Translate

jueves, 5 de noviembre de 2015

El cardenal Timothy Dolan se ha distinguido antes, durante y después del sínodo por su defensa de la fe de la Iglesia.


El cardenal Dolan recuerda que no se puede acompañar sin convertir y elogia a la minoría fiel

El cardenal Timothy Dolan, arzobispo de Nueva York y presidente de la conferencia episcopal de Estados Unidos entre 2010 y 2013, ha sido una de las figuras relevantes del pasado sínodo, donde fue uno de los firmantes de la carta de trece cardenales al Papa sobre la forma en la que se estaba intentando predeterminar el resultado de la asamblea sinodal.

Al regresar a su diócesis, escribió una carta pastoral bajo el título Señor, ¿a quién nos tenemos que dirigir? donde fija su posición sobre algunas cuestiones que han sido sujeto de debate.

Respecto a la comunión de los divorciados que se han vuelto a casar por lo civil, afirma que "no pueden acceder a ella mientras continúe la segunda unión conyugal", lo cual "es consecuencia necesaria de las enseñanzas de Jesús sobre el divorcio y un nuevo matrimonio y de lo que enseñó San Pablo el Apóstol sobre estar en un estado de gracia para recibir la Sagrada Comunión... La Iglesia, si quiere permanecer fiel a la enseñanza de Cristo, no pueden admitirles a la Comunión".

Además, tomando una imagen del cardenal arzobispo de Toronto, Thomas Collins, invita a abordar la relación de la Iglesia con los fieles en dificultades según el modelo de Jesucristo con los discípulos de Emaús tras su Resurrección: "Acercarnos, acompañar, preguntar, escuchar, reprochar la falta de fe, enseñar la verdad del Evangelio, revelar a Cristo, devolver la esperanza, convertir, hacer volver a la Iglesia".

Dolan hace especial hincapié en que es obligado predicar la conversión: "Si sólo acompañamos y no convertimos, lo que estamos haciendo es simplemente caminar al lado de las personas más profundamente en la noche, lejos de la comunidad de fe de Jerusalén. Si sólo preguntamos y escuchamos, estamos escondiendo a las personas la noticia de la Salvación que puede sanarlas".

Y recuerda que, junto a estas personas que caminan en la oscuridad, hay "una nueva minoría" que, "confiando en la gracia y misericordia de Dios, luchan por la virtud y la fidelidad… Esta gente maravillosa se siente a menudo, hoy, una minoría, ciertamente en la cultura, pero a veces ¡incluso en la Iglesia!". Y muestra, con el sínodo, su "estima, apoyo y ánimo para quienes tratan de hacer todo lo posible para vivir a la luz del Evangelio… ¡y que lo consiguen! Esta nueva minoría no sólo necesita aliento, sino que ¡nos dan valor a todos! ¡Les agradecemos su testimonio! Nos confirman que el Evangelio no ha perdido su fuerza".

A continuación ofrecemos el texto íntegro de la carta en español.

SEÑOR, ¿A QUIÉN NOS TENEMOS QUE DIRIGIR?

Es bonito estar de vuelta en Nueva York después de casi cuatro semanas de estancia en Roma para el Sínodo de los Obispos sobre la Familia. He escrito algunos posts para manteneros informados sobre el sínodo, pero ahora que ya estoy de nuevo aquí quiero compartir con vosotros un informe más detallado.

¡He echado de menos Nueva York, pero el sínodo ha sido una gracia! 

Mencionaré tres de sus bendiciones particulares.

El Santo Padre

Siempre es un regalo estar con el Santo Padre, y en el sínodo hemos estado con él cada día. Escucharle nos ha reafirmado, pero la mayor parte del tiempo era él quien nos escuchaba y nos ha dado un gran ejemplo. El Papa Francisco nos ha invitado a hablar con libertad y ha sido muy generoso con su tiempo pues lo ha dedicado a escuchar lo que los participantes en el sínodo teníamos qué decir. Sabéis la felicidad que supuso para nosotros tener al Papa Francisco dos días con nosotros en Nueva York el mes pasado. Pues bien, estar con el Santo Padre cada día ha sido una bendición que no tenemos que subestimar.

La Iglesia universal 

“Católico” significa universal. La Iglesia que Jesús estableció no es para un tiempo o un lugar. Ciertamente, la Iglesia está presente en Nueva York en el siglo XXI, ¡pero la Iglesia no es sólo ésta! La Iglesia es universal, para cada tiempo y en cada lugar. Con los hermanos obispos, los representantes ecuménicos, los teólogos y los matrimonios de todas partes del mundo, el sínodo ha sido una experiencia muy viva de esta universalidad. En una ciudad como Nueva York a veces podemos pensar que nuestras prioridades son prioridades globales. ¡Un sínodo es una buena lección de humildad! Pertenecemos a la Iglesia; no somos toda la Iglesia. Por ello, cuando la cobertura del sínodo volvía una y otra vez sobre las mismas pocas cuestiones, fue positivo que se nos recordara, sobre todo por parte de las Iglesias que sufren y de las Iglesias jóvenes, que debemos mirar más allá de nuestras pequeñas preocupaciones. Las circunstancias del matrimonio y de la familia no son iguales en todas partes y el sínodo nos recuerda que tenemos que aprender de la experiencia de los otros, en lugar de conformar sus experiencias a nuestras categorías. Le doy gracias a Dios por el testimonio de esos católicos de lugares donde la Iglesia es joven y vibrante, especialmente de África; por el heroico testimonio de las familias católicas de lugares donde la Iglesia está sufriendo, como Ucrania y Oriente Medio; y por la Iglesia de Europa central y oriental, aún reconstruyéndose después de décadas de opresión soviética.

