segunda-feira, 22 de maio de 2017

O Envenamento de Robert Spencer (talvez maior especialista em Islã do mundo)





Li muitos livros sobre o Islã e sobre a história do Islã para escrever meu livro Teoria e Tradição da Guerra Justa: do Império Romano ao Estado Islâmico, incluindo o próprio Alcorão, claro. E um dos primeiros livros que li sobre o assunto foi  Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics, escrito por Robert Spencer e Daniel Ali. No meu livro, eu cito outro livro de Spencer chamado The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS.

Para mim, Robert Spencer, além de ser brilhante e profundo conhecedor de Islã, é um guerreiro, ele está sempre disposto a discutir sobre o Islã com qualquer pessoa, com qualquer líder ou imã islâmico em qualquer lugar todo mundo. Ele já fez inúmeros debates. Eu já assisti muitos debates dele pelo youtube contra religiosos muçulmanos e mesmo com católicos famosos como Dr. Peter Kreeft. Eu, sinceramente, nunca vi Spencer perder um debate.

Por isso mesmo, por ser um profundo conhecedor dos perigos da ideologia muçulmana, Spencer é odiado por muçulmanos e esquerdistas de todo tipo.

Agora soube que tentaram envenenar Robert Spencer na Islândia, onde ele foi para realizar mais uma conferência.

O próprio Robert Spencer, que graças a Deus, sobrevivieu ao envenenamento, que conta como ocorreu o ataque a ele, no vídeo acima.

Ele conta que tinha marcado uma conferência na Islândia, e antes de sua chegada por lá, ele foi atacado com todo tipo de nome pelos jornais islândeses. Ele seria propagador de ódio e até um Adolf Hitler.

Mesmo assim os islândeses foram em peso assistí-lo falar e a conferência foi um sucesso.

Como é de praxe, após a conferência, ele e outros palestrantes foram a um restaurante celebrar. Durante o jantar chegou um jovem junto a mesa dele e o cumprimentou dizendo que era seu fã. Depois, longe da mesa de jantar, chegou outro jovem e o xingou.

Acabado o jantar, Spencer foi para o hotel e começou a passar muito mal, vomitando e tendo taquicardia. Foi levado pelo seus seguranças para um hospital, onde os médicos diagnosticaram o envenenamento. Spencer acha que foi o jovem que disse que era seu fã. Suspeita que tenha jogado um narcótico e sua bebida, pois o outro que o xingou não estava perto da mesa.

Em todo caso, ele mostra o totalitarismo muçulmano ou esquerdista que nao deseja o confronto de ideias. Não é por acaso que Spencer que se move protegido por seguranças.

Rezemos pela saúde de Spencer, que ele continue em pé como um guerreiro das ideias para a grande guerra cultural de nossos dias.


domingo, 21 de maio de 2017

Trump na Arábia Saudita: Defesa de Judeus, Cristãos e Mulheres e Defesa do Bem contra o Mal.






Primeiro, Trump não se curvou quando cumprimentou o Rei Salman da Arábia Saudita. Como Obama fez, a quase beijar o chão. Vejam a comparação dos dois cumprimentos, clicando aqui.

Apesar de se curvar frente ao Rei, Obama foi muito permissivo com o maior inimigo da Arábia Saudita, o Irã. Assim, a Arábia Saudita está muito feliz com a vitória de Trump.

Agora, temos um discurso histórico de Trump frente aos líderes dos países islâmicos. Estou assistindo ao vivo, mas o discurso foi antecipado pela Casa Branca e muitos jornais já colocam partes do discurso.

Trump fala mais termos religiosos do que em termos políticos. Ao ponto de falar da alma dos terroristas, que irão para o inferno. E diz que  a luta contra o terrorismo não é um questão de luta contra civilização, é uma luta do bem contra o mal que todos os líderes islâmicos têm de se juntar aos Estados Unidos para derrotar o jihadismo e até defender judeus e cristãos. Trump mencionou Deus diversas vezes e usou a palavra Deus, não Alá. E mencionou grupos terroristas, incluindo o Hamas, que domina a Faixa de Gaza. O presidente a Autoridade Palestina estava presente.

Frases lapidares do discurso:

-  "Terroristas não fazem adoração a Deus, eles fazem adoração a Morte"!!

- "Terroristas inspiram apenas a morte"

- "Heróis não matam inocentes, eles as salvam"

- "As almas dos terroristas estão condenadas".

- "As terras muçulmanas são também terras de cristãos e judeus".

Trump disse que os países muçulmanos têm de fazer a parte deles na luta contra o terrorismo.

Eles repetiu várias vezes que os países islâmicos têm de eliminar o radicalismo islâmico.

Arábia Saudita não é, no entanto, inocente com relação ao terrorismo mundial. Por exemplo, dos 19 terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001, 15 eram sauditas. O país também financia escolas que ensinam o radicalismo islâmico pelo mundo.  Além disso, a Arábia Saudita é uma ditadura que oprime seu povo.

Finalmente, como eu costumo dizer, para que os países muçulmanos sigam o que pediu Trump, teriam que rasgar metade do Alcorão e uma imensa parte da vida de Maomé. Foi um discurso fantástico, maravilhoso, o Papa Francisco não teria a coragem de Trump de dizer aqueleas palavras, mas foi jogar pérolas aos porcos.



