Infallibility is NOT Impeccability



Amongst the Catholic doctrines most troublesome to many Protestants (and many Orthodox, too) is that of papal infallibility. Perhaps it conjures up visions of flabella and the sedia gestatoria, or a not-so-subtle Vatican form of mind control, or even an abuse of our valued freedom of conscience.

Actually, it’s a rather straightforward sign of God’s love for His Church.

First of all, papal infallibility is not to be confused with impeccability. Most people understand this, but there are some who think Catholics are supposed to believe that the Pope cannot sin. Infallibility has nothing to do with the absence of sin. It’s a charism – a gift – which God imparts. Although it is rightly referred to as “papal infallibility," nonetheless it is something shared with the whole body of Catholic bishops. Although they do not have this charism individually, they do exercise the gift when they teach in doctrinal unity with the Successor of St. Peter. This is defined in Lumen Gentium, n. 25:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.

Despite the myths held by some, the Pope doesn’t wake up in the morning and think to himself, “I think I shall proclaim something infallibly today,” nor are Catholics inhabitants of an ecclesiastical Wonderland in which they are required to believe “six impossible things before breakfast.”

So what is papal infallibility? It is defined in the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, n. 9:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

This was confirmed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium, n. 25:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

The doctrine of papal infallibility did not abruptly appear in the 19th century. It was found implicitly from the earliest days of the Church, and indeed has its foundation in Holy Scripture itself. In St. John’s Gospel (21:15-17) Christ makes it clear to St. Peter that he, Peter, is to tend the flock and feed the sheep; in St. Luke’s Gospel (22:32) our Lord tells Peter that He will pray for him, so that his faith will not fail, and for him to strengthen the other apostles; in St. Matthew’s Gospel (16:18) Christ proclaims Peter to be the Rock on which He would build His Church.

The Church, founded by our divine Saviour, was commanded by Him to teach everything that He had revealed to His apostles (St. Matthew 28:20), and He promised them that they would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (St. John 16:13). As the teaching authority of the Church, along with the primacy of St. Peter and his successors, was more and more comprehended, there came a clearer understanding of the protection God provides through the gift of infallibility. From the scriptural testimony, on through such witnesses as St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augustine of Hippo, it is clear the Church has always understood that God reveals and safeguards His truth through this charism.

There is an erroneous idea that a formal statement of infallible truth marks the occasion when the Church only began to teach a particular doctrine – in other words, that belief in papal infallibility began in only in 1870. However, infallible pronouncements are usually made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics, and so have never required a formal and infallible statement. We see this even with a cursory reading of the Catechism, where most of the doctrines outlined in its pages require no corresponding papal document to confirm what is simply part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

If we scratch the surface of most arguments against the doctrine of papal infallibility, we will often find that there is confusion between infallibility and impeccability (“look at the sinful popes in history”), along with an independent streak of protestantism (“no one is going to tell me what I have to believe”). I find it to be both amazing and amusing, that those who are most vociferous against papal infallibility present their arguments with a certitude which could only be described as infallible.

It takes no great leap of faith to accept the fact that the God who created the universe and raises the dead, would also ensure that His children are given the truth. That He protects His Vicar on earth from solemnly defining something as true, if it’s really false, not only harmonizes with Scripture, but it is reflected in the unbroken history of the Church. We should derive great comfort from the doctrine of infallibility, because it’s a beautiful act of God’s divine love.

The Eight Jesuits Say "We Believe That We Survived Because We Were Living The Message Of Fatima. We Lived And Prayed The Rosary Daily In That Home."



Father Hubert Shiffer was one of these eight Jesuit survivors. He was 30 when the atomic bomb exploded at Hiroshima and lived another 33 years in good health. He recounted his experiences at Hiroshima during the Eucharistic Congress held in Philadelphia (USA) in 1976. At that time, all eight members of the Jesuit community were still alive. Fr. Shiffer, on the morning of August 6, 1945, he had just finished Mass, went into the rectory and sat down at the breakfast table, and had just sliced a grapefruit, and had just put his spoon into the grapefruit when there was a bright flash of light. His first thought was that it was an explosion in the harbor (this was a major port where the Japanese refueled their submarines.)
Then, in the words of Fr. Schiffer: "Suddenly, a terrific explosion filled the air with one bursting thunderstroke. An invisible force lifted me from the chair, hurled me through the air, shook me, battered me, whirled me 'round and round like a leaf in a gust of autumn wind."
The next thing he remembered, he opened his eyes and he was laying on the ground. He looked around and there was NOTHING in any direction: the railroad station and buildings in all directions were leveled to the ground. The only physical harm to himself was that he could feel a few pieces of glass in the back of his neck. As far as he could tell, there was nothing else physically wrong with himself. After the conquest of the Americans, their army doctors and scientists explained to him that his body
would begin to deteriorate because of the radiation. To the doctors amazement, Fr. Schiffer's body contained no radiation or ill-effects from the bomb. Conclusion: There are no physical laws to explain why the Jesuits were untouched in the Hiroshima airblast. There is no other actual or test data where a structure such as this was not totally destroyed at this standoff distance by an atomic weapon. All who were at this range from the epicenter should have received enough radiation to be dead within at most a matter of minutes if nothing else happened to them. There is no known way to design a uranium-235 atomic bomb, which could leave such a large discrete area intact while destroying everything around it immediately outside the fireball (by shaping the
plasma). Not only did they all survive with (at most) relatively minor injuries, but they all lived well past that awful day with no radiation sickness, no loss of hearing, or any other visible long term defects or maladies. Naturally, they were interviewed numerous times (Fr. Schiffer said over 200 times) by scientists and health care people about their remarkable experience.
The eight Jesuits say "we believe that we survived because we were living the message of Fatima. We lived and prayed the rosary daily in that home." Fr. Shiffer feels that he received a protective shield from the Blessed Mother which protected him from all radiation and ill-effects. Fr. Schiffer attributes this to devotion to the Blessed Mother, and his daily Fatima Rosary; "in that house the Holy Rosary was recited together every day."
Of course the secular scientists are speechless and incredulous at this explanation - and they are sure there is some "real" explanation - but at the same time over 50 years later the scientists are still absolutely bamboozled when it comes to finding a plausible scenario to explain the missionary's unique escape from the hellish power of that bomb. From a scientific viewpoint, what happened to those Jesuits at Hiroshima still defies all human logic from the laws of physics as understood today (or at any time in the future). It must be concluded that some other (external) force was present whose power and/or capability to transform energy and matter as it relates to humans is beyond current comprehension; a plausibility argument for the existence of a Creator who left his "calling card" at Hiroshima.

http://www.pdtsigns.com/hirosh.html

Obviously you do care because you are still sticking around.

