http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/09/quaeritur-if-i-kneel-for-communion-am-i-in-rebellion/
You kneeling Catholics go over and tell them what you really think!
K.C.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nueces County teen age birth rate drops 70% over two years
( the public health spokeswoman says they teach 'abstinence first' but offer contraception when solicited. the drop is from 52 births per 1000 15 to 19 year olds in 2006, to 39 in 2007 to 15 = 70% drop. what's going on? It's too early to celebrate the effectiveness of 'abstinence only' education, as its not clear from the article if that is what is actually being used [there is also no mention of the teenage abortion rate])
from the 21 September 09 Corpus Christi Caller Times>>>....Also of note, the rate of births to teenage mothers in the Corpus Christi area has dropped significantly in the past three years.
In 2008, there were 15 births for every 1,000 females age 15 to 19. That number dropped from 39 in 2007 and 52 in 2006. The average is 29 in the United States and 44 in Texas.
Dolores Arispe, a registered nurse at the Corpus Christi-Nueces County Public Health District, said the Census numbers bear out what local health officials are seeing — fewer pregnancy tests and pregnancies among teens.
The public health district visits local schools to teach abstinence and offers family planning for those who come to the district offices.
“We take the stance of abstinence first and also let them know about other types of services that we might have here for some of the teens,” Arispe said. “It takes time, but I think it’s working as you can see the numbers going down.”>>>>>>
http://www.caller.com/news/2009/sep/21/one-in-five-area-residents-without-health-care/
Monday, September 21, 2009
Speaking of Palliative Care
This scene, from the movie 'North' says alot! stay with it, around 2:20 minutes into clip you'll see the point..... Rob Reiner hits the nail right on the head!
K.C.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
'Palliative care in UK' = death by dehydration
.....Thanks, Father Finigan for the following! K.C. is posting this story because of its similarity to case featured in Father Ron Rolheiser's glowing endorsement of 'palliative care' in his South Texas Catholic article of one month ago.....
Vera’s story must be a warning to us allAs doctors fear 'euthanasia by the back door' Felicity Smart describes her chilling experience when a elderly neighbour entered hospital
18 September 2009....
My friend Vera (not her real name) is 98 and she desperately wants to live to be 100. I have known her for 20 years. She is frail, with poor eyesight and limited mobility, but she is definitely "all there". Strongly independent and unmarried, she lives alone. She can wash and dress herself unaided, and still cooks. She goes shopping in a wheelchair. A cleaner comes once a week, but Vera finds it hard to accept help.On Sunday afternoons I invariably phone her before visiting. There's no answer at first, as it takes her several minutes to reach the phone her poor eyesight prevents her from using a mobile. I try again a bit later. She usually answers then, but not this time. After two more tries, I am puzzled and anxious. Then I remember that her niece, Jo (not her real name, either) could have taken her out. She is her nearest relative. Her visits are infrequent, but maybe she has turned up. I leave a message.
......On Monday the phone rings. It's Jo, and what she tells me comes as a shock. Vera was found on Saturday evening by a neighbour, collapsed and in pain. She was rushed to hospital suffering from an acute abdominal inflammation. I ask if I can visit her. Yes, although she is unconscious. She says how sad it is that she won't be coming out. [this is the same certainty voiced by the palliative care nurse in Father Rollheiser's article prior to 'giving Granny her shot...']
Can she really be dying?I go with my husband. We find her in a ward with curtains drawn round the bed. Another shock: she looks bloated and almost unrecognisable; her breathing is laboured. She is being given oxygen, but there is no drip to hydrate her. By the bed is a small sponge on a stick, stained by pink gel, and some water in a glass. These are used to moisten her mouth so that dehydration does not cause her tongue to stick to it. A tube is inserted in her arm, which must be for pain relief - not only for the inflammation, but probably to allay the pain of dehydration. Pain relief is also a sedative. Dehydration, and the additional painkillers for it, could shorten her life.Knowing nothing about her condition, I feel at a disadvantage. ....
