La confesión de Mo Yan - «Sombra» y «cicatriz» en el corazón del Nobel de Literatura: hizo abortar a su mujer

In RL

El flamante Premio Nobel de Literatura, el chino Mo Yan, de 57 años, fue al mismo tiempo actor y víctima de la política del hijo único que impone el gobierno comunista chino para contener el crecimiento de la población. Una política que (además de despreciar la vida humana hasta el extremo no sólo de formentar, sino en algunos casos de obligar a mujeres a abortar), está generando un exceso demográfico de hombres sobre mujeres de consecuencias imprevisibles a largo plazo: muchas parejas prefieren tener un solo niño a una sola niña.

No fue el caso de Mo Yan y de su mujer, que tenían una niña. Pero cuando ella quedó embarazada de un segundo hijo, él la forzó a abortar.

Según refiere LifeNews, en 2010 el laureado escritor concedió una entrevista a Phoenix TV, un canal de Hong Kong, en la cual hizo esta confesión: "Personalmente creo que la política del hijo único es una mala política. Si no hubiera habido la política del hijo único, yo habría tenido dos o tres hijos.".

El segundo embarazo de su mujer coincidió con su ascenso a oficial en las fuerzas armadas. Otro oficial compañero suyo acababa de ser degradado por tener un segundo hijo: "Temí recibir el mismo castigo, así que decidí no tener más. Si no hubiera sido por mi egoísta ambición, le habría dejado a mi mujer tener un segundo o incluso un tercer niño. Pero empleé un ´elevadísimo´ argumento para convencerla de que abortase: debíamos seguir la política del Partido y la política de la nación. Ese aborto se convirtió en una cicatriz perpetua en lo más profundo de mi corazón, se convirtió en una gran sombra en mi corazón".

Precisamente su última novela aborda esta cuestión: es la historia de un ginecólogo rural que se dedica a dar a luz a unos niños y a abortar a otros para ejecutar la política del hijo único.

Como contraste a este testimonio de Mo Yan, este mismo jueves el aspirante republicano a la vicepresidencia de Estados Unidos, Paul Ryan, reprochó a su rival, el sedicente católico Joe Biden, lo que dijo el 23 de agosto de 2011 cuando visitó China: "Comprendo completamente vuestra política de hijo único", contestó el ticket del abortista Barack Obama a un estudiante durante un acto público en la universidad de Sichuan. 

Uma Peste mais Pustulenta do que a Peste Negra - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Tudo está desde há muito preparado. O imundo grão-tinhoso, nada deixa ao acaso. Manhoso como é tudo prepara com toda a astúcia. Sendo os seus discípulos legião, deles dispõe com a máxima eficácia seduzindo-os com aparências de bem, de amor e de justiça. Alucinados pelas miragens que os manipulam coordenam-se, entre si, nos mais diversos sectores, subjugados por brazabum e demais bodes-pretos. 

A primeira investida cornuda dos chavelhudos destinava-se a abrir caminho para obscenidades maiores. A pureza, a normalidade e a inocência são-lhes torturas insuportáveis, odeiam-nas com ferocidade, vomitam-nas com asco. Tudo tem de se perverter à medida das suas deformações comportamentais. As suas desfigurações narcisistas, dissolutas, lascivas e depravadas pretendem presunçosamente, num delírio idólatra, impor-se, numa vã tentativa de metamorfose, à realidade.

E ei-los aí, acolitados por grandes órgãos de comunicação social, por pseudopolíticos e pseudojuristas, em reportagens medonhas pela desfaçatez mascarada, pela mentira despudorada, pela falsificação da humanidade do ser humano, pela inversão hedionda dos princípios e valores que brotam da natureza e da transcendente dignidade da pessoa, pela transgressão frascária das relações íntimas, pelos espezinhamentos homicidas dos mais vulneráveis, produzidos para satisfazer as suas fesceninas infâmias totalitárias.

A Igreja, aqui, está muda e paralisada perante esta declaração de guerra total à vida e à inocência das crianças, transformadas, em nome da adopção, em objectos da insanidade esmadrigada de uma trupe escabrosa de há muito infiltrada no seu seio.

Se, infelizmente, não nos comove nem nos mobiliza o destino de tantas crianças reajamos ao menos em legítima defesa, pois se eles continuarem nesta escalada de tomada do poder, a família, os católicos, os demais cristãos e outros homens de boa vontade sofrerão, com toda a probabilidade, uma das mais implacáveis e satânicas perseguições de toda a história, senão mesmo a mais desalmada.

