quinta-feira, 23 de março de 2017

O Populismo Feito e Amado pelo Papa Francisco.

O Papa Francisco e muitos líderes europeus de esquerda quando querem condenar Trump usam o termo "populismo". É a velha falácia de rotular (falácia ad hominem) para evitar o debate.

Além disso, o chamado "populismo" sempre esteve ligado ao esquerdismo, pois são eles que procuram elaborar políticas que fornecem dinheiro e bens de graça para os mais pobres. Os esquerdistas é que costumam se assentar em políticas do tipo "bolsa família" ou "food stamp" ou liberar a presença de imigrantes ilegais ou serem menos rigorosos com o uso da lei se a pessoa é pobre.  Esquerdistas é que costumam falar de "povo", em defender o "povo", como uma categoria única de pensamento. São os esquerdistas que dividem as pessoas em classes, segundo os bens materiais. Muitas vezes, eu vejo partidos de esquerda nanicos no Brasil dizer que defendem o povo. Mas em geral o povo mesmo não os apoia.

Ao usar o temo "populismo" contra Trump e afins, eles evitam de dizer que eles são elitistas.  Trump está do lado do tipo de pessoas que está preocupado em manter sua cultura e religião cristã, preocupado com seus empregos, com o terrorismo e com a entrada de muitos imigrantes ilegais. Enquanto os esquerdistas, elitistas universitários, estão preocupados com uma tal mudança climática (que permite que a elite distribua dinheiro aos seus) e descartam o valor da religião cristã.

O populismo da esquerda tem base materialista, os bens materiais definem as pessoas e assim as pessoas devem ser divididas, dessa maneira os esquerdistas distribuem os gastos públicos, ao mesmo tempo que se enriquecem com dinheiro público.  O populismo de Trump e afins é um populismo de defesa cultural e espiritual.

O escritor Samuel Gregg escreveu sobre o populismo do Papa Francisco no site The Federalist, aquele que o Papa defende e protege, o populismo esquerdista, que diz que todos têm "direito" à casa, terra e trabalho de graça fornecido pelo Estado.

Vejamos parte do artigo de Gregg, abaixo

Pope Francis Hates Populism, Except When He Loves It

I suspect I wasn’t the only person taken aback when Pope Francis recently stated in an interview with Germany’s leading liberal newspaper Die Zeit that “Populism is evil and ends badly, as the past century shows.”
The pope didn’t specify who he had in mind. Plenty assumed he was obliquely referring to Donald Trump and European politicians like Marine Le Pen. I’m sure, however, that others thought that the pope’s words verged on the kettle calling the pot black. For whether it’s his rhetorical style or the type of political movement to which he appears to lend his support, Pope Francis seems quite sympathetic to some forms of populism.

But Pope Francis Is All About ‘the People’

Nor are some of Francis’s principal supporters averse to invoking populist language when defending his program for the Catholic Church. Consider, for example, Archbishop Victor Fernández. The Argentine theologian is close enough to the pope that some phrases that appear in Francis’s 2016 apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” bear an uncanny resemblance to expressions used in articles penned by Fernández in 1995, 2001, and 2006.
Asked in a 2015 interview whether he considered the pope isolated and surrounded by opponents in the Vatican, Fernández answered: “By no means. The people are with him, not his few adversaries. This pope first filled St. Peter’s Square with crowds and then began changing the Church. Above all, for this reason he is not isolated. The people sense in him the fragrance of the Gospel, the joy of the Spirit, the closeness of Christ and thus they feel the Church is like their home.”
“The people.” “Crowds.” “The people.” Such language has very specific meaning in Latin America. When used by figures such as the long-deceased Argentine populist Juan Perón or the more recently departed “twenty-first-century socialist” Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, the purpose of this phraseology is the same. It is to evoke an almost mystical connection between the leader and “the people” as they struggle together against oppression.
This rhetoric goes hand-in-hand with tendencies to caricature real or perceived opponents. The speeches of Perón and Chávez are full of ad hominem rants against “enemies of the people.” Francis himself isn’t shy about applying labels. There’s even a blog that has compiled his more memorable phrases: “rigorists,” “fundamentalists,” “Pharisees,” “intellectual aristocrats,” “little monsters,” “self-absorbed promethean neopelagians,” to name just a few. The targets range from younger Catholics with a distaste for 1970s liturgy to theologians who insist that coherently preaching the gospel requires a concern for intellectual rigor.

