No Picture
News Briefs

On intercommunion, Vatican returns the ball to German bishops

May 3, 2018 CNA Daily News 3

Vatican City, May 3, 2018 / 01:58 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After several German bishops appealed to the Vatican over an alleged proposal to allow non-Catholic spouses in mixed faith marriages to receive communion, the Church’s top authority on doctrine has sent the ball back, saying Pope Francis wants Germany’s bishops to come to an agreement among themselves.

Released after a 4-hour meeting between German bishops and the heads of certain curial offices, a Vatican communique said that Archbishop Luis Ladaria SJ, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the bishops that the pope “appreciates the ecumenical commitment of the German bishops” and asked them “to find, in a spirit of ecumenical communion, a possibly unanimous decision.”

It is not clear whether a “possibly unanimous decision” asks the German bishops’ conference for a fully unanimous vote on the issue, or asks for a nearly unanimous decision, or whether the bishops are simply being asked to discuss the matter further to see if they can resolve the issue themselves before a central authority steps in.

The Vatican declined to comment on the meaning of the phrase.

Announced over the weekend, the May 3 meeting followed reports, later denied by the German bishops’ conference, that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had rejected a proposal by the conference to publish guidelines allowing the non-Catholic spouses of Catholics to receive the Eucharist in certain limited circumstances.

In February, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops conference, announced that the conference would publish a pastoral handout explaining that Protestant spouses of Catholics “in individual cases” and “under certain conditions” could receive Holy Communion, provided they “affirm the Catholic faith in the Eucharist.”

Marx’s statement concerned a draft version of the guidelines, which was adopted “after intensive debate” during a Feb. 19-22 general assembly of the conference..

The Vatican’s communique noted that while more than three-quarters of the German bishops voted in favor of the guidelines, “a not indifferent number” of voters, including seven diocesan bishops, “did not feel capable, for various reasons, of giving their consent.”

The bishops, the Vatican said, then appealed to the Vatican for an answer as to whether the question of Holy Communion for Protestant spouses in interdenominational marriages can be decided at a local level by a national bishops’ conference, or if a decision from the universal Church was required in the matter.

Specifically, they wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Council for Legislative Texts.

Signatories, who did not consult Cardinal Marx before writing the letter, included: Archbishop Ludwig Schick of Bamberg; Bishop Gregor Hanke of Eichstätt; Bishop Konrad Zdarsa of Augsburg; Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau; Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg; Bishop Wolfgang Ipolt of Görlitz and Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, archbishop of Cologne.

None of the signatories, apart from Cardinal Woelki, were present for the May 3 meeting, which was held at the Vatican and conducted in German.

Members of the German delegation also included: Cardinal Marx; Bishop Felix Genn of Munster; Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesemann of Speyer and president of the Doctrinal Commission for the German bishops conference; Bishop Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg and president of the German bishops’ Commission for Ecumenism and Fr. Hans Langendörfer SJ, secretary of the German bishops conference.

On the Vatican side, the meeting was attended by: Archbishop Ladaria; Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; Msgr. Markus Graulich, undersecretary for the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and Fr. Herman Geissler, who serves as a kind of office manager for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

During the meeting, several questions were discussed, centered around the relationship between faith and pastoral care.

Archbishop Ladaria will now inform Pope Francis about the discussion, which the Vatican said took place in a “cordial and fraternal atmosphere.”

 

 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Austrian nuncio laments Church opposition to crosses on Bavarian state buildings

May 2, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Vienna, Austria, May 2, 2018 / 12:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The apostolic nuncio to Austria said Tuesday that he is “saddened and ashamed” that bishops and priests have been vocal critics of the Bavarian government’s mandate to display crosses in government buildings.

“You know, as nuncio, as a representative of the Holy Father, I am saddened and ashamed, that when in a neighboring country crosses are erected,  it is bishops and priests of all people who think they have to criticize the decision. That is a disgrace! That is unacceptable,” Archbishop Peter Zurbriggen said May 1 at the Benedict XVI Philosophical-Theological University in Heiligenkreuz.

