quinta-feira, 30 de abril de 2015

Esto Vir - Seja Homem

Outro dia eu comprei no site Veste Sacra a camisa acima do Apostolado Esto Vir. Esto Vir, significa "Seja Homem". Gostei muito da mensagem deste apostolado: "sê corajoso, porta-te como homem", tirado das palavras do Rei Davi para seu filho Salomão. Eles poderiam acrescentar as palavras de São Paulo a Timóteo (2 Tim 4:2): "pregue o evangelho de Deus, quando é conveniente e também quando não é conveniente". Desejo que o apostolado tenha muito sucesso nos caminhos de Cristo.

Eu costumo dizer que o que falta no mundo e muito especialmente no Brasil são homens, no sentido completo da palavra. Aqueles "pegam sua cruz e seguem". Aqueles que, nas palavras de Santo Inácio, "trabalham, como se tudo dependesse deles, e têm fé, como se tudo dependesse de Deus".

Eu lembrei desta camisa quando li a notícia sobre Renald Luzier, principal cartunista da revista Charlie Hebdo, cujos cartunistas forma mortos por terroristas islâmicos na França.

Luzier disse que não ia mais fazer caricatura de Maomé. A desculpa que ele deu foi: "Maomé não me interessa".

Desculpa estúpida para o medo.

Eu diria para ele: Esto Vir!

Como dizia minha vó: "quem não pode com o pote não segura na rodilha".

Abandone a Charlie Hebdo, Luzier, pois você não pode com o pote.

Sigam o Apostolado Esto Vir.

Os garotos-gigantes que falei aqui ontem no blog, seguiram o conselho do Rei Davi e de São Paulo.

quarta-feira, 29 de abril de 2015

Vídeo: Os Garotos-Gigantes contra CNBB/PT

O Thyself, O Lord não poderia se eximir de exibir este vídeo, também divulgado por outros sites católicos.

Viva estes garotos que se levantam contra o comunismo dentro da Igreja!.

Vendo este povo da CNBB/PT falar de revolução armada em favor de um partido político que prega aborto e socialismo dentro de um prédio católico é de chorar. Não sei como aquele crucifixo da parede aguenta tanta heresia satânica.

terça-feira, 28 de abril de 2015

Famoso Filósofo Católico: "Papa Francisco é Ditatorial e Não tá nem aí para Teologia"

Ilustre filósofo católico alemão, Robert Spaemann, amigo de longa data de Bento XVI, chamou Papa Francisco de autocrático  e pessoa que "não lê muito, nem se importa com teologia". Spaemann detona fortemente o método de pontificado de Francisco.

Estou sem tempo para traduzir, nem mesmo para esclarecer o texto. Mas aqui vai o artigo que foi disponibilizado pleo site Life News.

Famed German Catholic philosopher makes waves for criticizing Pope Francis’ ‘autocratic’ style