And what did we compromise on? He may have his issues but as far as I can see you are always thinking negatively about others. If both of you have some personal feud, go take your fight elsewhere. Maybe start your own church where only those who agrees with you are welcome.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jun 16 2017, 05:36 PM

Yes, I still think his church is not the real Church, so what reconciliation are you talking about? You have an issue with English? Or ADHD or something like that? Even if I disagree with him, I don't need to be rude to him. Is that something new to you? Congrats on the new found support btw. Enjoy it while it lasts.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jun 16 2017, 06:05 PM

Go ahead. Spew more.

Yes, oh mighty popular sylar. Please don't stop.

Know Thyself: St. Teresa of Avila on Humility



How do we gain true humility? How well do we really know ourselves?

Recently, for spiritual reading I’ve been reading St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle. It’s a book I tried to read before, but it was a bit forced, and never had much impact.

This time, I feel like she wrote that book just for me. Right to my soul. God’s timing, huh?

The idea that has recently captured me, and changed my life recently, is her talk of self knowledge. An idea early on in the book, one that I had brushed over before, but for some reason not taken too seriously (I’d been stuck in an outer mansion).

Self Knowledge and Humility

Teresa’s talk of self knowledge relates to humility. Humility on its own, as a virtue, can be rather forced. It isn’t true humility if you are solely endeavoring to be humble. However, with self knowledge, you are first made truly humble.

Humility is secret. You are aware of your actions, thoughts and their effects, and where you need God’s grace in your life. Rather than outwardly seeking to appear humble, we truly gain the virtue. We endeavour to grow and change for the better.

Self knowledge is so important that, even if you were raised right up to the heavens, I should like you never to relax your cultivation of it; so long as we are on this earth, nothing matters more to us than humility. (St. Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle)

Self knowledge can be a tough thing to face. Like seeing in the mirror all your flaws. And we become aware of our need for God. We realise our failings. The areas we need to grow in. And that we can’t do it on our own. We need divine help. And for the knowledge of ourselves in the first place, we need God. It is cyclical.

We shall never succeed in knowing ourselves unless we seek to know God: let us think of his greatness and then come back to our own baseness; by looking at his purity we shall see our foulness; by meditating upon his humility, we shall see how far we are from being humble. (St. Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle)

Lord, I need You, oh, I need You /Every hour I need You /My one defense, my righteousness /Oh God, how I need You (Matt Maher, “Lord I Need You”)

Prayer and Self Knowledge

The secret is prayer and meditation. Knowledge of God brings self knowledge.

If we turn from self towards God, our understanding and our will become nobler and readier to embrace all that is good: if we never rise above the slough of our own miseries we do ourselves a great disservice. (St Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle)

St. Teresa speaks of how we get stuck in thinking solely of ourselves, ironically suffering from a lack of self knowledge. We have a fixed idea of ourselves, thinking that we are humble, yet being self obsessed. This is a trick of the devil to prevent us really knowing ourselves and the way of God. We seek satisfaction in things that aren’t actually fulfilling, that we think we need but we won’t find true happiness in.

But with prayer and self knowledge, we gain perspective. We are able to really “walk” with God, to open our eyes to His graces in our lives and how we respond to them. To better make decisions. To be joyful and to greater give ourselves as gifts for others. To live our lives as a prayer.

How can we grow in self knowledge?

OVERCOMING SINFUL ANGER

If you read anything by St. Francis de Sales, you come away with the impression that he was patience incarnate. He talks endlessly about the wonderful benefits of meekness, gentleness, and kindness—especially to those who deserve it least.

Yet, many don’t realize that this great saint struggled for most of his life with a fiery temper and an intense impatience. By his own admission, it took him nearly 20 years to overcome these tendencies. It is a testament to his fierce battle against self that he is known and remembered for the exact opposite virtues of patience and gentleness, rather than those that came easily to his nature.

OVERCOMING ANGER

At one point or another, we have likely all had moments where we feel that flash of blinding rage come on. We lose control in these moments, saying and doing things that we later regret. I know this has happened to me, anyway, and to be completely frank, temper is something I struggle with.

Anger doesn’t have to manifest itself only in moments of passion however; it can also come in the form of a latent bitterness and unforgiveness over past wrongs that festers for many years. Anger can be explosive, or it can also be silently passive-aggressive.

4127iX+22bL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_But despite the power of angry emotions, we are not helpless against them. The saints and masters of the spiritual life have left us a wealth of advice on conquering our passions, including temper, and they demonstrate by their lives that even the most intense feelings of anger can and must be overcome.

There’s one little book in particular that is helpful for those who struggle with anger, whether it be a quick temper or seething resentment: Overcoming Sinful Anger by Father T.G. Morrow. In this short, compact little book, Fr. Morrow addresses the causes of anger and deftly synthesizes the remedies. His style is accessible as it is succinct, and illustrative stories are sprinkled throughout. His advice is applicable to everyone, whether one struggles with a fierce temper or not.

