THE HISTORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU SHOULD KNOW !!! IT IS A GIANT PONZI SCHEME PERPETRATED BY DEMOCRATS

Image result for photo of franklin d roosevelt

INAUGURATION OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AS PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you didn’t know this. It’s easy to 
check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show 
it to your family and friends. They need a little history 
lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether 
you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated 
the number and card were not to be used for identification 
purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now 
has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway 
and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social 
Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

��
1.) That participation in the Program would be 
Completely voluntary, 


No longer Voluntary 

��

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual 
Incomes into the Program
, 


Now 7.65% 

on the first $90,000 

��

3.) That the money the participants elected to put 
into the Program would be deductible from 
their income for tax purposes each year,
 


No longer tax deductible 

��

4.) That the money the participants put into the 
independent ‘Trust Fund’
 rather than into the 
general operating fund, and therefore, would 
only be used to fund the Social Security 
Retirement Program, and no other 
Government program, and, 


Under Johnson the money was moved to 
The General Fund and Spent 

��

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never 

be taxed as income. 
��
Under Clinton & Gore 
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed 

��
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are 
now receiving a Social Security check every month — 

and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of 
the money we 
paid to the Federal government to ‘put 
away’ — 
you may be interested in the following: 
��
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —- 
��
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the 
independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the 
general fund so that Congress could spend it? 


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically 
controlled House and Senate. 

��
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— — 
��
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax 
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 


A: The Democratic Party. 

��
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —– 
��
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social 
Security annuities? 


A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting
the 
‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote
 as President of the 
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US 

��
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— – 
��
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

��
AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That’s right! 


Jimmy Carter
 and the Democratic Party. 
Immigrants moved into this country, 
and at age 65, 
began to receive Social Security payments! The 
Democratic Party gave these payments to them, 
even though they never paid a dime into it! 

��
———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ——— 
��
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), 
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans 

want to take your Social Security away! 

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! 

I

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE TOLERANT IN A WAY THAT IS TRULY PLEASING TO GOD ???

 

Christian Tolerance

February 25, 2017

INSTITUTE FOR RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY

Tolerance of People, Criticism of Ideas & Actions

Freedom has been a watchword of Western culture for generations, and Christians have found ways to make their faith and practice compatible with it, but as the wider culture increasingly focuses on finding value in freedom, it becomes increasingly difficult for Christian values to co-exist alongside secular freedom. One particular aspect of freedom, namely tolerance, or the duty we owe to others who disagree with us, has become increasingly problematic, as it very meaning has changed to become a concept incompatible with classic Christianity. This point was well made by at the annual conference of the L’Abri Fellowship in Rochester, Minnesota, on Feb. 3-4 by Dick Keyes, director of the L’Abri Fellowship in Southborough, Massachusetts.

Properly understood, tolerance is to “bear with or endure something or someone who is specifically different and objectionable to you or painful,” Keyes said. The word “tolerance” arose out of conflict over religious tolerance. But the definition of tolerance is “changing underneath our feet in ways we need to be aware of.”

Keyes said that there are three kinds of tolerance: 1) legal tolerance, which is government toleration of difference religions without “persecution … or favoritism.” The First Amendment is “a very good statement of legal tolerance,” he said. This amendment made “pluralism possible.” 2) Personal tolerance is “about how we treat other people personally who are different from us in their religious convictions.” Keyes said that these first two types of tolerance could be called “original tolerance.” These two meanings are the classic, centuries old concept of tolerance. They are concerned with the treatment of real people. However, 3) the third type of tolerance is sometimes called “the new tolerance,” or alternatively “worldview tolerance.” This means “accepting other people’s ideas and actions as equal in truth and value to your own ideas and actions.” This concept means we must “approve or celebrate diverse worldviews, ideas, and behavior of all other people.” This writer would add that it is this kind of tolerance what is involved in the current struggle over Christian sexual morality, in which moral condemnation, legal restriction, and eventually liberty of conscience against abortion, homosexuality (and now, transgenderism) is judged impermissible (as it was in the Supreme Court’s “animus standard”). Traditional morality is held to be an attack on persons, because people have been conflated with their ideas and behaviors. This third kind of tolerance is obviously incompatible with God as sovereign over all things and the absolute truth of his revelation. The question, Keyes then posed, is “how should Christians be tolerant … in a way that’s pleasing to God?”

Keyes said that pluralism is true in a descriptive sense, meaning that “there are a variety of religious options in America today that are really different from each other.” These differences are fundamental, although there may be areas of agreement between different religions, they are not fundamentally saying the same thing. “There are a lot of differences out there, and they don’t all match up in some ultimate unity.” We must make “uncomfortable choices between religious options.” By choosing, “we offend people,” and can even “get into personal trouble.” This is not a new situation, Keyes said. The apostle Paul faced as much, perhaps more, religious diversity on Mars Hill as contemporary Christians in America face.

Pluralism is not unique to religion, Keyes said. “There is pluralism in every other field of investigation … in which people argue with one another.” But religious disagreement and discussion of differences is intolerable to the new tolerance, according to Keyes. Nevertheless, believing that someone else is wrong on religious doctrine is not intolerant – it could be correct. What makes us intolerant is if we actually treat people we disagree with badly. This writer would note, however, that the new tolerance would insist that we are harming others as persons if we disagree with ideas or behavior that is important to them. It is vital to point out that this logically leads to anarchy. If ordinary logic is condemned as oppressive, then we must point out that the claim to harm as a result of condemnation of ideas or behavior is nothing more than an act of will, with no justification. “It’s impossible to believe, actually, that everybody is right, it just can’t be done logically, or morally, or psychologically,” Keyes said. Disagreement over deeply held beliefs is in fact respectful of others, since they are being taken seriously.

How can we be uncompromising about truth, and yet be tolerant? Keyes claimed that the understanding of religious freedom from the Enlightenment forward has been “a kind of see-saw relationship between confidence in Christian truth and tolerance.” As conviction increases, tolerance decreases, and vice versa, according to this view. There is thus a “zero-sum relationship between conviction and tolerance.” This may be true in many cases, but Keyes maintained that there is “no necessary [inverse] relationship between conviction of truth and tolerance.” The Baptist founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, for instance, held tolerance to be part of his religious conviction. In Biblical Christianity, Keyes believes, “truth and tolerance ride on the same elevator … the Christian gospel mandates tolerance.” This, of course, has often been set aside by Christians. But tolerance is “embedded” in the “love chapter” of the Bible, I Corinthians 13, notable especially in the words “bear,” and “endure.” On the positive side, the phrases “believes all things,” and “hopes all things” express enormous faith in God to change other people. Jesus’ admonitions to love our enemies and those who take advantage of us mandate more than tolerance, but certainly includes tolerance. This love is, however, “about people,” not necessarily their ideas or actions.

Keyes related the experience of Christians in communist Romania, in which they were severely persecuted. Immediately after the fall of the regime, massacres were impending, as the populace sought revenge against people associated with the regime. Christians had “moral authority” in the country, because they had been so badly persecuted, and their campaign for “forgiveness and love,” pressed in large meetings, was successful in averting a bloodbath. This toleration, however, was a toleration of persons, not ideas. Christians said that what was done to them was “evil and wrong,” but they forgave their persecutors “in the name of God who forgives us.”

If Christians do not reconcile with ideas that are contrary to God’s revelation, how is this difference in ideas to be expressed? Keyes distinguished different levels of meaning. “Small meanings” satisfy everyday needs, we choose food, clothing, housing, etc. to suit our needs and desires. With small meanings, we share much with other people by our “common creation.” “Middle meanings” are moral meanings. These meanings “help us mediate between the small meanings.” Keyes observed that even though Europe has become very secular, the influence of the Ten Commandments remains widespread. It’s possible that non-Christians there, following the inherited culture, may make better moral choices in some situations than individual Christians. “Large meanings” are “worldview level commitments.” Worldviews consist of three elements: 1) “what exists, 2) what’s the matter with the world?, and 3) what is the solution?” Although this is a fundamental level of difference, there “can be many common threads and themes” between religions and belief systems, but also “real and irreconcilable differences.”

How do we show “tolerance and love to those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ?” Keyes asked. He mentioned first, legal tolerance. Legal tolerance by Christians for those they disagreed with developed slowly. The difference between church and state authority was a development of Jesus teaching of our different duties to God and Caesar. Keyes believes that the parable of the wheat and tares was intended by Jesus to say that the church should not have coercive power in society, but that that properly belongs to the state. On the other hand, the state may not regulate matters of belief and conscience. Keyes quoted law professor John Inazu of Washington University in St. Louis, who describes the First Amendment as “a mutual nonaggression pact with things we don’t like.”

Evangelism and charity show love to all persons. Keyes said that although evangelism is decried by secularists as a kind of “imperialism,” it is really the result of the two great commandments stated by Jesus, to love God and to love our neighbor. This is not the “new tolerance,” since it involves the claim that not all religions are the same, and people need to pursue truth and righteousness in their lives. But even with this difference, there remain large areas of concern for the common good that Christians may share in common with different groups of non-Christians, and action on these common interests should be part of advancing the kingdom of God.

Tolerance and love are also important in the church, Keyes said. New Testament church meetings were open to all, but the sacraments were open only the believing Christians. “Church discipline happened when … a Christian was persistently doing something” that was against the will of God. The church in Corinth, notably, was “much too tolerant and much too lax about church discipline.” But “the whole rationale of church discipline” is to bring the sinner to repentance and to “re-include” them in the Christian fellowship. “The whole emphasis is on the person, to accept the person, to do everything we can to bring the person back, while rejecting the person’s behavior or ideas.”