April 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- In a recent lengthy interview with the German Catholic journal Herder Korrespondenz in an issue especially dedicated to the theme of Pope Francis, the renowned and arguably most prominent Catholic philosopher in Germany, Professor Robert Spaemann, a long-time friend of Pope Benedict, has gone public with a strong criticism of Pope Francis that is being discussed nation-wide.
At the beginning of this interview-discussion that included also another German Catholic philosopher, Professor Hans Joas, Spaemann in a calm and differentiated way first acknowledged Pope Francis' strengths and especially what he calls his “traditional piety”: “He speaks like a Latin-American bishop who is fully rooted in the piety of his people.” Spaemann continues:
On the other side, in my view, his cult of spontaneity is not helping. In the Vatican, some people are already sighing: 'Today, he has already again another different idea from yesterday.' One does not fully get rid of the impression of chaos. And it is irritating how he prepares the Synod. It is the intention that two parties meet at the synod which the Pope wants to lead into a dialogue whereby he himself plays the role of a moderator. In the same time, however, he takes sides already in advance by favoring the position of Cardinal Walter Kasper, he has excluded the John Paul II Institute for Studies on the Family from the pre-Synod consultations and tries with the help of explicit pressure to influence those consultations.”
Spaemann then also criticized Pope Francis for dismissing personnel who have been close to Pope Benedict XVI: “Pope Francis always stresses his close bond with Pope Benedict. In certain ways that certainly also exists. But I wonder why he throws so many people out of the Vatican who had been called in by Benedict.”
The 87-year old Spaemann who had taught at important universities such as the University of Heidelberg and the University of Munich, also criticized Pope Francis for his way of electing new cardinals:
“Take the recent elections of new cardinals. There have now entered into the government of the whole Church completely unknown bishops who at times only have 15,000 Catholics in their dioceses. Bishops with larger dioceses, however, were passed by, even though one must have seen in them a certain extraordinary quality when they were chosen to be archbishops. Why are they then not called to the top? I ask myself, what will be the result in the end – next to a fleeting symbolic gesture? The upcoming Synod will especially have to show what the Holy Father intends.”
The progressive Professor Hans Joas, Spaemann's counterpart in this interview, largely supported Pope Francis, and even goes so far as to defend extramarital sexual commerce as such. But even he agreed with Spaemann in some of his criticism concerning the previous and the upcoming Synod on Marriage and the Family:
“The greater danger is, however – and here we agree – that, through this dynamic that he [Pope Francis] fosters, he could break loose massive conflicts and the bad centrifugal forces could put in danger the Church as a whole. The analogy to Mikhail Gorbachev comes to mind – with all its differences: There comes a reformer from above and the changes make the whole edifice sway. That has to be avoided at all cost.”
When Spaemann was then asked how he responded to the fact that the first words of the newly elected Pope Francis on the balcony were, “Buona sera [good evening],” Spaemann responded: “'O God, does this need to be?' I said.”
Spaemann's sharply critical view of Pope Francis becomes even clearer after he was asked about the possible future results of this papacy. In his critique, Spaemann refers to the teaching of the Gospels as his decisively formative guide:
“It can be that Francis' way is perceived as a new start – or as a failure. I always try to find a standard with which to measure by reading the Gospels and the Letters of the Apostles. St. Paul says that there will come teachers who say things that sound beautiful for the ears and the people will follow them. But you, says St. Paul to Timothy, shall not be confounded. Pass on the treasure that you have received, in an unfalsified and unshortened manner.”
Spaemann especially insists in this interview that one should not separate doctrine from practice. When asked about Pope Francis' warning against a Christendom of ideas and his favoring a Christendom of deeds, the philosopher replies:
“I find this formulation awkward. Both have to come together. Francis divides the two areas of the Church – theology and practice. And wants to keep them separate. The theologians shall do their work, but the shepherds shall not pay much attention to them. It seems to me that he does not read much, and does not care much about theology. However, in my view both have to be brought together. The theology becomes bloodless and abstract, when the pastoral experience does not flow into it. But vice versa, the pastoral care also becomes empty and does not know what it shall teach if it does not have a theological foundation.”
When asked whether the loving and liberating message of Christ should stand at the center of the Church's teaching, Spaemann reminds us that Jesus Christ also warned us of the danger of the eternal loss of our souls:
“But the teaching of the catechism is unambiguous: Jesus does not only proclaim the loving God; He announces Himself to be the Judge of the living and the dead. The ones He will receive into His kingdom, the others He condemns. Therefore, the sermons of Jesus are filled with warnings. Do we want to ignore them? Does this mean to ignore the signs of the time?”
On looking back upon the papacy of Benedict XVI, Spaemann sees that Benedict gave the Church the gift of a greater spiritual freedom. He says: “There is a spiritual freedom that Benedict XVI has brought into the Church.” The German philosopher also praises Benedict XVI for having removed some grave injustices concerning the liturgy:
“He has tried to integrate into the Church the spiritual potential of those people who like to attend the old Mass. That is a great achievement. Francis sometimes turns up his nose at the friends of the old Mass. I consider this to be hurtful. […] In Buenos Aires it was of all people Bergoglio who one week after the publication of Summorum Pontificum gave a significant Church to the followers of the old Mass.”
Spaemann, as well as his colleague, Joas, both express in this interview their critique of Pope Francis' sometimes “autocratic” methods and leadership. Spaemann says:
“The pope has the unrestricted power of definition and also the full jurisdiction, something that the Orthodoxy for example completely rejects. Francis stresses that he can directly intervene in every diocese of the world. If Benedict would have said something like that, there would have been an outcry. But with Francis, the powers of the Pope are again stressed in a stronger way. And no newspaper is upset.”
And at another place, Spaemann says: “This Pope is one of the most autocratic [popes] that we have had in a long time.”
Joas adds to this criticism:
“With regard to the changes in the Vatican, I considered the public humiliation of his employees in the speech of the Pope before Christmas to be problematic. A critique of such a manner has to happen either in a non-public form or there must be the possibility of expressed disagreement. To humiliate people publicly I consider to be autocratic in a negative sense.”
In relation to the last and to the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family, Spaemann shows clearly a concern that the pope could cause a split within the Church:
“There must be a true dialogue. […] But in the end, there will be the question of the outcome. Will the split within the Church grow larger, or can something be brought closer together? The Synod serves to take everybody along, that is a good thought, if only the pope omits to be moderator and partisan at the same time.”
Toward the end of the interview, Robert Spaemann makes some strong comments about the question of the “remarried” divorcees and about the fact that dioceses in the world treat this question in very different ways. Spaemann comments:
“No, it cannot be that in the one diocese it is dealt with in another fashion than in another one. Each bishop has authority in his diocese. But a true authority, for example, of a Bishop's Conference does not exist. Therefore, unified solutions are needed. And especially, things have to fit together. I can not speak on the one hand of the indissolubility of marriage and of the sinfulness of extramarital sexual commerce, and then on the other hand give the Church's blessing to a 'new bed community'.”
Professor Spaemann insists that the Church needs to transmit the moral teaching in a new and adapted manner, but not to adapt the teaching itself:
“If a greater adaptation to the modern 'way of life' of the Church would be the way, then Protestantism which goes this way should have fewer losses than the Catholic Church, which is not the case. The approval of the true indissolubility of marriage has to be the condition for admitting someone to the Sacrament of Marriage. Only in this way can a marriage experience the happiness that binds itself with the consciousness that this bond has been written in the stars from whence nobody can call it down.”
In this context, Spaemann repeats the teaching of the Church concerning extramarital sexual commerce and refers back to the time of Jesus Christ where people were shocked about His teaching:
“The Gospels say so [that it is forbidden]. These are the words of Jesus. Then people say that it is too difficult for the people of today. Yes, it also became difficult for the people at the times of Jesus. When Jesus said that the marriage cannot be dissolved, the reaction of the Apostles was not enthusiasm; on the contrary, they were shocked and asked who then still wanted to marry. They were shocked, just the same as people are shocked today.”
With these words, the German philosopher Spaemann reminds all of us that Christ's standard is always the same and will always remain the same and that the sinful and adulterous world of the time of Christ had to obey Him, just as our own world now has to adapt itself to Him Who came to redeem us and to save us.

(Agradeço a indicação do texto ao site Vox Cantoris)

segunda-feira, 27 de abril de 2015

Papa Francisco está ficando Conservador Lentamente?

Li dois textos recentemente que são correlacionados. O primeiro é representante dos esquerdistas que estão cada vez mais reticentes e críticos com o Papa Francisco. O outro que diz que o Papa Francisco está ficando conservador "step by step" (passo a passo). 

Será? Rezemos, pela proteção da Doutrina da Igreja.

Vejamos parte dos dois textos.

O primeiro é da política esquerdista australiana Kristina Keneally, que escreveu no jornal The Guardian. Kenally diz que o Papa está cada vez mais parecido com a Sarah Palin (política conservadora dos Estados Unidos). Ela diz que está tendo uma "crise na sua fé". 

