EUGENICS, SANGER STYLE, KILLING THEM NOT SO GENTLY SO THAT THE HUMAN RACE CAN BE KEPT PURE AND SUPERMAN WILL EVENTUALLY BE BORN TO RID THE EARTH OF SUPERSTITION MASQUERADING AS RELIGION

Treating Embryocide With White Gloves

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

CRISIS MAGAZINE

Pope Francis recently commented on the practice of prenatal testing to identify developmental defects in utero, which, if positive, typically results in abortion. “The murder of children. And to have a nice life, they do away with an innocent.” He recounted how he learned at school that the Spartans of ancient Greece took deformed babies up a mountain and threw them to their deaths in order to preserve the purity of the race. His classmates and he were stunned: “poor babies! It was an atrocity.” But the pope had another message to deliver, one directed as the greatest genocide in history:  “Have you wondered why you do not see many dwarves on the streets? Because the protocol of many doctors—many, not all—is to ask the question: ‘Will it have problems?’ It pains me to say this. In the last century the entire world was scandalized over what the Nazis were doing to maintain the purity of the race. Today we do the same, but with white gloves.”

The pope is reminding us of something every child knows from the Dr. Seuss’s classic Horton Hears a Who: “a person’s a person no matter how small.” Human value is not bound to utility or beauty but to creation in the image and likeness of God.

Contempt for inherent dignity has a long pedigree. In addition to the notorious death camps, the Nazi’s euthanized the mentally ill and the physically disabled and pursued a designer society in Lebensborn breeding houses in Germany and several occupied nations. In northern Europe today more than 90 percent of in uterobabies identified with Down syndrome are aborted. Iceland has eradicated the condition and Denmark is on track to share the dubious honor. In the United States, the abortion rate following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome is nearly as high.

And this common practice is now extended to untold millions of frozen human beings engineered through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is standard in IVF reproduction and the mere suggestion of an anomaly is almost always a death sentence. Production of human embryos destined for death dealing scientific research, paid for by tax dollars, in leading American academic institutions, is lauded as progress. State governments from Connecticut to California champion embryocide, claiming their laws prohibit cloning when in fact they are intentionally designed “clone and kill bills” that promote Altered Nuclear Transfer (“ANT”, a.k.a., cloning), but mandate the destruction of cloned embryos before they reach certain developmental markers.

But it did not begin with the Nazi’s. Their methods, primitive by todays standards, followed a path blazed by more respected voices. It began here, with American advocates of social Darwinism.

The last half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth saw the development of movements in the industrial world that advocated for eugenics. As early as 1914 America eugenicist Harry Laughlin published his Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed sterilization of those “maintained wholly or in part by public expense” including the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, and dependent” and specifically targeted “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” In her book, The Pivot of Civilization, Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, championed the elimination of those marked by “insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect.” Her solution to “this dead weight of human waste” was forced sterilization and massive segregation:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period… The male defective are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem … we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble minded.”

Sanger saw her advocacy as righteous and was dismissive of philanthropy, which she attributed to corrupt Christian ideas about the sanctity of life, lamenting relief efforts following World War I as “a general orgy of international charity.” In 1923, Fritz Lenz, who later became a leading advocate of Nazi racial hygiene, lamented the absence in Germany of eugenic research institutions similar to those in England and the United States. In 1920, jurist Karl Bindling and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche proposed medical killing of “the incurably ill … large segments of the mentally ill, the feeble minded, and retarded and deformed children” as a therapeutic action. Sanger’s Birth Control Review advocated for the sterilization of the feeble-minded and their relatives as a prophylactic and enthusiastically published Laughlin’s opinions which asserted the “now proven legal right of the American state to prevent reproduction by those … poorly endowed with hereditary qualities.”

Laughlin’s reference to the “now proven legal rights of the American state” was an embrace of eugenic sterilization laws sweeping the country in the 1920s. Virginia was but one of thirty-five states that adopted legislation aimed at elimination of the “mentally defective,” asserting “heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime.” Seventeen-year-old Carrie Buck, unmarried and having recently given birth to a child, was the first selected for the procedure. Her mother was a resident in a state mental asylum, and “experts” certified Carrie as sharing her mother’s traits for immorality, prostitution, and untruthfulness. The County Superintendent opined that her family was shiftless, ignorant, and worthless, and Laughlin himself determined that she was “feebleminded” and morally delinquent. Famed sociologist Arthur Estabrook testified that her baby was “below average” and “not quite normal.” On that record she was ordered sterilized. She appealed to the Supreme Court, the guardian of the Bill of Rights, but received instead the haughty superiority of pure breed men:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The author was famed jurist and civil war hero, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He had the enthusiastic support of seven other justices including: William Howard Taft, the former President of the United States; James Clark McReynolds, the former attorney general of the United States; George Sutherland, a former senator and congressman; Harlan F. Stone, former dean of Columbia Law School and later Chief Justice of the Court; and the darling of the progressive school of legal theory, Louis Brandeis. The sole dissenter was Justice Pierce Butler, a devout catholic, who surely recognized the horror of the majority opinion.

The finest minds of their day had no hesitation in embracing the statist demand for control and the inhumane eugenic practices of the day. All with “white gloves.”

The generations since have seen more of the same. In 1933 the Humanist Manifesto declared that the “universe is self-existing and not created,” that “modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human value,” and rejected the notion that the human person has any transcendent destiny. It demanded “a socialized and cooperative economic order” and declared that the “distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.” A new understanding of what it meant to be human was emerging in mainstream thought.

Among those signing the Manifesto was acclaimed philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey and the Rev. R. Lester Mondale, the influential humanist and Unitarian minister. Writing in the Journal of the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1942 Foster Kennedy, professor of neurology at Cornell University and president to the American Neurological Association, opined that guardians of defective children over five years of age should present them to a medical review board to assess whether the child had “no future or hope of one” and if not then “kindly … relieve that defective … of the agony of living.” An editorial in the same issue of the Journal endorsed his opinion and urged psychiatrists to counsel parents that keeping such children alive is inhumane.

In 1973, the Humanist Manifesto II appeared, declaring that there was “insufficient evidence for belief in existence of a supernatural”; that “promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful”; that “[e]thics is situational, needing no theological sanction”; “[t]he right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized”; and that civil liberties require the “right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.” Signers included Isaac Asimov, Nobel laureate Francis Crick, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, Soviet dissident and activist Andre Sakharov, well known behavioral scientist B.F. Skinner, Sir Julian Huxley, the former head of UNESCO, and Betty Freidan, founder of the National Organization for Women.

By the end of the last century an endowed professor at Princeton University arguedthat an unborn child had no greater value that any non-human animal at a similar stage of development and that, if severally disabled, killing it “cannot be equated with killing normal human beings” or killing “a person.”

It is now common, indeed expected, that respected leaders in political, social, cultural and religious settings advocate for abortion and physician-assisted suicide as basic human rights. This “white glove” eugenic culture threatens us all. The day is not far off when parents who refuse to abort “defective” children will be denied resources to care for their child. Those opting for IVF will face irresistible demands that PGD and its logical consequence be accepted; an outcome not likely resisted by those who embrace the dehumanizing practice of IVF in the first place. Untold millions of tiny human beings are routinely discarded without the slightest quam. Massive embryocidal genocide is taking place, hidden by the sterile setting of clinics and the voicelessness of its victims.

