Tuesday, January 27, 2015

La questione dell'immigrazione -Cardinale Biffi

Logo corsia dei servi
http://www.corsiadeiservi.it/it/default1.asp?page_id=1120

For Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger there was known salvation outside the Church, he believed there were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I have been sent a Mini paper on Lumen Gentium 16.-L.A
 
Mini-Paper on

Lumen Gentium 16
How is it possible for people to be saved without hearing the Gospel?
Session II of the Council of Florence (Feb. 4, 1442) states:
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation…and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
So according to the Council of Florence it is not possible for people (i.e., pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics) to be saved  unless they are joined to the catholic church before the
end of their lives.
Lionel: Yes even Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) has the same message. It says faith and salvation is necessary for all. We know most people die without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and so they are on the way to Hell.
The Church Councils, popes, saints, Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center taught that all with no exception in the present times need to be formal members of the Church for salvation, they need faith and baptism.
 
It was Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing who came with a new doctrine. They said all do not need to enter the Church but only those who know about the Catholic Church. Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.In other words those who are saved as such  are known and visible to us in the present times.Since they are known they become exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma according to the saints including St.Maximillian Kolbe.
This is irrational. It is not traditional and heretical.
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits brought this confusion into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) in 2015.So LG 16 is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the parts of AG 7 and LG 14 which support the dogma.

So a person who has absolutely no connection to the Catholic Church is
damned.
Lionel:
Yes according to the Bible, the traditional teachings of the Church and Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
Yet, this raises an important question: Is it possible to be invisibly linked to the Catholic Church? The answer is a resounding—  Yes.
Lionel:
Yes and this would be a hypothetical case. So it would not be an exception to the traditional teaching which says all in the present times need to be  formal members of the Church. 
The Church does not require
formal visible communion to be joined to her, yet it reiterates, “that all salvation comes
from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body…” (
CCC, 846).
Lionel:
Even though we agree that all salvation comes from Christ and his Church all need to be formal members of the Church is a de fide teaching. There are no known exceptions in 2015 to this teaching.
The Second Vatican Council II in Lumen Gentium 16 responded:
Since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who,through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation (19).
Lumen Gentium
Lionel:
Yes they can be saved.
However it should not be assumed that these cases are exceptions to the dogma because they are known in personsal cases. This was the error of the Marchetti letter.
There is no precedent before 1949 in Church documents where is is said that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura or the Council of Trent state that  those saved with implicit desire etc are visible to us or that those saved with implicit desire cannot also receive the baptism of water.

presents several conditions by which people may be saved without hearing and knowing the Gospel or Christ’s Church: (1) through no fault of their own (e.g., inadequate proclamation of the Gospel); (2) who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart; and (3) moved by grace, try in their actions to do [God’s] will (cf. CCC , 847).
Lionel:
We can hope that people are saved as such. However they will be saved in these conditions followed by the baptism of water. In Heaven there are only Catholics who are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul.
The Holy See
2
Blessed John Paul II responds to the same question in
Redemptoris Missio:
It is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for salvation…Salvation, which always remains a gift of the Holy Spirit, requires man's cooperation, both to save himself and to save others…[And] since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all….
For such people (i.e., those that do not have the opportunity to know or accept the Gospel or enter the Church) salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation….
[Thus] we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God (RM, 10).
The above quotes from the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church (i.e., the Council of Florence, Lumen Gentium, Blessed John Paul II) clearly demonstrate a development of doctrine in this area, which if space permitted should also include a review of St. Thomas Aquinas thought of obtaining salvation through the desire of receiving it (cf. Summa III.73.3) and the Council of Trent’s teaching that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation or a desire for them (cf. Ses. VII, Can. 4).
Yet, if I would stop here, I would be negligent of the Church’s teaching on how people are saved without hearing the Gospel.
 
Lionel:
We must remember that for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger there was known salvation outside the Church, he believed there were visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We can see this in CCC 1257.It  follows the pattern of the Letter of the Holy Office.In the first part of the Marchetti letter we have the orthodox teaching which supports Fr.Leonard Feeney. In the second part it is said there are known exceptions. So it contradicts the first part which is traditional ( no exceptions).
CCC 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it also says God is not limited to the Sacraments. This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can you say every one needs to enter the Church with no exceptions but some do not! This was the irrational, non tradtional and heretical teaching in the Marchetti Letter.
-Lionel Andrades
Lumen Gentium 16 also clearly warns,“But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasoning’s,have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.”
Thus very often, deceived by the Evil One, people are at fault for not hearing or accepting the Gospel, and  very often people do not seek God with a sincere heart, and very often
they do not cooperate with grace to do God’s will, and very often there is no
 
