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.
Certa vez, um editor de um livro meu pediu que eu tirasse parte em que eu dizia que não gostava de arte africana, simplesmente isso, eu estava criticando o relativismo artístico dos dias de hoje. Mas ele me disse que essa parte do texto podia gerar processo contra mim e contra a editora. Vocês não imaginam como me deprimiu aquela observação do editor, eu vi o mundo terrível em que eu vivo. Rezei ainda mais pelos meus filhos, que mundo eles enfrentarão, se eu já enfrento isso?
Eu me lembrei disso ao ler texto de William Briggs, em que ele deixa claro que "ser" homossexual é pecado, isto é, uma pessoa se definir pela sua tentação é um pecado.
Esse texto provocaria horrores naquele editor. Mas é um texto, eu diria, que trata de catecismo básico.
Lembra que os atos homossexuais estão catalogados pela Bíblia entre os quatro pecados que "clamam aos céus por vingança" e que ser homossexual envolve além do ato sexual pecaminoso, um comportamento de exaltação da luxúria o que também é pecado.
Briggs finaliza dizendo que afirmar que alguém "é" homossexual é usar a linguagem do inimigo, ninguém é definido por sua tentação. Uma pessoa que tem tentações homossexuais pode tentar superá-las, como se supera qualquer outro pecado, com ajuda de Deus.
Being a homosexual, it it means anything, means embracing a certain style of behavior, dress, mindset and mannerisms. Most dress and mannerisms are not sins, but some mindsets and many behaviors are.
Sodomy is a most grievous sin, one that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Participating in or encouraging others to participate in or even to think well of any sinful act is itself sinful. Lust is a sin; therefore, encouraging lust is also a sin. Pride parades and Pride masses, for example, encourage lust.
To claim (with serious intent) to be what you are not is a sin. There are no such things as homosexuals (or necrophiliacs, pedophiles, ecosexuals, etc.) in any ontological or metaphysical sense. Therefore to claim to be a homosexual in this sense is a sin. “Being” a homosexual necessarily only means embracing and endorsing certain set of behaviors, which are sinful, or to boast of suffering certain temptations.
It is not a sin to have a temptation, only to give in to one. It is a sin to lay claim to a temptation as if the temptation is a virtue. It is impossible for anybody to be their temptation. Temptations do not define beings or essences, even permanent temptations. If temptations defined being then we would have Miser Pride Parades and Glutton celebrations. We’d also have gluttonophobia, a medical insult to be cast at those who dislike the sin of gluttony.
It is absurd—logically, biologically, or morally—for anybody to define themselves by their temptations toward certain sins. So it is a sin to say God created people as their temptations. It is thus a sin to publicly boast, as many do, that “God made me suffer constant temptations to sodomy, which makes me special.” If temptations made people into special beings, then necrophiliacs, masturbators, adulterers, zoophilies, ecosexuals, those with other lusts, the greedy, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, and the impious could all boast of their special gifts and qualities. And, of course, they could claim to be these sins.
Some (and even some well known priests who ought to know better) say the Church has always treated homosexuals, or those with other lusts, badly, or that it has discriminated against them. This is false. It is not only false, but impossible. Since there are no such creatures as homosexuals, the Church could not have treated people which do not exist badly. The Church has, in its past, discriminated against those who practice or who openly advocate sodomy. It now, if anything, openly courts those who boast of having these temptations, or in indulging in them.
Discrimination is good. The Church necessarily discriminates against kinds and types of sins, and against the people advocating or indulging in them. You, dear reader, discriminate, too, in either agreeing or disagreeing with this argument. It is impossible not to discriminate when a decision must be made. It is only true the Church has not always treated every single individual justly. Yet no institution run by people has, or will. Plus, those who claim to indulge in sodomy cannot lay claim to preferential treatment.
Having, encouraging, or requiring people to say “I am a homosexual” or “I am a man who is a woman” or “I am a necrophiliac” or whatever, must necessarily increase sin. It causes sin first by the false identification. It encourages sin by suggesting the normality of the acts, which are then engaged in more often, or by suggesting that mortal sins are venial or even sinless.
There is no such thing as the “LGBT community” in any ontological sense. There are only men and women, boys and girls. Having a group self-identify by their temptation is already absurd; to have a group self-identify by claiming not to be able to help oneself but to given in to a temptation is a sin. As is giving in to the temptation.
We could not have summarized it any better than Lifesite’s Martin M. Barillas (in an article about a faithless priest who encourages sodomy):
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” It adds: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357).
The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons says Catholics have a “duty” to oppose same-sex “marriage.”
It is, as is and always has been obvious, impossible for two men to marry each other.
Telling a person he is, or a person claiming to be, a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or etc.) is to embrace a lie. No one ever has to give in to temptation. Adopting a manner of living that with greater frequency than otherwise puts one in the way of temptation is nonsensical. To encourage embracing this manner of living, knowing it will increase temptation, and so also the giving in to temptation, is itself therefore sinful.
To say one is a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or glutton or etc.) is to claim that temptations are always and ever permanent fixtures, that God in His mercy cannot eliminate or lessen them for any person. And that is perhaps the biggest sin of all.
Como se pode confiar em uma ditadura que controla desde o ventre da mãe até o sistema bancário e cresceu com base na violação de patentes?