Ela fez uma análise bem rasteira do Papa, mas é importante para ver o que a esquerda católica quer: uma Igreja pró-gay, pró-divorciados, liberando aborto, políticas econômicas socialistas, etc. toda a agenda da esquerda. 

Vejamos alguns parágrafos do texto dela:

I'm starting to have a crisis of faith. Not in God, but rather, in Pope Francis.
It seems a betrayal to even write these words. I’m a progressive Catholic who longs for a church that is more welcoming of women, homosexuals and divorced people. I want a church where the hierarchy spends more time talking about liberating the poor and oppressed and less time lecturing about birth control. I pray for a church that comprehensively faces the causes of child sexual abuse so we can have confidence such systematic evil will never occur again.
Francis – global superstar, media darling, a truly modern pope – is the best hope people like me have had for many years, right? He’s the second coming of John XXIII, isn’t he?
I confess that I am starting to doubt it.
Francis swept into the Chair of St Peter with such animation and apparent determination to up-end the traditional notions of how popes ought to behave.
Washing the feet of prisoners, including women and Muslims. Refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace. Apparently calling a woman who married a divorced man in a civil ceremony to assure her it’s OK to go to communion. Refusing to judgehomosexuals.
“I love this guy,” proclaimed the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. Catholics everywhere – especially progressive Catholics, but also those who were lapsed or just bored – enthusiastically agreed.
The pope has transmogrified into the most modern of all creatures: a 21st century celebrity. Having spent the past two years taking selfies, delighting crowds with his antics and entertaining the media with his well-placed “off the cuff” quips, Francis is starting to look familiar. Think Sarah Palin, or Kevin Rudd: people who confuse popularity with leadership, or celebrity with substance.

I know that Jesus says judge not lest ye be judged. And I also know I am being a bit harsh. Francis has taken a meat cleaver to the Vatican Bank, delivered a scathing assessment of the Curia, shut down a witch-hunt inquiry into the US Catholic nuns’ leadership group, and got the world to pay attention to issues likeboat people and financial inequality. Later this year he will publish an encyclical on climate change. Because of these actions, the American conservative Catholics are not happy with him.
But has Francis really changed the church? If the pope moves on in two or three years, what will he have left behind? A church more welcoming of the talents of all its members, more accepting of all those who love God and live faithful lives, and a safer place for children, or a just a string of Instagram pictures, warm memories and the latent fizz of lost celebrity? I pray it is the former. I pray the Holy Spirit is moving.

O segundo texto é bem mais profundo do que a análise rasa de Keneally. Mas não fiquei muito convencido. Apesar de gostar da análise "periferia versos Vaticano". 

O texto é de Andrea Gagliarducci no site Monday Vatican que nos apresenta um Papa Francisco se movendo para o conservadorismo passo a passo.

Vejamos parte do que Andrea diz:

Pope Francis and the family – it’s time for clarification. April 15 was the deadline given to dioceses to return the questionnaire to the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops in preparation for the up-coming Synod. Then, beginning on April 15, Pope Francis dedicated his address intwo consecutive general audiences to the complementarity between man and woman. In his speeches, Pope Francis defended the traditional family, and attacked gender ideology, emphasizing that“difference is the solution, it is not the problem.”

Those who believed that Pope Francis’ pastoral revolution presaged a doctrinal change in terms of marriage and family heaved a sigh of relief upon hearing his latest words. As far as family issues are concerned, it turns out that Pope Francis adheres to traditional Church teaching. His push toward a more pastoral approach does not necessarily mean he is going to water down doctrine, as was commonly thought. It now seems that those who were claiming the Pope’s support for such changes were probably trying to manipulate him.

It seems to be the fate of this papacy to be romanticized and mystified in some ways. Yet more in-depth analysis reveals that the truth about it is more trivial, and it is found in Pope Francis’ biography. The man who came “from the end of the world” was never fond of the Roman Curia, and probably saw in it a reflection of the Jesuits’ General Curia that isolated him for a decade, before Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, plucked him from peripheries and promoted him as his auxiliary bishop.

Viewed from the peripheries, the Roman Curia can seem a place of illicit dealings and general dysfunction. This is how the media depict it, wishing to draw attention to the Church’s shadowy side. It is seen this way, too, by some of the non-Italian clerics who, upon entering the curial ranks, have to work hard to understand mechanisms and languages so different from those they left behind. And so, too, local bishops view the Roman Curia in a negative light, barely able as they are to stand what they consider to be interference in the form of appointments and decisions made by Rome.

From the perspective of the peripheries, the Curia seems like a medieval relic that can definitely be abolished, unnecessary as it is for the Church’s mission. Paradoxically, it is only by living within this institution that one can understand how it guarantees freedom for the Church.

Little by little Pope Francis has understood this point, as this anecdote may show. The new Italian President went to the Vatican for a state visit on April 18. The protocol for such a visit – which is also the legacy of historical relations between the Holy See and Italy – includes an exchange of public speeches, and requires that both the Pope and the President wear their designated official attire for state occasions.

According to a source, Pope Francis did not want the full ceremony to take place. He would have had to wear the red “mozzetta,” but he has not done so from the first day of his pontificate, nor does he do so when the occasion calls for it, as during the New Year’s reception of ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. The Italian President agreed not to wear his official dress, but his entourage asked that the protocol for a state visit, even one simplified in accord with Pope Francis’ style, should, however, be observed.

Pressured somewhat by the recommendations of his diplomatic consultants, the Pope had to agree. Nevertheless, after the meeting, he became aware that by observing the proper protocol for a state visit he was able to address the Italian nation directly, whereas if only a private meeting had taken place between himself and the President, it would have remained confidential, and the details would not have been disclosed. So in the end the Pope understood that the full ceremony of a state visit allowed him to communicate directly and fully a message that otherwise would have been truncated within the confines of a cold communiqué agreed to with the Italian State press office.

