terça-feira, 30 de junho de 2015

Conferência dos Bispos dos EUA Reage à Decisão Pró-Gay da Suprema Corte

A Conferência dos Bispos Católicos dos Estados Unidos (USCCB) chamou de "erro trágico" a decisão da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos em forçar o casamento gay para todos os 50 estados dos EUA.

No texto, a USCCB diz basicamente que assim como a decisão pró-aborto da Suprema Corte em 1973 não decidiu que aborto é certo, esta decisão pró-gay não decidi o que é casamento. Pois as duas decisões não têm base na verdade humana. A decisão da Suprema Corte não muda absolutamente nada, o verdadeiro casamento é entre homem e mulher, inscrito na natureza humana, dentro do Plano de Deus, como reafirmou Jesus Cristo, e os cristãos têm de continuar a defender isso em todas as esferas.

Vejam o texto oficial.

Supreme Court Decision On Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President Of Catholic Bishops’ Conference

June 26, 2015
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court decision, June 26, interpreting the U.S. Constitution to require all states to license and recognize same-sex “marriage” “is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us,” said Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The full statement follows:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

(Agradeço o texto ao site Catholic Fire)

segunda-feira, 29 de junho de 2015

Cristãos estão Perdendo para Movimento Gay e Abortista? Ou Não?

Uma mensagem de esperança e força. Se tem alguém que conhece a luta pela vida, pelo casamento, contra o aborto no mundo, dentro da ONU  e fora dela, esta pessoa é Austin Ruse, líder do C-FAM (Center for Family and Human Rights). E ele diz que os cristãos  estão vencendo a luta contra as esquerdas, mesmo após a decisão da Suprema Corte.

O ponto principal dele é que os esquerdistas viram que não poderiam destruir o casamento pelos meios democráticos por isso apelaram para os poderes, a Suprema Corte.

E ele termina dizendo  algo como "se você acha que estamos perdendo e que nós cristãos vamos desistir da luta, você não conhece a gente".

É um texto muito interessante, cujo foco são decisões sociais ocorridas dentro dos Estados Unidos. Para entendê-lo deve-se saber por exemplo que Roe vs Wade foi a decisão que aprovou o aborto nos EUA. Mas vale muito a leitura.

O texto foi publicado na Crisis Magazine, vejamos parte do texto.

