La casa de los horrores - por Juan Manuel de Prada

www.juanmanueldeprada.com

Encuentran en el jardín de una casa en el departamento de Lille hasta ocho cadáveres de recién nacidos y la noticia causa gran conmoción. Durante unos días, nos escandalizaremos con las andanzas de esa tal Dominique Cottrez, auxiliar de clínica, que nada más parir a sus hijos los asfixiaba metódicamente, los envolvía en plásticos y los enterraba a la sombra de un árbol; y, antes de que el suceso ingrese en los polvorientos anaqueles del olvido, podremos consolarnos pensando que nosotros no somos tan bestiales como la tal Dominique, igual que el sabio pobre y mísero de Calderón se consolaba, mientras recogía las hierbas con las que se sustentaba, comprobando que otro sabio iba recogiendo las hierbas que él desdeñaba.

Así hasta que, dentro de unos meses, descubran otra casa, otro jardín, otro sótano donde se almacenen más cadáveres de recién nacidos; y, cuando nos revelen los pormenores del siguiente infanticidio truculento, podremos seguir respirando aliviados durante otra temporada más. Que en esto consiste la función catártica del horror: en que la truculencia de los crímenes ajenos nos exonere de la enojosa tentación de calificar los nuestros, mucho más «neutrales» y asépticos. Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente, reza el refrán; pero para que el corazón no sienta ante los invisibles crímenes propios, conviene curtirlo previamente con la exhibición de crímenes ajenos tan aparatosos que, por contraste, releguen los propios a la categoría de menudencias irrelevantes.

En una de sus paradojas más brillantes y estremecedoras, Chesterton saludaba a los infanticidas como «pioneros progresistas» capaces de llevar hasta sus últimas consecuencias los postulados que otros progresistas más remilgados defienden con expresiones sibilinas, por evitarse la mala propaganda que persigue a los pioneros. Para hacer su defensa paradójica del infanticida (para poner a la sociedad de nuestra época ante el espejo de sus crímenes), Chesterton se mostraba dispuesto —en términos especulativos— a despojarse de los «remilgos morales» que defienden la vida. «Si lo que la cristiandad ha considerado moral no tiene sentido —afirma—, entonces deberíamos sentirnos libres de ignorar toda diferencia entre los hombres y los animales, y consecuentemente tratar a los hombres como animales».

Nadie aplicaría un aborto a una gata o a una coneja: se deja, simplemente, que alumbre a su prole; y, si la prole es demasiado numerosa, o si incluye ejemplares enfermos, se los ahoga en una palangana y santas pascuas. ¿Por qué no hacer con los bebés lo mismo que con los gatos?, se pregunta Chesterton. Permitamos que lleguen al mundo, para después ahogar a los que no nos gustan. «Tal comportamiento —prosigue Chesterton— sería propia y razonablemente eugenésico, porque podríamos seleccionar a los mejores, o al menos a los más saludables, y sacrificar a aquellos a quienes se llama inadaptados». El infanticida es, en efecto, más «racional» que el abortero; y también, en cierto modo, más bizarro: es verdad que un niño recién nacido no puede defenderse, como le ocurre al niño gestante, pero para estrangularlo hay que cogerlo entre nuestras manos, hay que mirar su rostro, hay que sentir la temperatura de su piel.

Frente a esta pionera progresista de Lille, nos ocurre como a Chesterton: nuestros progresistas aborteros se nos antojan débiles, indecisos y cobardes.

World Population Report: 'Aging Populations; Fewer Workers; Decline of Developed Countries'

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

WASHINGTON, DC, July 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The 2010 World Population Data Sheet, published by the Population Reference Bureau (PBR) on July 28, says that a shrinking pool of working-age populations is jeopardizing social support and long-term health care programs for the elderly, and points to a decrease in the populations of developed countries.

The report states that worldwide in 1950, there were 12 persons of working age for every person age 65 or older. By 2010, that number had shrunk to 9. By 2050, this elderly support ratio, which indicates levels of potential social support available for the elderly, is projected to drop to 4.

The report also shows the contrasts between developing and developed countries and highlights that while developing countries will see populations increase, developed countries are beginning to see population shrinkage.

"There are two major trends in world population today," said Bill Butz, PRB's president. "On the one hand, chronically low birth rates in developed countries are beginning to challenge the health and financial security of their elderly. On the other, the developing countries are adding over 80 million to the population every year and the poorest of those countries are adding 20 million, exacerbating poverty and threatening the environment."

Comparing Ethiopia and Germany, the report illustrates how stark the contrasts can be. Though Ethiopia and Germany have almost the same population size today, Ethiopia is projected to more than double its population from 85 million today to 174 million in 2050. Germany's population will likely decline from 82 million to 72 million over that same time. The cause of these enormous differences is lifetime births per woman. Ethiopia's total fertility rate of 5.4 is four times greater than Germany's rate of 1.3.

Global population rose to 6.9 billion in 2010, the report says, with nearly all of that growth in the world's developing countries.

