sábado, 17 de novembro de 2012

A Formidanda Desumanidade do Ministério da Saúde - Nuno Serras Pereira

N. B. Estas escreveduras que redijo, a conta-gotas, para serem adequadamente compreendidas devem ser lidas como fragmentos (ou no contexto) de um todo constituído não só por todos os outros rabiscos da minha autoria mas também dos escritos de muitos outros autores, que têm sido publicados no boletim Infovitae e no blogue Logos, e à luz do Magistério da Igreja.


Hoje, apesar de em Portugal isto ser silenciado pela nova censura, é um dado adquirido e indiscutível que o crescimento exponencial do cancro da mama é fruto da pílula contraceptiva e do aborto provocado. De igual modo, um enorme número de nascimentos prematuros é causado pela procriação tecnicamente substituída (indevidamente apelidada de procriação medicamente assistida), e pelo aborto provocado em mulheres que posteriormente dão à luz novos filhos. Para além dos múltiplos problemas de saúde que em geral afectam estas crianças, importa adiantar que em não poucos casos, pela sua maior precocidade, elas não sobrevivem muito tempo ao parto. Ademais as insalutíferas consequências físicas e psíquicas graves (que podem, para dar um exemplo, chegar ao suicídio) dessas práticas nas mulheres são bem conhecidas e aceites na comunidade médica internacional. Deve-se por fim considerar atentamente que nenhuma das intervenções impropriamente realizadas em nome da saúde constitui um acto médico. A contracepção qua contracepção consiste em adoentar as mulheres saudáveis – é verdade que a pílula pode ser usada, em algumas circunstâncias (embora raras se comparadas com o uso primário) com fins terapêuticos mas uma vez que há outros fármacos a que se pode recorrer sem os seus efeitos perniciosos é malvadez recorrer à mesma; o aborto directo, isto é, querido como fim ou como meio, não cuida de um paciente nascente, pelo contrário, destrói-o violentamente; a procriação medicamente substituída não cura nem a infertilidade nem a esterilidade do homem ou da mulher – limita-se a substituí-los na fecundação -, depois mata à farta multidões de pessoas na sua etapa embrionária sujeitando-as a graves sevícias ou/e congelando-as. Tudo isto é do pleno conhecimento do ministério da saúde e da direcção-geral da mesma.

Esta elementar verificação indica evidentemente o seguinte:

a) - Os gastos económicos com as injustiças da contracepção, do aborto e da procriação artificialmente substituta não se limitam ao financiamento e patrocínio estatal destas práticas mas também às suas sequelas devastadoras.

b) – Estes suplícios tamanhos infligidos a tantas pessoas - quer as que padecem directa e indirectamente estas agressões cruéis e sanguinolentas quer as que são vítimas de um desamparo malvado, em virtude da subversão da justiça na aplicação dos recursos -, só poderão ser advogados por uma política maquiavélica e desalmada.

17. 11. 2012

sexta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2012

Con “matrimonio” gay buscan dinamitar cultura católica, alerta Obispo

In Semanario Alfa y Omega, n. 807, 15 de noviembre de 2012
 
“La esperanza no defrauda” (Rm 5, 5)
 
Juan Antonio Reig Pla*
 
La decisión del Tribunal Constitucional alude a la “evolución de la sociedad” como razón principal para desestimar el recurso sobre la Ley del “matrimonio” homosexual. Siendo el matrimonio una realidad natural, ¿por qué cree usted que la sociedad no lo reconoce y defiende así? ¿Tal mal estamos?
 
El proceso de demolición del matrimonio y de la familia como realidades naturales no es casual. Nos encontramos ante un programa organizado por etapas, bien planificado y que forma parte de una especie de plan director más amplio: acabar con la preponderancia de la civilización cristiana y en concreto de la cultura católica, dinamitando sus cimientos antropológicos, filosóficos, jurídicos y teológicos.
 
A lo largo de la historia se han utilizado diversos métodos para intentar destruir nuestra civilización. Estos métodos consistían básicamente en la ideologización de las personas, para forzar el cambio de mentalidad y consiguientemente de costumbres. Respecto a los opositores se procedía a la sistemática eliminación física. Como demostró la caída de Hitler y después del Muro de Berlín, estos sistemas resultan ineficaces y con efectos limitados en el tiempo. Actualmente se ha invertido el proceso: ahora la idea es corromper las costumbres para que se produzca el cambio de mentalidad; y así está sucediendo. Por otra parte la alternativa actual a la eliminación física de los opositores es provocar su “muerte civil”. A este nuevo sistema se han apuntado tanto el pensamiento colectivista como el liberal; en esta situación nos encontramos.
 
La postura que defienden el lobby gay, la izquierda sociológica y la derecha liberal está planteada en términos de lucha por los derechos civiles. Sin embargo, son muchos los que van a ver sus derechos claramente vulnerados: ¿quién, o quiénes, han salido perdiendo con la resolución del TC?
 
Como explicamos los Obispos españoles en el reciente documento La verdad del amor humano (VAH), el proceso de “deconstrucción” de la persona, el matrimonio y la familia, ha sido «propiciado por filosofías inspiradas en el individualismo liberal, así como por el constructivismo y las corrientes freudo-marxistas. Primero se postuló la práctica de la sexualidad sin la apertura al don de los hijos: la anticoncepción y el aborto. Después, la práctica de la sexualidad sin matrimonio: el llamado “amor libre”. Luego, la práctica de la sexualidad sin amor. Más tarde la “producción” de hijos sin relación sexual: la llamada reproducción asistida (fecundación in vitro, etc.). Por último (…) se separó la “sexualidad” de la persona: ya no habría varón y mujer; el sexo sería un dato anatómico sin relevancia antropológica. El cuerpo ya no hablaría de la persona, de la complementariedad sexual que expresa la vocación a la donación, de la vocación al amor. Cada cual podría elegir configurarse sexualmente como desee» (VAH, 52).
 
Nos encontramos con la llamada ideología de género. Desde esta ideología, para acabar con las desigualdades hay que acabar con las diferencias, y por lo tanto con los conceptos de varón y mujer y todas sus implicaciones teóricas y prácticas. Para el pensamiento marxista la diferencia sexual es traducida por desigualdad: no es un bien, sino opresión patriarcal. Para el pensamiento liberal los postulados de la diferencia sexual son una limitación inaceptable. Así pues, casi todos se han puesto de acuerdo: hay que subvertir los conceptos de hombre y mujer –ahora son queer; los antiguos “géneros” han quedado obsoletos–; de esposo y esposa –ahora son “cónyuges” A y B: ¿con el tiempo C, D…?–; de padre y de madre –ahora son “progenitores”; dos, pero ya hay quien habla de tres o más–; de hijos e hijas –ahora son prole–. En este proceso de “deconstrucción” y manipulación del lenguaje el llamado «matrimonio igualitario o gay» y los «modelos de familias» se han constituido en términos fetiche para los defensores de los así llamados “nuevos derechos civiles o de segunda generación”. Sin embargo, como sucede con la democracia cuando se le pone apellido, no son más que la corrupción semántica –llevada a la política– de los conceptos naturales de «matrimonio» y «familia». Las víctimas de este caos están por todas partes: niños, adolescentes, jóvenes y adultos desorientados y a la deriva; «no parece exagerado afirmar que la nuestra es una sociedad enferma» (VAH, 4). Por todo ello, el gobierno está obligado moralmente a derogar ésta y tantas otras leyes injustas que atentan contra la familia y la vida. Evitando la concepción de niños o matándolos, esterilizando hombres y mujeres, incluso discapacitados psíquicos, corrompiendo a jóvenes y facilitando la destrucción de matrimonios y familias (por poner sólo algunos ejemplos) España no tiene futuro.
 
