sábado, 4 de fevereiro de 2012

Un mártir cada cinco minutos, los últimos datos de la persecución contra los cristianos en el mundo

In Religión en Libertad

El sociólogo Massimo Introvigne, representante de la OSCE para la lucha contra la intolerancia y la discriminación contra los cristianos, afirma que, «cada cinco minutos, un cristiano muere asesinado por su fe». Presentó estos datos por primera vez a la comunidad internacional a inicios de junio, al intervenir en la Conferencia sobre diálogo interreligioso entre cristianos, judíos y musulmanes, que se celebró en Budapest, organizada por la entonces Presidencia húngara de la UE. A esa denuncia, según la cual cada año son asesinados por su fe 105 mil cristianos en el mundo, le siguió una oleada de críticas e incluso comentarios irónicos, en particular por parte de la Unión de ateos y Agnósticos Racionalistas, una asociación de origen italiano, por considerar que esos números son una exageración.

Como respuesta a estas reacciones, en ocasiones mordaces, Introvigne reconoce: «De estas posiciones podemos sacar una lección: se infravalora hasta tal punto el problema de los cristianos perseguidos que, cuando se citan las cifras, parecen a primera vista increíbles». Es verdad, por ejemplo, que en las últimas semanas los medios han recogido los sangrientos ataques contra cristianos de Nigeria a manos de la secta fundamentalista islámica Boko Haram. Algunos medios occidentales -pocos- informan sobre las condenas a muerte por apostasía o blasfemia en Irán o Pakistán, o los ataques contra iglesias en Indonesia. Pero, otras muchas situaciones endémicas de persecución, quizá precisamente por ser endémicas, pasan desapercibidas, como es el caso de naciones de Oriente Medio, o de China, Vietnam o la India.

Las estadísticas de los mártires
¿De dónde surge, por tanto, el cálculo citado por el representante de la OSCE? Introvigne se basa, ante todo, en los trabajos del primer centro mundial de estadística religiosa, el estadounidense Center for Study of Global Christianity, que dirige David B. Barrett, fallecido en agosto pasado, que publicó periódicamente la famosa World Christian Encyclopedia y el Atlas of Global Christianity. Los estudios de Barrett son los más citados en la materia por el mundo académico.

En 2001, Barret y su colaborador, Todd M. Johnson, comenzaron a recoger, además, estadísticas sobre los mártires cristianos. En su obra World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, trataron de calcular el número total de mártires cristianos -así como de las otras religiones— en los dos primeros milenios del cristianismo, hasta el año 2000. Como base para su trabajo, escogieron esta definición de mártires cristianos: «Creyentes en Cristo que han perdido la vida prematuramente, en la situación de testigos, como resultado de la hostilidad humana». Explicaron que perder la propia vida en la situación de testigos no implica juicio alguno sobre la santidad personal del mártir, sino que significa sencillamente que ha sido asesinado por ser cristiano, no como víctima de una guerra o de un genocidio de motivaciones políticas o étnicas, no religiosas.

El volumen de 2001 revelaba que estos mártires cristianos, en los primeros dos milenios, habían sido unos 70 millones, de los cuales, 45 millones perdieron la vida en el siglo XX. Las discusiones que surgieron en estos diez años, tras la publicación del libro, han servido para confirmar el carácter riguroso del estudio. Desde entonces, Barrett y Johnson actualizaron todos los años sus cálculos, sin modificar los criterios ni la definición. En la primera década del siglo XXI, el número de los mártires cristianos fue creciendo hasta alcanzar a mediados de siglo la alarmante cifra de 160 mil nuevos mártires al año.

En 2010, como explicaron en el artículo Cristianismo 2011: mártires y resurgimiento de la religión, publicado, en enero de 2011, en la revista International Bulletin of Missionary Research, el número de mártires disminuyó respecto a la mitad del decenio precedente, en particular porque «la persecución de los cristianos en el Sur de Sudán se mitigó tras los acuerdos de paz de 2005». Sin embargo, permanecían o se hicieron más agudos otros focos de martirio, en particular en la República Democrática del Congo y en Corea del Norte. A causa de estos factores, Barrett y Johnson calcularon que, en el año 2011, morirían unos 100 mil mártires.

El representante de la OSCE ha comparado estos estudios con los resultados del libro The Price of Freedom Denied, de los sociólogos estadounidenses Brian J. Grim y Roger Finke, quienes aplican la teoría sociológica de la economía religiosa a las persecuciones religiosas y sus consecuencias sociales. Según Grim y Finke, el número de los mártires cristianos podría ser superior, entre 130 y 170 mil al año.

Esconder los números para esconder la matanza
Massimo Introvigne, en el estudio que citó en la Conferencia de Budapest, ofreció las cifras más prudentes de Barret y Johnson, unos 105 mil mártires en 2011, número muy inferior al propuesto por Grim y Finke. Esto significa que, al día, mueren por su fe entre 287 y 288 cristianos, doce por hora, es decir, uno cada cinco minutos. El representante de la OSCE aclara: «Si no se gritan al mundo estas cifras de las persecuciones de los cristianos, si no se detiene la matanza, si no se reconoce que la persecución de los cristianos es la primera emergencia mundial en materia de violencia y discriminación religiosa, el diálogo entre las religiones y las culturas sólo producirá hermosos congresos, sin resultados. Quien esconde los números quizá, simplemente, busca no hacer nada para detener la matanza».

A Child - By Anthony Esolen

In The Catholic Thing

Everywhere outside of Christianity, wrote Hans Urs von Balthasar, the child is automatically the first to be sacrificed. Only for Christians is the adult the imperfect child. Everywhere else the child is the imperfect adult, and falls subject to our lust for domination.

It is easy to see why. Men who do not know the true God, or who turn away from Him, do not therefore cease to worship. For God Himself, as Augustine says, gives us the delight in praising Him: He has made us for Himself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

We turn then to the false gods, and since no man bows down before what he believes is beneath him, we inevitably turn towards what is in our eyes great, powerful, even ruthless. Men summon demons not because they find their company agreeable. They summon them, Chesterton noted, because they believe the demons have no nonsense about them. They get things done.