The demands of efficiency and health care economics now threaten to overwhelm the baby boomer generation in its twilight years. Seniors with incurable illnesses, facing the prospect of disease, dementia, and countless maladies of body and mind, will be pressured to execute living wills without adequate attention to the nuance demanded by sound moral assessment of the benefits and burdens of particular treatments. A quarter century ago, a proposal was already circulating on the New York Times op-ed page by Joseph d’Oronzio advocating for mandatory living wills as a condition of government benefits. Homicidal assisted suicide, masquerading under euphemisms of compassionate care and death with dignity, will gather steam as younger populations shutter their parents in institutions and the realization of abandonment shrouds the psyche of these victims.

Echoes of the Nazi mantra that some lives are unworthy of life ring loudly. The choice Moses placed before the people remains: “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life” (Deut. 30:19).

(Photo credit: Margaret Sanger in 1917 / Library of Congress)

Deacon Thomas J. Davis, Jr.

By

Deacon Thomas J. Davis, Jr. is the Director of the Saint John Paul II Bioethics Center at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT. He is also an assistant attorney general of the State of Connecticut and a deacon in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church assigned to St. Ann Parish in Danbury, CT.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on EUGENICS, SANGER STYLE, KILLING THEM NOT SO GENTLY SO THAT THE HUMAN RACE CAN BE KEPT PURE AND SUPERMAN WILL EVENTUALLY BE BORN TO RID THE EARTH OF SUPERSTITION MASQUERADING AS RELIGION

PRAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ADVISORS TO SELECT A TRULY PRO-LIFE SUCCESSOR TO ABORTION-LOVING SCOTUS JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY

U.S. Senator Cruz, flanked by Senator Lee and Senator Vitter, speaks against pending immigration legislation during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) (C), flanked by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) (L) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), 

This it the List of the 25 People President Trump Will Consider for Next Supreme Court Justice

NATIONAL   KATRINA TRINKO   JUN 28, 2018   |   3:47PM    WASHINGTON, DC

On the White House website, President Donald Trump lists the jurists he is looking at to be the next Supreme Court justice. We’ve got that list, which was last updated in November, here. Looking for additional analysis? Heritage Foundation scholars provided more details on some of these names here and here.

1. Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

2. Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

3. Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida

4. Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

5. Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

6. Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

7. Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

8. Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

9. Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

10. Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

11. Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

12. Mike Lee of Utah, United States senator

13. Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

14. Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa

15. Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

16. Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

17. William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

18. Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

19. David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

20. Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

21. Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit

22. Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

23. Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (retired)

24. Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas

25. Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

LifeNews.com Note:  Katrina Trinko writes for The Daily Signal. Reprinted with permission from the Daily Signal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION !!! HOLLYWOOD’S HORROR FILMS ARE USUALLY BOX OFFICE SUCCESSES, BUT THEY ARE FICTION. NOW COMES A FILM THAT IS BASED ON TRUTH, NOT FICTION, AND I GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL ‘ENTERTAIN’ YOU BY MAKING YOUR SKIN CRAWL OFF YOUR BODY RIGHT THERE IN THE THEATRE. GO SEE IT AND BE PREPARED TO BE SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED.

 

Featured Image
Katie Yoder

Horror story of abortionist ‘Gosnell’ set for release in 750 theaters

June 28, 2018 (NewsBusters) – After facing challenges in the media, the legal system, and Hollywood, a movie revealing the story of “America’s biggest serial killer” is set to hit theaters.

On Tuesday, The Hollywood Reporter (THR) broke the news that distributor GVN Releasing will open a film about infamous Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell to as many as 750 theaters in October. According to the filmmakers, the creation and release of Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer hasn’t happened without overcoming hurdles – including in the media.

In an exclusive statement to MRC Culture, producer Ann McElhinney stressed that “finally the Gosnell story will be exposed.”

“Most Americans have never heard the name Dr. Kermit Gosnell because the mainstream journalists chose not to cover the trail,” she stressed, because “the left don’t want the truth about abortion to be known.”

But the Hat Tip Films movie, produced by herself and husband Phelim McAleer, “will do that and a lot more.”

“The movie is as much as exposé of the media as it is of abortion,” she added. “The media who ignored the story will have to explain to millions of people who will see the movie why they censored this story.”

She’s right.

Among other things, Gosnell was convicted May 2013 of first-degree murder of three babies (while the Grand Jury report, THR has noted, “alleges Gosnell killed hundreds of infants by sticking scissors into their necks”).

But the trial, in which witnesses described baby abortion survivors “swimming” in toilets “to get out,” attracted a mere 12 – 15 reporters. Only after 56 days, multiple letters from members of the House of Representatives and a public outcry, did all three broadcast networks report on Gosnell.

The filming of the movie itself, sponsored by a crowd-funding campaign, faced censorship. But after raising $2.3 million, Gosnell became the most successful crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo.

And with big names involved, the film promises to also be a success.

Directed by Nick Searcy (The Shape of Water), Gosnell was filmed in Oklahoma and stars Dean Cain (Lois & Clark). McAleer and McElhinney are experts on the story after interviewing Gosnell, and have even written a best-selling book on the abortionist, published by Regnery. Former employees have confirmed what the filmmakers say: Gosnell’s abortion clinic was a house of horrors.

“This is the story Hollywood and the mainstream media didn’t want you to see because it shines a harsh spotlight on abortion,” the filmmakers urged in a Tuesday press release.

GVN expressed excitement in the statement too.

“I’m privileged and honored to introduce Gosnell into the marketplace,” said CEO Geno Taylor. “As [motivational speaker] Denis Waitley once said; ‘Life is inherently risky. There is only one big risk you should avoid at all costs, and that is the risk of doing nothing.'”

Searcy added that “No matter what your stance is on abortion, you will have a more informed opinion after you see Gosnell.”

According to THR, the distribution deal came after Judge Jeffrey Minehart, presiding at Gosnell’s trial, “sued to block the release of the film, fearing he was portrayed as part of ‘Philadelphia’s liberal corrupt government.'”

That has since been resolved, THR added.

“I’ve been on hard films before, but this one was particularly difficult,” said executive director John Sullivan, THR reported. “Hollywood is afraid of this content. It’s a true story the media tried to ignore from the very beginning, so I wasn’t surprised to see Hollywood ignore us.”

Published with permission from NewsBusters.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION !!! HOLLYWOOD’S HORROR FILMS ARE USUALLY BOX OFFICE SUCCESSES, BUT THEY ARE FICTION. NOW COMES A FILM THAT IS BASED ON TRUTH, NOT FICTION, AND I GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL ‘ENTERTAIN’ YOU BY MAKING YOUR SKIN CRAWL OFF YOUR BODY RIGHT THERE IN THE THEATRE. GO SEE IT AND BE PREPARED TO BE SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED.

NOT THE LEAST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE CARDINAL McCARRICK SCANDAL IS THAT HE WAS PROTECTED BY SO MANY BISHOPS AND EVEN BY THE VATICAN

Featured ImageCardinal Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Newark, NJ, addresses the U.S. Bishops June 2018 meeting. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews

OPINIONCATHOLIC CHURCH, HOMOSEXUALITYThu Jun 28, 2018 – 5:14 pm EST

Bishops admit they knew Cardinal McCarrick was an abuser but stayed silent

Catholic, Donald Wuerl, Joseph Tobin, Lavender Mafia, Sexual Abuse Crisis, Theodore Mccarrick, Timothy Dolan, Vatican

By Elizabeth Yore

June 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Now-disgraced retired cardinal of Washington, DC Theodore McCarrick was permitted to live out his role as a bishop over the past thirty years despite the fact that some bishops knew him to be guilty of sexually abusing seminarians.

