650 mil personas marcharon por la vida y contra el aborto en EEUU

WASHINGTON D.C., 26 Ene. 13 / 11:45 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- Alrededor de 650 mil personas se congregaron ayer en Washington D.C.  en la “Marcha por la Vida”, protestando contra la legalización del aborto en Estados Unidos bajo el lema “40 Años = 55 millones de bebés muertos producto del aborto”.

La marcha se produjo en el marco del 40 aniversario de “Roe vs. Wade”, la decisión de 1973 con la que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos legalizó el aborto en todo el país.

Cientos de miles de participantes, en su mayoría jóvenes, enfrentaron a las heladas temperaturas y nieve, para asistir a la Marcha por la Vida, el 25 de enero.

Los miles de jóvenes participantes en la marcha de este año expresaron su entusiasmo y esperanza, mientras defendían la dignidad de toda vida humana, desde su concepción hasta la muerte natural.

En declaraciones a ACI Prensa, Tony Visintainer, un seminarista de 23 años, aseguró que la marcha de este año tuvo “mucha energía”.

“No sé si es por el 40 aniversario”, señaló, “pero hay una diferencia en la atmósfera”.

Visintainer indicó que la multitud estaba cantando y bailando en las calles de la capital de Estados Unidos.

Los manifestantes escucharon a los oradores en un acto previo en el National Mall, antes de caminar rumbo a la Corte Suprema. Muchos llevaban pancartas expresando su apoyo a la vida, y rezaban en silencio.

Christy Guillory, estudiante en la escuela secundaria St. Emory, del estado de Louisiana, estaba “muy emocionada” por estar en la marcha por primera vez, a pesar del clima frío.

“La nieve es algo nuevo para mí”, dijo, añadiendo que la experiencia de estar ahí, junto a la gran multitud pro-vida era “mucho para asimilar”.

Guillory dijo que asistió a la marcha este año para “dar testimonio” de las visas de los no nacidos, haciendo eco de los sentimientos de muchos otros participantes.

Derek Smith llegó de Chillicothe, estado de Ohio, junto a su parroquia para participar en la marcha y dar testimonio. Él explicó que se había convertido a la Iglesia Católica luego de su primera participación en la Marcha por la Vida, cuatro años atrás.

“Realmente, esto es lo que me hizo decidirme a ser católico”, dijo Smith, indicando que una cosa que cambió su forma de pensar sobre la Iglesia fue “el poder detrás” de la marcha, tanto en oraciones como en la dedicación de las personas que participan.

Algunas mujeres y hombres que asistieron a la marcha hablaron sobre la experiencia de dolor que el aborto dejó en sus corazones y en sus mentes.
Josephine Todd, de 59 años, tuvo un aborto en 1980, antes de convertirse en pro-vida.

Ella señaló que vino a la Marcha por la Vida a “dar mi corazón” y defender lo que es correcto, mostrando “lo que nunca debí haber hecho”, y alentando a otros a no cometer su error.

La asistencia entre los estudiantes universitarios también fue alta, con muchas mandando números muy altos de estudiantes a la capital de Estados Unidos para participar en la marcha.

Grupos pro-vida de varias universidades de la Ivy League, entre las que se encuentran las de Harvard, Yale y Princeton, se reunieron para una foto grupal antes de comenzar y prestaron su apoyo a la marcha.

Caroline Bazinet, una estudiante de la Universidad de Princeton, indicó las similitudes entre los movimientos por los derechos civiles y los movimientos pro-vida.

Bazinet explicó que es importante ayudar a la gente manifestándose por los miembros perdidos de su generación, para que se den cuenta de que las vidas de millones de niños se han perdido.

Por su parte, Chrissy Rodriguez, estudiante de 20 años de la Universidad de Harvard, dijo que ella confía en la habilidad del movimiento pro-vida para cambiar las cosas.

“Soy sólo una persona”, dijo, “pero soy una persona que puede gritarle al mundo: ¡Esto es en lo que creo!”.

O desatino do povo de Deus em Portugal - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Nesta nação em que nos foi dado nascer e viver a maioria da sociedade, que se confessa católica, está inteiramente desnorteada pela propaganda quotidiana do que lhe é incutido pela maior parte dos políticos, de grande parte da comunicação social e a espaços por não poucos prelados. De facto, todo o mundo está persuadido de que o maior problema do nosso país, e quiçá do mundo, é a crise económico-financeira. Sem negar, de modo algum, a seriedade desta e a urgência de a ultrapassar deve-se, no entanto, afirmar que há assuntos bem mais graves, que passam ao lado daqueles que controlam o que devemos saber, os assuntos em que devemos pensar, as conversas que devemos ter.

