Sunday, April 29, 2012

Wow Watch and Be Amazed

Ain't it the Truth: On the Communist-Homosexualist Infiltration

Do you ever wonder why the American Catholic Church has been so ineffective dealing with the assault on the Sanctity of Life?

On the Communist-Homosexualist Infiltration (1)
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 28, AD 2012 10:10 PM MST
I get several emails per week, on average, from people telling me that I am either directly or partially responsible for their conversion or reversion to Catholicism. These emails are at once edifying and terrifying. Every one of those emails that I receive results in a prayer offered up that whatever parish the person or people end up in has a non-Marxist, non-homosexualist priest who actually believes in what the Church teaches and believes. One has to rely on prayer in this, because to rely on the odds is too terrible to think about.
The Church is probably at the lowest point it has ever been in because Communists set about infiltrating the Church in the early 20th century, and knew that the fastest, easiest way to destroy the Church was to destroy the priesthood and ranks of nuns. Destroy the shepherds and the flock will scatter. The methodology and tactics were simple: specifically recruit homosexuals into the priesthood and ranks of women religious. This was accomplished beginning in the late 1950’s, with massive inertia gained in the 1960’s and forward, coincident with the Communist-driven “sexual revolution.” The effects and damage have been massive and undeniable. Within a span of 25 years, the image of the Catholic priest went from Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley and Spencer Tracy as Father Flanagan to the blanket assumption that every Catholic priest was a homosexual. In the 1980’s, it is safe to say that fully half, if not more, of the seminarians ordained to the priesthood were in fact active homosexuals. Seminaries turned into de facto bath houses. For more on this outrage, I recommend the book “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael S. Rose.

 As a child, I was exposed to many “ex-nuns” who had “courageously” left the Sisters of Charity who were headquartered in the area, and lived as lesbians. These were the kind of women of whom my childish eyes could not immediately discern their gender, and the lesbian angle went over my head completely due to the innocence of youth. They were just strange, ugly, repulsive and somewhat frightening women to me. There is no better intuition than the intuition of a child.

Oh, but we aren’t allowed to talk about things like that. We aren’t allowed to acknowledge the fact that women who go out of their way to look and act like men, aka “butch”, are in any way unattractive or even repulsive. We have been taught to suppress our attraction to beauty, and to embrace things that are intrinsically disordered, ugly and fundamentally repellant. Remember the 45 goals of Communism that I posted a while back? Let’s look at numbers 23 and 26:

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

These two goals are tied together. The promotion of ugliness was not merely limited to the art galleries and new construction architecture. It also applied to the art of the human body, in the forms of clothing and hairstyles, specifically in the pushing of androgyny – making women look like men and men look like women. Now it is beyond mere looks. According to Marxists, women must now ACT like men, and men must ACT like women. Nowhere is this perversion more pronounced than among the priests and nuns in the Church today. As a result, the pews are empty, and those that are in the pews are grossly, grossly ignorant of the faith. What man would want to go to Mass if the priest is a flaming, effete homosexual? Who wants to go to Mass and CRINGE at the priest’s comportment, behavior and affectations? Who wants to be around nuns who wear their hair in six dollar crewcuts, wear men’s clothes, carry themselves like men, and are saturated with utter contempt for not just men, but the Church itself? How is any of that ATTRACTIVE or EDIFYING? It isn’t. It is viscerally repellant. And that is exactly why the Communists recruited homosexuals into the clergy.

The priests, whether they are homosexual or merely influenced by the Marxist-homosexualist milieu, are actively doing everything they can to drain every last bit of masculinity out of the Church. Behind them is a truly pathetic wall of lesbian nuns who hate both authentic masculinity and authentic femininity with every fiber of their beings. Considering that there are only two genders, and that these lesbian nuns hate both of them, this means that these nuns, deep down, hate humanity itself, as well as the Creator of humanity, hence their pro-abortion and Marxist totalitarian radicalism. They view themselves as a superior “third gender” destined to take over the Church, and eventually society itself, because no man who acts like a man, and no woman who acts like a woman, is capable or worthy of self-determination in their warped view. And no God Who contains in Himself both authentic masculinity and authentic femininity, or Who created humanity in that image, is worthy of worship. No, say these foul nuns. All shall love THEM, in all of their perverted hideousness, and despair.

