A Catholic Wife

THE GREATEST JOY OF MY LIFE IS FOUND WITHIN THE WALLS OF MY OWN HOME. 

Why did a cradle Catholic stop attending the Novus Ordo Mass?

09 MAY BY ACATHOLICWIFE

I was born in the early 1970s to two nominally Catholic parents and was baptized into the Church at two weeks old mostly because my Italian grandfather who was a faithful Catholic was close by and made sure that I received my first Sacrament. My parents did not raise me to understand the Catholic Church. My parents did not prioritize Jesus, His Church, or the reason why either should matter in my life or much less in our family. I was simply Catholic because I was told I was but it didn’t mean a thing to me – until it did. 

After so many years of not understanding my faith, not knowing the Person of Christ, and frankly not ever making the connection between why my life was exponentially harder than necessary and the fact that I was navigating life without a good faith foundation, I knew to my core that I needed to make a change. I wasn’t sure what that would look like, but thanks be to God He blessed me with a husband who was fully prepared to lead me home to the Church. 

My faith didn’t become something that I would cling to until I was in my early 30’s. That is a long time to navigate life without having Jesus at the center. Disclaimer: I never formally abandoned Holy Mother Church, but by the same token I never truly had a grasp of what it actually meant to be Catholic. 

By the time I reached my 30’s, I was a mother with four young children. My faith became something that I had to build from the ground up with the help and direction of my incredible husband. We returned to the Church with all the gusto we could muster for two wayward Catholics returning home. We started going back to Mass every single Sunday. We hit all the holy days of obligation and started to dig deeper into Catholicism. My husband began devouring all that Catholic Answers had to offer and whose apostolate he’ll tell you was one of the key reasons he was able to dive so deeply into our shared faith to lead our entire household to Jesus. 

Our parish in Florida was a Novus Ordo parish. Quite frankly, I had no idea there was anything but this type of Mass available. We hesitantly went along with all the things that make my heart break now – we held hands during the Our Father, we allowed our daughters to serve on the Altar, we sang the contemporary PROTESTANT songs in Mass, and we made sure that we shook all the hands of all the people near or far during the sign of peace. Worst of all, we received Our Blessed Lord in our unconsecrated hands, many times from the erroneously-termed “Eucharistic Ministers”, which is yet another protestant inspired affectation (the use and title). 

As the years went on, we became more traditionally minded. I began wearing a mantilla whenever I was in the presence of the Lord. My husband began praying the Rosary every single day. We just couldn’t get enough of Jesus Christ and the Church He left us. The more we learned, the more we felt a pull towards the Mass of old – even though neither of us had ever experienced the Latin Mass. 

After my husband retired from law enforcement, our family relocated to the super protestant Bible Belt. We joined the closest parish which is 30 minutes away and tried to embrace this new community. We were surprised that this parish offered the Tridentine Mass every other week. We were intrigued – intimidated – and woefully ill-prepared for the journey the Lord was about to take us on. The Lord has the best sense of humor and I love how He will always nudge us in the right direction when we are too far off course. 

We both knew we wanted to try the Latin Mass because of all the ways the Novus Ordo was lacking for us. We needed a reverent Mass. The N.O. Mass actually became a source of tremendous anxiety for us because we had to worry about jumping lines in order to get to the priest for Communion, avoiding the circus that has become the “sign of peace”, and the homilies?? I know God is love, but do I have to hear that every Sunday to the exclusion of any other instruction? Do we really have to listen to a priest who says playing with an Ouija board is ok as long as it’s just for fun?? Is a priest playing the harmonica just after Communion (and then receiving thunderous applause for his performance) truly Catholic worship?? As my husband says, it became a near occasion of sin for him to go to an N.O. Mass due to all the irreverence making him so angry. 

So, we started to research and read all the things about the Latin Mass we could. We wanted to make sure that we could jump right in and fully experience this Mass that we had dreamed about for years. We bought new clothes, we watched a bazillion YouTube videos on what happens in the Latin Mass, and we talked to our girls about what would be happening. It was now time to experience our first Traditional Latin Mass. 

A very nice man met us before we stepped foot inside the sanctuary. He handed us 5 red paper Latin Mass missals and gave us a brief explanation of how we could follow along. He told us not to get overwhelmed and just watch the people around us for cues as to when to stand, sit, or kneel (oh the kneeling is plentiful in the Latin Mass!). We had no clue what the priest was saying for the majority of the Mass and strangely enough, a peace like I had never experienced before came over me. 

In all my years of being a Catholic, after my first Latin Mass I admitted to myself and my husband that this was the most Catholic I had ever felt despite not understanding a thing of what was happening around me. I knew I didn’t have to. 

The Novus Ordo Mass was routine and familiar- I knew what was happening and still, there was something that always felt off. Perhaps it was the way that Protestantism has infiltrated the Church? Perhaps it is the lack of reverence shown to Christ? Perhaps it is the way the laity has pushed their way into participating in the Mass -usurping the priest far too many times to stand shoulder to shoulder with him – distributing the body of Christ with their unconsecrated hands and blessing the people (which is NOT found in the the General Instruction on the Roman Missal nor the Book of Blessings)who cannot receive for whatever reason (side note – if you cannot receive – you should not be coming up to receive a blessing – but this is separate blog post that I will address at a later time). 

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying” [lex orandi, lex credendi], under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7)

I stopped attending the Novus Ordo Mass because I needed ALL my attention and focus and worship to be centered on Jesus. I longed for tradition. I craved a reverent and HOLY Mass. I wanted to be surrounded by the beauty and glory of an old Catholic parish. I was searching for homilies that were packed with the truth – especially the hard and not so palatable truth about sin and the ramifications of our un-repented sins. 

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7) 

The Latin Mass was discontinued at our parish and we were both so sad. We knew that we could never see the Novus Ordo Mass again the same after experiencing the beauty of the Latin Mass. Again, the Lord with His unmatched sense of humor gave us the High Latin Mass an hour and a half away. When I tell you that my heart had never felt so full in Mass after I experienced “the smells and the bells” of a high Mass I would not be exaggerating. We now drive 3 hours round trip every single Sunday and holy day of obligation and feel so blessed to be able to worship the Lord in such a glorious parish. 

I stopped attending the Novus Ordo Mass because I needed the Mass to be entirely about worshipping Almighty God through His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ and not about feel-good entertainment. I stopped attending the Novus Ordo Mass because the lure of a “new & improved” Mass held as much appeal to me as did the sickeningly sweet version that New Coke had in the ’80s. (side note: for anyone too young to recall the marketing debacle of New Coke – it was a big flop and the Coca-Cola brand removed their new creation and they returned to selling the real thing). As for me, I will joyfully continue attending the Mass of old and soak up every ounce of the beauty & tradition that is found within the Latin Mass. 

Please know that I am not passing judgment on you if you attend the Novus Ordo Mass. I ask that you not assume that I believe I am “holier than Thou” because I love the smells & bells, wear a veil, and exclusively attend the Latin Mass. 

All that I know for certain is that our Lord deserves the holiest, most reverent, and beautifully offered mass that our priests can give to Him. I have only witnessed this level of majesty in the Latin Mass. 

Please leave me a comment below on which Mass you attend. I am looking forward to sharing my faith with you all and hope you will share your faith with me. May we all continue‌ to seek to glorify God with our lives.

