So we are seeing this idea pushed in movies and the MSM, and now people who feel isolated thanks to the destruction of family ties (a side effect of the sexual revolution) and who no longer had a deep belief in karma or God's will in your life are the ones vulerable to the proselytizing pro death organizations (that are often well funded by the usual suspects. Place conspiracy theory here).
yes, depressing.
Back in the 1990s I researched the ethical literature for a paper on this trend in medical ethics. Actually what was going on was three trends:
1:Limiting medical care for those with poor quality of life,
2: insisting that a person is not a person unless they meet the criteria for personhood, and
3: eliminating the idea of a religious viewpoint in medical ethics. This weakens the idea that we are responsible for our neighbor, because it is one of those things the deity thinks we should do.
I was getting a bit paranoid about all of this, until Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical that noted the same thing: follow the money. The encyclical is easy to read, and covers all the trends behind what he calls the cultures of death, but one of the arguments is that medicine harms people by keeping them alive too long.
There is a nuance on refusing extraordinary treatment that goes back a couple of centuries in the church, and blurring the line is also part of the pro euthanasia rhetoric.
That is why JP2 also inculdes the reminder that
It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.
This distinction is important: often naive pro life types fail to see the difference and think you have to do everything available. But also with minorities who distrust the medical establishment because racism: (no not paranoia: the Tuskegee experiment, the Red Lake Strep study, the Oklahoma city non treatment protocol for meningocoels all come to mind).
Ironically, Tucker Carlson got it right. It's about a world view that thinks there is a God and alas a lot of American trends are about the ME ME ME idea of narcissistic egotism.
No I have never watched him: I live in the Philippines and rarely watch the inane discussions on CNN or Fox on our cable TV, although I do watch local ANC news and the BBC when I need to find out what is going on.
Traditionally the Catholic church has stood in the way of these societal planners to eliminate useless eaters.
But now, I fear it will be the next tree to fall as anti Pope Francis destroys the Catholic church
He does this by saying the good stuff while letting those around him say heresy and immoral acts are okay.. these ideas are then quoted and pushed in the MSM, and if they get pushback by bishops etc. the issue is either ignored, or you are gaslighted by other officials saying they didn't say that.
At the same time the Vatican is placing hand picked members, including lay people, into those Synodality meetings, and even the Bishops meetings, and then they will change things as planned, and say it was because of the inspiration of the "holy spirit".
And if you believe that the spirit behind this is the Third person of the Blessed Trinity, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
The latest slow train wreck has been the reforming of a Vatican think tank on life issues: PopeFrancis has included non Catholics who oppose traditional Christian morals, and the latest is that the head of this think tank has just said killing grandmom is okay because it is a multicultural society and gee, don't expect the Catholics to oppose murder.
This caused quite a few Catholics to say: WTF are you saying? So the obedient Catholic press office is busy gaslighting you on what he said.
This is the same guy who told the American bishops to stop pushing abortion as an issue. Figures.
But of course, this is how things are done by the Pope:
Push confusion, don't correct those who push the "reform", and then when a lot of bishops object, sneak the idea into official documents that are so wordy and long and poorly written that it isn't noticed at first.
A couple years ago, the agenda was to allow people in irregular marriages to receive the sacraments.
But someone alerted the more naive bishops of what was going on, so they rejected the idea.
And when the synod rejected it, they took that part out of their already written report, but put it in an overlooked footnote, and when someone asked Pope Francis was that okay, he essentially said, hey it's just a little bread and wine.
It's only bread and wine? As Flannery O'Connor sarcastically quipped when told that the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, was merely a symbol:
I then said, in a very shaky voice, ‘Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.’ That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that
it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.
One sees a similar trend about pushing the legalization of homosexual acts by reformers via the so called synod on synodality: We will have to change church law because the german bishops decided we have to agree with them.
Never mind whtn the Pope tried to hint of this in a recent African trip, he was told this was something that was not welcomed in Africa,
My point is that the main voice of morality in the world is being corrupted at a time when the NWO is pushing a lot of scary ideas.
Sigh.
to paraphrase Archy Bunker: Boy we could use a man like Bishop Von Galen again.
No comments:
Post a Comment