Trump Ordena Militares "Aniquilarem" Estado Islâmico


General Jim Mattis (foto acima) revelou o plano do governo Trump contra o Estado Islâmico ontem.Trump publicou um decreto executivo assim que tomou posse dando 30 dias para os generais elaborarem um plano para finalizar os jihadistas do Estado Islâmico.

Ontem foi divulgado esse plano: "avançar, cercar e aniquilar os jihadistas evitando que eles levem terror para Europa e outras partes do mundo". O pentágono chamou de "Campanha de Aniquilação". 

Trump também determinou mais liberdade para que os generais em batalha decidam como proceder contra os jihadistas.

O governo Trump também revelou que está trabalhando junto com a Rússia contra os terroristas e até estabeleceu uma "linha vermelha" de comunicação entre os dois países para que cada um diga sua localização evitando fogo amigo.

Trump assim muda completamente a estratégia de Obama, que fazia "microgerenciamento" das ações contra o Estado Islâmico e controlava as decisões dos generais, tomando muito tempo para decidir.

Bom, concordo com o método de Trump. Será que a Europa e o resto do mundo vão agradecer a Trump se o plano der certo?

Vejam o relato da notícia feito pelo Yahoo News.



Pentagon plans to 'annihilate' IS fighters

Thomas WATKINS

Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to "annihilate" the Islamic State group in Syria in a bid to prevent escaped foreign fighters from returning home, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday.
The move to encircle then kill as many jihadists in place as possible -- rather than letting them exit a city and targeting them as they flee -- reflects an increased urgency to stop battle-hardened jihadists bringing their military expertise and ideology back to European capitals and other areas.
The president has "directed a tactical shift from shoving ISIS out of safe locations in an attrition fight to surrounding the enemy in their strongholds so we can annihilate ISIS," Mattis said, using an acronym for IS.
"The intent is to prevent the return home of escaped foreign fighters."
Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to quickly defeat IS, signed an executive order soon after taking office giving his generals 30 days to come up with a revised plan to wipe the jihadists out.
The review resulted in the new "annihilation campaign" and saw commanders gain greater autonomy to make battlefield decisions.
Critics of Barack Obama's administration frequently complained of White House micromanagement and a lengthy approval process causing delays on the ground.
Mattis called foreign fighters a "strategic threat" should they return home and said the annihilation effort would prevent the problem from being transplanted from one location to another.
- Arming the Kurds -
The US-led coalition has been battling IS since late summer 2014, supporting local fighters on the ground with a combination of considerable air support, training and weaponry.
Trump this month authorized the United States to arm the Kurdish faction of an alliance fighting IS in northern Syria, much to the consternation of Turkey, which views them as terrorists.
Though the jihadists have lost 55 percent of the territory they once held in Iraq and Syria and over four million people have been liberated, IS still controls the Syrian stronghold Raqa, swaths of the Euphrates River valley and other areas including a small part of Mosul in Iraq.
Operations in Syria are further complicated by the country's tangled knot of groups fighting in the civil war.
Russia joined that conflict in late 2015 to prop up President Bashar al-Assad, bringing a new dimension of complexity and risk.
General Joe Dunford, who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted the US is working successfully with Russia to "deconflict" military operations in Syria.
The two sides established a hotline to inform each other of their forces' location to avoid any mishaps.
Dunford hinted the US had a "proposal" to further enhance deconfliction, but he didn't give any details.
"My sense is that the Russians are as enthusiastic as we are to deconflict operations and ensure that we can continue to take the campaign to ISIS and ensure the safety of our personnel," he said.
Separately, the Pentagon announced that Dunford has been nominated to serve a second two-year term in his job as the country's top military officer.

quarta-feira, 17 de maio de 2017

O Que Alimenta o Ódio a Trump?


A Editora Prismas me pediu para dirigir uma coletânea sobre comércio exterior. Há princípio sairão três livros. O primeiro foi eu que escrevi e já sairá por volta de julho.

O que isso tem a ver com o ódio a Trump?

Bom, no meu livro sobre comércio exterior eu uso bases teóricas que não são comuns em livros sobre o assunto. Eu considero teoria do caos, racionalidade limitada e erística.

O ódio a Trump tem a ver com a erística: "arte" de vencer um debate sem ter razão, usando argumentos falaciosos.

No livro, eu falo de "fake news" e como jornalistas são a principal fonte de fake news. Isso afeta a economia, a política e a própria concepção de mundo.

Nesta parte, eu uso Trump como exemplo. Mostro o conluio de jornalistas, Facebook e Google com Hillary para derrotar Trump, ao ponto de passar as perguntas a Hillary antes do debate e ao ponto de dar muito dinheiro a Hillary mesmo. Mostro um gráfico de todo o dinheiro de jornalistas para Hillary.

O ódio a Trump agora é ainda mais forte, pois apesar de todo apoio da mídia, Hillary perdeu.