Fazer acordo com a China não é um coisa que eu costume recomendar. Eu já trabalhei com negociações internacionais e tenho certa experiência sobre o trato com a China e outros países do G20 (grupo de maiores economias do mundo). Aliás, eu diria que entre aqueles países que já fizeram acordo com a China a imensa maioria não deve recomendar que se faça acordo coma China.
Mas o Vaticano sob Francisco resolveu arriscar.O acordo que foi feito em setembro de 2018 ainda está em segredo, mas já há casos de que o acordo não foi respeitado pelas autoridades chinesas. Não em digam?
O acordo entre China e Vaticano é um pesadelo para católicos chineses e já está criando seus mártires.
O jornalista italiano Sandro Magister cita dois casos:
1) documento chinês em várias províncias chinesas que deve ser assinado por padres e freiras proíbe que menores entre nas igrejas católicas, que menores sejam catequizados, e também que católicos participem de cerimônias no exterior, usem imagens de santos, ou cantem hinos de louvores;
2) Na diocese de Mindong havia um bispo aceito pela Igreja Católica, Guo Xijin, e outro imposto pelo Partido Comunista e membro do próprio partido, chamado Zhan Silu. Bento XVI tinha excomungado Zhan Silu, mas pelo acordo com a China, o Papa Francisco revogou a excomunhão de Zhan Silu, rebaixou Gou para bispo auxiliar e ainda colocou Zhan como bispo da diocese. Mesmo assim as autoridades chineses não aceitam Gou como bispo, enquanto Gou não assinar documento se sujeitando a Zhan e aderência a Associação Patriótica Católica. Gou não assinou e se rebelou.
There is important news in the “Guidelines” that the Holy See gave on June 28 to the Chinese bishops and priests on the obligation to sign a record of civil registration, “on pain of inability to function pastorally.”
The news lifts the veil on a key point of the “Provisional accord,” still secret, on the appointment of bishops, signed by the Holy See and Beijing last September 22.
We now know in fact from the “Guidelines” that in this accord communist China has for the first time “recognised the particular role of the Successor of Peter.” From which it follows that the “independence” of the Chinese Catholic Church from every foreign power, an element that is still indispensable for the Beijing authorities, must no longer be understood “in an absolute sense, namely as separation from the Pope and the Universal Church,” but in a sense “relative to the political sphere.”
The facts, however - as we also know from the “Guidelines” - do not correspond to this understanding at all, because “almost always” priests and bishops are still required to sign documents in which “the principle of independence, autonomy and self-administration of the Church in China” is reiterated in absolute terms, “notwithstanding the commitment assumed by the Chinese authorities to respect also Catholic doctrine.”
This is the reason why in the 2007 letter to Chinese Catholics - still the “magna carta” of the Catholic Church in China - Benedict XVI called “incompatible with Catholic doctrine” the founding principles of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the regime’s organ of supervision, which anyone who wanted to come out from underground was required to join.
Now, however, for the Holy See enrollment in the Patriotic Association - or in an equivalent - is no longer to be absolutely ruled out, as long as it is accompanied by a concomitant attestation of observance of Catholic doctrine, made in writing or “even only verbally, if possible in the presence of a witness,” and in any case informing the pertinent bishop of the “intention” with which the record has been signed.
To judge, therefore, by these same “Guidelines,” relations between the Holy See and China continue to be very difficult. In spite of the fact that Rome is doing everything it can to smooth over or get around the disagreements, the reality of the facts continues to be “almost always” to the detriment of the Chinese Catholics. To the point that observers of proven expertise like Fathers Sergio Ticozzi and Bernardo Cervellera of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions have not hesitated to call “a bit theoretical and optimistic” the step forward Rome has taken with the publication of the “Guidelines,” and to denounce as entirely out of place the applause lavished on June 19 by the “Global Times” - an official English-language organ of the communist party - on three “firsts” of the Vatican in Beijing, as if they were proof of a magnificent agreement: an exhibit of the Vatican Museums, an enthusiastic conference “on Pope Francis and his vision” by the Jesuit Bernard Vermander, and another overoptimistic conference on relations between China and the Holy See by Father Antonio Spadaro, director of “La Civiltà Cattolica” and a close associate of Pope Francis, reprinted on June 27 in “L’Osservatore Romano.”
*
If one then wants to get into the thick of things, two emblematic cases can be cited.
The first is a document published in its entirety on June 25 by “Asia News.” It comes from Fujian and is entitled “Letter of commitment for those responsible for places of worship and for consecrated persons.” Signing it is obligatory in order to exercise the ministry of parish priest, on pain of being driven back underground. And the same goes for consecrated persons, the nuns.
Among the requirements imposed by this document are those of “prohibiting minors from entering the church” and “not organizing courses of formation for minors,” therefore not even catechism for children on parish premises.
There is also the requirement to break off all relations with confreres of the Catholic faith abroad, and to decline invitations to conferences or interviews. While even in their own homes they are not allowed to display sacred images, sing hymns, or post comments of a religious nature online.
Similar documents are in use in Henan, Hubei, Zhejiang.
*
The second case is that of the diocese of Mindong, also in Fujian, and of its two bishops.
Until 2018 the only bishop recognized by Rome - but not by Beijing - was Vincent Guo Xijin, under constant harassment by the Chinese authorities, which instead had installed in the same diocese in 2000 the excommunicated Vincent Zhan Silu, a man of the regime, vice-president of both the Patriotic Association and the pseudo episcopal conference that assembles only the bishops appointed by the government, in addition to being a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
But when on September 22 2018 Rome and Beijing signed the aforementioned accord, Pope Francis released Zhan from excommunication, assigned him the government of the diocese, and demoted Guo as his auxiliary bishop.
