30 June, 2017
29 June, 2017
Recommended online reading at “These Stone Walls”
We have been celebrating a Mass each week for the intentions of Fr. Gordon McCrea in our parishes. Why? Click on the link below and you will discover the answer. Please join in our prayer crusade so that he might see justice in his life sooner rather than later.
Recommended online reading at “These Stone Walls” | Fr. Z's Blog
Recommended online reading at “These Stone Walls” | Fr. Z's Blog
28 June, 2017
27 June, 2017
Andrew Coyne: Michelle Carter case is the next step in the increasing normalization of suicide.
I have said it before and I shall say it again. The legalization of euthanasia has coarsened public morals to the point where people are being deliberately allowed to die of a secondary and treatable condition because, in the view of his doctors, it was better to die now than have to suffer death later of an admittedly advancing cancer. I celebrated the funeral today for a man whose stated wish (until he was sedated with a drug to which we wore the hospital wristband indicating he was allergic to it. He was no longer lucid after that point in his 'care' to insist that his wishes be respected) was to be treated and cured of the secondary infection, and that request was denied him. His wife and young adult children were left alone to fight for her husband's right to live. He soon died from his lack of care in a hospital bed as they struggled to find a doctor to save his life.
YET no one seems to care! In fact, many are angered that I would even question the morality of the manner of his death. But I ask you to answer the following: If it were your wish, even in the face of an unconquerable illness such as cancer, to be treated for something that could easily be cured with antibiotics, would you not demand be respected? Would you not expect those who love you most in life, and who most deeply know your heart, to fight for you to be granted what you needed to survive if denied you by doctors who claim to know better, regardless of your express wishes. Especially with the end result of an immediate death if your desire to be treated is refused? I believe each and every one should answer with a resounding YES!
If you believe in the right to kill yourself (which the courts and government now say you possess, along with the right to public aid and assistance in accomplishing that end), then logically you must also demand that the right to life for those who choose to live (even under conditions you yourself would not want to face) must be respected as well. So why are we not up in arms at this dangerous affront to our right to decide how we live and die?
The right to live is as important (and allegedly guaranteed) under the current law that enshrines the 'right to die' at the time of our choosing. We must diligently and with fervor defend and guard against the latter throwing so much shade on the former that it eventually shrivels away into dust, leaving the decision as to whether we live or die ultimately in the hands of medical doctors paid for by the government.
Please note that while I would never countenance or counsel suicide no matter the situation, nor would I ask to be euthanized personally, my now deceased parishioner would have been within both his legal and moral rights to have refused treatment had that been his wish. And in this particular case, it wasn't. He wanted to live and was instead hastened to death. My beliefs and foibles aside, it was wrong for this man to die and that his death this week should alarm us all.
One is not obliged to accept treatment in the face of a life-threatening illness. But one must never silently stand by when such person asks to be cured while he still can, and is refused that right. And no matter how anyone wants to frame this argument, at its core lies the same sordid truth: an innocent man was brought to his death against his will and expressly stated wishes.
Doctors would not have acted this way if we hadn't abolished prohibition against their right to kill people. It has warped their collective conscience. They are beginning to demonstrate that they are taking on to themselves the right to decide who lives or dies. Who or what gives them such a right? It seems to come from their sense of entitlement to know what's best for others. But how is what they are doing any different than what happened in the Wettlaufer case in southern Ontario? The only difference I can see is that Wettlaufer was one woman who killed a number of innocent sick and aged against their wishes, whereas in this case, it was a team of doctors who decided to kill a single person under similar circumstances. In both cases, the agent of death was a medical professional who took a life that wasn't theirs to take. The number of medical participants bringing about such a death is really an irrelevant factor, isn't it? Dead is dead from the point of view of the victim.
That's the real danger with this particular issue. In these situations, the patient doesn't get to stick around to register his or her complaint against being denied a necessary medical procedure regularly given to anyone else who needed it but denied to them. Convenient for the doctors perhaps. Devastatingly tragic for their patient.
