domingo, 23 de octubre de 2016
La Russie met aujourd'hui en œuvre une véritable stratégie globale ...
L’URSS tient-elle sa vengeance posthume avec un Vladimir Poutine prêt à précipiter l’explosion de l’Union européenne ?
Alors que s'est tenue cette semaine une rencontre au format Normandie pour résoudre le conflit ukrainien, les tensions actuelles entre Vladimir Poutine et les dirigeants européens - au premier rang desquels François Hollande - rendent peu probable un désengagement de la Russie en Ukraine. D'autant plus que ce conflit, qui s'inscrit dans une stratégie globale de déstabilisation, permet à la Russie de menacer son "étranger proche" et de décourager toute velléité d'association avec l'Union européenne.
................
Read more here: www.atlantico.fr
sábado, 22 de octubre de 2016
If Tim Kaine Wins, the Catholic Church Loses
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The rift between wording and practice becomes understandable in light of the case law of international courts.
Russia’s Military Exercises and the Prohibition on the Threat of Force
by Szymon Zaręba
Staging military exercises which include certain offensive elements or deployment of ballistic missiles in direct proximity of a border of another state do not constitute a violation of the prohibition of the threat of force stipulated in Article 2, Para. 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, their legality could be questioned if they were accompanied by a demand of a certain conduct by other entities. It would be difficult to prove that Russian exercises held close to the borders of the members of NATO constitute a violation of said prohibition or any other treaty norms. Still, NATO member states should jointly assess Russian actions as to their compliance with the legal prohibition of threats of force as an instrument of the foreign policy.
The increased tension in relations between NATO states and Russia in the last few years has manifested itself in part in the form of Russia’s controversial decisions to redeploy ballistic missiles closer to NATO territory and increase the frequency and scale of its military manoeuvres. Publicly available information indicates the number of troops participating in these exercises is growing and reveals the close proximity of these provocative Russian actions to objects (e.g., airplanes) and the territory of members of the Alliance. They also point to concerning offensive elements that have appeared more often in the Russian exercise scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons is envisaged. These factors contribute to an atmosphere of danger. Thus, it seems natural to ask whether these kinds of actions may be interpreted as violations of the norms of international law, specifically those prohibiting the threat of force.
Legal Nature of the Prohibition
Various treaties frame the prohibition of the threat of force, in particular the Charter of the United Nations (UNC) and the founding instruments of regional organisations such as the Organisation of American States (OAS), the African Union (AU), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). So far, however, this prohibition has not been reflected in any international agreement that refers to the European continent alone. It was expressed only in a non-legally binding declaration attached to the 1975 Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Neither does it enjoy the status of a rule of customary international law.
Still, the fact remains that both the NATO states and Russia are bound in their relations by Article 2, Para. 4 of the UNC. This provision imposes on all members of the United Nations an obligation to refrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. It is assumed in the judicial decisions and literature of international law that this provision relates to all threats of force regardless of their aim and that the three cases mentioned in the text are only examples.
Due to Russia’s suspension in 2007 of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), there are no other treaty norms through which to assess the legality of its actions. Instruments adopted within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), such as the 2011 Vienna Document on Confidence and Security-Building Measures, do not have any legal status.
International Practice
Threats of force generally do not meet with a firm response from the international organisations established to protect the peace and security on a global or regional scale. They usually become a matter of interest for these relevant institutions only after the actual use of force. Even then, charges of the use of threat are normally considered to be less important than those concerning real actions, or are even completely left aside.
A good example of this is the international reaction to Iraq’s rhetoric starting in July 1990 about launching an attack against Kuwait, combined with demands that the latter cease its encroachment on Iraq’s oil reserves and the concentration of several dozen Iraqi troops on the border between the two states. These actions did not meet with any response from the UN. The Security Council issued its first response to this conflict only when the Iraqi forces began the invasion of Kuwait. What is more, neither this UNresolution nor later ones, mentioned the threats that preceded the attack. One can, therefore, notice a serious discrepancy between the strict wording of the UNC and common practice.
............
NATO has some long-term questions to answer ...
The Kuznetsov questions for NATO
By Nick Childs, Senior Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security
The Russian Navy's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has been deployed and is thought to be headed to the eastern Mediterranean. Nick Childs argues that despite the carrier's somewhat limited capabilities, NATO has some long-term questions to answer about how to respond to Moscow's willingness to use its maritime assets more assertively.
The Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has now embarked on its much-heralded and much-anticipated latest deployment from the Northern Fleet with a group of accompanying warships and support vessels, including the nuclear-powered battlecruiser Pyotr Veliky and the Udaloy-class destroyers Vice-Admiral Kulakov and Severomorsk.
Their presumed destination includes the eastern Mediterranean. They have already been tracked by Norwegian naval and maritime air assets, with other NATO surveillance capabilities on standby, and the carrier has already been observed conducting some limited air operations.
