Azamboado

Eu não só estou banzado como mesmo azoinado com as declarações do Presidente da Conferência Episcopal, à Rádio Renascença[1], sobre a promulgação da “lei” injusta do pseudo-casamento de varões com varões e de mulheres com mulheres. E estou-o, fundamentalmente, por três razões.

A primeira é pela interpretação sobre o motivo subjectivo (falta de coragem ou cobardia) do presidente da república. Estou em que ao falar como Presidente da Conferência Episcopal não lhe competia tal apreciação. Deveria isso sim explicar porque é que tal promulgação é injusta e as razões pelas quais um católico não a podia (moralmente) fazer, advertindo para as consequências morais que tal acto tem no próprio e poderá ter no seu destino eterno; acresce que importava que esclarece os católicos, e todos quantos quisessem ouvir, sobre a insustentabilidade da tese do dualismo ético que o presidente invocou (ética da convicção versus ética da responsabilidade) para justificar o seu proceder.

A segunda é a afirmação é a de que a Igreja deve respeitar a decisão e adaptar-se de modo a viver com ela. Daqui parece só se poder concluir que o Arcebispo de Braga e Presidente da Conferência Episcopal convida os fiéis a respeitar e, portanto, acatar uma “lei” gravemente injusta. Ora isto é exactamente o contrário do que a Sagrada Escritura, a Tradição e a Doutrina do Magistério da Igreja sempre ensinaram. Se há coisa que o cristão não pode respeitar e à qual não se pode adaptar é à iniquidade, à impiedade, à injustiça. Pelo contrário deve combatê-las com todas as suas forças, nunca se conformar com elas, recorrer à objecção de consciência e se necessário à desobediência civil, pois “importa mais obedecer a Deus que aos homens”. Faria melhor o Senhor D. Jorge Ortiga, bem como a Conferência Episcopal, em alertar os fiéis para isso mesmo alumiando em particular aqueles que serão mais expostos a circunstâncias de possibilidade de cooperação com o mal.

A terceira, finalmente, é a asseveração, insistente, com que o Episcopado português proclama aos quatro ventos que a Igreja não discrimina ninguém, agora reiterada pelo seu Presidente.

Eu confesso que nunca esperaria a passagem de um atestado de idiotia ou imbecilidade à Igreja por parte de Bispos da mesma. Enquanto a mim, claro que poderei estar enganado, roça a blasfémia. Ai da Igreja se não discriminasse!, pois isso significaria que não era dotada de razão nem iluminada e guiada pelo Espírito Santo! Discriminar significa diferenciar, distinguir, discernir, coisas que Graças a Deus a Igreja faz e continuará a fazer pelos séculos dos séculos. Também pode significar separar, especificar e ainda apartar-se e tudo isto também faz, sempre fez e fará parte da vida da Igreja. A discriminação é irrenunciável. O que a Igreja não pode é discriminar injustamente. Isso sim seria um pecado inadmissível. Não é por acaso que o documento, da Sagrada Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé, intitulado “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons”[2] ensina expressamente (II, 11) que “existem âmbitos nos quais não se dá injusta discriminação ao ter em conta a tendência sexual”, dando depois alguns exemplos. Reconhece, assim, que existe uma discriminação mas que ela é justa.

Mais adiante, número 22, adianta que “a Igreja tem a responsabilidade de promover a vida da família e a moralidade pública da inteira sociedade civil baseando-se nos valores morais fundamentais, e não somente a de proteger-se a si mesma da aplicação de leis perniciosas”.

É certo que hoje no linguajar geral se tende a identificar automaticamente discriminação com injustiça, mas essa é a meu ver uma emboscada fatal da qual a Igreja se deve precaver.

Nuno Serras Pereira

21. 05. 2010

---

[1] http://www.rr.pt/informacao_detalhe.aspx?fid=95&did=105002

[2] CDF, Alcune considerazioni concernenti la Risposta a proposte di legge sulla non discriminazione delle persone omosessuali (Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons), 23 luglio 1992
DeS 11 (1995)
OR 24.7.1992, 4; EV 13, 992-997; LE 5479; Dokumenty, II, 31

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage - Why the analogy fails

by Francis J. Beckwith

In The Public Discourse

...

Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.

In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.

This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.” Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.”[10]

READ ALL

A Misericórdia e a condenação eterna - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Não é propriamente uma originalidade dos dias que correm a invocação da Misericórdia infinita de Deus para desculpabilizar a gravidade do pecado mortal e as suas consequências no destino eterno da pessoa humana. Já Orígenes, de resto um excelente teólogo, admitia uma restauração final em que os condenados ao Inferno e o próprio diabo seriam resgatados e salvos. Em meados do século vinte Giovanni Pappini, no seu livro O Diabo, caiu no mesmo engodo. A Igreja sempre condenou essa teoria, porque não concorde com a Sagrada Escritura nem com a Tradição, reafirmando a eternidade da condenação ao Inferno. A existência deste e a sua eternidade são aliás um Dogma de Fé, isto é, uma verdade Revelada por Deus.

