A Root Cause of the Family Crisis: Contraception

The Synod on the Family and Contraception

BY STEVEN JONATHAN RUMMELSBURG

The devastating aftermath of proliferating contraception use on the family is not easily noticed and it is much denied by modern minds untethered from common sense reality.
The Synods on the family were called in 2014 to answer the exigent questions surrounding the breakdown of the family and how the Church might better minister to the flock considering the immense confusion and disorder most families face in the modern world. The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops will take place from October 4-25, 2015, in Vatican City.

The stark matter of fact is that we are suffering grave confusion concerning the nature of the family and many of the crises we face in the modern world stem from the contraceptive mentality. So transformative is the sound bite culture propagated by the media image that the causes of our problems concerning the family have been obscured by rights ideologies and ubiquitous false teaching.

The new global culture’s definition of the family seems to evolve with every season and this is contrasted by the understanding of Holy Mother Church who holds only one permanent and unchanging definition of the family. The contraceptive mindset erodes the truth about the authentic nature of the family as the domestic church. Holy Mother Church calls us to order our families by conforming to the mind of Christ embodied by the Holy Family. The world calls us away from this vision by the enticements of false promises of freedom. The chaos that has ensued has been immense.
The Roots of the Contraceptive Mindset

Concerning one of the root cause of our current family crisis, we must take a closer look at the contraceptive mind set. Satan’s best work in this licentious age, after he separated rights from duties by the spirit of rebellious revolution, was to separate the marital act from its primary end of procreation. The secondary end of the marital act inside the bonds of marriage is the consummating truth that the two become one unified flesh by sacramental grace. It happens to be a tertiary artifact of the marital act that it is pleasurable as well, and if this pleasure is ordered to flow from the self-donating act of man and wife open to life, it is an edifying fruit of married life.

The false notion that the marital act is not primarily for procreation and unity, but principally for pleasure is a root cause of much confusion and the ground upon which the contraceptive mentality is established. People who commit the marital act or any other sexual act outside the bonds of sacramental marriage and ignore its primary ends are not self-donating but using another person in the quest for self-gratification. This violates eternal, divine and natural law. Conventional law increasingly contravenes and contradicts divine and natural law by instituting laws grounded in sexual license that promote contraception use and sexual activity outside of marriage.

The Protestant Rebellion against the Sacrament of Marriage

The Protestant Reformation planted the seed of the contraceptive mentality when it denied the sacramental and permanent nature of marriage. The Protestant thinking was that marriage was man’s invention and this served King Henry VIII well enough to consider that tearing asunder his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was only tearing asunder what man had joined, not what God had joined.

The idea that Holy Matrimony is not a sacrament was the initial deviation that laid the groundwork for the confusion that plagues the modern family today. Several hundred years of slow but steady disintegration of the true nature of marriage led to the disintegration of an understanding of the marital act as well. In the Protestant churches, this culminated in the pronouncement at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 that contraception was permissible. However, there were still those Protestants who saw the danger in the new approbation.

The Bishop of Oxford Charles Gore wrote a warning in 1930. He was aghast that the latest Lambeth Conference had overturned the prohibition against contraception. He opined that the conference ruling may fail to meet every abnormal case, yet nonetheless, he considered it a grave concern that the practice of contraception could become widespread because it is so hostile to the family. Bishop Gore issued an “utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral, and religious—thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.” His warning was dire and exigent, but largely ignored and all but forgotten today.

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

Read more: catholicexchange.com

Condannata a cinque mesi di carcere con la condizionale per essersi rifiutata di sposare Claude ed Hélène ...

Francia. Non celebrò un matrimonio gay: cinque mesi di carcere alla vicesindaco musulmana
di Leone Grotti

Sabrina Hout, ex vicesindaco socialista di Marsiglia, ha ottenuto la condizionale ma dovrà pagare una multa di 1.200 euro. Attivisti gay: «Condanna esemplare


Sabrina Hout, ex vicesindaco aggiunto socialista di Marsiglia, è stata condannata a cinque mesi di carcere con la condizionale per essersi rifiutata di sposare Claude ed Hélène. Hout, «musulmana praticante», aveva fatto appello all’obiezione di coscienza in base alle sue «convinzioni religiose» ma è stata lo stesso condannata.

PRIMO CASO. Quello di Hout è il primo caso in Francia di pubblico ufficiale portato in tribunale da quando il “matrimonio per tutti”, voluto dal presidente della Repubblica François Hollande, è stato approvato nel 2013 senza prevedere una clausola di coscienza per gli ufficiali. Quando Claude ed Hélène si sono presentate il 16 agosto 2014 in Comune per il matrimonio, Hout ha chiesto a un consigliere municipale di sostituirla. Quest’ultimo però non aveva i poteri legali per condurre la cerimonia e Hout, che ha comunque firmato i documenti civili, pur non avendo assistito alle nozze, è incorsa nel reato di falso in documento amministrativo.

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

Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it

They Sent A Drone To Film Jerusalem

They Sent A What it Captured Will Take Your Breath Away

https://youtu.be/KrOpUpq7Tjc

Communiqué concernant la filiale supplique en vue du synode

790 190 personnes, dont 201 prélats, demandent au Pape une parole éclairante



Communiqué concernant la filiale supplique en vue du synode :

"La Filiale Supplique au Pape François sur le futur de la famille, dont les signatures proviennent de 178 pays, a été délivrée ce matin au Vatican.

En vue de l’ouverture prochaine du Synode ordinaire sur la famille, 790 190 personnes, parmi lesquelles 201 cardinaux, archevêques et évêques, demandent au Pape François de prononcer une « parole éclairante » pour dissiper la « désorientation généralisée causée par l’éventualité qu’au sein de l’Église soit ouverte une brèche permettant l’acceptation de l’adultère – par l’admission à l’Eucharistie de couples divorcés civilement remariés – ainsi que l’acceptation virtuelle des unions homosexuelles, pratiques condamnées de façon catégorique comme contraires à la loi divine et naturelle ».

Seule une intervention suprême du Souverain Pontife peut en effet être à même d’aider les fidèles désorientés à sortir de la confusion qui s’est créée au fil des années et qui s’est aggravée dernièrement de façon dramatique.

Le porte-parole de cette initiative, le professeur Tommaso Scandroglio, professeur d’Éthique et de Bioéthique à l’Université Européenne de Rome a fait remarquer que la Supplique « a déjà eu un large écho dans la presse italienne et internationale », et a ajouté que « ses répercussions dans les médias, ainsi que la quantité d’adhésions et le grand nombre de personnalités du monde ecclésial, civil et académique l’ayant signée démontrent qu’il y a tout un peuple de croyants très préoccupé par le développement croissant d’un certain courant théologique dans l’Église ».

Selon Scandroglio, « l’initiative s’insère de façon constructive dans le climat de discussion et de dialogue autour de ces sujets, dont une preuve est le Vadémécum, Une option préférentielle pour la famille - 100 questions et 100 réponses autour du Synode, qui a donné un appui doctrinal à la collecte de signatures et qui se veut un instrument de diffusion du Magistère catholique sur les thèmes en discussion. Ce Vadémécum, œuvre de trois évêques, a été demandé par des dizaines de milliers de fidèles du monde entier ».