In contrast, the world's developed countries, totaling 1.2 billion people, saw their populations continue to age as the numbers of those of working age dwindle.

For example, Japan has a total fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman, and an elderly support ratio of 3—the lowest in the world, along with Germany and Italy. By 2050, Japan will have only 1 working-age adult for every elderly person; Germany and Italy will each have 2.

The report touches on the effect of the recent worldwide recession, saying that it appears to have caused further declines in birth rates in some developed countries, such as Spain and the United States, and slowed down increases where birth rates had begun to rise, such as in Norway and Russia.

The Population Reference Bureau's 2010 World Population Data Sheet and its summary report offer detailed information on 19 population, health, and environment indicators for more than 200 countries.

The full text of the report is available here.

See related LSN article:

Demographic Report Reveals "Unprecedented Global Aging" - Childlessness in US Women at 20%
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072211.html

Five Ways to Talk to the Left about Same-Sex Marriage

by Eric Pavlat

In InsideCatholic.com

As hard as it is to express the truths about abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research to Democrats, it can be even harder to talk about homosexuality. Many people wrongly equate opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to racial equality during the civil-rights movement, applying the emotional power of race issues to homosexuality. The conversation can become even more personal and heated if they have family or friends who are gay.

To reach supporters of same-sex marriage, you have to understand how they approach the issue, what their valid points and concerns are, and where they may misunderstand the opposition. Finding areas of agreement, and building on those, will help you avoid the standard pitfalls that accompany these discussions.

The most important step in that process, as always, is to pray for the person with whom you are speaking. Try to see him or her as an instrument of God's mercy to you, rather than "the enemy." Pray for yourself, that you may speak the truth in love. Above all, remember that you can't convert anybody; the Holy Spirit does that. You can only remove objections, and even then only through God's grace, which flows through prayer.

Next, insulate yourself with charity. Friends of mine may be willing to hear me out, but strangers won't necessarily give me that benefit of the doubt; rather, they often begin with the tacit assumption that anyone opposed to gay marriage is a "bigot" or a "homophobe." It's vital to defuse that impression from the outset. After all, the Catholic Church completely rejects bigotry, saying, "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." Paragraphs 2357-58 of the Catechism call us to authentic love for our brothers and sisters with homosexual tendencies. Many gay people have suffered real and painful bigotry; it's important to hear their stories and understand their suffering before attempting to preach to them.

Speaking the truth in love can also help move the conversation away from the standard Left-Right dichotomy that prevails in the United States. To most supporters, opposing gay marriage is a hallmark of the homophobia and bigotry that they, in their caricatured view of the Right, believe all conservatives hold. They'll need help seeing that one can oppose gay marriage and not hate gay people. Additionally, think how your own words may sound to other ears: Casually dropping phrases like "gay agenda," a common term among conservatives, can cause offense, and opening your conversation by saying homosexuals are sinning will be taken as judgmentally condemning all gay people to hell.

Finally, it's good to ask questions and listen respectfully to the answers. It is not only the right thing to do, but it can shed additional light on your friends' thought processes. Sometimes, by asking the right questions ("What is a marriage? Why do governments give any special status to married people at all?"), you can make them more aware of their own biases and logical missteps. They may come to see they agree with you more than they'd realized.

1. Focus on the Words 'Right' and 'Marriage'

So much of the argument for gay marriage is based on the idea of equal rights for all. An easy response is to state that you fully support equal rights for everyone -- to free speech, to association, to any legitimate human right.

Of course, you then clarify that the freedom to marry is not a right. A few quick examples should show why:

• Marrying an already-married person is illegal. If marriage were a right, then this restriction would be unjust and should be illegal.

• All states restrict certain persons from marrying (to some degree or another): aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, children and parents, even in-laws (who aren't related by blood). These restrictions would constitute another breach of a "right" to marry whomever one chose.

• Marriage has an age of consent; there's no "age of consent" for our rights to speech and religion.

• One must pay the government a fee in order to marry. But rights are free and automatic, not available for purchase.

It's also worth asking why rights exist at all, and where they come from. Are they granted by governments? If that were the case, the government could also take them away. Are they simply innate, then? But if so, how do we know that? What does that mean?

Of course, we as Catholics know that rights come with duties; that freedom means the right to do what we ought to do; and that these things stem from our being made in the image and likeness of God. Prompting these questions gives you the opportunity to share a more coherent view of rights and their origins.

Eventually, the question comes down to what marriage is: the lifelong union of one man to one woman. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. "Nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman," says scholar Harry Jaffa. The Minnesota Supreme Court concurs, writing, "There is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race," a limitation it finds illegitimate, "and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." A man and a woman are necessary for the creation of children, and for those children to be raised by people with complementary gifts.

What about auxiliary rights that have been attenuated to marriage through the years -- hospital visitation, inheritance, and so on? These can be fulfilled by other readily available means, including contracts, wills, and power-of-attorney documents. Marriage is not necessary to acquire them.

