La detienen por repartir rosas en centros abortistas: Mary Wagner no le importa ir a prisión...otra vez

Devota del Rosario y la Madre Teresa, pequeña y frágil, dulce, nada amenazadora... así es Mary Wagner, interna asidua de las cárceles de mujeres de Toronto y Columbia Británica. Su crimen es ofrecer apoyo y alternativas a las mujeres que se acercan a centros abortistas. Cuando la encierran, aprovecha para evangelizar a las internas.

In Religión en Libertad

Trece de septiembre de 2011: Mary Wagner, católica de 36 años, es condenada a 40 días de cárcel. Otra vez. Ya ha perdido la cuenta de las veces que ha sido arrestada desde la primera, el 1 de febrero de 1999. Pero a ella no le importa: en la cárcel de mujeres ya la conocen, y aprovecha esas estancias para evangelizar. Y para consolar a las presas que han abortado.

Mary es pequeña, delgada, suave, nada amenazadora. Pero muy tenaz. En la JMJ de Denver (EEUU), en 1993, experimentó un despertar espiritual. Su familia era intensamente católica y pro vida, creció con diez hermanos, cuatro de ellos con necesidad de atención especial. Su padre era presidente de la Coalición Campaña por la Vida de la Columbia Británica, en Canadá. Su madre, militante de Birthright ("Derecho a nacer"). Desde que se liberalizó el aborto en Canadá en 1969, su familia acudió a marchas por la vida y rezó por el final del aborto en el país.

Pero en Denver pasó algo. Vio aquellos jóvenes incontables y su alegría especial. Con 19 años, Mary entendió "cómo Dios nos mira y nos ama a cada uno de nosotros de una forma cercana y personal". Siempre había sabido que Dios ama, pero ahora entendía su protección y amor inagotable. Y eso, declaraba ya en una entrevista en el año 2000, "me hace sentir feliz, llena de gozo y puedo vivir como Cristo nos enseñó".

Es decir, de la cárcel al tribunal y del tribunal a la cárcel.

Su crimen es entrar en clínicas abortistas, en la sala de espera, o en el jardín ante la puerta de entrada, y repartir rosas blancas con una tarjeta a las mujeres que hay allí. En ella se puede leer: "Fuiste hecha para amar y ser amada. Tu bondad es más grande que las dificultades. Las circunstancias en la vida cambian. Una nueva vida, aunque sea diminuta, promete un gozo irrepetible. ¡Hay esperanza!".

A veces, les dice: "estamos llamados a amar a todo el mundo". ¡Gravísimo!

Este martes, el juez William Bassel de Toronto la declaró culpable de "un uso y disfrute ilegal" de las instalaciones de la clínica abortista de Bloor West, cerca de Toronto. Y de "retrasar el desarrollo del negocio".

Los testigos dejaron claro que Mary había sido amable, tranquila, pacífica en su trato con las mujeres de la clínica, pero al juez le dio igual.

Cuando la policía se la llevó de la clínica, aún decía a las chicas: "no es demasiado tarde; aún podéis cambiar de opinión. Dios os ama".

El juez Bassel le prohibe acercarse al centro abortista y a sus empleados durante 3 años. Que hay que acumular a otras sentencias anteriores. Es difícil llevar la cuenta. Entra y sale. En la cárcel se porta muy bien. Soltera, sin hijos, pobre... no tiene nada que perder.

En la cárcel de mujeres (primero en Burnaby, en Columbia Británica; después en el centro Vanier, en Ontario) reparte folletos sobre la Biblia y la Iglesia. Escucha a las mujeres que han abortado (el 90% de las presas), llora con ellas, reza con ellas. Para cuando salgan, les recomienda centros que ayudan a la mujer a superar el trauma post-aborto. Recibe visitas y cartas. La gente pro-vida le visita, como hacían los primeros cristianos con sus presos encarcelados por el César. Mary reza mucho: ¿dónde la quiere enviar Dios la próxima vez?

En agosto la detuvieron de nuevo: dos policías ante un centro abortista. Mientras se decidían a llevársela ella rezaba el rosario sentada en la acera. Había entrado en la sala de espera a ofrecer a las chicas folletos con ayudas, con alternativas al aborto.

En marzo, después de 48 días de cárcel, Mary pudo efectuar en Toronto una de sus jugadas habituales. Siempre rechaza tener abogado, pide defenderse ella misma, y allí, en la vista pública, en vez de hablar de sí misma, en vez de defenderse, lee una breve declaración contra el aborto que suele llegar a manos de la prensa local.

"Ese negocio existe casi exclusivamente para destruir a los niños en el vientre de su madre; bajo el disfraz de ayuda a la mujer, se mata a bebés indefensos, y sus madres quedan heridas. Intentaba llegara las mujeres que consideran el aborto como una solucióna las circunstancias difíciles que atraviesan. Mi presencia era pacífica, y nace del reconocimiento del hecho de que una nueva vida humana existe desde la concepción", lee.

Normalmente, en este momento pide un minuto de silencio para recordar "a mis hermanos y hermanas destruidos por el aborto". En Columbia Británica algún juez se lo concedió, pero en Toronto siempre se lo deniegan.

En noviembre de 1999 la arrestaron por primera vez por violar el "área de seguridad" de un centro abortista. Fueron sus primeras navidades en la cárcel.