These lesbian nuns have, for decades, held the keys to the seminaries. It is lesbian nuns who have populated the vocations boards, and who have targeted and recruited homosexual men into seminaries. So long as the men in question indicated themselves “open to the idea” of female ordination to the priesthood (which is impossible and will never, ever happen), and so long as these men showed no signs of any interest in genuine Catholicism, they were in without hesitation. Any man who projected genuine masculinity and orthodoxy was rejected. A few straight, orthodox men were able to slip by, hoping to merely “tough it out” to ordination. Sadly, thousands of good men were driven out of seminaries by the threat of homosexual assault by their classmates and even faculty. The thinly veiled threat was, “Are you gay? No? Well, you WILL BE.” Imagine, after hearing that, having to go to sleep every night to the sounds of a gay bathhouse all around you. It would require near-superhuman strength to withstand that. And so it has been for decades now.

Here is the point at which a person’s faith is tested by fire. Most Christians today do not worship God. They do not worship Christ – Christ is merely a mascot, if that. No, most Christians today worship THEMSELVES and THE GROUP. People go to superfun rockband church because they like the entertainment and the social experience. Many men only go to church because they are nagged by their wives into it. So, most people today absolutely cannot comprehend why an infiltrated clergy is NOT a reason to leave the Church. To them, the Church is the people and what the people do, and how much PERSONAL PLEASURE is derived from the people and what they do. It has little to do with God, and NOTHING to do with what GOD WANTS.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Alter Bridge

I want to change this world

Georgetown faculty criticize Ryan on eve of lecture

Georgetown Hates Paul authentic Catholic

Georgetown faculty criticize Ryan on eve of lecture

CWN - April 25, 2012
On the eve of a scheduled lecture by Rep. Paul Ryan at Georgetown University, nearly 90 faculty members have written the Wisconsin congressman a letter to “challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”
“Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the signatories stated. “Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”
“While you often appeal to Catholic teaching on ‘subsidiarity’ as a rationale for gutting government programs, you are profoundly misreading Church teaching,” they added. “Subsidiarity is not a free pass to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices. This often misused Catholic principle cuts both ways. It calls for solutions to be enacted as close to the level of local communities as possible. But it also demands that higher levels of government provide help--‘subsidium’--when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger.”
Signatories to the letter include Dolores Leckey, the former executive director of the Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB); Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr.; 14 theology professors; and 10 Jesuits, including Father Thomas Reese.
Ryan’s spokesman responded:

Chairman Ryan remains grateful for Georgetown's invitation to advance a thoughtful dialogue this week on his efforts to avert a looming debt crisis that would hurt the poor the first and the worst. Ryan looks forward to affirming our shared commitment to a preferential option for the poor, which of course does not mean a preferential option for bigger government
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
  • Posted by: chasann113163 - Apr. 26, 2012 8:05 AM ET USA Just proof that we need to take back our Catholic schools. Yes, If I had my way I would make Abortion Illegal, it is a principal our religion stands firm on. Catholic schools and universities should reflect our faith.
  • Posted by: impossible - Apr. 25, 2012 11:10 PM ET USA Georgetown and Notre Dame have no standing to make pronouncements or objections as to Catholic matters. They have disqualified themselves. Those who cherry pick from social justice encyclicals to support their left wing ideology cease to be educators but reveal themselves as nothing more than political ideologues. Paul Ryan's theology on these matters is in line with the Magisterium which Georgetown apparently disdains.

  • Posted by: sarsok8679 - Apr. 25, 2012 10:29 PM ET USA As it is with leftists, they seem to think that Charity begins with government and the Church is just another government agency. I would bet that what these faculty members give to real charities is substantially less per capita of what Paul Ryan gives, because they feel their charity giving should go to the government.When they face the Lord someday and he asks what did you do to feed my lambs, I don't think telling Him, "I paid my taxes", will resonate! 