Parmi les nombreux signataires du monde ecclésial on trouve les cardinaux Jorge Medina Estévez, préfet émérite de la Congrégation du Culte divin, Geraldo Majella Agnelo, ancien primat du Brésil et ex-secrétaire de la même congrégation etGaudencio Rosales, archevêque émérite de Manille ; les évêques aux armées des Etats-Unis et du Brésil, Mgrs Timothy Broglio et Fernando Guimaraes ; le président de la Conférence épiscopale de Madagascar et archevêque de Tamatave (Toamasina),Mgr Désiré Tsarahasana, et encore plusieurs prélats dirigeant de grands diocèses tels que Mgr Ramón Arguelles, archevêque de Lipa aux Philippines (2 700 000 fidèles), Mgr Alfredo Zecca, archevêque de Tucumán en Argentine, et Mgr Aldo di Cillo Pagotto,archevêque de Paraíba au Brésil dont les diocèses rassemblent plus d’un million de fidèles, Mgr Gonzalo Restrepo, archevêque de Manizales en Colombie (plus de 800 000 fidèles).

En Afrique, on peut également mentionner parmi les signataires Mgr Francis Chimoio, archevêque ordinaire du diocèse de Maputo au Mozambique (plus de 1 200 000 fidèles) et son prédécesseur le cardinal Alexandre dos Santos. En Asie, ont aussi signé parmi d’autres Mgr Tomasz Peta, archevêque d’Astana au Kazakhstan, et Mgr Calis Soosa Pakiam, archevêque de Trivandrum en Inde. De nombreux archevêques et évêques européens et différents éparques et évêques de rite oriental ont également signé la Supplique

Dans le monde politique et civil, on trouve parmi les signataires M. Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado, procureur général de Colombie, Rick Santorum, ancien sénateur américain, le prince Luiz d’Orléans-Bragance, chef de la Maison impériale du Brésil, les eurodéputés Anna Zaborska (Slovaquie) et Ruza Tomasic (Croatie).

La Supplique a aussi été signée par différents membres de l’Académie pontificale pour la vie tels que Josef Seifert, ex-président de l’International Academy of Philosophy, Luke Gormally, directeur émérite du Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, et Wolfgang Waldstein, professeur émérite de l’Université de Salzbourg. A noter également parmi les signataires des figures académiques de renom telles que le Pr Stephan Kampowski, de l’Institut pontifical Jean-Paul II d’études sur le mariage et la famille, et le Pr Massimo de Leonardis, directeur de la faculté de sciences-politiques de l’Université Catholique du Sacré-Cœur de Milan.

Enfin de nombreux dirigeants de mouvements pro-famille et pro-vie de tous les continents ont aussi adhéré à cette initiative."

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

El Consejo de las Conferencias Episcopales de Europa (CCEE) ha concluido su Asamblea

El documento final de la CCEE de Jerusalén, una demostración de valentía y realismo cristiano que ha pasado inobservada
di Stefano Fontana


Me parece que ha pasado inobservado el documento final con el que el Consejo de las Conferencias Episcopales de Europa (CCEE) ha concluido su Asamblea, que ha tenido lugar en Jerusalén del 11 al 16 de septiembre. Representando a Italia estaban presentes, entre otros, el cardenal Angelo Bagnasco, presidente del CCEE, y el Arzobispo Mons. Giampaolo Crepaldi, que preside su Comisión Caritas in veritate. Es una pena porque de una manera sencilla y clara, sobria en la forma y firme en el contenido, los obispos han dado prueba en esta ocasión de un sabio (y por lo tanto valiente) realismo cristiano.

Tres han sido los puntos afrontados por el mensaje.

Primero de todos, la emigración. Eliminado todo lenguaje sentimental y retórico que toca los corazones pero ofende la razón, los obispos europeos han reafirmado el deber de los Estados de “responder inmediatamente a las necesidades de ayuda urgente y de acogida de las personas desesperadas”, pero no han dejado esta afirmación aislada, como sucede a menudo, suscitando las reacciones de la política. De hecho, han añadido que los Estados “deben mantener el orden público”, por lo tanto, ninguna apertura sin criterio; deben “garantizar la justicia para todos” y, por consiguiente, también para los ciudadanos que acogen; deben proporcionar disponibilidad "para quien tiene verdaderamente necesidad", pues tal vez no todos los que la piden la necesitan; y deben actuar en vista de una “integración respetuosa y de colaboración”, es decir, que los emigrantes tienen derechos para también deberes que tienen que respetar. Los obispos recuerdan que los Estados “son los primeros responsables de la vida social y económica de sus pueblos” y mientras ayudan a quienes lo necesitan deben pensar también que esto no puede hacerse contra viento y marea, sino que deben sopesarse las consecuencias para la vida de los pueblos que acogen. Es bastante raro que eclesiásticos se expresan de este modo tan concreto y no se limiten a hacer grandes anuncios de una caridad abstracta.

También sobre las causas de la emigración los obispos de la CCEE han sido valientes, resaltando que, como mínimo, es contradictorio desestabilizar zonas de África y de Oriente Medio y después lamentarse de que la gente piense en huir de esos lugares abandonados a violencias caóticas. Este es el motivo por el que invitan a “adoptar medidas adecuadas para detener la violencia y construir la paz y el desarrollo de todos los pueblos… la paz en Oriente Medio y en el Norte de África es vital para Europa”.

También han sido originales los contenidos que hacen referencia a la libertad religiosa, que a menudo se piensa que está en peligro sólo fuera de Europa. Los obispos de la CCEE, en cambio, saben bien (y lo dicen) que las guerras de religión son a menudo guerras contra la religión, no sólo por parte de los Califatos sino también por occidente: “la secularización en acto en los países europeos tiende a desterrar la religión a la esfera privada y en los confines de la sociedad. En este ámbito se incluye el derecho fundamental de los padres a educar a sus propios hijos según sus convicciones. Para que esta libertad sea posible es necesario que las escuelas católicas puedan llevar a cabo su tarea educativa en favor de toda la sociedad con cualquier apoyo que sea oportuno”.

Por último, los obispos reunidos en Jerusalén han hablado de la familia. Su mensaje a este propósito hay que leerlo en vista del Sinodo que iniciará en breve. Ninguna duda, concesión o ambigüedad en sus palabras. “La belleza humana y cristiana” de la familia es una “realidad universal: papá, mamá, hijos” y no algo que tiene relación con construcciones sociales. Y por si esto no fuera suficiente, he aquí la rotunda afirmación: “La Iglesia cree firmemente en la familia fundada sobre el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer: ésta es la célula base de la sociedad y de la misma comunidad cristiana. No se ve porqué realidades distintas de convivencias deban ser tratadas del mismo modo”. Es decir: nada de uniones civiles y cosas de este tipo. “Despierta una particular preocupación -declaran por último los obispos-, el intento de aplicar la “teoría de género”. Para ellos las cosas son claras: “La Iglesia no acepta la “teoría de género” porque es expresión de una antropología contraria a la verdadera y auténtica valorización de la persona humana”. “La Iglesia no acepta la teoría de género”: ¿queda claro?

