Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

When government usurps the rights of parents

When government usurps 
the rights of parents

Michael Hoffman’s comment: In any society where the Bible, its statutes, judgments and morality, are not esteemed and held in authority, the government will usurp the rights of the parents and before long, the power of life and death itself. Many white liberals, who pride themselves on rescuing cats and dogs from animal shelters, are persuaded that the “population explosion” is, after “climate change,” the chief threat facing the planet. When these people obtain judicial or medical power, the value of human life in their eyes is highly problematic, and more often than not, disposable. 

For the Love of Charlie Gard

When it comes to the life of a child, should parental devotion be disqualifying?

By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal | July 18, 2017 p. A13

So Charlie Gard’s fate now comes down to this: whether an American doctor can persuade a British judge that little Charlie’s life is worth living.

The child cannot see, cannot hear, and suffers from a genetic disorder for which there is no cure—yet he has exposed the great fault line between the post-Christian West and its past. For most of history, men and women have regarded suffering as part of life. But as medicine tames once-deadly afflictions and the idea of some larger meaning to the cosmos wanes, suffering comes to appear less a part of the natural order than an intolerable anomaly.

Follow this logic to the end and you will arrive at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. The hospital dates to 1852, when it was founded by a doctor hoping to relieve “the shockingly high level of infant mortality.” How curious that this same hospital now argues for infant mortality, or at least for the mortality of one particular infant.

Hospital experts say it’s in Charlie’s “best interests” that he be denied the experimental treatments because he “has no quality of life.” Better for him to die, they say, than risk suffering. Never mind the judge’s original admission that “no one can be certain whether or not Charlie feels pain.”

Let us stipulate a distinction between removing someone from life support, as the hospital proposes, and taking active measures to induce death. Put another way, if Connie Yates and Chris Gard —Charlie’s parents—decided to remove their son from his ventilator and allow nature to take its course, it would be a difficult but eminently defensible position.

But the claim asserted by the representatives of Britain’s state-run health care system is more sweeping and insidious: This is our call, they say. Such is the Great Ormond Street Hospital’s sense of dominion, says Ms. Yates, that it refused to allow Charlie to come home to die, wrapped in the loving arms of his mom and dad.

In the Book of Exodus the Israelites are warned that theirs is a “jealous God,” but there is no god more jealous than single-payer health care. For at the heart of single payer is single authority. Isn’t it striking how resentful the legal and health care authorities are that Charlie’s family has raised $1.7 million, thus taking money off the table as an excuse to deny him the offered treatments?

Against the emotional outbursts of the parents, the official pronouncements all aim to convey a sense of reasonableness, with soothing references to the law, the selflessness and expertise of those pushing to overrule Charlie’s parents, and, of course, the complexity of the situation.

Still, the deck has been stacked from the beginning. The giveaway is the appointment of a guardian to represent Charlie’s interests, even as the court rulings concede it would be difficult to find a more devoted mother and father. Now we learn the lawyer who represents Charlie in court runs a charity with connections—surprise!—to a sister organization that promotes assisted suicide and until 2006 called itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital even wants the last word on love: “In one respect, Charlie is immensely fortunate” to have such loving parents. Because in this context “in one respect” really means, “not in the sense that has to do with decisions about their son’s life.” In other words, the parents’ love disqualifies them. In choosing a guardian to represent Charlie against his parents, the courts sided with the doctor who characterized Charlie’s mom and dad as a “spanner in the works.”

It wasn’t long ago that people worried about the cheapening of human life were predicting practices such as legal abortion would lead to the acceptance of things once thought unthinkable. Euthanasia, for example, or the weeding out of children deemed not perfect enough. These people were dismissed as Cassandras. They now look like prophets.

Charlie Gard’s story comes after a case in the Netherlands where an elderly women suffering from dementia woke up and resisted as she was about to be euthanized—only to have the doctor order her family to hold her down for the fatal injection...

The essence of civilization is that the strong protect the weak. But Charlie Gard shows that the barbarian no longer comes wielding a club and grunting in some undecipherable tongue. These days the barbarian comes as an expert, possessed of all the requisite certification—and an unquestioned faith in his absolute right to impose final judgments about the “quality of life” of other people’s loved ones.

[Emphasis supplied]


Monday, July 17, 2017

The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option

By Michael Hoffman

Pope-follower Rod Dreher of The American Conservative magazine is the author of The Benedict Option, which lays out a commendable strategy for preserving Christendom against the barbarians by securing a redoubt in rural America and creating communities that will have a decent chance to survive and flourish, similar to those of St. Benedict of Norcia (480-547 A.D.).