  • Posted by: unum - Apr. 25, 2012 6:48 PM ET USA It appears that Rep. Ryan's hopes for a thoughtful dialogue are wasted on the Georgetown faculty as indicated by their medium of communication, The Huffington Post. Georgetown is an institutional embarrassment to all faithful Catholics.
  • Posted by: John J Plick - Apr. 25, 2012 6:12 PM ET USA It is not what "they" are afraid of. It is an effort to intimidate the speaker into compromise or even capitulation. Pray for Representative Ryan.
  • Posted by: jacobtoo - Apr. 25, 2012 4:28 PM ET USA Does Rep. Ryan want to make abortion illegal again?
  • Posted by: spledant7672 - Apr. 25, 2012 11:23 AM ET USA What I always wonder about these group letters and/or protests prior to lectures at universities is, why the need for a preemptory opposition? Why not just listen and then offer a considered response? What are they afraid of?
  • Posted by: Frodo1945 - Apr. 25, 2012 9:58 AM ET USA These critics of Ryan are firm believers in the nanny state but have given no thought to who will pay for their big government programs. Piling massive debt onto our children doesn't seem to bother them. Well, it bothers me.
  • Posted by: Adeodatus109 - Apr. 25, 2012 9:46 AM ET USA I'm pretty sure Ryan has better reading comprehension than these "academics." A reading of Centesimus annus 48 proves that Ryan wins, these liberals lose.

