"Crisi del Matrimonio & Eucaristia"

Le scandale de la communion aux divorcés en situation d'adultère

Le cardinal Antonelli, Président émérite du Conseil pontifical pour la famille, a publié un livre intitulé "Crisi del Matrimonio & Eucaristia", sur l'admission des divorcés remariés à l'eucharistie (le texte complet en anglais, italien et espagnol est disponible sur le site du CPF).

Benoît-et-moi a traduit une analyse de Giuseppe Rusconi. Extraits :

"Le prélat ombrien, qui a 79 ans, répète que "le divorce est contraire à la volonté de Dieu et la seconde union, qualifiée explicitement par Jésus d'adultère l'est encore davantage". En effet, "si l'interruption de la cohabitation peut devenir parfois un mal mineur et se rendre même nécessaire, il n'est toutefois jamais licite de procéder à une autre union", car "c'est avec la deuxième union qu'on refuse irrévocablement le don de Dieu et qu'on contredit complètement l'indissolubilité du mariage". En conséquence "la nouvelle union, pendant tout le temps de sa durée, est incompatible avec la communion eucharistique où s'exprime et se réalise l'amour sponsal du Christ pour l'Église".

Il est alors évident que ce n'est qu'"avec un engagement sincère de conversion" qu'on a le pardon et qu'"on acquiert la disposition nécessaire pour accéder au repas eucharistique". En quoi consiste donc la "conversion" demandée? Le Cardinal Antonelli explique:

"Il faut se reconnaître pécheurs, se repentir du précédent échec conjugal, réparant les éventuels dégâts provoqués, renoncer à l'union adultère successive, changeant réellement de vie".

Objection: il peut parfois être difficile de renoncer à la deuxième union… Réponse:

"Selon l'enseignement de Jean-Paul II, il est souhaitable que la conversion conduise les divorcés remariés à interrompre la vie commune; au cas où cela ne serait pas possible pour des motifs graves, il peut être suffisant qu'ils s'abstiennent de relation sexuelle, celle-ci étant propre et exclusive du mariage authentique". En fait, "avec la pratique de l'abstinence, l'union adultère cesse et la familiarité entre les deux se réduit à une cohabitation fondée sur l'amitié et l'aide réciproque". Il s'ensuit que les deux cohabitants "sont intérieurement disposés à recevoir la communion eucharistique".

Il reste toutefois un obstacle non négligeable à surmonter:

"Leur situation objective présente encore une apparence de conjugalité". C'est pourquoi "l'Église, qui est attentive à ne pas compromettre la signification objective des sacrements du Mariage et de l'Eucharistie, les admet au repas eucharistique à la condition qu'il n'y ait pas danger de scandale pour les autres fidèles".

L'admission à l'Eucharistie est "un fait visible et communautaire, et pas seulement intérieur et individuel". Il doit donc être préservé de l'ambiguité et du contre-témoignage objectif". Raison pour laquelle "il doit d'habitude se produire là où l'on n'est pas connu, car il ne peut pas être concédé au détriment des autres".

Le cas des divorcés qui n'entendent pas pratiquer l'abstinence est différent. Le cardinal Antonelli remarque ici:

"Si l'Église accordait la communion eucharistique aux divorcés remariés sans exiger l'abstinence, elle reconnaîtrait la deuxième union comme moralement licite et nierait implicitement l'indissolubilité du premier mariage". Car "la pratique pastorale (bien que soutenue par des motivations importantes, comme par exemple les devoirs envers les enfants nés de la deuxième union) affirmerait ce que nie la doctrine". Dans ce cas on aurait une situation paradoxale: "L'Église ajouterait son contre-témoignage à celui de quelqu'un qui cohabite maritalement avec une personne qui n'est pas son conjoint".

Cela ne signifie pas que l'Église n'accueille pas dans la communauté chrétienne les divorcés non abstinents, avec "amitié fraternelle" et "respect envers les personnes et les consciences". L'archevêque émérite de Florence conclut:

"Parmi les divorcés remariés, qui cohabitent maritalement, il y a ceux qui sont en toute bonne foi persuadés d'être en règle devant Dieu. Dieu seul voit leur cœur. Les pasteurs éviteront de les confirmer dans leur erreur, mais respecteront leur conscience. Ils ne leur donneront pas la communion eucharistique (…) mais les inviteront à participer assidument à la Messe et à la vie de l'Église, à faire la communion spirituelle, qui est un rapport subjectif, intérieur et individuel avec le Seigneur et non pas un rapport objectif, corporel, communautaire et directement ecclésial."

Le 31 juillet 1944 : mort d'Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, aviateur et écrivain français.

L'aviateur et écrivain Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, 44 ans, disparaît au cours d'une mission de reconnaissance sur le sud de la France. 

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Les conditions de sa disparition restent obscures: attaque d'un chasseur allemand, panne de moteur... Des morceaux de son appareil ont été retrouvés en 2000 et formellement identifiés le 7 avril 2004.

Saint-Exupéry laisse derrière lui de nombreux ouvrages qui cherchent la Vérité et le sens des actions de l'homme, entre autres : L'Aviateur, Courrier sud , Vol de nuit, Terre des hommes,Pilote de guerre, Le Petit Prince, Citadelle, et un ouvrage posthume : Écrits de guerre, 1939-1944, dont voici des extraits (ed Gallimard, Folio)

« Dites la vérité, Général, la France a perdu la guerre, mais ses alliés la gagneront. » (Écrits de guerre, 1939-1944, Gallimard, Folio, p. 208

Saint-Exupéry s'élève contre ceux qu'il appelle « les embusqués de New York » ou « les super patriotes d'outre-mer », « les super patriotes en chambre ». Les organisations militantes de la colonie française de New York, à laquelle appartient notamment Jacques Maritain, le pressent de rallier Charles De Gaulle. Il refuse et s'en explique :

« Je l'aurais suivi avec joie contre les Allemands, je ne pouvais le faire contre les Français », (Écrits de guerre, p. 173)

« il me semblait qu'un Français à l'étranger devait se faire témoin à décharge et non à charge de son pays (Écrits de guerre, p. 286) […]

« Si je n'étais pas gaulliste à New York, c'est que leur politique de haine n'était point pour moi la vérité » (Écrits de guerre, p. 269).

À Alger, Saint-Ex a retrouvé « la bande des crabes qui ne savent que haïr » (EG, p. 361). Non seulement De Gaulle a refusé de le recevoir, mais ses ouvrages dontLe Petit Prince sont interdits. Il fait part de ses sentiments à Michel Poniatowski :

« Je suis heureux, je pars […] Ici à Alger, c'est la putréfaction. Parce que j'ai prêché la réconciliation entre les Français et l'unité des résistants, je suis en butte à la hargne du Parti gaulliste. [...] Sors d'ici, engage-toi, choisis une bonne unité, bats-toi, c'est propre, c'est net, laisse-les ici à leur fange. » (M. Poniatowski, Mémoires, tome 1, p. 122).

A Oujda, le 8 juin 1943 :

«J'ai eu raison, je crois, dans tout ce que j'ai pensé depuis deux ans sur les affaires de mon pays. Je n'aime pas plus aujourd'hui le général De Gaulle. C'est ça, la menace de dictature. C'est ça, le national-socialisme. Je n'aime pas la dictature, la haine politique, le credo du parti unique. Quand le national-socialisme meurt ailleurs, ce n'est vraiment pas raisonnable de le réinventer pour la France. Je suis très impressionné par cette bande de fous. Leur appétit de massacre entre Français, leurs souhaits en ce qui concerne la politique d'après-guerre (bloc européen) conduira une France aussi affaiblie que l'Espagne à ne plus être qu'un satellite de la Russie ou de l'Allemagne. Ce n'est pas dans cette direction que loge pour moi la vérité. » (Écrits de guerre p. 272-273)

Lettre au lieutenant Diomède Catroux (Tunis, été 1943)

« Je hais pour des raisons profondes le mythe de l'épuration. […] Sont mes frères, non ceux qui ont raisonné comme moi, mais ceux qui ont « aimé » comme moi. En rendant à « amour » son vieux sens de « contemplation par l'esprit.

Je suis peu clair, bien sûr, mais connais bien ce que je cherche à dire. Et je sais bien quels hommes me sont respirables, et quels hommes me font étouffer. Et ça m'a aéré de rencontrer quelques hommes comme vous dans cette sordide Afrique du Nord. » (Écrits de guerre p. 294, 296)

« Mais ce n'est certes pas dans Paris-Soir que je puis trouver la paix spirituelle. Ni chez M. Ramon Fernandez. Ni dans cette ignoble radio. J'ai écouté, hier, Pierre Dac avec stupeur. Si j'étais étranger, ayant écouté la France rayonner ces ordures-la, je me dirais qu'il est urgent de nettoyer le monde d'une telle bassesse. […] Ce pays est foutu, si on ne lui trouve pas de claires raisons de se battre. […] Rien, visiblement, ne l'illumine. Pas étonnant qu'on soit à la remorque des Anglais : nous ne savons pas nous formuler. Nous ne savons pas prendre visage. » (Lettre à X., Orconte, fin décembre 1943, Écrits de guerre, p. 48-49)

« Je continue de penser que le salut de mon pays ne réside point dans une épuration sanglante par les fanatiques du « parti unique ». » (EG p. 286)

« Comment se solidariser avec des personnes qui, systématiquement, dénigraient tout ce qui se passait en France, acceptant de gaieté de cœur la mort des enfants de France, plutôt que de voir se relâcher le blocus britannique et qui, lorsque la victoire se rapprochait, ne rêvaient que fusillades et épuration ? Comment faire corps avec ces pharisiens d'un nouveau genre qui ne cessaient de proclamer leur pureté en accablant les autres de tous les péchés du monde ? » (Souvenirs du Professeur Léon Wencelius, Écrits de guerre, p. 146)

« Ces gens-la [les politiciens d'Alger] se détestent entre eux plus qu'ils ne détestent les Boches. » (À Raymond Aron ; Écrits de guerre p. 321

Le 31 juillet 1920 : l'avortement est interdit.

Une loi est votée en France qui stipule que l'avortement est strictement interdit. 

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

• La contraception est également passible d'une amende, voire d'une peine de prison. 
• Toute information diffusée sur le sujet peut également aboutir à une pénalité.
• Le gouvernement espère ainsi augmenter le taux de natalité. 
• En 1942, l'avortement est déclaré "Crime contre l'État". 
• Les femmes y ayant recouru ou l'ayant pratiqué seront condamnées à la peine de mort. 
• Ce sera le cas de Marie-Louise Giraud, guillotinée en 1943. 
• Ce n'est qu'en 1975, que la loi française va autoriser les parents à assassiner leurs enfants à naître, assassinat pudiquement baptisé « interruption volontaire de grossesse » (IVG).

What do you do when you can’t persuade people to embrace your values?

How Rich Corporate Elites Are Lobbying Lawmakers to Crush Marriage Advocates

by Ryan T. Anderson

What do you do when you can’t persuade the American people to embrace your values?

You use government coercion to impose those values on people. And you get rich corporate elites to lobby government on your behalf.

That’s what’s taking place right now in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage.

Last week, Democrats in both houses of Congress introduced a bill they call the “Equality Act.” This bill adds the phrase “sexual orientation and gender identity” to more or less every federal law that has protections on the basis of race.

If the bill ever became law, the government would treat ordinary Americans who believe we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other in marriage, as if they were racists.

The Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT activist group behind the bill, has been trumpeting that “Corporate Giants Announce Support” for the bill. That’s right: “corporate giants” want the federal government to coerce and penalizemom-and-pop flower shops because they have a different set of cultural values.

This sort of special interest rent-seeking has a name: cultural cronyism.

In “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” I explain how cultural cronyism has been the primary technique the Left has used to redefine marriage.

The basic idea is that LGBT activists couldn’t persuade a majority of citizens to vote to redefine marriage, so they got five unelected judges to redefine marriage for the entire country. Now, they’re using corporate giants to pressure lawmakers in D.C. to enact legislation that would eliminate any dissent.

>>> Download the ebook version of “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom” today! (Paperback will be available end of August, but can be preordered.)

It gets worse.

Remember the way that “corporate giants” attacked the Indiana religious freedom bill? That wasn’t a fluke. It was part of a well-coordinated, well-financed campaign to eliminate religious liberty protections. CNA reports:

A leader in LGBT grant-making has told business leaders that he wants to shut down the political fight for religious freedom exemptions in the U.S. within three years.

And these words are not empty rhetoric. A CNA investigation has found that millions of dollars have been poured into efforts to combat religious freedom exemptions in the United States.

Again we see business leaders who want the freedom to run their businesses in accordance with their values using the force of government to prevent other Americans from running their businesses, and schools, and charities in accordance with their values.

..........

Read more: dailysignal.com

Some Catholics in Great Britain are concerned the government’s push for “British values” in schools

Could Implementation of ‘British Values’ Backfire on Catholic Education? 

by KEVIN J. JONES

The U.K .government’s actions follow reports that extremist Muslim groups were trying to infiltrate schools.

Some Catholics in Great Britain are concerned the government’s push for “British values” in schools, meant to counter Islamist extremism, could instead harm sincere religious believers and burden Catholic schools.

In a July 20 speech at Ninestiles school in Birmingham, the British prime minister, David Cameron, said, “We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. … Our freedom comes from our parliamentary democracy.”

The speech was intended to lay down his administration’s strategy for tackling Islamist extremism in the country but could be construed so as to limit the ability of any religious believer to exercise their freedoms of speech and religion.

“The government needs to avoid classing anyone who takes their religion or faith seriously, especially Christians, as potentially harmful extremists. Catholics must not be forced to act against their religious conscience, either in schools or in the workplaces,” Caroline Farrow, a member of Catholic Voices UK and a columnist for the Catholic Universe newspaper, told CNA July 24.

She said Cameron, who is leading the anti-extremism push, should remember to protect freedom of speech.

“He needs to take care that the British way of life does not come to mean that those of a religious persuasion are silenced out of fear.”

The British government has begun to require the promotion of “British values” in all schools. The actions follow reports that extremist Muslim groups were trying to infiltrate schools.