This anecdote does not mean that Pope Francis will always agree to perform his official role in the traditional way. Yet it is the latest signal that the Pope’s “revolution” has step by step reverted back into something more established. Those who had pushed for the revolution are very much aware of this fact.

On April 13, Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, Coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, presented in Rome a new series of books on Pope Francis. In a short meeting with journalists after the presentation, the Cardinal spoke about the ongoing reforms, and about how they are being carried forward. One question concerned the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the so-called ‘Vatican Bank’, which was not part ofthe discussions at the recent meeting. Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga replied that everything went well, that the reform was moving along. When someone observed aloud that he was among those who had wanted to abolish the IOR, he turned stone cold. Then he explained: “We understood that abolishing the Institute would have damaged Religious Congregations who would have sustained a financial loss. So we agreed that it was better to heal a sick person than to resurrect a dead one.”

Cardinal Rodriguez’s words nailed the coffin shut on proposals to dismantle the Roman Curia that had begun circulating immediately following Pope Francis’ election. Prior to the last meeting of the Council of Cardinals, Cardinal Rodriguez went to Madrid and took part in a round table with Spanish journalists organized by the weekly ‘Vida Nueva’. One of the questions asked was about the synod. The Cardinal explained that the synod’s method is that of “observing, judging and acting,” and that this method may also lead to a decision to add a third leg to the synod. “We do not know if at the end of the coming October synod, the process will end, or the Pope will convoke a third synod. This could be the case, because the synod deals with very important issues…”

But even these words show that the hoped for doctrinal revolution is stalled.

sábado, 25 de abril de 2015

Ex-General Soviético: "Teologia da Libertação foi Criada pela KGB"

Ion Mihai Pacepa foi general da extinta União Soviética. É o oficial de mais alta patente a desertar para o Ocidente.

Ele escreveu um artigo no site da National Review com o título: The Secret Roots of the Liberation Theology" (As Raízes Secretas da Teologia da Libertação).

Ele acusa a KGB de criar deliberadamente um "marxismo cristão" na América Latina. Em especial, ele acusa o atual Patriarca da Igreja Ortodoxa Russa: Patriarca Kirill, de ter sido o agente da KGB que esteve à frente da tarefa de destruir o cristianismo latino-americano com ideias comunistas.

Eu sei que há gente que há muito tempo diz isso, como o filósofo Olavo de Carvalho. Eu nunca duvidei, mas acho também que a KGB ou simplesmente o comunismo sempre teve terreno fértil na América Latina, por conta do nosso raso cristianismo. Para a KGB, bastaria jogar uma semente, se fez isso deliberadamente, não deve ter gastado muitos recursos.

Quando eu morei em Cambridge (Reino Unido), eu soube dos Cambridge Five, espiões soviéticos que trabalhavam dentro da inteligência britânica. O comunismo atraiu eles, representantes de uma das mais respeitadas universidades do mundo. O comunismo facilmente atraiu mentes muitas mais fracas.

Vejamos parte do texto de Pacepa. Ele está lançando o livro acima, que vai virar filme. Leiam todo o texto clicando no link.

The Secret Roots of Liberation Theology

by ION MIHAI PACEPA April 23, 2015 4:00 PM 

History often repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing the reenactment with your own eyes. 

Liberation theology, of which not much has been heard for two decades, is back in the news. But what is not being mentioned is its origins. It was not invented by Latin American Catholics. It was developed by the KGB. The man who is now the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, secretly worked for the KGB under the code name “Mikhailov” and spent four decades promoting liberation theology, which we at the top of the Eastern European intelligence community nicknamed Christianized Marxism. 

Liberation theology has been generally understood to be a marriage of Marxism and Christianity. What has not been understood is that it was not the product of Christians who pursued Communism, but of Communists who pursued Christians. I described the birth of liberation theology in my book Disinformation, co-authored with Professor Ronald Rychlak. 

Its genesis was part of a highly classified Party/State Disinformation Program, formally approved in 1960 by KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and Politburo member Aleksei Kirichenko, then the second in the party hierarchy after Nikita Khrushchev. In 1971, the KGB sent Kirill — who had just been elevated to the rank of archimandrite — to Geneva as emissary of the Russian Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches. The WCC was, and still is, the largest international religious organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations in 120 countries. Kirill/Mikhailov’s main task was to involve the WCC in spreading the new liberation theology throughout Latin America. In 1975, the KGB was able to infiltrate Kirill into the Central Committee of the WCC — a position he held until he was “elected” patriarch of Russia, in 2009. Not long after he joined the Central Committee, Kirill reported to the KGB: “Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.” 

During Kirill’s years at the helm of the WCC, liberation theology put down deep roots in Latin America — where the map now has significant patches of red. Russian military ships and bombers are back in Cuba for the first time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and Russia has also newly sent ships and bombers to Venezuela. Pope John Paul II, who knew the Communist playbook well, was not taken in by the Soviets’ liberation theology. In 1983, his friend and trusted colleague Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who at that time was head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, discarded as Marxist the liberation-theology idea that class struggle is fundamental to history. The cardinal called liberation theology a “singular heresy” and blasted it as a “fundamental threat” to the Church. 

Tsarism and Communism may have been swallowed up by the sands of time, but the Kremlin continues this tradition. Throughout its history, Russia has been a samoderzhaviye, a traditional Russian form of totalitarian autocracy in which a feudal lord rules the country and the church with the help of his political police force. The latter, whenever it had a sticky image problem, simply changed its name — from Okhrana to Cheka, to GPU, to OGPU, to NKVD, to NKGB, to MGB, to MVD, to KGB — ­and pretended it was a brand new organization. 