Um outro grande e cultíssimo teólogo contemporâneo, em dois dos seus últimos livros, não advogando embora a apocatástases (restauração final dos condenados, do diabo e demais demónios) defende que o cristão não só pode como deve esperar que todos os homens se possam salvar. Esperar, não significa ter a certeza. Para ele significa que cada um deve viver com tal radicalidade, generosidade e empenho a sua Fé de modo a que “completando na sua carne o que falta à paixão de Cristo” carregue com os pecados dos outros passando, de algum modo, a Graça que lhe é dada para eles, de modo a que se possam converter. Chega a interpretar o sofrimento dos místicos, as suas noites escuras, e o sofrimento dos inocentes como uma participação na Paixão de Cristo capaz de transformar a liberdade inquinada ou ímpia dos outros em liberdade de tender para Deus. Afinal, como diz a Escritura “ Deus quer que todos os homens se salvem”. Adverte, no entanto, que cada um deve, como exorta S. Paulo, “trabalhar com temor e tremor” na sua própria salvação, não a dando, de modo nenhum, como adquirida. O inferno não foi criado por Deus mas produzido pela liberdade da criatura (angélica) que ao rebelar-se definitivamente contra Ele, se fechou ao Seu amor ou ao Amor que Ele é: “Ide para o fogo eterno destinado ao demónio e aos seus anjos” (Mateus 25, 41). Uma vez que não existirá nenhum pronunciamento solene explícito do Magistério da Igreja declarando, segundo este teólogo, a existência de qualquer ser humano no Inferno podemos e devemos esperar que todos se possam salvar. A verdade porém é que também não há nenhuma declaração do Magistério da Igreja afirmando que o Inferno está vazio de pessoas humanas.

A vulgarização desta hipótese ou especulação teológica acabou por gerar naqueles poucos que ainda aderiam à verdade Revelada da existência do Inferno a convicção de que ninguém lá estaria nem se poderia condenar. Daí se passou à desculpabilização sistemática de toda e qualquer pessoa, por maiores que fossem as enormidades que ela cometesse.

Grandes teólogos reagiram, entre eles o eminente Avery Dulles, a muitas das afirmações deste autor. Reconhecendo embora os seus méritos, e muita da doutrina exposta, contestam a necessidade de um pronunciamento solene e explícito do Magistério sobre o assunto e mostram como asserções da Sagrada Escritura, da Tradição e de documentos do Magistério seriam incompreensíveis sem a admissão da eterna perdição efectiva, não só de pessoas angélicas (demónios) mas também de pessoas humanas.

É verdade, como dizia o então Cardeal Ratzinger, que a Fé nos foi dada não para que nos salvemos e os outros se percam mas para que através da nossa Fé os outros também se possam salvar. Mas também não é menos verdade, como dizia numa outra obra, que Deus criou-nos livres e leva a nossa liberdade a sério.

Estou em crer que a Misericórdia de Deus não deve ser invocada em vão, nem para aquietar as consciências dos que procederam mal infundindo-lhes uma falsa esperança de que se podem salvar permanecendo, embora, nos seus pecados porque afinal a última palavra caberá à Misericórdia Divina, que tudo ignorará. Não! A Misericórdia, como nos ensina a parábola do filho pródigo, deve ser invocada para chamar as pessoas ao arrependimento e à conversão, enquanto é tempo, e o tempo é breve. “Morte certa. Hora incerta. Juízo particular. Inferno ou Céu para sempre”. Afinal é isso mesmo que nos diz a Carta de S. Tiago: “Haverá Juízo sem misericórdia para aquele que não usou de misericórdia” (2, 13).

Que ninguém duvide: cada um será julgado segundo as suas obras. (Obras praticadas pelo amor, gerado pela Fé que nos foi dada, sem mérito algum da nossa parte. A graça precede sempre, acompanha e guia a vontade.) Por isso podemos ler no Evangelho as palavras severas de Jesus, na parábola do Juízo final, “retirai-vos de Mim, malditos! … para o fogo eterno … ” (Mateus, 25, 41).

E S. Paulo adianta: “ … (C)om a tua dureza e o teu coração impenitente, estás a acumular ira sobre ti, para o dia da cólera e do justo julgamento de Deus, que retribuirá a cada um conforme as suas obras: para aqueles que, ao perseverarem na prática do bem, procuram a glória, a honra e a incorruptibilidade, será a vida eterna; para aqueles que, por rebeldia, são indóceis à verdade e dóceis à injustiça, será ira e indignação. Tribulação e angústia para todo o ser humano que pratica o mal … Glória, honra e paz para todo aquele que pratica o bem …” (Romanos 2, 5-10).