Además de repartir rosas, a veces exhibe carteles de la Madre Teresa de Calcuta que invitan a optar por la vida. Ella es una de sus fuentes de inspiración. Los grupos pro vida de Canadá aseguran que Mary Wagner tiene un don especial para hacer el apostolado pro vida ante las clínicas, porque por su dulzura y suavidad puede acercarse con tacto a las mujeres que acuden a esos centros.

Para escribir a Mary Wagner a prisión:

Vanier Centre for Women
665 Martin St
Milton, Ontario
L9T 5E6
CANADA

Catholic Bishops Weigh Into Budget Debate - by Colin Mason

In PRI

As Congress struggles to balance our out-of-control federal budget, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has officially put its oar into the debate. In an open letter to congress, the USCCB (along with Catholic Relief Services), told federal budget-crunchers exactly what programs they thought should be sliced from the budget. And, (surprise surprise) they are the same programs that we at PRI recommend cutting.

The letter was specifically addressed to the ponderously-titled Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, which is essentially the group of lawmakers who decide how to spend our foreign aid dollars. In the letter, the USCCB gave a ringing endorsement to the Mexico City Policy, the Helms Amendment, and the Kemp-Kasten amendment, saying:

As you consider appropriations language, we strongly support restoring the Mexico City Policy against funding groups that perform or promote abortion, and denying funding to the U.N. Population Fund which supports a program of coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.

It is also important to preserve the Helms Amendment, prohibiting U.S. funding for abortion, and the Kemp-Kasten provision, prohibiting support of organizations involved in programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Why does the Catholic leadership recommend these policy adjustments so forthrightly? Aren't policy matters supposed to be prudential concerns, decided by the state and left alone by the Church?

Yes and no. Obviously, the Catholic Bishops Conference has no legislative authority. But when it comes to issues like abortion, the Church has always taken an unequivocal stance against the practice and has strongly opposed spending public money on it. And as such, it is well within the Church's rights to make public recommendations based on these views.

Which is exactly what they did, by unequivocally supporting legislation that restricts or prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortion. By doing this, the Church made it abundantly clear that, while it supports many of the activities that federal foreign aid dollars go toward, it will never, ever bend on the issue of abortion.

That being said, the letter makes positive recommendations as well. According to the USCCB, when not being lavished on abortion and other destructive measures, American foreign aid funds are actually a very good thing. As such, the budget shouldn't simply be haphazardly sliced, but should be trimmed in such a way that its positive programs can continue to do their important work.

“We welcome appropriate efforts to reduce our nation's deficit and debt,” the letter says, “but we urge the Subcommittee to work with other members of Congress to be fiscally responsible in morally appropriate ways.”

And what, according to the Bishops, count as a “morally appropriate” way to control the budget? By prioritizing the dollars the way the Church has always requested they be prioritized: placing the poorest, the most vulnerable, and the weakest at the head of the line. The letter charges the Committee to “give priority to those who are poor and vulnerable at home and abroad” and to “cut with great care, eliminating only those expenses unrelated to basic human needs and development.”

This is a stinging blow in the face of all of those who claim that the Catholic Church is willing to cut an indiscriminate swathe through American aid services, so long as abortion is kept out of the picture. The very opposite is the case. The Church recognizes that its commitment to taking a stand against abortion comes with a very positive responsibility: a responsibility to provide real aid and succor to the poor and needy. This is why the Church supports many legitimate American aid projects.

And this is why the Church supports policies like the Mexico City Policy and others that protect life from conception. We couldn't agree more. Stand with us, and the Catholic Bishops. Sign our petition to bring back the Mexico City policy.

Trinidad Jiménez, Bibiana Aído y su píldora del día después han sido denunciadas por la Asociación Estatal de Abogados Cristianos

In Religión Confidencial

La AEAC (Asociación Estatal de Abogados Cristianos) ha denunciado a Trinidad Jiménez y Bibiana Aído por delitos contra la sanidad publica y por la grave negligencia de haber aprobado en su día la dispensación de la Píldora del Día Después (PDD) sin receta médica y sin considerar los graves riesgos que este fármaco tiene para la salud.

AEAC ha pedido a la Fiscalía del Tribunal Supremo que se investigue a Trinidad Jiménez y a Bibiana Aído por retirar la necesidad de prescripción médica de la PDD, ignorando la amplia literatura médica que advierte de los riesgos de tromboembolismo y accidente cerebrovascular que tiene este tipo de fármacos desde hace ya 30 años. Y, por tanto, poniendo en riesgo la salud de todos los españoles. Así aparece en el texto de la deducía:

“Tanto Doña Trinidad Jiménez (Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social) como Doña Bibiana Aído (Ministerio de Igualdad), son criminalmente responsables de un delito contra la salud pública, de conformidad con el artículo 363.5 y 372 del Código Penal, por vulnerar su obligación de evaluar la seguridad del fármaco, antes de permitir que se distribuyese libremente sin receta médica, ni supervisión de un facultativo”

Por otro lado, para la asociación de abogados cristianos, ven este hecho en total relación con el caso de la joven madrileña de 23 años que ha sufrido un ICTUS o Infarto Cerebral tras la ingesta de este fármaco que viene a comprobar los ya conocidos riesgos que el levonorgestrel tiene para la salud humana:

“Igualmente Doña Trinidad Jiménez y Doña Bibiana Aído son criminalmente responsables de un delito de lesiones, de conformidad con el artículo 152 del Código Penal, por cooperar necesariamente ( artículo 28.b del Código Penal) a las lesiones provocadas por el ictus de la paciente de 23 años, primero al no evaluar los riegos de un fármaco que se iba a distribuir sin ningún tipo de supervisión, y segundo, al permitir que el fármaco se proporcionase sin control , pues de lo contrario dicho ictus, con toda probabilidad no se hubiese producido”

También, dentro de este mismo documento, la AEAC ha denunciado ante la Fiscalía del Tribunal Superior de Justicia A laboratorios Alcalá Farma (Norlevo) y Schering (Postinor):

“A laboratorios Alcalá Farma (Norlevo) y Schering (Postinor) son criminalmente responsables, de conformidad con el artículo 363 del Código Penal, por no advertir en su ficha técnica del riesgo de infartos cerebrales, trombosis venosas profundas, accidentes cardiovasculares, infarto de miocardio, problemas de coagulación, embolia pulmonar y que la toma o uso de componentes de levonorgestrel incrementan entre 1,5 y 2 veces el riesgo de infarto cerebral”

Por todo esto, según la denuncia, desde la AEAC solicitan

-- La correspondiente querella criminal por un delito contra la salud pública perpetrado por Doña Trinidad Jiménez (Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social) como Doña Bibiana Aído (Ministerio de Igualdad), y los laboratorios Alcalá Farma (Norlevo) y Schering (Postinor).

-- La preceptiva querella criminal por un delito de lesiones, por imprudencia grave, perpetrado, como cooperadores necesarios, por Doña Trinidad Jiménez y Doña Bibiana Aído.

Famílias electrocutadas pela República – Comunicado da APFN

1. Na altura em que aproxima o agravamento significativo da factura doméstica de gás e electricidade por efeito do colossal agravamento do respectivo IVA, importa recordar um outro escândalo. Ler mais

Some varieties of atheism - by Edward Feser

In Edward Feser

A religion typically has both practical and theoretical aspects. The former concern its moral teachings and rituals, the latter its metaphysical commitments and the way in which its practical teachings are systematically articulated. An atheist will naturally reject not only the theoretical aspects, but also the practical ones, at least to the extent that they presuppose the theoretical aspects. But different atheists will take different attitudes to each of the two aspects, ranging from respectful or even regretful disagreement to extreme hostility. And distinguishing these various possible attitudes can help us to understand how the New Atheism differs from earlier varieties.

Consider first the different attitudes an atheist might take to the theoretical side of a religion. There are at least three such attitudes, which, going from the most hostile to the least hostile, could be summarized as follows:

1. Religious belief has no serious intellectual content at all. It is and always has been little more than superstition, the arguments offered in its defense have always been feeble rationalizations, and its claims are easily refuted.

2. Religious belief does have serious intellectual content, has been developed in interesting and sophisticated ways by philosophers and theologians, and was defensible given the scientific and philosophical knowledge available to previous generations. But advances in science and philosophy have now more or less decisively refuted it. Though we can respect the intelligence of an Aquinas or a Maimonides, we can no longer take their views seriously as live options.

3. Religious belief is still intellectually defensible today, but not as defensible as atheism. An intelligent and well-informed person could be persuaded by the arguments presented by the most sophisticated contemporary proponents of a religion, but the arguments of atheists are at the end of the day more plausible.

Obviously one could take one of these attitudes towards some religions, and another of them towards other religions. For example, a given atheist might take a type 1 atheist position with respect to Christianity and a type 2 atheist position with respect to Buddhism (or whatever). Or he might take a type 1 attitude towards some versions of Christianity but a type 2 or type 3 attitude towards other versions of Christianity.

Now, among well-known atheists, it seems to me that Quentin Smith is plausibly to be regarded as taking a type 3 attitude toward Christianity, at least as Christianity is represented by prominent philosophers of religion like William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga. Keith Parsons, by contrast, seems to take at best a type 2 attitude towards Christianity and maybe even a type 1 attitude. And Jerry Coyne seems almost certainly to take a type 1 attitude, though perhaps on a good day and with respect to at least some varieties of religious belief he’d move up to type 2. (I’m happy to be corrected by Smith, Parsons, or Coyne if I’ve got any of them pegged wrong.)

Now let’s consider three different attitudes an atheist could take toward the practical side of a religion, going again from the most hostile to the least hostile:

A. Religious practice is mostly or entirely contemptible and something we would all be well rid of. The ritual side of religion is just crude and pointless superstition. Religious morality, where it differs from secular morality, is sheer bigotry. Even where certain moral principles associated with a particular religion have value, their association with the religion is merely an accident of history. Moreover, such principles tend to be distorted by the religious context. They certainly do not in any way depend on religion for their justification.

B. Religious practice has a certain admirable gravitas and it is possible that its ritual and moral aspects fulfill a real human need for some people. We can treat it respectfully, the way an anthropologist might treat the practices of a culture he is studying. But it does not fulfill any universal human need, and the most intelligent, well educated, and morally sophisticated human beings certainly have no need for it.

C. Religious practice fulfills a truly universal or nearly universal human need, but unfortunately it has no rational foundation and its metaphysical presuppositions are probably false. This is a tragedy, for the loss of religious belief will make human life shallower and in other ways leave a gaping void in our lives which cannot plausibly be filled by anything else. It may even have grave social consequences. But it is something we must find a way to live with, for atheism is intellectually unavoidable.

