London, England, Jul 31, 2017 / 10:31 am (CNA).- Charlie Gard, an 11 month-old British infant who made headlines around the world over a fierce legal battle on parental rights, had been baptized the same week he died.
In April, a picture of his tiny fist made the rounds on the internet of him clutching a St. Jude medal.
The boy’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, on Friday issued a statement announcing his death, saying: “Our beautiful little boy has gone, we are so proud of you Charlie.”
Family spokesperson Alison Smith-Squire announced on Sunday that he will be buried with his toy monkeys, pictured with him in one of the viral photos of the boy.
“We should be planning Charlie’s first birthday but instead we’re planning his funeral,” his mother said, according to the Sun.
According to the Sun, his parents spent the weekend with family and on Monday were planning to register his death. They had wanted to keep a low profile from the media after the boy’s passing.
Charlie had been at the center of a legal battle between his parents and the Great Ormund Street Hospital (GOSH), an internationally known children’s hospital where he was being cared for. The case raised questions about medical ethics, end-of-life procedure, and parental rights.
Charlie was born on Aug. 4 last year, and in September was discovered to have a rare genetic condition which resulted in muscular deterioration. He was believed to be one of 16 sufferers of the disease in the world.
He was admitted to GOSH in October, and in a series of court cases stretching from March to June, judges repeatedly ruled in favor of doctors who wished to have the boy’s life support removed, all the way to the European Court of Human Rights’ rejection to hear the case. Yates and Gard had hoped to take Charlie to the U.S. for experimental treatment.
In early July, both Pope Francis and U.S. president Donald Trump intervened in support of the family on twitter. Trump said that the United States would cooperate with the boy’s parents in helping Charlie receive the experimental care.
On July 10, unpublished research on Charlie’s condition seemed to indicate the therapy being developed in the States could improve his condition. However, as weeks passed, his condition deteriorated beyond chance of improvement, and GOSH doctors insisted that international specialists claiming he could improve had not fully reviewed his medical records.
Yates and Gard conceded their legal battle on Monday after the latest medical reports indicated their son was beyond improvement indefinitely, and began fighting to have him spend a week in care at home before life support would be pulled.
On Thursday, Yates announced that they had been denied their wish to have him die at home. The boy’s parents had wished to spend a week with him in hospice. This too, however, was denied to them on the grounds that it may cause Charlie prolonged suffering, according to GOSH doctors.
The boy’s death was announced on Friday in a statement from the family.
A number of prominent figures, both from the secular and Catholic worlds, made statements on the passing of the little boy whose plight sparked international support as well as a debate on medical, infant, and parental rights.
Shortly after his passing was announced, Pope Francis tweeted his solidarity with the parents.
“I entrust little Charlie to the Father and pray for his parents and all those who loved him,” the pontiff said. He had previously made two statements in support of and solidarity with the child and his parents. One of these statements led to “the Pope’s hospital,” l’Ospedale Bambino Gesù, offering to care for Charlie.
Days before the boy’s passing, Bambino Gesù issued another statement, called “Charlie’s Legacy,” noting that it was too late for the boy to receive care but also commending the fact that “(f)or the first time, the international scientific community has gathered around a single patient, to carefully evaluate all the possibilities.” They called this “the true legacy of Charlie.”
The Great Ormund Street Hospital, where Charlie spent much of his final months, sent “heartfelt condolences.” Charlie’s parent had accused the hospital of putting up “obstacles” to allowing their child to die at home. The parents’ taking GOSH to court was the spark that lit the months-long legal turmoil for the family.
Theresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain, said: “I am deeply saddened by the death of Charlie Gard. My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie’s parents Chris and Connie at this difficult time.”
Vice President Mike Pence tweeted, “Saddened to hear of the Passing of Charlie Gard. Karen & I offer our prayers & condolences to his loving parents during this difficult time.”
The March for Life issued a statement with their condolences and offering their prayers for the family.
“Though his life here on earth was cut short, Charlie’s spirit will continue to inspire an international fight to ensure that the sanctity of every human life is respected,” the March’s statement said.
Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, issued a statement saying that “Our hearts are heavy today as we learn of Charlie Gard’s passing. We are so thankful for his life, which though too brief, has made a lasting impact on the world and drawn together people from all walks of life and political persuasions, uniting them around the dignity and value of every human being.” She also offered condolences to the parents and assured that “Charlie’s legacy” would build a culture of life.
The Catholic Association (TCA) also offered their condolences, noting that Gard and Yates had to endure both the death of their son as well as a tumultuous legal fight.
“(T)his excruciating decision should have belonged to his loving and devoted parents,” the TCA said. “There was no apparent compelling justification for the courts to override and replace the unique parental bond of love in this case, which has only added to the heartbreak of Charlie’s passing.”
