São Tomás de Aquino, o "Doutor Angélico", certa vez, diante de um crucifixo em Nápoles, ouviu estas palavras de Jesus:
“Bem tem você escrito sobre Mim, Tomás, o que devo te dar em recompensa?"
São Tomás respondeu: “Nada senão a Ti mesmo, meu Senhor". Em latim, São Tomás disse: Nil, Nisi Te, Domine. Em inglês: Naught save Thyself, O Lord.
Essa realmente é de desesperar. Padre Franco Corbo colocou uma Burca em Nossa Senhora e São José como como muçulmano africano no presépio dá Igreja!!!
Os paroquianos reagiram, e o padre diz que não entende a revolta dos paroquianos e que o "Islã é sinônimo de paz e irmandade, pois o terrorismo Islâmico não tem nada a ver com o Islã".
É sacrilégio? Claro que é. O judaísmo de Cristo, Nossa Senhora e São José é parte inseparável deles e dá Doutrina Cristã.
O que eu faria? Despachava ele para ser padre na Arábia Saudita. Sou bonzinho, não mando para o Irã, nem para o Estado Islâmico.
Depois das reclamações, o tal padre tirou as imagens heréticas e colocou as tradicionais no lugar.
Parish Priest Dresses Virgin Mary in Burqa for Nativity Scene
By Thomas D. Williams.
A parish priest in the south of Italy enraged parishioners by dressing the Virgin Mary in a Muslim burqa for his church’s Christmas Nativity scene, adding a boatful of refugees and a rainbow flag in place of the star of Bethlehem.
The pastor of the parish of Saints Joachim and Anne in Potenza, Father Franco Corbo, found himself face to face with an angry mob of demonstrators gathered outside his church on Wednesday to protest his provocative display.
“Don Franco,” as the priest is known, said that he had the special crèche scene constructed “in the name of dialogue among religions” and that his message had been “misinterpreted.”
Asked whether he didn’t consider his Nativity scene as sacrilegious, the 75-year-old priest said it was not, but rather a symbol that “religion can and should be an instrument of dialogue.”
“Islam is synonymous with peace and brotherhood,” the priest said, adding that Islamic terrorism is “an aberration that has nothing to do with religion.”
Along with Mary’s burqa, the priest represented Saint Joseph as a north African Muslim and dressed a number of the traditional shepherds in Muslim garb as well.
The holy family arrayed in Islamic apparel is “a call for an open mind” as well as “a message of peace,” Don Franco said. As for those who dispute his decision, the priest said their objections come from “narrow-mindedness and a form of fundamentalism.”
While the Italian media have described the priest as “a good progressive pastor with his heart on the left,” a number of public figures have called out the priest for pushing the envelope too far.
In a Facebook post, the leader of the right-wing Northern League, Matteo Salvini, called the pastor’s actions an act of “madness.”
“The last thing we needed was the ‘Muslim Crèche’ of this parish priest,” Salvini wrote, “for whom ISIS is substantially our fault, the Israelis are ugly and evil, and if you dislike the MADONNA IN A BURQA it is YOUR fault for being closed-minded and a fanatic.”
After Wednesday’s protests, the parish priest has reportedly taken down the controversial crèche scene, replacing the provocative figures with more traditional ones.
Para mim, a música de Natal mais bonita é Noite Feliz. Essa música foi declarada patrimônio da humanidade. Eu contei a história dessa música aqui no blog. Hoje leio que na Itália, sede do catolicismo, as crianças de uma escola na cidade de Flero não cantaram Noite Feliz, com receio de sofrerem represálias de muçulmanos e ateus. O jornal The Express ainda conta que em outra cidade da Itália as crianças foram proibidas de falar o nome de Jesus nas canções de Natal. E relata ainda outros casos de proibição do cristianismo nas escolas e publicamente. É o multiculturalismo fazendo o que mais gosta de fazer: destruir o cristianismo São os ateus e muçulmanos fazendo bully, destruindo a herança cristã. Coisa relatada no livro Bullies de Ben Shapiro. Vejam o artigo do jornal abaixo.
Schoolchildren BANNED from singing Silent Night over fears it will OFFEND other religions
SCHOOLCHILDREN were banned from singing a popular Christmas carol and told to hum the tune instead, over fears the performance could offend other religions.
Children in Flero, Italy, did not sing the lyrics of Holy Night.
Instead pupils hummed the carol during a concert dubbed the “Winter Recital” in Bresciano, northern Italy.