12. 10. 2012

Eutanásia financeira - por António Bagão Félix

In VER 

A economia da saúde está cada vez mais dependente da saúde da economia. Daí a necessidade de uma séria ponderação do custo-benefício e da equidade da despesa. Nada de incomum, mas com a enorme diferença de aqui estar em jogo o mais absoluto valor: o da vida.

Vem isto a propósito do parecer do Conselho de Ética para as Ciências da Vida sobre a utilização de medicamentos oncológicos, contra a sida e artrite reumatóide, responsáveis por parte significativa do gasto com fármacos.

A ideia do parecer – e das declarações do seu presidente – é a de que deve haver “racionamento ético” (foi o termo) no seu uso quando se trata de prolongar a vida dos doentes. Propõe-se que em “diálogo e com toda a transparência” (sic!) com os doentes se “negoceie” a medida terminal da vida: “viver mais 1 mês custa X, 3 meses custa Y. O que acha, meu caro doente?”

O espartilho orçamental não justifica tudo. E muito menos visões redutoras do valor da vida.

Imersa na primazia da quantidade, a pessoa humana é reduzida à condição indigna de instrumento ou meio. Deixa de ser vista como princípio, sujeito e fim de toda e qualquer acção.

A ética de cuidar não se esgota na ética de curar. Se esta forma de “eutanásia financeira” faz doutrina, que futuro para os cuidados paliativos e continuados?

Este é o país onde, na lei, se desvaloriza a vida antes do nascimento. Agora quer-se desvalorizá-la antes da morte. Com uma desumana equação de euros versus um pedaço de vida.

Este é o país onde há dinheiro para o aborto voluntário e respectiva licença da Seguança Social. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, se quer “tabelar”, por razões financeiras, o tempo final da vida. Qualquer “troika” não faria melhor…

Artigo originalmente publicado no Jornal de Negócios. Republicado com permissão do autor.

What happens when we redefine marriage? - by Peter Smith

In MercatorNet

Peter Smith considers where the same-sex marriage debate lies in Britain today. There are foreseen consequences of redefinition: the severe hindrance of the freedom of expression and the reasonable manifestation of religious belief, and a profound effect on the provision of fundamental public services.

Back in January I set out David Cameron’s proposals for creating same-sex marriage, which he announced at the British Conservative Party’s annual Conference in October 2011, alongside some arguments against those plans.

A year later, the controversy has moved on. There are now two parallel movements for same-sex marriage in the UK, a result of the devolution of powers to the Scottish Government. A consultation in Scotland ended in December 2011 and its results were snuck out shortly before Olympic fever dominated the Isles.

It is notable how divisive same-sex marriage has been north of Hadrian’s Wall: an ‘unprecedented’ 77,508 responses were received in the ‘largest consultation exercise of its type ever held in Scotland’. Over 33,000 responses were submitted via forms amended by organisations with an interest in the two core proposals of same-sex civil marriage and religious civil partnerships. Opponents of same-sex marriage pipped supporters 52:48, but more than two thirds opposed religious civil partnerships. Nonetheless, the Scottish Government intends on continuing to legalise both relationships, and the Catholic Church – numerically and financially the largest single supporter of traditional marriage – has since ceased dialogue with Edinburgh on the matter.

Down south, we are a step behind. The Home Office has also consulted on its plans to create such relationships in England and Wales, but they are effectively limited to same-sex marriages and not religious civil partnerships. After months of campaigning, two umbrella organisations broadly covered the diverse faiths, standpoints and interest groups in the opposing camps. In favour of same-sex marriage stands the Coalition for Equal Marriage, and its slick media campaign,Out4Marriage.org, which publishes clips of well-known proponents of gay marriage such as Boris Johnson and Hugh Grant ‘coming out’ in support of the move. Against liberalisation is the Coalition for Marriage, based out of the Christian Institute’s offices in Newcastle, which has mobilised tens of thousands of Christians to sign petitions and dominate the postbags of Members of Parliament.