The TCA statement continued: “The international response to the plight of this baby is a beautiful testament to the irreplaceable value of one human life.”
[…]
It might be helpful to have more specifics from the Cardinal.
This court jester, who has outlasted his shelf life, has been specific in the past…
With the mentality of a careerist amoeba, he can’t tell the difference between a distinct “synod of Bishops” within the Apostolic Succession, and a broader and distinctly different “ecclesial assembly”—as in communio.
Sexually, he channels his own pontifications, thusly: “I think that’s wrong. But I also believe that we are thinking ahead here in [terms of] teaching. As the Pope has expressed in the past, this can lead to a change in doctrine. Because I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.” https://www.newwaysministry.org/2022/02/04/leading-cardinal-in-synod-seeks-change-in-church-teachings-on-homosexuality/
The “sociological and scientific foundation”? This forwardist and clericalist-extraordinaire can’t tell the difference between the front and the back!
SUMMARY: the red-hat cardinal fails the red-face test. Don’t let your son or daughter near this self-referential man, or whatever.
“SJ” might be a useful clarification.
On another site, there used to a poster who went by the pseudonym “Art Deco” who used to say that parts of the Jesuit order ran on “single malt scotch and sodomy”.
Jimmy Martin has given us the Jesuit view.
It’s time for the final suppression of the Jesuits.
Well, obviously Cardinal Hollerich is far more spiritually advanced than St. Paul and St. John — and, yes, Jesus.
Let’s face it. The purpose of marriage is to assure individuals of an uninterrupted supply of easily accessible orgasms.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any association with reproduction is strictly incidental.
Leave it to those brilliant Jesuiticals to figure everything out for all of us.
“Some look to the past with nostalgia, others with fear. Both are wrong. We are part of a history — this we must accept and learn from. But we must also move forward.”
Well, he’s right about one thing. We must learn to highten awareness of how stupid progressives are. He even has gone so far, as Francis did, to insist that a fallible God is in need to “learn from history.”
Yet to an actual honest mind, history reveals that not only does truth never change, because it all comes from an infallible perfect God, but neither does foolhardy human pride that refuses to recognize that truth never changes ever change. God has not been on vacation through the pages of history. Also notice that halfwits who cite science in support of their stupidity can never name the “science.”
Neither can they name exactly what happens in that magical land of “forward.”
Unbelievable. May God help the Church led by such popes and bishops. They go against Holy Scripture and the best thinkers of the Church:
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
AND SAINT AUGUSTINE
“Those sins which are against nature, like those of the men of Sodom, are in all times and places to be detested and punished. Even if all nations committed such sins, they should all alike be held guilty by God’s law” (Confessions 3.8).
Hear, hear!!! Scripture has spoken. Take heed.
Catholic morality is not narrow, insofar as it is part of a consistent whole that touches every aspect of life. What it is is sharp, sharper than any two-edged sword. Some things are always wrong, regardless of the number on the calendar or how popular these things might be with the media, the courts, or the voters. Or the seminaries.
I doubt he is really talking about narrowness, but if he is, he probably has a point. Just look at the mess that is the stance of current bishops on the death penalty. This is never about justice, because they wouldn’t win the argument that the death penalty is always unjust — that would, by the way, require them to say that God not merely permitted but COMMANDED something that is always unjust, which is something only a heretic could believe. They don’t even link it to the broader question of how secular leaders responsible for the public good in this life can reconcile justice and prudence with mercy and forgiveness. They instead make the claim that they are wiser and holier than all previous generations, which is why they can contradict their predecessors boldly. Such a claim lacks evidence, to put it mildly. But back to my main point: this is an example of a moral issue which would be better treated if it were treated within a broader context, rather than treated as a narrow exception.
Away with him.
A diabolical man.
Moron Hollerich’s “sociological and scientific foundation:” genome research does not support the fictions of Hollerich. Instead, https://news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html
A selection: “This means that non-genetic factors – such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture – are far more significant in influencing a person’s choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits, the researchers said.
“The study – the largest of its kind – analyzed survey responses and performed analyses known as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on data from more than 470,000 people who had given DNA samples and lifestyle information to the UK Biobank and to the U.S. genetics testing company 23andMeInc.”
SUMMARY: About the Hollerich alchemy, Galileo rolls over in this grave.
“Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, stated in a recent interview that he “would not define morality — especially sexual morality — as narrowly as the Church does today.””
Then he would be wrong, and it is to be hoped that many people tell him so, forcefully.
“SJ” ’nuff said.