En el documento “La verdad del amor humano”, los obispos españoles afirman que “la mejor respuesta a la ideología de género y a la actual crisis del matrimonio es la nueva evangelización”; también el Papa Benedicto XVI insiste en ello ¿Cómo podemos, a partir de ahora, evangelizar la familia? ¿Quiénes han de llevar a cabo esta misión? ¿Tenemos motivos para la esperanza?
 
La Nueva Evangelización requiere dos velocidades. La primera velocidad se refiere a cuidar con exquisita sensibilidad la pastoral ordinaria. Más allá de lo que entendemos por pastoral ordinaria, la segunda velocidad supone un replanteamiento del ministerio sacerdotal y de la labor de religiosos/as y laicos en todos los campos, incluida la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia. La nueva evangelización de la familia puede y debe llevarse a cabo de muchos modos, pero el que nunca pueda faltar en las parroquias es la Iniciación Cristiana de jóvenes y adultos (bautizados y sin bautizar) según el modelo del Catecumenado Bautismal; es necesario volver a los orígenes.
 
En este combate espiritual que estamos librando son muchas las personas y familias que están quedando en el camino heridas o gravemente enfermas. Así lo recuerda el Papa Benedicto XVI cuando afirma que «las políticas que suponen un ataque a la familia amenazan la dignidad humana y el porvenir mismo de la humanidad» (9-1-2012). Por ello, la Iglesia está llamada a ser como el Buen Samaritano –y al tiempo posada– que acoja a todos sin juzgar a nadie, desde la verdad, mostrando el rostro de Cristo, es decir, asistiéndoles con el aceite de la misericordia y el vino del amor. Gracias a Dios, las comunidades cristianas, los Centros de Orientación Familiar, Cáritas, etc., están dando respuesta a tanto sufrimiento y destrucción, promoviendo, asimismo, la prevención y la detección precoz de los problemas.
 
Con el beato Juan Pablo II «pidámosle [a Jesús] que cure las enfermedades de los hombres contemporáneos: “toda clase de enfermedades” del alma. ¡Y cuántas hay!» (17-2-1985). Para todas ellas existe una «terapia apropiada», es posible la esperanza; también en los delicados ámbitos de la sexualidad, el matrimonio y la familia. Con los Obispos españoles quiero hacer llegar a todos una palabra de ánimo y consuelo, incluidos los que no están de acuerdo con nosotros e incluso nos persiguen: ¡la Iglesia os puede ayudar, «la esperanza no defrauda» (Rm 5, 5)!
 
Para saber más: www.obispadoalcala.org/homosexualidad.html

The Real Comparison of Harm from Smoking vs. Possible Harm of Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) - by Thomas Coy, M.L.S.

In NARTH  

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill 1172, which makes it illegal in California for therapists to help a child or teen struggling with same-sex attractions attempt to change his or her sexual orientation. The sponsor of the bill, CA Senator Ted Lieu, has referred to sexual orientation change efforts with children as parents “hurting their kids.” He stated the purpose of SB 1172 is to protect children from harm in the same way that the state prohibits children from smoking and drinking alcohol.[1] Is it sexual orientation change efforts or male homosexual behavior that puts minors at arisk similar to smoking and drinking alcohol?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 61 percent of the new 48,079 HIV infections reported in 2010.[2] That amounted to 29,194 new HIV cases versus approximately 4550 HIV male cases reported from heterosexual contact.[3] When CDC statistics on HIV diagnoses in 2010 are put into a comparison ratio using the CDC estimate of the “men who have sex with men” (MSM) population at 4 percent of the American male population (2 percent of the total population)[4], the risk of HIV infection for MSM was approximately 150 times greater than for men who did not have sex with men.[5] In addition, the CDC stated that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is “more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.”[6]

A search of the American Psychological Association website finds that cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions to help a person quit smoking have a success rate of 31 percent measured six months after the end of treatment.[7] Despite the low success rate, individual smokers request psychotherapy to quit smoking because smoking tobacco is a causative factor in many types of cancer, the most common being lung cancer. According to the CDC the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times greater than for men who do not smoke. Those who smoke are also 2 to 4 times more likely to suffer coronary heart disease and 2 to 4 times more likely to suffer a stroke.[8]

The estimate of adult males who enter therapy with the purpose of changing their same-sex attractions and who do in fact experience this change with the help of trained therapists ranges from 25 to 35 percent. Another 30 to 35 percent benefit from reduced homosexual impulses and various levels of emotional healing (Socarides, 1995, pp. 149-50). A similar pattern of varied success has been reported with other psychotherapeutic efforts with homosexuals.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, stated that in his twenty years at Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization 67 percent of the homosexuals who sought help from therapists for issues such as “the transient nature of relationships, disgust or guilt feelings about promiscuity, fear of disease, [and] a wish to have a traditional family” experienced various levels of success obtaining their goals. Similar to sexual- orientation change therapies, one third of Kaiser-Permanente’s homosexual clients did not benefit from psychotherapy. In some cases though, individuals who initiated therapy not seeking to change their sexual orientation, actually did so through the process of working though other psychological issues.[9]

Implications

First and foremost, adolescents with unwanted same-sex attractions should have access to therapists who are trained in sexual-orientation change. Client autonomy standards and the health crisis related to male homosexual behavior demands this. Therapists trained in sexual-orientation change do not force a heterosexual identity on any individual. At the very least a teen will get an opportunity to explore “how their childhood experiences may have shaped their attractions, and to hear a perspective that they probably have not heard elsewhere” (Nicolosi (2009), pp. 287-288). In contrast, gay-affirmative therapists typically devalue the clinical science on the causation of homosexuality along with the possibility of change Drescher, 1998, pp. 81, 153-154, 170, 180).

Second, parents should have every opportunity to guide their pre-adolescent children into a healthy heterosexual identity. Advancements in the care of same-sex attracted children have put the focus of therapy on the parents of the child (Nicolosi and Nicolosi, 2002, pp. 193-194). The therapist guides the parents in efforts to help their son bond with his father and identify with his masculinity. Clinical evidence shows that homosexual prevention family therapy has the potential for success in some instances.

