***Media Mum on Mammoth Monster’s Crimes
While expending massive amounts of ink condemning the hunter who killed Cecil the Lion, the mainstream media can’t find an ounce to expose Planned Parenthood’s crimes. Recently a sixth video came out with former Stem Cell Express employee Holly O’Donnell describing how they worked with clinic staff to identify and target the desired baby body parts. In one gruesome account she describes how a woman refused to consent to her baby being harvested. Holly didn’t press her, but when another staff member found out she said it was a “missed opportunity” and proceeded to take the baby without the woman’s consent. The Media Research Center reported that, as of mid-August, the three major networks had aired one minute and thirteen seconds of the Center for Medical Progress video footage. That included zero coverage of even blurred pictures of the tiny victims. It’s clear the media is in Planned Parenthood’s pocket which makes it absolutely essential for alternative media groups to expose the crimes against humanity perpetrated by this evil organization!
***Is Archbishop Cupich Channeling Bernardin? Sure sounded like “seamless garment redux” when he wrote in a Chicago Tribune op-ed on August 3rd that we need to “reaffirm our commitment to a consistent ethic of life.” Like Bernardin, Cupich went on to equate the crushing of human babies to a smorgasbord of other social justice issues saying: “we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.”
So, let’s get this straight, Your Excellency. Crushing the skulls of innocent babies and selling their body parts for profit is no more heinous than executing a serial killer convicted in a court of law after mounting an aggressive defense, who has exercised his right of appeal numerous times? By that same rationale, capital punishment of war criminals after World War II was just as evil as their crimes. Sort of trivializes the gassing of six million Jews, political prisoners, Catholic priests, etc. don’t ya think?
Actually, the Church doesn’t agree with the archbishop. The Catechism (#2266) stresses government’s duty to protect the common good. “Legitimate public authority” has the “right and duty” to exact penalties “commensurate with the gravity of the crime” not excluding “in cases of extreme gravity” the death penalty. As for the other issues, is it really equally heinous to go to bed hungry or be jobless as to be ripped limb from limb before birth? Why not offer the choice to people in a soup kitchen or at a homeless shelter or standing in the unemployment line and see how they respond.
*** At Least He Didn’t Include Climate Changein the list of “equally heinous” problems, even though it’s a pet project. The archbishop believes we have a “moral obligation” to save the planet from ourselves. [Stop exhaling now. CO2 emissions are poisoning Mother Earth.] In a joint Chicago Sun-Times op-ed July 24th with EPA chief Gina McCarthy we read these words of wisdom: “The hope is that congregations across the nation will be encouraged to join this effort to promote environmentally important behavior by way of education and…action.” [Hmmm…Most bishops are doing a pretty lousy job of religious education so, by all means, switch to promoting the green agenda. It’s more popular than teaching the truth about abortion and contraception.] Gina McCarthy is the same administration official whoinsulted “climate deniers” when she basically said they are “not normal humans.” Despite the fact that evidence of climate change is disputed and many natural events blamed on climate change may have other causes, liberal churchmen like Cupich (and Pope Francis himself) have jumped on the climate change bandwagon and often seem more interested in saving the planet than in saving souls.
***Oy vey! Cupich & Bonny Named to the Synod! Are we surprised to see Pope Francis stacking the synod with liberals? Cupich is bad enough, but even worse, Pope Francis named Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp. Crux News says, “His appointment adds intellectual heft and star power to the liberal flank of bishops pushing for the Church to change how it approaches Catholics living in ‘irregular situations.’” Bonny also calls for recognition of “diverse forms” of relationships, i.e., same-sex liaisons.
And then there are the “consultors.” Vatican reporter Edward Pentin wrote last March that of the twelve named to the Synod most are liberals. (Consultors are like the periti at Vatican II providing advice to the members.) Among those named are Salesian Fr. Aimable Musoni, a colleague of Cardinal Walter Kasper who directed Musoni’s 2007 book, Identity and Historicity of the Church, and wrote the preface;Fr. Maurizio Gronchi, a promoter of Jesuit Philosopher, Teilhard de Chardin, whose writings the Vatican, in 1962, called “replete with…serious errors, which offend Catholic doctrine.” (Renowned philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand considered him so dangerous to the faith he devoted an appendix of his book, Trojan Horse in the City of God, to critiquing the French Jesuit’s work.) The worst “expert” may be canon lawyer, Jesuit Fr. Georges Ruyssen, who suggests “Eucharistic sharing” at nuptial Masses between Catholics and Protestants and continued reception afterwards saying it may be a case of “grave necessity” as described in Canon Law. It isn’t hard to guess where he will stand at the Synod on Communion for the divorced and remarried. The only apparent voice of orthodoxy among the advisors is Father José Granados, Vice President of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome.He was a late appointment, perhaps an afterthought, following criticism of the Extraordinary Synod for not including someone from the Pontifical Institute. So, the battle for the Synod continues with secret meetings by dissenting bishops and a new book from the good guys: Eleven Cardinals Speak on Marriage and the Family from Ignatius Press.
