ProLife & Family Issues

UPDATE 7/7/17  Latest update on Baby Charlie Gard

*****************

Here is the whole story about this poor baby and his family and the brutal tyrannical decision taken by the English hospital backed by British and European courts. Pray for this poor baby and his family.

From Jimmy Akin’s blog Pray for Terminally Ill Baby Charlie Gard

charlie_gardCharlie Gard is an eleven-month old baby in England. He has a rare genetic disorder known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.

According to press accounts, Charlie is terminally ill at this point. His parents have raised more than $1 million to try an experimental treatment to help him, but hospital officials—backed by British and European courts—have forbidden his parents to take him from the London hospital where he currently is.

Officials have also forbidden his parents to take him home to die.

According to the British tabloid newspaper, The Sun:

Charlie’s mum and dad say he is a “prisoner” in hospital and Great Ormond Street [hospital]’s treatment has been “inhuman”.

You can read more about the treatment controversy surrounding Charlie here. 

Why are officials denying the wishes of Charlie’s parents?

According to their public statements, they believe that Charlie’s condition is too grave and that the proposed medical treatments are not in his interest (meaning, they would be too burdensome, too likely to be ineffective, or both).

Consequently, rather than undertake the treatments desired by his parents, hospital authorities state that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to allow him to die.

They therefore propose discontinuing the things keeping him alive.

What does Catholic moral theology hold about situations like this?

The Church does not have a teaching addressing Charlie’s specific condition, but it has articulated principles that address situations like this in general.

The usual obligation to use medical procedures to extend life does not apply when the treatments would be “heroic” or disproportional to the good to be achieved.

In other words, if the treatments would be too burdensome, too unlikely to succeed, or both, they are not obligatory.

Experimental treatments like the one proposed for Charlie typically are riskier than approved treatments—commonly involving both a higher burden on the patient (e.g., more side-effects) and lower chances of success.

Because of this, such experimental treatments generally are not morally obligatory.

If the treatment is not morally obligatory, what’s the controversy about?

Ordinarily, a patient would speak for himself regarding whether he wishes to receive such treatments.

However, in this case the patient is a baby and cannot do so. Therefore, the parents—by natural law—are the logical ones to make the decision.

Only if the parents are incapable of making a rational decision would it be warranted for others to step in and make the decision in their place.

Note the test required for intervention by others: It isn’t that the parents must make the correct decision. People can have a legitimate diversity of opinions on which medical procedures are warranted in a case. That’s why patients are often encouraged to seek “second opinions” from physicians.

The standard that must be met is that the parents aren’t capable of making a decision that is within the pale of reason. They must be making a patently irrational one before others should intervene.

In this case, the treatment proposed for Charlie has worked for others, indicating a rational hope it would work for him.

Consequently, the attempt by the hospital officials and the relevant courts to impose their will on Charlie, against his parents’ explicit wishes, appears a monstrous and inhuman overreach.

The refusal to let the parents take baby Charlie home to die (as if palliative care couldn’t be given in a home environment!) only twists the knife.

The way the situation has played out, it looks like an Orwellian, faceless bureaucracy is determined to kill this child against the reasonable will of the parents.

That bodes ill for all of us, given the statist and anti-life trends on the loose in Western culture.

What has the Catholic Church in the UK said about this situation?

Archbishop Peter Smith issued a statement which you can read here.

He expressed sympathy with the parents and reviewed some relevant moral principles.

Toward the end of his statement, Archbishop Smith said:

We do, sometimes, however, have to recognise the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.

The statement as a whole was carefully balanced, but this sentence could come across as discouraging the parents’ efforts to save Charlie’s life.

A much more problematic statement was issued in the name of the Pontifical Academy of Life in Rome.

What did the Pontifical Academy of Life say about Charlie’s situation?

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the academy, issued a statement which you can read here.

This statement also expressed sympathy for the parents. However, it went on to say:

The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this: what are the best interests of the patient?

We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family.

Archbishop Paglia has mischaracterized what Evangelium Vitae says. It does not say that we should “avoid” such medical procedures. It says that refusing them is not the same thing as euthanasia. It says “one can in conscience refuse” such treatments, but not that one should or must do so.

Evangelium Vitae leaves open the question of what treatments can be used in an effort to preserve life. If a patient—or those who speak for him—feel it is appropriate to use aggressive or experimental treatments, that is not precluded by Evangelium Vitae 65.

Even more unfortunately, Archbishop Paglia continued:

Likewise, the wishes of parents must heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone.

Although this could be taken as a statement of abstract principle, in this context it comes across as a paternalistic statement regarding Charlie’s parents and how they “must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation”—as if an archbishop in Rome were more familiar with it than the parents who are having to live the situation!

The statement was therefore widely criticized. It came across as out-of-touch, pastorally insensitive, and precisely the kind of thing that would drive hurting parents away from the Church.

Fortunately, Pope Francis walked it back.

What did Pope Francis say?

According to Crux:

Wading directly into a charged moral and political debate in the UK, and also appearing to recalibrate an earlier statement from the head of his own Pontifical Academy for Life, Pope Francis on Sunday expressed hope that the desire of 10-month-old Charlie Gard’s parents “to accompany and care for their own child to the end” will be respected.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and commotion the situation of Charlie Gard, and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” reads a statement issued by Greg Burke, the pope’s spokesperson.

“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

Pope Francis also Tweeted:

To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.

Following this, the pediatric hospital Bambino Jesu (“Child Jesus”) in Rome—which also treats the popes—offered to treat Charlie.

American President Donald Trump also offered to facilitate treatment in America, saying:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

Thus far British officials have sent mixed signals regarding whether the parents will be allowed to take Charlie from the hospital where he is currently being held.

Let’s all pray for this horrific situation.