The decision was criticised by a local councillor.
Franceschini, the culture commissioner for the town of Bresciano, said: "Even if the state and the school claim to be secular, we would like to have ‘Christmas Concerts’ and not ‘Winter Recitals’ where children can feel free to sing Holy Night without thinking that this offends or excludes pupils who belong to other cultures or other religions or who declare to be atheists.”
It is not the first time children in Italy have been censored over Christmas.
Last week Express.co.uk reported schoolchildren in an Italian town had been banned from mentioning Jesus in Christmas songs.
Youngsters preparing for their school production in Pontevico were given lyric sheets with Jesus' name removed from popular tunes.
Defending the bizarre decision, headteacher Paola Bellini said: "Children will sing songs that evoke universal themes of peace and solidarity."
It comes days after a school in Sweden removed references to Christianity from a popular Christmas carol to avoid offending others.
The school in Amal cut lines from 'Now Light 1,000 Christmas Lights' which make references to Jesus and God.
A line about "a star over Bethlehem" was edited – and replaced with the phrase "the star over all of us".
The move provoked criticism, with one of the pupil’s grandfathers writing an angry letter to a local newspaper.
Obama deixou o mundo em chamas e nos últimos dias de mandato resolveu jogar mais lenha na fogueira. Pela primeira vez, em oito anos, resolveu se abster (detesto quem se abstém, quase sempre é coisa de covarde) em votação do Conselho de Segurança da ONU que condenou Israel por realizar assentamentos.
E hoje ainda leio que o Secretário de Estado de Obama, John Kerry, declarou que "Israel não pode ser Judeu e Democrático ao mesmo tempo". Sendo Israel o único país com eleições democráticas na região.
Será que ele diria para Arábia Saudita que não se pode ser Islâmico e democrático ao mesmo tempo?
Será que está condenando só o judaísmo, que possui valores democráticos erraizados há milênios?
Será que um país não pode postular um religião e ser democrático ao mesmo tempo?
Claro que pode, depende da religião.
John Kerry é um idiota. Obama é um líder perigoso. Vai demorar muito para chegar dia 20 de Janeiro, data que Trump assume.
Feliz Natal para todos meus amigos do blog. A Paz de Cristo para vocês e suas famílias. O ano de 2016 foi um ano fantástico para mim. Visitei Fátima, Santiago de Compostela e Toulouse (onde estão os restos mortais de São Tomás de Aquino). Além disso publiquei meu livro sobre Guerra Justa pela editora Vide Editorial. Tenho muito a agradecer. Espero que vocês também. Vocês fazem parte de minhas conquistas. Muito obrigado.
Como post para o Natal, o teólogo Taylor Marshall, meu professor do New Saint Thomas Institute, explicou por que ele defende que Cristo nasceu realmente no dia 25 de Dezembro.
Vejam os argumentos do Dr. Marshall abaixo. Vale muito à pena. Rezemos nesse Natal.
Yes, Christ Was Really Born on December 25: Here’s a Defense of the Traditional Date for Christmas
The Catholic Church, from at least the second century, has claimed that Christ was born on December 25. However, it is commonly alleged that our Lord Jesus Christ was not born on December 25. For the sake of simplicity, let us set out the usual objections to the date of December 25 and counter each of them.
Objection 1: December 25 was chosen in order to replace the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a popular winter festival and so the Catholic Church prudently substituted Christmas in its place.
Reply to Objection 1: Saturnalia commemorated the winter solstice. Yet the winter solstice falls on December 22. It is true that Saturnalia celebrations began as early as December 17 and extended till December 23. Still, the dates don’t match up.
Objection 2: December 25 was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday Natalis Solis Invicti which means “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun."
Reply to Objection 2: Let us examine first the cult of the Unconquered Sun. The Emperor Aurelian introduced the cult of the Sol Invictus or Unconquered Sunto Rome in A.D. 274. Aurelian found political traction with this cult, because his own name Aurelian derives from the Latin word aurora denoting “sunrise.” Coins reveal that Emperor Aurelian called himself the Pontifex Solis or Pontiff of the Sun. Thus, Aurelian simply accommodated a generic solar cult and identified his name with it at the end of the third century.