Pax Christi, 

· TAGGED CATHOLIC CHURCH, CATHOLIC WIFE, CATHOLICISM, CRADLE CATHOLIC, JESUS CHRIST, LATIN MASS, NOVUS ORDO ABUSES, NOVUS ORDO MASS, TLM, TRIDENTINE MASS, VATICAN II

If You Had All the Time in the World, How Would You Attack the Church?

Raymond Kowalski

May 9, 2019

OnePeterFive

The recent Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, accusing Pope Francis of heresy, precipitated a large number of commentaries. A common response was to cite ecclesiastical law for the proposition that “no one judges the pope” and thesk, “So what is the point of accusing him of heresy?”

This is another way of saying, “Even if the pope’s accusers are right, there is nothing anyone — including the bishops— can do about it.” Most commentators saw the authors of the Open Letter as merely wailing in despair. One saw them as giving their professional lives to attempt to save the rest of us.

❦

In a sulfurous cavern somewhere, a dark, brooding presence is rubbing its talons together and saying, “I love it when a plan comes together.” And what a plan it is — namely, to turn the full weight and power of the Catholic Church against itself and bring about its destruction.

Most of mankind’s battle plans throughout history have been fairly simple: defeat the opponents’ army, kill their king, seize their territory and riches, and enslave their population. The plan had to be simple, because life is short, and conquering takes time. What good is being victorious if you do not live long enough to enjoy it?

If time were not an issue, however, what would the plan look like? If your enemy were not an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom upon the earth, how would you attack? Would you attack the pope? No. You would learn from 2,000 years of failure that this is not a successful strategy. Besides, the papacy could be useful.

You would notice that unsuccessful attacks on the Church resulted in various measures by the Church that were meant to defend against future attacks. For example, after various heresies had been beaten back, encyclicals and councils would anathematize persons who held or stated those heretical beliefs. You would notice especially that the Church pronounced that the formal teachings of its pope in matters of faith and morals are infallible.

You would notice that provisions would be added to the Code of Canon Law to discourage and punish actions such as inciting anger against the Holy See or even asking bishops to do something about an action of the pope.

In short, in defending itself against attacks on its dogmas and its pope, the Church down through the ages has put in place in terrorem proscriptions, designed to prevent future attacks from even being conceived, as well as severe punishments for those who are not deterred.

The only plan that could possibly succeed is one that makes use of the Church’s own weapons. To accomplish that, it would be necessary to invert the Faith. Truth must become false; falsehood must become truth. The Church must become the world; the world must become the Church. The pope, however, must continue to be unassailable, assuring his global flock that he is infallibly guiding them to safe pastures. Those who would say otherwise are to be painted as merely the continuation of the enemies of the Church, who have failed for two millennia.

How long might it take to invert the Faith? Judging from the Old Testament, two or three generations should be enough. Time and again the Lord would rescue the Israelites. Time and again would they rejoice, then slowly forget, until they succumbed to the surrounding culture and found themselves suffering in captivity again. Human nature has not changed over the millennia.

How best could the Faith be inverted? Past attacks on doctrine have failed. This time, let the attack not be a nettle to theologians over such matters as whether Christ had one will or two. This time, let the attack be on things that directly impact the faithful in the pews. This time, let the targets of attack be the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, and the priesthood.

Legitimacy. The inverted faith must have legitimacy. A pope may formally declare a new dogma from time to time, but something more grand is required for the plan. The plan needs a full-blown, worldwide, newsreel-filling Church council. The plan needs a council with no focus, no heresy to combat, no real raison d’être. The plan needs a council that is so cumbersome that a mere handful of insiders can control its processes and products.

Then comes the most delicate phase of the plan. The products of the council must not raise alarm. They must be subtle. They must seem orthodox. At worst, they may be ambiguous. Do not make a new rule, but leave room for an exception to become the rule. Keep the changes small, like changing only one word, est, for example, to subsistit. Tap into the culture and mores of the times. Tell the curious to ignore that wisp of smoke in the chapel; call it fresh air.

With the products of the council in hand, the plan to attack the Mass, the Eucharist, and Jesus Christ Himself can be executed. These three, after all, are integral to each other: the Mass is a sacrifice, Christ is the priest and victim, and consumption of the Eucharist is required for eternal life.

It will be easy at first. If nothing else, Catholics are used to following orders. They have been conditioned for centuries to do so. If the bishop says this new Mass is good, then it is good. Ours is not to question the bishop. If the bishop says that the new Mass is still the Mass, then it is the Mass. Move slowly, imperceptibly.

In two or three generations, the people will have forgotten that the Mass is a sacrifice; they will look upon it as a communal meal. They will not understand that Holy Communion is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. They will have forgotten the sound of Latin. They will confuse preaching with worship. They will substitute themselves for God. They will judge the Church. Perfect!

In our times, the target of attack can finally be the priesthood, not that the priesthood has not been getting softened up for some time. How could the priesthood most successfully be attacked? How about priests running off and marrying nuns? Nope. Luther tried that, and virtuous priests are still with us. No, the plan needs something truly vile. How about homosexual priests raping and molesting seminarians and altar boys? Almost. What about a homosexual cardinal raping and molesting family friends and seminarians? Perfect!

The priesthood is now set up for the kill shot: the ordination of women as deacons. Every commenter worth listening to is saying this move will trigger the formal schism of the Catholic Church. In one brilliant move, this will both destroy the priesthood and fracture the Church. Perfect!

But wait. Does the plan end with a fractured Church? No. The plan has a use for Summorum Pontificum. Summorum Pontificum is an apostolic letter given in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI motu proprio, that is, “on his own impulse.” The letter gives priests all over the world the right to offer the Latin Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 with no need of permission from the Apostolic See or the local Ordinary. Pope Benedict ended the letter with an order that it be given “full and lasting force,” but it seems clear that another pope’s motu proprio could vacate it.

Yet in the current pontificate, it has not been vacated. The plan took into account that the traditional Latin Mass would attract those Catholics who never accepted the new ways, as well as those who came to reject the new ways. These Catholics would assemble and coalesce around the usus antiquior. They would herd themselves into their own corral. And when the schism came, these Catholics would be the ones cast out en masse from the Church, into the cold. They, holding to the authentic liturgy and divinely instituted sacraments, would be the schismatics, who are no longer in communion with the See of Peter. Perfect!

❦

The signers of the Open Letter surely must see the pope’s heresies in the context of the plan. In a special May 2, 2019 episode of Tumblar House’s Off the Menu, concerning the Open Letter, Charles Coulombe asked, why else would the signers risk their reputations, their positions, and possibly their lives to accuse the pope of heresy? He speculated that they might be trying to check the plan’s final move to open Holy Orders to women.

Mr. Coulombe dwelt a bit on the question of the emotions evoked by the Open Letter, especially the emotion of fear. He said this is a special kind of fear — the kind of fear felt by a four-year-old as he watches his parents fighting bitterly.

Imagine yourself to be that four-year-old. You are in a church, a place of safety, founded by Jesus Christ, protected by the Holy Ghost, and promised victory over the gates of Hell. But something is amiss. Some grown-ups around you have intuited the unthinkable. They stand up in protest, risking all to prevent it. A tinny loudspeaker in a corner somewhere is blaring, “The First See is judged by no one.” You catch a whiff of sulfur. You are in real danger of real attack. How anyone can or will protect you is not immediately apparent.

Raymond Kowalski

Raymond Kowalski is from Rochester, New York. He is a product of parochial elementary schools and The Aquinas Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree from St. Bonaventure University and a law degree from The George Washington University. After a forty-year career in communications law, he is retired and living with his wife in Gainesville, Virginia. They are the parents of three and grandparents of five.

