Monday, April 27, 2015
"Pro-Life" Hospice Care?
"Pro-Life" Hospice Care?
Dr. Brian Kopp
There was a time, not long ago, when the idea of designating a hospice care program as "pro-life" would have seemed absurd. Most hospice care programs in the US in the 1970s and 1980s sprang from roots in Christian ministry to the sick and dying, and the sanctity of human life was always paramount in these grassroots hospices. To understand why things have changed, we need to understand the Christian roots of hospice care philosophy and how the hospice industry has deviated from those origins.
In the Middle Ages, many Christians made pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They frequently became sick on the long and arduous journey. Pilgrims who were unable to complete the journey home were admitted to the care of the Knights Hospitaller in their hospice in Jerusalem. Christian care was provided to fulfill the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, and hospices were subsequently founded along pilgrimage routes in other regions. In France, the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul opened hospices in the 17th century, and the Irish Religious Sisters of Charity opened a hospice in Dublin in the late 19th century. Churches led the way in the care of the dying well into the 20th century, which saw the emergence of two great leaders in the hospice field.
Most know of Mother Teresa and her pioneering work among the dying in India's poorest regions, her establishment of the first hospices for AIDS victims in the 1980s, and her uncompromising pro-life stance. England's Dame Cicely Saunders began her career in nursing, transitioned to social work and eventually completed medical school in order to help the development of modern hospice care. She also developed a lively faith as a result of joining a Christian study group founded by C.S. Lewis at Oxford University. She took a keen interest in the needs of the dying, recognizing that their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs and sufferings were simply not being met in the medical system of the first half of the twentieth century. Dame Saunders was fully committed to the sanctity of human life and strongly opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The early grassroots hospice programs that started in the late 1970s in the USA took as their foundation the Christian philosophy of the sanctity of life held so dear by Mother Teresa and Cicely Saunders. Most hospice work was volunteer-based and primarily provided as Christian works of mercy. Unfortunately, the federal government's introduction of a Medicare hospice benefit in 1986, while providing stability and a revenue steam for these hospice pioneers, also introduced the profit motive.
Within two decades, big for-profit corporate hospice providers had completely displaced these grassroots non-profit community based hospices in many markets. Today, all of the large for-profit corporate hospice providers have been credibly accused of massive amounts of fraudulent hospice billing; the largest for-profit corporate hospice provider stands accused of a billion dollars per year in fraudulent insurance billing for the last ten years.
Most of this fraud consists of admitting patients to hospice who aren't actually terminal, thus billing for inappropriate care, or billing for higher levels of care than patients actually need. Fraud by neglect and by withdrawal of routine chronic medications is common. Also, omissions (e.g., inappropriate withdrawal of food and water) or commissions (e.g., over-medication) frequently lead to premature deaths. We call these deaths "stealth euthanasia" whether they are deliberate or not.
Sometimes these deaths occur simply because of greed. For instance, hospices commit fraud by not providing services and supplies to which patients are entitled, by denying patients medications for chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes, or by over-medicating patients to make them appear sicker than they are in order to bill more for higher levels of care. Sometimes, as in the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo's death at the hospice in Florida, deaths are caused deliberately. The pro-life movement needs to recognize, understand, and fight against "stealth euthanasia."
It is also imperative that the pro-life movement help develop and support "Pro-Life Hospice Care."
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL
As the Synod approaches this fall, keep the following infallible
teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church
handy, and compare anything you see or hear to these constant teachings.
Anything that deviates from these documents is in error, and those
promulgating such errors are to be resisted.
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO OF POPE JOHN PAUL II, 1981
No one can change these teachings.
No one.
"...5. Many argue that the position of
the Church on the question of divorced and remarried faithful is overly
legalistic and not pastoral.
A series of critical objections against the doctrine and praxis of the Church pertain to questions of a pastoral nature. Some say, for example, that the language used in the ecclesial documents is too legalistic, that the rigidity of law prevails over an understanding of dramatic human situations. They claim that the human person of today is no longer able to understand such language, that Jesus would have had an open ear for the needs of people, particularly for those on the margins of society. They say that the Church, on the other hand, presents herself like a judge who excludes wounded people from the sacraments and from certain public responsibilities.
One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s manner of expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs to be translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to people and to their respective cultural environments. The essential content of the Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the revealed truth.
Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor, John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid. 56).
Furthermore, concerning the position of the Magisterium as regards the question of divorced and remarried members of the faithful, it must be stressed that the more recent documents of the Church bring together the demands of truth with those of love in a very balanced way. If at times in the past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the truth, so today the danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either to be silenced or compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32)."