THE GOSPEL AND RELATIONSHIPS

I recommend Fr. Morrow’s work primarily because it acknowledges that the Gospel is ultimately a matter of relationships, namely our relationship to both God and our neighbor. If our relationship with our neighbor is damaged, our relationship with God is also damaged. Jesus put this fact plainly in the Sermon on the Mount: “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:-23-24).

In other words, reconciliation with our neighbor must always precede a right relationship with God. The only conditional petition in the Lord’s prayer is about right relationships—“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Our Lord makes it clear that if we do not forgive others, we shouldn’t expect forgiveness ourselves: “If you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matthew 6:15).

BIG SINS, LITTLE SINS

When we think of grave sins, we are too often think only of think of things like adultery or cold-blooded murder. If we don’t do these things, we think we are alright spiritually. And yet Jesus makes it quite clear that, while it is more subtle, anger is a form of murder and that it has grave consequences to our souls (see Matt. 5:22). St. Paul, too, mentions anger alongside adultery in his list of sins that will keep people out of heaven (see Gal. 5:20-21).

In short, anger is not something we can tolerate in our lives, for it is deadly to our souls. As Fr. Morrow writes:

For the real Christian, it’s not where we’re from that counts the most, but where we would like to go one day. Explosive anger is not something you want to have with you when you leave this planet. It will profoundly dampen your ability to enter the Kingdom.

If you have a problem with exploding anger and you want to be a Christian, you absolutely must work hard to overcome it. You cannot simply say, “Well, that’s me,” if you want to be friends with the Lord.

CONCLUSION

Fr. Morrow’s little book, Overcoming Sinful Anger, is an excellent resource in the battle against anger. Whether your explode in anger several times a day or struggle with forgiving past hurts, this book is sure to have advice for you that is as practical as it is simple. I highly recommend it.

It is often said that admitting you have a problem is the first step to resolving it. If we are humble enough to admit we struggle with anger, we can certainly overcome it by God’s grace. Like any growth in the spiritual life, extinguishing the fires of anger will take time and determination, but the struggle will be worth it.

https://www.catholicgentleman.net/2015/03/o...g-sinful-anger/

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jun 17 2017, 01:51 AM

The Whore of Babylon

In another tract, Hunting the Whore of Babylon, we looked at nine arguments given by fundamentalist Dave Hunt for his claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelation 17–18. His arguments are typical of those used by fundamentalist anti-Catholics and are easily proven wrong. (See that tract for details).

But we can go beyond a mere critique of the shallow anti-Catholic arguments like Hunt’s. There is irrefutable evidence in Revelation 17–18 (the chapters Fundamentalists love to quote againstthe Catholic Church) that proves that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be the Whore.



A Vision in the Wilderness


When John introduces the Whore in Revelation 17, he tells us: "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of b.asphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.’ And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly" (Rev. 17:1–6).

This passage tells us several things about the Whore: (1) She is an international power, since she "sits on many waters," representing different peoples (17:15), and she has committed fornication with "the kings of the earth," and she has inflamed "the dwellers on earth" with her fornication. (2) She is connected with the seven-headed Beast from Revelation 13:1–10. That Beast was a major pagan empire, since its symbolism combined animal elements from four other major pagan empires (compare Rev. 13:1–2 with Dan. 7:1–8). (3) The Woman is connected with royalty, since she is dressed in the royal color purple. (4) The Woman is rich, for she is "bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup." (5) She has committed some kind of fornication, which in Scripture is often a symbol of false religion—lack of fidelity to the God who created heaven and earth. (6) She is symbolically known as Babylon. (7) She is a central cause of "abominations" in the land, abominations being a reference to practices, especially religious practices, that are offensive to God. And (8) she persecutes Christians "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus."

While the rest of her description could refer to a number of things, the symbolic designation "Babylon" narrows it down to two: pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem. It is well known that the early Church Fathers referred to pagan Rome as "Babylon"; however, there are also indications in Revelation that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Historically, a number of commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, have adopted this interpretation.



The Seven Heads


Continuing in Revelation, the angel begins to explain to John the woman’s symbolism: "This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while" (Rev. 17:9–10).

Fundamentalists argue that these seven mountains must be the seven hills of ancient Rome. However the Greek word here, horos, is almost always translated "mountain" in Scripture. Mountains are often symbols of kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Obad. 8–21; Amos 4:1, 6:1), which might be why the seven heads also symbolize seven kings. The mountains could stand for a series of seven kings, five of whom have already fallen.

This passage gives us a key rule of Bible interpretation which is often denied by Fundamentalists: A symbol does not have to refer to one and only one thing. Here Scripture itself tells us that the heads refer both to seven mountains and seven kings, meaning the symbol has multiple fulfillments. Thus there is not a one-to-one correspondence in the Bible between symbols and their referents.

Also, the mountains could be a reference to pagan Rome, yet the Whore could still be a reference to apostate Jerusalem. In this case, her sitting on the Beast would not indicate a geographical location but an alliance between the two powers. The Whore (Jerusalem) would be allied with the Beast (Rome) in persecuting "the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus." (Note that the Whore also sits on many waters, which we are told are many peoples, [cf. 17:15]. The context makes it clear that here her "sitting" on something does not refer to a geographical location.)

This passage gives us one reason why the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore. We are told that the heads "are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come." If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet Christian Rome and Vatican City did not. However, pagan Rome did have a line of emperors, and the majority of commentators see this as the line of kings to which 17:10 refers. Five of these emperors are referred to as having already fallen, one as still reigning in John’s time, and another yet to come. Since Jerusalem had no such line of kings in the first century, this gives us evidence that the Beast (though not the Whore) is Rome.



The Ten Horns


The angel also interprets for John the meaning of the Beast’s ten horns: "And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful" (17:12–14).