Unfinished Business

Stephen P. White

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2019

Next month, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet in general assembly in Baltimore. The bishops left their November meeting without any decisive action towards ensuring accountability for bishops. Since then, the American bishops have gone on retreat together – at Pope Francis’ request – and the leaders of national episcopal conferences have met in Rome for a summit on the problem of clerical abuse of minors. The global Church is catching up to the American Church in handling the abuse crisis. As odd as it may sound, that’s a good thing.

But here in the States, there is still a palpable sense of frustration and urgency. The bishops will have unfinished business to attend to in Baltimore.

Just after Easter, a delegation from the USCCB went to Rome to discuss the reform proposals that will be on the Baltimore docket. Cardinal DiNardo was not with the delegation because of ill health. The bishops don’t want a repeat of last November’s fiasco when votes on proposed reforms were canceled at the eleventh hour at Rome’s insistence.

One bishop told me that, while he expects the proposed reforms for bishops’ accountability to pass in June, if the conference can’t agree on a way forward, many bishops are already inclined to follow the lead of the Archdioceses of Baltimore and Boston in putting in place their own third-party reporting systems and accountability mechanisms. In other words, many bishops are done waiting for Rome and the conference.

The June meeting in Baltimore will also come almost exactly one year after news broke that Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misbehavior had resulted in settlements in two dioceses, and that charges of abusing a minor had come to light. It’s worth recalling that, if his misdeeds had “merely” included preying on seminarians and priests, he would almost certainly remain a Cardinal today.

McCarrick was laicized earlier this year, but many of the questions about his long career and rise to prominence remain unanswered. Last October, the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had ordered a “thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.”

Whether the results of that study will ever be made public – and, if so, when – remains unclear. Last November, the U.S. bishops overwhelmingly voted against a resolution to ask the Holy Father to make the conclusions of the McCarrick study public. It was a low point of the November meeting.

For better or worse, any disclosure of the facts of McCarrick’s rise is now inextricably linked to – and complicated by – the interventions of Archbishop Viganò. The author’s champions and opponents alike have picked over the Viganò testimony in excruciating detail. The Vatican – though not the Holy Father – has offered partial responses and rebuttals of particular points.

But for all the controversy and division it has caused, and whatever else you may think about the testimony or the author’s motives, there is one basic fact that even the staunchest critics of Viganò will concede: his testimony remains the only public attempt, from someone in the know, to provide a comprehensive answer to the question everyone has been asking since last summer: Who knew what about McCarrick and when?

If Viganò’s is the only full (or purportedly full) account out there, Pope Francis’s silence has all but ensured that it will remain so. If the Holy Father isn’t going to say what he knows, why would anyone else stick his neck out?

The Holy Father’s silence leaves the American episcopate, in particular, in a rather awkward spot. If a bishop asks too many questions about the career of Theodore McCarrick, he risks being labeled a “Viganista” who is showing his disloyalty to the Holy Father. If a bishop keeps quiet, his flock begins to wonder why he’s so uninterested in getting to the bottom of who-knew-what-and-when. People may even begin to ask what he has to hide.

Meanwhile, millions of American Catholics are wondering why, a year after the McCarrick scandal broke and seventeen years after the Dallas Charter, transparency and the pastoral needs of the Church are still taking a back seat to ecclesiastical politics and the unwritten rules of episcopal deference.

The American bishops could go a long way toward making up for the disappointment of last November by emphasizing to the Holy Father – respectfully, publicly, and as a body – the pastoral imperative for Rome to be as transparent as possible with the results of its study of the career of Theodore McCarrick.

Of course, establishing uniform accountability measures for bishops and getting to the bottom of the McCarrick mess are far from sufficient for resolving the current mess. Neither is going to fully restore the credibility of the bishops or heal the wounds in the Church. But that doesn’t mean these actions are not urgent – and necessary. Together they would make a sort of down payment on restoring the trust of the faithful that has been so badly eroded over the last year.

For our ecclesiastical leaders to begin to regain the confidence of their flocks, they’re going to have to find ways to overcome the distrust of one another. That may sound impossibly naïve, but what good is an episcopate that’s afraid to ask Rome for what its people need? And how does Rome giving the silent treatment to shepherds it doesn’t trust help a flock that’s desperate for the truth?

As I said, there’s unfinished business in Baltimore.

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

kassiblog.com

---

Judie Brown of the American Life League Writes about SB 2089; Why This Issue Is Important Posted: 09 May 2019 08:04 AM PDT Initially, I was going to make this Update 4 to my previous post which I continue to update with relevant information, but I decided this one warranted its own post. Judie Brown of American Life League has written an article entitled “Death: The Definitive Painkiller.” She notes that the use of the term “palliative care” used to just mean providing comfort and relief to a suffering or dying patient, but in more recent times it is used to mean, basically, euthanasia. (I have come to learn this as well. “Comfort care” may very often be code for “snowing” a patient – that is, providing so much morphine they die. It’s a way of getting around the prohibition against active euthanasia and speed the effects of passive euthanasia at times. More on that another time.)  Mrs. Brown writes about death by organ donation and how that plays into these euthanasia cases as well. Read that. It’s truly stunning. Bobby Schindler has been bringing awareness to this issue this week as well. At some point I’m going to discuss that. There was a bill brought up this session in Texas to make organ donation automatic and opt-out only. I don’t think it has gotten anywhere, but we are going to have to confront this issue very soon as politically unpopular and as misunderstood as it might be. Organ donation plays a roll in a too many of the euthanasia cases we see. We have to confront realities and bring truth and light into the darkness.   Getting back to the article, Mrs. Brown then writes about SB 2089 and provides cites, among others, to this blog for which I am honored and grateful. It made me aware of this fact: The nation is watching Texas. Will it do the right thing? That’s entirely up to the Senate right now and, frankly, they need to have a fire lit under them. That’s where you come in!  Mrs. Brown states:  In the state of Texas, pro-life Senate Bill 2089 is up for consideration right now. This proposal would undo the negative effects of the Texas Advance Directive Act. TADA violates the personal liberties of conscience among those who do not ascribe to euthanasia practices. How? According to Texas Right to Life, TADA—the 10-Day-Law—has“been accurately described by people across the political spectrum as ‘death panels.’ The patient and his or her legal surrogate have a mere 10 days to arrange an emergency transfer to another facility that would be willing to continue treatment. Such a transfer is often extraordinarily complicated in such cases, and there are no practical means under the 10-Day-Law for a typical patient to stop the ticking clock on their own.” She wrote and tweeted: She stated also: Too many within the healthcare community embrace philosophies and practices that threaten those patients who truly need relief from suffering so that they can live the balance of their lives in comfort rather than literally being put down like dogs by any means possible. Note that this is in the example of the definition of euthanasia I so often cite to on this blog, straight out of Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But people are not dogs and ought not be treated as such.   She then reminds us:  We must be clear: Ventilators and feeding tubes keep patients comfortable. They are not extreme. But perhaps the unspoken idea here is that palliative medication, when given in very high doses, represents a better use of resources and a quicker way to end a life deemed without quality or purpose. Recall that Mrs. Jones has a ventilator and is on dialysis. Neither is extreme. But Memorial Herman wants her dead anyway, despite the fact that other facilities will take her once her funding is approved which will take a few more days than the 10 it gave her to get out or be dead. On what rational, moral basis is this justified? It’s not ethical either. But some people call things what they clearly are not. Some people lie. Some people distort. But all people deserve better and need to know the truth. Read the rest of her article. It is enlightening and information from another source that you can use to educate yourself and promote the true cause of life from conception until natural death.  Why do I spend so much time on this? Is it really that important? Yes. Because, as Wesley J. Smith wrote an hour ago:  Once euthanasia consciousness grabs a culture by the throat, it never stops squeezing. The plain and simple fact is that Texas has a law that allows involuntary passive euthanasia right now. It is unconstitutional. It has no due process rights for patients and that law is used by hospitals to sentence them to death. We can’t have that and call ourselves pro-life. And, it won’t stop there. The Culture of Death never stops. and the Culture of Death is alive and well and is here in Texas. It has taken hold of and is promoted by groups that call themselves pro-life and yet promote euthanasia and by an organization that speaks for and lobbies for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Texas and all of its bishops. So far, I’ve not seen a single bishop break ranks and speak out in favor of SB 2089 except for Bishop Gracida who the rest ignore (to their shame!). Silence is complicity. The Catholic Church has had too much of that. It’s time for them to speak out now and actually promote the Culture of Life that Roman Catholic Church doctrine teaches. Every single one of us needs to promote the Culture of Life and light and truth in this dark, fallen world. We have an unceasing duty and moral obligation to do this. In this context, lives depend on it.  Please continue to contact your senators and let them know that you support SB 2089 and want it brought for a floor vote immediately. Session is over in about 19 days. We are close. That’s why TAL, the TCCB, and others are fighting it so hard. We have to fight back.