But as a supporter of the pro-life cause, I am concerned by what I see. I am a Catholic; Vera and her niece are not, but I am in no doubt about her will to live. We go to the desk where there is a senior nurse. I ask her about treatment and say how much Vera wanted to live. She says there is no treatment for the condition, which can be fatal even in younger people. Vera is receiving only palliative care because she is dying. Her niece has agreed to this after discussion with the consultant. My impression is that the nurse is talking fast and seems on the defensive.We return home not feeling reassured. I look up her condition on the internet. It does not say it is untreatable, although it can be very serious. Briefly, treatment is by intravenous infusion of fluids (nil by mouth) and pain relief. Surgery and antibiotics may be needed. I phone a pro-life helpline, Patients First Network, for advice. This support service promotes good medical care for people at risk near the end of life - at risk, that is, under the Mental Capacity Act of euthanasia by the omission or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, and through medical and nursing care being stopped.Having explained the situation, I am advised to ask more questions at the hospital. ....
But have I the right to do this, given that what is happening to Vera has been agreed with her niece? Yes, because the Mental Capacity Act contains a clause stating that the person who determines what is in someone's "best interests" must take into account the views of anyone interested in his or her welfare. We decide that the best way forward would be to talk to Jo first. This might clarify the situation and possibly avoid causing her offence by our going directly to the hospital for information. I phone her. When she realises I have rung to do more than commiserate, her voice changes. Like the nurse, she talks fast and sounds on the defensive, but she remains friendly. I ask if Vera was unconscious when taken to hospital. No, but she had made a "living will" saying that she did not wish to be resuscitated, so when she became unconscious, she agreed with the consultant that she should be allowed to die.....
I am very concerned about what this means, and whether Vera really understood what would happen.I print out the Mental Capacity Act and we take it with us to the hospital the next day. The change in Vera is marked. She now looks emaciated, the oxygen has been removed and her breathing is rapid and shallow. Only pain relief and the pink sponge are being used. We ask if we can speak to someone directly responsible for her care. Another nurse appears. I want to know why Vera is not being hydrated. I am told that she is that's what the pink sponge is for. I am astounded. I reply that it can only moisten her mouth.I ask about intravenous hydration and almost hope to be told that there would be no benefit, because then withholding it would be justified and I could stop asking questions. But the nurse says that in a case such as this, hydration is only given if the relatives request it because it just prolongs a life that would otherwise end sooner rather than later. So Vera could benefit from it.....
The Mental Capacity Act says that in considering whether life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests the person making the determination must not be motivated by a desire to bring about the patient's death. I say that I think Vera should be allowed a natural end and that it is wrong to hasten her death.The nurse asks me to wait. She returns with a form headed Liverpool Care Pathway. She explains that this is the gold standard of care for the dying, and is being rolled out across the NHS. Vera's care conforms to it. I am aware that there are serious pro-life concerns about it because it encourages the use of pain-relieving sedative drugs to ease the passage from life to death, opening the way for managed death or involuntary euthanasia. There is nothing in the ongoing care plan about food and fluids.I press the question of hydration. She says that sticking a needle into someone to hydrate them is hardly natural. I come back with it being unacceptable to inflict the pain of dehydration on someone, which then has to be relieved with additional life-shortening painkillers. What is the point of a medical advance, such as intravenous hydration, if it isn't used when needed? The nurse has had enough of me, but she is careful. She asks if I would like to talk to a doctor. I say yes.....
