval. They are the Judas Iscariots of our time.

Sin should not surprise us. On the other hand, we must have the courage to call it by name. We must not be afraid to rediscover the methods of spiritual combat: prayer, penance, and fasting. We must have the clear-sightedness to punish unfaithfulness. We must find the concrete means to prevent it. I believe that without a common prayer life, without a minimum of common fraternal life between priests, fidelity is an illusion. We must look to the model of the Acts of the Apostles.

With regard to homosexual behaviors, let us not fall into the trap of the manipulators. There is no “homosexual problem” in the Church. There is a problem of sins and infidelity. Let us not perpetuate the vocabulary of LGBT ideology. Homosexuality does not define the identity of persons. It describes certain deviant, sinful, and perverse acts. For these acts, as for other sins, the remedies are known. We must return to Christ, and allow him to convert us. 

With regard to homosexual behaviors, let us not fall into the trap of the manipulators. There is no “homosexual problem” in the Church. There is a problem of sins and infidelity. Let us not perpetuate the vocabulary of LGBT ideology. Homosexuality does not define the identity of persons. It describes certain deviant, sinful, and perverse acts. For these acts, as for other sins, the remedies are known. We must return to Christ, and allow him to convert us. When the fault is public, the penalties provided for by Church law must be applied. Punishment is merciful, an act of charity and fraternal love. Punishment restores the damage done to the common good and permits the guilty party to redeem himself. Punishment is part of the paternal role of bishops. Finally, we must have the courage to clearly apply the norms regarding the acceptance of seminarians. Men whose psychology is deeply and permanently anchored in homosexuality, or who practice duplicity and lying, cannot be accepted as candidates for the priesthood.

7) One chapter is dedicated to the “crisis of the Church.” When precisely do you place the beginning of this crisis and what does it consist in? In particular, how do you relate the “crisis of faith” to the crisis of “moral theology.” Does one precede the other?

The crisis of the Church is above all a crisis of the faith. Some want the Church to be a human and horizontal society; they want it to speak the language of the media. They want to make it popular. They urge it not to speak about God, but to throw itself body and soul into social problems: migration, ecology, dialogue, the culture of encounter, the struggle against poverty, for justice and peace. These are of course important and vital questions before which the Church cannot shut her eyes. But a Church such as this is of interest to no one. The Church is only of interest because she allows us to encounter Jesus. She is only legitimate because she passes on Revelation to us. When the Church becomes overburdened with human structures, it obstructs the light of God shining out in her and through her. We are tempted to think that our action and our ideas will save the Church. It would be better to begin by letting her save herself.

I think we are at a turning point in the history of the Church. The Church needs a profound, radical reform that must begin by a reform of the life of her priests. Priests must be possessed by the desire for holiness, for perfection in God and fidelity to the doctrine of Him who has chosen and sent them. Their whole being and all their activities must be put to the service of sanctity. The Church is holy in herself. Our sins and our worldly concerns prevent her holiness from diffusing itself. It is time to put aside all these burdens and allow the Church finally appear as God made Her. Some believe that the history of the Church is marked by structural reforms. I am sure that it is the saints who change history. The structures follow afterwards, and do nothing other than perpetuate the what the saints brought about.

Some believe that the history of the Church is marked by structural reforms. I am sure that it is the saints who change history. The structures follow afterwards, and do nothing other than perpetuate the what the saints brought about.

We need saints who dare to see all things through the eyes of faith, who dare to be enlightened by the light of God. The crisis of moral theology is the consequence of a voluntary blindness. We have refused to look at life through the light of the Faith.

In the conclusion of my book, I speak about a poison from which are all suffering: a virulent atheism. It permeates everything, even our ecclesiastical discourse. It consists in allowing radically pagan and worldly modes of thinking or living to coexist side by side with faith. And we are quite content with this unnatural cohabitation! This shows that our faith has become diluted and inconsistent! The first reform we need is in our hearts. We must no longer compromise with lies. The Faith is both the treasure we have to defend and the power that will permit us to defend it.