And if the death of one man at the hands of a few is OK in the zeitgeist of today, how many need to be killed before we think they've gone too far. Ten? A hundred? Six Million? I suspect it will be when such a violation of a patient's right to self-determination happens to someone near and dear. But by then, it will most likely be too late to save them because the killing of patients will be considered 'standard procedure' in terms of modern medical care.
I deeply regret that some of my parishioner's family and neighbors have taken offense that I am ringing this alarm bell so loudly and so quickly after the man's death. I sincerely hope and pray that they will understand the deep sense of danger I feel that's coming our way if we continue down this road. It is so great that I would even be willing to take the risk that I might be complicating their bereavement to raise the alarm to the best of my ability. I never intend to cause anyone unnecessary pain and suffering. It goes against my nature. But the fight for the protection of life AND individual rights is too important to remain silent. I would not be a true 'pastor' if I didn't cry alarm when the flock is threatened. And if these past few days have proven anything to me, it's that the threat to life is real and at the door, even if I wished it weren't so.
Click on the link below to see a column from Andrew Coyne of the National Post that makes a similar case to mine above.
Andrew Coyne: Michelle Carter case is the next step in the increasing normalization of suicide | National Post
YET no one seems to care! In fact, many are angered that I would even question the morality of the manner of his death. But I ask you to answer the following: If it were your wish, even in the face of an unconquerable illness such as cancer, to be treated for something that could easily be cured with antibiotics, would you not demand be respected? Would you not expect those who love you most in life, and who most deeply know your heart, to fight for you to be granted what you needed to survive if denied you by doctors who claim to know better, regardless of your express wishes. Especially with the end result of an immediate death if your desire to be treated is refused? I believe each and every one should answer with a resounding YES!
If you believe in the right to kill yourself (which the courts and government now say you possess, along with the right to public aid and assistance in accomplishing that end), then logically you must also demand that the right to life for those who choose to live (even under conditions you yourself would not want to face) must be respected as well. So why are we not up in arms at this dangerous affront to our right to decide how we live and die?
The right to live is as important (and allegedly guaranteed) under the current law that enshrines the 'right to die' at the time of our choosing. We must diligently and with fervor defend and guard against the latter throwing so much shade on the former that it eventually shrivels away into dust, leaving the decision as to whether we live or die ultimately in the hands of medical doctors paid for by the government.
Please note that while I would never countenance or counsel suicide no matter the situation, nor would I ask to be euthanized personally, my now deceased parishioner would have been within both his legal and moral rights to have refused treatment had that been his wish. And in this particular case, it wasn't. He wanted to live and was instead hastened to death. My beliefs and foibles aside, it was wrong for this man to die and that his death this week should alarm us all.
One is not obliged to accept treatment in the face of a life-threatening illness. But one must never silently stand by when such person asks to be cured while he still can, and is refused that right. And no matter how anyone wants to frame this argument, at its core lies the same sordid truth: an innocent man was brought to his death against his will and expressly stated wishes.
Doctors would not have acted this way if we hadn't abolished prohibition against their right to kill people. It has warped their collective conscience. They are beginning to demonstrate that they are taking on to themselves the right to decide who lives or dies. Who or what gives them such a right? It seems to come from their sense of entitlement to know what's best for others. But how is what they are doing any different than what happened in the Wettlaufer case in southern Ontario? The only difference I can see is that Wettlaufer was one woman who killed a number of innocent sick and aged against their wishes, whereas in this case, it was a team of doctors who decided to kill a single person under similar circumstances. In both cases, the agent of death was a medical professional who took a life that wasn't theirs to take. The number of medical participants bringing about such a death is really an irrelevant factor, isn't it? Dead is dead from the point of view of the victim.
That's the real danger with this particular issue. In these situations, the patient doesn't get to stick around to register his or her complaint against being denied a necessary medical procedure regularly given to anyone else who needed it but denied to them. Convenient for the doctors perhaps. Devastatingly tragic for their patient.
And if the death of one man at the hands of a few is OK in the zeitgeist of today, how many need to be killed before we think they've gone too far. Ten? A hundred? Six Million? I suspect it will be when such a violation of a patient's right to self-determination happens to someone near and dear. But by then, it will most likely be too late to save them because the killing of patients will be considered 'standard procedure' in terms of modern medical care.