Há aí alguém que tenha consciência de que no mundo de hoje, de cinco em cinco minutos, se assassina um cristão por causa da sua Fé? Quem se detém em noticiar e aprofundar a matança de cento e cinco mil cristãos exterminados, por causa da sua Fé, só no ano passado? E, todavia, sabemos que se tratasse de um punhado de irmãos judeus, ou muçulmanos, ou, mesmo, de um só “gay” (ou lgbt) o alarido seria interminável, com declarações solenes de repúdio, ao mais alto nível, com movimentações e manifestações de rua, “debates” unanimemente escandalizados nas televisões e nas rádios, comunicados e abaixo-assinados por tudo quanto é redes sociais e inter-rede, enfim, um clamor estriduloso. 

Claro que empedernidos num egoísmo indiferente podemos ignorar, em contradição flagrante com a nossa Fé - que opera pela Caridade -, e mesmo a simples solidariedade humana, os sofrimentos e as injustiças que padecem esses nossos irmãos, cuidando que estamos a salvo numa pacífica segurança norte-ocidental.

A verdade porém é que se algum cristão ou qualquer outra pessoa de boa vontade se julga seguro, ou é ignorante, ou é ingénuo, ou é lorpa. A enorme insensatez ou cegueira da maioria dos cristãos e dos católicos, incluindo altos prelados, tem consistido em não quererem ver, ou então em cumpliciarem-se com uma minoria extremamente activa que de ano para ano, imparável, determinada, persistente, imbatível, tem vindo a conquistar as mentalidades, a sugar as almas, a inverter a moral, a corroer o bem comum, a cancerar a subsidiariedade, a derrancar a solidariedade, a torpedear a eminente dignidade transcendente de cada pessoa humana, a minar as instituições, a dominar a comunicação social, a controlar a justiça, a manipular a política, a ludibriar os Pastores.

A decisão obstinada de muitos prelados em “trabalhar” nos “bastidores” com as autoridades tem, ao contrário de tantos outros países, deixado o povo de Deus ignaro da Doutrina, privado de defesas, rendido à mentalidade dominante, incapaz de resistência, entorpecido numa modorra, entibiado por uma identidade desmaiada, se não mesmo moribunda, inábil para o combate espiritual, seguidor de lobos vorazes, abandonado aos predadores.

Contra os falsos profetas de um optimismo vão, tantas vezes desmascarado nas Sagradas Escrituras, é imprescindível tomar consciência da realidade, dos factos, para que cooperando com a Graça de Deus se dê lugar à Esperança verdadeira.

Se não despertarmos e não “combatermos o bom combate” seremos cruelmente perseguidos, impiedosamente lançados às enxovias, obscenamente abusados, implacavelmente entregues ao matadouro.

É inteiramente verdade que Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo nos avisou das perseguições e da Cruz, em especial aos primeiros cristãos, que, sendo uma minoria minúscula, tinham de conquistar a imensa massa de povos idólatras. Mas o Senhor não disse que fossemos esparvoados, imbecis, cobardes, indiferentes, atoleimados, que nos deixássemos enredar pelas subtilezas astuciosas do Inimigo. Não nos mandou que fossemos passivos diante da injustiça, da mentira, da manipulação, do desamor. Pelo contrário, imperou-nos que amássemos radicalmente guerreando o mal e o pecado com a fortaleza que nos comunica pelo Seu Espírito. Se os cristãos, em particular os católicos, assim o tivessem feito aquando dos repetidos alertas de Pio IX, de Leão XIII, de Bento XIV, de Pio X, de Pio XI, de Pio XII, teriam impedido as monstruosas tragédias do comunismo, do nazismo, do fascismo. Quanta catástrofe, quanta hecatombe, quanto flagelo, quanta calamidade, quanta assolação, quanta violentíssima crueldade se teria evitado; quantas vidas poupadas, quantas almas salvadas, quantas famílias mantidas, quantas cidades inteiras, quantas nações em pacífica harmonia!

A alucinação geral contemporânea em que estamos mergulhados leva muitos a suporem que nos dias de hoje não existem, nem de longe nem de perto, perigos, mais ou menos, semelhantes. Esta enorme ilusão é já, evidentemente, uma consequência da programada mesmerização colectiva a que temos vindo a ser submetidos. Os alertas, então, do Bem-aventurado João Paulo II e os, agora, do Papa Bento XVI foram e são frequentes. Quereremos nós imitar a irresponsabilidade ou a insensatez das gerações que nos precederam deixando que as minorias malignas provoquem novas calamidades?

25. 01. 2013

Why my support for abortion was based on love…and lies - by Jennifer Fulwiler

January 24, 2013 (NCRegister) - When I was younger, I was always particularly shocked when I heard about societies where it was common to abandon or kill unwanted newborns. In college I once read a particularly graphic description of a family in ancient Greece "discarding" a newborn baby girl. I was shocked to the point of breathlessness. I was also horribly confused: How could normal people be okay with this, let alone participate in it? Nobody I knew would do that! Were people that different back then?!