The Home Office consultation ended in June, and the results are unlikely to be known this calendar year. It is safe to say that there have been a considerable number of responses from both sides (although, as in Scotland, many will be standard pro-forma that campaign groups have handed out and emailed to supporters). Polls favouring both positions have been published. If, following the publication of the consultation document, the Government in Westminster puts legislation before Parliament in the new year, it is likely to be passed by the second anniversary of Cameron’s speech in 2013. But will that legislation be tabled?

Opening Pandora’s box

The best hope for opponents of same-sex marriage in England is for the Government to conclude it is too difficult to pass coherent and stable legislation that creates such marriages in the narrow circumstances so far envisaged. Social conservatives should not be too hopeful that such sense will prevail: Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, gave a glimpse of the liberal class’s mindset when his staff trailed a speech in which he described supporters of traditional marriage as “bigots” – a slur he was rapidly forced to retract.

As an example of the radical legal consequences of redefining marriage, the Coalition for Marriage has recently released a précis of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neil QC, an expert in equality and discrimination law who practises from the same barristers’ chambers as Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie Booth. O’Neil was instructed to consider the implications for religious conscience and religious liberty arising from redefining marriage in England and Wales, and he considers the interplay between the Equality Act 2010 (including the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSEQ)), the European Convention on Human Rights, and case law on point. The PSEQ compels public authorities – including state schools, councils and the National Health Service – to “have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited...” when exercising their public functions. This includes the obligation to “tackle prejudice” and “promote understanding” between homosexual and heterosexual people.

It is a far-reaching obligation on an enormous range of bodies and organisations, and it reduces substantially the lawful opportunities for supporters of traditional marriage to explain – let alone mention – their views. The Coalition for Marriage asked O’Neil to consider some hypothetical situations where religiously-minded people could find themselves in difficulties – and potentially fired from their jobs. Here are elaborations of some of his examples (the précis contains more), which focus on practical positions that readers of MercatorNet might find themselves in, should the prohibition on same-sex marriage be removed. (For brevity, the precise legal reasoning is omitted. What follows is a characterisation of the legal positions, which are necessarily latent or untested propositions.)

The chaplain

A hospital chaplain is also a local Church of England vicar. Suppose he preaches, at a private wedding service in his church, that marriage is between only one man and one woman. If his hospital employers were to hear of this action, they could take into account his conduct outside of the workplace when determining whether the chaplain was acting in accordance with the requirements of his hospital work and the ethos of the hospital. This is true for any chaplain employed with the public sector (e.g. within a university or the Armed Forces) who, in all likelihood, would have a duty to accept only that marriage could be between two people of the same sex, and that any contrary restrictive view would lead to their lawful dismissal as this view would be ‘un-ethical’, ie, against the prevailing ethos.

The teacher

A teacher is told by her head that she must use in class a book recommended by the local council and a gay advocacy charity. This book is about a man who falls in love with a prince and marries him. If the teacher asked to opt out of using the book on the grounds of conscientious objection, she would be refusing to obey the otherwise lawful instructions of her employers, thus constituting grounds for her dismissal. Moreover, it would make no difference if the school was a faith school or any type of school with a religious ethos or none.

The child

A child says in a school assembly that he thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman, on religious grounds. The assembly theme is on marriage and same-sex marriage is discussed. The child is subsequently bullied but the school takes no action. Because the school is under a duty to teach about marriage, and because marriage would mean same-sex marriage, a school which taught marriage equality (same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are the same) would not be discriminating against the child’s religious views. Furthermore, the school is potentially under a duty to ensure that the curriculum it teaches is delivered in a way that discourages and even eliminates the attitudes held by its pupils that involve sexual orientation. This potentially implies that it may brook no dissent from the redefinition.

The parents

Concerned parents learn that their school is planning a gay and lesbian history month, including lessons on ‘the campaign for marriage equality’. The parents insist that they have the right to withdraw their child from these history lessons. In fact, even if the school were a faith school teaching a subject in a manner contrary to the orthodox teachings of that faith, the parents would be completely unable to withdraw their child from these lessons, and the European Convention would not facilitate it.

The foster couple

Couples who apply to become foster carers and, during the interview process, let it be known that they could not support same-sex marriage, could be barred by a local authority or council from continuing with their application. The local authority is under an obligation to investigate the views of potential foster parents, and to consider the extent to which those views might influence and affect the behaviour and treatment of a child in their care. As a public authority, the council is under an obligation to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children and this could be construed to include the prevention of exposure to an environment that is potentially exclusive of same-sex marriage.

