Charlie Gard

The Roman Rite gets in a good punch once in a while, vicious attacks on traditionalists not withstanding - Sunday 25th of February to Saturday 3rd of March

There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.

In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.

My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when  it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.

Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.

In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.

Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.

I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.

Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.

With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"

Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.

There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.

Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.

Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system  that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...

A poster-boy for the culture of death - Sunday 23rd to Saturday 29th of July

There is really only one place to start in a review of this week, and that is with the most tragic death - in the true meaning of the word tragic - of Charlie Gard. This is one of the saddest and certainly most frightening stories that I have come to know in all of Western history.

If my understanding of the facts is correct, this is what happened:

  • An unwed couple gives birth to a boy with a rare genetic defect, untreatable to date.
  • The doctors decide that the boy's disease is so serious that he will not survive and they want to turn off the life support.
  • The parents then say that he should be able to die at home, in the loving embrace of a loving home instead of a sterile hospital.
  • The hospital refuses to discharge him insisting that he must die there.
  • The parents file a suit to bring him home.
  • The hospital challenges this.
  • In the meantime, this case has brought enough international attention to it that a doctor working in the U.S. proposes to have him flown there for further treatment, insisting that there is a slight chance that he could lead a relatively normal life if the treatment works.
  • The hospital still refuses to dismiss him. The courts still agree.
  • The parents have in the meantime managed to raise the money required to take him to the U.S., almost $2 million at the time of the boy's death.
  • The high court rules that the hospital can keep him.
  • The parents keep fighting.
  • The parents appeal to the EU.
  • The European Court refuses to hear the case.
  • Trump and Bergoglio get involved, with the former saying he is willing to fly the child to the U.S. for help and the latter that he is willing to have him flown to Rome.
  • The court case drags on.
  • The parents give up, having had the U.S. doctor fly in to the U.K. to physically examine the boy and with the doctor concluding that too much time has passed without treatment for there to be any hope. Had the treatment come earlier his chances might have been good.
  • The parents still want to take him to die.
  • The hospital refuses to do that and finally...
  • Little Charlie Gard dies in a sterile and cold hospital, surrounded by his parents.

I'll have to admit that I didn't really follow this story from the start, so some of the details and timeline might be a bit off, but I think I have captured the gist of it.

My readers can rest assured that I shall not insult their intelligence by even entertaining the idea that the state of the U.K. could at any time in these proceedings have been interested in the well-being of Charlie Gard. So we must look at why the state fought so hard to make sure that little Charlie Gard died in a hospital and was prevented from leaving the country to seek treatment elsewhere.

Beneath all the headlines, the principles that the U.K., and EU were fighting for are not that difficult to piece out. They are that the government:

  • Has an absolute right to decide who gets to live or die, depending on what they deem to be a worthy life.
  • Has supreme rights which trump parental rights - primarily the parents' rights to decide what is best for the child. This is in spite of the fact that nobody in the governent will mourn for the child, hold a wake for him, or even attend their funeral - that is, assuming they are generous enough to release the body from the hospital for burial.
  • Decides when you die.
  • Decides where  you die.

I'll simply point out that the reason for keeping him a prisoner instead of releasing him abroad for treatment was because the hospital decided that his life, even if the treatment had worked, would not have been worth living. In other words, if the government determines that your quality of life is low enough, it can keep you locked up in a hospital, preventing  you from seeking treatment from a doctor of your choice anywhere else, and depriving you of any life support.

How is this any different than the most despotic and evil regimes frequently brought up in these conversations? Is it not always the case that the principal at stake for these regimes, and what made their evil snowball, was the very idea that the government assumed the power to decide which lives were worthy of not killing and which ones could be disposed of?

If this doesn't sum up the culture of death, it's hard to think what does. The most startling thing is that the very premise that the government decides what is a life worth living based on its subjective quality measure was not even challenged, as far as I could tell. It has become so ingrained in us that the governnment has absolute power of all within its borders that nobody even notices when a fundamental right is at stake.

I mean, it's so obvious that the government was morally wrong that even Bergoglio intervened on the side of Charlie Gard! In other words, he must have seen it as a very safe space for grandstanding, this being the man who tells us not to obsess with the killing of the unborn, after all.

This is what 3 generations of legal killing of the unborn has led to. We have a society in which children can be killed in plain sight with nobody batting an eyelid. Yes, I know he died naturally, but in preventing him from seeking medical aid which could have saved his life, the government in effect murdered him.

The only other issue of any note is Donald Trump re-introducing the ban on transexuals in the military. What is common sense in every non-Western countries, and what would have been common sense in any country bar none just...

Subscribe to Charlie Gard