The New Testament “does not include a blueprint for Christian culture,” Keyes said. It gives “enormous space, enormous room to move … [in] the way we are to live our lives.” But, this writer would add, the commands of Christ and the apostles do give us definite absolutes to live by. As Keyes maintained, we must then live in fellowship with other Christians led by the Spirit of God. Keyes referred to distinctions drawn by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein between “a statement that is vague, and a statement that is imprecise.” A vague statement tells us in general what to do, an imprecise statement tells us exactly what to do but does not specify all we need to know to follow the instruction. Keyes believes that Christians have misinterpreted vague statements in the Bible as imprecise statements. We should be careful not to add to Biblical precepts, attempting to make the Bible more specific than it is, just as we should not subtract from Biblical precepts.

Keyes proposed divine commands that concern creation may be properly incorporated into secular law, whereas divine commands relating to religious belief and practice should not be incorporated into secular law. How we argue religiously derived proposals for the wider society matters – in much of the country, one cannot persuade by quoting Scripture. “Secular categories” must be appealed to.

In response to a question, Keyes said that relativists should admit that they are being exclusivist in condemning traditional Christians for being exclusivists. Without this admission, they will appear tolerant and traditionalists will appear intolerant. When people admit that they speak from absolute principles, discussion is possible. Tolerance of people who disagree with Christian beliefs and values must never be confused with the equality of ideas, an impossible position for either Christians or non-Christians to maintain.


 A Personal Note:
I was privileged to serve on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Religion and Democracy for several years shortly after it was established in 1981.  It was a privilege because I served with such men as the Reverend James Henry, Pastor Richard Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Weigel.  – Abyssum
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE TOLERANT IN A WAY THAT IS TRULY PLEASING TO GOD ???

BISHOP FELLAY SHEDS SOME LIGHT ON RECENT RUMORS CONCERNING SSPX AND ROME

SSPXnews & events

 

Bp. Fellay Discusses Prelature Rumors

March 07, 2017

In a sermon given in Poland last Friday, Bishop Bernard Fellay commented on the situation between the SSPX and Rome and recent rumors.

Rome: A City of Rumor

Bishop Fellay addressed the rumor that the SSPX is purchasing property in Rome in order to relocate from its headquarters in Menzingen. This is fake news, as we earlier reported:

There have been plans for a purchase in Rome, there are some now and there will be others, as long as a firm acquisition has not been finalized. On the other hand, to respond to the ‘revelations’ in the press, there is no plan to purchase a building complex at Santa Maria Immacolata all’Esquilino, as Matteo Matzuzzi writes.”

Bishop Fellay confirmed that the SSPX intends to buy a church in Rome, but the sale of the building the SSPX is interested in, belonging to a Community of Sisters, depends on the Congregation for the Religious.

A Personal Prelature

Bishop Fellay then commented on a project of Personal Prelature which had been offered to the SSPX in the summer of 2015. As he already said on January 26, 2016, such a canonical structure fits the needs and the actual apostolate and presence of the Society all over the world. He revealed that the written proposal given to the SSPX foresees that prelate should be a bishop. How would the prelate be designated? The Pope would choose amongst the three names presented by the SSPX through its own elections. It is also foreseen, said Bishop Fellay, that other auxiliary bishops would be given to the Society.

Everything that exists now will be recognized all over the world. And the faithful also! They will be in this Prelature with the right to receive the sacraments and teachings from the Society’s priests. It will be also possible to receive religious congregations, as it is in a diocese: Capuchins, Benedictines, Carmelites, and others. This prelature is a Catholic structure which is not under the [authority of the local] bishops. It is autonomous.”

Doctrinal Steps Needed

For Bishop Fellay, however, there is a development even more important and interesting than this project of canonical structure: a change happening inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The SSPX could maintain its objections to religious liberty, ecumenism, and the New Mass. These outgrowths from the Council are not considered as binding anymore or as conditions to be recognized as Catholic.

Bishop Fellay alludes here to the declarations of Archbishop Pozzo about the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council which is not anymore—according to Pozzo—required to be Catholic. The same has been repeated by those bishops (See: Cardinal Brandmüller and Bishop Schneider’s visits) who visited the SSPX seminaries in 2015 according to the plan agreed on in the 2014 meeting with the Cardinal Muller.

According to Bishop Fellay, “in the discussions we had with the bishops sent by Rome, they have told us ‘these questions are open questions.’”

Unpredictability and disagreement within the Vatican has become the norm.

Chaos and Reaction

Why did Rome change? Bishop Fellay offered his opinion that it is due to the gravity of the situation in the Church; the real chaos that is now running loose within her. Bishop Fellay illustrated it by reporting the comments of Cardinal Muller asking the SSPX to join his fight against the modernists. Meanwhile, the Congregation for the Religious still considers the SSPX as schismatic and yet Pope Francis says that the SSPX is Catholic.

There is much contradiction, there is a battle between the bishops, among the cardinals, this is a new situation…Rome is no longer one, it is divided. And in such a way that some see that things have gone too far. And they say ‘you have to do something, you have to resist.’”

Bishop Fellay mentions also the support and letters he received from Bishops. He had made the same comments to Dici earlier this year.

As for the other bishops, “there are others who speak, who resist, we are not alone.” According to Bishop Fellay “a whole work of renewal of the Church [that] has begun.”

At the same time, Bishop Fellay is not blind:

It does not mean that we go forward, we must go with great prudence and also secure our future to be able to prevent any possibility of trap. Therefore we are not running in this situation.”

Pope Francis and the SSPX

Of course Bishop Fellay mentions also the paradoxical interest Pope Francis has for the SSPX.

 A pope who does not care for doctrine, who looks at the people, and who has known us in Argentina. And he appreciated our work in Argentina. And that’s why he sees us with a good disposition while in the same time he is against conservatism. This is like a contradiction. But I have been able to verify several times that he really does things personally for us.”

Concluding, Bp. Fellay says he does not know if or when a recognition of the Society will happen:

So whether or not we are going to get an upcoming recognition, I do not know, I do not think so, but the pope can make a surprise. It seems impossible, as he already did it several times. Then we must continue to pray much, to ask our Protectress, the Blessed Virgin Mary to continue to lead us.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on BISHOP FELLAY SHEDS SOME LIGHT ON RECENT RUMORS CONCERNING SSPX AND ROME

THIS PICTURE OF AMERICA SHOULD CAUSE US TO REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN LIBERAL OR AMERICA’S FUTURE IS DARK

unnamed-2

WORLDVIEW SURVEY REVEALS “IRRECONCILABLE” DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

Those who have wondered why conservatives and liberals seem to have irreconcilable differences need wonder no more. The Worldview Measurement Project conducted by the American Culture and Faith Institute shows how vastly different the core beliefs of those two segments have become.

Ideology and Theology

Drawing from a nationwide survey of adults that measured how many people have a biblical worldview, the research discovered that people who are politically conservative are more than twice as likely as those who are politically liberal to have biblical positions on the twenty belief indicators tested by ACFI. In addition, the survey found that political conservatives are about 60% more likely to hold biblical positions on those indicators than are those who qualify as politically moderate.

There were 15 belief statements among the 20 included in the survey for which conservatives were substantially more likely than liberals to hold a biblical point of view – that is, a difference between the two groups of at least 25 percentage points. Those included the following differences:

  • Saying that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who still rules it today (a 43 percentage point difference between the two segments)
  • Strongly agreeing that the main purpose of life is to know, love, and serve God (40-point gap)
  • Asserting that everyone is a sinner in need of a savior, repentance and forgiveness (39-point difference)
  • Believing that the Bible is the word of God, with no errors (38-point gap)
  • Strongly disagreeing that Satan does not exist but is just a symbol of evil (36-point gap)
  • Saying that God created human beings in what is pretty much their present form, just as the Bible says (34-point difference)
  • Strongly agreeing that the Bible is totally accurate in the life principles it conveys (33-point gap)
  • Believing that God is aware of everything happening and remains actively involved in peoples’ lives (33-point difference)
  • Believing that the Bible is the most reliable source of absolute moral truth (32-point gap)
  • Believing that the most important indicator of personal success in life is one’s commitment and obedience to God (31-point difference)
  • Believing that success is best indicated by commitment and obedience to God (31-point difference)
  • Firmly asserting that their religious faith is very important to them (31-point gap)
  • Contending that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging (30-point difference)
  • Saying it is very important to be engaged in developing a deeper relationship with God (27-point difference)
  • Saying it is very important to increase their personal understanding of God’s ways, as described in the Bible (27-point gap)

Those statistics reveal that conservatives and liberals have substantially different perspectives on such central beliefs as the nature and influence of God; the reliability of the Bible; the definition of success in life; the existence of moral absolutes; the purpose of life; the centrality of faith; and the existence of evil.

People who classify themselves as neither conservative nor liberal on political matters tend to fall somewhere between the positions of conservatives and liberals on spiritual and worldview questions. The ACFI data shows, however, that these political “moderates” are typically positioned more closely to the liberal point of view than to the conservative outlook.

The survey also pointed out that among the twenty different belief statements only one of those was embraced by a majority of the adult population. A slight majority (55%) believes it is very important to develop a deeper relationship with God.

