We are living in a culture of death that is diabolical, with unrestrained abortion, and euthanasia. The latest casualty is the sexualization of children everywhere: in schools primarily but the exposure of it in parades where displays of pornography, sexual perversions, half-naked men twerking. All sorts of simulated sexual acts ( probably some not so simulated ) I have never seen such perversion and it is getting more disgusting every year) Men mocking women chanting "We are coming for your children". They should all be arrested it is so disgusting
That being said I think it's not a stretch to figure out why our Legacy Media and Legacy Movie Critics and Hollywood, Disney Studios, Amazon and NETFLIX hate this movie so much that they are spreading lies about this story. They don't care about our children.
Incidentally, 10 years ago they were all over the rescue and Tim Ballard's work and the rescue when it happened. What changed??? It certainly makes you wonder
Ten years after the close of the Second Vatican Council and a year after the 1974 Synod of Bishops, Pope Paul VI issued Evangelii Nuntiandi. Pope Paul VI stated that the Church “exists in order to evangelize, that is to say in order to preach and teach, to be the channel of the gift of grace, to reconcile sinners with God, and to perpetuate Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass, which is the memorial of his death and glorious Resurrection.”16 Evangelii Nuntiandi describes the essential aspects of evangelization as well as its effects on the one evangelizing and the one being evangelized. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God and salvation for all people through Jesus Christ is at the very core of the Church’s mission and the essential aspects of evangelization.17 To evangelize, one bears witness to God’s Revelation in Jesus through the Holy Spirit by living a life imbued with Christian virtues, by proclaiming unceasingly that salvation is offered to all people through the Paschal Mystery of Christ, and by preaching hope in God’s love for us.18 Pope Paul VI recognized that the first proclamation of the Good News is directed ad gentes. However, he also recognized the need for the evangelization of the baptized who no longer practice their faith.19 He called upon the Church to evangelize these two groups, to invite them to a life of conversion, and to add new meaning to their life through the Paschal Mystery of Christ.
Blessed John Paul II and the New EvangelizationA New Evangelization, new in its ardor, methods, and expression
Blessed John Paul II renewed the call to all of the Christian faithful to evangelize in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI. “No believer in Christ, no institution of the Church can avoid this supreme duty: to proclaim Christ to all peoples.”20 Blessed John Paul II made evangelization a focus of his pontificate and emphasized man’s need to be evangelized by the Church. Evangelization occurs most effectively when the Church engages the culture of those she evangelizes. In 1983, he addressed the Catholic bishops of Latin America in Haiti and called for a New Evangelization: “The commemoration of the half millennium of evangelization will gain its full energy if it is a commitment, not to re-evangelize but to a New Evangelization, new in its ardor, methods and expression.”21 This marked the first time Blessed John Paul II used the term “New Evangelization” as the theological concept of proclaiming the Gospel anew to those already evangelized. He called for new “ardor, methods and expression” of evangelization, ones that engage the present-day culture and modern man. Blessed John Paul II, in the encyclical Redemptoris Missio, provided three circumstances in evangelization: (1) preaching to those who have never heard the Gospel (ad gentes), (2) preaching to those Christian communities where the Church is present and who have fervor in their faith, and (3) preaching to those Christian communities who have ancient roots but who “have lost a living sense of the faith, or even no longer consider themselves members of the Church, and live a life far removed from Christ and his Gospel. In this case what is needed is a ‘new evangelization’or a ‘re-evangelization.’”22 Blessed John Paul II alluded to the New Evangelization again in his opening address to the Catholic bishops of Latin America in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, as well as in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Although Blessed John Paul II did not develop a full theological scheme of the New Evangelization, his writings reveal central themes of the New Evangelization, including the implementation of the call of the Second Vatican Council to proclaim the Good News of Christ by the engagement of the present culture and to accompany individuals on their journey from this life to eternal life. For Blessed John Paul II, evangelization must proclaim the Good News, which when appropriated into one’s life, leads to conversion. This conversion provides a life of witness to the Good News and compels one to fulfill his or her vocation to the universal call of holiness. One’s vocation to holiness is strengthened through the gifts of the Church, namely the grace of the sacraments, prayer, Scripture, and the Church’s teachings and traditions.
Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the New Evangelization
New Evangelization is first and foremost a personal profound experience of GodDuring his homily on the Solemnity of SS. Peter and Paul at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls on June 28, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI renewed the Church’s call to the New Evangelization. Pope Benedict XVI called for the riproporre (“re-proposing”) of the Gospel to those regions “still awaiting a first evangelization” and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but that have experienced “a serious crisis” of faith due to secularization.23 He clarified that the New Evangelization is new, not in its content but rather in its inner thrust; new in its methods that must correspond to the times; and new because it is necessary to proclaim the Gospel to those who have already heard it.24 Pope Benedict XVI calls the Church to evangelize by entering into dialogue with modern culture and confronting the cultural crisis brought on by secularization. To aid the Church in re-proposing the faith to modern society, Pope Benedict XVI established the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization on September 21, 2010, and proposed that the New Evangelization be the focus of the next Synod of Bishops.
When describing why he created a council for the promotion of the New Evangelization, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the mission of the Church has always remained the same, but the cultural contexts confronting man and the Church have changed. The council will help the Church understand the cultural contexts of the twenty-first century. Pope Benedict XVI noted that the Church is being challenged by “an abandonment of the faith—a phenomenon progressively more manifest in societies and cultures which for centuries seemed to be permeated by the Gospel.”25 He also outlined the modern cultural factors, such as secularism, that are contributing to the decline of the Christian identity in the world. Pope Benedict XVI has also indicated that the New Evangelization is not a single formula meant for all circumstances; first
Awesome Bishop Barron and thank you. The Church exists to Evangelize. As Disciples of Jesus, this is our Mission. As a mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother I find his statementsa statement made by Bishop Américo Aguiardisheartening, to say the Least and somewhat depressing
World Youth Day and Converting Everyone to Christ -
Bishop Robert Barron
You have probably heard by now that a statement made by Bishop Américo Aguiar has caused quite a stir. Aguiar is the auxiliary bishop of Lisbon, Portugal, and he is the chief coordinator of the upcoming World Youth Day. Moreover, he was, in a very surprising move, just named a cardinal by Pope Francis. So he is a man of considerable weight—which is one reason why his remarks have gotten so much attention. He commented, in reference to the international gathering over which he is presiding, “We want it to be normal for a young Catholic Christian to say and bear witness to who he is or for a young Muslim, Jew, or of another religion to also have no problem saying who he is and bearing witness to it, and for a young person who has no religion to feel welcome and to perhaps not feel strange for thinking in a different way.” The observation that excited the most wonderment and opposition was this: “We don’t want to convert the young people to Christ or to the Catholic Church or anything like that at all.” I will admit that the remark of his that disturbed me the most, however, was this one: “That we all understand that differences are a richness and the world will be objectively better if we are capable of placing in the hearts of all young people this certainty,” implying that fundamental disagreement on matters of religion is good in itself, indeed what God actively desires. Lots of Catholics around the world have been, to put it mildly, puzzled by the cardinal-elect’s musings.
The following is adapted from a letter to the editor of Live Action News.
I am an Emergency Medicine resident in [redacted for privacy]…. While on my OB/GYN rotation at an outside hospital, a woman experiencing a failed abortion came to the hospital. The mom had [an abortion injury] and they transferred her to the hospital. While there, she ended up going into labor. She was 21-23 weeks along when she delivered a beautiful baby girl.
The staff expected the baby to “expire” immediately, but she began crying.
I walked into my night shift, and the baby lay in a bassinet alone. I asked who the cute baby was, and this is when I was told “it” was an abortion attempt and they were just waiting on “it” to die.
THE ATTENDING DOCTOR CLAIMED “PALLIATIVE CARE IS MEDICAL CARE” – AND LEFT THE BABY TO DIE
For the extent of my rotation, the attending OB/GYN doctor criticized pro-life states and talked about how she is working for legislation to have better ‘abortion care.’ She claimed that “palliative care is medical care” based on the law — and when when the baby was born alive, she did nothing. She did not call pediatrics or a rapid response but stated the baby was an abortion attempt and unwanted, so she would provide palliative care to satisfy the law that requires medical care to be provided.
I picked up the baby and was berated by one of the residents, who instructed me to “put it back because the nurses need to keep checking on it to document when it dies.” I declined, and sat there crying for the remainder of the subsequent sign-out and shift. I was helpless and there was nothing I could do. She had already been alive at that point a few hours, but without respiratory support, I knew she already was experiencing organ failure.
When an unrelated medical emergency caused the entire OB team to rush to the OR, I was an emergency resident just there for my 10 deliveries as required by my program, so I took the baby to a room alone, prayed over her, and sang to her.
The Lord gave me the name “Ada” for the baby, which I later learned means “adornment.” Ada died a few hours later.
I put her back in the bassinet, and she was referred to as “dead baby” by many of the nurses throughout the night. The attending doctor who came on night shift later officially pronounced her dead and remarked, “She could have been president” — making me wonder if she, too, was possibly pro-life.