Since this past week’s McCarrick revelations by the Archdioceses of New York and Newark, that McCarrick was found to have credible allegations of sexual predation against a minor, and two adult males, there can be little doubt that the American hierarchy was aware of allegations of his past salacious and sexually exploitative misconduct.

Why did Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin and Bishop James F. Checchio, of Metuchen, New Jersey, not release the decades-old McCarrick settlement information immediately to protect potential victims? Joseph Tobin has been Cardinal of Newark since January 2017, and Bishop Checchio has been Bishop of Metuchen since May 2016. The first obligation of a Cardinal and bishop is to review the clergy abuse settlements and claims to ensure the safety of Catholics. Surely, complaints against Cardinal McCarrick would have drawn their immediate attention!

Yet, Cardinal Ted McCarrick rose to the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy and, apparently none of his brother Bishops or Cardinals stepped forward as a whistleblower to protect unsuspecting boys and young males.

During the day, as Cardinal of the powerful Washington, D.C. archdiocese, Cardinal McCarrick rubbed shoulders with the political power elite. He celebrated the prestigious Red Mass where members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and political elites attended every year. Cardinal Ted McCarrick concelebrated funeral masses for the rich and politically famous, like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Beau Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s son. He was the go-to Cardinal for the rich and powerful.

His days were busy cultivating contacts, doing favors for the rich and powerful of business, government and politics. He traveled around the world for Catholic Relief Services. “Uncle Ted” McCarrick was the ultimate insider Prince of the Church. It’s no wonder that an “influential Italian gentleman” urged him to lobby for Pope Francis’ election, as McCarrick himself related in an October 2013 talk at Villanova University.

For years, the McCarrick misconduct stories surfaced and, then, seemingly retreated into oblivion. Yet, one theme prevailed in the persistent allegations: prelates and people were informed, and no one in power did anything. The DC power brokers, New York elite, and mainstream media colluded with the Catholic hierarchy in a conspiracy of silence to protect McCarrick for nearly half a century. No one spoke about the credible findings and settlements with McCarrick victims.

Despite his abuse of seminarians, Cardinal McCarrick continued to have regular access to them, even staying in the seminary while visiting Rome. In his Villanova speech, Cardinal McCarrick reveals that during the conclave he stayed at the North American College (NAC) Seminary in Rome.

McCarrick residing at the seminary dormitory is like the fox guarding the chicken coup. Rod Dreher highlights McCarrick’s risk to seminarians and that the Vatican was repeatedly warned about him. In his article, “Cardinal McCarrick is a Molester”, Dreher describes the allegations surrounding McCarrick’s sexual predatory modus operandi:

It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment.

Over the decades, many others alleged and warned about McCarrick’s predatory predilection for seminarians. The prominent sociologist and clergy abuse expert and author, Richard Sipe, wrote a passionate plea to Pope Benedict about McCarrick’s alleged predatory sexual conduct. Read Richard Sipe’s April 24, 2008 letter to Pope Benedict which the Vatican acknowledged receipt of in a letter by the Papal Nuncio Pietro Sambi on May 5, 2008.  Sambi acknowledged that Sipe’s letter was delivered to the Vatican via the papal diplomatic pouch. The Vatican knew full well about the danger of McCarrick to young seminarians.

Sipe wrote the following to Pope Benedict:

While I was Adjunct Professor at a Pontifical Seminary, St. Mary’s Baltimore (1972-1984) a number of seminarians came to me with concerns about the behavior of Theodore E. McCarrick, then bishop of Metuchen, New Jersey. It has been widely known for several decades that Bishop/Archbishop now Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick took seminarians and young priests to a shore home in New Jersey, sites in New York, and other places and slept with some of them. He established a coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him “Uncle Ted.” I have his correspondence where he referred to these men as being “cousins” with each other.

Clergy sex abuse investigative researcher, Randy Engel describes in her important tome, The Rite of Sodomy, that “New York insiders glibly refer to McCarrick by his feminine name ‘Blanche’ and Vatican officials have long been aware of his penchant for young handsome seminarians” (page 758).

Did any Church official bar him from their seminaries?

Did any Church officials report him to law enforcement?

Why would the rector of the North American College (NAC) Seminary even permit Cardinal McCarrick to stay there and subject his seminarian students to his possible predation in light of the Metuchen settlements?

Why didn’t Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the present Archbishop of Washington, D.C. restrict McCarrick’s access to young males and altar boys while residing in his Archdiocese? After all, Wuerl is the spiritual shepherd of the diocese and has authority over the care and protection of his spiritual flock.

Elizabeth Yore is an international child advocate attorney who has investigated numerous clerical child sex abuse cases.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NOT THE LEAST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE CARDINAL McCARRICK SCANDAL IS THAT HE WAS PROTECTED BY SO MANY BISHOPS AND EVEN BY THE VATICAN

SKIP YOUR FAVORITE SITCOM ON TV TONIGHT AND WATCH THIS IMPORTANT PROGRAM. BE NOT UNINFORMED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY.

Tonight at 10 PM ET, 9 PM CDST  Dinesh D’Souza will join Laura Ingraham on Fox News to debut the official trailer for his latest film.

TONIGHT

WORLD PREMIERE OF “DEATH OF A NATION” OFFICIAL MOVIE TRAILER


Don’t miss it!

Tonight at 10 PM ET, Dinesh D’Souza will join Laura Ingraham on Fox News to debut the official trailer for Death of a Nation.

Through expert interviews and historical reenactments, Death of a Nationexposes the real fascists and racists in America and puts to bed the biggest progressive lies once and for all.

Tune into The Ingraham Angle tonight and see the explosive trailer for the first time!

Death of a Nation is already making waves and infuriating the Left. Watch tonight at 10 PM ET and forward this email to five friends who need to hear the true history of racism and fascism.






VISIT THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE

TEXANS ESPECIALLY NEED TO WATCH THIS PROGRAM, YOU CAN BET THAT BETO WILL NOT BE WATCHING THIS PROGRAM SINCE HE AND HIS PARTY ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED IN THIS PROGRAM.  THIS PROGRAM IS BOTH ENTERTAINING AND EDUCATIONAL.   ABYSSUM

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SKIP YOUR FAVORITE SITCOM ON TV TONIGHT AND WATCH THIS IMPORTANT PROGRAM. BE NOT UNINFORMED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY.

THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO FATAL FLAWS IN THE “DALLAS CHARTER” ONE IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE AND THE OTHER IS THE RUSH TO SUSPEND A PRIEST WHO IS ACCUSED OF PEDOPHILIA WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF CANON LAW WHICH PROTECT THE PRIEST FROM FALSE ACCUSATIONS. ONCE SUSPENDED A PRIEST’S LIFE IS RUINED, HE CAN NEVER RECOVER HIS GOOD NAME EVEN AFTER HIS INNOCENCE IS PROVEN. FEAR OF FINANCIAL LOSS DRIVES BISHOPS TO ACT UNJUSTLY AND DESIRE OF FINANCIAL GAIN DRIVES CRIMINALS TO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

EmailPinterestPocketGoogle+

Who Watches the Watchmen? The Fatal Flaw of the Dallas Charter

OnePeterFive

It was 2003 and I was a young father sending my daughter to a Catholic elementary school. I wanted to be involved in the direction of the school, so I volunteered for the school board for a three-year term. Most meetings were what you would expect: boring discussions of the details of running a small Catholic school. But one evening the topic turned to something far more significant. Our diocese was implementing the “safe environment” policies that came out of the meeting of bishops in Dallas to respond to the clerical sex abuse crisis (the so-called “Dallas Charter”). That evening we were discussing introducing a “talking about touching” program at our elementary school. It was all part of a well-publicized push by Catholic bishops to show that they cared about the abuse scandal and were doing something about it.