This shows us that the Beast is allied with ten lower rulers and with their own territories. Some Fundamentalists bent on making this apply to modern times and the Catholic Church have argued that the horns refer to the European Community (EC) and a revived Roman empire with the Catholic Church at its head. The problem is that there are ten kings, but there are now manymore than ten nations in the EC.

However, what we are told about the horns does fit one of the other candidates we have for the Whore—apostate Jerusalem. The angel tells John: "And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (17:16–17).

If the Whore is Jerusalem and the Beast is Rome (with the ten horns as vassal states), then the prophecy makes perfect sense. The alliance between the two in persecuting Christians broke down in A.D. 66–70, when Rome and its allied forces conquered Israel and then destroyed, sacked, and burned Jerusalem, just as Jesus prophesied (Luke 21:5–24).



The Whore’s Authority


Finally the angel tells John: "And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth" (17:18). This again points to pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. In the case of the former, the dominion would be political; in the case of the latter, it could be a number of things. It could be spiritual dominion in that Jerusalem held the religion of the true God. It could be a reference to the manipulation by certain Jews and Jewish leaders of gentiles into persecuting Christians.

It could even be political, since Jerusalem was the center of political power in Canaan and, under the authority of the Romans, it ruled a considerable amount of territory and less powerful peoples. On this thesis "the kings of the earth" would be "the kings of the land" (the Greek phrase can be translated either way). Such local rulers of the land of Canaan would naturally resent Jerusalem and wish to cooperate with the Romans in its destruction—just as history records they did. Local non-Jewish peoples were used by the Romans in the capture of Jerusalem.



The hub of world commerce


Continuing in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore, and a number of facts are revealed which also show that she cannot be the Catholic Church. For one, she is depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When it is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that "the merchants of the earth [or land] weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more" (18:11) and "all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, ‘Alas, alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!’" (18:17–19).

Pagan Rome was indeed the hub of world commerce in its day, supported by its maritime trading empire around the Mediterranean, but Christian Rome is not the hub of world commerce. After the Reformation, the economic center of power was located in Germany, Holland, England, and more recently, in the United States and Japan.



Persecuting apostles and prophets


When the Whore falls we read, "‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth" (18:20, 24). This shows that the Whore persecuted not just Christians, but apostles and prophets. Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10).

Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore!

Fundamentalists are fond of conjecturing that in the last days there will be a "revived Roman empire," such as the one that persecuted Christians in the first century. Yet they never draw the inference that this empire would be headed by a revived pagan Rome, with the bishop of Rome leading the Christian underground, just as he did in the first century.

Still, Revelation 18:20 and 18:24 prove that the Whore had to be a creature of the first century, which, in the Fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church was not. Thus, on their own view, their identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore is completely impossible! Only ancient, pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem could possibly be the Whore.



If Not the Whore, the Bride


The fact that the Catholic Church is singled out by Fundamentalists as the Whore reveals that they intuit the fact it has an important role in God’s plan. No other church gets accused of being the Whore—only the Catholic Church. And it is understandable why: The Catholic Church is the largest Christian body, larger than all other Christian bodies put together, suggesting a prominent place in God’s plan. Fundamentalists assume, without objectively looking at the evidence, that the Catholic Church cannot be the Bride of Christ, so it must be the Whore of Babylon.

Yet the evidence for its true role is plain. The First Vatican Council taught that "the Church itself . . . because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission" (On the Catholic Faith 3).

So why is the Bride maligned as the Whore? Jesus himself answered the question: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, - Galatians 5:22

If anyone claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit but does not have these fruits, know that he/she is nothing but a liar.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jun 21 2017, 11:12 AM

Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. - Jude 1:21

Saint John Fisher, pray for us - "I die for the Faith of the Holy Catholic Church"



After the lieutenant of the Tower had received the writ for his execution, because it was then very late, and the prisoner asleep, he was loath to dis-ease him from his rest. But in the morning, before five of the clock, he came to him in his chamber, in the Bell-tower, finding him yet asleep in his bed, and waking him, told him, he was come to him on a message from the king, to signify unto him, that his pleasure was he should suffer death that forenoon. "Well," quoth the bishop, "if this be your errand, you bring me no great news; for I have looked a long time for this message, and I must humbly thank his Majesty, that it pleaseth him to rid me from all this worldly business. Yet let me by your patience sleep an hour or two; for I have slept very ill this night, not for any fear of death, I thank God, but by reason of my great infirmity and weakness."

"The king's pleasure is farther," said the lieutenant, "that you shall use as little speech as may be, especially of any thing touching his Majesty, whereby the people should have any cause to think of him, or his proceedings, otherwise than well." "For that," said he, "you shall see me order myself, as, by God's grace, neither the king, nor any man else, shall have occasion to mislike of my words." With which answer the lieutenant departed from him; and so the prisoner, falling again to rest, slept soundly two hours and more; and, after he was awaked, called to his man to help him up; but first commanded him to take away his shirt-of-hair, which customably he wore, and to convey it privily out of the house; and, instead thereof, to lay him forth a clean white shirt, and all the best apparel he had, as cleanly brushed as might be. And, as he was arraying himself, his man, seeing in him more curiosity and care for the fine and cleanly wearing of his apparel that day, than was wont, demanded of him, what this sudden change meant, saying, that his lordship knew well enough, that he must put off all again within two hours, and lose it. "What of that?" said he: "Dost not thou mark, that this is our marriage-day? and that it behoveth us therefore to use more cleanliness for solemnity thereof?"