8) The second and third parts of your book are about crisis in western societies. The subject is so vast, and you touch on so many important points–from the expansion of the “culture of death” to the problems of consumerism tied to global liberalism, passing through questions of identity, transmission, Islamism, etc.–that it is impossible to address them all. Among these problems, which seem to you to be the most important and what are the principal causes for the decline of the West?

First I would like to explain why I, a son of Africa, allow myself to address the West. The Church is the guardian of civilization. I am convinced that western civilization is passing at present through a mortal crisis. It has reached the extreme of self-destructive hate. As during the fall of Rome, elites are only concerned to increase the luxury of their daily life and the peoples are being anesthetized by ever more vulgar entertainment. As a bishop, it is my duty to warn the West! The barbarians are already inside the city. The barbarians are all those who hate human nature, all those who trample upon the sense of the sacred, all those who do not value life, all those who rebel against God the Creator of man and nature. The West is blinded by science, technology, and the thirst for riches. The lure of riches, which liberalism spreads in hearts, has sedated the peoples. At the same time, the silent tragedy of abortion and euthanasia continue and pornography and gender ideology destroy children and adolescents. We are accustomed to barbarism. It doesn’t even surprise us anymore! I want to raise a cry of alarm, which is also a cry of love. I do so with a heart full of filial gratitude for the Western missionaries who died in my land of Africa and who communicated to me the precious gift of faith in Jesus Christ. I want to follow their lead and receive their inheritance!

As a bishop, it is my duty to warn the West! The barbarians are already inside the city. The barbarians are all those who hate human nature, all those who trample upon the sense of the sacred, all those who do not value life, all those who rebel against God the Creator of man and nature.

How could I not emphasize the threat posed by Islamism? Muslims despise the atheistic West. They take refuge in Islamism as a rejection of the consumer society that is offered to them as a religion. Can the West present them the Faith in a clear way? For that it will have to rediscover its Christian roots and identity. To the countries of the third world, the West is held out as a paradise because it is ruled by commercial liberalism. This encourages the flow of migrants, so tragic for the identity of peoples. A West that denies its faith, its history, its roots, and its identity is destined for contempt, for death, and disappearance.

But I would like to point out that everything is prepared for a renewal. I see families, monasteries, and parishes that are like oases in the middle of a desert. It is from these oases of faith, liturgy, beauty, and silence that the West will be reborn. 

9) You end this beautiful book with a section entitled “Rediscovering Hope: The Practice of the Christian Virtues.” What do you mean by this? In what way can practicing these virtues be a remedy for the multifarious crisis we have spoken about in this interview?

We should not imagine a special program that could provide a remedy for the current multi-faceted crisis. We have simply to live our Faith, completely and radically. The Christian virtues are the Faith blossoming in all the human faculties. They mark the way for a happy life in harmony with God. We must create places where they can flourish. I call upon Christians to open oases of freedom in the midst the desert created by rampant profiteering. We must create places where the air is breathable, or simply where the Christian life is possible. Our communities must put God in the center. Amidst the avalanche of lies, we must be able to find places where truth is not only explained but experienced. In a word, we must live the Gospel: not merely thinking about it as a utopia, but living it in a concrete way. The Faith is like a fire, but it has to be burning in order to be transmitted to others. Watch over this sacred fire! Let it be your warmth in the heart of this winter of the West. “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom 8:31). In the disaster, confusion, and darkness of our world, we find “the light that shines in the darkness” (cf. Jn 1:5): He who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6).

Translated from the French by Zachary Thomas (Original)

Note: the French text published by La Nef edited the text of the interview given by the Cardinal. This is a translation of the integral text supplied by the Cardinal.

Ignatius Press has announced the 2019 publication of an English translation entitled The Day is Far Spent, available for pre-order on their website.