Dreher is seconding a well-known alternative. It is not his original concept, as he freely admits. We may quibble with the particulars but the idea is sound and many are acting upon it. Where I reside, in northern Idaho, many hundreds of Conservatives (at least) relocate here every year, seeking freedom and fellowship with Christian people of like mind. So kudos to Dreher for popularizing and attempting to systematize the “Benedict Option.”

The Other “Benedict Option”

The problem is that Dreher himself, as a flawed personal guide to the Vatican labyrinth, is enamored of some very confused and naive thinking concerning another Benedict, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who is now “emeritus Pope" Benedict XVI.

Could Mr. Dreher be so gullible as to be unaware of the Machiavellian and Hegelian feints, stratagems, double-talk and double mind issuing from the popes of Rome? It would seem so, based on his analysis of Pope Benedict’s recent, thinly veiled hints to the effect that his successor, Pope Francis, is making shipwreck of the Church. 

These signals were delivered by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict's surrogate, in a eulogy for a deceased “Conservative,” Cardinal Joachim Meisner, on July 15. Dreher and other “Conservative Catholic” pundits view Benedict’s eulogy for Meisner — who had questioned Francis— in which the erstwhile pope spoke of a catastrophe afflicting the Church, as a sign of resistance to Francis (See Dreher, “Pope Benedict’s SOS). 

Benedict’s surrogate stated, “...the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.

Mr. Dreher writes:

 Keep in mind that Catholics think of the Church as the 'barque of Peter' — a boat, captained by Peter. Benedict XVI is saying here that the Church appears to be going down, capitulating to the Zeitgeist. ...I had to re-read that statement from Benedict several times to quite believe it. This is a staggering remark, one whose power is amplified by the fact that it was delivered at the requiem mass for a cardinal who challenged Pope Francis directly. I cannot read it as other than Benedict’s judgment of the state of the Catholic Church under Francis. If you have a more plausible reading, let’s hear it. If I’m correct, contained within these few lines is Benedict’s counsel to the Catholic faithful who wish to resist this dictatorship of the Zeitgeist: you are not wrong; things really are as bad as they seem — but stand fast in the faith, and fear not."

The patent message is that there remains one “conservative” pontiff willing to buck the tide of a liberal pope, and rally troops on the Right against the Left. 

Why the need to send this message? It is important to the Cryptocracy to retain Conservatives' faith in the popes. The pay-pray-and-obey tradition on the Right must be kept open for the sake of the survival of the institution. The far-Leftist Francis is undermining the centuries-old Left-Right papist symbiosis. Into the void and in the nick of time steps the other "Benedict option," 90-year-old Pope Benedict to attempt to build Conservative morale sufficient to keep Right wing sheep in the wolf's fold. 

(His eulogy was vague enough to afford him plausible denial should the Left call him out on “undermining” Francis). 

If he truly were a tribune of Conservative Catholicism, however, why did Benedict abdicate in the first place, knowing full well there was a strong chance the papacy would be turned over to Bergoglio? Even more significant is the fact that Benedict XVI was himself a wrecker. The Cryptocracy has performed a wonderful act of prestidigitation in transforming Pope Benedict into a faithful watchman against revolution, when in truth he was a leader of it.

For example, Benedict is a pontiff who does not believe in the literal bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as documented in this writer’s book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (pp. 89-90).  Hence, he is not a Christian by any meaningful standard of measurement. Like many popes since the Renaissance he is also a Neoplatonic heretic (p. 90).

Followers of the Church of Rome may lull themselves to sleep concerning the grave transgressions of Pope Benedict XVI, though by doing so they are leaving the field wide open for Protestants who are not so myopic. Matthew Vogan, who writes with civility in his essay, “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, September, 2010; reprinted in my book [pp. 89-92]), compiled a devastating dossier on Benedict which true Catholic Conservatives should have written themselves, but were too busy blindly extolling Benedict's alleged orthodoxy.

In the Church of Rome since the sixteenth century, the thesis is always played against the antithesis, i.e. the Right is always a stage prop against the Left. The opposition of zealous Leftists to the pontificate of Benedict XVI did not render Benedict a true Catholic. Leftists are enraged that Benedict did not modify church edicts against contraception and women priests. But of what genuine significance is this particular “conservatism,” when a Neoplatonic-Hermetic revolution against the Gospel itselfthe radical overthrow of nearly 1500 years of Christian teaching on Judaismis implemented by Pope Benedict? 