University Notre Dame of Dissident Catholics

Notre Dame as Our Lady Weeps
 from the Cardinal Newman Society

Notre Dame Commencement Speaker, AIDS Partnership at Odds with Vatican, Bishops

The University of Notre Dame made two major announcements Monday that put the University at odds with Pope Benedict XVI on the promotion of condoms to prevent AIDS—even as the U.S. bishops fight to defend Catholic colleges’ First Amendment right to uphold Catholic teaching on contraception.
The University also has reignited concerns about its standards for commencement speakers and honorees with its selection of Dr. Thomas Quinn, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, as Distinguished Alumnus and graduate commencement speaker on May 19.
This week, Notre Dame announced that its Eck Institute for Global Health is now a full member of the AMPATH Consortium, a collaborative effort led by Indiana University to address the pandemic of HIV/AIDS in western Kenya.
Although the consortium has done much good for Kenyans struggling with the spread of HIV infections, AMPATH also promotes condoms and has partnered with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to integrate family planning programs, including contraception.
Notre Dame indicates that AMPATH is expanding its services to include “delivery of essential primary care services and control of communicable diseases and non-communicable, chronic illnesses.”  The University’s will bring its expertise in tropical and communicable diseases to support research at Moi University School of Medicine and to address “constraints to health care in western Kenya.”
But Notre Dame also says, “Joint research activities, participation in seminars and academic meetings, student and faculty exchanges, and special short-term courses will be used to advance the mission of the Consortium.”
A USAID study from 2005 to 2009 followed an AMPATH pilot program to offer both HIV/AIDS prevention services and family planning services from a single clinic.  The final report explains that prior to the pilot program, AMPATH provided only “condom counseling” and “strategically” placed condoms “in the waiting bay, check in/out rooms, and consultation rooms for patients to access.”  But in the trial, AMPATH provided clinic patients the “oral contraceptive pill, intrauterine contraceptive device, implants, injectable depo provera, or condoms” upon request.
Today, the AMPATH Reproductive Health program promotes contraception to AMPATH clients, according to AMPATH’s website.  Among the consortium’s other programs is the B-Fine Women’s Project, a clinic that offers a variety of services including distribution of condoms in local bars and motels and providing condom “education” to truck drivers.
An Indiana University article last year described AMPATH’s at-home counseling and testing (HCT) program, which includes youth outreach: “It influences youth, teaching proper condom use and distributing free condoms to the community, encouraging safe sex practices.”  An AMPATH program manager’s presentation on the HCT program reveals that 150,000 condoms were distributed between July and October 2009.
Notre Dame’s selection of Thomas Quinn to be honored as Distinguished Alumnus and to speak at the Graduate School commencement ceremony similarly raises concerns about the University’s commitment to Catholic teaching on contraception, and it appears to violate the U.S. bishops’ 2004 policy banning Catholic honors and platforms for opponents of Catholic moral teaching.
That policy was the basis for protests in 2009 against Notre Dame’s selection of President Barack Obama as commencement speaker and honoree.  Opponents included 83 bishops who publicly criticized the University and more than 367,000 individuals who signed a Cardinal Newman Society petition.
At the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, Quinn is responsible for facilitating numerous faculty projects, including many that promote the use of contraceptives including male and female condoms, “emergency” contraception (which can cause early abortion), and IUDs (which also can cause abortion).  Current examples include:
  • reproductive health project in Malawi
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation project to promote contraception in Kenya (see also here)
  • condom marketing project in Mozambique
  • project to study a new female condom
  • family planning project in Liberia
  • HIV/AIDS prevention project in Kazakhstan
  • HIV/AIDS counseling project in Lesotho
  • HIV/AIDS prevention project in Kazakhstan
When asked whether such projects should have any bearing on his selection as Notre Dame’s commencement speaker and Distinguished Alumnus, Quinn said that his job is simply to “coordinate” faculty activities.
“You may have concerns about what those individuals are doing,” Quinn said.  “I myself am not.  I keep the data in line.”
Quinn has done his own important work studying HIV/AIDS and its prevention.  But his work has involved condom distribution to prevent HIV infection, as he explained in a December 2000 article about his project in Uganda:
“The number of sub-Saharan Africans living with HIV is frighteningly high,” opined Dr. Quinn.  “The number is almost meaningless, it’s so high.  We wanted to take some of the lessons we learned early in the United States, such as condom use and safer sex education, and see if we could make them work over there.”
…All subjects in both groups received intensive instruction from trained personnel on the prevention of HIV and condom use.  Subjects were also offered free condoms….
In an interview with The Cardinal Newman Society, Quinn claimed that the Catholic Church in Uganda endorsed the Ugandan government’s policy of “abstinence, be faithful, condoms” to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS.
“There are 30 million people infected with HIV and you need to do something to actively try to change that,” Quinn said.
But a 2004 study by Cambridge University researchers found that Uganda’s incidence of HIV declined by 70 percent in the 1990s under a program emphasizing abstinence, behavioral change and communication—before widespread condom distribution and counseling became available through programs like Quinn’s.  (More on this here.)
The Cambridge researchers questioned the strategic emphasis on condoms and recommended a “shift in strategic thinking on health policy and HIV/AIDS, with greater attention to epidemiological intelligence and communications to mobilise risk avoidance.”
“My commencement address won’t be about these issues,” Quinn promised. “What I want to do is talk about their futures and their lives.”
“I know there was a lot of controversy about President Obama,” said Quinn. “I want to reassure the Society that they can rest assured that I won’t be promoting anything like that. My job is saving lives.”
Despite some media confusion about a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 regarding the use of condoms by male prostitutes, the Holy Father and Vatican officials have strongly opposed condom distribution as immoral and an impractical solution to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Moreover, the Catholic bishops of Kenya—where Notre Dame will be cooperating with AMPATH—have publicly reiterated Catholic teaching against condoms.  They promise that Catholic Church efforts to address HIV/AIDS, “both in partnerships with others and on her own, will always be aimed at a search for human and liberating solutions to the pandemic.”

The Need For Moral Courage

“Moral Courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence.  Yet, it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”  Senator Robert F. Kennedy

The Board of Fellows at Notre Dame University has called for the resignation of one of their fellows, Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Diocese in Illinois. The plot thickened, as Americans United for Separation of Church and State could hardly wait to file an IRS complaint against the local diocese charging “illegal election intervention”.    

Their reason?  Bishop Jenky, gave a homily at a Catholic men’s conference, “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” in Peoria, where he expressed concern that our country was starting down a dangerous path that we have seen before in history, in which religious groups faced persecution because of their beliefs.  He warned that history teaches us to be cautious once we start down the path of limiting religious liberty.

Here is the particular statement of his homily, which has caused the firestorm:

Bishop Jenky stated: “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.” 