The nuncio, who is 74, lamented such religious and political correctness.

He noted that “We are in Heiligenkreuz,” which means in German “Holy Cross”. He was speaking at a “day of thanks” at the pontifical university, which is operated by Stift Heiligenkreuz, a Cistercian monastery located about 20 miles southwest of Vienna.

“Many know that my episcopal motto is ‘Sancta Crux, mihi lux’: Holy Cross, my light,” he added.

Archbishop Zurbriggen added that it is similarly shameful that some bishops have removed their pectoral crosses while visiting sites in the Holy Land.

“But then I think of … Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who recently visited Saudi Arabia and was received by the king. He wore a cross that was twice as big as that cross which I am wearing now. That is good!”

Cardinal Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, had met with King Salman in Riyadh April 18.

Archbishop Zurbriggen’s comments come after Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising criticized the Bavarian government’s move, saying the cross is “a sign of opposition to violence, injustice, sin and death, but not a sign [of exclusion] against other people.” The cross can be misunderstood as purely a cultural symbol, he said, and thus misused by the state.

Cardinal Marx said the Bavarian government had triggered “division, unrest and adversity”.

But Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg had applauded the government’s decision, saying that “the cross is the epitome of Western culture. It is the expression of a culture of love, compassion and affirmation of life. It belongs to the foundations of Europe.” Its public presence – which in traditionally Catholic Bavaria is near ubiquitous – should be seen as such, welcomed, and appreciated, he said.

This is the reason, Bishop Voderholzer said, Christians have placed crosses atop the peaks of Bavarian mountains: “Not the national flag or other symbols of human rule, as others might have liked to see at other times, but the cross. It should be widely visible, the cross, the sign of salvation and life in which Christ is heaven and earth, God and reconciled people, victims and perpetrators.”

The requirement that every entrance to state buildings display up a cross was announced by the office of Markus Söder, Bavaria’s premier. The directive to hang the crosses by June 1 has sparked a public debate in Germany, tapping into deeper angst about culture, values, and Christian roots in a country divided by questions of heritage, religion, and identity.

The accusation that the government would attempt to misappropriate the cross or designate it as a purely cultural symbol was flatly rejected by Söder, a Lutheran who hails from the Protestant region of Franconia in northern Bavaria.

“Of course the cross is primarily a religious symbol,” Söder told German media. However, the premier continued, the cross, in the wider sense, also carries with it basic foundations of a secular state.

Making the announcement April 24, Söder’s office had said the decision is meant to “express the historical and cultural character of Bavaria” and to present “a visible commitment to the core values of the legal and social order in Bavaria and Germany.”

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

The face of Christ in Alfie Evans: An interview with Charles C. Camosy

May 1, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

New York City, N.Y., May 1, 2018 / 01:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Alfie Evans, a disabled British toddler who died Saturday after a contentious legal battle over his treatment, captured the attention of Catholics around the world, including Pope Francis. While he suffered from undiagnosed neurological problems at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Alfie’s parents sought to treat him elsewhere, while physicians opposed the move, arguing that continuing treatment was not in the child’s best interests.

The case raised questions about the right of parents to make healthcare decisions for a child, about ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ means of treatment and life-support, and about the treatment of patients with disabilities.  Alfie Evans died after his parents lost legal appeals, despite diplomatic interventions supporting their efforts. He lived, unexpectedly, for five days after physicians removed life support.

Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of theology at Fordham University and author of several books on Catholic ethical reasoning. Last week, he authored “Alfie Evans and our moral crossroads,” published by the ecumenical magazine and website First Things.

In an interview with CNA editor-in-chief JD Flynn, Camosy discusses some of the ethical aspects regarding the case of Alfie Evans.

Some of the discussion regarding Alfie Evans’ situation centered around ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ kinds of life-saving treatment. Questions were frequently raised about whether Alfie was receiving ‘ordinary’ or ‘extraordinary’ treatment by physicians at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital.

How does the Church understand the idea of ‘ordinary and extraordinary’ medical treatment?

This is an essential aspect of the Church’s teaching, especially at the end of life.