3
true desire for God, nor His Church. And even if people are inculpably ignorant, this does not guarantee they are saved—they still have to somehow cooperate with and persevere in the Holy Spirit’s mysterious and loving offer of salvation.
Why is knowing this important for the success of evangelization?
All of us are still sinners (cf. 1 Jn 1:8), and the unrepentant (or unredeemed) sinner reaps sin’s inevitable consequence—“separating oneself from God which literally creates hell…not because God has changed from being a loving God but because the sinner now embodies all that is ungodly…to experience the wrathful abandonment of God is but a self-verification of what one has indeed become—ungodly” (Fr. Thomas Weinandy). This reminds us that, though we are not to despair over someone’s salvation, the possibility of many people  very often becoming ungodly and thus eternally separating themselves from God is all too real. One person experiencing eternal condemnation is one too many.
Why is this important? It’s of utmost importance because evangelization will not be successful without the correct motivation, which comes from a correct understanding of reality. The Councils and documents of the Church, which have provided primarily positive motivation since Vatican II, have unfortunately been misinterpreted and used as an excuse to the detriment of evangelization. Has there been negligence on the part of the Church, which led to unexpected negative consequences? I answer ‘yes’. Knowledge of Holy Scripture and the complete teaching of the Church (including the last few sentences of
Lumen Gentium 16) have begun to revive the motivation and thus urgency to evangelize. “Hence to procure…the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions” (LG, 16).
_____________________________________
 
 
 
 

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-made.html
 

Fr.Marco Hausmann in Rome says there are no exceptions while the Vicariate is teaching young lay Catholics that there are exceptions

Fr.Marco Hausmann a diocesan priest in Rome says there are no exceptions in 2015 to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus while the Vicariate is teaching young lay Catholics that there are exceptions.

No one from the Ecclesia Mater,  has responded to the blog post 1.
Also professors of theology at the St.John Lateran University who teach at the Ecclesia Mater centres and to whom the blog post was sent are not likely to reply.
They know what I am saying and they know that they are teaching a lie but they will continue.They knew this a few years back and decided to continue teaching that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to physically known cases in the present times. So they are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for them Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani did not make a mistake when he corrected Fr.Leonard Feeney. For Ecclesia Mater the policy is that the deceased who are in Heaven are visible on earth and they are objective exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
This is irrational. Fr.Marco Hausmann  repeats the obvious. There are no known exceptions in 2015 to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
One lay professor of theology with whom I have spoken to on this subject and who teaches lay Catholics in Rome at the Ecclesia Mater centres says he does not want to comment.-Lionel Andrades
1.
Rome Vicariate's Ecclesia Mater teaches lay Catholics theology with an irrational premise : Vatican Council II then becomes a break with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/rome-vicariates-ecclesia-mater-teaches.html

May be you could talk to John Martignoni and Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB

Creative Minority Report
 
Dear Pat Archbald,
Please let me know how you would answer these two questions :
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
If you answer to is :1) No we do not know any case of the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc and we cannot physically see them in 2015 and 2) since they are not known; not visible to us they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II - then you are rational.You would be saying that there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.Defacto, objectively, you and I would not know of any such case.If there was any such exception, it would only be known to God.And if there was such a case of someone saved, or going to be saved, without the baptism of water, it would be a possibility known only to God and unknown to us human beings.Possibilities are not exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.
So do you think the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it alleges that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the historical interpretation of the dogma , the 'rigorist interpretation' ?
How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be wrong when there cannot be any known exception?
Many Catholic priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to say there are no known exceptions and the Marchetti Letter of 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that the dead are visible, to be exceptions to the dogma.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see these exceptions.
Could you confirm this ?
May be you could talk to John Matignoni the apologist at EWTN who is the Director of Evangelisation and Stewardship in the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama. He told me ,'Zero cases of something are not excceptions to the dogma'.
May be you could speak with Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome. He says there are no known exceptions.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
Prof. Visintin was speaking with me on Oct.15,2013 at the University of St.Anselm in Rome.
So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvagginai Marchetti make a mistake for you ? Was this document magisterial or only an interoffice communication? -Lionel Andrades
 
 
January 26, 2015

So the real issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II is whether you are interpreting them with or without the irrational premise

Archdiocese of Detroit : the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.Changes teaching on Vatican Council II