Most importantly, there is no historical record for a celebration Natalis Sol Invictus on December 25 prior to A.D. 354. Within an illuminated manuscript for the year A.D. 354, there is an entry for December 25 reading “N INVICTI CM XXX.” Here N means “nativity.” INVICTI means “of the Unconquered.” CM signifies “circenses missus” or “games ordered.” The Roman numeral XXX equals thirty. Thus, the inscription means that thirty games were order for the nativity of the Unconquered for December 25th. Note that the word “sun” is not present. Moreover, the very same codex also lists “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for the day of December 25. The phrase is translated as “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.”[i]
The date of December 25th only became the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” under the Emperor Julian the Apostate. Julian the Apostate had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that it was the hateful former Christian Emperor that erected a pagan holiday on December 25. Think about that for a moment. What was he trying to replace?
These historical facts reveal that the Unconquered Sun was not likely a popular deity in the Roman Empire. The Roman people did not need to be weaned off of a so-called ancient holiday. Moreover, the tradition of a December 25th celebration does not find a place on the Roman calendar until after the Christianization of Rome. The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” holiday was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. It seems, rather, that Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one!
Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.
Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.
Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps. The first step is to use Scripture to determine the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. The next step is using Saint John the Baptist’s birthday as the key for finding Christ’s birthday. We can discover that Christ was born in late December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives, and that lands us at the end of December.
Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.[ii]However, when did the cycle of courses begin?
Josef Heinrich Friedlieb has convincingly established that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av.[iii]Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the second week of Av. Consequently, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was undoubtedly serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri—the very week of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement would land anywhere from September 22 to October 8.
Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end of September, placing John’s birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church’s celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.
The second-century Protoevangelium of Saint James also confirms a late September conception of the Baptist since the work depicts Saint Zacharias as High Priest and as entering the Holy of Holies—not merely the holy place with the altar of incense. This is a factual mistake because Zacharias was not the high priest, but one of the chief priests.[iv]Still, the Protoevangelium regards Zacharias as a high priest and this associates him with the Day of Atonement, which lands on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (roughly the end of our September). Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the Archangel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again confirming the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.
The rest of the dating is rather simple. We read that just after the Immaculate Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). If you add six months to June 24 you get December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Then, if you subtract nine months from December 25 you get that the Annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly. So then, if John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.
Sacred Tradition also confirms December 25 as the birthday of the Son of God. The source of this ancient tradition is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, the length of the baby, and a number of other details. I’m the father of six blessed children, and while I sometimes forget these details—mea maxima culpa—my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget the details surrounding the births of their babies.
Now ask yourself: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She knew from the moment of His incarnation in her stainless womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?[v]
Next, ask yourself: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course they would. Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, “And the Word was made flesh,” was not interested in the minute details of His birth? Even when I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask “How old is he?” or “When was he born?” Don’t you think people asked this question of Mary?
So the exact birth date (December 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke chronicle for us. In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Christians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.
Further testimony reveals that the Church Fathers claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire. The earliest record of this is that Pope Saint Telesphorus (reigned A.D. 126-137) instituted the tradition of Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Although the Liber Pontificalis does not give us the date of Christmas, it assumes that the Pope was already celebrating Christmas and that a Mass at midnight was added. During this time, we also read the following words of Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), Catholic bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: “We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.”[vi]
Shortly thereafter in the second century, Saint Hippolytus (A.D. 170-240) wrote in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on December 25:
The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.[vii]
Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was assumed to corresponded to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 – the traditional date of crucifixion).[viii] Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day—March 25. In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C. Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as the Creation date of the universe, as the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ, and also as the date of the Death of Christ our Savior.
In the Syrian Church, March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it, so important was the day in Syrian tradition. It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.
Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition, and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ’s birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).
Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:
For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.[ix]
In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25 as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6, since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311. Whichever is the case, the liturgical celebration of Christ’s birth was commemorated in Rome on December 25 long before Christianity became legalized and long before our earliest record of a pagan feast for the birthday of the Unconquered Sun. For these reasons, it is reasonable and right to hold that Christ was born on December 25 in 1 B.C. and that he died and rose again in March of A.D. 33.
Taylor’s new book The Eternal City also makes an argument in defense of the traditional BC/AD dating as being 100% accurate.
[i]The Chronography of AD 354. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs. MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), pp. 71-2.
[ii] I realize that there are two courses of Abias. This theory only works if Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist after Zacharias’ second course – the course in September. If Saint Luke refers to the first course, this then would place the birth of John the Baptist in late Fall and the birth of Christ in late Spring. However, I think tradition and the Protoevangelium substantiate that the Baptist was conceived in late September.
[iii] Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312.