These words sparked the accusation that the Bishop had “likened” President Barack Obama to Hitler and Stalin, and from there the castigation of Bishop Jenky began, with a total of 95 (and counting), members of faculty at Notre Dame adding their names to a letter sent to the university’s president, Rev. John Jenkins and chairman of the trustees Richard Notebaert, demanding action. Despite attempts from the Peoria Diocese to clarify Bishop Jenky’s statements, the firestorm shows no signs of abating, with some news headlines such as “Faculty Calls For ‘Hitler’ Bishop to Resign” being circulated.   

Bishop Jenky himself was “surprised” at the faculty’s reaction, saying they must have not actually heard or read what was said and only what people have misquoted.” 

I personally think their own guilty consciences have made the connection between Stalin, Hitler and Obama.  

So, what’s the real deal here?  Well, let’s take a look at some of what Bishop Jenky said in his homily that day – and what is the real deal here.  

Bishop Jenky told the group of 500 men assembled at the conference that day, that there is only one basic reason why Christianity exists, and that is the fact that Jesus Christ truly rose from the grave. The disciples never expected the resurrection, and they were clearly terrified that Jesus fate would become their fate – a clearly natural human response. 

But once those poor cowering Apostles had experienced the Risen Christ, their human nature was overcome, and even threats from the Sanhedrin, (from the Acts of the Apostles) who commanded them never again to teach, or speak to anyone, in the name of Jesus, could not hold them back from announcing the Good News of the Resurrection – that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah of Israel – the Savior of the world – the very Son of God – and that His resurrection confirmed every word He had ever spoken or work He had ever done.

In the Gospel reading during the mass that day, at the Catholic men’s conference,  from the 16th Chapter of Mark, it concluded with a ‘command’ from the lips of Jesus, given to His disciples –  the whole church – and to you and me: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.”    This Is The Real Deal! 

Bishop Jenky affirmed that Christianity has never been easy – nor was it supposed to be easy.  As Jesus once predicted, they hated me, they will certainly hate you. But, if we truly believe that Christ rose from the dead, we should be willing to overcome our fears and ask Christ to give us the moral courage to stand up for the truth before the whole world.  Is this not what Bishop Jenky has done?

Bishop Daniel R. Jenky CSC, Bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, in Peoria, Illinois, showed great moral courage in his homily given during the mass, that day at “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” conference.  Now, the Sanhedrin of our day, wants to silence him.    

Bishop Jenky went on to state to the conference that day, “This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries – only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. No Catholic ministry can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to His glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions.”    AND THAT IS THE REAL DEAL HERE! 

Critical organ donation warnings and guidance in new pamphlet

Thursday, April 19, 2012

President Obama's Planned Parenthood commercial

This is what the election will be about. Personal PAC will spend hundreds of thousands of $ to promote pro-abortion candidates. This is what the Obama Adm is all about.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Planned Parenthood launches "40 Days of Prayer" for Abortion! / Abomination of Abominations!

Ok, I have a question for you - does the devil answer prayers?

Planned Parenthood (PP) has launched their own copy-cat mimicry of the pro-life "40 Days of Prayer" campaign, where pro-lifers across the nation hold prayer vigils outside abortion clinics for 40 Days & Nights, praying for an end to abortion.  Of course the request of PP's prayers will be quite different, as they will be praying for God's protection over abortion rights.  Do you think God will answer?  I think Satan might more aptly be the being to answer such prayers of darkness - but does the devil answer prayer?

Last month, Planned Parenthood in Eureka, California, launched their own "40 Days of Prayer campaign, titled: "Supporting women Everywhere."  The campaign has crafted some 40 different prayers (hexes?) for mothers, escorts, abortionists, and everyone and anyone involved with the abortion industry - except of course for the unborn children - who are very pointedly left out of the satanic litany.

Planned Parenthood's 'coven' in California, began the campaign on March 18th, and will continue it's demonic liturgies up to April 27th. Several gatherings of these covens, under the mantra, "in celebration of women and reproductive rights," will be advertised under SRPP's CLERGY for Choice, who, dare to bill themselves as "religious leaders who value all human life." Really?  Faith Aloud, a "religious and ethical voice for reproductive justice" based in St. Louis  (shamefully) takes credit for authoring the unholy invocations.  