Many deceased KGB officers must have been chortling in their graves on New Year’s Eve, 1999, when their old boss, Vladimir Putin, at one time my KGB counterpart, enthroned himself in the Kremlin. During the Cold War, the KGB was a state within a state. Now the KGB — rechristened FSB — is the state itself. According to a study published in the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, by 2003, some 6,000 former KGB officers were running Russia’s federal and local governments. The respected British newspaper the Guardian reports that President Putin has secretly accumulated over $40 billion, becoming Europe’s richest man. In Russia, the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. 

This brings us back to Kirill/Mikhailov. In 2006 Archbishop Kirill’s personal wealth was estimated at $4 billion by the Moscow News. No wonder. In the mid-1990s, the Russian Orthodox Church’s Department for External Church Relations, managed by Kirill, was granted the privilege of duty-free importation of cigarettes as reward for his loyalty to the KGB. It did not take long for him to become the largest supplier of foreign cigarettes in Russia. 

A few years ago, while Kirill was visiting Ukraine as the new Patriarch of Russia, a newspaper published a photo in which the prelate could be seen wearing a Breguet wristwatch, the price of which was estimated at 30,000 euros. The Russian newspaper Kommersant accused Kirill of abusing the privilege of duty-free importation of cigarettes, and dubbed him the “tobacco metropolitan.” Kirill denied having such a watch. 

He said the photograph must have been altered by his enemies, and he posted the “real” photograph on his official website. A careful study of this “real” photograph, however, shows that the Breguet watch had been airbrushed off his wrist, but its reflection is still clearly visible on a table surface beneath his arm. Mikhailov and his KGB, rechristened FSB, are now doing their best to airbrush out the apron strings connecting them to liberation theology. Let’s not allow them to succeed. 

(Agradeço o texto ao site New Advent)

sexta-feira, 24 de abril de 2015

Brasil: Evangélicos, Católicos e os Gays

Olhem o que disse ontem o senador cearense Eunício Oliveira, falando sobre o presidente da Câmara Eduardo Cunha:

"Senador é senador, deputado é deputado. O sistema é bicameral. Somos do mesmo partido, mas não quer dizer que pensamos igual. O Eduardo [Cunha] é evangélico, eu sou católico. Ele é contra minorias, gays e lésbicas, eu não sou. As coisas são assim".

Como é que é? Evangélico é contra gays e lésbicas? E Católicos são a favor? Ele está querendo dizer que os evangélicos não aceitam os gays ou o casamento gay e os católicos aceitariam?

Bom, evangélicos e católicos têm uma fonte em comum: a Bíblia. E a Bíblia, na versão protestante e também na versão católica, contém as seguintes passagens:

Gênesis 19:4-8 sobre a destruição de Sodoma por conta do homossexualismo. Lot oferece suas duas filhas a população de Sodoma, mas eles querem homens: "Mas, antes que se tivessem deitado, eis que os homens da cidade, os homens de Sodoma, se agruparam em torno da casa, desde os jovens até os velhos, toda a população. E chamaram Lot: “Onde estão, disseram-lhe, os homens que entraram esta noite em tua casa? Conduze-os a nós para que os conheçamos.” Saiu Lot a ter com eles no limiar da casa, fechou a porta atrás de si e disse-lhes: “Suplico-vos, meus irmãos, não cometais este crime.Vede! Eu tenho duas filhas que ainda são virgens; eu vo-las trarei: fazei com elas o que achardes melhor. Mas não façais nada a estes homens, porque eles estão hospedados em minha casa".

Levítico 18:22: "Não te deites com um homem, como se fosse com uma mulher: é uma abominação."

No Novo Testamento:

1 Coríntios 6:9-10: "Não sabeis que os injustos não herdarão o Reino de Deus? Não vos iludais! Nem os imorais, nem os idólatras, nem os adúlteros, nem os depravados, em os efeminados, nem os sodomitas, nem os ladrões, nem os avarentos, nem os bêbados, nem os caluniadores irão herdar o Reino de Deus."

1 Timóteo 1:8-10: "Sabemos que a Lei é boa, contanto que a tomemos como uma lei. Ela não é destinada ao justo, mas aos iníquos e rebeldes, ímpios e pecadores, sacrílegos e profanadores, parricidas e matricidas, homicidas, impudicos, pederastas, mercadores de escravos, mentirosos, para os que juram falso, e para tudo o que se oponha à sã doutrina,"

Romanos 1:25-27: "Trocaram a verdade de Deus pela mentira e adoraram e serviram a criatura em lugar do Criador, que é bendito para sempre. Amén. Por isso, Deus entregou os homens a paixões vergonhosas: suas mulheres mudaram a relação natural em relação contra a natureza. Os homens fizeram o mesmo: deixaram a relação natural com a mulher e arderam de paixão uns com os outros, cometendo atos torpes entre si, recebendo dessa maneira em si próprios a paga pela sua aberração."

Falando da Doutrina do Catolicismo, a Doutrina não condena a atração pelo mesmo sexo, mas condena fortemente o ato homossexual. Assim, a Igreja condena os atos de gays e lésbicas, como não poderia deixar de ser, pois está condenado na Bíblia  e na Tradição Católica.

Mas eu consigo entender as palavras de Eunício Oliveira, os padres, bispos e a CNBB silenciam completamente sobre a opinião da Igreja. Os Evangélicos é que estão na linha de frente da defesa da verdade cristã no Brasil. Devemos parabenizar os evangélicos por isso.

Como se diz em inglês: "Shame on you, Catholic Church in Brazil" (É culpa da Igreja Católica no Brasil). A Igreja Católica no Brasil deveria se sentir envergonhada, por termos de ouvir isso de um senador.

O que vemos da CNBB é um modelo meio hippie de "paz e amor", não quer conflito, apenas distribui sorrisos.  

quinta-feira, 23 de abril de 2015

Site: Os Primeiro Cristãos

Aprenda sobre a perseguição aos primeiros cristãos, como eles viviam e como um dos primeiros inimigos (romanos) os perseguiam. Saiba sobre o sofrimento deles e as falsas acusações que eles recebiam: infanticídio, incesto, ateísmo, idolatria.