Article first appeared at: HTTPS://CATHOLICHERALD.CO.UK/COMMENTANDBLOGS/2019/04/05/AS-A-BISHOP-IT-IS-MY-DUTY-TO-WARN-THE-WEST-AN-INTERVIEW-WITH-CARDINAL-SARAH/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

KASSI MARKS RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN AN IMPORTANT DIALOGUE AT SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY. IT IS A GOOD REPORT THAT SHE SENT TO ABYSSUM WHICH I AM GLAD TO POST.

kassiblog.com

Report on the Dialogue, Not Debate Event at Southern Methodist University

Posted: 13 Apr 2019 09:40 PM PDT

It’s been a busy week as I said it would be. I did go down to Austin to testify Wednesday on what ended up being three separate life-affirming, life-protecting bills. I’m going to blog about those soon. My good friend is still getting some video clips prepared. You’re not just going to see my testimony and some of those who supported the bills, but also some of those who opposed them. It’s going to be educational for you and I think
further validate some things I’ve been saying on this blog for years. But right now, I want to tell you about the discussion panel at SMU Thursday night. 

I’ve been debating within myself (not dialoguing) about how best to present a report on the Dialogue, Not Debate event at SMU. It was rather eye-opening for some reasons that had nothing to do with the abortion issue itself. Rather than summarize what happened, I’m going to just link here the full video of the exchange and commend it to you for your education, awareness…and prayer for all involved. 

For my part, I wanted to meet this audience where it was and really get people to think about how the disregard for some life leaves everyone vulnerable. I also wanted to get people to think past the immediate shock, surprise, fear, and panic that might accompany the discovery of a pregnancy rather than just run to abortion as a solution. Sometimes the unexpected can be a blessing if we step back and stop trying to control each situation and see each change to that as something wrong, bad, and which must be prevented. In other words, as Christians would say, “Let go and let God.” I also wanted everyone to know that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. Whether one believes that or not, one needs to hear it. 

I do want to highlight or expand upon a few points that you will see in the video and some things that I was unable to say for the sake of time, etc. 
I mentioned during this event a book that would inform women of their fertility because it had come up from the pro-abortion side that one of problems women face and why they need Planned Parenthood is because there is just not enough information about fertility and it’s hard to find on the internet, etc., etc., etc. One book that helped me navigate Natural Family Planning, which I found was presented in an overly complicated way in Catholic books, was Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler. I think women are smart and capable of reading and understanding the written word. I also think that certain motivations are exposed when you present a simple solution to a problem they raise – there’s no information on fertility; here’s a book; people don’t have money for books… – tells us a great deal. Other than that, I’ll let their response speak for itself.

Another thing I will note is that Dr. Kanter admitted that the government could withdraw all funding from PP and it would not go anywhere. In other words, PP doesn’t need our government dollars. That is excellent to know next time the subject comes up in the legislature. As for the PP’s argument that the provision of abortion is only 3% of what it does, that is inaccurate. A look at the study showed how those numbers are cooked. They also claimed that they do mammograms; you know, the usual things. You’ll see links below for some of the things I reviewed. Not everything was said that I wanted to, but you have to make some calls about what points to press and which ones just aren’t relevant to the overall message that needed to get across.

Then, I want you to understand the difference between abortion and preterm parturition which is the procedure that is done when a pregnancy is truly life-threatening to a woman. As I mentioned in my part of the panel discussion, there is a night and day difference in intent, purpose, and how the baby is treated. Indeed, if possible, the baby is saved. In the article I was referring to, Dr. Donna J. Harrison, stated: “There is a night and day difference between elective abortion and separating a mother and her unborn child for the purposes of saving a mother’s life (preterm parturition).” Dr. Harrison continued:

There are times when separating the mother and her unborn child is necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the unborn child is too premature to live. In those tragic cases, if possible the life of the baby will be attempted to be preserved, and if not possible, the body of the unborn child is treated with respect, recognizing the humanity of the life which is lost in the separation.A doctor friend of mine has expressed to me how other doctors recoil in horror at the use of the term “abortion” for these medically necessary procedures. They do not consider them the same because they are not in intent and how the baby is treated. They are not done primarily to kill the baby, whereas that is exactly the case with abortion.