In short, by shifting the conversation from "equal rights for all" to the nature of rights and marriage, you've removed the conversation from the realm of bigotry and homophobia to a place where progress can be made.

2. Oppose the Status Quo

At this point, gay-rights supporters will often say that it is heterosexual couples who have damaged marriage. They are right, and we need to agree.

It was heterosexual couples who embraced contraception, leaving us with a birth rate below the rate of replacement (2.1 children per woman) since 1972. The Witherspoon Institute notes that "same-sex marriage has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility," and it is easy to see why: Once marriage and children were separated, gay marriage -- childless by nature -- would be the next natural step.

Gay activist Andrew Sullivan sees this connection clearly; he writes, "The heterosexuality of marriage is intrinsic only if it is understood to be intrinsically procreative; but that definition has long been abandoned in Western society" (as quoted by Christopher West in The Good News About Sex & Marriage). West later comments, "There's little moral difference between a genital act that a married couple renders infertile… and homosexual behavior" (emphasis his).

Heterosexual couples are also responsible for no-fault divorce, starting with the 1969 California law signed by Ronald Reagan. At present, between 41 percent and 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce, and the average first marriage lasts only eight years. Is it any wonder that legalization of gay marriage would be next, since our society has already established that marriage is "a mere convention, so malleable that individuals, couples, or groups can choose to make of it whatever suits their desires, interests, or subjective goals of the moment"? Gay-rights activists have learned that lesson because we've taught it to them.

Our society has also embraced artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Just as contraception promised society sex without children, these new technologies now offer children without sex. It is through these reproductive technologies (and surrogate motherhood) that gay couples can build families of their own -- again leading to the push for legally recognized gay marriage.

None of the damage done to marriage and families -- whether by contraception, divorce, porn, affairs, the hook-up culture, or artificial fertilization -- was inflicted by homosexuals. Only by acknowledging this fact -- and stating your opposition to these things -- can you show consistent support for the institution of marriage.

In short, you share your view of marriage to (a) demonstrate humility by agreeing that heterosexuals have damaged marriage, (b) prove that your opposition doesn’t stem from anti-gay sentiment, (c) show that you’re being rational and internally consistent to a complete vision of family life, and (d) share the fact that another vision of family life exists than what the culture normally displays, perhaps creating cognitive dissonance and an opening to consider a positive vision of the human family.

3. Talk about Children's Rights

There are some people who often don't come up in discussions about gay marriage, but should: children.

Ask a random assortment of people what the purpose of marriage is; you may be surprised to find that few of them will even mention children. And yet study after study has shown that children simply do better in families with a mother and a father than they do with same-sex partners. According to a 2008 article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,

Ever stronger current, rigorous social science studies have ever more firmly established that family form matters and that children receive maximum private welfare when they are raised by a married mother and father in a low-conflict marriage. . . . This evidence has troubled many in the academy who believe that all family forms are normatively equal.

It isn't that gay people are necessarily bad parents, but that children thrive most fully when raised by a mother and a father. The Witherspoon Institute's Report on Marriage explains why: "There are crucial sex differences in parenting. Mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and, partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children." Complementing that, "Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to tackle difficult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and seek out novel experiences." Similar arguments appear in a policy brief by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a journal article from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

Governments' granting married couples special protections in turn protects children's rights, a fact that France recognized when it issued a report explaining why it rejected same-sex unions. Hence, as the Harvard Journal puts it: "Society's interests in those endangered social goods are compelling, implicating as they do the quality of society's practices of self-perpetuation." Or, in the words of the Arizona Court of Appeals, limiting marriage to heterosexuals "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," that of protecting the development of the future adults of the state.

4. Show that the Slippery Slope Is Real . . . and Happening Now

More than 3,000 people in Japan signed a petition on behalf of people's rights to marry computer avatars, as one man did in November 2009. Another man in Korea recently married his anime body pillow. Back in 1999, in less enlightened times, a Missouri man wanted to marry his horse.

Once we've decided to reject the historical definition of marriage -- once we've shown that it can, in fact, be redefined -- what legitimate limits can we put on it? What rational grounds do we have for denying these men from Japan, Korea, and Missouri?

Take the example of a married couple in the Netherlands who, after the country passed legislation roughly equivalent to civil unions, chose to have the wife enter a union with her bisexual lover, and now the three live together as a triad. Why, as the Huffington Post asks, should relationships like these not be recognized as marriages? Once we start the ball rolling, it's hard to say where it must stop.

In fact, a court in Canada has now ruled that a child can have three parents, and "polygamous Muslim families are living in Toronto and claiming multiple Canadian welfare benefits in many cases. The logical and legal grounds to resist polygamy have been removed, making it difficult to prosecute." Canada's Justice Department ruled in a 2006 report that there was no reason to deny polygamy after it had legalized gay marriage, and Great Britain and Australia recognize both gay marriage/civil unions and some elements of polygamy.