Youth Minister certificationYesterday Jan.26,2015 I e-mailed the Archdiocese of Detroit and I hope I will get a reply which will be specific. May be the Archbishop or his representative will tell me that 'this is what we specifically teach' and so 'we agree or disagree with you on these specific points'.
I hope I will not get a general reply saying that the Church teaches that Fr.Feeney was wrong and the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. This is my specific point too but I am saying it was wrong.Since 'the Church' is saying that these cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to persons  objectively visible. This would be irrational.The Church would be referring  to persons, seen in the flesh for them to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2015.But these cases do not exist in our reality! If they did not exist in our reality, if we could not see them physically they would not be exceptions in 2015 to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.If they are not there they cannot be exceptions.
These persons are dead and are now in Heaven so they cannot be exceptions to the dogma,I repeat. They cannot be relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. 
Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 on behalf of 'the Church', made an objective mistake. It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead. So possibilities, hypothetical cases are not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma according to the popes and saints, right up to St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930's.
So basically I am asking the Archdiocese of Detroit if they agree that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which did not have the signature of the Secretary of the Holy Office, was objectively wrong?
The letter was placed in the Denzinger by the liberal Fr.Karl Rahner who also assumed that the dead are visible exceptions to the centuries old 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.So the Denzinger too has made an objective mistake.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has also picked up the error in CCC 1257.
If the Archdiocese agrees that it was a factual mistake then they would have to change their present teaching on Vatican Council II in religious education.
Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance/good conscience), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), UR 3( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2( a ray of the Truth),AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc would refer to hypothetical cases. So they would not be exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers.Also they would refer to cases who are saved also with the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching.Finally, on the practical level, we cannot meet or see any one who is an exception to the dogma, someone who does not need faith and baptism for salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
 
Women's Banner 2
 
Copy of the letter sent on Jan.26,2015.An acknowledgement is awaited from the diocese.
Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron

To the Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron,
Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit,
Archbishop's Office
1234 Washington Blvd



Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
I am a lay Catholic in Rome and have a blog Eucharist and Mission in which I write mostly on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II.
In the Archdiocese of Detroit it is probably taught, like in other US. dioceses, that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Please let me know how would you respond to the two questions to clarify this issue.
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
If you answer is :1) No we do not know any case of the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc and we cannot physically see them in 2015 and 2) since they are not known; not visible to us they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II - then you are rational.
You would be saying that there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.
Defacto, objectively, you and I would not know of any such case.If there was any such case, it would only be known to God.And if there was such a case of someone saved, or going to be saved, without the baptism of water, it would be a possibility known only to God and unknown to us human beings.It would not be an exception. Possibilities are not exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.
So do you think the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it alleges that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the historical interpretation of the dogma , the 'rigorist interpretation' ?
How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be wrong when there cannot be any known exception?
Many Catholic priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to say there are no known exceptions and the Marchetti Letter of 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that the dead are visible, to be exceptions to the dogma.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see these exceptions.
What is your view?
John Martignoni , the Director of Evangelisation and Stewardship in the diocese of Birmingham in Alabama says ,'Zero cases of something are not excceptions to the dogma'.
Also there is Fr.Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome. He says there are no known exceptions.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
Prof. Visintin was speaking with me on Oct.15,2013 at the University of St.Anselm in Rome.
Religious Life
So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvagginai Marchetti make a mistake for you ? Was this document magisterial or only an interoffice communication?
Vatican Council II is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me.
So Vatican Council II, without the irrational inference(visible-dead who are exceptions to the dogma), would be saying, all Muslims, Jews and other non Catholics, need to convert onto the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
Would you agree?
Could you kindly e-mail me your reply and I will place your answer on my blog for the information of other Catholics who read it.
In Christ
Mr.Lionel Andrades

______________________________

Seminarians


Hey Pro-Choice Activists: One Last Time, Abortion is a About a Baby

by Brian Fisher | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com |

 
The abortion industry has recently employed a new marketing strategy in an attempt to continue to mislead and confuse the American public. Having abandoned the “pro-choice” tactics that dominated the mainstream media for the last 30+ years, they are now taking a more direct, more insidious approach.
They want to normalize abortion in order to make it mainstream. They want to remove the negative stigma through “positive” stories from post-abortive women, making you feel insensitive and outdated if you don’t accept their experiences as morally righteous and valid. They will continue to pound the American public with phrases such as “women’s reproductive freedom,” “women’s health and safety,” and “the war on women” until you and I begin to think abortion is a foundational American right.
NPR recently published an article describing the ongoing legal battle over HB2, Texas’ legislation that, in part, banned abortion after 20 weeks and requires abortion clinics to behave like legitimate medical facilities. Pro-life advocates in Texas maintain this legislation promotes women’s safety; the pro-abortion contingent disagrees:
baby52Nancy Northup with the Center for Reproductive Rights — a group that’s challenging the Texas law and others like it — says…“These laws pretend they’re about health and safety; they’re meant to confuse the public about that.”
She says studies find far less than 1 percent of abortions involve major complications and that the procedure is much safer than, say, delivering a baby. Northup says these laws are really about taking away access to abortion.
Abortion is safer than delivering a baby? Is she serious? During a normal delivery, a human being is brought into the world to continue living, whereas a human being is killed during an abortion and delivered dead. I’m pretty sure being ripped limb from limb or being burned alive in the womb is far less safe than being delivered alive.
 