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH'S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL [1]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Official Vatican teaching on the divorced and remarried and Holy
Eucharist, Given at Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, 14 September 1994, Feast of the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross:A series of critical objections against the doctrine and praxis of the Church pertain to questions of a pastoral nature. Some say, for example, that the language used in the ecclesial documents is too legalistic, that the rigidity of law prevails over an understanding of dramatic human situations. They claim that the human person of today is no longer able to understand such language, that Jesus would have had an open ear for the needs of people, particularly for those on the margins of society. They say that the Church, on the other hand, presents herself like a judge who excludes wounded people from the sacraments and from certain public responsibilities.
One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s manner of expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs to be translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to people and to their respective cultural environments. The essential content of the Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the revealed truth.
Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor, John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid. 56).
Furthermore, concerning the position of the Magisterium as regards the question of divorced and remarried members of the faithful, it must be stressed that the more recent documents of the Church bring together the demands of truth with those of love in a very balanced way. If at times in the past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the truth, so today the danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either to be silenced or compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32)."
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH'S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL [1]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
"...the Church affirms that a new union
cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If
the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation
that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot
receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage"(7).
The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage"(7).
The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO OF POPE JOHN PAUL II, 1981
"However, the Church reaffirms her
practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to
Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are
unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and
condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between
Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.
Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people
were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and
confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of
marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."(180)
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage."
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EPISCOPATE
TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL
OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE ROLE
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
IN THE MODERN WORLD
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."(180)
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage."
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EPISCOPATE
TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL
OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE ROLE
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
IN THE MODERN WORLD
No one can change these teachings.
No one.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
I Will Not Serve! I Will Not Be Served!
 |
Jan.
23, 2015
|
|
|
|
PHA
Monthly
Newsletter
for the
Pro-Life Healthcare
Alliance
Eighteenth Edition |
From
the Chairman's
Desk
I
Will Not Serve!
I Will Not Be
Served!
Dr. Brian
Kopp
"Long ago
you broke your
yoke, you tore off
your bonds.
'I will
not serve!' you
said."
- Jeremiah
2:20
Jeremiah attributes
the declaration "I
will not serve" to
the people of Israel
in their rejection
of God. More
generally, it is
attributed to
Lucifer in his
refusal to serve the
Creator-God and his
desire to himself be
worshiped. The
phrase "I will not
serve!"
appropriately
describes the sexual
revolution's
rejection of God and
His moral law and
the idolization of
youth and
unrestrained
sexuality. The "I
will not serve"
mentality has strewn
wreckage in its
path.
There
is a corollary
to "I will not
serve": "I will
not be
served!"
In Scripture, when
Jesus talks about
the Last Judgment,
He says:
"For I was
hungry and you
gave me something
to eat, I was
thirsty and you
gave me something
to drink, I was a
stranger and you
invited me in, I
needed clothes and
you clothed me, I
was sick and you
looked after me, I
was in prison and
you came to visit
me...Truly I tell
you, whatever you
did for one of the
least of these
brothers and
sisters of mine,
you did for me." -
Matthew 25:35-36,
40
One can almost hear
the lament:
"I will not
be served because
whatsoever you do
to the least of
His brothers that
you do unto Him.
I've always done
everything for
me. I've
never done
anything for Him.
I'm not going to
start now! I'm not
going to humble
myself. I will not
allow anyone to do
unto Him by
letting them do
unto me.
"I will not
suffer. I would
rather die. Now
and in eternity, I
will shake my fist
in the face of
God, spit in His
eye one last time
when I refuse my
last meal, take my
last pill, draw my
final breath. My last
act will be
eternal rebellion
and thus
damnation."
This rejection of
suffering short
circuits the cycle
of grace that comes
both in serving "the
least of these
brothers and sisters
of mine" and in
being served as "the
least of these." By
humbling ourselves
so that we may be
served, those who
serve us may attain
Eternal Life.The tip of the spear in the present battle regarding stealth euthanasia* is death by dehydration. In the vast majority of cases of stealth euthanasia, death occurs primarily due to withdrawal of fluids, leading to volume depletion, organ failure, shock, and death. The symptoms of dehydration are almost always masked by narcotic analgesics, sedatives and anti-psychotics. Stealth euthanasia is not just unethical and immoral, but also an obvious violation of the basis on which Jesus said we would be judged.
Today many are not only quietly acquiescing to the stealth euthanasia agenda, but are requesting the legalization of assisted suicide. The same generation that idolized youth and sex is refusing to bear the ignobility of sickness, old age and vulnerability.
Why accept natural death? Because, instead of final rebellion, it is final surrender. Acceptance of death at the time of God's choosing says:
"Please,
Lord, let this cup
pass me by. But
not my will but
Your will be done.
If that means
taking this cup of
spoon feeding or
tube feeding or IV
hydration, Your
will be done! If
that means letting
others care for me
and giving up my
radical autonomy,
so be it! If that
means letting
others clean my
face or
behind,this, Lord,
seems too much to
bear! But this too
I accept. I am not
sufficient unto
myself. Without
You, God, I am
nothing.