Unfortunately, a lack of sociopolitical diversity in the mental-health associations, academia, the media and the government has created a bias against sexual-orientation change efforts.  This bias has kept advances in the understanding of and psychological care for unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors out of the public’s awareness. It has underplayed the significant medical risks attributable to homosexual behavior, particularly among men. The statistics show that male homosexual behavior is a significantly greater health risk than smoking cigarettes.  Young men ages 13 to 29 years of age are at the greatest risk, accounting for a 34 percent increase in HIV infections from 2006 to 2009.

Parents have a responsibility to care for their children and lovingly guide them away from harm whenever possible. As the present analysis underscores, politicians and regulatory boards that ban access to professional efforts to modify unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors among minors may well be unnecessarily sentencing some of them to serious medical risks.  It is tragically ironic that political efforts to prevent alleged harm to minors from sexual-orientation change efforts appear likely instead to increase their exposure to highly established harms such as HIV.

Bibliography

Drescher, J (1998), Psychoanalytic Therapy & The Gay Man. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press, Inc.

Nicolosi, J. J. (2009), Shame and Attachment Loss – The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Nicolosi, J. J. & Nicolosi L. A. (2002), A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. Downers  Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Socarides, C. W. (1995), Homosexuality – A Freedom Too Far. Phoenix: Adam Margrave Books.


References

[1] Reyes, Kim (August 2, 2012). “Controversy follows effort to ban gay conversion therapy.” The Orange County Register. Retrieved from http://www.ocregister.com/news/therapy-365822-parents-orientation.html on October 11, 2012.

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (last modified March 12, 2012). “HIV Surveillance – Epidemiology of HIV Infection (through 2010).” PowerPoint presentation slide 4. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/index.htm on June 7, 2012.

[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (last modified March 12, 2012). “HIV Surveillance – Epidemiology of HIV Infection (through 2010).” PowerPoint presentation slides 5, and 8. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/index.htm on June 7, 2012. The CDC did not explicitly give the number of diagnosed HIV infections for male heterosexuals linked to sexual contact with women. It did give the total number of male HIV diagnoses at 37,910 and state that the percentage of HIV infection from heterosexual contact was 12 percent, which yields an approximate figure of 4,550.

[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (last modified March 4, 2012). “HIV in the United States: At A Glance.” Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm on October 12, 2012.

[5] The approximately 150 times greater risk factor can be calculated by using the 2010 U.S. census figure of 151.8 million males and using the CDC 4% of the male population figure for MSM (6.072 million) and assuming the other 96% are heterosexual (145.728 million). In 2010 29,194 HIV cases were transmitted by males having sex with males in the MSM population of 6.072 million. In 2010 approximately 4,550 HIV cases were transmitted by heterosexual contact to the heterosexual male population of 145.728 million. So in 2010 1 in every 208 MSM became newly HIV infected through male to male sexual contact and 1 in every 32,028 male heterosexuals became newly HIV infected through heterosexual contact. If the incidence ratio of MSM sexually transmitted HIV diagnoses 1/208 is divided by the incidence ratio of male heterosexually transmitted diagnoses1/32,028, the risk of getting HIV from sexual behavior was 154 times greater for MSM than for heterosexual males in 2010. Statistics regarding injection drug users were omitted in this comparison.

[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 10, 2010). “CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men.” Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html on May 29, 2012.

[7] Borrelli, Belinda (2010). “Quitting Smoking Especially Difficult for Select Groups.” American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/02/quitting-smoking.aspx on October 16, 2012.
[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (last update January 10, 2012). “Smoking and Tobacco Use.” Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm on May 23, 2012.

[9] Cummings, Nicholas (2005). “Former APA President Dr. Nicholas Cummings Describes his Work with SSA Clients.” National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Retrieved from http://narth.com/docs/cummings.html
on October 26, 2012.




quinta-feira, 15 de novembro de 2012

Diário de um Pai - por Henrique Raposo


In Expresso

Esta semana, a pátria teve um leve sobressalto quando viu a taxa de natalidade, mas o assunto voltou rapidamente à colecção de não-assuntos. Eu compreendo: se começassem a falar de apoios à natali­dade, políticos, jornalistas e comentadores ainda perdiam, coitadinhos, as credenciais progressistas. Como se sabe, esses assuntos são coisas de fachos e reaças, e há que manter a feira das vaidades moderninhas e pós-moderninhas até ao fim. Mas, se não se importam, eu gostava muito de deixar um post-it reaça no frigorífico progressis­ta da pátria: se nada for feito ao nível das políticas de família, Portugal vai atravessar um inverno demográfico que criará a tempestade perfeita. A actual crise é um pequeno aguaceiro ao pé do “Sandy” demográfico que estamos a cozinhar.

Eu não exijo capas esvoaçantes e um S no peitoral, mas acho que ser pai nesta terra já deve dar para entrar na escolinha dos super-heróis. Até porque o tal Estado social não existe neste cam­po. Já sou pai, e continuo sem ver o Estado social. Começo a achar que este ser omnipresente mas invisível é um daqueles clubes selectos que exigem sangue azul ou coisa parecida. É que encontrar uma creche financeiramente acessível é como encontrar um homem honesto no Parlamento. As IPSS de bairro são, sem dúvida, a melhor solução, mas repare-se na perversão do sistema: se tiver um rendimen­to mensal de 2250 euros, o casal já pa­ga a mensalidade máxima, cerca de 400 euros. É outra renda, que se junta à renda da casa e à renda das fraldas, medicamentos, pediatra, brinquedos, leite de transição, frutinha, sopinha, roupinha e o cartão de sócio do Benfica. Como se tudo isto não fosse suficiente, os mais velhos dizem-me que o sistema fiscal não valoriza os filhos na declaração de rendimentos.

Eu não sei onde é que anda o Estado social, mas sei que o dito não está no sítio que deveria ser a sua primeira prioridade: as crianças, a formação da família, a saúde demográfica da sociedade. Há muito Estado e pouco social no tal Estado social. Num país esmagado por impostos e pela despesa pública, é incompreensível esta ausência do Leviatã no mundo fofo das babás. Mas, afinal, para onde é que vai o dinheiro dos nossos impostos? 0 Estado fica com metade da nossa riqueza e, mesmo assim, é incapaz de apoiar como deve ser a rede de creches já instalada. Repare-se que não é preciso colocar a Mota-Engil a fazer uma rede de creches estatais. Basta apoiar e expandir as IPSS que já estão no terreno. A fim de diminuir as mensalidades dos pais, estas instituições deviam receber mais dinheiro dos nossos impostos. Se não serve para apoiar as crianças e as famílias, se não serve para garantir o futuro, o Estado social serve exactamente para quê?

“Il Concilio ha reso fiacca la Chiesa”. Il filosofo Spaemann a 50 anni dal Vaticano II

In CR 

Die Welt: Lei era a Roma per la celebrazione del giubileo del Concilio Vaticano II. Per lei personalmente è stato un motivo di festeggiamento?

Robert Spaemann: In verità no. Innanzi tutto si deve poter dire apertamente che è iniziata un’epoca di decadenza. Una celebrazione giubilare non può assolutamente ignorare il fatto che migliaia di sacerdoti già durante il Concilio hanno lasciato il loro ministero.