El testimonio de la vida familiar católica 

Nuestra tradición católica habla de la familia como "iglesia doméstica". Los primeros cristianos celebraban el culto en las casas, que eran llamadas "iglesias en casa". Estás no fueron sólo el lugar donde empezó la fe en la historia; es también dónde mejor empieza hoy, en familias felices donde los niños son educados en la fe por sus padres. La fe católica es una fe familiar. Dios, al principio, nos creó hombre y mujer, para que los dos unidos fueran una sola carne. Él ordenó a nuestros primeros padres que crecieran y se multiplicaran. ¡Dios empieza con la familia! Después de que el pecado dañara la creación Él vino para redimirnos y lo hizo a través de la Sagrada Familia. Ciertamente, en el sínodo ha habido desacuerdos, pero no eran desacuerdos sobre la importancia absolutamente esencial de la familia y su centralidad en el plan de Dios para nuestra salvación.

En la Iglesia, a menudo damos las gracias a los sacerdotes que llevan adelante su tarea, a los religiosos y religiosas cercanos a nosotros, a los docentes que se sacrifican en nuestros colegios, a la gran cantidad de voluntarios que, con gran generosidad, hacen todo el trabajo que no se ve en nuestras parroquias. ¡Somos tan amables que de vez en cuando le damos incluso a otros obispos una palmada en la espada! El sínodo nos recuerda que necesitamos dar las gracias a las madres y los padres que dan su vida en las iglesias domésticas, a esas familias que son el primer lugar donde se entrega la fe. Tal vez no les damos suficientemente las gracias. Escuchar a los impresionantes matrimonios que han dado su testimonio en el sínodo me ha recordado que debo dar gracias a Dios por las familias de la Iglesia de Nueva York y que también debo expresarles a ellas mi agradecimiento. ¡Que Dios bendiga vuestra vida familiar y os recompense por la generosidad con la que vivís vuestra vocación como discípulos en un santo matrimonio, como padres y madres, como progenitores e hijos, como abuelos y padrinos, como tíos y tías, como hermanos y hermanas!

Dos desafíos para el Sínodo 

Esos han sido tres puntos importantes del sínodo. Permitidme que ahora resalte dos desafíos que nos ha presentado.

Al ser el sínodo sobre la familia y al ser ésta fundamental para la fe, pues toca todos los aspectos de la vida, los debates del sínodo han tocado el corazón de lo que significa ser un discípulo de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo. En el sínodo se ha hablado mucho de "viajar juntos". No se nos pide ser discípulos en soledad; se nos pide seguir a Jesús juntos, en la Iglesia, y esto es un viaje. No se nos pide permanecer dónde estamos, sino seguir a Jesucristo adonde Él quiera llevarnos, en última instancia al Cielo, para contemplar la santidad del Nuestro Padre en compañía de los santos para la eternidad, tal como recordaremos el fin de semana del 1 y 2 de noviembre, Fiesta de Todos los Santos y de Todos los Difuntos respectivamente. En el corazón del sínodo se planteaba una pregunta fundamental: por la gracia de Dios Padre, ¿seguimos siendo capaces de hacer esto?

Después de haber dedicado más de un año a rezar, pensar y debatir sobre la familia en dos sínodos de los obispos, quiero compartir con vosotros dos desafíos que, en mi opinión, resumen la situación a la que se enfrenta la Iglesia cuando anima a una vida familiar católica feliz, santa y saludable.

El desafío del camino total de Emaús 

En el sínodo sobre la familia del año pasado, varios padres propusieron el método de Jesús en el camino de Emaús como modelo para el acompañamiento de la Iglesia a la familia. ¿Os acordáis de la historia? Tal como relata el evangelio de Lucas, cap. 24, dos discípulos estaban abandonando Jerusalén la noche del Domingo de Pascua tras ser testigos de la crucifixión el Viernes Santo. Estaban desanimados. Habían perdido la esperanza. Habían oído a otros decir que Jesús había resucitado, pero consideraban la noticia demasiado absurda para ser verdad. Cristo Resucitado se acercó a ellos vestido como un viajero y les preguntó porqué estaban tan tristes. Luego les devolvió la esperanza tras abrirles los ojos con Su presencia en las Escrituras y en la Eucaristía.

