sexta-feira, 30 de março de 2012

A Patriarcal e Episcopal RR negará o poder da Ressurreição?

Na história de Portugal nunca houve um chefe de estado formalmente responsável por tantos e tamanhos crimes hediondos como o actual presidente da república. Aníbal Cavaco Silva que nunca se retractou de ter promulgado as ignominiosas e abomináveis pseudo-leis que: 1. Dizimaram muito mais de 80. 000 (oitenta mil) crianças nascentes (contando com as produzidas e descartadas, experimentadas ou congeladas em laboratório) no espaço de 5 (cinco) anos; 2. Agrediram a essência da família concorrendo para a sua fragmentação e dissolução; 3. Contribuíram fortemente para a degeneração e depravação das mentalidades e consciências; 4. Perverteram a inocência das crianças, já nascidas, dos adolescentes e jovens. A tudo isto o Bem-aventurado João Paulo II chamava “cultura da morte”, e o Papa Bento XVI abundando na mesma doutrina tem-no confirmado inumeráveis vezes.

Por todos estes gravíssimos crimes e pecados terá este irmão de responder perante o rigoroso Juízo de Deus. Todos os que cremos no amor infinito do Senhor que procura não a morte mas a conversão do pecador devemos rezar e sacrificar para que verdadeiramente arrependido faça penitência, e procure reparar o terrível mal praticado, e quando passar desta vida possa ser contado, não entre os réprobos, os malditos do Pai, mas sim entre os eleitos, os benditos do Pai do Céu. A Misericórdia de Deus não anula a Sua Justiça, por isso é indispensável viver na Sua Graça, durante esta vida, para, depois da morte, vir a participar na Sua Glória. Um cristão, que se conheça bem, sabendo que de si não é mais do que nada e pecado, nunca deve desistir da conversão nem dos maiores facínoras nem a dos maiores tiranos nem de ninguém, até à hora da sua, deles, morte. Se a Graça e a Misericórdia de Deus nos desamparassem seriamos capazes do mesmo e de muito pior.

Posto isto, podemos agora adiantar que são evidentes e copiosas as razões por que a Rádio Renascença, propriedade da Conferência Episcopal e do Patriarcado de Lisboa, que se anuncia a si própria como “emissora católica portuguesa”, deve liminarmente recusar a condecoração que este presidente da república lhe vai conceder, na Segunda-feira de Páscoa, em virtude do seu septuagésimo quinto aniversário, como vem hoje anunciado na primeira página do semanário, do Patriarcado de Lisboa, Voz da Verdade.

De facto, como vimos acima, o presidente ao exercer as suas funções políticas fez exactamente o contrário daquilo que o Evangelho ensina, comportando-se como seguidor do “pai da mentira” (Jo 8, 44), daquele que é “assassino desde o princípio” (Idem). Pois não será verdade que dele se poderia dizer, para o fazer cair em si, com S. Paulo: “Ó criatura, cheia de todas as astúcias e de toda a iniquidade, filho do diabo, inimigo de toda a justiça, quando é que cessarás de perverter os rectos caminhos do Senhor?” (Act. 13, 10)? Reparemos que S. Paulo não recorre a nenhum excesso antes imita a linguagem de Jesus Cristo: “Vós tendes por pai o diabo, e quereis realizar os desejos do vosso pai.” (Jo 8, 44).

A segunda-feira de Páscoa, na verdade toda a oitava Pascal, é como que o Domingo de Páscoa estendido por toda a semana. É a celebração festiva e solene d’ Aquele que venceu o diabo, o pecado e a morte e que nos faz participantes da Seu triunfo de modo a que possamos também ser vitoriosos nesse combate. Ora o Episcopado e a emissora que se diz católica existem precisamente para anunciar e tornar presente esse poder da Ressurreição de Jesus Cristo. Não se entende pois que vão curvar a cabeça para receber uma condecoração de um político que actuou como um representante do Maligno. A mensagem que passará, independentemente das intenções subjectivas, será a de um rendimento e subjugação, ainda para mais agradecida, ao poder de Satanás.

Confesso que não me acabo de pasmar com a cegueira que ignora o “ … escândalo, concebido como acção que move os outros ao mal. Tal escândalo subsiste mesmo se, lamentavelmente, um tal comportamento já não despertar admiração alguma: pelo contrário, é precisamente diante da deformação das consciências, que se torna mais necessária por parte dos Pastores, uma acção tão paciente quanto firme, que tutele (… a) defesa da moralidade cristã e da recta formação dos fiéis.