Guo, however, is not likewise to be acknowledged as bishop by the Chinese authorities until he should put his signature to a document that demands from him not only obedience to the new titular bishop, but above all submission to the laws of the country and adherence to the principles of “independence” and to the Patriotic Association.
Guo resists. He recognizes obedience to the bishop and submission to the laws. But he refuses to adhere to the principles of “independence” and to the Patriotic Association. The Chinese authorities allow him to publicly celebrate the rites of Holy Week, forbidden to him until just a few days before, but they do not want it to become known what he has signed and what he has not. On the contrary, they publicize his adherence to the Patriotic Association in order to induce the priests of the diocese to do the same.
Guo then rebels. In order to lay claim to freedom for himself and for his priests, he sends the authorities a letter in which he writes:
“The government has decided to persecute priests who refuse to sign adherence to the Patriotic Association. If I am not capable of protecting them, it is not worth it for me to be recognized as auxiliary bishop. I am ready to face persecution together with the other priests.”
The retaliation is immediate. The government authorities block Guo from presiding on June 28 over the rite of religious profession for a few nuns of the Sacred Heart. And he reacts by not participating, the following day, in the dedication Mass for the new cathedral of Mindong, built with government money.
He explains his action in a brief letter to the priests of the diocese, published in its entirety by “Asia News,” in which he writes:
“I have decided not to go to the ceremony even if they come to get me with a gurney. I am a man and not a monkey that performs however someone else wants. I had thought of not saying anything, but some brothers told me that everyone has the right to know the truth.”
And Mindong was the diocese that for the fans of the accord between Rome and Beijing was to be the “pilot project” for the new Chinese Church…
Cardeal Gerhard Muller, ex-prefeito da Congregação da Doutrina da Fé (órgão máximo de defesa da fé católica), disse em entrevista ao National Catholic Register que o documento para o Sínodo da Amazônia contém ideias teológicas alemãs de 30 anos atrás, que adota um tipo de "transcendência natural", que não representam a fé católica. Por isso, ele disse que o documento precisa ser corrigido para representar a fé católica fielmente.
Muller disse também que a fé católica não começa no "sofrimento dos povos" como se baseia o documento, a fé católica tem fundamento no Pai, Filho e Espirito Santo.
Muller também crítica o documento por ser uma remodelagem ecológica da teologia da libertação. Ele diz que a fé católica não é imanente, mundana, a verdadeira teologia da libertação da Igreja é centrada em Cristo.
Muller também diz que a Igreja não pode mudar o celibato dos padres, pois é baseado na espiritualidade da fé. A crise da fé não põe causa do celibato.
Ele diz que estão tentando inventar uma nova Igreja.
É uma longa entrevista, aqui vai parte dela.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller: ‘True Reform of the Church Is About Her Renewal in Christ’
Posted by Edward Pentin on Friday Jul 5th, 2019 at 3:52 PM
In a wide-ranging interview that discusses the Pan-Amazon synod and the Church in his home country of Germany, the cardinal says Western Christianity is experiencing a crisis of faith and spiritual leadership.
Your Eminence, what are your views on the instrumentum laboris for the Pan-Amazon synod?
It’s only a working document, it’s not a document of the magisterium of the Church, and everybody is free to give his opinions about the quality of the preparation of this document. I think there isn’t a big theological horizon behind it. It has been written mostly by a group of German descendants and not by people who are living there. It has a very European perspective, and I think it is more of a projection of European theological thinking upon the people of the Amazonian region because we heard all these ideas 30 years ago.
Not all of the ideas accord with basic elements of Catholic theology, especially the conception of religion. We have the conception of a revealed faith, historically realized in the Incarnation of the Word of the Father in Jesus Christ, infused by the Holy Spirit. But the Catholic Church is not a religion as a natural relation to transcendence. We cannot understand the Catholic Church only within the frame of a concept of religion. Religions are made by man, they are impressions, means, rites of anthropological desires and thinking about the world, but our faith is based on the revelation of God in the Old and New Testament, in Jesus Christ. We, therefore, have to correct this thinking in this document in a more Catholic way.
Critics have said this document takes its starting point from the trials and sufferings of the people of the Amazon and not Revelation and Christ himself.
It can start with suffering of the people, but this is not the starting point of the Catholic faith. We begin with baptism, and we confess our faith to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christ himself came into the world, and his cross takes on all the suffering of the world. But it’s another thing to begin with people and then to relativize revelation only as an expression of European culture. That is absolutely wrong.
There is also a focus on theology that some critics believe is basically a “cultural recycling of liberation theology.” Do you agree this document possibly represents a push to pass liberation theology through the back door?
Liberation theology is a wide concept, but liberty is the basic element of our faith because we are saved, we’ve been freed by Jesus Christ from sin, liberated from distance from God. This [liberty] also contains the healing of worldly elements and dimensions, but we cannot convert the approach of Christ and his cross and his taking all the suffering and sins of the world on himself to an immanent approach, as then, in the end, we relativize Revelation as only one expression of the Greek-Roman culture. It’s the wrong approach.
Liberation theology is a Catholic theology that begins with Revelation, that begins in Holy Scripture, in the Tradition, the magisterial life of the Church, and we cannot put the stress on a new hermeneutic that is alien to the Catholic faith.