[iv] The Greek tradition especially celebrates Saint Zacharias as “high priest.” Nevertheless, Acts 5:24 reveals that there were several “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), and thus the claim that Zacharias was a “high priest” may not indicate a contradiction. The Greek tradition identifies Zacharias as an archpriest and martyr based on the narrative of the Protoevangelium of James and Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35)
[v] A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe, FSSP for bringing the “memory of Mary” argument to my attention.
[vi]Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, De origine Festorum Chirstianorum.
[vii] Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel.
[viii] There is some discrepancy in the Fathers as to whether Nisan 14/March 25 marked the death of Christ or his resurrection.
Artigo do Wall Street Journal ressalta ao mundo como o Papa Francisco é visto pela esquerda, aquela que odeia a Igreja. O texto não é agressivo, serve para debate.
How Pope Francis Became the Leader of the Global Left
With the right on the rise, many progressives are looking to a pontiff who campaigns against inequality and climate change
Pope Francis speaks to a joint meeting of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden (top left) and House Speaker John Boehner (top right) looking on, Sept. 24, 2015. PHOTO: ANDREW HARRER/BLOOMBERG.
When Pope Francis delivers his Christmas message this weekend, he will do so not just as the head of the Catholic Church but as the improbable standard-bearer for many progressives around the world.
With conservative and nationalist forces on the rise in many places and with figures such as U.S. President Barack Obama and French President François Hollande on their way out, many on the left—from socialists in Latin America to environmentalists in Europe—are looking to the 80-year-old pontiff for leadership.
“Pope Francis really inspires a lot of people to want to fight. I’m pretty sure if he weren’t the face of the Catholic Church, he’d be out in the street with us,” said Bleu Rainer, an activist in the “Fight for $15” minimum-wage movement in Tampa, Fla., who traveled to Rome last month for an international meeting of grass-roots activists addressed by the pope. “He reinforces our issues and makes them moral issues.”
Yet the pope’s support for some liberal causes, rooted in traditional Christian concern for the poor and defenseless, has meant joining forces with some partners who reject major Catholic moral teachings. Critics also say that the church’s leader shouldn’t take such strong stands on political questions about which Catholics are allowed to have a range of views.
Pope Francis has taken bold positions on a variety of issues, including migration, climate change, economic equality and the rights of indigenous peoples. His June 2015 environmental encyclical “Laudato Si’ ” called for a sharp reduction in the use of fossil fuels and described global warming as a major threat to life on Earth. The document was also an indictment of the global market economy, which he said has plundered the planet at the expense of the poor and of future generations. The Vatican now requires students for the priesthood to learn about environmental problems, including climate change, during their seminary studies.
The pontiff’s views on migration—he calls, in effect, for open borders for refugees and economic migrants—spilled over into criticism of Donald Trump earlier this year. The pope said that the Republican candidate was “not Christian” for calling for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. Just days before the American election, in a speech to grass-roots activists from around the world, Pope Francis warned against the “spread of xenophobia” and the “false security of physical and social walls”—remarks widely seen as a critique of Mr. Trump.
The pope has also been blunt about economic equality. He has said that “land, shelter and employment” are “sacred rights” and added that “if I speak of this, some people conclude that the pope is a communist.” In his 2015 address to the U.S. Congress, he praised the late Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, for “her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed.”
Such statements have made him a hero to many politicians on the left. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who left the campaign trail for two days before the New York primary to attend a Vatican conference, called himself a “fan of the pope’s clarity, his humility, his vision and his courage.”
In a novelty for a pope, Francis has addressed three consecutive annual meetings of “popular movements.” The gatherings have included grass-roots activists for nonunionized workers and landless peasants in developing countries, as well as U.S. groups such as Black Lives Matter and proponents of a higher minimum wage. At the latest meeting in November, the pope told the activists to “revitalize and recast our democracies, which are experiencing a genuine crisis” and to “get involved in high-level politics” in their countries. The Vatican is co-sponsoring another such a meeting in California in February, focused on poverty, migration and racial justice. (The pope isn’t expected to attend.)
The pope’s positions follow a longstanding current in Catholic social teachings, started by a late 19th-century encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, which criticized the excesses of the free market and affirmed workers’ rights to organize. “He has not radically changed the mainstream social doctrine of the church,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, an official in the Vatican office on social-justice concerns. But the pontiff has adopted language and priorities that reflect his background in the developing world, the archbishop said.