"Your will
be done. I humble
myself and permit
others to serve
You in my person,
in my weak and
vulnerable and
suffering body, in
the ignobility of
age and sickness.
I accept that,
where once I did
for others, now I
must permit others
to do for me.
Because I am one
of "the least"
now, and in Your
providence You
call forth the
next generation to
love and serve
selflessly, I must
swallow my pride.
I am no longer the
strong one, the
warrior. I am now
the one who needs
protection. You
call new warriors
into the arena to
protect me, feed
me, clothe me,
bathe me.
"I permit
others to console
Your heart by
consoling and
caring for me in
my need. That
alone makes it
possible to bear
my cross. Because
in doing it for
me, they do it for
You."
Ultimately, the
battle against
euthanasia and
assisted suicide is
a battle for eternal
souls--our own
souls, the souls of
those for whom we
fight and for whom
we care, and the
souls of those who
care for us.* "Stealth euthanasia": hastening death by neglect or intention while pretending to provide appropriate end-of-life care.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Rabbits and NFP
My wife and and I taught NFP for ten years. We heard all the jokes (i.e.,
half truths and outright lies) about NFP, typified by this perennial
favorite: "What do you call couples who use NPF? 'Parents.'" We heard
the continual disparagement about "breeding like rabbits." We had
couples who walked out of our class after my presentation on the
necessity of having "grave reason" for recourse to NFP. We also had
couples who, after hearing the Church's teaching on the
necessity of having "grave reason" for having recourse NFP, realized
they had none, and happily reported within a month or two that they were
expecting.
We also always
wanted a big family, and I even bought a 12 passenger van when the
children were young in hopes of having 6 or 8 children or more. After
our third came along, God never sent us any more.We love our children,
and we would have loved to have more, but He knew best for us.
We gave up teaching NFP partly because the mentality was not that Catholics could have recourse to NFP "for grave reasons," but one that had morphed into the idea that NFP was "responsible parenthood" and "Catholic birth control" and that "grave reasons" weren't really necessary any more. It was just too difficult to teach young couples how to be "responsible parents," avoiding pregnancy for often less than grave reasons, when we still were asking God for more children.
The Pope's recent comments were grossly imprudent in my opinion, even hurtful to many good faithful Christians. They contribute to the values-free mentality of the modern NFP movement and the idea that "responsible parents" must limit childbearing. They are not in any way helpful; I find them to be indefensible, despite the spin of the usual suspects who want to interpret them in a hermeneutic of continuity with former Magisterial statements on the subject. I find them to be a rupture with the perennial teachings of the Church on this subject, based on firm reliance on Divine Providence, appeals to the "responsible parenthood" proof texts in Guadium et Spes and Humanae Vitae notwithstanding.
If Pope Francis were not preparing an encyclical on "global warming" and "human ecology" I would just shrug off this latest embarrassment as just another in a long line of off-the-cuff gaffes.
But he is using the language of the environmentalists and population controllers who blame climate change on Christians, Islamists and Third World citizens who "breed like rabbits." If he has bought into the climate change propaganda then he has likely also bought into the idea that fighting climate change requires "responsible parenthood."
In his mind, maybe population control to combat global warming is fine, as long as it employs NFP?
We gave up teaching NFP partly because the mentality was not that Catholics could have recourse to NFP "for grave reasons," but one that had morphed into the idea that NFP was "responsible parenthood" and "Catholic birth control" and that "grave reasons" weren't really necessary any more. It was just too difficult to teach young couples how to be "responsible parents," avoiding pregnancy for often less than grave reasons, when we still were asking God for more children.
The Pope's recent comments were grossly imprudent in my opinion, even hurtful to many good faithful Christians. They contribute to the values-free mentality of the modern NFP movement and the idea that "responsible parents" must limit childbearing. They are not in any way helpful; I find them to be indefensible, despite the spin of the usual suspects who want to interpret them in a hermeneutic of continuity with former Magisterial statements on the subject. I find them to be a rupture with the perennial teachings of the Church on this subject, based on firm reliance on Divine Providence, appeals to the "responsible parenthood" proof texts in Guadium et Spes and Humanae Vitae notwithstanding.
If Pope Francis were not preparing an encyclical on "global warming" and "human ecology" I would just shrug off this latest embarrassment as just another in a long line of off-the-cuff gaffes.
But he is using the language of the environmentalists and population controllers who blame climate change on Christians, Islamists and Third World citizens who "breed like rabbits." If he has bought into the climate change propaganda then he has likely also bought into the idea that fighting climate change requires "responsible parenthood."
In his mind, maybe population control to combat global warming is fine, as long as it employs NFP?