Pope Francis Is Himself a Populist

But Francis’s populist side manifests itself most clearly in addresses he’s given to one particular group that he has clearly supported: an organization called The World Meeting of Popular Movements. The populist edge to Francis’s thought is very evident in, for example, a 2015 speech he gave to this group in Bolivia. At various points, the rhetoric employed by the pope—“tyranny of mammon,” “this economy kills,” “bondage of individualism” etc.—is decidedly charged, even polemical. Some of it isn’t that different from the language used by populist politicians throughout Latin America.
This last point is underscored by the fact that Pope Francis delivered these remarks while seated next to President Evo Morales of Bolivia. A self-described communitarian-socialist, Morales is a quintessential Latin American left-populist. Like all such politicians, he’s steadily removed constitutional restraints on his power in the name of “the people.” Morales’ prominence at the pope’s speech, as one journalist present remarked to me, reinforced the sense that “the whole event had the feel of a deeply political, very left-wing, and somewhat secular rally.”
The pope’s apparent empathy for a type of populism was further underscored when the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences held a conference in April 2016 to mark the 25th anniversary of John Paul II’s encyclical “Centesimus Annus.” The two heads of states invited to speak were none other than Morales and another left-populist head of state, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa. The event was tilted even further in a left-populist direction by the presence of the then-candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who also gave a speech.
There’s some evidence this is Francis’s view. In an interview with the Spanish left-leaning newspaper El País, the pope described Latin American populism as healthy because it made “the people . . . the protagonists.” He then associated populism in Europe with the rise of the Nazis.
But does this mean that, from Francis’s standpoint, “the people” crushed by poverty in Latin America are the true bearers of the subcontinent’s destiny (even if their left-populist leaders destroy the economy in countries like Venezuela and trash civil liberties throughout the region), whereas “the people” in Western Europe fed up with unaccountable Eurocrats are closet racists who, sotto voce, want to take Europe back to the dictatorships of the 1930s?

quarta-feira, 22 de março de 2017

Papa Francisco Diz que NÃO Pretende Dá Eucaristia a Recasados e Pede que Políticos Abortistas NÃO recebam Eucaristia.

Depois daqueles rodapés do capítulo 8 do Amoris Laetitia e de uma carta aos bispos da Argentina no qual parece confirmar que pretende liberar a Eucaristia para divorciados recém casados, os bispos do Chile, após o encontro com o Papa Francisco, disseram que o Papa Francisco NÃO deseja liberar a Eucaristia para recasados, e ainda que deseja que políticos que defendem o aborto publicamente NÃO recebam Eucaristia!

Viva! Salve Rainha, o Papa seria Católico!

Ele bem que podia pelo menos falar o que disse aos bispos chilenos em público e aproveitava e respondia caridosamente a Dubia dos quatro cardeais com palavras ortodoxas. Amém.

Vejam o relato sobre isso do site Info Católica.


El Papa a los obispos chilenos: no a la comunión de divorciados vueltos a casar ni de políticos proabortistas

El presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal de Chile, Mons. Santiago Silva, y el secretario general, Mons. Fernando Ramos, han concedido una entrevista a El Mercurio sobre el encuentro que mantuvieron los obispos chilenos con el Papa en febrero.
InfoCatólica ) Entre los temas abordados entre el Papa y los obispos chilenos figuraron el avance de la despenalización del aborto en el país sudamericano. Mons. Ramos lo explica así en El Mercurio :
« El Papa fue muy claro; el aborto entendido como la búsqueda de eliminar un ser humano es siempre un asesinato, y no hay que confundirlo con prácticas médicas aceptadas para salvar una vida».
Y Mons. Silva añadió:
«El aborto es un tema sabidamente principal para Francisco. Siendo Arzobispo de Buenos Aires fue durísimo con el hoy Presidente Mauricio Macri cuando reglamentó los "abortos no punibles" como gobernador, y frenó una "guía médica" que Cristina Kirchner intentó difundir.
Así se lo planteó ahora también a los obispos chilenos y habló en especial de los políticos católicos que votan en favor de las leyes que lo legalizan:
«Insistió en que no pueden comulgar y en que hay que ayudarlos a no seguir cometiendo pecado. El Papa es mucho más fuerte de lo que parece"».
En cuanto a la posiblidad de ordenar como sacerdotes a hombre casados, Mons. Ramos explicó la postura del Santo Padre y del cardenal Stella. Ante la pregunta « ¿es cierto que el Papa estaría pensando ordenar hombres casados? », planteada por la repercusión de la entrevista del pontífice al diario alemán "Die Zeit", el obispo auxiliar de Santiago respondió:
«No, y en la misma entrevista el Papa dice que el celibato voluntario no está en la agenda»,
Y explica que se le preguntó por la posibilidad de que los "viri probati", hombres casados de vida cristiana probada, ayudaran en lugares apartados. El tema también lo abordó con ellos el prefecto del clero, el cardenal Stella, y fue tajante: «No es el camino» .
Ante la cuestión de la comunión de los divorciados vueltos a casar, el obispo explica que el Pontífice negó que su objetivo con el sínodo al que convocó sobre la familia haya sido autorizar la comunión de los divorciados . Les habló de que no hay "moral de situación", dicen otras fuentes."Nos cuesta mucho ver los grises", les habría dicho, cuando contó un caso personal, familiar suyo.
«Tengo una sobrina casada con un divorciado, bueno, católico, de misa dominical y que cuando se confiesa le dice al sacerdote 'sé que no puede absolverme, pero deme su bendición '».