On Organ Donation

E. Christian Brugger

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019

Note: A reader sent in the query below, which we thought deserved a careful reply by a reliable bioethicist.

Question: My nurse friend says that major organs can’t be donated unless donors are alive, thus anaesthetic is given at the time of retrieval.  If this is correct, then organ harvesting itself would bring about the donor’s death, right?  Wouldn’t this be a kind of euthanasia?  I told her the Church would never approve this.  But from all I’ve heard, the Church does approve of organ donation, even praises it.  Can you shed some light?

If by major organs your friend means vital organs, then her statement is ambiguous.  Vital organs are organs that people need to stay alive (e.g., heart, paired kidneys, paired lungs, liver, colon).  In U.S. medicine – as well as in most countries of the world – their donation is putatively governed by the “dead donor rule” (DDR). This means, or should mean, that vital organs are only harvested from dead bodies.  Although opposition to the DDR has been growing for more than a decade (see 1, 2, 3,4), the rule still universally prevails in transplant medicine.

Catholic moral teaching on organ donation also affirms the DDR (see CCC, nos. 2296, 2301; John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, nos. 15, 86; Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services, 6^thEd., 2018, nos. 29, 30, 62-64).

It also teaches, as you rightly say, that organ donation can be a good thing.  In fact, John Paul II taught that when performed in an ethically acceptable manner it was an example of “everyday heroism.”

To understand the Catholic teaching, then, it’s important to unpack what we mean by an “ethically acceptable manner”.

Since donating vital organs would cause one to sacrifice or seriously impair bodily functions necessary for life or stable health – that is, would compromise what moral theology refers to as functional integrity– it would not be morally licit, since by choosing it we would violate the duty we have to care for our own bodily life.

But it would also be wrongful if one foresaw that donating a non-vital organ would cause one to fail in some already-existing duty.  For example, if one has care for a disabled child, and donating an organ (say, a single lung) would make that care difficult or impossible, one should not donate the organ unless one is morally certain that others reasonably can carry out the child’s care.  Otherwise, it would be unfair to the child.

It would also be morally wrong if one donates organs for transplantation involved in the establishing or transmitting of personal identity (e.g., ovaries, testicles, brain); as well as when the reasons for donating are morally trivial (e.g., my girlfriend has always wanted a blue eye, and I have two of them); finally, if free consent of the donor or proxy is lacking; or if there are reasonably accessible and less harmful alternatives (e.g., use of bovine organs); or if the donation is being motivated by the desire for economic advantage; in these cases it would ordinarily be wrongful to choose to be a donor.

As for dead donors, all organs in principle, including once-vital organs, may be harvested subject to the following three conditions: 1) donors should be certifiably dead; this determination should be made by competent clinicians in accordance with responsible and accepted scientific criteria; to prevent any conflict of interest, physicians who determine death should not be members of corresponding transplant teams; 2) the donor or his proxy should give free consent; and 3) the intention for using the organs should be upright (e.g., there would be no plan to transplant organs involved in the transmission of personal identity).

Brain death debate 

I said above that the DDR putatively governs organ donation in the United States, and that most everyone agrees with this.

Your friend’s comments, however, raise an important debate in bioethics, one being pursued in earnest primarily by Christian scholars.

It’s the question of whether ventilated brain dead individuals are in fact humanly dead; is neurological death an adequate definition of human death?

For organs to be useful for transplantation, they need sustenance up to the time of their removal. Thus, brain dead bodies are kept on mechanical breathing machines (ventilators) ensuring that oxygenated blood is circulated to the organs until transplant teams are ready for them.

For many years, nobody seriously questioned whether brain dead bodies might be living human beings; they just assumed that if the brain was destroyed, the body could not continue to live.

But in 2001, the chief neurologist at UCLA Medical Center, Alan Shewmon, a committed Catholic, published startling research on ventilated brain dead bodies. He demonstrated conclusively that these bodies are sometimes able not only to respire (with the help of ventilation), but to assimilate nutrition, heal from wounds, fight infections, respond to stress, maintain homeostasis, grow proportionally, and even gestate unborn babies.  In other words, they acted very much like living human bodies.

If we accept sound Christian anthropology, wherever there exists a living human body, there subsists a living human person, however disabled he may be.

Shewmon’s evidence led him to conclude – and with him many notable scientists and philosophers, including Catholics (e.g., Josef Seifert, Nicanor Austriaco) – that some ventilated brain dead bodies are living human beings, who, wrongly considered to be dead, are killed when their organs are harvested for transplantation.

I’ve provisionally concluded that the evidence at least raises reasonable doubts; and in the face of such doubts, we are morally obliged to treat them as if they are alive unless and until the doubts are dispelled.

Interestingly, there will be a conference soon in Rome sponsored by the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family on this very question; Shewmon is one of the presenters.

Prominent Catholic bioethicists and centers in the United States oppose Shewmon’s conclusions. Unfortunately, some of them insist that those who raise serious doubts about the adequacy of the neurological criteria are unfaithful Catholics.  This is because John Paul II said provisionally in a 2000 address that “the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology.”

But if in the light of new empirical evidence, we question a provisional judgment of a pope, especially when that judgment is made in a realm – such as medical science – over which he has no divinely mandated authority, it is certainly not unfaithful.

*Image: Saint Cajetan Comforting a Dying Man by Sebastiano Ricci, 1704 [Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, Italy]

Share this:

• Facebook

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

E. Christian Brugger

Dr. E. Christian Brugger is a Professor of Moral Theology at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Florida, where he lives with his wife and five children. He was dean of the School of Philosophy and Theology at University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, and a Theological Consultant to the Doctrine Committee of the USCCB. He is the author of The Indissolubility of Marriage and the Council of Trent

Before Pope Francis was accused of heresy, Catholics reached out to him numerous times

Maike Hickson

Tue May 7, 2019 – 1:33 pm EST

May 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The April 30 Open Letter to Bishops has caused much discussion among Catholic circles. The authors of the letter have appealed to the bishops of the world, for the sake of the salvation of souls, “as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” Some of the heresies they name flow out of the Pope’s post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, on marriage and the family, and which opened the path to many episcopal guidelines now allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion contrary to perennial Church teaching. 