Documentos como este consuelan. Aquí los pastores se comportan como tales. Los obispos de la CCEE, de hecho, concluyen con una afirmación de la que no debería prescindir nunca un pastor de la Iglesia católica: “conscientes de que sólo en Jesucristo encuentran respuesta las profundas preguntas del corazón y se cumple plenamente el humanismo europeo".

Fuente: www.vanthuanobservatory.org

Identity and institutions go hand-in-hand

How Choice Replaced Human Nature

by James Kalb







The age of Jenner, Obergefell, and #BlackLivesMatter puts issues of identity at the center of public life. As Catholics and citizens we need to understand what that means.

Personal identity orients us in the world. As such, it has both individual and social functions. It enables us to order our lives by telling us what we are and how we fit into the world. And it greatly eases social functioning by telling people how they connect to institutions and what they owe them.

For a Catholic his identity includes Catholicism—his membership in the Church and orientation toward God and the world. It also includes his sex, state in life as married, ordained, or vowed, and basic family connections such as parentage. We can’t rightly abandon such things, they are fundamental to who we are, and they determine our most basic relationships and duties, thereby supporting the Church and the natural family as fundamental social institutions.

Other aspects of identity are less basic and more dependent on social conditions. More distant family relationships and the cultural networks into which we are born, for example, are less important today than in the past. Instead of relying on them for learning how to live and dealing with the practical problems of life, people rely on markets, bureaucracies, formal education, and mass culture. If Pete Muldoon goes to Harvard, people identify him more as a Harvard man and someone of his generation than as Irish and a Muldoon. They think those things account for more of his social position and how he acts.

Many people have come to view traditional dimensions of identity as irrational and oppressive and want their suppression: to give weight to family is seen as snobbish, and to do so with inherited cultural community is thought racist and therefore downright evil. That view contrasts with a more traditional Catholic view that sees traditional connections as valuable within limits.

The reason for wanting to suppress such things is that promoting some elements of identity means suppressing others. If your school becomes more important, your family becomes less so. The result is that identity and institutions go hand-in-hand. National identity provides an example. It became important because of its usefulness in strengthening the state at the expense of local and religious ties. In pre-revolutionary Europe a man living in France was more likely to think of himself as a Picard than a Frenchman, and Russian peasants habitually called themselves simply “Christians.” Events such as the Tudor break with Rome and the great modern secular revolutions changed that situation, radically enhancing national identity at the expense of local and universal attachments.

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

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

The current understanding of identity won’t last because it’s ultimately irrational and self-defeating

How Choice Replaced Human Nature

by James Kalb







The age of Jenner, Obergefell, and #BlackLivesMatter puts issues of identity at the center of public life. As Catholics and citizens we need to understand what that means.

Personal identity orients us in the world. As such, it has both individual and social functions. It enables us to order our lives by telling us what we are and how we fit into the world. And it greatly eases social functioning by telling people how they connect to institutions and what they owe them.

For a Catholic his identity includes Catholicism—his membership in the Church and orientation toward God and the world. It also includes his sex, state in life as married, ordained, or vowed, and basic family connections such as parentage. We can’t rightly abandon such things, they are fundamental to who we are, and they determine our most basic relationships and duties, thereby supporting the Church and the natural family as fundamental social institutions.

Other aspects of identity are less basic and more dependent on social conditions. More distant family relationships and the cultural networks into which we are born, for example, are less important today than in the past. Instead of relying on them for learning how to live and dealing with the practical problems of life, people rely on markets, bureaucracies, formal education, and mass culture. If Pete Muldoon goes to Harvard, people identify him more as a Harvard man and someone of his generation than as Irish and a Muldoon. They think those things account for more of his social position and how he acts.

Many people have come to view traditional dimensions of identity as irrational and oppressive and want their suppression: to give weight to family is seen as snobbish, and to do so with inherited cultural community is thought racist and therefore downright evil. That view contrasts with a more traditional Catholic view that sees traditional connections as valuable within limits.

The reason for wanting to suppress such things is that promoting some elements of identity means suppressing others. If your school becomes more important, your family becomes less so. The result is that identity and institutions go hand-in-hand. National identity provides an example. It became important because of its usefulness in strengthening the state at the expense of local and religious ties. In pre-revolutionary Europe a man living in France was more likely to think of himself as a Picard than a Frenchman, and Russian peasants habitually called themselves simply “Christians.” Events such as the Tudor break with Rome and the great modern secular revolutions changed that situation, radically enhancing national identity at the expense of local and universal attachments.

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

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

Nel Vangelo Gesù non solo dona la sua compassione, ma ci chiama anche alla conversione ...

Omosessuali sulla soglia del sinodo. Due appuntamenti romani




L'omosessualità è di per sé fuori tema, nel sinodo convocato per discutere sulla famiglia. Ma di fatto è entrata prepotentemente tra le materie più dibattute.

A giudicare dal battage dei media, l'orientamento dominante in campo cattolico è per un radicale cambiamento della dottrina e della prassi della Chiesa, con l'accettazione piena della pratica omosessuale e con la benedizione delle unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso.

Ma c'è anche chi vuole innovare nella cura pastorale delle persone omosessuali restando fermamente ancorato alla dottrina cattolica.

Entrambe queste tendenze prenderanno corpo a Roma in questi giorni di febbrile vigilia del sinodo. In due appuntamenti paralleli.

La prima tendenza avrà il suo momento pubblico sabato 3 ottobre nella conferenza internazionale dal titolo "Le Strade dell’Amore - Istantanee di incontri cattolici con le persone LGBT e le loro famiglie”, che si terrà presso il Centro Pellegrini “Santa Teresa Couderc” in via Vincenzo Ambrosio 9/11, con il patrocinio dell'European Forum of LGBT Christian Groups,
Il programma in italiano, inglese e spagnolo è all'indirizzo waysoflove.wordpress.com

LGBT è l'acronimo di lesbiche, gay, bisessuali e transessuali. Ma in questo appuntamento romano – si spiega – si darà vita a "una rete globale di cattolici LGBTQI", estendendo la sigla anche a "queer" e intersessuali.

I promotori sono tredici organizzazioni di varie nazioni che si sono già riunite a Roma durante il sinodo del 2014 e ora daranno vita con altri gruppi a un "Global Network of Rainbow Catholic", ossia a una rete internazionale di cattolici "arcobaleno".

Loro obiettivo dichiarato è "una Chiesa Cattolica in cui tutto il popolo di Dio – persone LGBT ed eterosessuali – possa vivere, pregare e offrire il proprio servizio insieme in armonia".

Nella conferenza prenderanno la parola Mary McAleese, già presidente dell'Irlanda, José Raúl Vera López, vescovo di Saltillo in Messico, domenicano, i gesuiti Pedro Labrín, cileno, e Pino Piva, italiano, la suora statunitense Jeannine Gramick e la suora italiana Anna Maria Vitagliani, l'inglese Martin Pendergast e il thailandese Rungrote Tangsurakit, più "un sacerdote che opera in Africa il cui anonimato è stato richiesto dal suo superiore".