In one sense, this deployment fits into an established pattern of periodic sorties by the Admiral Kuznetsov in recent years. But the timing and strategic backdrop means that, this time, it is set to attract even more attention, not least given the ever-sharpening frictions with the West and the anguished debate over the trajectory of the Syria conflict and Russia's ambitions and intentions there.
The Admiral Kuznetsov itself is an elderly platform with a questionable reliability record. It remains uncertain the extent to which the carrier is deploying with a comprehensive air group. So far, only limited numbers of Su-33s and newer MiG-29Ks have been observed on the flight deck. Likewise, the accompanying warships are legacy platforms from the Soviet era.
Nevertheless, they do carry some significant capabilities. The carrier and the battlecruiser in particular are armed with the SS-N-19 Shipwreck/3M45 Granit surface-to-surface cruise missile. So they represent more than just a symbol of power projection. One uncertainty is what submarine assets may be accompanying the group and – equally – what NATO might also be deploying in terms of unseen surveillance.
...............
Read more: www.iiss.org
Read more: www.iiss.org
Errores de las “teologías” actuales entre los fieles católicos
Los graves efectos de la "teología actual"
por Manuel Ocampo Ponce
A raíz de un comentario que hice sobre las pruebas de la inmortalidad del alma humana en una red social, un bautizado sin estudios de Filosofía y Teología, me alegaba que lo que importa en la fe cristiana no es la doctrina sino la experiencia. Dentro de la discusión otros, también bautizados, alegaban que eso de demostrar la existencia de Dios y de las pruebas de la inmortalidad del alma es pura soberbia porque lo importante no es la fe en el sentido filosófico, sino la fe de humildad.
A raíz de un comentario que hice sobre las pruebas de la inmortalidad del alma humana en una red social, un bautizado sin estudios de Filosofía y Teología, me alegaba que lo que importa en la fe cristiana no es la doctrina sino la experiencia. Dentro de la discusión otros, también bautizados, alegaban que eso de demostrar la existencia de Dios y de las pruebas de la inmortalidad del alma es pura soberbia porque lo importante no es la fe en el sentido filosófico, sino la fe de humildad.
Estas afirmaciones, entre otras, me hicieron ver hasta qué punto han permeado los errores de las “teologías” actuales entre los fieles católicos. De inmediato pensé en el error tan difundido de la incorporación del método histórico-crítico como hermenéutica estructuralista desde la que se ha pretendido interpretar la Sagrada Escritura, en lo que se refiere a la relación entre la experiencia humana actual y la fe católica.
También recordé un brillante estudio del gran filósofo cristiano, el Dr. Alberto Caturelli, que nos presenta un muestrario de estos errores difundidos por renombrados “teólogos” que, dicho sea de paso, contradicen totalmente el Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica. Esa ha sido la razón por la que decidí acudir a él para presentarles de modo muy breve una parte del panorama del que proceden las mencionadas ideas.
Leer más... »
Leer más... »
por Manuel Ocampo Ponce
Uno de los grandes filósofos del siglo XX y XXI, Alberto Caturelli, nos presenta un análisis muy claro de lo que sucede en la “teología” actual.[1] Y es que es un hecho, a estas alturas innegable, que la verdadera imagen de Dios ha sido alterada por el espíritu mundano hasta el punto en el que las estructuras nos empujan a vivir en un ateísmo teórico y práctico. Porque además, ya se ve que en un mundo autosuficiente y tecnificado, Dios acaba por no tener un lugar.
Leer más... »
Uno de los grandes filósofos del siglo XX y XXI, Alberto Caturelli, nos presenta un análisis muy claro de lo que sucede en la “teología” actual.[1] Y es que es un hecho, a estas alturas innegable, que la verdadera imagen de Dios ha sido alterada por el espíritu mundano hasta el punto en el que las estructuras nos empujan a vivir en un ateísmo teórico y práctico. Porque además, ya se ve que en un mundo autosuficiente y tecnificado, Dios acaba por no tener un lugar.
Leer más... »
Catholics are right to be wary of the Clinton machine.
Queen Hillary and King Henry
by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
This article in the Boston Globe (of all places!) gives you the run down on Hiliary Clinton’s anti Catholic stance.
What I like about it is the comparison to Henry VIII
After King Henry VIII broke ties with the Catholic Church because of a dispute over marriage, Catholics were treated very badly. Bishops were locked up. Monasteries were closed. Tens of thousands were executed in the bloody turmoil of the English Reformation.
All of which raises an interesting point: If the church wouldn’t change its doctrine for the king of England, what makes Hillary Clinton think she can change it?
This article in the Boston Globe (of all places!) gives you the run down on Hiliary Clinton’s anti Catholic stance.
What I like about it is the comparison to Henry VIII
After King Henry VIII broke ties with the Catholic Church because of a dispute over marriage, Catholics were treated very badly. Bishops were locked up. Monasteries were closed. Tens of thousands were executed in the bloody turmoil of the English Reformation.