The crucial lesson of civil partnerships

It is worth noting again the analogy between same-sex marriage and civil partnerships in England and Wales. When the Civil Partnerships Act was winding its way through Parliament in 2003 and 2004, Tony Blair promised that no religions would be compelled to carry out partnerships. In fact, religious readings, music or symbols were prohibited from the partnership ceremony. However, with only cursory scrutiny by Parliament, this ban was lifted in December 2011. This substantial change in civil partnership policy demonstrates that religious leaders should be very wary of accepting any ‘red line’ promises from ministers (even the Prime Minister) as a way of ameliorating opposition to the current proposals.

In the current proposals, there will be a blanket ban on religious ceremonies in England and Wales. This is effectively a religious exemption and means thatchurches and ministers cannot host or celebrate same-sex marriages. However, the O’Neill opinion suggests there is would be a strong case that a blanket ban would be overturned by European human rights law. The material provision is Article 12 of the European Convention, which establishes a right for two individuals to marry: “men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family...”

O’Neil raises the spectre of a fundamental reinterpretation of this Article, from the right of one man and one woman to marry, to same-sex couples, if redefinition occurs in English law. The consequence of this would be to open up other legal avenues, like human rights law, to support same-sex marriage. This could spell the end of the religious exemption.

Even if churches were allowed to conduct same-sex marriages, it would be mistaken to think that a happy settlement could be reached whereby those vicars who accepted it would be free to do so, whilst supporters of traditional marriage would be free not to. Because of the established identity of the Church of England, granting the Church a unique and privileged place amongst religions in England, once any vicar allows same-sex marriages it becomes untenable in law for the whole Church not to participate. Thus O’Neil concludes:

“Churches might indeed better protect themselves against the possibility of any such litigation by deciding not to provide marriage services at all, since there could be no complaint then of discrimination in their provision of services as between same sex and opposite sex couples.

“And, in principle, the Church of England might be better protected under any such claim if it were disestablished in the sense that its clergy were no longer placed under formal legal obligations by the general law to solemnise the marriages of all and any person otherwise eligible to marry under the general law...”

It isn’t too late, Mr Cameron

Already, MPs are queuing up to remove the hypothetical ban on same-sex marriages in religious places, and Ed Milliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, appears to have outflanked Cameron in the latter’s rush to social liberalism. 

If same-sex legislation is pushed into the House of Commons, David Cameron will likely see a back-bench rebellion from his own MPs on the right of the Party, who are vociferously opposed to the measures. He knows that many Tory MPs hold seats where the UK Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats cannot oust the incumbent Conservatives in a fair fight, but they can succeed if the Tory vote is split (over Europe, for instance) or because Conservative voters simply absent themselves on election day because they are angry or disappointed at the Party leadership. Gay marriage is such an issue.

In any event, Cameron will be left in the embarrassing position of relying on Liberal Democrat and Labour support for a majority to be secured (particularly as he is likely to give a free vote), and he will see the Parliamentary Conservative Party split cleanly on this social issue, conservative/liberal, when unity is needed to push through controversial healthcare reforms.

Given the political difficulties of creating same-sex marriage and the legal consequences of doing so, it would suit him well to put the plans back on the shelf and move on to getting Britain out of its slump and recession.

Peter Smith is a lawyer living and working in London

Man’s Search for Meaning and abortion: finding hope in suffering - by Catherine Shenton

“The world is full of suffering. It is also full of overcoming it.”
– Helen Keller

October 10, 2012 (Unmaskingchoice.ca) - Viktor Frankl witnessed and experienced the far reaches of human suffering. “Life in a concentration camp,” he wrote, “tore open the human soul and exposed its depths.” Man’s Search for Meaning—his reflective recounting of his imprisonment by the Nazis—has much to tell us about life, suffering, and what it is to be human.

Frankl and his fellow prisoners had everything taken from them that could be taken. They were forcibly removed from their homes and separated from their families. Their possessions were confiscated. Even their names were replaced with numbers. Others told them when and where they could sleep, when they must arise, what work they must do, and even how much (or how little) they could eat. And yet we find many heroes among the victims of the concentration camps; for, as Frankl tells us, “everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s own attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

I, and probably most people who read this, have never experience the depth of suffering Frankl and his fellow prisoners experienced. Our lives, nevertheless, are not without suffering in some form or another, and so I want to examine how suffering affects opinions and choices in our society. In particular, I often hear suffering given as a justification for abortion, whether the suffering be that of the mother or of the child. Does the suffering of either justify abortion?

