sábado, 9 de junho de 2012

The Truth About God - by James Schall


The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God. Thus, faith requires us to profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire mystery, who moves from incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as well as the fulfillment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity, and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, will teach this “entire truth” to the Apostles and, through them,
to the whole Church —Dominus Jesus (§6)

Dominus Jesus was issued on the Feast of the Transfiguration in 2000. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Though not “inspired,” perhaps, in any technical sense, still the document was “prophetic.” It represents the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. In many ways, it is one of the most instructive and incisive of all recent papal documents.

As I look back on it now, it was a document meant to recall the central teaching of what Christianity is about. But even more, perhaps, it was to inspire Christians with the courage of their mission, which remains to go forth and teach all nations what Christ has asked and commanded. 1 It does indicate that we should be prudent, and theologically accurate, in whatever we do. But it does not say: “Go forth and teach all nations, except Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Chinese communists, sincere secularists, or Hindus.” This would, in practice, only leave a few African pagans who are not yet Muslim or Christian.

The fact is that, even with all the technological means available to us today, politically and culturally, it is less and less possible to teach and present Catholicism outside its own confines, and it is often under attack there. Freedom of religion is today much narrower than at almost any time in modern history. “Hate language” legislation has become largely a democratic, totalitarian tool to silence any real freedom of religion.

The document begins by stating what the Church itself is obliged to do and teach. It defines positions which deviate from that central purpose that is put into the world by Christ. It is thus of great significance to know just who and what Christ was and is—God? a prophet? a zealous man? a madman? “The Church’s universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ, and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity” (§1). Obviously, at the end of the second millennium, “this mission is still far from complete” (§2).
At this point, many begin to wonder: “Why is it not complete?” Surely two thousand years is enough time to give to a divine project. The implication is either that it really is not divine, or that the folks in charge, the pope and the hierarchy, have constantly botched the job, misunderstanding the mission. Many, therefore, want to find another way to salvation, one that would utilize other religions and rites. Christianity is only one among many ways, not the way. Dominus Jesus reaffirms the centrality of the Church and the place of Christ, true man and true God. It also relates the truths, found in other religions and philosophies, to the purposes of revelation.

Citing Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9 about the “necessity” to preach the Gospel, Dominus Jesus “explains the Magisterium’s particular attention to giving reasons for, and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all, in connection with the religious traditions of the world.” Inter-religious dialogue does not replace the need to evangelize. There is only one way of salvation. Inter-religious dialogue is designed that Catholicism be understood by other faiths, and that the Church itself knows exactly what other faiths hold. This mutual understanding is not conceived as an assault on other religions, but as a respectful understanding of how they think of themselves. Likewise, the Church has been misunderstood and misrepresented too often over the centuries to look kindly on the deliberate or inaccurate understanding of what it actually teaches and practices. It does not hide what it holds and teaches.

Dominus Jesus takes up “what has been taught in previous Magisterial documents, in order to reiterate certain truths that are part of the Christian faith” (§3). “The Church’s constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto, but also de jure” (§4). Relativism holds that there is no single religious truth. All religions have something that is admirable. Therefore, religions should be joined together in a kind of world parliament of religion, under some larger cultural or political authority, which would define the limits of belief and religious practice. The claim to preserve a genuine revelation, and to make it known, is considered a threat to all religions. In this theory, Catholicism becomes the real enemy of religions in the world.

The following basic doctrines of revelation, in this new order view, have now been “superseded”:

The definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Scared Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit; the unicity and salvic universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability—while recognizing the distinction—of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (§4).

These positions are controverted on all sides. The Church has the duty to remain itself, in all ages, to teach what was handed down to it. This is the good that Christ was sent into the world to make clear. His teaching was about the ultimate human purpose, and how it was to be achieved.

The document immediately states the philosophical and theological background to the objections against the truth of this revelation. Every objection to the truth of revelation will have its roots in an alternate intellectual system. What are these presuppositions?
  1. The conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation;
  2. Relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which, what is true for some, would not be true for others;
  3. The radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West, and the symbolic mentality of the East;
  4. The subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its “gaze to the heights, not daring to raise to the truth of being;”
  5. The difficulty in understanding and accepting the presence of definitive and eschatological events in history;
  6. The metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal Logos, reduced to a mere appearing of God in history;
  7.  The eclecticism of theologians, who uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and theological contexts, without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth;
  8. The tendency to read, and to interpret, Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church (§4).
Needless to say, these statements themselves are a good review of the theology and philosophy behind the rejection of the specifically Catholic understanding of revelation. The document locates the background of arguments that, sooner or later, end up by denying essential positions of revelation. The courage to protect revelation includes the courage to state clearly what is revealed, and the reasons why it is credible.

The Koran, for example, denies both the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Man God. Indeed, it not only denies them, but forbids their expression. In the name of ecumenism, we often underestimate the virulence with which the Cross, and divinity of Christ, are denied in most segments of Islam. Calling Jesus a “prophet” here—as also occurs in liberal Christianity—is designed precisely to deny what is being taught in this document, that Jesus was not just a prophet, but the Son of God.

In the light of this view that Christ was only a prophet—a view obviously itself developed centuries after the events of Christ’s life—it is necessary to affirm that Christ was not a simply a prophet (as in the Koran), nor was he a revolutionary, nor a nice guy, nor a deluded madman. The separation of the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history, so dear to much modern theology, is, as the document says, simply untenable on the basis of the text itself. The Christian dispensation “will never pass away” (§5). The Koran’s version of another dispensation, replacing the Old and New Testaments, is simply untenable on its own, and on the grounds of the New Testament.

Nor are all religions, including Christianity, just so many partial revelations of something which none of them, by themselves, can completely grasp. There may be, and often is, some truth in most religions—from any era or in any part of the world. The Church does not deny this, but rather affirms it. But the only salvific message about salvation, in its fullness, is given in Christ (§6). Moreover, we should try to express exactly what it means when we say that “Christ is true God, and true man.” We often need philosophy—usually Greek philosophy—to assist us. In using such terms, we do not betray, but fulfill, the intent of Scripture.

“The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God” (§6). Those religions and systems that would say that God is so ineffable that he cannot be spoken of—so that we must lapse into silence concerning God—do not reckon with the significance of the Incarnation. The fact is that the Son of Man did use human speech, and used it accurately. This still grants that there is much more to be said, even when we have spoken rightly.

Theological faith, our personal adherence to God, and the “beliefs” of other religions are not equivalent. “The distinction between theological faith, and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held” (§7). This position does not say that, therefore, nothing in other religions is valid, but rather that the central and coherent fullness of God’s revelation is in Christ, and nowhere else. Non-revealed religions are still groping for what God is. They belong to the virtue of pietas: what man naturally owes to God. Christian revelation in this sense is not a religion. It is initially God seeking man, not man seeking God, though both have their proper places (§7).

Some writers want to maintain that the books of other religions are also “inspired.” Often, the reason they want to maintain this view is because they despair of the Christian mission in the world. If all are to be saved, they argue, the only way this can happen is if the books and rites of other faiths are equally salvific with the Christian books. The Church, however, reserves the term “inspiration” to the Old and New Testaments alone (§8). It does not deny that good things can be found in these other books, but not the proper explanation of what God has revealed. Nor does this mean that all men are not called to the same end. Citing the famous passage from Gaudium et Spes §22, the document states that God will “not fail” to make ways known to them. But the source of these ways is not independent of Christ, and his relation to the human race. “The sacred books of other religions, which, in actual fact, direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain” (§8).

Other theories want to “elevate” the Holy Spirit to a position independent of Christ and His Church. The document has no trouble in admitting that the range of the Spirit, and grace, is outside the limited boundaries of the visible Church. Jesus is not just another pious or holy figure, along with others (§9). “These theses (that say he is) are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the son and the Word of the Father” (§10). Nor is it possible to maintain that the Word of God, the Logos, is one thing, and Jesus, the man, is another. They are one and the same.

There is but one salvific program that is revealed: that is in Christ, who is true man. He is the sole, universal redeemer. Any theory of redemption must pass through him (§11). This is why some theories of the Holy Spirit, providing an alternate way of redemption, are untenable. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. There is one redemption effected by the Trinity, for one purpose: that all men might be saved. “There are also those who propose the hypothesis of an economy of the Holy Spirit, with a more universal breadth than that of the Incarnate Word, crucified and risen. This position also is contrary to the Catholic faith, which, on the contrary, considers the salvific incarnation of the Word a Trinitarian event” (§12). Even from the beginning of the world, as well as in areas not yet evangelized, the presence of the Holy Spirit is always directed to the incarnational event. The Church has no trouble in admitting that the work of the Spirit, even now, ranges freely over the earth; but its purpose is the same redemption in Christ. There is but one “divine economy.”

The salvific mission of Christ is universal, being one within itself. With rather dry words, the document reads: “The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation” (§13). The constant teaching is that salvation will finally come through the sacrifice of the Cross. There are not “many” ways to salvation. All salvation will be through the grace of Christ, through the plan of the Father in sending him, and his Spirit, into the world.

“Those solutions that propose a salvific action of God, beyond the unique mediation of Christ, would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith” (§14). This reaffirmation is not stated with any arrogance or defensiveness. It is just a report of what the texts say, and of what the Church has always taught. It is one thing to say that “I do not agree with this, or I do not think it applies to me.” What is of concern here is whether this unconcern is what the Church teaches, on the basis of its mandate in Scripture and tradition.

Some propose that “theology should avoid the use of terms like ‘unity’, ‘universality’, and ‘absoluteness’, which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation” (§15).

The final two sections of Dominus Jesus have to do with the Church, and its role in our salvation. The Church was established: she is an organized society under the successor of Peter and the bishops (§16). “Therefore, there exists a single Church ofChrist” (§17). The mission of this Church remains to make known this single revelation to all men (§18). We may not like this establishment, or think we have a better plan. Rather, what is at issue here is: “What did Christ do?” The document states the difference between the Church, and churches and ecclesiastical bodies (§17). And there is no doubt that all Christians should worship in one Church.

The document is careful to distinguish between the Church, theKingdomofGod, and theKingdomofChrist(§18). These are biblical terms, and technical ones. Christ, as the man-God, is the center. The Church is not identified with theKingdomofGod, but is not apart from it. It is within it, as a body set up by Christ, to carry out his mission in this world. The document notes a modern “kingdom-oriented” thesis that wants to downplay both Christ and the Church, in order to get everyone into the Kingdom of God. Again, “these theses are contrary to Catholic faith because they deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom of God” (§19). In wanting to gather everyone into the kingdom, they bypass the means and institutions that Christ set up in the world to accomplish what he offered to mankind.

Finally, the Church is not just one way, among other ways, to salvation. If there is going to be an eternal destiny for all mankind, as there is, it cannot avoid a relationship with Christ. Dominus Jesus states that the Church is necessary for salvation, but this doctrine should not “be set against the universal salvific will of God” (§20). The true Church, established by Christ, “subsists in” the Catholic Church. This does not mean that grace and the Spirit are not operative beyond the visible Church’s structure, but it does mean that grace and the Spirit are not setting up some alternative way to salvation that somehow bypasses what the Church is. “It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church, or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological  kingdom of God” (§21).

How all of this is to be coherently explained is something for theologians to ponder. Dominus Jesus is concerned with these issues, but within the parameters of what is given in revelation itself. We may not see how God’s salvific will—that all be saved—is explained within the context of what Christ said about baptism, and the Church. But any explanations should begin with these givens. Otherwise, we have, in effect, some other position that was established by Christ.

“With the coming of the Savior Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church, founded by him, be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, the mentality of indifferentism, characterized by a religious relativism, which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’” (§22). The universal plan of God for salvation means that the Church must always, even today, be “missionary” to all peoples in ways that respect the freedom, intelligence, and customs of others, but which also include the core of revelation.

Thus, if it is asked about its truth, the Church must speak it. This truth is what it owes to the people of the world, who look for a salvation from their sins. The document concludes by citing the Declaration on Religious Liberty (§1) from Vatican II: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all peoples’” (§23).

Looking back over a decade since the publication of Dominus Jesus, we can note that in the meantime, we witness the rise of a militant Islam, the increased and aggressive secularism that no longer “tolerates,” but replaces religion, and the continued decline in births in formerly Christian areas. We also see the growing doubt, in many quarters, that the Church is the mediator of salvation. As Benedict wrote in Spe Salvi, we see a secular eschatology, not the one given through the Lord Jesus, but invented by man himself.

We notice that the alternatives to Christianity are pale imitations of what men really want, which is eternal life. It is refreshing that the Church still has the vigor, in her heart and in her head, to reaffirm that the salvation, offered to mankind through Christ, remains the only one which answers the longing in men’s restless souls. Surely, the Church is right to reaffirm what it is to the nations, whether they listen or not. To repeat: “The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he, who speaks and acts, is the Incarnate Son of God” (§6).

1 Cf. for an earlier comment on this document, James V. Schall, “On Being Faithful to Revelation,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, CI (March 2002), 22-31.

Are we heading for a new Kulturkampf? - by Michael Coren

Canadian columnist and broadcaster Michael Coren has just published another controversial book about Christianity in the public square. “Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity” is on best-seller lists in Canada. MercatorNet interviewed him about his thought-provoking arguments. 

MercatorNet: Tell us a bit about your own background. You’re a convert at a time when most Catholics seem to be dropping away.

Michael Coren: My father was Jewish, but very secular. So it was a mixed family, but one with an implicit respect for God and religion. I remember studying for my history O-Levels when I was a teenager and learning about the Reformation. The assumed line was that the Catholics were the bad guys, but to me the opposite seemed the case. A love for the Church began, but it took until 1985 for the marriage to take place. Yes, people are falling away, but those who stay are stronger and better than ever and the converts coming into the Church are of the highest quality.

MercatorNet: I know that comedian Bill Maher and Comedy Central portray Christians as fanatical fruitcakes. But shouldn’t Christians just have a thicker skin? Aren’t they just crying the victim?

We do have thick skins but truth and balance are important. I think we should laugh at ourselves more, not less. But today there are ever more groups that are off limits for humour, and certainly abuse; simultaneously Christians are abused so often, and to such an extent, that it’s cruel rather than funny.

It’s one thing for an adult, but ask Christian students what university is like, or a child at school who refuses to go along with the prevailing morality because of their Christian faith.

MercatorNet: As the author of books with titles like “Why Catholics are Right” and “Heresy: the Ten Lies they Tell about Christianity”, you obviously like a good fight. What about turning the other cheek?

I so do, every day! You should see my emails and tweets. I’m known as a defender of Christianity in Canada, and the death threats, insults, and venom are as endless. But an individual Christian’s forgiving an attack and turning the other cheek is different from defending the weak and standing up for the truth of Christ and the integrity of the faith.

MercatorNet: Hostility to Christianity has a long history among intellectuals, from at least the time of Voltaire. Even well-known figures like Mark Twain, H.G. Wells, Stephen Hawking, or Jimmy Wales have been agnostics or atheists. Aren’t you pushing it uphill to persuade smart, well-educated people to be Christians?

Not at all. I wrote a biography of Wells a few years ago actually – rather a controversial one. There are clever atheists and clever Christians, and stupid atheists and stupid Christians. It’s not really an issue of intellect, although I’ve yet to hear a truly compelling case for genuine atheism. I rather thought myself into faith, and it was cerebral for me in a way, as is it for many.

That, of course, is only one of the roads to Christianity. The point, though, is that if we accept the modern idea that the clever people are the doubters, we make it very difficult for thinking people to even consider Christianity. It’s why there is an entire chapter in Heresy about this.

MercatorNet: With modern communications technology like Facebook and Twitter, people today seem to have the attention span of a particularly thoughtful rabbit. How can Christianity compete?

Yes, well said. C.S. Lewis pointed this sort of thing out in The Screwtape Letters. In his version, the devil has made intellectual argument irrelevant, so that even if Christians make a pristine argument for belief, it simply doesn’t matter. It’s yet another example of Lewis’s brilliance that he saw this long before Facebook and the like.

Yes, it is difficult, but then so is being a Christian. We can use new technology, but we also have to be careful of it. The irony that helps us here is that the easier, more accessible, and even more facile things become, the more people want the permanent things, and the most permanent is God.

MercatorNet: In an era when tolerance seems to be the premier virtue, serious Christians seem rabidly intolerant, especially on hot-button issues like abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Your comment?

The imploding notion of tolerance: tolerate everyone apart from those who do not accept tolerance. Actually it’s a misnomer. They don’t mean tolerance, they mean acceptance, even affirmation.

In Canada, for example, since gay marriage was introduced we’ve had around 300 prosecutions and firings of people who are not hateful of gays, but believe marriage is the union of man and woman. Who then is the intolerant party here? Abortion is the taking if innocent life, and we should be proud of refusing to tolerate it.

But, as you say, the rallying cry of the new generation is “I tolerate therefore I am.” It’s meaningless, and these people tend to be grotesquely intolerant of dissent, and especially Christian dissent.

MercatorNet: Is there a common thread? What is the biggest obstacle that Christianity faces in the 21st century in the West?

Difficult, because there are so many. Perhaps the death of the intellect. People are controlled by feelings, and have allowed emotion to dominate their values – witness Oprah, the death of Princess Diana, the morbid mock tears we see so regularly. Added to this is the war on self-restraint, whereas Christianity believes in order out of chaos, and the importance of dignity and self-control.

MercatorNet: Will this year’s election in the United States have an impact upon the future of Christianity?

Very much so. Obama is the first President who does not sincerely believe in the separation of church and state, which is, of course, a means to protect Christians from an established Church, not a way to save the state from Christianity. Even Clinton believed in this, and certainly the other Presidents. If Obama does win, he and some of the people around him will take serious Christianity into a new Kulturkampf. I really believe this.

Michael Coren is a broadcaster and writer living in Toronto, Canada. His latest book is Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity, available at Amazon.com. His website is michaelcoren.com

quinta-feira, 7 de junho de 2012

O Corpo de Deus, Astérix, e os hereges

1. Hoje a Igreja celebra a Solenidade do Santíssimo Corpo e Sangue de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, tradicionalmente denominada O Corpo de Deus. Se é verdade que a instituição da Eucaristia se celebra na Quinta-feira Santa não o é menos que não poucas vezes está ela mais centrada na instituição do Sacerdócio ministerial, essencial e qualitativamente diferente do Sacerdócio dos demais fiéis, e no Mandato, isto é, no mandamento Novo que Jesus dá após a lavagem dos pés. Ademais como esse dia não é Santo de Guarda, infelizmente, passa, nos dias de hoje, algo despercebido pela maioria dos fiéis. Pelo que a Igreja, secundando as revelações particulares de uma mística medieval, teve por bem instituir esta solenidade para dar o devido relevo não somente ao Sacrifício da Eucaristia mas também à Presença real no Sacramento do Corpo, Sangue, Alma e Divindade de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo, em aparências de humildade, apresentando-se disfarçado nas espécies de simples pão e vinho, para que a Sua Soberania, Majestade e Glória não nos intimidasse a que d’ Ele confiadamente nos aproximássemos, para O adorarmos e, devidamente purificados pelo arrependimento, propósito de emenda, e Confissão Sacramental, O recebermos dentro em nós, de modo a n’ Ele sermos transformados; nem nos aniquilasse por falta das disposições capazes da nossa parte de suportar a visão dos infinitos resplendores da imensidade da Sua Glória. Acresce que é um grande Bem dar testemunho público da Fé processecionando pelas ruas o Senhor, Rei dos corações, das sociedades, das nações, do Universo para que todos cheguem ao Seu conhecimento (união íntima), ou seja, da Verdade que Ele é, e assim se possam salvar.

2. Quando abrimos um livro ficcionado das aventuras de Astérix deparamos sistematicamente com uma página que nos indica o mundo, então conhecido, inteiramente dominado pelos romanos com a exclusão de uma pequeníssima aldeia, que de tão minúscula carece de uma lupa para ser topada, na Gália. A excepcionalidade deste povo insignificante deriva de uma poção, ou remédio, mágica, confeccionada com específicos ingredientes os quais, juntamente com as porções e misturas, são somente conhecidos de um druida, cuja acção é essencial para a produzir. Quem toma esta bebida adquire uma fortaleza tal que se torna capaz de triunfar e devastar qualquer inimigo por mais poderoso que seja. Daí a impotência do império romano em dominar aquela gente, de si, frágil e insignificante.

Os autores desta banda desenhada, provavelmente sem darem conta disso, impregnados como estavam da civilização cristã europeia, na qual nasceram e foram educados, sugerem uma parábola da Santíssima Eucaristia. Esta, de facto, era referida pelos antigos Padres da Igreja, grandes teólogos e Santos que sucederam aos Apóstolos, como poção ou remédio da Imortalidade, como bebida dos fortes, isto é, que torna fortes, vinho, contrariamente ao natural, que gera virgens – a propósito, diziam que enquanto a embriaguez de vinho (natural) tornava um homem numa besta promíscua e violenta, a do Sangue de Jesus (a que chamavam inebriamento), no Santíssimo Sacramento da Eucaristia (o Vinho Sobrenatural), transformava um homem num Anjo puro e pacífico.

O império romano que sujeita e escraviza o mundo significará o poder universal do pecado e da morte. O pequeno povo, em comparação com a população mundial, indica os católicos. A poção, que evidentemente não é mágica, mas sim sobrenatural, não obstante recorrer a elementos naturais necessários, o pão e o vinho, só pode ser feita por Jesus Cristo Ressuscitado através dos Seus Sacerdotes ministeriais (os “druidas”), que Ele, sem mérito algum da parte deles mas por pura gratuidade, configurou Sacramentalmente conSigo quando receberam o Sacramento da Ordem. Quem come desse Pão e bebe desse Vinho Comunga com o próprio Jesus Cristo que Se faz nosso alimento para n’ Ele nos transformar e assim nos tornar capazes de vencer o pecado e a morte eterna. Virgens, isto é, entregues a Ele como um coração fiel, uno e indivisível, somos fortalecidos e capacitados para evitar a prostituição e o adultério, ou seja, a entrega aos ídolos e ao pecado: ils sont fous ceux démons et ceux péchés!, Ils sont fous aussi ceux Obamás, ceux Sócratós, ceux Cavacós, ceux Passós Coelhós e  ceux Portás! Caminhando tranquilamente com o menir (“a rocha é Cristo”, como diz S. Paulo – 1 Cor 10, 4)) e “bebericando” como o Astérix avancemos como Igreja militante - cujos membros nesta vida constituem uma milícia, um exército que combate o mal -, batalhando sem descanso pela verdade, pelo bem, pela justiça, pela vida, pelo amor. 

3. Na Arquidiocese de Friburgo, na Alemanha, no dia do S. Bonifácio, 5 do corrente, Bispo e mártir, 672-754/5, evangelizador daquelas terras, e como “preparação” para esta festividade tão solene que hoje celebramos o Inimigo arregimentou 140 sacerdotes, à semelhança do que fez na Áustria, que assinaram um documento no qual declaravam publicamente que nas suas paróquias autorizavam expressamente a concessão da absolvição e a administração do sacramento da eucaristia “aos divorciados recasados”. 
Que alguém cujo casamento não foi nulo, consciente e livremente, se tenha divorciado e posteriormente “casado” pelo civil é certamente um pecado mortal mas não exclui essa pessoa da Igreja. Esta, por seu lado, procura acompanhar com solicitude e amor estes seus filhos/as que se encontram numa situação difícil de modo a que possam com o tempo através das obras boas e da oração aproximar-Se de Jesus Cristo vindo a conformar-se inteiramente com a Sua vontade.

Porém, admitir aos Sacramentos, Confissão e Eucaristia, tais pessoas é muito mais grave do que a situação em que elas se encontram. Constitui uma recusa objectiva da Revelação expressa de Jesus Cristo sobre o casamento como união indissolúvel: “Não separe o homem o que Deus uniu”. Aquilo que nos outros será uma expressão de fraqueza, de fragilidade humana, é aqui erigido pelos sacerdotes num desprezo pela Palavra de Deus, pela Verdade de Fé. Trata-se claramente de uma heresia. Ora o herege formal está pura e simplesmente fora da Igreja. Ao não aceitar a Verdade Divina em virtude da autoridade d’ Aquele que a revelou mostra que se constitui em árbitro discricionário da Verdade, fazendo da sua opinião o critério de discernimento da Revelação Divina. Por outras palavras, revela que não tem Fé sobrenatural. 

É muito para reparar que essa situação não é de modo nenhum igual à dos nossos irmãos separados, para usar uma expressão do Concílio Vaticano II. De facto, herege é aquele que sendo católico nega obstinadamente uma ou mais verdades de Fé. Porém, o que nasceu e foi educado numa família não católica ou mesmo herege, como já ensinava Sto. Agostinho, estando de boa-fé, em ignorância invencível, não pode ser arguido de herege. Pelo que estes se encontram de algum modo ordenados à Igreja.

Nuno Serras Pereira
07. 06. 2010

Democrats leave party over marriage, religious freedom concerns - By Michelle Bauman

.- A wave of local and state Democrats throughout the U.S. are leaving the party due to controversy over its leaders’ support for “gay marriage,” as well as concerns about religious freedom and the defense of the unborn.

“There comes a time when you have to stand on what you believe in,” said Greg Waggoner, sheriff of Leake County, Miss. “And I can no longer have any connection with the Democratic Party if that’s the route they’re going to take.”

Waggoner was one of seven local Mississippi Democrats who formally switched his party affiliation to Republican on May 30.

He said that the Democratic Party took an “extreme left turn” when its national leaders “endorsed same-sex marriage” in recent weeks, presenting a direct conflict with his faith and allegiance to Christ.

Firmly committed to the belief that marriage is a union “between a man and a woman,” he realized that his views were better reflected in the Republican Party.

According to the Mississippi Republican Party, more than 50 Democrats in the state have switched their affiliation since “Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have taken over the national Democrat party.”

Other states – particularly those in the South – have had a similar experience, as Democrats are exiting the party at a significant rate. The shift is being attributed to increasingly liberal stances by leaders of the Democratic Party.

On May 9, U.S. President Barack Obama voiced his official endorsement of “gay marriage,” becoming the first president in the country’s history to do so.

His announcement came just days after Vice President Joe Biden said that he was “absolutely comfortable” with “gay marriage.”

The move immediately sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it does not reflect the will of the people. In every state where the issue has been put to a vote of the citizens, marriage has been upheld as the union of a man and a woman.

In recent weeks, several prominent Democrats have called for support of “gay marriage” to be added to the party platform at the convention in North Carolina this September.

The suggestion has been controversial both within and beyond the party, especially in light of North Carolina’s recent adoption of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

This support for “same-sex marriage” was a concern for Rick Murphrey, mayor of Kings Mountain, N.C., and prominent Pennsylvania committeewoman Jo Ann Nardelli, both of whom were lifelong Democrats before they recently switched their party affiliation to Republican.

Nardelli, a Catholic, told the National Catholic Register that she had watched the party drift away from her values and her faith. She pointed specifically to statements by Biden and Obama endorsing “gay marriage” as motivating her decision to leave.

Several former Democrats also criticized the party’s continuing support for abortion, as well as religious freedom concerns sparked by a mandate issued recently by the Obama administration.

The Health and Human Services mandate will require employers to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

Texas state representative J.M. Lozano switched parties in March, citing his “pro-life” values as one reason for doing so.
Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis, a Democrat who had previously supported Obama, revealed in a May 29 blog post that if he were to run for office again in the future, “it would be as a Republican.”

Davis explained that the party’s agenda has changed, particularly since Obama took office, and said that he no longer feels aligned with its positions.

Among the reasons he cited for cutting ties with the Democratic Party was the contraception mandate, which contradicted his belief that “faith institutions should not be compelled to violate their teachings because faith is a freedom, too.”

In explaining his decision to leave the party, Sherriff Waggoner said that ultimately, he believes his choice was in the best interest of the nation.

“We have to make a return to the morals, to the traditional values that this country was founded on,” he said. “If we’re going to preserve our country, we’re going to have to preserve our families. And we’re not going to preserve our families going the route that they want to go.”

Las apariciones de la Virgen en Akita

En 1988, el entonces cardenal Joseph Ratzinger en calidad de Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe impartió un juicio definitivo sobre los hechos de Akita, juzgándolos dignos de fe y fiables
Javier Garralda Alonso
Estos hechos extraordinarios empezaron en 1973 en la ciudad japonesa de Akita y fue protagonista una monja católica japonesa. La Virgen dio sólo tres mensajes, relativamente cortos, pero de gran trascendencia. En 1975 la estatua de la Virgen en la capilla de las religiosas empezó a verter lágrimas y esto se repitió 101 veces. Se cuenta con el testimonio de este hecho sorprendente y conmovedor por parte de más de 500 cristianos y no cristianos, incluido el alcalde budista de la villa.
En 1984, el obispo del lugar declaró los hechos como sobrenaturales y autorizó en toda la diócesis la veneración de la Santa Madre de Akita. En 1988, el entonces cardenal Joseph Ratzinger (hoy, nuestro Papa, Benedicto XVI), en su calidad de Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, impartió un juicio definitivo sobre los hechos de Akita, juzgándolos dignos de fe y fiables. (El entonces cardenal observó que Akita es una continuación de los mensajes de Fátima).
Es natural que si las instancias supremas de la Iglesia consideran dignas de confianza estas apariciones busquemos, aunque sea brevemente, conocer lo más esencial de sus mensajes y de otros hechos extraordinarios relacionados. Ante todo, la Virgen nos habla de cuál ha de ser nuestra vida interior, pues lo que dice a esta religiosa, Sor Agnes Sasagawa, nos lo podemos aplicar todos. Así ora con ella en estos términos:
“Sacratísimo Corazón de Jesús, verdaderamente presente en la Santa Eucaristía, te consagro mi cuerpo y alma para ser enteramente una con tu Corazón, sacrificado cada instante en todos los altares del mundo (...)”.
“Ruego que recibas esta humilde ofrenda de mi ser. Utilízame como quieras para gloria del Padre y la salvación de las almas”.
El día 28 de Junio de 1973, una llaga en forma de cruz apareció en la palma de la mano izquierda de Sor Agnes. La Virgen le dijo en su primer mensaje: “¿Te causa sufrimiento la herida de tu mano? Reza en reparación por los pecados de los hombres.”
¿Cuál es la causa del llanto de la Virgen?: Nos lo dice ella misma: “Pensar en la pérdida de tantas almas es la causa de mi tristeza”. (Participa María de los acerbos dolores espirituales de su divino Hijo, contemplando la inutilidad de su infinito sufrimiento para tantos que no querrán acogerse a su misericordia insondable). Por otra parte ¿qué madre no lloraría viendo dirigirse a su hijo a un precipicio?
¿Cómo podemos consolarla?: Cooperando para que muchas almas se salven, uniendo nuestras penas y alegrías a las del Señor y a imagen de la Virgen ser corredentores con Cristo de nuestros hermanos “completando en nuestro cuerpo lo que falta a la Pasión de Cristo”. Nos dice la Virgen: “Que cada uno se esfuerce, según su capacidad y posición, en ofrecerse enteramente al Señor”.
Nos dice María: “Muchos hombres en este mundo afligen al Señor. Yo deseo almas que lo consuelen para suavizar la ira del Padre Celestial. Yo deseo, con mi Hijo, almas que reparen, con sus sufrimientos y pobreza, por los pecadores e ingratos”. “Oración, penitencia y sacrificios valientes pueden suavizar la cólera del Padre”.
Hablando humanamente, la ira del Padre pende sobre esta humanidad disoluta que se hunde, en gran parte, en todo tipo de pecados. Por eso la Virgen nos anuncia un terrible castigo si los hombres y mujeres no cambian. Este castigo podría evitarse si la humanidad deja la senda del mal y se convierte. Y podrá suavizarse y aplazarse si muchos fieles unidos a los dolores de Cristo y su santa Madre interceden por dicha humanidad.
Dice así nuestra Madre: “Si los hombres no se arrepienten y se mejoran, el Padre infligirá un terrible castigo a toda la humanidad. (...) Fuego caerá del cielo y eliminará a gran parte de la humanidad, tanto a los buenos como a los malos, sin hacer excepción de sacerdotes y fieles”. (Para los malos será castigo, para los buenos ocasión de merecer para sí y los demás con sus sufrimientos).
Mención aparte merece la profecía de la crisis en la Iglesia. Parece un eco de las palabras del Papa Pablo VI: “El humo de Satanás ha penetrado en la Iglesia”.Y también un anuncio de las heridas a la unidad interior de la Iglesia, que recuerdan otros mensajes de otras apariciones: “La obra del demonio se infiltrará hasta dentro de la Iglesia, de tal manera que se verán cardenales contra cardenales, obispos contra obispos. Los sacerdotes que me veneran serán despreciados (...),”
En estos tiempos críticos nos llama la Virgen a la oración por sacerdotes, obispos y Papa. Y da alas a nuestra esperanza y confianza:
“Reza mucho la oración del Rosario. Sólo yo puedo salvarles de las calamidades que se acercan. Aquellos que ponen su confianza en mí se salvarán”.
(Información procedente de las “Siervas de los Corazones Traspasados de Jesús y María”)

quarta-feira, 6 de junho de 2012

Aborto Selectivo e a Distorção das Almas - por Hadley Arkes

Foi apelidado de um “modesto primeiro passo” na legislação do aborto, um projecto que visava preservar a vida de uma criança que sobrevivesse a um aborto. Foi aprovado finalmente em 2002 sob o título Born-Alive Infant’s Protection Act.

Os defensores do “direito ao aborto” pensaram tratar-se de parte de um esquema para minar esse direito, e claro que era. Mas o desafio para os defensores do aborto era explicar com que moral é que podem justificar votar contra uma medida que visava proteger uma criança que nasceu com vida.

Os nossos opositores ficam sempre ofendidos quando nos atrevemos a levantar este tipo de questões, ou quando os enfrentamos com uma série infindável destas perguntas. Depois de anos a fugir às principais questões morais, acabariam por cair no tipo de argumentos que, como efeito, iriam desfazer o próprio acto de raciocínio moral.

Tinham razão ao pensar que estávamos a tentar dissolver o sentido de “direito” ao aborto, um passo de cada vez. Mas mesmo sendo esse o caso, com que base é que aceitam que se mate uma criança nascida viva?

É verdade que caminhamos passo a passo. A cada passo que damos, pedimos aos liberais que honrem os princípios que eles próprios tornaram lei. Se não se pode discriminar contra os deficientes, como é que se justifica que se possa matar no útero uma criança com síndrome de Down?

Com cada medida, com cada pergunta feita, os defensores do aborto respondem com uma fúria crescente: Uma vez que, pensam, o aborto é do interesse das mulheres e da sua saúde reprodutiva, cada desafio apenas confirma para eles a maldade daqueles que gostariam de encontrar formas manhosas de retirar esses direitos às mulheres.

Essa fúria voltou de novo agora que a Comissão Judiciária da Câmara dos Representantes dos Estados Unidos apresentou mais um desses passos legislativos, a proposta de banir os abortos com base no sexo. A ideia do Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) existe há anos e voltou este ano principalmente devido à tenacidade de Trent Franks (R-AZ), o secretário da subcomissão para a Constituição, e o seu formidável e imbatível assessor, Jacki Pick.

Têm-se avolumado as provas, tanto nos Estados Unidos como no estrangeiro, de que com a difusão das ecografias – que nos trazem os meios para descobrir o sexo da criança intrauterina – tem havido uma tendência para preferir machos e abortar fémeas. O resultado tem sido uma deturpação dos rácios de sexo, com efeitos pressagiosos.

Nicholas Eberstadt, que dedicou toda uma carreira à demografia, notou que “o aborto selectivo assumiu uma dimensão comparável a uma guerra global contra meninas bebés”. A situação é tão grave que a Índia, o Reino Unido e até a China proíbem abortos baseados no sexo do feto. Mas essas leis são mal aplicadas e chegou-se ao ponto de muitas pessoas virem para os Estados Unidos para fazer abortos tardios deste género que até no Leste são proibidos.
Temos assistido a escritoras feministas como Mara Hvistendahl a referir a gravidade do problema, mostrando ter plena noção do errado que é matar crianças no útero por serem do sexo feminino. Mas em vez de apoiar a restrição do aborto, ela enfurece-se contra um obscuro professor de Amherst College, que acusa de ser o génio malévelo por detrás desta estratégia do “passo a passo” [referência ao póprio autor. Ver aqui].

Como sabemos, as feministas liberais na América não aceitam qualquer medida que proíba o aborto com base no sexo do feto. As razões são simples: Admitir que um aborto possa ser errado ou injustificado é deitar abaixo a barreira legal que protege o direito ao aborto por qualquer razão e em qualquer altura. É o princípio do fim, porque abre a arena legislativa para todos os juízos a que chegam as pessoas normais, sobre o tipo de aborto que se pode considerar injustificado e, por isso, devia ser proibido.

O PRENDA foi discutida no plenário da Câmara dos Representantes no dia 31 de Maio e mais uma vez os rituais de evasão moral entraram em acção: Este é mais um passo, ouvimos dizer, para fazer regredir o direito ao aborto. Mas como é que pode ser “no interesse das mulheres” aceitar matar mulheres em larga escala?

Mas deixemos de lado a “perda” de, por ora, milhões de mulheres no mundo, e milhares nos Estados Unidos: Porque é que não consideramos errado, por uma questão de princípio, matar bebés porque são meninas – independentemente da quantidade de pessoas que o está a fazer?

O representante Jerry Nadler e os democratas insistiram que os republicanos são hipócritas porque não votam a favor de outras medidas, com programas mais liberais que dão benefícios às mulheres – como se fosse preciso comprar o direito a banir a matança de mulheres, à custa de mais apoio e financiamento a grupos feministas.

O PRENDA recebeu os votos favoráveis de 226 republicanos e 20 democratas; 161 democratas e 7 republicanos opuseram-se. Mas por razões que terei de explicar noutra altura, a medida estava sujeita a aprovação por dois terços para poder passar. Este foi claramente um teste. Mas o que revelou, mais uma vez, foi a forma como as almas se têm distorcido ao longo dos anos, à medida que as pessoas absorveram os rituais de evasão aos argumentos morais.

segunda-feira, 4 de junho de 2012

Gay porn star kills and eats lover by Julio Severo

Homosexual with a story of animal cruelty kills and eats partner’s parts, makes sex with the corpse and sends its foot to Canadian Conservative Party

Canada, famous for its aggressive homosexualist laws threatening its population and Christians preaching the Bible view on sodomy, has made international headlines this week for another homosexual reason: gay porn star Luka Rocco Magnotta, 29, tortured, killed and dismembered his gay lover Jun Lin, 21.
According to the Canadian police, Magnotta tied Jun in a bed while his camera filmed him torturing, slashing the neck, beheading and dismembering his partner. He entitled his macabre video “Lunatic.” In it, which Magnotta posted in the internet, he appears making sex with the corpse and later eating parts with a knife and fork.
After the murder, he mailed to the Conservative Party in Canada a package containing his lover’s rotten foot, as a gay personal protest to a party that, palely, fights the gay agenda in Canada. Daily Mail reports that Magnotta even threatened the Canadian conservative prime minister.
If the Conservative Party fought gay supremacism in a really strong way, the “lunatic” gay would mail them the whole corpse.
In contrast, if a foot had been mailed to a gay group, bands of homosexual supremacists would immediately accuse Christians of “homophobia” and demand special “protective” laws restricting free speech of Christians and their right to preach what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.
Magnotta has an openly gay lifestyle, and his profession is as a gay porn star in many pornographic videos in the internet.
Yet, his presence in the internet is not limited to pornography. Two years ago, Magnotta posted a video where he appears caressing two kittens. Soon afterwards, the video shows him sealing them inside of a plastic bag and using a vacuum cleaner to suck the air from there. Through the transparent bag, viewers were able to see the kittens hopelessly trying to escape. Then, Magnotta proudly shows in his bed one of the cats dead.
In the video, Magnotta appears anonym and with the dimmed face, and only through investigation because of his lover’s murder the police was possible identify him as the author of the internet video.
He is also the author of a video where a live cat is given as food to a snake.
Nina Arsenault, one of the transsexuals who were lovers of Magnotta, whom he met at a striptease club ten years ago, told the police that Magnotta had fantasies about killing animals and people. He also made frequent jokes about killing animals.
Although using the professional name of Luka Rocco Magnotta, his true, birth name is Eric Clinton Newman. He also uses other false names.
Six months ago, in an email to The Sun, Magnotta supposedly said: “You will be hearing from me again. This time, however, the victims won’t be small animals.” He sent a similar warning to the BBC.
Magnotta is on the run abroad, and he is disguised as a woman. He is now in the list of criminals wanted by Interpol, which is making an international search for the gay psychopath. On June 3, police information indicated that he was in Paris, where he spent two nights with another gay whom he had met at a nightclub, but there is a suspicion that he fled to another nation. More than 190 nations are on alert for him.
According to Daily Mail, Magnotta might have committed other murders, which would fit him in the category of serial killer.
In Brazil, home of some of strongest gay supremacist groups in the world, the mainstream press was careful about masking news about the gay cannibal. Newspaper O Globoreported” the case making several omissions, just making a passing mention that Magnotta  had reportedly an affair with his victim. O Globo did not mention that he was homosexual.
The Brazilian press is well-known for trumpeting the identification of supposed homosexual “victims” of what they call “homophobic” crimes. Patently gay atrocities gays are camouflaged, so that the image of gay supremacism disguised as a gay victimism may not be stained.
The macabre result of the relationship between Magnotta and his partner is one episode more of gay “domestic violence”, which surpasses the inflated numbers of “homophobic” crimes created by homosexualist propaganda.
When such violence leaves the bedroom of a gay couple, the insanity explosion is bigger.
My book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998, had identified that all the six main American serial killers were homosexual. One of the more famous gay killers, Jeffrey Dahmer, was also a cannibal.
The most famous serial killer in Russia, Andrei Chikatilo, was also a cannibal gay.
While the propaganda by the leftist media leads to the image of a “well-behaved gay” as an eternal victim, the plain reality shows a society forbidden from seeing the murderous, psychotic and cannibal gays that do not fit the angelic stereotype created by social elites. In the Brazilian media, Magnotta is not a homosexual. He is just, vaguely, a man with an affair with his victim.
Worst, not only society, but also homosexual partners themselves end a lot of times becoming victims of the macabre actions of those “well-behaved gays.”
Update: According to Daily Mail, the international manhunt for gay porn star killer Luka Rocco Magnotta has ended today with his arrest in the German capital Berlin, in the Neukoelln district, known for its numerous gay bars.
Portuguese version of this article: Ator pornô gay mata e canibaliza amante

Ator pornô gay mata e canibaliza amante - por Julio Severo

Homossexual com histórico de tortura de animais mata e come partes do parceiro, faz sexo com cadáver e envia pé do morto para Partido Conservador do Canadá

O Canadá, famoso por suas agressivas leis homossexualistas que estão ameaçando sua população e cristãos que pregam a visão bíblica sobre a sodomia, está nas manchetes internacionais desta semana por outro motivo homosexual: O ator pornográfico gay Luka Rocco Magnotta, de 29 anos, torturou, matou e esquartejou seu amante gay Jun Lin, de 21 anos.

De acordo com a polícia canadense, Luka amarrou Jun numa cama enquanto sua câmera o filmava torturando, cortando o pescoço, decapitando e desmembrando o parceiro. Ele intitulou sua filmagem macabra de “Lunático”. No vídeo, que Luka postou na internet, ele aparece fazendo sexo com o cadáver e depois comendo partes com uma faca e garfo.

Depois do assassinato, ele teve a inspiração de enviar ao Partido Conservador do Canadá um pacote contendo o pé apodrecido de seu amante, como manifestação pessoal gay a um partido que, palidamente, combate a agenda gay no Canadá. O jornal Daily Mail também informa que Luka chegou a ameaçar o primeiro-ministro do Canadá.
Se o Partido Conservador combatesse o supremacismo gay de forma realmente vigorosa, o “lunático” gay lhes enviaria o cadáver inteiro.
Em contraste, se um pé tivesse sido enviado a um grupo gay, os supremacistas homossexuais acusariam imediatamente os cristãos de “homofóbicos” e exigiram leis especiais de “proteção” restringindo a liberdade de expressão dos cristãos e seu direito de pregar o que a Bíblia ensina sobre homossexualidade.
Luka tem um estilo de vida abertamente gay, e sua profissão é como um ator pornô gay em muitos vídeos pornográficos na internet.
Contudo, sua presença na internet não se restringe à pornografia. Dois anos atrás, Luka postou um vídeo onde ele aparece acariciando dois gatinhos. Em seguida, a filmagem o mostra colocando os filhotes dentro de um saco plástico e usando um aspirador para sugar todo o ar dali. Através do saco transparente, o internauta podia ver os gatinhos desesperadamente tentando escapar. Depois, Luka mostra orgulhosamente em sua cama um dos gatos já morto.
No vídeo de tortura de animais, Luka aparece anônimo e com o rosto embaçado, e somente com a investigação policial por causa do assassinato do amante dele é que foi possível identifica-lo como o autor do vídeo na internet.
Ele é também o autor de um vídeo onde um gato vivo é dado como alimento para uma cobra.
Nina Arsenault, um dos ex-amantes transexuais de Luka, que ele conheceu numa boate de strip-tease dez anos atrás, disse à polícia que Luka tinha fantasias de matar animais e pessoas. Ele também sempre fazia piadas sobre matar animais.
Embora use o nome profissional de Luka Rocco Magnotta, o nome verdadeiro dele é Eric Clinton Newman. Ele também usa outros nomes falsos.
Seis meses atrás, num email ao jornal The Sun, Luka supostamente disse: “Vocês estarão recebendo notícias de mim de novo. Desta vez, porém, as vítimas não serão animais pequenos”. Ele enviou um aviso semelhante para a BBC.
Luka encontra-se foragido no exterior disfarçado de mulher. Ele é agora um dos criminosos procurados pela Interpol, a polícia internacional, que está fazendo uma busca internacional pelo psicopata gay. Em 3 de junho, informações policiais indicavam que ele estava em Paris, onde passou duas noites com outro gay que havia conhecido numa boate, mas há suspeita de que ele fugiu para outro país. Mais de 190 países estão em estado de alerta sobre ele.
De acordo com o Daily Mail, Luka pode ter cometido outros assassinatos, o que o colocaria na categoria de “serial killer” — assassino em série.
No Brasil, onde predomina um dos mais fortes supremacismos gays do mundo, a imprensa teve o cuidado de mascarar a realidade do canibal gay. O jornal O Globonoticiou” o caso cometendo várias omissões, apenas mencionando de passagem que Luka teria tido um “caso amoroso” com sua vítima. O Globo não disse que ele era gay.
A imprensa brasileira é notória por alardear a identificação sexual de supostas “vítimas” homossexuais do que chamam de crimes de “homofobia”. Atrocidades patentemente gays são camufladas, para não manchar a imagem do supremacismo gay disfarçado de vitimismo gay.
O resultado macabro do relacionamento entre Luka e seu parceiro é mais um episódio de “violência doméstica” gay, que supera os números inchados de “homofobia” criados pela propaganda homossexualista.
Quando tal violência sai das quatro paredes do “paraíso” sexual de uma dupla gay, a explosão de insanidade é maior.
Meu livro “O Movimento Homossexual”, publicado pela Editora Betânia em 1998, já identificava que todos os seis maiores assassinos em série dos EUA eram homossexuais. Um dos assassinos gays mais famosos, Jeffrey Dahmer, era também canibal.
O maior assassino em série da Rússia, Andrei Chikatilo, também era gay e canibal.
Enquanto a propaganda da mídia esquerdista leva em direção à imagem do “gay bonzinho” como eterna vítima, a realidade nua e crua mostra uma sociedade proibida de enxergar os gays assassinos, psicopatas e canibais que não se encaixam no estereótipo celestial criado pelas elites sociais. Nos meios de comunicação do Brasil, Luka não é um homossexual. Ele é apenas, vagamente, um homem com um “caso amoroso” com sua vítima.
Pior é que, não só a sociedade, mas também os próprios parceiros homossexuais acabam muitas vezes se tornando vítimas dos atos macabros desses “gays bonzinhos”.
Atualização: De acordo com o Daily Mail, a caça internacional ao assassino e ator pornô gay Luka Rocco Magnotta terminou hoje com sua prisão em Berlim, capital da Alemanha, no distrito de Neukoelln, conhecido por seus numerosos bares gays.