Skip to content

christian in context

May 7, 2016


Watchdog finds much larger Catholic influence on US hospitals



DrRosemaryEileenMcHugh • 17 hours ago
As a family physician who is Catholic, I do not recommend any woman to go for care to a Catholic hospital during her reproductive years. The bishops are in charge of reproductive issues rather than the doctors. A woman’s life can be at serious risk and even death can occur, because of the directives of bishops who have no knowledge of medicine.

Sadly, when cases come to trial, the judges who are Catholic can dismiss a case out of hand, to protect the Catholic Church from accountability, without understanding the dangers that women are in when they are at the mercy of the bishops rules in Catholic run hospitals. Very sad.

I am glad to see that women are beginning to speak up for their rights to receive the normal standard of care, since Catholic hospitals give substandard care to women, in my view as a family physician who no longer is willing to practice in a Catholic hospital.
Sincerely, Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh, MD, MSpir



Alfy DrRosemaryEileenMcHugh • 3 hours ago
Sadly you are not Catholic. You may identify as Catholic, similar as a man identifying as a women, but this does not make you Catholic. You clearly believe your opinion or interpretation of scripture is superior to the bishop, the pope , and the magisterium. You are entitled to your own opinion, I’m sure your a great doctor, but your opening statement says you are a Catholic and then you proceed to attack the Church you claim to be a part of. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, she espouses the truth of the word of God which is not up for debate. If you disagree , so be it, your just not Catholic.




the first two comments to this article are telling. in the comments section of the previous SPIR post we questioned the doctor’s catholicity. not agreeing with the bishops makes her a PROTESTANT? of course catholics are in schism. they have been for many decades. as a matter of fact, they have been in schism since the roman church claimed infallibility regarding that holy book it says it authored, claiming ITSELF to be God’s Word. as  gnostic, a sense long before roman catholic rule put its stamp on christianity, we are highly offended by their ignorance. the question is: which religious god is the roman catholic’s god?


 this institution does not speak for the Christ. it is an institution, nothing more. what ‘they’ produce … is the fruits, and from this you will know them. 


murder. let’s address this one point to eliminate the credibility of the catholic’s anti-abortion position. what did the roman catholic church do (its acts/actions) while setting itself up as their infallible “church”, while establishing itself as “GOD’s Word” … what was it doing in order to gain power and control? answer: murder

but not just murder … torturing, forcing itself on the people of nations … causing much death and suffering. even today, the roman catholic church murders … often its own members. the vatican, which includes those BISHOPS, has to place itself in a hierarchal position … must push its wares in order to keep people in a state of submission and subjugation … needs to keep women from seats of influence and power within its ranks … relies on the poor … to survive. 


we have shared many stories here in SPIR on the institution’s history of abuse. now, you decide if this is in any way … your GOD.  *and let us remind you, the first followers of Jesus were called Followers of The Way:

I am the Way the Truth … the Life … none come to the “father” … accept through Me.

ME is not roman catholic church doctrine and roman catholic doctrine is not The Christ. {this} bears no resemblance to roman church dogma because it is not bound to manmade religion. Spirit of the Living God is not under the thumb of catholic histrionics.

No one has ever seen God (Spirit). 


put that in your chalices … or maybe {this} should BE … the first WORD of the Day.


—–the following comments will address christian in context




From → Uncategorized

  1. opheliart permalink

    what one verse speaks on the arena of false prophets more than any other verse?


    this is not roman rule. it is not religious rule. it is not catholic in its partnering because catholic is institution just as that rc commenter’s pope said: pope is an institution.
    pope is the catholic’s god. their catholic teaching clearly states (and we posted this catholic teaching from THEIR BOOK not long ago) that whatever the pope says must be obeyed.

    and the current roman pontiff said: the pope is an institution.

    therefore, the catholic church is an institution… because it relies on the pope for its teaching. how the pope gets its dogma is, well … something we have been addressing but it is you that must decide for truth.

    long before catholics or the catholic church there existed gnosis. what happened to {this} since the roman catholic church THROUGH forced mandate and torture and murder attempted to set ITSELF up as GOD’s mouthpiece?

    answer: it silenced {this}

    why am I here?

    answer: to lift up the silence

    what was PAUL TEACHING on when he spoke of “let the ‘woman’ be silent”?

    answer: wisdom


    answer: see in the BOOK OF REVELATION, JOHN writes what the ANGEL OF GOD speaks, the two witnesses (chapter 11).

    the day of “institution” will be judged by its peers.

    so … what say you?