‘Ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ have nothing to do with the frequency with which a particular culture offers a treatment. Ordinary treatment, rather, refers to treatment that is morally required while other kinds of treatment- extraordinary treatment- may be refused or withdrawn–so long as one is not aiming at death, and has a proportionately serious reason.

The distinction is largely accepted by most medical communities today, and was pioneered by the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages when thinking about battlefield medicine and whether or not a soldier could refuse a life-saving amputation without aiming at their own death. The answer was “yes,” and the intense pain of an amputation without pain medicine was the proportionately serious reason. In such a case, death is merely foreseen but not intended.
 
The Church generally allows individual patients or their surrogates (with a strong preference for the family) to make this kind of moral judgment for themselves, unless it is perfectly obvious that one is aiming at death or that there is nothing like a proportionately serious reason.

It is important to mention that giving someone food and water, even through technical means, is not considered means of “medical treatment” and is not a medical act according to Catholic teaching. It is care which comes from basic human decency.

You wrote in First Things last week that disabled patients sometimes suffer from “slow coding” or “show coding” in hospital settings. Can you explain what that is?

I wouldn’t say it happens often, but it happens often enough that medical ethicists think it is worthy of debate.

Sometimes a physician and/or other members of the medical team believe that further intense treatment of a disabled child is inappropriate. Sometimes they may have a point–like when pounding on the chest of a child after cardiac arrest is likely to do little more than break her bones. But sometimes, as I believed happened in the Alfie Evans case, it is because physicians and/or other members of the medical team think the child is so disabled–perhaps due to a devastating brain injury or disease–that further life is not in the child’s interest.

Now, a medical team and hospital is rarely forced into caring for a patient, so one option is to refer the parents to another medical team or hospital who will treat the child. But sometimes, despite agreeing with the parents that the child is a “full code” and everything will be done, the physician and/or other members of the medical team will only make a half-hearted effort at treating the child. This is called a “slow” or “show” code, and some medical ethicists defend the practice.

But as I mentioned in my First Things piece, that is only one way that health care providers can and do manipulate parents to get the outcome they want. Numbers can be fudged. Studies can be selectively referenced. Directive language–especially about disability–can be used.

Health care providers have a ridiculous amount of power. We ought to be far more critical in holding them to account.

You have discussed the concept of “ableism.” What does this mean?

Ableism describes a particular kind of unjust discrimination. In this case, it is discrimination in favor of those with able bodies and minds. Physicians tend to be at particular risk for ableism and often rate quality of lives of disabled patients worse than the patients do themselves.
 
How might those biases have impacted decisions made about the medical care of Alfie Evans?

The treatment Alfie was being given were working quite well, doing precisely what it was designed to do. He needed help breathing, but so do many disabled people. His brain damage was profound, even to the point where it is likely he wasn’t conscious of being intubated, and was almost certainly not suffering in any meaningful sense. And though he was likely to die, he was never diagnosed with a disease and we have absolutely no idea how long he would have lived had he been given treatment that is standard in other countries.

Given all these facts, the concern that Alfie’s doctors and Judge Hayden had with his brain seems impossible to miss. Though misleading euphemisms were offered about other matters of concern (as they almost always are when the truth is difficult to name), it is very clear to me the decision was made on an ableist basis.  The decision wasn’t made because, like getting one’s leg cut off without pain medicine, the treatment was too burdensome. It was made because Alfie’s brain was so damaged that his life was no longer consider dignified–and it was [judged to be] in his best interests to die.

His death was not merely foreseen. Those who wanted Alfie’s life support withdrawn were not happy that he started to breathe afterwards. (And, indeed, there is at least some evidence to suggest that Alfie was given drugs after extubation which made it more difficult for him to breathe.) On the contrary, the point was for that for Alfie to die was in his best interest.

This is unlike the amputation example where, if somehow the soldier lived after refusing treatment, everyone involved would be thrilled. The soldier’s death was never part of the object of the act. Not so with refusing to treat Alfie Evans.

What reasoning did some Catholic commentators proffer to support Justice Hayden’s decision? What is your response to that reasoning?

