@TLMRyan (Twitter) on YouTube @PreConciliarRadio:
Dutch officials say doctors did the right thing in killing a disabled 1-year-old child, but Cardinal Willem Eijk argues euthanasia can never be justified.
(LifeSiteNews) — The killing of a 1-year-old Dutch child through euthanasia is a “fundamental violation” of the toddler’s dignity, Cardinal William Eijk of the Netherlands said recently.
Controversy has grown in the past several weeks after further details emerged on the murder of an almost two-year-old boy in the Netherlands. Though the killing occurred last year, Dutch authorities only recently released their review of the matter, sparking renewed interest. The euthanasia occurred just one year after the Netherlands expanded its assisted suicide regime.
The child, nearly 2 years old, had been born at 26 weeks’ gestation. He had severe brain damage, cerebral palsy, seizures, and a developmental age of about six weeks. Although the child was not dying, doctors and parents chose to sedate and kill him, as LifeSiteNews first covered in June.
The report argues that the child “had multiple, very severe disabilities, both mental and physical, and the prognosis was that the child would be dependent on support with all activities of daily living for the rest of their life,” with a “very high probability of the child dying at a very young age due to complications.”
“In the course of the child’s short life, there was a complete lack of development or improvement,” the report claims, with parents and physicians “convinced that the child was suffering unbearably and without prospect of improvement.”
Some doctors objected to the killing, so the child’s parents simply found other doctors who supported euthanasia and endorsed their plan.
But killing disabled children is not compassionate, Cardinal Eijk told Crux during a recent interview.
“The word ‘merciful’ is often used nowadays to justify ethically questionable actions. However, is it merciful to violate the fundamental dignity of the human person by ending their life,” he asked.
Euthanasia violates the dignity of the human body, Eijk said.
“Objectively speaking, however, a human being is not merely his body, nor is he merely his soul, but both soul and body,” he said. “The body is an essential part of the human person. The termination of his body is therefore a fundamental violation of his inherent dignity.”
The prefect for legislative texts has warned against interpretations of synodality that treat the current period as an opportunity to discard elements of the Church’s existing life.
In his first substantial interview since Pope Leo XIV appointed him Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts, Archbishop Randazzo told the online canon law journal Vox Canonica this month that some approaches to synodality risk failing to recognise the continuity of the Church’s existing canonical and ecclesial tradition.
“Some over-enthusiastic interpretations of synodality may view this moment as an opportunity simply to cut away what is perceived to be dead wood,” His Excellency said.
The Archbishop used the image of an ancient tree to explain his understanding of the present period in the Church. “In this season, the old wood can put forth new green shoots; the tree does not cease to be what it is, but rather it blossoms anew and bears abundant fruit,” His Grace said.
Archbishop Randazzo said that synodality and accompaniment should not be regarded as inventions of the contemporary Church. “Synodality and accompaniment are not new realities,” His Excellency said. “They are contemporary expressions that seek to help the Church ‘scrutinise the signs of the times and interpret them in the light of the Gospel’.”
“Although the vocabulary is new, the underlying ecclesial reality is already embodied in the Church’s life and canonical tradition,” he added. He pointed to both the Latin Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, saying they contain “numerous examples of ecclesial life, mission, and ministry that are authentically synodal and that necessarily require accompaniment”
More: https://x.com/sitsio/status/2104968188098146812?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w
Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, is a man who needs no introduction. Most famous for being the founder of Ignatius Press, he played an important role at the 1987 Synod of Bishops that few Catholics today are aware of. He was one of twenty experts appointed to that synod by Pope John Paul II, which discussed lay ministries among other topics, and which led to that pope’s apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici, in which he famously criticized the “clericalization of the laity.”
In a paper distributed to the participants, Fr. Fessio presented in broad outlines the case against female laity being admitted to liturgical ministries such as acolyte and lector. This text seems to have been published in Origins 17/32 (January 21, 1988), but I discovered it in the fairly obscure newsletter of the St. Joseph Foundation, which is where the text I have scanned and reproduced below came from. At the time, Fr. Fessio was a member of the Foundation’s National Advisory Committee.
While Fr. Fessio’s arguments are sound and strong, and apparently persuasive enough to have caused the synod to waver on the question, he and those who took the traditional stance lost the battle. Infamously, John Paul II would cave on female altar servers (as Paul VI had already caved on women as substitute readers), and Francis would introduce a further rupture by legislating that women can be “instituted” acolytes and lectors. Such nonsense has nothing to do with the traditional Minor Orders and Subdiaconate, which are part of the Church’s immemorial tradition and still remain in use today in traditional institutes of apostolic life and religious communities. My book Ministers of Christis dedicated to the explication and defense of these lower Orders as well as the refutation of the feminist novelties.
Without further ado, here is Fr. Fessio’s superb intervention from 1987. May it be read far and wide. —PAK
In the discussions of the possible admission of women to the stable non-ordained ministries of acolyte and lector and also of the admission of women to the function of acolyte as altar servers, the impression has often been given that the main or only reasons against such admission are of a cultural, pastoral or psychological nature. In particular, some have said there seem to be no intrinsic reasons of a doctrinal or theological character against such admission.
The purpose of this brief expose is simply to outline some of the major philosophical and theological elements which many theologians consider relevant to this issue. There is, of course, an a priori presumption in favor of the existence of such theological arguments, since it is unlikely that a consistent 2,000-year tradition of the Catholic Church across many ages and cultures would be based on merely contingent or culturally conditioned foundations. The intent of this expose is neither to be complete and detailed nor persuasive in its argumentation. This would require much greater scope that the brief outline of relevant philosophical and theological elements presented here. Moreover, the limitation to such elements is not meant to neglect or deny the very many weighty arguments which can be brought to bear from the cultural, pastoral and psychological perspectives. But the intent is to indicate that what may appear to be merely a matter of ecclesiastical discipline in fact involves principles derived from philosophical anthropology, Trinitarian doctrine, Christology, and ecclesiology.