Isso chega ao Brasil. A primeira página do Estadão de hoje é um ataque Trump, feito por um cara demitido por Trump que era odiado por Hillary e pelos democratas que agora dizem ama-lo.

Por que o Estadão faz uma primeira página contra Trump para o público brasileiro que ainda não sabe nem o que é a Lava Jato?

Outro grande fonte de ódio a Trump é apoio dele contra o aborto. Feministas, ONU e esquerdistas em geral odeiam Trump por isso pois perderão muito dinheiro.

Ontem saiu mais uma notícia de Trump contra o aborto global que não saiu no Brasil, mas que alimenta o ódio da esquerda abortista do mundo.

Trump expandiu política que impede o financiamento de dinheiro público americano ao aborto global. Grupos pró-vida estão muito felizes com ele. Nas palavras de uma líder pró-vida, Trump acabou com a "exportação de aborto". Um péssimo e maligno comércio exterior.

A notícia foi divulgada pelo National Catholic Register.

Vejam abaixo:

Trump Administration Expands Pro-Life Mexico City Policy
Pro-life leaders applaud the move, which allows more forms of foreign funding to be directed to organizations that do not perform or support abortions overseas.


WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would begin implementing an expanded “Mexico City Policy,” which pro-life leaders hailed as a key step to curtailing abortion funding.

The expansion means that more forms of foreign funding will be directed to organizations that do not perform or support abortions overseas.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson released the plan to put this expansion into action. Entitled “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,” the plan extends the ban on funding of abortion supporters to other forms of foreign aid like global health assistance.

“With the implementation of ‘Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,’ we have officially ceased exporting abortion to foreign nations,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, on Monday.

Back in January, President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits U.S. funding of non-government organizations that perform or promote abortions through family-planning funds.

The repeal or reinstatement of that policy is typically one of the first actions a new president takes once in office and is usually a sign of support for abortion or for the pro-life cause during his presidential term. President Trump re-instated it days after taking office.

The policy was begun by Ronald Reagan in 1984, repealed by Bill Clinton in 1993, reinstated by George W. Bush in 2001, repealed by Barack Obama in 2009, and again reinstated by President Trump in January, on the same week that Vice President Mike Pence addressed the March for Life in person.

In this week’s press release, the State Department explained that this expanded ban on funding of abortion supporters would apply to “international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health security, and family planning and reproductive health.”

All in all, $8.8 billion in foreign aid would be covered under the expanded policy, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List said.

However, some funding would not be affected by the stipulations, the State Department said.
Funding not affected by the policy change would include “global health assistance to national or local governments, public international organizations, and other similar multilateral entities,” along with “humanitarian assistance, including State Department migration and refugee-assistance activities, USAID disaster and humanitarian-relief activities, and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) disaster and humanitarian relief.”
The overall amount of foreign aid would not be cut under the policy, the State Department insisted, and “funding previously obligated will not be affected as a result of this policy.”

“The United States remains deeply committed to supporting health programs around the world,” the agency stated.
Pro-life leaders applauded the Trump administration for expanding the Mexico City Policy.

“This humane policy seeks to respect and protect the precious lives of unborn girls and boys from the violence of abortion,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey.

The policy change “simply ensures our hard-earned tax dollars are used by other health care entities that act consistently to save lives, rather than promoting and performing abortion,” Dannenfelser said. “Abortion is not health care.”

-----
Trump não é perfeito, ninguém é, muito menos políticos. 

Mas ele é um grande apoio para a vida e para os cristãos no mundo, ao contrário de Obama, Hillary e a mídia global.



sábado, 13 de maio de 2017

Qual a Influência do Pai na Religião do Filho?


A Sociedade Chesterton do Brasil publicou ontem um artigo meu sobre a influência do pai na religião do filho. Eu usei o caso do pai do puro de coração Gilbert Keith Chesterton, brilhante escritor inglês.

Além de falar de paternidade, do pai de Chesterton e das religiões de Chesterton, eu acabei falando do espiritismo brasileiro e de modelo de educação.

Leiam no site da Sociedade.

Espero que gostem.

Obrigado ao meu amigo Diego.

Viva Nossa Senhora de Fátima.


sexta-feira, 12 de maio de 2017

"Papa Francisco é Pôncio Pilatos para a Venezuela"



Amanhã faz 100 anos da primeira aparição de Fátima. O comunismo está ainda por aí e dentro da Igreja. Infelizmente, o que Nossa Senhora nos alertou sobre os "erros da Rússia" ainda está forte entre nós e no Vaticano.

Vejamos o caso da Venezuela.

Acima são venezuelanos carregando cruzes negras no Vaticano, cruzes representando os mortos pela ditadura de Maduro. Mas parece que ninguém no Vaticano está preocupado com isso.

O jornalista Sandro Magister foi direto ao ponto: O Papa Francisco se mostra um Pôncio Pilatos, lava as mãos para os mortos e para o regime terrível da Venezuela.