Nací tras estupro y no puedo apoyar aborto, clama diputada pro-vida en Brasil

BRASILIA, 21 May. 10 / 02:10 am (ACI)

La diputada Fátima Pelaes, en la sesión que aprobó el Estatuto del Nascituro en la Comisión de Seguridad y Familia este miércoles 19 en la Cámara de Diputados, conmovió a todos con su testimonio personal: relató que su madre fue víctima de estupro luego de lo cual quedó embarazada y decidió conservarla rechazando el aborto. "¡Nací tras un estupro, no puedo estar a favor del aborto!", exclamó.

Esta es la principal razón que han hecho que esta legisladora brinde su apoyo al Estatuto del Nascituro que blinda la vida del no nacido contra el aborto, así como diversas normas que promueven la defensa de la familia y los niños.

El Movimiento Defesa da Vida de Porto Alegre informa que en sesión que aprobó el Estatuto del Nascituro, Pelaes tomó el micrófono y contó su historia: su madre fue víctima de estupro cuando estaba en una prisión mixta. Al principio la quiso abortar, pero finalmente optó por la vida de la bebé. La diputada dio a conocer esta historia porque espera que la misma ayude a otras madres en situaciones similares. "¡Nací tras un estupro. No puedo estar a favor del aborto!"

Cuando terminó de hablar, "todos lloraban, emocionados. El diputado Arnaldo Faria tomó el micrófono y solicitó una respuesta a la altura del testimonio de Fátima Pelaes: ‘señores, luego de este testimonio, ¿cómo no vamos a estar a favor de la vida de los nascituros?’"

Pese al testimonio de Pelaes, los siguientes diputados abortistas insistieron en votar en contra de la iniciativa pro-vida: Dr. Rosinha (PT-PR), Henrique Fontana (PT-RS), Darcísio Perondi (PMDB-RS), Arlindo Chinaglia (PT-SP), Rita Camata (PSDB-ES), Jô Moraes (PCDOB-MG) y Pepe Vargas (PT-RS).

Defesa da Vida señala además que "es importante mantener la movilización junto a las demás comisiones del Congreso y cuando se dé la votación en el plenario de la Cámara del Senado".

Más información sobre el Estatuto del Nascituro (en portugués) en: http://www2.camara.gov.br/agencia/noticias/SAUDE/147999-SEGURIDADE-APROVA-ESTATUTO-DO-NASCITURO.html

Los sacerdotes que abusaron de mí - Cuidémonos gravemente de tratar con ellos

Autor: R.P. Gustavo Caro

In Catholic.net

Cuando era muy niño, sin tener conciencia, sin libertad, sin poderme defender, uno de ellos me hizo hijo de Dios, heredero de la Vida Eterna, Templo del Espíritu Santo y miembro de la Iglesia, nunca podré perdonarle haberme hecho tanto bien.

Otro, insistió en mis años tiernos, en inculcarme violentando mi voluntad, el respeto por el Nombre de Dios, la necesidad absoluta de la oración diaria, la obediencia y la reverencia a mis padres, el amor por mi Patria y me enseñó la utopía de no mentir, no robar, no hablar mal de otros, perdonar y todas esas cosas que nos hacen tan mojigatos y ridículos....

Otro apareció aludiendo que el Espíritu Santo, debía venir a completar la obra comenzada en el Bautismo, que me harían falta sus dones y sus frutos, que ya era hora de que viniera en mi ayuda Aquél que me haría defender la Fe, como un soldado ¡Qué osadía hablar en términos tan bélicos!, hizo en esa época que cuidara mi alma de las del mundo, que fuera noble, leal y honesto...

Otro abusó dándome libros para leer, no le bastaban sus consejos, que hacían poner la mirada en la eternidad y vivir como extraños aquí en la tierra, ¿Quién sacará ahora de mi cabeza Los cuatro Evangelios?; ¿Las glorias de María?; ¿La Imitación de Cristo?; ¿Las Confesiones?; ¿Las Moradas?, etc., ¿Quién será capaz de curarme de todos esos tesoros que me marcaron para siempre?.

Otro abusó de mi ignorancia enseñándome cosas que no sabía, otro no hablaba pero su vida virtuosa me inclinaba cada vez más a imitarlo. Hubo algunos que se aprovecharon de mí en momentos inesperados y me corrigieron, me alentaron y hasta rezaron por mí.

Otros, cuando yo ya estaba en un círculo del cual no podía salir, se empecinaron con mi naturaleza caída y me incitaron a recibir a Jesucristo en su Cuerpo y Sangre, para resistir a los embates del enemigo, para fortalecer mi flaqueza y santificarme cada día más. Aunque para aquél que lea esta denuncia, le parezca que esto ya es demasiado y que más bien no se puede hacer, les digo que los abusos siguieron en aumento y todo pasó a mayores, cada vez que conocía a un sacerdote, se aprovechaba de mí con renovados métodos, reliquias, estampas, agua bendita, rosarios, bendiciones y oraciones de todo tipo, armaban una cárcel de tremendos beneficios que llegaron al límite de lo soportable.

Quiero dejar claro esta injusticia llena de perversidad y que atiendan a mi reclamo en esta denuncia, por que sé que algunos de ellos me estará esperando para seguir con esta iniquidad, sentado en un confesonario o a lado de mi cama cuando esté moribundo y aunque desaparezca seguirán abusando con sufragios por mi alma y súplicas de misericordia.