Catholic commentators who support Hayden’s decision are right about a lot of things. They are right that the Church doesn’t make an idol out of preserving life. In fact, we invented the tradition which resists that kind of idolatry. They are right to say that we don’t simply allow parents to do whatever they want with their children in a medical context–especially if it could reasonably be construed as abuse. They are right to say, if it was really about burden of treatment, that Hayden’s decision could be consistent with Catholic teaching.

But I fear much of the commentary has been too deferential to those who hold power in this case: the doctors and the jurists. They deserve a far more skeptical eye, especially given the power they wield over the life and death over the most vulnerable.

Catholic teaching never permits aiming at the death of a patient, either by action or omission. This case, again, was not about the burden of extraordinary treatment, but about the disability of a child. Our job as Catholic Christians is to see the face of Christ in little Alfie–not to accept the position that his treatment was futile because his brain damage prevented him having certain abilities. And when there is legitimate disagreement about what is in a child’s best interest, and abuse is not part of the scenario, the Catholic position is to defer to the parents. They know the child and his interests best. The three of them belong to each other in a special and unique way. The doctors and judges will not be visiting Alfie’s grave. His parents will be.

Two other quick things to mention:

First, the charge of “vitalism” has been thrown at people who didn’t want action aiming at Alphie’s death. It is not always clear what this charge is trying to identify, but if it is the position that human life is valuable as human life–regardless of what it can “do” or how much it can “produce”–then many of us, I hope, will plead guilty. A human person is a living member of the species Homo sapiens. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, it has been a shame that so many people have tried to read this issue through the life/choice abortion binary. Once again, it appears, the abortion wars have infected a very different kind of moral and legal issue.

Pro-lifers have, for some time now, been concerned with vulnerable lives beyond birth. Often in close cooperation with disability-rights groups, we fight against euthanasia. We fight against human trafficking laws. Many of us reject the death penalty. We are deeply, concerned, obviously with infanticides perpetrated by people like Dr. Kermit Gosnell. We fight for vulnerable human life, especially when–as Pope Francis warns–our throwaway culture treats it like so much trash.

There is absolutely no reason that the fight for Alfie and others like him needs to be about abortion. People who disagree about that issue should be able to agree that Alfie matters just the same as any other little boy, and that his parents ought to have been able to pursue his best interest in ways that other parents are permitted to do.
 
What might the life and death of Alfie Evans portend for the future of healthcare ethics and policy? What should it teach Catholics about prophetic witness?

We are at a very dangerous moral crossroads. Before the attention that the Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard cases brought with them, these practices were hidden away, with little-to-no public scrutiny. What will we do now that these practices have been brought to light and are defended by some doctors and judges? Will we step up and be heard? Will we be on the side of the disabled and the parents who fight for them? Or will we capitulate to ableist assumptions and the practices of the powerful?

Pope Francis was on the right side of both the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, resisting the throw-away culture’s attempt to dispense with them. Let us get behind the Holy Father and continue to resist the throw-away culture by standing up for the disabled, in this case and the similar cases which are sure to come.

 

 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Beloved 1950s Hungarian priest and martyr beatified

May 1, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Szombathely, Hungary, May 1, 2018 / 12:46 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Fr. János Brenner, a Cistercian Hungarian priest who was martyred in the 1950s, was beatified May 1. The beatification took place in Szombathely, Hungary, the same location where the Communist government had tried to prevent the faithful from attending Brenner’s funeral 60 years ago.

Brenner was born on Dec. 27, 1931 in Szombathely, Hungary. He attended Catholic schools run by the Cistercian order for several years until the nationalization of schools by the communist government which came to power after World War II as part of the Eastern Bloc.

He was accepted as a novice to the Cistercian order in Zirc in 1950, and took the name Br. Anastasius (Anasztáz).

However, only a few months after Brenner began formation, the communist government began suppressing religious houses. To protect the men in formation, the novice master moved the young brothers from the abbey to private apartments, where they hoped to continue formation in secret.