Me ha entusiasmado oír, tanto el año pasado como éste, la referencia a Emaús. Cuando llegué a Nueva York, en la misa de investidura se leyó la historia evangélica de Emaús. En esa primera homilía en la catedral de San Patricio expresé mi deseo de que la Quinta Avenida se convirtiera en un camino de Emaús, en el que los discípulos pudieran encontrar a Jesús para que les devolvería la esperanza. No mucho tiempo después de mi llegada, el Consejo de Iglesias me dio una imagen del camino de Emaús haciendo su entrada en Manhattan. Guardo ese regalo como un tesoro.

Uno de los discursos más reveladores del sínodo ha sido el del cardenal Thomas Collins, de Toronto, hablando precisamente sobre Emaús. Así nos ha descrito el enfoque de nuestro Señor Jesucristo:

“Primero, Jesús se acercó y acompañó a sus apesadumbrados discípulos mientras caminaban en la dirección equivocada, hacia la noche. Empezó a plantearles preguntas sobre su disposición actual y les escuchaba, pero no se quedó en esto, sino que les desafió con la Palabra de Dios: ‘¡Oh insensatos y tardos de corazón para creer todo lo que dijeron los profetas’ (Lucas 24, 25). Su presentación de la visión objetiva de la Escritura atravesó el ensimismamiento subjetivo de los discípulos y, junto a Su amorosa presencia, les llevó de nuevo a la conversión. Los discípulos de Emaús aceptaron la Palabra de Dios que les había desafiado y… cambiaron de dirección. Y con corazones ardientes atravesaron corrieron la noche hacia Jerusalén para ser testigos gozosos con la comunidad allí reunida”.

El cardenal Collins ha sido una buena guía. Jesús se acerca, los acompaña con Su amorosa presencia y les pregunta sobre su situación. Él escucha su experiencia y les reprende por sus errores. Él les enseña la verdad sobre las Escrituras y se revela a Sí mismo en la Eucaristía. Así, Él restablece su esperanza y los guía hacia la conversión.

Ya conversos, los discípulos ¡vuelven corriendo a Jerusalén para ocupar su lugar con los otros discípulos en la Iglesia naciente! ¡Estaban "en el camino errado"! ¡Él "les hizo volver atrás"!

"Estamos llamados a acompañar a la gente con una compasión que desafíe y que lleve a la conversión y a un corazón ardiente por Cristo", nos ha dicho el cardenal Collins. "Los pastores que diariamente acompañan a su grey en su lucha deben imitar a Jesús en el camino a Emaús y con claridad y caridad deben predicar la conversión, fundamento del mensaje liberador de Jesús: ‘Convertíos, porque el Reino de los Cielos ha llegado’ (Mateo 4, 17)".

¿Puedo proponer un desafío para la Iglesia de Nueva York después del sínodo para la familia?

¡Imitemos plenamente a Emaús!

Muchos de los desacuerdos en el sínodo sobre la atención pastoral de la familia han surgido porque hemos ofrecido una experiencia parcial de Emaús a quienes, desalentados, caminan en la noche. Pero Jesús no quiere un Emaús parcial para Su gente; no es lo que los pastores de la Iglesia estamos llamados a ofrecer. Si sólo acompañamos y no convertimos, lo que estamos haciendo es simplemente caminar al lado de las personas más profundamente en la noche, lejos de la comunidad de fe de Jerusalén. Si sólo preguntamos y escuchamos, estamos escondiendo a las personas la noticia de la Salvación que puede sanarlas. Si sólo reprochamos, entonces afligimos aún más a los que ya sufren. Si sólo enseñamos la verdad objetiva de las Escrituras, fracasamos en mostrar lo que es la buena nueva para cada alma en particular. Si llevamos a las personas a la Eucaristía sin primero prepararlas para la conversión que tendrá lugar a lo largo del camino, entonces no serán transformadas por la revelación de Cristo. No estoy diciendo que hacer todo lo que hizo Jesús en el camino de Emaús sea fácil; y puede suceder también que ofrecer una experiencia total de Emaús no sea bienvenida. Nuestro desafío es intentar hacer lo máximo. Esta es nuestra misión, como pastores y como discípulos: acercarnos, acompañar, preguntar, escuchar, reprochar la falta de fe, enseñar la verdad del Evangelio, revelar a Cristo, devolver la esperanza, convertir, hacer volver a la Iglesia.

Durante el sínodo, los medios de comunicación han prestado mucha atención al acceso a la comunión de las personas que tras contraer un matrimonio sacramental válido se divorcian y se vuelven a casar por lo civil. (Aunque en realidad este tema candente apenas ha dominado el Sínodo, contrariamente a lo que ha pasado en los medios de comunicación). La práctica de la Iglesia desde tiempos inmemoriales -confirmada recientemente y de manera clara por San Juan Pablo II tras el sínodo para la familia de 1980, y renovada por el Papa Benedicto XVI tras el sínodo para la Eucaristía en 2005-, es que no pueden acceder a ella mientras continúe la segunda unión conyugal. Es consecuencia necesaria de las enseñanzas de Jesús sobre el divorcio y un nuevo matrimonio y de lo que enseñó San Pablo el Apóstol sobre estar en un estado de gracia para recibir la Sagrada Comunión. Las propuestas finales del sínodo de los obispos no alteraron esta enseñanza.