But beyond the theoretical question of what may happen in the future, it's important to also point out what has already happened: the explosive growth of the polyamory movement. A few years ago, only a few experts were talking about polyamory; now, there are daily updates on poly news-gathering sites featuring neutral-to-positive coverage from sources as diverse as the New York Times, Newsweek, and Fox News.

In fact, many homosexuals live in relationships that are essentially polyamorous themselves. The Web site Meet Gay Couples notes, "[Surveys] all report that varying degrees of non-monogamy are fairly common among male couples." The gay newspaper Washington Blade reports that "three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous." The study's lead author, a gay professor at the University of Windsor, holds the opinion that "younger [gay] men tend to start with the vision of monogamy . . . because they are coming with a heterosexual script. . . . The gay community has their own order and own ways that seem to work better."

In fact, some advocates of gay marriage are advocates for the end of marriage itself. For example, gay scholar Nan Hunter argues that "legalizing lesbian and gay marriage would have enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone." Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz describes Norwegian sociologist and gay marriage advocate Kari Moxnes's views as seeing "both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women." In Moxnes's article "Empty Marriage," she describes "Norwegian gay marriage [as] a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength," as "a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself."

It's worth noting that, among those people in gay relationships who have the opportunity, very few actually choose to get married at all: The Family Research Council quotes a statistic from USA Today showing that, in Vermont's first three-and-a-half years of civil unions, only 936 gays or lesbian couples chose to take advantage of the opportunity -- about 21 percent of the estimated adult homosexual population. In Sweden, where traditional marriages are increasingly rare, gay union numbers are even lower, as reported by a 2004 Baltimore Sun article: "About 1,500 same-sex couples have registered their unions" out of an estimated 140,000 gays and lesbians, or about 2 percent.

The significance? The quest for gay marriage isn't so much about gay marriage as it is a single step toward bringing about a sea change in the culture of the United States.

5. Show that Gay Marriage is Harmful

At some point in this process, the gay marriage supporter is likely to ask, "Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? After all, who does it really hurt?"

In fact, a surprising number of people. We've already seen how gay marriage can be harmful to children. But these legal unions also hurt those who take part in it. First of all, it opens them up to an increased risk of domestic violence: According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, a stunning 31 percent of lesbians in relationships had experienced physical violence from a partner within the past year. According to John Klofas of the Rochester Institute of Technology, "Trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse." Meanwhile, gay males, according to the journal Violence and Victims, "are more likely to be killed by their partners than [by] a stranger. The increased potential for violence has been confirmed in numerous studies, as well as by gay advocacy groups such as the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project. Part of this higher chance may be due to gay relationships’ absence of the cultural taboo that generally prevents men and women from violence against each other. Encouraging people to enter relationships so much more dangerous for them than marriage is not responsible behavior on the part of any government.

Likewise, legalizing gay marriage hurts homosexuals in general. When the government says that gay marriage is fine, it teaches (often through public elementary education) that homosexual behavior is fine. But unfortunately, these behaviors are linked to a number of serious health problems, including drug abuse, HIV infection (gay men are infected 50 times more often than straight men), anal cancer (among men), breast cancer and gynocological cancers (among women), and suicide.

Same-sex marriage has already hurt a number of private citizens and social institutions in the United States and Canada as well:

• Catholic Charities in D.C. decided to discontinue spousal benefits for their employees rather than be forced to contradict the teachings of the Faith by offering benefits to same-sex partners, as mandated by the District

• Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to give up its adoption services, rather than be forced to adopt to same-sex couples;

• a Knights of Columbus chapter in British Columbia was fined for refusing to host a lesbian wedding reception;

• a Canadian teacher was disciplined by the teachers' governing body for a letter to the editor about homosexuality, while another published letter-writer was convicted of and fined for hate crimes, a conviction supported by the Canadian Supreme Court;

• public schoolchildren in states with same-sex marriage are taught as early as kindergarten that both options, gay and straight, are equally valid lifestyle choices;

• several Canadian marriage commissioners and at least one Massachusetts justice of the peace who asked to recuse themselves from performing gay unions were told that they must either marry the couple or resign;

• a couple who manages a bed and breakfast were charged and convicted of discrimination for not allowing homosexual couples, and they had to shut down their business;

• several Canadian mayors were fined thousands of dollars for refusing to declare "Gay Pride Days" in their cities; and

• an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois lost his job teaching Catholic Studies for explaining why the Church teaches against homosexuality, an action being contested as of this writing.

None of these damages was anticipated by the courts or legislatures that made same-sex marriages legal, but they're here now. Gay marriage does have an impact on society at large.

Finally, legally recognizing these unions hurts the nation as a whole. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin declared in The American Sex Revolution that he found virtually no culture that both failed to restrict marriage to a man and a woman and survived very long. Cambridge anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin stated nearly the same thing in Hopousia, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society: "In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."

In short, gay marriage harms everyone, regardless of whether they themselves are gay or married.