Die Welt: Qual è la responsabilità del Concilio a tal proposito?

Robert Spaemann: Il Concilio si inserì in un movimento diffusosi all’intero Occidente che partecipò alla cultura della rivoluzione. Papa Giovanni XXIII disse allora che il fine del Concilio era l’aggiornamento della Chiesa. Questo fu tradotto da molti con adattamento, adattamento al mondo. Ma fu mal interpretato. Aggiornamento significa: attualizzare ai tempi moderni l’opposizione che la Chiesa ha avuto, e sempre deve avere, nei confronti del mondo. Questo è il contrario di adattamento.

Die Welt: Però Giovanni XXIII nel suo discorso di apertura del Concilio ha risvegliato le attese e ha lasciato intendere che si trattasse di adattamento.

Robert Spaemann: Questo è vero. Giovanni XXIII era un uomo profondamente devoto. Ma lo caratterizzava un ottimismo tale che definirei quasi scellerato. Tale ottimismo non era giustificato. Del resto, la prospettiva storica cristiana è conforme a quella del Nuovo Testamento: alla fine ci sarà una grande apostasia, e la storia si scontrerà con l’Anticristo. Ma di questo il Concilio non ne parla. Si è eliminato tutto ciò che allude a liti o conflitti, finanche nei libri dei canti liturgici. Si è voluto benedire lo spirito del mondo emancipatore e culturalmente rivoluzionario.

Die Welt: Se in Germania, come è successo all’inizio dell’anno, un tribunale stabilisce che la Chiesa cattolica può essere definita un’impunita “setta di pedofili”, nessuno protesta. Questo anche ha a che fare con lo spirito del Concilio Vaticano II?

Robert Spaemann: Sì. Il Concilio ha indebolito i cattolici. La Chiesa si è sempre trovata in lotta, una lotta spirituale, non militare, ma pur sempre una lotta. L’Apostolo Paolo parla delle armi della luce, dell’elmo della fede ecc. Oggi la parola “nemico” è diventata indecente, lo stesso comandamento “Amate i vostri nemici” non ha più senso perché non siamo più autorizzati ad avere nemici. Per i cosiddetti cattolici progressisti vi è in realtà ancora un solo nemico: i tradizionalisti. Questa sì che è un’eredità del Concilio. Certamente noi cristiani non dovremmo usare nessuna violenza per le offese arrecate alla nostra fede e alla Chiesa. Ma protestare dovrebbe essere possibile.

Die Welt: I testi che il Concilio ha approvato dopo lunghe discussioni sono vaghi compromessi. Chi ha vinto, riformatori o tradizionalisti?

Robert Spaemann: Nessuno dei due. Entrambi gli schieramenti hanno agito al Concilio come fazioni politiche. Questo vale soprattutto per il partito dei progressisti. Quando prevedevano che su una proposta di risoluzione non avrebbero ottenuto la maggioranza, introducevano nella formulazione di compromesso alcune clausole generali, che gli avrebbero permesso, dopo il Concilio, di rendere le risoluzioni più malleabili. Hanno spesso lavorato in modo cospirativo. E ad oggi hanno ancora la prerogativa dell’interpretazione del Vaticano II. Ma gradualmente sta prendendo piede una nuova coscienza. Lentamente la smettiamo di prenderci in giro. Tutto è diventato così avvizzito: uomini che negano la risurrezione di Cristo rimangono professori di teologia cattolica e possono predicare in quanto sacerdoti durante le Messe. Fedeli invece che non vogliono pagare la tassa per il culto (in Germania, ndt) vengono cacciati dalla Chiesa. C’è qualcosa che non va.

Die Welt: Cosa intende quando dice che i novatori avrebbero la prerogativa di interpretazione sul Vaticano II?

Robert Spaemann: Le dò tre esempi. Oggi viene spesso detto che per poco il Concilio non ha abolito il celibato. Bisognerebbe però portare a compimento gli approcci precedenti. Perché mai prima alcun Concilio ha difeso il celibato con così tanto vigore.

Secondo esempio. I vescovi tedeschi hanno annunciato nella cosiddetta dichiarazione di Königstein che l’insegnamento della Chiesa in materia di “pillola” non è vincolante. Il Concilio aveva detto esattamente il contrario, ovvero che l’insegnamento della Chiesa su questa questione obbliga in coscienza i cattolici.

Terzo esempio: tutti sanno che il Concilio ha autorizzato la lingua volgare nella liturgia. Nessuno però sa che il Concilio ha soprattutto ribadito che la lingua propria della liturgia della Chiesa occidentale è e riamane il latino. E Papa Giovanni XXIII ha appositamente scritto un’enciclica sul significato del latino per la Chiesa occidentale

Die Welt: Cos’è che la disturba innanzitutto?

Robert Spaemann: Non penso a singole decisioni ma principalmente a ciò che veramente è accaduto durante il Concilio. Forse si dovrebbe ricominciare a leggere i testi originali. Già alla fine del Concilio, come scrive Joseph Ratzinger, è emerso come uno spettro, ciò che è stato chiamato lo “spirito del Concilio” il quale, solo molto condizionatamente, aveva a che fare con le decisioni fattuali. Spirito del Concilio significa: volontà di innovazione. Fino ad oggi i cosiddetti riformatori si richiamano allo spirito del Concilio per giustificare tutte le possibili idee di riforma e con questo intendono adattamento. Oggi però abbiamo bisogno del contrario della “mondanizzazione della Chiesa”, che già Lutero deplorava. Abbiamo bisogno di ciò che il Papa chiama la “fine della mondanizzazione” (Entweltlichung).

Die Welt: Lei ha scritto: “L’autentico progresso rende talvolta necessarie correzioni di rotta e in talune circostanze anche passi indietro”. Ma come può la Chiesa invertire rotta?

Robert Spaemann: Fondamentalmente deve fare quello che ha sempre fatto: deve sempre tornare indietro. La Chiesa vive della vita dei Santi, che sono i modelli di vera conversione. Non è accettabile che la Chiesa in Germania, a cui appartiene la casa editrice “Weltbildverlag”, si mantiene da anni mediante la vendita di materiale pornografico. Per dieci lunghi anni i cattolici hanno informato di questo i vescovi e non è successo niente. Ora che tutto è venuto alla luce, il segretario della Conferenza Episcopale Tedesca ha tacciato con disprezzo questi fedeli di fondamentalisti. Che questa prassi di commercio sia stata introdotta ha ben poco a che fare con una reale inversione di rotta.





A propósito dos recentes ataques a Isabel Jonet - por Mário Pinto (Prof. jubilado do ISCTE e da UCP)

1. Com as estruturas constitucionais e legais que ninguém nos impôs, mas são aquelas que como povo decidimos e gerimos democraticamente, entrámos numa grave crise económica e social. Essas estruturas são, aliás, análogas às de muitos outros países que não estão, ou estão muito menos, em crise como nós. É portanto evidente que as causas não são apenas estruturais, mas sim dos nossos costumes: não estaríamos como estamos, super-endividados e sem competitividade económica (ou estaríamos muito menos) se, governantes e governados, tivéssemos sido suficientemente sóbrios, diligentes e honestos. Mas esta explicação da crise é tabu. Como se comprova com a clamorosa agressão mediática raivosa, de uns tantos contra Isabel Jonet, apenas porque ela expressou algumas opiniões sobre a crise e os costumes na televisão. 