Los católicos que están en este tipo de situación suelen cargar una cruz muy pesada y pueden sentirse como los discípulos tristes camino de Emaús. Pero la Iglesia, si quiere permanecer fiel a la enseñanza de Cristo, no pueden admitirles a la Comunión. El sínodo no ha cambiado nada de esto, a pesar de lo que se haya podido leer en informes descabellados. Pero al mismo tiempo, el sínodo ciertamente no les dejará vagabundeando en la noche y solos, sin la comunidad de los discípulos. Al contrario,necesitamos ofrecerles lo que Jesús les ofreció: el Emaús total, con la confianza de que ellos también serán capaces de convertirse, de que ardan sus corazones con la esperanza renovada, dispuestos a volver a la Iglesia reunida en el Piso de Arriba en Jerusalén. ¡Y acogiéndoles y dándoles la bienvenida!

El desafío del Piso de Arriba 

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

Publicado en Catholic New York.

Traducción de Helena Faccia Serrano, diócesis de Alcalá de Henares.


Leer más aquí: www.religionenlibertad.com

martes, 3 de noviembre de 2015

First Things Lecture in Washington: “The Perils of Religious Liberty,” presented by Yuval Levin.

 “The Perils of Religious Liberty”


Religious liberty is considered by many to be America’s “first freedom.” But what does this mean, and what are its implications? How can we properly, and wisely, defend it?

We are pleased to invite you to the 2015 First Things Lecture in Washington, D.C., “The Perils of Religious Liberty,” presented by Yuval Levin(*).

The free event will be held at George Washington University on November 11th at 7:00 p.m.

The HHS contraceptive mandate and the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell to legalize same-sex marriage nationally have heightened a sense of urgency in religious communities about preserving religious freedom. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of this freedom’s proper role in society and the appropriate way to advance it.

Levin is the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the editor of National Affairs. He has been a member of the White House domestic policy staff (under President George W. Bush), executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics, and a congressional staffer. He holds a B.A. from American University and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

WHEN
Wednesday
November 11, 2015
Lecture: 7:00 p.m.
Complimentary reception to follow

WHERE
Jack Morton Auditorium
George Washington University
805 21st Street NW
Washington DC 20052



Click Here to RSVP


(*) Yuval Levin is the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the editor of National Affairs. He is also a senior editor of The New Atlantis, and a contributing editor to National Review and the Weekly Standard. He has been a member of the White House domestic policy staff (under President George W. Bush), executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics, and a congressional staffer. His essays and articles have appeared in numerous publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Commentary. His latest book is The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. He holds a BA from American University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.

Ireland, qu'as-tu fait de ta foi?


The Next Steps in the Secularization of Ireland


By John P. McCarthy


The fact that more than sixty percent of the Irish electorate supported an amendment to the nation’s constitution recognizing same-sex “marriage” caught many people by surprise last spring. They may have been clinging to an outdated image of Ireland as a bastion of devout Catholicism.

Unfortunately there further disturbing changes that are being advanced.

One is more symbolic. Many, including a former news director of the national radio and television station, are asking that the broadcasting of the Angelus be dropped. It is viewed as an anachronism in an Ireland that has “an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-faith population,” and is “a secular state.”

Originally the television imagery accompanying the sounding of the Angelus bells had a religious or devotional character, such as of Mary and the Christ Child. In more recent times it was gradually changed to a semi-religious flavor: a young child with a senior citizen feeding ducks, a street artist chalking a religious picture on the pavement, or a memorial in a rural town.

Now the spots will be decidedly secular and will be called a time for reflection, rather than prayer and reflection.

More disturbing than the dilution of the broadcasting of the Angelus is the prospective repeal of the eighth amendment to the Irish Constitution, that is the prohibition of abortion. Approved by two-thirds of the Irish electorate in 1983, it had been prompted by fears that the judiciary, which, like ours, has the power of judicial review, might overturn existing legal prohibitions.

Public mood began to soften in 1992.

The Supreme Court had overturned an injunction issued by the Irish Attorney General to prevent a pregnant 14 year old who threatened suicide from travelling to England for an abortion. Subsequently three amendments were put to the electorate. Two were approved allowing public availability of information about abortion and freedom to travel abroad to secure an abortion. A third, disallowing threatened suicide as grounds to allow abortion, was rejected.

In 2002, an amendment allowing termination of pregnancy where the mother’s life was in danger, but not from threatened suicide, failed. Some claim its failure was because of the exclusion of the suicide motive.

Then in 2013, legislation was passed accepting threatened suicide as grounds for abortion. It was curiously named the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.

The legislation was passed by the present government, a coalition of the Fine Gael Party (affiliated with what had been the Christian Democratic Party in Europe), and the Labour Party. The same government had for a while withdrawn its resident ambassador to the Vatican, nominally for economic reasons, but in reality as a gesture of criticism of what it claimed was the Church’s cover up of clerical abuse.