Inevitable Division

Noting that our core spiritual beliefs are central to determining our self-image, our character, and how we live, researcher George Barna expanded on the importance of the survey results.

“The bottom line is that we do what we deeply believe,” Barna commented. “Imploring people to just get along by compromising their convictions is not a realistic call to action. These beliefs form the core of peoples’ worldview, which is the filter through which they experience, understand, and respond to the world. Their worldview helps them makes sense of reality and gives them a way of reacting to situations that is consistent with what they believe is right and appropriate. You cannot compromise your convictions and feel good about yourself. The only way we can get people to come together in a more meaningful, honest and peaceful fashion is by addressing the worldview that is responsible for peoples’ choices.”

The ACFI survey revealed that the link between ideology and beliefs helps explain the recent election results. “Election surveys have pointed out how significant people’s candidate preference in the presidential race was to their hopes for the future,” said Barna. “In that light, the Worldview Measurement Project surveys demonstrate the power of worldview, even in elections. Among all adults, those with a biblical worldview were more likely to vote than were those who did not. That is because a biblical worldview informs people that participating in the direction and leadership of society is a personal duty. Further, among voters who have a biblical worldview, 68% voted for Donald Trump and 27% voted for Hillary Clinton. Their primary motivation had to do with restoring traditional moral values. Among voters who do not have a biblical worldview, Mrs. Clinton held a 47% to 44% edge. She was the preference of those without a biblical worldview primarily in the hope of adopting more postmodern values.

“These people are not merely accepting the party line. They are expressing their view of the world. The only viable route to creating political accord on the divisive issues of the day is to facilitate adjustments to their worldview.”

Barna further indicated that a quick resolution to the “culture war” plaguing America is impossible. “This confrontation has been in the making for the last 50 years. The fact that it is coming into focus now reflects our past unwillingness to admit that our choices have consequences. The implications of the choices that we, as a society, have made since the mid-Sixties, in terms of parenting, education, media exposure, religious training, and political influence, are now inescapable. Because a person’s worldview is developed before their teen years, it takes a while for that process to bear its fruit. But the divisiveness we have in the United States today did not emerge overnight. It is the outgrowth of the principles and values that were taught to our children over the last 50 years. Now that they are adults, we are seeing the impact of those choices.

“And in the same way that it took a long time for those choices to produce results,” Barna concluded, “it will take several decades of intentional development of children to alter the direction in which America is moving these days.”

The survey is part of the Worldview Measurement Project, which will be conducted every February to assess the state of America’s worldview. The current study is the first in that project and will be used as a benchmark for comparison in future years.

About the Research

The research described in this report is from FullView™, a national public opinion study conducted by the American Culture and Faith Institute (ACFI) among a nationwide random sample of adults. The FullView™ survey was conducted February 1-5, 2017, with 1,000 respondents age 18 or older whose demographic profile reflects that of the United States.

The American Culture & Faith Institute is a division of United in Purpose, a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The mission of United in Purpose is to educate, motivate and activate conservative Christians to engage in cultural transformation in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The organization does not support or promote individual political candidates or parties.

Additional information about this study and related research is accessible on the American Culture & Faith Institute website, located at http://www.culturefaith.com. To receive a free copy of the weekly research reports produced by ACFI, visit the website and register for the American Culture Review newsletter.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE ONLY REASON I AM POSTING THIS IS BECAUSE, AS ONE SUFFERING FROM MACULAR DEGENERATION, I DEEPLY EMPATHIZE WITH ALL OF THE PATIENTS WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF THIS FRAUD

Jury Selection Begins in $190 Million Medicare Fraud Trial, Tied to Criminal Charges Against Democratic Sen. Menendez

Jury selection began on Monday in a federal district court in West Palm Beach, Florida in the trial of Salmon Melgen, “where he faces 76 counts charging him with stealing up to $190 million from Medicare between 2004 and 2013,” the SunSentinel reported.

Melgen was indicted on April 15, 2015 in a “Medicare fraud scheme that prosecutors said attempted to bilk the health care program out of as much as $190 million,” as the Associated Press reported at the time.

Two weeks earlier, on April 1, 2015, Melgen and his friend and political ally, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) were indicted on charges of public corruption.

Menendez (pictured) “was accused of using his office to improperly benefit a Florida eye doctor and political donor who provided him with trips aboard his luxury jet,” Associated Press reported. The eye doctor is Melgen.

“The indictment from a federal grand jury in New Jersey charged the senator with 14 counts, including bribery and conspiracy, over his ties to Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy doctor and the politician’s longtime friend [who] . . .also was charged in the case,” the Associated Press noted.

This fall, both men are expected to stand trial on the public corruption charges in a New Jersey federal district court. That is enough of a delay to conclude Melgen’s Medicare fraud trial, and Menendez’s bid to have the indictment thrown out by the Supreme Court, which is currently pending.

Menendez, first elected to the United States Senate from New Jersey in 2006, “is ramping up his political activity in anticipation of a 2018 reelection bid, even as he faces a September trial on multiple federal corruption charges. Menendez hosted a holiday party on Dec. 11 with an invite list that political adviser Michael Soliman called a “veritable who’s who of New Jersey elected officials, opinion-shapers, friends and supporters,’ ” Politico reported in late December:

Menendez is also planning fundraising trips to California, Florida and Texas in the first quarter of 2017, according to Soliman.

“He intends to run and run aggressively for reelection,” Soliman said in an email. “There is absolutely nothing that would indicate that this is a United States senator who is contemplating retirement.”

His friend and long-time political contributor, Melgen, faces a difficult legal road ahead.

“Prosecutors say he prescribed unneeded treatments, filed claims for procedures he never performed and charged for medicine he never purchased. If convicted, the 62-year-old doctor faces up to 610 years in prison,” according to the SunSentinel, which noted:

He is free on $18 million bond. . .

Prosecutors in the Florida case declined comment, but say in court documents that Melgen turned his practice into an assembly line, seeing up to 100 patients a day. In 2012, Melgen received more Medicare reimbursement than any doctor in the country, nearly $21 million.

Melgen’s attorneys also declined comment. Melgen has pleaded not guilty.

When Melgen was first indicted on the Medicare fraud charges April 15, 2015, “The indictment charge[d] that he operated the fraud scheme between 2004 and 2013, a time frame during which Melgen billed Medicare for more than $190 million and was paid more than $105 million. In 2012 alone, health official say he billed Medicare more than any other doctor in the nation at $21 million,” as the Associated Press reported at the time.

If convicted of all charges in the Medicare fraud case, Melgen could face up to 600 years in prison.

Should he be found innocent of all charges, Melgen and his co-indictee, Sen. Menendez, face serious charges in their public corruption case if the Supreme Court does not decide in Menendez’s favor.

In September, Breitbart News reported, “Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has lost his final opportunity for a federal appeals court to spare him from multiple corruption indictments, leaving him with only the hope of an intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid a trial on 22 felonies that could send him to prison for years.”

In February, the Associated Press reported that “Government attorneys are pushing back against New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez’s attempts to have his corruption indictment thrown out.”

They filed a response this week to the Democratic senator’s filing seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear his appeal.

Menendez is accused of using his influence in exchange for gifts and political donations from a wealthy Florida eye doctor. Menendez has argued his actions were covered under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects lawmakers when they are performing legislative duties.

In its brief this week, the government wrote that the clause is limited to acts that are “integral to the legislative process” and not to attempts to influence government agencies. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, a trial could take place this fall.

Menendez and Melgen have separate representation in the public corruption case, and if the Supreme Court throws out the corruption indictment against Menendez, Melgen would likely remain as a defendant in the case.

In 2013, Breitbart News reported on the FBI raid of Melgen’s medical offices during its investigations of Melgen’s Medicare practices:

Earlier this year, the FBI raided the medical offices of Dr. Salomon Melgen, seizing documents to investigate suspicions that he was overbilling Medicare. The Miami Herald reported, earlier this month, that one of the red flags that launched the Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) investigation was Melgen’s alleged practice of dividing a single vial of the expensive liquid drug Lucentis into four doses and billing Medicare for each dose. A vial is intended by the manufacturer to generate a single dose in the treatment of macular degeneration. A medical expert told Breitbart News that Melgen’s alleged practice is highly unusual.

Dr. Michael Repka, Medical Director of Governmental Affairs of the American Academy of Opthalmology, told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview “it doesn’t seem possible you could get four doses [of Lucentis] out of a single vial. I would think that is hard to understand.” Repka noted that he was not commenting on the Melgen investigation, but was providing general information about standard practices among opthalmologists for the use of Lucentis in the treatment of macular degeneration.

Melgen’s friendship with and substantial political donations to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are at the center of an ever expanding political scandal that has prompted the New York Times to call for Menendez’s removal from the Chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

As Breitbart News reported in 2013, Melgen’s attorneys  at the time claimed he “[simply] differed with the program over its reimbursement policy for Lucentis.”

“But the CMS reimbursement policy for the use of Lucentis is straightforward and not especially prone to misunderstanding on the part of opthalmologists, who use two drugs for the treatment of macular degeneration. Lucentis, which costs doctors $2,000 per vial, is FDA approved for use in treatment of macular degeneration. Avastin, which costs doctors a mere $50 per vial, is FDA approved, but not yet for the treatment of macular degeneration. Both drugs are manufactured by biotech giant Genentech,” Breitbart News noted then:

CMS has established the billing protocol for opthalmologists who purchase either Avastin or Lucentis for use in the treatment of patients with macular degeneration. Doctors are allowed to bill Medicare the “average selling price” of the medicine plus 6 per cent. In the case of a patient treated with a single vial of Lucentis, the opthalmologist would bill Medicare $2,000 plus 6%, or $2,120 for the medicine. When the doctor uses Avastin instead of Lucentis, the bill submitted to Medicare would be $50 plus 6%, or $53.