As a young priest in Argentina, then-Father Jorge Bergoglio eschewed Marxist schools of Catholic “liberation theology” in favor of a “theology of the people,” which rejected materialism and class conflict. He and his family were also supporters of the country’s strongman, Juan Perón, a caudillo whose brand of authoritarian populism eluded easy left-right categorization.
Historians note modern precedents for popes linking themselves to political movements. After World War II, the Vatican backed Italy’s Christian Democrats, and in the 1980s, Pope John Paul II supported the Solidarity labor movement in his native Poland, thereby hastening the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s collapse. Both movements were explicitly anticommunist.
Francis’ alliances have entailed some strange bedfellows. Bolivian President Evo Morales, a fiery leftist critic of globalization, last year gave the pope a sculpture combining a crucifix with the communist hammer and sickle. Francis said that the sculpture didn’t offend him and took it back to Rome.
Critics warn that, by aligning himself too closely with one end of the political spectrum, the pope could alienate more conservative Catholics. In the recent U.S. presidential election, according to exit polls, more than half of Catholic voters chose Mr. Trump. “The global left clearly see an opportunity to appropriate the prestige of the papacy for their causes,” said Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank with a religious, free-market approach. “That introduces polarization in the church about issues that Catholics are free to disagree about.”
Francis’ views have allied him with groups that oppose some of the church’s moral teachings. Many environmentalists back population-control measures as a way to limit ecological damage, but Catholic doctrine forbids abortion and artificial birth control. The pope has denounced discrimination against gay people and urged compassion and understanding for transgender people, but he does not accept same-sex marriage.
The pope has reduced the awkwardness of his progressive alliances by playing down thorny questions of sexual and medical ethics and emphasizing such commonalities as economic justice and environmental protection. Francis’ political relationships lean to the left, says Archbishop Tomasi, “not because he’s a Marxist or because he is a leftist, but because [such groups] represent…the wounds of society.”
Ontem, eu viajei e no aeroporto havia uma banda dos bombeiros que cantava diversas canções de Natal e recitava versos da Bíblia. Essa cena seria impossível na Europa e Austrália. Regiões que têm muitos muçulmanos e receberam muitos refugiados.
Pensei comigo mesmo: melhor aproveitar enquanto o Brasil não é invadido pelo Islã.
Hoje leio no jornal The Express que um refugiado da Somália invadiu um teatro infantil de Natal na Austrália e recitou versos do Alcorão. O jornal diz que as crianças ficaram petrificadas. Coisa terrível. Eu imagino se fosse meu filho de frente a isso.
Pois é, se a Europa e países cristãos não defenderem sua herança religiosa serão dominados por outra religião. Todo o Oriente Médio já teve maioria cristã. . ,.Muitos santos e doutores da Igreja são dessa região, como falei no meu livro.
Pois é, ontem:
1) um terrorista do Estado Islâmico matou publicamente, na frente das câmeras, um embaixador russo na Turquia;
2) um terrorista jogou caminhão em uma feira de Natal em Berlim, matando 12 e ferindo dúzias. As feiras de Natal da Alemanha são as melhores e mais bonitas do mundo.
3) um tiroteio em um centro islâmico de Zurique feriu três.
Obama, depois de saber sobre os ataques terroristas, voltou para suas aulas de golfe. Obama era o messias que ia trazer a paz, todo mundo ia viver feliz, em um mundo arco-íris. Que prometeu iniciar um relacionamento pacífico com a Rússia, apaziguar mundo islâmico, elogiando Maomé e a cultura islâmica, ajudando muçulmanos, enquanto abandona cristãos.
Trump respondeu aos três ataques terroristas dizendo que terroristas Islâmicos estão perseguindo cristãos como parte da jihad global e que o Ocidente precisa mudar a maneira de lidar com isso. Ele ressaltou que a jihad precisa ser erradicada da face da Terra.
Trump also tweeted: “Today there were terror attacks in Turkey, Switzerland and Germany – and it is only getting worse. The civilized world must change thinking!”
Indeed it must, and it looks as if, as he becomes President, it will begin to do so.
Imagine: the incoming President of the United States referred to “the global jihad.” Could reality actually be breaking through?
President-Elect Donald Trump Reacts to Berlin Truck Attack,” by Brendan Morrow, Heavy, December 19, 2016:
President-Elect Donald Trump has issued a statement after at least nine people were killed and 50 injured in a truck attack in Berlin, Germany….
Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were killed and 50 injured in a truck attack in Berlin, Germany…. Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamic terrorists continuously slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.