Here too a given atheist might of course take attitude A towards some religions or some forms of a particular religion, while taking attitude B or C towards others. Once again, Jerry Coyne seems to be an example of an atheist whose attitude toward religion lays more or less at the most negative end (A). Perhaps Stephen Jay Gould took something like attitude B. Atheists of a politically or morally conservative bent typically take either attitude B or attitude C (though I know at least one prominent conservative who is probably closer to attitude A). Walter Kaufmann is another good example of an atheist (or at least an agnostic) who took something like attitude B towards at least some forms of religion. Indeed, he seemed to regard religion as something that speaks to deep human needs and whose moral aspects are of great and abiding philosophical interest.

Now these two sets of possible attitudes can obviously be mixed in a number of ways. That is to say, a given atheist might take a more negative attitude towards the theoretical side of a given religion and a more positive attitude towards its practical side, or vice versa. And he might take different mixtures of attitudes towards different religions or forms of religion. For instance, he might take attitudes 2 and C towards some kinds of religious belief, and 1 and A towards other kinds. Thus we could classify atheists according to their combinations of attitudes towards the practical and theoretical sides of religion or of a particular religion -- A1, B3, C2, and so forth.

An A1 atheist, then, would be the most negative sort, especially if he took an A1 attitude towards most or all forms of religion. A C3 atheist would be the most positive. At different times during my own years as an atheist, I would say that I tended to take either a B or C attitude towards the practical side of religion, and perhaps attitude 2 towards the theoretical side (at least until the latter part of my atheist years, when I started to move to 3 before finally giving up atheism). No doubt I had moments when I probably came across as more of an attitude 1 and/or attitude A type atheist with respect to at least some forms of religious belief -- it’s easier to remember specific arguments with people than what one’s general attitude was during a given year, say -- but overall I’d say that I probably hovered around B2 territory for at least much of my time as an atheist. (Walter Kaufmann was one of my heroes in those days. Indeed, Kaufmann’s attitude towards Christianity -- which was more negative than his attitude towards other religions -- influenced my own, and no doubt helped delay my eventual return to the Church.)

I find that atheists who fall on the most negative ends of these scales -- A1 territory -- are invariably the ones who are the least well-informed about what the religions they criticize actually believe, and the least rational when one tries to discuss the subject with them. And when you think about it, even before one gets into the specifics it is pretty clear that A1 is prima facie simply not a very reasonable attitude to take about at least the great world religions. To think that it is reasonable, you have to think it plausible that the greatest minds of entire civilizations -- Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Averroes, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Mencius, Buddha, Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, et al. -- had for millennia been defending theoretical and practical positions that were not merely mistaken but were in fact nothing more than sheer bigotry and superstition, more or less rationally groundless and morally out of sync with the deepest human needs. And that simply isn’t plausible. Indeed, it’s pretty obviously ridiculous. Even if all religious belief turned out to be wrong, it simply is not at all likely that its key aspects -- and especially those aspects that recur in most or all religions -- could have survived for so long across so many cultures and attracted the respect of so many intelligent minds unless they had some significant appeal both to our intellectual and moral natures. Hence a reasonable atheist should acknowledge that it is likely that attitudes 2 or 3 and B or C are the more defensible attitudes to take towards at least the ideas of the greatest religious thinkers and the most highly developed systems of religious thought and practice.

When one considers the prima facie implausibility of the A1 attitude together with the ill-informed smugness and irrationality of those who approximate it, it is pretty clear that its roots are not intellectual but emotional -- that it affords those beholden to it a sense of superiority over others, an enemy on which to direct their hatreds and resentments, a way to rationalize their rejection of certain moral restraints they dislike, and so forth. In other words, A1 atheism is pretty much exactly the sort of ill-informed bigotry and wish-fulfillment A1 atheists like to attribute to religious believers.

And here’s the thing: If there is anything new about the New Atheism, it is the greater prominence of atheists who at least approximate the A1 stripe. In Walter Kaufmann’s day, A1 atheism was represented by marginal, vulgar cranks like Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Now, equally vulgar cranks like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Myers, and Coyne are by no means marginal, but widely regarded as Serious Thinkers. This is the reverse of intellectual progress. And we know what Walter Kaufmann would have thought of it.

Una pagliacciata e un'infamia – Massimo Introvigne

In Bussola Quotidiana

Gli psicologi hanno scoperto che molti bambini hanno paura dei pagliacci, e i film dell’orrore sfruttano abilmente i postumi di questa paura. C’è spesso qualcuno vestito da pagliaccio che si rivela alla fine del film un serial killer o uno stupratore. Il legame fra pagliacciata e infamia fa da sfondo anche alla denuncia presentata contro il Papa e alcuni dei suoi principali collaboratori alla Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aja.

Benedetto XVI – nelle intenzioni dei suoi accusatori americani – dovrebbe fare la fine auspicata per Gheddafi o per i signori della guerra del Congo, ed essere portato in manette in tribunale per rispondere di crimini contro l’umanità. Pagliacciata e infamia. Pagliacciata dal punto di vista giuridico, e per tre motivi.