Some Catholic commentators have argued against this Open Letter with the claim that Pope Francis deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to some of the papal quotations as they are presented by the Open Letter. As Father Thomas Petri, O.P., for example, stated: 

I’m disappointed that a group of theologians, some of whom I admire, chose to express themselves by contributing to a letter calling the Pope a heretic. Their citations of him can be all interpreted in a way that gives the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, which we owe him.

In a similar manner, other commentators have asked whether the authors have ever first contacted the Pope privately, or whether they first went to their own bishops with their objections. For example, the Vice-President for the Center of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), Stefano Gennarini stated on twitter: 

I only want to know one thing. Did any of the folks on this list even try to express their concerns with His Holiness privately, through their bishops, or even publicly, before inciting others to schism [sic]. 

These are objections that should be faced and discussed. Since we are in the middle of an unprecedented situation in the history of the Catholic Church, reasonable people can come to different conclusions here. It must be remembered that during the time of the 14th-century anti-popes there were saints on both sides. 

Leila Marie Lawler, wife of Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler, commented on this ongoing discussion on Twitter, saying: “Worst take: ‘Give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt’  – as if criticism is personal and not about objective issues, the defense of which he has ultimate responsibility. Instead, protect those ‘little ones’ exposed to error and its corrosions,” adding in her follow-up Tweet: “The ‘benefit of the doubt’ defense has been used from Day One of this pontificate. Where is charity for the little ones?”

In light of this piercing comment, it is worthwhile bringing to mind just how many Catholics, as children of God, have called out to the Pope for clarifications, corrections and help, and how many learned Catholics – cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen alike – have issued, during the last six years, pleas to Pope Francis himself.

This list of initiatives taken under Pope Francis’ pontificate was started on Twitter by this author, and then substantially enriched by others, such as Leila Lawler and Julia Meloni. The list is now very long, and it will prove how many chances Pope Francis has received to respond to accusations of his allegedly heterodox teachings. Advertisement

In March of 2013, Pope Francis was elected. In February of 2014, he asked Cardinal Walter Kasper to give a speech to the College of Cardinals, in which he presented his idea to give Holy Communion to some “remarried” divorcees. This speech was hotly discussed at the consistory, with perhaps about 85% of the attending cardinals opposing Kasper’s progressive ideas, according to a report by Marco Tosatti.

This event – together with Pope Francis’ announcement of a two-fold Synod of Bishops on Marriage and the Family in 2014 and 2015 – inspired the first public attempts at preserving the Church’s traditional teaching. 

What follows is a non-exhaustive list of 20 direct attempts by clergy and laity to reach Pope Francis for clarification. Following this is a list of indirect attempts. Direct attempts by clergy and laity to reach Pope Francis

• In October of 2014, a large U.S. Catholic parish – St. John the Baptist (Front Royal, Virginia) issued an Affirmation of Faith Concerning Marriage and the Family that gained more than 1,000 signatures from parishioners and was sent to Pope Francis. 
• On 16 April 2015, the Catholic newspaper The Wanderer published an Open Letter to Pope Francis, in which the signatories asked Pope Francis that he “would celebrate the conclusion of the Synod of the Family with a clear and strong reaffirmation of the Church’s timeless teachings on the indissolubility of marriage, the nuptial nature and definition of marriage and conjugal love, and the virtue of chastity, as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
• After the first troubling synod, in December of 2014, the author of this article herself made her own small attempt to defend the Church’s teaching on marriage by writing an Open Letter to Pope Francis, arguing on the basis of her own experience as a child of divorce. This letter was sent to Pope Francis, but was never responded to. It was also sent to the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops, but was not responded to, either. 
• On 24 April, very shortly after the publication of the papal document, Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a charitable and clear critique of Amoris Laetitia, speaking about the confusion and “contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate” flowing from this papal text, and calling upon the Church’s hierarchy and the laity to beg the Pope for a clarification and an official interpretation of Amoris Laetitia in line with the constant teaching of the Church. 
• On July 13, 2016, in a spirit of love, humility, and faithfulness, 16 international life and family advocates asked Pope Francis in a powerful “plea to the Pope” to unambiguously speak the truth of the Catholic faith, to end doctrinal confusion, to restore clarity, and to be the Holy Father that Catholics need. 
• In July of 2016, 45 clergy and scholars published their letter to the cardinals of the Catholic Church, in which they “request that the Cardinals and Patriarchs petition the Holy Father to condemn the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris Laetitiadoes not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.” The letter contains a very detailed list of potentially heretical or heterodox statements that could be drawn out of Amoris Laetitia.
• On 3 August 2016, Professor Josef Seifert published a detailed critique of Amoris Laetitia, listing several errors in the document that could be potentially heretical, and asking the Pope to “revoke them himself.” Seifert was later, in August of 2017, to issue a second text on Amoris Laetitia, with a question addressed “to Pope Francis and to all Catholic cardinals, bishops, philosophers and theologians. It deals with a dubium about a purely logical consequence of an affirmation in Amoris Laetitia, and ends with a plea to Pope Francis to retract at least one affirmation of AL.” That question pertains to AL’s claim “that we can know with ‘a certain moral security’ that God himself asks us to continue to commit intrinsically wrong acts, such as adultery or active homosexuality.” 
• On 14 November 2016, four cardinals published a letter to Pope Francis that they had sent to him privately on 19 September and that remained unanswered, which is very unusual. The letter contained the now-famous five dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia, for example as to whether those who live in a second “marriage” after a divorce may now receive the Sacraments and as to whether there still exist intrinsically evil acts, that is to say acts that are under all conditions to be regarded as evil. The cardinals requested a papal audience, but were never received. The four dubia cardinals are Cardinals Joachim Meisner, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Walter Brandmüller. (Two of the four dubia cardinals have since died.)
• Subsequently, 15 cardinals, archbishops, and bishops individually expressedtheir support for the dubia, among them Cardinals Joseph Zen and Willem Eijk, Archbishop Charles Chaput and Archbishop Luigi Negri.
• At the end of 2016, two scholars, Professor John Finnis and Professor Germain Grisez, publish an Open Letter to Pope Francis, asking him “to condemn eight positions against the Catholic faith that are being supported, or likely will be, by the misuse of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.” They also called upon the bishops to join this request.
• On 23 September 2017, more than a year after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, 62 clergy and scholars issued a “Filial Correction” of Pope Francis, in which they stated: “we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.”
• On 1 November 2017, Father Thomas Weinandy published a letter that he had sent to Pope Francis in July of that year. In that letter, Weinandy says that Francis’ pontificate is marked by “chronic confusion,” and he warns the Pope that a “seemingly intentional lack of clarity [of teaching] risks sinning against the Holy Spirit.” 
• On 2 January 2018, three Kazahk bishops – among them Bishop Schneider – issued a Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage in light of Amoris Laetitia, and especially in light of the many episcopal pastoral guidelines permitting Communion for the “remarried” divorcees. These prelates reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage and the family. Subsequently, one cardinal and six bishops – among them Cardinal Janis Pujats and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò signed this statement.
• Also in January of 2018, Cardinal Willem Eijk asked Pope Francis publicly to clarify questions about Amoris Laetitia and to clear the confusion stemming from the document. Eijk proposed that the Pope write an additional document in which doubts should be removed. 
• On 7 May 2018, Cardinal Eijk once more raised his voice and asked Pope Francis to clarify questions arising from the discussion among German bishops to give Holy Communion to Protestant spouses of Catholics. He observed that “the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.”
• Pope Francis, over the course of several years, made statements against the death penalty. He finally decided, in August of 2018, to change the Catholic Church’s Catechism, declaring the death penalty to be immoral in all cases. Two weeks later, a group of 75 prominent clergy and scholars issued a public letterto cardinals asking them to urge Pope Francis to recant and rescind this change in the Catechism.
• In August of 2018. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published a testimony, in which he claims, among many other things, that Pope Francis was aware of the moral corruption of then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and of the fact that Pope Benedict XVI had placed certain restrictions upon him, but that he chose to ignore them. The Archbishop called upon the Pope to resign. When Pope Francis was asked about this document, he answered, saying that he would later respond to it (“When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak.”), but then he never made any response.
• In August of 2018, 47,000 Catholic women worldwide called upon Pope Francis to answer the question as to whether Archbishop Viganò’s claim is true. 
• The U.S. Website Church Militant – who up to then had been careful not to criticize Pope Francis for his teaching on marriage and the family – called upon Pope Francis to resign, in light of his complicity with McCarrick’s sins.
• In 2019, Pope Francis signed the controversial Abu Dhabi Statement which says that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” Both Bishop Athanasius Schneiderand Professor Josef Seifert strongly opposedthis formulation and called upon Pope Francis to rescind it. Bishop Schneider, on 1 March, was able to receivefrom the Pope in a private conversation a sort of correction that this formulation really meant the “permissive will of God,” yet both he and Professor Seifert maintain that a public and definite correction is needed. 