I deeply regret that some of my parishioner's family and neighbors have taken offense that I am ringing this alarm bell so loudly and so quickly after the man's death. I sincerely hope and pray that they will understand the deep sense of danger I feel that's coming our way if we continue down this road. It is so great that I would even be willing to take the risk that I might be complicating their bereavement to raise the alarm to the best of my ability. I never intend to cause anyone unnecessary pain and suffering. It goes against my nature. But the fight for the protection of life AND individual rights is too important to remain silent. I would not be a true 'pastor' if I didn't cry alarm when the flock is threatened. And if these past few days have proven anything to me, it's that the threat to life is real and at the door, even if I wished it weren't so.
Click on the link below to see a column from Andrew Coyne of the National Post that makes a similar case to mine above.
Andrew Coyne: Michelle Carter case is the next step in the increasing normalization of suicide | National Post
26 June, 2017
25 June, 2017
A layman's advice to newly ordained priests
Our Pembroke Diocese was blessed to have four men ordained as priests this weekend. Here's a bit of advice offered from a layman's perspective that they should take to heart.
Advice to priests - Aleteia
24 June, 2017
23 June, 2017
22 June, 2017
21 June, 2017
20 June, 2017
19 June, 2017
18 June, 2017
The march to assisted-death grows stronger and stronger despite the clear danger it presents
The previous two articles I've posted below are proof positive that those who are promoting this culture of death will stop at nothing until every institution (and eventually every health care professional) is forced to start killing patients. We are falling down a slippery slope more rapidly than I believe even the death advocates would have believed possible. I can't help but think of that famous quote from Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The time has arrived for people to speak out before we arrive at a place where no institution or health care professional will be safe from the predations of the death movement.
17 June, 2017
We live in dangerous times... at least that is if you're sick enough to need hospitalization
We live in dangerous times. Dangerous that is if you fall seriously ill and have to go to a hospital in my corner of Quebec. Dangerous because you just might run into a physician who decides that it’s better for you to die than to be treated.
Why would I make such an allegation? Let me explain.
Tonight I am preparing to celebrate a funeral for someone (let's call him 'H' to protect his privacy) who, while suffering from cancer, was admitted to hospital with an unrelated problem, a bladder infection. H's family had him admitted to the hospital earlier in the week under the assumption that the doctors there would treat the infection and then he would be able to return home. To their shock and horror, they discovered that the attending physician had indeed made the decision NOT to treat the infection. When they demanded that he change his course of (in)action, he refused, stating that it would be better if 'H' died of this infection now rather than let cancer take its course and kill him later. Despite their demands and pleadings, the doctor would not budge from his decision. In fact, he deliberately hastened 'H’s end by ordering large amounts of morphine ‘to control pain’ which resulted in him losing consciousness as his lungs filled up with fluid. In less than 24 hrs., 'H' was dead.
Let me tell you a bit about 'H'. He was 63 years old. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters who are both currently working in universities towards their undergraduate degrees. We are not talking here about someone who was advanced in years and rapidly failing due to the exigencies of old age. We are talking about a man who was undergoing ongoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We are talking about a man who still held on to hope that perhaps he might defy the odds long enough to see his daughters graduate. Evidently and tragically, in the eyes of the physician tasked with providing the care needed to beat back the infection, that hope was not worth pursuing.
Again let me make this point abundantly clear: It was the express desire of both the patient and his spouse that the doctor treat the infection. This wish was ignored by a doctor who believed he alone and not his patient possessed the authority to determine whether or not he deserved to live or die. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how someone who professes to follow the Hippocratic Oath could presume to take such a life and death decision from the hands a patient… even more so in a case like this where the patient and his spouse both made it clear that they wanted him to live, and where no 'extraordinary means' were demanded or asked for. All that they wanted was the application of sufficient antibiotics to defeat the infection. And their wish was denied, and the patient paid the cost of that decision with his life.