Abortion to alleviate the suffering of women?

So many times I hear people condoning abortion out of a sense of compassion for women. An unexpected pregnancy can be a terrifying thing. Sudden responsibility for another human being, if she accepts this responsibility, may reshape a woman’s life—both present and future. Fear, uncertainty, and lack of support are just some of the factors that may contribute to the suffering of a pregnant woman. For some there are further difficulties to deal with—her child may have been conceived in rape, or her health may be in danger. If a woman is considering abortion, it seems reasonable to infer that she is suffering in some way, and that she sees abortion as an acceptable means of alleviating that suffering.

Viktor Frankl witnessed many men, who when confronted with difficult circumstances sought only to alleviate their own suffering, with no regard for the wellbeing of others. He tells of the Capos—men who betrayed their fellow prisoners and took the side of the Nazis. They made their own lives easier, but increased the suffering of others, even condemning some to death by their actions. While we may sympathize with the desperation that led people to behave in this way, these are certainly not the people we remember as the heroes of the concentration camps. We look up to those who chose the harder path—that of retaining their dignity and moral conviction in spite of their suffering, those who sacrificed in whatever ways they could for the benefit of others.

We admire people who do hard things when the right things are hard. We admire people who suffer with dignity, and who suffer for the sake of others. And yet, as Frankl points out, admiring this noble suffering in others is no assurance that we will respond this way when faced with our own sufferings. Most people can probably relate to this. Even in the simple things, we may blame our circumstances for our irritability, impatience, or our failure to help another. While suffering can be an opportunity for courage, so often we use it as an excuse. Frankl, on the other hand, maintains that to be worthy of suffering is to seek the ways our unavoidable suffering can benefit others.

While removing (in the case of abortion, killing) another human being whose presence is causing us difficulty is something we can do, and is a decision which some may sympathize with because they see the difficulty of our circumstances, this is not to say that it is something we ought to do. Acting to alleviate our own suffering at the expense of the lives of others is something many people have done throughout history, but on a deeper level we know that this is not a choice we would commend or even condone in other situations—why should we do so with abortion? Why should our society say that because one human being is suffering, she has the right to end the life of another? The answer is, we should not. We should instead do our utmost to alleviate the suffering of women in crisis, and to preserve the lives of their children.

When we talk about people having freedom to choose, we should always consider what is being chosen, and should strive to challenge one another to choose the highest good. For a woman in a crisis pregnancy, this may mean choosing to see her child as someone to fight for, rather than as something to be gotten rid of. Nietzsche wrote, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” Living for her child will not take away a woman’s suffering, but it can help to give that suffering meaning.

Abortion to alleviate the suffering of children?

There are times, according to some defenders of abortion, when abortion is what is in the best interest of the child. “The child is going to have a terrible life. The child is going to suffer. The mother is choosing what’s best for her child.” And what’s best for her child (according to these people) is death.

If someone is going to suffer—perhaps to suffer greatly—are we doing that person a service by ending his or her life? Is abortion justified in cases where children are very ill, or will be born into difficult life circumstances? Is sparing them this suffering an act of compassion?

What was the correct response for Viktor Frankl when confronted with the challenge of speaking to fellow inmates who were in despair? He knew with certainty that if these men remained convinced that their lives had no meaning, if they remained without hope, they would die. Their suffering would end. He could have told them this. He could have said that they were all better off to give up on the miserable lives they were forced to live and simply die. Instead, he challenged them. He challenged them to consider not what they expected from life, but what life expected from them. He challenged them to find a “why” worth living for. He could do little to eliminate their suffering short of ending their lives, but he did much to alleviate it, to help them see meaning in their suffering.

Sparing others suffering when we can is, most certainly, an act of compassion when our means are moral. Sparing someone suffering by ending her life, however, is a misguided attempt at compassion. To deny someone a chance to live will indeed prevent her from suffering, but it will also prevent her from experiencing joy, from loving, and from having the choice to overcome her suffering with dignity. You are the only person with the choice to see meaning or despair in your suffering. You are the only person to make that choice of how you will respond to your circumstances. Why would we deny this choice to others?