The irony: I was living in the Archdiocese of Washington. Our Archbishop was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, now revealed as a predator himself.

Pointing the Finger

I had listened to Cardinal McCarrick make earnest-sounding statements when the clerical sexual abuse scandal first hit the news. He wanted to “protect” children, he said. His way of doing so, however, was to implement policies that introduced inappropriate material to children and looked at lay people, including parents, as the potential abusers. It was classic misdirection: look at all our efforts here…and ignore the scandal at the top of the archdiocese.

When the “talking about touching” program was first introduced, I objected to it strongly. I felt it was inappropriate for a school—especially in a co-ed situation—to talk about this topic in a public setting. Think about it: a teacher, who is essentially unknown to the parents, is discussing topics in a classroom such as who can touch your genitals with a group of seven- and eight-year-old boys and girls. Beyond the obvious inappropriateness of this, it’s also a situation ripe for abuse. If a teacher were an abuser, such a class is fertile ground for finding victims. Is it surprising that an archdiocese that was led by a predator would implement such problematic programs?

Unfortunately, I was one of only two board members who objected. It seemed everyone wanted to “do something.” They wanted to show they cared and were taking action. Further, the archdiocese (led by a predator) pressured schools to implement these programs.

I made the point repeatedly that such topics were more appropriate for parents to teach their children directly. If we wanted to “do something,” then we should provide materials to the parents and let them teach it to their kids at home, as they saw fit. I was then told that the parents could be the abusers and the archdiocese had to protect the children from them! Some other board members even questioned why I would resist this program, with the obvious implication that perhaps I had something to hide.

Needless to say, I left the school board and was homeschooling my children the next year.

Rotten at the Top

Aside from these problematic “talking about touching” programs, my experience also exposed a major flaw in the efforts of the bishops to stamp out abusers. Who is keeping an eye on them? Who is reporting them for abuse? While a suspicious eye was directed at parents, it was the implementors themselves who were engaged in foul play.

The emphasis behind “safe environment” programs is not toward protecting children or, heaven forbid, rooting out sex abusers in our midst. It’s directed toward avoiding lawsuits. This is clear from how silly the implementation can be. A year or so after I left the school board, our homeschooling group wanted to hold a monthly Mass at a local Catholic parish, to be followed by a reception in the parish hall. The pastor was receptive and offered to celebrate the Mass. However, we were told that every adult attending would have to go through the “safe environment” procedures. Note that this event was for families to attend—at no time were children not with their own parents. In typical bureaucratic fashion, archdiocesan officials simply wanted to make sure all their lawyer-directed boxes were checked. (Fortunately, after some pushback we were able to override this silly requirement).

“Safe environment” programs ignore the real problem—homosexual predator bishops and priests—and direct their suspicions elsewhere. Although it was found that the majority of clerical abuse cases were homosexual in nature, the Dallas Charter did nothing to address this pink elephant in the room. Further, it’s clear that nothing in the Charter is directed towards protecting seminarians and young priests from predatory bishops. Yet, if a parent wants to volunteer for an event at a parish, he has to undergo more rigorous background checks than a new FBI recruit.

And while we parents lived constantly under a state of suspicion in the Archdiocese of Washington, a predator was in charge, telling everyone how much he cared about the children. Furthermore, he had all the power behind him to cover up his misdeeds. As we’ve all heard, “everyone” knew of McCarrick’s fondness for young men (and this is true: I heard the rumors as well), yet there was no system in place from the Dallas Charter to do anything about it. Priests were fearful of reprisal and lay people were ignored when it came to accusations against the hierarchy itself.

Dead Letters and Old Boy Networks

If bishops were serious about stamping out abuse, they would look at the actual cause instead of just doing the minimum that lawyers require. What is the actual cause? In most cases it is the extensive homosexual network found in seminaries and chanceries, which allow homosexual men to rise through the ranks (including to the episcopacy) without resistance. Are these really the men who will be best suited to prevent future abuse? Is their judgement about “talking about touching” programs and “safe environment” guidelines reliable?

Until the bishops fight forcefully against the predators in their own midst, the Dallas Charter is a dead letter. And it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon. If you look at the episcopal responses to Cardinal McCarrick’s situation, you see lawyerese, feigned expressions of “shock,” and no condemnation of sin. Once you see a bishop actually call out Cardinal McCarrick for what he is—a homosexual predator who abused his position of power and has put his eternal soul in jeopardy—then you will know that perhaps the bishops are serious about cleaning house. Until then, the old boy network will continue to thrive and the young boys will suffer.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

BISHOP WEISENHEIMER, aka WEISENBURGER, STRIKES OUT ON FIRST PITCH IN THE BORDER SERIES IN TUCSON

n5ks5d2ogn

Longtime Southern Arizonan . . . Provides Facts On Border Problems That Newcomers May Misunderstand

June 27, 2018

By DEXTER DUGGAN

PHOENIX — “Brothers and sisters, let the friendship begin,” the latest bishop of the Diocese of Tucson said welcomingly at his installation Mass last November, according to a report by Catholic News Service.
Bishop Edward Weisenburger previously served as bishop of Salina, Kans., then succeeded veteran Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas following Kicanas’ retirement from the southern Arizona diocese that extends along the international line with Mexico.
Weisenburger’s proffered friendship appeared to have grown brittle by June, however, when he suggested canonical penalties against practicing Catholics who provide border protection for the United States and have to try to deal sensitively with minors being brought along in the continued massive invasion of illegal immigrants.
Hysterical coverage in anti-Donald Trump media might leave one thinking that U.S. border agents were swooping deep into Mexico to kidnap and thrash children. Nothing could be further from the truth, although such media even raised specters of Nazism on the march, although they’d never tolerate such imagery regarding their own fanatical embrace of the slaughter of massive permissive abortion.
Pews full of U.S. bishops have shown strong reluctance to enforce canon law against left-wing, pro-abortion Catholic politicians who obdurately defy non-negotiable canon law. That might embarrass the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ useful friends in the Democratic Party.
However, Weisenburger seemed to think it was worth floating the idea of severe canonical punishment for border personnel during a Republican administration when he appeared before the U.S. bishops’ June meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
The Tucson-based, liberal Arizona Daily Star headlined a story about the hometown prelate this way: “Tucson bishop: Should Catholics face ‘canonical penalties’ for role in separating immigrant children?”
It meant not merely “immigrant children,” of course, but “undocumented” foreign minors exposed to possibly serious danger or even death along the chaotic border. The illegal aliens who exposed them may or may not be their parents, and they may have been misled or falsely encouraged into thinking that minors should be transported there.
Instead of being grateful that overburdened U.S. law enforcement was trying to bring some sort of protection and security into this chaos, Weisenburger saw the enforcers as violators needing reprimand and “healing” of their serious misdeeds.
Catholics around the nation could only shake their heads over such self-importance after prelates have spent year after year fleeing their duties from properly disciplining pro-abortion radicals.
The Star quoted Weisenburger: “I think the time is there for prophetic statement. I also think even though what I am saying may be risky or dangerous, I think it’s important to point out that canonical penalties are there in place to heal, first and foremost to heal. And therefore for the salvation of these people’s souls, maybe it’s time for us to look at canonical penalties.”
Why is it that Catholics have waited so long often in vain to hear of bishops’ concern for, say, Dems Nancy Pelosi’s or Tim Kaine’s souls’ salvation, or that of Joe Biden’s soul when he performed a scandalous “gay marriage” while serving as vice president?
The Wanderer sought reaction to Weisenburger’s action from a practicing Catholic long familiar with the Tucson Diocese, Ann Howard.
Howard described herself as being part of “a long cross-border family history in the Tucson Diocese, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century, including an uncle who was in one of the first Border Patrol classes in El Paso and in the Tucson Sector” of the Border Patrol.
She expressed concern about not wanting to sound harsh or disrespectful toward bishops, and offered her observations in the long email below in hopes of informing people who may lack background knowledge about harmful situations and conditions.
Everything that follows below are Howard’s own words except, where noted, she included a link to a Washington Post story about exploitation of minors.

