quinta-feira, 16 de março de 2017

McDonald's Ataca Trump no Twitter, mas Trump já Foi Garoto Propaganda e Empresa contratou Porta-Voz de Obama.


O McDonald's escreveu um tweet, que depois apagou, atacando Trump, pedindo a volta de Obama e dizendo que Trump tem "mãos pequenas". Vejam acima.

Bom que se diga que Robert Gibbs, que foi porta-voz de Obama, é atual vice-presidente de comunicações do McDonald's.

E que Trump já foi garoto de propaganda da marca. Vejam vídeo abaixo.





Em suma, estupidez comercial e política. Vai custar caro à empresa.




quarta-feira, 15 de março de 2017

Vídeo: Estudantes Defendem Liberdade Religiosa para Muçulmanos, Mas NÃO para Cristãos




No sensacional vídeo acima, da Alliance Defending Freedom, o repórter faz quatro perguntas aos estudantes da Universidade de Wisconsin-Madinson:

1) Uma empresa de moda decidiu não vestir a esposa de Trump, Melania Trump. Você acha que a empresa tem direito de fazer isso?

Todos respondem que sim.

2) Se um cantor muçulmano fosse da Universidade e uma igreja cristã resolvesse celebrar a Páscoa, o cantor teria o direito de recusar a participação na celebração?

Todos respondem que sim.

3) Se uma lei obrigasse esse cantor a participar, essa lei seria adequada?

Todos disseram que não.

4) E se um fotógrafo cristão resolvesse não aceitar participar de um casamento gay, o fotográfo teria o direito de fazer isso?

Aí, os estudantes se perderam, eles tentam encontrar razões para dizer que o fotógrafo estava errado, sem conseguirem.

---

Nos Estados Unidos, há vários casos de que a justiça obriga os cristãos a fazer parte de atos que não desejam porque são cristãos, como vender bolos para casamentos gays, por exemplo.

O site Jihad Watch colocou alguns exemplos, vejamos abaixo:

Here are some cases of abhorrent intolerance against innocent Christians for their beliefs:
Görtz Haus Gallery and bistro in Grimes, Iowa, was run by a Christian couple who lost their thriving business for refusing to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.
A devout Christian couple, Edie and David Delorme who own a bakery in Longview Texas, faced brutal threats and verbal abuse against them and their son after declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding, despite providing a list of other bakeries.
A municipal judge, Ruth Neely, faced losing her job and receiving a $40,000 fine after a local reporter asked her if she was happy about performing gay marriages and she said “no,” based on her Lutheran faith.
Missouri State University dismissed a student, Andrew Cash, from a counseling program because he expressed concerns about counseling gay couples due to his religious convictions.
A mechanic from Michigan faced death threats to himself and his family, and his business was vandalized after he posted on Facebook in opposition to homosexuality.
Meanwhile, a gay woman in Indiana created quite a commotion when she stood for religious liberty by publicly supporting the Christian-owned Memories Pizza in Indiana in its decision not to cater gay weddings. “One lesbian high school coach reportedly even tried to incite people to burn down the pizza shop.”
A couple of days ago, it was reported that “Satanist students at Clemson University” held a “Bible torching” and “live bloodletting and lamb sacrifice” to “commemorate” a new chapel. If such a despicable “ceremony” were held against Muslims, the blood-letting would be human blood, but the Satanist students know that: they would not dare offend Muslims for fear of the wrath of jihad coming upon them.
----

Como eu digo aos meus alunos, se você souber lógica, você não erra nem em questões morais. A lógica simples destrói o pensamento que é ensinado nas universidades nos dias de hoje.

Parabéns à Alliance Defending Freedom pelo vídeo.


terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017

Pesquisa: Que Fiel é Contra Casamento Gay? Católico, Protestante ou Testemunha de Jeová?


Ontem, fez quatro anos de pontificado do Papa Francisco, quem o elogia costuma ressaltar que o Papa Francisco "aproximou a Igreja do mundo".

Ah, o mundo. Cristo disse que os cristãos não eram filhos do mundo. Mas o Papa acha bom aproximar os cristãos do mundo?