We Are Winning Even If It Doesn’t Feel That Way

A colleague of mine at Breitbart News said recently in response to some social conservative tactic that disappointed him, “This is why you [social conservatives] are losing.”
He really believes that. He believes we are losing.
Like many conservatives, my colleague cares about the social conservative issues, but cares more deeply about the other two legs of the conservative stool: economics and national security. And he is under the illusion those issues are doing better than ours, that those who work on those issues are somehow better and smarter and more savvy than the religious right.
I contend first that the success of conservative economics and national security are due largely to the reliable foot soldiers of the Christian right. But more than that, working against greater odds than any other part of the coalition, social conservatives have been the most successful part of the conservative coalition. This seems counterintuitive given that abortion is the law of the land still and gay marriage may be imposed any day now. But it is true nonetheless.
Economic conservatives are happy to note that taxes are lower today than they were before Reagan, but they also have to contend with the fact that the US government is bigger now and growing bigger every day. And regulation? Is there any area of our private lives the federal government does not see a role for itself?
What about the social issues?
We begin with Roe v. Wade. It is a solid rock. While social conservatives have been pretty wily in going around it, the only way to ultimate victory is right through it. This means moving the people, the US Senate, the president who appoints justices to the Supreme Court and ultimately the Court itself.
Recall, that on the day it was handed down, the issue was declared closed and settled by the New York Times and by virtually all elites.
Within society, within all the power centers of our time, within the Republican Party, and even within the conservative movement, elites left, right and center have opposed pro-lifers.
Some would say the scenario that greeted pro-lifers that day in January 1973 was utterly impossible. Pro-lifers started out so deep in the hole hardly anyone thought they could dig out.
And now?
The Supreme Court has upheld a ban on an abortion procedure.
Courts have upheld state restrictions that have made it more difficult to get abortions and for abortionists to practice their grisly trade. We are on the cusp of 20-week abortion bans around the country.
Most Americans now believe that most abortions should be illegal and the ground has been well prepared by pro-lifers so it will not surprise even pro-aborts when the Supreme Court overturns Roe. In fact, even some of their scholars openly admit Roewas badly decided.
With marriage, it is much the same story. The gays began fulminating for faux marriage and they lost. They lost and lost and lost. They lost more than 30 statewide races. They only won three. So, what did they do? Like abortion advocates who knew they could not win in a democratic venue, they went to the courts. When you read this, it may well be they were successful there and the U.S. has become only the second nation to have faux marriage imposed by a court.
To be sure, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support faux marriage. But that was always so. Polls always showed us losing. That is even more evident now after people have seen what happens to people and their livelihoods if they are ever outed by the gay fascists. Even so with the exception of three elections, we won them all, even in liberal states like California and even during Democratic primaries when it was expected faux marriage supporters would have an advantage.
Economic conservatives cannot say they are opposed by elites everywhere. Even some Democrats call for lower taxes and less regulation. Even so, their project has largely failed as government continues to increase in size and intrusiveness.
Next time you are at a cocktail party in New York, DC or L.A. announce yourself as an economic conservative or for a strong national defense and you might get a debate but probably not. Announce your opposition to both abortion and gay marriage and you’ll be in for a fight and maybe a bloody nose.
What is the lesson? Against impossible odds, against all the elites of our time, against all the powers of the earth, most Americans are still with us on life and family issues. I don’t know that economic or national security conservatives can say that. In fact, those folks can learn a thing or two from us.
And for those who think we will fold our tents and flee if the Supreme Court goes crazy on marriage, you have no idea who we are.

domingo, 28 de junho de 2015

Notícias do Front: A Guerra entre Cristãos e o Movimento Gay (parte 1)

A Guerra está em todos os flancos, alguns cristãos reagem. Vejamos as últimas.

1) E começa a intolerância. Você achava que a aprovação do casamento gay favoreceria a tolerância? Jornais nos Estados Unidos já dizem que não publicaram nada que seja contra o casamento gay.

2) Hillary Clinton celebra e comemora fortemente a aprovação do casamento gay. Mas em 2002, ela disse que o casamento é entre homem e mulher. O que houve de lá pra cá? Ora, avanço do gayzismo na imprensa.

3) Casa Branca se pinta da bandeira arco-iris dos gays para celebrar a decisão da Suprema Corte.

4) Depois da aprovação do casamento gay, já começa a pressão por poligamia. Como eu costumo dizer aos meus alunos, se o amor é a justificativa para o casamento gay, por que não aprovar a poligamia, a pedofilia, o incesto e a bestialidade?

- Temos também, graças a Deus, reação dos cristãos:

1) Coalizão de pastores negros dos Estados Unidos promete desobediência civil contra a aprovação do casamento gay na Suprema Corte.

2) Governador do Texas promete reagir à decisão da Suprema Corte, Greg Abbot diz que a Suprema Corte não pode agir como orgão legislativo e que Texas não aceita ataques à liberdade religiosa.

3) Candidato a presidente, Ted Cruz, disse que a decisão da Suprema Corte se insere entre a decisões mais negras da história dos Estados Unidos.

(Agradeço as notícias ao site Weasel Zippers)

sexta-feira, 26 de junho de 2015

Exército Inimigo Avançou. Aprovado Casamento Gay Obrigatório nos EUA

Que dia triste! O Casamento Gay não foi e nunca será uma luta por casamento e amor. É luta contra Cristo. Vivemos uma guerra espiritual. E hoje o exército inimigo avançou. O processo de prender e calar qualquer cristão que questionasse o casamento gay já progredia, mas hoje a Suprema Corte do país mais rico do mundo aprovou o avanço do anti-cristianismo.