Primo: perché la Corte penale internazionale, istituita con lo Statuto di Roma del 1998 – cui lo Stato della Città del Vaticano, come del resto gli Stati Uniti e altri Stati, non ha peraltro mai aderito – è competente per i casi di «attacco generalizzato e sistematico contro la popolazione civile», intenzionalmente e personalmente ordinato dall’imputato. Neanche un pazzo può immaginare che il Papa abbia ordinato una guerra al mondo a colpi di abusi sessuali commessi dai preti. Secondo: perché la competenza della Corte è residuale e complementare. Interviene quando nessun singolo Stato vuole o può agire per punire crimini particolarmente gravi. Dei crimini dei preti pedofili si occupano centinaia di tribunali in numerosi Paesi del mondo. Non scatta dunque la competenza residuale della Corte dell’Aja. Terzo, perché la Corte si occupa di chi commette personalmente crimini e non di chi omette di punirli o non li punisce abbastanza severamente – diversamente, il suo ambito d’intervento sarebbe così ampio da sovvertire tutte le giurisdizioni nazionali.

Neppure gli estensori della denuncia pensano che il Papa abbia personalmente abusato di bambini o ordinato a singoli sacerdoti di abusarne. Accusano solo il Papa e la Chiesa di non avere reagito con sufficiente tempestività ed efficacia. Ma c’è anche l’infamia. Perché le accuse – oltre a non rientrare nella competenza della Corte penale internazionale – sono false. Scandalosamente false. Non è falso, naturalmente, che ci siano stati e ci siano ancora – anche se il numero dei casi nuovi è in costante diminuzione – preti pedofili. Benedetto XVI ha parlato più volte di sporcizia, vergogna e disonore per la Chiesa, in nessun modo associandosi ai tentativi di negare o minimizzare il fenomeno messi in atto – oggi, per la verità, sempre più raramente – da qualche pubblicista cattolico o qualche vescovo.

Ma la menzogna clamorosa consiste nell’accusare il Papa di avere promosso in passato – quando era prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede – o di promuovere ora una linea morbida sui preti pedofili. È precisamente il contrario. Mi occupo come studioso della questione dei preti pedofili da più di vent’anni, e ho fatto parte di commissioni d’inchiesta pubbliche e private. Da quando il cardinale Ratzinger ha cominciato ad avere responsabilità sul tema, semmai è stato accusato di violare i diritti della difesa con una serie di misure durissime e draconiane contro i sacerdoti colpevoli di abusi. Basterebbe pensare al costante allungamento dei termini di prescrizione. Oggi un sacerdote pedofilo può essere perseguito fino a vent’anni dopo il compimento del diciottesimo anno da parte della sua vittima. Questo vuol dire che se un prete abusa oggi di un bambino di quattro anni, la prescrizione scatterà solo nel lontano anno 2045.

Nessun Paese al mondo dove esiste la prescrizione contempla termini così lunghi. E il diritto canonico è oggi più severo della maggioranza delle legislazioni degli Stati anche con i sacerdoti che scaricano pornografia minorile da Internet – una riforma promossa dal cardinale Levada e appoggiata dal cardinale Bertone, anche loro ora assurdamente denunciati all’Aja. Tutte queste riforme sono state volute in modo sistematico e tenace, più che da chiunque altro, prima dal cardinale Ratzinger e poi da Benedetto XVI, che ha pure usato parole senza precedenti nella storia della Chiesa per denunciare lo scandalo e la vergogna della pedofilia clericale.

È grottesco e infame che si accusi proprio lui di proteggere – anzi, secondo la denuncia all’Aja, di organizzare – i pedofili. I giudici – anche quelli internazionali – ci hanno abituato a sorprese, in genere negative, ma tutte le previsioni degli specialisti vedono gli avvocati americani, come si dice nel loro Paese, «buttati fuori dalla Corte», cacciati a calci giù dalle scale del Tribunale che avevano imprudentemente risalito. Se così non fosse, avrebbe ragione chi considera quella dell’Aja un’istituzione potenzialmente eversiva e pericolosa: opinione espressa a suo tempo non da Gheddafi, ma dagli Stati Uniti, che come si è accennato non hanno mai voluto aderirvi. Se invece le cose andranno secondo le più logiche previsioni, e tutto finirà in una bolla di sapone, ci si potrà chiedere perché qualche organizzazione americana ha speso così tanto tempo e denaro per quella che resta una pagliacciata. La risposta non attiene alla pagliacciata, ma all’infamia.

Si vogliono colpire il Papa e la Chiesa Cattolica perché danno fastidio, perché sono i soli a opporsi alla dittatura del relativismo, della cultura della morte sostenuta dalle lobby miliardarie delle cliniche per gli aborti e per l’eutanasia e delle industrie delle pillole abortive, e all’ideologia di genere che ha alle spalle l’enorme potere delle lobby omosessuali. La protezione dei bambini dalla pedofilia – che sarebbe di per sé sacrosanta – è spesso solo un pretesto. Proprio lunedì si è concluso a Roma un vertice dell’OSCE (Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la Cooperazione in Europa) sui crimini di odio contro i cristiani, commessi non in qualche zona remota dell’Africa o dell’Asia ma nell’area OSCE, cioè nell’America del Nord e in Europa. Il vertice ha rilevato come esista un attacco ai cristiani in tre stadi: dalla cultura dell’intolleranza si passa alla discriminazione – che è un insieme di attacchi giuridici alla Chiesa – e in questo clima qualche esaltato passa anche alla violenza contro gli edifici di culto e contro le persone.