Planned Parenthood's sacrilegious attempts to spiritualize their demonic slaughter of innocents, harkens back to religious leaders in Nazi, Germany who also supported Adolf Hitler in his genocide. We have only to look back a short way in American history - and even today - to those people who use the Bible to support the segregation and subjugation of certain races of peoples. The most egregious of evils, is to use Almighty God in the justification of one's sins, and that is exactly where Planned Parenthood is treading.     

Years ago, Dudley Moore starred in a rather bizarre comedy, titled "Bedazzled", in which Dudley's hapless character, who is frustrated in love, is seduced by the devil to sell his soul, in order to get his heart's desire. Dudley's character, reluctantly signs the contract for the relinquishment of his soul to the evil one,  and is then put through a constant run-around of trickery by Satan, who never really answers poor Dudley's character's heart's desires. Either way, it's a tragic comedy of how the devil doesn't really pay up on his promises - only takes your soul, and leaves you eternally damned.  It's a bad deal for anyone to enter into. And praying for the protection of the slaughter of innocents, is definitely an ill advised deal for PP to enter into with the Father of Lies. They're digging themselves deeper and deeper into that chasm of perdition, from whence no one returns.

In the movie Bedazzled, Dudley's ill fated character is given a 2nd chance by a merciful and forgiving God - after which Dudley decides to simply take what comes and trust in God.  I pray that these hapless souls in Planned Parenthood, will also receive the grace of conversion one day, before the evil god they are invoking comes to collect on the debt. 

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Can A Blob Of Pregnancy Tissue Be Blessed? A Simple Prayer Saves a Life.

How often have we heard the famous line, "what's in a word?"  Since childhood I've heard this phrase.  Who would ever imagine that what's in a word, could be the difference between life and death.  Here's the story of a child saved by a different usage of words, which reflect the difference between the pro-life and pro-choice perspective - and how a life was saved as the result of a few words that struck deeply into the heart of a young scared mother on her way to have an abortion. 

A Life-Site article by Peter Baklinski, tells the beautiful story of a baby saved, after a man calls out God's blessing on a child, bound to be aborted.  Mareza Landeros was a young 19 yr. old girl; the article says she had not been to church since she was 7 years old. In spite of this, Mareza had retained the habit of nightly prayer, through which she was able to feel a "strong connection with God".

Then, when Mareza discovered she was pregnant, she and the father of her baby, sought the services of Affiliated Medical Services (AMS) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to schedule an abortion.

Mareza stated: "We didn't think anything of abortion. We were just getting rid of something that was a burden."  Mareza went on to explain that she was not a bad person, just"scared and uninformed".  And what was the most important piece of information Mareza needed to be informed about?  What "words" did she need to hear?

Mareza and her boyfriend had just pulled into the parking lot of AMS, when they were quite unexpectedly met by  "a big tall six-foot guy standing in front of the abortion clinic", who handed Mareza a pamphlet that said, "This is your baby growing."  Dan Miller and a small team of counselors from Pro-Life Wisconsin had been praying at the facility that day; attempting to intercede for the unborn children who would be aborted that day.

As Mareza and her boyfriend casually walked past the pro-life witnesses, and stood waiting at the door of the abortion facility, a loud voice cut across the air, calling out: "God bless you two!"  The mention of God's name struck a cord in Mareza's memory, prompting her to turn toward the speaker, in what she now looks upon as an inspired moment of grace, when the tall man shouted once more,  "No, God bless all three of you!"  

This statement, these words, "God bless all three of you", struck Mareza so deeply, as she pondered the idea, that she was carrying someone inside her who had just been blessed by God!

In contrast to this statement, once inside the facility a routine ultrasound was performed to determine the stage of pregnancy, after which, the ultrasound technician blithely informed Mareza, that she was 10 weeks along, and that they would remove the "pregnancy tissue" by the suction and cutelage method. She continued to tell Mareza that the procedure was quick and painless.  But Mareza wanted to know if the procedure would be painless for "her baby"?

The difference in words is so monumental in their meaning and effect, as the technician stood silent before the young mother, asking about how the abortion procedure would affect "her baby" whom a sidewalk counselor had just called down God's blessing upon.  Could a blob of pregnancy tissue be blessed by God?