Uma boa pergunta é: quem são os cristãos?

Mais de uma vez, eu me vi em um debate, por vezes internacional, no qual alguém fala dos católicos e protestantes e eu sempre pergunto: quem você está chamando de católico e protestante?

Quem é o católico? Pode ser católico alguém que aceita o aborto e o casamento gay? Os dois pecados são catalogados na Bíblia como pecados que "clamam ao céus por vingança de Deus" (Gênesis 17:20-21 e Gênesis 4:20). Os dois pecados são condenados pela Bíblia, por Cristo e por seus apóstolos (em especial São Paulo).

Por vezes, eu uso os nomes de alguns católicos. Por exemplo, quando eu estou nos Estados Unidos, pergunto: Nancy Pelosi e Bento XV se dizem católicos, mas um deles acredita no aborto, no divórcio e no casamento gay? Serão ambos católicos mesmo assim?

Por isso, eu tendo a desconsiderar qualquer pesquisa dividindo as pessoas por religião.

Em todo caso, saiu uma pesquisa perguntando sobre casamento gay. A maioria dos católicos, protestantes, budistas, hindus e até muçulmanos apoiam o casamento gay.

Apenas os fiéis do Testemunho de Jeová, os "evangélicos protestantes brancos" e os Mórmons, por maioria, são contra o casamento gay.

O grupo que mais defende o casamento gay são os Unitários-Universalistas, um tipo de "religião"  sem credo, um amálgama de crenças, algo assim como o cristianismo brasileiro que mistura ateísmo com espiritismo, com panteísmo, etc.

Em seguida, são os budistas e ateus. Os católicos e os protestantes (luteranos, calvinistas) brancos estão juntos na mesma proporção de maioria em defesa.

Uma tristeza o resultado da pesquisa, mas revela porque os cristãos não devem se aproximar do mundo.



segunda-feira, 13 de março de 2017

Lista de Cardeais: Aqueles que Apoiam e Aqueles que São Contra a Dubia


No dia 14 de novembro de 2016, quatro cardeais divulgaram publicamente a Dubia, documento tradicional da Igreja para que o Papa oriente a Igreja respondendo apenas Sim e Não. Essa Dubia dos quatro cardeais questionava o Papa Francisco sobre o que ele pensa em termos dos Sacramentos do Matrimônio e da Eucaristia.

A Dubia só foi divulgada publicamente após dois meses de silêncio do Papa.

Até hoje, o Papa, de forma vil (infelizmente, é verdade), ainda não respondeu aos cardeais, apesar do apelo de outros cardeais e bispos.

O site Life News divulgou a lista dos cardeais e bispos que se posicionaram a favor da Dubia e também aqueles que se apresentaram contra.

Vejamos abaixo:

Cardinals who signed the dubia

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller
Cardinal Raymond Burke
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra
Cardinal Joachim Meisner
Bishops and cardinals who support the dubia
Updated March 10, 2017 with Peta, Lenga, and Eijk.
Archbishop Luigi Negri: March 06, 2017 – “Amoris Laetitia needs clarification, unfortunately, the current leader of the Church still remains silent. [...] I think that the Holy Father should respond.”
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput: March 03, 2017 – John Allen: “Do you want the pope to answer the dubia?” Chaput: “Yes. I think it’s always good to answer questions, clearly.”
Cardinal Joseph Zen: February 16, 2017 – “It is a very respectful request by those bishops and cardinals to have a clear statement. I think they are right to have an answer.”
Archbishop Tomash Peta: January 18, 2017 – “Only the voice of the Supreme Pastor of the Church can definitively impede a situation where […] the Church […] has in practice accepted divorce.”
Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga: January 18, 2017 – “We are forced to make this urgent appeal to prayer” given the “ineffectiveness of numerous appeals made privately and in a discreet manner to Pope Francis both by many faithful and by some Shepherds of the Church.”
Cardinal Wim Eijk: December 23, 2016 – “You cannot change doctrine with footnotes or a loose statement in an airplane interview. I would like [Amoris] to be clarified. […] Prolonged lack of clarity may result in undesirable practices to arise.”
Bishop Andreas Laun: December 23, 2016 – “I have read the concerns of the four cardinals, and I agree with them!”
Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino: December 16, 2016 – “It is legitimate in terms of doctrine to turn to the pope and express an opinion – and it is also just that he would respond."
Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes: December 12, 2016 – "With an objective tone, the four cardinals have asked for the removal of doubts about the text [Amoris Laetitia]."
Bishop James D. Conley: December 5, 2016 – “The questions being posed to the Holy Father are intended to help achieve clarity.”
Cardinal George Pell: November 29, 2016 – “How can you disagree with a question?”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider: November 23, 2016 – “The four cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals.”
Bishop Jan Watroba: November 23, 2016 – “I myself have now been overwhelmed with many similar questions.”
Bishop Józef Wróbel: November 22, 2016 –  “The four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia.”