Quiero que se sumen a mi voz todos aquéllos que han sido víctimas de estos atropellos y se han sentido ultrajados por estas personas, pues sé que a otros los han unido en matrimonio, a otros le descubrieron su vocación, a otros hasta llegaron a ayudarlos materialmente o guardaron con llave en su corazón para siempre secretos tremendos de sus miserias humanas.

Cuidémonos gravemente de tratar con ellos, no les demos nuestros datos, no los miremos a los ojos, no les consultemos absolutamente nada, no sigamos ninguno de sus pasos, pues corremos el riesgo un día de caer en sus trampas y salvarnos eternamente.

“THE SOCIAL COSTS OF PORNOGRAPHY”

by William E. May, Ph. D., Senior Fellow

In Culture of Life Foudantion

“The Social Costs of Pornography: A Statement of Findings and Recommendations” is a booklet, edited by Mary Eberstadt and Mary Ann Layden and published this year by the Witherspoon Institute. The booklet summarizes a consultation of 54 scholars held in Princeton, N.J. in December 2008 sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute and co-sponsored by the Institute for the Psychological Sciences. A sampling of participating scholars includes Hadley Arkes of Amherst University, Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame University’s Law School, J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas, Mary Eberstadt of the Hoover Foundation, Jean Bethke Elshrain of the University of Chicago, John Finnis of Oxford University, Robert George of Princeton University, William Hurlbut, M.D., of Stanford University Medical School, Mary Ann Layden of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Psychiatry, Margarita Mooney of the University of North Carolina, David Novak of the University of Toronto, Roger Scruton of Oxford University, Gladys Sweeney of the Institute for the Psychological Studies, and W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia.

The consultation yielded 8 key findings and several recommendations.

Findings

In summary, the 8 key findings are as follows:

1. Pornography is available and consumed widely in our society in large part because of the internet.
2. Pornography today differs qualitatively from pornography in the past: it is found everywhere and is increasingly hardcore.
Consumption of internet pornography can harm
3. women.
4. children.
5. persons not immediately connected to its consumers.
6. its consumers.
7. Pornography consumption is philosophically and morally problematic.
8. Although not everyone is harmed by pornography, this does not mean that it ought not be regulated.

Some Revealing Comments on Findings

1. More people than ever before—children, adolescents, adults—are consuming pornography with powerful effects on them and on the entire society (p. 15).

2. Internet pornography elicits addictive behavior in some users, and this addiction can become compulsive despite its negative consequences on users’ work and relationships. Such compulsive behavior regarding consumption of pornography was rare until the internet made instantaneous acquisition of pornographic images possible (p. 18). It has in fact affected the brain’s neurology so that, as one scientist, N. Dodge, puts it, “men at their computers [addicted to] looking at porn are uncannily like the rats in the cages of NIH, pressing the bar to get a drop of dopamine or its equivalent” (p.19). Moreover, 80% of internet porn users are men, and these men, as Pamela Paul observes, “have trouble being turned on by ‘real’ women, and their sex lives... collapse…many admit they have trouble cutting down their use [of internet porn]…and find themselves seeking out harder and harder pornography” (p. 20). Most alarmingly is the evidence that many users admit moving from porn featuring adults to that featuring children (p. 21).

3. Researchers, among them A. J. Bridges, R. M. Bergner, and M. Hessin-McInniss, report that “women typically feel betrayal, mistrust, loss, devastation, and anger as a result of the discovery of a partner’s pornography use and/or online sexual activity” (p.23). There are psychic costs, increased likelihood of divorce and family break-up. The wives and girlfriends of pornography consumers have serious health risks resulting from increased likelihood of the porn consumer’s exposure to other partners. One study, for example, showed that persons who had engaged in paid sex or prostitution were almost 4 times more likely to have consumed porn on the internet than those who had not engaged in paid sex (p. 24). Evidence shows that although men constitute the highest number of internet porn consumers, increasing numbers of women, about 30% and growing, are swelling its ranks (p. 25).

4. There is no doubt that children and adolescents are now far more exposed to internet pornography than ever before, with boys significantly more likely than girls to have friends who view online porn—one study showed that 65% of boys aged 16-17 had friends who regularly viewed and downloaded internet pornography (p. 27). Moreover, there are no effective filtering systems widely in place on cell phones with internet access or iPods that can transmit “podnography” despite the popularity of these media with teens (p. 28). This exposure of children and teens to the hard core kind of pornography displayed on the internet, iPods,etc. is also extremely harmful to children and adolescents. For instance, studies in Italy, Australia, and the US showed increased aggressiveness in boys who consumed such porn, a dramatic increase in boys’ forcing girls to have sex, and that 29 out of 30 juvenile sex offenders had as children been exposed to X-rated magazines, videos, etc. (pp. 30-31).