This is happening more and more frequently in this new age of legalized ‘doctor-assisted death’ where the prohibition against taking an innocent life has been abrogated. Doctors such as the one I am talking about in this case apparently assume that they alone possess the right and capacity to determine the timing and manner of a patient's death. In these days of overcrowded and underfunded hospitals, this is happening far more frequently than you might have imagined and this is something that should concern us all.
As a pastor of three parishes with significant senior populations, I have seen this situation play out in more and more cases. It must not be allowed to go unchallenged lest we soon arrive at a place where health care professionals and institutions fully take unto themselves the sole role of being the arbiters of someone's life or death.
We are indeed living in dangerous time, that is until some hospitalization brings us face to face with a physician who chooses to take unto him or herself the right to determine whether our 'quality of life' warrants treatment or death.
Be afraid, people. Be very, very afraid. We are indeed living in very dangerous times.
16 June, 2017
15 June, 2017
Are We Experiencing a Catholic Marriage Vocations Crisis?
Compared to two decades ago, the number of American Catholics getting married every year has been cut in half—that’s according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. If that does not constitute a marriage crisis, it would be hard to imagine what would. And it’s worth wondering if part of the problem lies in our presentation of marriage.
Are We Experiencing a Catholic Marriage Vocations Crisis? | ncregister.com
Are We Experiencing a Catholic Marriage Vocations Crisis? | ncregister.com
14 June, 2017
A scientist explains how being bilingual makes your brain more robust - Business Insider
I know this to be true. When I suffered a small stroke last summer I suddenly couldn't understand people who spoke to me in English but didn't have the same trouble when someone spoke to me in French which I learned as an adult. It only lasted a short few minutes but it proved to me that I use different parts of my brain for each language... something I was very grateful for last June.
A scientist explains how being bilingual makes your brain more robust - Business Insider
A scientist explains how being bilingual makes your brain more robust - Business Insider
13 June, 2017
12 June, 2017
10 June, 2017
PopeWatch: Que? – I don't see an issue.
How about interpreting what Pope Francis said through a Christological lens? God and man are united in the person of Jesus therefore it would be to deny his very existence without his full and complete possession of his humanity. That’s the way I understood what he said. I think that LifeSite is the one who's misunderstanding what the Pope said. What do you think?
PopeWatch: Que? – The American Catholic
PopeWatch: Que? – The American Catholic
09 June, 2017
08 June, 2017
07 June, 2017
What is the Liturgy of the Hours?
Priests and religious often pray from a small black book (or like me with a Kindle ) throughout the day -- what are they praying?
Liturgy of the Hours, meaning--Aleteia
06 June, 2017
05 June, 2017
04 June, 2017
03 June, 2017
02 June, 2017
01 June, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To This Blog
Posts
All Comments
Followers of this blog:
Favorite Links
- American Papist Blog
- American Spectator
- Archbishop Tim Dolan's (NY) Blog
- Big Blue Wave
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC News Site)
- Catholic Dialogue Blog
- Catholic Education Resource Center
- Catholic Exchange
- Catholic Heritage Website (Ireland)
- Catholic Insight
- Catholic News Agency
- Catholic Online
- Catholic Sensibility
- Catholic, and Loving It
- CTV News Site
- Ethics and Public Policy Center
- First Things
- Fr. Raymond De Souza - National Post Columnist
- Fr. Raymond deSouza personal blog
- Freethroughthought blog (excellent site)
- Friar Rick's Webblog
- Get Religion.org
- Global TV News Site
- Holy Post - National Post Religious Blog
- Inside Catholic Blog
- LifeSiteNews
- New Advent
- Pave the Way Foundation
- Priests for Life Canada Website
- ProLife Blog
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Pembroke
- Rosary for the Bishops
- Salt & Light TV - Canadian Catholic Television Website
- Sandro Magister
- Sane Conservatism
- SoCon (social conservative)
- Sylvia's Website: Canadian Clergy Sex Abuse Cases
- The Catholic Register
- The Hermeneutic of Continuity
- The National Post: Canada's National Daily
- The New Jesuit Review
- The New York Times Website
- Vox Nova
- What Does Prayer Really Say - Priest bolg
- Whispers in the Loggia
Blog Archive
Google Analytics