It was around this time that Brenner, along with a few other novices, moved to the local seminary to begin studying to become a priest, while continuing with his Cistercian formation through correspondence.

Despite the dangers and religious oppression going on around him, journal entries from Brenner at the time display a deep trust in God and a strong desire to do his will.

“There is no greater joy than when man, who is nothing, can be even more annihilated in Christ and immerse himself into the infinite world of His soul, filled with wonderful riches which are forever given over to us,” he wrote in 1950.

“Even if the road is rough, I look at your pain-ridden face and follow you. I ask you only one thing: May I always fulfill most precisely what you give to me as my vocation.”

Brenner took vows with the Cistercian order and then was ordained a priest in 1955.

Throughout his ministry, he was known for his willingness and readiness to serve and to sacrifice, and took as his priestly motto the verse Romans 8:28: “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

Brenner was especially talented at working with youth, which made him a greater target of the communist government.

Even when he was made aware of personal threats against his life, and his bishop offered to transfer him elsewhere for his own safety, Brenner responded: “I’m not afraid, I’m happy to stay.”

On the night of Dec. 14, 1957, Brenner was falsely called to give last rites to a sick person in a neighboring town, amid the reprisals for the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

He left his home, carrying his anointing oils and the Eucharist, but was ambushed in the woods outside Rabakethely and stabbed 32 times. He was found dead the next day, still clutching the Eucharist in his hands, which has earned him the title of the “Hungarian Tarcisius” – a reference to the young third century martyr who was also killed while carrying and protecting the Eucharist.

While the communists had hoped that Brenner’s death would intimidate the faithful in the area, they could not stop devotion to Brenner’s memory. The Chapel of the Good Pastor was built in 1989 on the spot where he died, and is a popular place of pilgrimage for people throughout the country. The dirty and bloodied surplice Brenner wore when he was killed has been preserved as a relic.

Brenner’s martyrdom was acknowledged by Pope Francis in November 2017.
 
 
 

 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Bavarian bishops respond to push for more public crosses

April 30, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Munich, Germany, Apr 30, 2018 / 01:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A recent decision by the government of Bavaria to mandate that a cross be displayed in all state buildings has garnered global attention, while prompting both criticism and praise from local Catholic bishops.

The requirement that every entrance to state buildings display up a Christian cross – though not necessarily in the form of a crucifix – was announced by the office of Markus Söder, Bavaria’s premier. The directive to hang the crosses by 1 June has sparked a public debate in Germany, tapping into deeper angst about culture, values and Christian roots in a country divided by questions of heritage, religion and identity.

The move has come under criticism from Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, while being welcomed by Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Bavaria’s Regensburg diocese.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who as recently as 2015 asserted that crosses should be displayed in classrooms and courtrooms, roundly criticized the April decision to display them in public entranceways.

Speaking to Munich’s Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, the archbishop said that the cross is “a sign of opposition to violence, injustice, sin and death, but not a sign [of exclusion] against other people.” The cross can be misunderstood as purely a cultural symbol, he said, and thus misused by the state.

It is not up to the state to explain what a cross means, the Cardinal emphasized, saying that Bavaria’s government has triggered “division, unrest and adversity” with the move.

Bavarian Premier Markus Söder and other politicians of the state’s governing CSU party disagreed with Cardinal Marx’s interpretation of the government’s decision.

The accusation that the government would attempt to misappropriate the cross or designate it as a purely cultural symbol was flatly rejected by Söder, a Lutheran who hails from the Protestant region of Franconia in northern Bavaria. “Of course, the cross is primarily a religious symbol,” Söder told German news media. However, the premier continued, the cross, in the wider sense, also carries with it basic foundations of a secular state.

This aspect was also emphasized by Catholic commentator Birgit Kelle in an editorial for the newspaper Die Welt: “Every Muslim, every atheist, and every other believer can feel safe under this cross, which does not constitute a claim to power, but a commitment to treat each person equally and decently, regardless of their background, faith, ability, or gender.”