5. Not only are the consumers of porn harmed by such consumption but so too are those on the “supply side,” that is, the persons whose bodies are used to portray the pornography. Among these “suppliers,” “women of all ages comprise 80% of those trafficked, children comprise 50%, and of these women and children 70% are used for sexual exploitation.” The lives of these “performers” in the sex industry are often “beset with exploitation, drug use, disease, and other afflictions” (p. 33). Pornography has been implicated in sexual assaults. Particularly at risk of harm are female adolescents. As one scholar, J. Manning, says: “[Because of] modern trends in pornography consumption and production, sexualzed media, sex crime, sexually transmitted diseases, online sexual predators, internet dating services, and sexualized cyber bullying” today’s woman “lives in a world more sexually distorting, daunting, and aggressive than ever before” (pp. 34-35).

Academic studies by scholars such as L. M. Ward, Susan Fiske, and others show that adolescent boys and girls exposed to sexualized media are more likely to view women as “sexual objects” than those not so exposed and that after viewing pornographic images men looked at women more as objects than as humans. This obviously harms women who themselves do not consume porn but who are now viewed not as human persons to be respected but as things or objects to be used (p. 35). Widespread consumption of internet pornography thus harms the entire society (p. 36).

6. Since men are by far the predominant users of internet porn empirical evidence of the harmful effects of such use on males is more abundant and available than evidence of such effects on women. The harmful effects on the wives and girlfriends of these male consumers, as noted already, can be catastrophic but it easily extends to the male users. Men who routinely consume porn are less attractive to potential female partners. Moreover such consumption frequently makes them incapable of getting sexual satisfaction with real women because they are so dependent on pornographic images to become aroused that they are no longer attracted enough to their own wives to engage in intercourse with them (pp. 37-38). Chronic porn consumption is associated with depression and unhappiness. This is the evidence given by psychiatrists, e.g., N. Dodge, and in many ways explained by philosopher R. Scruton, who wrote: “Once they [men] have been led by their porn addiction to see sex in the instrumentalized way that pornography encourages, they begin to lose confidence in their ability to enjoy sex in any other way than through fantasy…And then the fear of desire arises, and from that fear the fear of love” (p.38). Porn consumption and addiction desensitizes its viewers. Habituated to being stimulated by images that at one time would have repulsed them, they now find that in order to be aroused the images must become more and more disgusting—bestiality, S&M, genital torture, and on and on, as journalist Pamela Paul has described in her interviews with those obsessed with the kind of porn now so available (p. 39). This has led to the creation of a series of “cottage industries as some users [of internet porn] attempt to curtail or cease their consumption. These industries prove that some users perceive themselves to be harmed by such consumption” (p. 40).

7. Although pornography consumption is philosophically and morally problematic, the signatories of this report emphasize that “throughout history this phenomenon has more often than not been stigmatized and circumscribed by law and custom” (p. 43).

8. Despite recent efforts to make it more and more difficult to prosecute purveyors of obscenity and pornography (a recent trend contrary to prior efforts to do so), the signatories of this report note: “It remains sound First Amendment doctrine that truly obscene material is not protected by the Constitution, and that even legally protected materials can be regulated as to the time, place, and manner of their distribution and use” and that “courts could reverse their precedents if faced with cases that force them to confront the emerging evidence about pornography consumption and its effects” (pp. 45-46).

Recommendations (pp. 47-51)

Although the signatories were not unanimous in their recommendations, they regarded the following as “guidelines” for the kinds of initiatives needed to reduce the current harms caused by consumption of pornography, particularly via the internet.

1. The therapeutic community, which already has much evidence to show the harmful effects of internet pornography consumption, should “take the lead both in amassing new evidence and in disseminating that evidence at the highest levels of public opinion and governance. The signatories urge as a minimum that therapists who actually encourage use of pornography as a “marital aid” in counseling couples refrain from doing so. In light of the empirical evidence showing pornography’s harmful effects they regard such inappropriate “therapy” similar to the free distribution of tobacco to troops by the Red Cross. They also recommend to the therapeutic community pressing areas of future research suggested by current research: the relationship between pornography and prostitution; the factors that heighten risk for dependency and addiction; the effects of pornography on children and adolescents.

2. Educators and other teachers should be attentive to on-going research into the effects of pornography consumption and integrate those findings into their curricula as appropriate.

3. Journalists, Editors and Bloggers along with others influential in forming public opinion, are called on to lead in the investigation into the effects of pornography.

4. Private Industry can also take a lead in this. First of all corporations should make clear there is no tolerance for pornography in the workplace, helping employees who have become addicted and dependent on porn to break their habits, etc. The hospitality industry in particular is called upon to be mindful of its civic responsibilities by not allowing television movies of pornographic material.

5. Popular Culture and Celebrities should use their bully pulpit to discourage the popularization and acceptance of pornography and the banal justification that “everybody does it.” Especially helpful would be a public service campaign in which celebrities and others influential with adolescents take issue with today’s “so what” attitude toward pornography.