We live in a culture that abhors suffering. Suffering is to be avoided—almost at all costs. Life is seen as good and valuable when it is pleasant, comfortable, and pleasurable. We may admire the noble way in which others suffer, but most of us would rather avoid suffering altogether for ourselves. No life, however, is devoid of suffering. There are times when it is inescapable. What then does this mean for our life? Every living human being will suffer in some way or another. Is life then less valuable? On the contrary, Frankl reminds us, “We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed… When we are no longer able to change a situation… we are challenged to change ourselves.”

Every human life will have suffering. Every human being will be faced with choices as to how to respond to his own unique suffering. Some will allow their suffering to chart their course, to dictate their thoughts and actions. Others will be the masters of their suffering. Some will hurt others because they themselves are hurting. Others will face their suffering as a means of protecting others from harm.

What did Frankl discover in his time in the concentration camps? “The truth—that love is the ultimate highest goal to which man can aspire.” To love is to choose the highest good for the other. If we love someone we certainly do not want to see that person suffer. We may do all we can to alleviate the suffering. But when we cannot take the suffering away, to love is to walk beside them and help them recognize their dignity, to help them suffer with their head held high.

To love a woman in crisis is not to offer her death for her child in order to take away her suffering, but to empower her to live for love, and so to find a meaning for her suffering. To love a woman in crisis is to walk with her so that she may not say “My circumstances forced me to do what was wrong,” but rather, “I had the courage to do what was right.”

To love one’s child is not to deny her life so that she may never suffer, but to give her life so that she may experience it in its fullness, and to teach her to suffer with dignity when suffering cannot be avoided.

We live in a culture where people seek to make their lives easier by ending the lives of others, but to love our culture is to constantly call people to live for something higher, to recognize their own dignity and the dignity of others. Humanity is capable of great cruelty, selfishness, and evil. We see this now with abortion, as we see it throughout history. Humanity, however, is capable of still greater love, selflessness, courage, and good. We must decide how we will respond to our own sufferings, and to the sufferings of others.

“We have come to see man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.”

—Viktor Frankl

Colombian bishops say nothing justifies legalizing euthanasia

Bogotá, Colombia, Oct 11, 2012 / 04:04 pm (CNA).- A representative of the Colombian bishops, Father Pedro Mercado Cepeda, has rejected recent efforts by a group of lawmakers to legalize euthanasia in the country.

“No circumstance can make it legally acceptable to intentionally cause the death of a human being.  The right to life is constitutionally inviolable,” he wrote in column published by local newspaper El Espectador.

On Oct. 8, a senate committee in Colombia voted 10-4 to send a proposed measure to regulate euthanasia to the full Senate for consideration. If approved the measure would be sent to the Colombian House of Representatives for a vote.

Fr. Mercado – who serves as the associate secretary general for the Colombian bishops' Relations with the State department – noted that every human being aspires to happiness and well-being, and therefore has a “natural aversion” to experiencing pain and suffering in death.  

“However, this natural rejection does not justify the taking of a human life. Life is good that must be protected by the State until its natural end,” he said.

Rather than “legislating the suppression of life,” congress should “promote conditions in our health care institutions that make the natural process of death a reality that corresponds to the dignity of all Colombians.”

This should be done first of all “through a deep reform of the health care sector, in which thousands of Colombians should be fighting more to live rather than to die,” he added.

“Secondly, by providing greater care to the chronically or terminally ill through subsidies and palliative care proper to their circumstances.”

USAID Unleashes Norplant-Like Implant for Poor Women - By Lisa Correnti

WASHINGON, DC, October 12 (C-FAM) The US Agency for International Development announced on World Contraception Day a partnership with international donors to distribute Jadelle, a second-generation of Norplant, to poor women in developing countries. The contraceptive is not distributed for use in more affluent countries.

Jadelle was developed by the Population Council, a group known for its eugenics roots. "Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics," wrote Frederick Osborn, the first president of Population Council, founded by John D. Rockefeller III in the 1950's. Read More

Warsaw Pro-Life Gathering Strengthens Legislative Efforts to Defend Life - By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

WARSAW, October 12 (C-FAM) European and American pro-life academics and practitioners gathered late last month at the University of Warsaw for a conference on the "Intellectual Foundations and Legal Means for the Protection of Human Life in the Prenatal Phase." The event was under the High Honorary Patronage of Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxemburg, the Honorary Patronage by His Highness Paul, Duke of Oldenburg, and Poland' s Minister of Justice, Dr. Jaroslaw Gowin.