As for abortion to save the life of the mother once viable or near the general viability mark, that is never necessary. As I say in my written testimony in support of SB 1033 which I will blog about later, you do not have to have abortion for that. Again, that is a case where the baby can be saved as well; at the very least, we try to save him or her. Killing the baby in that circumstance does nothing to save the mother whose life is threatened by the pregnancy. You can end a pregnancy and save both lives. Again, you would not use the abortion procedure, but preterm parturition. I was reminded recently that a baby born at 21 weeks in 2017 thrived despite the odds. Medicine is getting better and better and that is partially why I think we see arguments based on viability and when life begins going out the window and being replaced with versions of those doesn’t matter, the woman decides who lives or dies.

I’m told by some in the audience that it was a hostile crowd. I sensed that
only slightly – and you see me interact with one woman who was being
slightly disruptive at times – and I certainly expected it. But I sensed that
a great many were paying attention. I talked to half a dozen young women afterwards who sought me out to talk, seek advice, and thank me, in
addition to those who organized the event. While on stage, I was primarily focused on delivering a message of love and hope and life for everyone. It
is not complicated when you look at it that way. Yes, there are complicated situations; but respecting life is not complicated. There are scary,
unexpected situations. But fundamentally, it we value all life, things actually become simpler. Not necessarily easier, but simpler.

This idea that life is complicated; who knows when it begins; who cares when it begins, we’re women, we have the power to give and take life…is, frankly, disturbing and appalling. As I said in my talk, yes, we have the power to give life but with that comes great responsibility. As women, we have a responsibility to nurture and protect life, especially that which we carry. Men, of course, have that responsibility, too. But in this case, the idea was that women call all the shots and the best man was one who said, “If you get pregnant, babe; it’s all up to you.”

As I said there, the time to decide you don’t want to be a mother is before you are pregnant. And, yes, I did say that if the choice is between an abortion if you get pregnant and a 50 cent condom, use the condom. Am I pushing contraception now? No, I am not and I said that. However, you have to meet your audience where they are in these situations. Many are far from that point and if I can do something to plant a seed where they begin to question this “easy solution of abortion” then I am going to do that and not distract them by an unyielding anti-contraception rant – which they were expecting anyway and were surprised not to get. The audience will tune me out and we lose any effort to save any baby. The other panelists will focus on that rather than the ugliness of abortion and those saying certain life is not valuable and not to be protected. I wanted to stay focused on that mentality. Sometimes you have to make a judgment call and I did just that.

One thing I’ve learned, especially in the last year and a half, is that people are complicated and life is complicated. That is true. The issue of abortion, however, is actually simple. Unborn babies are human from the moment of fertilization and worthy of protection. (If you are interested, the article about the zinc fireworks set off at fertilization is here.) But the issue becomes complicated because, as with everything else, people are broken, man is in a fallen state, and everyone is on a journey. (It’s made more complicated by people, including clergy, acting like there is some uncertain point at which the unborn are human and worthy of protection and by feminist or anti-life politics; e.g., that life does not begin until the born baby takes its first breath and experiences life. Watch the video.) We are to keep progressing forward even as we fall backwards constantly. Yes, there is black and white morality. But the application of it to each person in their particular state gets difficult. You push someone too far before they are ready, they will usually quit – and bitterly so. There is a balance that has to be reached.

None of us are there perfectly yet, that is, in that perfectly moral state without any sin or temptation to sin. We fall every day and our pride often prevents us from even seeing it, much less correcting it as we should. We try to move forward toward perfection and we are called to strive toward every day in every way. But if we tell people who are far from God or who say they believe in God but are far from the idea that there is a right to life that X (no contraception) is the only way for them, when Y (non- abortifacient contraception rather than an abortion) gets them a little closer and doesn’t cause death, maybe that will help them get closer to X (no contraception) and even to Z (where they reject the idea of abortion entirely), we are doing them a greater service than painting them in a corner they don’t understand, and cannot yet, and where they harden their hearts against the entire idea of a right to life for the unborn (and others). I recognize that the contraceptive mentality often leads to the abortion mentality, especially in these circumstances. I fully believe that and I’ve said so for years. We’d not have had Roe v. Wade but for Griswold v. Connecticut (which established the right to privacy in the context of contraceptive access). But, again, this is a situation where we take baby steps and do what we can to try to get people to do the least harm as we hopefully help them progress toward a consistent ethic of life.