6. Government at various levels can do much. For instance, the government (1) should legislate to make pornography no more legal on standard servers used by ordinary people than it is in the mail; (2) make it a condition for operating an internet server that service is not offered to sites that propagate obscenity. Political leaders should use their bully pulpit for campaigning showing that pornography is not the “free speech” protected by the Constitution. All “adult” material (print and digital) should carry a warning about the addictive potential of pornography and consequent possible psychological harm to the consumer. The Justice Department unit dedicated to the prosecution of obscenity should be redeveloped and redeployed to address the phenomenon of pornography. Legislatures are asked to create a new, private (civil, not criminal) right of action called the “negligent exposure of a minor or an unwilling adult to obscene materials.”

Conclusion

This brief but substantive report is a most valuable help in combating the “plague of pornography.” In my judgment, it shows how internet and other new media for viewing and disseminating pornography illustrate the insight of John Paul II, noted in my earlier piece on “The Plague of Pornography,” on the qualitative difference between portraying the human body in painting and sculpture and in doing so in film, videos, etc.

Cavaco e as Presidenciais

O presidente da república na sua declaração de ontem deu a entender que não concordava com aquilo que promulgou. Não é a primeira vez que o faz. Mas a verdade verifica-se pelas obras e não pelas palavras. Por isso Santo António pregava: “Calem-se as palavras; falem as obras.”. Estas, ao longo do mandato deste presidente têm sido inequívocas. Promulgou tudo o que de mais abominável e perverso se possa imaginar: a liberalização maciça do homicídio/aborto, a crudelíssima clonagem, a abjecta experimentação assassina em pessoas, na sua etapa embrionária, o congelamento ignóbil das mesmas em gulags de latão, o torpe divórcio expresso, a deseducação sexual obscena e pornográfica nas escolas, e agora o sórdido pseudo-casamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo. Qualquer uma destas coisas, só por si, é muito mais grave que a grave crise económica que o país atravessa. O seus efeitos, principalmente, a médio e a longo prazo, serão aterradores.

Se o presidente, de facto, não quisesse estas monstruosidades pavorosas teria exercido sistematicamente, com determinação, coragem e audácia, o seu “magistério de influência” em vez de manter uma gélida “neutralidade” letal até que elas fossem aprovadas em referendo ou pela assembleia cruel. Se apesar disso não fosse escutado e fosse vencido, manteria a dignidade e o carácter dissolvendo a assembleia ou renunciando ao mandato.

Evidentemente que, ainda subsistirá alguma dúvida?, nenhuma pessoa decente, de boa vontade, cristã, ou católica colocará a hipótese, ainda que remota, de reeleger o chefe de estado responsável pela promulgação das “leis” mais iníquas, injustas e criminosas da nossa longa história. Parece, aliás, claro, que uma vez reeleito, promulgaria a legalização da eutanásia e sabe-se lá que outras aberrações.

Se alguém cuida que sou injusto nas imputações que faço poderá sempre pedir, ou exigir, que o presidente, quando formalizar a sua candidatura se comprometa solenemente a exercer o seu cargo de modo a fazer tudo para reverter as injustiças que promulgou nesta legislatura.

Uma vez que os outros candidatos que se perfilam para as eleições padecem do mesmo ou de semelhante aleijão moral, também não fará sentido votar neles.

É possível (há lá alguma coisa impossível para a imaginação alucinante e delirante de grande parte do povo português) que alguns em nome da economia, essa deusa com pés de barro tão idolatrada nos tempos que correm, julguem que um presidente, que é uma espécie de sumo-sacerdote da mesma, nos possa valer e salvar. Ele seria então o verdadeiro Messias, sem ele, descalabro e ruína por toda a parte… Talvez não seja necessário recordar a história Sagrada para verificar no que acabam por desembocar tais idolatrias – exactamente no contrário do que se pretendia. Bastará somente verificar no que deu, do ponto de vista económico, a “cooperação estratégica” durante este mandato.

Se eu não fosse Padre, estou em que me esforçaria por fazer uma campanha em favor da abstenção maciça nas próximas eleições presidenciais. Se tivesse sucesso, ficaria claro para todos que o presidente eleito gozaria de uma “legitimidade” formal mínima. E a partir daí muita coisa boa podia acontecer… Tornaria ainda claro a todos os partidos políticos que o apoio à reeleição do actual presidente lhes traria problemas nas eleições que lhes dizem respeito. Como não passo de um inútil e insignificante Sacerdote franciscano, rezarei instantemente pela conversão dos corações.

Nuno Serras Pereira

18. 05. 2010

O Pecado Promulgado

“ … (A) maior perseguição da Igreja não vem de inimigos externos, mas nasce do pecado na Igreja.”

Bento XVI, 11. 05. 2010

Não há nenhuma dúvida que quer a Doutrina Católica quer a Lei Moral Natural reconhecem e anunciam que os actos sexuais entre pessoas do mesmo sexo são intrinsecamente perversos e depravados; e que a legalização do pseudo-casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo ou de “uniões civis”, como as que existem em França e em Inglaterra, por exemplo, constitui uma grave injustiça e uma cooperação formal com o pecado mortal praticado ao abrigo dessa “lei”, tornando a pessoa que legisla ou promulga tal absurdo, moralmente responsável de todo o mal que dela derivar.