Indirect attempts by clergy and laity to reach Pope Francis 

• Cardinal Gerhard Müller – then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – published a book The Hope of the Family, in which he maintains the indissolubility of marriage, adding that “Not even an ecumenical council can change the doctrine of the Church.”
• The Voice of the Family, an international coalition of pro-life and pro-family organizations was founded ahead of the first family synod in 2014, establishing a website and organizing conferences in Rome in order to protect marriage and family from perceived threats. 
• Five Cardinals – Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Gerhard Müller, Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, and Velasio De Paolis – write, together with other authors such as Professor John Rist (one of the signatories of the Open Letter to Bishops), a book in defense of the Sacrament of Marriage, called Remaining in the Truth of Christ. 
• At the first Synod of Bishops on the Family, in October of 2014, there was a group of bishops strongly opposing to introduce heterodox statements concerning homosexuality and “remarried” divorcees into the synod document; subsequently, neither the Kasper proposal nor a change of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality was included in the final document.
• In 2016, before the publication of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, tens of thousands of Catholics signed a Filial Appeal, a Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s unchangeable teaching on marriage. This appeal had also been signed by Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Caffarra, Cardinal Pujats, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
• Also before the second family synod, Father José Granados – at the time Vice-president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome – published a book in defense of the indissolubility of marriage.
• In May of 2015, before the second Synod of Bishops on Marriage and the Family, nearly 1,000 priests issued a statement asking the synod to affirm the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family.
• In August of 2015, Ignatius Press publishes the Eleven Cardinals Book, called Eleven Cardinals Speak on Marriage and the Family: Essays from a Pastoral Viewpoint. The authors – among them Cardinals Paul Josef Cordes, Dominik Duka, O.P, and John Onaiyekan, but also Robert Sarah and Carlo Caffarra – once more defend the Church’s teaching on marriage and publish proposals for a good pastoral care for marriages.
• In September of 2015, just before the second synod, eleven African prelates – among them Cardinal Robert Sarah and Cardinal Barthélemy Adoukonou – published a book, Christ’s New Homeland: Africa, in which they analyzed and sharply criticized the essential preparatory Vatican documents for the upcoming synod, once more defending the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family.
• In February of 2019, just before the beginning of the 21-24 Abuse Summit in Rome, the two remaining dubia cardinals – Cardinals Raymond Burke and Walter Brandmüller – wrote an Open Letter to the Presidents of the Conferences of Bishops encouraging them “to raise your voice to safeguard and proclaim the integrity of the doctrine of the Church” and also to address the protracted problem of homosexual networks in the Catholic Church.
• At the same time, the Swiss lay organization Pro Ecclesia and LifeSiteNews launched a petition to “Stop homosexual networks in the Church” that aimed at tightening the Church’s law in order both clearly to punish the priests who violate the Sixth Commandment by homosexual acts and those who abuse minors and vulnerable adults such as seminarians.
• Also in 2019, Cardinal Gerhard Müller published his Manifesto of Faith, in which he restated the main tenants of the Catholic Faith and Morals as they have always been taught and as they can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He did so with the expressed reference to the many clergy and laymen who have asked him for such a doctrinal clarification in the middle of a grave confusion in the Church.
• In April of 2019, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI published a letter on the sex abuse crisis, in which he points to the moral and doctrinal laxity that has entered the Catholic Church in the wake of the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Here thereby tried to help to point to deeper explanations of the current sex abuse crisis than the mere references to “abuse of power and spiritual abuse,” as well as “clericalism, as they had been presented at the February 2019 Sex Abuse Summit in Rome.
• Throughout these years, there have been many individuals who have raised their voices. Among the first papal critics were the now-deceased Mario Palmaro and Alessandro Gnocci (“We do not like this Pope”) and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who accompanied this papacy with numerous articles and commentaries. Then there were also Father Brian Harrison (here and here) and the internationally renowned Catholic philosopher Professor Robert Spaemann who is now deceased.
• Later on, several books were written which describe in a critical manner Pope Francis’ leadership and doctrinally confusing actions and words. Among them are The Political Pope by George Neumayr, The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire, The Lost Shepherd by Phil Lawler (who subsequently also authored The Smoke of Satan dealing with the sex abuse crisis), and José Antonio Ureta’s book Pope Francis’ Paradigm Shift: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? — An Assessment of his Five-year Pontificate 

Pope Francis has not responded

This written record of some of the major charitable and urgent initiatives taken by prelates, priests, academics, and earnest laymen is by far not exhaustive, but it sheds light on the many beautiful manifestations of a loyal witness to the Faith that were meant to be pleas both to Pope Francis to amend his ways, as well as to cardinals and bishops to help him decisively act in this regard.

However, Pope Francis has not responded in any visible and clear way – nor met with those who have called upon him (not even with the four dubia cardinals) – to all of these initiatives, except for the recent meeting with Bishop Schneider which, nonetheless, was finally without any clear and unequivocal results.