All of which raises an interesting point: If the church wouldn’t change its doctrine for the king of England, what makes Hillary Clinton think she can change it?
Clinton and Kaine exhibit all the terrifying ignorance of all ideologues. The ideologue is the ultimate example of self righteousness. In their view, they are right and their agenda is good so it must be imposed on others no matter what the cost.
Catholics are right to be wary of the Clinton machine. She and her husband have shown themselves to be ruthless in their grasp for power, and if they are this ruthless in their quest to re-occupy the White House you can be sure she will be just as ruthless in implementing her agenda if she gets into power.
Nurse Ratched will impose her regime with that creepy smile that masks the cunning and bitterness beneath the surface.
...............
Read more: www.patheos.com
“What does ‘literature’ have to do with saving one’s soul?”
Dealing Life: A Review of Manalive by G.K. Chesterton
![Manalive (G. K. Chesterton) (English Edition) di [G. K. Chesterton]](https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/518LlgMmdjL._SY346_.jpg)
“What does ‘literature’ have to do with saving one’s soul?” This question surely has a long and distinguished lineage, all the way back to the Church Father Tertullian, who asked a similar question about the value of pagan philosophy for Christian study: “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” Far from being an obstacle to a spiritual life or even a harmless accessory, reading the right kind of stories can be critical to moral formation. The successful parrying and defeat of sin is too adventurous a thing to be fully described in a catechism or completely prepared for by paging through a spiritual writer. Catechisms and spiritual writers are important, but men need stories too. One such tale is Manalive, one of G.K. Chesterton’s most joyful novels and a battle-cry against a deadly sin.
The deadly sin in question is acedia, or “sloth,” as it is most commonly known. While the Fathers of the Church—from the first desert hermits to St. Thomas Aquinas—have always understood and taught that acedia could manifest itself in many more subtle ways than mere “laziness,” the nefarious nature of this sin has been less appreciated by most spiritual writers since the middle ages. Recently, however, prescient writers have begun to look more closely at acedia again. Among these scholars is the Abbot of Wandrille, France, Fr. Jean-Charles Nault. While Fr. Nault’s book on the subject is itself a useful work on the spiritual life, I want to consider the parts of St. Thomas’s thought that he highlights. Fr. Nault points out that St. Thomas gives two definitions of acedia: “Sadness about spiritual good” and “Disgust with activity.”
.............
Read more: www.crisismagazine.com
It is indeed a “dreary” time, as Chesterton would say, if we join the “dance of divorce” ...
Chestertonian Common Sense on “Uncommon” Adultery
by Julia Meloni
In The Superstition of Divorce, G.K. Chesterton notes the absurdities of transfiguring marriage into an “ideal,” a “counsel of perfection” akin to monastic life. “A man might be reverently pointed out in the street as a sort of saint, merely because he was married,” Chesterton says. “A man might wear a medal for monogamy; or have letters after his name … let us say L.W. for ‘Lives With His Wife,’ or N.D.Y. for ‘Not Divorced Yet.’ We might, on entering some strange city, be struck by a stately column erected to the memory of a wife who never ran away with a soldier.”
We need Chesterton’s great sanity today; we need him to remind us that ordinary men and women can and must honor those “violent and unique thing[s]” called marriage vows. We need him to tell us that, amidst the world’s “luxurious madhouse,” its “riot of irresponsibility,” we must find “refuge in the high sanity of a sacrament.”
We need him to tell us, unequivocally, that we must seek “for something divine” if we want “to preserve anything human.” Recently, following the Argentine bishops praised by Pope Francis, the diocese of Rome indicated that certain divorced and remarried persons may receive Communion if continence “is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple.” Priests must continue “proposing the full ideal of marriage” (Amoris Laetitia 307), and Communion can’t be claimed if the couple’s “condition is shown off as if it were part of the Christian ideal.”
So, in Chestertonian terms, those who fail to attain the lofty “full ideal of marriage” by having sex with non-spouses may claim no shiny medals, no reverential salutes, and no stately columns, lest confusion about marital indissolubility somehow arise.
So, even though the Church’s constant position on Eucharistic inadmissibility can’t change, many still propose a lesser honorary title: “C.A.U.”—“Committing Adultery Uncommonly.”
So Dan Hitchens responds to arguments that “uncommon” (as opposed to “common”) adulterers might take the Eucharist because they’re tragic in some way. He imagines the travesty of distributing Holy Communion by this strange, nebulous distinction: Anna receives the Eucharist because she needs to sleep with her partner to prevent custody issues (“uncommon” adultery). But Barbara doesn’t because her partner would merely leave (“common” adultery). Chris receives the Eucharist because continence would make his relationship “go downhill” (“uncommon” adultery). But David doesn’t because his relationship would “probably be OK” (“common” adultery).
What might Chesterton call this? A “nightmare of nonsense”?
Ethics & Public Policy Center - recent work of shcolars
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