So you would argue that liberation theology per se is okay, but it can be used in different, unorthodox ways?
It can be understood as Christians taking over responsibility for society, integral development. We are not only interested in the world, but in the center of Revelation, which is communion with God, beginning in this life, and also the radiance of the good works that God made for us.
But we cannot convert Christianity, the Church, to being an NGO only for a worldly development, so that immanent development is the center of our faith. Our faith is in relation to the Triune and personal God.
Do you think this document leads to a more immanent perspective (that the divine is manifested in the material world), rather than a Catholic one?
Yes, this is the danger because behind this document are not great theologians, and there is this more practical, rather ideological approach to the questions.
The other aspect some are concerned about is priestly celibacy, and that the document raises the possibility of ordaining married men, or mature men with families, to the Catholic priesthood in the Amazon. Are you concerned this could lead to an undermining of clerical celibacy universally, as some critics have said?
Well, on the one hand, they are pushing for this [an end to mandatory priestly celibacy] and saying it openly, and, on the other hand, saying when asked that they won’t undermine priestly celibacy. The discipline is rooted in the spirituality of the priesthood in the Western and Latin Church. We cannot change it as if it were only an external discipline, as it is deeply connected with the spirituality of the priesthood, as the Second Vatican Council said (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16).
We accept married priests in the Eastern Churches where there’s this tradition, but the Latin Church will continue with celibacy in the priesthood in this way. I think this isn’t the great solution they expect which will resolve all the problems, because the crisis in Christianity in the Western world is nothing to do with the celibacy of the priesthood and religious vows. It is a crisis of faith and also of the spiritual leadership.
Em entrevista para o Washington Post, no dia 10 de junho, o arcebispo Carlo Maria Viganò fez várias denúncias de acobertamento de abusos sexuais, inclusive contra menores, feitos pelo Papa e alguns importantes cardeais em tempos de Francisco, como Parolin e Maradiaga.
Mas o jornal não publicou.
Agora as denúncias foram publicadas hoje pelo Life Site News, e falam especialmente sobre um padre chamado Gabriele Martinelli e um arcebispo venezuelano chamado Edgar Peña Parra.
O caso de Martinelli aconteceu dentro do Vaticano contra menores coroinhas que servem ao próprio Papa e chegou ao conhecimento da Cúria. O caso do Edgar Parra, também está no Vaticano, pois o Papa Francisco escolheu Barra para ser o terceiro homem mais importante da Cúria ao assessorar o cardeal Parolin e Parra trabalhou próximo de Maradiaga.
Viganò chama o modo como o Papa Francisco lida com abusos sexuais de "sinistro" (ominous).
Vejam o relato bem detalhado de Viganò. Não está difícil que os fatos sejam comprovados ou não, pelo número de detalhes fornecidos pelo arcebispo Viganò
Vejam o relato do Life Site News abaixo, as denúncias já estão tendo repercussões.
New Viganò testimony: Vatican covered up allegations of sexual abuse of Pope’s altar boys
July 3, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Editor’s Note: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s interview with the Washington Post, published June 10, contained an answer that the Post decided to expurgate from the interview. This answer contained important information regarding unaddressed accusations of sex abuse against a high official of the Holy See, as well as the coverup of a former seminarian, now a priest, accused of the sexual abuse of pre-seminarian adolescents who acted as the Pope’s altar boys. The full text of Viganò’s unpublished answers to the Washington Post follows. The text has been slightly modified to include capitalizations normally used in English. The name of one individual has been removed by LifeSite because LifeSite was unable to find sufficient support for the accusation against him at this point.
I.b. Do you see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse? If not, what is missing?
The signs I see are truly ominous. Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse, he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers. Just to cite one example: Cardinal Wuerl, who covered up the abuses of McCarrick and others for decades, and whose repeated and blatant lies have been made manifest to everyone who has been paying attention (for those who have not been paying attention, see washingtonpost.com/opinions/cardinal-wuerl-knew-about-theodore-mccarrick-and-he-lied-about-it), had to resign in disgrace due to popular outrage. Yet, in accepting his resignation, Pope Francis praised him for his “nobility.” What credibility has the pope left after this kind of statement?
But such behavior is by no means the worst. Going back to the summit and its focus on the abuse of minors, I now wish to bring to your attention two recent and truly horrifying cases involving allegations of offenses against minors during Pope Francis’ tenure. The pope and many prelates in the Curia are well aware of these allegations, but in neither case was an open and thorough investigation permitted. An objective observer cannot help but suspect that horrible deeds are being covered up.
1. The first is said to have occurred inside the very walls of the Vatican, at the Pre-Seminary Pius X, which is located just a short walk from the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where Pope Francis lives. That seminary trains minors who serve as altar boys in St. Peter’s Basilica and at papal ceremonies.
One of the seminarians, Kamil Jarzembowski, a roommate of one of the victims, claims to have witnessed dozens of incidents of sexual aggression. Along with two other seminarians, he denounced the aggressor, first in person to his pre-seminary superiors, then in writing to cardinals, and finally in 2014, again in writing, to Pope Francis himself. One of the victims was a boy, allegedly abused for five consecutive years, starting at age 13. The alleged aggressor was a 21-year- old seminarian, Gabriele Martinelli.
That pre-seminary is under the responsibility of the diocese of Como, and is run by the Don Folci Association. A preliminary investigation was entrusted to the judicial vicar of Como, don Andrea Stabellini, who found elements of evidence that warranted further investigation. I received firsthand information indicating that his superiors prohibited his continuing the investigation. He can testify for himself, and I urge you to go and interview him. I pray that he will find the courage to share with you what he so courageously shared with me.