    • opheliart permalink

      you see, the man and woman spoken of in the Writings is referring to the GODHOOD: the masculine and feminine: TRUTH AND WISDOM, a marriage of the TWO to produce what?

      FRUIT (child) … and if one is being purely honest, one cannot deny “what” was first used to produce a Prophet on Truth (Word in the flesh … JESUS, doing the work of {this} father) …

      WOMAN *understood in the spiritually symbolic as “mary”

      in Truth, the FIRST fruits is Woman, not Man (and do understand that man can release sperm all he wants but it takes a woman to produce child (fruit) 😉

      in order to UNDERSTAND LOVE (God), Wisdom (female) must first be experienced through what? within what? SPIRIT: a union of TWO>

      to ESTABLISH TRUTH … and this my dears is not catholic institution.

      one has only to look at the popes down through history and things like the inquisition to realize false prophesy. one has only to receive news of the death of a woman in an irish CATHOLIC hospital because of an ectopic pregnancy. “we are a catholic nation” says those who could have saved the woman’s life.

      murderers. and these should not be permitted practice in any civil and just and CARING nation.

      • opheliart permalink

        it matters not to us if people have places they like to assemble … but what does matter is HOW that assembly is used. is it offending neighbor? is it using its hierarchy to impose itself on others not like it?

        in the article … the pope poses as something of power and order. he TELLS others what they should be doing, and yet … he does not tear down his own wall. who of just cause can take this man OR this institution seriously. this is not humility. these are neither wise nor truthful. why do you bow to this hierarchy? is this your god? because they own much property and many people and speak from the house of kingly palaces … you worship there?

        is this your fruit? what destruction are you bringing upon your people by following these?

  2. opheliart permalink

    the roman church crucified THE CHRIST and continues to crucify {this}. it is not THE WORD. it is a manmade accomplice to destroy the Living Word. this is not saying all catholics are destruction … not at all … many catholics opposed and oppose the vatican and its doctrine. many over the centuries were trying to move out of a certain “thought” process to ignite in new but … the nut does not fall far from its tree. only birds and animals … wind, rain and a gushing torrent … and occasionally a human being can take up the fruit and make new … but only in fertile soil.


    the vatican will dump the pope … because it knows it cannot be a credible “business” and politic as it desires and has always desired … in ECONOMY of the world … while a “king” sits on its throne. this is old adage. and as we have shared several times … the catholic will flee to the orthodox churches.

    • opheliart permalink

      their pope accuses societies of being a throw-away culture but does not see his own insolence. his own murderous acts. he throws away the life of a woman … again and again again for centuries despite science and medicine that CAN SAVE the life of the woman! these institutions murder at will:theirs. they decide who lives and who dies based on their theology, which is now reaping what it has sown. IGNORANCE AND LIES … fascism, disease. because as we said, warned repeatedly … THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE JUST BEGINNING.

      INVESTIGATE THE INSTITUTIONs and what you will find from these is incomplete records on how this woman or that woman died, or maybe “sealed” records like in the case of BOSTON, and SPAIN’S STOLEN BABIES at the tune of 300,000 babies? oh my … oh my God! what aren’t these institutions allowing the public to know?! these watchdog groups are just beginning to ask questions and the RCC is going to look like the number uno ABUSER.

      IT IS A DISEASE! why do you follow these celibates with little understanding? when you can save the life of the mother AND CHILDREN in an ectopic … at risk pregnancies … DO IT! Spirit of the unborn moves on to NEW life! do not be bound by the ignorance of the bishops … the doctrine of the rcc, please.

      mother with other children NEED THEIR MOM! husbands who NEED mother to help raise the children they have! what insanity denies a family this? what works in and through these religionists that denies opportunity at health and wellbeing of society?