O site católioc Season for Grace diz que Milo é católico praticante e que costuma afirmar que "se ele pudesse ele mudaria sua orientação sexual".
Bom, ele certamente enfrenta dificuldades para seguir Cristo com mais afinco, devemos rezar para que ele prossiga no caminho, mas ele já faz um bom trabalho reagindo contra o politicamente correto e ressaltando o valor da Igreja na ciência, na criação das universidades, na defesa da mulher, no valor do matrimônio dentro da Igreja, etc.
Espero que saibam inglês, é uma palestra divertida.
Não tenho tempo para tradução, hoje. Mas coloquem no Google Translate o texto abaixo que transcreve a entrevista, se não entenderem o inglês.
The full transcript of Burke's interview with Arroyo
Raymond Arroyo: Welcome back to The World Over Live. He is the former head of the Vatican’s highest Court, the Apostolic Signatura, and one of the world’s foremost canon lawyers. He’s also the author of a new book, Hope for the World: To Unite All Things in Christ. Tonight, Raymond Cardinal Burke reflects on the backlash he and three other cardinals are experiencing in the wake of a letter they submitted to Pope Francis asking for clarity on certain points of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Specifically, they asked whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics without an annulment can be allowed Communion. The letter was first submitted privately to the pope, but when Cardinal Burke and the others received no response, they made the letter public. This sparked an outcry from Pope Francis’s supporters. Papal confidante Father Anthony Spadaro, for example, called the four cardinals’ letter a ‘sign of a bad spirit.’ Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia told America magazine that the four cardinals are seeking a ‘false clarity’ by failing to address the reality of those Catholics in irregular relationships. To respond, I spoke with Cardinal Burke earlier this week from the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadaloupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin. We talked about his reasons for issuing the dubia, as the questions are officially known, and what he and the others are prepared to do should Pope Francis refuse to address their concerns. Here is my exclusive and very candid interview with Raymond Cardinal Burke.
Your Eminence, thank you so much for being with us. I wanna start with this dubia that you—it’s a series of questions that you asked the Holy Father for clarity on, and the real heart of it it seems to me is this question of does it permit, does Amoris Laetitia and the pope himself, permit divorced and remarried Catholics now in irregular relationships who are sexually active to receive Communion. Now, Rocco Boutiglioni, a very outstanding layman in Rome, says yes it does. You have Cardinal Schonborn, who also seems to be suggesting that it does. What’s the problem, then?
Cardinal Burke: The problem is that to engage in sexual union with someone who’s not your spouse is a grave sin and to live in such a state publicly means that one cannot have access to the Sacraments because he or she is not living according to the truth of Christ. And there’s no way that the Church can give permission for someone to do something which Christ himself does not give us permission to do.
Raymond Arroyo: I wanna return to something that—it’s really the second point that you raise in these five questions that you submitted to the Holy Father. And in it you all mention Veritatis Splendor, which was a document John Paul II promulgated. And in it he says there are no—you cannot create exceptions to the prohibitions on intrinsically evil acts, and yet, in Amoris Laetitia, the pope says, ‘the conscience of an individual may come to see with a certain moral security that even their irregular relationship is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.’ What does that mean to you and what does it suggest?
Cardinal Burke: Well, it’s very confusing language. The only thing that it can suggest in accord with what the Church has always taught and practiced is that the conscience informs itself with regard to the teaching of Christ, whether it has to do with marriage or the Sacraments, and conforms itself then to that teaching. And in this case, no matter what the complexities of the situation may be, the party in question, the member of the faithful in question, will either rectify the irregular, immoral situation in which he finds himself and thereby be able to receive the Sacraments, or until he is able to rectify the situation, will not present himself to receive the Sacraments. There can’t be an exception because if it’s always and everywhere wrong to engage in the conjugal act with someone who is not your spouse, then if you do that and live in that way, in an habitual manner, you simply are in a condition in which you, with the help of the Church, with the help of God’s grace, you need to set your life in order and therefore begin to be able to approach again to receive Christ in the Sacraments.
Raymond Arroyo: And yet, Your Eminence, it seems as I read all of this commentary, as I read even those closest to the pope, Father Antonio Spadaro in a recent interview seemed to be suggesting that look, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all when it comes to adultery, that conscience comes into play and the Church is trying to accompany and walk with these people even in their irregular unions. The suggestion seems to be, in fact the—it’s explicit—that you really don’t need an annulment. You don’t need to nullify the first marriage and sometimes this second union may be what God is asking you. You would say what to that line of thinking?