La seconda tendenza si esprimerà invece venerdì 2 ottobre in un convegno all'Angelicum, la Pontificia Università San Tommaso d'Aquino, con al mattino interventi del cardinale Robert Sarah e del presidente del Pontificio istituto Giovani Paolo II per studi su matrimonio e famiglia, Livio Melina; nel pomeriggio del cardinale George Pell, dello psichiatra Paul McHugh del Johns Hopkins Institute, e di Timothy Lock e Jennifer Morse dell'Istituto Ruth; e ancora la mattina di tre cattolici omosessuali dalle storie in diverso modo esemplari: Rilene, David e Paul.

Il convegno è stato organizzato dalla casa editrice di San Francisco Ignatius Press, fondata e diretta dal gesuita Joseph Fessio, dal Napa Institute, presieduto dal gesuita Robert Spitzer, e da Courage International, un'associazione cattolica diretta da padre Paul Check e dedicata alla cura pastorale delle persone omosessuali, che opera con il placet della conferenza episcopale degli Stati Uniti e del pontificio consiglio per la famiglia.

La presentazione, il programma, i profili degli oratori e altre notizie sul convegno sono all'indirizzo truthandlove.com
........................


Leggi tutto: magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it

Sous Staline, la fin des soeurs Dominicaines

Le chemin de croix d'Anna Abrikossova

La fin des tertiaires dominicaines.

En 1935 eut lieu à Voronège le procès de trois prêtres catholiques qui avaient reçu des honoraires de messes de Mgr Pie Neveu et de trois religieuses dominicaines, qui avaient servi d'intermédiaire. Pourtant, le fait d'avoir transmis à Mgr Neveu cette relation fut considérée plus tard, en 1948, comme un crime. Les sœurs Entkevitch et Gorodets furent arrêtée et reconnurent que cette relation avait été rédigée dans un esprit antisoviétique et comme si le procès constituait une provocation du gouvernement soviétique.

Au demeurant, les sœurs dominicaines, qui réussirent parfois à se retrouver dans un même camp, y formèrent des groupes pour diffuser les idées catholiques, considérées comme contre-révolutionnaire par les gardiens et les mouchards. A l'occasion de la libération de prison d'une certaine Asakian, les sœurs Gotovtsieva Ekaterina Ivanovna, Vakhevitch Elena Vassilievna, Plavskaïa Elena Agafonovna, et Fitzner Olga Gennadevna, du camp du Bamlag, rédigèrent une lettre en l'été 1935, à l'adresse de la communauté domicaine d'Allemagne. Cette lettre fut, bien sûr saisie. Il n'en subsiste qu'un extrait dans le dossier, le plus compromettant aux yeux du NKVD, le plus émouvant au point de vue de la foi : "Par l'esprit nous restons fortes. Ni camps, ni organes du NKVD, ne pourront détourner du vrai chemin des fidèles filles et fils de l'unique Eglise catholique. Même ici, nous nous efforçons de gagner les recrues aussi intrépides que nous à l'Eglise catholique. "

Les années 1935-1949 amenèrent insensiblement l'extinction de la communauté dominicaine. Le 14 juillet 1938 mourut, à la section pénitentiaire du Bamlag; sœur Ekaterina Ivanovna Gototseva, condamnée au procès de 1933-1934 à cinq ans de camp. le 23 juillet 1936; nous l'avons vu, est morte du cancer à la prison de Boutyrki la Mère Abrikossova. Le 12 novembre 1936 fut assassinée à Vesyegonsk, le père Jean Deubner, qui avait terminé ses quinze années dans l'isolateur de Souzdal. Crime qui n'a jamais été éclairci.

Le 29 mai 1936 est mort à Solovski le père Nicolas Alexandrov. Le 27 juillet 1937 fut arrêtée le dernier prêtre de rite oriental, le père Epiphane Akoulov, condamné à être fusillé, exécuté le 28 août 1937 à Leningrad. Le 9 octobre 1937 fut condamnée à la "mesure extrême du châtiment, c'es-à-dire à être fusillée, Camille Krouchelnitskaïa, exécutée le 27 octobre, en Carélie. Quelques sœurs, qui avaient été après leur temps assignées à résidence dans la république autonome d'Adyguïa (capitale Maïkor) vers la mer Noire, furent arrêtées, le 22 février 1940, sous prétexte de former une secte et condamnées, le 23 août 1940. Le 29 juin 1941, une semaine après l'invasion de la Russie par les troupes allemandes, au lieu d'une réaction de défense stratégique, le NKVD donna des ordres d'extermination dans les camps et les prisons, situés à quelques km de la frontière. Fut arrêtée la sœur Tamara Sorotchinskaïa, qui avait fait cinq ans de Bamlag et qui fut condamnée à dix ans de camp de travail forcé.

On a du mal à imaginer ce que pouvait être la vie de ces pauvres religieuses pendant la terrible guerre de 1941-1945 : celles qui étaient dans les camps en Sibérie ou en déportation au Kazakhstan ne pouvaient plus recevoir de colis, d'autres se trouvaient par la force des choses en zone occupée, à Maloïaroslavets pour un temps relativement court, il est vrai, du 18 octobre 1941 au 2 janvier 1942. Chose qui en soi, était déjà considéré comme un crime. Pourtant la plupart survécurent, comme nous l'apprend la lettre du Père Braun du 1er février 1945: "Sœur Stéphanie a été arrêtée vers septembre 1941 et est exilée pour sept ans dans la Kazakhstan. Sœur Marie-Rose, qui était allée volontairement la secourir, y est morte le 11 janvier 1944. Actuellement, Sœur Catherine partage ce dur exil. Elles sont secourues régulièrement. C'est Sœur Antonine qui est chargée de ses compagnes ici. Ce matin, sœur Lucie et Sœur Rose étaient à la messe. Sœur Thérèse a été de nouveau arrêtée et exilée, depuis la libération de Maloïaroslavets. Deux autres sœurs en exil ou partiellement libérée, on a des nouvelles des Sœurs Philomène et Marguerite, qui reçoivent aussi des secours dans la mesure du possible."

Le regroupement des Sœurs à Maloïaroslavets et les contacts maintenus avec le Père Braun et après son départ, avec son successeur, le père Antoine Laberge, furent considérés comme un acte contre-révolutionnaire. L'affaire M-2631 dit : "En 1948 fréquentèrent l'église (Saint-Louis) Kouznetsova Sœur Antonine Kougel, M.R. Krylevskaïa Sœur Marguerite Roubacheva, Eismont Philomène, et d'autres. Léopold Braun avait un large cercle de liaisons (plus de 700 personnes) parmi les catholiques citoyens de l'URSS, dont la plupart le voyaient à l'église. Au nombre de ces personnes, Kouznetsova, qui vivait dans la communauté de Maloïaroslavets - à 120 km sud-ouest de Moscou - dont chaque semaine l'une des sœurs, et habituellement Kouznetsova, venait à Moscou pour rencontrer Braun à la sacristie, recevoir de l'argent et des vivres."