Bishops and cardinals who oppose the dubia

Updated March 10, 2017 with Wuerl and Quevedo.  
Cardinal Vincent Nichols: February 23, 2017 – “I think the Pope’s patience and reserve about this whole matter is exactly what we should observe.”
Cardinal Donald Wuerl: January 30, 2017 – “A very small number of people, whose voices have been amplified by some of the Catholic media, have challenged the integrity of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia […] It seems that a part of the distress evident in what has been described as a ‘tempest in a teapot’ is the fact that Pope Francis is challenging all of us to move into a far more Gospel-identified mode of living and being Church than we may have been comfortable with.”
Cardinal Orlando Quevedo: January 19, 2017 – “It’s clear enough that the Pope is holding on to doctrine [in Amoris]. I cannot understand the justification that the pope has to clarify his position. [Challenging the Pope is] divisive of the Church.”
Cardinal Gerhard Müller: January 8, 2017 – “The Pope is basically forced to answer with ‘yes or no.' I don’t like that.”
Cardinal Walter Kasper: December 22, 2016 – Amoris Laetitia is “clear. … These dubia ... do not exist.”
Cardinal Reinhard Marx: December 21, 2016 – “The document [Amoris] is not as ambiguous as some people claim.”
Cardinal Fernando Sebastian Aguilar: December 11, 2016 – “Some honorable men suffer because they do not understand what Francis wanted to say in Amoris Laetitia.”
Archbishop Mark Coleridge: December 9, 2016 – Pope Francis "wants a genuine clarity" while the four cardinals are seeking a "false clarity."
Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto: December 1, 2016 – “They gave the Pope a slap in the face.”
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier: November 30, 2016 – “Jesus also chose not to answer certain questions.”
Cardinal Claudio Hummes: November 25, 2016 – “We are 200, they are only four.”
Bishop Frangiskos Papamanolis: November 20, 2016 – They have committed the “two very serious sins” of “apostasy” and “scandal.”
Cardinal Blase Cupich: November 19, 2016 – “It’s up to those who have doubts and questions to have conversion in their lives.”
Cardinal Joseph Tobin: November 18, 2016 – “Just to simply reduce [Amoris] to a 'dubium', I think it is at best naive."
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn: November 18, 2016 – This is an "attack against the pope." The cardinals "must be obedient to the pope."

Indeterminate

Cardinal Angelo Amato: November 24, 2016 – “The debate must be continued in reciprocal respect and above all by using the talents of the respective positions [in order to arrive at a] more integrated and improved positions.”


domingo, 12 de março de 2017

Feministas Apresentam Grotesco Aborto de Nossa Senhora


Grupo de feministas da Argentina realizou o teatro do aborto de Cristo  em frente à Catedral da cidade de Tucuman.

São imagens fortes, grotescas, diabólicas.

Mas revelam o caminho do feminismo, o maior desejo das feministas e a fonte de inspiração (demônio).

Leiam abaixo a notícia que saiu no site Crux.