An article posted on the Care2 website called 2014 “The Year of the Abortion Story.” The authors wrote,
The abortion war has often failed to acknowledge the real lived emotional experience of people who have abortions, whether they feel relief, guilt, sadness, renewal — a combination, or anything beyond. These stories have been ignored or co-opted for political gain, and slogans have too often glossed over wellbeing and the gray area of lived experience.
Did you catch the creative marketing and persuasive language in that paragraph? Because post-abortive people had a “real lived emotional experience, “ they are validated in their abortion decision. It’s their personal, heartfelt situation, and we should accept and approve of their actions. Plus, the abortion decision is complex and now resides in the “gray area of lived experience.”
So killing an innocent human being is now a gray area in American life.
Abortion is primarily about the lives of the unborn. Abortion is the unjust, brutal, and violent killing of voiceless, innocent, and very small human beings. It is the greatest manifestation of evil in America. In fact, the leading cause of death in America is parents killing their helpless children — to the tune of approximately 1.2 million abortions a year — in large part just to avoid the inconvenience of parenthood.
Even segments of the pro-life movement have steered away from focusing on the baby in order to talk about women’s health and safety. It’s largely a political, strategic move to appeal to a broader base of Americans in light of the abortion industry’s marketing schemes.
In our current cultural climate, if you don’t jump on that bandwagon and make sure everyone knows you are most, if not only, concerned about women’s health, you are painted as uncompassionate, a chauvinist, or oppressive. I get it. And I certainly support legislation and campaigns that promote women’s health and safety.
Yet here’s my concern: If we focus only on women’s health, women’s rights, and women’s medical care, we run the risk of forgetting that abortion is primarily about the death of a baby. In America we ALWAYS focus our compassion and efforts on the victims. Appropriately, we want to wrap our arms around the rape victim, we send money to Red Cross to support victims of natural disasters, we rescue children who are victims of abuse.
But is the woman the only, or really even the primary, victim of abortion? Of course not. She (normally) doesn’t lose her life as a result. No, the primary victim of abortion is the baby who is brutally killed.
Women are often victims, of course. Women who are coerced or forced to abort require our compassion, grace, and tangible help. But women aren’t drawn and quartered and then thrown into a trash bin after an abortion.
So who deserves the main focus of our compassion? Is it the 24-year-old woman who aborts because she “just isn’t ready to be a parent”? Or is it the baby tucked safely inside her womb who is then heinously destroyed and not even given a proper funeral or burial?
Be very, very wary of the abortion industry’s latest marketing schemes. Abortion is about the willful killing of a baby. THAT is the fact we need to continue to drive home into the hearts and minds of the American people. If we don’t, we’ll get four more decades of myths, lies, and deception, and the blood of millions more dead babies will be on all of our hands.
LifeNews Note: Author, speaker, and business leader Brian Fisher is the President and Co-Founder of Online for Life, a transparent, metric-oriented, compassion-driven nonprofit organization dedicated to helping rescue babies and their families from abortion through technology and grace.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/26/hey-pro-choice-activists-one-last-time-abortion-is-a-about-a-baby/

Father’s Heartwrenching Decision: Adopted Twin Girls Need Livers and He Can Only Help One