Le 30 novembre 1948, cinq sœurs de la communauté, Kouznetsova (sœur Antonine) Gorodets (Sœur Stéphanie) Davidiouk (Sœur Lucie) Krylevskaïa (Sœur Marguerite) et Eismont (Sœur Philomène) furent arrêtées.

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

Lirela suite: feodorof.blog4ever.net

Synod: The Vatican is expected to announce this year’s procedures on Friday.

Critics Sound Alarm Over Possible Changes to Synod Process

by EDWARD PENTIN


Critics of the as-yet unreleased changes to the methodology of the upcoming Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family say they threaten not only to smother voices opposed to certain controversial changes to pastoral practice on family and marriage issues, but also leave the meeting inconclusive and various proposals open to interpretation.

The Synod of Bishops is expected to announce new rules on Friday, but it is already clear that discussion time at the Oct. 4-25 meeting will be reduced; there will be no final message from the synod fathers, as no commission has been set up to write one; no interim report will be issued; and contentious issues largely will be left until the final week.

There is also talk that the Pope will take the unprecedented step of issuing no post-synodal apostolic exhortation — a papal document drawing conclusions from the synod usually published a few months after the meeting. Instead everything is expected to hinge on his final message delivered at the conclusion of the synod discussions. Informed sources say the Pope has explicitly asked for “nothing in writing” to come from the synod, thereby leaving its conclusions ambiguous and its proceedings largely unknown.

As well as a possible lack of transparency with such new rules, various synod participants and prominent theologians believe they could favor certain controversial proposals likely to be raised at the synod, such as Cardinal Walter Kasper’s thesis for readmitting some civilly remarried divorcees to holy Communion, as well as altering pastoral practice on issues relating to human sexuality that would be in conflict with Church doctrine.

Much of the pressure for such pastoral innovations is coming from Germany and German-speaking nations, and is partially, if not wholly, backed by those in charge of managing the three-week synod.

Next month’s meeting, which will discuss the theme of “The Vocation and the Mission of the Family in the Church and in the Contemporary World,” follows last year’s meeting that had been marred by controversy and allegations of manipulation in terms of synod procedure and methodology.

The highly unusual absence of an interim report is occurring because discussion of the chapters of the instrumentum laboris (working document) will continue throughout the three weeks, divided into three parts, one for each week of the synod — an approach that obviously precludes the release a midterm report that would encapsulate the synod fathers’ initials views of all the topics in the instrumentum laboris. The final week also will be devoted to seeking pastoral solutions on to the issues discussed, including the controversial ones.


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

Read more: www.ncregister.com

Hamlet - Such is the lesson of tragedy

HAMLET'S PASSION

by Peter J. Leithart


In her 1959 study of Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes, Lily Campbell treats the four main tragedies of tragedies of passion. Shakespeare places characters of different humor in similar circumstances, and depicts how the characters react. Hamlet is a tragedy of grief, Othello of jealousy, Lear of old-age wrath, Macbeth of fear.

To see how this works in Hamlet, it's necessary to realize that Hamlet is not the only son who has lost a father. Laertes and Fortinbras do as well: “each is called upon to mourn the death of a father, each feeling himself summoned to revenge wrongs suffered by his father. Grief in each for the loss of his father is succeeded by the desire for revenge. But each must act according to the dictates of his own temperament and his own humour (109).

Hamlet and Laertes feed their grief, which enslaves them. Letting their grief run free, they are dominated by it, and their excessive grief feeds fantasies of revenge that end in destruction for both of them.

The survivors of the play - Fortinbras and Horatio - survive because their passions are properly subordinated to reason:

 
.........................

Read more: www.firstthings.com

«Così Putin è diventato il vero punto di riferimento contro l’Isis»

Siria. Obama è ambiguo, l’Europa latita. «Così Putin è diventato il vero punto di riferimento contro l’Isis»

di Leone Grotti

Schierando ingenti truppe in Siria per salvare Assad, Putin ha preso tutti di sorpresa. Intervista a Gianandrea Gaiani, direttore di Analisidifesa
La Francia bombarda lo Stato islamico «per mantenere un ruolo politico», Vladimir Putin schiera le sue truppe in Siria diventando «il vero punto di riferimento contro l’Isis» e mentre Israele si precipita a discutere con la Russia, Stati Uniti ed Europa latitano in modo preoccupante. «Il progressivo ritiro degli Stati Uniti dal Medio Oriente, insieme al vuoto totale dell’Europa, lasciano voragini aperte all’iniziativa russa», commenta l’intricata situazione attuale del Medio Oriente con tempi.it Gianandrea Gaiani, direttore di Analisidifesa.it.

Direttore, la Francia ha lanciato raid aerei contro un campo di addestramento dell’Isis in Siria. Che cosa spera di ottenere?

La Francia ha capito che la Siria è l’ago della bilancia nella guerra all’Isis e cerca di ritagliarsi un ruolo da protagonista. L’incursione non cambia nulla nel contesto militare di questo conflitto, ma François Hollande vuole mantenere un ruolo politico. Finora, infatti, la coalizione guidata dagli Stati Uniti ha fatto oltre duemila raid, ma il 95 per cento di questi sono stati effettuati dagli americani. Il ruolo dei francesi, come degli inglesi, finora è stato marginale.

La Russia invece sembra aver preso in mano le redini del conflitto. È vero che ha già schierato l’esercito?

I satelliti americani, gli stessi ai quali chissà perché sfuggono i movimenti dell’Isis, ci hanno mostrato gli aerei russi schierati a Latakia. Mosca ha già messo in campo una dozzina di carri T-90 e una cinquantina di velivoli: elicotteri da combattimento MI-28 e almeno due dozzine di cacciabombardieri tra Sukhoi Su-30, bombardieri Su-24 e aerei da attacco Su-25. Inoltre, ha schierato circa 1.500 uomini, di cui 500 fanno parte di un battaglione di fanti di marina, che forse hanno anche già combattuto. Insomma, Putin ha messo i famosi boots on the ground.

Come ha reagito la coalizione guidata da Barack Obama?

Tutti sono rimasti spiazzati dalla velocità e determinazione di Putin, anche perché ha smascherato le ambiguità della coalizione arabo-occidentale. Le monarchie sunnite non hanno interesse a combattere i sunniti dell’Isis, anzi, e finora non hanno fatto nulla, mentre ci hanno messo pochissimo a inviare migliaia di uomini e centinaia di aeroplani in Yemen, per combattere gli sciiti. L’Occidente poi continua a dire di voler distruggere l’Isis, ma anche Bashar Al Assad. La Russia, con un colpo magistrale, si è infilata nelle pieghe di queste ambiguità, diventando il punto di riferimento per chi vuole davvero dare scacco ai jihadisti.