Along with the above, I learned how the authorities of the Holy See dealt with this case. After evidence was collected by Don Stabellini, the case was immediately covered up by the then-bishop of Como, Diego Coletti, together with Cardinal Angelo Comastri, Vicar General of Pope Francis for Vatican City. In addition, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, then president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, who was consulted by Don Stabellini, strongly admonished him to stop the investigation.
You might wonder how this horrible case was closed. The Bishop of Como removed Don Stabellini from the post of Judicial Vicar; the whistleblower, the seminarian Kamil Jarzembowski, was expelled from the seminary; the two fellow seminarians who had joined him in the denunciation left the seminary; and the alleged abuser, Gabriele Martinelli, was ordained priest in July 2017. All this happened within the Vatican walls, and not a word of it came out during the summit.
The summit was therefore terribly disappointing, for it is hypocrisy to condemn abuses against minors and claim to sympathize with the victims while refusing to face up to the facts honestly. A spiritual revitalization of the clergy is most urgent, but it will ultimately be ineffectual if there is no willingness to address the real problem.
2. The second case involves Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, whom Pope Francis has chosen to be the new Substitute at the Secretariat of State, making him the third most powerful person in the curia. In doing so, the pope essentially ignored a terrifying dossier sent to him by a group of faithful from Maracaibo, entitled “¿Quién es verdaderamente Monseñor Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Nuevo Sustituto de la Secretarîa de Estado del Vaticano?” (“Who really is Msgr. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, the new Substitute at the Secretariat of State of the Vatican” - LifeSite) The dossier is signed by Dr. Enrique W. Lagunillas Machado, in the name of the “Grupo de Laicos de la Arquidiócesis de Maracaibo por una Iglesia y un Clero según el Corazón de Cristo” (“Group of Laity of the Archdiocese of Maracaibo for a Church and a Clergy in accordance with the Heart of Christ” – LifeSite). These faithful accused Peña Parra of terrible immorality, describing in detail his alleged crimes. This might even be a scandal surpassing that of McCarrick, and it must not be allowed to be covered by silence.
In January 2000, Maracaibo journalist Gastón Guisandes López made serious accusations against some priests from the diocese of Maracaibo, including Msgr. Peña Parra, involving sexual abuse of minors and other possibly criminal activity.
In 2001, Gastón Guisandes López twice asked to be received by the apostolic nuncio (the Pope’s ambassador) in Venezuela, archbishop André Dupuy, to discuss these matters, but the archbishop inexplicably refused to receive him. He did, however, report to the Secretariat of State that the journalist had accused Msgr. Peña Parra of two very serious crimes, describing the circumstances.
First, Edgar Peña Parra was accused of having seduced, on September 24, 1990, two minor seminarians from the parish of San Pablo, who were to enter the Major Seminary of Maracaibo that same year. The event is said to have taken place in the Church of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, where the Rev. José Severeyn was parish priest. Rev. Severeyn was later removed from the parish by the then archbishop Msgr. Roa Pérez. The case was reported to the police by the parents of the two young men and was dealt with by the then-rector of the major seminary, Rev. Enrique Pérez, and by the then spiritual director, Rev. Emilio Melchor. Rev. Pérez, when questioned by the Secretariat of State, confirmed in writing the episode of September 24, 1990. I have seen these documents with my own eyes.
Second, Edgar Peña Parra was allegedly involved, together with [NAME REMOVED], in the death of two people, a doctor and a certain Jairo Pérez, which took place in August 1992, on the island of San Carlos in Lake Maracaibo. They were killed by an electric discharge, and it is not clear whether or not the deaths were accidental. This same accusation is also contained in the aforementioned dossier sent by a group of lay people from Maracaibo, with the additional detail that the two corpses were found naked, with evidence of macabre homosexual lewd encounters. These accusations are, to say the least, extremely grave. Yet not only was Peña Parra not required to face them, he was allowed to continue in the diplomatic service of the Holy See.
These two accusations were reported to the Secretariat of State in 2002 by the then apostolic nuncio in Venezuela, archbishop André Dupuy. The relevant documentation, if it has not been destroyed, can be found both in the archives of the diplomatic personnel of the Secretariat of State where I held the position of Delegate for the Pontifical Representations, and in the archives of the apostolic nunciature in Venezuela, where the following archbishops have served as nuncios since: Giacinto Berloco, from 2005 to 2009; Pietro Parolin, from 2009 to 2013; and Aldo Giordano, from 2013 to the present. They all had access to the documents reporting these accusations against the future Substitute, as did the cardinals Secretaries of State Sodano, Bertone, and Parolin and the Substitutes Sandri, Filoni, and Becciu.
Particularly egregious is the behavior of Cardinal Parolin who, as Secretary of State, did not oppose the recent appointment of Peña Parra as Substitute, making him his closest collaborator. Even more: years earlier, in January 2011, as apostolic nuncio in Caracas, Parolin did not oppose the appointment of Peña Parra as archbishop and apostolic nuncio to Pakistan. Before such important appointments, a rigorous informative process is made to verify the suitability of the candidate, so these accusations were surely brought to the attention of Cardinal Parolin.
Furthermore, Cardinal Parolin knows the names of a number of priests in the Curia who are sexually unchaste, violating the laws of God that they solemnly committed themselves to teach and practice, and he continues to look the other way.