Vejamos parte do artigo dele:

Pontius Pilate Has Reappeared In Venezuela


The number of dead is now around forty, the wounded number a thousand. It is the price of a month of popular demonstrations, even of only women dressed in white, against the presidency of Nicolás Maduro, in a Venezuela on the brink.
A Venezuela in which a new factor has recently taken the field, and this is the growing, systematic aggression against properties and personnel of the Catholic Church.
Vatican sources - starting with “L'Osservatore Romano” - as detailed as they are in covering the developments of the crisis, are sparing with news about aggression against the Church.
There is not a single reference to this even in the letter that Pope Francis wrote on May 5 to the Venezuelan bishops, who on the same day published a vibrant declaration against the announcement made by Maduro of a “constitutional convention” to reform the state for his use and consumption, meaning in practice - the bishops charge - to impose “a totalitarian, militaristic, violent, oppressive police state system” even worse than the “21st-century socialism” set up by Maduro’s predecesssor, Hugo Chávez, a leader still praised by many leftist populist groups in Latin America and elsewhere.
For Sunday, May 21, the bishop have called a “Day of prayer for peace in Venezuela.” But meanwhile, here is an initial survey of the aggression against the Catholic Church, published by the Venezuelan journalist Marinellys Tremamunno in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana of April 2:
Nothing is off-limits. Death threats and blasphemous graffiti on the walls of churches. Masses interrupted by incursions of Chavist “colectivos.” Caracas cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino silenced during the homily and forced to leave the church. The venerated image of the Nazarene in the cathedral of Valencia smeared with human excrement. The chanceries of the dioceses of Guarenas and Maracay plundered. Thefts of consecrated hosts in Maracaibo. The headquarters of the episcopal conference devastated. One priest killed in Guayana and another abducted.
But it doesn’t end there. On May 4, the doors of the cathedral of Caracas were damaged and its walls were covered with graffiti in praise of the government. That same day, a crowd of students from the Catholic university marched on the episcopal residence, as a sign of solidarity.
Because by now the bishops too are an “enemy” against whom the Maduro presidency is lashing out with vehemence. Especially after the failure at the outset of the attempt at mediation between the government and opposition groups supported at the end of last year by pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio through his envoys:
The stance adopted by the Vatican authorities to foster a reconciliation among the parties was that expressed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, formerly the nuncio in Caracas before his appointment as secretary of state, in the letter he sent to the parties in mid-December, “in the name and at the behest of the Holy Father.”
In it, he identified four conditions for the opening of dialogue:
- humanitarian channels to guarantee the population food and medicine;
- restitution to the parliament (in which the opposition groups are in the majority) of the prerogatives stipulated by the constitution;
- the liberation of political prisoners;
- new free elections.
But the Maduro presidency has not wanted to meet any of these conditions. On the contrary, it has made additional decisions that have ramped up the repression.
And Pope Francis has been punctually informed about everything. Also through direct conversations with Venezuelan bishops, including the president of the episcopal conference, Cardinal Baltazar Porras Cardozo, archbishop of Mérida, who met with the pope in Rome on April 27, on the eve of his journey to Egypt.
So one can understand the disappointment and anger of many Venezuelans, including bishops, when two days later, on April 29, during the customary press conference on the flight back to Rome from Cairo, Francis said this about the crisis in Venezuela:
“There was an effort by the Holy See, but this did not produce results, because the proposals were not accepted, or were diluted with a ‘yes, yes, but no, no.’ We all know the difficult situation in Venezuela, which is a country that I love very much. I know that now there is insistence - I believe on the part of the four former presidents [of Colombia, Spain, Panama, and Santo Domingo - editor’s note] - to restore this facilitation. I believe that conditions have already been presented. Very clear conditions. But part of the opposition does not want this. Because it is curious, the opposition is divided. And, on the other hand, it appears that the conflicts are intensifying all the time. There is something astir, I am informed about it, but it is very much up in the air. But everything that can be done for Venezuela must be done. With the necessary guarantees. If not, we are playing ‘tintìn pirulero’ [where everyone wants to get out of paying the pledge - editor’s note], and this is no good.”
The next day, Sunday, April 30, speaking at the “Regina Caeli,” Francis moderated somewhat the dismissive words he spoke on the plane against the Venezuelan opposition groups, practically blamed for being the ones who ruined the agreement. He addressed “a heartfelt appeal to the government and to all the components of society that every further form of violence be avoided, human rights be respected, and negotiated solutions be sought for the grave humanitarian, social, political, and economic crisis that is devastating the population.” But this correction has by no means calmed the waters. Twelve hours later, in fact, the opposition groups wrote a letter to the pope in which “not divided but unanimous” they said that they agree to the conditions set by Cardinal Parolin - unlike the government, which has always rejected them - and indicated free elections as the only way out of the crisis.
The fact is that between Pope Francis and the Venezuelan bishops, concerning the crisis that is ravaging the country, there is an abyss. The bishops stand with the population that is protesting against the dictatorship, and are respected and listened to as authoritative guides. While Bergoglio is judged on a par with Pontius Pilate, unforgivably reckless with Maduro and Chavism, in addition to being incomprehensibly reticent on the victims of the repression and on the aggression that is striking the Church itself.

--
Rezemos como Fátima nos pediu.
Vou viajar amigos, devo demorar um pouco a postar novamente.

quinta-feira, 11 de maio de 2017

Vídeo: Como um Milionário Pode Servir a Deus- Tom Monaghan.