That government will be up for re-election next year. One of their coalition partners, the Labour Party, has indicated sympathy with repeal of the 1983 anti-abortion amendment. Some of the leading figures in the Fine Gael Party are very soft on the issue, and might well support repeal if returned to power with the Labour Party. Their leader, the prime minister or Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, has not included repeal in his projected agenda, but neither had he included the 2013 act in his 2011 electoral campaign.

Among the opposition, the leftwing parties, including Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA, are for the repeal. However many members of Fianna Fáil, the party founded by Eamon de Valera which dominated Irish politics from 1932 until 2011, would probably be opposed.

Another issue that has still not made the mainstream in public discussion, but is very alive behind the scenes, is secular primary education.

Most primary schools in Ireland, National Schools, are financed by the government, but are under the control of local managers, usually chaired by the local parish priests, or, in some cases, a Protestant clergy, and have a denominational character. In most cases they are Catholic.

There are also a smaller, but increasing, number of schools in what is called the Educate Together Scheme, which have no specific denominational identity and where religion, if taught, is treated as a subject, like comparative religion, rather than as a part of faith formation.

The Irish constitution and law guarantees that parents have primary responsibility in education. They can have their child withdraw from religious instruction in the school in which they are enrolled. But Irish law also allows a school to use its own denominational character as a criterion for admission of students.

Denominational membership is usually not insisted upon in most schools, especially rural areas where a declining population has left many empty seats in schools. But in urban areas, where population has grown faster than the construction of schools, there is pressure in some neighborhoods to gain admission to the local school. In such cases the administrators use criteria like having siblings in the school and having been baptized for admission.

There are a number of cases, especially with both the influx of non-Christian immigrants to Ireland and the growing number of non-believing native Irish, where children have been denied admission to the nearest school because they were not baptized. Agitation has developed asking that such criteria not be applied.

Equity suggests that there be more schools available for the increasing number of families desirous of non-denominational education, but not at the expense of parents content with the denominational school their children are attending.

Most of the advocates of secular education have an ultimate agenda of making all state supported schools secular.

A lack of alertness might result in an overnight secularization of schools with the same rapidity that same-sex “marriage” gained acceptance. If the chattering classes retain control of the media and have overwhelming access to education department officialdom, such could easily come about, and would not even require ratification by constitutional amendment.

....



For some, the Church can only be the Church of what’s happening now


Subordinating the Sacred to the Secular


By James Kalb

In recent decades the Church has softened her public witness for the truth of the Catholic vision of things. That tendency became much stronger after the Second Vatican Council, and can even claim some support from statements such as the address of Bl. Paul VI at the Council’s close.

The change has corresponded to a tendency in the world at large toward ever more thorough integration of all aspects of life into a single commercial and bureaucratic system. Education, childcare, livelihood, support in time of need, scholarly study, popular entertainment, high culture, and the channels of public information have all lost independence and become ever more a part of that system. The tendency has made Church teaching, which is independent of the system and in many ways finds no place within it, seem irrelevant, incomprehensible, and even antisocial. To speak to the modern world in a way it can understand, it seems, the Church has to adapt to it in ever more radical ways, and downplay certain aspects of her teaching altogether.

The triumph of the current form of society has entrenched itself through what are now praised as diversity and tolerance, which deprive social connections other than commerce and bureaucracy of definition and functionality. Respect for endlessly diverse religions, lifestyles, family forms, and cultures, and celebration of their diversity, means none of them have any authority. They become a matter of individual choice, with every choice as good as any other and all subject to change at any moment. To reject that view, or to act in a way that fails to conform to it, is to be subject to social, economic, and legal sanctions as a bigot.

The Internet has enhanced the tendency toward the tyranny of a single system of opinion and the functional unification of all aspects of life. The diversity of voices it presents, with each as readily available as any other, turns views that lack the backing of recognized public authority into a sort of white noise that falls into irrelevance, while the ease of connection makes the informal relationships that are the stuff of everyday life interchangeable, transitory, and individually undependable. It is not the connection but the system through which we connect that we rely on.

The result of such tendencies is that all social standards and relationships outside those defined by the legal and economic system disappear as distinct realities and become a matter of how particular individuals happen to feel and act at a particular moment. Outside that system there is nothing stable enough to count socially—and therefore, since man is social, to count seriously—as reality. All else is mere opinion, or rather feeling, since opinion claims to be about truth, and must therefore connect itself to public objectivity in some way.

That is the reason for the “culture wars.” Traditional morality had to do with goods and loyalties associated with a variety of concerns and arrangements—family, religion, particular culture—that are now rejected as institutions and treated as matters of pure individual choice. The change in moral standards results from that rejection. Instead of love of country, which depended on the concept of a particular people and their land, we have love of universal equality, or perhaps attachment to America as a team or business enterprise; and instead of the ideal of chastity, which was intrinsically related to the family as an institution, we have the right to sexual expression, with abortion—which now counts as sacred ground—as its backup.