+ + +

“Bishop Weisenburger is new to the area of southern Arizona. People who have been in the area their whole lives with cross-border families are usually better able to describe and understand the border and its problems than are newcomers.
For decades people have trafficked children into the United States for unimaginable reasons. Family members who go back and forth between the two countries are accustomed to being stopped and asked about the children who are with them. Many just get passports for the children to save time in crossing.
“It is an ugly phenomenon that many just cannot imagine. Some children are sold into sex slavery, others are sold as work slaves, some are sold to adoptive couples.
Now, the influx of children at the border has become an overwhelming problem. To think that all the children coming are really coming with family members who love and cherish these children is truly naive. It is difficult to sort out true families from “trafficking families.”
For Bishop Weisenburger to seemingly assume that the separations of children from adults at the border is always and everywhere an unmitigated evil that needs to be stopped immediately — and that it is so intrinsically evil that canonical sanctions should be imposed on Catholics who participate in the chaos at the border — is, with due respect, imprudent.
In fact, past administrations have used the laws and procedures in use now by the Trump administration. The past administrations have also used different laws and procedures which allowed the children to be dispersed into the country, sometimes with supposed relatives or other care providers.
“Such a policy resulted in the most egregious abuse of many of these children. They have been enslaved by other illegal entrants and citizens and abused in many ways.
One example of the Obama administration’s policies resulting in such enslavement was in Ohio at an egg farm.

+ + +

At this point Howard provided a link to a January 28, 2016, Washington Post story headlined, “Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says.” The story began:

“The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers, a Senate investigation has found.”
It added: “Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) initiated the six-month investigation after several Guatemalan teens were found in a dilapidated trailer park near Marion, Ohio, where they were being held captive by traffickers and forced to work at a local egg farm.”
The Post story later said that one defendant in a case “used associates to file false applications with the government agency tasked with caring for the children, and bring them to Ohio, where he kept them in squalid conditions in a trailer park and forced them to work 12-hour days, at least six days a week, for little pay.”

+ + +

Howard then continued her statement to The Wanderer:
There are many, many more examples of such horrible abuse. The current Trump policy at least protects the children from such abuse. Until we can establish an infrastructure and laws and regulations to identify accurate family relationships, at least let us keep the children safe.
In the current situation, the children have schooling and counseling and games and exercise and medical care and leisure. They have beds to sleep in and social interactions with peers. Perfect? Of course not. But the influx of illegal entrants and asylum claimants is so large that no country can handle it in a perfect manner.
There are many people on the front lines who know the history and know the situation better than any of us. Many of those people are Catholics. In their heart of hearts they believe they are doing the best possible thing to protect children from abuse. All the media propaganda does not affect them. And it should not any of us.
For Bishop Weisenburger or Timothy Cardinal Dolan or any other bishop to impose a crisis of conscience on these people is, in my opinion, an abuse of their mission as shepherds of Christ’s people. Perhaps the bishops should take those public statements like those they have issued recently behind closed doors, and obtain lots and lots of input from those with knowledge and who do not have a political agenda.
I personally do not like to criticize the bishop publicly, but he made public statements, so I will extend a public critique of his behaviors.
All effort to fix the issues causing the chaos must be to fix the sending countries. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both said such, saying it must be the first solution and is the most long-lasting.
I beg the bishops of all the sending countries and of America to work tirelessly to establish policies that allow every child to grow up in the country of their birth, in the love and care of their biological and cultural families. Every child deserves that. The current situation is destroying the families of the sending countries and of American families. It has to stop.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on BISHOP WEISENHEIMER, aka WEISENBURGER, STRIKES OUT ON FIRST PITCH IN THE BORDER SERIES IN TUCSON

WHAT’S NEXT ???

Human-Animal-Hybrid-Monsters%20chimeras%20alien

TRANS TODAY WHAT TOMORROW ???

In the spiritual life, there is no standing still. You are either advancing or retreating. Like many other true things, this is necessarily taxing, especially when just treading water seems like a triumph.

There is no standing still on the societal front either. Look how quickly the transgender movement followed Obergefell.  It would be folly to imagine that this “achievement” would placate progressives – as if transgenderism were the goal to end all goals.  So one logical question is: what comes next?

It seems there are only two general options.  We might recover a saner appreciation of reality and tradition, or we will continue to degenerate in yet other destructive ways. My guess, unfortunately, is that the latter is more likely.

Polygamy is a somewhat obvious candidate for the next wave to crash ashore. As predicted, Muslims in the West have begun advocating for its acceptance based upon legal precedent sanctioning “gay marriage.” Why should “love” lose in a polygamous context?

The point is not hard to appreciate: they got theirs by throwing reason out the window, why shouldn’t we get ours? There is also now a special term for incest – “Genetic Sexual Attraction” – designed to give it a scientific aura and thus a kind of respectability; well, if that is what we are calling it now, it’s ok then.

But we may also have to contend with an attempt to normalize pedophilia.  I hate to even write this, but you tell me what is beyond the pale nowadays – and why?  Providing a reason it should be singled out as verboten is not so easy, given the justifications we now accept for other transgressions.

A few months ago, I saw an episode of Chicago Med – a hospital-based TV drama – in which one of the patients facing a life-threatening medical emergency happened to be a pedophile. He did not want to continue being an offender and thus chose to forego treatment in order to ensure his death.

While cast in this sympathetic light, his medical team was eager to find explanations for his “condition”: there was talk about new “scientific” indications that pedophilia could be classified as a disease – traced back to a gene or some neurological trigger. This explains the title of that episode: “Born This Way.”

Pope Francis seems comfortable with that mindset if, as per media accounts, he really did tell a “gay” person – a victim of clerical sexual abuse! – he was born that way. Whatever Francis’ actual view, the impression remains that he might have actually confirmed him in that lifestyle; if so, why could he theoretically not say the same for a polygamist or even a pedophile?

And why does this justification only pertain to sexuality: was Bernie Madoff born to defraud the unsuspecting out of their life savings?

The Chicago Med program aired on NBC, an indication they suspect the public may be prepared to accept the concept that pedophiles (like gays) simply act as their biology determines them to act. You see, biology is unalterable (LGB), except, of course, when it is alterable (T).

Biology is what we say it is, when we say what it is. Got the reasoning there? Good, then you see the attempt to classify pedophilia as a disease for what it is: the first step towards normalization. Disease can become benign just as bad can become good – when we say so.

Netflix is streaming a drag queen superhero cartoon, and some public libraries have hosted drag queen story time – yet further indications that some want sexualizing children to go mainstream. UC Santa Barbara also apparently sees this stance as permissible. Are we really going to let the standard “argument” for the gay-rights lifestyle expand to include “access” to kids as a right?