O Rome Reports informa sobre um site muito interessante chamado Primeros Cristianos. O site tem muita informação, com vídeos e indicação de livros, escrito em espanhol, inglês e outras línguas. Muito bom.

Vejam abaixo a descrição do site feita pelo Rome Reports.

Where to learn about early Christians on the Internet


The first Christian communities were formed two thousand years ago, but the problems of that age perhaps aren't very different from what people face today.

March 4, 2014
"I tell you: today there are more martyrs than in the times of the Early Christians.”

Hunter, Jaime, and Cene created Primeroscristianos.com, which translates to "Early Christians.” The website describes the lives of actual people who belonged to the early Church. They said that today's Christians can learn a lot from the the first ones.

"I think we take a look of the news today and we see all the things that are happening to Christians in the Middle East especially. And I think it's important we remember the roots of Christianity, of where we come from, and have a better sense for what it really means to live the faith.”

"The first Christians were in a very paganized society. The writings of St. Paul and the attitude of the early Christians was, 'Let's change things.'”

A wide variety of information can be found on the website, such as the origin of the Rosary or how early Christians celebrated Easter. It also includes stories of people who died for the faith, like the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste or Saint Cecilia, the patron saint of music.

"A Roman noble woman that had converted sang hymns to God while being tortured. You discover how the early Christians lived in a world that, in a sense, is similar to ours because they were few but they had big aspirations.”

The website already is already eight-years-old and is published in English, French, Italian, and Spanish. It includes more than just information about early Christians. Also provided is the latest news about Pope Francis. The creators said that a website about the past still can't lose sight of the present.

quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015

O Mal ganha Impulso nas Universidades. A História mostra.

Eu sempre achei que uma explicação para a decadência dos jesuítas, em matéria de defesa da Doutrina Católica, era a forte presença deles nas universidades. O católico William Buckley Jr. dizia que colocaria os primeiros de uma lista telefônica no poder, mas não professores universitários. Ele sabia do que estava falando.

Hoje, as universidades do mundo todo, em especial, as ocidentais, são todas esquerdistas e desprezam e xingam conservadores. Os exemplos são tantos que se torna desnecessário provar tal argumento. Uma simples manifestação contra o aborto dentro de universidades é considerado abusivo, fundamentalista e assim é proibido, seja no Brasil, nos Estados Unidos ou na França. Mas defender a "liberdade das mulheres" (isto é matança de crianças) está liberado e é exaltado.

Falo isso depois de ler um bom texto escrito pelo católico Robert Spencer, que lembra que o nazismo avançou muito na Alemanha por conta do apoio dos estudantes universitários, que impuseram que os professores defendessem o nazismo, com todas as suas vertentes (racismo, anti-semitismo, paganismo). Spencer escreve sobre as universidades americanas e relata o esquerdismo que não permite que se discuta abertamente o Islã.

Eu mesmo já tentei discutir Islã abertamente. Quando o seminário ocorreu em universidades foi quando me senti mais ameaçado e sozinho.

Vejamos o que disse Spencer, no site PJ Media.

The Brownshirts Are Back. And They’re in Our Universities.

It is not news that virtually all American universities are decidedly leftist institutions. Few Americans, however, are aware of how inhospitable they have become to free inquiry and free discourse, and how hostile they are to anyone who stands up for Western values and against the global jihad – as some recent developments illustrate.
What is happening in American universities today has a clear historical parallel.
In his seminal history The Coming of the Third Reich, Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, the universities became centers of Nazi indoctrination in which students collaborated with stormtroopers (brownshirts) to terrorize dissenters:
It was above all the students who drove forward the co-ordination process in the universities. They organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers, staged mass disruptions of their lectures and led detachments of stormtroopers in house-searches and raids.
Let’s take those one by one.
1. “It was above all the students who drove forward the co-ordination process in the universities.”
At Eastern Michigan University last Friday, two showings of the film American Sniperwere scheduled. But during the first, four Muslim students, Ahmed Abbas, Layali Alsadah, Jenna Hamed, and Sabreen Dari, climbed onto the stage and began to denounce the film, which many Islamic supremacists have complained is “Islamophobic” because it depicts Islamic jihad terrorists in a realistic manner. They were briefly arrested, but managed to get the second showing canceled.
Student Body President Desmond Miller offered some airy double talk:
“The conversation we had wanted to make sure student safety was at the forefront. We wanted to make sure whatever happens, students would be safe. The second part of it, which is actually just as important as the first part, was making sure we have a very serious dialogue about the movie and the propaganda associated with this movie.”
Sure, let’s have a “serious dialogue” about the movie while not showing the movie in question.
2. “They organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers…”
There are precious few professors that today’s new brownshirts would care to campaign against, so they turn their fire toward campus speakers. David Horowitz spoke at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last Monday, whereupon Manzoor Cheema, “Co-founder of Muslims for Social Justice,” wrote a letter to the campus newspaper, the Daily Tar Heel, saying that it was “distressing” that Horowitz had spoken, and “especially distressing in the wake of Chapel Hill tragedy where three Muslim youth were murdered.”
Did Horowitz applaud or condone the murder of those students? Of course not. Were they even murdered because they were Muslim? No.
But Cheema wasn’t going to let facts get in the way of his defamation; he added:
“Horowitz has supported work of such virulent Islamophobes as Robert Spencer, who was cited 162 times by the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik.”
Do I call for mass murder, or any kind of crime? I do not. Am I any more responsible for this psychopath’s murders than the Beatles are for the murders of Charles Manson? Even less so, for Manson claimed to have gotten his orders to kill from Beatles songs, while Breivik never says that he was inspired to kill by anything I wrote, and he wasn’t.
Cheema, however, doesn’t care to discuss these matters rationally, and doesn’t want his readers to do so, either. He just wants to sling enough mud at Horowitz that such invitations will not be extended again to those who deviate from the politically correct line.
The same day, the Daily Tar Heel ran two other letters denouncing Horowitz, and (of course) none supporting him.
3. “…staged mass disruptions of their lectures…”
Here again, it would be hard to find a professor that today’s Nazi thugs would want to silence, so they do it to campus speakers. Here (and embedded above) is video of me trying to speak at Temple University in April 2012.
Such occurrences are rare, however, because it is rare that a speaker with views that run counter to those of these glassy-eyed, indoctrinated cultists gets invited to speak at a university at all. And if one is invited, then the Leftist/Islamic supremacist machine kicks into gear to suppress the forbidden ideas. When he learned that my colleague Pamela Geller was invited to speak at Brooklyn College, Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fired off an email to four Brooklyn College officials, with the subject line “Is Brooklyn College Really Hosting the Nation’s Leading Islamophobe?”
Later, with a sneer of cold command, he followed up with another…