{ 0 comments }

Why is the Pope refusing to respond to Cardinal Raymond Burke and three other cardinals to clarify whether Amoris Laetitia is intended to allow divorced and civilly remarried to participate in the sacraments?

{ 1 comment }

BREAKING: Argentinian Bishop Organizes Special Mass to Give Communion to Adulterous Couples, Cites Pope Francis

Full article provided below and also on the Rorati Caeli website here. Another article here.

****************************

obispo-parroquia-san-roque-3“This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what’s behind Amoris laetitia.
“In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are “marginalized” because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the “path of discernment”, it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living “as brothers [and sisters].”
obispo-parroquia-san-roque-640x360“In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion.
“This bishop, and all those who follow this type of directives and actions, are simply apostates, wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing, who not only send souls to hell, but also profane the Eucharist, for which they will have to give an account before God.
“This news is confirmed by Adelante La Fe through eyewitnesses and, if there is any doubt, can be cross-checked in the local news.”
[Translated by Andrew Guernsey]

{ 4 comments }

What is Wrong with this Picture? What is Missing? Is this the “New Normal”?

May 26, 2017

This magazine arrives in our mailbox four times a year; not because we subscribe but because we live in this community. We never sent our kids to public schools, choosing rather to educate them at home. When I grabbed the mail and walked back to the house I had not even reached the front door […]

Read the full article →

Sister Lucia: “Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over Family and Marriage.”

May 16, 2017

By Steve Skojec, Rorate Caeli has released a translation of a remarkable interview, originally published in 2008, with Cardinal Carlo Caffara of Bologna. In it, he references correspondence he had with Sister Lucia, the principle visionary of Our Lady at Fatima: Q. There is a prophecy by Sister Lucia dos Santos, of Fatima, which concerns “the […]

Read the full article →

Mothers are Closest to God the Creator

May 7, 2017

“The most important person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral — a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body . . . “The angels have not been blessed […]

Read the full article →

Joseph the Sissy or Joseph the Worker – Feast Day of the Worker

May 1, 2017

Today is the Feast day of St. Joseph the Worker! There are some pictures of Joseph I don’t appreciate so much. They present him almost as soft, effeminate like he just came out of a beauty parlor. It appears he never worked in the real world and has not a wrinkle on his clothes or […]

Read the full article →

2 Minute Audios: Steve’s 6 Rules for Dealing with Non-Catholic Family & Friends

April 7, 2017

People always ask, “What do I say to my husband…?”  or “How do I get my kids back in the Church?  or  “I am getting no where trying to tell my friend about my Faith.” Well Steve came up with Six Rules to help you deal with non-Catholics – especially family and friends. They are […]

Read the full article →

Messy Parenting, Podcasts from Parents of Ten! Great Stuff with a Huge Following

March 30, 2017

  I am happy to call Michael Hernon a highly respected friend. He is also a successful husband and father of TEN! And yes, he has a great sense of humor, a lovely wife — and a great podcast for Catholic families — practical, biblical, funny, Catholic and easy to listen to. He and his […]

Read the full article →

Interesting Insight: Abortion, the Annunciation and the Visitation

March 24, 2017

After a talk I gave at the Cathedral in Gaylord Michigan a while ago, an insightful man named Richard Grammens and his wife Mary Jean approached me. He told me to think about the “size  and condition” of Jesus in the womb when John the Baptist recognized the Person and Personhood of Jesus in hte […]

Read the full article →

In the 1850’s – “Pro-slavery” or “Pro-Choice”?

March 20, 2017

“Many in the 1850’s also considered themselves “pro-choice” rather than “pro-slavery”. History repeats itself…”  (Obianuju Ekeocha  Twitter@obianuju) In other words, I am personally against slavery, but I think people (or the states) should have the freedom to choose.

Read the full article →

Incredible New Video “From Conception to Birth”

February 19, 2017

Make sure everyone sees this because it is a marvelous argument against abortion. This is new technology that won its inventors the Nobel Prize. It pulls back the curtain on the developing baby and the mystery inside the womb. Hang in there for the first three minutes while he is explaining the technology — the […]

Read the full article →

Difference between “Sexual Relations” and “Conjugal Relations” in Relation to Amoris Laetitia

February 16, 2017

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters writes, “Among the fault lines revealed by the ecclesiastical earthquakes erupting after Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, we can see, I suggest, how some high-ranking ecclesiastics seem inadequately to understand the differences between “sexual relations” and “conjugal relations”. Most any man and any woman can have sexual relations, of course, but only […]

Read the full article →

Amoris Laetitia and Divorced-Remarried: the Wounds Get Deeper

February 14, 2017

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters writes (excerpts), “[Regarding] some excerpts translated from Francesco Cdl. Coccopalmerio’s new, short book on Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia. If the excerpts I read are accurate, the President of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts (the body charged with issuing binding interpretations of ecclesiastical legal texts, notably the Code of Canon Law), comes […]

Read the full article →

Interesting Twist for Explaining Abortion

January 27, 2017

Posted by Phil Lawlor at CatholicCulture.org Among many excellent analyses published in time for the March for Life, “When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense,” by Frederica Mathewes-Green, deserves special mention. The arguments are familiar—how could they not be, after 44 years?—but she offers some new variations on familiar themes, such as her reminder that abortion […]

Read the full article →

The Maltese directive makes answering the ‘dubia’ urgent

January 15, 2017

Dr. Ed Peters, Canon Lawyer wrote two days ago about the Maltese Disaster. The excellent article on The Catholic Thing Here is his latest entitled “The Maltese Directive (allowing divorced and remarried easy access to Communion) Makes Answering the “Dubia” Urgent When highly placed Italian prelates declare that “only a blind man cannot see” that […]

Read the full article →