About nine of the clock the lieutenant came again, and, finding him almost ready, said, he was now come for him. Then said he to his man, "Reach me my furred tippet to put about my neck." "O, my lord!" said the lieutenant, "what need ye be so careful for your health for this little time, being, as yourself knows, not much above an hour?" "I think no otherwise," said, he, "but yet, in the mean time, I will keep myself as well as I can. For I tell you truth; though I have, I thank our Lord, a very good desire and willing mind to die at this present, and so trust of his infinite mercy and goodness he will continue it, yet will I not willingly hinder my health in the mean time one minute of an hour, but still prolong the same, as long as I can, by such reasonable ways and means as Almighty God hath provided for me." And, with that, taking a little book in his hand, which was a New Testament lying by him, he made a cross on his forehead, and went out of his prison-door with the lieutenant, being so weak as that he was scant able to go down the stairs; wherefore, at the stairs' foot he was taken up in a chair between two of the lieutenant's men, and carried to the Tower-gate, with a great number of weapons about him, to be delivered to the sheriff of London for execution.

And, as they were come to the uttermost precinct of the liberties of the Tower, they rested there with him a space, till such time as one was sent before to know in what readiness the sheriffs were to receive him; during which space he rose out of his chair, and standing on his feet, leaned his shoulder to the wall, and lifting his eyes towards heaven, he opened a little book in his hand, and said, "O Lord! this is the last time that ever I shall open this book; let some comfortable place now chance unto me, whereby I thy poor servant may glorify thee in this my last hour." And, with that, looking into the book, the first thing that came to his sight were these words: Hæc est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum. Ego te glorificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi, etc., John xvii. 3, and with that he shut the book together, and said, "Here is even learning enough for me to my life's end." And so, the sheriff being ready for him, he was taken up again among certain of the sheriff's men, with a new and much greater company of weapons than was before, and carried to the scaffold on the Tower-hill, otherwise called East Smithfield, himself praying all the way, and recording upon the words which he before had read.

When he was come to the foot of the scaffold, they that carried him offered to help him up the stairs; but, said he, "Nay, masters, seeing I am come so far, let me alone, and ye shall see me shift for myself well enough!" and so went up the stairs without any help, so lively that it was a marvel to them that before knew his debility and weakness. But as he was mounting the stairs, the south-east sun shined very bright in his face; whereupon he said to himself these words, lifting up his hands, Accedite ad eum et illuminamini, et facies vestræ non confundentur. By that time he was upon the scaffold it was about ten o'clock; where the executioner, being ready to do his office, kneeled down to him, as the fashion is, and asked him forgiveness. "I forgive thee," said he, "with all my heart, and I trust thou shall see me overcome this storm lustily." Then was his gown and tippet taken from him, and he stood in his doublet and hose in sight of all the people, whereof there was no small number assembled to see the execution.

Being upon the scaffold, he spake to the people in effect as followeth:—"Christian people, I am come hither to die for the faith of Christ's Holy Catholic Church; and, I thank God, hitherto my stomach hath served me very well thereunto, so that yet I have not feared death; wherefore I desire you all to help and assist with your prayers, that, at the very point and instant of death's stroke, I may in that very moment stand steadfast without fainting in any one point of the Catholic faith, free from any fear. And I beseech Almighty God of his infinite goodness to save the king and this realm, and that it may please him to hold his holy hand over it, and send the king a good council." These words he spake with such a cheerful countenance, such a stout and constant courage, and such a reverent gravity, that he appeared to all men, not only void of fear, but also glad of death.

After these few words by him uttered, he kneeled down on both his knees, and said certain prayers. Among which, as some reported, one was the hymn of Te Deum laudamus to the end; and the psalm, In te, Domine, speravi. Then came the executioner and bound an handkerchief about his eyes; and so the bishop, lifting up his hands and heart to heaven, said a few prayers, which were not long, but fervent and devout: which being ended, he laid his head down over the midst of a little block, where the executioner, being ready with a sharp and heavy axe, cut asunder his slender neck at one blow; which bled so abundantly, that many, saith my author, wondered to see so much blood issue out of so lean and slender a body, though, in my judgment, that might rather have translated the wonder from his leanness to his age, it being otherwise a received tradition, that lean folk have the most blood in them.

Thus died John Fisher, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, on the two-and-twentieth of June, being St. Alban's day.

[As written by Protestant minister Thomas Fuller in his Church History of Britain.]

Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Ordered to be recited annually at the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
by Pope Pius XI



O Sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before Thine altar eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which Thy loving Heart is everywhere subject.

Mindful alas! that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities, which we now deplore from the depths of our hearts, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone by voluntary expiation not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those, who, straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or renouncing the vows of their baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.

We are now resolved to expiate each and every deplorable outrage committed against Thee; we are determined to make amends for the manifold offenses against Christian modesty in unbecoming dress and behavior, for all the foul seductions laid to ensnare the the feet of the innocent, for the frequent violation of Sundays and holidays, and the shocking blasphemies uttered against Thee and Thy Saints.

We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Thy Vicar on earth and Thy priests are subjected for the profanation, by conscious neglect or terrible acts of sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Thy divine love; and lastly for the public crimes of nations who resist the rights and the teaching authority of the Church which Thou hast founded.

Would O divine Jesus, we were able to wash away such abominations with our blood! We now offer, in reparation for these violations of Thy divine honor, the satisfaction Thou didst once make to Thy eternal Father on the cross and which Thou dost continue to renew daily on our altars; we offer it in union with the acts of atonement of Thy Virgin Mother and all the Saints and of the pious faithful on earth; and we sincerely promise to make recompense, as far as we can with the help of Thy grace, for all neglect of Thy great love and for the sins we and others have committed in the past.

Henceforth we will live a life of unwavering faith, of purity of conduct, of perfect observance of the precepts of the Gospel and especially that of Charity.

We promise to the best of our power to prevent others from offending Thee and to bring as many as possible to follow Thee.

O loving Jesus, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our model in reparation, deign to receive the voluntary offering we make of this act of expiation; and by the crowning gift of perseverance keep us faithful unto death in our duty and allegiance we owe to Thee, so that we may all one day come to that happy home, where Thou with the Father and the Holy Ghost livest and reignest God, world without end. Amen.