Há preceitos que são absolutos morais e que por isso obrigam sempre, sem excepção alguma, em toda e qualquer circunstância, e que, por isso mesmo, não são negociáveis. Tal é o caso em apreço. E não é verdade que no caso de vetar a “lei” ela passaria de qualquer maneira, porque o Presidente pode dissolver a assembleia da república e pode também renunciar ao mandato.

Ao promulgar a “lei” iníqua do falsamente denominado “casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo o Presidente da República, que se proclama católico praticante, comete um gravíssimo pecado que gera uma “grande perseguição” à Igreja. Não só pelo seu pecado em si, mas também por todos os efeitos funestos que dessa “legislação” derivarão.

Talvez o político consiga enredar as multidões como Lenine, Hitler, Mussolini ou Obama mas um dia, brevemente, terá de responder diante do Supremo Juiz, prestando rigorosas contas dos imensos crimes por que foi responsável.

Nuno Serras Pereira

17. 05. 2010

Does contraception prevent abortion?

by William E. May, Ph. D., Senior Fellow

In Culture of Life Foundation

Andrew Koppelman and others say “It certainly does!”

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and others claim that contraception definitely prevents abortion. This April (2010) Koppelman posted a commentary, “How the Religious Right Promotes Abortion,” [1] that was immediately attacked byspokespersons of the “Religious Right” (e.g., Michael New of the Witherspoon Institute). Koppelman judges it to be “astoundingly stupid and tragic” to argue over this. Continuing, he said, “One of the rare areas of common ground between opponents and supporters of abortion rights is that neither side thinks that unintended pregnancy is a good thing. We should be able to come together on measures that would actually reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy, and thus, inevitably, reduce the abortion rate. That might even help the anti-abortion cause in the long run, because it would reduce the number of American women who have had abortions…. Yet instead, we are having this silly argument. It is dispiriting.”

Factual errors in Koppelman’s allies June Carbone and Naomi Cahn

Koppelman calls on June Carbone and Naomi Cahn, well-known for their advocacy of contraception as the best way to prevent abortion, to support his view and show how foolish a critic like New is. After repeating Koppelman’s mantra that contraception is the best way to reduce abortion and that pro-lifers should welcome its use, they declare: “Every time legislators advocate recognition of women’s needs, conservatives work to derail them. When President Obama proposed strengthening family planning efforts in the stimulus package, Republicans blocked the measure.” They apparently equate “Republican” with “pro-lifer” as if opponents to abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other hallmarks of the “culture of death” were all Republicans, conveniently forgetting pro-life Democrats like the late Governor Casey of Pennsylvania.

Carbone and Cahn misrepresent New’s critique of Koppelman. New had written: “…existing research indicates that there is relatively little the government can do to increase contraceptive use among sexually active women. Nine years ago, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which was Planned Parenthood’s research arm and which strongly supports more funding for contraception, surveyed 10,000 women who had abortions. Among those who were not using contraception at the time they conceived, a very small percent cited cost or lack of availability as their reason for not using contraception. Specifically, only 12 percent said that they lacked access to contraceptives due to financial or other reasons. Given all the existing programs, it is by no means clear that more federal spending on contraceptives could increase contraceptive use among this subset of women.”[2] Carbone and Cahn say this means that “the only way to prevent abortions is to prevent sex.” This is not what New said nor does there seem to be any relationship at all between New’s conclusion, which is based on existing research, and Carbone and Cahn’s misleading restatement of it.

Contraception: the Gateway to Abortion

I think we can show that contraception is itself the gateway to abortion. Before doing so, I want to note that May 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the famous birth-control Pill, as Melinda Beck reminds us in her essay “The Birth Control Riddle” in the April 20 issue of the Wall Street Journal.[3] At the end of her piece Beck describes the latest developments in contraceptive technology, summarized in the following footnote.[4] In her essay, a paean to the Pill and all kinds of “contraceptives,” Beck has to admit that although there are today more options than ever before, “some three million U.S. women have an unplanned pregnancy every year.” In fact, she has to say: “Almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S.--some 3.1million a year--are unintended, according to the most recent government survey, from 2001. One out of every two American women aged 15 to 44 has at least one unplanned pregnancy in her lifetime. Among unmarried women in their 20s, seven out of 10 pregnancies are unplanned. An updated version of those numbers from the 2006 National Survey of Family Growth is expected to be released next month. But population experts don't anticipate much change; the rate of unplanned pregnancy was the same in 1994, and smaller studies have found that even newer birth-control methods haven't made much of a dent.”

This makes it evident that contraceptives are not a panacea for preventing abortion—Koppelman’s central message. Since 70 percent of the pregnancies experienced by women in their 20s are “unplanned,” this renders implausible the claim that contraception is the best way to prevent conception.