      INVESTIGATE THEIR PRACTICES … CHALLENGE THEIR THEOLOGY … and I am not even pro-abortion 😉 … but I UNDERSTAND matters of urgency and I UNDERSTAND the pregnancies are not all alike.

      why do you allow an institution claiming itself GOD’s mouthpiece to rule in civil and just society? a society with NATIONAL VALUES TO CARE FOR AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ITS PEOPLE? WHY DO YOU ENDANGER LIVES? ALLOW PEOPLE TO DIE AND CHILDREN TO BE ABUSED WHILE BISHOPS KNOWINGLY COVERED UP THE CRIMES, likely partaking themselves? BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE THE MASTER ON LIFE——–your institutionalized religion?

      what dangers are you placing women, children and men in by allowing improper services? or no service where lives are at stake? it’s like saying that you can not use a car on the sabbath because your RELIGIOUS LAW says you are not allowed to drive a car on the sabbath … to get someone to a hospital … to get to a doctor who has the facility and the equipment to treat and save the life … when one is shot or brutally beaten or was seriously injured … had a heart attack or ….


      what hierarchy is government following? allowing to rule in its country? for votes? influential seats? power? speak now or NEVER know Peace.

      • opheliart permalink

        it is actually hard to believe that the united states of america still pays into and supports slavery.

        and what has hillary clinton or any other political candidate done about these institutions? they knew and know this is happening, esp to WOMEN and CHILDREN .. the murder and the abuse.

        who will be the candidate to say NO MORE! investigate … ?

  3. opheliart permalink

    the catholic bishops worry that these lawsuits will drain their pocketbooks? ha! that would be the point, guys … remove the thieving hand.

    no institution should be allowed to practice when so much clergy child sex abuse and COVER UP by its institution … is this vast.

    complaining? you did it to yourselves.

  4. opheliart permalink

    we have been warning and warning on these offenses and the day is near where the civilized world will turn on the catholic because he will view him as evil

    why do you think we share what we share?

    “While information about what exactly takes place in Catholic hospital ethics committee meetings is hard to find, physicians report that they are generally led by clergy without medical training. The ultimate authority on ethics committee disputes is the local bishop.”

    bishops playing doctors? gee, how in the US, a nation fixated on academic credential, specialized medicine, and laws insisting doctors have appropriate degrees for doctor-patient treatment and care … do these catholic bishops get away with this? is the nation called america a catholic nation?

  5. opheliart permalink

    I recall sinead tearing up a photo of JP2 … madonna bashing her … everyone was down on her … then what happened? she turned out to be soooooooooo correct. and that’s not even the half of it.
    JP2 KNEW about the abuse and the top down cover up is, well, substantial …. yes?

    but, we shall see

    some do like to drug drinks, for starters

    • opheliart permalink

      which brings me to that spat between trump and warren the other night. clearly warren was using the megyn kelly tactic … to get trump to reveal his ugly treatment of women. but goofy and basket case … is all he said (that I recall, and I don’t know anything about warren being native american). now, trump’s use of “basket case” was to try to make HER look weak and intimidated. that is one of trump’s tactics, but in the following article, trump again brings up important concerns about hillary. we shared on this already coming from a lawyer for raped and abused women, and we have questioned hillary’s FEMALE VOTE in light of her treatment of the women bill had sexually abused.

      how much longer will this be covered over? again, we are NOT a fan of trump, but hillary’s refusal to address her behavior on this and what has come out on it is disconcerting … and not to be taken lightly.

  6. opheliart permalink

    this is interesting and I am genuinely glad for him, but something feels off. I am not seeing it yet. he is muslim and of course this made news … as these things always do… first black president—obama … oh, but he is also WHITE … his mama was white! no matter, it was all about him being the first black president because … his skin is dark. all of the attention on this was wearing. but khan being a muslim? what kind of muslim? was he born into it and is why he is muslim? or is he solidly in alignment with islamic teaching? clearly he has assimilated into the cultures of the UK and it is possible his parents are of this same. these are valid questions because it is important to know and understand the ties of an individual to the headship. like a roman catholic to the vatican. what is khan’s ties with the leaders of muslim countries and what are his ties with imams having been chosen from islamic countries to staff the mosques in non arabic speaking nations, nations without sharia law. these are always important questions … and we watch who/what gains seats of power and influence from these appointments. where does it lead? we feel very strongly that nations trying to move toward equality and just practices should not be doing business with national leaders practicing sharia law or anything like it.

    and do know that liberals/atheists do not hesitate to point out when a person is tied to something they do not like (a college or organization that they consider too fundamentalist, too religious, too conservative) and will not hesitate to criticize, condemn and blame, even dismiss the individual … but the minute someone questions a muslim’s ties or an atheist’s ties or a democrats ties or a liberalist’s ties to … unjust practices … a bad co or a dishonest or misogynistic enterprise … they holler racism, bigot … discrimination, even anti-semitism.