La pagliacciata e l’infamia vengono ora a confermare che esiste davvero in Occidente un’emergenza legata all’intolleranza e alla discriminazione contro la Chiesa. E che i princìpi non negoziabili, su cui si misura se un politico merita il sostegno dei cattolici, dai tre ricordati per anni dal Papa – tutela della vita, della famiglia e della libertà di educazione – sono ormai passati a quattro. Vi si aggiunge la difesa della libertas Ecclesiae, della possibilità per la Chiesa di svolgere liberamente la missione che il Signore le ha affidato contro l’intolleranza, la discriminazione e la violenza, contro attacchi quotidiani e feroci, contro pagliacciate e infamie che hanno ormai superato il livello di guardia in tutto il mondo, Occidente compreso. I politici che non sono capaci di dire basta a tutto questo non meritano la nostra fiducia.

Vaticano crearía Prelatura personal para lefebvristas si aceptan condiciones mínimas

VATICANO, 14 Sep. 11 / 01:29 pm (ACI/EWTN Noticias)

La Oficina de Prensa de la Santa Sede informó que la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X –que agrupa a los seguidores del arzobispo Marcel Lefebvre que ordenó cuatro obispos sin permiso del Papa y falleció excomulgado– debe aceptar unas condiciones mínimas que aseguren su fidelidad al Magisterio para volver a la comunión de la Iglesia Católica.

En un comunicado oficial, la Santa Sede explica que el grupo ha recibido un documento llamado Preámbulo doctrinal con estas exigencias.

El P. Federico Lombardi, Director de la Sala de Prensa de la Santa Sede, explicó que de aceptar las condiciones expuestas en un Preámbulo doctrinal, el status jurídico que recibiría la Fraternidad podría ser el de Prelatura personal, una jurisdicción eclesial sin límites geográficos para iniciativas pastorales.

El comunicado sigue a un encuentro realizado hoy en el Vaticano y que duró unas dos horas, entre el Cardenal William Levada, Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe y Presidente de la Comisión Ecclesia Dei (creada para el diálogo con los lefebvristas), y el obispo Bernard Fellay, Superior General de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X.

Este encuentro cierra las ocho sesiones de diálogo doctrinal entre los expertos del Vaticano y los representantes de la Fraternidad, sostenidos entre 2009 y 2011, a pedido del Papa luego del levantamiento de la excomunión de los cuatro obispos ordenados por Lefebvre.

En declaraciones a ACI Prensa, fuentes vaticanas explicaron que lo que se ha expuesto a la Fraternidad durante el encuentro de hoy ha sido "definitivamente un ofrecimiento muy generoso".

Si bien el Vaticano no le ha dado un plazo a la Fraternidad para firmar el acuerdo, el P. Lombardi comentó que espera que los lefebvristas tomen su decisión "en unos meses".

Aunque no quiso dar detalles de lo que se menciona en el Preámbulo doctrinal, el vocero vaticano sí dijo que hay algunas enseñanzas de la Iglesia que exigen la aceptación total de la Fraternidad, mientras que otras pueden quedar todavía abiertas al debate.

El comunicado de hoy señala que el Preámbulo doctrinal "establece algunos principios doctrinales y criterios de interpretación de la doctrina católica, necesarios para garantizar la fidelidad al Magisterio de la Iglesia y el ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’ (sentir con la Iglesia)".

Al mismo tiempo, prosigue, deja abierta "a una discusión legítima, el estudio y la explicación teológica de expresiones o formulaciones particulares presentes en los documentos del Concilio Vaticano II y del Magisterio sucesivo".

El texto de la Oficina de Prensa también recuerda que el Santo Padre decidió levantar la excomunión que pesaba sobre los cuatro obispos ordenados por Lefebvre "a raíz de la súplica dirigida por el Superior General de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X a Su Santidad Benedicto XVI el 15 de diciembre de 2008".

Antecedentes

Pese a los distintos esfuerzos del Papa y la Santa Sede para que la Fraternidad vuelva a la plena comunión de la Iglesia Católica, en agosto de este año, Bernard Fellay señaló que su organización "no tiene la intención" de aceptar el Concilio Vaticano II.

Sobre la reunión de hoy, Fellay dijo que "si su objetivo es siempre la aceptación del Concilio por parte de la Fraternidad, las discusiones han sido lo suficientemente claras para mostrar que nosotros no tenemos la intención de seguir ese camino".

"Es claro que si existe alguien que ve en el Concilio una ruptura con el pasado, esos somos nosotros", añadía.

Fellay dijo también que "nosotros no dudamos en atacar al Concilio en cuanto tal, poniendo un acento en lo que está mal".

Hasta el momento, la Fraternidad Sacerdotal San Pío X carece de estatus jurídico en la Iglesia y sus ministros no ejercen un ministerio legítimo, como explica el comunicado de febrero de 2009 de la Secretaría de Estado de la Santa Sede.

Ese texto precisa que "el levantamiento de la excomunión ha liberado a los cuatro obispos de una pena canónica gravísima, pero no ha cambiado la situación jurídica de la Fraternidad San Pío X, que en el momento actual, no goza de ningún reconocimiento canónico en la Iglesia Católica".

Este texto también señalaba que los cuatro obispos a quienes se les levantó la excomunión están obligados al "pleno reconocimiento del Concilio Vaticano II" y del Magisterio de todos los Papas posteriores a Pío XII.

Las declaraciones de Fellay de agosto de este año, se suman a una serie de declaraciones suyas y del Obispo Richard Williamson, duramente cuestionado por negar el holocausto judío, en las que rechazan la mano tendida del Papa.

