Uncategorized

Amoris Laetitia and Auschwitz …

Twilight And Shadow”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings

A couple of posts ago I posted a long article on the moral controversy surrounding the subject apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis. This post is another where the writer has articulately pointed out the significant moral equivalencies between the Pope’s memo and the Nazi program of extermination – the final Solution.

Go there. or read it here, or if you roll that way, just ignore it, along with abortion and euthanasia and all the other nice progressive amoral planks of our modern progressive society. Your call.

*****

According to AL, a conscience may “recognize that a a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security … what for now is the most generous response”.

Let us examine how this moral principle might apply in situations of organised and industrialised genocide. A man involved in the extermination of Jewry, for example … if he were to decline to collaborate in any more murders, not only might he be subjected to discriminatory responses, but his family also might suffer grievously. His marriage might suffer!

Is he, perhaps, required by the Bergoglian moral principle of “what is for now the most generous response” to try, gradually so as not to be noticed, to reduce the number of Jews whom he kills each day? Or might Bergoglianism mean that he should do his very best to see that they die less painfully? Or should he attempt, again without drawing too much attention to himself, so to work the system that in three months time he gets transferred to duties which involve him less directly in extermination … like, for example, harmlessly organising the train schedules?

I am aware that my questions lay me wide open to an accusation that I am either an unbalanced crank in making an equivalence between well-mannered habitual adultery among the nice, if rather gleefully rutting, German middle-classes, and genocide; or ‘antisemitic’ for illustrating a moral priple by talking so calmly about something as vile as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews.

It is my view that such an accusation by such an interlocutor would in fact amount to an admission that Adultery is not really sinful … that it is, well, perhaps not technically in accordance, quite, with the book of rules, but it is not really wrong. Cardinal Coccopalmerio has in fact said something rather like this.

It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called “tolerated concubinage”, I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives … or marriages … by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat?

A person, you tell me, may well know a rule yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently. So …. if this does not also apply within genocidal situations, where can it apply?

A person’s long involvement, you tell me, in sinful actions may well so habituate him to those actions that the subjective sinfulness, as AL claims, is radically diminished … yes; I happen to agree with you there, and, like all confessors, I am mindful of this when I sit with my ear against the grill. But you won’t forget, will you, that somebody who has been killing Jews for a couple of years might also well be in such a condition. And the tribunals which judged War Criminals after 1945 don’t seem to have taken this laudable casuistic principle into their jurisprudence.

Bergoglio’s ‘jesuitical’ campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendor paragraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian ‘moral principles’ prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed“.

*****

Cheers

Joe

Now don’t you dare step out of line my precious … we will get to you in good time. And while you are waiting please visit https://bccla.org/our-work/blog/lamb/

There is ALWAYS a way to rationalize evil in our progressive nation.

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Oh, Canada …

Oh, Canada: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Now Just Another Medical Procedure (2798)

“Twilight and Shadow”, Howard Shore, from the album “Lord of The Rings – The Return of The King”, 2003

NEWS ANALYSIS: After the national parliament failed to meet a court-ordered deadline this month, doctor-directed death is no longer a crime anywhere in Canada.

SupremeCourtCanada-255x255TORONTO — Canada has officially crossed the boundary into a place in which the sick, the suffering and dying can be legally dispatched by lethal injection or a glass of liquid poison.

On June 6, the nation’s laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia evaporated by order of the Supreme Court of Canada, stemming from a ruling made in February 2015. The court gave Canada’s Parliament until June 6 of this year to create new legislation. But as the deadline was missed, euthanasia is no longer considered a crime.

Indeed, assisted suicide now carries the same status as any other medical procedure. In Canada, as elsewhere, supporters of the practice have used the terms “death with dignity” and “medical aid in dying” to describe what used to be viewed as killing and punishable under the old law.

Most of us opposed to killing patients use the terms “physician-assisted suicide” or “euthanasia” interchangeably, as both end in the deliberate death of the patient. In the former, patients are given fatal drugs to take home and ingest when they are ready. The latter takes place when a physician actively kills the patient with a hypodermic needle.