Tom Monaghan perdeu o pai quando tinha 4 anos, sua mãe entregou ele e seu irmão para um orfanato. Ele ficou lá por seis anos. O orfanato era católico e assim Tom se tornou católico, Sua mãe tirou ele do orfanato quando ele tinha 12 anos. Ele quis ser padre, entrou no seminário, mas foi expulso por conta de infrações. Entrou na universidade, queria ser arquiteto, mas precisava de dinheiro para pagar a universidade, daí comprou com seu irmão um pequena pizzaria, fundando a Domino´s Pizza. O negócio cresceu, e Tom junto com o irmão abriram mais três pizzarias. Depois deu um fusca ao seu irmão e comprou a parte dele. Tom Monaghan ficou riquíssimo com pizzas e se tornou até dono de um time de basebol.

Mas seu catolicismo aos poucos o fez perceber que estava cada vez mais apegado a ter mais riqueza, a ser mais ricos que os outros.

Então, em 1998, vendeu 93% da Domino's Pizza e hoje se dedica a ajudar os outros, especialmente a ajudar os outros a servir a Deus. Tom também é um dos grandes lutadores contra o aborto nos Estados Unidos.

Tom Monaghan fundou a Legatus que reúne homens de negócio católicos e a Ave Maria University . Duas organizações católicas fantásticas.



Vejam o vídeo abaixo da vida de Tom, acessem o Legatus, que é um fantástico site para homens de negócio católicos, e aprendam sobre a Ave Maria University, que fica na Flórida.




Tom é um enorme inspiração para os ricos.

Há alguns versos na Bíblia contra os ricos, a Doutrina que se tira na Bíblia é que o ser humano pode enriquecer mas deve saber o valor do dinheiro não paga pela alma. Os bens materiais devem ser usados para engrandecer a alma e a Deus.

Eu costumo dizer que a partir de um nível de riqueza, o homem passa a valorizar o dinheiro pelo dinheiro, daí ele se perde. E esse nível não é muito alto, depende de cada pessoa, mas não é muito alto.

A vida de Tom Monaghan, um milionário americano, mostra que ele entendeu perfeitamente a mensagem de Cristo.

Rezemos por ele.



quarta-feira, 10 de maio de 2017

Vídeo: Repórter Italiana Atacada por "Refugiados" ao Vivo.





Eu lembrei do caso da repórter americana Lara Logan que foi toda feliz fazer reportagem da chamada "Primavera Árabe" no Egito em 2011, achando que o povo ali queria democracia, e acabou sendo estuprada pela multidão.

Por vezes, a estupidez leva uma surra imediata.


Cardeal Burke no Brasil


Que fantástica oportunidade de conhecer esse grande homem e sensacional cardeal, tão amoroso a Cristo e à sua Igreja.

Cardeal Burke vai estar no Brasil (Belém, Brasília, Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo) em junho, lançando um livro chamado O Amor Divino Encarnado, pela Editora Ecclesiae.

As inscrições para assistir o lançamento do livro abriram hoje. Acesse o site da EventBrite e procurem por Burke em uma das quatro cidades que desejam assistir ao evento.

As inscrições custam R$ 43,20 e incluem o livro.



terça-feira, 9 de maio de 2017

Os Líderes da Europa Não Têm Filhos. Não Têm Crianças em Casa.


O jornalista Phil Lawler notou um fato muito relevante entre os líderes europeus. Eles não tem filhos!!!

Vejam a lista de líderes europeus sem filhos:

- Emmanuel Macron (França);
-  Angela Merkel (Alemanha);
- Teresa May (Reino Unido);
- Paolo Gentiloni (Itália);
- Mark Rutte (Holanda);
- Stefan Löfven (Suécia);
- Xavier Bettel (Luxedmburgo);
- Nicola Sturgeon (Escócia); e
-  Jean-Claude Juncker (presidente da Comissão Europeia).


Se alguém me perguntasse a diferença na minha vida e no que eu penso da vida depois que eu tive filhos, eu nem saberia responder, pois a diferença é enorme.

Se alguém me perguntasse se o fato de eu ter filhos atrapalhou de alguma forma a minha vida profissional, eu diria que em certos aspectos sim e outros não, pois como eu sou uma pessoa muito melhor, entendo muito mais o valor da vida, isso melhora muito meu trabalho e o relacionamento com as pessoas.

Ter filhos alterou e ampliou muito a minha vida. Eu diria que entendo melhor a Deus, depois de ter filhos. Pois entendo melhor o que é se dedicar a alguém.

Para as mulheres, qual é o valor e o significado da experiência da maternidade? 

Claro que alguém pode não ter filho e ter um coração puro como o de uma criança, como Chesterton, e realizar maravilhas. Mas, em geral, o impacto dos filhos é muito profundo, é muito significativo para pensar no valor de leis e do futuro.

A falta de crianças dentro de casa certamente afeta a compreensão que os líderes da Europa têm da vida e do futuro. Certamente, eles são bem mais materialistas, de uma maneira ou de outra.

O fato desses líderes não terem tido filhos muito provavelmente significa que eles "se dedicaram à carreira" e abandonaram  ou desprezam o valor familiar, sendo assim merecem meu desprezo.