Mareza walked out of the abortion clinic that day. Her boyfriend did not support her decision and soon afterward left Mareza and little Joseph, the name Mareza gave her little son.  She now attends the same church as Daniel, the tall 6ft. sidewalk counselor who called down God's blessing that day on her and her child.

The powerful words of  Daniel's simple prayer that day, "God bless all three of you", worked a miracle in the heart of a young woman, who as a result, realized that there was a person inside her - for only a person - not a blob of pregnancy tissue - can be blessed by God. One never knows what we say, and how our words can affect someone, especially when they are in the form of a prayer. 

Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger

Friday, April 6, 2012

Creating Zombies for The Purpose of Organ Donation / It's Alive! Or Is it Alive?

I have always been fascinated by zombies; but that fascination ended with science fiction - not reality.  But this blog is not about science fiction zombies, but creating real zombies for the utilitarian purpose of organ donation.  

I have always been a black and white, right or wrong person; but as I grew older, I realized there were others who saw grey areas between these distinctions.  That said, I don't think there's any grey area in determining whether you're dead or alive; either you is or you isn't. 

It began with the Uniform Definition of Death Act (UDDA), which legislatively, established a definition of death termed "brain death".  The UDDA is as follows:  "an individual who has sustained, either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead."  A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

As organ donation became normative in our society, a few pro-lifers raised concerns, that the donor might not really be dead - but just dead enough. By that time, it had already become a lucrative business in medicine.  Some of the red flags that were raised, at that time, are becoming a reality today.

People are free to express their opinions; but the freedom to speculate about brain death, does not convey the freedom to act. Those who define brain death as death, should establish their position with moral certitude.  This has not occurred, rather there's been a serious lapse, considering the life and death importance of the issue. However, the voices of those who opposed organ donation remained small in number; and so, it has become an established "right".

Donating the organs of a brain dead patient, has become a routine procedure, at both secular and religious hospitals throughout the United States.

Enter a new method of obtaining organs for transplant, including whether the donor is 'technically' dead or not. Now, we have a new definition; it has several names, including "donation after cardiac death (DCD)" and "donation after circulatory death." What does this mean?  It means, it's ok to take the patient's organs, even though the donor may still have brain activity.

In that regard, several centers are now taking organ donation a few steps further down the slippery slope. They're starting to place possible donors on a heart-lung machine called ECMO, even before their hearts have stopped beating. This is for the purpose of profusing their organs, while waiting for their heart to stop.  This procedure raises another ethical dilemma; could restoring circulation with ECMO also supply blood to the brain, keeping it alive?  So, in order to evade that problem, some centers are inserting a balloon, that will block blood from getting to the brain - creating a zombie?    

How about Alzheimer's patients? How about Down Syndrome babies? Right now Down Syndrome babies are being aborted at the rate of 90%, due to an increase in non-invasive maternal blood-testing. Would not these patients, already damaged to begin with, make suitable organ donors, as our society moves into a more utilitarian outlook on life.  On one hand, the person whose organs are failing, sees no moral problem in the way they obtain someone else's organs; and this has led to black market organ trafficking etc.

Some experts in medicine have raised a red flag on donation after cardiac death. Why? Because, no one knows, or can agree, on how long surgeons should wait to make sure the heart is not going to start up again, once life support has been removed. Therefore transplant centers wait anywhere from 2 mins. to 45 mins.; some even opting for several hours. Obviously the donor is not brain dead; we've simply moved the bar, opening a door to new problems. 

Here's an interesting quote for you from a Case Western Reserve University bioethicist, Stuart Youngner: "You could say, well they're almost dead, or they're close to dead, or they're dead enough. But I don't know if you could say, with absolute certainty, there's no function there and no function that could be brought back."  Ok, which is it?  Either they're a zombie, or they're not.

So a debate is arising in medicine, on whether the donor is dead, due to the brain death criteria, or does a new definition of death need to be established for a live donor who is not brain dead? Either way, defining death for utilitarian purposes leads to the opening of Pandora's Box; and none of us are safe, unless we wanna become zombies for the purpose of organ donation.