In his July 20 speech, the prime minister spoke about “the threat of extremism and the challenge of integration.”

Cameron specifically addressed the “far right” and Islamist extremism, though he also acknowledged the “profound contributions” of non-extremist Muslims.

He did not limit his speech to attacking violent extremism. He also criticized non-violent support for “certain intolerant ideas, which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.” He listed ideas “which are hostile to basic liberal values, such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality,” and ideas “which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.”

Farrow voiced concern that some definitions of British values can pose problems for Catholics.

“While Catholics believe in the equality of the sexes, the term ‘sexual equality’ is also applied to matters of sexuality. This could be applied so broadly that it could include things that Catholics do not agree with, such as, for example, the country’s recent redefinition of marriage, which allows for same-sex weddings.”

She noted that the promotion of “British values” has already posed risks for Catholic schools. These schools face censure by the U.K. schools’ inspectorate Ofsted “if Catholic teaching, especially on sexuality and marriage, is deemed to be undermining British values and promoting so-called extremism,” Farrow said.

The high-performing St. Benedict’s Catholic School in Suffolk was downgraded because its students allegedly were not aware of the dangers of extremism. The school was “blacklisted” for failing to promote British values, according to Farrow.

The Catholic Education Service of the Bishops’ Conference in England and Wales demanded an apology for the move. The school said parents complained that the inspectors asked children as young as 10 about homosexual acts and transsexualism, the Catholic Herald reported.

The British Department for Education has implemented requirements for teaching “fundamental British values.” The department’s November 2014 guidance added stronger language that requires schools actively to promote what it sees as British values. The rules require all schools to promote equality and diversity, as defined by the education department’s guidance. This requirement includes “challenging opinions or behaviors in school.”

Farrow voiced concern for the future of Catholic schools.

...............

Read more: www.ncregister.com

Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei - There is one thing against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei

BY REV. GEORGE W. RUTLER

St. Peter was very alive in the serene cardinal who had been bound in his old age and taken where he would not.


As my Cantonese is not what it would have been had I been present at Pentecost, in 1999 I led the intercessory prayers in French and Latin at a Solemn Mass on the 70th priestly ordination anniversary, 50th episcopal anniversary, 20th cardinalatial anniversary, and 98th birth anniversary of Ignatius Kung (Gong) Pin-Mei in his home of exile in Stamford, Connecticut.

Never fear: St. Peter was very alive in the serene cardinal who had been bound in his old age and taken where he would not.

Born in 1901, his family had been Catholic for at least five generations. An aunt, who was a nun, tutored him in Chinese classics and religion as preparation for a Jesuit high school founded by French missionaries. After ordination as a diocesan priest at the age of 29, he taught in Jesuit schools; when Shanghai was seized by the Communists in 1949, he was consecrated bishop of Soochow, becoming bishop of Shanghai and apostolic administrator of Soochow and Nanking the following year. His family sensed that it was a prison sentence, although a photograph of the slight, young bishop shows no foreboding. He rallied the Legion of Mary to a holy militancy, and soon many were sentenced to decades of hard labor. Their message to him was Petrine: "Bishop, in darkness, you light up our path. You guide us on our treacherous journey. You uphold our faith and the traditions of the Church. You are the foundation rock of our Church in Shanghai."

In 1953 he gathered 3,000 young men in the cathedral while a thousand women recited the rosary in the square. As police surrounded them, they processed with a large cross chanting: "Long live the Bishop. Long live the Holy Father. Long live the Church." In 1955 the bishop was thrust before a microphone at a show trial in a stadium to recant his anti-social errors, but he shouted: "Long live Christ the King! Long live the Pope!" The sentence was life imprisonment. When frequently urged to denounce the pope, he ritually answered: "I am a Roman Catholic Bishop. If I denounce the Holy Father, not only would I not be a Bishop, I would not even be a Catholic. You can cut off my head, but you can never take away my duties." For 30 years, much of it in solitary confinement, the Mass was forbidden, along with the Bible. His Communions were of the heart, all the time resisting the proselytizing of the collaborationist Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. When international pressure got him released on "house arrest," the government choreographed a propaganda dinner with the visiting Cardinal Sin of Manila, but the bishops were not allowed to speak to each other. The canny cardinal proposed that the sullen gathering be enlivened with songs. When his turn came, Kung chanted the Tu es Petrus-Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.

..............

Read more: catholiceducation.org

The first and most fundamental of all human rights ...

Darkness without Truth

by Pope Benedictus XVI
In ancient times the really terrible thing about prisons was that they cut people off from the light of day and plunged them into darkness.
So at a deeper level, the real alienation, unfreedom, and imprisonment of man consists in his want of truth. If he does not know truth, if he does not know who he is, why he is here and what the reality of this world consists in, he is only stumbling around in the dark. He is a prisoner, he is not "being's freedman."

The first and most fundamental of all human rights is the right to God...Without this basic right, which is also the right to truth, the other human rights are not enough. Without this fundamental right to truth and to God, man becomes degraded to the level of a mere creature of needs.

And the deep darkness and alienation of our times is shown in the fact that we have powers and abilities but do not know what they are for; we have so much knowledge that we are no longer able to believe and see truth; we are no longer able to embrace the totality. Our philosophy is that of Pilate: What is truth?

Read more: Source: catholiceducation.org

Le salarié français est au 11e rang en termes de pouvoir d'achat réel

Quand vous gagnez 100 euros, votre employeur en paie 235


Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Lu ici :


"Le salarié français est a priori l'un des mieux payé d'Europe (4e): le salaire «complet» moyen atteint presque 56 000 euros. Mais il est particulièrement fiscalisé (plus de 32 000 euros de charges sociales, impôt sur le revenu et TVA). Au final, il ne reste à l'employé français moyen que près de 24 000 euros, pour ses propres dépenses. Ce qui fait chuter la France au 11e rang en termes de pouvoir d'achat réel, selon l'Institut Molinari.

Ainsi en France, pour qu'un salarié moyen dispose de 100 euros nets de pouvoir d'achat, l'employeur aura versé 235 euros en 2015. Soit deux euros de plus que l'année dernière et cinq de plus qu'en 2010. Sur cette somme, 79 euros sont des charges patronales, 39 euros des charges salariales, 10 euros des impôts sur le revenu et 7 euros de la TVA."

Le pire, c'est quand on sait comment l'Etat utilise ces 235 euros.

"Le modèle social à la française est bien connu: la dépense publique y est historiquement élevée pour proposer des prestations sociales larges et généreuses aux Français (routes, école, santé, sécurité de l'emploi, etc.). Alors, les Français en ont-ils encore pour leur argent? Pour l'institut Molinari, non: il n'y a qu'à regarder du côté des Pays-Bas, de la Suède ou du Danemark, connus aussi pour leur tradition sociale. La-bas, la protection sociale est comparable à celle de la France, pourtant les prélèvements sociaux sont bien moindres. Si bien qu'à la fin les Suédois, par exemple, ont un pouvoir d'achat presque 22% plus élevé que les Français."

Home schooling has experienced massive growth in the United States for more than a decade.

Home-Schooling Movement Surges 62% in a Single Decade


by PETER JESSERER SMITH


Recent studies show the face of home schooling is changing, as online tools and better curricula make it easier for parents seeking a top-notch education for their children to make the leap.

When Christina Banks, a Catholic mother of four, decided with her husband to educate her children at home instead of at the area’s Catholic school, they cited a variety of reasons.

“The first one would be to have them get an individualized education that meets the needs of each student; the second was that we were drawn to a classical curriculum; and the third would be flexibility in time with family,” said Banks, a resident of Fredericksburg, Va., who added that her elementary-age children went back and forth between home education and Catholic school over the past few years before they settled on home education.

Home schooling has experienced massive growth in the United States for more than a decade. The face of the home-education movement has also changed. Fewer parents now attribute the need to give religious instruction as the driving motivation behind their choice, with more parents such as Banks citing home schooling’s educational benefits as the reason they are turning to the nontraditional method.

According to the most recent data available from the Department of Education, the home-school movement has entered into a new era, with a more mainstream face.

Explosive Growth

The Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows the number of children educated at home between kindergarten and 12th grade increased close to 62% between 2003 and 2012. The number of home-schooled students between the ages of 5 and 17 in the U.S. rose from 1.09 million in 2003 to 1.77 million by 2012, accounting for 3.4% of the school-age population.

“It has become demystified, and it’s become more acceptable, socially and culturally, for people to home school,” said Mike Donnelly, a home-schooling father and staff attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association, where he serves as director of international affairs.


............

Read more:   www.ncregister.com

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism

Can a Catholic be a Collectivist?

by James Kalb 

Should Catholics today work, as a matter of conscience, toward ever broader bureaucratic responsibility for human well-being in general?

That result seems to follow from current ways of thinking. “Love thy neighbor” implies an ethic of mutual assistance. The democratic view that we act through government, together with the industrial approach to getting things done reliably, which is now thought simply rational, seem to imply the social services state as a necessary consequence.

The point is confirmed by the language of rights that the Church has now adopted: everyone has a right to food, shelter, medical care, employment, and many other things. “Rights” normally mean enforceable individual entitlements. If other institutions don’t deliver, government should step in and make sure what’s needed gets done; otherwise, it’ll be denying basic human rights. So welfare rights recognized by the Church seem to obligate government to guarantee everyone a materially decent standard of living regardless of circumstances.

And then there is the notion of solidarity, which makes everyone our neighbor, and seems to call for an arrangement through which each looks after all. It is also confirmed by considerations of justice and mercy. Some people have practical problems, with no one to help them, through no fault of their own. Others are at fault, but the consequences seem disproportionate, especially when compared with other people who do worse without similar problems. And even when the faults seem great, who knows what really happened or what we would have done in their place?

Above all, Christ emphasized forgiveness and mercy, and tells us not to judge. So it seems the social order should be set up to minimize the results of bad luck and even bad conduct in all cases. Given current ways of thinking and doing things, that means that an ever more comprehensive and global welfare state is part of any minimally adequate response to human misfortune and failure.

Nor should Christians be content with the minimum. Love and mercy know no limits. So in the name of ever greater solidarity, it seems that government should work to overcome every human distinction people may feel as a disadvantage. To avoid invidious distinctions between welfare dependency and self-support, for example, it seems that government should, as a matter of equal citizenship, provide as many basic goods and services as possible gratis to all.

On such a view the Christian social ideal turns out to be a sort of politically correct egalitarian collectivism, a society in which everyone equally supports everyone and no invidious distinctions are permissible or even possible.

Nonetheless, such a result radically opposes the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity. As the Catechism says:

The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities.… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.… (par. 1884)

Such pronouncements never have much effect. The problem is that any non-centralized system will always have some cases that don’t get covered, certainly not immediately and reliably, and doing something effective about those cases seems morally necessary. They are instances of marginalization, so it seems we ought to put them at the center of attention. And given current assumptions about agency and rational action, that means moving toward universal direct government responsibility for everything.

Rejecting that result means rejecting the democratic logic that government acts are our acts, and the technocratic logic that factory-style organization is the way to make sure things happen reliably. That seems possible as a rational matter. A society as big and complex as the United States can’t possibly be run democratically in any sense strong enough to justify identifying acts of the government with acts of the people. And even if it could, the acts wouldn’t be acts of anyone in particular, so they wouldn’t discharge the obligation of Catholics to act justly and charitably.

Beyond that, moralism with regard to government is a tricky business. On the whole, laws and legal structures are a matter of general policy, to be judged by their overall prudence and long-term effect. Since bureaucratic ineptitude is a byword, it’s absurd to mistake setting up a bureaucracy for dealing with a problem. Men are not raw materials or manufactured products, so entirely different methods and assumptions are needed. The failure of socialism, and the apparent effect of social programs on small-scale social functioning, as reflected in statistics on crime, birth rate, and family life, suggest that it’s destructive to give government general responsibility for individual outcomes.

These may be good arguments, but most people aren’t really convinced. Current assumptions have saturated our outlook on the world too deeply. In a technocratic society it’s not clear what would replace bureaucratic social supports if they were yanked—communal and family ties can’t be relied on, and private charity seems a drop in the bucket—and the democratic faith survives all debunking because without it we seem to become social atoms. As a result, accepting such views can seem like evading obligations with arguments we don’t accept elsewhere. That is why temporary disillusion leading to privatization or welfare reform soon gives way to renewed faith in Hope and Change. This time, people believe, investments in human services will bring about a fundamental transformation that does away with poverty, inequality, exclusion, and what not else. For many, the alternative to that belief is to live without hope.

To change social ideals and find different sources of hope we need to live and understand the world differently. There are of course Catholic reasons to move toward understandings and ways of life radically different from those common around us. Doing so would make the relation among the state, non-state initiatives, and individual well-being, along with everything else, look very different. Before that happens, though, there are still reasons for Catholics to pause before they put whatever political influence they have behind the social services state.

The most important reason has to do with the ultimate goal of such a state, which is not simply a matter of feeding the hungry and healing the sick. The social services state, oriented toward the current understanding of social justice, accepts comprehensive responsibility for human well-being. For that reason, it has to have a comprehensive understanding of the human good. But what is that understanding?

In the nature of things it can know very little about human acts, virtues, and relationships in individual cases. So if it is to be responsible for well-being it can’t allow its version of it to have much to do with those things.

..............

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com 


 

Separation of Church and state does not mean separation of Church and conscience.

Can a Christian be a Social Liberal?
by Amir Azarvan

Faith should penetrate all areas of life—not just the religious, but also the social, the economic, and even the political. Notwithstanding the confused claims of today’s radical secularists, we are not constitutionally required to set our faith aside when entering the world of politics. Separation of Church and state does not mean separation of Church and conscience.

Of course, Christian Tradition offers little if any direct guidance on political behavior, since such earthly matters are immeasurably less important than spiritual ones. But it seems that we should at least strive—through prayer, spiritual guidance and our best use of reason—to base the various political choices we make on Christian principles. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate to judge political ideas with respect to their compatibility with Christian teaching (to be sure, this is not a straightforward task, and it should be performed with the utmost humility).

In this essay, I am particularly concerned with the compatibility between Christianity and the philosophy of those frequently described as “socially liberal”—that is, those who subscribe to the “harm principle” articulated by J.S. Mill, which holds that “no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others” (Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, p. xxi). It is my contention that this principle is fundamentally incompatible with Christian teaching.

I should preface my argument with a note regarding terminology. For the most part, I will not be using the most common English renderings of the biblical terms amartia (“sin”) and soteria (“salvation”). This is neither to diminish the importance of these concepts to the Christian faith, nor to suggest that the primarily Western, juridical view on our fallen condition, which the words “sin” and “salvation” often evoke in the American mind, is necessarily wrong. Rather, my intention is to assist the reader in seeing these concepts in a new light; understanding them in a manner that accords more with the therapeutic view of the Christian East. Soteria denotes “healing” as much as it does “salvation,” while amartia—literally, “to miss the mark”—signifies a sickness of the soul (cf. Matt 9:12). Whereas it is possible to speak of someone committing a sin, as he would a crime, it is just as valid to speak of him contracting a sin, as he would an illness. So, to simplify this alternative view, the Christian aims for the restoration of spiritual health, and to sin is to miss that mark.

Not All Freedoms are Equal

Amartia is routinely described in the Scriptures as a form of bondage (e.g., Gal 5:1; Rom 8:21). “For he who has died [to his old self] has been freed from [amartia],” writes St. Paul (Rom 6:7) [emphasis added]. Since consciousness persists beyond the grave for all eternity, and the nature of our post-mortem existence is determined by how we live our earthly lives, we may reasonably infer that the eternal consequences of dying in spiritual bondage are incomparably worse than the temporal evil of spending even an entire lifetime in political bondage. Thus, whenever there is a conflict between political and spiritual freedom, the Christian should logically prefer the latter over the former.

Although I am in no way suggesting that earthly freedom is bad, it is clearly secondary in importance to true, spiritual freedom. St. Paul writes, “Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman” (1 Cor 7:21-22). Therefore, the pursuit of earthly freedom, while in itself good, can never be the Christian’s ultimate objective. Below I explain how this understanding of freedom relates to his obligations towards society.

Social Liberalism and the Logic of Love

Implicit in Christ’s command to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15) is the truth that we should not be content with our own soteria (i.e., spiritual healing); or, to put it more accurately, our healing depends on whether we genuinely desire the healing of others. This desire was so strong in St. Paul that he was willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of others (Rom 9:3). Thus, to express it in the broadest of terms, the fundamental social obligation of the Christian is to bring healing to the world, and all other social ends—including the pursuit of earthly freedom—should be subordinated to this objective.

But how do we “bring healing” in a modern democratic society, where “we the people” are the agents of force—that is, where we make rules (directly, or through elected representatives) that are binding on society? Should we seek to pursue others’ healing through the use of force?

The social liberal would respond that although we are certainly entitled to express our religious beliefs, we should not impose those beliefs on others. If my otherwise immoral actions entail no harm to others, then I should not be denied my freedom to perform these actions. This view commands the respect of not only liberals, but also a growing number of conservatives. The problem with this response lies not in its appeal to freedom, which is unequivocally good, and which explains why this view is inherently appealing. The problem, rather, is that it confuses true, spiritual freedom with a cheap, earthly imitation.

Further, experience teaches us that the harm principle violates the logic of love. Occasionally, love calls us to suppress another’s earthly freedom in order to preserve something incomparably more important. For instance, one who genuinely loves his friend will, if he is able, forcibly prevent him from taking his own life in a drunken bout of despair, and no reasonable person would regard him as an enemy of freedom in doing so.

Now, Christianity teaches that the love one has for a friend should be extended to all, since to imitate God is to love the world (John 3:16)—including, even, our own enemies (Luke 6:35). Consider how we express our love for strangers through voluntarism and charitable giving. If we are justified in seeking to alleviate their finite, earthly suffering, are we not even more justified in seeking to prevent their eternal, spiritual suffering?

Given both the imperative to love and the superiority of spiritual freedom over earthly freedom, I have arrived at the view that love is appropriately expressed through public policy (i.e., the use of force). True love knows no bounds between the realm of close, interpersonal relations and that of politics.

Before applying this framework to the specific issue of pornography, I should confess that it is, in theory, radical by the standards of our hyper-individualistic culture. But I might not be nearly as authoritarian in practice as the reader might suspect. In my view, one should always appreciate the social and political context of a society when contemplating public policy, for some policies that otherwise embody Christian principles might, once enacted, be ineffective or counter-productive, or do more harm than good by pushing people who are already increasingly skeptical of religion further away from the Church. Nevertheless, while there might be a certain number of issues on which social liberals and I concur, the agreement is based more on my appreciation of political realities than on shared political values.

The Case of Pornography

This moral-political framework is highly applicable to the issue of pornography. For although it is an unequivocal amartia (to most Christians, at any rate), making or viewing pornography does not necessarily infringe on another’s earthly freedom. From a socially liberal standpoint, therefore, the government must not ban pornography, however immoral it may be. Consider the Libertarian Party’s position on this issue:

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship … concerning obscenity, including “pornography” … despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women.

.........

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

 

 

«Hoy en día nadie, ni los historiadores arabistas, creen que Al-Andalus fue un crisol de armonía y cultura. Fue una época terrorífica»

La época de Al-Andalus fue terrorífica


Entrevista con Serafín Fanjul, de la Real Academia de la Historia y catedrático de Literatura Árabe


«Hoy en día nadie, ni los historiadores arabistas, creen que Al-Andalus fue un crisol de armonía y cultura. Fue una época terrorífica», argumenta con vehemencia Serafín Fanjul (Madrid, 1945), catedrático de Literatura Árabe, miembro de la Real Academia de la Historia y látigo de los intelectuales complacientes con el Islam y con los nacionalismos periféricos españoles. Fanjul desmonta con sus estudios la idealización de la armonía de las Tres Culturas durante la época de convivencia en la Península de moros, judíos y cristianos. «Los que defienden esa majadería no han leído nada», responde sin contemplaciones antes de enfilar a Juan Goytisolo, «un señorito que ha vivido de creerse un escritor maldito» y que no ha superado las teorías de Américo Castro. Ex militante del Partido Comunista de España [No es el único, dicho sea de paso… N. de El Manifiesto], Fanjul desgrana severas descalificaciones hacia Podemos en esta entrevista en exclusiva con Epipress, porque considera a este partido «algo poco serio que puede dar grandes disgustos». Insta a las autoridades a que obliguen a los musulmanes residentes en nuestro país a cumplir las leyes y la Constitución, al tiempo que recrimina el silencio de las feministas respecto a la matanza de niñas cristianas en países como Nigeria.


Señor Fanjul, ¿qué tiene que ver el Estado Islámico (EI) con Al Qaeda y con el asesinato de Bin Laden?

El Estado Islámico y Al Qaeda son rivales, aunque ambos sean suníes, y son, sobre todo, antioccidentales. Sin embargo, poca gente presta atención al movimiento de rechazo a Occidente más peligroso, que es Arabia Saudí. Es de ahí de donde sale Al Qaeda, Bin Laden y el propio EI que bebe de su ideología y vive de su financiación. Arabia Saudí, Emiratos Árabes y Kuwait sustentan a estos radicales, por más que vendan que los están persiguiendo, eso sí, siempre que actúen en sus territorios. 

¿Por qué se produce ahora una escalada de ataques contra Occidente?

Porque no hay interés en acabar contundemente con esos radicalismos. Lo que importa ya no es el petróleo, sino los flujos de capitales que hay entre Arabia Saudí y Estados Unidos. Hay demasiados intereses financieros manejados por grandes inversores estadounidenses. 

Así que Occidente se queda de brazos cruzados ante esta barbarie, ¿no?

Los radicales islámicos han visto la debilidad de Occidente y ven, sobre todo, a Europa acobardada. Yo creo que se equivocan, porque Europa sigue siendo una gran potencia económica y cultural, y Estados Unidos una gran potencia militar y económica. 

Yihad significa “combate por la fe”. ¿Qué tiene que ver esa guerra santa con el Corán?

En el Corán se exhorta a hacer la guerra por Dios para difundir la fe musulmana. Yihad significa dos tipos de esfuerzo: uno es el interior y el otro el del combate físico contra los enemigos del Islam. Para el 90% de los musulmanes, la yihad tiene que ver con ese combate. Es una obligación de todo musulmán luchar contra los enemigos del Islam. 

¿Qué tenemos que temer entonces los occidentales?

Los occidentales tenemos que temernos a nosotros mismos, a la debilidad que tenemos y que mostramos. Nuestra sociedad, sobre todo la española, se ha vuelto muy blandita porque se ha acostumbrado a vivir demasiado bien y no nos percatamos de que hay otras sociedades que viven mal y que no tienen el concepto del valor de la vida que tenemos nosotros. Cuando se vive en situaciones precarias se relativiza mucho lo que se hace, aunque la mayor parte de los terroristas tan sólo cumplen órdenes de dirigentes. 

¿Qué tipo de dirigentes?

Personas que no son pobres como ellos, gente acomodada que actúa por venganza, rencor, revancha y resentimiento personal. Son personas que viven entre nosotros resentidas con la sociedad y que, si no hacen algo, atisban un futuro frustrado y un presente muy feo. 

Pero no todos los resentidos se hacen terroristas…

No, pero sí que vemos que se unen a partidos como Podemos que critican al sistema, algo que, por cierto, ya hacían los neonazis. 

¡Oiga, no me compare a los terroristas islámicos con Podemos!

No. Podemos es una cosa muy poco seria en origen que puede darnos muchos disgustos en el futuro. ¿Qué se puede esperar de un partido liderado por unos profesores universitarios de tercer nivel que en vez de estudiar se fueron a Venezuela?

Algo habrá hecho mal Occidente para que se dé ese peligroso caldo de cultivo entre los resentidos musulmanes, ¿no cree?

Por supuesto. La retirada colonial de los años 50 dejó un vacío político y administrativo en los países que se hicieron libres que ocupó el Islam desde las mezquitas como fuerza de cohesión. Los europeos se replegaron y renunciaron a su influencia cultural e ideológica en esos países, y además la religión cristiana, eje de las políticas europeas, dio paso a movimientos laicos y nos quedamos sin retaguardia moral en la que refugiarnos. Las convicciones religiosas siempre dan seguridad y cohesión a los grupos humanos. A todo esto hay que unir la eclosión demográfica de los países musulmanes que ha sido importada como mano de obra por muchos países de Europa. Tras la guerra del Yom Kippur del 73, muchos países se encontraron con un dinero del petróleo con el que jamás habían soñado, luego pasaron a los flujos financieros y de inversión con Suiza, Inglaterra, Alemania y Estados Unidos, y ahora dan la calderilla que les sobra a los radicales. Para un ejército de desarrapados, el dinero que recibe de Arabia Saudí es agua de mayo.

..........

Leer más aquí: www.elmanifiesto.com

 

 

 

 

In occasione del Sinodo sulla Famiglia ...

In 405.000 rivolgono una filiale supplica al Papa 


405.000 persone, fra i quali 98 presuli – cardinali, arcivescovi e vescovi – hanno finora sottoscritto la “Supplica Filiale” a Sua Santità il Papa Francesco chiedendogli «una parola chiarificatrice», come «unica via per superare la crescente confusione fra i fedeli» in materia di matrimonio e di unioni omosessuali.

Per i firmatari un supremo intervento è necessario per arginare lo strisciante progredire della rivoluzione culturale, promossa da forze anticristiane che da decadi cercano d’indebolire le convinzioni morali fondate sul Vangelo e sulla Legge Naturale.

Davanti alla macchina propagandistica dei costumi neopagani, secondo i firmatari, la Chiesa mantiene sempre accesa la fiaccola di una solida dottrina e di una coerente disciplina, entrambe basate sull’insegnamento di Nostro Signore… Tuttavia, affermano i firmatari, in occasione del Sinodo straordinario sulla Famiglia dell’ottobre 2014, la luce di questa fiaccola anziché rinvigorirsi è parsa vacillare a causa di alcune confuse e dissonanti opinioni, emerse ad intra e ad extra dell’aula sinodale.

Queste tesi sono state immediatamente riprese e moltiplicate dalla grancassa della propaganda laicista. In vista del Sinodo ordinario sulla Famiglia di ottobre 2015, consapevoli del fatto che cedimenti morali apparentemente lievi possano avere conseguenze rovinose, un gruppo di fedeli laici ha promosso questa “Supplica Filiale” e creato un’omonima associazione per diffonderla.

L’iniziativa, come i numeri dimostrano, non ha tardato a trovare una larga accoglienza nell’opinione pubblica cattolica e anche fra personalità di spicco nella vita civile, accademica ed ecclesiastica. 

L’Associazione “Supplica Filiale” si propone inoltre la diffusione su scala mondiale del volumetto intitolato Opzione preferenziale per la Famiglia, opera di tre vescovi, Mons. Aldo di Cillo Pagotto, Mons. Robert F. Vasa e Mons. Athanasius Schneider.

Si tratta di un manuale di facile consultazione, che si sviluppa in cento domande e cento risposte, affrontando in maniera succinta ma sicura tutte le principali questioni sul tappeto. Anche questa iniziativa ha trovato un ampio appoggio fra personalità dell’ambito ecclesiastico e civile. L’opera è stata tradotta nelle principali lingue ed è giunta a tutti i vescovi residenziali di ogni continente. Migliaia sono state le richieste di ulteriori copie da distribuire fra parroci, operatori pastorali e fedeli. Copie di Opzione preferenziale per la Famiglia possono essere richiese a Supplicafiliale.org.



Leggi tutto: www.corrispondenzaromana.it

The root of modernity’s rejection of Nature does not lie in science.

Science Contra Hubris
 by Edward R. Dougherty

Good scientific training is strenuous and humbling, because science is unforgiving. To spare society from the imposition of subjective pipe dreams, the prudence characteristic of valid scientific thinking needs to permeate the entire intellectual order.

In a recent essay, “The Recovery of Human Nature,” James Kalb discusses the contemporary effort to deny the existence of human nature and, beyond that, Nature herself. He observes that many people see Nature as a mindless, blind, and oppressive force that needs to be dominated by technology. He writes, “That line of thought leads to the insane view, which is now entirely mainstream, that we can advance the human good by destroying all substantive concepts of what people naturally are.” He criticizes a simplistic scientism that only recognizes physical knowledge as legitimate. “Human beings and societies are complex,” Kalb observes. “They involve meanings and other aspects of reality that transcend the purely physical.”

As far as it goes, Kalb’s critique is on the mark, but I believe that matters have degenerated beyond his analysis. We confront more than radical positivism. That would leave us with respect for a scientific view of Nature. Increasingly, however, science too is rejected, and with it, Nature in her entirety.

The Modern Rejection of Nature

Consider abortion. The argument that a baby inside his mother’s womb is less than a human being rejects a scientific perspective on Nature. From the moment of conception, the regulatory machinery of the cell is in place and programmed to develop fully, given a suitable environment. To reject the humanity of an unborn child is to reject science. This is not to say that science precludes one from arguing that certain humans should be put to death, but it does say that, in the case of abortion, science provides no ontological demarcation between those a society decides should live and those it decides should die.

To a certain extent, it is in man’s disposition to reject Nature. He does not accept his environment as given, but restructures it to suit his needs. As he matures through the centuries, he moves from forming a hut with readily available materials to protect him from the weather, to building an aqueduct to supply a city with water from many miles away, to harnessing nuclear fission to provide a virtually boundless supply of energy. With a never-ending expansion of technology seemingly lying before him, it is not surprising that a person can envision changing both his environment and himself to suit his every whim and find any limitation to be an unjust constraint of his freedom.

But this “freedom” is not the Augustinian freedom manifested in one’s liberation from the chains of his passions; rather, it is the freedom from constraint upon one’s submission to his passions. It is the freedom to express and manifest an unchecked will. Nicholas Berdyaev tells us where this freedom leads: “Freedom, insofar as it is self-will and self-affirmation must end in a negation of God, of man, and of the world, and of freedom itself.” We should not be surprised that the rejection of God and of Nature often go hand in hand.

Can this glorification of self-will be laid at the door of science? No doubt the extraordinary achievements of science and technology since the “scientific revolution” of the seventeenth century have led some scientists—and many more ersatz scientists—to justify a prideful rejection of God and a disparaging arrogance toward Nature. But many of the greatest minds, including Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, have stood in awe before the magnificence of Nature.

When asked by a sixth grader, “Do scientists pray?” Einstein responded, “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” (One must keep in mind when reading this that Einstein’s God is Spinoza’s God.)

The root of modernity’s rejection of Nature does not lie in science. In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes posited a radical subjectivity. To Descartes, the world is one of his own imaginings. These constitute the “true and immutable nature” of his universe. A pervasive sense of unreality permeates the pages of his Meditations. Descartes sits alone, isolated with his own thoughts, circling deeper and deeper into nothingness until even he disappears into his own thoughts, leaving only a disembodied thinking thing.

The Humbling Intersubjectivity of Science

The Danger of Shallow Draughts

.......................
Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Sobre el impedimento a un transexual para ser padrino de un bautismo

La diócesis de Cádiz y Ceuta explica las razones por las que un transexual no puede ser padrino de bautismo

Ante las informaciones aparecidas en diversos medios de comunicación sobre el impedimento a un transexual para ser padrino de un bautismo que se va a celebrar en San Fernando (Cádiz, España), al diócesis de Cádiz y Ceuta ha publicado un comunicado en el que explica las razones por las que dicha persona no puede ejercer tal función. Las mismas están basadas en el Código de Derecho Canónico al que la Iglesia ha de atenerse.
Comunicado de la diócesis de Cádiz y Ceuta:

Ante las informaciones aparecidas en diversos medios de comunicación sobre el impedimento a un transexual para ser padrino de bautismo, el Obispado de Cádiz y Ceuta manifiesta que:

Ante la petición de A.S. de ser padrino de bautismo, el párroco mantuvo una cordial conversación con el indicándole que debía cumplir con los requisitos que expresa el Código de Derecho Canónico, c. 874/3 que exige a quien haya de ser padrino o madrina de bautismo, que "sea católico, esté confirmado, haya recibido ya el santísimo sacramento de la Eucaristía y lleve, al mismo tiempo, una vida congruente con la fe y con la misión que va a asumir".

En esta amplia charla y acogiendo el sentir del solicitante, el párroco le animó a vivir congruentemente su fe y que, a pesar de no ser el padrino de bautismo, participara de algún modo como padrino espiritual, pudiendo animar y ayudar en la vida de fe al bautizando.

Durante todo el tiempo, tanto la actitud del párroco como la del solicitante fue amable y comprensiva, de tal modo que al finalizar dicho encuentro, A.S. dio la impresión de estar conforme con las indicaciones tratadas con el párroco que le manifestó su total disponibilidad para ayudarle en cuanto deseara y le transmitió que, la Iglesia, como madre, tiene la misión de acoger, escuchar y ayudar a vivir un camino espiritual donde el mensaje de Cristo se manifiesta en su Iglesia y donde el cristiano halla su felicidad y dignidad.

Según el Código de Derecho Canónico es el párroco o ministro del sacramento quien ha de velar con responsabilidad para que se cumplan los requisitos del canon 874, e incluso disuadir a quienes a su parecer no los cumplen por diferentes razones, por el propio bien del bautizado, pues el padrino ha de velar por el crecimiento en la fe del bautizado y acompañarle para que aprenda de su mano los fundamentos doctrinales y morales de la fe cristiana.

A nadie debe extrañar si alguien no puede ser admitido, algo que sucede con frecuencia, por no ser considerado idóneo por su estilo de vida, criterios o incongruencia con la vida cristiana y las disposiciones de la Iglesia, lo cual no supone ninguna discriminación.

Fuente: infocatolica.com

Les grandes lignes devant présider au choix d'un évêque, en 12 points.

"12 critères pour sélectionner un évêque"

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Riposte Catholique publie un texte de l’abbé Paul A. McGavin, prêtre australien et aumônier de l’University of Canberra, théologien, qui donne les grandes lignes devant présider au choix d'un évêque, en 12 points. 

Ce texte fait suite à une lettre ouverte que le prêtre avait adressée au Pape François, portant sur la nomination des évêques.


"Contrairement à ce que les catholiques croient officiellement, l’ordination ne transforme pas un homme. Celui qui la reçoit a accès à l’autorité et à la grâce que confère le sacrement de l’ordre. Mais la concrétisation de celles-ci dépend dans une large mesure des qualités humaines que possède celui qui est ordonné. Les critères de sélection doivent porter essentiellement sur les qualités humaines et sur la manière dont la grâce peut se manifester dans ces qualités humaines.[...]

1. Il faut choisir un homme viril ; un homme qui ait confiance en lui-même et qui soit bien assuré dans sa masculinité ; un homme qui ait un mode de vie concrètement physique et qui soit fort au point de vue mental mais également au point de vue physique. Il faut rechercher le type d’homme que les garçons et les hommes admirent et que les femmes respectent.[...]

2. La cohérence est d’une très grande importance. L’évêque-est-il un homme qui, avec prudence, dit en quoi il croit et met en œuvre ce qu’il dit ?[...]

3. Les principes sont d’une très grande importance. L’évêque est-il un homme qui insistera pour que les procès soient justes et que la justice soit correcte ? Un homme qui s’efforcera d’agir canoniquement plutôt qu’arbitrairement ?[...]

4. La crainte de Dieu est d’une très grande importance. Saint Jean nous enseigne que « le parfait amour bannit la crainte » (1 Jn 4, 18). Il ya peu de gens qui soient parfaits en amour ; une vive crainte de Dieu nous empêche de faire ce que l’amour parfait ne ferait pas et nous pousse à faire ce que l’amour parfait ferait. Un homme est ordonné évêque non pas pour lui-même, mais pour Dieu et pour son Église.[...]

5. L’inclusivité est d’une très grande importance. En tant que prêtre et pasteur, l’évêque a-t-il agi de manière à construire une communauté dans laquelle les personnes les plus diverses puissent trouver une place et être accueillies ?[...]

6. La prière est d’une très grande importance.[...]

7. L’humilité est d’une très grande importance.[...]

8. L’amour de la beauté est d’une très grande importance. Les gens peuvent frémir à l’idée d’un évêque esthète, mais lorsqu’un évêque fait preuve de goûts peu raffinés, l’Église en souffre considérablement.[...]

9. L’exercice intellectuel est d’une très grande importance. À cet égard, notre pape actuel constitue un cas intéressant : ce n’est pas un intellectuel au sens strict, mais il a un esprit théologique ouvert à la recherche et il défie puissamment l’Église dans les domaines où elle a fait preuve d’une pensée conventionnelle et non pas d’une recherche attentive et d’une défense de la foi.[...]

10. La capacité de mise en œuvre concrète est d’une importance cruciale. Le « métier » d’évêque dépasse les capacités d’un homme seul. Cela signifie qu’un évêque doit être aidé dans sa mission. Cette aide provient en premier lieu de ses collaborateurs les plus proches, ses prêtres et ses diacres.[...]

11. Décider de ce que l’on ne va pas faire est d’une importance cruciale. Il existe un type d’homme qui se croit capable de tout faire et de tout gérer et qui finit, au contraire, par ne rien gérer du tout. Il existe un type d’homme qui travaille inlassablement et qui réalise peu de choses, qui est inefficace, parce qu’il n’a pas su établir une distinction entre ce qu’il peut faire et ce qu’il ne peut pas faire.[...]

12. “Montrez-vous mes imitateurs, comme je le suis moi-même du Christ » (1 Cor 11, 1). Ces fortes paroles sont de l’apôtre Paul. En plusieurs décennies, je n’ai pas pu les appliquer facilement à tous les évêques que j’ai connus peu ou prou. Trop souvent on a affaire à des hommes qui font ce qui leur plaît et qui ne favorisent que les gens qui peuvent les aider à s’occuper de « leurs affaires ». Une ressemblance profonde et enracinée avec le Christ est difficile à trouver, même parmi les hommes qui seraient des combattants du Christ. On en trouve rarement parmi ceux qui « réussissent » socialement, qui sont appréciés parce qu’ils sont « inoffensifs ». Ses épîtres nous font découvrir en saint Paul un homme qui, à bien des points de vue, avait une personnalité rugueuse, mais qui ressemblait tellement au Christ qu’il est impossible de ne pas aimer un tel homme. Nous avons désespérément besoin d’évêques qui aient avec le Christ une ressemblance telle que nous soyons incités à les aimer, à les aimer en dépit des rugosités que nous pourrons découvrir chez l’un ou chez l’autre. Nous avons besoin d’hommes que nous puissions imiter parce que leur manière de penser, de prier et d’agir nous fait voir le Christ qui pense, prie, agit et aime parmi nous. Nous avons besoin d’hommes à l’amour profond."[...]

“Liberty” is where lawyers can get creative in pushing for new constitutional rights

How Supreme Court’s Understanding of ‘Liberty’ in Gay Marriage Case Could Have Repercussions


by Elizabeth Slattery

Justice Samuel Alito joined Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol for a 90-minute conversation about life, baseball and a few recent Supreme Court decisions.

Alito expressed concern about what “liberty” means following the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, has been an avenue for protecting substantive rights since at least the early twentieth century. Alito said:

[T]he jurisprudential question is what limits the definition—how do we determine what liberty in the 14th Amendment means? Liberty means different things to different people. For libertarians, for classical liberals, it does include the protection of economic rights and property rights. For progressive social democrats, it includes the protection, a right to liberty means freedom from want.

Alito described what he sees as the current Supreme Court’s conception of liberty, as evidenced by the majority opinion in Obergefell, which was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Court’s conception…is a very postmodern idea; it’s the freedom to define your understanding of the meaning of life. … It’s the right to self-expression. So if all of this is on the table now, where are the legal limits on it?

Alito pointed out that under this view, “liberty” is in the eye of the beholder: A libertarian Supreme Court justice might be willing to throw out minimum wage laws under the “liberty of contract” or zoning laws as violating property rights; a socialist justice might decide that “liberty” includes free college tuition and a guaranteed annual income.

Alito noted that, in earlier cases, the Court had attempted to place limits on what “liberty” protects.

Since “life” and “property” are relatively clear, “liberty” is where lawyers can get creative in pushing for new constitutional rights.

...........


Read more: dailysignal.com

Marxism has infected, and often poisoned, Latin American Christianity through aberrant forms of liberation theology

THE ERRORS OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY
by William Doino Jr.



When Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, recently presented the Pope with a now infamous “Communist Crucifix”—sculpted in the form of a Soviet-style hammer and sickle—it marked a low point in Bolivian diplomacy. To offer such a “gift” to the Pope was not only exploitive, but a profound insult to the millions of Christians murdered by Communists. It was also a reminder of how Marxism has infected, and often poisoned, Latin American Christianity through aberrant forms of liberation theology.

Morales and others tried to justify the “gift” by noting that it was designed by a courageous human rights activist and Jesuit priest, Fr. Luis Espinal, who was brutally murdered by paramilitary forces in Bolivia in 1980. But that is precisely the tragedy of liberation theology: that it captivated good men like Fr. Espinal and deceived them into believing Christians could fruitfully collaborate with Marxists in building a more humane society. But the history of Latin American history in the twentieth century—particularly in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela—suggests otherwise. Committed Marxists do not believe in authentic dialogue, only tactical and ideological subversion. Karl Marx himself wrote: “Communists preach no morality at all.”

Liberation theology arose in the 1960s and 70s as a response to the widespread poverty and injustice in Latin America. It began with the Gospel premise that Christians have a special obligation to help the poor. But like so many theological movements which depart from sound Catholic principles, it began importing alien ideologies, and quickly went astray.

The errors of liberation theology have been well-documented and censured by the Magisterium. But since there have been renewed efforts to whitewash its past, those missteps bear repeating.

.......................


Read more: www.firstthings.com