In a recent 60 Minutes interview, Pope Francis spoke strongly against pedophilia – and yet had an unfortunate lapse in so doing. Perhaps it was another case of a poor word choice, but he said:

Towards pedophilia, zero tolerance! And the Church must punish such priests who have that problem, and bishops must remove from their priestly functions anyone with that disease, that tendency to pedophilia, and that includes to support the legal action by the parents before the civil courts.

That disease?  This is the linguistic opening through which zero tolerance morphs into exculpation.

If it is an enfermedad, why would we be talking about zero tolerance? Should a priest with arthritis or diabetes be shown “zero tolerance” when manifestations of those diseases resurface? Trying to reclassify the act of abusing an innocent person as a “disease” should be met with resounding repudiation.

But what do we really repudiate anymore? When there is no objective truth to defend, everything else becomes defensible. Perennial Catholic teaching may be difficult, but it is coherent and its truths fit together as a whole. Take away a seemingly small part of it, and the whole is bound to unravel.

Notice how children are viewed in our post-truth era: unwelcome (contraception), out of the equation (gay), malleable innocents to be steered towards destruction (LGBT indoctrination), and unworthy even of protection from violence (abortion).

Children can also become, through technology, objects engineered to suit the wishes of adults. If we accept these “reasons” to treat children in such a disinterested and ruthless manner, why cannot they also be used as sex objects?

Pushing the envelope in that direction may be packaged by some radical Westerners as “progress.” Yet the practice of abusing boys is already entrenched in Afghanistan.  Take PBS’ word for it.

Such is our mental landscape. Nihilistic willfulness is in charge; humane regard for others is on the chopping block. Appeals to reason are as welcome as appeals to religion. Maybe, after all, there is something to categorizing sin – as the Catechism does – as an offense against reason and truth.

We are so estranged from reason nowadays that we are poorly positioned to resist even greater harms lurking ahead.

Matthew Hanley

Matthew Hanley

Matthew Hanley is senior fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center. With Jokin de Irala, M.D., he is the author of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, which recently won a best-book award from the Catholic Press Association. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Hanley’s and not those of the NCBC.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHAT’S NEXT ???

WHO NEEDS A PHYSICIAN IN ORDER TO COMMIT SUICIDE, ASKS THE LEFT/LIBERALS

7

Physician Assisted Suicide and the Rise of Suicide Cults
by Grace Emily Stark
within Assisted Suicide, Bioethics, Human Dignity
Jun 27, 2018 08:03 pm http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/06/21890/
Assisted death proponents argue for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia on the grounds of promoting autonomy and suspending suffering. Suicide groups like the Dutch Coöperatie Laatste Wil ask the next logical question: why is physician involvement needed at all?
Share this article:    

The push for legalized physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States continues to gain traction, with the state of Hawaii becoming the seventh state in the union to sanction assisted death via physician-prescribed, life-ending medication. The Aloha State joins an ever-growing cohort of PAS-friendly states, including Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Vermont, and Washington. After a controversial vote in 2016, our nation’s capital also implemented its own assisted suicide legislation in July 2017.

Fortunately, a few barriers have recently popped up on the downhill slide toward assisted death for all: the American Medical Association reaffirmed its position opposing PAS, and a judge in California overturned that state’s assisted suicide law. But we are a long way from witnessing a sea change in public and professional sentiment toward PAS. A growing number of state-level medical associations are ending their traditional opposition to PAS, the California decision will most assuredly face legal challenges in court (reportedly, the law was supported by 76 percent of Californians), and the movement continues to gain ground internationally as countries like Spain and Finland consider implementing PAS and euthanasia laws.

One of the most active and vocal groups leading the push for legalized PAS in the United States is an organization called “Compassion and Choices.” Overwhelmingly, the campaign waged by PAS interest groups like Compassion and Choices is fueled by promises of ensuring personal autonomy (“choices”) and easing of suffering (“compassion”) at the end of life. But the very arguments used to promote PAS in the United States and around the globe raise the question of why physician involvement is necessary at all when one wants to end one’s life. In fact, a disturbing movement of pro-suicide organizations is growing around the globe. These organizations promise a way out without the (minimal) red tape imposed by PAS and euthanasia “safeguards” that exist where those practices are already legal.

The “Last Wish Cooperative”

One such organization is the Dutch Coöperatie Laatste Wil (CLW) (“Last Wish Cooperative,” in English). The bioethics newsletter BioEdge reports that

The Dutch Public Prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into the Last Wish Cooperative (Coöperatie Laatste Wil), which claims to distribute a deadly powder to people who want to commit suicide. Despite the notoriety of Dutch end-of-life legislation, assisted suicide without the help of a doctor is strictly illegal. But after a 19-year-old girl killed herself with a lethal powder last month, public attention has focused on CLW’s activities, even though it appears that she did not obtain the substance through CLW. CLW announced last September that it would make available a suicide agent, which it called “X,” to its members. Therefore the public prosecutor suspects that CLW members are “participating in an organization that aims to commit crimes.”

Whether or not the Dutch Last Wish Cooperative (CLW) is responsible for the 19-year-old girl’s death remains to be seen. What is obvious, however, is that CLW is nothing more than a glorified suicide cult. Its members see the involvement of doctors in end-of-life decision-making as not only unnecessary, but an infringement on personal autonomy. CLW’s website states that “Cooperative Last Wish accommodates people who favor the concept of assisted suicide and self-euthanasia without intervention or doctors and want to make early preparation by joining with others who share their views.”

The reality is that the arguments presented by assisted death advocates—whether they are promoting euthanasia or PAS (for the purposes of this essay, the difference between the two acts is not morally significant)—pave the way for suicide cults like the Dutch CLW. By grounding a legal right to PAS in personal autonomy and misbegotten conceptions of compassion and dignity, even if they advocate that the right only be exercised under the jurisdiction and protections of the medical establishment, PAS advocates around the world all but ensure the explosion of suicide cults in every country where their campaign of death is waged.

Autonomy as Our Greatest Good

Preservation of personal autonomy is among the greatest goods sought by PAS promoters and seekers. Studies show that maintaining autonomy (often described as “choice”) and a “sense of self” at the end of life are among the top reasons patients with terminal illnesses desire to end their lives with the help of physician-prescribed lethal agents. This key fact is not lost on groups like Compassion and Choices, which is precisely why they use the language of “choice” to promote their cause.

As I’ve written before at Public Discourse, the “Cult of Autonomy” in our country makes Americans particularly receptive to the idea of PAS when it is presented as a means of preserving autonomy. Vulnerable patients facing poorly controlled or uncontrolled pain, uncertain prognoses, or the fear of being a burden to others may be particularly attracted to the false promises of the PAS movement, seeking to make one final (and fatal) decision “on their own terms.” In a world where we no longer accept the existence of objective truth, we each create our own “truths,” making us our own gods. It is little wonder that under these circumstances, the impulse to preserve the illusion that we are all the true “masters of our fate” is so diabolically strong that we would rather end our own lives than have our perception of control wrested from us.

Set aside the logical inconsistencies in the idea that killing oneself—an act that permanently destroys one’s ability to make autonomous choices—is truly the ultimate act of autonomy that advocates assure us it is. Even so, it should be obvious that this enshrinement of autonomy as the greatest of goods raises the question of why physician involvement is necessary for anyone—terminally ill or otherwise—to end his or her own life. If preservation of autonomy is our greatest good, then nothing and no one should stand in the way of our exercise of that autonomy.

Suicide-promotion groups like the Dutch CLW therefore recognize that submitting to the expertise and evaluation of a physician or bureaucratic review board constrains a person’s ability to act autonomously. Sanctioned suicide outside the constraints of the medical establishment is simply the next logical step.

