sábado, 26 de maio de 2012

Un joven canario explica cómo dejó atrás sus sentimientos homosexuales y la liberación que sintió


Alberto Pérez es un joven de 20 años, canario, cristiano, que tiene la valentía de dar la cara y contar al mundo el sufrimiento que pasó al descubrir que tenía sentimientos homosexuales con 14 años, y el camino que siguió para sanar emociones heridas que le han devuelto una paz y una alegría inmensa para vivir.

En esta entrevista en exclusiva que concede a Religión en Libertad, Alberto Pérez habla de ese proceso y del mundo gay, también de la cantidad de personas con atracción homosexual que él conoce y que ya no se creen las bondades del estilo de vida gay, y quieren cambiar sus sentimientos.

- ¿Qué es lo que descubriste en el proceso de la terapia que te llevó a tener esos sentimientos homosexuales?
- La terapia ha sido para mí un camino de autoconocimiento. En este sentido, todos deberíamos estar en una terapia sin fin, porque nunca terminamos de conocernos a nosotros mismos. En concreto, los jóvenes, la gran mayoría no saben qué y quiénes son.

Creo que de lo que descubrí, lo más curioso para mí fue ver que realmente esta situación, no tenía nada que ver con la sexualidad. Comprendí que las atracciones homosexuales tienen su origen en problemas emocionales.

La primera vez que investigué sobre lo que estaba sintiendo, me encontré con el libro de Richard Cohen Comprender y sanar la homosexualidad (muy recomendable). Ese libro fue muy clarificador para mí. Al leerlo fue inevitable que se me saltaran las lágrimas… Todo lo que Richard contaba de su vida, era todo lo que yo mismo podría decir, con matices claro está. Hay que tener claro, que cada persona con atracción homosexual es un caso único, y que no todos los casos son iguales. No hay un patrón fijo.

Por medio de la terapia fui comprendiendo que había desarrollado esas tendencias por situaciones que viví a lo largo de mi vida y por el ambiente en el que me crié.

- ¿En qué consistió la terapia?
- Una buena terapia ha de ser integral. Abarcar todas las áreas que conforman la persona.

Simplificando todo lo que conlleva la terapia, consistió en identificar cada uno de los factores, son varios, que desencadenaron el complejo homosexual.

No basta con conocerlos, el conocimiento no sana; una vez descubierta las heridas, empecé con el proceso de curación.

Sanar significa suplir esas necesidades emocionales insatisfechas, curar el trauma, ya que la homosexualidad no es más que un grito desgarrador del alma que clama por cubrir vacíos emocionales que son totalmente legítimos.

La homosexualidad es una respuesta equivocada, una mentira, una “promesa falsa” que no satisface.

- ¿Puedes confirmar que ha habido un cambio en tu vida y que has logrado una transición entre tus sentimientos homosexuales hacia sentimientos heterosexuales?
- Permítame reenfocar la pregunta. La verdad es que yo no me convertí de gay a hetero. Nuestros amigos del lobby gay dirán “¡Ves, te lo dije! Es bisexual, no gay…” La realidad es que yo no creo que existan hombres homosexuales. La orientación homosexual no existe. Lo que sí existe son hombres heterosexuales con atracciones homosexuales. No, no es un juego de palabras. Yo nunca fui gay, no soy un ex gay, era un joven con un problema de identidad sexual. Pero sí, a día de hoy, el conflicto de las atracciones se ha resuelto. Soy muy feliz por ello.

- ¿Cuánto tiempo te llevó ese proceso de cambio?
- No me gusta hablar de tiempo. ¿Sabes por qué? Porque esta entrevista la van a leer hombres que están batallando con esta situación, lo están pasando mal, están desesperados y realmente no saben si hay esperanza para ellos.

Muchos están literalmente obsesionados en cuánto tardarán en quitarse de encima este sufrimiento, hablo con conocimiento de causa. El tiempo va a depender de muchas cosas. Tratar todos los aspectos de la persona, sinceramente, lleva tiempo. Ahora, lo que sí es verdad es que el “mecanismo homosexual” es complejo, pero fácil de entender. Y la verdad es que las atracciones, si se trabaja bien, es algo que desaparece relativamente en muy poco tiempo.

- ¿Tu fe cristiana te ayudó en ese proceso?
- (Ríe) Esta pregunta debería haber sido la primera… Me emociona tocar el tema de la fe… Soy amigo de Dios y creo en que lo clave es tener una relación con Jesús como Salvador y como Señor. Mi relación con Dios y este asunto me supuso grandes quebraderos de cabeza y profunda tristeza.

Mi mensaje para aquellos que están enfadados con Dios, deprimidos, sin entender nada, aquellos que no pueden hacer mas que preguntarse “¿Por qué a mí?”, es el siguiente:

“Amigo, no te condenes, no te juzgues ni te desprecies a ti mismo. Dios no lo hace. Dios cree en ti más de lo que tú crees en él. Dios no está enfadado contigo, hayas hecho lo que quiera que sea… Él no está anotando todas tus faltas… Él te ve con otros ojos, Él ve el tremendo valor que tú tienes, las cosas valen lo que estemos dispuesto a pagar por ellas, Dios pagó con su propio hijo… ¿Realmente crees que no quiere saber nada de ti? Dios está a tu favor y no en contra de ti… Él sueña contigo, tiene planes de bien para ti y no de mal, Él es capaz de hacer más y mejores cosas por ti, de las que tú puedas pedir o imaginar… No intentes ser más bueno que Dios… no se trata de tus méritos ni de tus obras, se trata de Él… Deja de intentar ganarte el amor de Dios… Acéptalo, recibe su amor… Te digo muy en serio, Dios está comprometido contigo, confía en Él”.

Yo llegué a odiar a Dios, no entendía nada, miraba a mi alrededor y parecía que a todo el mundo le iba bien, mientras yo estaba sumido en un pozo sin fondo… yo quería saber dónde estaba Dios, si se suponía que era bueno… por qué no hacía nada…

En este momento puedo decir que Dios ha sido muy bueno y fiel. Él ha tratado con mi corazón. Todo lo que ha pasado ha sido para bien, hoy en día, me encajan todas las piezas del puzzle.

Entendí que me había equivocado, Dios no era el problema… No puedo explicar cómo el Espíritu Santo fue cuidando de mi con cada detalle… Obrando en mi alma…

Lo más importante fue empezar a entender la revelación de Dios como PADRE. También experimentar el perdón de Dios… Ese perdón que recibí me permitió perdonarme a mi mismo, y a quienes me hicieron daño.

- ¿Qué es lo que motivó en ti decidirte a querer dejar atrás tus sentimientos homosexuales?
- Dejar claro a los que no les caigo muy bien, que no fue la presión familiar o ambiental. Honestamente, tampoco fue por cuestiones religiosas…

Simplemente no estaba satisfecho. No era lo que quería. No me completaba…

Lo más determinante fue tocar fondo debido a una fuerte e incontrolable adicción a la pornografía.

- ¿Crees que hay mucha gente dentro del colectivo gay que está deseando un cambio como el que tu has tenido?
- (Ríe) El 100%... al menos en un principio… Raro es el caso en el que alguien desee ser gay. Ahora ya refiriéndonos al mundo gay en sí, sí hay bastantes… sobre todo jóvenes que estás descubriendo sus sentimientos… Hombres casados… Y aquellos que ya han probado y vivido todo lo que el mundo gay les podía ofrecer. Al final “el ambiente” se basa en “cuerpo, dinero y juventud”… Nada de estos tres ingredientes son para siempre…

- ¿Por qué el colectivo gay se opone tan radicalmente a la posibilidad del cambio de los sentimientos homosexuales a los heterosexuales?
- Tengo la ligera sensación que realmente ellos saben que algo no marcha bien. La mayoría ha pasado por un proceso duro de aceptación, realmente han tenido una fuerte lucha con una homofobia interior…

Saben que viven en una fantasía y molesta que otros hablen claro… Si están tan seguros de si mismos de que se trata de algo completamente normal, y son felices… ¿Por qué se molestan y nos dan tanta importancia a una supuesta minoría de retrógrados?

- ¿Qué le dirías a una persona que esté harta del estilo de vida gay y quiera cambiar su forma de vida?
- Primeramente, le felicitaría, y le expresaría mi más sincera alegría de que se haya podido dar cuenta de donde estaba…

Lo animaría a empezar a salir adelante… Independientemente de a dónde pueda llegar en su camino, cualquier estado será mejor que en el que está…

Es inevitable hartarse. No le deseo a nadie ese estilo de vida caracterizado fuertemente por desenfreno, drogas, excesos, dependencias, promiscuidad, infidelidad, soledad, hipocresía, enfermedades…

- ¿Eres consciente de que te arriesgas mucho al testimoniar públicamente tu historia?
- Sí. También soy consciente de lo mucho que gano haciéndolo. Mirando la balanza, merece la pena. Muchos ponen la cara para la mentira, ¿Por qué no ponerla a favor de la verdad?

Desde luego hay una motivación, creo que no lo haría si no tuviera unas convicciones cristianas bien marcadas.

No me preocupa el “qué dirán…”. Haga lo que haga, siempre habrá alguien que tenga algo que decir sobre mi. No me importa. Yo sé quién soy y que me conoce sabe lo que hay. Creo que es una causa justa, es mas, me siento afortunado por poder defender esta causa… Creo que es una responsabilidad importante, mi voz junto a la de otros, es la voz de los sin voces… A algunos les toca dar la talla detrás del telón, a otros nos toca dar la cara…

Pero no es un asunto menor… Antes de que esta entrevista vaya a ser publicada, ya he recibido amenazas de todo tipo, tanto por email como en mi movil. No me da miedo… Sé quién está conmigo

- ¿Conoces a más personas que han realizado el mismo camino que el tuyo? ¿Sabes cómo se sienten? ¿Qué han experimentado?
- ¡Sí! No soy la última “Coca Cola del desierto”… hay muchos chicos que han pasado por situaciones similares, lo que pasa es que no todo el mundo está dispuesto a hacer lo que yo hago… algo que es muy respetable, la mayoría están interesados en superar el problema lo antes posible y sin que nadie sepa nada, pasar hoja y seguir con la vida.

- ¿Qué piensas de la homofobia?
- Homofóbico, eso es lo que muchos me llaman… nada más lejos de la realidad… No tengo nada en contra de los colectivos gays, ni de ningún homosexual. Creo que tengo la autoridad suficiente para hablar de este tema, ¿Qué me da esa autoridad? El haber vivido en primera persona esta situación…

- ¿La terapia es sólo para creyentes?
- Por supuesto que no. No confundamos. No estamos hablando de un “problema espiritual”. Ciertamente es un tema con raíces espirituales, simplemente porque somos seres espirituales. Pero no nos olvidemos que también en nuestro ser encontramos la parte almática. Es ahí, en el alma, en la psique, donde radica el complejo homosexual.

Superar las atracciones homosexuales no es por medio de una receta religiosa. Pero también tenemos que decir que las personas que suelen tener conflictos con esta problemática de la identidad sexual son aquellas que son creyentes, ya que las atracciones homosexuales supondrán un problema o no, dependiendo de la concepción antropológica que tengamos del hombre… Me refiero a que si lo que prima para una persona es el placer sobre el sentido común… No tendrá razones profundas por las que empezar un proceso de cambio.

Sin embargo, aquellos que desde el ámbito de la razón y desde una perspectiva de fe, entendemos que una relación entre dos hombres no tiene sentido… De ahí que busquemos otra opción.

- ¿Qué puede hacer un hombre maduro o un joven que al leer esta entrevista, quiere salir de la homosexualidad?
- Sea una persona mayor, incluso un hombre casado, o un joven, adolescente… de España o de cualquier parte del mundo, lo primero que debe saber es que no está solo. En soledad, no se puede salir de ahí… Es un problema relacional, es por medio de la comunión, la solidaridad, es decir, todo lo contrario al egoísmo… por donde encontramos la esperanza. A todos los que saben que merecen algo mejor que rendirse a unos instintos bajos y sin sentido, les animo a que se pongan en contacto conmigo (siesposibledejarlavidagay@live.com), con mucho gusto les ayudaré y les orientaré.

- Bueno, y ahora, ¿Cuáles son las perspectivas de futuro de Alberto Pérez?
- Ahora sigo adelante con muchos sueños. Con muchos proyectos entre manos, recién estoy empezando una asociación con el objetivo de ser de bendición. Tengo planes concretos como desarrollar un plan de apadrinamiento de niños, también estoy hablando con una emisora para llevar adelante un programa de radio… También comprometo mi vida con la denuncia de la mentira de la vida gay desde los pequeños detalles, hasta las altas esferas a las que el Señor me permita llegar. Como no, desde ya me estoy proyectando como un soporte y apoyo a todas las víctimas del lobby gay.

En no mucho tiempo, lo que quiero es prepararme en un instituto bíblico para el ministerio, con el fin de servir más y mejor a Dios y a su gente.

Al mirar al futuro, agradezco a mi familia todo su amor y lo que han hecho por mi. Gracias también a cada uno de mis amigos, gracias porque aunque no sabían muchas veces de qué forma ayudarme, estuvieron conmigo, me sentí sólo, pero nunca lo estuve. No creo que sea conveniente nombrarlos… pero aprovecho la oportunidad para decirles que les quiero con locura.

Doy muchas gracias a un amigo en especial, un hombre al que recurrí cuando descubrí lo que me pasaba… Una persona que a pesar de la distancia física, llegó un momento el que se comprometió con toda su vida a echarme un cabo. Estaré eternamente agradecido a él. La compasión, el amor… el querer alcanzar los perdidos en el fango de la mentira… en mi corazón fue fuertemente influenciado por la entrega de este hombre de Dios, una persona que detrás del telón está siendo y haciendo historia…

Obispo de Alcalá: Reproducción asistida es un ataque a la familia

MADRID, 26 May. 12 / 02:04 am (ACI/Europa Press).- El Obispo de Alcalá de Henares (España), Mons. Juan Antonio Reig Pla, ha asegurado que, si el instrumento de la primera revolución sexual fue la píldora anticonceptiva, en la actualidad, son las intervenciones de cambio de sexo, la manipulación de embriones, la reproducción asistida y los postulados del feminismo "radical" como el instrumento de la segunda revolución sexual que atacan a la familia.

"Si el instrumento de la primera revolución sexual fue la píldora, en este caso los instrumentos son las intervenciones de reasignación de sexo, manipulación de embriones, reproducción asistida y cultura dominante que, propiciada por la manipulación del lenguaje, pretende promover los postulados del feminismo radical y el relativismo moral", ha afirmado.

Así se ha pronunciado durante su intervención en la sesión plenaria 'La Familia natural y la revolución contra la familia', que se ha celebrado en el marco del Congreso Mundial de las Familias (WCF) de Madrid que tiene lugar desde este viernes hasta el domingo en el palacio de Congresos de Madrid.

Además, ha indicado que los síntomas que ponen de manifiesto la ideología de género son "los llamados modelos de familia, las uniones de personas del mismo sexo con posibilidad de adopción y la salud reproductiva".

En este sentido, ha indicado que la familia ha sufrido, a lo largo de la historia, la "acometida" de "transformaciones rápidas" de la sociedad y la cultura pero ha apuntado que "lo peor estaba por llegar" con la primera revolución sexual favorecida por la venta de la píldora anticonceptiva que provocó, a su juicio, la "ruptura entre sexualidad y procreación, matrimonio y amor", basándose en un "dualismo antropológico", un "individualismo" y un concepto "perverso" de libertad.

Para afrontar este desafío, Reig Pla ha señalado que es necesario partir de los fundamentos antropológicos recogidos en la teología del cuerpo y tener en cuenta dos tesis: la de la unidad entre cuerpo y espíritu y la de la redención del cuerpo o la unidad de las persona en el ser y el obrar. 

Finalmente, ha invitado, entre aplausos del público y una muestra de "cariño" por parte del Congreso ante los "acontecimientos de las pasadas semanas", a presentar el amor conyugal "como un amor fiel y fecundo, exclusivo" y superar el "reduccionismo utilitarista" que, a su juicio, se hace del amor.

sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012

Sacerdote revela que fue fruto de una violación y agradece a madre por no abortarlo

BUENOS AIRES, 25 May. 12 / 02:18 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- "Para mi madre fue su máximo orgullo haber defendido la vida", afirmó el P. Alfar Antonio Vélez, párroco en la provincia de Chubut (Argentina), que decidió contar su testimonio como hijo producto de una violación en rechazo al fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación que declaró no punible el aborto para estos casos.

"Mi madre era una mujer de mucha fe, muy practicante y muy santa. Ella decía que, pese a las tan terribles circunstancias, llevaba en su seno el milagro de una nueva vida, una vida que Dios le había dado y que, por sus convicciones, no podía abortar. Y que si Dios se la había dado debía encontrarle el sentido (…). De hecho, los tres años que vivió conmigo a raíz de una larga enfermedad hasta su muerte, en 2009, fueron para ella los años más bellos de su vida", dijo al sitio web Valoresreligiosos.com.ar.

El sacerdote, cuya labor pastoral es bastante apreciada por los fieles, relató que su madre fue violada a los 27 años de edad en Medellín (Colombia), por varios compañeros de trabajo que le tendieron una trampa durante una fiesta, la drogaron y abusaron de ella repetidamente.

En medio del dolor y sin saber quién era el padre, la mujer fue presionada por la familia para que se casara con un viudo que luego del matrimonio la maltrató en varias ocasiones. Al no poder separarse, la mamá se quedó con su esposo y un segundo hijo, mientras Alfar era enviado a casa de su abuela.
"Un día, como mi abuela me pedía que le diga papá a mi abuelo, le pregunté cómo podía ser él mi abuelo y mi papá a la vez. Ello provocó una reunión con mi madre, que me contó lo que le había pasado. Que mucha gente quería que me abortara, otras que me vendiera y otras que me regalara. Y que, incluso, había mucha gente interesada en mí. Para mí fue muy duro. Tenía apenas 10 años. Reaccioné con mucha severidad contra mi madre".

"Con el paso del tiempo y de una vida muy triste, fui a la iglesia a reclamarle a Dios, a preguntarle por qué a mí. Como yo le hablaba a los gritos, vino un sacerdote y me dijo que estaba formulando mal la pregunta: ‘No es por qué, sino para qué’, señaló. Que creía que Dios, precisamente a raíz de mi situación, me estaba llamando para cosas grandes. En fin, me dijo que Dios escribe derecho sobre renglones torcidos y que iba a ser un instrumento de Él. Y me leyó el pasaje de Jeremías, donde Dios lo llama, pero este se resiste y el Señor le dice: ‘No te preocupes, yo haré todo por ti’. Aquella charla me marcó. Ese sacerdote terminó siendo como un padre", afirmó.

Dijo que poco a poco comenzó a valorar la vida. "Llegué a ser catequista sin darme cuenta de que Dios me estaba preparando para elegir el sacerdocio" y que Dios no quiso que su madre abortara "porque confiaba en mí y anhelaba que, aunque fuese fruto de un pecado muy grave, sea su instrumento para llegar a tantas partes con su luz, su gracia y su amor".

Por ello, el ahora sacerdote afirmó que si tuviera que conversar con una mujer que fue violada, "le diría que Dios es el dueño de la vida y que a ella la hizo instrumento de vida. Que la culpa la tiene el violador, no el niño que lleva en su seno. Creo que la decisión de abortar se acabará cuando pensemos que toda vida es un regalo de Dios, más allá de cómo fue concebida, del dolor, o de la alegría. El sabe por qué y con el tiempo uno va descubriendo el para qué".

Finalmente dirigió un mensaje a los que creen que se debe permitir los abortos en caso de violación. Recordó que el ser humano es imagen y semejanza de Dios y por tanto "no tenemos derecho a quitarle la vida a ningún inocente porque no tiene la culpa de cómo vino al mundo. La culpa las tenemos aquellos que, de pronto, nos equivocamos y no hacemos la voluntad de Dios".

"Para mi madre fue su máximo orgullo haber defendido la vida. Y su máxima satisfacción y alegría fue haber visto en mí a un hombre de bien para la sociedad. Ella pensaba acerca de cuántos hombres y mujeres de bien se privó la sociedad por el aborto", expresó. 

quarta-feira, 23 de maio de 2012

Charles Peguy and Zeal - by Anthony Esolen

In CRISIS

When Dante and Virgil enter the fourth ring of the winding path up Purgatory Mountain, they meet a band of souls weeping and racing at once, “galloping for good will and righteous love.” Before they can ask a single question, they hear these heartening words:

“Come on, come on, don’t let time slip away
for lukewarm love!” cried those who ran nearby.
“Zeal in well-doing makes grace green again!”

These sinners are atoning for the sin that Josef Pieper said was characteristic of our day. It is the devil of the noonday sun, acedia, spiritual sluggishness: the unwillingness, and the resulting incapacity, to derive joy from what should legitimately bring us joy. Acedia, says Saint Thomas, is the sin against the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is to be celebrated with a restfulness that is more active, more fervent, than is the necessary toil that burdens the other days of the week. They atone for it by calling upon the muscular virtue of zeal, engaging, to use the words of our Lord, all the heart and mind and strength and soul.

The same Greek root gives us our words zeal and jealousy, and here it is useful to note the difference. Jealousy properly refers to a demand that what is one’s own remain inviolate. It may become a vice, as when a jealous husband spies upon his innocent wife; but God Himself says to the children of Israel that He is a jealous God, meaning that the worship due to Him may not be granted in the least to any strange god – to any mere work of that factory of idols, the human mind. But zeal is that same desire, born of devotion, to ensure the inviolability of a good that belongs to someone else, and particularly to God. “Zeal for thy house hath eaten me up,” says the evangelist, when Jesus, angered on behalf both of the poor and of God, makes a whip of cords and drives the thieving dealers out of the Temple. Zeal is the spirit that breathes throughout the celebratory Psalms. “I rejoiced,” says the Psalmist, “when I heard them say, Let us go up to the house of the Lord.” David is moved by zeal when he dances naked before the Ark of the Covenant. When Ezra the Scribe reads the book of the law to the Jews returned from captivity, they are at first abashed and crushed with sorrow, but he commands them instead to refresh themselves and to feast with joy.

Zeal reveals to us all the difference between a world grown merely secular and old, and the youthfulness of Christian love. The young student Charles Peguy threw all his capacious energy into the promotion of socialism in France. That was before his dramatic conversion to the faith; but even in the midst of those years he retired from the prestigious Ecole Normale for a year – an unprecedented thing to do – to return to his peasant home and to begin his lifelong poetic meditation upon the life of Joan of Arc. His Joan simply will not accept that it is God’s will that the French countryside be ravaged by the soldiers of England. “How will they be saved?” she asks, again and again. “How will they be saved?” It is her zeal – her irrepressible love for the poor French peasants, her unquenchable desire to guard their rights – that opens her heart to the call to give her very body for their sake. Peguy himself, by then an ardent Catholic, died in the front lines of battle at the beginning of World War I, a hero for his beloved France.

Or we may think of Joseph de Veustre, a young man of weak constitution, who fairly cheated his way onto a ship bound for Hawaii, so that he could hurl himself into work among the lepers on Molokai. He came upon a sinkhole of physical and moral corruption. He was zealous in his anger against what should not be, because he was zealous in his love for what should be. He did not hate the wretched and dying sinners he met there, but loved them with a searing fire, to cauterize their souls, when he could not heal their bodies. He did for them what Mother Teresa did for the dying in Calcutta. This is no cold and abstract philanthropy. “I would not do what you are doing,” said a journalist once when he beheld Mother Teresa cleaning the purulent sores of a dying man, “for a million dollars.”

“I would not do it for a million dollars either,” Mother Teresa replied. Not for a million dollars, but for zealous love. What did she see in those people, half rotten while they breathed still? She saw Christ; she saw royalty. Her zeal but gave them the honor they deserved.

That zeal is well expressed by the words of Christ that haunted her all her life. They are words of relentless love. “I thirst,” said Jesus from the Cross. “Tell her,” said Jesus in a dream to a young priest who was to visit Mother Teresa, “tell her that I still thirst.” Jesus thirsts for the good of all lost souls. He is the Good Shepherd, the one who does not say, “Well, ninety nine out of a hundred is all right,” but cannot rest until that one lost sheep is found again and carried home upon his shoulders. And then there is rejoicing in heaven, more for the one than for the ninety nine.

What unreasonable love of God, that there should be such rejoicing, wrote Peguy. That zealous man also wrote that Jesus upon the Cross wept for love. He did not notice His own mother abandoned to sorrow at the foot of the Cross, and the beloved disciple John supporting her, because He was thinking still of that Judas whom He loved so well, and whom He could not save.

Zeal does not give up; just as youth, blessed youth, cannot believe in defeat. I am no great exemplar of zeal, because the noonday sun, and its dry heat, and the dust of the road we travel, lie heavy upon my heart, and I forget to rejoice sometimes, and I forget to love. I say, “I have loved enough,” but love does not understand that middling adverb. I say, “God will take care of me,” and that’s true, but God also has granted me the great privilege of taking care for Him, so to speak – the privilege of worship. I say, “I am doing all right,” but that makes no sense at all. The wine that gladdens the heart has been freely broached for us all, in the Eucharist, and in all graces showered upon us by prayer, and the sacraments, and a life lived in Christian love; and would we say, “I am content with just so much gladness, and need no more”?

Perhaps our frames, sin-riddled, are too weak for so much joy. If that is so, then zeal “makes grace green again,” as Dante says. We are short of breath. The remedy is not to lie slack, but to run. We’ll make a pitiful show of it at first, and for a while afterwards too. But there is no other way to enlarge the heart than the way of zealous love.

I am absolutely persuaded, too, that zeal is catching. There are some hardened souls who snicker at the grand foolishness of youth. But there are others, not so far gone in acedia, who might look upon a youthful worshiper, or upon the youthfulness of worship itself, and burn with homesickness for a joy they have lost. For the love of those souls, and for the love of God, we should race. Few will be the leaders of the race, but the rest of us, the wobbly-kneed, can at least follow along, and sing, “Jerusalem, my happy home, when shall I come to thee?”

Evangelicals respond to Catholic lawsuits: ‘We are all Catholic now’


WASHINGTON, D.C., May 22, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) –  The Obama administration’s HHS mandate has united Christians of all stripes – evangelical, historical Protestant, and Roman Catholic – as they close ranks behind a flurry of lawsuits filed yesterday morning to overturn the controversial measure and stall government interference in religion.
After 43 Catholic institutions – including the major archdioceses, dioceses, universities, and publishing houses affiliated with the Church in the United States – filed a dozen lawsuits to strike the measure down on First Amendment grounds, the Christian and conservative communities quickly applauded the move.  

“I have said ‘We are all Catholic now,’ and this is why,” said Concerned Women for America (CWA) President Penny Nance. “The religious community stands together in the belief that this contraception, chemical abortion, and sterilization mandate would force us to pay for something many of us believe is morally repugnant.” 

The fact that Catholic religious institutions filed the lawsuits provided “more evidence that the healthcare law is extremely flawed in its bias for abortion and abortion-inducing drugs,” said Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “This lawsuit is only beginning, as many Americans are deeply troubled by the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

Those who had already filed such lawsuits welcomed the massive influx of fellow litigants.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

The Alliance Defense Fund is handling three lawsuits against the mandate on behalf of Louisiana College, Geneva College, and a private employer. ADF President and General Counsel Alan Sears said, “These new cases… join the growing list of evangelical, protestant, and Catholic religious organizations and employers who are taking a stand in objecting to the government when it forces any religious institution or individual to provide or fund morally repugnant services.”

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, which filed its own lawsuit in February, said he has urged other organizations and dioceses to follow suit. “When there are multiple federal lawsuits on the same issue in different parts of the country, this can create the potential kind of conflict that the Supreme Court may be more likely to resolve,” he said

The principle that motivates the lawsuits enjoys the support, not only of most traditional churches, but of most Americans. According to a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll, 74 percent of respondents believe preserving the freedom of religion is more important than enforcing any other law.

Opponents of the lawsuit have attempted to turn the legal battle into a debate over contraception itself. “It is unbelievable that in the year 2012 we have to fight for access to birth control,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said, quoting an often-repeated line in a press release. “Yet this lawsuit would make it harder for millions of women to get birth control.”

The law’s conservative critics have tired of that talking point. Nance said, “President Obama claims this is a women’s health issue, when in fact, it’s a religious freedom issue…The concept of ‘choice’ for this administration means only making the choices that liberals support.” Sears added the cases “are about religious freedom and freedom of conscience, not about contraception.”

The legal complaints submitted Monday ask the courts to invalidate the regulation promulgated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last August mandating that all organizations cover abortifacient drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to be in compliance with the president’s health care reform act.  That includes “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives [and] sterilization procedure,” including Ella, an abortion-inducing drug sometimes called “the week-after pill.”

All of the lawsuits cite concerns about religious liberty and undue government interference. None seeks to prohibit the distribution of birth control.

Neither the broad public support nor the lawsuits themselves garnered much coverage from the mainstream media. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center noted ABC and NBC news ignored the lawsuits altogether, while “CBS Evening News gave this historic news a mere 19 seconds of air time.”

Longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie said he believes the church must create its own publicity through ongoing moral leadership from the national and diocesan level down. “Church leaders must identify, and publicly oppose the source of their persecution,” Viguerie wrote on his website, ConservativeHQ.com.

“Those church leaders who once thought Obama’s promise of change wouldn’t affect them must get on the side of Constitutional government now,” Viguerie added. “If they put their moral authority and leadership publicly out front, they will show Americans that they understand that the loss of freedom of conscience threatens all of our other freedoms, and they will find millions of Americans – believers and non-believers alike – on their side.”



domingo, 20 de maio de 2012

Pastoral Letter on Freedom of Conscience and Religion - The Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

In CCCB

A pressing appeal for freedom
 
1. We are writing this pastoral letter to men and women of good will because of our conviction that religious believers can enrich society with their innumerable contributions to culture, political and economic life, health care and education. In solidarity with our brothers and sisters, we are called to renew our commitment to building a world where every individual, every community of faith, and every society enjoys in law and in practice authentic freedom of conscience and religion.

We hope to rekindle in all Canadians an appreciation of the significance of these rights as essential for ensuring the common good, and to encourage our fellow citizens, especially those in professions where these rights may be at risk, to defend them courageously. As Catholic Bishops, we particularly wish to address those members of the faithful who find themselves in difficult situations where they may be pressured to act against their religious faith or their conscience.

2. Recent international and national events present a disturbing trend of threats to freedom of conscience and religion experienced by those who suffer from bias, prejudice, hate propaganda, discrimination and persecution because of their religious beliefs. The Catholic Church fosters and defends these freedoms which are grounded in Sacred Scripture and supported by rational reflection. In championing them, she finds common ground with everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation.

We affirm what Pope Benedict XVI states in his Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace: “It is painful to think that in some areas of the world it is impossible to profess one’s religion freely except at the risk of life and personal liberty. In other areas we see more subtle and sophisticated forms of prejudice and hostility towards believers and religious symbols.”1
 
Our freedom of conscience and religion 
 
3. While freedom of conscience belongs essentially to individuals, freedom of religion is broader: it implies the ability to embrace and openly practice one’s faith, both individually and communally, within society. It is directly related to freedom of conscience inasmuch as conscience, oriented to truth, is formed by religious faith. Religious freedom is the most meaningful freedom of all, “since it is through faith that men and women express their deepest decision about the ultimate meaning of their lives.”2 Indeed, the right to religious freedom is “the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights.”3 Where it is protected, peaceful coexistence, prosperity and participation in cultural, social and political life flourish. But when it is threatened, all other rights are weakened and society suffers.
 
Rooted in human dignity

4. The rights to freedom of conscience and religion derive from the unique dignity of the human person created in the image of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27) and endowed with reason and free will. Human beings are the only creatures able to establish a conscious relationship with God. To do so freely is essential to their dignity and “is in keeping with the innate openness of the human heart to God.”4

Conscience bears witness to the fact that people are “impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.”5 Conscience is not, however, an absolute placed above truth. Rather, by its very nature, conscience has a relation to objective truth, a truth which is universal and which all must seek. Freedom of conscience is justified because of this relation, inasmuch as this freedom is a necessary condition for seeking the truth and for adhering to that truth once it is sufficiently known. For this reason, each individual’s conscientious search for truth must always be respected. This freedom to respond to the truth of one’s nature as a being created by God and destined for fulfillment in him is essential to a democratic society.6
In promoting the dignity of the human person, the Church faithfully defends the freedom of conscience of all people, whatever their religion or philosophy of life. The Second Vatican Council teaches that a person “is not to be forced to act against conscience nor be prevented from acting according to conscience, especially in religious matters.”7

Conceded neither by the state nor by society, the freedoms of conscience and religion are inalienable and universal. Religious freedom is “the most profound expression of freedom of conscience.”8 Furthermore, the right to freedom of religion is pre-eminent “not only because it was historically the first to be recognized but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, his relation with his Creator.”9 Our respect for every person’s attempt to search for the truth demands that we must “safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, as the cornerstones of the structure of human rights and the foundation of every truly free society.”10
 
What religious freedom entails

5. Every individual has the “the right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his conscience.”11 Other people, as well as civil society, have the corresponding duty to respect the free spiritual development of each person.12

Besides being free from external coercion, every one must be able freely to exercise the right to choose, profess, disseminate, and practice his or her own religion in private and in public. This includes the freedom for parents to educate their children in their religious convictions and to choose the schools which provide that formation. Moreover, the state has the obligation to protect this right by means of a legal and administrative framework and to create a suitable environment where it can be enjoyed.

Like religion itself, religious freedom has a personal, individual dimension, but it also has a communitarian, public dimension. Since human beings think, act and communicate through their relationships with others, this freedom is expressed through concrete actions, whether individual or collective, both in religious communities and in society at large. Believers must therefore be allowed to play their part in formulating public policy and in contributing to society as a way of living their faith in daily practice. When this right is truly acknowledged, religious communities and institutions can operate freely for the betterment of society through initiatives in the social, charitable, health care, and educational sectors, which benefit all citizens, especially the poorest and most marginalized. Furthermore, religious freedom entails the right of religious communities to set the qualifications judged necessary for those running their own institutions.

Religious believers should therefore be allowed to express their religious identity publicly, free from any pressure to hide or disguise it. As Pope Benedict affirmed before the United Nations General Assembly, “it is inconceivable that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights.”13 At the same time, believers also need to recognize that “just limits of the exercise of religious freedom must be determined in each social situation with political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good.”14

The Church’s appeals in favour of religious freedom are not based on any claim to reciprocity, whereby one group respects the rights of others only if the latter respect the rights of the group. Such an arrangement would be neither politically prudent, nor would it contribute to the common good. Rather, we honour the rights of others because it is the right thing to do, not in exchange for its equivalent or for a favour granted.
 
Proposing, not imposing

6. The Catholic Church claims the right to religious freedom in order to fulfill her specific mission. In obedience to Christ’s command (cf. Mt 28.19-20), she proposes the Gospel to all people, which she is duty bound to do, because Jesus Christ is “the way and the truth and the life” (Jn 14.6). All evangelization is but an effort to awaken the listener’s religious freedom to desire and embrace the saving truth of the Gospel (cf. Mk 16.15-16).

We are never to impose our religious beliefs on others, but always to respect individuals and cultures, honouring the sanctuary of conscience.15 The dignity of the human person demands respect for conscience, because it is “the most secret core and the sanctuary of the human person. There they are alone with God whose voice echoes in their depths.”16

It is a violation of freedom of conscience for anyone to attempt to impose his or her own understanding of the truth on others. The right to profess the truth must always be upheld, but never in a way which involves contempt for those who think differently. “To deny an individual complete freedom of conscience – and in particular the freedom to seek the truth – or to attempt to impose a particular way of seeing the truth, constitutes a violation of that individual’s most personal rights.”17
No individual, human community or state should ever forget that the truth never imposes itself by violence but only “by the force of its own truth.”18 No religion, therefore, can ever be externally imposed but must be adopted by a person “only through the process of conviction.”19
 
Guaranteed by law

7. The preamble of our national Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) affirms that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” It then sets out that each citizen has certain fundamental freedoms, placing “freedom of conscience and religion” at the top of the list (Article 2). The state acknowledges and respects – it does not grant – the free exercise of religious belief. As Canadians we possess the right to freedom of conscience and religion, which entails freedom from coercion as well as the right to express publicly and disseminate freely our religious beliefs in accordance with the common good.

Likewise, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (Article 18). International law recognizes that freedom of conscience and religion belongs to the essential core of natural rights which human law can never legitimately deny.
 
Contemporary concerns

8. Unfortunately, religious freedom is far from being effectively guaranteed everywhere. Sometimes it is denied for religious or ideological reasons. At other times, although it may be recognized in law, it is hindered in practice by a legal system or social order which enforces strict control, if not a monopoly, over society.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, more than 70 percent of the world’s countries impose legal or administrative restrictions which in practice annul the rights of individual believers and religious groups. Among these restraints are the forced registration of religious groups, prohibition of conversions, restrictions on foreign missionaries, favouring one religious group over another, fines, and harassment.20

More subtle threats to religious freedom arise from the cultural predominance of radical secularism and “a subliminal relativism that penetrates every area of life. Sometimes this relativism becomes aggressive when it opposes those who say they know where the truth or meaning of life is to be found.”21 Paradoxically, this relativism often posits the absolute relativity of all knowledge and meaning and then seeks to impose this absolutism on others, often in violation of conscience and religious belief. Whenever and wherever the right of freedom of conscience and  religion is endangered, we are obliged to express our objections with clarity and courage, especially in cases involving the persecution of religious minorities.
 
International concerns

9. Aid to the Church in Need, in its Religious Freedom in the World – Report 2010, states a very troubling fact about the current international situation: today 75 percent of all religious persecution is directed against Christians. The Pope has written bluntly in this regard: “At present, Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith. Many Christians experience daily affronts and often live in fear because of their pursuit of truth, their faith in Jesus Christ and their heartfelt plea for respect for religious freedom.”22 Besides Christians, members of other religious bodies often experience violent attacks or discrimination in numerous countries, especially where they are a minority.

Among other incidents and situations, we have recently witnessed the massacre of Coptic Christians in Egypt; the bombing of churches in Nigeria; the systematic interference in ecclesial affairs by Chinese authorities; the call for the execution of converts to Christianity in Afghanistan and Iran; the consequences of the law against blasphemy in Pakistan; the measures taken against gynaecologists and obstetricians in some European countries which compel them, against their conscience, to screen unborn children for Down Syndrome in order to abort them; and the “attack on the religious freedom of families in certain European countries which mandate obligatory participation in courses of sexual or civic education which allegedly convey a neutral conception of the person and of life, yet in fact reflect an anthropology opposed to faith and to right reason.”23
 
Concerns in our own nation

10. In the past decade in Canada there have been several situations that raise the question whether our right to freedom of conscience and religion is everywhere respected. At times, believers are being legally compelled to exercise their profession without reference to their religious or moral convictions, and even in opposition to them. This occurs wherever laws, which most often deal with issues linked to the dignity of human life and the family, are promulgated and which limit the right to conscientious objection by health-care and legal professionals, educators and politicians. For example, some colleges of physicians require that members who refuse to perform abortions refer patients to another physician willing to do so; elsewhere pharmacists are being threatened by being forced to have to fill prescriptions for contraceptives or the “morning after” pill; and marriage commissioners in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan must now perform samesex marriages or resign.

Conflict and confrontation occur between the rights and freedoms of some citizens and others: for example, when anti-discrimination laws – which, properly understood, include religion – clash with the right to religious freedom. Besides the courts, the Human Rights Tribunals of each province strive to strike a balance or reconcile conflicts between different rights.

All too often, however, advocacy groups use these bodies to promote new individual “rights” which often take precedence over the common good. The legal proceedings that these lobbies initiate force the defendant to become involved in lengthy and expensive court battles and thus weaken the common good.

Such acrimonious procedures would be better replaced by a civilized and respectful debate enriching to everyone, provided it gives a voice in the public forum to religious believers. If that voice is suppressed in any way, believers should view this as a restriction on their right to freedom of religion, one which should be forcefully challenged. In a constitutional democracy such as Canada’s, the system of justice must strive to protect more effectively freedom of religion and of conscience as key elements of our free and democratic society.
 
A call to engage our freedom

11. We call on all Canadians, especially the Catholic faithful, to respond courageously to the challenges to freedom of conscience and religion by renewing their determination to participate actively in every sector of public life and to make their views known where public policies and opinions are being shaped. In this way, they can witness to the truth and promote the common good by infusing a religious perspective into our cultural, social, political and economic institutions. Canada “needs lay Christians able to assume roles of leadership in society. It is urgent to train men and women who, in keeping with their vocation, can influence public life, and direct it to the common good.”24

The right of citizens to participate fully as believers needs to be constantly upheld. We recommend the following four actions to our fellow citizens: affirm the rightful role of religion in the public square; uphold a healthy relationship between Church and state; form conscience according to truth; and protect the right to conscientious objection.
 
Affirming the rightful role of religion in the public square

12. Less evident than the violent persecution of believers is what Pope Benedict XVI refers to as the “systematic denigration of religious beliefs”25 in many parts of the world. For radical secularists, all expressions of religious belief must be relegated to the private sphere; they seek to deny religion any influence on society. Even in countries which acknowledge the value of pluralism and tolerance, religion is increasingly marginalized, confined to homes and churches, and considered to be insignificant, alien or even destabilizing to society.

A sign of this marginalization of religion, and of Christianity in particular, is “the banning of religious feasts and symbols from civic life under the guise of respect for the members of other religions or those who are not believers. By acting in this way, not only is the right of believers to the public expression of their faith restricted, but an attack is made on the cultural roots which nourish the profound identity and social cohesion of many nations.”26 We all need to be vigilant in preserving, in a respectful manner, the religious symbols and celebrations which express the particular spiritual heritage of nations shaped in the crucible of Christianity.

Forcing religious believers to keep their convictions to themselves, while atheists and agnostics are under no such restriction is, in fact, an expression of religious intolerance. This is no way to achieve social harmony among citizens in a free and democratically plural society. Such an approach of forced “privacy of religion” is a thinly veiled way of curbing the freedom of religious believers to express their convictions publicly.

Attempts to limit expressions of religious faith to places of worship and to certain initiatives for social justice should be judged as a serious curtailment of a guaranteed right. To act and speak out publicly as a committed Christian in one’s professional life has never been more necessary. When many would like to exclude religious believers from full participation in society’s fundamental institutions is precisely the time to claim the right to do so.
 
Upholding a healthy relationship between Church and state

13. A legitimate secularity draws a distinction between religion and politics, between Church and state. But, unlike radical secularism, this distinction excludes neither religious beliefs nor communities from freely engaging in the public debate necessary for shaping civic life. Healthy secularists strive to keep the public square open to the transcendent, so that society’s laws and institutions may be informed by the religious beliefs of its citizens. As Catholics, we can affirm that “the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church– but not from that of morality – is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization.”27 As Pope Benedict XVI pointed out in his recent address to the German Bundestag, “unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law.”28

Church and state in Canada have traditionally enjoyed a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation, one where believers are expected to bring their views to bear on the nation’s cultural, social, political, and economic life. Their numerous contributions to building a just and peaceful society have been welcomed as a service to the common good of all Canadians. It is our hope that such cooperation will continue to mark our national life. This can only be possible, however, if religious institutions are “free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching”29 of their respective traditions. Where the contribution of religious believers is excluded from public life, that life is deprived of a dimension necessary to every flourishing society: an openness to transcendence. Without this openness, “it becomes difficult to guide societies towards universal ethical principles and to establish at the national and international level a legal order which fully recognizes and respects fundamental rights and freedoms as these are set forth in the goals – sadly still disregarded or contradicted – of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”30 To diminish religion’s public role is “to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.”31
 
Forming conscience according to truth

14. The quality of our social life and democratic institutions also depends in large measure on a correct understanding of “conscience” and how it is formed. If the freedom to follow one’s conscience means following one’s subjective feelings, then we fail to understand that the essential orientation of this freedom is to act in conformity with objective truth. On the other hand, if conscience is understood as “the place in which to listen to truth and the good, the place of responsibility before God and before fellow human beings,”32 then a solid foundation is laid for the collaboration of all people in seeking the common good according to objective criteria.
The right to act according to one’s conscience must therefore be accompanied by accepting the duty to conform it to the truth and to the law which God has engraved on our hearts (cf. Rm 2.15). Cardinal Newman’s words remain forever valid: “Conscience has its rights because it has its duties,”33 the primary of which is obedience to the truth. Every individual has the serious responsibility to form his or her own conscience in the light of that objective truth which everyone can come to know.

15. Education plays a critical role in correctly forming the conscience. For this reason, “parents must always be free to transmit to their children, responsibly and without constraints, their heritage of faith.”34 A free society like Canada must always guarantee the right of parents to educate their children in matters of faith and morals, and thus to ensure the formation of their conscience. Such formation is never morally indifferent, even if some claim it to be neutral regarding moral and religious principles.

Families and schools are the primary places of formation where young people receive a correct understanding of what is entailed in the right to freedom of conscience and religion. Parents and educators have an especially important task to fulfill in forming the consciences of the next generation in respect for their brothers and sisters of different religions. Their constant challenge is to develop in children a conscience that is truly upright and free: one that can choose what is truly good and right and thus reject what is evil. They have the duty of helping young people conform their conscience to the truth of the moral law and to live in conformity with that truth.
Among the human and Christian virtues acquired in the family, certain ones in particular prepare today’s youth to resist the attacks on freedom of conscience that they will inevitably encounter: courage, justice, prudence, and perseverance. This formative work also entails forming citizens ready to call to account any person or institution that would intrude upon their right to freedom of conscience or religion.
 
Protecting the right to conscientious objection

16. For individuals who wish to follow and act in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, it is sometimes necessary to resist, even in a heroic manner, the directives of the state, a court, or an organization that tries to force them to go against their convictions in matters of faith and morals. In these instances, freedom of conscience means that the person has the right to follow, according to the awareness of his or her duty, the will of God and his law.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this obligation unambiguously: “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ (Mt 22.21). ‘We must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5.29).”35

For example, it is never licit for a Catholic to support the legal right to abortion or euthanasia. In fact, abortion and euthanasia are “crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.36 Since it is an expression of freedom of conscience, this right to conscientious objection should be protected in law for those in any profession where the essential principles of the natural moral law are violated “in a serious or repeated manner.”37

17. Asserting one’s right to conscientious objection is often difficult. It entails courageously resisting those who favour or require an action contrary to one’s conscience. Those who will not cooperate with the requirements of an immoral law must be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to uphold the truth and to bear the suffering that results. “Indeed, faced with the many difficulties which fidelity to the moral order can demand, even in the most ordinary circumstances, the Christian is called, with the grace of God invoked in prayer, to a sometimes heroic commitment.”38

Especially inspiring as a model of steadfast fidelity is St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen and politicians. His reluctant yet willing martyrdom bore witness to the fact that “conscience is not identical to personal wishes and taste; [it] cannot be reduced to social advantage, to group consensus or to the demands of political and social power.”39 Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, he refused to compromise his convictions. By his life and the manner of his death he testifies to the primacy of conscience by acting uprightly and without compromise in social and political affairs.40

 The Church’s vitality has often been nourished by persecution. Our era is no exception. Those who refuse to cooperate with an unjust law or practice that would oblige them to act against their conscience – and are not given the right to conscientious objection or accorded respectful accommodation – must be prepared to suffer the consequences that result from fidelity to Christ. They deserve the effective solidarity and prayerful support of their religious communities.

The bold “Be not afraid!” of Blessed John Paul II continues to ring out, giving us courage to follow our conscience in every circumstance, regardless of the cost. “Don’t be afraid to give your life to Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life.”41 Let us cast out any fear that would prevent us from answering the urgent voice of the Holy Spirit always to act according to the dictates of an informed conscience.
 
Conclusion

18. As Catholic Bishops, we feel a pressing obligation to raise our voice in the defence of the human dignity of all persons, especially religious minorities, and their God-given right to freedom of conscience and religion.

At this challenging time, we urgently appeal to all Canadians, whether religious believers or not, to reaffirm their commitment to the promotion of the precious rights of freedom of conscience and religion. Moreover, we encourage men and women of faith to participate fully in every sector of public life. Religious believers should be confident that, with God’s grace, they can make an irreplaceable contribution to the common good. Furthermore, we support their right to conscientious objection as a fundamental expression of the freedom of conscience and religion.

We offer to all who are victims of violence, persecution, intolerance, or discrimination because of their moral or religious convictions the support of the Church’s teaching, the solidarity of our public interventions, and the assurance of our fraternal prayers for the protection of the right to freedom of conscience and religion for all people.


Endnotes

1 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, n. 1.
2 Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, n. 87.
3 Blessed John Paul II, Address to Participants in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (10 October 2003), n. 1.
4 Benedict XVI, Message to Professor Mary Ann Glendon, President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on the Occasion of the 17th Plenary Session (29 April 2011).
5 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dignitatis Humanae, n. 2.
6 Cf. Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, Press Conference for the Presentation of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2011 World Day of Peace Message (16 December 2010), n. 3,4.
7 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dignitatis Humanae, n. 3.
8 Blessed John Paul II, Message for the 1991 World Day of Peace, n. 5.
9 Benedict XVI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps (10 January 2011).
10 Blessed John Paul II, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (5 October 1995), n. 10.
11 Blessed John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, n. 14.
12 Cf. Blessed John Paul II, Message on the Value and Content of Freedom of Conscience and of Religion (1 September 1980), n. 2.
13 Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations (18 April 2008).
14 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 422.
15 Cf. Blessed John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, n. 39.
16 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 16.
17 Blessed John Paul II, Message for the 1991 World Day of Peace, n. 1.
18 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1.
19 Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005).
20 Cf. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “Global Restrictions on Religion,” (December 2009).
21 Benedict XVI, Address to Central Committee for German Catholics, Freiburg in Breisgau (24 September 2011).
22 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, n. 1.
23 Benedict XVI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps (10 January 2011).
24 Blessed John Paul II, Ecclesia in America, n. 44.
25 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, n. 5.
26 Benedict XVI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps (10 January 2011).
27 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, n. 6.
28 Benedict XVI, Address to the German Bundestag, Berlin (22 September 2011).
29 Benedict XVI, Address at Westminster Hall, London (17 September 2010).
30 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, n. 7.
31 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, n. 1.
32 Benedict XVI, Address to Representatives of Civil Society, Political, Cultural and Business World, Diplomatic Corps and Religious Leaders, Zagreb (4 June 2011).
33 Blessed John Henry Newman, Difficulties Felt by Anglicans, vol. 2 (London, 1910), p. 250.
34 Benedict XVI, Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, n. 4.
35 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2242; cf. n. 2256.
36 Blessed John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 73.
37 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 400.
38 Blessed John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 93.
39 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Conscience and Truth, Presentation at 10th Workshop for Bishops in Dallas, Texas, 1991.
40 Cf. Blessed John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of Statesmen and Politicians (31 October 2000), n. 4.
41 Benedict XVI, Homily at Mass for the Inauguration of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome (24 April 2005).


Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops,
produced with the assistance of the Episcopal Commission for Doctrine