The Herald reported that Dr. Melgen uses Lucentis to treat macular degeneration patients “more than any other ophthalmologist in Florida and possibly the country. His high patient volume also raised red flags for investigators. ” That high usage prompted the formal investigation focused on potential Medicare overbilling. Specifically, the Herald reported that “Melgen is suspected of using one vial for as many as four patients, while submitting claims of up to $8,000, as if he had used separate vials for each, according to sources familiar with the billing dispute.”

“Instead of billing Medicare at a rate equal to the “average sale price” plus 6% for the approved use of a single vial (which would have generated a reimbursement of $2,120), Melgen is suspected of squeezing four doses out of a single vial, and billing Medicare $8,000 plus 6%, or $8,480. Doctors who play by the straightforward CMS billing policy make a $120 profit on each vial of Lucentis they purchase. A doctor who violates the CMS billing policy and charges $8,480 would make a $6,480 profit on each vial of Lucentis they purchase,” Breitbart News reported in that 2013 article.

 

I just received the following comment from a regular reader of this blog who wishes to remain anonymous. – Abyssum

Dear Bishop Gracida,

How I empathize with you!  Before her death, my dear mother suffered

from macular degeneration for 11 or 12 years, and this man was her

doctor.  My sister and I took turns taking my mother to her doctors, and

it wasn’t more than a couple years into the Melgen visits that I realized

what was going on in that literal assembly line place.  But my mother
wasn’t convinced, and she begged me not to do anything because “he
saved my sight.”  She had only peripheral vision in one eye and quite
low vision in the other. 

 

Finally at the visit following one where they had thrown in another new
and obnoxious treatment, I told the tech that we did not want the new one

anymore.  It caused a stir, of course, with the office manager or somebody

coming to question me, at which time I came right out and said:  The 

doctor NEVER looks at any of these wildly expensive pictures of the eye

before he sees the patient.  It’s unnecessary, it causes my mother to turn

yellow for three days, and it’s Medicare fraud!  Well, from then on, I was
officially the enemy.  I do hope this man gets his just deserts.

 

You are in my prayers, dear Bishop!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WHAT DO KARL MARX, BISHOP McELROY,CHE GUEVARA,FIDEL CASTRO, FRANCIS,BARACK OBAMA,SAUL ALINSKY, DANIEL ORTEGA AND HUGO CHAVEZ HAVE IN COMMON ???????

Featured Image
Jesus and violent Marxist Che Guavera 
John Zmirak

 

Fri Mar 3, 2017 – 5:42 pm EST

LifeSiteNews

These US Catholic bishops promise to ‘disrupt’ Trump

March 3, 2017 (Stream.org) – Imagine if your teenage son’s pastor had told him to apply “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off,” by applying a buzzsaw to his own right wrist. You’d yank your son out of that group and start making some phone calls.

That same sense of alarm and horror is what we should feel when we learn that influential Christians have interpreted our faith in some deeply misguided way which will do grave harm to them and others {emphasis by Abyssum}.

A Cabal of Catholic Leftists

Cardinal Peter Turkson and twenty-four American Catholic bishops have recently endorsed a political program that is dangerous, unbiblical, un-Catholic and uncharitable. In fact it is soaked in ideological rage, and explicitly aligns itself with the anti-Trump movements to “disrupt” the president’s enforcement of U.S. law {emphasis by Abyssum}. At least one of the bishops present, Robert McElroy of San Diego, has promised that the church he controls will actively help flout U.S. immigration laws.

This program was laid out at the First U.S. Regional Meeting of Popular Movements, which happened two weeks ago, and summed up in a manifesto called “Message from Modesto.” That “Meeting” included not just the cardinal and the bishops, but staff from the Vatican department for the Promotion of Integral Human Development and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development [CCHD] {The staff of the CCHD has been left/liberal almost from its beginning and is notorious for funding Alinsky type organizations – Abyssum}.

The CCHD is the organization that radical Saul Alinsky personally helped left-wing Catholics to design, as the exposé A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing documents. The Chicago branch of the CCHD, with the approval of then Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, cut the check that sent the young Barack Obama to his first Saul Alinsky “community organizing” school.

Another group that took part in the “Meeting”  was PICO, the Latin American far-left organization that used George Soros’ money  to spin Pope Francis’ 2015 U.S. visit as a boost to Democrats in the 2016 election {emphasis by Abyssum}.

This statement wasn’t affiliated with the U.S. bishops conference; it seems to be a trial balloon floated by left wing members of that conference, who hope to get it adopted down the line by the whole bishops’ group. If that happened, it would entirely discredit the Catholic church’s political witness in America.

We Want Total Equality, Open Borders, and a Pony

The manifesto which the 24 bishops endorsed calls for policies that would put it at the far left of the Democratic Party. For instance, it claims that

  • “[E]very human is sacred with equal claim to safe water, education, health care, housing and family-sustaining jobs.” {This is madness!  Socialism at its clearest!!!  It could have been written by Bernie Sanders. Abyssum}

The authors say nothing about freedom or private property rights. So apparently an “equal claim” means “a claim to equal” education, health care, etc. If every person on earth deserves the same level of all these scarce goods, it’s the job of the government and the United Nations to equalize the wealth. In domestic terms, that means Catholic support for Obamacare, the further leveling down of education, a much higher minimum wage and more aggressive federal colonization of middle class neighborhoods with low-income housing {emphasis by Abyssum}.

  • “Our economy is meant to be in service of people, not profit.”

Okay, strictly speaking this is meaningless, so it’s impossible to critique it. To the extent that this misty-eyed rhetoric gropes at something real, it is socialism, which five popes have condemned because it destroys the lives and freedom of “people,” as it’s doing right now in Venezuela.

  • “Racism and all forms of human hierarchy, whether based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, arrest and conviction records, immigration status, religion or ethnicity are immoral.”

So every form of distinction we make among people is equally as evil as racism. It’s sinful to distinguish at the polling place between illegal aliens and legal voting citizens; in hiring between murderers and veterans; in seminary admissions between gay and straight men.

  • “The lack of good jobs, affordable housing and clean water and air is literally killing people. Racism is stripping Black, Latino, Asian, Muslim and Native people of their humanity and fueling police abuse and mass incarceration, and fueling a crisis of homelessness and displacement. Raids and Trump Administration Executive Orders are scapegoating immigrants and ripping families apart.”

Does this seem to you like a fair description of life in today’s America? Why do millions of people want to leave countries like Mexico, and risk their lives to illegally enter such a dystopian nightmare society? If the countries they’re leaving are even worse, why does this Message say nothing about the far worse injustices there? Really, all that matters here to the authors is the immigration claim. They clearly believe that criminal aliens who happen to have American relatives have an absolute right to stay in America, no matter what. Or else we’d be “ripping families apart.”

  • “[A] small elite is growing wealthy and powerful off the suffering of our families. Racism and White Supremacy are America’s original sins. They continue to justify a system of unregulated capitalism that idolizes wealth accumulation over human needs.”

The only elite that really profits from illegal immigration are stockholders in companies that exploit their labor, who strongly oppose Trump’s efforts to enforce our laws. But the authors of this statement couldn’t be bothered to know that. They don’t even know that American capitalism is so hobbled and harassed that our country has dropped to number 17 on the Index of Economic Freedom, its lowest ranking ever.

This is the point in the Message where Bluto (of Animal House) says, “We didn’t give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!” and Pinto waves off the error: “He’s on a roll.”

  • “The system’s gangrene cannot be whitewashed forever because sooner or later the stench becomes too strong; and when it can no longer be denied, the same power that spawned this state of affairs sets about manipulating fear, insecurity, quarrels, and even people’s justified indignation, in order to shift the responsibility for all these ills onto a ‘non-neighbor.’”

This quote, which the Message cites, isn’t from Fidel Castro or Black Lives Matter. It’s from a message of support which Pope Francis wrote and sent the attendees at the “Meeting.” {EMPHASIS BY ABYSSUM}
 

A Bishop Promises to Disrupt Trump’s Presidency

Next come the hard-headed policy proposals, where the authors scrupulously and calmly apply their dispassionate moral analysis, to seek the most prudent way to implement the moral claims they have made, without violating people’s rights or disrupting public order. Right?

No, of course not. Next comes the section where they grandstand and promise to cooperate with destructive radicals in flouting American law. The authors continue:

  • We urge every faith community, including every Catholic parish, to declare themselves a sanctuary for people facing deportation …. All cities, counties and states should adopt policies that get ICE out of our schools, courts and jails, stop handing over people to ICE…
  • We must put our bodies, money and institutional power at risk to protect our families and communities, using tools that include boycotts, strikes, and non-violent civil disobedience. As Bishop Robert McElroy said to us, “We must disrupt those who would seek to send troops into our communities to deport the undocumented, to destroy our families. We must disrupt those who portray refugees as enemies. We must disrupt those who train us to see Muslim men & women as a source of threat rather than children of God. We must disrupt those who would take away healthcare, who would take food from our children.
  • We ask our Catholic Bishops to write a covenant that spells out specific actions that dioceses and parishes should take to protect families in the areas of immigration, racism, jobs, housing and the environment.
  • We propose to develop a shared curriculum and popular education program to equip people with analysis and tools to transform the world. We will focus on the development and leadership of young people. We will draw on the wisdom of our faith and cultural traditions, including Catholic Social Teaching. We recognize that our spiritual and political selves are inseparable. We have a moral obligation to confront and disrupt injustice.
  • To defend our families and protect our values we must build political power. We must change the electorate to reflect our communities, through massive efforts to reach out to tens of millions of voters who are ignored and taken for granted by candidates and parties. We must hold elected officials accountable to the common good and encourage people in our communities to take leadership themselves, including running for office, so that we can govern the communities in which we live.