Preserving Autonomy While Ending Suffering: A Discordant Message

While other countries have made the dystopian leap to allow non-terminally ill individuals (and even children) to end their own lives, in the United States, PAS advocates seek only to end the lives of the terminally ill—at least for now. American PAS proponents specifically appeal to those with diseases such as terminal cancers with the twofold false promise of a way to “regain” control at the end of one’s life and a way to end suffering on one’s “own terms.” American PAS advocates frame the suffering that these kinds of patients endure as meaningless, presenting assisted death as the truly “compassionate” choice. But PAS advocates not only misuse the word “compassion” (which is from the Latin “com pati,” which literally means “to suffer with”), but in grounding the right to PAS in an individual’s subjective experience of suffering, they open the door to a slippery slope of abuses that will inevitably lead to a general increase in suicides outside the medical establishment’s jurisdiction.

Indeed, proponents of suicide and opponents of PAS alike should ask how a PAS medical review board could ever adequately assess the degree to which a person experiences suffering. A doctor might employ statistical measures or standardized questionnaires designed to tease out the precise nature of a person’s suffering and then compare it to normative standards. However, to employ such measures and make a yes/no determination on whether the patient should be allowed to kill himself by definition erodes the autonomy of the patient’s decision: it is now no longer the patient’s decision, but a determination made by a third party board of “experts.” Furthermore, to apply normative standards of suffering to an individual case does not capture the individual’s suffering well at all; after all, it applies an objective measure to something that is a purely subjective experience. Even though the downstream effects of suffering can be objectively characterized and subjected to statistical analysis (pain scales, depression ratings, etc.), such measures can never fully capture the patient’s subjective self-view.

Imagine, for example, that Jane Doe suffers from well-controlled diabetes, but the mental, emotional, and physical anguish of living with her disease causes her such suffering that she desires PAS. By every American PAS law currently on the books, she does not qualify for PAS because her disease (in its well-controlled state) is not terminal in nature; a third party has objectively determined that her subjective suffering is not great enough for her to merit PAS. John Smith, however, has a terminal cancer, but for whatever reason (faith in a higher power, excellent family support, etc.) his suffering has not led him to believe that PAS is necessary for himself. John Smith does qualify for PAS by every American PAS law currently in place, should he so choose. In both cases, a third party has made an objective judgement about the highly subjective suffering of both Jane Doe and John Smith, and as a result, the autonomy of each patient has been infringed by the existence of legalized PAS.

From these fictional (albeit very realistic) examples, it is clear that if the right to PAS is based on preserving a person’s autonomy and ending a person’s suffering, then organizations such as the Dutch CLW are correct that third parties (doctors and bureaucrats) should have no role in determining a person’s suitability for suicide. In short, by upholding autonomy and the ending of suffering by any means necessary as the greatest of goods, one is pointed away from supporting physician-assisted suicide, and toward simply supporting suicide.

The Safeguards Cannot Stand

Once PAS is sanctioned as a legally acceptable means of ending one’s life, it is laughable to insist that the practice of suicide must be kept within the safeguards of the medical establishment. Particularly in the face of the abuses seen in every jurisdiction where PAS and euthanasia are legally sanctioned, it is easy to see that the supposed “safeguards” that aim to protect vulnerable populations from being subjected to euthanasia are flimsy at best. In the Netherlands, medical personnel have euthanized the intellectually disabled and have held down an elderly, demented woman and euthanized her against her will. In Belgium, an elderly, demented women with Parkinson’s disease was euthanized at the request of her family, and, reportedly, a thirty-eight-year-old autistic woman was euthanized without proper documentation after she ended a love affair. In Oregon, officials have granted PAS requests to the depressed without first referring them for psychiatric evaluation. And yet no move has been made by the authorities in any of these jurisdictions to halt the practice of PAS or euthanasia in the face of these incredibly serious abuses. Assisted death is seen as a good so great that even heinous abuses of the system enshrining it in law are not enough to make governments question its legality. So, we must ask, if the logic of assisted-suicide proponents is correct, why is the involvement of the medical establishment required at all?

The answer, of course, is that it isn’t.

CLW made this easy jump in logic, and others will soon follow. As long as our culture continues its death march toward assisted suicide for all, more and more people will conclude that everyone has the right to kill himself—by any means necessary.

Grace Emily Stark is a writer whose work has been featured in multiple outlets including The Linacre Quarterly, Public Discourse, the National Catholic Register, the Federalist, the American Conservative, Aleteia, and Natural Womanhood. Mrs. Stark holds an MA in Bioethics & Health Policy from Loyola University Chicago, and currently resides in San Diego with her husband and son. You can find her collected writings at graceemilystark.com.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHO NEEDS A PHYSICIAN IN ORDER TO COMMIT SUICIDE, ASKS THE LEFT/LIBERALS

ANOTHER EPISODE IN THE SERIAL DRAMA, “CHICAGO JUSTICE/CUPICH JUSTICE”

 

LIBERTY DEPENDS UPON VIRTUE
www.RestoreAmericanLiberty.com
America Cannot Remain Free Unless Her Citizens Are Governed by Virtue

 


Mahound’s Paradise: EXCLUSIVE: Text of the Votum on Fr. Phillips – Why is the Archdiocese Misrepresenting It?
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2018/06/exclusive-text-of-votum-on-fr-phillips.html



Tuesday, June 26, 2018

How things used to be: Fr. Phillips and the late Cardinal George


On March 17 of this year it was announced that Fr. Frank Phillips, pastor of St. John Cantius in Chicago and founder and superior of the associated order, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, had been removed from public ministry (and thus from his positions as pastor and superior) by Cardinal Blase Cupich, allegedly based on “credible accusations of improper conduct involving adult males.” (The more precise nature of these charges as well as the identities of the accusers has never been officially stated or released.) On June 23, after an investigation by the Congregation of the Resurrection (“Resurrectionists”) – where Fr. Phillips was ordained and with whom he was also still a member – the archdiocese of Chicago declined to reinstate Fr. Phillips and confirmed that his faculties for ministry would remain withdrawn. Though neither the investigation report itself nor any other details were publicly released, it is known that part of the recent decision was made against the recommendation of Resurrectionist Provincial Fr. Gene Szarek, based on the report and the results of the investigation. The contents of the report were said to have “exonerated” Fr. Phillips.

 
What did Fr. Szarek of the Resurrectionists recommend? Did the investigation exonerate Fr. Phillips?

We have obtained a copy of the recommendation or votum (opinion) written by Fr. Szarek. It is dated May 21, and thus was, we assume, received by the archdiocese at that time. Those currently closely involved with the case within the archdiocese would presumably have access to it.
 
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune printed comments on the matter by archdiocese spokeswoman Paula Waters:

Although Phillips was not found to have violated any church or secular law, archdiocese spokeswoman Paula Waters said there was other information that warranted his removal and a continued ban on his administering sacraments in public within the archdiocese. Waters declined to detail the findings against Phillips.

“There are standards for behavior,” Waters said. The review board “did not recommend that he be returned as the pastor of St. John Cantius. And so, based on their recommendation that he not return and on other factors, the cardinal decided that his faculties to minister would remain withdrawn.”

As we shall see, below, those comments were extremely misleading and arguably constituted outright falsehood. The archdiocese has all along appeared selectively unforthcoming about the entire matter. A blunt observer might be excused for concluding that it is now lying.