A doctor duly appears. She invites us into a private room. A palliative care specialist will be joining us, she says. By this time I'm feeling the strain, so my husband asks for more information. She tells us that Vera was fully conscious when admitted to hospital. Treatment of her condition with fluids was tried, but failed. A "very difficult" discussion then took place with her, during which it was explained that no further treatment was possible, surgery being too risky for someone so frail.She had accepted that palliative care was the only option, and was consistent with her living will. We are stunned. What are we to believe?I pull myself together and say that this is not our understanding of what had happened. We are simply told it is true and that her niece agrees with the decision. I ask if Vera knew that "treatment" now includes nutrition and hydration. Did she really want to be dehydrated to death? No answer. The palliative care specialist arrives to hear my question. She tries to tell me that very ill people don't want fluids anyway, so withholding them is not unkind. But did Vera know that dehydration is painful? Ah, but pain relief can make her "comfortable" (a word used several times as a euphemism for this kind of death). And her life will be shortened, I say. The doctor then says that hydration couldn't prolong it. Not what the nurse said earlier, I reply. We are going round in circles. I ask if this is the death they would want for themselves. Again, no answer.My husband sums up our views. He says we haven't been given a clear picture of what has happened and remain unconvinced that hydration has been justifiably withheld. He expresses our concern about the decreasing respect for life, which the law supports.....
They make no comment and it is we who end the meeting. But afterwards my husband and I agree that their aim was to head us off. We are left with the impression that the collective view is that this very old lady should be hastened to her end as speedily and painlessly as possible, her life having become of little or no value.We say our goodbyes to Vera. That evening, Jo phones. Vera has died. It took three days.Did we achieve anything? At the very least, we were listened to. I hope we also made the point that not everyone thinks the Mental Capacity Act protects patients or that the Liverpool Care Pathway is being used appropriately things which need saying repeatedly. Anti-life legislation is eroding trust in the medical profession.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000471.shtml
Vera’s story must be a warning to us allAs doctors fear 'euthanasia by the back door' Felicity Smart describes her chilling experience when a elderly neighbour entered hospital
18 September 2009....
My friend Vera (not her real name) is 98 and she desperately wants to live to be 100. I have known her for 20 years. She is frail, with poor eyesight and limited mobility, but she is definitely "all there". Strongly independent and unmarried, she lives alone. She can wash and dress herself unaided, and still cooks. She goes shopping in a wheelchair. A cleaner comes once a week, but Vera finds it hard to accept help.On Sunday afternoons I invariably phone her before visiting. There's no answer at first, as it takes her several minutes to reach the phone her poor eyesight prevents her from using a mobile. I try again a bit later. She usually answers then, but not this time. After two more tries, I am puzzled and anxious. Then I remember that her niece, Jo (not her real name, either) could have taken her out. She is her nearest relative. Her visits are infrequent, but maybe she has turned up. I leave a message.
......On Monday the phone rings. It's Jo, and what she tells me comes as a shock. Vera was found on Saturday evening by a neighbour, collapsed and in pain. She was rushed to hospital suffering from an acute abdominal inflammation. I ask if I can visit her. Yes, although she is unconscious. She says how sad it is that she won't be coming out. [this is the same certainty voiced by the palliative care nurse in Father Rollheiser's article prior to 'giving Granny her shot...']
Can she really be dying?I go with my husband. We find her in a ward with curtains drawn round the bed. Another shock: she looks bloated and almost unrecognisable; her breathing is laboured. She is being given oxygen, but there is no drip to hydrate her. By the bed is a small sponge on a stick, stained by pink gel, and some water in a glass. These are used to moisten her mouth so that dehydration does not cause her tongue to stick to it. A tube is inserted in her arm, which must be for pain relief - not only for the inflammation, but probably to allay the pain of dehydration. Pain relief is also a sedative. Dehydration, and the additional painkillers for it, could shorten her life.Knowing nothing about her condition, I feel at a disadvantage. ....
But as a supporter of the pro-life cause, I am concerned by what I see. I am a Catholic; Vera and her niece are not, but I am in no doubt about her will to live. We go to the desk where there is a senior nurse. I ask her about treatment and say how much Vera wanted to live. She says there is no treatment for the condition, which can be fatal even in younger people. Vera is receiving only palliative care because she is dying. Her niece has agreed to this after discussion with the consultant. My impression is that the nurse is talking fast and seems on the defensive.We return home not feeling reassured. I look up her condition on the internet. It does not say it is untreatable, although it can be very serious. Briefly, treatment is by intravenous infusion of fluids (nil by mouth) and pain relief. Surgery and antibiotics may be needed. I phone a pro-life helpline, Patients First Network, for advice. This support service promotes good medical care for people at risk near the end of life - at risk, that is, under the Mental Capacity Act of euthanasia by the omission or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, and through medical and nursing care being stopped.Having explained the situation, I am advised to ask more questions at the hospital. ....