Despite these pleas, Pope Francis appears to be continuing his course of obstinately revolutionizing the Catholic Church at the cost of doctrinal orthodoxy and her moral clarity.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

Pennsylvania Lawmaker Bullies Elderly Catholic Woman in Public May 7, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a Pennsylvania lawmaker who threatened an elderly Catholic woman:   We are contacting every member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives asking them to take a vote of censure against state representative Brian Sims.   In particular, we are asking state representative Frank A. Farry, Chairman of the House Committee on Ethics, to introduce a resolution to formally condemn the vicious attack by Sims on an elderly Catholic woman. The Committee on Ethics deals with cases of “misconduct in legislative duties.” What Sims did may also be criminal.   On May 5, Sims recorded himself bullying what he called “an old white lady.” What provoked him? She was praying, with a rosary in hand, in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic. For eight uninterrupted minutes, Sims badgered her, telling her to go pray at home. When she asked him to stop, he followed her around and threatened to make her home address public so that others could harass her.   Two days earlier, Sims tweeted that Planned Parenthood protesters are “racist, classist, bigots,” apparently clueless to the racist origins of the organization. The founder, Margaret Sanger, said her goal was to “weed out” the “undesirables,” by which she meant African Americans.   Sims also went into a protracted anti-Catholic rant. “How many Catholic churches are you protesting in front of? There are 400 Catholic priests in Pennsylvania indicted for child molestation.” This bigot can’t even get that right—two were indicted.   “The amount of mental gymnastics it must take for you to think that you have the right to tell a woman what’s right for her body, and yet you will support a faith that has molested children across the planet.” Sims does not belong in public office, but he may very well belong in jail.   At the very least, he needs to be censured by his colleagues, including his fellow Democrats. Not to do so would be to send an unmistakable message to Catholics—indeed to people of all religions—that they can be harassed, intimidated, and placed in danger by a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives without ever paying a price for his unconscionable behavior.   Make no mistake about this—this is not simply a Pennsylvania issue. It touches the entire nation.   Contact PA State Rep. Frank Farry and ask him to lead the censure against Sims: Ffarry@pahousegop.com

WHEN IS A PATIENT REALLY DEAD????by abyssum A LEXICON OF WORDS AND PHRASES TO BE USED BY THE MEDICAL AND LEGAL PROFESSIONS IN DEFINING AND DISCUSSING DEATHDEATH is the total permanent loss of circulation of blood leading to the cessation of vital functions dependent on such circulation such as pulsation, respiration, brain activity leading in turn to the destruction of these vital systems and organs necessary for the preservation of human life.   Death is not an instantaneous phenomenon, it is a process. PROCESS means the successive occurrence in time of the physiological changes named above in parts of the human body. CHANGES described above causing death can be measured in nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks or longer.

On Organ Donation

E. Christian Brugger

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019

Note: A reader sent in the query below, which we thought deserved a careful reply by a reliable bioethicist.

Question: My nurse friend says that major organs can’t be donated unless donors are alive, thus anaesthetic is given at the time of retrieval.  If this is correct, then organ harvesting itself would bring about the donor’s death, right?  Wouldn’t this be a kind of euthanasia?  I told her the Church would never approve this.  But from all I’ve heard, the Church does approve of organ donation, even praises it.  Can you shed some light?

If by major organs your friend means vital organs, then her statement is ambiguous.  Vital organs are organs that people need to stay alive (e.g., heart, paired kidneys, paired lungs, liver, colon).  In U.S. medicine – as well as in most countries of the world – their donation is putatively governed by the “dead donor rule” (DDR). This means, or should mean, that vital organs are only harvested from dead bodies.  Although opposition to the DDR has been growing for more than a decade (see 1, 2, 3,4), the rule still universally prevails in transplant medicine.

Catholic moral teaching on organ donation also affirms the DDR (see CCC, nos. 2296, 2301; John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, nos. 15, 86; Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services, 6^thEd., 2018, nos. 29, 30, 62-64).

It also teaches, as you rightly say, that organ donation can be a good thing.  In fact, John Paul II taught that when performed in an ethically acceptable manner it was an example of “everyday heroism.”

To understand the Catholic teaching, then, it’s important to unpack what we mean by an “ethically acceptable manner”.

Since donating vital organs would cause one to sacrifice or seriously impair bodily functions necessary for life or stable health – that is, would compromise what moral theology refers to as functional integrity– it would not be morally licit, since by choosing it we would violate the duty we have to care for our own bodily life.

But it would also be wrongful if one foresaw that donating a non-vital organ would cause one to fail in some already-existing duty.  For example, if one has care for a disabled child, and donating an organ (say, a single lung) would make that care difficult or impossible, one should not donate the organ unless one is morally certain that others reasonably can carry out the child’s care.  Otherwise, it would be unfair to the child.

It would also be morally wrong if one donates organs for transplantation involved in the establishing or transmitting of personal identity (e.g., ovaries, testicles, brain); as well as when the reasons for donating are morally trivial (e.g., my girlfriend has always wanted a blue eye, and I have two of them); finally, if free consent of the donor or proxy is lacking; or if there are reasonably accessible and less harmful alternatives (e.g., use of bovine organs); or if the donation is being motivated by the desire for economic advantage; in these cases it would ordinarily be wrongful to choose to be a donor.

As for dead donors, all organs in principle, including once-vital organs, may be harvested subject to the following three conditions: 1) donors should be certifiably dead; this determination should be made by competent clinicians in accordance with responsible and accepted scientific criteria; to prevent any conflict of interest, physicians who determine death should not be members of corresponding transplant teams; 2) the donor or his proxy should give free consent; and 3) the intention for using the organs should be upright (e.g., there would be no plan to transplant organs involved in the transmission of personal identity).

Brain death debate 

I said above that the DDR putatively governs organ donation in the United States, and that most everyone agrees with this.

Your friend’s comments, however, raise an important debate in bioethics, one being pursued in earnest primarily by Christian scholars.

It’s the question of whether ventilated brain dead individuals are in fact humanly dead; is neurological death an adequate definition of human death?

For organs to be useful for transplantation, they need sustenance up to the time of their removal. Thus, brain dead bodies are kept on mechanical breathing machines (ventilators) ensuring that oxygenated blood is circulated to the organs until transplant teams are ready for them.

For many years, nobody seriously questioned whether brain dead bodies might be living human beings; they just assumed that if the brain was destroyed, the body could not continue to live.

But in 2001, the chief neurologist at UCLA Medical Center, Alan Shewmon, a committed Catholic, published startling research on ventilated brain dead bodies. He demonstrated conclusively that these bodies are sometimes able not only to respire (with the help of ventilation), but to assimilate nutrition, heal from wounds, fight infections, respond to stress, maintain homeostasis, grow proportionally, and even gestate unborn babies.  In other words, they acted very much like living human bodies.

If we accept sound Christian anthropology, wherever there exists a living human body, there subsists a living human person, however disabled he may be.

Shewmon’s evidence led him to conclude – and with him many notable scientists and philosophers, including Catholics (e.g., Josef Seifert, Nicanor Austriaco) – that some ventilated brain dead bodies are living human beings, who, wrongly considered to be dead, are killed when their organs are harvested for transplantation.

I’ve provisionally concluded that the evidence at least raises reasonable doubts; and in the face of such doubts, we are morally obliged to treat them as if they are alive unless and until the doubts are dispelled.

Interestingly, there will be a conference soon in Rome sponsored by the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family on this very question; Shewmon is one of the presenters.

Prominent Catholic bioethicists and centers in the United States oppose Shewmon’s conclusions. Unfortunately, some of them insist that those who raise serious doubts about the adequacy of the neurological criteria are unfaithful Catholics.  This is because John Paul II said provisionally in a 2000 address that “the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology.”

But if in the light of new empirical evidence, we question a provisional judgment of a pope, especially when that judgment is made in a realm – such as medical science – over which he has no divinely mandated authority, it is certainly not unfaithful.