A comprehensive trend throughout Western society can hardly leave the Church untouched. Recent statements of the German bishops present the results with special clarity, in line with the German gift for thinking things through in a way based on fundamental principle. As those statements reveal and Archbishop Georg Gänswein recently observed, German churchmen see the Church not as something specially instituted by God and at odds with the world, but as one social institution among many, the main value of which lies in its contribution to the common social project. So the Church too must assimilate to the tendency of things and become fully integrated with the global system of commerce and bureaucracy.

Nor is that situation at odds with prestigious theological understandings of the basic nature of Catholicism. Professor Thomas Stark notes that the thought of Walter Kasper, a representative figure in the German church and now a leading figure in the Church as a whole, makes history “the ultimate framework of all reality.” On such a view the Church can only be the Church of what’s happening now: there are no eternal verities outside that for her to concern herself with.

That view seems shocking when we consider how radical it is, but even outside Germany public statements of the most influential Catholic leaders seem ever more in line with the secular progressive project and ever less inclined to push “culture war” positions. It seems, then, that the Germans are continuing their historical role as intellectual leaders in the modern development of Christianity, as in other aspects of modernity. To all appearances they simply say clearly, justify theoretically, and implement consistently what other responsible officials accept or soon will accept as a practical matter.

Nonetheless, the Gospel doesn’t say the world redeems the Church, but the opposite. Nor does it say the world will end when it evolves to the Omega Point through the logic of history and the policies adopted by responsible officials. It says it’ll end when those things lead to catastrophe. And in any event even the most careful systematic thought can lead us astray. The goodness of what it gives us depends on the truth and completeness of its premises, and Aristotle tells us that a small error at the beginning can lead to big problems very quickly. That perhaps is why, as Clifton Fadiman noted, “the German spirit has the talent to make no mistakes except for the very largest.”

In that regard, as others, the Germans may lead the way but they have many followers. People today want to build a technocratic world, and the Germans simply do it better than the rest, engineering a system that is apparently so functional and well thought out that it offers no flaw through which anyone can escape other than a genius, a madman, or a fool. (In fairness, they have produced as many such people as anyone.)

Nonetheless, it seems that they—along with other moderns—have overlooked something. 


.........



“The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan, has written an important article


Bishop Athanasius Schneider reaction to Synod : Door to communion for divorced & remarried officially kicked open


From: catholicismpure.wordpress.com

Source: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com

Anyone may reproduce or link to this article, but all must reference Rorate Caeli as the source. We want to express our heartfelt gratitude to His Excellency for taking the time to analyze and express his views on one of the most critical events in Church history -- one that he too sees as a "back door" to Holy Communion for adulterers, a rejection of Christ's teaching and a Final Report full of "time bombs."
The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25, 2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”, issued a Final Report with some pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial value.

Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. At the same time those bishops who intrepidly defended “the Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as Pharisees.

The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2014) masked their practical deny of the indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,” “dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final Report, nn. 84-86).

This text section in the Final Report contains indeed a trace of a neo-mosaic practice of divorce, even though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promoters of the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time bombs in the abovementioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria.

Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance” (Final Report, n. 85), there remains nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. In fact, according to the reiterated affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.

The assurance of the text in the numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage, and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete continence as brother and sister.

In quoting the famous number 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censured the text, cutting out the following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.

This practice of the Church is based on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times. Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized) penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he does not break with his bad attitude” (De adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of the teaching of Familaris Consortio in n. 85 of the Final Report,represents for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretation key for the understanding of the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers 84-86).

In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the indissolubility of the marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already 50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are infected with the plague of the divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that the Christian marriage as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes, 49).

The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of the marriage by adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not only in the civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation.

The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be to draw the attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth Commandment of God. They have to call the things by their right name exhorting: “divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentantly will receive eternal condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.”

Such an admonition and exhortation is the very work of the Holy Spirit as Christ taught: “He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16: 8). Explaining the work of the Holy Spirit in “convincing sin,” Pope John Paul II said: “Every sin wherever and whenever committed has a reference to the Cross of Christ-and therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who “have not believed in him,” and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross” (Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, 29). Those who conduct a married life with a partner, who is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an eminently pastoral and merciful work.

The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried.

De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of the Holy Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2: 14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).

The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by means of assigning this question ultimately in the area of the individual conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in adultery is improper and deceptive.

The diminution of the subjective responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can be no suspension of imputability. The Final Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70).

The Shepherds of the Church should not in the slightest manner promote a culture of divorce amongst the faithful. Even the smallest hint of yielding to the practice or to the culture of divorce should be avoided. The Church as a whole should give a convincing and strong witness to the indissolubility of the marriage. Pope John Paul II said that divorce “is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

The Church has to help the divorced and remarried with love and patience to recognize their own sinfulness and to help them to convert with one’s whole heart to God and to the obedience to His holy will, which is expressed in the Sixth Commandment. As long as they continue giving a public anti-witness to the indissolubility of marriage and contributing to a culture of divorce, the divorced and remarried cannot exercise those liturgical, catechetical and institutional ministries in the Church, which demand by their own nature a public life in accordance with the Commandments of God.