2. Porquê tanto «ódio ideológico»? Porque se sentem incomodados (eles dirão: indignados, porque cada um padroniza a sua dignidade) por haver quem (por amor, ou caridade, é a mesma coisa) vai socorrer os que precisam, sem estar à espera de reformas estruturais ou políticas, utópicas e falsas — porque nunca e em nenhum lugar deixou de haver pobres e necessitados, e não se pode esperar por elas enquanto alguém sofre? 

Se estes «indignados» fossem interrogados acerca da sua opinião sobre a legitimidade da censura à liberdade de expressão, eles indignar-se-iam outra vez, só porque se lhes admitia a indignidade de adeptos da censura. E contudo são censores; e ferinos censores. Eles são, aliás, os «acusadores eternos» — não apenas críticos — por tudo e por nada enquanto não seja tal e qual como pensam e querem mandar, apesar de se reclamarem como democratas.


3. A sua tese é muito simples, mesmo caricatural: nada de sentimentos personalizados, tudo estruturas e funcionários remunerados. Nada de doação, de gratuitidade na sociedade civil (que é sociedade de relações personalizadas entre iguais); tudo de prestações do Estado, pagas pelos impostos forçados de todos, proporcionalmente dos mais ricos, e realizadas mediante a intermediação de funcionários profissionalizados. Isto é, tudo em relações burocráticas exclusivamente políticas: entre, por um lado, o Estado sem face; e, por outro lado, cidadãos anónimos. O problema das relações das pessoas dos cidadãos, entre si, não se coloca. É assim que, paradoxalmente, defendem a liberdade, a igualdade e a responsabilidade dignificantes, em nome da dignidade da pessoa humana, segundo o lema da Contemporaneidade: liberdade, igualdade, fraternidade. 


4. Não dizem é quem garante a «moralidade» do Estado e dos funcionários — quem guarda o guarda — quando tudo colocam na sua acção e poder burocrático, em que toda a gente é ninguém porque é anónima. Não admitem que o paradoxo que a sociologia moderna já desmascarou, entre o alegadamente generoso interesse geral e o realíssimo interesse egoísta privado, opera mesmo nos políticos e nos funcionários, como pode por exemplo aprender-se com o sociólogo Mancur Olson. Não será por acaso que os impostos o são pela força; e que a parábola do (Estado) predador sedentário tem verosimilhança. 


5. Em seu entender, quem não entende as coisas à sua maneira politicamente correcta, não reconhece direitos e deveres. Ora isso é falso. Os direitos e os deveres fundamentais do Estado de Direito Democrático de modelo social europeu, de que nos reclamamos constitucionalmente, fundamentam uma sociedade de titulares que são pessoas responsáveis de direitos e de deveres com conteúdo personalizante (ou não seriam então reconhecidos com base na dignidade da pessoa humana, como efectivamente são). Os deveres constitucionais de solidariedade não se limitam a pagar impostos; e as liberdades fundamentais pessoais, como as «caritativas», que não forçam ninguém, não podem ser censuradas como heréticas. 


6. O que Isabel Jonet faz, distribuindo gratuitamente pela federação do Banco Alimentar, é apenas facilitar a doação de muitos milhares de pessoas, que dão para Isabel Jonet distribuir. Se o que ela faz é «caridadezinha» que merece ser ridicularizada, então os ridicularizados são esses muitos milhares de pessoas que, sem se cansar, repetidamente têm vindo a dar; e os que aceitam receber. Digam lá, esses mal-dizentes, se querem acusar todos estes milhares de cidadãos de «caridadezinha». Algumas vozes anónimas até disseram que vão deixar de dar, sinal de que já deram para a caridadezinha — obviamente, ninguém dá nada pessoalmente a Isabel Jonet. Terão dado? Vão deixar de dar? 


7. Se o que se pretende atingir é o humanismo ou o credo cristão — que, na nossa sociedade, possa estar por detrás destas iniciativas caridosas —, então é preciso responder bem alto e destemidamente que os cristãos não podem ceder perante a tentativa de ridicularizar [1] a sua verdade, [2] a sua liberdade e [3] a sua história. 


8. A sua verdade é que confessam sem vergonha Deus e o amor ao próximo, como indissociáveis. A sua liberdade é que estão dispostos ao martírio final, se necessário, o que definitivamente os liberta perante tudo e todos. A sua história é que, com muitos erros e muitos acertos, muitos pecados e muita virtude, confessam-se diariamente pecadores perante Deus, mas não se envergonham perante quaisquer juízes humanos que agora pretendam ter descoberto a suprema iluminação e a suprema perfeição que os legitima para julgar e condenar sumariamente. 


9. A doutrina cristã da Igreja tem um conteúdo teológico de fé, de esperança e de caridade, que engloba não apenas a relação com Deus, como solidariamente também a relação fraterna entre os homens. E acerca da fraternidade, as obras de caridade dos filhos da Igreja, por todo o mundo e ao longo de séculos (bem como a Doutrina Social da Igreja, mais sistematizada na Contemporaneidade), pedem meças com o património histórico dos que hoje se apresentam como julgadores perfeitos e detentores da justiça automática, eficiente e perfeita, das máquinas estatais.


10. O pensamento social cristão — constantemente proclamado pelos Papas e por mil instâncias dentro da Igreja, como por exemplo as conhecidas Comissões Justiça e Paz —, não é apenas pensamento; é também acção politicamente fecunda, de muitos modos, designadamente em partidos e em sindicatos, na Contemporaneidade. Não é possível agora aqui invocar os legítimos títulos de cidadania política e social dos católicos, na experiência histórica ocidental da Contemporaneidade (embora erros concretos também haja). Baste lembrar que a mais antiga internacional sindical é de origem cristã; que a União Europeia e a defesa da ONU e da paz e cooperação internacional são bandeiras destacadamente levantadas pelos católicos; que, no Parlamento Europeu, o maior grupo parlamentar é ainda hoje de ascendência cristã. 


11. Os católicos, com erros e acertos como todos os homens, não se envergonham do seu passado em Igreja; não se envergonham da sua fé, da sua esperança e da sua caridade. E não faltarão com o seu testemunho contra aqueles que se erguem como censores totalitários do pensamento caridoso. Merece aprovação que os católicos sejam pacientes. Sobretudo a hierarquia católica. Mas, paciência é uma coisa; deixar passar sem crítica pública e destemida o erro agressivo e prepotente, permitindo a impressão de que esse erro tem razão, seria covardia na defesa da Verdade da Fé e da liberdade da Cidade.

