Or at least, this is the way the “Tagesschau”, the main public broadcasting television news in Germany, puts it.

When Katja learns she is pregnant, she quickly knows: She cannot have this child. She already has four. She does not have the strength for a fifth one. But when she asks her Bavarian gynecologist for an abortion, she gets no help. “He tried to talk me out of an abortion and left me alone with my problem,” the young mother says. It took the internet for her to find gynecologist Michael Spandau, who finally helped her.

Gynecologist Michael Spandau: “I can’t just fail these women.” The 70-years-old gynecologist retired three years ago. Technically. For he is the only medical doctor in Passau and the whole of Lower Bavaria that helps women with unwanted pregnancies.”

Yeah. By killing their babies. How else?

Apparently, the number of abortions in Germany decreased from 135,000 in 2001 to 101,000 in 2017 (while the number of births increased from 734,500 to 792,100 between these years). This is worrying news – even a perfunctory search for these numbers immediately turns up another news item lamenting this trend.

And whose fault is it when doctors no longer wish to perform abortions? It’s the “militant anti-abortionists” who are to blame. They do reprehensible things like protesting in front of clinics, or organizing demonstrations under the name “March for Life”, trying to influence public opinion. The president of the Bundesärztekammer is concerned:

“We have great sympathy for every doctor that does not wish to perform abortions under the current circumstances,” Frank Ulrich Montgomery, president of the Bundesärztekammer, says. He challenges politicians to do something against the massive disturbance caused by so-called pro-lifers.

I mean I knew things are BAD, but these news items just defy comment.

“In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ex-nuncio-accuses-pope-francis-of-failing-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse

 

 

(for use by policemen, traffic wardens, etc.)

Æthelred

Bee

Chthonic

Dew

Ewes

Fillip

Gym

Heir

Isle

Jinn

Knew

Llandudno

Mnemonic

Not

Oestrogen

Psittacosis

Queue

Rack

Sell

Tea

Use

Volkerwanderung

Wrest

Xenon

Yews

Zeno

 

 

As everyone is aware Pope Francis has ordered the insertion of a new section into the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
_______________________
[1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.
>
As is also well known, scripture and the entire tradition of the Church teach the admissibility in principle of the death penalty. The admissibility in principle of the death penalty is thus a dogma. It rests upon Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4 as unanimously interpreted by the fathers and the teaching office down to 2013.
>
If the new 2267 denies the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty then it is heretical and Pope Francis must be forced to recant or be deposed.
>>
It is obvious, given Pope Francis’s other comments elsewhere, that what he means in this new passage is that bad rigid Catholics in the past held that the death penalty is licit in principle but now we understand the Gospel better and see that it neither is permissible nor ever was. The consideration about ‘more effective systems of detention’ simply removes a factor which mitigated the guilt of the preceding error and now does so no longer. ‘Human dignity’ is the reason for the inadmissibility in principle of the death penalty and more effective systems of detention are the occasion for our perception of this. This is clearly heretical on the material point and modernist in the nature of dogma.
>
However, the passage does not have to be interpreted in this way. It could be read to mean that more effective systems of detention are the reason for the inadmissibility here and now (and only here and now) of the death penalty and a greater consciousness of human dignity (perhaps in reaction against the culture of death) is the occasion for our perception of this contingent inadmissibility.
>
This second interpretation is quite licit for a Catholic to hold. However, it is quite wrong for this view (that the death penalty is illicit at this moment because of contingent circumstances) to be taught in a magisterial document. This is because the question of whether the death penalty is licit here and now is a contingent question of the application of principles to particular circumstances of the civil order and such questions are proper to the laity. While the pope is free to have opinions on such subjects he may not express them as pope for as pope he is forbidden to wield the temporal sword except in necessity. Sadly, St John Paul II’s 1997 text is also guilty of this misuse of the teaching office.
>
Thus it is possible for a Catholic to hold that the view presented in the new CCC2267 is (if taken literally and in isolation and then interpreted in a very particular way) reconcilable with dogma. Nevertheless, the passage is not thereby acceptable as teaching because the expression of an opinion on this subject in an official capacity by the pope is ultra vires and, indeed, a usurpation.
>
On the other hand, the only authority cited in the new section is “Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017” and in this address Pope Francis remarks:
>
“It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.  It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”
>
This statement is indeed heretical and it is the only ‘authority’ cited for the new CCC2267. Pope Francis personally must therefore be interpreted as denying the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty. It is consequently impossible to avoid the conclusion that Pope Francis must be forced to recant or deposed and any Cardinal who now omits to take this step sins gravely by omission.

Just before the year 1300, Blessed Mechtilde was asked by a certain brother to put this question to our Lord in prayer: “Where are the souls of Samson, Solomon, Origen and Trajan?” He answered her: “That which My love has done with the soul of Samson, I wish to be unknown, that men may fear to avenge themselves further upon their enemies. What My mercy has done with the soul of Solomon, I wish to be hidden from men, so that they may the rather shun carnal sins. What My kindness has done with the soul of Origen, I wish to be hidden, so that no one, trusting in his own science, should dare be lifted up. And what My generosity has commanded concerning the soul of Trajan, I wish men not to know, that the Catholic faith may thereby be the more extolled: for although he was excellent in all virtues, he lacked Christian faith and baptism” (quoted by Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary on Ecclesiasticus, 47:22).