Obama celebra a decisão.

E Hilairy Clinton, candidata a presidente no lugar de Obama, já responde a perguntas sobre se o governo vai pressionar com medidas tributárias para que as igrejas façam casamentos gays. Igrejas que não fizerem casamento gays perderiam status de instituição de caridade e pagariam mais impostos.

Concordo em gênero e grau com Patrick Archbold, do site Creative Minority Report. Eles avançam, seremos ainda mais presos, perseguidos e mortos, mas nós não abandonamos a nossa esperança, pois Cristo está do nosso lado. Devemos continuar a luta na defesa Dele.

Vejam brilhante texto de Patrick Archbold.

Persecution Day

It is one thing to know the enemy is coming and try to prepare for it. But that doesn't make the moment when they come over the hill any easier.

Today, they came over the hill.

In a 5-4 ruling, "Gay Marriage" has been imposed nationwide.

But "gay marriage" has never been about gays getting married, it is now and always has been about persecuting the Church. Not that they have this ruling, the persecution against Catholic and Christian organizations will begin in earnest. Institutions will lose their tax-exempt status, they will lose grants, they will be denied contracts, they will be denied building permits, and they will be denied speech. And all that is just the beginning.

Hell hath been unleashed today and they will attack us with all their fury.

This moment has been a long time in the making and now it is here. The persecution begins in earnest now.

Christians in the United States will soon go to jail for no other reason than they believe and speak the truth as revealed by Jesus Christ and his Church.

This has never just been a political battle, it has always truly been a battle with principalities and powers.

This is the natural end of a supernatural battle in which we lost the faith and now must pay the price.

But I assure you, what will result from this persecution is not what our enemies expect. The Church will triumph as a result of this coming persecution and they will never see it coming.

We have been asked to have faith, take up our crosses, and make our way to the resurrection.

May God have mercy on us all.

Catholic Herald: "Recomendações do Papa Fracisco são Péssimas para os Pobres"

Eu disse aqui que a encíclica Laudato Sí é ruim cientificamente e ruim teologicamente. Apela para argumentos científicos no mínimo controversos, para não dizer completamente falsos, e usa a teologia e a Doutrina da Igreja de forma equivocada para tentar "ajudar os pobres".

Bom, o famoso articulista do jornal inglês Catholic Herald, William Oddie, disse exatamente isso que eu estou falando. Lembrando, como eu também faço, que há 18 anos o mundo não tem aquecimento global (na verdade, muitos cientistas já falam em um período de esfriamento global). Faltou apenas lembrar o que eu costumo ressaltar, o movimento climático está eivado de fraudes científicas.

É muito bom ver um jornal católico, que costuma ser bastante fiel à Igreja e até protege o Papa de suas próprias declarações, mostrar fatos básicos do movimento ambientalista.

Oddie comparou o Papa Francisco como Al Gore, com sua retórica explosiva e falsa sobre meio ambiente.

Oddie diz que os católicos não devem considerar a Laudato Sí como parte da Doutrina Social da Igreja, apesar do Papa dizer que faz parte.

Concordo plenamente com Oddie.

Vejamos parte do ótimo artigo de William Oddie. Cliquem no link, para ler o texto completo.

Following St Francis, the Pope teaches concern for nature; but Laudato Si’ will bring no justice for the poor
posted Wednesday, 24 Jun 2015

I recently begged the Holy Father, in this magazine’s print edition, to be very careful in anything he might say about global warming in his then forthcoming (but, alas, now published) encyclical on the environment, not least because there has actually been no global warming to speak of for more than 18 years now and because the supposed “consensus” on the subject was being increasingly questioned.