Religious Freedom, Persecution of the Church, and Martyrdom - by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

First of all, I should like to thank John Cavadini, Professor of Theology and Director of the Institute for Church Life, for this kind invitation to be with you today to discuss an important set of interrelated topics: (1) religious freedom; (2) the persecution of Christians around the world; and, (3) martyrdom. But before I begin this task, I should also like to thank the University of Notre Dame for its sponsorship of this important conference, and especially its President, Father John Jenkins, for his hospitality, and for giving me the opportunity to get to know this prestigious institution of the Church. I also extend my fraternal and prayerful best wishes to the Most Reverend Kevin Rhoades, Bishop of Fort Wayne - South Bend, for his participation in this event and his warm welcome. As you may know, I am the representative of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the United States, and so, in consideration of this official office I hold and exercise, I acknowledge to you all my profound gratitude to be with you today in order to address these important and timely subjects. 

In doing so, it is crucial to see that in the world of the present age, persecution of the faithful can manifest itself in a variety of forms, some obvious, but others less so. While it is necessary to remind ourselves of the obvious, we must also consider the not­so-obvious, for great danger to the future of religious freedom lies with religious persecution that appears inconsequential or seems benign but in fact is not. In my service to the Holy See, I have worked in various parts of the world including Iraq and Kuwait, Great Britain, Strasbourg, Nigeria, in the Vatican, and now the United States, it has been a part of my personal makeup and official duties to monitor and register concerns to my superiors about efforts that harm, intentionally or otherwise, the Church and God’s people. 

I realize that you have scheduled several prominent speakers who will address the critical questions dealing with religious freedom, persecution of Christians, and martyrdom in the present day around the globe. I do not wish to compete with them nor is in my intention to preempt their incisive and insightful comments which I am confident will elevate the mindfulness of your audience and potential readership about religious freedom, religious persecution, and martyrdom. Countries and regions where these challenges to the faithful exist are in China and Asia, Africa, Europe, the sub-Continent, the Middle East, and Latin America. Let me illustrate the problems in these countries with one example. The circumstances which our brothers and sisters in faith experience in the Peoples’ Republic of China are largely well known by many who follow international developments. The anguish which the Church faces in China has led Pope Benedict XVI to issue his 2007 letter to the Church in China to let the faithful of that great country, and of the world, know that the universal Church has not forgotten them and their faithful witness to Christ and to Christ’s Vicar on Earth. Similar problems exist elsewhere.

In nearby Pakistan and India, Christians face intimidation, sometimes with lethal consequences, which the civil authorities of these respective states seem incapable of arresting. Elsewhere, there are new pressures placed on religious freedom in Middle East, especially in Iraq and now in Syria, in parts of Africa including Egypt, Nigeria, the Sudan, and east Africa. The heavy burdens imposed on Christians in all of these regions can be, and often are, physical and harsh. In some instances, the faithful have witnessed their Christian faith at the expense of their lives which God gave them. In this regard, the heavy hand of so called “anti-blasphemy” laws has sometimes been the method to subjugate the Christian faith.

In all of these instances, we see that the faithful persist in their fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Holy Church! For throughout her history, the Church has gained strength when persecuted. We must recall the words of the Preface for Holy Martyrs from the second edition of the Roman Missal: God chooses the weak and makes them strong. In short, with God’s help we can prevail, but without Him, even our greatest human strength is insufficient because it is frail.

As the papal nuncio to the United States, I realize that I speak from a distinguished podium at a great university. It is my intention to propose for your consideration the interrelated matters of religious freedom, persecution, and martyrdom that are, or should be, of vital concern to you – for these grave concerns exist not only abroad, but they also exist within your own homeland. 

In order to establish a framework for my presentation, several key definitions are in order. I will first address the subject of martyrdom. What is it, and why is it relevant to you today? I am sure that most if not all of us are familiar with the martyrs of the Church – both past and present – who gave of their lives because they would not compromise on the principles of faith that accompany the call to discipleship. Theirs is the experience of great suffering that often includes torture and death. Some of the early martyrs of the Church experienced this through cruelty, often by slow means, designed to bring on death. However, the intention underlying the objectives of the persecutor is important to understand: it was to eradicate the public witness to Jesus Christ and His Church. An accompanying objective can be the incapacitation of the faith by enticing people to renounce their beliefs, or at least their public manifestations, rather than undergo great hardships that will be, or can be, applied if believers persist in their resistance to apostasy. The plan is straightforward: if the faith persists, so will the hardships. In more recent times, martyrdom may not necessitate torture and death; however, the objective of those who desire to harm the faith may choose the path of ridiculing the believers so that they become outcasts from mainstream society and are marginalized from meaningful participation in public life. This brings me to the meaning of persecution. 

Persecution is typically associated with the deeds preceding those necessary to make martyrs for the faith. While acts of persecution can mirror those associated with martyrdom, other elements can be directed to sustaining difficulty, annoyance, and harassment that are designed to frustrate the beliefs of the targeted person or persons rather than to eliminate these persons. It would seem, then, that the objective of persecution is to remove from the public square the beliefs themselves and the public manifestations without necessarily eliminating the persons who hold the beliefs. The victimization may not be designed to destroy the believer but only the belief and its open manifestations. From the public viewpoint, the believer remains but the faith eventually disappears. 

In the context of martyrdom and persecution, the law enforcement branches of the state can be relied upon to achieve the desired goal. The state’s enforcement mechanisms were surely employed in the campaigns that brought the deaths of the early Roman martyrs. The legal mechanisms of new legislation and its enforcement in Tudor England were relied upon in the persecution and martyrdom of Thomas More and John Fisher. As one thinks about these two heroic individuals, you can see the multiple objectives of the state. The first, in their sequential order, were words and then deeds designed to encourage through pressure More and Fisher to accept the King’s and Parliament’s wills to agree with the divorce of King Henry from Queen Catherine.

However, when Fisher and More remained resolved in their fidelity to the Church’s teachings about the validity of the marriage but discreet in how they did so, the state mechanisms designed to bring them and their views around were ratcheted up so as to increase the pressure on them. When they resisted the increased pressure, statutes were enacted and amended to make non-compliance a treasonable and, therefore, a capital offence. It was understood by Fisher, More, and the King’s agents that a hideous death rather than a lesser punishment was the inevitable penalty. It is said that while torture was recommended by some to hasten the compliance of Fisher and More, the King’s conscience would not permit it. Nevertheless, when increased levels of persecution did not achieve the desired result of modifying the views of Fisher and More, martyrdom by beheading – rather than hanging, drawing, and quartering – was the inevitable solution. In the cases of Fisher and More, persecution came first, and then it was followed by martyrdom. In both cases, religious freedom was the target. I now turn to religious freedom. What is it? 

