sábado, 22 de janeiro de 2011

De millonario, drogadicto y suicida, a sacerdote, tras experimentar la misericordia de Dios

También fue un vagabundo sin techo donde dormir, deambulando por las calles de la ciudad de Los Ángeles durante meses.

In ReligiónenLibertad

Se trata de uno de los mejores predicadores que hay en la actualidad en los Estados Unidos. Tiene una historia peculiar y muy interesante. Antes de ser sacerdote, el padre John Corapi sirvió como "Boina Verde" (Green Beret) en las Fuerzas Especiales de su país.

Posteriormente llegó a ser un vendedor inmobiliario de éxito con yate, Ferrari y hasta casa a las orillas del mar.

Metido en ese papel de multimillonario sin complejos enseguida se aficionó a la cocaína y por causa de su adicción a las drogas, en poco tiempo, lo perdió prácticamente todo. Llegó a vivir sin nada durante meses deambulando por las calles de Los Angeles.

Un buen día decide volver a casa de su madre, una buena anciana católica italiana, y allí, mientras pensaba seriamente en la posibilidad de suicidarse, se produce su profunda conversión.

Después decide estudiar Teología en América y doctorarse en la Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Navarra en España. En 1991 es ordenado sacerdote en Roma por Juan Pablo II a los 44 años de edad.

En la actualidad es miembro de la Sociedad de Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad. Predica en múltiples misiones, retiros, conferencias y medios de comunicación de todo el país.

En el vídeo que está arrasando en You Tube "El nombre de Dios es misericordia", el Padre Corapi cuenta con un estilo muy americano su radical conversión y el gozo de perdonar y saberse perdonado.


El Papa pide a cristianos profesar la fe y hacer el bien en respuesta a crisis moral

VATICANO, 21 Ene. 11 / 11:29 am (ACI)

Al recibir este mediodía a los dirigentes y agentes de la jefatura de Policía de Roma, el Papa Benedicto XVI señaló que ante la crisis de la moral y la verdad que afecta a la sociedad actual en todos los estratos, los cristianos tienen el deber de profesar la fe y hacer el bien.

Al comenzar su discurso el Santo Padre dijo que los profundos cambios de esta época "crean a veces una sensación de inseguridad, debido principalmente a la precariedad social y económica, agravada también por un cierto debilitamiento de la percepción de los principios éticos en los que se funda el derecho y de las actitudes morales personales, que siempre fortalecen esos ordenamientos".

"En nuestro mundo, con todas sus nuevas esperanzas y posibilidades, se tiene al mismo tiempo la impresión de que el consenso moral decae, y en consecuencia, las estructuras en la base de la convivencia no logran funcionar plenamente", explicó.

"Se asoma en muchos la tentación de pensar que las fuerzas movilizadas para la defensa de la sociedad civil están destinadas al fracaso. Ante esta tentación, nosotros, en particular, que somos cristianos, tenemos la responsabilidad de encontrar el modo de profesar la fe y de hacer el bien".

Tras destacar que "en nuestro tiempo se da una gran importancia a la dimensión subjetiva de la existencia", el Papa señaló que hay un "grave riesgo, porque en el pensamiento moderno se ha desarrollado una visión reduccionista de la conciencia, según la cual no hay ninguna referencia objetiva al determinar lo que es válido y lo que es verdadero, sino que el individuo, con sus intuiciones y experiencias, es el criterio; cada uno, por lo tanto, posee la propia verdad, la propia moral".

"La consecuencia más obvia es que la religión y la moral tienden a ser confinadas al ámbito del sujeto, de lo privado: la fe, con sus valores y sus comportamientos, ya no tiene derecho a un lugar en la vida pública y civil. Por lo tanto, si por un lado, se da una gran importancia en la sociedad al pluralismo y a la tolerancia, por otro, la religión tiende a ser gradualmente marginada y considerada irrelevante y, en cierto sentido, ajena al mundo civil, como si se tuviese que limitar su influencia en la vida humana".

"Por el contrario, para nosotros los cristianos, el verdadero significado de la 'conciencia' es la capacidad humana para reconocer la verdad, y, antes que nada, la oportunidad de escuchar su llamada, de buscarla y de encontrarla".

El Papa subrayó que "los nuevos retos de hoy exigen que Dios y el ser humano vuelvan a encontrarse, que la sociedad y las instituciones públicas reencuentren su 'alma', sus raíces espirituales y morales, para dar una nueva consistencia a los valores éticos y jurídicos de referencia y por tanto a la acción práctica".

"El mismo servicio religioso y de asistencia espiritual que, según la legislación actual, el Estado y la Iglesia se comprometen a proporcionar también al personal de la Policía de Estado, testimonia la fecundidad perenne de este encuentro".

Finalmente el Papa afirmó que "ka vocación única de la ciudad de Roma requiere hoy que los funcionarios públicos ofrezcan un buen ejemplo de interacción positiva y fructífera entre la sana laicidad y la fe cristiana. Sabed considerar siempre al hombre como un fin, para que todos puedan vivir de modo auténticamente humano. Como Obispo de esta ciudad, me gustaría invitaros a leer y meditar la Palabra de Dios, para encontrar en ella la fuente y el criterio de inspiración para vuestra acción".

sexta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2011

Bed and Breakfast owners fined for turning away gay couple

January 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It is illegal in Britain for guesthouse keepers to refuse to allow two homosexual men to share a bed in their homes, according to a ruling by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in a test case sponsored by the country’s leading homosexualist lobby group.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, devout Christians who own a guesthouse in a popular holiday resort in Cornwall, were ordered by the EHRC to pay a fine of £1,800 each to Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, two men who had booked a room in September 2008.

The Bulls explained to the Commission that they have a long-standing policy of refusing double rooms to any unmarried couple, no matter what their “orientation,” at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance.

Mrs. Bull commented after the hearing, saying she and her husband were “disappointed” with the result.

“Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody. It was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the judge accepted,” she told media.

“We are trying to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith. As a result we have been sued and ordered to pay £3,600. But many Christians have given us gifts, so thanks to them we will be able to pay the damages.”

She added, “I do feel that Christianity is being marginalized in Britain. The same laws used against us have been used to shut down faith-based adoption agencies. Much is said about ‘equality and diversity’ but it seems some people are more equal than others.”

According to Judge Rutherford’s ruling the crucial factor in the decision was the fact that Hall and Preddy were in a legal civil partnership. Under recently passed equalities laws, civil partners must be treated the same as couples in natural marriages.

Judge Rutherford acknowledged that the Bulls had good reason to want to preclude what they regarded as immoral sexual activity in their home, but commented, “Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should automatically reflect the Judaeo-Christian position.”

A spokesman for the Evangelical Alliance responded to the ruling, saying, “Human rights law needs to face up to its current lack of fairness and inability to decide even-handedly where rights clash. This applies particularly to religious conscience and practice in public life.”

The case was one of the first to be brought by homosexualist activists against Christian hotel owners, under the Equalities Act 2008, a law put forward at the behest of the homosexualist lobby by Tony Blair’s Labour government. The situation of Christian bed-and-breakfast owners hosting homosexual couples in their homes was one of the possible scenarios discussed during the debates on the bill. The ECHR, similar in function to Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, was set up under the new law to administer cases of alleged discrimination.

During the giving of testimony, one of the Bull’s employees implied that the suit was a sting by homosexualist activists seeking to make an example of Christian hotel owners to establish a precedent under the new law.

Bernie Quinn testified that Stonewall had written to the Bulls a month earlier “advising” them to change their policies or face possible legal action. Quinn said that the two men gave false information to book a room that they knew would be refused when they arrived at the guesthouse. Quinn said that Preddy had presented himself as “Mrs. Preddy” when asking to book a double room.

The claimants’ barrister, Catherine Casserley, asked Quinn, “Are you suggesting this claim was a set-up?” Quinn agreed and said, “It is not beyond the realms of possibility. I have no proof other than the phone call.

“I cannot assume for them what their motivations were or weren’t. I assumed, going back to the phone call, that we were expecting a Mr. and Mrs. Preddy and what arrived was two gentlemen,” Quinn said.

Ben Summerskill, the head of the country’s leading homosexualist political lobby, Stonewall, praised the ruling, calling it a landmark decision. In a column in the Guardian he ridiculed the Bulls and mocked the idea that they had been “persecuted for their faith,” calling the suggestion “fatuous.”

However, some at the international level are less sanguine and are viewing the situation of British Christians with growing concern.

A Vienna-based human rights watchdog group issued a report last year tracking five years of anti-Christian incidents across Europe, including many that were motivated by newly enacted “equalities” legislation. The report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said that there is a growing recognition at the institutional level of discrimination and intolerance towards believing Christians.

In his closing remarks, OSCE Director Janez Lenarcic said that the organization has become well aware of “emerging issues” regarding equality and non-discrimination legislation and the difficulties faced by believing Christians.

In an interesting twist, one of Britain’s most prominent homosexualist campaigners, Peter Tatchell, has warned this week against “criminalization” of Christian opinion. Tatchell, a political libertarian, writing in a column for Pink News, the country’s leading homosexualist news source, referred to the recent arrest of Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine, who was taken into custody for expressing his religious opinion that homosexual acts are sinful.

“Freedom of speech is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Mr. Mcalpine’s views were homophobic, but the fact that he was treated as a criminal for expressing them, shocked me… Mr. Mcalpine was neither aggressive, threatening nor intimidating. He did not incite violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people…”

Tatchell contrasted this with the speeches of Islamic extremists who have “advocated killing gay people and ‘unchaste’ women” and have “heaped hatred and abuse on Jews and Hindus.” Tatchell relates that when he organized a counter-protest at one rally of nearly 6000 Islamic extremists, he and the five members of his group were arrested, but only after they were threatened with death by the Muslims at the rally.

“In contrast to Mr. Mcapline’s case, the police did not drop the charges and apologise, let alone compensate us. It took nearly two years of lengthy, costly legal battles for me to finally win an acquittal.”

“Just as gay people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should also have the right to criticise homosexuality. When it comes to expressions of opinion, only threats and incitements to violence – and damaging libels – should be prosecuted,” Tatchell commented.

quinta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2011

Christian therapist faces being barred after ‘sting’ by homosexualist journalist

January 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In yet another instance of the growing conflict between believing Christian professionals and the homosexualist movement in Britain, a Christian psychotherapist who helps individuals overcome homosexual inclinations may be “struck off,” or barred from practicing her profession.

Lesley Pilkington was the object of a sting operation by undercover journalist Patrick Strudwick, who approached her to ask her for help with his sexuality. He had told Pilkington that he wanted to leave the homosexual lifestyle and she informed him that she only worked within a Christian counseling framework.

Strudwick, who went to two counseling sessions with Pilkington and published the transcript of the meetings in The Independent newspaper, was awarded journalist of the year by the homosexualist organization Stonewall for the sting. After the sessions, he lodged a complaint to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy alleging that Pilkington had failed to respect the “fixed nature” of his homosexuality.

Pilkington, who is scheduled to appear before a professional conduct panel January 20 and faces losing her accreditation with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, said, “He told me he was looking for a treatment for being gay.

“He said he was depressed and unhappy and would I give him some therapy. I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted.”

Commenting on the case, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said, “Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual?”

“If, for whatever reasons – moral, religious, personal – a homosexual man wants to have help to cure this, he should be allowed to seek treatment. I’m not being critical about homosexuality at all, but if we have people who want to change, why should they be prevented from that happening?” Helmer continued.

The Christian Legal Centre, which is handling Pilkington’s defense, said, “Those offering counselling for men and women wanting to change their homosexual behaviour have been increasingly targeted by the homosexual lobby, many of whom do not accept that people can change their behaviour.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre said, “Lesley is a wonderful Christian counsellor who has practised for many years with an unblemished record.”

“It is shocking that she was targeted, lied to and misrepresented by this homosexual activist and even worse that her professional body consider her actions worthy of investigation.
“It seems that what the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy object to is Lesley Pilkington holding the professional and personal view that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation.”

“We are standing by Lesley and believe that in a civilised society, therapy should remain freely available for those who wish to change their homosexual behaviour, without the fear of intimidation and threats by the homosexual lobby.”

La Santa Sede desmiente que haya pedido a los obispos de Irlanda que ocultaran denuncias de abusos

In ReligiónenLibetad

La Santa Sede desmintió haber solicitado a los obispos irlandeses que no dieran a conocer a la policía los casos de supuestos abusos de menores por parte de sacerdotes. Esto, luego de que la televisora local RTE, y difundida después por varios medios comunicación, hiciera pública la noticia de una carta de 1997 donde supuestamente se hace dicha solicitud.

El director de la Sala de Prensa del Vaticano, el sacerdote Federico Lombardi, refutó a través de un extenso y detallado comunicado la información al respecto, calificándola de "tendenciosa".

En la nota vaticana, Lombardi afirma que la carta "no pide encubrir ni silenciar nada, ni comenta nada sobre ocultar pederastas a las autoridades civiles. El texto sólo afirma que: ´la situación de "informar obligatoriamente" [a la policía de meros sospechosos] plantea serias reservas de naturaleza moral y canónica´. Ni prohíbe investigar, ni informar a las autoridades de casos bien fundados, ni prohíbe tomar medidas a los obispos... sólo plantea "reservas morales y canónicas".

El texto completo del comunicado vaticano
En el curso de un programa televisivo en Irlanda se hizo referencia a una carta escrita por el entonces nuncio en Irlanda, Luciano Sotero, a los miembros de la conferencia episcopal en 1997. Esa fue presentada en modo tendencioso por algunos medios de comunicación como prueba de una indicación, de parte vaticana, de cobertura de casos de abuso sexual contra menores.
La carta -escrita en base a indicaciones de la Congregación para el Clero- se refiere a un documento específico de estudio de un comité de obispos irlandeses y pone de relieve los aspectos problemáticos, indicando la necesidad de una profundización que tuviera en cuenta también situaciones análogas en otros países y que fuera conducido en diálogo y colaboración con las conferencias episcopales de los países involucrados.
Es necesario, ante todo, hacer notar que la carta no dice en modo alguno que no deban ser respetadas las leyes en vigor en el país.

Además la carta insiste justamente en el hecho que es importante que la legislación canónica sea siempre respetada, precisamente para evitar que los culpables tengan motivo fundados para un recurso y obteniendo, por lo tanto, el resultado contrario al deseado.
Es necesario finalmente recordar que la carta fue escrita en un tiempo precedente a las normas de 2001 y a aquella unificación de las competencias en la materia bajo la jurisdicción de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, que ha ciertamente ayudado a la claridad de los ordenamientos y a la eficacia de los procesos.
El contexto de la carta de 1997

En 1996 los obispos irlandeses hicieron llegar a Roma sus nuevas normativas (de 1996) para luchar contra los abusos sexuales a menores. En esas normas se decía: "en todos los casos en que se sepa o sospeche que un niño haya sido, o esté siendo, abusado sexualmente por un sacerdote o religioso, el caso deberá ser comunicado a las autoridades civiles" (lo mismo se aplicaba a casos de adultos comentando abusos en su infancia). La norma decía también: "debe informarse sin demora al oficial de policiía", y añadía que si el denunciante pedía confidencialidad y privacidad (por ejemplo, cuando el caso había pasado décadas atrás, quizá con el culpable ya muerto y no queriendo alarmar a parientes o familiares) "aún así, no se debe dar confidencialidad absoluta, sino que expresamente hay que explicar esta política de informar".

Estas nuevas normas de 1996 de los obispos irlandeses, que implicaban denunciar a personas sólo porque "se sospeche", e incluso contra la voluntad del denunciante y eliminaban el derecho a la confidencialidad (normas que ni la ley irlandesa establecía, ni la de muchos países tampoco) no encajaban con el derecho canónico de 1983. Muchos pederastas reales podían utilizar a Roma declarando defectos en el proceso, y muchos acusados inocentes podían ver su nombre ensuciado sin derecho a ninguna defensa, por un mero rumor o chismorreo.

La carta tergiversada por la prensa
La respuesta llegó a través del Nuncio para Irlanda, Luciano Storero, en enero de 1997: es la carta que se ha hecho famosa ahora. Aunque Associated Press y muchos medios que han copiado su comunicado afirman que "Storero pidió a los dirigentes eclesiásticos abstenerse de cooperar con la policía", la realidad no tiene nada que ver.

Por un lado, muchos aspectos del documento de 1996 de los obispos chirriaban con el Código de Derecho Canónico: un caso juzgado en Irlanda podía apelar a Roma, y en Roma ser absuelto por mil defectos de forma. Por eso, la carta de Storero (quien se limita a transmitir un recado de la Congregación para el Clero), dice: "la Congregación desea enfatizar que el documento ha de conformarse según las normas canónicas actuales". No es una situación muy distinta a si una autonomía española crea una ley de delación y detención rápida de sospechosos de pederastia y un órgano consultivo dictaminase, con carácter previo, que no es constitucional.

El texto de Storero no dice "que se silencien los casos de pederastia porque podrían resultar vergonzosos e ir en detrimento de la Iglesia". Lo que dice es que si se aplica la nueva normativa irlandesa y se producen recursos canónicos hasta Roma (acusados que defiendan su inocencia), muchos juicios irlandeses podrían verse anulados y "los resultados podrían resultar vergonzosos e ir en detrimento de las autoridades diocesanas".

El caos de competencias antes de 2001
Por otro lado, la Congregación para el Clero sólo podía hacer sugerencias en 1997, porque no tenía la competencia sobre los casos de pederastia. La verdadera competencia correspondía a cada obispo, que debía usar el Código de 1983. Pero ya en 1997 se veía que esta fórmula no funcionaba: muchos obispos se desentendían o no querían usar el Derecho Canónico o querían pasar sus casos escabrosos "a quien sea en Roma".

Por eso, la carta de Storero explica a la jerarquía irlandesa que ya entonces la Congregación del Clero estaba estudiando a nivel global los casos de abusos en distintos países anglohablantes para, "en el momento adecuado, con la colaboración de las conferencias episcopales interesadas" establecer "directivas concretas respecto a estas políticas".

Es decir, en 1997 se buscaba una normativa común y eficaz para todos estos países: llegó en 2001, cuando se estableció que todos los casos de abusos a menores (con causa fundada, después de una investigación diocesana) debían comunicarse a la Congregación de Doctrina de la Fe, es decir, al cardenal Joseph Ratzinger, que antes de esa fecha no tenía apenas competencias en este tema. Desde que Roma centralizó los casos y la normativa en 2001, pudo darse cuenta de la gravedad del asunto y la ineficacia de las políticas locales o regionales previas.

Por último, la carta de Storero no pide encubrir ni silenciar nada, ni comenta nada sobre ocultar pederastas a las autoridades civiles. El texto sólo afirma que: "la situación de "informar obligatoriamente" [a la policía de meros sospechosos] plantea serias reservas de naturaleza moral y canónica". Ni prohíbe investigar, ni informar a las autoridades de casos buen fundados, ni prohíbe tomar medidas a los obispos... sólo plantea "reservas morales y canónicas".

quarta-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2011

"Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse"!

by Jimmy Akin

In National Catholic Register

That’s the sensationalistic headline of this story in the New York Times. As usual, it’s by Laurie Goodstein, and as usual she makes significant errors in her reporting that make the story more sensationalistic in a way that (just coincidentally) paints the Holy See in an unfavorable light. (So . . . what’s up with that, Laurie? You’ve been on the beat long enough that you should be better informed on these matters.)

As with previous stories of the same nature, this one involves a document from back in the 1990s that has now come to the attention of the press. It was a letter written by the Apostolic Nuncio of Ireland (that’s basically the Holy See’s ambassador to Ireland, though he also has a liaising role with the local bishops). In the letter the Nuncio—then Luciano Storero—communicated a message to the Irish bishops from the Congregation for Clergy concerning a document that the Irish bishops had drafted on child sexual abuse.

This letter was immediately hailed by groups like SNAP as the “smoking gun” they’ve been waiting for, showing that the Holy See took part in the cover up of sexual abuse, allowing it to be sued in court, humiliated, and have money extracted from it.

You can read (a tiny, low resolution image of) the letter itself here.

Now let’s walk through it and see how the claims made about it stack up against the document itself . . .

APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE IN IRELAND
N. 808/97
Dublin, 31 January 1997

Strictly Confidential

To: the Members of the Irish Episcopal conference
—their Dioceses

Your Excellency,

The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse or minors by clerics and the document entitled “Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response”, published by the Irish Catholic Bishops Advisory Committee.

So here is what has happened at the time the letter was written: Priests and religious in Ireland abused children. This came to light and caused an enormous scandal. (In fact, it brought down the Irish government.) In response, the Irish bishops conference (in conjunction with the Conference of Religious in Ireland) created an Advisory Committee to draft a document proposing how to respond to cases of child sexual abuse. The result was the document referenced above, which is online here in .pdf form. At least that’s a version of the document. Whether it was the version referenced in the letter is not 100% clear. In any event, this document came to the attention of the Congregation for Clergy in Rome, and now the Congregation for Clergy has asked the Irish nuncio to convey its impressions to the Irish bishops.

Note well: The Congregation for Clergy is not the same as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was the head of the doctrinal body, not the Congregation for Clergy. The head of that in 1997 was Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. More on him in a bit. For now the important point—given the press’s invariable attempt to read everything Vatican in terms of the pope himself—is that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has no connection with this letter. It wasn’t his department that was involved.

The congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.

So: The Congregation for Clergy has concerns that provisions in the document did not conform to canon law as it was in 1997. Fair enough. That’s not anything sinister. To give a civil law analogy, it’s a little like warning someone that parts of his proposed law appear to violate the U.S. Constitution. Warning someone that parts of his law appear unconstitutional is not a sinister thing. It’s a way of ensuring justice and avoiding a lot of headaches for everybody.

One might be wrong, and provisions of the law in fact might be fully constitutional (read: canonical), but saying, “Your policy needs to be legal in terms of Church law” is not evidence of evil intent.

The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the actions of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.

So the Congregation for Clergy (who is being quoted in this paragraph; note the open quotation marks) is concerned that some proposals in the Irish Advisory Committee document appear to be contrary to canon law. As a result, bishops acting on those parts of the proposal might take canonical actions against priests that are legally invalid. In other words, there could be miscarriages of justice. So what happens if miscarriages of justice occur? Well, the priests might appeal their case to Rome, and Rome might agree that there was a miscarriage of justice because the law was not applied correctly. In that case the bishop would be put in an embarrassing position.

And that’s quite true. A bishop would be put in an embarrassing and detrimental position if he violated canon law and a miscarriage of justice resulted and his actions had to be undone. There’s nothing sinister about telling a bishop that. People in positions of power need to be reminded regularly that their authority has limits and they must provide justice for those whose cases they handle. The law needs to be followed closely so that we (a) don’t have innocent priests being wrongly convicted and (b) we don’t have predator priests escaping punishment because the law wasn’t followed. The exact same concerns apply in civil courts: We need to follow the law to avoid miscarriages of justice.

Now, you’ll notice something that hasn’t yet been mentioned in this letter: the issue of reporting predators to the police. That hasn’t come up yet. All the discussion so far has been about making sure the Church’s own internal legal system is followed so that we don’t have miscarriages of justice.

How did Laurie Goodstein frame this in her article for the Times? She wrote: “It [the letter] said that for both ‘moral and canonical’ reasons, the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels. Bishops who disobeyed, the letter said, may face repercussions when their abuse cases were heard in Rome.”Read more

segunda-feira, 17 de janeiro de 2011

Em nome do Bem Maior

Quando se apela ao “voto útil” em nome do mal menor, como se não houvera outro remédio, o que as pessoas honestas e sérias querem significar não é que o mal seja querido ou procurado mas sim que o objecto da sua escolha ou eleição é o bem possível, que se busca para limitar um mal maior. É isto que torna moralmente lícita tal escolha. No entanto, caso haja outra possibilidade de limitar esse mal maior sem ter que tolerar o mal menor, por exemplo, suscitando ou promovendo um bem maior, a possibilidade desse “voto útil” torna-se ilícita ou mesmo aberrante.

Em Portugal a oligarquia partidária que usurpou o poder, através de fraudes e mentiras sucessivas, derrancou de tal modo a democracia que esta deixou de o ser. É certo que os mecanismos processuais, mais ou menos viciados, lá vão funcionando emperrados produzindo a ilusão de ainda vivermos de ainda vivermos nesse regime. Mas a verdade insofismável é que, como ensinou São João Paulo II, patrono dos defensores da vida[1], bem como os seus antecessores, vivemos sob um estado tirano e totalitário. Esta tirania totalitária foi produzida e é advogada por todos os actuais candidatos ou/e pelos partidos políticos seus apoiantes. Tentar descortinar entre todos eles qual será aquele que poderá de algum modo limitar um mal maior parece-me um trabalho praticamente impossível. Afigura-se-me ainda que votar em qualquer um deles é, de algum modo, cumpliciar-se não só com a podridão reinante como contribuirá para a manutenção e o reforço objectivo do regime.

Em Portugal, já há muito que ultrapassámos os limites daquilo que é suportável. O espezinhamento de todos os princípios e valores inegociáveis – que como ensinou Bento XVI não são um moralismo mas a fisionomia do cristianismo e, podemos acrescentar, do ser humano enquanto humano -, fundamentos de toda a vida social e política exige urgentemente uma insurreição geral, pacífica, através dos meios morais legítimos que ponha fim (ou pelo menos dê o empurrão inicial) a esta verdadeira catástrofe nacional e proporcione a restauração da democracia fundada na igual dignidade e na tutela de toda a pessoa humana em todas as fases da sua existência desde a concepção até à morte natural. É este bem, enquanto a mim, que deve ser procurado e alcançado. E poderá sê-lo através de um repúdio geral da corja manifestado na abstenção eleitoral.


Nuno Serras Pereira

17. 01. 20110


[1] Como sabemos o Papa ainda não foi canonizado pela Igreja. Por isso, com isto não queremos anteciparmo-nos ao seu juízo mas sim afirmar a nossa convicção profunda. Também não está declarado padroeiro ou patrono dos defensores da vida, mas fica aqui o desafio para que se faça uma petição ao Papa Bento XVI para proclamá-lo tal.