Argentina’s March for Women became an attack on the Church


In Pope Francis’s home country of Argentina, pro-women rallies of any sort have become synonymous for attacks on churches and on the Catholic faith.
This week was no different, when, on March 8, as the world marked the United Nations-sponsored International Women’s Day, a woman dressed like the Virgin Mary pretended to have an abortion in front of a cathedral.
The events took place in Tucuman, a northern province in Argentina, where thousands rallied in favor of equal pay for women and against femicide. In Argentina during 2016, a woman was murdered by her male partner every 30 hours, so it’s not as if there weren’t reasons for the protest.
Yet as has happened in many other countries, a rally that was once about equality between women and men has also become for most of those participating a rally in favor of abortion, a practice that is forbidden in Argentina unless the life of the mother is threatened by pregnancy.
Hence, in what is being described as “an artistic representation” by some, a group of women pretended to do an abortion on a woman dressed like a very pregnant Virgin Mary in front of a Catholic cathedral in a clearly provocative gesture.
The gruesome images, which include what looks like blood and baby parts coming out from under the woman’s dress, were shared thousands of times on Facebook.
An organization called “Socorro Rosa Tucuman” organized the fake abortion. On their Facebook page, they wrote: “In Tucuman, the Virgin aborted in the cathedral the patriarchate, the mandatory heterosexuality and the mandates of this reprising society and demanded all misogynist of this medieval province to remove her image from every maternity ward, to stop forbidding abortions in her name, that he, throwing this abortion in the face of monsignor Zecca, this rotten fetus, conceived only for the raping system that mandates us to forced maternity.”
The local archbishop, Alfredo Horacio Zecca exptressed his condemnation of the abortion parody.
The events, he said, “deeply aggravate the person and image of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and also the faith of the Catholics of Tucuman.”


sexta-feira, 10 de março de 2017

"Papa Bento XVI é um Mentiroso, Mas é Um Único Papa que Temos"



Um relâmpago caiu obre o Vaticano e foi fotografado no dia 11 de fevereiro de 2013, dia em que o Papa Bento XVI renunciou. Na época, eu, como muitos católicos, era um fã ardoroso do Papa Bento XVI e um admirador de seus discursos e livros. Aquela renúncia para mim foi um golpe na alma e muito estranha. Mas entre os que me conheciam eu tentava responder que a única razão que eu via era a da velhice, mesmo eu achando que essa razão não fazia muito sentido, porque inúmeros papas morreram velhos e porque o Papa Bento XVI exaltava a importância dos idosos e o valor que a sociedade deveria dá a eles.

Em suma, foi um dia terrível para Igreja e para mim.

E eu acho que aquele relâmpago continua a ressoar ainda hoje e cada vez mais forte especialmente no estado de confusão que a Igreja se encontra sob o Papa Francisco.

Hoje, eu admiro bem menos o Papa Bento XVI e aceito a ideia que Bento XVI traiu a Igreja.

Esse assunto ressoou essa semana, quando o arcebispo Luigi Negri, que costuma visitar regularmente o Papa Bento XVI, nos diz que é preciso investigar as causas da renúncia do Papa Bento XVI, apontando o dedo para a Administração Obama. Ele alega que a verdade da renúncia ainda vai aparecer. De minha parte, no entanto, mesmo de longe, tenho dificuldade de acreditar nisso, não levo muito a sério teorias da conspiração, acredito bem mais na estupidez humana.

Em todo caso, as ações do Papa Francisco aumentam a raiva dos católicos ortodoxos do Papa Bento XVI.

Ontem, eu li um texto em que o autor diz que o único Papa que temos hoje em dia é o Papa Bento XVI, mesmo dizendo que o Papa Bento XVI é um mentiroso.

O autor defende que houve "erro substancial" na renúncia do Papa Bento XVI, esse erro tem base nas coerções que Bento XVI teria sofrido.

A renúncia com "erro substancial" é nula segundo o canône 188 da Lei Canônica que diz:

Cân. 188 A renúncia por medo grave, injustamente incutido, por dolo ou por erro substancial ou por simonia é ipso iure nula.

Após isso o autor ressalta as "mentiras do Papa Bento XVI".

Vejam abaixo:

So then you think Pope Benedict XVI is a liar?  YES. ABSOLUTELY.