À honra e glória de Cristo. Ámen.


Nuno Serras Pereira

30. 03. 2012

Why opposing the gay lobby is not anti-gay - by Jennifer Roback Morse

March 29, 2012 (TheBlaze.com) - Earlier this month the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s (GLAAD) “Commentator Accountability Project” included me on their list of people who deserve special scrutiny before they can be engaged as commentators on the marriage debate. But it is organizations like GLAAD that need to be held accountable for the impact of their rhetoric on the public debate.

According to the GLAAD website, I have held myself out as someone who purports to be an “expert on the lives of LGBT people.” Evidently (and unbeknownst to me) I have devoted my career “making life more difficult for LGBT people.” Although these extreme statements have since been scrubbed from the site, the organization continues to claim that “Bias is Not Balance.” The undeniable implication is that my views are baseless. GLAAD’s systematic policy of slapping negative labels on their opponents without actually engaging them in debate reduces the quality of discourse in the public square.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of words I have spoken or written, GLAAD found a grand total of four quotes as evidence of my supposed “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.” One of these is that I say redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family, because fathers will be considered inessential. GLAAD acts as if this were self-evident evidence of anti-gay bias.

This is very peculiar, as the claim that redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family is not a statement about the behavior, character or motives of same sex attracted people, male or female. It is simply my forecast of one consequence of redefining marriage. I believe it with all my heart, and have said so on numerous occasions, citing a variety of reasons and evidence. I am not the slightest bit ashamed of this forecast.

My training is in economics. Economists examine how changes in public policies alter people’s incentives, and hence their behavior. So it is natural for me to ask, What will happen if we remove the gender requirement from marriage? I wonder what society will look like after 30 years of agents of the state making statements like this one from the Iowa Supreme Court: “The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

You may disagree with me about how likely it is that making marriage a genderless social institution will marginalize fathers from the family. Or you may disagree with my assessment of the harm it would do. But you cannot deny that this is a serious question about the possible impact of changing the law and culture of marriage.

Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.” But surely one can disagree with policies advocated by the National Education Association without hating every teacher in America, just as one can surely oppose policies advocated by the NAACP without being a racist.

Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject. Equating all disagreement with evidence of bias lowers the intellectual level of the discussion. These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution.

The Differences the Pill has Made - by George Weigel

In Crisis Magazine

Mary Eberstadt is my friend, but I’ll risk charges of special pleading and self-plagiarism by quoLinkting my endorsement on the dust jacket of her new book, Adam and Eve after the Pill (Ignatius Press): “Mary Eberstadt is our premier analyst of American cultural foibles and follies, with a keen eye for oddities that illuminate just how strange the country’s moral culture has become.” That strangeness is on full display in the ongoing controversy over the HHS-“contraceptive mandate”—an exercise in raw governmental coercion depicted by much of the mainstream media (and, alas, by too many Catholics on the port side of the barque of Peter) as a battle between Enlightened Sexual Liberation and The Antediluvian Catholic Church. Anyone who thinks of this battle in those terms should spend a few evenings reading Adam and Eve after the Pill.

As the talismanic year 2000 approached, and like virtually every other talking head and scribe in the world, I was asked what I thought the history-changing scientific discoveries of the twentieth century had been. And like the rest of the commentariat, I answered, “splitting the atom (which unleashed atomic energy for good or ill) and unraveling the DNA double-helix (which launched the new genetics and the new biotechnology).” Today, after a decade of pondering why the West is committing slow-motion demographic suicide through self-induced infertility, I would add a third answer: the invention of the oral contraceptive, “the Pill.”

With insight, verve and compassion, Adam and Eve after the Pill explores the results of what Mary Eberstadt bluntly describes as the “optional and intentional sterility in women” the Pill has made possible for three generations. A careful analysis of empirical studies, plus a close reading of literary sources, leads Eberstadt to conclude that the “human fallout of our post-Pill world” has been severe. How? “First, and contrary to conventional depiction, the sexual revolution [which the Pill made possible] has proved a disaster for many men and women; and second, its weight has fallen heaviest on the smallest and weakest shoulders in society—even as it has given extra strength to those already strongest and most predatory.”