The Left-wing oppositional thesis does not absolve Benedict XVI of his complicity in Paul VI’s 1965 Nostra Aetate, or John-Paul II’s “Shoah” business, or his own unconscionable synagogue visits where he behaved nothing like the apostles of the early Church or St. Vincent Ferrer. In the synagogues he colluded with the rabbis and thereby encouraged them in their resistance to the Gospel. 

Furthermore, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, his "Pontifical Biblical Commission" documents promulgated by Pope John Paul II (such as The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible), offered support for the "misunderstood" ancient Pharisees, and amounted to a whitewash of these deadly enemies of Our Lord. Moreover, the future Pope Benedict recommended the blasphemous Talmud and Midrash (“Jewish exegesis”) to Catholics for a better understanding of the Scriptures (The Occult Renaissance, pp. 551-558).This is a Conservative? What this is, is a mockery. 

Benedict’s synthesis of the Leftist thesis and the Rightist antithesis culminated in his continuing perpetuation of the calamitous “Elder brothers in the faith” fraud, and Holocaustolatry. Both of these modernist innovations were as strong as ever under Benedict’s pontificate and thanks to his astute maneuvering, were taken up by “Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists.” 

Follow Michael Hoffman on Twitter (@HoffmanMichaelA)

Few people in the world bear more personal responsibility for the theological, moral, liturgical, and pastoral chaos in the Vatican II Sect than Joseph Ratzinger.

As theological advisor to Cardinal Josef Frings, Ratzinger participated in the shaping of some of the Vatican II documents to a significant degree. As an influential theology professor at various universities, and as an academic and author, he helped inculcate in his students’, colleagues’, and readers’ minds the “letter and spirit” of that infernal synod.

As “Archbishop” of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger implemented and applied Vatican II throughout his diocese. As Prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he determined the official “magisterial” interpretation and application of the Second Vatican Council for over 23 years, in close collaboration with “Pope” John Paul II.

Novus Ordo milestones such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, the 1993 Balamand Declaration, the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Accord on Justification, and the 2000 Dominus Iesus Declaration were all issued under Ratzinger’s watch.

And as “Pope” from 2005-13, well, he had the power to do whatever he pleased. He could have changed anything he liked, righted every wrong, retracted or corrected every error, excommunicated every heretic.

Instead, he had Hans Kung over for coffee, went to synagogues and mosques, paid his obeisance to the Jews at the Wailing Wall, continued the blasphemous Assisi prayer meetings introduced by John Paul II...and appointed (Leftist) “cardinals” like Donald Wuerl, Reinhard Marx, Rainer Woelki, Kurt Koch, Luis Tagle, Gianfranco Ravasi, and Francesco Coccopalmerio.

Is the Novus Ordo Sect capsizing? You bet it is! Though not despite Joseph Ratzinger, but in large part because of him.

It is an old trick: Lament the very problems you yourself are responsible for creating or aggravating! Governments love to use it. It evokes compassion and makes you look like a hero. It works every time it’s tried because people have a very short memory. And it is particularly easy to pull off when your complaint blackens your successor, when you yourself are no longer in the game and thus won’t be called to account anymore.

Don’t be taken in by Benedict’s crocodile tears. Back in 1985, a mere 20 years after the close of the council, he was making headlines claiming we needed to “rediscover the true Vatican II” (see Joseph Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report [Ignatius Press, 1985], pp. 29-31) and warned against “degrad[ing] the liturgy to the level of a parish tea party and the intelligibility of the popular newspaper” (p. 121). That was 32 years ago! That record has been playing ever since.

It was no different for John Paul II. As far back as 1980, he ostensibly bewailed “the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world” concerning the liturgy (see Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, Foreword).

Over 20 years later, he was still “lamenting” the same thing: “In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia [2003], n. 10). 

The following year, he once again emphasized that “it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments” (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 4) — all the while his own “papal” liturgies looked like this.

“Pope” Paul VI did the same thing when he “deplored” (boasted?) that “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary” (Homily of June 29, 1972), yet he himself continued to fan the flames at every opportunity. This is not the mark of sincerity, it is the mark of hypocrisy.

Don’t fall for this latest episode of the same old charade. They’ve been doing it for decades.The latest trick is that they’re trying to make you believe there is an essential difference between the “good and orthodox” Benedict and the open Modernist Francis. The truth, however, is that both are selling you a pig — it’s just that Benedict’s has lipstick on it.