What use, then, can we have for the helpless child? We have, from Carthage, no delightful amulets portraying the god Moloch in an attitude of joy, for having received from the people his quota of children. Moloch wants the child-flesh, roasted or broiled, but not the children.

Even the Greek gods, those glorious forms of male and female beauty, do not condescend to take note of children, at least until the boys are old enough to compete in the games at Olympia or Delphi. “Children are our greatest resource,” goes the ghastly and insincere saying, as if they were minerals to be mined and put to use.

Many among us are ready to deny children their full humanity, on the grounds that they can’t do anything. And because we worship the demonic getting-things-done, instead of the almighty God who chose to dwell among us as a weakling babe, we are now reverting to the weary old pagan wisdom.

Precisely because the child is weak, we allow it to be vulnerable to our designs. It is not yet one of us, and so we can exert upon it our sovereign power, to mold it as we will.

True, we don’t inhale the narcotics and beat the timbrels, while placing in Moloch’s arms the poor man’s baby we’ve “adopted,” to cut the economic deal with that horrid king. What point would there be in that? We all agree now that Moloch was only a demon of man’s fevered imagination. Moloch can’t get anything done.

But if getting things done –accruing raw power for ourselves – is the aim, then the child is either constantly in the way, or is the one who suffers the exercise of our power. We murder children in the womb. Why? The child would, in his very helplessness, destroy our aims.

We can’t drop out of school now. We can’t quit our important work. We can’t tie ourselves down with marriage. Or, to consider the decision from beforehand, we will do as we please with our bodies, and if something unfortunate happens despite all our technological precautions, we have a technological solution for that, too.

We haven’t yet regressed so far as to murder children outside the womb. We retain a superstitious regard about that. The ancients believed that the lion was too noble a creature to kill a sleeping man. We are in this regard the reverse of the lion. We are those cowardly beasts that will kill a child sleeping in the womb, but will duck and shrug and grouch once it has come awake.

But if we can’t murder children yet, we can certainly murder childhood. That murder follows naturally upon our decision to worship the false god of prowess. When Macbeth murdered the good King Duncan in his sleep, it wasn’t just the single man’s death he was guilty of. No, the doughty Thane of Glamis and Earl of Cawdor hears a voice crying out,

Glamis hath murdered sleep, and therefore Cawdor
Shall sleep no more: Macbeth shall sleep no more.

In killing the sleeping man, Macbeth has murdered the very principle that allows us to sleep in peace: our trust that our weakness will be honored, and that we will be protected.

So too, once we agree to subordinate the child to our dreams of power, then childhood itself is scotched as it were in the egg. We wish to design our children, as we draw up blueprints for a banking house or a factory. We institutionalize them as early as possible, because we want to “make something” of them, or because we want them out of the way while we are “making something” of ourselves.

We are the tools of our tools. We subject these simple children to batteries of tests, regardless of the waywardness of the child’s developing mind. We murder their innocence every day by exposing them to what is lewd, vicious, and demeaning, justifying it because, we say, that’s the world they’re going to have to live in. Is the child sensitive to the holiness of his body? Too bad, kid.

How far this is from the family huddled in the stable, and the child wrapped in swaddling bands! In the child Jesus we do not see God hiding his power so much as revealing what it is, really, to be mighty: for power divorced from the magnificent self-lavishing of love is demonic, and is finally futile and empty.

Rummage for human empires in the garbage heap of history. “Unless you become like little children,” said Jesus, “you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” It must be so, since He, who was once a child, never ceased to be that child. He wants for us that innocence, that wonder before the glory of God, because then we will be filled with that mighty and Holy Spirit that plays forever in the love between the Father and the Son.


sexta-feira, 3 de fevereiro de 2012

Richard Cohen explica los cuatro tipos de personas con sentimientos homosexuales no deseados

In Religión en Libertad

El psicoterapeuta estadounidense y experto en terapia para personas con atracción hacia el mismo sexo, con 23 años de experiencia en este campo, Richard Cohen, explicó que las personas no nacen así y por tanto es posible que los homosexuales dejen de serlo.

En una amplia entrevista concedida a ACI Prensa el 1 de febrero, Cohen cuenta, entre otras cosas, su testimonio personal como exgay, lo que dice la ciencia sobre la homosexualidad y cómo ha ayudado a muchísimas personas a salir de ella.

Relata además que ahora vive felizmente casado, es padre de 3 hijos, no reprime su sexualidad y no se considera "homófobo" ni "antigay"; pues ama y tiene una especial empatía para con los homosexuales. Cuenta asimismo que ha escrito otro libro sobre este complejo tema.

El experto también responde a las críticas del lobby homosexual que lo ha atacado, especialmente en España, presionando para retirar su libro "Comprender y sanar la homosexualidad" (2004), que sin embargo generó un aumento en la demanda y que Cohen visite ese país del 7 al 10 de febrero, invitado por la editorial Libroslibres, que ha reeditado el texto con un tiraje de 7 mil ejemplares.

Cohen presentará su libro "Comprender y sanar la homosexualidad" este martes 7 de febrero a las 20:00 horas en la Universidad CEU San Pablo, c/. Julián Romea, 23, Madrid.

A continuación ACI Prensa presenta la entrevista completa con Richard Cohen:

- ¿Cómo explica el éxito de su libro?
- No soy solo un psicoterapeuta profesional, también soy un exhomosexual y comprendo cómo se sienten las personas que experimentan la atracción hacia el mismo sexo no deseada. Mi libro no es solo teoría, es real, ¡y funciona! Si alguien quiere dejar de ser homosexual para ser heterosexual, es posible. Yo lo hice y he ayudado a miles a hacer lo mismo. Las personas pueden visitar nuestro sitio web www.ComingOutLoved.com (Saliendo amados).