En enero de 2010, por ejemplo, Williamson dijo que las conversaciones de su grupo con la Santa Sede constituyen "una conversación entre sordos" en la que nunca se va a llegar a un acuerdo porque ambas posiciones son "absolutamente irreconciliables".

El principal obstáculo para el diálogo entre el Vaticano y los lefebvristas hasta ahora ha sido el rechazo de estos últimos al Concilio Vaticano II, el histórico evento que entre 1962 y 1965 congregó a obispos de todo el mundo y que produjo un cuerpo de doctrina que busca promover la fe católica, renovar la vida de los fieles, adaptar la liturgia y alentar la presencia de los laicos.

Pope should be tried for crimes against humanity

American associations of paedophilia victims have submitted a dossier to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. “The Pope and the Curia’s top dogs have covered up the rape of children all across the world.” The Holy See has refused to comment.

by Alessandro Speciale
vatican city

In Vatican Insider

The biggest association of paedophilia victims who have suffered at the hands of members of the Catholic Church has asked the International Criminal Court to try Benedict XVI and the heads of the Roman Curia, for “crimes against humanity.”

SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, presented an 80 page long document to the ICC at The Hague, to show how the Vatican allegedly “tolerated and made possible the systematic and widespread cover up of rapes and sexual crimes against children across the world.”

SNAP, together with the American NGO Center for Constitutional Rights, has asked the ICC for a “declaration of judicial jurisdiction.” In practice, this means, the Court should declare itself authorized to deal with the case, in the light of the proof that "legal action taken on a national level, was not sufficient in preventing the abuse against minors from continuing.”

It is now up to the ICC’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Louis Moreno-Ocampo, to decide whether to accept the appeal or not. SNAP hopes that The Hague’s ICC will at least decide to open a preliminary investigation to see whether the case in under their jurisdiction.

The International Criminal Court, an organisation that is independent from the UN, has been operative since July 2002 and according to its constituent treaty, it is called to judge individuals assumed responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide. It can act in cases where a Country’s criminal system is unable to deal with a case, or when it receives a mandate from the Security Council at the United Nations Headquarters, as happened in the case of Muammar Gheddafi and the leaders of the Libyan regime.

The Holy See is not among the 117 Countries that signed the Treaty of Rome which created the Court.

Besides Pope Benedict XVI, who was also mentioned for his previous role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the victims of abuse have also pointed the finger at the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, his predecessor, Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada.

For now, the Holy See is refusing to comment on the initiative, but the Archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, who is currently in Munich, participating in the interreligious meeting for peace convened by the Community of Sant’Egidio, branded the appeal as “the usual anti – Catholic attempt to cast a shadow over our image which, in human terms, is our greatest asset in the society in which we live.”

Besides SNAP, the case is also being presented by five individual victims, whose stories, according to the organisation’s press release, show the “global effect” of the abuse crisis. Among them is an adolescent from Minessota who was apparently repeatedly “raped” by an Indian priest since 2004, and a 44 year old Congolese man who was allegedly abused between the ages of 12 and 16, by a Belgian missionary.

In both cases, the Holy See apparently did not collaborate in international investigations and the two priests allegedly still have contact with minors in their ministry.

SNAP’s President, Barbara Blaine, declared, “We have taken this historic initiative today for a very simple reason: to protect innocent children and vulnerable adults. We believe there to be hundreds of children throughout the world who have fallen victim to violence by priests, nuns, bishops and Catholic seminarians. This violence is widespread and has been systematically covered up for decades now, by heads of the Catholic Church and an insensitive, reticent, rigid and powerful hierarchy.”

To gather support for their initiative, SNAP’s American and European representatives have launched a European tour, due to take place over the next few days, during which they will pass through all the Continent’s major capitals. They will be reaching Rome on 20 September.

Assisted Suicide: The Forgotten Front in the Fight for Life - by Adam J. MacLeod

by Adam J. MacLeod

In The Public Discourse

As the proponents of assisted suicide strive to legalize it in Massachusetts, we should take another look at their arguments and the deceptions therein.

The battle over assisted suicide and euthanasia is not over; advocates of assisted suicide are not resting. While earnest and engaged Americans are focused on the economy, an upcoming presidential primary, and impending Supreme Court battles over the health insurance mandate and same-sex marriage, the culture of death continues to advance largely unnoticed along a front that some had supposed was dormant. Now, from the Bay State, comes news that advocates for assisted suicide have succeeded in bringing before Massachusetts voters a ballot initiative that would permit doctors to help their ill patients kill themselves. The initiative will appear next year. If it succeeds, Massachusetts would join Oregon and Washington in legalizing assisted suicide. Montana remains in limbo after the state high court called into question the enforceability of Montana’s prohibition against assisting suicide, but the legislature earlier this year declined to legalize the practice expressly.

People quite naturally recognize that life is better than death, that the deliberate destruction of life is an evil to be avoided, and that the state has a role to play in preventing suicides. It follows logically from these uncontested (and incontestable) observations that state laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide are just and efficacious. But, like magicians who use distractions to remove the important object from view, proponents of legalized death have shrouded the inviolability of human life in a mist of confusion. Exposing their ploys is the first step in defeating their efforts to advance the culture of death. Below are three arguments that are likely to be advanced for legalization in Massachusetts. All three are designed to distract and to deceive.