Cardinal Burke: Well, the—it’s simply a wrong notion of conscience. The conscience does not render each of us as an individual the judge of what is right and wrong. There’s an objective order to things, and our conscience, when we are well-educated and when our conscience is well-informed, recognizes that objective order and therefore knows what’s right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. To say that I decide that something is right which for everyone else is always and everywhere wrong is simply an erroneous form of conscience and the Church’s…very popular word today of the person who finds himself in such a situation is that help which we receive in the Church to know the truth about the moral law and to respond to the grace which Our Lord always gives us—to live that truth in practice.
Raymond Arroyo: Father Antonio Spadaro who is a very close collaborator with the pope—in fact, he’s his ghost writer on a lot of these documents—he has really become the vanguard of taking down the critics of Amoris Laetitia or anyone who would even question the thinking here or the doctrine that’s implied through these pastoral adjustments. Spadaro said, and I quote, and I think he’s talking about you, that these questions, the dubia that you presented to the Holy Father, is an attempt to ramp up the tension and create division within the Church. Is that what you’re trying to do?
Cardinal Burke: No. In fact, we’re trying to address the division which is already very much ramped up, to use his phrase. Everywhere I go…many faithful, priests and bishops, and lay faithful, [with] whom I speak are in a state of very serious confusion on this matter. Priests tell me that one priest is telling the faithful one thing in Confession, other priest another thing. Only when these questions, which we have raised according to the traditional manner of resolving questions in the Church which have to do with very serious matters, only when these questions are adequately answered will the division be dissipated. But as is happening right now, as long as this continues, the division will only grow and of course the fruit of division is error. And here we’re talking about the salvation of souls, people being led into error in matters which have to do with their eternal salvation. And so Father Spadaro is very much in error in that affirmation.
Raymond Arroyo: Spadaro also said that the pope does not answer binary questions presented to him. And I wanna quote this. He says, ‘He answers sincere questions from pastors.’ Were you offended by that?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, very much so. The popes have always, all along the centuries—I’m a student of the Church’s discipline—it is the role of the pope as the pastor of the universal Church, as the guardian of the unity of the bishops and of the whole Body of Christ, to respond to such questions. To suggest that posing these questions is a sign of insincerity is deeply offensive. I can assure you that for myself, and I know the other cardinals involved, we wouldn’t raise the questions unless we had the deepest and most sincere concern for the Church herself and for the individual members of the faithful.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Eminence, many of the pope’s supporters and your critics have said he’s already answered your questions when he embraced the implementation plan of Amoris Laetitia of those bishops in Buenos Aires. In it, they said you don’t need an annulment and those who are divorced and remarried with the accompaniment of their pastor in certain cases can come forward and receive Communion. And the pope said, ‘This is exactly as it should be.’ What’s wrong with that? Didn’t he already answer your question?
Cardinal Burke: Not at all. He’s given his own opinion on the matter. The question can only be answered in terms of what the Church has always taught and practiced, as for instance is illustrated in the book which was published for the 2014 synod Remaining in the Truth of Christ. And it’s one thing [for] the pope can say what is written in Amoris Laetitia is interpreted correctly to mean that an individual priest can permit someone who’s in an irregular matrimonial union to receive the Sacraments without a firm purpose of amendment, but that doesn’t resolve the question. The question is, what does the Church teach? It’s not a matter of…some speculative idea I may have about how to approach these questions, but how does Christ in His Church address such questions? That’s, until that answer is provided, we remain in a confused state.
Raymond Arroyo: I wanna remind people of something. In Familiaris Consortio, which was John Paul II’s great document on the family, he writes:
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Is that really what concerns you, Your Eminence, that this new document Amoris Laetitia seems to be overturning it?
Cardinal Burke: Well, exactly what Pope St. John Paul II expresses is what the Church has always taught and practiced. And my concern is that Amoris Laetitia seems in some way to permit an interpretation which would lead to a practice which contradicts the constant practice of the Church and that simply is a source of the gravest concern for me. And [in] my judgment, what needs to happen is that the faithful know that whatever is written in Amoris Laetitia cannot and does not change what Pope St. John Paul II set forth in Familiaris Consortio because what he set forth was the, or is, the constant teaching and practice of the Church and therefore it is magesterium.
Raymond Arroyo: And yet you have Cardinal Schonborn that’s saying, look, this is not a break but it is an evolution. It is a changing of the Church teaching, a maturation of it. Do you accept that analysis?