If Cardinal Parolin’s responsibilities are grave, even more so are those of Pope Francis for having chosen for an extremely important position in the Church a man accused of such serious crimes, without first insisting on an open and thorough investigation. There is one more scandalous aspect to this horrific story. Peña Parra is closely connected with Honduras, and more precisely with Cardinal Maradiaga and Bishop Juan José Pineda. Between 2003 and 2007, Peña Parra served in the nunciature in Tegucigalpa, and while there he was very close to Juan José Pineda, who in 2005 was ordained auxiliary bishop of Tegucigalpa, becoming the right-hand man of Cardinal Maradiaga. Juan José Pineda resigned from his post of auxiliary bishop in July 2018, without any reason given to the faithful of Tegucicalpa. Pope Francis has not released the results of the report that the Apostolic Visitor, the Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered directly and only to him more than a year ago. How can one interpret Pope Francis’ firm decision not to talk about or answer any question about this matter except as a cover up of the facts and protection of a homosexual network? Such decisions reveal a terrible truth: rather than allowing open and serious investigations of those accused of grave offenses against the Church, the pope is allowing the Church herself to suffer.
Coming back to your question. You ask me if I see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse. My answer is simple: Pope Francis himself is covering up abuse right now, as he did for McCarrick. I say this with great sorrow. When King David pronounced the greedy rich man in Nathan’s parable worthy of death, the prophet told him bluntly, “You are the man” (2 Sam 12:1-7). I had hoped my testimony might be received like Nathan’s, but it was instead received like that of Micaiah (1Kings 22:15-27). I pray that this will change.
O artigo lembra que Charles de Gaulle não celebrava o Dia-D, apesar dos mais de 9 mil americanos mortos para liberar a França, e de Gaulle negava a aceitação do nazismo pelos franceses. Até os anos 70, os livros escolares da França negavam o passado nazista francês, até que o livro de Robert Paxton mostrou isso em 1973. A partir daí a França começa a ler seu passado histórico na Segunda Guerra e passou a ver com muita dificuldade que adotaram o nazismo e o anti-semitismo, que fez com que mandaram milhares de judeus para campos de concentração (ver o Vel' d'Hiv Roundup), incluindo milhares de crianças. O artigo também lembra que o próprio de Gaulle tinha traços anti-semitas e era contra o estado de Israel.
Há disponível na internet várias fotos de Paris no tempo de dominação nazista, que são muito intrigantes, pois mostram uma Paris ocupada tranquila nos anos 40, como a foto que vai acima e essas abaixo.
Sim, tivemos a resistência francesa, mas não se pode colocar a liberação da França na conta dela.
June 6, 2019. Normandy, France. The remains of 9,387 American military deadare buried at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial; 9238 Latin crosses for Christians and 149 Stars of David for Jews are aligned on the bluff overlooking Omaha Beach, one of five sectors on the Normandy coast where 132,000 soldiers of the Western allies landed on June 6, 1944. US President Donald J. Trump delivers a speech praising heroism, duty, honor and freedom, and pays tribute to the young Americans who gave their lives; he also speaks of the other soldiers who fought in the Normandy landings: Canadians, British, French. He behaves as a great statesman.
Just before he spoke, French President Emmanuel Macron also paid tribute to those brave soldiers. He added some remarks -- that immediately were seen as a way to lecture the American President:
"America is never as great as when it fights for the freedom of others. It is never as great as when it is faithful to the universal values defended by its founding fathers when two and a half centuries ago, France came to support its independence".
Macron had earlier indicated that he intended to emphasize "French values" and "the art of being French". Jean-Pierre Raffarin, a former French Prime Minister and today one of Emmanuel Macron's political advisors, said the that French President thought the United States had "abandoned core ethical principles" and that "America today would not fight for the freedom of Europe. "
The day before that, Macron organized a ceremony to pay homage to the French resistance. "Without the resistance and all the French fighters," he said, "France would not have regained freedom". At another ceremony to pay tribute to the 177 Free French soldiers who landed at Normandy on D-Day, he said that the French were "everywhere to liberate their own country, on land, at sea, in the air".
President Macron's will to pay tribute to the French resistance and the French who landed on D-Day is understandable. Many French citizens fought bravely. His attempt, however, to describe the French playing a vital role in the liberation of their country, as if the French had liberated France, is harder to accept. It merely diminishes the role of all those who were not French who fought and died to liberate the country.
His words and attitude appear to have their roots in those of General Charles de Gaulle at the end of World War II. The general was filmed in Normandy, a few days after June 6, 1944, just a few miles from the beaches where thousands of young Americans had been killed and not yet even been buried. "France," he said, "begins to free itself and will soon be free, thanks to the French". During the rest of his political career, de Gaulle stressed that France had been liberated by the French. When he talked about the Vichy regime, he said it was composed of "a handful of traitors who had ceased to be French".
De Gaulle refused to speak of the many French who had collaborated with the authorities of the German occupation. He refused to commemorate D-Day. He even went on to claim that the Normandy landings had "not been the beginning of the liberation of France," but "the starting point of an American attempt to colonize France". He then added that "the American occupation of France" had ended during his presidency, when he had decided to "leave NATO and ask the United States to close the American military bases on French territory". He never spoke of the crucial role of the Marshall Plan in rebuilding France, or that NATO was created to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union.