Organized by Poland's Ordo Iuris Legal Centre and The Rule of Law Institute, the conference had its genesis in last year's narrow defeat of a citizen initiative "civic bill" that would have eliminated exceptions to Poland's general prohibition of abortion. Read More

A Enormidade de uma Atoarda Clerical - Nuno Serras Pereira

Corre por aí, nos mentideiros eclesiásticos, que alguns Sacerdotes se queixam de terem ordem expressa do Cardeal Patriarca para não homiliarem em defesa das crianças concebidas ainda não nascidas. A monstruosidade da balela, de tão absurda, patenteia de imediato a sua perversidade.

Como é evidente a autoridade e o poder e de qualquer hierarca, não são arbitrários nem absolutos, vêm de Deus Nosso Senhor, a Quem estão submetidos e ao qual têm de prestar contas. É inimaginável supor que o Senhor Patriarca determinasse alguma coisa em total oposição com os Mandamentos da Lei de Deus, com a Missão confiada por Cristo à Sua Igreja, com o insistente Magistério do Concílio Vaticano II e dos Santos Padres, em particular com a encíclica Evangelium vitae. Não tem sequer poder para tal. Nem qualquer Sacerdote estaria obrigado a qualquer tipo de obediência, uma vez que esta não existe quando aquilo que se pretende impor é alheio ou contrário à Vontade de Deus, à Sua Glória e à salvação da alma, da própria e das alheais (cf Mt 25, 41-26). Se assim não fora, estaria a Palavra de Deus censurada, o anúncio do Evangelho distorcido, a pregação atraiçoada, os Sacerdotes açaimados, a Verdade ocultada, a Vida murchosa, o Amor desprezado, o povo de Deus escandalizado, a corte Celestial perplexa e melancólica; pelo contrário, os demónios estariam jubilosos, a morte triunfante, os matadores prósperos, a matança celebrada, as grávidas abandonadas e logo destroçadas, a injustiça orgulhosa, a nação moribunda, a Igreja desacreditada.

Não saberei dizer como chega alguém a sequer admitir o pensamento sinistro de conjecturar um rumor tão velhaco sobre o Cardeal Patriarca. Mas infelizmente ele vagabundeia por aí. 

10. 10. 2012

Como S. Francisco de Assis caminhando com a Igreja de Lisboa, lhe expôs em que consiste a perfeita alegria - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Adaptação do Cap. VIII das Florinhas de S. Francisco

Em tempo de inverno demográfico e católico vindo uma vez S. Francisco com o Resto da Igreja de Lisboa, da Sé Catedral para um abortadouro da capital, eram fortemente atormentados pela incredulidade intensíssima. E chamando pelo Resto, que ia um pouco adiante, disse-lhe: 

- Ó Igreja de Lisboa, ainda que os teus membros dessem, por toda a terra, grande exemplo de santidade e boa edificação memoriza todavia e entende diligentemente que não está nisso a perfeita alegria.

E andando um pouco mais, tornou a chamar:

- Ó Igreja de Lisboa, ainda que os teus fiéis dessem vista aos cegos, curassem paralíticos, expulsassem demónios, dessem ouvidos aos surdos, pés aos coxos, fala aos mudos, e, o que mais é, ressuscitasse mortos de quatro dias: entende e memoriza que não está nisso a perfeita alegria.

E caminhando mais adiante, com voz forte, gritou:

- Ó Igreja de Lisboa, se os teus fiéis soubessem todas as línguas e todas as ciências, e conhecessem todas as Escrituras, de maneira que pudessem profetizar e revelar não somente as coisas futuras mas ainda os segredos das consciências e dos corações: escreve que não está nisso a perfeita alegria.

E continuando a andar, de novo chamou com voz forte:

- Ó Igreja de Lisboa, ovelhinha de Deus, ainda mesmo que os teus fiéis falassem com língua de Anjo, e soubessem o curso das estrelas e as virtudes das plantas, e lhes fossem revelados todos os tesouros da terra, e conhecessem as propriedades das aves e dos peixes e de todos os animais e dos homens e das árvores e das pedras e das raízes e das águas: entende e memoriza que não está nisso a perfeita alegria.