Religious freedom is the exercise of fidelity to God and His Holy Church without compromise. Human action that reflects this fidelity is what has hastened martyrdom and persecution for many believers of the past, and of today. At the core of this fidelity is the desire to be a good citizen of the two cities where we all live: the City of Man and the City of God. This kind of dual citizenship necessitates libertas Ecclesiae, i.e., the freedom of the Church. This freedom is essential to the religious freedom which properly belongs to the human person. And this freedom that belongs to the human person is simultaneously a human, civil, and natural right which is not conferred by the state because it subsists in the human person’s nature. As the papal representative of the Holy See to the United States, the subject of religious liberty frequently surfaces in the international discussions that constitute a major part of my priestly service to our Church, to the Holy Father, and to you, my dear friends. 

It is evident that there is a pressing need to protect religious freedom around the world. However, this freedom is not something that can or should be imposed for it subsists on the Truth of God – “Truth can impose itself on the human mind by the force of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power”!1 That there is recognition by many people of good will about this truth is reassuring given the fact that religious persecution and martyrdom are still present in the world today. This recognition, however, is often challenged by alarms registered by skeptics who question whether it is proper for there to be a public role for religion in civic life. 

We live in an age where most, but not all, of your fellow countrymen still share in the conviction that Americans are essentially a religious people. While current data suggests a progressive decline in religious belief across the western world including the United States, there still appears to be deference given to the importance of religion. But as I have just indicated, there are those who question whether religion or religious belief should have a role in public life and civic affairs. The problem of persecution begins with this reluctance to accept the public role of religion in these affairs, especially but not always when the protection of religious freedom involves beliefs that the powerful of the political society do not share. Thus we are presented with the pressing question about whether the devoted religious believer, let us say the Catholic, can have a right to exercise citizenship in the most robust fashion when his or her views on civic concerns are informed by the faith. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution more than suggests an affirmative answer to this question. But we should not be satisfied with this recognition. After all, important figures, some of whom hold high public office, are speaking today about the right of freedom of worship, but their discourse fails to acknowledge that there is also a complementary right about the unencumbered ability to exercise religious faith in a responsible and at the same time public manner.

In the remaining time that is allotted to me, I shall focus on these concerns and the emerging deleterious impact on the authentic and legitimate exercise of religious freedom within your great country. Let me address the concerns that I see about this fundamental and non-derogable right, on your home front. 

Let me begin by briefly stating that as a man of God and therefore a man of hope, it is essential to pray for a just resolution to the issues which face the faithful and their fidelity. As you may know, the Bishops of the United States conducted earlier this year the Fortnight for Freedom, and more recently in October a Novena for Life and Liberty, in order to elevate prayerful consciousness and other responsibilities of the faithful to ensure protection of the “First Freedom” cherished by your nation. One compelling catalyst for these initiatives is found in the legitimate concerns about religious liberty posed by the uncertainties surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; however, this is by no means the only source of concern. When Catholic Charities and businesses owned by faithful Catholics experience pressure to alter their cherished beliefs, the problem is experienced in other venues. In short, the menace to religious liberty is concrete on many fronts. Evidence is emerging which demonstrates that the threat to religious freedom is not solely a concern for non-democratic and totalitarian regimes. Unfortunately it is surfacing with greater regularity in what many consider the great democracies of the world. This is a tragedy for not only the believer but also for democratic society. Here we must consider the important point that religious freedom is not an end in itself, because it has as its highest purpose protection of the ultimate dignity of the human person.2 This argument was acknowledged by Pope Paul VI at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in his address to the rulers of nations when he rhetorically asked the question “What does the Church seek from you?” 

She asks of you only liberty, the liberty to believe and to preach her faith, the freedom to love God and serve Him, the freedom to live and to bring to men her message of life. Do not fear her. She is made in the image of her Master, whose mysterious action does not interfere with your prerogatives but heals everything human of its fatal weakness, transfigures it, and fills it with hope, truth, and beauty.

Allow Christ to exercise his purifying action on society!... And we, His humble ministers, allow us to spread everywhere without hindrance the Gospel of peace... Of it, your peoples will be the first beneficiaries, since the Church forms for you loyal citizens, friends of social peace and progress.3

One illustration of interference with religious freedom, as outlined by Pope Paul, recently surfaced in England which has a Christian past and for centuries was one place where Christianity flourished. The 2010 decision of an English court in the case of Johns vs. Darby City Council, Queens Bench division, has essentially declared that an evangelical Christian couple is unfit to be legal guardians of foster children because of their faith which informs them that certain sexual expressions by consenting adults are sin. Mr. and Mrs. Johns, a devout evangelical couple, had successfully and lovingly served as foster parents for needy children in the past. In spite of their previous exemplary service caring for children who needed love and protection, the civil authorities of the United Kingdom expressed grave reservations about the continuing suitability of Christians who firmly pursue their Christian faith. As a result of the court’s decision, the exercise of religious faith which is protected in theory by juridical texts is, in fact, subject to forfeit. As the judges noted in their decision, the belief of Mr. and Mrs. Johns is based on “religious precepts” which can be “divisive, capricious, and arbitrary.”

Paradoxically, Mr. and Mrs. Johns were doing what is clearly protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – texts which your nation claims to adhere to, and, in the case of the Covenant, is a party. The Johns’ religious freedom was sacrificed to practices which are today considered “rights” by many well educated persons but which are not mentioned in the applicable juridical texts as is religious freedom. If George Orwell were still alive today, he would certainly have material to write a sequel to his famous novel 1984 in which the totalitarian state, amongst other things, found effective means from distancing children from their parents and monopolizing the control of educational processes especially on moral issues. 

I am sure the Johns case will be discussed much more in the future. But we must take stock of the fact that the challenges to authentic religious freedom are not relegated to distant places such as England. My concerns about religious liberty and my efforts to protect them have a bearing on what is presently going on in the United States. Over the past months, we have heard much about the legitimate reservations raised by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that pertain to authentic religious freedom and the proper exercise of faith in public. The issues and reservations identified by the Conference’s president, Cardinal Dolan, about the health care mandate dealing with artificial contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are very real, and they pose grave threats to the vitality of Catholicism in the United States. But we must not forget the other perils to religious liberty that your great country has experienced in recent years. Once again, we see that the rule of law, in the context of your First Amendment and important international protections for religious freedom, has been pushed aside. Let me cite some examples of these other hazards. 

A few years ago, the Federal courts of the United States considered the case of Parker v. Hurley in which a number of families were alarmed over the curriculum of the public schools in Lexington, Massachusetts (ironically one of your cradles of liberty!) where young children were obliged to learn about family diversity as presented in a children’s book that elevated as natural and wholesome same-sex relations in marriage. The Parker family and other families, who are Judeo-Christian believers, wished to pursue an “opt-out” for their children from this instruction. While they may not have been aware of it, their sensible plan reflected sound and reasonable rights that are addressed and protected by international human rights standards which are echoed in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, of the Second Vatican Council.4 However, the civil authorities and the Federal courts disagreed with, and thereby denied, the lawful claims of these parents who were trying to protect their children from the morally unacceptable. If these children were to remain in public schools, they had to participate in the indoctrination of what the public schools thought was proper for young children. Put simply, religious freedom was forcefully pushed aside once again.