His writings are typical of what Jack Chick would spew. Conspiracies etc. His presumptions of what he thinks others believe in takes the cake. Attends protestant churches but does not believe in what they believe in. Awesome right? Should have just created his own church as suggested earlier.



This post has been edited by yeeck: Jun 27 2017, 06:12 PM

Are the Freemasons Finally Exposing their Long-Held Secrets?

The Bern Historical Museum is organizing an exposition from June 15 to September 3, 2017, under the title “Top Secret: The Freemasons”.

In June 1717, exactly 300 years ago, four London lodges combined to form the first Masonic "obedience": the Grand Lodge of London. This date marks the birth of the modern institution of Freemasonry. To commemorate the event, the Bern Historical Museum, with the collaboration of a lodge in Bern, is organizing this display.

The goal of the exhibition is to attempt to dispel the so-called persistent prejudices against this secret society. The exhibition, which is very didactic, shows the emergence of Freemasonry at the time of the Enlightenment, the way it promoted liberalism throughout the 19th century, and the “witch hunt” the secret societies claim to have undergone under the Fascist Italian and Nazi regimes.

Visitors are presented with some Masonic signs and symbols – those the lodges were willing to divulge. Another showcase that will be sure to draw attention: a representation of the famous “Chamber of Reflection”, with a skull and a candle, where the candidate is placed for a time in order to meditate upon his mortal nature and his motives for wishing to join the lodge, reasons which he must afterwards put into writing.

We must not forget the heart of the lodge, the “Temple”, where the ceremonies are held. Before entering this room that is ordinarily reserved for the initiated, sightseers will first see a showcase with a model of the Temple of Solomon, made according to the original temple described in the Old Testament.

A Whitewashing of History


Of course, visitors will keep in mind that this abundance of occult signs is really just a captatio benevolentiae, aimed at presenting Freemasonry as sympathetic, helping them forget how profoundly anti-Christian it is.

But nobody can be mistaken. The exposition in Bern knows who its enemy is: the Catholic Church. It mentions that, at the time of the Enlightenment, “Masonic tolerance was a threat” in the eyes of the Church. The exhibition, which clearly has no fear of amalgams, also recalls that in southern Europe, the Inquisition relentlessly hounded the Freemasons, just like the Nazis in the 20th century.

In order to emotionally mark visitors, they are shown an illustration of the Masonic legend that shows the Portuguese Inquisition torturing John Coustos, a stonemason born in Bern to Huguenot parents, who settled in Portugal, where he was condemned to penal servitude for being a Freemason in 1744.

But the exposition does avoid mentioning all the Catholic magisterium’s doctrinal condemnations of Freemasonry over the past two centuries and more, beginning with the pontifical bull In Eminenti Apostolatus, thundered by Clement XII on April 28, 1738. This document pronounced a latae sententiae excommunication against Catholics belonging to the lodges. After being repeated by the popes many times, this condemnation was inscribed in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code.

Current Statements from the Church


The new Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 by the Vatican no longer explicitly mentions the condemnation, but it still prescribes a penalty for anyone who “joins an association which plots against the Church”, and an interdict – which deprives a person of the sacraments, of participating in the divine office, and of burial in consecrated ground –for those who “promote or direct an association of this kind”.

Along the same lines, on November 26, 1983, John Paul II approved a “Declaration on Masonic Associations”. It was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time, and it insists that “the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.” The declaration mentions in passing that “the faithful who enroll in the Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

If the Church is severe in her judgment on Freemasonry, it is because there are grave reasons to condemn it. The first is naturalism, that is not so much a denial of the existence of God as a refusal to recognize the consequences of His existence in the natural order. Thus society should be organized, according to the “brothers”, as if God did not exist.

Another motive for condemnation: the doctrinal relativism that hides behind the mask of “tolerance”. The Masonic method – as Richard Dupuy, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France, publicly stated on July 20, 1968, at the Convention of his obedience – consists in “perpetually questioning everything we know”. On the religious level, the disastrous consequence of this relativism is the refusal of all dogma and all revelation. Not to mention the moral level, where every sort of deviation becomes possible.

Lastly, the sworn “secrecy” of the Freemasons is denounced by the Church in the name of her Divine Founder’s own words: “For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved; but he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God” (Jn. 3:20-21)

Sources: cath.ch / Musée d’Histoire de Berne

A Boy, His Parents, Doctors, and the Government

Today, the case of a little boy who is soon to die.

His name is Charlie.

He was born looking quite normal, about 10 months ago, in England, but he suffered from a rare, and lethal, cellular condition for which no cure is known.

After many months of care in a British hospital, doctors told his parents that they could do nothing more.

However, his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, learned of new -- but still experimental -- treatments in the United States.

Thinking they might try to heal Charlie with these treatments, they raised more than $1.5 million through an internet appeal to take him from England to America.

But doctors in England argued that the parents were not really considering Charlie's best interests.

The British doctors argued that what the parents proposed was really to "experiment" on their child, so the British doctors refused to accept the parents' proposal to remove the child from the hospital and fly him to America, all the while attached to special life support breathing equipment, which he needs to stay alive.

The parents appealed the decision, taking the matter to British courts.

But at each level, the British court system sided with the doctors and the hospital.

The proposal to withdraw the child from the hospital was rejected.

The parents recently made a final appeal, to the European Court (I do not understand what the European Court has to do with a British family and hospital, especially since Brexit, but evidently the European Court has some sort of jurisdiction in Britain). The European Court earlier this week rejected the parents' appeal.

And so, the British hospital is reportedly about to take little Charlie off of life support, and, according to all accounts, Charlie will soon expire due to an inability to breathe on his own. (The latest reports suggest that the hospital has decided to give the parents another day or two with the child, before taking him off of the respirator; link).

This evening at 7 p.m. in St. Peter's Square in Rome there will be a Rosary prayed for Charlie and his parents, and all involved in this case.

Of course parental emotion sometimes trumps reason. Parents will attempt everything possible to save their children, even refusing to accept the fact that a certain situation cannot be healed or cured by medical means.

But in this case, where the parents in their desperation found the funds to try one last possibility to heal their child, it seems that the doctors, the courts, and the European Court, should grant the parents their right, as parents, to have the ultimate responsibility for their child, and allow them to do everything they can to save his life.

So what has occurred in this case seems a miscarriage of justice.

And, this case could be become a precedent in future for limiting the rights of parents to care for their children.

For this reason, it is an important case and worth knowing about.

For the Vatican, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, issued a statement today reaffirming the Church's teaching that it is immoral to end any human life by an intentional act, including by suspending nutrition or hydration ("non si può mai porre in essere alcun gesto che metta fine intenzionalmente a un’esistenza umana compresa la sospensione della nutrizione e dell’idratazione”).

"The will of the parents must be respected and heard" ("va rispettata e ascoltata anzitutto la volontà dei genitori"), Paglia said.

But he then added: "At the same time, it is necessary to also help them to recognize the burdensome peculiarity of their situation, such that they cannot be left alone to take such sorrowful decisions" ("al contempo, è necessario aiutare anche loro a riconoscere la peculiarità gravosa della loro condizione, tale per cui non possono essere lasciati soli nel prendere decisioni così dolorose").

May eternal light shine upon Charlie, and may he rest in peace, and may his parents be comforted in their sorrow.

===================

Here is a BBC account of this case (link):

Charlie Gard parents lose European court appeal

27 June 2017

Judges at the European Court of Human Rights have rejected a plea from the parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard to intervene in his case.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates lost their final legal bid to take their son to the US for treatment.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital believe Charlie has no chance of survival.

The court agreed, concluding that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm."

Charlie is thought to be one of 16 children in the world to have mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

His parents had previously seen a Supreme Court challenge to continue Charlie's life support fail.

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit."

They said the application presented by the parents was "inadmissible" and said the court's decision was "final."

The court "also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure" which had required doctors to continue providing life support treatment to Charlie.

BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh said it is likely Charlie's life support machine will be turned off within a few days following discussions between the hospital and his family.

Charlie Gard: Timeline of parent's legal battle:

3 March 2017: Mr Justice Francis starts to analyse the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

11 April: Mr Justice Francis says doctors can stop providing life-support treatment

3 May: Charlie's parents ask Court of Appeal judges to consider the case

23 May: Three Court of Appeal judges analyse the case

25 May: Court of Appeal judges dismiss the couple's appeal

8 June: Charlie's parents lose fight in the Supreme Court

20 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights start to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions

27 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights refuse to intervene

Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, raised £1.3m on a crowdfunding site to pay for the experimental treatment in the US.
Ms Yates had already indicated the money would go towards a charity for mitochondrial depletion syndromes if Charlie did "not get his chance."

"We'd like to save other babies and children because these medications have been proven to work and we honestly have so much belief in them.

"If Charlie doesn't get this chance, we will make sure that other innocent babies and children will be saved," she said.

Great Ormond Street Hospital said the decision marked "the end of what has been a very difficult process" and its priority was to "provide every possible support to Charlie's parents as we prepare for the next steps."

"There will be no rush to change Charlie's care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion," a hospital spokesman said.

In April a High Court judge ruled against the trip to America and said Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.

Three Court of Appeal judges upheld the ruling in May and three Supreme Court justices dismissed a further challenge by the parents.

==============

And here is information about the case from the website of the London hospital where Charlie has been since last October (link):

Frequently asked questions about the Charlie Gard court case

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (GOSH) has been contacted by many people who share our concern for Charlie, and his parents, and ask for information about the very difficult decisions surrounding Charlie’s care.

As this is a very complex case, we have provided the information below in the form of an FAQ to help those contacting us to understand how Charlie is being cared for at Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Full details about Charlie’s treatment remains confidential and the content of the FAQs is based solely on information that is already in the public domain as a result of the court process. No new information is included out of respect for Charlie and his family.

We hope that those contacting the hospital respect the confidentiality of Charlie and his family and so appreciate that we cannot respond to individual requests for information.

If you would like to read the full details of the legal decisions, please refer to the following sources:

High Court decision on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website.

Court of Appeal decision on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website.

Supreme Court decision available from the UK Supreme Court's You Tube channel.

Who is Charlie Gard?

Charlie Gard is a GOSH patient who is currently in our intensive care unit.

What is his condition?

Charlie’s condition is exceptionally rare. He suffers from an inherited mitochondrial disease called infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, referred to generally as “MDDS”.

Charlie suffers specifically from the RRM2B mutation of MDDS.(1)
Charlie’s brain, muscle and ability to breathe are all severely affected. In addition, Charlie has congenital deafness and a severe epilepsy disorder. Charlie's heart, liver and kidneys are also affected.(1)

Charlie has severe progressive muscle weakness and cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided.(1)

Charlie's eyelids cannot stay open and his eyes point in different directions because of muscular weakness. Charlie’s retina would struggle to develop and his brainwaves suggest that he is not going to be able to lay down normal visual patterns that should be learned at an early age. Eyesight is not something you’re born with, it develops over time.(2)

Why is there no treatment available at GOSH?

There is no cure for Charlie’s condition which is terminal. GOSH explored various treatment options, including nucleoside therapy, the experimental treatment that one hospital in the US has agreed to offer now that the parents have the funds to cover the cost of such treatment. GOSH concluded that the experimental treatment, which is not designed to be curative, would not improve Charlie’s quality of life.

How did GOSH come to this decision about his treatment?

GOSH’s clinicians had to balance whether this experimental treatment was in his best interests or not.

One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Charlie’s brain was shown to be extensively damaged at a cellular level. The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred.

The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.(1)

Why is there a court process?

When parents do not agree about a child’s future treatment, it is standard legal process to ask the courts to make a decision. This is what happened in Charlie’s case.

What is the legal process?

GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide whether withdrawal of ventilation and providing palliative care instead of experimental treatment was in Charlie’s best interests.(1)

The High Court ruled this was in Charlie’s best interests on 11 April 2017.
Charlie’s parents then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 May 2017 that the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

The parents have applied to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled on 8 June 2017 that the Court of Appeal and the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

Why has the legal process lasted so long?

Legal processes take time and the courts are doing their best to expedite the process. All parties are adhering to the legal process.

The parents have raised money for the treatment, why can’t it take place?

The High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled it is not in Charlie’s best interests to receive the experimental treatment in the US.

Even if the treatment does not work for Charlie, won’t it help other children in the future?

The courts base their decisions for treatment on what is in Charlie’s best interests, not what is in the best interests of medical science.(1)

What about the parental rights?

Although Charlie’s parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests.(1)

For more details on parental rights during medical treatment, please access the British Medical Association website.

What can you tell us about Charlie’s care?

While we cannot discuss confidential information about Charlie’s care, any child who is as unwell as Charlie will receive round the clock care from a team of highly experienced and specialised nurses, doctors and other health professionals.

Care for children who are ventilated, as Charlie is, might include suctioning to take out extra fluid when a child is not able to cough for themselves, having their vital signs constantly monitored, regularly turning a child to try to prevent pressure sores if they are unable to move independently and trying to ensure a child’s skin is in optimal condition even though they are constantly connected to a ventilator.

In his High Court ruling, 11 April 2017, Mr Justice Francis said: “Charlie has been served by the most experienced and sophisticated team that our excellent hospitals can offer.”(1)

In the Court of Appeal ruling, 25 May 2017, Lady Justice King said: “Charlie and his parents have the benefit of being treated at not only the centre of excellence that is Great Ormond Street Hospital, but of his having been under the care of a world-leading expert on mitochondrial disorders. I would wish to acknowledge the skill and care given to Charlie by the doctors and nurses at Great Ormond Street.”(2)

If the court rules in favour of a withdrawal of treatment order will the life support machine be turned off straight away?

At Great Ormond Street Hospital, our priority in situations like this is to work closely with the family to discuss the next steps in their child’s care. In Charlie’s case we have been discussing for many months, how the withdrawal of treatment may work. There would be no rush for any action to be taken immediately. Discussions and planning in these situations usually take some days – based on the experience of our clinical teams.

References

1. The judgment delivered by Mr Justice Francis in the High Court of Justice Family Division on Tuesday 11 April 2017.
2. The judgment delivered by Lord Justice McFarlane, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Sales in the Court of the Appeal on Thursday 25 May 2017.

Atheist Richard Dawkins: “Any Fetus is Less Human Than an Adult Pig”



“With respect to those meanings of ‘human’ that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.” — A tweet from Richard Dawkins, echoing philosopher Peter Singer, who has made the same comparison.

Dawkins is probably the world’s most famous, or infamous, proponent of atheism, but a belief in atheism need not entail the pro-choice position on the ethics of abortion that Dawkins holds. Indeed, that position is contravened by science and reason accessible to people of any or no faith, independent of any religious teaching or texts. (See here prolifemn.blogspot.com.)

A clarification must be made regarding Dawkins’ use of the term “human.” It can be used in a biological sense to mean a living human organism—a member of the species Homo sapiens—and in that sense the fetus, from the beginning of his or her existence at conception, is a full-fledged human being, like you and me only at an earlier developmental stage, while the pig is not and never will be.

But Dawkins uses “human” in a different sense to refer to certain characteristically-human qualities that he considers morally relevant with respect to how a being ought to be treated—qualities that may not be possessed by all human beings (those who have yet to acquire them, or who have lost them, are excluded from serious moral regard) and that may be possessed by some non-human animals (such as pigs).

Dawkins went on to further discuss abortion and clarify his position. He considers the ability to experience pain the decisive factor: Only beings who can feel pain deserve the sort of moral respect that would preclude killing them. Only when an unborn child is developed enough to feel pain is abortion (presumably) morally impermissible.

But this position does not seem defensible. Surely we may not kill people as long as we do so in a painless fashion. So it must be, as Dawkins puts it, the ability to feel pain that counts.

But what about people who are under anesthesia or temporarily comatose? What about people with the condition called congenital insensitivity to pain? They cannot experience pain. Do they not still have a right to life? Imagine a person whose brain has been surgically altered to prevent the experience of pain.

Are these people not still people?

Even normal, adult human beings who can suffer pain have that ability in varying degrees. Does that mean that our moral worth, our right not to be killed, is also a matter of degree? Are some people more valuable than others? Philosopher Christopher Kaczor writes:

“The kung fu master can put his arms around a burning cauldron, endure the searing of flesh, and carry the weighty object. The proverbial princess cannot stand the pea under her multiple mattresses. Many men cannot bear the least discomfort, and many women endure childbirth without anesthetic. Certain injuries and diseases greatly hinder the human capacity for pain, as do drugs of various kinds, as do differences in degrees of concentration and experience. … Our experiences of pains and pleasures are conditioned by our prior experiences, beliefs, and habits. Since no two human persons have the same experiences, beliefs, and habits, no two human persons have equal capacities for pleasure and pain, and therefore human persons do not have equal rights” [if rights depends on the ability to feel pain, which Kaczor rejects].
This is not to say that pain and suffering are morally irrelevant—clearly they matter a great deal. But it is just as clear that the ability to experience pain is not a necessary criterion for having a right to life or for deserving the kind of moral respect that precludes killing for socio-economic reasons. Nor can the ability to experience pain serve as the basis for equal dignity and rights.

Dawkins will have to rethink his position. (In the meantime, he can at least support current legislation in the United States to stop the dismemberment and killing of unborn children developed enough to feel pain.)