- Una de las cosas de las que lo acusa el lobby LGBT (gay) es que usted dice que la homosexualidad es algo que puede curarse. ¿Cómo explica esto?
- Sigo a la ciencia. Sigo la verdad sin importar adonde lleve. Según la American Psychological Association, esencialmente las personas no nacen con atracción hacia el mismo sexo:

"Pese a que se ha hecho mucha investigación sobre las posibles influencias genéticas, hormonales, sociales, culturales y del desarrollo en la orientación sexual, no se ha encontrado datos que permitan a los científicos afirmar que la orientación sexual esté determinada por un factor o varios factores en particular. Muchos creen que la naturaleza y la alimentación cumplen roles complejos, muchas personas experimentan casi nada o nada del sentido de elección sobre su orientación sexual" American Psychological Association © 2008 (página 4).

Más de 80 años de literatura científica ha demostrado que hay muchas razones predecibles por las cuales las personas experimentan sentimientos homosexuales. Lo sé por mi propia vida y las vidas de los cientos con los que he trabajado como terapeuta, y con los miles que he visto en nuestros seminarios de sanación y las clases por teleconferencia.

- Si la homosexualidad es algo que se puede curar, ¿por qué no hay suficientes médicos que se dediquen y por qué esto no es muy difundido?
- Los activistas homosexuales han trabajado duro para evitar que las profesiones médicas y de la salud mental ofrezcan ayuda a quienes experimentan la atracción hacia el mismo sexo no deseada. La razón por la que lo han hecho es porque los homosexuales experimentan mucho prejuicio.

Todo lo que quieren es ser amados y aceptados. Por lo tanto, desarrollaron una teoría innata e inmutable: se nace gay y no se puede cambiar. Pero eso es científicamente impreciso.

Que yo diga que alguien puede cambiar de homosexual a heterosexual amenaza a las lesbianas, los gays, los bisexuales y los transgéneros, hombres y mujeres. Entiendo su dolor porque experimenté la discriminación y el prejuicio cuando viví como gay.

Amo tanto y tengo mucha empatía por todos los homosexuales hombres y mujeres, los que viven una vida gay, y aquellos que buscan el cambio para vivir una vida heterosexual.

Somos libres para decidir la vida que queremos vivir. Respetémonos mutuamente en el espíritu del amor y la verdad. Este es asunto de derechos humanos, autodeterminación y libre expresión.

- Con su pasado tiene una perspectiva más profunda de la realidad de los homosexuales. Con esto en mente, ¿contra qué cosa cree que es más difícil luchar en la terapia en cuanto al estilo de vida gay?
- En mis 23 años de consejería con personas que experimentan sentimientos homosexuales no deseados, he encontrado cuatro tipos de personas:

1) Los jóvenes que tienen una lucha interna o están confundidos por su sexualidad.

2) Los hombres y mujeres que vivieron el estilo de vida gay, tratando de encontrar al señor o a la señora "indicada" y no lo lograron.

3) Hombres y mujeres casados que aman a sus esposos pero están atraídos al mismo sexo; y

4) Los que creen que la conducta homosexual es incompatible con sus creencias espirituales/religiosas. La cuarta categoría puede relacionarse a cualquiera de las otras tres.

Ya que viví como gay y luché contra los sentimientos homosexuales no deseados por muchos años, puedo ver la relación con cualquiera de estas personas. Entiendo lo que genera sentimientos homosexuales, entiendo las causas que llevan a alguien a tener atracción hacia el mismo sexo.

Por lo tanto, tengo mucho éxito ayudando a hombres, mujeres y adolescentes a resolver sus conflictos interiores y cumplir sus sueños (heterosexuales).

- Algunas personas creen que usted solo reprime su homosexualidad. ¿Qué les diría?
- Esta pregunta me parece muy graciosa y me la hacen frecuentemente. ¡No saben lo que se siente estar en mi pellejo! Cuando curé las causas que originaron mi atracción hacia el mismo sexo, mis sentimientos homosexuales se disiparon, verdaderamente dejaron mi fisiología y mi psicología.

Hoy en día soy un hombre heterosexual pleno, casado casi por 20 años con mi hermosa esposa con la que tengo tres hijos maravillosos. Estoy viviendo el sueño. Es fantástico y amo mi vida.

-Usted ha dicho que siempre hay una historia dolorosa detrás de una persona homosexual ¿A qué se debe eso?
- Enfrentémoslo, todos tenemos nuestros problemas, homosexuales y heterosexuales por igual. Nadie vive sin problemas. Tendemos a mirar a los homosexuales y a señalarlos. ¡Pero cuando lo hacemos, tres o cuatro dedos se levantan hacia nosotros!

Necesitamos amar a todos los hombres y mujeres homosexuales, escuchar sus historias y convertirnos en agentes de amor verdadero para ellos. El cambio es el resultado de la sanación y el amor. El amor es la gran medicina para curar el dolor.

- ¿Cuál sería su mensaje personal para las personas homosexuales?
-Sé como se sienten. Los amo. Viví la vida gay por muchos años. Elegí un camino diferente para buscar el cambio y ser heterosexual. Respetémonos mutuamente. Abracémonos y optemos por el amor.

- ¿Qué va a hacer en España y por qué España?
- Muchos editores no tienen las agallas para publicar un libro como "Comprender y Sanar la Homosexualidad". Estoy muy agradecido a LibrosLibres por llevarme a España para compartir la verdad sobre la homosexualidad: si alguien verdaderamente quiere cambiar de gay a heterosexual, de homosexual a heterosexual, puede hacerlo.

Además, no somos ni antigay ni homofóbicos. De hecho, siempre defenderé los derechos de mis hermanos y hermanas gays, lesbianas, bisexuales y transgéneros.

- ¿Va a algún otro país, cuáles y para qué?
- Acabo de terminar un programa de capacitación en consejería en Ciudad de México. Hemos capacitado a 30 terapeutas de México, Venezuela y Colombia para ayudar a quienes experimentan la atracción hacia el mismo sexo no deseada y sus familiares. Son muchos los padres, hermanos y amigos que no saben cómo amar y ayudar a sus familiares y amigos homosexuales.

He escrito otro libro que detalla 12 principios para ayudar a los homosexuales y sus familiares que se titula Gay Children, Straight Parents (Hijos gays, padres heterosexuales).