In a similar vein, Bishop Voderholzer of the Bavarian diocese of Regensburg asserted that: “the cross is the epitome of Western culture. It is the expression of a culture of love, compassion and affirmation of life. It belongs to the foundations of Europe.” Its public presence – which in traditionally Catholic Bavaria is near ubiquitous – should be seen as such, welcomed and appreciated, he said.

This is the reason, Voderholzer said, Christians have placed crosses atop the peaks of Bavarian mountains: “Not the national flag or other symbols of human rule, as others might have liked to see at other times, but the cross. It should be widely visible, the cross, the sign of salvation and life in which Christ is heaven and earth, God and reconciled people, victims and perpetrators.”

 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Soon-to-be beatified nurse, laywoman lived for others

April 27, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Krakow, Poland, Apr 27, 2018 / 01:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Hanna Chrzanowska, a 20th-century Polish nurse and laywoman who will be beatified in Krakow Saturday, is a model of how to give of oneself for the good of others, said a priest involved with her canonization cause.

“The laity know well the reality of everyday life,” Fr. Pawel Galuszka said. “Hanna, as a nurse, knew in person and from experience the problems of the sick, alone, abandoned and disabled.”

A Polish priest responsible for the pastoral section of the beatification cause of Hanna Chrzanowska, Galuszka told CNA via email that “in today’s culture the logic of the market prevails… In every aspect of life we tend to calculate profit or utility.”

Chrzanowska, on the other hand, “teaches us how important it is to make a sincere gift of oneself, even sacrifice, for the good of the other. This is, and will be, the very legacy of Blessed Hanna Chrzanowska.”

Galuszka noted that St. John Paul II, then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, knew Chrzanowska during her life, and when he presided over her funeral said: “We thank you, Miss Hanna, for having been among us… a particular incarnation of Christ’s blessings from the Sermon on the Mount, above all that he said ‘blessed [are] the merciful.’”

“The bishop of Krakow [St. John Paul II] had no doubt that Hanna in a heroic way fulfilled the commandment of love of neighbor,” Galuszka noted.

Meeting Cardinal Wojtyla was one of the special moments in Chrzanowska’s life, the priest recounted, adding that the then-bishop of Krakow gave her “real moral and material help” during her organization of various parish infirmaries throughout the city and archdiocese.

“Equipped with a charismatic personality, she concentrated a significant group of collaborators and volunteers around her work, among them nurses, nuns, seminarians, priests, doctors, professors and students,” Galuszka said.

“With their help, she organized retreats for her patients that brought back the joy and the strength to face everyday life. Thanks to her efforts, the tradition of celebrating Holy Mass in the homes of the sick, and going to visit patients during pastoral visits, spread.”

Chrzanowska was born in Warsaw on October 7, 1902 to a family known for their charitable work. She finished high school at a school run by Ursuline sisters in Krakow and after graduating in 1922 attended nursing school in Warsaw.

She became an oblate with the Ursuline Sisters of St. Benedict.

From 1926-1929 she worked as an instructor at the University School of Nurses and Hygienists in Krakow. For 10 years she held the position of editor of the monthly “Nurse Poland” magazine, also publishing her own work in the field of nursing.

During this period, she also grew closer to God, joining in the work of the Catholic Association of Polish Nurses in 1937.

In 1939, Poland saw the outbreak of World War II. After the war and after the opening of a university school of maternity and nursing in Krakow, she worked as the head of the department dedicated to home nursing.

Chrzanowska was especially dedicated to the proper formation and preparation of her students, including offering advice and assistance while accompanying her students on visits to patients confined at home.

In 1966 she contracted cancer. Despite operations, the disease spread and eventually led to her death on April 29, 1973 in Krakow.

Her cause for canonization was opened Nov. 3, 1998, and her beatification Mass will take place at the Sanctuary of Divine Mercy in Krakow April 28.

Galuszka said that the miracle which paved the way for Chrzanowska’s beatification was the healing of a 66-year-old woman, who had suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage and mild heart attack.

The woman had become paralyzed in both legs and a hand and was considered to have no chance of surviving.