In my mind, Ada was mine. Even though I’m a single female still in training, I had every intention of adopting her if she had survived.
I often think about the baby’s mom, too, who heard her baby cry before they rushed the baby from the room. She was later discharged after being treated for complications. I know she is likely suffering, and was left without any support or counseling.
“THEY THREW THE SIMULATION BABY ACROSS THE ROOM”
I don’t think people realize that these types of situations are happening even in our hospitals. This little girl clearly looked like a baby. I don’t understand how anyone could see her and do nothing.
Some time later, we participated in a training simulation for peri-mortem c-sections. By definition, this is performed on women with viable pregnancies “to save the mother” by diverting blood flow away from the uterus and to her other organs. While practicing, all my colleagues were joking that you get the baby from the uterus and “throw it away” because “we don’t care about a fetus and only want to focus on helping the mom.” They even took the simulation baby and threw it across the room. Again, this procedure is performed on viable babies who could be 24 or even 39 weeks!
I was pretty quiet after this all happened, trying to keep my emotions in check while thinking about Ada — and was essentially chased down the hallway by some fellow residents who lectured me to not let my politics influence patient care, which I found ironic.
I’m hoping Ada’s story can shine light on what’s happening every day, with these sorts of things done even by medical professionals.
Editor’s Note: This story has been adapted and is being published anonymously for the safety and privacy of the author.
This is as sick as it gets. Canada has become a House of Horrors
Run With Life: Canadians euthanized at home, then transported to ...: If you ou thought MAID was as bad as it could get, you would be wrong. We are also transplanting the organs of people killed inhospitals. Next step: allowing those euthanizedat hometo be transferred to the hospital to harvest their organs.
"In a case in Ontario, the patient received the MAiD procedure at home.16 When the family was ready, the patient was transferred to an ambulance, where death was confirmed. Intubation was performed and an orogastric tube was secured[This is to empty the contents of the stomach of the dead person]before the patient was placed prone on the ambulance stretcher. The rest of the protocol for lung protection during the absence of circulation was applied before the patient was transferred to the hospital for organ recovery.17“
(16. Organ donation after medical assistance in dying (MAID) has only been possible for patients having the MAID procedure performed at a hospital facility due to prohibitive warm ischemic times. Herein, we describe a protocol for lung donation following MAID at home and demonstrate excellent postoperative outcomes. Lung donation following MAID at home is possible and should be considered by transplant programs.)
Note these troubling remarks in the guidelines:
"This guidance does not address the ethics of MAiD, questions regarding eligibility or assessment for MAiD, or provision of MAiD. It focuses on organ donation for those patients who have been assessed and found eligible for MAiD through established processes in Canada." (emphasis added)
And this:
"international experience with donation after MAiD is limited, and therefore, we found limited data to inform our recommendations. There was potential bias among forum participants, given that they were generally supporters of the current deceased donation and transplantation system, as well as donation after MAiD.(emphasis added)
Of course there was bias in this exercise, since everyone involved were MAID supporters, including MAID patients and family partners who were included as participants for the forum.
Yet strangely, the authors actually do mention the ethical challenges of organ donation after MAID:
"The purpose of this updated guidance is to continue to inform the development of policies and practices of donation after MAiD. This will help clinicians navigate the medical, legal and ethical challenges that arise when they support patients pursuing donation after MAiD."
So how do we manage to kill someone at home, and successfully extract their lungs for transplant? Well, we have a flow chart for that:
1) First we kill the patient. Make sure patient is dead.
2) Paramedics transfer (dead) patient to the ambulance.
3) Next we pump the (dead) patient's stomach to remove messy contents. Reconfirm (dead) patient is dead.
4) Inflate lungs.
5) Reconfirm (dead) patient is dead. (Do this multiple times. Just to make sure dead patient is truly dead. Just to be sure.)
And he also insults Christians ( mainly Catholics ) as well as calling us among other things "far-right enemies of the LGBTQ Community ) which is a blatant lie
"Most thinking parents of any color or creed would resist LBGQT indoctrination being taught and celebrated to a captive audience of their children in state schools." It is sickening that our Prime Minister is constantly making outrageous statements in order to vilify everyone he doesn't agree with ( Freedom Convoy, Pro LIfers, Pro "protection of our children from sexual exploitation ) The sexualization of our children is going on everywhere and the worst of it is that it is happening within our Education System as well as within the Medical Profession. And if you dare oppose this abuse, you are a radical far-right white supremacist spreading hatred. You can even be arrested, kicked out of school, or fired from your place of employment as we know, Wake up people for the sake of our children!