It was a unique experience for me to be on this panel and it was enlighten- ing. I hope I also planted some seeds and represented life well. Please pray for all who participated and listened to this discussion. Pray for a society that begins to value all life and want to protect it again. My introductory remarks were from the heart. Society has become depraved with this idea that we kill whoever we think is inconvenient or not utilitarian, who is too old, feeble, disabled, potentially with a birth defect, an undesired gender, or whatever. The reasons are as endless as they are wrong. We have to take back the culture. I have not done enough. We can probably never do enough. But let’s look for more ways to do that anyway and do our best.

Remember: We err, if we are to err at all, on the side of life. Always.

Thanks for reading! 
P.S. If you’re interested in some of the other things I mentioned, the sources are as follows:

Regarding Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers and the services they don’t provide, I reviewed this article, this one, and this one.

Also, the Texas Healthy Women’s program is here. As you know, I have been critical of the Texas Women’s Healthcare Program as I see it as a primarily contraceptive program, including abortifacient contraceptives, but in this case, they needed to see that there is something other than PP even for that which does not provide money for abortion.



AN EDITORIAL NOTE BY ABYSSUM
Kassi Marks is a friend of mine. She is an appellate lawyer who lives in North Texas, is married and has two children. She has been of great help
to Texas Right to Life is fighting in the Texas Legislature for the defense of human life.
https://www.facebook.com/
813970358634283/posts/2395895450441758?sfns=mo







Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“To see the Vicar of Christ on earth, Successor of St. Peter, down on all fours did violence to the sensibilities of many Catholics. In fact, it’s the perfect metaphor for the Church of Vatican II — a pope kissing the feet of the world.” 


New from THE REMNANT

FRANCIS: Most Humble Pope of All Time!

Dear Friends:Pope Francis is, it would seem, out of control. 

In this Remnant TV Short, we briefly examine the bizarre scene from the Vatican last week wherein Pope Francis suddenly took it upon himself to start kissing the feet of some visiting dignitaries from Sudan. 

To see the Vicar of Christ on earth, Success of St. Peter, down on all fours
did violence to the sensibilities of many Catholics. In fact, it’s the perfect metaphor for the Church of Vatican II — a pope kissing the feet of the
world. 

They say Pope Francis is humble. And if it is true, he seems very proud of
his humility. But is it humility that causes one to stand when others kneel,
to keel when others stand, and to constantly be seeking out opportunities
to single oneself out and be different?

By the way, we were told that the reason Francis rarely kneels in front of
the Blessed Sacrament is because of problems with arthritis. Was there
some miraculous cure? In this footage, the man seems positively eager to show us all how spry he is.  

As part of our effort to do what we can to undermine the agenda of this most dangerous pope—and thus to decrease  potential damage to the Church he seems hell-bent on destroying—please watch and share  this Remnant TV video.