terça-feira, 21 de março de 2017

Vídeos do Youtube de Gays e Lésbicas Liberados para Crianças.

New York Times relatou que o Youtube sofreu pressão gay para que o filtro que a companhia faz para a família (family friendly) liberasse vídeos que defendem gays, lésbicas e LGBT. Liberassem para todos, incluindo crianças.

Isto é, a comunidade gay não quer deixar seu filho e sua filha de fora, quer influenciá-los. Não contem com a liberdade religiosa para protegê-la.

Cristo em Mateus 18:5-6, disse:

"Quem recebe uma destas crianças em meu nome, está me recebendo.
Mas se alguém fizer tropeçar um destes pequeninos que crêem em mim, melhor lhe seria amarrar uma pedra de moinho no pescoço e se afogar nas profundezas do mar."

Rod Dreher, do site The American Conservative, menciona o livro de Erick Erickson e Bill Blankschaen (acima), que deixa claro que os esquerdistas imorais e amorais não deixarão a liberdade religiosa proteger os cristãos e além disso, eles dominarão as mídias que farão "você será obrigado a defendê-los (you will be made to care)"

E como Dreher diz: "uma família cristã é louca se deixar seus filhos livremente no Youtube" Não contém com "filtros" de proteção.

O Café e a Guerra entre Cristãos e Muçulmanos

No meu livro sobre Guerra Justa, desde o Império Romano até o Estado Islâmico, além de teólogos, santos e papas, eu tento mostrar que a guerra entre cristãos e muçulmanos, que se alastra desde o surgimento do Islã, também está presente na literaratura, como em Dante (Divina Comédia) e Cervantes (Dom Quixote).

Hoje, leio também que a aceitação do café pelo ocidente também mostra o problema do Islã. Conta-se que em 1600 não se desejava aceitar o café, porque era uma bebida islâmica. Mas um Papa (Clemente VIII) disse "Essa bebida de Satanás é tão deliciosa que nós deveríamos enganar o diabo e batizá-la".

Leia aqui a descrição da lenda feita pelo site ChurchPop, interessante.

sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017

O Anti-Judaísmo do Papa Francisco.

Uma coisa é o anti-semitismo, discriminação contra a raça judia, outra coisa é o anti-judaísmo, discriminação contra a religião judia. Um rabino italiano, chamado Giuseppe Laras, está atacando o Papa Francisco, dizendo que o Papa apresenta um anti-judaísmo. 

Quando eu li o título da notícia, eu pensei: mas o Papa Francisco não é tão amigo de rabinos argentinos?

Acontece que a questão não é de amizade e demonstrações de apreço exteriores.

A questão é o seguinte, o Papa Francisco regularmente ataca com palavras grosseiras teólogos e canonistas em favor do que ele pensa sobre misericórdia. O Papa difama muito a Lei Canônica e a Doutrina em favor da ação pastoral.