Mainly, however, it was because the subject has been so heavily politicised. As I wrote in the article, it has become a matter of public controversy, involving massive public funding and the striking of political postures. As Richard S Lindzen, emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, illuminatingly comments: “The public square brings its own dynamic into the process of science: most notably, it involves the coupling of science to specific policy issues…. This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely, science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry.”
“Scientific” claims then become simply political assertions. We have been listening to political environmentalists like Al Gore for years now, partly discounting what he says ever since his alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth was shown to be so full of wild claims, such as that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming (there is no evidence at all for this), and that polar bears as a species were under threat from drowning because of melting polar icecaps (on the contrary, the polar bear population has been growing so much it has to be regularly culled): and, anyway, polar ice, if we include the Antarctic, is growing rather than shrinking.

We need, to say the least, to treat the “science” of global warming with extreme care. Any such hesitations, however, form no part of the Pope’s thinking: his encyclical is in places like Al Gore on steroids.
Laudato Si’ appears closely to reflect the influence of the environmentalist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a pillar of the UN’s tendentiously political Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), who has been described in the New York Times as “a scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy” and who the Pope recently appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, despite his other beliefs (he is hardly a Catholic thinker).
Parts of the encyclical are crude in the extreme. “A number of scientific studies indicate,” says Pope Francis, though without specifying which, “that most [that’s right, he says ‘most’] global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly [I repeat “mainly”] as a result of human activity.”
Actually, only about five per cent of present atmospheric carbon dioxide is derived from the use of fossil fuels; that is, just 19 parts of CO2 per million parts of atmosphere. Most CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere. It is not pollution: indeed, human life is largely dependent on it since without CO2 there could be no growth of any kind of vegetable matter: no CO2, no trees. No trees, no oxygen. And yet Francis writes that “Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain”: It’s a dubious theory put forward by some: but it is far from having been proved.

The danger of getting too closely involved in the politics of climate change is that they destructively divert our attention, (and that “our” includes the Pope himself), from a political imperative one would have thought much closer to the heart of what Francis, and with him the Church, really cares about. He has always claimed, with evident sincerity, to be on the side of the poor. And yet he attacks fossil fuels, their chief energy source, which he does admit are “at the heart of the worldwide energy system”.
So how are the poor to cease to be poor? Only as a result of their economic development. As Charles Moore asked on Saturday: “Why is the developed world rich? The answer lies in the name: it developed more than other places. Development happens by uniting the resources of the earth with the capacities of the human brain and the institutions of human society. The resulting innovations are driven by energy, the cheaper the better. Hence the overwhelming historic (and present) importance of fossil fuels.”

Developing nations, he unanswerably argues, “see this clearly. Countries like China and India have at last become industrially successful and internationally competitive. If their energy becomes more expensive, their development will stall. They scorn what they see as the hypocrisy of the West which, having done so well out of fossil fuels, now wants a binding global agreement to prevent them doing the same. They will accept green energy only if the price is right. At present, it isn’t. So they won’t agree to ‘save the planet’ just because rich Westerners tell them they should. Even loyal, Catholic Poland will not stop its heavy use and sale of coal.”
The fact is that if we really care about feeding the poor, environmentalist fads like the global warming obsession destructively divert our attention from what should be our real priorities. This is true of other environmentalist nonsense, like the campaign against Genetic Modified (GM) foods (by which millions of the poor have been saved from starvation), a campaign by which the Pope has also clearly been strongly influenced in Laudato Si’ (§§ 133-4): he has, it seems become a fully-fledged green.
He concedes, in the classic formula that no “conclusive” proof exists that GM foods are harmful; but this implies that, proof or no proof, they are risky. The fact is that there is general agreement that food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. The anti-GM greens argue vociferously that GM foods are objectionable on grounds including safety, environmental impact and the fact that some GM seeds that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations: and the encyclical supports these generally anti-capitalist arguments at some length.

Whether Pope Francis is getting all this from the atheist Schellnhuber, I don’t know: but it’s certainly entirely consistent with the professor’s general ideological stance. So when the Holy Father tells me, as he does in his encyclical, that Laudato Si’ is now to be regarded as part of the social teaching of the Church, along with Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus, I must and I believe we all must, respectfully decline to accept what he says. Social teaching of a sort it may be: but given its content and its openly acknowledged intellectual sources we have to say that consistently “Catholic” it is not.

quinta-feira, 25 de junho de 2015

Trailler Documentário: The War Among Us. Sobre os Católicos (Caldeus) do Iraque sob ataque do ISIS.