Michael J. Matt

C   
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

HE ENTERED JERUSALEM MOUNTED ON AN ASS, HE WOULD LEAVE JERUSALEM IN THE ASCENSION RADIANT WITH GLORY

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly ColumnApril 14, 2019
   The more science shows of the universe, the more its beauty almost takes one’s breath away. There is nothing about it that could be called vulgar or in bad taste, for those are categories applicable only to what humans on our little planet do with things. It is possible to mock the harmony of the spheres with degrading human music, just as the stateliness of the galaxies can be burlesqued by undignified human behavior.    Logically then, when the Master of the Universe became flesh, He did nothing vulgar or tactless according to human lights. Even when He fled the mob in Nazareth, or hid from the crowd that had been dazzled by one of His miracles, His pace was elegant and His demeanor beyond reproach.   Strange then that when He entered Jerusalem to die, He arranged a sort of shabby parade, and encouraged the children to cheer Him as a king even after He had spurned a crown from a crowd. He must have seemed vulgar and tactless. Those who thought He was arrogant accused Him of blasphemy, and those who thought Him silly crowned Him with clownish thorns.   When the parish priest John Vianney heard that people were calling him a saint, he pretended to be the village idiot. Perhaps on Palm Sunday, Christ was mocking those who thought He was the king they wanted. But His coronation would be on a cross in a mystical ritual that sophisticates would consider foolish (1 Corinthians 1:23). As for pomposity, His entrance procession was clean of pretentiousness because a true king must ride on an ass to show his humility as a servant of his subjects (Zechariah 9:9).   Jesus orchestrated this spectacle just as He, as Divine Wisdom, orchestrated the elegant harmony of the celestial spheres. Only the vulgar and the pompous, then and now, have had an itch to accuse Him of vulgarity and pomposity. Not only on that first Palm Sunday, but in every year of human history, He makes a spectacle of Himself to make us speculate: Who is this man that He has authority to forgive sins? (Luke 5:21) And: Who is this man that He speaks with authority and not as one of the scribes? (Matthew 7:29)

   Our Lord seems to cheapen Himself by arranging a tawdry procession through the narrow streets of the Holy City, but he does it to show how precious He is. Riding on an ass through fetid alleys, He declares that the power of creating all the universe is in those hands soon to be nailed to the wood of a cross. That degradation is His exaltation. It is a glory farther beyond measure than the size of the universe He has created. And the children cheering him in dissonant and shrill voices, are proof that His Kingdom “is not of this world” (John 18:36). 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE VIDEO OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL KISSING THE FEET OF South Sudan (Muslim?) POLITICIANS IN DOMUS MARIA ON APRIL 11, 2019 IS PROVING TO BE THE ‘LAST STRAW’ FOR MANY CATHOLICS WHO UP TO NOW WERE WILLING TO OVERLOOK HIS BIZARRE STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS

Thursday, April 11, 2019

https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/04/papal-validity-are-franciss.html?m=1

Papal Validity: Are Francis’s “Inappropriate” Kissing & “Childlike” Behaviors Signs he may be Demented or have Dementia?

Pope Francis’s inappropriate ring-kissing behavior controversy where he appeared to play the immature children’s “gotcha” game received headline sequences that explained the behavior as “bizarre,” “awkward” and “cringeworthy.”
(CatholicCulture.org, “The bizarre ring-kissing controversy, March 28, 2019)

This “inappropriate” and “childlike” behavior of Francis could be a sign of dementia according to dementia experts:

“[Y]our loved one’s behavior may seem inappropriate, childlike or impulsive.”
(Lewy Body Dementia Association, Ibda.org, “Understanding Behavioral Changes in Dementia,” by Tanis German Ph.D, Mayo Clinic)

Gloria.tv reported Francis apparently inappropriately kissed some embarrassed politicians feet:

“Francis knelt down and kissed the feet of several [deeply embarrassed] South Sudan leaders.”
(Gloria.tv, “Showtime: Francis Knees to Kiss Feet of South Sudan Politicians, April 11, 2019)

This inappropriate foot kissing behavior by Francis caused Bishop Rene Gracida on his website to comment in a headline:

“The Bizarre Behavior of Francis the Merciful is Beginning to be cause Questions to be asked in Rome about his Behavior”
(Abyssus.org, April 11, 2019)

According to NeuroPsychiatry Online this could be a sign of dementia:

“Patients with bvFTD [frontotemporal dementia] can present with inappropriate personal comments or touching, violation of interpersonal space, and other personally intrusive behaviors such as kissing.”
(NeuroPsychiatryonline.org, “Kissing or ‘Osculation’ in Frontotemporal Dementia,” July 1, 2014)

Sadly, this isn’t the Pope’s first foot kissing behavior (Google: Images: “Pope Francis foot kissing” for other examples of this behavior). Francis’s possible fixation on foot kissing may, also, be associated with his comment and possible fixation on coprophilia:

“[I]n Psychpathia Sexualis… categorize foot fetishism [such as foot kissing] and coprophilia under the same heading… Self-Humiliation.”
(Book.google.com, “Dada and Surrealist Films,” Page 165)

Francis’s comment on poop eating is infamous. Many were outraged, but I think the proper response is pity.