Because of my deep distress at hearing of things like this, I found it really irritating when pro-lifers would refer to abortion as "killing babies." Obviously, none of us pro-choice folks were in favor of killing babies; to imply otherwise, in my mind, was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their insane societies. We weren't in favor of killing anyone. We simply felt like women had the right to stop the growth process of a fetus if she faced an unwanted pregnancy. Sure, it was unfortunate since fetuses had potential to be babies one day, and we recognized that there was something special about that. But, alas, that was a sacrifice that had to be made in the name of not making women slaves to their bodies.

I continued to be vehemently pro-choice after college. Though my views became more moderate once I had a child of my own, I was still pro-choice. But as my husband and I began a religious search that led us to Christianity, we were increasingly put on the defensive about our views. One day my husband was re-evaluating his own pro-choice ideas, and he made a passing remark that startled me. He said:

"It just occurred to me that being pro-life is being pro-other-people's-lives. Everyone is pro-their-own-life."

It made me realize that my pro-choice viewpoints were putting me in the position of deciding who is and is not human, and whose lives are worth living. I (along with doctors, the government, or other abortion advocates) decided where to draw this very important line. When I would come across claims that life begins at conception, I would scoff. Yet I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with my defense:

"A few cells is obviously not a baby, or even a human life!" I would sneer to myself. "Fetuses eventually become full-fledged humans, but not until, umm, like, six months gestation or something. Or maybe five months? When is it that they can kick their legs and stuff?...Nine weeks?! No, they’re not human then, those must be involuntary spasms..."

I was putting the burden of proof on the fetuses to demonstrate to me that they were human, and I was a tough judge. I found myself looking the other way when I heard that 3D ultrasounds showed "fetuses" touching their faces, smiling and opening their eyes at ages at which I still considered abortion okay. Babies -- I mean, fetuses -- seen yawning at 12 weeks gestation? Involuntary spasm. As modern technology helped fetuses offer me more and more evidence that they were human too, I would simply move the bar of what I considered human.

I realized that my definition of how and when a "fetus" became a "person," when he or she begins to have rights, also depended on his or her level of health: The length of time in which I considered it okay to terminate a pregnancy lengthened as the severity of disability increased ("I wouldn't be comfortable with abortion after 26 weeks, unless the fetus had a disability," I once said). It was with a sickening feeling in my stomach that I realized that, under the premise of wanting to spare the potential child from suffering, I was basically saying that disabled babies had fewer rights -- were less human -- than able-bodied ones.

At some point I started to feel like I was more determined to be pro-choice than I was to honestly analyze who was and was not human. And I saw it in others in the pro-choice community as well. On more than one occasion I was stunned to the point of feeling physically ill upon reading of what otherwise nice, reasonable people in the pro-abortion camp would support.

In reading through the Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, I read that Dr. Leroy Carhart, an abortion advocate who actually performs the procedures, described some second-trimester abortions by saying, "[W]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let's say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus...the fetus [is] alive." He said that he has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with "extensive parts of the fetus removed."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which presumably consists of well-educated, reasonable, intelligent men and women, spoke out against this procedure. When I discovered their reasoning, I felt dizzy. They didn't oppose it because it's clearly infanticide in its most grisly form; they opposed it because of the inconvenience of dismembered body parts. In their amici brief to Stenberg, the ACOG explained in detail why they believe it's better to kill these babies outside the womb, in a procedure they refer to as "D&X":

D&X presents a variety of potential safety advantages over other abortion procedures used during the same gestational period. Compared to D&E's involving dismemberment, D&X involves less risk of uterine perforation or cervical laceration because it requires the physician to make fewer passes into the uterus with sharp instruments and reduces the presence of sharp fetal bone fragments that can injure the uterus and cervix.

There is also considerable evidence that D&X reduces the risk of retained fetal tissue, a serious abortion complication that can cause maternal death, and that D&X reduces the incidence of a 'free floating' fetal head that can be difficult for a physician to grasp and remove and can thus cause maternal injury.

I read the Court documents from Stenberg in a state of shock. A few years before, a friend of mine had her baby prematurely, and I had visited him in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. He was so beautiful, just like the full-term newborns I’d seen, only smaller. Seeing him and the other babies lying there so peacefully in their incubators, I was overwhelmed with feelings of wanting to protect these precious, innocent little babies. So I found myself in a state of cold shock that I was reading of people -- not just fringe crazies, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and some Supreme Court Justices -- casually speaking about the inconvenience of the severed heads and bone fragments of dismembered children ("fetuses") the same age as those babies in the NICU.

