It may be 70 years since he worked at Auschwitz, and his occupation may have been no more than clerkly; he may even, as he claims, have have protested against what was happening and attempted to extricate himself from it; but it is thoroughly and totally right that an old man should be tried, sentenced, and punished for his involvement in the monstrous horrors of the National Socialist holocaust. If is true that his actions, according to the perverted legal code in place in Germany at that time, were not illegal when he performed them, that makes not one iota of difference. Every innocent Son of Adam or Daughter of Eve is protected by the commendment "Thou shalt not kill". 'Laws' which permit killing are not laws but abuses of laws. There are no such beings as subhumans. Neither Jews, nor members of any other race or human category, are vermin to be exterminated. Every instinct of human decency demands that a significant marker be placed against any surviving man or woman who gave any sort of collaboration whatsoever, immediate, proximate, or remote, to actions so grossly obscene, so unmistakeably and self-evidently horrible.
Otherwise, why should anybody ever be punished for anything?
I shall not live to see it, but I would like to think that, even if it takes 70 years, a similar retribution will one day befall those involved in the slaughter of unborn humans in our own time.
Otherwise, why should anybody ever be punished for anything?
It should not just be the 'doctors' who are involved; nor even also the nurses. Administrators, accountants, publicists, receptionists, 'counsellors', profiteers, even if they are well into their nineties; manufacturers of surgical appliances designed to facilitate abortion, and those supplying abortifacients, chemists who provide the abortionists' equivalent of Zyklon B; none of these should escape scot-free. Supreme Court 'judges' have handed down decisions such as the one denying legal protection to the Glasgow senior midwives who, on grounds of conscience, were unwilling to administer the killing machine: these purveyors of perverted 'law' should receive particularly exemplary punishment. Above all, legislators responsible for this monstrous evil, if still alive, should be hunted down and brought before a tribunal similar to that at Nuremburg. But there should be one difference. Such a tribunal should not, ever, apply the death penalty. Those convicted should be given their entire natural span of life to understand and to repent the evil in which they have participated. Every morning they should be given the reminder "You are enjoying the gift of life which you denied to others".
I learn* that Dietrich von Hildebrand observed, after Roe versus Wade, "Hitler has won". And Tolkien wisely observed "Always, after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again" (vide Mt 12:43-45).
*Thanks to Professor Tighe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Axios!
But can it not concentrate the mind wonderfully when one knows one is to be hanged in the morning? The commandant of Auschwitz repented and made a good confession and communion before he was put on a gallows outside the gas ovens.
In fairness to Groening, he has only come to public notice because of his desire to rebut the holocaust-deniers by giving personal witness to the atrocities he witnessed and played a small part in. This, surely, should stand to his credit?
Just out of interest Father, do you think that the likes of Abbey Johnson and others who left the industry of death should face the court? I'll admit I'm conflicted on whether those who have the blood of innocents on their hands, but have repented and dedicated their lives to working against the magnets of death should face the magistrate.
What Don Camillo said. Groening could easily have lived out his days unmolested by Nazi-hunters and courts, had he not felt it his duty to testify to the horrors that others were seeking to deny. I am far from convinced of the justice of a process which sees his honesty and courage thus repaid.
The Law in the UK, under the 1967 Act, gives health practitioners the right to withdraw from abortion before the fact, in that we are not obliged and cannot be forced to offer pro-abortion counselling, surgical or nursing care*. However, that right descends into confusion quite easily. During my career I spent some time in Theatre Recovery suites, when I many times looked after women who had just undergone the procedure and were waking up from the anaesthetic. Was I complicit in the abortion? Should a Catholic nurse refuse this service, Father? Surgical abortion would not be safe without it. I have also, while working on the wards, been on occasion put in the position (if there was no female or non-Catholic nurse available) of looking after women who had had chemically-induced abortions and were awaiting the consequent miscarriage. Again, does that make me complicit? Should I have just left them to it, given that the sequelae can include fatal haemorrhage?
What about nurses and doctors and administrators etc etc working in contraceptive clinics which offer the option of the coil? Uterine coils are designed not to prevent conception but to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, as above.
Once you start spreading the net to encompass all who are touched by the 1967 Act, Father, you will never stop.
*in theory. However, I have friends who have resigned from Health Visitor posts because their Health Authority tried to force them to dispense on demand the "morning-after" pill, which is designed to prevent implantation as above.
Nazi Angel of Death Josef Mengele, made his way to South America after the war and it was there he did some free-lance aborting, so, yes, Hitler did win in that sense.
The pill also has an abortifacient action - as do the implants and patches now being pushed at women by `clinics and reproductive health providers`.( The Gates` Foundation is funding development of a 16 year contraceptive/abortifacient implant containing a microchip; it will be remotely controlled by...who knows?)
The contraceptive mindset is the cause and justification of abortion.
When intercourse is a purely recreational activity, its outcomes must be stifled or otherwise `managed`. The lives of the next generation and the mental health of the nation are sacrificed - Eternal Life isn`t even considered.
In all the multiple moral evils of our permissiveness, we come back to the prophetic truth of Humanae Vitae. Why was it not preached and taught?
Post a Comment