Mi corazón desea entrenar terapeutas en todo el mundo que quieran ayudar a hombres y mujeres que experimentan la atracción hacia el mismo sexo no deseada, así como a sus familiares y amigos. Estoy muy emocionado por ir a España. La considero una cultura hermosa y excepcional. ¡Nos vemos pronto por allá!

quinta-feira, 2 de fevereiro de 2012

Enneagram - a Dangerous Practice - By Anna Abbott

In The Catholic Worl Report

The Enneagram is a nine-sided figure that looks like a theorem straight from Euclid’s Elements. Instead of teaching basic mathematical facts, however, the Enneagram purports to teach a path to enlightenment, a path that Church leaders find worrisome.

In 2000, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops prepared a draft statement, “A Brief Report on the Origins of the Enneagram,” cautioning against its use. It was never published, but it can be found on the website of the National Catholic Reporter. In 2003, the Vatican’s document “Jesus Christ, Bearer of the Water of Life” discussed the dangers of New Age spirituality, and mentioned the Enneagram in its glossary. In 2004, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine released “Report on the Use of the Enneagram: Can It Serve as a True Instrument of Christian Spiritual Growth?” for the conference’s internal use. Father Thomas Weinandy of the USCCB’s Secretariat of Doctrine provided that report for this article.

Last February, Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami explained Catholic teaching on the Enneagram and related subjects in an online column titled, “New Age is Old Gnosticism.” He wrote that the Enneagram is a “pseudo-psychological exercise supposedly based on Eastern mysticism, [which] introduces ambiguity into the doctrine and life of the Christian faith and therefore cannot be happily used to promote growth in an authentic Christian spirituality.” The archbishop’s column is the clearest available teaching for the laity on this topic, and a neat summary of the bishops’ reports.

The Enneagram redefines sin, among other fundamental concepts, by simply associating faults with personality types, which is particularly tempting in a cultural climate of irresponsibility and narcissism. It encourages an unhealthy self-absorption about one’s own “type,” so that the type is at fault rather than the person. This gives rise to a deterministic mindset at odds with Christian freedom.

Religious who promote it

Yet interest in the Enneagram persists in some Christian circles. Retreat centers such as Vallombrosa in Menlo Park, California and the Tabor Retreat Center in Oceanside, New York (run by the Ursulines) conduct Enneagram programs. Living Water Spiritual Center in Winslow, Maine, run by the Sisters of St. Joseph, gave a retreat in November about sobriety that was centered on the Enneagram. From January to April this year, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had an Enneagram Series, with such workshops as “The Enneagram and Triads of Being.” Father Richard Rohr of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico teaches the Enneagram.

Joanna Quintrell says that Jerome Wagner at Loyola University in Chicago taught the Enneagram to her about four years ago. She is an ordained minister with the Evangelical Covenant Church; the Chicago-based denomination sent her to Loyola to learn the Enneagram. Now she teaches it at the Journey Center in Santa Rosa, California, which bills itself as offering “Christ-centered spirituality, healing, and wholeness.”

“I teach the Enneagram from a spiritual point of view,” Quintrell said. “The Enneagram has pre-Christian as well as Christian roots.” She claims that “you can trace the Enneagram to the Desert Mothers and Fathers,” citing the work of Father Richard Rohr to back up this statement. Quintrell described the nine personality types included in the Enneagram as reflecting the divine character. She asserts that she Christianizes the Enneagram, saying it reflects people in God’s image as well as acknowledging their brokenness.

“Depending on their Christian background, some are open to it, some are scared,” commented Quintrell. “Some see it as a pentagram, as something they shouldn’t be investigating.” She noted that 60 percent of Enneagram participants identify themselves as Christian. “It’s not something to be scared of,” Quintrell said. “It’s a tool for transformation. The Holy Spirit uses that tool to bring God’s healing.”

However, the Enneagram isn’t a self-explanatory tool, like the newspaper’s daily horoscope. Quintrell has workshop participants do a 200-question inventory developed by Loyola University’s Wagner. “It’s a place to begin discovering your type,” she explained. “It’s complex. What is my highest score? What is the essence of who I am?”

Sr. Suzanne Zuercher of the Benedictine Sisters of Chicago illustrates another way the Enneagram is utilized in Christian settings. She has taught the Enneagram for 36 years and uses it at the Institute for Spiritual Leadership at Loyola University; she is also president of St. Scholastica Academy, where she uses it with staff members. Zuercher described the Enneagram as “helpful for the spiritual journey.”

“I define it as an instrument for spiritual growth, a tool for self-knowledge, humility, and self-acceptance,” Zuercher said. “I hardly go a day without it. It talks about my gifts, my issues.”

Zuercher acknowledges the controversy surrounding the Enneagram, and is aware of the US bishops’ 2000 document on the subject.

“Books by Father Rohr and I were listed on the report, saying we were teaching things against Catholic doctrine. I saw the draft,” she said. “If you know the Enneagram, it states in numerous ways that our greatest sinfulness comes from our desire to redeem ourselves.”

Zuercher sees the Enneagram as more than a combination of numerology and personality tests. Quotes from her book Enneagram Spirituality are used on the discernment page of the Benedictine Sisters of Chicago, including, “Discernment is the awareness of centered or non-centered energy in the organism,” and, “We abandon predictions of how life will turn out, judgments of what is good or bad.… We simply live from our center.” Her reflections close with, “We live as relaxed as that child, and we are nourished by the Divine Mother at the center of who we are, body and spirit, incarnate being, human organism.”

Father William Meninger of St. Benedict’s Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado conducts retreats on the Enneagram and the Centering Prayer. Last year, he led Enneagram workshops in Oregon at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Corvallis and Queen of Peace Catholic Church in Salem. In February, he gave a talk about Enneagram personality types at the Washington Theological Union, a Catholic theology and ministry school in the nation’s capital.

Meninger has taught the Enneagram since 1990. “I learned it from lecturers and went to qualified workshops. I learned about it in Israel,” he said. Meninger noted that he’s taught it at Episcopal and Methodist churches, as well as secular venues.