{President Obama should direct the IRS to cancel the 501-c-3 tax exemption status of the Bishop McElroy’s diocese and the diocese of every bishop that signed off on this Modesto Manifest. – Abyssum}

A Shrill, Moralistic, Adolescent Tantrum

Do the Cardinal and all those U.S. bishops, and all those Vatican officials, endorse the Message’s sentiments as authentic Christian statesmanship? As sophisticated moral counsel? As a prudent means to obey Jesus’ command to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?”

What’s asserted in the Message from Modesto is madness, plain and simple. It is shrill, moralistic nonsense you might expect from an angry teenager who’d been reading Marxist websites and going through hormone surges. It’s every bit as absurd as the Tradinista Manifesto. Put plainly, if the program of the “Message from Modesto” really were what Christianity demanded, we should all convert back to Judaism.

Happily it isn’t. I could devote a whole book to proving that — and in fact, I have: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. Let me offer an apropos quote from it:

Pope Leo XIII and his successors … solemnly condemned every system of socialism. Let’s give those popes the credit for being prophets: Long before the gulag, and the famines and purges that decimated Russia, China, North Korea and Cambodia, these theologically educated men predicted such disasters. But the popes relied on more than logic; they also had the lessons of history, in the form of the crackpot millenarian movements that erupted in late Medieval Europe, composed of outraged peasants and self-appointed messiahs, who began as penitents trying to ward off the plague by scourging themselves and ended as armed mobs that massacred Jews and merchants, creating short-lived tyrannies that tried to abolish liberty, property, and (frequently) the family.

Similar movements emerged during the Radical Reformation, as part of the Peasants’ Revolt, which gave the leaders of Protestantism the chance to condemn such madness, which they did. The only way to conclude that utopian leftist collectivism is the proper implication of the Gospel is to ignore all of Christian history, and pretend that you are the first person ever to read the New Testament. Or at least that you’re one of the holiest.

{Abyssum knows more than a little about Fidel Castro and Che Guevara since he served in the Archdiocese of Miami for 14 years and was a friend of may Cuban refugees from Fidel Castro’s ‘paradise.’  Not the least source of his information came from his secretary who had been the secretary to Che Guevara during his years in Cuba and after he went to Bolivia she became a refugee in Miami and my secretary.  Abyssum}

{We are apparently rapidly approaching the End Times !!!  Abyssum}

This article was originally published Feb. 25 on The Stream. org and is re-published with permission.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

YOU HAVE NO IDEA JUST HOW GREAT YOUR DEBT IS TO SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas and His Greatest Work

Google+PinterestPocket

The Church has told us countless times to go to St. Thomas for guidance in matters of philosophy and theology.  Over the centuries this authoritative counsel has been a source of motivation for countless schools and seminaries, teachers and scholars.  But just who was this saint, what were the main lines of his life, and what are the characteristics of his major works?  Such questions are ever more relevant as fewer know their answers.  That is the reason for the following all-too-brief account.

*          *          *

The seventh son of a noble family, Thomas was born in 1225 at Roccasecca in Italy, near Aquino, not far from the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, where as a boy he received instruction in liberal arts, literature, and catechism.  At the age of 14, Thomas commenced his undergraduate studies at the University of Naples, where newly-discovered works of Aristotle were studied more eagerly and freely than was the case in Paris.  In Naples he encountered radiant friars of the newly-founded Order of Preachers, whose life of poverty and preaching he embraced in 1244.  His parents having already marked out their son as future abbot of Monte Cassino enriched with all rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, Thomas’s decision to join a band of poor itinerant preachers was not greeted with enthusiasm.  Thomas was kidnapped by his brothers and kept for a year at the family estate to get him to change his mind, but he remained firm in his resolve.

In the autumn of 1245, Friar Thomas entered the University of Paris, where he began a period of studies under the tutelage of Albert the Great, a Dominican famed for his encyclopedic knowledge and his proficiency in Aristotle.  Thomas accompanied Albert to Cologne in 1248 to continue his studies, and there he was ordained to the priesthood.  As Thomas was a quiet and studious pupil with a stout physique, he earned at this time the nickname “dumb ox”; yet Albert, impressed by his pupil’s unusual gifts, is said to have remarked: “We call him the dumb ox, but the bellowing of that ox will resound throughout the whole world.”  Returning to Paris in 1252 to complete his advanced degree, he was granted special permission in 1256 to take a chair in theology at the University, despite protests from the incumbent professors who distrusted Dominican and Franciscan “upstarts.”

Under orders from his superiors, Thomas went to Italy in 1259 to spend several years working for his order and for the papal court.  During this time he produced the first of his great mature works, the Summa contra gentiles (a summary of Catholic theology refuting pagan and heretical errors), and worked on numerous other projects, including a line-by-line commentary on the four Gospels, the Catena aurea, woven mainly from Patristic sources.  This work reveals a marvellous familiarity with both Latin and Greek Fathers: Thomas drew upon 22 of the former and a whopping 57 of the latter.

Meanwhile, intense theological controversies were brewing in Paris, owing in large part to an extreme Aristotelianism that threatened to divorce reason from faith, and an equally extreme conservatism that could not come to grips with newly discovered pagan learning.  In response to the crisis, Thomas, again at his superiors’ request, returned to that city in 1268 for an unusual second term or “regency” as professor of theology.

“Straw” worth saving

Among the duties of a medieval professor was the holding of strenuous public debates or quaestiones disputatae at which all faculty and advanced students were present as interlocutors.  The “determination” of the questions was left to the master, who, on the day following the dispute, handed down his considered judgment on the issues.  Either a glutton for punishment or an angel in superhuman endurance, Thomas initiated numerous debates in both of his regencies, sometimes to clarify pressing questions of the day (for example, the true nature of evangelical poverty; the immateriality of angels; the personal possession of intellect), and other times to advance the knowledge of traditional subjects (truth, the soul, evil, divine power).  At the end of his Roman period and the beginning of his second Parisian regency, Thomas began work on his monumental Summa theologiae; but, as if this project and the academic debates were not enough to keep him busy, he produced at the same time a series of detailed commentaries on the major works of Aristotle to help out struggling students.  Throughout his career, Friar Thomas also responded generously to requests for his “expert opinion” on legal, canonical, philosophical, or theological topics—advice he was well qualified to give, having committed to heart the Bible as well as the writings of the Fathers and the philosophers.  (It was said that when Friar Thomas first arrived at a monastery or priory he had never been to before, his first stop was at the chapel, and, immediately afterwards, he was off to the library to seek out any books he had not seen before.  Having secured these volumes, he promptly committed their contents to memory.)

After a tremendous mystical experience traditionally said to have occurred on the feast of St. Nicholas (December 6) in 1273, Thomas found himself utterly unable to write or dictate any more of the Summa.  “All I have written now seems like straw in comparison with what I have seen,” he told his secretary Reginald of Piperno.  “Straw” refers to the chaff, the outer husk, as compared with its kernel or inner core; Thomas felt keenly that limited human words were utterly inadequate to the infinite mystery of the God whose glory had been opened for a moment to his eyes.[1]  Thomas became ill en route to the General Council of Lyons and died, on March 7, 1274, at the Cistercian monastery of Fossanova after having received the last sacraments.  His final words in the presence of the Blessed Eucharist are well worth pondering: “I receive Thee, price of my soul’s redemption, I receive Thee, viaticum of my pilgrimage, for love of whom I have studied, watched, labored; I have preached Thee, I have taught Thee. . .if I have taught anything poorly on this sacrament or the others, I submit it to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience to which I leave this life.”

In a time such as ours when routine disobedience to the teaching of the Church has become the norm among clerics in many dioceses, we are rightly amazed and challenged by the sheer self-denial and humility implied in Friar Thomas’s attitude at the threshold of his passing into eternal life.  Obedience is the only criterion for him, as it was for Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Thomas is completely detached from all his work, all his writings, all his life; he asks the Church to decide what is worth saving and what should be discarded.  The humanistic concept of authorship, which is not far from Pilate’s “what I have written, I have written,” is absent from his mind.  I am sure we could all use a dose of this unshakable confidence in the divinely-guided wisdom of the Catholic Church.

Thomas the Saint

Our picture of the life of this great thinker would be incomplete if we failed to remember several things about Thomas the saint.  As a “Master of Theology”—which in the Middle Ages meant one who had attained great proficiency in understanding and interpreting the Bible—Thomas not only taught classes on the word of God but preached many sermons, often to simple unlettered people, and wrote detailed commentaries on Scripture for the benefit of fellow preachers.  As those who knew him testified, Thomas was a man of palpable holiness, humble, obedient, and selfless in seeking the kingdom of God.  Nor was he a cold reasoner, however rationalistic some of his later disciples may have been.  In response to a request from Pope Urban IV he composed a magnificent Office for the Feast of Corpus Christi, containing hymns which are counted among the most beautiful specimens of medieval poetry, full of unction and tender devotion.