Don't Get Derailed

There are a few other things gay marriage promoters may say to try to derail your arguments:

If they say that marriage isn't about children, since we don't forbid sterile people from getting married, you can reply that, in the case of a sterile union, the sterility is not sought and is not an integral part of the act; as West puts it, "Their sexual union is still the kind of union that God has intended for the procreation of children." On the other hand, with contraception, the sterility is sought; for homosexual unions, the sterility is an integral part of the act.

If they say that animals engage in homosexual behavior, you can reply that animals engage in many behaviors we wouldn't want to copy; we have the capacity to operate on more than animal instinct.

If they say that same-sex attraction is genetic, you can reply that even if it were eventually proven to be true (which, according to the American Psychological Association, it likely isn't), so are various other conditions that predispose one to harm, including depression and alcoholism.

If they say that you're accusing all gays and lesbians of sin, you can reply that, according to the Church, "the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin." Only actions are sinful. You can also point out that you believe fornication and adultery are sinful, showing that it isn't about the orientation, but the action.

And if they say that you're accusing gays and lesbians of being disordered, you can reply that, as expressed by Jeffrey Mirus, president of Trinity Communications, being "ordered" means "whether or not it is operating according to its proper end. If it is not, we call it 'disordered.'" He continues:

[T]here are many disorders -- including most of our initial disordered inclinations -- that we are not responsible for, and for which we bear no blame. And again, as fallen beings, we are a mightily disordered lot. We experience either occasional or prolonged desires and attractions for all kinds of things that are contrary to reason, contrary to any careful analysis of how our faculties really ought to be used, contrary, that is, to right order.

The gay political movement largely follows the methods described in Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s gay strategy manual After the Ball. This includes making themselves seem victimized in order to gain sympathy; carrying out a "conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media"; and marginalizing people and groups who oppose homosexual behavior. Those opposed to gay marriage must have their own strategy, one based upon charity and facts. Many other resources are available from various places on the Internet.

In the final analysis, many of these well-meaning people are unaware that their support for gay marriage would create social changes beyond what they have imagined or would favor. Rather than granting legitimacy to homosexual relationships by calling them marriages, we would be opening ourselves to a society where marriage itself has little value and no fixed meaning. The gay-marriage movement claims to be about respect and rights for homosexual persons, but the inevitable result is that homosexuality must not only be tolerated but actively endorsed by all.

We are told that if we truly loved gay people, we would support the gay marriage movement. But true love always draws the beloved away from harmful behaviors, "always chooses the good of the person loved," as West puts it. Only a false compassion permits another person to drink the poison he wishes.

Viva o Cardeal !!

por Cardenal Cañizares

In análises digital

Se está dando un auténtico desplome moral. Con frecuencia se asiste a este fenómeno como espectador, sin percatarse quizá de la magnitud de la realidad, ni de la gravedad y hondura del problema. Se extiende y fomenta claramente el relativismo, la indiferencia y la permisividad más absoluta, inseparables de un laicismo activo: todo ello, incentivo y síntoma de quiebra y de corrupción moral. Algunos hechos despuntan como puntas de iceberg de este desfondamiento.

Podríamos señalar numerosos ejemplos, no presuntos sino reales, de quiebra y corrupción moral. Pero me limito a uno que es emblemático y sangrante. Me refiero, como es obvio, al aborto: al aborto legalizado, más aún, estimado nada menos que como un derecho en la legislación española, y al aborto practicado en tan alto número como se practica en España y en el mundo occidental. Digámoslo sin eufemismo alguno y con todo respeto: la reciente legislación constituye un paso más hacia una cultura nihilista y de muerte que corrompe al ser humano. Ante esto no hay todavía reacción social que clame con vigor y verdad: ¡Basta ya! Sí, ¡basta ya! a un estado de opinión, a un clima cultural artificialmente creado, insensible a la eliminación de vidas humanas débiles, inocentes e indefensas, no nacidas. Esto corrompe y quiebra al hombre en su conciencia. Nada más degradante para el hombre y la sociedad.

Todo esto, se quiera o no, contribuye al deterioro moral. Toda ley ha de ser educativa y no degradante del hombre; ha de buscar la salud moral y espiritual de la sociedad, de las instituciones y de las personas que la integran. El aborto no es una cuestión aislada. La falta de respeto a la criatura humana y el trato vejatorio dado a la que es la más débil de los seres humanos es síntoma de que la persona humana no cuenta, de que se la desprecia, se diga lo que se diga y se encubra con los argumentos falaces con que se quiera encubrirlo.

Quien no respeta la vida del niño no nacido, del ser humano indefenso, al que se le condena sin que medie posibilidad remota de defensa, no merece muchas garantías de que va a respetar a otras persona y otras cosas. Como el ser humano en gestación, no nacido, no tiene poder y como no posee nada, su existencia es decidida conforme a los intereses y preocupaciones de aquellos que tienen poder (padres, sociedad, Estado). El derecho a la existencia no se deriva entonces de su propia dignidad y valor, sino de la realidad ajena a él. Ésta es la total alienación del ser humano: su identidad, su ser persona respetable y digna por sí misma, la deciden otros.