I continue to be surprised at how many people bring this up like it is some sort of a checkmate.  Is Pope Benedict XVI a liar?  Yes.  Of course he is.  Let’s relive some of his greatest whoppers:
–I am wearing white because there wasn’t a single black cassock in the city of Rome for me to wear, nor could one have been sourced in the two and a half weeks between the announcement of my “resignation” and its date of efficacy.
That, folks, is called a LIE.
How about this one:
–I had to resign because the jet-lag that I would have had from going to World Youth Day in Brazil, an event which in no way even required my presence, would have prevented me from carrying on as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.
That is a boldfaced lie, folks.
And finally, this whopper:
–There were four or five sodomites in the Roman Curia, but I got rid of them, and everything is fine now.
Mathematics has not yet progressed to the point enabling mankind to quantify the enormity of that lie.
Pope Benedict XVI, let me remind one and all, is no hero.  He is, because of what he has done, without question, the worst pope in the history of the Church.  All of this has its source with him.  He capitulated to the coercion.  He, in his pride, thought that he could “head fake” his enemies by fundamentally transforming the papacy itself into a polyarchy – a substantial error if ever there was one.  He thought that he could appease his enemies while still “participating in the Petrine Office”.  But he was and is wrong.  He remains the one and only Vicar of Christ, albeit “inactive” and refusing to do his duty, and he has enabled the usurpation and ascension of an Antipope hellbent on destroying the Bride of Christ from the inside out. He has enabled scandal that has, is, and will continue to drive people into eternal damnation in numbers that are terrifying to ponder.  Weak, supine, effeminate – he truly is the Pope for this age, the Pope we so richly deserve.

quinta-feira, 9 de março de 2017

"A Pior Máfia contra o Papa Francisco é o Silêncio dos Cardeais que Apoiam Ele"


Damian Thompson escreveu um ótimo artigo resumindo as tramas secretas do Vaticano e o comportamento do Papa, diante da crise religiosa sobre a Doutrina da Igreja.

Em resumo, ele diz que o Papa Francisco se comporta como um político peronista fazendo lobby para que a Igreja aceite algo que Cristo condenou em palavras claras, que trata do divórcio. Os cardeais frente ao lobby pesado do Papa, no entanto, silenciam, porque sabem que se defenderem o que pede o Papa sofrerão rebelião dentro de suas dioceses, com possível cisma da Igreja.

Assim, entre os cardeais o desejo é que o Pontificado de Francisco acabe o mais rápido possível pois sabem que a Igreja está sob risco, e assim as próprias carreiras deles. Claro que há aqueles que lutam contra o lobby do Papa Francisco por amor a Cristo e às palavras Dele, mas por vezes, não é uma questão de defender Cristo contra o Papa Francisco, mas sim de defender que eles mesmos não sofram com perda de poder, se a Igreja rachar.

Thompson também lembra que uma conferência em Paris, no final desse mÊs, irá discutir a situação de um papa herético, não é nomeado que se irá discutir o caso do Papa Francisco, mas até as pedras sabem que esse será o tema.

Abaixo vai parte do excelente texto de Thompson que foi publicado na revista inglesa The Spectator, leiam todo o texto clicando no link.