Se fossem inteligentes também saberiam que o fato de não se ter filho é péssimo para a economia. Até por uma visão puramente materialista deveriam incentivar o nascimento de crianças e dar exemplo.

A falta de filhos dos líderes europeus também é uma clara mensagem de que a Europa está morrendo culturalmente, socialmente e religiosamente. 

Como pergunta Lawler, por que se exige que um líder europeu tenha formação universitária, mas não se exige que ele tenha filhos? Ter grau universitário é mais relevante e ensina mais do que ter filhos? 

Vejamos parte do brilhante artigo de Phil Lawler, publicado no site The Catholic Culture.

Apres moi le deluge

By Phil Lawler

...
So a grossly disproportionate number of the people making decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal stake in that future.

Is it possible for a politician rise to the top of the heap without having earned a college degree or the equivalent? It would be difficult, wouldn’t it? And shouldn’t it be? We expect our leaders to have a strong academic formation. But doesn’t the experience of raising children form character far more than a few years in school?

You may have very little in common with your next-door neighbors, still less with people on the other side of the country. But if you can all recall seeing your newborn baby for the first time, and staying up at night with a sick child, then you share some powerful bonds. You don’t share those bonds with the childless European leaders. They don’t know what your life is like.

Or then again, perhaps they do, if you are a typical resident of France or Germany or Italy or any of the other affluent countries (including the US) where the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement level. Perhaps it makes sense to choose childless leaders for an increasingly childless society. Surely it is significant that, at the same time Western societies have stopped reproducing, they have begun rolling up unsustainable public spending, piling debts onto their children—or someone else’s children.

And who are those children, who will be expected to pay off the debts and to run the old-folks’ homes? They are the children of immigrants. Maybe, if enough families from the Middle East and North Africa arrive in Europe, they can furnish the workforce that will pay off the debts and entitlements, and staff the old-folks’ homes. Macron’s victory is, it seems, a wager on that possibility: an endorsement of current European Union policies, and a repudiation of Marine Le Pen’s call for restrictions on immigration.

However, a Europe populated by the children of immigrants will be a very different society. And while it is theoretically possible for a society to accommodate and assimilate a flood of immigrants—the US did it in the early 20th century—to date Europe has not been particularly successful in absorbing the latest influx.

Christopher Caldwell, perhaps the most perceptive American commentator on the European crisis, analyzes the French failure to assimilate Muslim immigrants in an article for the City JournalThe French, Coming Apart. Caldwell reports that current French policies have promoted the interests of the elite, the “knowledge class,” while squeezing out the middle class. 

---
Pierre Manent, the leading political theorist in France (if not the world) today, wrote about that reckoning in Beyond Radical Secularism. He argues that the greatest challenge facing France today is the restoration of a true political community. As he sees it, the upheavals of the 1960s were not truly political; they involved “the great withdrawal of loyalty from the community.” More and more, people came to see themselves as autonomous individuals, motivated by various impulses and desires, rather than as participants in a common endeavor. “The citizen of action was followed by the individual of enjoyment.”

“We are probably the first, and we will surely remain the only, people in history to give over all elements of social life and all contents of human life to the unlimited sovereignty of the individual,” Manent writes. Political leaders gain influence today by promising to expand the realm of individual autonomy indefinitely, to invent new “freedoms” that must be protected, to promote new forms of self-expression and self-satisfaction, to make “diversity” a primary goal. Now, with the rise of Islamic immigration, France faces the ultimate test of its own new political ideals: the growing strength of a minority that rejects diversity, rejects the supremacy of the individual, and therefore rejects the very ideology that allowed the minority to grow.

The only solution, Manent argues, is for France to insist that Muslims accept a role as French citizens, as participants in a common enterprise. But that cannot be if native French citizens do not first acknowledge their role as citizens rather than autonomous individuals.

What is the difference between citizens and individuals? Citizens recognize their duties along with their rights. Small children will always behave as individuals. In a healthy society their parents behave as citizens—because there is no better way to train people in the habits of accepting responsibility than giving them the care of their own children.



segunda-feira, 8 de maio de 2017

"O Papa Político" - Novo Livro sobre o Papa Francisco (com Paulo Freire e Leonardo Boff de coadjuvantes)


O livro acima é de George Neumayr, editor do Catholic World Report e do American Spectator. O livro parece sensacional.

O site One Peter Five entrevistou o autor. Neumayr estudou em colégio jesuíta, conhece a ordem jesuíta e leu tudo que foi possível do Papa Francisco e sobre o Papa Francisco desde os tempos dele de padre na Argentina.

Após sua pesquisa, Neumayr não esconde o jogo na entrevista. Diz diretamente que temos um "péssimo papa" e diz, inclusive, que os cardeais devem agir para pará-lo. Para ele, o Papa Francisco é um completo aderente ao modernismo com viés marxista que domina os jesuítas, que despreza a Doutrina da Igreja.

Bom, é óbvio para todos que acompanham o Papa Francisco, que:

1) Ele, como todo político, gosta de holofotes e tentar falar para a média das pessoas e para a mídia, muitas vezes discursa e escreve sem mencionar Cristo. Ele não se atém ao que disse Cristo ou a Doutrina da Igreja.