Are some “contraceptives” actually “abortifacient”?

This is highly controversial. Many persons, particularly those seeking to develop a “culture of life” as opposed to the “culture of death,” sincerely believe that some contraceptives do in fact “work” by not only causing anovulation or by rendering the mucus hostile to sperm but also by rendering the endometrium of the womb hostile to the implantation of a child already conceived. In short, they have a “postfertilization” mechanism. This belief refers precisely to the abortifacient potential of Pills using a combination of estrogen and progesterone, of IUDs, various kinds of implants (Norplant and now Implanon), the “morning after” pill and others. This belief, moreover, seems substantiated by the advice given in the prescriptions of some contraceptives, notably those combining estrogen with progesterone and by on-line advice given by Columbia University of New York’s Health Q&A Internet Service “Go ask Alice” (http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/).

Over the past quarter century I made this claim myself. However, a thorough study of all the scientific research done on this issue by Nicanor Austriaco, O.P. Ph.D. (a Dominican priest with a doctorate in biology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 2007), “Is Plan B Abortificient: A Critical Look at Scientific Evidence,” 703-707, seriously questions whether this claim is true and shows that there are good reasons to think that it is not.

It is most significant, I think, that Susan A. Crockett, Donna Harrison, Joe DeCook, and Camilla Hersh in an April, 1999 study called Hormone Contraceptives and Clarifications, published by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, like Austriaco, concluded that the scientific data do not show the existence of a postfertilization, i.e., abortificient, mechanism in Combined Oral Contraceptive Pills (COCPs). In their study, accessible at http://www.rcnz.org.nz/synodical/synod2008/r17.pdf, they offer this advice: “At the current time we feel that each individual physician should evaluate the available information, and then follow the leading of his/her conscience in this matter.”

“Body-Self” or “Body-Person” Dualism

It is not possible here to take this matter up fully (it has been discussed in other Culture of Life postings), but I will attempt to express it clearly. In my judgment a dualistic mindset seems to be implicit even if not recognized in those who are willing to contracept, i.e., it seems as if they are treating their bodies as part of the subpersonal world of nature over which they, as “persons,” have dominion. This view is, however, dualistic insofar as it separates the person from his or her body. Our bodies are not like clothes that we persons wear. When someone breaks his or her arm he or she is not damaging his or her property but injuring himself or herself.

Free Choice, Human Actions, Our Moral Character

In addition, we must remember that unlike other material creatures we have the power of free choice and that we determine ourselves, that is, make ourselves to be the persons we are in and through the actions we freely choose to do every day of our lives. It is and through these choices that we give to ourselves our identity as moral beings. We can rightly say that our moral character is our integral existential identity that we give to ourselves by the choices, good and bad, that we do every day. It thus follows that the actions we choose to do are not mere physical events that come and go like the falling of leaves. Although our actions indeed have effects on the outside world, their moral importance lies in the fact that in and through them, we give to ourselves our identity as the kind of person who has freely disposed himself or herself to be a liar, an adulterer, a killer of innocent human beings or to be one who speaks the truth, who is a faithful spouse and parent, one who defends and does not attack the good of human life in others, and as one who is either closed to the great gift of human life or open to it and welcoming of it when one chooses to engage in the kind of bodily act, in fact the only kind of bodily act, genital coition between a man and a woman, through which this great gift can be given. It is important to keep this in mind when one must choose either to contracept, which can be defined as an action in which we intentionally choose to impede the beginning of a new human life while choosing to engage in the kind of bodily act apt to generate that life or to welcome that life into our hearts and homes or, if there are good reasons not to cause a woman to become pregnant, to abstain from choosing to engage in actions likely to cause a pregnancy.

__________________

Notes

[1] http://balkin.blogspoot.com/2010/04/how-religious-right-promotes-abortion/html.
[2] See New’s essay, “How Red States Reduce the Abortion Rates: A Response to Andrew Koppelman” at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/04/1250
[3] The article is accessible at http://online.wsj.com/article/health_journal.html/
[4] Beck lists the following: 1. New IUDs—the Delkon Shield is no longer used because of its dangers; it has been supplanted by ParaGard which “protects” women from pregnancy for 12 years and Mirena, good for 5 years. 2. Implants—NorPlant is no longer used, replaced by Implanon good for 3 years. 3. Hormone Pills and other pills, Rings, Patches etc. New pills have lower hormone content but majority are combination estrogen/progesterone kinds; for women who can not take estrogen Depo-Provera is the choice; there are 40 brands of progesterone/estrogen combinations; new Pills using progesterone and estrogen are Seasonique that allows women only 4 periods a year and Lygreel that allow only one week; the NuaRing “protects” for 3 weeks and then must be replaced; Ortho-Era for only 1 week; the “morning after” pill. 4. New condoms including the woman’s condom and sponges such as the Today sponge popularized on the Simpsons. 5. Tubal ligations and vasectomies. New kind of tubal ligation is Essure.