*Image: Saint Cajetan Comforting a Dying Man by Sebastiano Ricci, 1704 [Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, Italy]

Share this:

• Facebook

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

E. Christian Brugger

Dr. E. Christian Brugger is a Professor of Moral Theology at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Florida, where he lives with his wife and five children. He was dean of the School of Philosophy and Theology at University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, and a Theological Consultant to the Doctrine Committee of the USCCB. He is the author of The Indissolubility of Marriage and the Council of Trent

---

OPINIONCATHOLIC CHURCH

Mon May 6, 2019 – 12:04 pm EST

‘The most terrible schism the world has ever seen’

By Roberto de Mattei

 Abu Dhabi, Catholic, Heresy, Jihad, Nostra Aetate, Pope Francis, Religious Freedom, Roberto De Mattei

May 6, 2019 (Rorate Caeli) — On February 4, 2019, at Abu Dhabi, Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Ahmad Al- Tayyeb, signed the document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The declaration opens in the name of a God, who, if he has to be a God common to all, cannot be anything other than the Allah of Muslims. The God of Christians, in fact, is one in nature, but Triune in persons, equal and distinct, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the time of Arius and thereafter, the Church has been battling the anti-Trinitarians and the Deists who deny, or set aside this mystery, which is Christianity’s greatest. Islam, on the contrary, rejects it in horror, as the Sura “of authentic worship” proclaims: “He, God, is one! God, the Eternal One! He will not generate, nor was he generated, and none is equal to him!” (Koran, 112, 2,4).

Actually, in the Abu Dhabi declaration, worship is not given either to the God of Christians or to the God of Islam, but to a secular divinity, “human fraternity”, “which embraces all men, unites them and renders them equal.” We are not dealing here with “the spirit of Assisi — which in its syncretism recognizes, nonetheless, the primacy of the religious dimension over that of the secularist — but with an affirmation of indifference. In no point, in fact, is a fundamental metaphysic of the values of peace and fraternity mentioned, but these are continually referred to. The document, when it affirms that “pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings”, professes not the ecumenism condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium animos (1928), but the religious indifferentism condemned by Leo XIII in the encyclical Libertas (June 20, 1888), which he defines as “a doctrinal system teaching each is free to profess the religion he likes and even not to profess any at all.”

In the Abu Dhabi declaration, Christians and Muslims submit themselves to the core principle of Freemasonry, whereby the French Revolution values of liberty and equality should find their synthesis and attainment in universal brotherhood. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, who along with Pope Francis drew up the text, is a hereditary sheik of the Confraternity of Sufis for Upper Egypt, and, in the Islamic world, Al Azhar, the university of which he is rector, is characterized for its proposal of Sufi esotericism, as “an initiatory bridge” between Eastern and Western Freemasonry (cfr. Gabriel Mandel, Federico II, il sufismo e la massoneria, Tipheret, Acireale 2013).

The document in an insistent and repetitive manner, calls upon “the leaders of the world as well as the architects of international policy and world economy, intellectuals, philosophers, religious figures, artists, media professionals and men and women of culture in every part of the world”, to work strenuously to spread “the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace,” expressing “the firm conviction that authentic teachings of religions invite us to remain rooted in the values of peace; to defend the values of mutual understanding, human fraternity and harmonious coexistence”. These values, it stresses, are the “anchor of salvation for all”. Thus, “the Catholic Church and Al Azhar” ask that “this Document become the object of research and reflection in all schools, universities and institutes of formation, thus helping to educate new generations to bring goodness and peace to others, and to be defenders everywhere of the rights of the oppressed and of the least of our brothers and sisters.”

On April 11, at Santa Marta in the Vatican, the Abu Dhabi document was sealed by a symbolic gesture. Francis prostrated himself on the ground before three political leaders from Sudan and kissed their feet, imploring peace. This gesture should be judged not so much for what it affirms: the submission of the Church to political powers, but for what it negates: the rejection of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who represents Christ, in Whose Name every knee shall bend in heaven and on earth (Philippians 2, 10) must receive homage from men and nations and not pay homage to anyone.

The words of Pius XI in the encyclical Quas primas (1925) resonate: “Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! ‘Then at length,’ to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, ‘then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.'”

The gesture made by Pope Francis at Santa Marta also negates a sublime mystery: The Incarnation, Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Savior and Redeemer of mankind. By denying this mystery, the salvific mission of the Church — called to evangelize and civilize the world — is denied. Will the Amazonian Synod which takes place next October, be a new phase in this rejection of the Church’s mission, which is also the rejection of the Vicar of Christ’s mission? Will Pope Francis kneel before representatives of the indigenous people? Will he ask them to transmit to the Church their tribal wisdom of which they are carriers?

What is certain is that three days later, on April 15, the Cathedral of Notre Dame (a descriptive image of the Church) went up in flames that devoured the spire, leaving the foundation intact. Does this not signify that, despite the collapse at the very top of the Church, Her Divine structure endures, and nothing will be able to demolish that?

A week later, other events shook up Catholic public opinion. A series of terrorist attacks, incited by the followers of that same religion Pope Bergoglio submits to, transformed Easter of the Resurrection into a day of Passion for the universal Church, with 310 dead and more than 500 wounded. Even before it consumed the bodies, the fire consumed the illusions of those Catholics, who with applauds and guitars intone the alleluia, while the Church is experiencing Her Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

Some may object that the bombers in Sri Lanka, even if they were Muslim, do not represent Islam. Yet not even the Imam of Al Ahzar, who signed the document of peace and fraternity, represents all of Islam. Pope Francis, on the other hand does certainly represent the Catholic Church. But for how long?

There is no true fraternity outside the supernatural, which does not come from relationships among men, but from God (1 Thessalonians, 1,4). In the same way, there is no peace possible outside that of Christian peace, since the source of true peace is Christ, Incarnate Wisdom, Who “preached peace to you that were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh” (Ephesians, 2, 17). Peace is a gift from God, brought to mankind by Jesus Christ, Son of God and Sovereign of Heaven and Earth. The Catholic Church founded by Him, is the supreme depository of peace, since She is custodian of the truth and peace is founded on truth and justice.

Neo-Modernism, entrenched at the very top of the Church, preaches false peace and false fraternity. But false peace brings war into the world, just as false fraternity brings schism, which is war inside the Church. St. Luigi Orione had dramatically foreseen it all on June 26 1913: “Modernism and semi-Modernism cannot go on — sooner or later it’s going to be Protestantism or a schism in the Church which will be the most terrible that the world has ever seen” (Writings, vol.43, p.53).

This article is translated by Rorate contributor Francesca Romana. It is published here with permission from Rorate Caeli.

COMMENTARYPOLITICS 

Dems Quickly Delete Ginsburg vs. Kavanaugh Poll When It Goes Terribly Wrong

Dems Post Poll on Ginsburg vs Kavanaugh, Delete When It Goes Horribly WrongVolume 0% BY BEN MARQUIS

PUBLISHED MAY 6, 2019 AT 4:00PM 
MODIFIED MAY 7, 2019 AT 6:32AM 

There is a tendency among Democrats, one that has increased in frequency since President Donald Trump took office, to confidently assume that a majority of the American people stand alongside them on a particular issue, only to find that their assumptions were dreadfully wrong.

It just happened again when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tweeted a poll and got results it obviously didn’t anticipate.

The poll, posted Friday, asked Twitter users, “Do you want more Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or do you want more justices like Brett Kavanaugh?”

By Sunday afternoon, the tweet had been deleted — though not before ample screen shots of the results had been saved.

The DSCC was surely horrified to see the conservative Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, crushing the liberal icon Ginsburg