segunda-feira, 20 de abril de 2015

Quem é o Papa Francisco?

Ross Douthat, no site The Atlantic, escreveu um ótimo artigo condensando o que os biógrafos têm escrito sobre o Papa Francisco. 

É a melhor análise que já li sobre o Papa. É muito bom para entender este papa que fala muitas vezes de forma confusa, e que todos têm dificuldade de definir.

Em resumo, para entender Papa Francisco: 1) Olhe para a Argentina; 2) Para sua formação intelectual, e 3) Para os cardeais que o elegeram

Vejamos partes do texto. Leiam todo clicando no link.

Will Pope Francis Break the Church?

The new pope's choices stir high hopes among liberal Catholics and intense uncertainty among conservatives. Deep divisions may lie ahead.

The arc of Bergoglio’s life and career follows a literary script: youthful success, defeat and exile, unexpected vindication and ascent. Each of his three biographers approaches the story in a different way. Elisabetta Piqué, a correspondent for the Argentine newspaper La Nación, has written an intensely personal work (Bergoglio baptized her two children); her Pope Francis: Life and Revolution draws richly on interviews with Argentinians touched by Bergoglio’s pastoral work. The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, by the British Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh, has the widest angle and the most depth, taking in Argentina’s distinctive history as well as the particular trajectory of its now most famous son. In Pope Francis: Untying the Knots, Paul Vallely, another British Catholic writer on religion, develops a distinctive interpretation of his subject.

But the basic narrative is there in all three treatments. The descendant of Italian immigrants to Argentina, devout from an early age and committed to the priesthood after a teenage epiphany, Bergoglio entered the Jesuit order in 1958, just four years before the Second Vatican Council opened in Rome. His training was long (Jesuits spend more than a decade “in formation”) and initially old-fashioned in its rigors; the order in Argentina devoted a great deal of its work to educating the national elite. But by the time he took his final vow and became a Jesuit in full, in 1973, the reforms of the Council and the turbulence that followed had dramatically changed his order, and divided it.

Many of Bergoglio’s fellow Jesuits believed they had a postconciliar mandate to make the pursuit of social justice the order’s organizing mission. In Latin America, the emerging Big Idea for what this meant was liberation theology, which promoted a synthesis between Gospel faith and Marxist-flavored political activism. Argentina’s provincial, the head of the country’s Jesuits, Ricardo O’Farrell, offered encouragement to these ideas. He backed priests who essentially wanted to live as political organizers among Argentina’s poor. He also supported a syllabus rewrite that was “heavy on sociology and Hegelian dialectics,” as Ivereigh describes it, and lighter on traditional Catholic elements.

But O’Farrell soon found himself dealing with a crisis: the number of men entering the order plummeted, and more-conservative Jesuits openly revolted. In the summer of 1973, he stepped aside, and at just 36, Bergoglio was elevated in his place. In many ways he made a success of things. The order’s numbers rebounded, and he won many admirers among the priests formed under his leadership. But he made enemies as well, most of them on the order’s theological and political left. Radical priests felt that their revolution had been betrayed, and a coterie of Jesuit academics fretted that Bergoglio’s program for Jesuits in training—which restored traditional elements abandoned by O’Farrell—was too reactionary, too pre–Vatican II. Ivereigh quotes one critic marveling that Bergoglio encouraged students to
go to the chapel at night and touch images! This was something the poor did, the people of the pueblo, something that the Society of Jesus worldwide just doesn’t do. I mean, touching images … What is that?
His leadership also coincided with the 1976 military coup and the “Dirty War,” during which left-wing Jesuits were particular targets for the junta’s thugs. Bergoglio was accused of complicity in the arrest and torture of two priests, a charge that Ivereigh and Piqué think is baseless; Vallely hedges, but seems to mostly concur. Indeed, all three biographers make clear that Bergoglio labored tirelessly behind the scenes to save people (not only priests) in danger of joining the ranks of the “disappeared.”

But he did not attack the Dirty War publicly, and the Jesuits under his leadership kept a low political profile as well. The entire Argentine Church was a compromised force during the junta’s rule, and Bergoglio probably couldn’t have played the kind of role that, say, the soon-to-be-beatified archbishop Oscar Romero played in El Salvador. But some in the order blamed his conservatism, as they saw it, for the absence of a clear Jesuit witness against the junta’s crimes.

Eventually these critics gained the upper hand. Not long after Bergoglio’s term ended in 1979, his policies were altered or reversed. Just over a decade later, following a period in which the Argentine Jesuits were divided into pro- and anti-Bergoglio camps, he was exiled from the leadership, sent to a Jesuit residence in the mountain town of Córdoba, and essentially left to rot.

That exile lasted almost two years, and ended when John Paul II’s choice for the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Antonio Quarracino, reached out and picked Bergoglio to serve as one of his auxiliaries in 1992. The rescue made everything that followed possible, but it also completed the former provincial’s break with his own order. Ivereigh notes that over the next 20 years, during which he took many trips to the Vatican, Bergoglio never so much as set foot in the Jesuit headquarters in Rome.

