Under the Francis Junta, the leading representatives of the Catholic Church have gone from implacable upholders of the Culture of Life to cloying collaborators with the Culture of Death.
From Independent Catholic News:
Statement on case of Alfie Evans from Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales
Our hearts go out to the parents of Alfie Evans and our prayers are for him and with them as they try to do all they can to care for their son.
We affirm our conviction that all those who are and have been taking the agonising decisions regarding the care of Alfie Evans act with integrity and for Alfie's good as they see it.
The professionalism and care for severely ill children shown at Alder Hey Hospital is to be recognised and affirmed. We know that recently reported public criticism of their work is unfounded as our chaplaincy care for the staff, and indeed offered to the family, has been consistently provided.
We note the offer of the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome to care for Alfie Evans. It is for that Hospital to present to the British Courts, where crucial decisions in conflicts of opinion have to be taken, the medical reasons for an exception to be made in this tragic case.
With the Holy Father, we pray that, with love and realism, everything will be done to accompany Alfie and his parents in their deep suffering.
Are these men Catholic? Perhaps we should ask whether they are human.
As one saint is reputed to have said, possibly during the Arian Crisis:
"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops."
It is soon to get a new supply.
A previous post at this blog hit the nail exactly on the head--Alfie and those like him are being "accompanied" straight to Auschwitz.
ReplyDeleteBut now, all of a sudden, Pope Francis--who is in need of a big PR win, post-Chile--has allowed Thomas Evans to kiss his ring, and is receiving worldwide kudos for attempting to transfer Alfie to a hospital in Rome.
At this hospital, however, Bergoglian values rather than Catholic moral teaching reigns supreme. So even if successful, the transfer will only move the child from Auschwitz to Dachau.
Bergoglio, in the meanwhile, will come out smelling like a rose.
"..and for Alfie's good as they see it."
ReplyDeleteThis is the same rational used by eugenicists, Nazis and other evil ideologies.
It is unbelievable that a Catholic Bishop's group can make this sort of evil statement justifying this action.
Too bad that it is no longer unbelievable for bishops to act as quislings following fork-tongued Pope Franny's lead.
DeleteAll these men are so affirming and empathethic and willing to accompany that I'm sure George Takei could only say "Oh my...."
ReplyDeleteYes, God bless this child and the family. A horrible situation.
ReplyDeleteI am confused about this situation. It is very expensive to keep a person on life support, on a ventilator, as far as I know. It is considered "extraordinary" care. I am not trying to be provocative, but what about the fact that a ventilator can technically keep a dead person "breathing"? These are fine and difficult points, and is one of the dilemmas we inherit along with our advanced health care system that makes it possible to live when 100 years ago we would die.
It is not the same at all as starving a person or denying them hydration. Those are basic needs for life. Both of those can be ended, and are ended, if it is felt they are not going to prevent, but only delay (for suffering) a poor dying person.
I have worked in clinical settings, these questions are encountered often enough. These are complicated issues.
I know nothing of this child's condition. Terry Schiavo, was awake and alert and responding to her loved ones. What happened to her was state sponsored murder, even torture.
This poor child. God bless him and his parents, and may He help them.
A Catholic seminary professor told me that if someone is dependent on his ventilator to breathe, then it would be immoral to remove the ventilator.
Delete1. The Church teaches that extraordinary means may be removed, not that they must be. Certain conditions are to be met first. Eugenic considerations do not qualify. In other words, neither ordinary nor extraordinary means may be denied on the grounds that a person, because they are less than perfect, would be "better off dead." Also, these are not the days of Karen Ann Quinlan. A ventilator may have bern extraordinary at one time in history, but isn't considered so by many bioethicists any more.
ReplyDelete2. A "dead" person, as you put it, would not benefit from having air pushed in and out of their lungs any more than a "dead" person would benefit from food and water artificially administered. Would Alfie die without nutrition, hydration, and respiration? Yes. But so would you. Are you, therefore, dead?
3. The child's parents have the right to make medical decisions on his behalf. They are not abusers, nor is there any reason why their wishes should be overridden. In the Schiavo case, everyone said her husband, as her legal guardian, had the right to make the call. But when legal guardians like Alfie's want to give life a chance, suddenly and for no reason, it isn't up to the guardians any more. That is what shows we are not dealing with medical issues here, but with ideological ones.
4. Terri was responsive, and so is Alfie. The media mask this fact in order to promote euthanasia, as we would expect them to. Tom Evans, for example, has been posting pictures and videos of Alfie, but the Hospital says the child is just having "seizures" (which--correct me if I'm wrong--a "dead" person doesn't do). You yourself have not been taken in by the propaganda, but this is exactly what happened to Terri as well (not responses, but "reflexes").
4. There is still a chance that Alfie could survive. He might not, but all options have yet to be exhausted. The Declaration on Euthanasia says that this particular violation of the Fifth Commandment is to be identified by, among other things, the intention of the act or omission which brings about death. If painkillers are administered, for example, in order to comfort the patient, it is not euthanasia even should the patient die of them. If a ventilator is removed because a patient can't tolerate it, it is not euthanasia even if the patient dies due to the removal. But imagine a ventilator being removed, the patient being unexpectedly able to breathe on their own, and the doctors/family then suffocating that patient to bring about the purpose of the ventilator removal. THAT'S euthanasia.
In Alfie's case, the intention behind for removing life support is because his caretakers say death is better for him than staying alive. That intention, and any action based on it, is clearly contrary to the Comnandment of Almighty God, and to the spirit of the Nuremberg Trials as well.
5. But it is not contrary to Bergoglianism, which is exactly why Jorge is trying so hard to muddy the waters at the moment--and unfortunately, as usual, succeeding.