But have I the right to do this, given that what is happening to Vera has been agreed with her niece? Yes, because the Mental Capacity Act contains a clause stating that the person who determines what is in someone's "best interests" must take into account the views of anyone interested in his or her welfare. We decide that the best way forward would be to talk to Jo first. This might clarify the situation and possibly avoid causing her offence by our going directly to the hospital for information. I phone her. When she realises I have rung to do more than commiserate, her voice changes. Like the nurse, she talks fast and sounds on the defensive, but she remains friendly. I ask if Vera was unconscious when taken to hospital. No, but she had made a "living will" saying that she did not wish to be resuscitated, so when she became unconscious, she agreed with the consultant that she should be allowed to die.....
I am very concerned about what this means, and whether Vera really understood what would happen.I print out the Mental Capacity Act and we take it with us to the hospital the next day. The change in Vera is marked. She now looks emaciated, the oxygen has been removed and her breathing is rapid and shallow. Only pain relief and the pink sponge are being used. We ask if we can speak to someone directly responsible for her care. Another nurse appears. I want to know why Vera is not being hydrated. I am told that she is that's what the pink sponge is for. I am astounded. I reply that it can only moisten her mouth.I ask about intravenous hydration and almost hope to be told that there would be no benefit, because then withholding it would be justified and I could stop asking questions. But the nurse says that in a case such as this, hydration is only given if the relatives request it because it just prolongs a life that would otherwise end sooner rather than later. So Vera could benefit from it.....
The Mental Capacity Act says that in considering whether life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests the person making the determination must not be motivated by a desire to bring about the patient's death. I say that I think Vera should be allowed a natural end and that it is wrong to hasten her death.The nurse asks me to wait. She returns with a form headed Liverpool Care Pathway. She explains that this is the gold standard of care for the dying, and is being rolled out across the NHS. Vera's care conforms to it. I am aware that there are serious pro-life concerns about it because it encourages the use of pain-relieving sedative drugs to ease the passage from life to death, opening the way for managed death or involuntary euthanasia. There is nothing in the ongoing care plan about food and fluids.I press the question of hydration. She says that sticking a needle into someone to hydrate them is hardly natural. I come back with it being unacceptable to inflict the pain of dehydration on someone, which then has to be relieved with additional life-shortening painkillers. What is the point of a medical advance, such as intravenous hydration, if it isn't used when needed? The nurse has had enough of me, but she is careful. She asks if I would like to talk to a doctor. I say yes.....
A doctor duly appears. She invites us into a private room. A palliative care specialist will be joining us, she says. By this time I'm feeling the strain, so my husband asks for more information. She tells us that Vera was fully conscious when admitted to hospital. Treatment of her condition with fluids was tried, but failed. A "very difficult" discussion then took place with her, during which it was explained that no further treatment was possible, surgery being too risky for someone so frail.She had accepted that palliative care was the only option, and was consistent with her living will. We are stunned. What are we to believe?I pull myself together and say that this is not our understanding of what had happened. We are simply told it is true and that her niece agrees with the decision. I ask if Vera knew that "treatment" now includes nutrition and hydration. Did she really want to be dehydrated to death? No answer. The palliative care specialist arrives to hear my question. She tries to tell me that very ill people don't want fluids anyway, so withholding them is not unkind. But did Vera know that dehydration is painful? Ah, but pain relief can make her "comfortable" (a word used several times as a euphemism for this kind of death). And her life will be shortened, I say. The doctor then says that hydration couldn't prolong it. Not what the nurse said earlier, I reply. We are going round in circles. I ask if this is the death they would want for themselves. Again, no answer.My husband sums up our views. He says we haven't been given a clear picture of what has happened and remain unconvinced that hydration has been justifiably withheld. He expresses our concern about the decreasing respect for life, which the law supports.....