Meninger commented that he doesn’t want to defy the US Catholic bishops, though he doesn’t agree with them.

As a Cistercian, Meninger said, “I have a vow of obedience I keep; I will follow [the US bishops’] ultimate decision.” He added that the Canadian bishops don’t forbid teaching the Enneagram.

“The Enneagram teaches self-knowledge,” Meninger said. “The Oracle at Delphi said, ‘Know thyself.’ Self-knowledge is the virtue of humility. Humility is the primary virtue. Self-knowledge is important to the spiritual journey. [The Enneagram] is only a tool.”

Fundamentally Gnostic

In his column on the subject, Archbishop Wenski described the Enneagram as fundamentally Gnostic, a form of numerology and divination of the type that the Lord forbids among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:10-14). Father Thomas Weinandy said, “Everybody wants to have control of their lives; people purport to have secret knowledge for the relationship with God, and contact with divine energy. The emphasis in Catholicism is the personal relationship with Jesus—faith. It’s not a secret knowledge; it’s based on his death and resurrection.”

Unlike many personality tests, the Enneagram claims a profound, transcendent meaning, as well as a scientific one. But this meaning varies, depending who you ask and what criticisms are being addressed. Sr. Zuercher said she advises those interested in the Enneagram to “go to workshops at a reputable retreat center, not just read.”

“It’s an oral tradition,” she explained. “People talk about their lives, who they are, their issues. In conversation, people find themselves on the Enneagram.… It’s a tool for self-understanding, knowing who you are. You start with the gifts and the aspects of the Creator. You start with the gifts, and how they got distorted by the ego.”

Many proponents of the Enneagram claim that it is scientific. In a March 2007 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Don Riso of the Enneagram Institute claimed “research is being done in an independent and nonbiased way by a highly regarded group of statisticians and psychometricians in the UK who are well on their way to proving that the nine types do exist.” The “highly regarded group” remains anonymous. In the end, Riso concludes, “Ultimately, people either see the fundamental truth and utility of the Enneagram in their own lives and experience, or they do not.”

Both Father Meninger and Sr. Zuercher brought up Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa and his work with the US bishops on New Age practices. Father Meninger described Father Pacwa as the “leader of the opposition to the Enneagram.” Pacwa’s 1992 book Catholics and the New Age is one of the few widely disseminated orthodox treatments of the subject. Over the course of three chapters, Father Pacwa discusses his involvement with the Enneagram. He once taught it; the Enneagram even seemed to bear good fruit—he notes how it inspired him to make one of his best confessions. The more he researched it, however, the more disillusioned he became. Father Pacwa decided the Enneagram was a dangerous fraud. “Fitting someone into one mold or another seemed like fun,” he wrote. “…however, after incorrectly typing some friends, I eventually dropped the Enneagram from my repertoire of spiritual direction tools.”

“People use [the Enneagram] because they haven’t found Catholic spirituality to their liking,” Father Weinandy said. “They have lost their way. The more laity and religious are educated in authentic Catholic piety, the less they’d be interested in other things.”

The Same-Sex “Marriage” Proposal is Unjust Discrimination - by Patrick Lee


The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.

What is marriage? The traditional view of marriage is: the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together.

Two points need emphasis here. First, marriage is a bodily union, as well as emotional and spiritual. For in sexual intercourse—which consummates the marital union—the spouses become biologically one: they complete each other to form a single subject of a single biological action, the kind of action that could procreate, provided conditions outside their conduct are present. This biological union (a procreative-type act) embodies their procreative-type union (provided they have consented to share their lives in that kind of union).

Second, marriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together.

Now of course not all agree with the traditional definition of marriage. But the point I want to make is simply this: marriage, as traditionally defined, is a distinct type of community and not an arbitrary set. Unmarried cohabitators have a different type of relationship. Alliances to raise children also are not necessarily marriages: a group of celibate religious women running an orphanage, for example, are not married. And, plainly, same-sex sexual relationships are a different kind of relationship: they cannot become biologically one, nor is their relationship of the kind that would find its fruition in conceiving, bearing, and raising children together. (True, same-sex partners can form an alliance to raise children—for example, those from a previous marriage or produced by artificial reproduction; but that alliance is not an extension or prolongation of a bodily-emotional-spiritual union already begun, as is the case in marriage.)

Now it is precisely the distinctive features of marriage that ground the state’s interest in promoting and regulating it, and that make the general strength or health of marriage a public good. First, marriage is a distinctive way in which men and women are fulfilled, an irreducible aspect of their flourishing, and one that can be easily misunderstood. And so marriage needs cultural support—and can be harmed by cultural confusion about it. Clarity within the general culture about the value and nature of marriage enables young men and women, as well as those already married, to participate more fully than they otherwise would in this distinctive good—just as a clear public understanding of health or learning assists individuals and families to participate more fully in those goods.

Second, while good in itself, and not a mere means to an extrinsic end, marriage also provides the crucial social function of encouraging parents (and potential parents) to commit to each other and to whatever children they may have. A healthy and strong marriage culture will provide the safest and healthiest environment for children. For these reasons it is in everyone’s interest for the state to promote a sound understanding of marriage, and certainly to avoid obscuring its nature.

Since a same-sex couple is unable to form the kind of union marriage is, not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply a decision by the state not to engage in a confusing and harmful fiction. Marriage is a certain kind of union. Denying a marriage license—or the privileges, protections, and obligations of marriage—to those who are unable to marry is not unjust discrimination. The state denies marriage licenses to threesomes or foursomes (refraining from declaring polyamorous groups marriages) and denies marriage licenses to twelve-year-olds (requiring valid consent for a marriage). These denials are not unjust because threesomes, foursomes, and twelve-year-olds are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is. But the same is true of same-sex couples. So, just as the distinction between eighteen-year-olds and twelve-year-olds is relevant to the purpose of marriage—because the former but not the latter are actually able to form the union that is marriage—in the same way, the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is relevant to the purpose of the marriage laws, because the former but not the latter can actually form the kind of union that marriage is.

According to same-sex “marriage” proponents, the public interest served by marriage laws is the stability of households. For example, in striking down California’s pro-marriage constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker claimed: “The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” Stability of households might of course be a legitimate public aim, but laws to promote that (and to provide benefits and privileges for stable households as such) are not marriage laws. Such laws, benefits, and so on, would—if applied justly—have to be given also to groups who do not have sexual relationships and groups not pledging permanence and exclusivity.

Clearly, though, same-sex “marriage” supporters want much more than certain benefits and privileges. Discussion of concrete benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and so on, is really a side issue—such benefits could be secured by other means for individuals who need them (for example, a durable power of attorney for health care, a will, etc.). Nor—contrary to how it is usually portrayed—is the same-sex marriage proposal aimed at tolerance, since persons with same-sex attractions are already free to engage in private sexual behavior and to establish for themselves long-term romantic and sexual relationships. Rather, what proponents of same-sex “marriage” principally desire is the social affirmation and endorsement of homosexual relationships as such. Judge Walker indicated this point clearly in his Proposition 8 decision: “Plaintiffs [some same-sex couples] seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships . . . . Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage.”

So, the proposal is for the state to promote something called marriage, and that marriage is to be understood in a way that will include same-sex partners. This sounds like old news. But what, on their view, is the thing called “marriage,” and why should the state promote it? What distinguishes marital unions from others, such that the state should promote them? One cannot just pronounce that these couples will now count as married; there must be something one means by “being married,” something held in common by all married couples. But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is.

If marriage is not a bodily, emotional, and spiritual union of a man and a woman, of the kind that would be fulfilled by procreation, then what makes a union marriage and why should the state support it? It is not simply a union that is formed by a wedding ceremony: that would be a circular definition. Nor is every romantic and sexual relationship a marriage, and certainly there is no point in the state promoting all such relationships. Perhaps one will say that it is a stable, committed, and exclusive romantic-sexual relationship. But how stable would a romantic-sexual relationship need to be in order to be a marriage? Suppose John and Mary have a romantic-sexual relationship while college students but plan to go their separate ways after graduation: is that stable enough to be a marriage? If not, why not?

Or suppose Joe, Jim, and Steve have a committed, stable, romantic-sexual relationship among themselves—a polyamorous relationship. On what ground can the state promote the relationship between couples, but not the relationship among Joe, Jim, and Steve? The argument here is not a slippery slope one. Rather, the point is: There must be some non-arbitrary features shared by relationships that the state promotes which make them apt for public promotion, and make it fair for the state not to promote in the same way other relationships lacking those features. Without this the distinction is invidious discrimination. The conjugal understanding of marriage has a clear answer: (a) marriage is a distinct basic human good, that needs social support and that uniquely provides important social functions; (b) marriage’s organic bodily union and inherent orientation to procreation distinguish it from other relationships similar in superficial respects to it. But the same-sex marriage proposal’s conception of marriage has no answer. In fact, its conception of marriage is actually an arbitrarily selected class, and so the enactment of this proposal would be unjust.

The problem is not solved if one adds to one’s description or definition of marriage, that it must be a permanent commitment (as Judge Margaret Marshall did in her decision striking down Massachusetts’ marriage law: “It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage”). For it is fair to ask: why should the commitment be exclusive and permanent? The college students’ relationship (lacking permanence) and the celibate monks’ relationship (lacking exclusivity—others can join the religious order), both form households and contribute to social stability. In contrast, the conjugal understanding of marriage allows a clear answer to these questions: since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. The promotion of this kind of relationship, for its own sake (because it is a basic good), and for the sake of children generally (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children), makes it in accord with justice to recognize, as marriage, only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

terça-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2012

O teste definitivo - por João César das Neves

In DN

Os temas da família são os que mais dividem o nosso tempo. Numa época que aceita pacificamente a liberdade, mercado e democracia, antes tão controversos, é nas questões do casamento, nascimento e morte que se travam os combates culturais. Mas aí existe um teste decisivo.

Portugal anda há muito a reboque das posições extremistas do Bloco de Esquerda. Em poucos anos a legislação saltou de uma atitude equilibrada no quadro mundial para soluções radicais na ponta do espectro. Até há meses a explicação podia ser a vacuidade de valores e oportunismo táctico do Governo Sócrates, cuja irresponsabilidade aliás foi geral. Mas esta explicação conveniente e simplista deve ser abandonada. Vigora um governo diferente e a situação, não só não melhorou, mas agravou-se.

O edifício legal antifamília, abusivamente construído pela maioria socialista, mantém-se intocado sem perspectivas de revisão. Pior, permanece toda a prática administrativa e financeira que aproveita esses diplomas para ir subsidiando o aborto, minando o casamento, prejudicando as famílias numerosas, anulando a liberdade educativa. Sobretudo, foi dada continuidade à cavalgada infame, abrindo-se agora a porta a filhos de mães múltiplas.

Perante tal realidade muitos alarmam-se ou desesperam, mas sem justificação. Vivemos uma vaga cultural, como tantas que as gerações anteriores enfrentaram. Hoje é a defesa da família, há cinquenta anos a empresa livre, há cem o voto das mulheres, há duzentos a extinção da escravatura. Em todos os casos havia uma linha ideológica que parecia dominante, imparável, avassaladora, mas que o tempo se encarregou de esgotar. No embate, o choque surge insuportável e definitivo, e muitos cedem, desviam-se, fogem. Depois, como nas violentas ondas do mar, tudo se esfuma.

Um exemplo nosso serve bem de ilustração. A 11 de Abril de 1975 CDS e PPD assinaram, junto com PCP, FSP, PS e MDP/CDE, o "Pacto MFA--Partidos", que preconizava a "continuação da revolução política, económica e social iniciada em 25 de Abril de 1974, dentro do pluralismo político e da via socializante". Hoje, quando sociedade sem classes e a ditadura do proletariado são personagens de pantomima, parece grotesco que partidos responsáveis tenham caído aí. Mas quem viveu esses tempos dramáticos entende-o bem. Daqui a 37 anos os mesmos partidos envergonhar-se-ão das actuais cedências no campo familiar, tanto quanto hoje se sentem embaraçados pelos compromissos do Verão quente.

Como lidar com uma vaga cultural? Esbracejar face à onda é tolice e fugir cobardia. Devem evitar-se a atitude apática e facilitista, que escamoteia a gravidade do tema em nome da paz podre, e o fanatismo intolerante, que transforma essa gravidade em agressão. Nestas discussões vitais existem três exigências básicas. Primeiro ter ideias claras e opiniões firmes, ao nível da importância do assunto, com argumentos sólidos e elaborados para as suportar. Depois respeitar sempre os opositores, por mais chocantes que sejam as suas posições, procurando um diálogo sereno e profundo. Acima de tudo, deve reinar a certeza que no fim a verdade triunfará. Lutamos, não pelo futuro que só pode ser melhor, mas pelas vítimas pontuais de um mal sem hipóteses.

O Pacto MFA-Partidos não teve consequências por ser parte da vaga marxista que já se aproximava do fim, após rugir há cem anos. Mas os ataques à família ainda crescem imparáveis para o auge. Será a tibieza do actual Governo mais parecida com os Acordos de Munique de 29 de Setembro de 1938, em que tímido Neville Chamberlain cedeu à violência triunfante de Hitler, precipitando como cúmplice a futura catástrofe?

A onda lasciva está mais perto do fim do que parece. Já chegou à velhice a geração do amor livre, Woodstock e Maio de 68. E será a velhice mais longa e solitária de sempre. Com uma pesada herança de famílias desfeitas, filhos e netos alheios ou não nascidos, promiscuidade, traição, luxúria, enfrenta agora o teste definitivo. As gerações seguintes aprenderão depressa esta triste lição.

segunda-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2012

Branqueamentos Maçónicos

O chamado episódio das “secretas" que há dado brado na comunicação social que nos domina, salientando minudências em relação à seriedade do que está em questão, tem constituído um branqueamento e consequente publicitação da maçonaria. O que há de grave neste aglomerado de associações ocultas é constituído pela sua natureza e identidade.

A maçonaria, todas elas sem excepção, contrariamente ao que aparenta tem uma visão do mundo da qual resulta necessariamente um propósito de extinguir a Fé verdadeira e consequentemente de exterminar a Igreja Católica. Não é por acaso que esta, até hoje, tenha emitido quinhentas e noventa e oito (598) condenações desta agregação pestífera, para usar uma expressão do Papa Leão XIII.

Esta agregação perversa e maligna de “pedreiros livre” enverga, com uma hipocrisia sem limites, uma aparência toda ela benigna e cheia de valores não só para o grande público mas ainda para a grande maioria dos seus membros noviços nos primeiros graus da iniciação. Depois, por um ritual confuso e obscuro, os vai desenraizando da verdadeira Fé, penetrando-os e empapando-os de uma gnose sincretista, essencialmente relativista e naturalista, como muito bem o afirma F. Giantulli S.J., no seu famoso estudo sobre a maçonaria italiana. Esta índole imanentista e ateia sob o manto de religiosidade, de fraternidade universal e de liberdade é, contrariamente ao que proclama, o veneno que as destrói.

Esta mentalidade militantemente secularista que subjaz aos Zapateros e aos Obamas, que procura dominar a Europa e os Estados Unidos, está profundamente infiltrada na comunicação social, na justiça, na política, na economia e mesmo em sectores da Igreja, em Portugal. Daí, que não seja de espantar o conúbio danado entre a anterior maioria parlamentar-para-lamentar e a actual no que diz respeito “às famílias”, à reprodução artificial, ao aborto, à experimentação letal em pessoas no seu estádio embrionário, à colagem, às panças arrendadas, à contracepção, ao infame “casamento-mesmo-sexo”, ao divórcio-expresso-e-sem-culpa, à perversão-sexual-obrigatória-nas-escolas, ao fomento da desnatalidade, etc.

Roube-se a pensão aos velhos, deixem-nos morrer sozinhos em casa, eutanazinem-nos nos hospitais, despejam-nos em antecâmaras de morte. A destruição maciça da família e da vida concebida não pode senão conduzir a um inferno antecipado na Terra.

Andam os Prelados diligentes e solícitos - (com um ministro, daquele partido, cds, para quem “o aborto (isto é, a sua abolição) não é uma prioridade”, ipsis verbis) - com os pobres e os idosos esquecendo, porém, que com o seu desleixo pela demografia são co-responsáveis maiores da gravíssima situação a que chegámos. É uma grande Caridade cuidar dos pobres e dos velhinhos desamparados, mas era muito maior Caridade, e de Justiça também, ter feito o que se devia para evitar que chegasse ao estado em que nos encontramos.


Nuno Serras Pereira
30. 01. 2012

Vida consagrada - por Juan Manuel de Prada

In Religión en Libertad

El próximo 2 de febrero se celebra la Jornada Mundial de la Vida Consagrada, que a los católicos debe servirnos para renovar la gratitud a tantas admirables personas que, en su deseo de imitar más perfectamente a Cristo poniendo en práctica los consejos evangélicos de pobreza, castidad y obediencia, santifican sus vidas, a la vez que enriquecen con una pluralidad de carismas —oración, penitencia, servicio a los hermanos, trabajo apostólico— la vida de la Iglesia. Quienes, como yo, hemos tenido la ocasión de conocer de cerca la labor de los consagrados tenemos, desde luego, muchas razones para la gratitud; tantas que necesitaríamos varias vidas para expresarlas. Pero esta gratitud no nos exime de señalar lo que consideramos fallas en la vida consagrada; la principal de las cuales es la secularización o asimilación al mundo, «cuyas posiciones se adoptan porque se desespera de conquistarlo desde posiciones propias».