The plot against the Pope

It is no secret in Rome that several cardinals want Francis to step down


On the first Saturday in February, the people of Rome awoke to find the city covered in peculiar posters depicting a scowling Pope Francis. Underneath were written the words:
Ah, Francis, you have intervened in Congregations, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals… but where is your mercy?
The reference to mercy was a jibe that any Catholic could understand. Francis had just concluded his ‘Year of Mercy’, during which the church was instructed to reach out to sinners in a spirit of radical forgiveness. But it was also a year in which the Argentinian pontiff continued his policy of squashing his critics with theatrical contempt.
Before the Year of Mercy, he had removed (or ‘decapitated’) the leaders of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, apparently for their traditionalist sympathies. During it, he froze out senior churchmen who questioned his plans to allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. As the year finished, the papal axe fell on the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Fra’ Matthew Festing, who during an internal row over the alleged distribution of condoms by its charitable arm had robustly asserted the crusader order’s 800-year sovereignty. Francis seized control of the knights. They are sovereign no longer.
---
Although the stunt made headlines around the world, it is unlikely to have unnerved the Pope. There is a touch of the Peronist street-fighter about Jorge Bergoglio. As his fellow Argentinian Jesuits know only too well, he is relaxed about making enemies so long as he is confident that he has the upper hand. The posters convey impotent rage: they are unlikely to carry the fingerprints of senior churchmen.
In any case, it is not anonymous mockery that should worry the Pope: it is the public silence of cardinals and bishops who, in the early days of his pontificate, missed no opportunity to cheer him on.
The silence is ominous because it comes amid suspicion that influential cardinals are plotting against Francis — motivated not by partisan malice, but by fear that the integrity and authority of the papacy is at stake.
Antonio Socci, a leading conservative Vatican-watcher, says that cardinals once loyal to Francis are so concerned about a schism that they are planning to appeal to him to step down. He predicts that the rebellion will be led by about a dozen moderate cardinals who work in the curia.
If, however, we remove the fanciful speculation, we are left with a real story. It is no secret in Rome that certain cardinals who voted for Francis are now worried that he is leading the church towards schism, and that he must therefore be stopped. There are many more than a dozen of them and, though they may not yet be ready to act upon their concerns, they would like this pontificate to end sooner rather than later.
The stakes are so high because the discontent is not fundamentally about personality: it arises from an argument about the central tenets of the faith.
In the end, it all boils down to the question of giving communion to people who are either divorced and remarried or married to a divorced person.
Non-Catholics, and indeed many Catholics, find it hard to understand why this is such a big deal. Put simply, the Catholic church is the only worldwide Christian denomination that takes literally the parts of the Bible (Luke 16:8, Mark 10:11, Matthew 19:9) where Jesus says that divorced and remarried people are committing adultery. This isn’t to say that church authorities haven’t hypocritically (or compassionately) bent the rules down the centuries — but the teaching has remained unchanged.
Until now, anyway. In April last year, Pope Francis released Amoris Laetitia, (‘The Joy of Love’), a 200-page document in response to a synod of the world’s bishops that had rejected any change to the teaching that Catholics in irregular marriages should not receive communion.
To cut a long story short, Francis appeared to go along with the synod’s wishes. But a footnote in Amoris Laetitia hinted (and it was just a hint) that couples, in consultation with a priest, could decide for themselves whether to receive the sacrament.
---
To a great many in Rome, it looks as if the Pope is single-handedly ripping apart church teaching — in defiance of his own hierarchy. ‘It’s utterly bizarre. He’s actually been ringing round asking for support on this,’ says a priest in the Vatican. Like an American president lobbying senators? ‘Exactly. But he’s not getting the answers he wanted. Instead, there’s this silence that has not greeted any other papal exhortation I can think of.’
Why the silence? The answer is that the Pope has put cardinals and bishops in an impossible situation.
Consider the case of England and Wales. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, president of the bishops’ conference, could not issue a set of German-style ‘anything goes on divorce’ guidelines even if he wanted to (and no one knows what the inscrutable Nichols really wants, except perhaps to be Pope himself).
The conservative Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth has already said that there will be no change of pastoral practice in his diocese, full stop. Nichols couldn’t even sell relaxed guidelines to his own Westminster diocese: at least one of his bishops would rebel.
This dilemma is being replicated all over the world. Two thirds of diocesan bishops either believe that the Pope is monkeying with the fundamentals of Christian doctrine or, taking a more lenient view, think his misguided compassion has created pastoral chaos. And the chaos will persist for as long as this man is Pope.
Which is why — despite various efforts to cast Francis in the role of ‘great reformer’ squaring up to satin-clad dinosaurs — moderate cardinals are ready for a new pope who can kick this wretched issue into the long grass.
But how can this be achieved? The moderates aren’t keen to join forces with anti-Francis conservatives, who are already, as those posters showed, taking resistance to extraordinary lengths.
At the end of this month, the University of Paris-Sud is hosting a conference on ‘the canonical problem of the deposition of heretical popes’. The organisers are not openly suggesting that Francis falls into this category, but others may draw their own conclusions. Two of the professors giving papers have asked the Pope to rule against ‘heretical’ misunderstandings of Amoris Laetitia — which he refuses to do. So some of the theoretical discussions of deposing popes may be rather pointed.
But can Francis really be forced out of office by canon law? Moderate cardinals wouldn’t countenance it even if it were possible. That leaves what Socci calls ‘moral suasion’, otherwise known as arm-twisting. Several cardinals believe that this is what happened to Benedict XVI, though the pope emeritus insists that the decision to resign was his alone. Benedict, a theologian, grew to hate being pope. Francis, by contrast, loves it so much that he hasn’t taken a holiday since walking on to the balcony of St Peter’s. That doesn’t mean that no one will try to persuade Francis to step down, but God help them when they do.
This leaves the Catholic church in deadlock. To quote one Vatican employee, ‘Liberal or conservative, what most cardinals want is release from the endless fatigue created by Francis.’