So how, exactly, did the man who fought bitterly with left-wing Jesuits in the 1970s become the darling of progressive Catholics in the 2010s?

Piqué’s biography doesn’t even attempt to explain this seeming paradox. She blurs the tensions by treating Bergoglio’s 1970s-era critics dismissively—without really digging into the theological and political roots of the disputes—and then portraying Bergoglio the archbishop as basically progressive in his orientation. After succeeding Quarracino, she writes, he fought with “right-wing adversaries in the Roman Curia,” publicly showed annoyance at “obsessive strictness” on sexual ethics, and so on.

Vallely has a more creative argument. He suggests that Francis was essentially a pre–Vatican II traditionalist as provincial, and then, in exile, experienced a kind of theological and political conversion to his critics’ point of view. This is a fascinating idea, but perhaps too psychologically pat, and Vallely’s documentary evidence is interesting but thin. He makes much, for instance, of the older Bergoglio’s tendency to retrospectively criticize the too-hasty or overly authoritarian decision making of his earlier years. But much of this self-criticism seems more about style than about religious substance. And Vallely (like his sources) is rather too fond of false dichotomies: it’s supposed to be surprising, a sign of some radical interior change, that a theological conservative could be pastoral or want to spend time among the poor.

Bergoglio’s thinking clearly evolved. But the more plausible explanation for what’s going on emerges out of Ivereigh’s biography, which proposes a general continuity between the young provincial of the 1970s and the pope of today. To begin with, Ivereigh stresses that the younger Bergoglio was never a real traditionalist, never an enemy of Vatican II, never a foe of renewal or reform. Instead, he was trying to heed the warning of Yves Congar, the great mid-century Catholic theologian, that “true reform” must always be safeguarded from “false” alternatives. Bergoglio’s battles with radicals and liberals in his own order shouldn’t be interpreted as a case of the Catholic right resisting change. They should be understood as an attempt to steer a moderate course, to discern which changes are necessary and fruitful, and to reject the errors of both extremes.

Yet several crucial issues—some raised explicitly by Ivereigh, some implicit in all three biographies—set Francis’s background and worldview apart. They help explain why his pontificate looks much more friendly to progressive strands within Catholicism than anyone expected from the successor to the previous two popes.

First, Jorge Bergoglio had a very different experience of globalization than Karol Wojtyła (who would become Pope John Paul II) and Joseph Ratzinger did in Europe, one shaped by disappointments particular to his country. For most of his life, his native Argentina was an economic loser, persistently underperforming and corruption-wracked. During the 1980s, inequality and the poverty rate increased in tandem; in the late ’90s and early 2000s, while Bergoglio was archbishop, Argentina endured a downturn and a depression. Where his predecessors’ skepticism of capitalism and consumerism was mainly intellectual and theoretical, for Bergoglio the critique became something more visceral and personal.

Second, in the course of his political experience in Argentina, he encountered very different balances of power—between the left and the right, between Church and state, and within global Catholicism—than either of the previous two popes confronted. As much as Bergoglio clashed with Marxist-influenced Jesuits, the Marxists in Argentina weren’t running the state (as they were in John Paul’s Poland, and in the eastern bloc of Benedict’s native Germany). They were being murdered by it. Likewise, the fact that the Church in Argentina was compromised during the Dirty War had theological implications: it meant that for Bergoglio, more-intense forms of traditionalist Catholicism were associated with fascism in a very specific, immediate way. And coming from the Church’s geographical periphery himself, Bergoglio had reasons to sympathize with the progressive argument that John Paul had centralized too much power in the Vatican, and that local churches needed more freedom to evolve.

Third, while highly intellectual in his own distinctive way, Francis is clearly a less systematic thinker than either of his predecessors, and especially than the academic-minded Benedict. Whereas the previous pope defended popular piety against liberal critiques, Francis embodies a certain style of populist Catholicism—one that’s suspicious of overly academic faith in any form. He seems to have an affinity for the kind of Catholic culture in which Mass attendance might be spotty but the local saint’s processions are packed—a style of faith that’s fervent and supernaturalist but not particularly doctrinal. He also remains a Jesuit-formed leader, and Jesuits have traditionally combined missionary zeal with a certain conscious flexibility about doctrinal details that might impede their proselytizing work. This has often made them controversial among other missionary orders, as in the famous debate over the efforts of Matteo Ricci. A Jesuit in China during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Ricci was attacked for incorporating Chinese concepts into his preaching and permitting converts to continue to venerate their ancestors. That Ricci is currently on the path to canonization, and his critics are mostly forgotten, says something important about the value of Jesuit envelope-pushing within the Church. But it also says something important that Catholicism has never before had a Jesuit pope.

Finally, Francis has a different base of support—and thus a different set of debts to pay, perhaps—within the Catholic hierarchy than the popes who preceded him had. He became a papal candidate at the 2005 conclave, and was elected pope eight years later, thanks to efforts made on his behalf by a small group of European cardinals, including Godfried Danneels of Belgium, Walter Kasper of Germany, England’s Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and the late Carlo Maria Martini, himself a Jesuit and the former archbishop of Milan. In the John Paul era, all four men were among the most theologically liberal cardinals; Martini was regarded wistfully as a kind of might-have-been progressive pope.

Both Ivereigh (a former adviser to Murphy-O’Connor) and Vallely leave little doubt as to this group’s importance. What is in doubt is how Bergoglio, who reportedly urged his supporters to vote for Ratzinger in 2005 rather than prolong the vote, felt about their efforts in either conclave, and how he feels about them now. Clearly the liberal cardinals fastened onto him as a candidate because they saw him as theologically closer to the center of the conclave and more doctrinally reliable than any of their group; clearly his support within the 2013 conclave extended well beyond just the liberal faction. At the same time, it is striking that the men who arguably did the most to make Bergoglio pontiff were among the cardinals most in opposition to the previous two popes.

(Agradeço a indicação do texto ao site The American Catholic)