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

Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it

Roma - 30 settembre 2015 - Convegno Internazionale in preparazione del Sinodo sulla famiglia

Obama’s UN speeches: a great deal of fanciful, soaring rhetoric, but little of actual substance

The naiveté of Obama’s UN speech

By Nile Gardiner


Barack Obama has delivered seven major addresses to the UN General Assembly during his tenure at the White House – he will give his final address next year before departing office in January 2017. Much like his campaign appearances, Obama’s UN speeches contain a great deal of fanciful, soaring rhetoric, but little of actual substance. To say they are increasingly dull would be an understatement. So dull in fact that this year all the cable news networks, including liberal-leaning CNN and MSNBC, ditched the traditional in-depth post-speech analysis in favour of a news conference on a presidential candidate’s tax plans.

President Obama’s address to the UN on Monday was tired, weak, and completely lacking in ideas and strategy. It exemplified the “leading from behind” mindset that has come to symbolize the Obama administration’s lackluster foreign policy. Instead of offering a bold vision for American leadership on the world stage, Mr. Obama offered yet again a reheated bowl of mush that will do nothing to intimidate America’s enemies or reassure America’s allies.

The president lauded the first 70 years of the United Nations, established in the aftermath of World War Two, praising the post-war international system as the defender of global security, but warned against the “dangerous currents (that) risk pulling us back in a dark more disordered world.” There were jabs at Vladimir Putin over Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, as well as condemnation of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. But in neither case were any solutions offered.

Under the Obama administration’s “Russian reset,” Moscow has begun to flex its muscle again in eastern Europe, while the United States has reduced its military footprint across the Atlantic, closing a series of strategically important bases in Europe. In the Baltic States, Poland and a host of nations that only recently freed themselves from the grip of the Russian bear, there is rising concern about Russian designs in what Putin views as his own backyard. A more robust president, such as Ronald Reagan, would have used a moment like this to warn the Russians of the consequences of their imperial ambitions, demanding a complete withdrawal from the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

In contrast President Obama offered only empty rhetoric, and chose to ignore altogether the immediate issue of Russian intervention in Syria to support the Assad regime. While Obama spoke at the UN, Russian tanks, aircraft and military personnel were pouring into Syria, and Moscow was cutting deals not only with Damascus but also Tehran as well. In the absence of clear US leadership over the Syria crisis, America’s adversaries are pooling resources and putting in place a joint chain of command, with the goal of keeping Assad in power, and entrenching Russia, and not the United States, as the dominant Western power in the Middle East.

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

Read more: www.capx.co

La France, qui jurait encore hier qu'elle ne traiterait jamais avec le très méchant Assad, prise au piège

Les amis de mes amis... : comment Poutine a réussi à enrôler le soldat Hollande

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Réalisme. 

D'un côté, la Russie a déployé à la fois une force militaire suffisante et un réseau diplomatique et politique régional qui lui permet d'être en Syrie la première puissance étrangère. 

Pragmatisme. 

De leurs côtés, les Etats-Unis, après une coalition bien peu efficace avec la France en particulier, vient d'accepter de s'allier à la Russie et donc à la Syrie contre l'Etat islamique. 
Trouille. 

Et voilà donc la France, qui jurait encore hier qu'elle ne traiterait jamais avec le très méchant Assad, prise au piège sur l'échiquier de politique extérieure menée sans courage et sans audace, coincée entre trois options qui lui imposent de retourner sa veste : choisir la Russie et Assad; choisir les Etat-Unis et la Russie; sortir. 

Le camp du perdant ne change malheureusement pas...

Impact of Russian deployment in Syria

Putin ushers in a new era of global geopolitics

by Frederick W. Kagan,Kimberly Kagan

• The positioning of Russian aircraft in Syria gives the Kremlin an ability to shape and control U.S. and Western operations in both Syria and Iraq out of all proportion to the size of the Russian force. 
•  It can compel the U.S. to accept a de facto combined coalition with Russia, Syria, Iran, and Lebanese Hezbollah, possibly in support of indiscriminate operations against any and all regime opponents, not just ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. 
•  It may portend the establishment of a permanent Russian air and naval base in the Eastern Mediterranean. 
•  Russian forces have prepared and trained to conduct close air support and possibly special operations in Syria, and may begin doing so within days.

To read the full intelligence update, click here.

Many people question the wisdom of trying to advance democracy in other countries

Democracy still holds promise globally, though in retreat for now, Stanford expert says


BY CLIFTON B. PARKER

Stanford scholar Larry Diamond says that it was probably inevitable that freedom and democracy would level off after roughly 30 years of nearly continuous expansion.

An Iraqi woman casts her ballot during the country's first parliamentary election in 2005. As Iraq unraveled, says Stanford scholar Larry Diamond, many people began to question the wisdom of trying to advance democracy in other countries.

Democracy has faltered around the world due to an inevitable slowdown, the lack of democratic conditions in some countries, and autocrats who seek to neutralize the liberating effects of technology, a Stanford expert says.

But the future looks bright in places that invest in human capital, the rule of law and smart economic policies, said Stanford's Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Diamond said it was predictable that democracy globally would level off or ebb after roughly 30 years of expansion. At the same time, not all countries have an equal opportunity at achieving democracy, he said.

"As democracy has spread to more and more countries, some of the new democracies in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eurasia lack the classic facilitating conditions for democracy – a sizable middle class, high levels of education, an effective state, a prior history of democracy" and other democratic countries in the region, said Diamond.

The key factors in democratic failure, he said, are political polarization (typically along ethnic, religious or ideological lines), corrupt governance, and incompetent or autocratic behavior by elected leaders.

'Democracy promotion'

Diamond pointed out that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 came to be associated with "democracy promotion." But as Iraq unraveled, many people began to question the wisdom of trying to advance democracy in other countries.

In recent years, the older, wealthier democracies of the United States, Japan and several European countries have been beset by political dysfunction, cynicism and polarization, he said. As a result, democracy has lost its "global allure" and momentum.

On top of this, he added, authoritarian regimes such as found in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have been more assertive and effective in clamping down on freedoms typically associated with civil society, especially on the Internet.

Diamond said the minimum requirement for democracy is that citizens can choose and replace their leaders in truly free and fair elections. However, while many democracies hold reasonably free and fair elections, some still restrict civil society, abuse human rights, disrespect the rule of law and do not deliver adequate social services.

So, a healthy democracy will control corruption, implement policies and programs for the public good, and protect individual and group rights under a credible rule of law, Diamond said.

This type of liberal or high-quality democracy offers the best prospect for human dignity and empowerment – "because the more shallow and illiberal the democracy, the more it will be at risk of breaking down," he said.

Gaining ground globally

Diamond said promoting democracy worldwide also depends on the many organizations and institutions dedicated to this mission – such as the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, foundations, development assistance agencies in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia that work with local nongovernmental organizations, grassroots networks, human rights groups, think tanks, trade unions, business chambers and political parties.

They can strengthen representative institutions and professionalize state agencies that should deliver public goods and services to citizens like justice, health and education, he said.

But if no political will exists to control corruption through the rule of law, then these efforts may be fruitless, Diamond said. This is one of the lessons of the last three decades.