What de Gaulle said had a profound effect. Until the early 1970s, twenty-five years after the war, no book or film in France dealt with "collaboration". The history textbooks used in French schools omitted the close ties between many French people and German occupation authorities just a few years earlier. Instead, students learned that France had been occupied, and that the Resistance had liberated the country with the help of "Allies". The role of the Americans was barely mentioned. The vast support of the French population for Marshal Philippe Pétain, the anti-Semitism of the wartime Vichy regime and the active contribution of the French police and gendarmes in deporting Jews to concentration camps were never mentioned. Books such as Harvest of Hate by Leon Leo Poliakov(1951) noted the crimes of the Third Reich, but not the crimes of the French police and gendarmes. Only a few copies were sold.
Robert Paxton's book, however, Vichy France, translated into French in 1973, created a scandal. Paxton used countless documents that no one had seen before to describe the extent of "collaboration" in France and the zealous contribution of the Vichy regime to deporting Jews. Many French commentators wrote that the book was not only full of lies but an insult to the honor of France.
Until 1984, no French President even took part in D-Day ceremonies -- and the events were discreet, to say the least.
The commemorations of the 1942 "Vel d'Hiv roundup" (a Nazi-directed raid and mass arrest of Jews in Paris by the French police) became official only in 1992. Before that, only Jewish organizations had participated; newspapers never wrote about it. In 1995, President Jacques Chirac recognized that France was guilty of the Vel d'Hiv roundup and of deporting of tens of thousands of Jews to concentration camps; many French politicians to this day nonetheless persist in saying that he was wrong and that France is not guilty.
Since 1945, no French political leader has ever breathed a word of gratitude to the United States for its contribution to the liberation of France without adding remarks emphasizing the moral values of France and the essentialrole of the French Resistance. Whenever possible, they have also done their best to show that they could prevail against the United States if they so wished.
The speech delivered by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin at the United Nations on February 14, 2003 -- criticizing the decision of US President George W. Bush's administration to invade Iraq -- stated that "France is standing up, faithful to its values". The speech earned Villepin unanimous praise in France. Villepin did not, however, mention that France had just concluded secret oil contracts with Iraq's Saddam Hussein and did not want to lose money. When President Nicolas Sarkozy defined his own foreign policy in a speech on August 27, 2007, he stressed that France was allied with the United States, but "not aligned". President François Hollande repeated the same formulation -- "We are allied, not aligned" -- in 2012.
Macron went one step further. On November 8, 2018, he said that France and Germany should create a European army to "protect themselves against Russia, China, and even the United States". Three days later, at a November 11 ceremony, while looking at President Trump, who had not long before that praised "American nationalism", Macron suggested that "patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is its betrayal."
Previously, on April 25, 2018, Macron had delivered an address in front of the US Congress on the Iranian nuclear program in which he enjoined the United States to "respect their signature". "France will not leave the Iranian nuclear deal," he said, "because we signed it [and] we respect our commitments. "
As France apparently feels no guilt about its role in the genocide of Europe's Jews, French leaders have long been indifferent to anti-Semitism. They began to talk about it only in the 1980s -- in order to demonize the "far right". That is what they continue to do.
French foreign policy became anti-Israeli in the 1960s, when, at the end of Algerian war, French politicians thought that it would be more lucrative to establish closer links with the Arab world. France is still anti-Israeli. On November 27, 1967, General de Gaulle delivered remarks mixing anti-Semitism with verbal attacks against Israel. He described the Jews as "domineering and sure of themselves", spoke of their supposed "ardent and conquering ambition" and described Israel as a "war-like state bent on expansion". In June 1967, three days before the Six-Day War, when threats from the Arab world against Israel were impossible disregard and war seemed imminent, de Gaulle decided to institute an embargo on delivering arms to Israel.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert refused to condemn Egypt's and Syria's aggression against Israel: "Attempting to set foot at home," he misstated, "does not necessarily constitute aggression".
France also supported the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at a time when it was unreservedly a terrorist movement, openly dedicated to destroying Israel and murdering Jews. France voted in favor of a United Nations resolution supporting the PLO, and as early as January 27, 1976, called for the "creation of a Palestinian state". President Jacques Chirac unabashedly supported the PLO and, as he put it, the "need to create a Palestinian state". In November 2004, he provided a warm welcome in France to the Palestinian arch-terrorist, Chairman Yasser Arafat just before the latter's death, and offered him a funeral cortegeworthy of a great democratic parliamentarian.
On September 21, 2011 President Nicolas Sarkozy also told the UN that France wanted the creation of a Palestinian state as soon as possible "in the lines of 1967", and said that "Palestine" had to have an "observer state" seat at the United Nations "similar to the one the Vatican has". Six weeks later, on October 31, France votedin favor of the entry of the "State of Palestine" into UNESCO.
Macron continues the same policy as his predecessors. He never misses an opportunity to invite the current Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to the Elysée Palace and he never forgets to kiss him. Macron also asks for the creation of "a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital". He condemns all the decisions in favor of Israel made by the Trump administration, and describes the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as a "grave mistake". On May 15, 2018, when Hamas sent terrorists hidden among civilians to storm Israel's border fence with Gaza, and Israeli soldiers had to shoot armed people to prevent their border being breached, Macron condemned "the violence of the Israeli armed forces against the protesters". Only several months later, when rockets were launched into Israel from Gaza, did he condemn Hamas's terrorist activity.