So well did he write on the angels and so pure was his practice of the Christian life that he earned the title “Angelic Doctor” soon after his death; and so profound were his contributions to sacred theology that he gained a greater title still: that of Common or Universal Doctor of the Church.  Canonized in 1323, Thomas thereafter received the accolades of every pope, many of whom put him forward authoritatively as the model and chief guide for students of theology—the most notable being Leo XIII, whose encyclical Aeterni Patris (1878) inaugurated a strong renewal in the study of St. Thomas which lasted well into this century.  In spite of false impressions to the contrary, the Magisterium has never revoked the preeminent status of St. Thomas, as the documents of Vatican II and of recent popes bear witness.

Synthesis of faith and reason

The hallmark of Thomas’s approach to theology is the synthesis of reason and faith.  To speak of such a synthesis means that sacred theology, while based firmly on the word of God, employs truths known by reason in order to understand more deeply the mysteries God has revealed and to refute errors concerning them.  More fundamentally, however, it means that both reason and revelation are gifts of God intended to illuminate one another as man progresses on his pilgrimage towards heaven.  There is always a certain reciprocity between them: is it possible to do away with reason when trying to grasp the meaning of revelation?  (If we are supposed to believe without question every wandering preacher who claims inspiration from the Holy Spirit, we would truly be the sorriest of creatures, persuaded one day only to be deceived the next.)  The full truth of the Gospel and the Church could not be discerned, much less embraced, unless the Holy Spirit was able to work within us, within our own powers of knowing and loving.  A man whose will and intellect were absolutely corrupted—deaf to any truth, hardened to all goodness—would be no different from a plank of wood.  God creates man with an immortal soul, a reasoning mind, a capacity to know the truth and choose the good; this is the very essence of man as imago Dei (image of God).  Sin damages human nature, it cannot corrupt its essence: “nature is wounded, not destroyed” (Augustine).  It is precisely what is good and uncorrupted in man that enables him to recognize the truth when he encounters it.  The grace of God does not work by external imposition but by a renewal of the inner man and all his faculties; it confers new sanctity and confirms old sanity, joining man to God and restoring man to himself.

It would thus be false to accuse St. Thomas of viewing the human intellect and will as if they were “unfallen.”  He is well aware that sin has wrought terrible damage, and that, however much man tries to acquire virtues and adhere to what is right, he cannot succeed without God’s help.  Thomas’s theology is centered on God alone, the first beginning and last end of all things (the First Part of the Summa theologiae); from this vantage, it focuses on man striving to perfect the imago Dei within him by a harmonious interaction of free will and grace (the Second Part of the Summa); and in between the infinite God and finite man stands the figure of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the Mediator who is God’s perfect self-revelation and the path and goal of human righteousness (the Third Part).  The fact that man can acquire natural knowledge of God shows that the Creator has remained, as he always was and is, closer to us than we to ourselves.  As St. Paul declared to the Athenians: “He is not far from each one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your poets have said, for we are indeed his offspring” (Acts 17:27-28).  Even the pagans are without excuse if they fail to gain true knowledge of God from His creation (Rom. 1:20-21, Wis. 13:1-9).  To prepare the way for revelation, God sows throughout the world seeds of truth which can take root and grow in human hearts, opening them towards the better seed of the Gospel whose fruit is everlasting life.

The confidence with which St. Thomas leans upon rational arguments must be understood within this greater context of God’s love for man, the Shepherd’s desire that no sheep should go astray.  There can be no darkness so dark that the divine light no longer shines in it.  This is also the context which enables us to appreciate the extensive use Thomas makes of pre-Christian philosophers.  Rather than dismiss them as unregenerate pagans, Thomas, in union with the entire Christian tradition up to his time, sees them as witnesses to the truths accessible in the Book of Nature, which, coming from the hand of a wise and loving God, can never contradict the Book of Revelation.  Just as the world is God’s work, so is the preaching of Christ; and just as reason is God’s first and most abiding gift to man, so the Gospel is reason’s ultimate salvation, not its destruction.  The pagans could not know the Savior who had not yet come or had not yet been preached, but, by following the footprints of God in the world, they did apprehend the existence of a sovereign spiritual being, supremely true and good, and in this way they too “preached an unknown God” (Acts 17:23) whom Christ made known in the fullness of time.  The wisdom of Jesus Christ is foolishness to the Gentiles only when they have closed their minds to God’s prior revelation of Himself in the world.

The Summa theologiae

The Summary of Theology, arguably the greatest work of St. Thomas and one of the most influential books in Catholic intellectual history, comprises some 3,122 articles or specific queries on doctrine, grouped into thematic questions.  Thomas set to work on this enormous project in the years 1265-66, and was nearing completion of the final portion in December 1273 when he underwent the aforementioned mystical experience that left him unable to write any further.  After Thomas’s death in March of 1274, his students completed the final portion, now referred to as the “Supplement,” by re-arranging material from his earlier commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.

The purpose of the Summa is stated in the opening prologue: the teacher of Catholic doctrine should instruct beginners in a manner and order that reflects the interrelationship of the various truths of the faith, avoiding useless repetition and confusing digressions.  The breadth and profundity of the Summa indicates the real intended audience: graduate students of theology who have already received a grueling training in logic, physics, metaphysics, and Sacred Scripture.  Although some segments of the Summa are directly accessible to nonspecialists, other segments are all but unintelligible without ample prior training.  For this reason, it is wiser for the modern beginner to read a trustworthy general introduction to the thought of St. Thomas along with a few of his easier works before moving on to tackle the Summa itself.

The overall structure of the work is one of beautiful simplicity: the first part (prima pars) speaks of God in Himself and God as the origin and goal of creation in its entirety, the second part (secunda pars) of man’s return to God by means of virtue and grace, and the third part (tertia pars) of Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life through whom man returns to God.  The work traces out a broad circle of going forth and coming back: the procession of all things from the Creator and the providentially orchestrated return of creation, especially of man, to God through the Mediator who is true God and true man.

The prima pars falls into three main sections: God in Himself (qq. 2–26), God as Trinity (qq. 27–43), and God as Creator (qq. 44–119); the last of these is in turn divided into three sections: the production of creatures (qq. 44–46), the distinction of creatures (qq. 47–102, wherein we find treatises on the angels, man, and other corporeal creatures), and the governance of creatures by divine providence (qq. 103–119).  The secunda pars is divided into two major parts: human acts considered in general (the prima secundae, consisting of 114 questions on the final end of man, acts, passions, habits, virtues, vices, laws, and grace), and human acts considered in particular (the secunda secundae,consisting of 189 questions going into more detail on the theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, the active and contemplative states of life, and different offices or stations of Christians).  The tertia pars falls into a threefold division: the Savior himself (qq. 1–59, comprising the mystery of the Incarnation and thus the life and death of Jesus), the sacraments or means of sanctification given by the Savior (qq. 60–90; Supplement, qq. 1–68), and the immortal life won for us by the Savior (Suppl. qq. 69–99, on the Last Things).

Each individual quaestio, “something to be sought or inquired into,” is made up of one or more articuli or points for discussion.  Each articulus takes the form of a topic proposed, several objections raised against the answer Thomas will give, a sed contra or authoritative statement (usually taken from the Bible, the Fathers, or a philosopher), a corpus or response in which Thomas articulates his position, and finally replies to the initial objections.

Thomas’s lasting relevance

St. Thomas’s three great theological compendia (Summa contra gentiles, Compendium theologiae, and Summa theologiae) stand among the greatest treatments of Christian doctrine in all ages; few other works explain and defend Christian doctrine so clearly and thoroughly, answering objections from every imaginable angle, including some that seem characteristically “modern.”  The discussions of key topics—for example, the existence of God, the fittingness of the Incarnation, the nature of the sacraments, God as the final end of human life—are well worth the time and energy of the apologist who wishes to meditate on the foundations of the Catholic faith and gather arguments for meeting objections against it.  The study of St. Thomas builds up important habits of mind: crafting logical arguments, piercing to the heart of a disagreement, anticipating difficulties and misunderstandings before they occur, and above all, appreciating the mutual reinforcement of reason and revelation.

Nearly the whole array of Thomas’s writings have a relevance to apologetics, but some are particularly well-suited for learning about and defending the faith.  Among his more accessible works are the sermons on the Apostle’s Creed, the Hail Mary, the Lord’s Prayer, the Commandments, and the Sacraments, and his “shorter Summa,” the Compendium of Theology.  Nothing dispels Protestant prejudices against St. Thomas more quickly than an impartial study of his scriptural commentaries (a number of which have been translated into English), where he emerges as a skilled interpreter and passionate lover of the word of God.  In the Summa contra gentiles, Thomas enunciates his wise principle that with heretics we should argue from both Testaments, with Jews from the Old Testament, and with pagans from natural reason—and Thomas proceeds to do just that, taking up each question from the vantage of reason, then Scripture.  As a result, the Summa contra gentiles is a goldmine of apologetic arguments.  The Summa theologiae is similarly useful as long as one knows where to look for answers to one’s questions.  As a rule, it is best to read small portions of Thomas many times until one understands them, instead of racing ahead to cover many pages; rich fare is better digested when eaten slowly.