E prosseguindo adiante, clamou em alta voz: 

- Ó Igreja de Lisboa, quando os fiéis soubessem evangelizar tão bem que todos os infiéis convertessem à Fé de Cristo: entende e memoriza que não está nisso a perfeita alegria.

E, continuando a falar assim pelo espaço de três quilómetros, perguntou o Vigilante da Igreja de Lisboa muito enleado:

Pai S. Francisco, da parte de Deus te peço que me digas onde está a perfeita alegria.

E S. Francisco respondeu-lhe assim: 

- Se quando nós chegarmos ao abortadouro dos arcos, repassados de horror, tremendo de pavor, cobertos de ansiedades e aflitos com sede de vida e de almas, rezarmos à porta, e vierem de lá os empregados, todos irados, e nos disserem: - “Quem sois vós?”, e nós lhes respondermos: - “Somos irmãos vossos e das crianças nascituras”; e eles replicarem: - “Não dizeis a verdade: sois mas é genocidas de mulheres que andais enganando o mundo e roubando os subsídios das que abortam; ponde-vos daqui para fora!”; e nos virarem as costas, fazendo-nos passar por vigaristas criminosos, padecendo vergonhas e opróbrios; e nós então suportarmos tanta injúria, tanta crueldade, tantos vitupérios, com paciência, sem perturbação nem murmurar, humilde e caritativamente pensando, que em verdade, Deus permitira que eles assim falassem contra nós: ó Igreja de Lisboa, entende e memoriza que nisto está a perfeita alegria. E, se, continuando nós a orar e a dissuadir as mães grávidas de abortar, oferecendo-lhes alternativas, eles saíssem indignados, e, como a importunos criminosos, nos espancassem ignominiosamente, dizendo: - “Saiam daqui, vilíssimos embusteiros espoliadores; vão para o Tarrafal, que aqui não vos toleraremos!”; se isto sofrermos pacientemente e de ânimo leve e benevolente: ó Igreja de Lisboa, entende e memoriza que nisto está a perfeita alegria. Mas se nós, apertados pelo zelo da salvação das almas e pelo da conversão dos pecadores e pelo amor às crianças nascituras, insistíssemos e implorássemos, pelo amor de Deus e pelo amor de toda e cada pessoa humana, desde a concepção até ao seu fim natural, com muitas lágrimas e com muitos suspiros e com toda a mansidão e com a máxima suavidade, que nos deixassem estar; e eles, mais chocados, dissessem – “Estes patifes malvados: não deixam de nos importunar! Esperai lá, que já vos dou o pago!”, e chamassem a polícia especial de intervenção e os comandos e os paraquedistas e mais a comunicação social, e nos arrojassem por terra, nos arrastassem pela calçada, nos sovassem desapiedadamente, e nos sujeitassem a todo o género de sevícias, e nos lançassem aos calabouços, enxovias e ergástulos, e nos colocassem no pelourinho das televisões, e chamassem políticos e comentadores que nos metralhassem impropérios, e bombardeassem falsos testemunhos, e nos ridicularizassem, e nos tratassem como lixo imundo, e escória da humanidade, e cloacas do universo; se tudo isto levássemos com paciência e satisfação (Cristo na Sua Paixão satisfez pelos nossos pecados), meditando nos trabalhos de Cristo bendito: e que por Seu amor e para a conversão dos pecadores, por quem Ele deu a vida, devíamos suportar estes tratos e estes trabalhos: ó Igreja de Lisboa, entende e memoriza que está nisso a perfeita alegria. E agora ouve a conclusão:

- Sobre todas as graças e dons do Espírito Santo que aos Seus amigos Cristo concede, está o de se vencer cada um a si mesmo, e o de, voluntariamente e por Seu amor e por amor daqueles que Ele amou sofrer penas, injúrias, desprezos e opróbrios; e dos dons de Deus nos não podermos gloriar, porque nossos não são mas Seus. Na cruz, porém, e na tribulação nos podemos gloriar, que isto, porque Deus no-lo concedeu, é nosso, e assim diz o Apóstolo: “Não me quero gloriar, senão na cruz de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo”. Quando, por Sua graça, com Ele permanecemos no Amor, como Ele, em toda e qualquer circunstância encontramos a perfeita alegria que ninguém nos poderá arrebatar. Só na cruz se encontra a ressurreição. À honra de Cristo a quem toda a honra e toda a glória seja dada, por todos os séculos dos séculos. Ámen.