They make no comment and it is we who end the meeting. But afterwards my husband and I agree that their aim was to head us off. We are left with the impression that the collective view is that this very old lady should be hastened to her end as speedily and painlessly as possible, her life having become of little or no value.We say our goodbyes to Vera. That evening, Jo phones. Vera has died. It took three days.Did we achieve anything? At the very least, we were listened to. I hope we also made the point that not everyone thinks the Mental Capacity Act protects patients or that the Liverpool Care Pathway is being used appropriately things which need saying repeatedly. Anti-life legislation is eroding trust in the medical profession.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000471.shtml
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Father Ron Rollheiser provides inspiration (again!) to K. C.
Father Ron Rollheiser's heroine, Dorothy Day was big on kneeling for Holy Communion....will Father put two plus two together and say we should still be kneeling? From Father's latest South Texas Catholic column: ....(K.C.'s purple and he's black) ....
>>>>>famous historian Christopher Dawson decided to become a Roman Catholic, his aristocratic mother was distressed, not because she had any aversion to Catholic dogma, but because now her son would, in her words, have to "worship with the help."
She was painfully aware that, in church at least, his aristocratic background would no longer set him apart from others or above anyone. At church he would be an equal among equals because the Eucharist would strip him of his higher social status.
She intuited correctly. The Eucharist, among other things, calls us to justice, to disregard the distinction between rich and poor, noble and peasant, aristocrat and servant, both around the Eucharist table itself and afterwards outside of the Church. The Eucharist fulfills what Mary prophesized when she was pregnant with Jesus, namely, that, in Jesus, the mighty would be brought down and that lowly would be raised up.
It was this that drew Dorothy Day to Christianity. She noticed that, at the Eucharist, the rich and the poor knelt side-by-side, all equal at that moment.
(Father, K. C. must interrupt. Dorothy Day died in 1980. She had to endure most all of the post Vatican II innovations, and surely she witnessed the new North American standing Communion line. Why did she hark back to kneeling Communion as the Church's most attractive feature to outsiders? If 'kneeling side by side' emphasized equality, what does marching- around-one-behind-the-other emphasize? This tends to put the churchiest people in the front of the line and the unwashed towards the back!
K.C. does not understand why people of your ilk put so much energy into eradicating kneeling when even Dorothy Day saw kneeling for Holy Communion as our most winsome, beautiful, and evangelistic feature. Really!)
Sadly, we often don't take this dimension of the Eucharist seriously.
(K.C. again!....Father is there any dimension of the Eucharist that we do take seriously?)
There is a common tendency to think that the practice of justice, especially social justice, is an optional part of being a Christian, something mandated by political correctness rather than by the Gospels.
(We have been hearing this, your sermon for the past 40 or so years and K. C. agrees with you! that along with your prevailing message - "concern for the poor is more important than reverence for God Almighty" - we have not only lost fear and reverence for God -- perhaps success in your eyes-- but we've also lost concern for the poor. Your tired message has not worked to better the poor's conditions. Maybe your message is wrong!)
Generally we don't see the call to actively reach out to the poor as something from which we cannot exempt ourselves.
CREATE JUSTICE
But we are wrong in this. In the Gospels and in the Christian Scriptures in general, the call to reach out to the poor and to help create justice in the world is as non-negotiable as keeping the commandments and going to Church.
Striving for justice must be part of all authentic worship.
In the New Testament, every tenth line is a direct challenge to reach out to the poor. In Luke's Gospel, we find this in every sixth line. In the Epistle of James, this occurs in every fifth line. The challenge to reach out to the poor and to level the distinction between rich and poor is an integral and non-negotiable part of being a Christian, commanded as strongly as any of the commandments.
The Eucharistic table itself calls us to justice, to reach out to the poor. How?