One occasionally hears protests against the writings of St. Thomas: they are too old, they fail to address peculiarly modern issues, they make mistakes in matters of detail (like biology or astronomy), they represent a doomed attempt to “sum up” the infinite wealth of Christian doctrine in neat arguments.  These objections miss the target.  The truths of our faith and the essence of man never change, and Thomas is concerned with what is true always and everywhere; as a result, his writings breathe an air of serene timelessness that keeps them above the shifting fashions and narrow concerns of each passing age.  Far from being irrelevant, the writings of Thomas are more relevant than ever, as modern man grows more and more forgetful of the fundamental truths of nature and grace to which Thomas devotes his attention.  Issues we like to think of as “modern” are usually little more than age-old problems dressed in the latest mode.  Thomas’s mistakes in matters of detail can be easily corrected in light of subsequent scientific knowledge or Church teaching, without affecting the substance of Thomistic theology.

It should always be remembered that Thomas never intended to provide a complete and self-sufficient system to which nothing more could be added.  He intended his works to be convenient and trustworthy sources of sound knowledge for students and teachers of Christian doctrine; and so well did he succeed, that all who study him with due effort can count on much fruit from their labors.  This is why the Church always sends us to him as a master of truth and a model of holy truth-seeking.  We will be richer for having walked with him, poorer for having walked away from him.  Let us take good advice from the Popes and walk with the Angelic Doctor.

 

NOTES:

[1] For a detailed treatment of this experience and its significance, see my article “Golden Straw: St. Thomas and the Ecstatic Practice of Theology,” Nova et Vetera [Eng. ed.] 2 (2004): 61–89.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on YOU HAVE NO IDEA JUST HOW GREAT YOUR DEBT IS TO SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

ARE THE GERMAN BISHOPS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY LIKE FRANCIS? PRESS CRITICISM IN GERMANY WOULD SEEM TO SO INDICATE!!!

Austrian Journalist: Pope Francis Has Been Disrespectful Toward the Four Dubia Cardinals

FacebookPinterestPocket

Today, on 7 March, there appeared in the prominent secular Austrian newspaper Die Presse an article, entitled “Francis – Populism in a Catholic Way” (“Franziskus – Populismus auf katholisch”), which contains some strongly critical remarks about Pope Francis and his perceptibly continual leadership. (The Austrian Catholic website Kath.net has also reported on it.) Hans Winkler, the author of the article, is the former Vice-President of the Austrian Catholic Publisher’s Association (Verband katholischer Publizistinnen und Publizisten Österreichs), and he formerly worked as the foreign policy chief editor for the largest regional Austrian newspaper, Kleine Zeitung.

With a reference to the date of Pope Francis’ election on 13 March 2013, Winkler claims that, for four years now, the Catholic Church is thus being ruled “by a populist.” By way of contrast, he calls the U.S. President Donald Trump a “right-wing populist,” whereas he calls Francis a “radical populist” who is Catholic. The Austrian journalist defines the word “populist” as someone who often disregards “the legal standard, and the law itself, in the name of a form of justice as it is defined by himself.” Winkler adds that such a person “suggests a closeness to the people” and suggests that the people have been “betrayed by the ‘elites.’” Winkler explains:

In the case of the pope, the Church authorities and the theologians play the role of those who impose burdens upon the people, which burdens he now promises to remove from them. In an aggressive way, he regularly lectures the cardinals.

It is in this context that Hans Winkler addresses Pope Francis’ treatment of the four dubia cardinals. Winkler sees that Francis intentionally does not respond to the presented dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia:

The populist does not respond to criticism substantially; he rather responds on the personal level. A typical example for this is the rude reaction of the pope to the request (dubia) of four cardinals concerning Amoris Laetitia, the teaching document concerning marriage and the family – a request which was presented in accord with all the Church’s own rules and forms of courtesy. Francis is said to have been “angry” about it.

Winkler continues his description of the disrespect that Pope Francis has recurrently shown toward his own cardinals when he says:

Up until today he [Francis] does not consider these cardinals to be worthy of a response. This is not only impolite, there is in this also obviously a method. No other head of a world company would deal in such a manner with his management personnel. Instead, he lets loose some subordinate minor devils [“Unterteufel”] who are immediately available to implement some corresponding threats at their disposal, or who themselves may even accuse the petitioners of heresy, that is to say of apostasy from the teaching of the Faith.

Since Winkler’s words are trenchantly incisive and insistent, it is worthwhile to quote him once more at length, especially when he continues the presentation of his wider insights, saying:

In spite of all of his assurances of collegiality, the pope makes his decisions certainly in an authoritarian manner. At the Synod of Bishops [on the Family], he referred to his primacy of jurisdiction as it has been defined at the First Vatican Council. In questions of the economy and of the protection of the environment, the pope shows an ideological determination which he is quite intentionally lacking in his own [expected] field of expertise: the teaching on Faith and Morals.

The Austrian journalist continues by questioning some of Pope Francis’ own recurrent (and non-negotiable) ideas about economical matters, and he then concludes that “Francis has clear sympathies for the classical form of populism in Latin America, the Peronism of his homeland.” In this respect, the pope’s attention is especially given to the distribution of wealth to the poor. “Because they always talk about this, the left-wing Caudillos on the [Latin American] continent enjoy the quite open support of the pope,” explains Winkler, who then adds: “This [papal support] currently has some destructive consequences in Venezuela.” As this Austrian journalist sees it, this papal support inordinately helps the regime in Venezuela which, according to the Archbishop of Caracas himself, is a “dictatorship” which despises the Venezuelan people.

Later in his article, Winkler applies his criticism of Pope Francis also to his magisterial document, Amoris Laetitia. He accuses the pope of planting ambiguity in this text when he says:

The central and disputed question concerning the admission of the remarried divorcees to the Sacraments is intentionally formulated in such an ambiguous way that everybody can read in it whatever he wishes. And that is how it has happened: bishops in Poland or in Africa draw out of it conclusions other than those in Germany or Malta; the Bishop of Philadelphia draws out the opposite from the conclusions of [the diocese of] Chicago. [my emphasis]

Therefore, says Winkler, the bishops have now “to chose their own [individual] teaching concerning marriage and the Sacraments.” The pope “calls it ‘healthy decentralization‘,” adds Winkler, which notably now does “not pertain only to some kind of pastoral questions, but also to doctrine itself.” [my emphasis] In the journalist’s eyes, the pope seems to hope that “his ‘merciful’ approach will, in fact, be dominant.” However, says Winkler, this confusing decentralization is also a grave cause for concern in the eyes of Cardinal Gerhard Müller himself, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to Cardinal Müller, such decentralizations may not – must not – mean “separate dogmatic declarations” which also would possibly “relativize constitutive sacramental structures.” With reference to these same quotes from Cardinal Müller, Winkler thus claims that “Müller takes a different position from the pope regarding the question of Amoris Laetitia.” The article ends with another Müller quote: “One cannot serve the pope by fostering a personality cult around him.”

In the context of this new Austrian article in a non-Catholic national newspaper, it might be worthwhile to remember that, in the recent past, there have also been other prominent German-speaking secular media outlets which have published some strong criticism of Pope Francis. In 2015, the German journal FOCUS published an anonymous Open Letter to Pope Francis written by a former member of the Curia; also in 2015, the German journal Cicero published a report written by Guiseppe Rusconi which dealt with the recurrent criticisms of the pope still coming out of the Curia; in 2016, one of Cicero’s own editors, Alexander Kissler, wrote a strong critique of the pope; in 2016, the German national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ran an article written by the well-known journalist Markus Günther, who rebuked Pope Francis publicly for his bad leadership; finally, the same newspaper published another critique written by Christian Geyer. We should consider the heavy burden on the hearts of such authors who have taken the risk to present these sincere and wholehearted criticisms to the publi

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THEY SAY THAT MISERY LOVES COMPANY !!! WELL OUR ANGLICAN FRIENDS ARE PRETTY MISERABLE ALSO, SO IS THAT ANY COMFORT ???

Image result for PHOTO OF FRANCIS AND WELBY

FRANCIS IS BLESSED IN THE VATICAN BY HIS FRIEND ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP WELBY

The witness of events where the people gather
Mental health
CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Safespacing the Church: revising doctrine to suit mental health

Mental health matters, right? Yes, of course it does. And the Church of England is right to focus on this often-neglected area of human flourishing and wellbeing, with speeches in Parliament, reports and motions in Synod, and resources which can make a considerable difference both to the lives of the afflicted and in the guidance of those whose vocation it is to minister pastoral and spiritual care. There’s a fine line between helplessly melting into hell and the noetic revelations of the mystic caught up to the third heaven. Discernment is all.

But something is happening to the sap of Church doctrine which is poisoning the fruit on the branches.

Consider the current furore surrounding the nomination of the Rt Rev’d Philip North as the next Bishop of Sheffield. Neither the full and final authority of the Bible nor the doctrine found in the XXXIX Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer or the Ordinal have been adduced to oppose his election. Indeed, there is no doctrinal or procedural reasoning by which his consecration can be opposed at all. Instead, the articles and petitions against him focus on the grief, shock, anger and denial of women clergy, and their levels of  anxiety and distress: “Even if, as we believe, you are committed to unity and justice as our Bishop,” opponents write, “we do need to ask, for the sake of our mental and spiritual health, for the opportunity to understand how your episcopate would not prove divisive..”

What about Philip North’s mental and spiritual health? What about justice for him? What about his liberation, his equality, and his “radical inclusion”? He has been so assailed and stressed by the campaign opposing his translation to Sheffield that he has been forced to go away:

..taking some time for prayer and reflection on retreat. Having heard the criticisms and concerns, alongside the support and affirmation, he rightly feels he needs to spend time in prayer. He will not be making any public statement or entering into further correspondence at this time. I hope you will allow Philip this space and as such direct any further communication to me until the end of his retreat.