Esto es así. Y esto genera una mentalidad, al mismo tiempo que la expresa. Lo que está en juego es el hombre, la persona humana, y su verdad, base de todo el comportamiento humano digno, verdadero y justo. Detrás de la corriente y de las legislaciones abortistas o permisivas del aborto se esconde una manera de pensar y de situarse el hombre ante su sentido y destino, en la que, en el fondo, no se puede afirmar algo definitivo y con pretensión de verdad sobre el hombre, o sobre el bien y el mal; más bien, sólo lo que la libertad decida. Así solamente cabrá el relativismo, el vacío o la nada. Éste es el verdadero problema donde se asienta la quiebra moral, la quiebra del hombre y de la sociedad.

Bueno y malo, honesto y deshonesto, justo o injusto no pasan de ser palabras, o apreciaciones. Moralmente bueno, para muchos, es todo aquello que agrada, que interesa, que no crea problemas, que da dinero y poder, o que reporta placer y goce al individuo. Falta formación moral y sobra relativismo. Se aprecian más, en muchas ocasiones, los bienes materiales que la misma vida humana. Se está proponiendo, sobre todo a niños y jóvenes, una sociedad de cosas más que de personas.

La crisis moral es quiebra de humanidad. El desfondamiento moral acarrea el hundimiento de lo humano del hombre. Consciente o inconscientemente se ha ido quebrando la moral de nuestro pueblo. Se han difundido, o se están difundiendo ideas, se han promovido o se están promoviendo comportamientos, y ofrecido modelos, hasta arrancar criterios y valores capaces por sí mismos de sustentar una vida moral digna del hombre conforme a la razón. El precio del deterioro moral, al que se nos ha acostumbrado, lo paga siempre la persona humana.

Cuando se pierde o sistemáticamente se destruye el sentido del valor trascendente de la persona humana, se resiente el cimiento mismo de la convivencia política, y toda la vida personal, social, económica o política se ve poco a poco comprometida, amenazada y abocada a su disolución. El riesgo de la alianza entre democracia y relativismo es evidente. Pero una democracia asentada en el relativismo se convierte con facilidad en totalitarismo visible o encubierto, como demuestra la historia.

Es preciso cambiar. Urge el cambio. Ha llegado la hora de un renacimiento moral. Es hora de la responsabilidad. Situarse con verdad, lucidez y libertad ante legislaciones permisivas del aborto, es una oportunidad que no deberíamos dejar escapar.

El cardenal Cañizares dice que tanto la izquierda como la derecha siguen propiciando el aborto

In Religiónen Libertad.com

El prefecto de la Congregación para el Culto Divino y la Disciplina de los Sacramentos, cardenal Antonio Cañizares, ha criticado este miércoles que tanto la izquierda como la derecha, estén a favor o en contra del aborto, «lo siguen propiciando».

Cañizares se ha expresado así en el curso «El inmenso valor de la vida» que dirige en la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos en Aranjuez, y que ha reunido al portavoz del PP en el Parlamento Europeo, Jaime Mayor Oreja, y a los ex dirigentes de este partido Juan Costa y Adolfo Suárez Illana.

Ha asegurado que mientras se haga del aborto «un tema puntual» y no se considere el «cambio cultural, total y planetario» que se está produciendo en el mundo «estamos perdidos».

En ese sentido, y al igual que Jaime Mayor Oreja, el cardenal Cañizares se ha referido a la «dictadura del relativismo» que, a su juicio, está provocando que las democracias estén «cayendo». «No existe democracia, y hay que decirlo», ha apostillado. Leer más

Causas de la homosexualidad

por Pedro Trvijano

In ReligiónenLibertad.com

La homosexualidad es un problema que ha afectado en todas las épocas de la historia a una minoría bastante considerable de la humanidad, no estando en nuestra mano el sentirnos atraídos por el propio o el otro sexo. Aún hoy los determinantes de la conducta homosexual no están del todo claros, si bien sabemos una serie de factores que la favorecen.

En la actualidad hay varias teorías sobre sus causas:

a) hipótesis genética, basada en que los estudios hechos con gemelos hijos de padre homosexual apoyan la conclusión que los factores hereditarios juegan un papel en la homosexualidad masculina. En efecto la probabilidad que los gemelos idénticos de un hombre homosexual también sean homosexuales es de cerca del 20 por ciento (comparado con el 2 a 4 por ciento de los hombres de la población en general), lo que indica que la orientación sexual se ve genéticamente influenciada, pero no que esté integrada en el ADN, y que los genes que están involucrados representan predisposición, pero no predeterminación. Estas investigaciones colocan en primer plano la importancia del sexo genético, pero no como factor totalmente decisivo;