BBC: Muçulmano se Vítima, Indiano se Estuprador


O exemplo mostra explicitamente o ridículo da imprensa mundial de hoje em dia. O esquerdismo domina os fatos.

Vejam o caso: um atleta indiano foi impedido de ir competir nos Estados Unidos, teve o visto negado, aí a BBC diz que a Índia não estava na lista de países banidos do Trump e assim sugeriu que a única razão era que ele era muçulmano. A BBC colocou a palavra muçulmano explícita no título. Então, ativistas e até senadores nos Estados Unidos entraram em campanha para permitir que o atleta fosse aos Estados Unidos, e assim ele foi liberado para ir.

Nos Estados Unidos, o atleta foi preso  sob uma acusação de ataque sexual a uma criança de 12 anos.

Daí, a BBC chamou o atleta de "indiano" e não mais de muçulmano no título da reportagem.

Imagino o debate na redação do jornal, alguém dizendo: "ei, não podemos chamar o cara de muçulmano porque isso vai incitar o pessoal que ataca o Islã". Mas quando antes o cara foi supostamente uma vítima, alguém disse: "ei, vamos chamar o cara de muçulmano para mostrar que Trump está querendo banir o Islã dos Estados Unidos".

Vejam a descrição abaixo do site Jihad Watch:

BBC identified man as “Muslim” when he was denied visa, “Indian” when he was arrested for sex abuse


“BBC Was Quick to Say ‘Kashmiri Muslim’ When Denied Visa, But After Reports of a Heinous Crime… Not So Much,” by Virginia Kruta, Independent Journal Review, March 7, 2017:
A sportsman was set to compete in the world snowshoe championship at Saranac Lake, New York, and he was ready to travel all the way from India to get there. That’s when Tanveer Hussain was informed that “current policy” would be preventing him from obtaining a travel visa.
The BBC reported on his plight, pointing out the fact that Hussain was not actually traveling from a nation that was affected by President Trump’s initial order:
The embassy in Delhi would not comment on individual visa applications for reasons of privacy, but emphasised that Indian citizens are not affected by the recent executive order.
Mr Hussain’s coach, Abid Khan, said all his documents had been in order.
“We had local government recommendation and also the invitation and verification letter from the New York snowshoe federation. But as soon as a lady visa officer at the US embassy in Delhi read our names, she went inside a cabin and came back after a few minutes. She said she was sorry, but that she could not help us due to the current US policy,” he told the BBC.
Their headline on February 1 read:

Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa due to ‘current policy’

----
After several American legislators — among them Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) greased the wheels, Hussain’s visa was approved and he traveled to the United States to compete.
Then something went terribly wrong.
Hussain found himself remanded to an American jail after parents reported to law enforcement that he had sexually assaulted their 12-year-old daughter.
Once again, the BBC had the story:
His attorney has entered a not-guilty plea for him.
Saranac Lake police department said that the charges against Mr Hussain, which include endangering the welfare of a child, stem from him engaging in a “passionate kiss with the 12-year-old victim”.
“There was no accusation of force. The charges are a result of the age difference of the individuals,” the AP news agency quoted the police as saying.
Their headline, dated March 3:

Tanveer Hussain: Indian athlete held over sex abuse in US…