Tragically, poop fixation and poop eating (coprophilia) fixation are more possible signs of dementia.
(AllNurses.com, “Coprophilia And Scatolia In Demented Elderly Residents, August 7, 2012)

Renowned papal validity theologian Arnaldo Xavier de Silverado in his book wrote that a “demented person” or person with dementia couldn’t “”occupy the charge” of “Pope”:

“The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute… a demented [dementia] person.”
(Implications of New Missae and Heretic Popes,” Page 86)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 10:06 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

THE BIZARRE BEHAVIOR OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS BEGINNING TO CAUSE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED IN ROME ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOUR

en.news8

Showtime: Francis Kneels To Kiss Feet Of South Sudan Muslim Politicians

Pope Francis received on April 11 the participants of a two-day retreat at the Vatican which involved civil and ecclesiastical authorities of South Sudan. During the audience Francis knelt down and kissed the feet of two Muslim men officials and one woman.

There was a look of shock on the faces of the more than 20 dignitaries in the room as Francis dropped to his knees in front of the individuals and kissed their feet. The prelates who were along side of him struggled to lift him to his feet each time. He looked as though he had overexerted himself in dropping to his knees when he stood up.

His actions were all the more shocking to all who witnessed his behavior because he is notorious for not genuflecting or kneeling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed for adoration.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT Pope Benedict DID NOT RELEASE HIS POWERFUL MESSAGE THROUGH THE VATICAN BUT INSTEAD RELEASED IT THROUGH GERMAN AND AMERICAN NEWS SOURCES, THE REACTION ON THE PART OF THE SUPPORTERS OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL HAS BEEN WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT, HOSTILITY

Benedict’s powerful message—and the bid to suppress it

By Phil Lawler (bio – articles – email) | Apr 11, 2019

CATHOLIC CULTURE.ORG

After six years of public silence, broken only by a few mild personal comments, Pope-emeritus Benedict has spoken out dramatically, with a 6,000-word essay on sexual abuse that has been described as a sort of post-papal encyclical. Clearly the retired Pontiff felt compelled to write: to say things that were not being said. Benedict thought the subject was too important to allow for his continued silence.

Vatican communications officials thought differently, it seems. Benedict’s essay became public on Wednesday night, but on Thursday morning there was no mention of the extraordinary statement in the Vatican’s news outlets. (Later in the day the Vatican News service issued a report summarizing Benedict’s essay; it appeared “below the fold” on the Vatican News web page, below a headline story on relief efforts for cyclone victims in Mozambique.) For that matter it is noteworthy that the former Pope’s statement was not published by a Vatican outlet in the first place; it first appeared in the German Klerusblatt and the Italian secular newspaper Corriere della Sera, along with English translations by the Catholic News Agency and National Catholic Register.

Benedict reports that he consulted with Pope Francis before publishing the essay. He does not say that the current Pope encouraged his writing, and it is difficult to imagine that Pope Francis was enthusiastic about his predecessor’s work on this issue. The two Popes, past and present, are miles apart in their analysis of the sex-abuse scandal. Nowhere does Benedict mention the “clericalism” that Pope Francis has cited as the root cause of the problem, and rarely has Pope Francis mentioned the moral breakdown that Benedict blames for the scandal.

The silence of the official Vatican media is a clear indication that Benedict’s essay has not found a warm welcome at the St. Martha residence. Even more revealing is the frantic reaction of the Pope’s most ardent supporters, who have flooded the internet with their embarrassed protests, their complaints that Benedict is sadly mistaken when he suggests that the social and ecclesiastical uproar of the 1960s gave rise to the epidemic of abuse.