Also, it is very hard to predict when an authoritarian regime will undergo a crisis that creates an opportunity for democratic change. "At a minimum, we can help societies to prepare for that opening," he said.

Democracy and China's growth
Some experts point out that China has grown its economy rapidly without democratic institutions. But Diamond said it is too difficult to generalize across a global landscape about such a dynamic.

"For a time, many experts thought that authoritarianism was the clearer path to rapid economic development, given the East Asian growth-oriented dictatorships like Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, and then the experience of China since 1978," he said.

However, since the mid-1990s, the democracies and nascent democracies of Africa have generally performed better on economic and human development yardsticks than the autocracies, Diamond said.

"Democracy can be a resource in helping to control corruption. The key ingredients for economic development are smart economic policies that invest in human capital, technological improvements, physical infrastructure and efficient markets," he said.

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

Read more: news.stanford.edu

Is it Constitution alive and well and with us still, actively guiding our decisions and shaping our law?

The Image of Liberty: What the Roman Empire Can Teach Us About American Politics

by Steven Smith


A look back at the disintegration of republicanism in the Roman Empire yields important lessons for contemporary American government. Will we demand actual liberty—including the authority truly to govern ourselves—or be content with its image?


As the celebration of Constitution Day attests, Americans still honor our Constitution. But is it alive and well and with us still, actively guiding our decisions and shaping our law? Or is it something that we gratefully acknowledge for its historical significance but then ignore—like the Mayflower Compact, for instance, or maybe the Magna Carta?

It is surely true that we continue to invoke and talk about the Constitution as if it were our currently governing law. And at least some of what happens in modern governance does seem to conform to what the document prescribes. For example, every state is still represented in Congress by two senators, even though some people think it is unfair that Wyoming and Nevada get as much representation in the Senate as New York and California do. Those senators are directly elected by the people, which is not what the original Constitution provided, but that change was formally and explicitly authorized by the adoption, in the constitutionally prescribed manner, of the Seventeenth Amendment. So, in this case, we seem to be adhering to the Constitution in a plausible, straightforward sense.

In other areas, though, our laws seem only distantly related to, or even incompatible with, what the Constitution prescribes. In these areas, the Constitution exercises a kind of ceremonial or perhaps diversionary function; it provides a venerable facade that covers or disguises the real workings of government. This sort of situation is hardly without precedent; a look back at the disintegration of republicanism in the Roman Empire yields important lessons for contemporary American government.

From Republic to Empire

As the renowned historian Edward Gibbon described, in the Roman Empire, the outward forms of the ancient republican constitution were largely preserved. But these forms were a mere façade—camouflage for the largely unconstrained power of the emperors. Thus, what Romans enjoyed under the empire was not actually democratic liberty but rather, as Gibbon delicately put it, the “image of liberty.”

Although he effusively praised the middle period of the empire as a “golden age,” Gibbon was candid about the Romans’ loss of self-governance, and he recounted how this loss had occurred. After the banishment of the kings in the sixth century BC, the Romans had carefully and jealously guarded their rights of self-rule through a government composed of various assemblies, including the senate, and of officials elected by the citizens for one-year terms. Of these officials, the most important were the two consuls and the ten tribunes, who represented the common citizens. This system of governance had evolved and functioned over a period of centuries.

During the first century BC, Rome was wracked by a series of devastating civil wars: the soldiers of Sulla fought those of Marius, the legions loyal to Julius Caesar engaged those commanded by Pompey, and the armies (and navies) of Octavius battled and eventually defeated those of Mark Antony. Under Sulla, and again under Octavius and Antony, proscriptions had been issued essentially licensing the slaughter of large numbers of leading citizens, including the venerable Cicero.

After defeating Antony at Actium in 31 BC, Octavius skillfully orchestrated a ceremony in which he submitted his resignation to the senate but was then prevailed upon to accept simultaneous ten-year (renewable, and renewed) appointments to a number of powerful offices. It was then that Octavius was given his new name of Augustus. Gibbon explained that the various governmental offices, especially those of consul and tribune, had constituted a sort of separation of powers that had constrained governmental authority. Once those offices were united in a single man, the holder’s power became practically irresistible. The result, Gibbon explained, was

an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth. The masters of the Roman world surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed.

In Gibbon’s view, in the earlier years of the Roman Empire, under Augustus and his immediate successors, the loss of liberty had “rendered [the Romans’] condition more completely wretched than that of the victims of tyranny in any other age or country.” But that wretchedness had resulted from two contingent factors. First, Rome in that period had the misfortune of being ruled by a series of spectacularly bad and sometimes deranged emperors including, most infamously, Caligula and Nero. Second, the subjects of the early empire felt the loss of democratic freedom more sharply because “they for a long while preserved the sentiments, or at least the ideas, of their freeborn ancestors.”

Under the later Antonine emperors, by contrast, rulers were for a time more temperate and benign. By that time, self-governance was little more than a distant memory, so its absence was not resented. The “image of liberty”—or the trappings of constitutionalism—were sufficient to keep the Romans satisfied. Augustus understood, Gibbon explained, “that mankind is governed by names.” He knew that

the senate and the people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured, that they still enjoyed their ancient freedoms. A feeble senate and enervated people cheerfully acquiesced in the pleasing illusion, as long it was supported by virtue, or by even the prudence, of the successors of Augustus.

In other words, as long as the government was tolerably effective, reliably provided the “bread and circuses” on which the people had come to depend, and maintained the facade of the ancient constitution, the Romans, now lacking “the sentiments . . . of their freeborn ancestors,” were content to be supine subjects.

American Empire?

So, does Gibbon’s analysis of the Roman system have any application to the American system of governance today? To be sure, any analogy would surely not be exact. Instead of a century of bloody civil wars, America’s story features a tumultuous century containing the Progressive era’s ideal of a regulatory government based on scientific expertise, the Great Depression and the New Deal, and later the Sexual Revolution and the Civil Rights Revolution and the Culture Wars. And the reality lying behind the facade of the ancient constitution would not be an “absolute monarchy,” as Gibbon discerned in Rome, but something quite different. Three main features characterize contemporary American government’s departure from the democratic republic prescribed by our Constitution.

First, governance today occurs much more at the national level than the Constitution or the framers contemplated.

Second, at the ground level, much or most of the federal law that regulates the day-to-day affairs of Americans is enacted not by our bicameral Congress but rather by unelected administrative agencies whose procedures maintain only a pretense—“pleasing illusion,” to borrow Gibbon’s phrase—of conformity to constitutional separation of powers. The so-called “contraception mandate,” for example, that imposes on the consciences and convictions of many employers, was not and almost surely could not have been adopted by Congress itself; it was imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Third, most serious issues are resolved not by elected legislators but rather by unelected judges based on a mere figment of connection to the Constitution. The recent imposition of same-sex marriage on the nation by judges unwilling to allow this ostensibly irresistible development to be implemented democratically is a leading case in point. As Chief Justice Roberts observed, the outcome had nothing to do with the Constitution.

In sum, both at the ground level and at the grand level, the realities of governance today deviate substantially from the kind of governance contemplated by the Constitution.