b) hipótesis biológica, pues se dice que los varones heterosexuales tienen más desarrollada que los varones homosexuales y que las mujeres una de las zonas del hipotálamo, lo que daría a la homosexualidad una base biológica y neuronal, pero también investigaciones recientes afirman que no hay motivo para admitir la existencia de una homosexualidad transmitida hereditariamente, pues no se han encontrado desviaciones en el desarrollo corporal, en la estructura de los órganos, del cerebro, del sistema nervioso. Otra posible causa es el desequilibrio hormonal sexual, pero mientras algunos presentan ese desequilibrio, que además puede ser resultado y no la causa de esta orientación sexual, en otros no se advierte nada semejante;

c) hipótesis psicodinámica, con fijación en la madre y pérdida de la figura paterna y en las mujeres el no abandono de la fijación en la madre;

d) hipótesis ambiental, muy relacionada con la anterior, cargando el acento en la baja estima propia debida especialmente a experiencias infantiles en el seno de la familia nuclear, conductas de rechazo por los compañeros, no conformidad con el propio sexo en la niñez y las preferencias homosexuales en la adolescencia; dándose más fácilmente en familias conflictivas. Por ello muchos psiquiatras tienden a verla como una interrupción o bloqueo en el desarrollo psicosexual del individuo, y no se fijan tanto en las causas físicas o de herencia.

Para éstos nadie nace con una orientación homosexual, ni existen datos científicos que indiquen una base genética para las atracciones hacia personas del mismo sexo, sino que esta atracción es el resultado de traumas sin resolver que conducen a una confusión de género. El desarrollo emocional y psicoafectivo está abierto al mundo de las relaciones interpersonales, que en algunas ocasiones determinan y en todas condicionan el desarrollo emocional de la persona; no es por tanto una consecuencia ciega y directa de la biología. Piensan por tanto que la homosexualidad se aprende, es decir ven su origen en el clima familiar y social, pues consideran que muchos varones homosexuales tienen o han tenido una relación anormalmente estrecha con su madre, así como tensa y hostil con su padre, por lo que el chico incurre en una reacción defensiva de rechazo de lo masculino, dificultando así su maduración y no llegando a interiorizar completamente su identidad sexual masculina. Parece ser que los factores educativos, afectivos y ambientales, y no sólo los biológicos, influyen en la identidad sexual. Con ello se hace homosexual, sucediendo algo parecido, cambiando lo que hay que cambiar, en la homosexualidad femenina, es decir la condición homosexual generalmente indica un insano apego o desapego emocional extremo con uno o con ambos padres.

La homosexualidad es, por tanto, en esta concepción, una condición adquirida, si bien al ser con frecuencia una fijación precoz, puede dar la impresión al sujeto que ha nacido con esa tendencia. Pero a favor de que se trata de una tendencia adquirida y no innata está los hechos, que tanto ellos como ellas han sufrido alguna carencia en la relación con el padre del propio sexo, y la realidad, cada vez más indiscutible, de que miles de hombres y mujeres en todo el mundo han cambiado, pasando de homosexuales a heterosexuales. Aunque hay un influjo de lo hereditario, el ambiente, en especial las experiencias de la infancia, y el importante papel de las elecciones del libre albedrío individual, tienen un profundo efecto en nosotros. Si un hombre logra superar los traumas que le bloquean, se siente naturalmente atraído hacia la mujer. Es decir, todo homosexual es de forma latente un heterosexual y simplemente se ha estancado en una fase temprana de su desarrollo psicosexual. En consecuencia, bastantes psiquiatras se oponen rotundamente a admitir la existencia de una homosexualidad transmitida hereditariamente, pues no se ha demostrado científicamente que la homosexualidad sea el resultado directo de causas biológicas, genéticas o neurohormonales, sino que lo más que se puede decir es que tal vez exista alguna base genética, hormonal, neurológica o cerebral que predispone a la homosexualidad.

Hoy en día la cuestión de las causas, o tal vez mejor, factores de la homosexualidad es un debate que sigue abierto y con muchos puntos oscuros, si bien va ganando terreno la hipótesis de que la orientación sexual se establece en edades muy tempranas y que la homosexualidad es un trastorno emocional que se origina en la niñez, pues es difícil negar la importancia de las dinámicas familiares en períodos precoces del desarrollo personal, aunque sólo se consolide tras la adolescencia. Parece que la homosexualidad se establece a través de interacciones conjuntas de elementos genéticos, biológicos, psíquicos y sociales, es decir existe la creencia de que son una pluralidad de causas o factores las que intervienen para que una persona llegue a ser homosexual. La orientación sexual no la da solamente la biología, sino también la historia individual, familiar y social de cada uno, siendo la homosexualidad síntoma de un desarrollo afectivosexual inacabado y no de una evolución equivalente a la de la heterosexualidad, suponiendo un trauma sin resolver, por lo que quien la padece con frecuencia se siente rechazado y lo que busca es colmar sus necesidades de cariño, insatisfechas en su proceso de crecimiento.

Por el momento, puede afirmarse que sin negar la posible influencia de ciertos elementos biológicos, que pueden predisponer y condicionar de alguna manera, es sin embargo una constelación de variables las que intervienen y pueden encaminar a un individuo a experimentar atracción hacia las personas de su sexo, siendo los componentes psicosociológicos los que parecen ser los más prevalentes e importantes, lo que supone que, si no se llega a la heterosexualidad, es por un algo, que por alguna razón determinada impide u obstaculiza el acceso a la alteridad heterosexual.

IVF-Conceived Children Have Higher Risk of Cancer: Swedish Study

By James Tillman

July 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Children conceived with IVF appear to have an elevated risk of cancer according to a large population-based study conducted in Sweden.

Fifty-three cases of cancer were found among the 26,692 IVF-conceived children studied – a number that is significantly higher than the 38 that would be expected given the rate of cancer in the Swedish population. This translates into a 42% increased risk of cancer.

IVF-conceived children were also 87% more likely than the general population to have received a diagnosis of cancer by the age of three.

Researchers speculated that the increased risk might be mediated through other factors associated with IVF treatments, such as higher rates of preterm births and neonatal asphyxia.

Of the 53 cases of cancer in children born after IVF, 18 had hematologic cancer, 17 had eye or central nervous system tumors, 12 had other solid cancers, and 6 had Langerhans cells histiocytosis.

The increased risk fell to 34% greater than the total population after excluding infants with Langerhans cells histiocytosis, which is not strictly a cancer but a cancer-like condition.

The over-all risk increase rose to 52%, however, after excluding children whose mothers were born outside of Sweden or whose fathers or mothers were non-Swedish.

Increased rates of over-all health problems have previously been found in IVF-conceived children.

They have also been found to be at greater risk for genetic brain disorders and birth defects.

Philippine Bishops on Sex-Ed/Abortion: State Must Obey Moral Law

By James Tillman

MANILLA, July 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has issued a new statement, "Securing our Moral Heritage: Towards a Moral Society," in which the bishops address the issues of sex education, abortion, and contraception, and reaffirm the government's obligation to follow the moral law in its policy decisions.

"The fight against moral and spiritual corruption in our society is not only the duty of the Church," they state. "It is also the duty of the government."

The CBCP identifies two particular areas of concern: a new sex education program that the Philippine Department of Education has proposed, and a "reproductive health" bill that would promote contraception.

The CBCP states that the proposed sex education program, over which the bishops and the Department of Education have locked horns before, both "highlights and fortifies the concept that contraceptives provide 'safe and satisfying sex.'"

Yet, says the CBCP, advocates of the program ignore the fact that oral contraceptives are carcinogenic, that condoms often fail to protect against sexually transmitted diseases, and that, although the United States has "very liberal sex education programs and [an] aggressive attitude in pushing contraceptives and condoms for safe sex," it still has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates and one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases among teens in the industrialized world.

To attempt to teach human sexuality in a value-neutral fashion is to distort it, the CBCP says.

"Lessons on human sexuality are lessons about love, most importantly about God’s gift of love manifested in the total sexual dimension of the human person," the bishops write. "In the familial setting of a human trinity, father, mother, and child, there is a sincere and palpable gift of self and love from the parents."

The bishops have often upheld the rights of parents as the primary moral teachers of their children against those who wish to mandate certain forms of sex education in schools. The Philippine Constitution states that spouses have the right to "found a family in accordance with their religious convictions."

"In the family, the lessons of love through human sexuality can be learned with respect and awe for the 'wonder of God’s work,'" say the bishops.

"Such setting and such manner of teaching will not be found in a classroom sex education program designed simply to inform and not form."

Instead, "sex education has to impart a sense of the sacredness of the gift of human sexuality."

The CBCP also explains its opposition to the "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2010," HB 96.

"The basis of our moral objection," they state, "is once again the central religious truth of the divine origin and divine image of the human person, of one’s being and life."

"Like its predecessor, the main purpose of House Bill 96 is to make barren what is by nature fruitful and generative of human life. It promotes contraceptive barriers, techniques, supplies, and services that control fertility as if it were a disease.”

But “science has proven that some contraceptives render the mother’s womb inhospitable, thereby causing abortion."

They also point out that the Philippine Constitution protects "the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."

The bishops also say that the constitutional protection of the unborn child from conception is a legacy of the term of President Corazon C. Aquino, whose son just began his term as president of the Philippines.

"In spite of all the foreseeable opposition of politicians and powerful lobby groups," they say, "we pray that President Aquino’s moral legacy could be finally and fully realized during the term of her son, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III."

They also write that President Benigno Aquino's desire to rid the government of corruption cannot be accomplished without working to eliminate sin as well.

"To get rid of corruption at all levels of life we as a people must acknowledge our origin from the creative power of God and must be true to our identity as created unto God’s image and likeness," they say.

"To disregard moral and religious truths such as this is to be defenseless to the onslaught of corruption."

The Bomb - Real Catholic TV

See: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/dskM7ZRCG1w