    NO ONE IN THIS DAY OF DEMOCRATIC CONTEXT IN THE HOUSE OF THE LIBERAL IS PERMITTED TO VOICE unless it favors the liberalist’s stance, party or policy.

    this is fascism when a person’s reputation is destroyed merely because he wants legitimate answers. imagine if no one, not even the VICTIMS, are allowed to question the AUTHORITY of the vatican? and government always chooses the bishop’s side, archbishop or cardinal … even pope. or law enforcement? or mayors or governors or …

    when someone-something becomes too powerful because of these titles and money … property … even votes … there is reason for concern.

    • opheliart permalink

      ah, do a little research and what did we find:

      Zac Goldsmith came in for a fair amount of criticism yesterday after writing a piece in the Mail on Sunday that, among other things, pointed out that Sadiq Khan criticised Labour’s decision to suspend Ken Livingstone in 2006 when he compared a Jewish Evening Standard journalist to a Nazi concentration camp guard. Reviewing the papers on Marr, Owen Jones called it ‘another example’ of a ‘poisonous’ and ‘disgraceful’ campaign that had tried to brand Khan as an extremist simply because he’s a Muslim. He called it ‘an attempt to tap into anti-Muslim prejudice’ and urged Conservatives to tackle Islamophobia as vigorously as his own party is tackling anti-Semitism.

      But is the Conservative mayoral candidate’s campaign, which is being run by Crosby Textor, guilty of Islamophobia? The accusation isn’t that Goldsmith or anyone linked to the campaign has said anything overtly Islamophobic. Rather, they’re been accused of ‘dog whistle’ politics – of trying to play on people’s anxieties about Islamism and terrorism by posing questions about Khan’s links to Islamist extremists.

      I know from experience that it’s extremely difficult to defend yourself when accused of these things. You can point out that nothing you’ve said or done is, in your view, racist or Islamophobic, but your accuser will simply respond that it’s not for you, as a privileged white male, to define what is and isn’t an example of the sin in question. Indeed, any attempt to do so, with the implication that you are a better judge of the matter than a member of a victim group, will itself be denounced as an example of racism. What your accuser is effectively saying – and this applies to the critics of Goldsmith’s campaign – is that they can see into your heart and they know you’re guilty. Any attempt to deny it is just one more piece of evidence to be used against you.

      But any reasonable person would want to know the answers to some key questions before making up their minds about this, such as whether Goldsmith has any form in this area – has he been accused of Islamophobia before? – and whether Khan actually does have links with Islamist extremists. They might also wonder whether Goldsmith’s opponents, like Owen Jones, are disinterested observers or have something to gain by branding his campaign ‘poisonous’ and ‘disgraceful’.

      To my knowledge, Goldsmith has never been accused of anything like this before. He has a good relationship with the Kingston Muslim Association in his constituency and has held surgeries in the local mosque. But, of course, his accusers have an answer for this. According to them, Goldsmith is a decent man brought low by his desire to win an election. The fact that there’s no evidence of any Islamophobia prior to the campaign makes him even more of a villain. He has sacrificed his principles for political power, etc, etc.

      What about Khan? There’s no question that he’s made all the right noises during the campaign, condemning extremism and being one of the first senior Labour figures to call for Livingstone’s suspension last week. And to give him credit, he has earned the lifelong enmity of various radical Islamists by supporting gay marriage.

      But you don’t have to go back very far in Khan’s past to find links with some pretty unsavoury characters. Some of these associations date back to his time as a director of Liberty and a human rights lawyer – trying to get the UK to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man’, and speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organisation that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. But other instances are less easily explained away by his professional commitments.

      For instance, in 2004 he appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organised by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen. He was billed not as a director of Liberty or human rights lawyer, but as a Labour parliamentary candidate.