It is obvious that public violators for instance of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments, such as owners of an abortion clinic or collaborators of a corruption network, not only cannot receive Holy Communion but, evidently, cannot be admitted to public liturgical and catechetical services. In an analogous manner, public violators of the Sixth Commandment, such as divorced and remarried, cannot be admitted to the office of lectors, godparents or catechists. Of course, one must distinguish the gravity of the evil caused by the life style of public promotors of abortion and corruption from the adulterous life of divorced people. One cannot put them on the same footing. The advocacy for the admission of divorced and remarried to the task of godparents and catechists aims ultimately not the true spiritual good of the children, but turns out to be an istrumentalization of a specific ideological agenda. This is a dishonesty and a mockery of the institute of godparents or catechists who by means of a public promise took on the task of educators of the faith.

In the case of godparents or catechists who are divorced and remarried, their life continuously contradicts their words, and so they have to face the admonition of the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Apostle Saint James: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1: 22). Unfortunately, the Final Report in n. 84 pleads for an admittance of the divorced and remarried to liturgical, pastoral and educational offices. Such a proposal represents an indirect support to the culture of divorce and a practical denial of an objectively sinful lifestyle. Pope John Paul II on the contrary indicated only the following possibilities of participating in the life of the Church, which for their part aim a true conversion: “They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).

There should remain a salutary area of exclusion (non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices) in order to remind the divorced their real serious and dangerous spiritual state and, at the same time, to promote in their souls the attitude of humility, obedience and of longing for the authentic conversion. Humility means courage for truth, and only to those who humbly subject themselves to God, will receive His graces.

The faithful, who have not yet the readiness and the will to stop with the adulterous life, should be spiritually helped. Their spiritual state is similar to a kind of “catechumenate” regarding the sacrament of Penance. They can receive the sacrament of Penance, which was called in the Tradition of the Church “the second baptism” or “the second penance,” only if they sincerely break with the habit of the adulterous cohabitation and avoid public scandal in an analogous manner as do the catechumens, the candidates to the Baptism. TheFinal Report omits to call the divorced and remarried to the humble recognition of their objective sinful state, because it omits to encourage them to accept with the spirit of faith the non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices. Without such a realistic and humble recognition of their own real spiritual state, there is no effective progress towards the authentic Christian conversion, which in the case of the divorced and remarried consists in a life of complete continence, ceasing to sin against the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage and to disobey publicly the Sixth Commandment of God.

The Shepherds of the Church and especially the public texts of the Magisterium have to speak in an utmost clear manner, since this is the essential characteristic of the task of the official teaching. Christ demanded from all His disciples to speak in an extremely clear manner: “Let what you say be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Math 5: 37). This is valid all the more when the Shepherds of the Church preach or when the Magisterium speaks in a document.

In the text section of the numbers 84-86 the Final Report represents, unfortunately, a serious departure from this Divine command. Indeed in the mentioned passages the text does not plead directly in favor for the legitimacy of the admittance of the divorce and remarried to Holy Communion, the text even avoids the expression “Holy Communion” or “Sacraments.” Instead, the text by means of obfuscating tactics, uses ambiguous expressions like “a more full participation in the life of the Church” and “discernment and integration.”

By such obfuscating tactics the Final Report in fact put time bombs and a back door for the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, causing by this a profanation of the two great sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist, and contributing at least indirectly to the culture of divorce – to the spreading of the “plague of divorce” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, 47).

When reading carefully the ambiguous text of the text section “Discernment and integration” in the Final Report, one has the impression of a highly skillful, elaborated ambiguity. One is reminded of the following words of Saint Irenaeus in his “Adversus haereses”: “He who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But since what may prove a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms a proof from the outset that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.” (I, 9, 4-5).

The Final Report seems to leave the solution of the question of the admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion to local Church authorities: “accompaniment of the priests” and “orientations of the bishop.” Such a matter is however connected essentially with the deposit of faith i.e. with the revealed word of God. The non-admittance of divorced who are living in a public state of adultery belongs to the unchangeable truth of the law of the Catholic faith and consequently also of the law of Catholic liturgical practice.

The Final Report seems to inaugurate a doctrinal and disciplinary cacophony in the Catholic Church, which contradicts the very essence of being Catholic. One has to be reminded of the words of Saint Irenaeus, about the authentic shape of the Catholic Church in all times and in all places: “The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes the points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world (Italy). But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2).

Nikolaj Berdjaev: «Il socialismo non è che l’altra faccia dell’individualismo, il risultato della dissoluzione e della disgregazione individualistiche»


Ideologia gender e pink dollar


di Aldo Vitale


Come le comunità Lgbt sfruttano l’omosessualità per la propria legittimazione, così a loro volta esse stesse sono sfruttate dai loro sostenitori per i propri guadagni


«La prima divisione del lavoro è quella tra uomo e donna per la procreazione dei figli»: in questa contrapposizione per Karl Marx si trova la radice di ogni contrapposizione storico-sociale che perciò è, sostanzialmente, la ri-elaborazione della contrapposizione archetipica, cioè quella tra uomo e donna all’interno della struttura portante della società borghese, ovvero la famiglia fondata sul matrimonio monogamico.