The Alleviation-of-Suffering Ploy

In public, proponents of assisted suicide most commonly characterize assisted suicide as the only hope of relief for “suffering patients” who are afflicted with serious illnesses. This plea is of course designed to appeal to voters’ (rightful, natural) sense of compassion for those unfortunate souls in whose shoes none of us would choose to walk. None of us likes to contemplate what it would be like to be told by a doctor that one has just a few months to live, and that one’s most prominent experience during those final months will be unrelenting pain. And we cannot bring ourselves to judge our neighbor who is forced to face such grim prospects. Who are we to tell the terminally ill patient that she must not end her life a few weeks early, and that she may not avoid the suffering and indignity that attend such horrible illnesses?

Thus, cleverly, assisted suicide proponents use voters’ natural aversion to death and suffering to build support for legalized death. To be against suffering is to be against laws that unnecessarily prolong a life of suffering, the argument runs. To celebrate life is to celebrate what is good and enjoyable in life, not to burden the terminally ill with a dark and unendurable coda.

This is an effective ploy, but it rests upon a bold deception. Assisted suicide is neither necessary, nor actually used, for the alleviation of pain. Indeed, the data show a wide gulf between the public justifications for assisted suicide and its actual use in practice. Oregon was the first state to legalize assisted suicide, implementing its program in 1997. The state’s annual reports consistently reveal that, of those who seek and obtain assistance in suicide, only a small fraction cite “inadequate pain control or concern about it” as a reason for their choice. Indeed, hauntingly, more patients are worried about being a “burden on family, friends/caregivers” than are concerned about pain.

Even these data do not tell the whole story; Oregon lumps those who are in pain with those who are merely concerned that they might be in pain at a future date. But few terminally ill patients need to resort to suicide in order to alleviate actual pain. Tragically, legalization in Oregon appears to have decreased patient access to palliative care. Of the initial 142 cases of assisted suicide in Oregon, only 13% were referred for palliative care consultations, and studies reveal that the quality of palliative care in Oregon has declined since assisted suicide became legal.

A much more common motivation than pain management appears to be simple clinical depression. In 2006, the Royal College of Physicians released a statement revealing that patients who want to die will change their minds—will choose life—after they are treated for depression in 98% to 99% of cases. Two researchers writing in the Michigan Law Review also concluded that when patients are treated by physicians who listen to them, treat their depression, and manage their pain, “their wish to die usually disappears.” In light of these facts, it is striking that only one of the sixty-five assisted suicide patients in Oregon in 2010 was referred for psychiatric evaluation. In 2009, none was referred.

The Unnecessary Prolongation Ploy

A second favorite ploy, related to the first, is to conflate prohibitions against assisted suicide with extreme measures to keep people alive. Though legalization proponents trade on fears of being artificially sustained after one’s time has come, prohibiting assisted suicide is not the same as forcing people to live beyond their time. To affirm that life is always worth defending from attempts to destroy it is not to claim that one should always make efforts to lengthen life.

Nor does respect for human life entail that the terminally ill must bear up stoically under extreme pain. Showing respect for all persons regardless of their condition or circumstances means providing needed medical care, including palliative care, when the terminally ill are in their final weeks and hours. That some forms of palliative care hasten impending death is not a reason to condemn its administration. The purpose of administering palliative care is not to kill but to relieve pain. The physician who administers palliative care is no more culpable than the physician who attempts to save a life by performing a risky surgery.

Medical practice involves risk and, sometimes, death. The line that we must ask a physician not to cross is the line at which he adopts the patient’s death as his purpose. That action is inherently different from performing a risky medical procedure; it makes the physician a different kind of person, one who is unfit to practice medicine and who harms himself as well as others.

The Personal Autonomy Ploy

The most common motivation for assisted suicide patients is a desire for personal autonomy, to control the time and manner of one’s own death. In Oregon, this is the most commonly cited concern of assisted suicide patients, and many scholarly advocates of assisted suicide admit that this is the real justification for legalization. The desire for control is understandable, but suicide is a means of control that causes real harm not just to the person who destroys his own life but also to all those with whom he is in community.

Proponents of legalization invoke a radical conception of personal autonomy. The idea is that each individual person makes the value of her own life by choice. When an individual ceases to value her own life, when she no longer prizes those treasures that life enables her to enjoy, she ought to be free to end her life.

People do not make their lives valuable merely by choosing to live. If this were the case, then the lives of small children and senile adults would have no value and would be unworthy of protection in law. As a matter of fact, myriad laws protect human life at various stages of human development, even in states—Oregon and Washington—that permit assisted suicide for the terminally ill. These laws do not discriminate against the very young or the very old, or against those who ascribe the least value to their own lives. States invest resources in suicide prevention and privilege citizens to prevent suicidal acts, by force if necessary. None of these laws provides for weighing the instrumental value of the life being saved.

So even in states that permit assisted suicide, the law reflects our understanding that life has value, regardless of the conditions in which it is lived. Laws preventing suicide preserve the communities of which the suicidal person is a part. The personal autonomy ploy rests upon the deception that suicide affects only the one who commits it, and that this individual alone should have a say in the matter. But suicides are not purely autonomous acts. Just as the family and neighbors of each person recognize the intrinsic value of that person, the family and friends of a suicide realize the irremediable loss that suicide causes.

Suicide should not be inflicted upon anyone. To assist its commission is to do violence to the very fabric of civil society. For the sake of doctors, their sick patients, and the communities in which doctors and patients live, Massachusetts and Montana should strengthen their legal commitments to protect the sick and suffering.