***Republican Lineup Is Self-Destructing Fast! Every time a Republican candidate opens his mouth he gives pro-lifers and Catholics a reason to disqualify him. Chris Christie bragged about his Catholicism then gave serious public scandal by announcing his contraceptive use. [TMI, as the kids say. Why should we care? Is he wooing the women’s vote perhaps?] Donald Trump claims to be pro-life then says he supports the “good things” Planned Parenthood does repeating the fiction that abortion is a “small part” of their business. [Hello!Ditto wooing women?] Ben Carson told Neil Cavuto of Fox News “In cases of rape and incest…in the emergency room, they have the ability to administer RU-486…before you have a developing fetus.”[Does this neurosurgeon not know that RU-486 kills the baby after conception?] Carson’s campaign also admitted he referred women for abortion and supports research using aborted babies so he’s a Planned Parenthood supporter by default! Jeb Bush is an unregenerate RINO whose family has direct connections to Planned Parenthood and who himself directed the Bloomberg Family Foundation when it was giving tens of millions of dollars to the abortion giant. It’s a long way yet to the primaries. We’ll be watching to see if any of the Republican candidates show core principles on life issues rather than finger-in-the wind vacillating.
*** STOP! Don’t Fill out that POLST Document
What is POLST? The Acronym stands for Physician’s Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment. POLST is growing in popularity and finding its way into legislation in many states where it varies slightly in content. Supporters say it empowers patients to choose the care they want near the end of life. In fact, however, it has the capacity to not only usurp the patient’s decision-making, but some critics including Catholic ethicist Christian Brugger describe the POLST as a “living will on steroids.” Brugger who teaches Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver says, “The real danger is that people who sign a Polst often don’t understand how powerful this instrument can be….You have arguments by defenders that make these documents seem innocent, but the pressure is always in favor of removal of treatment.”
POLST is generated by “conversations” with facilitators trained to fill out the document. Many are social workers with no medical training. Anyone can sign the form for the patient and it is harder to revoke than other advanced care directives. As a medical order it also carries more weight and those enforcing it are protected from criminal or civil prosecution. The document is biased toward non-treatment options. Facilitator training uses manipulative language to encourage the patient to select non-treatment. For example, a patient may be asked if he wants to be wired up to all kinds of machines as the intro to a question about options. In most cases, neither the patient nor a surrogate (e.g, someone with a legal medical power of attorney) is required to sign the form. It’s hard to see how there can be any guarantee that the patient was even involved in the process. The Bishops of Minnesota were so concerned about POLST, they issued a pastoral letter including these problems and ethical concerns:
1) Because the form permits but does not require the signature of a patient (or the patient’s legally designated agent), assuring the necessary true informed consent for such important decisions is problematic.
2) As standing medical orders that (per the POLST form) are to be followed before consulting with the primary care professional or the health care agent, the use of POLST does not assure that the treatment decisions it orders are appropriate to the current condition,…of the patient.
3) POLST lacks a conscience clause for the health care professionals who may have ethical concerns with the medical orders they are asked to fulfill.
4) As a relatively new tool, the procedures for a patient to revoke or change preferences on a POLST, once signed, are not clear or reliable.
5) POLST forms may conflict with other advance care directives or durable power of attorney. Because there is no requirement that Advance Health Care Directives (AHCDs) be cross-checked with POLST forms for consistency, a POLST form without a patient’s signature could be implemented rather than the patient’s wishes expressed in a (non-consulted) AHCD.
6) The signature of a physician (or, in Minnesota, of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) creates an actionable medical order which is operative upon its signing and which could then legally bind Catholic health care professionals and institutions to follow POLST-form designated treatments that may be contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
7) There is no requirement that the health care professional who signs the POLST form is the one who prepared it with the patient, which, unfortunately, can be the case in a busy practice.
The clincher stressing POLST’s danger is the fact that euthanasia groups promote it. Compassion and Choices, the old Hemlock Society, pushes it on their website. POLST is not about protecting life, but hastening death!