2) O Papa, inúmeras vezes, usa sua posição não para ensinar a Doutrina da Igreja, mas para passar uma agenda política.

2) O Papa Francisco tem claramente uma formação e um discurso modernista com viés marxista mesmo. Não dá para negar, mesmo porque ele defendeu várias vezes um estado forte que forneça os bens de "casa, terra e trabalho" para a população.

3) O Papa Francisco detesta aqueles que defendem a Doutrina milenar da Igreja, é a estes que o Papa diz seus mais fortes insultos. O Papa também já insultou quem "fica rezando as contas de rosário".

4) Que o Papa Francisco reabilita padres de viés marxistas que foram execrados da Igreja desde João Paulo II.

5) Que o Papa Francisco diminui a importância dos milagres de Cristo ao ponto de tentar usar esses milagres como vertente comunista.

Na entrevista, Neumayr cita dois brasileiros na entrevista que influenciaram e influenciam o Papa Francisco: Paulo Freire e Leonardo Boff (Oh, meu Deus).

Vejam a entrevista abaixo. Acessem o site One Peter Five para ler o primeiro capítulo do livro.

An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope

by 

Maike Hickson: What inspired you to write a book on Pope Francis?

George Neumayr: From the first moment I saw him, I knew that he was going to be a Modernist wrecking ball, and he struck me from the beginning as the prototypical “progressive” Jesuit. I knew it was an extremely bad sign that the Church would name the first Jesuit pope at the very moment the Jesuit Order was in its most corrupt and heterodox condition. I knew it was going to be a distressingly historic pontificate, and from the first moment of Francis’ papacy I began thinking that his pontificate would be a good subject for a book. As it unfolded, it became clearer and clearer that someone need to chronicle this consequentially chaotic pontificate.

MH: You studied at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. What was your first response when you saw and heard Pope Francis, the first Jesuit Pope in the Church’s history?
GN: Having gone to a Jesuit university, I am very familiar with the flakes and frauds that populate that order. When I heard the pope, in the first few months of his pontificate, engage in non-stop left-wing babble, it reminded me of all the nonsense that I heard as a student from similar “progressive” Jesuits. The program of Francis was so obviously set to promote political liberalism while downplaying doctrine; that was the formula of trendy and empty Catholicism that I saw on display at the Jesuit University of San Francisco.

MH: What approach did you take in order to be able to make a proportionate characterization of Pope Francis as pope in his actions and words?
GN: I went back and looked at his time at Buenos Aires, Argentina, at his formation in the Jesuit Order, I read all of his available speeches and writings – when he was a bishop, before he was pope; I read all the existing biographies about him; I talked to Latin American priests, I talked to Jesuits, I talked to Vatican officials, I talked to Catholic activists and Catholic academics and canon lawyers. Given the sensitivity of the topic, most of the people were only willing to speak anonymously with me. I tried to look at all the salient news items that relate to Bergoglio, before he was pope and when he was pope.

MH: What is the main conclusion of your research?
GN: The undeniable conclusion is that the Catholic Church is suffering under a bad pope and that the cardinals must address this crisis.

MH: How do you describe in your book the political worldview of Pope Francis? In which fields of politics does he show his left-leaning tendencies?
GN: Pope Francis is a product of political leftism and theological Modernism. His mind has been shaped by all of the post-enlightenment heresies and ideologies from Marx to Freud to Darwin. He is the realization of Cardinal Carlo Martini’s vision of a Modernist Church that conforms to the heresies of the Enlightenment. On almost all intellectual fronts, Francis is a follower of the Modernist school. He is a student of Modernist Biblical Scholarship, which can be seen in his ludicrous interpretation of certain passages from the Gospel: such as the time when he described the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes as a metaphor and not a miracle. On more than one occasion, he said that it was not a miracle but a lesson in sharing: “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.”

MH: Do you think that Pope Francis, in his more political statements, misuses his office as Head of the Catholic Church?
GN: Yes, this pontificate is a blatant example of out-of-control clericalism. Pope Francis is using the pulpit of the papacy, not to present the teachings of the Church, but, rather, to promote his personal political agenda.

MH: Are his political statements in line with Catholic teaching?
GN: Many of his statements are not in line with the Church’s teaching, as I document in the book. Pope Francis is the worst teacher of the Faith in the history of the Catholic Church. One could not trust him to teach an elementary school religion class.

MH: When describing Pope Francis as a more left-leaning man, could you give us evidence for that? Which Marxist authors for example did he admire or approve of? Which political figures of the left are admired by him?
GN: I speak about this at the beginning of the book. His mentor was Esther Ballestrino de Careaga who was a very fervent Communist. Francis has acknowledged that he had teachers who were Communists who influenced him. I point out in my book that he also met with the widow of Paulo Freire, the author of the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed which is a classic of the Socialist left in Latin America.