One is left to wonder who this mortal actually thinks he is. The hot air emerging from him and his cohort is noxious. Their time is past. He need tug his head out of the 60’s.
I traded in my truck earlier this year for a newer model. I can “narrowly ” follow the owner’s manual for maintenance and operation or I can choose to ignore the rules and make up my own. But I know which choice will benefit the life and performance of my vehicle
It works in a similar way for Church teaching on marriage and family. We ignore the owner’s manual at our own peril.
This is yet another Jesuit who does not teach the Catholic faith.
Not unlike Senator Tim Kaine, a product of the Jesuit apostolate of the 70’s and 80’s who can’t figure out from whence derive our human rights.
Where do they cook up this stuff?
The hubris is toxic.
Kaine thinks he’s a theologian as well as a political philosopher just because he went along on some jesuit missionary trips. That, no doubt, is where his brainwashing took place. He also stikes me as an effeminate-sounding male.
May I, as a convert to Catholicism, ask why such a Cardinal is not being disciplined, re-educated, and/or even dismissed from his position in the Church? His words seem so harmful and contrary to Christian Church teachings and the Holy Scriptures.
Assault on Christ and the true faith should not be understood as primarily the work of one morally disordered man given the leadership role as Relator general for the Synod on Synodality.
Cdl Hollerich SJ is given privilege as the advocate for adult homosexual relations by a host of powerful, intermediary clergy. He represents the trend, now a virtual doctrine based first on widespread practice, particularly by homosexual, SSA oriented, the latent, the empathetic among our clerical ranks perhaps reaching the summit. This, based on the conviction that numbers prove viability. That somehow after thousands of millennia human nature has changed. That the dramatic explosion of coming out of the closet was a natural phenomenon mysteriously waiting for the 1960s.
We need keep in mind that the assumed anomaly of Hollerich could not exist unless he were empowered from above. Not the heavenly above. Our mission is to bravely, with due respect confront that authority.
Message to Eminence Hollerich, from a dear friend, who escaped from the torture chamber of the sodomy-lifestyle:
“It is insanity for adults like you to teach young people that it is OK for a man to inseminate the intestines of another person.”
In times of great challenge, the Church is called to be a beacon of clarity, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ with unwavering conviction. There is a profound need to articulate what is good and holy, and what stands in opposition to the truth revealed by God. The faithful yearn for their shepherds to speak with a voice that is strong and unequivocal, like a lion defending the flock.
A leader’s silence in matters of faith and morals are a source of confusion and disunity. The truth of Christ is a gift, and it requires a firm and clear witness. To remain silent when the integrity of the Church’s doctrine and Tradition is at stake risks giving the impression of tacit approval, or worse, indifference to the very teachings entrusted to us. The lukewarm approach to the deposit of faith can leave the faithful adrift, lacking the sure guidance they need to navigate a complex world. The Church must always be a guide to eternal happiness and joy for the world, never an echo of its passing fads. When shepards such as Cardinal Hollerich actively teach a false religion, there must be others such as Pope Leo XIV to firmly, clearly stand on a foundation of truth rather than remain quiet as a mouse.
I guess the cardinal might say that honesty is essential, but he would not define armed robbery as narrowly as the government does today.
It almost seems like our Pope doesn’t want to offend anyone. God help us! Sexual license is the devil’s ‘modern’ tool for destroying belief. Saint Paul, the Church of history and the most obvious experience of faithful ordinary people strengthen our belief and morals. Debauched cleric double talk and ambiguities must be exposed in the must explicit way. God has not abandoned our created human nature to the Devil. Souls are at stake.
Bernard,
I agree. It appears that Pope Leo doesn’t want to offend anyone including the lavender mafia within the hierarchy and the Vatican, the LBTG crowd, atheistic Communist China, et al. By his recent actions, and inaction, he has already undermined his pontificate.
Very disappointing. Yet I believe we need to continue to pray for him.
When can we stop hearing from this guy?
Someone should post a sign at the entrances to Luxembourg:
Caution: Malfunctioning Cardinal
muddying up the clear waters
That’s a perfect way of expressing it, knowall.
I’m back to the farming analogies again but it reminds me that per our extension service proper cattle management fences them away from streams. Otherwise they can muddy & foul the water supply flowing downstream.
If Hollerich hopes to define a “more modern” church as one with only liberal sexual morality, he will soon find that church broke and with no folks in the pews.Most of us have been there and done that, and are not interesting in a repeat.
The “let it all hang out” and “do what feels good” crowd are not church-goers. Maybe someone should tell Hollerich that his brand of Christianity is not wanted.
As for the new Pope, I had high hopes for him. But his appointments have been gravely disappointing.
Jesuits should not be bishops.