On May 8, 2018, President Trump -- explaining that Iran was now "the leading sponsor of terrorism", and that it "support[ed] terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas" and was still trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability -- decided to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. He announced there would be American sanctions to encourage Iran to change its behavior and come to the table for new talks. From that point on, France and Germany have done all they can to circumvent American sanctions and to continue working with Iran. On June 17, 2019 -- when Iran's regime was threatening to use precision missiles to hit "all enemies – at least the ones in the region or the ones who have forces in the region" -- and two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were struck, Macron advisedIran to be "patient and responsible".
Since 1945, the French attitude towards the United States has been marked by arrogance and ingratitude. In 2005, the American journalist Richard Chesnoff quoted a French professor, Dominique Moïsi:
"When France was a great power, America was a nascent power, when America became a superpower, France became a middle-size power, and now that America is the hyper-power, France is not anywhere near being in the same league."
Chesnoff added that this had led to a mix of unavowed envy and hidden resentment.
At the time of the French Revolution, France claimed to have a universal message; France saw only later that the United States had become "the country embodying the values of freedom and human dignity on earth", wrote Jean-François Revel in 2002 in Anti-Americanism. He added that a French politician had told him, "America stole universality from us". He also stressed that the French claim of having a universal message was often "contradicted by the appalling reality of France's behavior".
France's behavior towards the United States, Israel, and the Iranian regime today might well illustrate his observation.
Macron's remarks in Normandy on June 6 seemed unnecessarily arrogant -- an attitude especially insufferable as, at the moment he spoke, France was still tryingto circumvent American sanctions on Iran's malign regime. He is also in no position to make such pointed remarks. For six months, protests by the "yellow vests" have been hitting the French economy hard. They have revealed the extent of the discontent among those French who are disadvantaged. Macron reacted with contempt and brutality: he called protesters a "hateful crowd" and asked the police to restore order "ruthlessly" (twenty four people have lost an eye, five others lost a hand). Macron may have received the support of the elites, but the despair of the protestors did not disappear.
Illegal immigration has transformed many areas of the country into shanty towns. Hundreds of no-go zones in the suburbs have been described by the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal and the journalist Éric Zemmour as small Islamic republics in the making. Jews in France must now conceal their religious identity in public wherever they are.
On November 13, 2018, President Trump, reacting to Macron's November remarks, said in a tweet thread, "there is no country more nationalist than France" and, "it was Germany" that invaded France. "[I]n World Wars One & Two... The French were starting to learn German when we came around."
On June 6, Trump used more diplomatic language. He said that his relationship with France and Macron was "exceptional". But he now knows Macron. Trump doubtless remembers that during Macron's visit to Washington 14 months ago, Macron had seemed friendly toward him, but then, in Congress, spent his whole speech running down the essential decisions of the Trump administration.
On April 24, 2018, Macron, to show his friendship, offered an oak tree to Trump; they planted it together on the White House lawn. The oak, which had been was quarantined by US agricultural authorities, was reported to have died four days after the 2019 D-Day ceremonies. Macron promised to send Trump another oak; it has not yet arrived. Oaks may live eight hundred years. Macron's friendly words seem to have a shorter life expectancy.
Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.
Hoje, eu vi a divulgação do programa World Over com dois renomados jornalistas católicos, Raymond Arroyo e Edward Pentin, sobre as ideias do sínodo da Amazônia.
Vou relatar aqui o vídeo que está em inglês (até 13 minutos do vídeo).
Após breve notícia sobre o transporte do corpo do arcebispo que está em processo de canonização Fulton Sheen para Peoria (Illinois), os jornalistas do sínodo da Amazônia falam:
Pentin afirma que há muito tempo que cardeal Hummes vem apoiando ordenação de padres casados. E ressalta que os participantes da "reunião secreta" estão longe de se enquadrar entre aqueles que pregam a ortodoxia doutrinária da Igreja, pelo contrário, os participantes estão entre aqueles que querem reverter várias doutrinas.
Ao ser perguntado sobre quem na Igreja está se levantando contra essas maquinações Pentin menciona o Tradição, Família e Propriedade (grupo fundado pelo brasileiro Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira, que está espalhado pelo mundo). E lembra o site Pan-Amazon Synod Watch, que eu mencionei na minha entrevista para o professor Ricardo Felício.
Arroyo menciona o bispo alemão Franz-Josef Overbeck, que lida com América Latina, na conferência dos bispos alemães, que participou da reunião secreta. Overbeck disse o sínodo "será um ponto de não retorno". Isto é, tudo seria diferente após o sínodo
Pentin suspeita que os alemães irão usar o sínodo para forçar suas agendas dentro da Igreja, mudanças na moralidade sexual e no trato de divorciados, um novo round do sínodo da família que ocorreu em 2014/2015.
Pentin afirma que essa agenda pode já estar pré-determinada no sínodo.
Em seguida, os jornalistas tratam das palavras do cardeal Brandmuller que acusou o documento do sínodo de herético, apóstata e contra o Brasil. Eu tratei disso em post anterior.
Arroyo traz uma questão que eu tratei na entrevista com Ricardo Felício, qual seja o conceito de "civilização". O documento do sínodo parecer considerar que os índios possam ensinar "civilização" à Igreja e ao mundo cristão ocidental.
Em seguida, eles tratam dos problemas católicos em Malta, onde foi negado a missa na forma extraordinária (rito trindentino), suspeita-se que o próprio Papa Francisco esteja relacionado com isso.