Here we go again, with Father sneaking in the word 'table' (instead of altar) to signal on which side of the liturgical divide he stands. Father just has to throw in a word for 'dancing clown masses'! Lucky for Father we have one of his buddies...a 'dancing-clown-mass, social-justice' Catholic as our vice president! Unlucky for for Father the V.P. of the U. S. had to make public his contributions to the poor..... speaking of 'tables' here you go!
.......Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
fyi that is not even 1/2 of one percent! Will you accuse him, Father, like you do us?
Father Ron, if you want us to help the poor, teach us to kneel! <<<<
K.C.
>>>>>famous historian Christopher Dawson decided to become a Roman Catholic, his aristocratic mother was distressed, not because she had any aversion to Catholic dogma, but because now her son would, in her words, have to "worship with the help."
She was painfully aware that, in church at least, his aristocratic background would no longer set him apart from others or above anyone. At church he would be an equal among equals because the Eucharist would strip him of his higher social status.
She intuited correctly. The Eucharist, among other things, calls us to justice, to disregard the distinction between rich and poor, noble and peasant, aristocrat and servant, both around the Eucharist table itself and afterwards outside of the Church. The Eucharist fulfills what Mary prophesized when she was pregnant with Jesus, namely, that, in Jesus, the mighty would be brought down and that lowly would be raised up.
It was this that drew Dorothy Day to Christianity. She noticed that, at the Eucharist, the rich and the poor knelt side-by-side, all equal at that moment.
(Father, K. C. must interrupt. Dorothy Day died in 1980. She had to endure most all of the post Vatican II innovations, and surely she witnessed the new North American standing Communion line. Why did she hark back to kneeling Communion as the Church's most attractive feature to outsiders? If 'kneeling side by side' emphasized equality, what does marching- around-one-behind-the-other emphasize? This tends to put the churchiest people in the front of the line and the unwashed towards the back!
K.C. does not understand why people of your ilk put so much energy into eradicating kneeling when even Dorothy Day saw kneeling for Holy Communion as our most winsome, beautiful, and evangelistic feature. Really!)
Sadly, we often don't take this dimension of the Eucharist seriously.
(K.C. again!....Father is there any dimension of the Eucharist that we do take seriously?)
There is a common tendency to think that the practice of justice, especially social justice, is an optional part of being a Christian, something mandated by political correctness rather than by the Gospels.
(We have been hearing this, your sermon for the past 40 or so years and K. C. agrees with you! that along with your prevailing message - "concern for the poor is more important than reverence for God Almighty" - we have not only lost fear and reverence for God -- perhaps success in your eyes-- but we've also lost concern for the poor. Your tired message has not worked to better the poor's conditions. Maybe your message is wrong!)
Generally we don't see the call to actively reach out to the poor as something from which we cannot exempt ourselves.
CREATE JUSTICE
But we are wrong in this. In the Gospels and in the Christian Scriptures in general, the call to reach out to the poor and to help create justice in the world is as non-negotiable as keeping the commandments and going to Church.
Striving for justice must be part of all authentic worship.
In the New Testament, every tenth line is a direct challenge to reach out to the poor. In Luke's Gospel, we find this in every sixth line. In the Epistle of James, this occurs in every fifth line. The challenge to reach out to the poor and to level the distinction between rich and poor is an integral and non-negotiable part of being a Christian, commanded as strongly as any of the commandments.
The Eucharistic table itself calls us to justice, to reach out to the poor. How?
Here we go again, with Father sneaking in the word 'table' (instead of altar) to signal on which side of the liturgical divide he stands. Father just has to throw in a word for 'dancing clown masses'! Lucky for Father we have one of his buddies...a 'dancing-clown-mass, social-justice' Catholic as our vice president! Unlucky for for Father the V.P. of the U. S. had to make public his contributions to the poor..... speaking of 'tables' here you go!
.......Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
fyi that is not even 1/2 of one percent! Will you accuse him, Father, like you do us?
Father Ron, if you want us to help the poor, teach us to kneel! <<<<
K.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