More: https://www.traditionsanity.com/p/fr-fessios-reasons-against-women?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"The dignity of the human person is again at stake"
WASHINGTON, DC — His Excellency, the Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio, J.C.D., Archbishop for the Military Services, USA, today issued the following statement on the proposal to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan by firing squad:
"In addition to supporting and subscribing to the statement by my brothers the Bishops of Texas, it is my duty to express my disapproval of what is proposed regarding the execution of the terrorist Hasan in the Archdiocese entrusted to my spiritual care to be done by those for whose salvation I have been constituted as the Archbishop for the Military Services, USA.
"First of all, I renew my expression of heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of those who died in the attack at Fort Hood. It was an attack that disregarded the dignity of the human person. I had the sad duty of presiding and preaching at the funeral of Michael Grant Cahill, the only civilian killed in that attack.
"Secondly, I repeat the opposition of the Catholic Church to capital punishment. The Catechism was already clear and Pope Francis made it even clearer. The dignity of the human person is again at stake.
"Thirdly, do we really want to imitate the terrorists of this world and make a public spectacle of barbarically killing our adversaries? The crime committed by Nidal Malik Hasan was heinous, but does exposing the public to his execution serve any purpose? Has the potential moral injury, which the members of the firing squad might experience, been considered? Will the exposure of a live-stream to the young and impressionable during the 250thanniversary year of our independence be able to be repaired? The US military generally enjoys a good reputation in the world. Is there really a value to throwing them in the same boat with terrorists by broadcasting the image of the execution of a man in a wheel chair to the whole world? Does this decision reflect the dignity of the human person?
"I call upon all men and women of good will to ask that this decision be reconsidered and, at the very least, do what is possible to keep the exposure to the live-streaming of the proposed execution from the vision of the young and impressionable. As I would in the case of a procured abortion, I oblige any Catholics assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused from this action contrary to the teaching of the Church."
Read the Texas bishops' statement here.
A synodality that “listens” conditionally, with pre-set limits …
Mark Lambert @sitsio:
“Cardinal Roche is nuts! I give up!!
“Read the Synod's own Instrumentum Laboris of July 2024. Paragraph 33 describes a synodal Church as one that listens, welcomes and accompanies, specifically acknowledging those who feel excluded from ecclesial life. Paragraph 34 then proposes a ministry of listening and accompaniment, allowing people to approach the Church without feeling threatened or judged.
“How can a Church that insists upon listening, accompaniment, discernment and the inclusion of those who feel marginalised appear so remarkably unwilling to extend those same principles to Catholics attached to its own liturgical tradition?
“In the interview he is asked what he thinks when traditionalist Catholics complain that they have been treated unkindly by ecclesiastical authority, his response: "What is your problem? What else is it that you are wanting?"
“He goes on to suggest that these Catholics generally cannot answer his question and then characterises their aspirations as a desire to return to a Church without the teaching of Vatican II. Rather than examining why otherwise faithful Catholics, including young families and converts, find such spiritual nourishment in the older liturgy, Roche appears to interpret their attachment primarily through the lens of resistance to ecclesiastical authority. He is not fit for office!”
AdVaticanum interview:
Exclusive interview: Cardinal Roche to traditionalists: ‘You are edging yourself away from the centre of Catholicism’
In an exclusive interview with AdVaticanum, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship speaks about his dicastery, the controversy over an Islamic chant at a Belgian university Mass, the future of Traditionis Custodes, the validity of SSPX sacraments and whether there was an appetite among bishops for change from Summorum Pontificum
✍️@ThomasEdwardsVa
https://x.com/realadvaticanum/status/2109949182543110516?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w
Nine months after organizers of the Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage sought an audience, the Vatican has declined a pontifical Mass in St. Peter’s and no papal meeting has been announced.
Edward Pentin
Is Pope Leo XIV missing an opportunity to heal wounds felt by traditional Catholics by not meeting with a large representative group of them next month?
The Holy Father has so far not responded to a request for a papal audience from the leaders of an annual traditional Catholic pilgrimage to Rome — despite the request having been made nine months ago and the Pope saying last year he would like to meet such groups.
The organisers of the Oct. 23-25 Ad Petri Sedem (to the See of Peter) pilgrimage, mostly made up of laypeople, had requested the papal audience in a letter signed by two lay members of the organisation and personally delivered by Bishop Athanasius Schneider when he met Pope Leo at the Vatican last December.
They also asked in the same letter for permission to celebrate a Pontifical Mass at the Altar of the Chair in St Peter’s Basilica, as has happened several years in the past, and during last year’s pilgrimage which took place during the jubilee year and was celebrated by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
The pilgrimage is run by Coetus Internationalis, an association comprising 33 traditional Catholic associations from all over the world. Last year, an estimated 3,000 faithful attended the annual three-day gathering.
After repeated requests for a definitive response, the Secretariat of State on 7 August declined permission for the Pontifical Mass to be celebrated in St Peter’s Basilica. The Mass will instead be held at the Basilica of St Mary Major on 24 October, with Bishop Athanasius Schneider as celebrant.
The organisers expressed their “deep gratitude” to Cardinal Rolandas Makrickas, archpriest of St Mary Major, for granting permission for the Mass.
More: https://edwardpentin.substack.com/p/no-response-to-traditional-pilgrimages?r=2x82t4&utm_medium=ios