Elite culture has been in comprehensive denial about this fallout, argues Eberstadt—a claim reinforced in February by the lynch mob that attacked the Susan G. Komen foundation for daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused. Such public quarrels, however, touch the surface of the cultural implosion that followed widespread use of the Pill. Weaving her way through the social sciences and literature with equal dexterity, Mary Eberstadt digs deeper and describes the human costs of the sexual revolution: the “pervasive themes of anger and loss that underlie much of today’s writing on romance;” the “new and problematic phase of prolonged adolescence through which many men now go”; the social and personal psychological harm caused by the availability of pornography on a historically unprecedented scale; the “assault unleashed from the 1960s onward on the taboo against sexual seduction or exploitation of the young”; and the “feral rates of date rapes, hookups and binge drinking now documented on many campuses” (the direct result of a sexual revolution that has “empowered and largely exonerated predatory men as never before”).

Adam and Eve after the Pill also explores the cultural weirdness that has followed the Pill’s inversion of classic western and Judaeo-Christian values; in a particularly insightful chapter, Eberstadt analyzes the food taboos that have replaced discarded sexual taboos. The book ends with a telling, if ironic, judgment on the long-term impact of the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae: “one of the most reviled documents of modern times, the Catholic Church’s reiteration of traditional Christian moral teaching, would also turn out to be the most prophetic in its understanding of the nature of the changes that the [sexual] revolution would ring in.”

Contrary to what you read in the papers, the “birth control debate” isn’t over. It’s just beginning.

Father Guarnizo and the nitty gritty of Canon Law and refusing Holy Communion

by Steve Jalsevac

March 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of the recent news about the Archdiocese of Washington apologizing to an open lesbian for Communion being denied her at a funeral, a U.S. priest canonist has submitted to LifeSiteNews this unsolicited analysis of Catholic Canon Law on the matter. The priest is known to LifeSiteNews but must remain publicly unnamed.

We are including this detailed analysis since the fact that they have not been denied Catholic sacraments has been a large factor in helping very influential, obstinately pro-abortion or anti-family Catholic politicians and activists (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Kathleen Sibelius, Tony Blair, etc.) to legitimize their damaging actions, while still claiming to be in good standing with the Church. The Catholic public figures have in many cases been top leaders of actions against the protection of innocent human life and the family.

There is a growing clamor among pro-life and pro-family leaders, many laity and even from non-Catholics demanding that the Catholic Church end this damaging scandal by using its Canon 915 as an act of charity for the offenders, their victims and the wider community.


A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo


As a priest and canon lawyer, I’d like in canonical terms, to revisit the controversial events surrounding the denial of Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson by
Father Marcel Guarnizo. First of all, while I agree with many of the points by the very well-respected canonist Dr. Ed Peters, I believe that even with the rather limited information currently available, Father Guarnizo very possibly and correctly satisfied the conditions of canon 915 in denying Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson. Secondly, I would like to comment on Father Guarnizo’s unjust “administrative leave” in light of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 915 and Father Guarnizo

The first rule of interpretation in canon law is to read the canon. Canon 915 reads:

“Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

As Ed Peters clearly points out, canon 915 lays an obligation on the minister distributing Holy Communion to deny Holy Communion to certain parties. Who are these parties? The first two parties are those who have been excommunicated or interdicted by imposition or declaration. The third party to be denied Holy Communion are those who fulfill all of the following three conditions, i.e., those who

1. Obstinately persist

2. in manifest
3. grave sin.

How is this canon to be interpreted? Ed Peters rightly mentions a general norm:

Can. 18 - “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

as well as canon 912:

Can. 912 - “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.”

On the other hand, Father William Byrne, Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns, in the Archdiocese of Washington’s press release, states,

“We should receive Jesus with the intention of becoming more like Him. No one is entitled to the Eucharist. It is a free gift and should be received with humility and reverence.”

Ed Peters is again correct to say that the burden lies upon Father Guarnizo to prove he satisfied the requirements of canon 915. On the other hand, canon 915 lays a grave obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and to prevent scandal. It goes without saying that the minister who violates canon 915 should be justly punished.

Ed Peters summarily explains why Father Guarnizo does not fufill the conditions of canon 915:

“Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified, whether Johnson’s sin (speaking objectively), which could be grave (a conclusion I think a Catholic could reach based on the words used here) was also manifest, as well as obstinate and perseverating (sic). “

This statement raises a question. Given the extremely limited information we currently have from a variety of sources, how exactly does Ed Peters judge that Father “Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified” Barbara Johnson was not a manifest, grave sinner? It is safe to assume that Ed Peters was not present at the chapel for the funeral, nor was he in the sacristy, nor does he have knowledge of who or how many persons witnessed the conversation that took place between Father Guarnizo and Barbara Johnson.