The present situation has put many Catholics and other anti-euthanasia activists in a quandary. The vast majority of the House of Commons and Senate, the two chambers of parliament, are enthusiastic supporters of assisted suicide, which means that petitions, writing letters and demonstrations likely will have little impact. (blog note: I have been involved in several anti-euthanasia campaigns at the Provincial and Federal level, and the only response we have ever received are sappy weasel words about reviewing the evidence and our concerns being noted)

Entrance_Auschwitz_I

“Entrance to Auschwitz” By Pimke – Own work, CC BY 2.5 pl, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=755157

“We live in morally confusing times, and it looks like things are going to get a lot worse in what Pope St. John Paul II prophetically called a ‘culture of death,’” said Patricia Murphy, assistant professor of moral theology at St. Augustine Seminary in Toronto. ..

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/in-canada-assisted-suicide-and-euthanasia-now-just-other-medical-procedures/#ixzz4Bggq49FM

*****

I am sorry Patricia but there is nothing morally confusing about murdering the helpless and the innocent. It is evil now, always was evil, always will be evil, evil and nothing but evil. The Progressives in our country still use the term “Nazi” as a heated pejorative directed against those who disagree with them.

And yet their actions clearly demonstrate that there is not a shred of moral difference between our socialists/progressives and our national system here in Canada and the Nazi German regime in the 30’s and 40’s or the Communists in the Soviet Union, or the Khmer rouge, or the Red Chinese, or ISIS and North Korea in this century. NOT-A-SHRED-OF-MORAL-DIFFERENCE.

This entire policy exercise of murder, choreographed by the faceless suits in the Towers of Power, is nothing less than our own Canadian Liberal’s “Final Solution” for inconvenient people who are deemed by government fiat to be not worthy of protection or not worth protecting.  “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.)

We are all become “Persons Without Chests” without any intrinsic value or human dignity left to lose. We cannot even hold our own government’s feet to the fire when they contemplate an evil course, so how much less likely are we to hold accountable avowed and active evil in the outside world that threaten us more and more every day. There is no upside anywhere in this for our society and our culture.

And so it continues. First it was babies, and now it is essentially anyone: “who is suffering intolerably with a grievous and irremediable condition,” the old, the young, the sick, the handicapped, all are now target groups. Soon we will be applying the very flexible and oh so useful “quality of life” criteria to make life and death decisions about anyone who disagrees with popular views. Seriously, doesn’t this all start to feel like “1984” and “Soylent Green”?

How many more years will it be before we find ourselves in a place where relatives of the victim(s) (200,000 a year at last count) simply get a letter on government letterhead informing them of the “death” of their relative. This is the place where Belgium and the Netherlands now find themselves.

This is exactly how we arrived at a place here in Canada where abortion is available anywhere, any time, up to and including partial birth at any government funded hospital, on demand, even by teenage children and with no requirement to inform the parents of the teen.

There are no rules or regulation of the Canadian National Abortion Mill that we call public health care. The only concern ever expressed by anyone is about criminal responsibility. The concept of moral responsibility has been successfully and completely purged from the Canadian lexicon.  We are not guilty!  We are just following orders. We are cheering while the bureaucrats move forward developing our National Death Camp policy.

The phrase “who is suffering intolerably with a grievous and irremediable condition,” does not mean deadly or near-death. “Grievous” is a subjective definition of discomfort and pain, while “irremediable” simply means chronic. And who gets to decide what constitutes “suffering intolerably”, why the bureaucrats of course! Just like Belgium and the Netherlands. Just like being voted off the island, eh?

The ONLY voice that I have heard in the halls of government speaking out against this evil wave lapping now at our necks, is the Hon. Betty E. Unger, Senator from Alberta. Her speech in the Senate can be found here:

Bill C-14: I cannot support this legislation

And may God have mercy on our souls.

Joe

Standard