Sulla scia delle riflessioni di Marx, il suo amico, collega e finanziatore Friedrich Engels può, infatti, scrivere: «Il primo contrasto di classe che compare nella storia coincide con lo sviluppo dell’antagonismo tra uomo e donna nel matrimonio monogamico».

Su questo assunto si è sviluppato il movimento femminista di matrice marxista che ha dispiegato le energie per liberare la donna dall’oppressione dell’uomo.

E come la donna doveva essere liberata dall’oppressione maschile ieri, oggi, invece, secondo i sostenitori dell’ideologia gender, l’identità gender (LGBTQI) nella sua variegata forma, sempre diversa, sempre fluida, sempre non identificabile, deve essere liberata dalla (presunta) oppressione eterosessuale.

Insomma, nella misura in cui l’ideologia gender costituisce l’ultima frontiera dell’ideologia femminista che a sua volta si installa alla radice nell’alveo dell’ideologia marxista, si può riconoscere che l’ideologia gender sia, almeno sotto l’aspetto della lotta di liberazione di genere, un prodotto diretto e maturo del marxismo.

Tuttavia, per le insondabili ironie della storia, l’ideologia gender affonda la propria legittimazione politica e sociale anche in ciò che è drasticamente opposto al marxismo, cioè l’individualismo capitalistico.

Prova ne sia non solo l’industria multimiliardaria della riproduzione artificiale che attende di buon occhio in tutti i Paesi la legalizzazione delle unioni diverse da quella tra uomo e donna per ampliare il bacino d’utenza ed aumentare il già proficuo fatturato annuo, ma soprattutto tutti quegli studi economici che hanno già individuato nelle comunità LGBTQI un danaroso mercato da sfruttare ed accaparrarsi.

Non a caso la prestigiosa rivista finanziaria Forbes parla di “pink dollars”, cioè di “dollari rosa” per indicare l’ingente volume di affari che orbita intorno alle comunità LGBTQI che in molti stanno favorendo e sostenendo per potersi spartire una fetta di quell’immenso volume di danari che vale globalmente ben 3 mila miliardi di dollari.

Forbes, infatti, chiarisce che i gay e le lesbiche viaggiano di più, hanno più case ed auto, spendono di più in vestiario e tecnologia; essere gender-friendly, dunque, conviene alle imprese che vogliono aumentare il profitto.

Il profilo degli interessi finanziari in ballo, del resto, sta emergendo sempre più vistosamente, posto che negli Stati Uniti lo sfruttamento economico delle comunità LGBTQI vale ben 1000 miliardi di dollari, e che in Cina, invece, si è delineato un mercato che vale ben 300 miliardi di dollari.

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



They can never be happy, but they can always make others miserable...


by Daniel Greenfield


Culture War 2.0 is as inescapable as it is obnoxious. Its loudest proponents, the Social Justice Warriors, live off a drama that they create, playing enlightened victim-activists fighting micro-struggles against micro-aggressions in areas most people have never even thought about.

The issues are ideological, but they're mainstreamed by focusing on personal narratives. The victim-activists are usually millennials from wealthy families with useless degrees. It's a story as old as radicalism, but in the dawn of the 21st century, it's activism and culture war being replayed as farce.

Culture War 2.0 politicizes narcissism and insecurity. It obsessively masticates culture the way that its political predecessors destroyed people. Its target audience lives and thinks in terms of premium cable shows. They are to it what novels were to its 19th century counterparts.

Even its ideology is more grievance than theory. It only cares about theory to the extent of parsing the Victim Value Index and determining who has more or less privilege, who ought to feel more guilty and who ought to feel more victimized. This is ideology as soap opera. Politics as a means of deciding who gets to play what emotional role in a societal drama.

Its political expressions exist in the space of the personal narrative. In this tawdry post-Orwellian future everyone will get their essay of victimhood on Medium or ThoughtCatalog read for 15 minutes. Their drama will, very temporarily, be a trending topic. For a generation of overindulged children, broadcasting their petty pains is the closest thing their lives have to love and meaning.

1984's world was obsessively serious. Our 2015 social tyranny is absurdly trivial. It's a world whose leaders is always looking for goofy photo ops while he violates the last remaining shreds of the law. Every crime is buried under a thousand shrieking viral headlines that alternate between fake empowerment and fake outrage.

We don't have an adult totalitarian state, because we no longer have adults. Instead we have Lord of the Flies and Mean Girls. Overgrown children advance a totalitarian state out of spite and envy. Identity politics is everything because tribalism is more innate to children than it is to adults. Enemies have to be punished for emotional validation. Freedoms have to be eliminated out of insecurity.

The politicization of insecurity lets everyone be a victim. Anyone can turn their feelings of shame or ostracism into political awareness. Feelings not only displace reason, they warp ideology around themselves, so that ideology becomes a means of emotional venting. Activism becomes catharsis. Hating others becomes therapy. No one is cured, but making things better was never the point.

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