While in a coma, she had a dream that Hanna Chrzanowska appeared to her and said, “Everything will be fine.” Waking soon after, she surprised the doctors, because not only could she speak normally, but she could move her limbs, Galuszka said.

It was later discovered that on the same day she was miraculously healed, the woman’s friend, a nurse, had attended a Mass and prayed for her healing through the intercession of Venerable Hanna Chrzanowska.

 

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

In Northern Ireland, anti-abortion graffiti hits Catholic churches

April 25, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Armagh, Northern Ireland, Apr 25, 2018 / 05:09 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Two Catholic churches in Northern Ireland have been targeted with graffiti bearing a message opposed to abortion, ahead of a key referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

Between the late hours of April 22 and the early morning of April 23, a vandal painted on St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Armagh a slogan “Save the 8th. Save Ireland.” The Eighth Amendment protects unborn children under the republic’s constitution and could be repealed in a May 25 vote.

Another slogan was tagged on St. Columcille’s Church in Carrickmore in County Tyrone sometime between April 23 and April 24. It appeared to say the traditionally Protestant Democratic Unionist Party’s stand against abortion would benefit the unborn who will play in the Gaelic Athletics Association and those who will speak the Irish language, the promotion of which is a subject of controversy among DUP members.

“Only DUP speaks for Irish unborn to speak Irish and play GAA vote DUP,” the slogan said, according to the Belfast Telegraph.

Police are investigating criminal damage at both churches.

Sinn Fein, a nationalist party with significant Catholic support, has endorsed the repeal effort in the Republic of Ireland, which would legalize abortion up to 12 weeks into pregnancy. Its party has endorsed legalized abortion in cases of rape, fetal abnormality, and where a woman’s mental or physical health faces serious threat, the Irish Times reports.

Garath Keating, a Sinn Fein counselor, said he was “absolutely horrified” at the graffiti in Armagh. He suggested that anyone who objected to Sinn Fein’s stance on the abortion referendum should “protest at our office or in a public forum, not write it on a church wall.”

“I can’t comprehend how anybody could think this is a useful way to convey their point of view,” Keating continued. “There is plenty of opportunity and forums for public discussion in respect of any of the matters, but to take to spreading your message by writing on a place of worship is horrifying and despicable.”

Thomas Buchanan, a DUP member of the Legislative Assembly, said, “there are strong feelings among members of the community about Sinn Fein’s policy on abortion, however that does not excuse anyone engaging in criminal damage.”

“It is totally wrong and inappropriate to smear a place of worship, or any public building, with graffiti to make any sort of political point,” he said, according to BBC News.

Another Sinn Fein candidate, Órfhlaith Begley, said the incident was “blatant sectarian vandalism” and a “sectarian hate crime.”

Pro-abortion rights campaigners have also acted at churches. In the grotto of the Mary Immaculate Church in Inchicore, Dublin, some activists placed upon the altar a sweater bearing the phrase “Repeal.” They took a photo and shared it on social media.

Abortion advocacy is also underway in Northern Ireland, which has its own laws. The Department of Health on April 25 released a new report advocating abortion in cases where the unborn child has physical abnormalities.

“Women and babies in Northern Ireland do not need abortion. What women really need is access to holistic, life-affirming and compassionate healthcare that cares for both lives when faced with a difficult prenatal diagnosis,” said Bernadette Smyth, spokesperson for Northern Ireland’s leading pro-life group, Precious Life.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

Court of Appeal rejects plea from Alfie Evans’ parents

April 25, 2018 CNA Daily News 2

Liverpool, England, Apr 25, 2018 / 12:49 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- An appeal by the parents of ailing toddler Alfie Evans was dismissed by the UK Court of Appeal Wednesday, leaving the child to remain at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in England.

Tom Evans and Kate James had been appealing to take their son, Alfie, to Italy for treatment, after the child survived the removal of life support, against their will, at Alder Hey Hospital.

“It’s disgusting how he’s being treated. Not even an animal would be treated this way,” Evans said earlier in the day, adding that Alfie is “fighting.”