More recently, we recall the federal court review of Proposition 8 in California. In the legal proceedings surrounding this initiative dealing with the meaning of marriage, Judge Vaughan Walker said this about religious exercise – a freedom enshrined in your Constitution: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”5 This “harm” cited by the judge became the basis for devising a mechanism used to minimize if not eradicate the free exercise of religion which includes the vigorous participation of the religious believer in public and political life.

On other fronts, we have witnessed Catholic Charities across the United States being removed from vital social services that advance the common good because the upright people administering these programs would not adopt policies or engage in procedures that violate fundamental moral principles of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, we have observed influential members of the national American community – especially public officials and university faculty members – who profess to be Catholic, allying with those forces that are pitted against the Church in fundamental moral teachings dealing with critical issues such as abortion, population control, the redefinition of marriage, embryonic stem cell commodification, and problematic adoptions, to name but a few. In regard to teachers, especially university and college professors, we have witnessed that some instructors who claim the moniker “Catholic” are often the sources of teachings that conflict with, rather than explain and defend, Catholic teachings in the important public policy issues of the day. While some of these faculty members are affiliated with non-Catholic institutions of higher learning, others teach at institutions that hold themselves out to be Catholic. This, my brothers and sisters, is a grave and major problem that challenges the first freedom of religious liberty and the higher purpose of the human person.

History can help us understand what is happening in the present moment to this first freedom. Catholics have, in the past, experienced and weathered the storms that have threatened religious freedom. In this context, we recall that Pope Pius XI took steps to address these grave problems in his 1931 encyclical letter Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with religious persecution of the faithful by the fascists in Italy, and in his 1937 letter Mit Brennender Sorge addressing parallel threats initiated by the National Socialists in Germany. In the context of Germany during the reign of National Socialism, we recall that the Oxford Professor Nathanial Micklem examined and discussed the persecution of the Catholic Church is Germany in his 1939 book entitled National Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church. The problems identified by Micklem over six decades ago that deal with the heavy grip of the state’s hand in authentic religious liberty are still with us today.

An Englishman who found his way to the United States, Christopher Dawson (who became a Catholic in his early adulthood) still reminds us that the modern state, even the democratic one, can exert all kinds of pressure on authentic religious freedom. Dawson insightfully explained that the modern democratic state can join the totalitarian one in not being satisfied with “passive obedience” when “it demands full cooperation from the cradle to the grave.” He identified the challenges that secularism and secular societies can impose on Christians which surface on the cultural and the political levels. Dawson thus warned that “if Christians cannot assert their right to exist” then “they will eventually be pushed not only out of modern culture, but out of physical existence.” He acknowledged that this was not only a problem in the totalitarian and non-democratic states, but “it will also become the issue in England and America if we do not use our opportunities while we still have them.”6
 
While Dawson made his observations in the 1950’s, we need to recall that Blessed John Paul II recognized the durability of the problems noticed by Dawson during the era that saw the collapse of the modern Soviet totalitarian state. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul reminds us that “totalitarianism attempts to destroy the Church, or at least to reduce her to submission, making her an instrument if its own ideological apparatus.”7But he further noted that this threat is not solely expressed by the state established on dictatorship, for it can also be exercised by a democracy, for “a democracy without values easily turns into openly or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”8 Since the conclusion of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, democracies around the world have periodically exhibited traits of this new totalitarianism that emerges from a democracy-without-values, values that must be based on the timeless and universal moral principles adhered to and taught by our Church because these principles are founded on the Truth of Christ which came to set us free!

So, what can be done? Cardinal Dolan has recently exhorted the Catholic faithful to confront the challenges which the faith faces today. His brother bishops in this country and around the world have taken similar action. It is a desperate day when well-educated persons label these efforts as attempts by the hierarchy to control the activities of Catholics in public life. Some have even criticized publicly Cardinal Dolan’s call to the faithful to defend the Catholic contribution to political debate in this fashion: “Dolan to Lay Catholics: Be Our ‘Attractive, Articulate’, (and Unpaid) Flacks.”9 I pray that the authors meant well in saying this, in spite of the statement’s disparaging tone, but these persons fail to recall the nature of the Church as explained by the Second Vatican Council and reiterated by Blessed John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (1988).

In this exhortation, the Pope urged the lay faithful to be mindful of their crucial role in temporal affairs as disciples of Christ rather than as elements of some political or secular ideology that bases its platform on an indecipherable formula established on the ambiguous foundation that unsuccessfully relies on the cure of “social justice.” It is the proper function of bishops to be teachers of the faith, but it is also true that the laity exercise a major role in implementing this same faith in the affairs of the world. This is why John Paul repeatedly encouraged the faithful with the words of Jesus: “You go into my vineyard, too” (Mt 20:4).10 In order to respond affirmatively to this call, religious freedom is essential.

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evils among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church; through this strategy, the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted. 

We must all be mindful that our Lord noted, time and again, that each member of the Church – clerical, religious, and lay – is a branch on the vine of Christ. In our unity with Him, we are a part of something universal – one faith, one belief displayed through a variety of talents, in a multiplicity of places. This is what our Lord asks us to do, and, therefore, this is what we must do: to preach and live the Good News and to do so in communion with our Lord, with the successors of His apostles, and with His Vicar. It is our faith, and it is our duty to live and proclaim the Gospel through the Church’s teachings so that by reasoned proposition, not imposition, God’s will and our discipleship can advance the common good for every member of the human family. This, my friends, is essential to authentic religious freedom because it is the means by which we fulfill the destiny of the human person. 

And so, let us go into the Lord’s vineyard together, with love, hope, freedom, the firmness of the convictions of our faith, and the help that God so willingly extends to us. We have been appointed by God and His holy Church to go forth and bear much fruit. Let us do so with the freedom and its necessary complement, responsibility, which God has given us. We further know that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. What God has given, the servant state does not have the competence to remove. And God has given us the truth of His Son, the truth who gives us the most precious freedom of all, which is the desire to be with God forever! This is our destiny, and this is why religious freedom as I have explained it is of paramount importance. It is essential to the exercise of our other rights and responsibilities as citizens of the Two Cities.
Thank you very much. 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States 


Endnotes
1 Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, N.1.
2 This point was made by Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., who was a major contributor to the drafting of the Declaration on Religious Liberty; fn 23, The Documents of Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, Angelus Publication, 1966, p. 688.
4 The Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, in N. 5, asserts, as do the UDHR and the ICCPR, that parents have rights concerning the moral education of their children which reflect their religious beliefs. The courts deciding the Parker case did not even mention these obligations in their decision.
5 Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, Findings of Fact N. 77 (August 2010).
6 Christopher Dawson, “The Challenge of Secularism”, Catholic World (1956).
7 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus on the 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 45, (1991); cf, Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Word of Today, Gaudium et Spes, 76.
8 Centesimus Annus, 46
9 Eduardo Peñalver “Dolan to Lay Catholics: Be Our ‘Attractive, Articulate’ (and Unpaid) Flacks,” Commonweal Magazine, dotCommonweal blog (5 March 2012).
10 John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and the World, Christifideles Laici, 2 (1988).