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

Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Pope Francis at the UN

Augustine, Aquinas, or Kant? 

Pope Francis at the UN

BY SAMUEL GREGG


One of the world’s worst-kept secrets is the Holy See’s high regard for the United Nations. Since Paul VI, popes have appeared before its General Assembly to express their “great esteem,” as Francis remarked in his recent UN address, for its work.

Not all Catholics entertain favorable views of the UN. They point, for instance, to its relentless efforts to promote gender theory nonsense and evils such as “reproductive rights.” The Holy See, however, maintains that, despite such faults, the UN is worth engaging. 

There are, I think, three reasons for this.

• First, the Church teaches—and many Catholic natural law scholars hold—that the emergence of a “world community” as a distinct political community necessitates a corresponding “authority” (the precise parameters of which the Church has carefully avoided specifying). 
• The second reason might be described as practical. Whether we like it or not, the argument goes, the UN exists. Hence it’s better for the Holy See to be involved, if only to help derail some truly bad ideas.
• The third reason, however, is more problematic. It’s hardly original to submit that many Holy See diplomats have imbibed deeply of a continental Western European view of the world. Hence, like your average Brussels bureaucrat, they’re often influenced by ideas detailed in Immanuel Kant’s 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” but initially outlined by a French priest, the Abbé de Saint-Pierre. The latter’s 1713 Projet pour rendre la paix perpétuelle en Europe (A Project for Bringing about Perpetual Peace in Europe) was the first to make a systematic case for an international organization to promote and maintain universal peace.

In our time, analogous proposals can be found in the liberal internationalism associated with figures such as Woodrow Wilson. Structurally, they translate into an emphasis upon human rights and associated endeavors to concretize top-down transnational governance by people whose philosophical lodestones are invariably Kant’s secular liberal heirs, such as John Rawls. Today’s European Union and its political-bureaucratic class exemplify this outlook. The goal is to lock countries into structures that minimize conflict (at the cost of vast limitations upon nations’ freedom) and, above all, prevent war. War is effectively regarded as always the worst option—virtually unthinkable.

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

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

Eglise Saint Roch - le 13 octobre - concert pour le tricentenaire de la mort de Louis XIV

Le Grand Orient de France est heureux de vous convier à un colloque sur l'euthanasie des enfants!

Eh là, que personne ne parle de complotisme à deux balles :


Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Le cardinal Burke à Paris - Le cardinal Vingt-Trois a invité le cardinal Burke à venir célébrer la messe en la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris

Le cardinal André Vingt-Trois envoie un signal avant le synode


Le cardinal Vingt-Trois, archevêque de Paris et vice-président du synode ordinaire qui débutera prochainement à Rome, a invité le cardinal Burke à venir célébrer la messe en la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, demain dimanche, à 10h (programme), avant la tournée du cardinal à Paris et à Versailles pour présenter son nouvel ouvrage d'entretiens.

Le cardinal Burke devait arriver dimanche midi à Paris et l'invitation du cardinal-archevêque de Paris n'était pas prévue (programme avant modification).

A une semaine de l'ouverture du synode, cette invitation publique du cardinal Vingt-Trois, qui co-présidera le synode, est un message envoyé à ceux qui voient le cardinal Burke totalement isolé depuis qu'il n'est plus Préfet du Tribunal suprême de la signature apostolique. Mais que le pape vient de nommer aussi membre de la Congrégation pour les causes des saints.

Par ailleurs, on me prie de préciser que la messe du cardinal prévue mardi à l'institution Saint Pie X à St Cloud sera célébrée dans la petite chapelle qui ne peut contenir que 40 personnes. Inutile donc de s'y presser, avant la conférence, laquelle aura lieu à 20h30.

Pour ceux qui sont confrontés à la démence technocratique, n’y a-t-il pas un devoir de désobéissance civile ?

Devoir de désobéissance civile ?

Écrit par RIGNAC Paul


À l’heure où des centaines de milliers de migrants se pressent aux portes de l’Europe, il ne manque pas de "belles consciences" pour rappeler aux Européens leur devoir d’accueil et d’aide humanitaire envers ces populations déplacées. Ce n’est pas nouveau. Quand autrefois les dictatures staliniennes d’Asie, encouragées et soutenues par d’autres "belles consciences" occidentales, déversaient en Mer de Chine des millions de boat people, ma famille, mes amis et moi-même étions en première ligne pour accueillir ces "migrants" d’un autre temps. Accueillir l’étranger en détresse, oui, c’est très bien. Mais ignorer d’autres détresses quand elles frappent seulement à la porte d’en face ou à celle d’à côté, est-ce concevable ? C’est pourtant bien ce qui se passe.

Mon épouse, cadre à la retraite, se dévoue depuis des années dans une association qui, à titre bénévole, vient en aide à Pôle Emploi pour l’accueil des personnes victimes du chômage. Les nouvelles normes technocratiques imposent en effet un tel temps de travail administratif au personnel de Pôle Emploi, que ce dernier n’a souvent plus le temps de rencontrer les chômeurs… Cette tâche a donc été parfois confiée à des intervenants extérieurs bénévoles.
Certaines catégories professionnelles ont déjà été complètement "délocalisées" et "dématérialisées". Ainsi, les Intermittents du Spectacle de toute la France ont-ils été récemment regroupés à Nanterre où il leur est interdit de se rendre "matériellement". Ils n’ont droit qu’à des contacts virtuels par le biais de l’informatique. Une communication téléphonique, virtuellement possible, relève du parcours du combattant, d’un répondeur automatique à un autre. Eh bien, ce système où le mot "accueil" a été rayé de la carte, ce système totalement débile, désincarné, inhumain, absolument inefficace et scandaleux, est en passe d’être généralisé à tous les chercheurs d’emploi !
En cette belle et très moralisatrice rentrée 2015, où l’on a à la bouche que "l’accueil de l’autre", Pôle Emploi vient de signifier à mon épouse qu’à partir de maintenant, il n’y aura plus d’accueil des chômeurs. Hors rendez-vous exceptionnels, les "dialogues" seront essentiellement "dématérialisés". Les services de bénévoles ne seront donc plus requis. Circulez, il n’y a plus de chômeurs à voir !

L’annonce de cette décision aberrante intervenait après une série d’entretiens avec des demandeurs d’emploi dont la détresse avait bouleversé les intervenants bénévoles, pourtant habitués à affronter les situations les plus insoutenables. Imaginez un trentenaire dans la force de l’âge, mais sans qualification particulière, sortant de prison après avoir connu une adolescence chaotique, privé de permis de conduire et sachant à peine taper une adresse mail sur un clavier : ce jeune homme en perdition ne rencontrera plus, dans ses premières démarches, aucun interlocuteur, aucun formateur, mais seulement un robot par l’intermédiaire d’un clavier et d’un écran. Le mieux qu’il pourra espérer sera éventuellement un entretien par le logiciel informatique Skype ! Mais où sommes-nous ? Où nous ont conduit les imbéciles criminels de la technostructure qui nous gouverne ?

......

Lire la suite: www.magistro.fr