Logo início do vídeo do documentário War Among Us, um padre diz: "Esta guerra contra o Islã não terá fim, pois não é uma guerra contra o comunismo ou por armas, é uma guerra sobre a fé".

Outro diz um pouco depois, não tem futuro atualmente de cristãos no Iraque, apesar de os cristãos terem vivido lá por mais de mil anos, muitos morreram e fugiram."

Outro revela que tem primos presos pelo Estado Islâmico, que exige resgate de milhares de dólares.

Finalmente, um padre diz: "O Ocidente deve entrar em guerra contra o Estado Islâmico"

Aqui tem uma descrição do documentário.

Vejam vídeo abaixo. Está em inglês, tem legenda também em inglês, mas a legenda não é muito boa, perde-se algumas palavras.

(Agradeço a informação do documentário ao site Big Pulpit)

Congresso sobre Família em Curitiba.

Em tempos de crise na família, em que aqueles que lutam para "chegar ao céu mais limpo" com o amor de seus cônjuges enfrentam até as palavras do Papa (ver post abaixo), é importante discutir como a Igreja pode enfrentar e defender a Sagrada Família em tempos tão adversos.

Vejam o cartaz acima de um Congresso em Curitiba do Instituto Bom Pastor.

Agradeço a informação ao meu amigo, leitor do blog, Adilson.

quarta-feira, 24 de junho de 2015

As Palavras Mais Cruéis e também Benéficas do Papa Francisco.

Parece uma contradição considerar que palavras possam ser ao mesmo tempo cruéis e benéficas. Bom, em certas situações define-se crueldade erradamente, quando por exemplo, um pai ou uma mãe dizem palavras severas aos seus filhos para que eles sigam no caminho correto. Ou quando se faz guerra. Santo Agostinho disse que uma guerra pode ser benéfica.

Mas quando as palavras são realmente cruéis, mesmo que possam ser benéficas, elas deve ser evitadas.

Hoje, o Papa Francisco disse que a separação de um casal por ser bom para o casal e para as crianças. Ele disse:

"Às vezes a separação pode até ser moralmente necessária para tentar proteger o cônjuge mais fraco ou as crianças das feridas causadas pela arrogância, violência, humilhação, estranheza e indiferença. À nossa volta, vemos diversas famílias em situações ditas disfuncionais, não gosto desta palavra, - e colocamo-nos questões: como ajudar? como acompanhar a situação de modo a que a criança não se torne refém do pai ou da mãe?..se as feridas não cicatrizam, elas pioram e se transformam em ressentimento e hostilidade, que recai sobre as crianças".

Parecem ser palavras compreensivas, de caridade, não é?

Mas veja, qualquer relacionamento é, como se diz em uma música muito bonita, "subir uma montanha". É difícil, é penoso, passa por momentos difíceis.

A música (Up Where We Belong), diz:

There are mountains in our way
But we climb a step every day...
Love lift us up where we belong
Where the eagles cry, on a mountain high
Love lift us up where we belong
Far from the world below, up where the clear wind blow

Imagine um casal católico em crise hoje lendo estas palavras do Papa, você acha que elas ajudam na reconciliação? Você acha que uma criança vai gostar que os seus pais leiam estas palavras do Papa e se estimulem a divorciar?

Por isso que apesar de parecer óbvio e caridoso o que o Papa disse, nenhum Papa jamais falou isso, jamais ressaltou a possibilidade de separação, porque eles pensam naqueles que lutam para manter a família. Porque eles sabem que toda família luta diariamente para se manter firme.

Porque eles sabem que estas palavras do Papa podem ser muito cruéis, apesar de ter o efeito benéfico em uma família que realmente não tem mais jeito.

Eu sempre digo "rezemos pelo Papa Francisco", mas agora peço: "rezemos pelas famílias".