Alfie is a 23-month-old toddler who is in what physicians have described as a “semi-vegetative state” due to a mysterious degenerative neurological condition that doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in London have not been able to properly diagnose. He has been hospitalized since December of 2016.

Against the wishes of his parents, Alfie’s life support machine was removed on Monday, and hydration was withheld from him. Although he was expected to die within minutes, he began breathing on his own, and several hours later, doctors re-administered oxygen and hydration. The hospital also withheld food for nearly 24 hours before allowing the toddler to again receive it, Alfie’s father said.

In a hearing on Tuesday, Judge Anthony Hayden of the High Court again denied Alfie the right to travel elsewhere to seek continued treatment, saying his ruling would be the “final chapter in the case of this extraordinary little boy.”

That ruling was upheld when the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from Alfie’s parents late Wednesday.

Alife’s case first attracted international attention in March, when London’s Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to end life support for Alfie. Judge Hayden of the High Court had ruled that “continued ventilator support is no longer in Alfie’s interests.”

Alfie’s parents had repeatedly made requests to transfer him to the Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Pediatric Hospital in Rome, for further diagnosis and treatment. Tom Evans traveled to Rome to meet with Pope Francis in person April 18, where he plead for asylum for his family in Italy, so that his son could be moved.

Earlier this week Alfie was granted Italian citizenship in hopes that he would be allowed immediate transfer to Rome to be treated at Bambino Gesu Hospital.

However, the UK judge ruled that the transfer would not be in Alfie’s best interest, and he would not be allowed to travel to Rome or Munich, where another hospital had offered to treat him. An air ambulance had been ready and waiting to transport Alfie to Italy if the transfer was approved.

Pope Francis had offered prayers for Alfie and his family several times, including at a general audience and in several Twitter posts.

“Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted,” he said on Twitter Monday.

[…]

No Picture
News Briefs

In Bavaria, government buildings will display a cross over their entrance

April 24, 2018 CNA Daily News 0

Munich, Germany, Apr 24, 2018 / 04:33 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The government of Bavaria has decided to instruct all state administrative buildings in the German state to display a cross in their public entrances by June 1.

The move intends to “express the historical and cultural character of Bavaria” and present “a visible commitment to the core values of the legal and social order in Bavaria and Germany”, the office of Markus Söder, Bavaria’s premier, announced April 24.

The Bavarian Interior Minister, Joachim Herrmann, hailed the decision as a “clear signal for Christian tradition”. Söder was quick to put his cabinet’s decree into action, personally hanging up a cross on the wall of the State Chancellery, and tweeting that this constitutes a commitment to Bavarian identity and Christian values.

<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”de” dir=”ltr”>Klares Bekenntnis zu unserer bayerischen Identität und christlichen Werten. Haben heute im Kabinett beschlossen, dass in jeder staatlichen Behörde ab dem 1. Juni ein Kreuz hängen soll. Habe direkt nach der Sitzung ein Kreuz im Eingangsbereich der Staatskanzlei aufgehängt. <a href=”https://t.co/o99M0dV4Uy”>pic.twitter.com/o99M0dV4Uy</a></p>&mdash; Markus Söder (@Markus_Soeder) <a href=”https://twitter.com/Markus_Soeder/status/988768341820170240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>April 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>

Municipal and regional district buildings are not compelled, but encouraged to do likewise. Classrooms and courtrooms in traditionally Catholic Bavaria are already required to display a cross.

As some observers were quick to point out, the decision to display the crosses in the entranceways and not the actual government office rooms may be aimed at avoiding the controversy the display of the Christian symbol in classrooms and courtrooms has caused in the past.

Opposition party members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Greens criticised the move as an election campaign tactic. Meanwhile, the elected representative of the famous village of Oberammergau, whilst denouncing any political instrumentalization of the cross, also welcomed the potential for his electorate’s artisanal woodcarvers.

Bavarian voters will go the polls Oct 14 to elect a new government – and will likely return the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) government. The conservative CSU is the Bavarian sister party to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union of Germany. It has dominated Bavarian politics – and provided the State Premier – since 1957.

[…]