MH: Which practical acts as pope show that Pope Francis actively supports Marxist or revolutionary movements?
GN: I document in the book all of the liberation theologians whom Pope Francis has rehabilitated. Leonardo Boff is at the top of the list. He is an openly Socialist priest who left the priesthood but who is now in the good graces of the Vatican so much so that he was a counselor to the papal encyclical Laudato si. He also reinstated to the priesthood the Communist priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann from Nicaragua who is still in touch with President Daniel Ortega. That priest has now resumed his Communist polemics.

MH: How would you describe Pope Francis’ moral teaching in relation with his political teaching? Is there a parallel between his political and moral liberalism?
GN: He pays homage to the moral relativism and socialism that are at the heart of the global left. It is no coincidence that his signature phrases have been “Who am I to judge” and “Inequality is the root of all evil.” He is a darling of the global left because he is advancing many of the items of their agenda, such as climate-change activism, open borders, and abolition of lifetime imprisonment (a position still so far left that not even the U.S. Democrats take that position). He is a spokesman for gun control, for world government, for the redistribution of wealth by central planners. The pope is pandering to the willfulness inherent in liberalism which takes both the form of moral relativism and a form of a “virtue signaling” socialism. He gratifies the liberals’ egos by offering them a pontificate of “virtue signaling” without any teaching of actual virtue. In other words, liberals like to appear good but not be good. And a pontificate which combines political liberalism with moral or doctrinal relativism agrees with their self-indulgent politics. They also like a dash of non-threatening spirituality in their politics which a Jesuit dilettante from Latin America provides them with.

MH: You talk in your book also about Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Is this document in line with Catholic teaching as it has been always taught by the Catholic Church?
GNAmoris Laetitia is one of the most scandalous documents in the history of the Church. Pope Francis gives an obvious wink and a nod to adulterers in footnote 329 of that document (“In such situations, many [divorced and “remarried”] people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.”). In my book, I speak about the intentional ambiguity of that document and that Archbishop Bruno Forte, who helped to write the draft of the 2014 Synod on the Family, had acknowledged the deviousness of the document and said that it was typical of a Jesuit; and that Pope Francis himself had told Forte at the time that, if they had explicitly endorsed adultery, it would have caused a backlash, and, so, they had to introduce this topic into the Synod document more subtly.

MH: Are there other fields of Catholic teaching where you would say that Pope Francis departs from orthodoxy?
GN: Pope Francis is subverting the Church’s teaching on divorce and thereby subverting teaching on many of the Sacraments such as Marriage, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders. He is subverting the Church’s sacramental theology. I chronicle in my book many of his subversions of Church teaching, from his support of the use of contraceptives with regard to the Zika virus, to his religious indifferentism and his antinomianism, which has become a hallmark of his pontificate. Pope Francis frequently pits the law against mercy which is the essence of the antinomian heresy.

MH: What do you say about the response of the prelates of the Church, especially the cardinals, to some of the problematic parts of Amoris Laetitia?
GN: The response has been feeble. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is an outstanding exception, he has spoken forthrightly about the heresy at work within that document.

MH: What should the cardinals be doing now? Are there ways for the cardinals to correct a pope?
GN: My position is that the cardinals should forthrightly confront the pope on this matter and make it clear to him that the heterodox position to which he is adhering is absolutely unacceptable. And then, if he fails to respond to the dubia, they must move to a formal correction.

MH: What are the reasons for the silence of so many prelates of the Church in the face of heterodox teachings coming out of Rome?
GN: One reason is their lack of conviction, another reason is shameful careerism, the third reason is that many of the bishops are cowards before the spirit of the age, and a lot of these “conservatives” are Modernists in slow motion.

MH: How is it possible that such a revolutionary pope could be elected as head of the Catholic Church? Do you touch upon this matter in your book?
GN: As I argue in the book, Pope Francis is the culmination of the Modernist movement which goes back over a hundred years. Modernism has been gathering strength in the Church since the Enlightenment, and it picked up speed in the 19th century and went into overdrive in the 20th century, producing the pontificate of Pope Francis. Pope Pius X’s encyclical on Modernism reads almost like a clinical description of the relativistic pontificate of Francis. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were later speed bumps in that road, inasmuch as they realized that the “Spirit of Vatican II” was wreaking havoc within the Church. But, with Francis now at the wheel, those speed bumps have been completely disregarded, and he seeks to complete the Modernist revolution.

MH: How would you describe Modernism, and what is fundamentally wrong with it?
GN: The essence of Modernism is the absorption of modern liberalism into Catholicism.

MH: So how should the Church find its way back to a strong and healthy response to any weakening and undermining of its teaching as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles?
GN: All of the reforms can be reduced to one reform: a return to orthodoxy and holiness.
MH: You are of the younger Catholic generation, born in 1972. What is and was your own response to the Catholic Church as it presented itself to you in the Novus Ordo Mass, but also in the Catechesis and in all the other aspects of Catholic life? What went wrong and what is missing?
GN: I belong to a generation of Catholics that asked for bread and only received stones.

MH: What do you intend to effect with your book, and what would you say that we Catholic authors and journalists should and could do in this current situation of confusion in order to help the faithful?

GN: My hope is that a book like this would contribute to the restoration of orthodoxy and holiness in the Church, and I think it is the duty of journalists to speak the truth without fear or favor.