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com
In 2012, Michael and Johanne Wagner adopted twin girls from a Vietnamese orphanage when they were 18-months-old. Both girls, Binh and Phuoc, suffer from Alagille syndrome, which is a genetic disorder that affects the liver, heart and other organs. Unfortunately, without a liver transplant, the girls will not survive.
Michael recently found out that his liver is a match to his three-year-old girls; however, he can only save one of them after a transplant. Now the couple is looking for another donor to save them both. According to CBC News, Johanne Wagner said surgeons at Toronto General Hospital are set to operate on Michael and one daughter in about two weeks. They have decided to let doctors decide which one of their girls is the best candidate for the transplant.
The Canadian couple, who have seven other children, has a Facebook page and a blog called One More Potato in the Pot with more information about the twins. If you are interested in being a donor, contact the University Health Network in Toronto. Donors must be between 18 and 55 years old with A or O blood type; and as of Sunday another donor has not been found.
michaelwagner
Here’s more of their story:
While the hunt continues, a team of doctors at Toronto General Hospital will now decide which of the girls will receive the transplant.
Mrs Wagner told The Canadian Press: ‘We told them we didn’t want to be burdened with the decision making.
She added doctors are expected to perform the surgery in around two weeks, but the family are yet to find a second donor.
The Wagners had five of their own children before they decided to take Binh and Phouc in.
Mrs Wagner added: ‘When we saw them at the orphanage we were shocked, really.
‘They were 9 pounds at 18 months. So we left the orphanage that day and went to buy two little containers with dragonflies on them and that’s what we were going to lay their ashes in if they didn’t make it.’michaelwagner2
 
Despite the health problems, Mrs Wagner does not regret her decision.
 
She said: ‘We look back and we have no regrets.
‘We would travel this path all over again. They have taught us openness, they have taught our children sharing and openness. It’s been nothing but a wonderful mess.’
 http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/26/fathers-heartwrenching-decision-adopted-twin-girls-need-livers-and-he-can-only-help-one/

In first-ever speech to Duma, Russian patriarch calls for total abortion ban

  Featured Image 

By Thaddeus Baklinski   

                                  

“If we manage to cut the number of abortions by 50 percent we would have stable and powerful population growth,” said the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
“The argument that a ban would cause an increase in the number of underground abortions is pure nonsense. People have to pay money for these operations and our task is to make the price of a legal infanticide the same as of the illegal one. Taxpayers must not pay for this,” the Orthodox Church leader told the MPs.
Patriarch Kirill said that while the solution to Russia's impending demographic disaster is complex, the most pressing need is, apart from banning or at least restricting abortion, for the state to help young couples regain the confidence they need to want to have children by providing material support, and by giving doctors additional incentive to care about the life of “conceived children" by introducing pro-life ethical norms in the medical professions.
The Russian patriarch also condemned the practice of surrogacy in his parliamentary address, urging lawmakers to take steps to completely replace it with adoption.
Momentum to eliminate abortion in Russia has been building for several years, with both religious and political leaders calling for legislative changes to defend life from conception.
Last August, the abbot of Vatopedi Monastery, Archimandrite Ephraim, said Orthodox Christians should actively strive for a ban on abortions.
“It is unacceptable that such terrible crimes as abortions are committed in Orthodox countries, moreover, in such large quantities! This phenomenon must make us think seriously about it; I would say, we must be shocked and distressed, we need to raise the alarm,” the Archimandrite wrote in an address to participants of the international pro-life conference with the title “Large Families and the Future of Humanity” that took place in Moscow last year.
In 2013, the Russian Federation enacted a law banning abortion advertising in an effort to stem the country's decline in population.
The head of the State Duma Committee for Family and Children, MP Elena Mizulina, said the Russian people must stop tolerating abortion and the recent rise in surrogacy because they threaten to “wipe out the population of Russia.”
“The problems of abortion prevention and the shift in public opinion towards abortion are currently very urgent. Although the number of abortions in Russia is falling, it still exceeds 5 million every year,” Mizulina said.
She added that though the practice of surrogacy was relatively new in Russia, the societal implications are of great concern to her.
“We still can stop the consequences of this practice from happening. It can and must be used only in exceptional cases,” Mizulina explained.
 
“Humanity will probably understand one day that as we ban nuclear weapons to prevent the death of Mother Earth, so should we ban the technology destroying the natural environment and natural childbirth, the natural way of human reproduction,” the MP said.
Patriarch Kirill has offered Russian authorities suggestions on how to reduce the nation’s staggeringly high abortion rate.
On the website of the Moscow Patriarchate, Patriarch Kirill has proposed a series of measures, including asking that the Ministry of Health and Social Development make “preservation of pregnancy a priority task for the doctor” and ban “medical initiatives on its interruption.”
He urges the state to end health insurance coverage of abortion except in cases of direct threat to mother’s life, and to institute a compulsory two-week waiting period after an “informed consent” form is signed by the mother, before an abortion can be performed. The Patriarch observed that, “this period exists in developed countries.”
Kirill also suggested the establishment of crisis pregnancy centers in every maternity hospital, with trained professionals on hand to help “lonely mothers in difficult life situations."
 
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/in-first-ever-speech-to-duma-russian-patriarch-calls-for-total-abortion-ban