Those protests against Benedict—the mock-sorrowful sighs that we all know sexual abuse is not a function of rampant sexual immorality—should be seen as signals to the secular media. And secular outlets, sympathetic to the causes of the sexual revolution, will duly carry the message that Benedict is out of touch, that his thesis has already been disproven.

But facts, as John Adams observed, are stubborn things. And the facts testify unambiguously in Benedict’s favor. Something happened in the 1960s and thereafter to precipitate a rash of clerical abuse. Yes, the problem had arisen in the past. But every responsible survey has shown a stunning spike in clerical abuse, occurring just after the tumult that Benedict describes in his essay. Granted, the former Pontiff has not proven, with apodictic certainty, that the collapse of Catholic moral teaching led to clerical abuse. But to dismiss his thesis airily, as if it had been tested and rejected, is downright dishonest.

Facts are facts, no matter who proclaims them. The abuse crisis did arise in the muddled aftermath of Vatican II. Benedict puts forward a theory to explain why that happened. His theory is not congenial to the ideas of liberal Catholic intellectuals, but that fact does not excuse their attempt to suppress a discussion, to deny basic realities. (Come to think of it, this is not the first time that the public defenders of Pope Francis have encouraged the public to ignore facts, to entertain the possibility that 2+2=5.)

That message—the message of Pope-emeritus Benedict—is a striking departure from the messages that have been issued by so many Church leaders. The former Pope does not write about “policies and procedures;” he does not suggest a technical or legalistic solution to a moral problem. On the contrary he insists that we focus our attention entirely on that moral problem and then move on to a solution which must also, necessarily, be found in the moral realm.

As background for his message, Benedict recalls the 1960s, when “an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history.” He writes about the breakdown in public morality, which was unfortunately accompanied by the “dissolution of the moral teaching authority of the Church.” This combination of events left the Church largely defenseless, he says.

In an unsparing analysis, Benedict writes of the problems in priestly formation, as “homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in seminaries.” He acknowledges that a visitation of American seminaries produced no major improvements. He charges that some bishops “rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole.” He sees the turmoil as a fundamental challenge to the essence of the faith, observing that if there are no absolute truths—no eternal verities for which one might willingly give one’s life—then the concept of Christian martyrdom seems absurd. He writes: “The fact that martyrdom is no longer morally necessary in the theory advocated [by liberal Catholic theologians] shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here.”

“A world without God can only be a world without meaning,” Benedict warns. “Power is then the only principle.” In such a world, how can society guard against those who use their powers over others for self-gratification? “Why did pedophilia reach such proportions?” Benedict asks. He answers: “Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God.”

It is by restoring the presence of God, then, that Benedict suggests the Church must respond to this unprecedented crisis. He connects the breakdown in morality with a lack of reverence in worship, “a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery.” Mourning the grotesque ways in which predatory priests have blasphemed the Blessed Sacrament, he writes that “we must do all we can to protect the gift of the Holy Eucharist from abuse.”

In short Pope-emeritus Benedict draws the connection between the lack of reverence for God and the lack of appreciation for human dignity—between the abuse of liturgy and the abuse of children. Faithful Catholics should recognize the logic and force of that message. And indeed Benedict voices his confidence that the most loyal sons and daughters of the Church will work—are already working—toward the renewal he awaits:

If we look around and listen with an attentive heart, we can find witnesses everywhere today, especially among ordinary people, but also in the high ranks of the Church, who stand up for God with their life and suffering.

Still the renewal will not come easily; it will entail suffering. For Benedict, that suffering will include the waves of hostility that his essay has provoked, the dismissive attitude of much lesser theologians, the campaign to write him off as an elderly crank. No doubt the former Pope anticipated the opposition that his essay would encounter. He chose to “send out a strong message” anyway, because suffering for the truth is a powerful form of Christian witness.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments