sexta-feira, 6 de maio de 2011

The Betrayal of Homosexuals

by Monsignor Vincent Foy

TORONTO, Canada, May 5, 2011 ( - On January 12, 2010, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, and now Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, gave the homily at the annual Red Mass of Saint Mary’s Basilica, Diocese of Phoenix. He said “We see before our eyes the evil fruits of life in a society which pretends to take the place of God in making its laws and in giving its judgments, in a society in which those in power decide what is right and just, according to their desires and convenience, even at the cost of perpetrating the gravest harm upon their neighbour.”

Among the evil fruits of this decadent age there is an unparalleled betrayal of homosexuals. That evil fruit we consider here briefly, emphasizing the betrayal as the rejection of justice and charity towards a significant number of God’s sons and daughters.

To reach right conclusions and point the way to undoing the betrayal it is essential to consider the truth about homosexuality and the truth about homosexuals.

The Truth About Homosexuality

First, we ought to have a clear notion of the nature of homosexuality. This is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2357). We are told that Sacred Scripture inspired by God, describes homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, that tradition has always declared homosexual acts as gravely disordered and contrary to natural law.

Many passages of Scripture could be quoted (e.g. 1Cor. 6:10; 1Tim. 1:10). Sufficient for here is a quotation from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans (1: 26-27): “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

This same judgment is confirmed by many Christian writers of the first centuries (e.g. St. Polycarp; St. Justin Martyr; Athenagoras.) Sodomy was considered one of the frightful sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance. An ancient adage declared: “Clamat ad coelem vox sanguinis et sodomorum, vox oppressorum, merces detenta laborum.” A free translation is “The voice of blood (murder) and of sodomy, of the oppressed and of those labourers deprived of their wages cry out to Heaven.”

The evaluation of homosexual activity as a grave moral evil was not exclusively Christian. All major religions and societies until this age have condemned it.

Reason also confirms Scripture and Tradition. Human anatomy proclaims sodomy unnatural. The complementarity of man and woman, physically, psychologically and emotionally, declare it (cf. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003: “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”). The very body cries out against homosexual activity. Disease is more readily contracted through sodomy then through natural relations.

The Truth About Homosexuals

Homosexuals enjoy all the rights inherent in their human state. The words of Christ “Love your neighbor as yourself” apply to all in their attitude towards homosexuals. Like all, they are called to chastity and holiness and we owe our cooperation in this magnificent vocation. It has been said that the only real tragedy in life is not to become a saint. Certainly the only true tragedy is not to die in God’s love and grace.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that men and women who have homosexual tendencies should be accepted with “respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided” (n. 2358). In justice we must condemn all violence against them, avoid all derogatory remarks and labels. An excellent document on this matter is entitled “And the Truth Will Make you Free” a Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986).

To sum up, Truth demands that homosexual persons be accorded all rights which follow from their humanity as persons created in the image and likeness of God.


Under the guise of liberalism, freedom of choice, conscience rights and a host of other masks we see at present the most widespread and prevalent betrayal of homosexuals in the history of the world. We consider this betrayal in its various sources sometimes against justice, sometimes against charity, and always against the truth.

This betrayal is sometimes self-inflicted, sometimes from outside the Church and sometimes from within the Church.

Self-Inflicted Betrayal

Whether it is due to misguided background, wrong education or self-deception or other reasons, homosexuals often deceive and therefore betray themselves.

An example of this is a recent demonstration in which homosexuals waved a banner which declared “Proudly Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Proudly Catholic.” Dignity groups foster a similar self-deception. Gregory Baum, primary perverter of Catholic Truth in Canada, advises homosexuals to remain in the Church and labour to change its teaching from within.

On February 5, 2010 Cardinal George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned “New Ways Ministry” which describes itself as “gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian and gay Catholics.” The Cardinal said; “I wish to make it clear that, like other groups that claim to be Catholic but deny central aspects of Church teaching, New Ways ministry has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church and that they cannot speak on behalf of the Church and that they cannot speak on behalf of the Catholic faithful in the United States.”

May other examples of self-inflicted betrayal of Truth could be cited.

Betrayal from Outside the Church

The betrayal of homosexuals comes mostly from outside the Church, from a culture saturated with secularism, paganism and atheism. They are betrayed by civil laws which proclaim the lie that homosexuals have a right to marriage. They are betrayed by so-called human rights tribunals which penalize the critics of homosexual behaviour. They are betrayed by school boards which order the teaching that homosexual activity is a legitimate life-style which must be respected. They are betrayed by some politicians, judges and governments. They are betrayed by the mumbo jumbo of pseudo-science concerning the compulsion to perverse behaviour.

Betrayal comes via movies, periodicals, television and all the media means.

For a time non-Catholic Christian denominations held to the traditional truth of the grave moral evil of homosexual behavior. Now, that unity in truth has crumbled. Now some non-Catholic denominations have homosexual pastors, lesbians, “priestesses” and Bishops. An example is Gwynne Guibord, lesbian Episcopal “priestess,” credited with getting the American National Council of Churches to scrap an endorsement of traditional marriage in 2000.

In June 2005 Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage. Soon there was a proliferation of non-Catholic churches allowing this mockery of marriage. At hand is a notice of the “Packet and Times of Orillia”, November 2, 2009. It records that the congregation at St. Paul’s United Church, Orillia, voted in favour of same-sex “marriage” at that church. Church members high-school age and up voted on this matter. “Overwhelmingly, the congregation voted Yes to the motion.” So God’s Law was falsely subjected to human endorsement.

Betrayal from Within the Church

From within the Catholic Church betrayal of homosexuals is varied and widespread.

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, OECTA, reacted favourably to the new Ontario legislation by which school children are to be taught that they should have a positive attitude towards the homosexual lifestyle.

For many years the now happily defunct Catholic New Times newspaper encouraged homosexuals to remain in the Church and work towards Church approval of homosexual conduct. Gregory Baum, still invited to speak at nominally Catholic Colleges, has been a constant supporter of this approach.

St Michael’s Hospital in Toronto is a supporter of the Gay Pride Parade.

So-called Catholic colleges like St. Michael’s in Toronto, support student “Rainbow groups” which condone homosexual activity.

In a major editorial in the Tablet (Feb. 6, 2010), England’s nominally Catholic periodical, there is a call for the Church to change her attitude towards homosexuality. We are told that the Catholic Church should facilitate greater acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle or risk losing public approval. The evil and error of this betrayal of homosexuals is described in LifesiteNews in a report dated Feb. 11, 2010.

The Tablet, often deviating from Catholic doctrine, is sold widely in the Catholic churches of Great Britain despite the prohibition of Canon Law. “Books or other written material dealing with religion or morals may not be displayed, sold or given away in Churches or oratories, unless they were published with the permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.” (Canon 827.4)

Frequently speakers at Catholic events or institutions betray homosexuals. Perhaps the most influential of such events is the Religious Education Congress under the approval of Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. It was scheduled for March 18-21, 2010. It has been described as the largest dissent-fest of all time, with 40,000 expected to attend, tens of thousands of them religious education teachers from the USA and other countries. Many of their speakers are promoters of the so-called gay lifestyle.

Among the 188 speakers were Fr. James Martin S.J., who says we need “public models of gay priests for Catholics to reflect on, to counter the stereotype of the gay priest as child abuser”; Rev. Bryan Massingale from Marquette University, opposed Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Act which would ban “gay marriage” and “civil unions”; Fr. Richard Rohr, once reprimanded for presiding at a lesbian “wedding”; Sr. Fran Ferder, who rejects the Church’s teaching against non-marital sex; Fr. John Heagle, who says moral theologians should listen to the “love stories of the gay and lesbian community”; Fr. Michael Crosby who criticizes the “unequal power between homosexual and heterosexual people”; Dr. Richard Gaillardetz, (who incidentally was a guest speaker at the CCCB conference in Cornwall in the Fall of 2009), who undermines Church teaching on sodomy, contraception and women’s ordination. There are many other dissenting speakers.

The above are only a sampling of numerous betrayals of homosexuals.

Righting the Betrayal

So widespread is the betrayal of homosexuals that we can only hope to curb it, not eliminate it.

Bishops have the power and duty to demand that all Catholic schools, colleges and institutions within their jurisdiction be faithful to Catholic Truth.

Priests through counseling, homilies, in the confessional, and catechesis can help homosexuals, often one by one.

The laity can encourage homosexuals and support the various organizations which promote chastity and holiness for homosexuals, for example “Courage” founded by Fr. John Harvey. In the U.S. there is Concerned Roman Catholics of America and other groups.

We can do what we can politically to defeat candidates who would promote the life of homosexual “marriage” or would permit homosexuals to adopt children. We can protest by letter or other means every attempt in schools to present homosexual activity as legitimate.

We can encourage Catholic groups like the Catholic Women’s League and the Knights of Columbus to engage activity in the struggle against the betrayal of homosexuals.

All can pray for homosexuals; we should never deviate from charity towards them while never condoning homosexual activity.

We can give homosexuals the example of lives lived in chastity and goodness.

To all homosexuals we say: Peace, Hope, and Joy in your daily pursuit of chastity and holiness. God be with you! May you always keep in your hearts the words of St. Paul “You are not called to immorality but to holiness.

See other LifeSiteNews articles by or about Msgr. Foy

Tragedy at Winnipeg: The Canadian Bishops’ statement on Humanae Vitae
Canada’s Greatest Defender of Humanae Vitae Calls on Bishops to Reject Dissenting Document
Canadian Tolerance of Gay Agenda Traced to Failure of Canadian Catholic Hierarchy
Famed 93 Year-old Canadian Priest Still Recovering From Grave Health Complications

quinta-feira, 5 de maio de 2011

Tempo de coversações para não se abster

As circunstâncias actuais parecem ser propícias para se alcançarem algumas vitórias em favor dos princípios e valores inegociáveis. No entanto, será impossível, para já, conseguir que qualquer partido político com possibilidade real de vencer nos represente na inteireza daquilo que é justo, concorde com a lei moral natural e com os direitos fundamentais e inalienáveis de cada pessoa humana em todas as fases da sua existência, desde a concepção até à morte natural. Por isso importa fazer tudo para limitar o mal existente no que se refere à vida, à família, à liberdade religiosa, à liberdade de aprender e de ensinar. Daí que os movimentos da sociedade civil, os movimentos e comunidades eclesiais, e os pequenos partidos políticos se unam para exigir a um ou mais partidos existentes, do “arco governativo” (se é que esta “adição” existe), caso ganhe as eleições ou, pelo menos, tenha uma votação suficiente para poder influenciar decisivamente as deliberações legislativas e executivas, o compromisso solene de tomar medidas concretas que limitem substancialmente o mal existente: aborto, pseudo-casamento entre sujeitos do mesmo sexo, divórcio expresso/sem culpa, ensino estatizante, estorvamento da sociedade civil e das iniciativas culturais e sociais públicas da Igreja e demais comunidades eclesiais.

Nas conversações a haver terá de ficar muito claro, preto no branco, que se as propostas forem aceites se comprometerão a uma mobilização em favor do partido que se comprometa solenemente a levá-las à prática e que, no caso contrário, se empenharão, com todas as veras, no apelo ao voto em branco ou à abstenção.

Os pequenos partidos poderão coligar-se com esse partido/s com possibilidades reais de influir ou então, concorrendo embora às eleições para fazer passar a sua mensagem, deverão depois desistir em favor desse partido/s do “arco governativo”.

O óptimo pode ser um inimigo do bom. Por isso, quando não é possível alcançar o bem maior será imperativo procurar o bem possível.

Nuno Serras Pereira

05. 02. 2011

The Church Is Infallible, But Not Vatican II

And it made mistakes, maintains traditionalist historian Roberto de Mattei. The dispute continues for and against the popes who guided the Council and put its innovations into practice

bi Sandro Magister


ROME, May 5, 2011 – In the homily for the beatification of Karol Wojtyla, Benedict XVI praised "the great legacy of the Second Vatican Council and of its “helmsman”, the Servant of God Pope Paul VI."

Pointing just after this to John Paul II as the pope who wanted "to entrust this great patrimony to all who are and will be called in the future to put it into practice":

> Karol Wojtyla Beatified. "They Will Look Upon Him Whom They Have Pierced"

The image of the "helmsman" applied to the Council is a recurring one in Joseph Ratzinger. One year ago – in a memorable Wednesday catechesis dedicated to an analysis of the tempest that accompanied and followed Vatican II – he gave "thanks to God" for those "wise helmsmen of the Barque of St Peter," Paul VI and John Paul II, who "on the one hand defended the newness of the Council, and on the other, defended the oneness and continuity of the Church, which is always a Church of sinners and always a place of grace":

> How to Pilot the Church in the Storm. A Lesson

Innovation and continuity in the Church. This is the key to interpreting the Council on which Benedict XVI insists without pause: as the only one that can make sense of the variations introduced by Vatican II.

It is a "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity" – words of pope Ratzinger – that is rejected en bloc by the Lefebvrists, but that also fails to satisfy some thinkers of the traditionalist sphere, increasingly disappointed with the current pope, as www.chiesa has documented recently.

One of the points on which the Council has fallen into error, in the judgment of these thinkers, is the freedom of religion affirmed by the declaration "Dignitatis Humanae."

The most blunt in denouncing the rift is the elderly and respected theologian Brunero Gherardini. In one of his books published a few months ago, entitled "Quæcumque dixero vobis," he writes in no uncertain terms that "Dignitatis Humanae" "renounced" and "reversed" the teaching of previous popes. And not on "historical decisions" of a practical nature, but in matters of faith.

On precisely this point, www.chiesa hosted on April 28 an essay by the philosopher Martin Rhonheimer that instead agrees with the Ratzingerian distinction between the "historical decisions" that the Church has modified, and "her inmost nature and true identity" that the Church has maintained:

> Who's Betraying Tradition. The Grand Dispute

The discussion reignited by the traditionalists is expanding, however, to a wider scope, not only on the issue of religious freedom.

The following are three new contributions, the first and third written expressly for www.chiesa.

1. The first is by Professor Roberto de Mattei, historian, author of a recently published "story never written" of Vatican Council II that reconstructs and highlights its elements of rupture with the previous magisterium of the Church.

A reply to de Mattei was published in "L'Osservatore Roman," with a very critical review, written by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto:

> Ma una storia non ideologica si può scrivere

And here de Mattei reacts, not only to "L'Osservatore Romano," but also to other criticisms from the Catholic side. And it is the first time that he has spoken out in defense of his book in such extensive and articulated form.

2. The second contribution presented further below is from a traditionalist American newspaper, "The Remnant," published on April 18 by one of its columnists, David Werling, in reaction to a commentary by Francesco Arzillo that took up the defense of the "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity" advanced by Benedict XVI, a commentary posted on www.chiesa on April 8, inside this article:

> High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict

3. The third interview is in reply to "The Remnant" and in support of the arguments of Arzillo, in addition to, indirectly, those of pope Raztinger.

Its author, Giovanni Cavalcoli, a Dominican friar and theologian, teaches at the theological faculty of Bologna.




by Roberto de Mattei

The speech to the Roman curia by Benedict XVI on December 22, 2005, opened a debate on Vatican Council II as exemplified recently by the books of Mons. Brunero Gherardini and the important conference of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, held in Rome between December 16 and 18, 2010, in addition to my study "Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta [Vatican Council II. A history never written]" (Lindau, Torino 2010).

The pope's call to interpret the documents of Vatican II according to a "hermeneutic of continuity" has in fact offered a decisive stimulus to developing the debate on the Council in a manner different from that of the "school of Bologna," which has presented it in terms of fracture and discontinuity with the bimillennial tradition of the Church.

I would have hoped that our contributions, motivated solely by a sincere desire to respond to the appeal of the Holy Father, should have been accepted, if not with enthusiasm, at least with interest, that they should have been given scholarly consideration and not rejected out of hand. As for my book, for example, I would have expected a serious historical discussion in specialized journals.

In newspapers connected to Catholic institutions I receive replies, instead, from Massimo Introvigne, a partner of the legal offices of Jacobacci Associati, a sociologist of religious minorities, now representing the Italian government at the OECD, and Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, with thirty years as a career diplomat behind him, and then, for almost ten years, in the first line of the defense of immigrants, Romani, clandestines, as secretary for the pastoral care of migrants.

Neither Archbishop Marchetto nor Dr. Introvigne, in spite of their ecclesiastical or professional merits, has probably had time to visit libraries or historical archives; neither of the two is an historian by profession. And both of them, in their articles – published respectively in "Avvenire" on December 1, 2010 and in "L'Osservatore Romano" on April 14, 2011 – reject my book not from an historical point of view, but from an ideological one.

Introvigne calls my book "a true summa of anticonciliarist claims," which "unfortunately proposes once again that hermeneutic of rupture which Benedict XVI denounces as harmful." Marchetto calls it an "ideological" history, "of extremist tendency," "polarized and biased" like the one orchestrated by the school of Bologna, albeit in the opposite direction.

The criticism of Marchetto and Introvigne seems to have a single purpose: to close off preemptively that debate which Benedict XVI has opened with an invitation to develop it. [...]

I believe, on the contrary, that Vatican Council II can be discussed on the historical level in a way no different from how Church historians have always done.

Addressing them in 1889, Leo XIII wrote that "those who study it must never lose sight of the fact that it contains an ensemble of dogmatic elements that are imposed upon faith, and that no one can call into question [...]. Nonetheless, because the Church, which perpetuates among men the life of the Incarnate Word, is composed of a divine element and a human element, the latter of these must be presented by masters and studied by disciples with great probity. As is said in the book of Job: '[Does God perhaps need our falsehood?' (Job 13:7)."

"The historian of the Church," Leo XIII continues, will be all the more effective in revealing its divine origin, above any concept of purely earthly and natural order, the more he is loyal in not dissimulating anything in the sufferings that the errors of its children, and sometimes even of its ministers, have caused over the course of the centuries to this Bride of Christ. Studied in this way, the history of the Church even on its own constitutes a magnificent and convincing demonstration of the truth and uniqueness of Christianity."

The Church is indefectible, and yet, in its human part, it can commit errors and these errors, these sufferings, can be provoked, Leo XIII says, by its children and even by its ministers. But this takes nothing away from the greatness and indefectibilty of the Church. The Church, Leo XIII said, opening the Vatican archives to scholars, is not afraid of the truth.

A truth that the historian seeks on the level of fact, while the theologian seeks it on that of principle: but there does not exist an historical truth that can be contrasted with a theological truth. There is a single truth, which is Christ himself, founder and head of the Mystical Body that is the Church; and the truth about the Church is the truth about Christ and of Christ, in the encounter with him, who is always the same, yesterday, today and forever.

My book is born from a profound love of the Church, of its magisterium and of its institutions, "in primis" of the papacy. And my love for the papacy wants to be so great as not to stop with the current pope, Benedict XVI, to whom I feel deeply bound, but seeks behind the man the institution that he represents. It is a love that wants to embrace with this pope all of the popes in their historical and intellectual continuity, because for a Catholic the pope is not a man, he is a bimillennial institution; it is not that individual pope, but it is the papacy, it is the uninterrupted series of the vicars of Christ, from Saint Peter to the reigning pontiff.

So then, there is no better way to express one's attachment to the pope and to the Church than to serve, in all areas, the truth, because there does not exist any truth, historical, scientific, political, philosophical, that could ever be wielded against the Church.

And so we must not be afraid to tell the truth about Vatican Council II, the twenty-first in the history of the Church...


Read the rest on the page of www.chiesa that hosts the complete text by Roberto de Mattei:

> "A council can also make mistakes"




by David Werling

Sandro Magister recently posted an essay by Franceseco Arzillo on his blog www.chiesa. Arzillo was writing in response to traditionalist concerns over Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”, particularly from traditionalists such as Roberto de Mattei, Brunero Gherardini, and Enrico Maria Radaelli.

Arzillo states that he is primarily concerned “that the question of the hermeneutic of continuity remains the subject of considerable misunderstanding”, and with the polemics that have emerged, an “ecclesial dialectic” that “tends to take on forms and methods that are more political than theological, and end up reproducing within the Church the right-left dialectic proper to modern politics”. Arzillo styles this right-left dialectic as progressives (those who see Vatican II as a break from the past entirely) versus traditionalists (those who question the whole of Vatican II and are not obedient to the present Magisterium).

Put aside for the moment that this is a gross oversimplification, equally insulting to both progressives and traditionalists alike, if Arzillo were really concerned about this unhealthy dialectic, we could expect an equal degree of criticism for both “camps”. However, Arzillo dismisses the progressives with one sentence:

"Much has been said and written – and rightly so – against those who persist in seeing in Vatican Council II the new beginning that is claimed to put an end to the period characterized by the 'Constantinian form' of the Church."

The rest of his piece is directed at traditionalists, which is really what Arzillo is concerned about. Arzillo gets right to it...


Read the rest on the website of "The Remnant," with the complete text by David Werling:

> Traditionalist Attacked... Again. A Response to Francesco Arzillo’s Essay On Continuity




by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.

Dear friends of "The Remnant,"

I am a Dominican friar who teaches systematic theology in the theological faculty of Bologna, a scholar of the doctrines of Vatican Council II for forty years.

I have read your criticism of the article by Francesco Arzillo on www.chiesa, and after obtaining his permission, I am happy to come chivalrously to his defense, in a fraternal debate within our shared Catholic faith and desire to obey the magisterium of the Church and the pope.

I will cover only three of the points of your commentary that seem central to me.

First point. I read in "The Remnant":

"What does Arzillo mean by 'Cartesian' as opposed to 'Aristotelian' mentalities? Is he saying that this traditionalism that must be censored is somehow dualistic? That’s not at all clear from what he wrote. Those who understand changes in formula as changes in doctrine really don’t seem to me, at least on the surface of the matter, to be dualistic Cartesians. Nor does it seem dualistic to me, at least on the surface of the matter, to treat theological concepts as if they were clear and distinct ideas. I’m not saying they should be treated as such, but it’s not specifically Cartesian to do so in any case."

By comparing Descartes with Aristotle, Aristotle did not intend to refer to the dualism of Descartes, of whom he does not speak, but to the Cartesian way of thinking, too attached to clarity and distinction, something that can be acceptable in mathematical thinking, but not in theological, which is a form of thought based more on analogy than on univocality. Now, it is precisely the method of analogy that is characteristic of Aristotle, and not of Descartes.

Analogical thought makes it possible to understand how a concept, while still remaining identical to itself, can however at the same time develop, progress, explicate and explain itself. This is typical of all vital phenomena, from the biological level to the spiritual. Because of this, Blessed John Henry Newman compared dogmatic or theological progress to the development of a plant, which grows and develops while still remaining itself. A five-foot oak tree is still itself even when it has reached one hundred feet.

Thus the doctrines of Vatican II must not be viewed as a disowning or rupture with the previous magisterium, but as a confirmation and explication of them. In other words, with Vatican II we know better those same truths of faith that we knew before.

Without a doubt, this thesis must be demonstrated, because in effect it is not always so evident. But as Catholics, supposing that matters of faith are at issue, we can suppose...


Read the rest on the page of www.chiesa that hosts the complete text by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli:

> Response to the traditionalists of "The Remnant," in defense of Arzillo

quarta-feira, 4 de maio de 2011

Jim Caviezel dice que interpretar a Jesús en La Pasión ha destrozado su carrera cinematográfica

Desde que interpretó al Hijo de Dios en 2004, las ofertas de trabajo en Hollywood se han agotado. Mel Gilbson le advirtió de que esto podía ocurrir.

In Religión en Libertad

El actor Jim Caviezel se ha pronunciado acerca de cómo interpretar a Jesús en «La Pasión de Cristo», la monumental película dirigida por Mel Gibson, ha tenido un efecto catastrófico sobre su carrera.

Según Caviezel, de 42 años de edad, desde que interpretó al Hijo de Dios en el 2004, las ofertas de trabajo en Hollywood se han agotado. He sido «rechazado por muchos en mi propia industria», recoge el Daily Mail en una intervención del actor estadounidense ante un grupo de feligreses en Orlando, Florida, durante un acto promocional de un nuevo libro de audio de la Biblia.

Caviezel recuerda que fue el propio Gibson quien le advirtió de las posibles funestas consecuencias de interpretar a Jesucristo en la que se convirtió en un éxito histórico de taquilla, percibiendo más de 400 millones de dólares en el mundo entero. «Me dijo: ´Tú nunca volverás a trabajar en esta ciudad (Hollywood)ante lo que yo respondí: «Todos tenemos que abrazar nuestras cruces».

«Jesús es tan controvertido hoy como lo ha sido siempre. No ha cambiado mucho en dos mil años», añadió el actor que aparece en películas como El Conde de Montecristo y Angel Eyes.

Antes de La Pasión, Caviezel fue considerado como una de de las estrellas ascendentes de Hollywood, pero desde entonces su carrera ha tenido grandes dificultades, lo que ha significado que solo haya hecho unas pocas películas.

Caviezel no cree que la leyenda de Hollywood Mel Gibson tampoco se haya librado de la «maldición» de La Pasión «Mel Gibson, es un pecador horrible, ¿no? Él no necesita vuestro juicio, necesita vuestras oraciones», sentenció.

To Be Born [English] 1080p

Watch in youtube

To Be Born is about a young woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy that seeks to have an abortion. In the midst of the procedure, she finds herself in a regrettable situation when she hears her unborn daughter begin to describe the chilling details of what is happening to her.

The film is based off a story called "A Letter from an Aborted Child," which had been used for nearly 10 years by Father Stephen Lesniewski for use to show women in a time of indecision. He estimates that over 500 babies have been saved because of his efforts in utilizing the aforementioned piece. Upon its' great success, Fr. Stephen decided to have a film produced with the hope that the overall message would reach an even larger audience.

terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2011

Abby Johnson: ‘I would give my life’ to undo the evil I caused at Planned Parenthood

May 2, 2011 ( - I never had the honor of talking to Dr. Bernard Nathanson. But someone told me once that he asked Dr. Nathanson about his remorse after performing thousands of abortions. Many of us that have once been in the abortion industry are frequently criticized for our public “lack of remorse.” Dr. Nathanson explained to this man that if he actually allowed himself to feel the depth of his remorse, he wouldn’t be able to live with the pain. I would say that is pretty accurate for most of us who have once lived and walked in those hallways of evil. I’m not sure my heart would take the pain if I really allowed myself to feel what I had done.

Have you ever watched one of those crime shows where they interview a prisoner who murdered someone? I recently saw one about a man who had killed a young woman. He had since become a Christian while in prison and the remorse for the life he had taken was so evident. He could hardly even talk about her. It was difficult for him to maintain his composure. Well, imagine that type of remorse times thousands and thousands. We were serial killers of the worst kind … we killed children.

Then one day, after years of living in foolishness and evil, we turn it around. We swallow our pride and admit we were wrong. We lose our friends, we are called names, we start over … but we know it is worth it. It is not easy, but it is right. We repent from our sin and we feel a sense of peace and joy that has never been in our heart before … but there is brokenness, too … and a stinging feeling of remorse that won’t leave. I remember wondering if the brokenness and remorse would ever lessen. Would it ever leave? It doesn’t. It is a constant reminder of who you were and what you have done. But now, I am thankful for the reminder … it keeps me focused, passionate, and most of all, praying.

For some of us, we go on to have normal 9-5 jobs and live our lives in the privacy of family and friends. Some of us live our lives in the public. I know I am called to work full time in the fight. I didn’t know that at first, but God revealed that to me in a pretty big way … thanks to Planned Parenthood’s media release. For those of us whose conversions are public, many look at us as heroes. But we are not … I am not. How could we be? We look around us and see people who have been fighting in this movement for years; they are heroes. We are criminals. We deserve punishment, not awards. We deserve to be cast out, not accepted. We don’t deserve forgiveness, but we seem to get it anyway.

Every day of my life I think about the women I took from. I took away their motherhood, I devalued them, I broke their confidence, I betrayed them. How I wish I could look into every one of their faces and tell them how sorry I am. If I could restore some of what I took from them, I would give my life to make it happen. I wish I could be there to wipe their tears when they mourn for their lost child. To know that you committed a terrible wrong that you can’t make right is one of the most desperate feelings in the world. And as desperate as I feel, I can’t make those wishes come true. But I do my best everyday to make it up to those women and their children. I failed them once, but I won’t do it again. I know they haven’t forgotten their children, and I haven’t either.

For the lives I have taken, ‘I’m sorry’ just seems hollow to even say. How do you apologize for killing thousands of children and wounding thousands of families? I’m not sure I have an answer. But I am sorry. I am sorry to the women I coerced into abortion. I am sorry to every woman who has ever had an abortion; you may never hear those words from the person who performed your abortion, but I want you to hear it from me on behalf of that doctor or clinic worker. I am sorry they betrayed you. I am sorry they broke your spirit and your trust. I am sorry they hurt you. I am sorry they didn’t have the courage to stand up for you and what you really deserved…a chance to be a mother to your child. We abused and disrespected you in the worst possible way. I am sorry. So many people probably disappointed you…your friends, your family, your church community, your coworkers, maybe others. I apologize on behalf of them, as well. I am guilty of selling abortion to my family, friends, coworkers, and even people I worship with. We should have stood up for you and your child. I am so sorry we let you down in the worst possible way. You deserved better than what we gave you.

The extent of my remorse, sorrow and grief runs very deep. I could never even begin to share it all with you on a blog. I’m not even sure I am aware of how deep it runs. But it is there … reminding me of the life I once had and how hard I must now work.

I am only able to handle the pain of my past with the help of Christ. I couldn’t do any of this without His grace and His steady hand guiding me every day. He has never given me more than I can bear. I have never felt overwhelmed. I see His love and compassion for me every day. It is the most amazing feeling of peace and wholeness. I don’t have to wonder if He’s with me … I know He is guiding my every step.

I am a BIG sinner. I am far from a perfect pro-lifer. I would say I am a mediocre Christian. I am definitely not the best wife and no one has nominated me for “Mother of the Year.” I always fail at having a perfect day, but I keep trying. I guess I want you to know that I am working so hard to make things right. I can’t take away the pain I have caused. But I can promise to dedicate my life and my heart to this movement. I won’t ever give up on these children. My heart is here and it is healing.

Reprinted from

Arzobispo Héctor Aguer: Legisladores deben pedir perdón a Dios por "matrimonio gay"

BUENOS AIRES, 02 May. 11 / 11:17 pm (ACI)

El Arzobispo de La Plata (Argentina), Mons. Héctor Aguer, recordó que Juan Pablo II fue un gran defensor del matrimonio y la familia, y aconsejó a los legisladores que aprobaron el matrimonio gay, pedirle al nuevo beato su intercesión para que Dios les perdone por aprobar esa ley.

Durante el programa televisivo Claves para un Mundo Mejor, del sábado 30, el Prelado se refirió a la presencia de parlamentarios en la delegación oficial que viajó al Vaticano, para representar al país en la ceremonia de beatificación de Juan Pablo II.

"Yo me permito, con todo respeto, deslizar una sugerencia: algunos de ellos podrían aprovechar esta circunstancia excepcional para pedir la intercesión del nuevo Beato de modo que Dios Nuestro Señor les perdone haber aprobado el año pasado en el Congreso de la Nación una ley inicua contraria a la enseñanza del Gran Pontífice, la ley que alteró la naturaleza del matrimonio en la Argentina", afirmó.

Mons. Aguer recordó que en vida, el beato Juan Pablo II también se ocupó de la defensa de la vida humana desde la concepción y "la objetividad y trascendencia de los valores morales".

El Arzobispo de La Plata afirmó que Juan Pablo II vivía en continua comunión con el Señor y que su magisterio "refiere todo lo que la Iglesia tenía que enseñar acerca del hombre en el mundo contemporáneo a la figura de Cristo Redentor, a la misericordia del Padre, a la presencia continua del Espíritu Santo, Señor y Dador de vida".

El texto completo está en

domingo, 1 de maio de 2011

Columnists' (favorable) opinions on beatification of John Paul II

In Catholic Culture

While some other columnists complain that John Paul II is being beatified too quickly, Peggy Noonan takes the opposite tack, arguing that the Church should move on promptly to canonize him.

Father James Schall remarks: "I have the impression that every man who ever met John Paul II, especially if he was a man of social, intellectual, or political stature, knew that he was meeting a greater man than he."

Quin Hillyer, in the American Spectator, agrees. After reviewing the life of the late Pope, he finds it impossible to resist the conclusion that he was "one of the greatest men not just of this age, but of any age in recorded history." (Hillyer seems to be under the mistaken impression that this Sunday's ceremony will be a canonization, but leave that aside.)

William Oddie, writing in the Catholic Herald, credits the Polish Pontiff with the beginning of a Catholic recovery from the unhappy fallout of Vatican II. Oddie believes that his most impressive achievement "was that he did more than any pope of the last century to defend and reassert beyond any doubt the stable and objective character of Catholic teaching."

Father James Martin, SJ, tells readers of the Washington Post that although he himself can be classified as a liberal, and was not enthusiastic about everything that Pope John Paul II did, he remains happy with the beatification, because: "We beatify a Christian, not an administrator."

And the ubiquitous John Allen, writing this time for BBC, points out that Pope John Paul II is not the first person to receive "fast-track" treatment from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. There are always reasons for that treatment, he explains, and they apply neatly to this case.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Karol Wojtyla Beatified. "They Will Look Upon Him Whom They Have Pierced"

Today almost everyone admires him. But in life he was opposed and mocked by many, even within the Church. His holiness is the same as that of the martyrs. His beatitude is the same as that of Jesus on the cross

por Sandro Magister


ROME, May 1, 2011 – In Polish, he used to say of himself in his last years: "I am a biedaczek, a wretch." A poor old man, sick and worn out. He, so athletic, had become the man of sorrows. And yet it was precisely then that his holiness began to shine, inside and outside of the Church.

Before that, instead, pope Karol Wojtyla was admired more as a hero than as a saint. His holiness began to conquer the minds and hearts of many men and women from all over the world when what Jesus had prophesied for the old age of the apostle Peter happened to him: "Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

Now that he has been proclaimed blessed, John Paul II is unveiling to the world the truth of the saying of Jesus: "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

He did not radiate holiness in the hour of his triumphs. Much of the acclaim that he received while he was traveling the world at a breathtaking pace was too biased and selective to be sincere. The pope who knocked down the iron curtain was a blessing in the eyes of the West. But when he fought in defense of the life of every man born upon the earth, in defense of the most fragile, smallest life, the life that has just been conceived but whose name is already written in heaven, then few listened to him and many shook their heads.

The story of his pontificate was for him a matter of lights and shadows, welcome and rejection, with strong opposition. But but his dominant profile, for many years, was not that of the saint, but of the combatant. When in 1981 he had a brush with death, shot for reasons still not entirely clear, the world bowed in reverence. It observed its minute of silence, and then went right back to the same old unfriendly song.

Many in the Church also distrusted him. For many, he was "the Polish pope," representing an antiquated, antimodern, populist Christianity. They looked not at his holiness but at his devotion, which wasn't a hit with those who were dreaming of an interior and "adult" Catholicism, so obligingly immersed in the world as to become invisible and silent.

And yet, little by little, from the crust of the pope as athlete, hero, fighter, devotee, his holiness also began to unveil itself.

The jubilee, the holy year of 2000, was the turning point. Pope Wojtyla wanted it to be a year of repentance and forgiveness. On the first Sunday of Lent that year, March 12, before the eyes of the world, he presided over an unprecedented penitential liturgy. Seven times, for the seven capital vices, he confessed the sins committed by Christians century after century, and asked God's forgiveness for all of them. Extermination of heretics, persecution of the Jews, wars of religion, humiliation of women... The pope's anguished face, already marked by illness, was the icon of that repentance. The world looked at him with respect. But also with derision. John Paul II exposed himself, defenseless, to blows and insults. He let himself be scourged. There were some who demanded more repentance each time, for yet more faults. And he beat his breast for all of it.

However, he certainly never publicly asked forgiveness for the sexual abuse of children committed by priests. But there is also no record of anyone leaping up in 2000 to castigate him for this omission. The scandal was still not big enough, for the distracted masters of public opinion at the time. Now the same ones who were silent then accuse him of that silence, they accuse him of letting himself be snared by the disgraced priest Marcial Maciel. But these are posthumous accusations that reek of hypocrisy.

The ones who understood what was true in the holiness of that pope were the millions and millions of men and women who bestowed on him the most grandiose collective "thank you" ever given to a man in the past century. The heads of state and government of almost two hundred countries who flocked to his funeral in Rome did so in part because they could not stay away from that wave of admiration that was sweeping over the world.

But John Paul II also wanted that jubilee of 2000 to be the year of the martyrs. The countless martyrs, many of them nameless, killed out of hatred for the faith in that "Dominus Iesus" whom the pope wanted to reaffirm as the only savior of the world, for the many who had forgotten about him.

And the world intuited this: that in the suffering figure of the pope was the beatitude that God had promised to the poor, to the afflicted, to those who hunger for justice, to the peacemakers, to the merciful. The pope mocked, opposed, suffering, the pope who was gradually losing the use of speech was sharing in the fate that Jesus had proclaimed to his disciples: "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me."

The beatitudes are the biography of Jesus, and therefore of those who follow him with pure hearts. They are the image of the new world and of the new man that Jesus inaugurated, the overturning of worldly criteria.

"They will look upon him whom they have pierced." As beneath the cross, many today see in the beatified Karol Wojtyla an anticipation of paradise.

(This commentary was written by Sandro Magister for "La Tercera," the leading newspaper of Chile, and published on the day of the beatification of John Paul II.)

Karol Wojtyla beato. "Contemplarán al que traspasaron"

Hoy lo admiran casi todos. Pero en vida fue hostigado y despreciado por muchos, también dentro de la Iglesia. Su santidad es la misma de los mártires. Su beatitud es la misma de Jesús en la cruz

por Sandro Magister


ROMA, 1 de mayo de 2011 – En los últimos años, decía de sí mismo en lengua polaca: "Soy un biedaczek, un pobre tipo". Un pobre viejo enfermo y extenuado. Él, que era tan atlético, se había convertido en el hombre de los dolores. Sin embargo, precisamente en ese momento su santidad comenzó a brillar, dentro y fuera de la Iglesia.

Antes no, Karol Wojtyla fue admirado más como héroe que como santo. Su santidad comenzó a conquistar las mentes y los corazones de tantos hombres y mujeres de todo el mundo, cuando él entendió lo que Jesús había profetizado para la vejez del apóstol Pedro: "En verdad te digo: cuando eras joven te vestías tú mismo e ibas adonde querías; pero cuando seas viejo extenderás tus manos y otro te vestirá y te llevará adonde no quieras".

Al ser ahora proclamado beato, Juan Pablo II revela al mundo la verdad de la frase de Jesús: "Bienaventurados los pobres, porque de ellos es el reino de los cielos".

Él no irradió santidad a la hora de sus triunfos. Los numerosos aplausos que recogió cuando recorría el mundo a ritmos impresionantes eran demasiado interesados y seleccionados para ser sinceros. El Papa que hizo que se derrumbara la cortina de hierro fue una bendición a los ojos de Occidente. Pero cuando se batió en defensa de la vida de cada hombre que nace en esta Tierra, en defensa de la vida más frágil, más pequeña, la vida del recién concebido pero cuyo nombre ya está escrito en el cielo, entonces pocos lo escucharon y muchos sacudieron la cabeza.

La historia de su pontificado ha sido generalmente de luces y sombras, con fuertes contrastes. Pero su perfil dominante, durante muchos años, no ha sido el del santo, sino el del combatiente. Cuando en el año 1981 estuvo al borde la muerte, atacado no se sabe bien todavía por qué, el mundo se inclinó reverente. Observó el minuto de silencio, para retomar inmediatamente después la vieja música, poco amiga.

Muchos desconfiaban de él también dentro de la Iglesia. Para muchos era "el Papa polaco", representante de un cristianismo anticuado, antimoderno, de pueblo. De él no vislumbraban la santidad sino la devoción, que no congeniaba con quien soñaba un catolicismo interior y "adulto", tan amigablemente inmerso en el mundo hasta tornarse invisible y silencioso.

Sin embargo, poco a poco, de la corteza del Papa atleta, héroe, combatiente y devoto comenzó a revelarse también la santidad.

Fue el Jubileo, el Año Santo del 2000, el momento del viraje decisivo. El Papa Wojtyla quiso que fuese un año de arrepentimiento y de perdón. El primer domingo de Cuaresma de ese año, el 12 de marzo, ofició ante los ojos del mundo una liturgia penitencial sin precedentes. Por siete veces, simbolizando los siete vicios capitales, confesó las culpas cometidas por cristianos durante siglos, y por todas ellas pidió perdón a Dios. Exterminio de los herejes, persecuciones contra los judíos, guerras de religión, humillación de las mujeres... El rostro doliente del Papa, ya signado por la enfermedad, era el ícono de ese arrepentimiento. El mundo lo observó con respeto, pero también con desdén. Juan Pablo II se expuso, inerme, a bofetones y a gestos de burla. Se dejó flagelar. Hubo quienes pretendieron que él formulara siempre otros arrepentimientos, también por culpas ajenas. Ante todas estas cosas él se golpeaba el pecho.

Pero es cierto que jamás pidió públicamente perdón por los abusos sexuales cometidos por sacerdotes sobre niños pequeños. Pero ni siquiera se recuerda que alguien haya saltado alguna vez sobre él en el año 2000 para reprocharle esta omisión. El escándalo no era tal todavía, para los distraídos maestros de opinión de entonces. Hoy sí, los mismos que en ese entonces callaron lo acusan por ese silencio, lo acusan de haberse dejado enredar por ese sacerdote indigno que fue Marcial Maciel. Pero son acusaciones póstumas que destilan hipocresía.

Para comprender qué es lo que había de verdadero en la santidad de ese Papa hubo millones y millones de hombres y mujeres que en la hora de su muerte le han tributado el más grandioso "gracias" colectivo jamás dado a un hombre en el último siglo. Los jefes de Estado y de gobierno de casi doscientos países que llegaron a Roma para sus exequias lo hicieron también porque no pudieron sustraerse a esa oleada de afecto que invadió el mundo.

Pero ese Jubileo suyo del año 2000 Juan Pablo II quiso que fuese también el año de los mártires. Los innumerables mártires, muchos sin nombre, asesinados por odio a la fe en ese "Dominus Iesus" que el Papa quiso reafirmar como único salvador de todos, para los muchísimos que estaban olvidados.

Y el mundo intuyó esto: que en la figura doliente del Papa estaba la bienaventuranza prometida por Dios a los pobres, a los afligidos, a los hambrientos de justicia, a los que obran la paz, a los misericordiosos. El Papa burlado, hostigado, sufriente, el Papa que de a poco perdía el uso de la palabra compartía el destino que Jesús había anunciado a sus discípulos: "Bienaventurados sean cuando los insulten, los persigan y, mintiendo, digan toda clase de maldades contra ustedes por mi causa".

Las bienaventuranzas son la biografía de Jesús y, en consecuencia, de quienes lo siguen con un corazón puro. Son la imagen del mundo nuevo y del hombre nuevo que Jesús ha inaugurado, el desplome de los criterios mundanos.

"Contemplarán al que traspasaron". Al igual que en la cruz, muchos ven hoy en Karol Wojtyla beato un anticipo del paraíso.

(Este comentario ha sido redactado por Sandro Magister para "La Tercera", el más importante diario de Chile, y fue publicado en el día de la beatificación de Juan Pablo II).