The text of the votum follows. Essentially it is the conclusion or recommendation of the superior of the Resurrectionists, and thus acts as the cover letter for the 22-page set of findings put together by the three-person review board based on witness testimony. Thus, I suppose “report” might be used to refer to either the findings themselves or the findings plus the votum. But keep in mind that the findings were written by the review board consisting of three laypeople – a judge, an attorney and a psychologist – while the votum was penned by the Resurrectionist Fr. Szarek himself.

The investigation was not a “trial” in the sense that some might imagine. Witness testimony was given over two, day-long sessions in April, but no video, audio or stenographic record was made. Rather, notes were taken of the testimonies and then later summarized in the findings.

But the findings were not merely a summary of the “raw data” of the witness testimony. While the review board would make no recommendation for action (that was left to Fr. Szarek), it would interpret the evidence as well as often pronouncing on the reliability of the testimony.

This post does not include the text of the findings.

Will the findings or complete report ever be made public, officially or otherwise? Probably not. Nor perhaps should it be. Among other things, witnesses were promised confidentiality. Some of the testimony of some witnesses (I’m not referring to that of Fr. Phillips or the accusers) was of a private nature that might prove harmful or embarrassing to those very witnesses if it were ever publicly disclosed. That might almost sound like some sort of quasi-frivolous justification for keeping crucial facts secret. I can tell you with full knowledge that it’s not.

But I think a fair reading of the findings exonerates Fr. Phillips from the sort of sexual activity or wrongdoing, including homosexual relationships and homosexual advances or behavior, that people have imagined might constitute “inappropriate conduct.” In addition, to put it more bluntly for these charged times, the findings do not establish or even indicate that Fr. Phillips is or might be homosexual.

However, the findings do show that Fr. Phillips arguably exhibited imprudence and/or bad judgment in a number of areas. What precisely that refers to will not be discussed in this post. I apologize for that.

As for the original charges made by the accusers, the findings were quite clear that they were not credible.

A recent press release from the independent parishioners group Protect our Priests, written by someone who had obviously read the report, made reference to the “mendacity, falsehoods, spitefulness and malevolent connivance” of the accusers. Without directly commenting on the character or motivations of the accusers in this post, I can say that this interpretation (at least for one or two of the three accusers) is not inconsistent with the findings. Though of course, the purpose of the votum was not to pronounce on that.

I want to here point out the inaccuracies contained in the recent statements by the archdiocese spokeswoman, Paula Waters:

The review board “did not recommend that he be returned as the pastor of St. John Cantius. And so, based on their recommendation that he not return and on other factors, the cardinal decided that his faculties to minister would remain withdrawn.”

Actually, the Review Board made no recommendation either way. It was not their role to do so.

But it did claim as part of the findings that the original accusations were not credible. Waters did not mention that.

Furthermore, if you read the Votum carefully, the recommendation of Fr. Szarek that Fr. Phillips not return was based only on “the Cardinal’s own preference” (a misleading basis for the spokeswoman to independently justify the more recent decision of the Cardinal) and Fr. Phillips’ age (68 – less than two years away from mandatory retirement as a pastor). No other reasons were used, though if the behavior implied in the first point of the votum (one presumes the bad judgment or prudential errors referred to, above) was thought to have been weighty enough, it presumably would have been cited. It was weighty enough to merit recommending a “psychological assessment” and “possible sensitivity treatment.”

Fr. Szarek recommended that Fr. Phillips be restored to full canonical faculties. Waters did not mention that.

Fr. Szarek recommended that Fr. Phillips remain as superior of the Canons Regular. Waters did not mention that.

One might argue that Ms. Waters had no obligation to mention those points, though, obviously, using only one part of the votum to support a decision that contradicted the recommendations of most of the votum is misleading spin of the highest level. Is this how the Archdiocese would publicly conduct itself?

I think it’s reasonable to view the votum as in part an attempt at compromise. Fr. Szarek (one imagines) knew Cupich was determined not to allow Fr. Phillips to return as pastor. So he tried to salvage the best he could for Fr. Phillips, thinking the contents of the findings would support that.

Note again that the votum was written a month before the decision was made by the archdiocese. For weeks, the rumors among some Cantius parishioners were that Fr. Phillips would be “retired” in a benign or quasi-benign fashion. It is now clear where those rumors originated. I imagine that the much more severe final decision of the archdiocese was a rude surprise to Fr. Szarek, just as it was a rude surprise to many parishioners.

One assumes that Cardinal Cupich also required Fr. Szarek to write or at least sign his name to the terse note enclosed in last weekend’s bulletin, the final execution notice, if you will, for his fellow Resurrectionist.

How merciful.

Here is the full text of the votum:

Congregation of the Resurrection

Gene Szarek, C.R., Ph.D. Provincial Superior USA Province

VOTUM

OF THE PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR IN THE MATTER OF FATHER FRANK PHILLIPS, C.R.

21 May 2018

In response to the findings of the Independent Review Board (which follow), I propose the following resolution:

1) IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT: Because of a certain amount of ambiguity between the allegations of the accusers and the testimony of witnesses, including Fr. Phillips himself, I will be instructing Fr. Phillips to undertake a psychological assessment and possible sensitivity training in the very near future.

2) PASTORATE: Because of his age (68) and out of respect for the Cardinal’s own preference, I judge that Fr. Phillips should not return to the parish as its pastor.

3) CANONICAL FACULTIES: Because no civil or ecclesiastical crime has been established. It’s seems fair and just to restore the canonical faculties of Fr. Phillips. His accusers, when asked what should happen to Fr. Phillips as a result of their accusation, thought that his removal from the parish was all that they desired (see report, in various places).

4) SUPERIOR GENERALSHIP: This is a sensitive issue. As Founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, the ideal would be his restoration as their superior general. Because the Canons are ordained for the Archdiocese of Chicago and because all major superiors of men merely recommend or nominate priests for appointments, which are made only by the authority of the Archbishop, there is no fear that Fr. Phillips could possibly interfere in some way with the decisions of the Archbishop. The historical reality of his being the Founder and his ongoing provision of spiritual leadership would be salutary for all. He would obviously not reside at the parish (see #2, above), but at some place determined by his Resurrectionist major superior. If the above recommendation is unfeasible, then at least he and the Canons should not be prevented from communication.

 


James Michael Francis Komaniecki
President, CEO
www.RestoreAmericanLiberty.com, Inc.
LIBERTY DEPENDS UPON VIRTUE

630-302-9570
jmk@RestoreAmericanLiberty.com

Social Issues ARE Fiscal Issues
Aborted Future Taxpayers & Sterile Homosexual “Marriages” Undermine Our Prosperity



“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites;……..  Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”

– Edmund Burke


“He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.”

– Samuel Adams


“Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” 

– John Adams


“The phrase ‘the Fall of America’ suggests some cataclysmic event ended the American Empire which had stretched from Maine to California and Florida to Washington. But at the end, there was no straining at the gates, no barbarian horde that dispatched the Empire in one fell swoop. Rather, the Empire fell slowly, as a result of challenges from within and without, and changing over the course of hundreds of years until its form was unrecognizable.”

– The End Of Empires: Rome Vs. America | The Federal Observer

“Brothers, what we do in life echoes in eternity.”

– Roman General Maximus Decimus Meridius, (Gladiator, 2000 film)


www.RestoreAmericanLiberty.com teaches the critical relationship between human virtue and freedom and applies this principle to the social and fiscal issues facing America today using best-in-class technology.  Our email list is private and not disclosed to any third parties.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ANOTHER EPISODE IN THE SERIAL DRAMA, “CHICAGO JUSTICE/CUPICH JUSTICE”