Cardinal Burke: No. You can’t have a maturation of a teaching which is a rupture from that teaching, which is a breaking away from that teaching. Cardinal Schonborn’s remarks in that regard do not reflect what is called development of doctrine—in other words, through the Church’s reflection she deepens her appreciation of a teaching and, and helps the faithful to practice that teaching. This case, it’s a question of complete rupture in the teaching of the Church, a complete going away from what the Church has always taught and practiced. And that you can’t call a maturation. A maturation is something organic, where you see that what the Church has been teaching about marriage now is expressed with a greater fullness.
Raymond Arroyo: Your Eminence, have you ever seen a moment in the Church where—I can’t remember a moment where you had the pope and people raising questions about teaching, legitimate questions and trying to do so respectfully. And you had this sort of political counterforce using media and tweets and columns to attack anyone who would question that teaching in any way. And I wanna point something out to you that Bishop Schneider in Kazakhstan wrote. We’ll put it up on the screen. I’d love your reaction to this. He writes, or he spoke in an interview. He said:
There is a strange form of schism. Externally, numerous ecclesiastics safeguard formal unity with the pope, at times, for the good of their own career or of a kind of papolatry. And at the same time they have broken their ties with Christ, the Truth, and with Christ, the true head of the Church.
Are we in the middle of a schism and have you ever seen a political campaign like this?
Cardinal Burke: Well, certainly, I’ve never witnessed this in my lifetime. In the history of the Church there have been situations which have some similarities with the present situation, but I perceive that a mundane spirit, a worldly spirit has entered into the Church, which would divide her members into various camps: liberals and conservatives, who are the fundamentalists as some are fond of calling those of us who are striving to defend the constant teaching of the Church. This mundane spirit is very much reflected in a lot of slogans and etiquettes or—not etiquettes, that’s an Italian word—labels put on people in order to discount them. But we’re all Roman Catholics. We’re all called to follow Christ as He comes to us in His Church through the Church’s constant teaching…this politicization of the Church which is very much augmented by all of these forms of mediatic intervention are very harmful and are doing a great deal of damage to the common good of all in the Church.
Raymond Arroyo: In our final moments, I have to raise this. I was sort of struck, amazed really, at an interview the Holy Father gave where he suggested that those who are ‘rigid’—and that’s the term he uses…sort of locked in their ‘rigidity’ over doctrine and otherwise, that they suffer from a compulsion or a condition. Your reaction to that, and what are you and these your fellow cardinals do if you don’t get a positive reaction from the Holy Father and say, some answer on this point of clarification?
Cardinal Burke: Well, first of all, we—our presentation of the five questions is done with great serenity and with great respect. They are not the reactions of people who are suffering from emotional disorders. That we’re very deeply concerned about the truth of the doctrine of the faith and its integrity is not a sign of illness. What will we do? We have to continue to serve the truth with charity and so especially those of us who are cardinals, who are the principal advisors of the Holy Father, have a very solemn obligation to defend the Church from these kind of attacks at her very foundation. I mean, we have to remember that we’re talking about teaching about marriage and its fruit, the family, and to attack that teaching is to destabilize the whole Church and society in general. And so the responsibility is very great and we certainly—I only can speak for myself, but I know from my fellow cardinals who have been involved with me—we intend to serve that truth no matter what it takes. I, for my part, will never be part of a schism. I’m a Roman Catholic and defending the Roman Catholic faith is not the cause of my being separated from the Church. And so I simply intend to continue to defend the faith out of love for Our Lord and for the, his mystical body, my brothers and sisters in the Church, and I believe the other cardinals are of the same mind.
Raymond Arroyo: Are there more than just the four of you? I mean, I’m sure you’re getting letters and calls from others who support you—and you said you were willing to issue a formal correction if necessary. Is—does that still stand?
Cardinal Burke: Of course it does, that [is the] standard instrument in the Church for addressing such a situation. Yes, there are other cardinals. I don’t want to get into this business of the numbers. We have to remember, the criterion here is the truth. There have been cases, for instance, take for example the case of Henry VIII and his desire to be able to enter a second marriage without having his first marriage declared null—all of the bishops of England except St. John Fisher went along with the error, but St. John Fisher is the saint because he defended the truth. And all of us in the Church who are cardinals, bishops, we have the responsibility to defend the truth; whether we seem to be numerous or we seem to be very few doesn’t make any difference. It’s the truth of Christ which has to be taught.
---+
Verdade: um "espírito mundano" entrou na Igreja.