Un religioso marianista, José María Salaverri, me reprocha, en carta dirigida al director de este periódico, un artículo mío en el que muy someramente me refería a los estragos que esta secularización ha causado en la vida consagrada. Algo, en efecto, ha debido de ocurrir en el seno de la vida consagrada para que, por ejemplo, los padres marianistas que, allá por 1959 alcanzaban la cifra de 3.110, fuesen en 2010 apenas 1.320, con una media de edad mucho más elevada; un descenso del 57,5 por ciento en apenas medio siglo creo que es una expresión innegable de crisis, que por supuesto tiene razones muy diversas y complejas (empezando por las demográficas) que afectan también —aunque no en igual medida— a otras realidades de la Iglesia. Sabemos bien que cantidad no es sinónimo de calidad, pero tampoco podemos olvidar que la experiencia de un ideal —sobre todo de un ideal comunitario— sólo puede adquirir perfección si son muchos los individuos que se comprometen con él.

En su carta amonestadora, el padre Salaverri me recuerda un hermoso pasaje de Santa Teresa de Jesús, a la que ambos sin duda veneramos. Precisamente la Santa de Ávila puede servirnos para identificar el virus que se ha infiltrado en la vida religiosa. A Santa Teresa la movía el deseo de una vida más espiritual, orante y austera (es decir, un deseo ascendente y desmundanizante), que fue el motor que impulsó tradicionalmente todas las reformas de la vida religiosa: de las carmelitas salieron las carmelitas descalzas; de los cluniacenses salieron los cistercienses y más tarde los trapenses; de los hermanos menores franciscanos salieron los observantes y los capuchinos, etcétera. Si analizamos la historia de la vida consagrada, comprobaremos que todas las reformas que durante siglos se produjeron en su seno siguieron una tendencia común de lo menos difícil a lo más difícil. Esta tendencia se quebraría en el último medio siglo, en la que las reformas han tenido una tendencia descendente de dulcificación de la disciplina, relajación en la observancia de los votos y progresiva mundanización, palpable en aspectos aparentemente accidentales, como el abandono del hábito, signo de la libertad de la Iglesia, ajena a modas y costumbres, en medio del mundo; pero los cambios accidentales acaban inevitablemente transformando la esencia, acaban erosionando ese fondo de «verdad permanente e invencible estabilidad» —Pablo VI dixit— sobre el que se asienta la vida consagrada.
Por lo demás, ante alguien que, como el padre Salaverri, lleva más de 65 años siendo testigo de la presencia transfigurante de Dios, no puedo hacer otra cosa sino dar gracias rendidas por su fidelidad; a él y a Quien un día le dijo: «Ven y sígueme».

domingo, 29 de janeiro de 2012

Aborto y fariseísmo - por Juan Manuel de Prada

In Religión en Libertad

SEGÚN un estudio pergeñado por una asociación de abortorios, de las 36.718 mujeres que acudieron en solicitud de sus servicios desde julio de 2010 a octubre de 2011, sólo 151 eran menores de edad que lo hacían sin conocimiento paterno. Puesto que tal asociación de abortorios emplea estos datos para denunciar que «ese colectivo muy pequeño» (¡tan pequeño que sólo alcanza el 0,41%!) se hallará «indefenso» tras una hipotética reforma de la ley que obligue a las menores que deseen abortar a hacerlo con el consentimiento de sus padres, hemos de concluir que los datos no están falseados; o siquiera que no han sido rebajados. La realidad es que el número de menores que abortan sin el consentimiento de sus padres es diminuto, comparado con las cifras apabullantes de abortos registradas en los últimos años. Y presentar una reforma de la actual legislación en la que se exija a las menores el consentimiento paterno como un «refuerzo de la protección del derecho a la vida» se nos antoja, en el mejor de los casos, una hipérbole; aunque más exacto sería calificarla de chiste cínico.

Se trataría de una reforma que afectaría al 0,41% de las mujeres que abortan; y que ni siquiera aseguraría que ese porcentaje ínfimo renunciase a abortar: algunas de esas menores se resignarían a contárselo a sus padres (y no es inverosímil que, para su sorpresa, les otorgasen el beneplácito); otras abortarían clandestinamente, o en el extranjero. Una reforma de estas características, en fin, no serviría para nada, salvo para tranquilizar las conciencias farisaicas. En cambio, contribuirá paradójicamente a reforzar la consideración del aborto como un acto de mera disposición de la voluntad. Pues, ¿cuál es el mensaje que se desliza a la sociedad cuando se exige que una mujer menor de edad, para abortar, deba contar con el consentimiento paterno? Tan sólo que, para abortar, es preciso tener capacidad legal, lo mismo que para contraer obligaciones o ejercitar ciertos derechos civiles; y que, cumplido el requisito de la edad (o subsanado por el consentimiento paterno), abortar es un puro acto de la voluntad, fruto de la autonomía personal, como casarse o comprar un piso. Es decir, que la madre tiene un derecho de disposición absoluta —«derecho a decidir»— sobre la vida que se gesta en su vientre, de la que se erige en propietaria.

Siempre nos pareció que la introducción en la vigente ley de aquella chocante especificación que permitía abortar a las menores sin consentimiento paterno era una trampa que sólo beneficiaba a los fariseos que se niegan a enjuiciar objetivamente la naturaleza del aborto. Que una menor de edad pueda o no abortar sin el consentimiento de sus padres es un hecho irrelevante ante lo que en realidad se sustancia cada vez que se perpetra un aborto, que no es sino la eliminación de una vida gestante: y el estatuto de esa vida gestante es el mismo, con independencia de la edad de su madre, y desde luego del consentimiento de sus abuelos. A la postre, se demuestra que quienes introdujeron aquella chocante especificación —lo mismo que quienes ahora pretenden expulsarla— lo hicieron sabiendo que de este modo contribuían a eclipsar nuestro juicio ético, que renuncia a enjuiciar la naturaleza del acto en sí a cambio de establecer requisitos de capacidad legal en la mujer que lo perpetra. En el fondo, esta solución farisaica es la consecuencia inevitable del error primordial (en el que cual ha incurrido, incluso, cierta retórica antiabortista) de considerar el aborto una «tragedia para la mujer que aborta», en lugar de presentarlo, sin aderezos sentimentaloides, como lo que sustantivamente es: un crimen contra la vida más inerme.

www.juanmanueldeprada.com