      In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whom the MCB described as ‘a voice of reason and understanding’. At the time, the MCB issued a press release blaming the ‘smear campaign’ against Qaradawi on ‘the Zionist lobby’. Khan himself gave evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in which he said ‘there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that Mr Al-Qaradawi is not the extremist that he is painted as being’.

      So who is this Muslim scholar, who was warmly welcomed to London in 2004 by Ken Livingstone? Among other things, he’s the author of a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals shours be killed. Most notoriously, he condones ‘martyrdom operations’, i.e. suicide bombings, against Israeli civilians, which he describes as ‘God’s justice’: ‘Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.’ In spite of holding these views, Qaradawi is not an ‘extremist’ in Khan’s eyes.

      In 2006, by which time he’d been elected to Parliament, Khan was one of the signatories of a letter to the Guardian that blamed terrorist incidents, such as 7/7, on British foreign policy, particularly Britain’s support for Israel. ‘It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,’ it said.

      So 10 years ago Khan held similar views about 7/7 to those of Ken Livingstone, who sparked outrage last November when he said on Question Time that Tony Blair’s foreign policy was to blame for the terrorist attack that left 52 Londoners dead.

      Khan has positioned himself as being on Labour’s ‘soft left’ and he was Ed Miliband’s campaign manager during the 2010 leadership election, but views such as these align him more closely with Jeremy Corbyn, whom he nominated during the 2015 leadership election. As you’d expect, he has done his utmost to distance himself from Corbyn since securing the mayoral nomination, but he wouldn’t have won it without the support of Corbyn’s allies, including Len McCluskey, and he’s relying on the campaign muscle of Momentum – the grassroots Corbynite organisation – to get out the vote for him later this week.

      It’s also worth pointing out that those who’ve been the most vociferous in their condemnation of Goldsmith’s campaign as ‘Islamophobic’ are Corbyn’s closest allies – people like Owen Jones and Diane Abbott. They have a vested interest in seeing Khan win the mayoral election because if he doesn’t, Corbyn will surely be toast. As it is, the local election results are set to be Labour’s worst in opposition since 1982 and the party could lose control in Wales and be beaten into third place in Scotland. Winning in London is the only thing that can save Corbyn’s skin.

      I, too, have been accused of ‘dog whistle’ politics for asking questions about Khan’s past – after I tweeted a link to Goldsmith’s article yesterday, Jones denounced me as ‘one of the most unpleasant individuals I have ever had the misfortune to encounter’. But it’s not as if I’ve confined myself to just criticising Khan for being wobbly on this issue. When it comes to pointing out links between senior Labour politicians and Islamic extremists, I’m an equal opportunities offender.

      The truth is, it’s not Islamophobic to point out Khan’s dubious associations, any more than it would be ageist to point out Jeremy Corbyn’s. Indeed, one of Khan’s most persuasive critics is Atma Singh, Ken Livingstone’s advisor on Asian affairs from 2001-07. The only people guilty of being ‘poisonous’ and ‘disgraceful’ in this mayoral race are those making these baseless accusations – and let’s not forget the same charge was made against critics of Lutfur Rahman.

      I thought twice before writing this piece because I know it will bring another flurry of unpleasant accusations from the hard left. But it’s perfectly legitimate to scrutinise those who would wield power over us, even if those individuals happen to belong to a minority group. Khan shouldn’t be given a free pass just because he’s a Muslim, any more than his religion should be a reason not to vote for him. Many of the views he’s expressed in the past and the people he’s associated with suggest he belongs on the regressive left, alongside Corbyn, Abbott and Livingstone. Indeed, until last Friday he was happy for Livingstone to join him on the campaign trail and was proud of the former mayor’s endorsement. Pointing that out isn’t blowing a dog whistle and it isn’t Islamophobic. It’s a fact that should be taken into account by London’s voters, along with many other facts about Sadiq Khan, when they go to the polls on Thursday.

      • opheliart permalink

        and we can all ask about obama’s very recent visit to the UK … while flint parents struggle and … all the other terrors in the US … or can’t we?

        if someone said to me, “hey, it has been revealed that the president of the US has been secretly funding and supporting islam in nations, including the US” … I wouldn’t blink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: