sábado, 21 de julho de 2012
El matrimonio homosexual dispara el número de vientres de alquiler en los países pobres
El 26 de mayo, un reportaje de The Telegraph reveló que en el último año habían tenido lugar en la India 2000 nacimientos por vientre de alquiler, de los cuales la mitad (1000) provenían de "clientes" británicos. En el Reino Unidos, sin embargo, sólo tuvieron lugar 100 nacimientos.
El negocio de los vientres de alquiler se está moviendo aceleradamente hacia el Tercer Mundo. Supone un negocio de más de 200.000 millones de euros al año, y se basa en la diferencia de precio que cobran las madres: hacerlo en países pobres cuesta hasta una quinta parte que en Occidente. Algo que unos ven como una forma de explotación, y otros como una forma de ganar un dinero que sería imposible conseguir de otra manera.
Incremento de demandas de parejas gay
Cada vez es mayor además el número de reclamaciones que llegan de parejas homosexuales. Según el citado artículo, en la clínica The Birthplace of Joy, de Nueva Delhi, por ejemplo, el 100% de los clientes son extranjeros, y la mitad de ellos parejas homosexuales que acuden para realizar la operación de fecundación.
El experto en bioética Michael Cook, director de BioEdge, dio un paso más adelante para investigar esta cuestión. Y se dirigió a diversas clínicas de la India que ofrecen este servicio para preguntarles si esperan un auge de peticiones si en algunos países (como Francia) se legaliza el matrimonio homosexual.
"Absolutamente, sí", fue la contundente respuesta de la doctora Samundi Sankari, del Shrusti Fertility Research Center de Chennai, que cada vez recibe más demandas de Estados Unidos e Israel para todo lo que tiene que ver con tratamiento de la fertilidad. Y añadió: "La principal razón por la que los clientes vienen desde fuera de la India es el excelente cuidado personal, la experiencia y el ahorro. Los costes que pagan son una quinta parte de los que pagan por alquilar un vientre en Estados Unidos y Europa".
Por su parte, el doctor Samit Sekhar, del Kiran Infertility Centre, en Hyderabad, confiesa: "Tenemos un número considerable de personas gay que visitan nuestra clínica para utlizar los servicios de un óvulo donante". Y, lo que es más relevante: "Hemos visto un incremento en el número de parejas gay y hombres solos que vienen a nuestra clínica a medida que su unión pública va siendo legitimada en sus respectivos países".
Esto lo corroboran incluso clínicas norteamericanas. El doctor Jeffrey Steinberg, director de dos institutos de fertilidad en Los Ángeles y Las Vegas, lo ha estudiado y se lo explica a Cooke: "Cuando un país empieza a considerar la legalización del matrimonio gay, tenemos un incremento de consultas sobre lo que implica contratar un óvulo donante y el vientre de alquiler. Una tercera parte de las consultas siguen adelante con nuestros servicios incluso antes de que se apruebe la ley. Otro tercio nos dicen que esperarán a ver cómo se desarrolla la legislación. Y del otro tercio no volvemos a saber nada". Pero una vez legalizado el matrimonio homosexua, "un 40% firman enseguida".
Impresionante reportaje
Un reciente reportaje televisivo de The Wall Street Journal (puede verse más abajo) describía con toda crudeza estos procesos, relatando el caso de dos gays, Jocelyn -que será el padre biológico- y su compañero, que alquilan a una madre en la India: "Trato de estar tranquilo en un proceso que parece surrealista", admite Jocelyn.
Los médicos, afirma con toda frialdad el doctor Sekhar ante la cámara, no le dicen a la madre que su hijo irá con una pareja homosexual: "No lo entenderían, es un concepto extraño entre gente sin educación".
Y es que, obviamente, las mujeres que se someten a este proceso son extremadamente pobres, e incluso recurren a alquilar su útero y tener un hijo al que no volverán a ver, para alimentar a otros. Pero quitarle el niño a su madre no roba el sueño a los contratistas. Incluso en ocasiones los niños han quedado en un vacío legal, al no ser reconocida su nacionalidad en los países de origen de los clientes (homosexuales o heterosexuales).
A favor y en contra
Expertos en bioética recuerdan que las mujeres en la India no tienen la misma capacidad de decisión en Occidente, y por tanto es imposible saber si ofrecerse como vientre de alquiler es una idea suya o una exigencia de su marido por razones económicas.
Pero los dirigentes del negocio no lo ven de la misma forma. La doctora Nayna Patel, directora médica de la clínica Akanksha, dice que ha visto "cómo vivían antes y cómo viven ahora" las madres de alquiler, en referencia al dinero que cobran: "Ha cambiado sus vidas. Es muy transformador", elogia.
En la investigación de Michael Cook hubo una voz discrepante en torno a la influencia de la legalización del matrimonio homosexual. El doctor Shivani Sachdev, del Surrogate Center India, no cree que eso aumente el número de demandas: "Apoyaremos que el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo se apruebe en cualquier país, pero no creo que eso incremente nuestra clientela". La mitad de ella, sin embargo -desvela BioEdge-, son parejas gays
Pinche aquí para ver el extraordinariamente revelador reportaje de la televisión de The Wall Street Journal sobre esta práctica. Está en inglés, con subtítulos en español.
Rally Spotlights Persecution Against Christians - Groups Show Support to Thousands Dying for Their Faith Today
By Edward Pentin
ROME, JULY 19, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Fervent calls for governments to condemn acts of persecution against Christians; a plea to open the beatification process of the assassinated Christian Pakistani minister Shahbaz Bhatti; and demands that Christians suffering persecution be granted full refugee status.
Just some of the appeals passionately delivered at a rally on behalf of persecuted Christians, which appropriately took place in Piazza dei Santi Apostoli in the center of Rome on Wednesday.
Called "Salviamo i Cristiani" -- Save the Christians -- and organized by an association of Italian Catholic and pro-life groups, the demonstration was held to raise awareness, express solidarity, and call for action on behalf of the many Christians suffering persecution in the world today.
The association highlighted that, globally, no other group is more persecuted: Out of every 100 people who suffer violations to their right to religious freedom, 75 are Christians. It added that during the course of history, an estimated 70 million Christians have been martyred for their faith, including 40 million in the 20th century alone. Each year, it said there are 105,000 new Christian martyrs killed by Islamic terrorists, Hindu extremists in India, or Communists in China, North Korea and Vietnam.
"We're told about a triumph of democracy and peace," said historian Roberto de Mattei of the Lepanto Foundation, a non-profit organization defending the principles and institutions of Western Christian civilization. "After Sept. 11, they said don't worry, because the politics of dialogue and interreligious peace will prevail. Today, we're told about the health of the Magreb, that it is a model of the Arab Spring, showing hope and promise."
"But the reality of what is before our eyes is tragically different," De Mattei said. "Today, we are here to cry out our indignation, and launch our appeal for persecuted Christians."
The Italian historian recalled that last month, the Church announced it would beatify Don Pino Piglisi, a priest killed by the Mafia in 1993, as a martyr -- as someone who had died "in hated of the faith."
"Everyone rightly condemns the Mafia as radically evil, but no one, or few people, attributes such evil to the fanatics of Allah who kill Christians in hatred of the faith," he said. The professor then called on the Church to officially open the process of beatification for Shahbaz Bhatti, the Catholic Pakistani minister for minorities, who was killed by an Islamic extremist March 2, 2011.
"If we recognize Don Pino Puglisi, it is much more important to announce the beatification process of Shahbaz Bhatti, killed by a Muslim terrorist," De Mattei told ZENIT, noting that the killers were the Taliban "who said they killed in name of the Koran." By opening the process, he said Bhatti could become "a model and patron for all Christians persecuted in Muslim countries."
The well-known Italian-Egyptian convert from Islam, Magdi Cristiano Allam, called on governments, and the Italian authorities in particular to propose that Christians persecuted for their religious belief be awarded refugee status. Current Italian law, Allam and others argue, is insufficient in assisting Christians fleeing violent persecution, notably those living in some Muslim-majority states, or nations where Sharia law is practiced.
Speaking to ZENIT, Allam said the rally was important as a "testimony of our support for persecuted, discriminated and massacred Christians," adding that "we want to defend the non-negotiable values of life, the dignity of the person, religious freedom."
Why so silent?
Asked why governments tend to ignore the plight of persecuted Christians worldwide, he answered: "Because they are afraid, because of economic interests, because this is a West that puts money, material things, at the center." He also said they are "afraid to show any rigor towards Islam when it comes to the fundamental respect for the rights of the person" -- an approach that "can have a negative impact on Christians that live in those countries."
Allam, who was received into the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 and is now a Member of the European Parliament, noted that around the end of the 7th century, 95% of the populations on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean were Christian; today there are just 12 million, representing 6% of the population. That figure is expected to halve by 2020. "Only if we are strong and certain of our roots, faith, and values can we be respected," he said.
The journalist and politician also had some harsh criticism for U.S. President Barack Obama and his approach to Islam. "Obama has played a fundamental role in the legitimization of radical Islam," he said.
Asked about the Obama administration's threats to religious liberty of U.S. Catholics, Allam said: "Obama is undoubtedly an expression of relativism, as we have seen recently in his support for same-sex 'marriage,' his support for abortion," he said. "Obama is a person who puts money at the center, who wants to support the great financial organizations. He is a person who wants nothing to do with anyone who puts the person at the center -- the natural family, local communities, values, rules for the common good. Obama represents a danger for our civilization."
Benjamin Harnwell, founder of the Rome-based Dignitatis Humanae Institute, stressed that what makes persecution against Christians unique is the supernatural basis of the persecution -- adding that Jesus warned that Christians should expect to be persecuted as a counter-cultural sign to the world.
"Jesus said no servant is greater than his master, if they persecuted me they'll persecute you," he said. "There's a warning in that injunction to his followers to expect to be persecuted -- it's the light that is Jesus Christ that shines through those who bear witness to him -- the light that the darkness did not comprehend, and still does not comprehend to this day."
De Mattei agreed that persecution is the natural environment for Christians, but also that it should be confronted. "The Church has lived with persecution since its origins, also during communism, but the persecutors are bad," he said. "We have to resist, to fight."
Ignorance is bliss
Remarkably, in a city that's home to Catholicism and with many monuments to martyrs who died in hatred of the faith over the centuries, the rally only drew about 300 people. Praising the Holy Father's enthusiasm toward a New Evangelization in the West, Harnwell said he hopes it "will in practice mean something more than constructing monuments to the prophets whom our forefathers stoned." The saints, he added, "are great when they're dead because we can say nice things about them, but when they're being persecuted in our time, we don't want to know." Furthermore, he said saints and martyrs of today provoke an "unforced solidarity," and show "the flame of faith that we need back."
Rome's mayor, Gianni Alemanno, gave a spirited speech in which he said the rally was of "extraordinary importance." He lamented that religious freedom is too often placed on the second tier of priorities, behind civil and political rights, and that the world must be made aware of the persecution of Christians. He also stressed the importance of reciprocity as the basis of relations, and called for "respect for our Christian identity and our integrity as Christians throughout the world."
De Mattei described Wednesday's event as of "symbolic importance." If there were no such protests, he said "it would be a scandal."
ROME, JULY 19, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Fervent calls for governments to condemn acts of persecution against Christians; a plea to open the beatification process of the assassinated Christian Pakistani minister Shahbaz Bhatti; and demands that Christians suffering persecution be granted full refugee status.
Just some of the appeals passionately delivered at a rally on behalf of persecuted Christians, which appropriately took place in Piazza dei Santi Apostoli in the center of Rome on Wednesday.
Called "Salviamo i Cristiani" -- Save the Christians -- and organized by an association of Italian Catholic and pro-life groups, the demonstration was held to raise awareness, express solidarity, and call for action on behalf of the many Christians suffering persecution in the world today.
The association highlighted that, globally, no other group is more persecuted: Out of every 100 people who suffer violations to their right to religious freedom, 75 are Christians. It added that during the course of history, an estimated 70 million Christians have been martyred for their faith, including 40 million in the 20th century alone. Each year, it said there are 105,000 new Christian martyrs killed by Islamic terrorists, Hindu extremists in India, or Communists in China, North Korea and Vietnam.
"We're told about a triumph of democracy and peace," said historian Roberto de Mattei of the Lepanto Foundation, a non-profit organization defending the principles and institutions of Western Christian civilization. "After Sept. 11, they said don't worry, because the politics of dialogue and interreligious peace will prevail. Today, we're told about the health of the Magreb, that it is a model of the Arab Spring, showing hope and promise."
"But the reality of what is before our eyes is tragically different," De Mattei said. "Today, we are here to cry out our indignation, and launch our appeal for persecuted Christians."
The Italian historian recalled that last month, the Church announced it would beatify Don Pino Piglisi, a priest killed by the Mafia in 1993, as a martyr -- as someone who had died "in hated of the faith."
"Everyone rightly condemns the Mafia as radically evil, but no one, or few people, attributes such evil to the fanatics of Allah who kill Christians in hatred of the faith," he said. The professor then called on the Church to officially open the process of beatification for Shahbaz Bhatti, the Catholic Pakistani minister for minorities, who was killed by an Islamic extremist March 2, 2011.
"If we recognize Don Pino Puglisi, it is much more important to announce the beatification process of Shahbaz Bhatti, killed by a Muslim terrorist," De Mattei told ZENIT, noting that the killers were the Taliban "who said they killed in name of the Koran." By opening the process, he said Bhatti could become "a model and patron for all Christians persecuted in Muslim countries."
The well-known Italian-Egyptian convert from Islam, Magdi Cristiano Allam, called on governments, and the Italian authorities in particular to propose that Christians persecuted for their religious belief be awarded refugee status. Current Italian law, Allam and others argue, is insufficient in assisting Christians fleeing violent persecution, notably those living in some Muslim-majority states, or nations where Sharia law is practiced.
Speaking to ZENIT, Allam said the rally was important as a "testimony of our support for persecuted, discriminated and massacred Christians," adding that "we want to defend the non-negotiable values of life, the dignity of the person, religious freedom."
Why so silent?
Asked why governments tend to ignore the plight of persecuted Christians worldwide, he answered: "Because they are afraid, because of economic interests, because this is a West that puts money, material things, at the center." He also said they are "afraid to show any rigor towards Islam when it comes to the fundamental respect for the rights of the person" -- an approach that "can have a negative impact on Christians that live in those countries."
Allam, who was received into the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 and is now a Member of the European Parliament, noted that around the end of the 7th century, 95% of the populations on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean were Christian; today there are just 12 million, representing 6% of the population. That figure is expected to halve by 2020. "Only if we are strong and certain of our roots, faith, and values can we be respected," he said.
The journalist and politician also had some harsh criticism for U.S. President Barack Obama and his approach to Islam. "Obama has played a fundamental role in the legitimization of radical Islam," he said.
Asked about the Obama administration's threats to religious liberty of U.S. Catholics, Allam said: "Obama is undoubtedly an expression of relativism, as we have seen recently in his support for same-sex 'marriage,' his support for abortion," he said. "Obama is a person who puts money at the center, who wants to support the great financial organizations. He is a person who wants nothing to do with anyone who puts the person at the center -- the natural family, local communities, values, rules for the common good. Obama represents a danger for our civilization."
Benjamin Harnwell, founder of the Rome-based Dignitatis Humanae Institute, stressed that what makes persecution against Christians unique is the supernatural basis of the persecution -- adding that Jesus warned that Christians should expect to be persecuted as a counter-cultural sign to the world.
"Jesus said no servant is greater than his master, if they persecuted me they'll persecute you," he said. "There's a warning in that injunction to his followers to expect to be persecuted -- it's the light that is Jesus Christ that shines through those who bear witness to him -- the light that the darkness did not comprehend, and still does not comprehend to this day."
De Mattei agreed that persecution is the natural environment for Christians, but also that it should be confronted. "The Church has lived with persecution since its origins, also during communism, but the persecutors are bad," he said. "We have to resist, to fight."
Ignorance is bliss
Remarkably, in a city that's home to Catholicism and with many monuments to martyrs who died in hatred of the faith over the centuries, the rally only drew about 300 people. Praising the Holy Father's enthusiasm toward a New Evangelization in the West, Harnwell said he hopes it "will in practice mean something more than constructing monuments to the prophets whom our forefathers stoned." The saints, he added, "are great when they're dead because we can say nice things about them, but when they're being persecuted in our time, we don't want to know." Furthermore, he said saints and martyrs of today provoke an "unforced solidarity," and show "the flame of faith that we need back."
Rome's mayor, Gianni Alemanno, gave a spirited speech in which he said the rally was of "extraordinary importance." He lamented that religious freedom is too often placed on the second tier of priorities, behind civil and political rights, and that the world must be made aware of the persecution of Christians. He also stressed the importance of reciprocity as the basis of relations, and called for "respect for our Christian identity and our integrity as Christians throughout the world."
De Mattei described Wednesday's event as of "symbolic importance." If there were no such protests, he said "it would be a scandal."
sexta-feira, 20 de julho de 2012
Masacre de Cristianos en Nigeria, además del diálogo interreligioso, es necesaria la protección - Entrevista al profesor Introvigne
Por H. Sergio Mora
ROMA, viernes 20 julio 2012 (ZENIT.org).- En Nigeria cada domingo quien va a misa no sabe si retornará a su casa. Un país en el cual un reciente sondeo ha indicado que el 70% de la población considera que el diálogo interreligioso es la única salida del problema y por lo tanto rechaza la violencia de los fanáticos.
Para salir de la actual situación son necesarios varios factores: es fundamental el diálogo interreligioso, el adiestramiento de las fuerzas de la policía y del orden, el apoyo en la medida de lo posible a los sectores políticos islámicos no fanáticos, sin excluir la posibilidad de golpear las zonas francas que sirven, como las islas Tortugas, a los piratas.
Lo indicó en la entrevista a ZENIT que les proponemos a continuación, el profesor Massimo Introvigne, sociólogo e historiador, que participó este jueves 19 de julio en la Asociación de la Prensa Extranjera en Roma, junto al ministro de Exteriores de Italia, Giulio Terzi y otras autoridades, en el debate sobre la masacre de los cristianos en Nigeria, promovido por el Observatorio de la Libertad Religiosa del Ministerio de Exteriores de Italia.
¿Cuál es la función del Observatorio de la libertad religiosa?
–Prof. Introvigne: El Observatorio de la Libertad Religiosa, tiene funciones de coordinar iniciativas en diversos niveles.
En primer lugar, debe insistir ante las organizaciones internacionales para que se muevan. Aquí entra la insistencia metódica de la diplomacia italiana para que el problema de los cristianos en Nigeria entre en todas las iniciativas de paz y desarrollo, desde las Naciones Unidas a la Unión Europea.
Los tiempos de las organizaciones internacionales entretanto son siempre largos.
–Prof. Introvigne: De hecho como segundo punto está la colaboración bilateral. Italia ha desarrollado buenos sistemas de seguridad y vigilancia de objetivos sensibles. Ahora en Nigeria lamentablemente entre los objetivos sensibles están las Iglesias cristianas, por lo que ya existen programas para dar formación a los funcionarios administrativos, de las fuerzas del orden, de la policía y guardias de frontera nigerianas.
Por lo tanto sirve el diálogo y la seguridad. ¿Y qué más?
–Prof. Introvigne: El tercer factor es dar apoyo a la política local en la medida de lo posible. Me explico mejor: si bien el diálogo interreligioso es tarea sobre todo de las instituciones religiosas –y sobre esto la Iglesia católica nos da ejemplo de coraje– el diálogo es la verdadera solución al problema. Por lo tanto debe incluir a personas que son referentes del islam político, excluyendo claramente a quienes son violentos o terroristas. A quienes como un dirigente del grupo armado Boko Haram en Nigeria, declaró que para los cristianos hay solamente tres alternativas: morir, convertirse al islam o emigrar. Estos sujetos tienen que ser excluidos del diálogo si bien algunas de las fuerzas del islam político podrían entrar en el mismo.
¿Hay algún otro punto importante?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, un cuarto factor es la regionalización del conflicto que es continental, y ve la presencia importante de focos de terrorismo en lugares fuera del control del Estado. Como la mitad de Somalia y el norte de Malí. En los últimos días, tuvimos pruebas de la presencia del Boko Haram nigeriano en la región de Gao, en Malí y en zonas controladas sustancialmente por Al Qaeda, donde van para abastecerse de armas y combustibles.
En este caso el diálogo y la policía pueden hacer poco.
–Prof. Introvigne: Y aquí hay un problema que es necesario resolver incluyendo todas las opciones, incluso la militar que entretanto requiere cautela. Por el momento el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas no las autoriza hasta que no sea claro qué tipo de iniciativas militares emplear de las que propone la Comunidad Económica de África oriental (EAC).
Existen países que ven las cosas de otra manera, como Burkina Faso, que querría extender el diálogo también a una de las formaciones fundamentalistas islámicas, mientras Nigeria no lo quiere.
¿Opciones militares que en algunos casos no se excluyen?
–Prof. Introvigne: La opción militar en el caso de Malí no puede ser excluida pues encontramos un territorio que funciona un poco como las islas Tortugas para los piratas. Quien quiera va y abre un cuartel para las armas y el adoctrinamiento.
No por casualidad Nigeria dijo que si hay intervención militar pondría a disposición sus tropas.
¿Cómo evitar la agresión a los cristianos?
–Prof. Introvigne: El diálogo es una de las dos piernas con la que camina la lucha a la persecución de los cristianos. Y es la que tiene más horizonte y decisiva, entretanto visto que cada domingo los cristianos siguen muriendo es necesaria también una intervención de tipo policial.
Italia está ayudando a la formación de las fuerzas del orden?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, como iniciativa de carácter bilateral, porque Italia cree que no se deba pasar encima del gobierno nigeriano, que es democrático y amigo, en donde el presidente es cristiano. No es el gobierno quien favorece estas violencia y es víctima de las mismas, entretanto el problema tiene centrales fuera de Nigeria.
¿Existe en Nigeria una mayoría silenciosa que no quiere la violencia?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, y querría el diálogo interreligioso. Una encuesta reciente en Nigeria indica que el 70% de la población propone el diálogo interreligioso como la salida del problema. Incluso si no hace noticia y nadie habla de esto.
ROMA, viernes 20 julio 2012 (ZENIT.org).- En Nigeria cada domingo quien va a misa no sabe si retornará a su casa. Un país en el cual un reciente sondeo ha indicado que el 70% de la población considera que el diálogo interreligioso es la única salida del problema y por lo tanto rechaza la violencia de los fanáticos.
Para salir de la actual situación son necesarios varios factores: es fundamental el diálogo interreligioso, el adiestramiento de las fuerzas de la policía y del orden, el apoyo en la medida de lo posible a los sectores políticos islámicos no fanáticos, sin excluir la posibilidad de golpear las zonas francas que sirven, como las islas Tortugas, a los piratas.
Lo indicó en la entrevista a ZENIT que les proponemos a continuación, el profesor Massimo Introvigne, sociólogo e historiador, que participó este jueves 19 de julio en la Asociación de la Prensa Extranjera en Roma, junto al ministro de Exteriores de Italia, Giulio Terzi y otras autoridades, en el debate sobre la masacre de los cristianos en Nigeria, promovido por el Observatorio de la Libertad Religiosa del Ministerio de Exteriores de Italia.
¿Cuál es la función del Observatorio de la libertad religiosa?
–Prof. Introvigne: El Observatorio de la Libertad Religiosa, tiene funciones de coordinar iniciativas en diversos niveles.
En primer lugar, debe insistir ante las organizaciones internacionales para que se muevan. Aquí entra la insistencia metódica de la diplomacia italiana para que el problema de los cristianos en Nigeria entre en todas las iniciativas de paz y desarrollo, desde las Naciones Unidas a la Unión Europea.
Los tiempos de las organizaciones internacionales entretanto son siempre largos.
–Prof. Introvigne: De hecho como segundo punto está la colaboración bilateral. Italia ha desarrollado buenos sistemas de seguridad y vigilancia de objetivos sensibles. Ahora en Nigeria lamentablemente entre los objetivos sensibles están las Iglesias cristianas, por lo que ya existen programas para dar formación a los funcionarios administrativos, de las fuerzas del orden, de la policía y guardias de frontera nigerianas.
Por lo tanto sirve el diálogo y la seguridad. ¿Y qué más?
–Prof. Introvigne: El tercer factor es dar apoyo a la política local en la medida de lo posible. Me explico mejor: si bien el diálogo interreligioso es tarea sobre todo de las instituciones religiosas –y sobre esto la Iglesia católica nos da ejemplo de coraje– el diálogo es la verdadera solución al problema. Por lo tanto debe incluir a personas que son referentes del islam político, excluyendo claramente a quienes son violentos o terroristas. A quienes como un dirigente del grupo armado Boko Haram en Nigeria, declaró que para los cristianos hay solamente tres alternativas: morir, convertirse al islam o emigrar. Estos sujetos tienen que ser excluidos del diálogo si bien algunas de las fuerzas del islam político podrían entrar en el mismo.
¿Hay algún otro punto importante?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, un cuarto factor es la regionalización del conflicto que es continental, y ve la presencia importante de focos de terrorismo en lugares fuera del control del Estado. Como la mitad de Somalia y el norte de Malí. En los últimos días, tuvimos pruebas de la presencia del Boko Haram nigeriano en la región de Gao, en Malí y en zonas controladas sustancialmente por Al Qaeda, donde van para abastecerse de armas y combustibles.
En este caso el diálogo y la policía pueden hacer poco.
–Prof. Introvigne: Y aquí hay un problema que es necesario resolver incluyendo todas las opciones, incluso la militar que entretanto requiere cautela. Por el momento el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas no las autoriza hasta que no sea claro qué tipo de iniciativas militares emplear de las que propone la Comunidad Económica de África oriental (EAC).
Existen países que ven las cosas de otra manera, como Burkina Faso, que querría extender el diálogo también a una de las formaciones fundamentalistas islámicas, mientras Nigeria no lo quiere.
¿Opciones militares que en algunos casos no se excluyen?
–Prof. Introvigne: La opción militar en el caso de Malí no puede ser excluida pues encontramos un territorio que funciona un poco como las islas Tortugas para los piratas. Quien quiera va y abre un cuartel para las armas y el adoctrinamiento.
No por casualidad Nigeria dijo que si hay intervención militar pondría a disposición sus tropas.
¿Cómo evitar la agresión a los cristianos?
–Prof. Introvigne: El diálogo es una de las dos piernas con la que camina la lucha a la persecución de los cristianos. Y es la que tiene más horizonte y decisiva, entretanto visto que cada domingo los cristianos siguen muriendo es necesaria también una intervención de tipo policial.
Italia está ayudando a la formación de las fuerzas del orden?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, como iniciativa de carácter bilateral, porque Italia cree que no se deba pasar encima del gobierno nigeriano, que es democrático y amigo, en donde el presidente es cristiano. No es el gobierno quien favorece estas violencia y es víctima de las mismas, entretanto el problema tiene centrales fuera de Nigeria.
¿Existe en Nigeria una mayoría silenciosa que no quiere la violencia?
–Prof. Introvigne: Sí, y querría el diálogo interreligioso. Una encuesta reciente en Nigeria indica que el 70% de la población propone el diálogo interreligioso como la salida del problema. Incluso si no hace noticia y nadie habla de esto.
El sacerdocio masculino en los ojos de una feminista atea
In InfoCatólica
«Fui atea toda mi vida hasta el año 2005. Busqué mi camino hacia el
cristianismo, y ahora escribo acerca de lo que significa ser parte de
esta fe, después de una vida como no creyente». Así se describe Jennifer Fulwiler, «escritora y manager caótica de su creciente familia, que actualmente incluye cinco hijos pequeños». Es columnista en Envoy Magazine, National Catholic Register, entre otros, y tiene un blog (ConversionDiary.com), en donde comenta la alegría de su fe católica.
Soy un admirador personal de sus escritos. Cargados de realismo y de
profundidad, sus líneas suelen transparentar esa fuerza típica del
converso que no se anda con medias tintas. Leerle suele ser una bocanada de aire fresco dentro de la red. Entre sus muchos escritos, hubo uno que me pareció especialmente iluminador: Por qué siempre me ha parecido sensato el sacerdocio masculino. Venido de una pluma que antes fue atea y feminista, me pareció interesante darle una ojeada. Valió la pena…
Con permiso de la misma Jennifer, que amablemente me autorizó hacer
una traducción de su artículo, comparto ahora con ustedes estas líneas,
esperando que puedan iluminar y ayudar a valorar, aún más, la fe tan
hermosa que tenemos en nuestra Iglesia. ¡Gracias, Jennifer!
******
Por qué siempre me ha parecido sensato el sacerdocio masculino
Cuando leí la parte de «Catolicismo para idiotas» (Catholicism for Dummies)
que trataba el tema del sacerdocio masculino, alguno podría pensar que
me iba a volver atrás en mi decisión de convertirme. Ya había escuchado
algo sobre género y clero católico en la «cultura popular», pero nunca
me topé con el tema hasta que empecé a buscar y me di cuenta que efectivamente la Iglesia Católica no acepta mujeres al sacerdocio. Siendo atea de toda la vida y una feminista proclamada, podría pensarse que debería sentirme ultrajada. Sin embargo, cuando intenté que me viniese una justa indignación, ésta jamás llegó. De hecho, algo de esta postura me pareció objetiva. Sorprendida por mi propia posición, pasé
mucha parte juzgando por qué no sentía la urgencia de denunciar esta
postura polémica como opresiva e injusta. Y esto fue lo que me vino a la
mente:
Los hombres y las mujeres son distintos
Por ese entonces, había sido mamá recientemente. Y no hay nada como el embarazo y el dar a luz para darse cuenta de que el hombre y la mujer son muy, pero muy diferentes. Incluso
fuera de la visión católica, no se puede negar que quienquiera que nos
creó –sea que lo llames Dios o Naturaleza o Alá o lo que sea– nos creó hombre y mujer con capacidades complementarias y, sin embargo, totalmente distintas.
Las mujeres pueden cargar una nueva vida humana en su seno; los hombres
no. Las mujeres pueden amamantar a sus bebés; los hombres no. Los
hombres son generalmente más fuertes: el más fuerte de los hombres en el
mundo siempre va a ser más fuerte que la más fuerte de las mujeres en
el mundo. Y la lista de diferencias innatas entre los sexos sigue y
sigue… Asumiendo que toda la raza humana no ha nacido en una
situación inherentemente injusta, parecería que nuestro Creador no cree
necesario que todos hagan lo mismo para ser iguales.
Lo que haces no es lo que te hace valer
A lo largo de esas mismas líneas, había comenzado a cuestionarme la persuasiva y moderna idea de que lo que tú haces
es lo que tú vales. En las reuniones sociales, la primera pregunta que
hacemos a alguien que conocemos es «¿A qué te dedicas?». A los niños les
preguntamos «¿Qué vas a hacer cuando seas grande?». Uno de los
resultados de esta idea es que nosotros, como sociedad, decidimos que si
las mujeres no hacen toda y cada una de las cosas que los hombres
hacen, la única posible explicación tiene que ser que ellas están siendo
menos valoradas –y ser excluidas de realizar ciertas
actividades significa que sus opciones de alcanzar un cumplimiento
completo como seres humanos es limitado. Cuanto más consideraba esto, tano más me golpeaba como una visión tristemente utilitarista.
Comencé a pensar que es posible creer que los hombres no serán buenos
consultores en lactancia, las mujeres no serán buenos combatientes de la
guerra de guerrillas, etc., sin que eso sea un comentario sobre el
valor intrínseco de un sexo sobre el otro.
Dios se hizo hombre
Como un extraño que busca en esta religión, no podía entender cómo
alguien pudiese creer que el Cristianismo es verdadero y, al mismo
tiempo, cuestionarse el hecho de que Dios ve dos sexos con diferentes
roles cada uno. Cuando Dios asumió nuestra carne humana, lo hizo como hombre.
Podría haber bajado como mujer, como un equipo de hermanos y hermanas, o
como un ser asexuado. Pero no lo hizo. Si quieres rechazar el
Cristianismo como falso, eso es una cosa; pero si aceptas a
Jesucristo como Dios Encarnado, parece que también tienes que aceptar
que Dios ve que el sexo masculino tiene un rol especial en este mundo.
Jesús escogió hombres para ser sus apóstoles
Pedro, Andrés, Santiago, Santiago, Juan, Felipe, Tomás, Mateo, Bartolomé, Tadeo, Simón y Judas: esos son los nombres de las doce personas que Cristo llamó personalmente para ser sus apóstoles. Todos son hombres.
El hecho de que Dios no sólo viniese como hombre, sino que incluso
llamó solamente hombres para ser sus apóstoles (a pesar del hecho de que
también estuvo cercano a muchas mujeres), fue una confirmación
definitiva del hecho obvio de que Dios tiene un plan especial para el
sexo masculino.
Dios nos dio a María
Y entonces, ¿dónde deja todo esto a las mujeres? ¿Acaso Dios no ve para nosotras un rol especial también? ¿Se olvidó de nosotras?
Con honestidad, también tuve esos pensamientos cuando empecé a buscar
sobre el Cristianismo, y fue un rollo. Las únicas ramas de cristianismo
del que tenía experiencia eran algunas denominaciones del protestantismo
sureño [en Estados Unidos] y me golpeó el hecho de que eran
espiritualidades centradas en el hombre. Jesús era hombre, sus apóstoles
eran hombres, todos los predicadores locales eran hombres. ¿Dónde
entraban las mujeres en toda esta religión? ¿Acaso Dios dejaba fuera, en
el frío, a todo un sexo en su totalidad?
Una vez que descubrí el Catolicismo, una de las muchas cosas que me sorprendieron de sus enseñanzas fue el énfasis en María. Tenía mucho sentido que Dios diera a una mujer un rol crítico dentro de su plan, alguien que pudiese servir como ejemplo de perfecta santidad femenina –y tenía sentido que su verdadera Iglesia lo entendiera así y celebrase este hecho.
Y así, cuando me topé con la doctrina del sacerdocio
masculino, todas estas ideas hicieron que la defensa oficial de la
Iglesia de su posición sonasen auténticas. De hecho, hubiese sido escéptica de las doctrinas católicas si no me hubiesen enseñado que es una labor para hombres –sólo para hombres– llevar adelante el rol que Dios empezó cuando él mismo se hizo hombre.
Se puede leer el original en inglés siguiendo este enlace:
P. Juan Antonio Ruiz J., L.C.
Human Nature and Aquinas’ Taxonomy of Sexual Sins - by
In CRISIS
St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Second Part of the Second Volume of his Summa theologiae,
considers in a little over 1000 pages in Latin a massive number of sins
and vices – injustice, gluttony, anger, greed, lying, etc., etc. Sexual
sins are considered under the technical scholastic rubric of “luxury”
(i.e., lust), and like the other sins are divided up into different
species, with numerous concrete examples and applications.
Liberals in our enlightened era generally consider any sexual
practice short of rape or child abuse to be “pelvic issues,” not worthy
of condemnation, and certainly not able to keep perpetrators from
eternal salvation. Aquinas obviously disagrees, but in his taxonomy,
while all the sins he considers are “mortal sins,” he ranks them from
more to less serious, with reasons for the rankings. The distinctions
he makes are not only important for the insights gained philosophically
about the variety of human evils, but also from the standpoint of moral
theology. They were, and remain so today, important for confessors in
knowing what types of penances to apportion and for spiritual directors
in being able to offer appropriate advice to those who consult them.
It is also important for us to know what such distinctions are. A
lack of distinctions prevails in regard to many sins: Some consider it
monstrous for police to beat protesters, but have no problem with
radical Islamists massacring women and children indiscriminately. Some
are incensed about somebody cheating on food stamps, but not about a
politico using insider information to buy stocks. Many are incensed that
their favorite movie star’s boyfriend has cheated on her, but have no
problem with pornography. Others are against gay sex, but find
contraceptive heterosexual intercourse unproblematic. And so on.
The following listing from Aquinas proceeds from the most serious to the least serious. I will discuss some potentially surprising rankings at the end.
The most serious sexual sins (leaving out circumstances such as violence, which compound the sinfulness) are sins contra naturam, sins contrary to human nature, and thus contrary to God the author of human nature.
The most obviously unnatural sin is “bestiality,” i.e., sexual
intercourse with animals – a sin which offers an affront to the human
species. Next in seriousness is sodomy, which is an affront to the
natural relationship between male and female.
In third place are unnatural coital relationships between men and women – for example, anal intercourse, coitus interruptus,
or other contraceptive measures – all of which are sinful because they
do not observe “the right manner of copulation.” In his Summa contra gentiles,
Aquinas compares such relationships to homicide: “After the sin of
homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this
type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of
human nature is precluded.” By taking measures to prevent a human life
from emerging naturally, such non-procreative sex constitutes an action
against the potential human soul that might result.
The least serious “unnatural” sexual sin is masturbation, in which
pleasure is intentionally sought in isolation from natural social
relationships. Aquinas is careful to distinguish this from “nocturnal
pollution” or other unintentional emission of semen, which is not
sinful. In our era, we would include pornography, as a means to excite
prurient sexuality, as connected with this sin.
Incest, which is borderline “natural,” if it involves male-female
intercourse, is nevertheless a grievous sin since it flouts the natural
relationships proper to people connected by consanguinity or affinity.
As regards normal male-female relationships, the most serious sin is
of course rape, in which sexual sinfulness is compounded with a serious
sin of injustice, forced intercourse with someone who is unwilling.
Next in seriousness is sacrilege, for example, intercourse with a nun
or priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Because of the vow, this
sin involves a direct offense to God; and if it is accompanied by rape,
the seriousness is compounded.
Less serious is adultery, which is consensual, but is combined with
the sin of injustice, since at least one of the parties is joined
lawfully to another in marriage.
Finally, Aquinas makes a distinction between two of the least serious
sexual sins – “seduction” and “fornication.” In making this distinction
he is in part taking into account the customs in his era, in which (as
also in our own time) a father at a wedding will “give away” the bride.
The legal code then favored marriage, on condition of parental consent
and consent of the bride; in the absence of such consent, civil
penalties for seduction were prescribed.
Fornication, i.e. what we call “consensual sex” is defined by Aquinas
as intercourse with a woman who is not a virgin, and in which no
external aggravating circumstances are relevant – e.g., the use of
force, or the use of contraceptives. This act is sinful because it
militates against the social welfare of possible progeny who might
result – leading to the possibility of children without a father to aid
them with moral and intellectual guidance into adulthood.
We might consider some of these rankings to be counter-intuitive:
Masturbation worse than fornication? The psychiatrist Karl Menninger, in his 1973 book, Whatever became of Sin?
in his comments on modern culture, points to the change in attitude
regarding masturbation as a pivotal development paving the way to a
permissive attitude not only towards sexual sins, but toward sin in
general. Without too much imagination we can perceive contraception,
sodomy, and pornography as sophisticated cultural results from that
change.
Incest more serious than rape? Aquinas’ reasoning is that incest, if
it is not accompanied by rape, is still a greater affront to the natural
relationship of the sexes, especially when we consider familial
relationships between parents and children, or sisters and brothers.
Consensual sodomy worse than incest or rape? Incest disrespects
individuals in various degrees of relationship, while sodomy is an
infraction against the proper relation of the sexes as well as against
the perpetuation of the human species. Intersexual rape in a certain
sense is less “unnatural,” but brings in the extraneous factors of
violence and injustice which can magnify the overall sinfulness of the action.
Aquinas, of course, was operating in the context of the philosophical
supposition that human nature is unchanging, and thus contains certain
“constants.” Our sophisticated progressive contemporaries—in particular
those in positions of academic and cultural influence—believe quite the
opposite. Human nature —if there is such a thing— is infinitely
malleable, and sexuality blossoms out in evolutionary fashion into
polymorphous re-creations–families without a biological mother and
father, liaisons for mutual pleasure without procreation, serial
polygamy through successive marriage and divorce, etc.
We can pretend that human nature is not what it is only for so long.
An indefinite suppression of reality is not possible. We’d do well to
reflect on the Angelic Doctor’s instruction.
A Lament at the Secular World’s Rejection of Natural Law - by Msgr. Charles Pope
In AoW
One of the great losses to Western
Culture is the increasing refusal to accept that there is a Natural Law
to which we may commonly refer. This is especially problematic in
pluralistic and secularist societies like the post-Christian West where
reference to the sacred text of Scripture is not considered
authoritative by many.
Hence, it has been the long
practice of the Church, even before secularizing trends to base her
witness to the truth not only on Scripture but also on Natural Law.
The recourse to such a basis for discussion is now largely impossible
for us, as most secularists have adopted a radical skepticism that our
nature, and that the reality all around us, has anything to say to us in
terms of the moral life. Thus, little discussion is possible between
believers and secularists and the impasse is clearly on display in the
comboxes of blogs such as this and others.
What is the Natural Law? According
to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational
creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). There are two
reason we call this law “natural.” First, because it is set forth in our
very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the
purely natural medium of reason, rather than by supernatural revelation.
The law, however, we observe does not rest on some particular element
or aspect of our nature (e.g. only the physical). The standard is our
whole human nature and also the special ends to which we are directed:
e.g. justice, truth, rationality, and openness to the eternal.
For example, in observing our overall nature we rightly conclude,
by the use of reason, that it is wrong to indulge the satisfaction of
some lower need or tendency in a way that is not properly subordinated
to the higher goods. We rightly conclude that reason should maintain a
proper order and balance among our conflicting tendencies and desires.
- - Thus, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our overall bodily health or spiritual life is wrong.
- - Self-preservation is right and good, but there are times to accept dangerous and even deadly undertakings when the well-being of wider society requires it.
- - A glass of wine may be good and relaxing, but it is wrong to drink to intoxication, for it is injurious to health, and deprives one of the use of reason, the guide and dictator of conduct.
- – Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life and sows fear and distrust; so does lying; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of well functioning society.
- - Sexual pleasure is good, but promiscuity of any sort undermines the family, spreads disease and endangers children in innumerable ways from abortion to being raised in less than the ideal setting of a committed, complimentary, and stable marriage of a mature mother and father. Outside of this ideal setting for children, a host of social ills follow as we well know today.
Note that in these examples, we have not referenced Scripture,
which is supernatural revelation. Natural Law however is accessed
through the unaided operation of reason. Founded in our nature and
revealed to us by our reason, the natural law is known to us in the
measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding.
The supreme and primary principles (e.g. not to steal, lie, commit
adultery, murder) are known to every one having the actual use of reason
and are held in every culture. Another class of conclusions or
principles are those which are reached only by a more or less complex
course of reasoning. This would be due to the more complex nature of the
situation encountered. [1]
Thus, in effect, Natural Law is the law available to us by the use of natural reason.
It presupposes that the existing world is intelligible, that it
manifests order, and tends toward a purpose or goal (e.g. sustaining
life). It presupposes that the natural world is steeped with meaning,
and maintains a vigorous optimism that we, who are rational creatures,
can learn from what the natural world and our own human nature testify
to us.
But this optimism that creation shouts meaning and truth has suffered many serious blows in Western Culture,
in the wake of the radical doubt and skepticism set in motion by the
Cartesian revolution of the late 16th and early 17th Centuries.
Increasingly, many influential Western philosophers came to articulate
that things are ultimately, meaningless. Many scientists have taken up
the notion that all the intricate order we can observe is only the
result of random chance mutations and that the existing world ultimately
has no real or ultimate meaning; it is just a chance accident.
Materialists refuse to accept anything beyond physical matter, and
reject metaphysical concepts such as justice, love, beauty, longing, and
moral sense as mere emanations of brain synapses ultimately signifying
nothing. Nihilism and other reductionists tendencies have plagued the
West and robbed us, collectively speaking of the optimism that we, our
lives, or the existing world have meaning and something to teach us.
Thus it is we who believe who are left holding the candle
and who optimistically assert that the existing world is steeped with
meaning, with teachings, with intelligibility. From the Christian point
of view, God made all things through his “Word” (who is our Lord Jesus
Christ). The Greek word Logos points to a kind of “logic” that
permeates all things and is discoverable to our human reason. The
universe was “thought into being” and thus we who possess reason are
able to observe, to recognize, the Law, the reason, and the wisdom that
underlies and permeates all things.
So, along with the supernatural Book of Sacred Scripture we also have the natural Book of Creation.
The Church esteems them both as pointing to the one truth. Thus there
can be no absolute or ultimate conflict between true science and faith.
As Catholics, we are frequently considered together with our
Fundamentalist and Evangelical brethren who do not often esteem the Book
of Creation and Natural Law as we do. There are important distinctions
that Catholics uniquely make that are often lost on atheists and
secularists. We do not insist that our moral teachings and most of our
doctrinal teachings are only available by Scripture, we also strive to
show them and demonstrate them by way of natural law and that they are
quite often accessible to reason.
Again we may note with sadness that this avenue is of late shutting down.
Note because we have changed or moved, but because the world has become
doubtful and cynical that the existing world or our bodies have
anything to tell us.
One cannot judge individual hearts to be sure, but
it is not without sobriety to suggest that some, if not many, who have
rejected Natural Law have done so, not out struggle or doubt, but
because the existence of any law above them is inconvenient to the
moral life they wish to lead. Such judgements may be beyond us in
individual cases, but collectively it seems clear that the wholesale
abandonment of Natural Law has coincided with the declining West’s
collective decision to take a moral holiday.
Perhaps as a prosaic conclusion
to the Church’s optimism that the created world shouts forth meaning
and truth we can end with the words of St Athanasius. Certainly he
writes from the standpoint of faith and his words would matter little to
a secularist or atheist. But to we who still have that “old time
religion” it is a good reflection on how creation mystically manifests
the immanence and wisdom of God.
By his own
wisdom and Word, who is our Lord and Savior Christ, the all-holy Father
(whose excellence far exceeds that of any creature), like a skillful
steersman guides to safety all creation, regulating and keeping it in
being, as he judges right. It is right that creation should exist as he
has made it and as we see it happening, because this is his will, which
no one would deny. For if the movement of the universe were irrational,
and the world rolled on in random fashion, one would be justified in
disbelieving what we say. But if the world is founded on reason, wisdom
and science, and is filled with orderly beauty, then it must owe its
origin and order to none other than the Word of God.
He is God, the
living and creative God of the universe, the Word of the good God, who
is God in his own right…. the Word that created this whole world and
enlightens it by his loving wisdom….produced the order in all
creation….and gives order, direction and unity to creation.
By his eternal
Word the Father created all things and implanted a nature in his
creatures. He…in his goodness he governs and sustains the whole of
nature by his Word (who is himself also God), so that under the
guidance, providence and ordering of that Word, the whole of nature
might remain stable and coherent in his light. From a Discourse Against the Pagans by Saint Athanasius, bishop (Nn. 40-42: PG 25, 79-83)
Argentina: Bendicen cementerio para niños no nacidos
BUENOS AIRES, 20 Jul. 12 / 04:49 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias).-
El Arzobispo de San Juan de Cuyo (Argentina), Mons. Alfonso Delgado, bendijo un espacio para sepultar a niños
no nacidos en el cementerio parque El Palmar, del departamento de 9 de
Julio, con el cual, señaló, se está "realizando un acto de profunda
humanidad".
"El Dios de todos los hombres bendiga este lugar santo, que nos habla de la vida,
de la dignidad de todo ser humano, de amor, de perdón, de fe, de
conversión y de vida eterna", expresó el Prelado, que animó a los padres
y madres "a visitar este lugar, a darles un nombre a esos hijos, a
quererlos" y a encomendarse al Padre a través de ellos.
"Se trata de los niños fallecidos antes de nacer, independientemente del motivo de su deceso", destacó.
"Ellos son seres humanos, tan humanos como cada uno de nosotros,
cuyos restos mortales merecen el mismo trato que desearíamos para
nosotros, en sintonía con la más plena dignidad humana", añadió.
Por ello felicitó a las autoridades locales por ceder un espacio en
el cementerio, pues "este lugar es un ámbito donde se dignifica vida
humana" y donde se recuerda "que la vida del hombre tiene un destino
inmortal, que Dios quiere que sea inmensamente feliz, aunque deja en
nuestras manos la libertad para aceptar esa felicidad o rechazarla".
quinta-feira, 19 de julho de 2012
Joseph Pearce: «El renacimiento de la cultura católica es posible y necesario»
In InfoCatólica
El conocido escritor Joseph Pearce explica para InfoCatólica la
necesidad que tiene nuestra época hedonista y relativista de una triple
apologética de la belleza, la verdad y la bondad. «Mientras la cultura
de la muerte se va suicidando en una orgía de autodestrucción, la
Iglesia y la cultura de la vida que representa se levantarán como un
fénix de las cenizas o, más apropiadamente como Cristo resucitado»,
explica Pearce, converso al catolicismo hace 23 años y coeditor de una
revista que incluye impactantes ejemplos de arte cristiano porque
«intenta ganar a las personas para la verdad del Catolicismo mostrando
su intrínseca belleza».
Joseph Pearce es un famoso escritor inglés afincado en los Estados
Unidos, como catedrático de Humanidades en la Universidad Tomás Moro de
New Hampshire. En su juventud, fue un ardiente defensor de ideologías de
tipo racista y anticatólico, hasta su conversión al catolicismo en
1989. Es autor de numerosos libros traducidos al castellano, en
particular biografías y estudios de grandes escritores católicos.
–En cierta ocasión, mencionó que se sentía llamado a la apologética de la Belleza. ¿Qué significa eso?
La apologética de la belleza es una de tres formas de defender la fe católica y llevar a las personas hacia la conversión. Las otras dos formas son la apologética de la bondad y la apologética de la verdad.
Expresan lo que los antiguos llamaban lo bueno, lo verdadero y lo
bello, que deberían ser vistos por los cristianos como un reflejo de la
naturaleza trinitaria de Dios.
La apologética de la bondad consiste en defender la fe y conseguir
conversiones a través de una vida de santidad y virtud. Es decir, ganar a
otras personas para Cristo y para su Iglesia llegando a ser santo. La
apologética de la verdad consiste en defender la fe y conseguir
conversiones a través del uso de la razón. La apologética de la verdad
lucha en los campos de batalla de la teología y la filosofía. La
apologética de la belleza consiste en ganar a otras personas
para Cristo y para su Iglesia mostrándoles la belleza de la creación de
Dios, a menudo a través de obras de sub-creación, como la literatura, las artes visuales, la música o la arquitectura.
En esta época hedonista y relativista en la que vivimos, la
apologética de la belleza resulta a menudo la forma más eficaz de ganar a
otras personas para la Fe. El hedonismo odia la santidad y la virtud y
desprecia el ejemplo de los santos. El relativismo rehúye la razón
objetiva, relegando la argumentación racional al nivel de la percepción
subjetiva y sometiendo la verdad a la mera opinión. El hedonismo no
responde a la apologética de la bondad, pero puede ser atraído por el
poder de la belleza. El relativismo no responde a la apologética de la verdad, pero puede responder a una epifanía de la belleza.
–Usted se convirtió al Catolicismo desde un agnosticismo
culturalmente protestante. ¿Le ayudó la apologética de la belleza en su
camino hacia la fe?
Mi camino hacia la conversión estuvo iluminado por las tres modalidades de apologética.
Yo admiraba mucho a los santos, como San Francisco de Asís, que se
desposó con la Dama Pobreza para unirse a Jesucristo. Por lo tanto, la
apologética de la bondad me llevó hacia la conversión. Leí los
argumentos filosóficos y teológicos a favor de la ortodoxia católica y
quedé convencido por ellos, en particular en las obras de Santo Tomás de
Aquino, San Agustín y otros escritores más recientes, como Karl Adam.
Así pues, también pude beneficiarme de la apologética de la verdad,
llegando a entender la interconexión inextricable de fe y razón. Al
mismo tiempo, también me sentía muy atraído por el edificante edificio de la civilización cristiana,
como las grandes obras de arte, música, arquitectura y, especialmente,
literatura, en todas las cuales brillaba la belleza de Dios y de su
Iglesia. Por lo tanto, pude beneficiarme de la apologética de la
belleza. Las tres modalidades de apologética apuntaban únicamente hacia
un todo armonioso: la Iglesia Una, Santa, Católica y Apostólica,
fundada por Cristo y que forma su Cuerpo Místico a lo largo de la
historia.
–Es usted coeditor de la revista Saint Austin Review,
una “revista de cultura, literatura e ideas católicas”. ¿Hay un lugar en
el mercado hoy para algo así? ¿Cual es la idea de una revista de este
tipo?
La revista Saint Austin Review (www.staustinreview.com) intenta educar
a los católicos sobre la belleza de la Fe y proporcionarles las armas
intelectuales y estéticas que necesitan para evangelizar la cultura a través del poder de la belleza católica y de la bondad y la verdad que contiene. No hay nada igual a Saint Austin Review
y, por lo tanto, desempeña un papel crucial en la lucha para anunciar
el Evangelio al siglo XXI. Muchos de los mejores escritores católicos
han honrado con su presencia las páginas de la revista, incluido el
propio Santo Padre que, como cardenal Ratzinger, otorgó a Saint Austin Review los primeros derechos de publicación en inglés de su ensayo “Sobre la catolicidad”. Soy coeditor de Saint Austin Review desde su primer número, hace ahora once años. Lo considero a la vez un honor y una tarea de amor.
–He notado que la revista siempre es visualmente impactante e incluye preciosos ejemplos de arte cristiano. ¿Eso forma parte de su misión?
Sí, sin duda. Una revista que intenta ganar a las personas para la
verdad del Catolicismo mostrando su intrínseca belleza tiene que
encarnar esa belleza siendo bella en sí misma. La belleza del mejor arte cristiano sigue siendo uno de los testimonios más eficaces de la misión de la Iglesia en el mundo. Ese arte habla por sí mismo y remite a la belleza de la Fe que lo inspiró.
–He oído que este año va a publicarse un libro suyo sobre El Hobbit, de Tolkien. ¿Es cierto?
Sí. Terminé de escribirlo hace unos días. El título provisional es “La peregrinación de Bilbo: El cristianismo en El Hobbit” (“Bilbo’s
Pilgrimage: The Christianity of The Hobbit”) y esperamos publicarlo a
tiempo para el estreno mundial de la primera parte de la adaptación del
libro al cine realizada por Peter Jackson. ¡Es muy emocionante!
–Ha escrito tantos libros que sería imposible hablar de todos. ¿Cuál es su favorito?
Siempre me resulta muy difícil responder a esta pregunta. “Escritores conversos” es un libro que tenía que ser escrito por alguien,
así que me alegro de haber respondido a esa necesidad. Sé que ha tenido
mucha influencia en la conversión de bastantes personas, lo cual es a
la vez gratificante y motivo de humildad. También tengo mucho cariño a
mis biografías de Roy Campbell, Oscar Wilde e Hilaire Belloc.
–¿Cree que es posible que se dé hoy un renacimiento de
la cultura católica similar al que se produjo en el Reino Unido en los
siglos XIX-XX?
Sí, es posible y ciertamente necesario. El aumento actual del
hedonismo y del fundamentalismo secularista es inestable e insostenible y
se derrumbará en unas pocas generaciones. Cuando la ascendencia del progresismo comience a desmoronarse y a decaer, el mundo buscará de nuevo las Cosas Permanentes
que han dado forma a la civilización a lo largo de los siglos. La
Iglesia Católica es la encarnación de esas Cosas Permanentes. Mientras
la cultura de la muerte se va suicidando en una orgía de
autodestrucción, la Iglesia y la cultura de la vida que representa se
levantarán como un fénix de las cenizas o, más apropiadamente como
Cristo resucitado.
–Supongo que le habrán planteado muchas veces esto, pero
tengo que preguntarlo: ¿Es cierto que Shakespeare era un católico
oculto?
¡Sin duda! Al menos es cierto que era católico, aunque no creo que su catolicismo estuviera especialmente “escondido”. En mi libro “Shakespeare: una investigación”, argumento, a partir de los datos que tenemos, que Shakespeare no era un católico secreto u “oculto”, sino que más bien era considerado un católico “sin riesgo”, es decir, su catolicismo era conocido, pero no se consideraba un riesgo para la reina o el Estado.
Al principio, consideré con mucho escepticismo la posibilidad de que
Shakespeare fuera católico, pensando que no habría pruebas suficientes
para llegar a esa conclusión. Sin embargo, llegué a darme cuenta de que
estaba equivocado, porque, de hecho, hay multitud de datos, tanto
biográficos como textuales, que demuestran más allá de toda duda
razonable el catolicismo del gran dramaturgo inglés.
–Aunque suele asistir a Misa celebrada según la forma
ordinaria del rito, es usted un admirador de la forma extraordinaria.
¿Cree que el Papa Benedicto XVI también tenía en mente la apologética de
la belleza cuando permitió la celebración de la liturgia antigua en
toda la Iglesia?
Sí, él ve la fuerza de su belleza, pero también aprecia la bondad y
la verdad que hay en el corazón mismo de la liturgia tradicional. Es
bella, pero también está llena de santidad y, teológicamente, expresa
perfectamente la ortodoxia de la doctrina católica. Todo católico debería familiarizarse con la bondad, la verdad y la belleza de la liturgia tradicional.
–Usted es defensor del Distributismo de Chesterton. ¿Es
difícil defender esas ideas en los Estados Unidos, que podrían
considerarse el país capitalista por excelencia en la actualidad?
Muchos norteamericanos se muestran escépticos sobre el poder de las
grandes empresas, al igual que sobre el poder de un gran gobierno.
Muchos de ellos recelan de la globalización económica y política y de
sus consecuencias negativas y destructivas, en particular con respecto a
su impacto sobre la economía de los propios Estados Unidos. El deseo de
que se reavive y refuerce el gobierno pequeño y local, como alternativa
para las políticas de Gran Hermano y un gobierno omnipresente del
régimen de Obama, y la necesidad de reavivar un sector privado de
pequeñas empresas que contrarreste el poder destructivo de la
globalización hacen que la subsidiariedad y el distributismo sean más
atractivos que nunca. Es una gran oportunidad de evangelizar la cultura con la sabiduría de la doctrina social de la Iglesia.
–¿En qué está trabajando actualmente?
Me han encargado que escriba un libro que describa mi
conversión al catolicismo desde unos antecedentes de anticatolicismo y
política racista de supremacista blanco. El título provisional
del libro es “Una carrera con el diablo: Desde el odio racial al amor
racional” (“Race with the Devil: A Journey from Racial Hatred to
Rational Love”).
Blithe Christianity and the Last Free Election - by James Schall S. J.
In CWR
I.
Bruce Fingerhut in South Bend called my attention to Father George Rutler’s essay in crisismagazine.com (July 13), entitled. “Post-Comfortable Christianity.” Father Rutler is the well-known pastor of the Church of Our Savior in New York City. He is a man of many, many talents, a witty and insightful lecturer, often on EWTN. With his Scot origin, he has been known to appear in the kilt version of the Roman Collar at the Highland Games. Rutler is a convert Episcopal priest who speaks the King’s English, speaks it well and clearly.
The title, “Post-Comfortable Christianity,” Rutler explains, is not used in place of “Post-Christian,” since “nothing can come after Christ,” a profound theological observation in itself. We have lived as Catholics in relative peace in recent times. We think we belong and are accepted by this culture. Indeed, we have sometimes bought an easy version of our faith that requires little sacrifice and no Cross.
We have not had to worry, or so we thought, about ourselves being discriminated against or persecuted. Such despicable activities were, we thought, against the law. They were events that happened “elsewhere.” We never thought that our law could itself be “against the law.” The Third Millennium began with fireworks and Ferris wheels, Rutler commented, but is now “entering a sinister stage.” We have not anticipated that so many Catholics, often public leaders, when it came to a choice between God and Caesar, would opt for Caesar in his worst form.
Rutler introduces his comments by recalling Father Bernard Bassett, S. J., on his death-bed. He told Rutler that, if he (Bassett) had to do life over, all he would do is read St. Paul. Rutler quips that for most of us “God gave us the Apostle of the Gentiles in order to have second readings at Sunday Mass, usually unrelated to the first reading and the Gospel.”
But here Rutler is initially concerned with Paul’s encounters with Roman procurators, who were often enough decent men, stronger, it always seemed to me, than Pilate, one of their predecessors. Paul dealt with Antonius Felix, Procius Festus, and Junius Gallio; he handled those men shrewdly. They often protected him. How often in Christian literature, however, are we warned about what to say before “judges and governors?” Paul himself, when necessary, had no hesitation to appeal for protection to Caesar, to the Roman law, as was his by right of birth. But Nero, Decius, Marcus Aurelius, and Diocletian represented the same law that did not always protect Christians
However, today, Rutler remarks, “the Christian veneer of American culture has cracked and underneath is the inverse of the blithe Christianity that took shape in the various enthusiasms of the nineteenth century and ended when voters were under the impression that they finally had a Catholic president.” “Blithe Christianity” is an amusing term. Yet, it is this “inverse” and “sinister” turn that Rutler is concerned to describe.
Rutler applauds the effort of our bishops to deal with religious liberty, which is “now facing unprecedented assault.” How few citizens, however, recognize this assault for what it is! Rutler suggests that the November election “will either give Christians one last chance to rally, or it will be the last free election in our nation.” These are stark words—“the last free election in our nation.” We do not want to face this real possibility.
Few will understand this alternative that are ignorant of the loss of religious liberty elsewhere, say, in the “Slavic nations after World War I and in Europe in the 1930’s.” Indeed, it happened in St. Paul’s time. Rome and Washington have much in common. In this light, Scripture has rather more to teach us about what is happening about us than we are likely to admit.
The path we are on whereby we will lose our public presence will not be, on the surface, dramatic. It won’t be a bolt of lightning. It will come by small but quick steps, such as the HHS mandate. Yet, without a “dramatic change” in current political direction, many laws and policies in the country are already on the books whereby, when enforced, Catholics will be gradually forced out of the public sphere as enemies to its common good. Everything that they do that is “Catholic” in terms of schools, hospitals, property, and other such initiatives, will be taken over by the all-caring state. When it comes down to it, this control will be exercised by the tax laws, which, as Rutler cites both from Webster and Marshall, are the “power to destroy.” The shadow of the Roberts decision hangs over us.
How will it work? “Those who measure their Catholicism by the Catholic schools they attended will soon find most of those institutions officially pinching incense to the ephemeral genius of their secular leaders, and universities once called Catholic will be no more Catholic than Brown is Baptist.” This change will not arise from “a sudden loss of faith” in basic doctrines. The transformation of religious liberty into a very strictly defined religious “worship” will take care of this change. Everything not uniquely and privately Catholic will be claimed by the state.
II.
The change, unless stopped by the election or courts, will be effected through the health-care mandate and its “penalties” or “taxes.” All businesses will be forced to buy into the government health-care program with all its anti-Catholic premises. If anyone does not collaborate, he will be fined or taxed in such a way and degree that he cannot afford to stay in business. Such businesses will soon disappear because they are unable to “bear the burden of confiscatory tax penalties.” The financial costs, which Rutler spells out, simply cannot be met by ordinary business means. And no doubt, this elimination of opposition is the purpose of the law against which the bishops protest. It is a way to be rid of any internal alternative to government control.
But here Rutler adds something that I had not seen spelled out before. The laws will now be framed in such a way that anyone who does not follow government health-care policies, which will control the whole economy, will not find jobs that he can accept with clear conscience. “Catholics will not be suitable for public charities, medicine, education, journalism, or in the legal profession.” All of this elimination is in the name of “non-discrimination.” These are the normal areas in which Catholics, especially educated Catholics, have found their livelihood and place in civil society. Our institutions of higher learning, law schools, nursing schools, medical schools, and even business schools, to survive, will, in their minds, have to accept the law to survive. In Rutler’s view, most will accept the government rules.
The Church’s moral positions will be seen to violate “civil rights.” Our lack of attention to the philosophic roots of “natural rights” is coming home to haunt us. “Rights” theory can justify anything. All of this control of the Church is being proposed in the name of natural and civil “rights.” In this atmosphere, Catholics will be something like their counterparts in Muslim lands. Their choice will be to escape to another land, to convert to Islam, or to be a tiny, tightly controlled minority with no opening to the public order.
Rutler puts it this way: “If their (Catholics) influence is not decisive, and the present course of federal legislation accelerates, encouraged by a self-destructive appetite for welfare statism on the part of ecclesiastical bureaucracies, the majority of Catholics with tenuous commitments to the Faith will evaporate.” This analysis is the European fate now applied to the Church in the States.
We should be clear, as writers like Paul Rahe have pointed out, that this subjection of Catholicism to the control of the state is being carried out by officials that many of them voted for in great numbers and with enthusiasm. We have not been able to imagine that the Catholic Church in its essential moral teaching would come to be seen as an enemy of democracy and human “rights.” Yet, these new versions of democracy and human “rights” embody positions that diametrically oppose human life, marriage, basic morality, and the nature of transcendence. No one who cannot accept this new version of “rights” will be a member of the new state that has come to exist before our very eyes. The “inversion” of morals is almost complete. It is “sinister.”
As George Rutler remarks, St. Paul would not have been much surprised at this turn of events. There is a “logic” already in place that, if allowed to go further by the continuation of the present regime, will reduce the Catholic presence to a mere shell, perhaps a “remnant,” to recall an Old Testament term. True, there will still be institutions that call themselves “Catholic.” Willingly, they will accept the funds of the state on its own terms. We may even anticipate a situation in which we see two churches calling themselves “catholic,” one accepting government funds and terms, the other, much reduced, not accepting them.
Rutler’s term, “post-comfortable Catholicism” is both a witty and an accurate description of where we are. If this is indeed our “last free election,” we will not be overly surprised if most of us accept it, well, comfortably.
Bruce Fingerhut in South Bend called my attention to Father George Rutler’s essay in crisismagazine.com (July 13), entitled. “Post-Comfortable Christianity.” Father Rutler is the well-known pastor of the Church of Our Savior in New York City. He is a man of many, many talents, a witty and insightful lecturer, often on EWTN. With his Scot origin, he has been known to appear in the kilt version of the Roman Collar at the Highland Games. Rutler is a convert Episcopal priest who speaks the King’s English, speaks it well and clearly.
The title, “Post-Comfortable Christianity,” Rutler explains, is not used in place of “Post-Christian,” since “nothing can come after Christ,” a profound theological observation in itself. We have lived as Catholics in relative peace in recent times. We think we belong and are accepted by this culture. Indeed, we have sometimes bought an easy version of our faith that requires little sacrifice and no Cross.
We have not had to worry, or so we thought, about ourselves being discriminated against or persecuted. Such despicable activities were, we thought, against the law. They were events that happened “elsewhere.” We never thought that our law could itself be “against the law.” The Third Millennium began with fireworks and Ferris wheels, Rutler commented, but is now “entering a sinister stage.” We have not anticipated that so many Catholics, often public leaders, when it came to a choice between God and Caesar, would opt for Caesar in his worst form.
Rutler introduces his comments by recalling Father Bernard Bassett, S. J., on his death-bed. He told Rutler that, if he (Bassett) had to do life over, all he would do is read St. Paul. Rutler quips that for most of us “God gave us the Apostle of the Gentiles in order to have second readings at Sunday Mass, usually unrelated to the first reading and the Gospel.”
But here Rutler is initially concerned with Paul’s encounters with Roman procurators, who were often enough decent men, stronger, it always seemed to me, than Pilate, one of their predecessors. Paul dealt with Antonius Felix, Procius Festus, and Junius Gallio; he handled those men shrewdly. They often protected him. How often in Christian literature, however, are we warned about what to say before “judges and governors?” Paul himself, when necessary, had no hesitation to appeal for protection to Caesar, to the Roman law, as was his by right of birth. But Nero, Decius, Marcus Aurelius, and Diocletian represented the same law that did not always protect Christians
However, today, Rutler remarks, “the Christian veneer of American culture has cracked and underneath is the inverse of the blithe Christianity that took shape in the various enthusiasms of the nineteenth century and ended when voters were under the impression that they finally had a Catholic president.” “Blithe Christianity” is an amusing term. Yet, it is this “inverse” and “sinister” turn that Rutler is concerned to describe.
Rutler applauds the effort of our bishops to deal with religious liberty, which is “now facing unprecedented assault.” How few citizens, however, recognize this assault for what it is! Rutler suggests that the November election “will either give Christians one last chance to rally, or it will be the last free election in our nation.” These are stark words—“the last free election in our nation.” We do not want to face this real possibility.
Few will understand this alternative that are ignorant of the loss of religious liberty elsewhere, say, in the “Slavic nations after World War I and in Europe in the 1930’s.” Indeed, it happened in St. Paul’s time. Rome and Washington have much in common. In this light, Scripture has rather more to teach us about what is happening about us than we are likely to admit.
The path we are on whereby we will lose our public presence will not be, on the surface, dramatic. It won’t be a bolt of lightning. It will come by small but quick steps, such as the HHS mandate. Yet, without a “dramatic change” in current political direction, many laws and policies in the country are already on the books whereby, when enforced, Catholics will be gradually forced out of the public sphere as enemies to its common good. Everything that they do that is “Catholic” in terms of schools, hospitals, property, and other such initiatives, will be taken over by the all-caring state. When it comes down to it, this control will be exercised by the tax laws, which, as Rutler cites both from Webster and Marshall, are the “power to destroy.” The shadow of the Roberts decision hangs over us.
How will it work? “Those who measure their Catholicism by the Catholic schools they attended will soon find most of those institutions officially pinching incense to the ephemeral genius of their secular leaders, and universities once called Catholic will be no more Catholic than Brown is Baptist.” This change will not arise from “a sudden loss of faith” in basic doctrines. The transformation of religious liberty into a very strictly defined religious “worship” will take care of this change. Everything not uniquely and privately Catholic will be claimed by the state.
II.
The change, unless stopped by the election or courts, will be effected through the health-care mandate and its “penalties” or “taxes.” All businesses will be forced to buy into the government health-care program with all its anti-Catholic premises. If anyone does not collaborate, he will be fined or taxed in such a way and degree that he cannot afford to stay in business. Such businesses will soon disappear because they are unable to “bear the burden of confiscatory tax penalties.” The financial costs, which Rutler spells out, simply cannot be met by ordinary business means. And no doubt, this elimination of opposition is the purpose of the law against which the bishops protest. It is a way to be rid of any internal alternative to government control.
But here Rutler adds something that I had not seen spelled out before. The laws will now be framed in such a way that anyone who does not follow government health-care policies, which will control the whole economy, will not find jobs that he can accept with clear conscience. “Catholics will not be suitable for public charities, medicine, education, journalism, or in the legal profession.” All of this elimination is in the name of “non-discrimination.” These are the normal areas in which Catholics, especially educated Catholics, have found their livelihood and place in civil society. Our institutions of higher learning, law schools, nursing schools, medical schools, and even business schools, to survive, will, in their minds, have to accept the law to survive. In Rutler’s view, most will accept the government rules.
The Church’s moral positions will be seen to violate “civil rights.” Our lack of attention to the philosophic roots of “natural rights” is coming home to haunt us. “Rights” theory can justify anything. All of this control of the Church is being proposed in the name of natural and civil “rights.” In this atmosphere, Catholics will be something like their counterparts in Muslim lands. Their choice will be to escape to another land, to convert to Islam, or to be a tiny, tightly controlled minority with no opening to the public order.
Rutler puts it this way: “If their (Catholics) influence is not decisive, and the present course of federal legislation accelerates, encouraged by a self-destructive appetite for welfare statism on the part of ecclesiastical bureaucracies, the majority of Catholics with tenuous commitments to the Faith will evaporate.” This analysis is the European fate now applied to the Church in the States.
We should be clear, as writers like Paul Rahe have pointed out, that this subjection of Catholicism to the control of the state is being carried out by officials that many of them voted for in great numbers and with enthusiasm. We have not been able to imagine that the Catholic Church in its essential moral teaching would come to be seen as an enemy of democracy and human “rights.” Yet, these new versions of democracy and human “rights” embody positions that diametrically oppose human life, marriage, basic morality, and the nature of transcendence. No one who cannot accept this new version of “rights” will be a member of the new state that has come to exist before our very eyes. The “inversion” of morals is almost complete. It is “sinister.”
As George Rutler remarks, St. Paul would not have been much surprised at this turn of events. There is a “logic” already in place that, if allowed to go further by the continuation of the present regime, will reduce the Catholic presence to a mere shell, perhaps a “remnant,” to recall an Old Testament term. True, there will still be institutions that call themselves “Catholic.” Willingly, they will accept the funds of the state on its own terms. We may even anticipate a situation in which we see two churches calling themselves “catholic,” one accepting government funds and terms, the other, much reduced, not accepting them.
Rutler’s term, “post-comfortable Catholicism” is both a witty and an accurate description of where we are. If this is indeed our “last free election,” we will not be overly surprised if most of us accept it, well, comfortably.
Lies, Damned Lies, and a Spirit of Confusion - by Anthony Esolen
In CWR
Today we see linguistic and moral
confusion in almost everything said about the subjects that have us most
perplexed: man and woman, marriage and children.
“He is a liar and the father of lies,” said
Jesus of Satan (John 8:44). They who are committed to holiness must be
committed to clarity of intention and speech: “Let your speech be yea, yea: no,
no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Matthew 5:37).
The lie is the distinguishing feature of evil,
because of its self-devouring commitment to what is not: it is an inner
vacuity. Shakespeare’s villain Parolles identifies himself as a “corrupter of
words,” and the sardonic Porter in Macbeth remarks
wryly upon the liar who equivocates his way down the primrose path to
perdition. Orwell’s dystopian regime in 1984 rests upon
a ground floor of terror and violence, but its bedrock foundation is the lie:
witness the hero Winston Smith’s work at the “Ministry of Truth,” sending
precious archival materials down the “memory hole,” where they will be lost
forever. It is why Dante situates fraud below violence in the Inferno’s decrepit descent into non-being and idiocy; so we
find the giant Nimrod, builder of the heaven-aspiring Tower of Babel,
sputtering gibberish, and the consummate liar Satan uttering not a single word,
but telling the same old lie again and again with every flap of his bat-like
wings, “I rise by my own power.”
The result is, literally, confusion—pouring
together, a disorderly mélange, a chaos. I believe, in our day, that we see
this linguistic and moral confusion in almost everything that is uttered about
the subjects that have us most perplexed: man and woman; marriage and children.
Examples abound. A recent paper in a journal of medical ethics
has recommended “after-birth abortion” as a morally sound measure for those
parents to take who, once they see their child, determine that they would have
killed it in the womb if they had known about its specifics beforehand. I note
here that “abortion” itself was already a linguistic dodge, as its early
meaning, the morally neutral “miscarriage,” was applied to soften the
perception of an intentional killing. Nobody could sensibly say, “I am going to
the doctor’s to miscarry,” because the absurdity of the infinitive would be
immediately apparent; that is what made the more technical noun handy.
But now our moral pathfinders wish to extend
the utility of the initial lie. Of course they must, for the sake of feeling,
limit themselves to the vicinity of birth. No one can sensibly say of her
two-year-old son, “Johnny is proving altogether too much for me to handle. I’m
going to take him down to the doctor’s to have him aborted, poor guy.” So it
will have to be near enough to the birth for the pretense to take hold. It is as if one were to fly to Paris, land on
the tarmac, have a look about, and say, “I think after all that we shall abort
our flight to Paris,” as if one had not already arrived there. What would then
imply a completed trip to Paris? Wine and cheese on the Champs-Elysees? What
would imply a fils accompli? A highchair and
jars of stewed apricots?
We may find the same embrace of confusion in
the odd alliance between feminism and the homosexual movement. Each of those
terms in itself embodies a confusion or a contradiction. Feminism should mean
the promotion of what is peculiar to women as women: what is feminine. But that
is precisely what it does not mean, or at
least what it does not mean on odd-numbered days. On odd-numbered days, the
feminist argues vociferously that there are no important differences between a
male homo sapiens and a female homo sapiens. There are all kinds of important differences
between a male equus equus and a female equus equus, or between a bull and a cow, or a stag and a
doe, or a silverback orangutan and his consort, but when we come to the most
complex of all the mammals, whose marks of sexual differentiation are more pronounced than those of horses, cows, deer, apes,
dogs, cats, and what have you—well then, presto, they suddenly disappear. On
the odd-numbered days, that is; for on the even-numbered days, we learn that
women are superior to men. If there are no important differences, then, as far
as the common good is concerned, it should not matter much if all of a nation’s
congressmen are in fact men, or women, or half and half, or whatever. Then,
since the feminist does cheer the
advance of (some) female leaders, she must acknowledge the fact of difference;
but if men and women are indeed different, we should expect to find talents and
dispositions for various things unequally divided among them. Thus does the
feminist saw off the limb upon which she is sitting.
A similar contradiction bedevils us when we
use the rather recently coined term “homosexual.” Sex implies
difference-in-relationship. The sexes are, literally, distinguished and
separated one from another. That is what the Latin sexus means:
it is related to a host of Indo-European words having to do with separation,
division, or distinction: cf. Latin scindere, Greek
schism, German verschieden,
English shed. But the separation-from, in this
unique case, implies a being-for. To be male is to be oriented toward the female;
that is what it means to belong to a sex. If we could imagine a group of human
beings endowed with an organ not present in others, say a sixth finger, that
would not constitute a sex, because there would be nothing intrinsically male
or female about it. There is nothing that six-fingered people and five-fingered
people need to complete in one another.
Now then, the “homosexual” at once claims to
belong to a sex, and not to belong to a sex. He says, “I am a man,” but he
denies the implications of the manhood. If he makes common cause with the
feminists and insists that there are no crucial differences between men and
women, we may reasonably ask him, “What then attracts you so?” Unless he
confesses a puerile fetish for the male organ, he must admit an attraction to
the whole constitution of a man—not simply the
form of the body, but the masculine nature itself. But that masculine nature
is, by obvious biological design, oriented toward the female.
The result is confusion. We can observe the
confusion, indeed, in the gallimaufry of invented terms for every sexual
proclivity under the rocks and bushes of human desire. Take the term
“transgendered.” What does it mean? Again, if there are no important
differences between a man and a woman, why not simply and charitably make
everyone’s life easier and bow to custom? After all, one does not build a
bridge from one end of a flatland to another. If “gender” is arbitrary or
nugatory, why the “trans”? What’s to cross? But to bless the confusion we must
nod when people say, “I am a woman in the body of a man who is attracted to men
who are attracted to women,” or, “I am a man with a surgically altered female
body from the waist up, in love with a male who is really a woman attracted to
masculine women.” There are not sufficient letters in the alphabet to identify
the endlessly dividing categories of self-deception.
Or consider the matter of marriage and
divorce. To this day, almost all marriage ceremonies include vows of perpetual
fidelity, “as long as we both shall live.” The ring itself is a symbol of
endlessness and of an indissoluble bond. It signifies, in Spenser’s words, “the
knot that ever shall remain.” Now, people either intend that vow, or they do
not. If they do intend the vow, why do they commit Ehebruch, to
use the telling German word for adultery, vow-break? Why
do they break the vow even more radically by divorce? If they do not intend the
vow, or if they place unspoken conditions upon it, they are lying, and at what
may be the most solemn occasion of their lives. Most of us will never be
soldiers on a battlefield, or captains of a ship; or priests called to defend
the faith with their very lives. The one time we will be called upon to give
ourselves without reserve is when we utter the marriage vow. To tell a lie at
that time would be as if a president of the United States, his hand on the
Bible, were to swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, while
harboring a secret intention to become one of those enemies if the right
occasion presented itself; or as if a witness in court were to swear to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, while harboring a reservation,
“Depending upon what the lawyer asks me.” This vow-that-is-not thus strikes at
the heart of every human enterprise. It uses the law to undermine the law, or
uses the state to undermine the state; or employs the trappings of marriage to
undermine the very possibility of marriage.
Lies, lies. Planned Parenthood does not plan
parenthood. Its business is to take women who are already
mothers and make away with their unborn children. Birth control is not birth
control. It is either conception-prevention, or, in the case of incipient human
offspring already conceived, birth-prevention. Sex education is not education
in the meaning of sex. It masquerades as how-to instruction in hygiene, as if
the only concern of a boy or a girl were to keep the works clean while
enjoying, when the “right time” comes, sexual expression. Even at that, the
rising sewer of diseases is hardly mentioned, and least of all those odd and
dangerous diseases, other than AIDS, that result from the unnatural things that
some men do with other men. “You really shouldn’t live in the sewer,” says the
teacher, “but everybody does, so make sure you wear a pair of galoshes, and
watch out for the rats.”
But
the sexual lie whence all these others spring is common now and unregarded. It
is the lie that says, with the body, “All that I am is yours,” while insisting,
by virtue of not yet having made the solemn vow of marriage, “I am for now
still my own.” It is “unrealistic,” we are told, to tell young people that they
should embrace the virtue of chastity. One might as well say that it is
unrealistic to tell them that they should embrace the virtue of truth. No one
is without sin, nor will we ever find heaven upon earth. But it is one thing to
fall, and another thing to insist upon calling the fall an ascent. It is one
thing to deceive oneself and to believe in a “marriage” without the vow of
marriage. It is another thing to enshrine the deceit. It is one thing to tell a
lie; it is another thing to adore the lie. That is the constant and dire
temptation that all human societies must face. Some face it on account of their
desire for glory; others on account of their avarice; we face it on account of
our hedonism. We are not fighting in a different war from that wherein other
societies have fought. We are only fighting in a rather more contemptible
field.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)