Ed Peters goes on to quote a number of very reputable and traditional Catholic moralists and manualists who express in various terms the meaning of canon 915. Let’s look carefully at canon 915. Here’s the canon again:

Canon 915 - “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

What is the purpose of canon 915? Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest tribunal in the Church) answers this question in a paper regarding the liciety of admitting pro-abortion politicians to Holy Communion in light of canon 915. (For those who haven’t read the paper, the quick answer is “no”.) Cardinal Burke states that Canon 915 exists primarily to prevent sacrilege while at the same time preventing our Greatest Good from being violated. His Eminence also remarked in the Jesuit periodical America Magazine that,

“Canon 915 deals with the state of someone who persists in an open, serious moral violation and so has gravely sinned. This means you can’t receive Communion, but it is not saying you are excommunicated. It’s just saying you have broken, in a very serious way, your communion with God and with the Church and therefore are not able to receive Holy Communion.”

The same point is implied in St. Paul’s scolding of the Corinthian Christians during Mass:

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

The minister who applies canon 915 actually does the sinner a great service in charity by preventing him from committing another grave sin.

The secondary purpose of canon 915 is the prevention of scandal. What is scandal? Cardinal Burke says:

“The first and properly theological meaning of scandal is to do or omit something which leads others into error or sin. The second meaning is to do or omit something which causes wonderment (admiratio) in others. Denying Holy Communion publicly to the occult sinner involves scandal in the second sense. Giving Holy Communion to the obstinately serious and public sinner involves scandal in the first sense.”

In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas says that although there is a need for the minister distributing Holy Communion to protect the good name of the hidden sinner, there is also an obligation to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege by a public sinner.

Since Barbara Johnson doesn’t fall into the first two categories of canon 915, let’s see she if she fulfills the following three conditions for the last category of persons, i.e., those who


1. Obstinately persist

2. in manifest
3. grave sin.

1. Obstinately persist


What does it mean to “obstinately persist”?


The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT), the department of the Vatican whose job it is to interpret authentically both universal and particular laws in the Church, states that this phrase “obstinate persistence” is

“the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of “the situation in the Church.”

“Obstinate persistence” denotes an objective (not subjective) state. Although commonly misunderstood, it is not necessary that warnings be issued in order to judge “obstinate persistence”.

Before the funeral Mass, Barbara Johnson declared her homosexual status by introducing her lesbian lover to Father Guarnizo. What was the purpose of this action? We now know, from media reports, that Barbara has been with her partner for 20 years.

We also know that Barbara Johnson walked out of the sacristy while her lover blocked the doorway.

2. “Manifest”

What does “manifest” mean?

Among the leading canon lawyers currently living in North America is Professor John Huels at St. Paul’s University. In his 1985 commentary on canon 915, Professor Huels writes that, “a manifest sin is one which is publicly known, even if only by a few.”

Although tempting, it is not possible completely to equate the term “manifest” with the term “public”, since, in the 1917 Code these two adjectives are used to describe those who are not allowed a Catholic funeral. (1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 1240. Alii peccatores publici et manifesti [Other public and manifest sinners])If “manifest” were exactly the same as“public”, why would the legislator have used both terms?“ Manifest” can also refer to the fact that certain moral actions by their very essence are always immoral and are objectively wrong.For example, we say that it is“manifest” or clear, i.e., there is no doubt, that a certain moral action is definitely wrong.The term “manifest”would certainly in its definition, a politician who is actively attempting to pass legislation to facilitate direct abortions. Understandably there is overlapping in meaning but the the term “public” can mean “that which is provable in the external forum.”

The Jesuit theologian Father Davis, in his classic Moral and Pastoral Theology published in 1938, declared that,

“He is, relatively speaking, a public sinner, if he is known to be such by those who observe that he asks for the Sacraments. He is said to ask for them publicly, if he does so, in the presence of any others, many or few, who would recognize him as a public sinner.”

The ancient Rituale Romanum stated:

“All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. The publicly unworthy, which are the excommunicated, those under interdict, and the manifestly infamous, such as prostitutes, those cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of the public kind, are, however, to be prevented, unless their penitence and amendment has been established and they will have repaired the public scandal.”

Furthermore, as Cardinal Burke mentions in his commentary on canon 915,

“Regarding the denial of Holy Communion, the [1720 Ruthenian] Synod made its own the perennial discipline of the Church:

“Heretics, schismatics, the excommunicated, the interdicted, public criminals, the openly infamous, as also prostitutes, the publicly cohabiting, major usurers, fortune-tellers, and other evil-doing men of the same kind, however, are not to be admitted to the reception of this Sacrament, according to the precept of Christ: ‘Do not give the Holy to dogs’. “

A notorious act here means an act that cannot be concealed.

The well-respected Father William Woestman adds that,

“the public reception of Communion by a public sinner implies that the Church and her ministers somehow condone the public serious sin.”

An author that Ed Peters is familiar with and recommends is the Dominican Father Halligan. Father Halligan, in Administration of the Sacraments, states that a crime

“is public, if it is already divulged or is so situated that it may and must be concluded that it will easily become commonly known.”

Who else was present in the sacristy on the day of Barbara Johnson’s mother’s funeral? Who else could have heard the conversation that took place between Father Guarnizo and Barbara Johnson? Usually before a liturgical ceremony such as a funeral, a number persons can be present in the sacristy (e.g., altar servers, schola members, members of the recently deceased, the parish secretary, etc.).

In addition, reasonableness is assumed in law. Is it not reasonable that the community, largely made up of Barbara Johnson’s family, knew of her lesbian relationship before the funeral if not at least at the funeral?

At family gatherings like funerals or weddings, people “catch up” and learn how everyone and everything has been going since the last funeral or wedding. People find out family news. Even strangers discover a little bit about who’s related to whom and so on. Is it not very reasonable that more than a few people present in that church building knew about the lesbian relationship between Barbara Johnson and her lover?

Every human being lives in a community. What about the community of which Barbara Johnson is a member and amongst whom she lives? Are they supposed to assume that Barbara Johnson received Holy Communion just like everybody else? Doesn’t this create scandal in Cardinal Burke’s first sense where the faithful are led into error about who is worthy to receive Holy Communion?

An unnamed source present at the funeral mentioned that most of the congregation was mysteriously not made up of those around the age of the recently deceased mother but were more around the age of Barbara Johnson. An unusually small percentage of people came up to receive Holy Communion. If these were friends of Barbara Johnson, what about the possible scandal that could have taken place if Father Gaurnizo had given her Holy Communion? This witness is confident that the vast majority of the persons present for the funeral knew about the lesbian “lifestyle” of Barbara Johnson.


3. Grave sin.


Regarding “Grave Sin”, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts declares that this is, “understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability.”


Now that we’ve walked through a working description of the phrase in canon 915 asserting that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,” what is a concrete example of people who fall into this category? The answer is given to us by Blessed Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic Catechism and again, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.


Blessed John Paul II in Familaris Consortio in 1982:

“The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted hereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict the union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is a another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1991:

“As far as the internal forum solution is concerned as a means of resolving the question of the validity of a prior marriage, the magisterium has not sanctioned its use for a number of reasons, among which is the inherent contradiction of resolving something in the internal forum which by its nature also pertains to and has such important consequences for the external forum.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 1650-1651:

“If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic Communion as long as this situation persists. “

Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts in 2000:

“In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.”

The noted 1917 Code commentar Fr. Lincoln Bouscaren, SJ, in Canon Law Digest (vol. 1, 408-409) also relates the case of

“a woman that was living in open concubinage with a relative, went to confession to a missionary, and was admitted by him to Holy Communion. The pastor of the church questioned the propriety of this course of action on the part of the missionary, and referred the matter to the Ordinary of the place. The latter forbade the admission of the woman to Holy Communion until she should have separated from the man with whom she was living. From this decree, the missionary had recourse tot he Sacred Congregation of the Council.

Question: Whether the decree of the Ordinary is to be obeyed.
Reply: In the affirmative.”

Father William Woestman logically concludes that

“the same principles apply to everyone whose habitual lifestyle is manifestly gravely sinful, e.g., the unmarried “living together,” homosexuals or lesbians in a public relationship, those actively participating in the performance of abortions, drug traffickers, gang members.”

We can see that Ed Peters clearly contradicts the point reinterated by Father Woestmann:

“I think that withholding Holy Communion from those divorced and remarried outside the Church is an application of Canon 915 (see, e.g., Kelly, in GB&I COMM [1995] 503), but I need not prove that point to show that withholding the Eucharist from divorced-and-remarrieds, that is, those who status is de iure public, is appropriate under, among other things, the 1994 CDF Letter on Communion for Divorced and Remarried Catholics, n. 6. Of course, as Johnson is apparently not divorced and remarried outside the Church, and because Guarnizo did not suspect her of being so, his implicit appeal to the CDF letter and/or c. 915, fails in law and in fact.”

Objectively, homosexuality is graver than adultery. I don’t understand why Dr. Peters says that it is licit to use canon 915 to deny Holy Communion to those who are divorced and have remarried but it is not licit to use canon 915 for a lesbian in a homosexual relationship.

Up to this point, we’ve applied our attention to law relevant to the particular situation of Baabara Johnson. Now we ask, what should be done practically in a concrete situation?


The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts again provides the answer:

“Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.”

“The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community.”

We know that Father Guarnizo did not make the funeral arrangments for Barbara Johnson’s mother. We also know that after hearing confessions from 9:30-10:20am, Father Guarnizo wanted to speak with Barbara before the 10:30am funeral Mass but was blocked by Barbara Johnson’s lover. We also know that Father Guarnizo’s action to deny Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson was extremely discreet.

Defender o futuro - João César das Neves

In DN

Quando um dia se escrever a história deste tempo, a primeira década do século surgirá como uma era de desorientação e decadência. Alguns elementos que justificarão esse severo juízo são hoje já visíveis. Por muito que o PS queira esconder ou iludir, a linha económica e social dos últimos anos foi desastrosa. Os nossos problemas sócio-económicos são terríveis mas, quando se escrever essa história, pouco mais restará que a sua memória, pois empresas e comunidades costumam recuperar bem, mesmo de crises sérias. Esta triste década deixará cicatrizes fundas e duradouras no ânimo nacional, mas será noutras áreas. Como de costume, os problemas realmente importantes passam despercebidos à actualidade.

Do delírio dos últimos anos, que poderá ser tão decisivo que deixe marcas sociais que durem décadas? Que é que atinge a estrutura mais nuclear de Portugal? Não é difícil encontrar agressões recentes a esse nível, gerando chagas nacionais. Com a taxa de fertilidade das mais baixas do mundo, o casamento em vias de extinção, o divórcio em níveis nunca vistos e a educação na quinta década sucessiva de crise, não admira que as próximas gerações acusem este tempo dos seus males. As poucas crianças a quem hoje é permitido nascer serão educadas numa precariedade familiar e escolar difícil de imaginar. Isto gerará efeitos muito depois de esquecida a crise económica.

Esta evolução tem muitas causas e origens, mas os dirigentes políticos, quando em vez de a combaterem insistem em agravá-la, assumem terrível responsabilidade. Os dois últimos governos, enquanto arruinavam financeiramente o país, aumentavam a desigualdade social e distorciam o tecido produtivo, dedicaram-se nas horas vagas a desmantelar algumas das leis mais básicas da família, vida e educação.

A alucinante cavalgada regulamentar incluiu mais de um diploma radical por ano durante duas legislaturas: Lei 32/2006 de 26 de Julho (reprodução artificial), Lei 16/2007 de 17 de Abril e Portaria 741-A/2007 de 21 de Junho (liberalização do aborto), Lei 61/2008 de 31 de Outubro (banalização do divórcio), Lei 60/2009 de 6 de Agosto (educação sexual laxista), Lei 9/2010 de 31 de maio (casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo), Decreto-Lei 138-C/2010 de 28 de Dezembro (estrangulamento do ensino privado) e Lei n.º 7/2011 de 15 de Março (mudança do sexo).

Em todos os casos foi imposta uma regulamentação extremista e culturalmente agressiva, distorcendo e invertendo atitudes e instituições multisseculares. Em questões justamente chamadas fracturantes, que geram intensos debates por todo o mundo civilizado, de uma penada Portugal saltou de uma posição equilibrada para o extremo do espectro. Em todos os casos um punhado de deputados, auto-erigidos defensores da modernidade, achavam-se com mandato sobre a tradição nacional e impunham a sua visão irresponsável.

Os vetos do Presidente da República, as críticas da Igreja e de muitas forças sociais, a elementar prudência, foram simplesmente ignorados. Como parolos arvorados em modernaços, ao desplante juntavam a cegueira, no mais puro autismo político. No único caso em que a população foi consultada fez-se magna fraude política. Depois da rejeição do aborto no referendo de 1998, a votação foi repetida em 2007, com uma subtil mudança na argumentação. A segunda campanha não falou de embriões, partos e hospitais, mas de mulheres presas (que de facto não existiam). Aprovada a despenalização, o Governo legislou coisa muito diferente, a liberalização e subsidiação do aborto. Isto chega para mostrar a má-fé.

Como entretanto o país entrou em emergência financeira devido aos outros erros conjunturais, pretende-se agora que estas agressões caiam no esquecimento. Está em assinatura pública a petição "Defender o Futuro" (www.peticaopublica.com/? pi=P2012N22192), que solicita à Assembleia da República que reconsidere os atentados e reponha o equilíbrio. Talvez a nova maioria entenda que por aqui passam as verdadeiras reformas estruturais, determinantes do futuro nacional.

quinta-feira, 29 de março de 2012

Abortion groups annoyed by increased participation of Catholic bishops in 40 Days for Life

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

LONDON, March 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Increased support by Catholic bishops for pro-life prayer vigils outside British abortion facilities has infuriated pro-abortion forces. Complaining that the vigils are successfully turning women away from abortion, one abortion group has organized a “counter-protest” set for the London vigil this Friday.

Recently, Bishop Alan Hopes, an auxiliary bishop of Westminster, announced he would participate personally in the annual 40 Days for Life project. A spokesman for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK’s busiest abortionists, complained in the Evening Standard that there is “no moral justification” for bishops to get involved in such a campaign.

Abigail Fitzgibbon, policy manager for BPAS said that “vocal” anti-abortion MPs were also stirring up protesters. She told the Standard, “If bishops are getting behind this then I can’t see how it’s morally justified especially when women have already made up their minds.”

Bishop Hopes announced earlier this month that he would be attending the prayer vigil on Friday, March 30. Today, emails were sent out to abortion supporters by the Bloomsbury Pro-Choice Alliance, saying that the bishop’s announcement had prompted them to organize a “noisy” counter-demonstration.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The 40 Days for Life campaign, the group said, is part of a trend in Britain that “is increasingly mimicking the tactics of hardline US groups.”

Earlier this month, another bishop, Bishop Thomas McMahon of Brentwood, sent a message to pro-lifers, giving their “prophetic” stance his “unqualified support” at a prayer vigil outside the BPAS facility in Stratford.

“Abortion has reached a new height in this country in recent months by the fact that a number of clinics now allow abortion purely according to gender and also allowing private clinics to seek business through television and radio advertisements,” Bishop McMahon said. “With 200,000 abortions a year we already have one of the highest rates in Europe.”

Also attending a prayer vigil next month will be Bishop John Hine, an auxiliary bishop of Southwark; that vigil will occur at Marie Stopes abortion facility in Kent on Friday, April 27th. The event in Kent, organized by the US-based group, Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, will include a Mass celebrated by Bishop Hine at 12:30 pm at St. Francis’s Church, Week Street, Maidstone, followed by a procession with an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the Marie Stopes Clinic and concludes with a return procession at 2.30 p.m.

John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said, “Strong, compassionate, pro-life leadership, such as the leadership shown by these bishops, lays the foundation for a great campaign for life in the months and years ahead.

“I congratulate the pro-life groups who are winning, by their example, episcopal support. And I thank Bishop McMahon, Bishop Hopes, and Bishop Hine, for their courage in speaking out for the helpless unborn and their mothers.”

For more information on 40 Days for Life.

To contact Bishop Hopes
Vaughan House,
46 Francis Street,
London SW1P 1QN
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7798 9023
ellendunleavy@rcdow.org.uk

To contact Bishop McMahon
Cathedral House,
28 Ingrave Road,
Brentwood, Essex
CM15 8AT,
+44 (0) 1277 232266
http://www.dioceseofbrentwood.net/contact/Default.aspx

To contact Bishop Hine
The Hermitage
More Park
West Malling
Kent
ME19 6HN
Phone: +44 (0) 1732 845486
Fax: +44 (0) 1732 847888
Email: jhine@absouthwark.org


domingo, 25 de março de 2012

Um Pecado Colectivo

Houve em Portugal dois referendos sobre o aborto. Um em 1998, cuja pergunta a que os votantes eram chamados a responder era a seguinte: «Concorda com a despenalização da Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez, se realizada por opção da mulher nas primeiras 10 semanas em estabelecimento de saúde legalmente autorizado?»; o outro em 2007 pedia-nos que nos pronunciássemos exactamente sobre a mesma questão: «Concorda com a despenalização da interrupção voluntária da gravidez, se realizada, por opção da mulher, nas primeiras dez semanas, em estabelecimento de saúde legalmente autorizado?». Na primeira faltam duas vírgulas, mas o sentido mantem-se inalterado, e na segunda o 10 está por extenso.

Em ambas as consultas populares os movimentos do Não denunciaram que a resposta positiva, isto é o Sim, à interrogação implicaria a liberalização do aborto. De facto, acarretaria uma despenalização não só para a mulher que decidisse abortar mas também para quantos provocassem o abortamento e/0u que nele fossem cúmplices. A exigência deste ser efectuado num “estabelecimento de saúde” era uma clara indicação de que o estado não só renunciaria a respeitar e a tutelar a dignidade e a vida dos mais inocentes e vulneráveis, dando desse modo uma garantia ao agressor de que a sua vítima não seria protegida, mas também que se fazia executor ou carrasco, através dos seus serviços ou dos que com ele estivessem concessionados, das crianças concebidas em processo de nascimento. E uma vez que o homicídio sob a forma de abortamento fosse considerado um serviço de saúde daí decorreria que o estado o subvencionaria, com o dinheiro dos nossos impostos, violentando assim a nossa consciência bem como a liberdade religiosa. Tudo isto, e muito mais, foi dito e redito até à exaustão aquando dos tempos que antecederam a consulta ao povo eleitor. Está escrito, está gravado quer sonora quer visualmente.

Em 1998 o Não ganhou ao Sim por uma ligeira diferença: no primeiro votaram 1.356.754 (50,9%) cidadãos enquanto no segundo 1.308.130 (49,1%). Porém, em 2007 os resultados inverteram-se, com grande subida do Sim. De facto, este obteve 2.238.053 (59,25%) enquanto o Não ficou-se pelos 1.539.078 (40,75%). Enquanto o Sim regista uma subida de 930 mil votos o Não sob somente 182 mil. Se tivermos em conta que em 1998, principalmente no norte, grande parte de membros da Igreja e de outros actores sociais favoráveis ao Não fizeram campanha pela abstenção verificar-se-á que a distância será ainda mais significativa.

Infelizmente os membros da Igreja ainda não fizeram um exame de consciência nem os movimentos cívicos do Não uma autocrítica de modo a deslindarem se e em que medida têm a sua quota de responsabilidade, e a descobrirem aquilo em que falharam, e que pode e deve ser corrigido. É possível que o motivo desta omissão seja o de manter a paz e a não fomentar desunião. Mas a verdade é que a paz quando é podre derranca e corrompe aqueles que nela habitam e a promovem, e que há uma santa discórdia gerada por Aquele que veio para ser sinal de contradição (Lc 2, 34), trazendo conSigo a espada que provoca desavença inclusive nas uniões mais naturais (Mt 10, 34).

Não há duvidar que por parte dos propugnadores do Sim houve uma enorme manipulação sustentada por poderosas forças de propaganda aliadas a uma desmedida hegemonia na comunicação social e a uma clara supremacia económica. No entanto, isso não só não explica tudo como deixa de lado o principal.

É absolutamente necessário conhecer a verdade e afirmá-la sem truques que a distorçam, nem manhas, nem astúcias. Para mim é incontroverso que o povo português, com seus representantes por ele escolhidos, na sua maioria, isto é, a nação portuguesa, cometeu um gravíssimo pecado aos olhos de Deus. E que por isso importa muito fazer penitência pública, actos de reparação e de desagravo aos Sagrados Corações de Jesus e de Maria, Sua e nossa mãe. E que isso importa não só à nossa salvação eterna e à conversão dos pecadores mas também à nossa sobrevivência como nação e como estado de direito.

Dizia o Professor César das Neves, em entrevista a um canal da televisão, que andamos agora num alvoroço procurando apagar o incêndio que lavra nos cortinados desta nossa casa que é Portugal, todavia descuramos coisas mais importantes de que ninguém fala nem se ocupa como sejam as seis pseudo-leis que a petição “Defender o Futuro” quer derrogar. De facto, há um fogo abrasador que está consumindo e minando os alicerces de Portugal mas como é menos visível, apesar de ser muito mais perigoso, ninguém se sobressalta nem acode a extingui-lo. E, não obstante, essa é rigorosamente uma estrita obrigação dos políticos cuja missão consiste em defender promover o bem-comum.