Eu sempre achei essas ações do Papa muito estranhas a Cristo, mesmo porque Cristo igualou os fariseus a Moisés e mandou que seus discípulos obedecessem a "tudo o que os fariseus dizem". Vejamos Mateus 23: 1-4

Então, Jesus disse à multidão e aos seus discípulos:
"Os mestres da lei e os fariseus se assentam na cadeira de Moisés.
Obedeçam-lhes e façam tudo o que eles lhes dizem. Mas não façam o que eles fazem, pois não praticam o que pregam.
Eles atam fardos pesados e os colocam sobre os ombros dos homens, mas eles mesmos não estão dispostos a levantar um só dedo para movê-los.

Cristo nunca se comportou diminuindo a lei judaica. Pelo contrário, a reforçou, a aprimorou e disse que Ele veio para completar a lei judaica.

Vejamos o texto do Padre Peter Stravinskas, publicado no The Catholic World Report sobre o que disse o rabino Giuseppe Laras.  O padre Peter lembra que Cristo desprezava mesmo era a seita judia dos saduceus que queria diminuir a lei judaica em favor do mundo e não os fariseus. Apesar de atacar o comportamento dos fariseus, Cristo nunca atacou o que eles pregavam.

March 14, 2017
We have heard the Pope say over and over again that he is no theologian and that he doesn’t care much for theology, but it is exactly that attitude which has caused so much damage in this pontificate.

A renowned Italian rabbi, Giuseppe Laras, recently wrote an open letter in response to developments within the Italian Biblical Association which he considers extremely problematic in terms of Jewish-Christian relations. In fact, he says that he is “very indignant and embittered.” Most interestingly, he asserts that Pope Francis has aided and abetted this development. We haven’t heard of a Jewish leader accusing a Pope of “anti-Judaism” in decades. What can account for this? Isn’t Pope Francis an intimate friend of an Argentinian rabbi? Don’t most Jews appreciate his open attitude toward them?

Rabbi Laras complains of a strong undercurrent of “anti-Judaism,” which is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. The latter is racial prejudice, while the former is theological prejudice. The rabbi argues that he sees a resurgence “of resentment, intolerance, and annoyance on the Christian side toward Judaism; a substantial distrust of the Bible and a subsequent minimization of the Jewish biblical roots of Christianity.” Further, he sees “the resumption of the old polarization between the morality and theology of the Hebrew Bible and of Pharisaism, and Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels.” He identifies this trend with the second-century heretic Marcion, who disdained Judaism and even claimed a total disconnect between the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus Christ. Laras admits that official Catholic teaching repudiates such positions but then laments: “What a shame that [those official positions] should be contradicted on a daily basis by the homilies of the pontiff, who employs precisely the old, inveterate structure and its expressions, dissolving the contents of the aforementioned documents.” Is this an example of Jewish hyper-sensitivity? Unfortunately not.

As a young seminarian, I became (ironically) the first graduate of the Jewish Academy Without Walls! During my years of service with the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, I worked closely with the three major Jewish organizations in New York: B’nai B’rith, American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress. Our relations were not always placid, but they were always respectful. A life-long friendship was formed with Rabbi Leon Klenicki of B’nai B’rith – although the relationship began as an intense conflict over Jewish opposition to legislation aiding parochial school children. Rabbi Klenicki and I co-authored books and articles and appeared together at various workshops on Church-State relations. He had a profound respect and even affection for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He prided himself on his Argentinian background and was thrilled when, shortly before his death, Pope Benedict named him a Knight of St. Gregory. The rabbi had far-reaching antennae to detect anti-Judaism; association with him developed that capacity in me as well.

As a result, I cringed when Pope Francis, in his first homily to the cardinals after his election, declared that anyone who does not pray to Christ prays to the Devil! On other occasions, he has replaced “Devil” with “idols”. When has that ever been held in the history of the Church? Indeed, we Christians do not always pray directly to Christ. We may pray to God the Father or to God the Holy Spirit. We Catholics likewise pray to Our Lady and the other saints. The Pope himself very often urges people to join him in praying the “Hail Mary.” So, whence arises the disconnect between papal talk and papal action? It stems from the Pope’s carelessness in speech, for starters. He is possessed of so negative an attitude toward theology that he fails to frame his comments with the requisite precision.

Rabbi Laras’ critique of dichotomous papal presentations of morality is similarly valid. Francis consistently pits “the Law” against “the Gospel” – not unlike Martin Luther (an inveterate anti-Semite). Even St. Paul acknowledges that “the Law” is good and holy. Francis’ allergic reactions to law make him see stark differences where complementarity is more in order. In point of fact, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount is one, non-stop exposition of law – a law even more demanding than that of the Judaism of his day. Truth be told, Francis rails against law because of his predisposition against canon law and canon lawyers – as well as moral theologians who represent the consistent trajectory of Catholic morality.

I well remember an event at Princeton Theological Seminary the day after John Paul II revoked the theological license of Charles Curran. When one Episcopalian cleric bewailed his removal as a retrograde action of the Pope, two Presbyterian theologians entered the lists to defend the Pope: Paul Ramsey (perhaps the foremost Protestant moralist of his generation) said, “I would never hire Charlie Curran at Princeton.” Bruce Metzger (an outstanding biblicist and one of the translators of the Revised Standard Version) declared, “Honesty compels me to say that Catholic moral teaching just happens to coincide totally with the New Testament.”

Last but not least, Rabbi Laras took offense at Francis’ constant attacks on the Pharisees. As we know from four years of experience now, this is a genuine papal “trigger”, which he uses against anyone who seems to hold the line on absolutes. However, the Pope appears to be quite ignorant of the Pharisaic movement in the time of Christ, which was a lay reform movement established in reaction to the corrupt Temple priesthood, desirous of worldly approval in preference to following God’s will and law. Without the Pharisees, it is no exaggeration to say that Judaism would have died by assimilation to the pagan culture.

Most importantly, the major positions of the Pharisees – resurrection of the body, the existence of angels, the importance of fasting and almsgiving – were all positions of Jesus himself. If that is so, why were the Pharisees a frequent target of the Lord’s condemnations? For one simple reason: He accepted their theology but rejected their approach. One doesn’t find Jesus in conflict with the Sadducees, whose theology was polar opposite of the Pharisees; he didn’t “waste” his time with them because they were just patently wrong. He confronts the Pharisees because their theology is on-target, and they are worth the effort to correct. It is significant that one of Jesus’ denunciations of the group warns his disciples, “Unless your holiness (righteousness) surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of God” (Mt 5:20). In other words, there was genuine holiness and righteousness among the Pharisees, but Our Lord’s followers needed to do and be better.

We have heard the Pope say over and over again that he is no theologian and that he doesn’t care much for theology, but it is exactly that attitude which has caused so much damage in this pontificate. On the Jewish front, someone needs to offer him a tutorial in works like that of Jules Isaac, the Jewish author of Jesus and Israel, and The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible, produced by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under the headship of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Francis’ uninformed and tendentious statements risk setting Catholic-Jewish relations back decades, if not centuries.

To be sure, being faithful to a Catholic understanding of the Christ-event will never be fully acceptable to Jews (otherwise, they would be Christians!). Catholics, for instance, can never accept the “dual covenant” theory (sadly promoted by a committee of the United States Catholic Conference some years ago but eventually retracted, presumably at the urging of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), which holds that there is a covenant of salvation for Gentiles, while the former covenant is still valid for Jews. Unnecessary and reckless provocations, however, ought to be avoided. Which is why this Pope should be prevailed upon to vet his comments with theological experts, even if he doesn’t really think very highly of them. That procedure would also save him (and the Church) a lot of problems within the Catholic family as well.

My friend, Rabbi Klenicki, would have been proud that a fellow-countryman had been elected Pope. Having a sizeable quantity of chutzpah, however, he would have demanded an audience with Francis to “re-educate” him.

quinta-feira, 16 de março de 2017

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

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

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

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

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

quarta-feira, 15 de março de 2017

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

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

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

Todos respondem que sim.

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

Todos respondem que sim.

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

Todos disseram que não.

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

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


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

O site Jihad Watch colocou alguns exemplos, vejamos abaixo:

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

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

Parabéns à Alliance Defending Freedom pelo vídeo.

terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017

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

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

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

Uma boa pergunta é: quem são os cristãos?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

segunda-feira, 13 de março de 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Vejamos abaixo:

Cardinals who signed the dubia

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

Bishops and cardinals who oppose the dubia

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


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

domingo, 12 de março de 2017

Feministas Apresentam Grotesco Aborto de Nossa Senhora

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

São imagens fortes, grotescas, diabólicas.

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

Leiam abaixo a notícia que saiu no site Crux.

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

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

sexta-feira, 10 de março de 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vejam abaixo:

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

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

quinta-feira, 9 de março de 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plot against the Pope

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

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