You could read quite a lot between those lines: it is on enforced purdah; he needs space to distance himself from his modernising oppressors. He might be depressed, despondent, even suicidal. Does anyone care? If this had been a woman candidate assailed by traditionalists, we’d have surely heard of the harassment and bullying inflicted by the backward-looking misogynist bigots of Anglican conservatism; those who “sacrilise sexism”, as Martyn Percy put it. But, hey, it’s Phil, he’s a bloke, so that’s okay. And he seems to be heterosexual, too, so no problems with his mental fortitude to cope with intolerant speeches by bigots like Andrea Minichiello Williams.

That isn’t a trite point. When the Director of Christian Concern made a perfectly reasonable, cogent, courteous and scriptural speech to Synod in the recent debate on marriage and same-sex relations, this was how Vicky Beeching received it:

Vicky Beeching - Andrea Williams Synod tweet

Mrs Williams didn’t actually say that: she spoke first and foremost of love; she expounded the gospel, the orthodox understanding of marriage, and the moral foundations of holiness. You may demur over whether sex and sexuality are ‘first order’ issues of salvation, but the ultimate judgment lies with God, and He reveals His will in Scripture, which Mrs Williams preached. You may have been thankful that her three “painful” minutes were cut short, but God’s word is eternal: if sexual immorality is no longer an expression of immorality (for that is what this is about), then words cease to have meaning, and faithfulness is robbed of its spiritual sanity.

The assertion appears to be that there is some correlation between the Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage and teenage suicides (/attempts). Ergo, orthodox Christian doctrine is inflicting mental torment, chipping away at young people’s sense of wellbeing, and sanity can only be restored if the malignant cause is eradicated or rendered benign. “It is no secret that the negative stance taken by the Church, and so many individual local churches, has a hugely distressing impact on large numbers of LGB people and leaves countless numbers of them living lives of forced secrecy and dishonesty,” writes the Rev’d Steve Chalke, who adds:

Tragically, it is also common knowledge that the resultant anguish and distress often leads to spiritual, mental and physical harm, and in the worst of cases to people making the desperate decision to take their own life.

So the Church is bullying and overbearing: it inflicts anguish and distress and mental harm. Instead of loving and healing, it hurts people, slowly and systematically driving them out of their minds, often to the point and actuality of suicide. The solution, we are told, is for the Church to become affirming of all sexualities, lifestyles and.. well, of whatever is causing anxiety. It must be “radically inclusive”, as the Inclusive Church preaches:

Inclusive church god judges no one

It becomes difficult in this gospel paradigm to discern why people need Jesus at all: there is no sin, no need for the cross, no judgment, no narrow path to salvation. Church becomes the ultimate safe space: no one is judged because no one can help what they are or stop what they are born to do. The Church’s love must be like rainbow-coloured jellybeans – fiz-wiz bright, popping sweet, crazy gooey and fruity dribbles. There’s nothing nasty at all, and certainly nothing that could possibly cause fear, nervousness, anger, frustration, worry or anxiety.

‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven‘ (Mt 7:21), says Jesus. Bit stressful, isn’t it? ‘For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified‘ (Rom 2:13), says St Paul. So terribly oppressive. And don’t, whatever you do, talk about sheep and goats: ‘And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal‘ (Mt 25:46). Poor goats. We must include them. It’s an outrageous discrimination; appallingly specieist. The only true mercy is to suspend all moral judgment and responsibility, so these scriptures must be revised.

But instead of revising Church doctrine to suit mental health sensitivities, shouldn’t we be renewing minds to comply with the precepts of God’s holiness? ‘And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God‘ (Rom 12:2). Or is that crass and insensitive? ‘That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness‘ (Eph 4:22-24). Or is that just heaping Pelion upon Ossa?

‘And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?‘ (Lk 6:46) asks Jesus.

“Because I can’t stop the way I am,” we reply. “So you can’t judge me, or rebuke me, or hurt me, or exclude me. And if you do, there’s a chance I might become psychologically unwell and won’t be able to cope.”

“You wouldn’t inflict that on anyone, would you, Lord?”

Post navigation

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A GOOD DEATH IS A NATURAL DEATH

the-burial-of-the-count-of-orgaz

A Good Death

HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL
I flew home to be with my mother and sisters after a terrible phone call announced that my frail papa had suffered a fall with fractured ribs and a heart attack. The call came on Friday and I was in another world on Monday, leaving Europe behind to return to South Texas. I went from my job of international pro-life coordination for Human Life International (HLI) to an excruciatingly hands-on practicum in end of life care and accompaniment.
We are not a typical family. Dad was a PhD in philosophy and mom is an medical doctor. My adopted sister, Anne-Sophie is a religious whose ministry focuses on the defense of life, particularly, the terminally ill. She has supported families and their dying loved ones for over 25 years. Our Catholic faith is a profound and central reality for us. Decades of leadership in and generosity to the Church, going back several generations, afford us an abundance of priest and religious friends. We are without doubt richly blessed and much better prepared for this journey than most.
My mother and sisters were all convinced that this would be his final illness. Dad in fact passed into eternal life a week after I arrived.
In caring for him and experiencing his funeral and burial, I learned many valuable pro-life lessons. For several years now, I have worked against euthanasia for HLI, particularly in Europe. My sister Anne Sophie is literally on the front lines providing spiritual care to the elderly and dying. She has experienced numerous cases of “illegal” or “undeclared” but nonetheless real euthanasia in both hospital and hospice settings.
What struck me the most was the incredible difference between a good Catholic death and being put to sleep by euthanasia. My father’s final illness and funeral were a celebration of faith and hope, albeit one filled with many aching tears. Caregivers, friends and family members were deeply touched. Dad suffered and groaned from his broken ribs when we agonizingly had to turn him on his side to change him. Mainly, however, he affirmed, “I am doing fine” when he manifestly was not. He edified us by his lack of anger or rebellion towards God in the face of swiftly approaching death, which would be a natural reaction and stage on the way to acceptance. Many people made sacrifices, especially the closest family members, who kept up a 24-hour vigil at his bedside for almost two weeks.
All this pain and sacrifice was lovingly accepted and transformed into something beautiful. It was not the meaningless suffering of an animal or of a person who has no hope beyond this life and this world. I realized as I had not before, that in order to embrace euthanasia or assisted suicide most persons must well and truly fall into despair. They have to be convinced that it is meaningless and cruel to be forced to endure suffering when a hastened death would painlessly and quickly resolve the problem.
Clearly, there are low and mean reasons to support euthanasia. The bean counters would like to save on health care costs, which certainly skyrocket in the last 6 months of the typical modern life. Greedy family members want to receive their inheritances faster and do not want to see the money spent on nursing or other “useless” expenses. Some simply see no reason why, for example, a homeless person should receive advanced and expensive medical care since they do not believe the poor have the exact same dignity and rights.
Somehow worse, however, are the “higher” more “noble” reasons for euthanasia. False compassion in these cases is more repugnant to me than mere greed. This morbid mercy destroys the most important moment in each of our lives, the hour of our death. This decisive time when so many deathbed conversions have turned tragedy into a last-second victory is poisoned. The very last act of the person is to turn away from God and His mercy, and this is done by the hands of medical workers who should be guardians of human life. It is a horror that brings no peace; only the empty silence of everlasting death.
The deepest root of the problem is materialism. Euthanasia advocates have no final hope; only a quiet despair. Some of these individuals are filled with pride or fear and want to control the moment of their death, to own it. Somehow, by ending their lives prematurely they think it will have a kind of pagan dignity modeled on the Ancient Roman suicides or the Samurai’s ritual seppuku.
There is a special Christian humility in acknowledging that God is in control and not us. Control is not only usually an illusion but also a temptation. The diabolical path is to prefer our will to God’s. Peace and serenity come from enduring and hoping, not running away from death by precipitating it. To offer up one’s suffering is ennobling not destructive of human dignity, as the death peddlers argue. Making sacrifices for loved ones and yes, being a burden for others, are paths to sanctity if rightly lived.
Now, there are holy and unholy burdens. The former are simply inevitable given our current situation. People grow old and sick naturally, and accidents happen. Other burdens stem from sin. Sometimes carrying these burdens can actually be co-dependency and unhealthy.
Discernment is needed as to which burdens we should bear and what trials are truly not our responsibility or even beyond our capacity to bear.
I gave a talk in Belgium recently comparing my father’s death to the typical euthanasia termination of life. The differences are most remarkable in the legacy left behind. I do not feel guilty for my dad’s death, and I am awed by his courage until the end. He did not take a shortcut or easy way out, and neither did we. That translates into peace and joy rather than regret and unease. My father went into eternal life in God’s time, not man’s. He was not treated as a burden afflicted with pointless suffering that should be terminated. We treasured his life as something precious, but we also avoided the opposite idolatry of prolonging life by any means. The pursuit of overzealous and even despairing and burdensome treatment is the mirror opposite mistake of euthanasia.
Really, it is frightening how much confusion reigns today. Euthanize your dog or cat who face meaningless pain or whose treatment would be too costly, certainly, but not your grandmother! The blindness that does not see why we treat a pet and a human being differently is the modern darkness crying out for God’s merciful touch and light.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A GOOD DEATH IS A NATURAL DEATH