It took my breath away to witness the level of evil that normal people can fall into supporting. They were talking about infanticide, but completely refused to label it as such. It was when I considered that these were educated, reasonable professionals who were probably not bad people that I realized that evil mainly works by getting good people to believe in lies. I also took a mental step back from the entire pro-choice movement. If this is what it meant to be "pro-choice," I was not pro-choice.

Yet I still couldn't bring myself to say I was pro-life.

I started to recognize that I was no better than Dr. Carhart or the concurring Justices or the author of the ACOG brief, that I too had probably told myself lies in order to maintain my support for abortion. Yet there was some tremendous pressure deep within me that kept me from truly, objectively looking at what was going on here. Something within me screamed that to not allow women to have abortions at least in the first trimester would be unfair in the most dire sense of the word.

It wasn't until I re-evaluated the societal views of sex that had permeated the consciousness of my peer group, took a new look at the modern assumptions about the act that creates those fetuses in the first place, that I was able to let go of that internal pressure I felt, and to take an unflinching look at abortion.

It all begins with sex

Here are four key memories that give a glimpse into how my understanding of human sexuality was formed:

• When I was a kid, I didn’t have any friends who had baby brothers or sisters in their households. To the extent that I ever heard any neighborhood parents talk about pregnancy and babies, it was to say that they were happy that they were "done." Kids seemed like an optional add-on that a couple may or may not choose to add to their marriage, as long as they deemed that caring for offspring wouldn't ruin their ability to have fun together -- which was, as far as I could tell, the main purpose of marriage.
• In sex ed class we learned not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. After we were done putting condoms on bananas, our teacher counseled us that we should carefully decide when we might be ready to have sex based on important concerns like whether or not we were in committed relationships, whether or not we had access to contraception, how our girlfriends or boyfriends treated us, whether we wanted to wait until marriage, etc. I do not recall hearing readiness to have a baby being part of a single discussion about deciding when to have sex. Not one.
• On multiple occasions when I was a young teen, I heard girls my age make the comment that they would readily risk dangerous back-alley abortions or even consider suicide if they were to face unplanned pregnancies and abortion wasn't legal. Though I was not sexually active, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me: That is how much we desired not to have babies before we were ready. Yet the concept of just not having sex if we weren't ready to have babies was never discussed. It's not that we had considered the idea and rejected it; it simply never occurred to us.
• Even as recently as 2006, before our marriage was validated in the Catholic Church, my husband and I had to take a course about building good marriages. It was a video series by a nondenominational Christian group, and in the segment called "Good Sex" they did not mention children or babies once. In all the talk about bonding and back rubs and intimacy and the importance of staying in shape, the closest they came to connecting sex to new life was to say quickly that couples should discuss the topic of contraception.

Sex could not have been more disconnected from the concept of creating life.

The message I'd heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether. This mindset laid the foundation of my views on abortion. Because I saw sex as being closed to the possibility to life by default, I thought of pregnancies that weren't planned as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street: Something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives.

For me, and for many others I knew, being pro-choice was actually motivated out of love: I didn't want women to have to suffer with these unwanted pregnancies that were so totally out of their control. Because it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with hang-ups eventually has sex, and that sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I got lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: To dehumanize the enemy. Babies had become the enemy because of their tendencies to pop up out of the blue and ruin everything; and just as societies are tempted to dehumanize the fellow human beings who are on the other side of the lines in wartime, so had I, and we as a society, dehumanized the enemy of sex.

It was when I was reading up on the Catholic view of sex and new life that everything changed.

I'd always thought that those archaic teachings about not using contraception were because the Church wanted to fill its coffers by pushing the faithful to have as many kids as possible, or something like that. What I found, however, was that their views expressed a fundamentally different understanding of what sex is. And once I heard it, I never saw the world the same way again.

The way I'd always seen it, the standard position was that babies are burdens, except for a couple times in life when everything is perfect enough that a couple might temporarily see new life as a good thing. The Catholic position is that new human life is always a good thing. They said that it's fine to attempt to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, but warned that if we go so far as to adopt a "contraceptive mentality," feeling entitled to the pleasure of sex while loathing (and perhaps trying to forget all about) its life-giving properties, we not only disrespect this most sacred of acts, but we begin to see new life as the enemy.

I came to see that our culture's widespread use and acceptance of contraception had led to this mentality toward sex being the default position. As a society, we'd come to take it for granted that we're entitled to the pleasurable and bonding aspects of sex -- even when we're in a state of being vehemently opposed to any new life it might produce. The option of abstaining from the act that creates babies when we feel like we'd be unable to care for a baby had been removed from the cultural lexicon. Even if it would be a huge crisis to get pregnant, you have a right to have sex anyway, the cultural wisdom whispered.

If this were true -- if it was indeed morally okay for people to have sex even when they felt that a baby would ruin their lives -- then, in my mind, abortion had to be okay.

Ideally, I would have taken an objective look at when human life begins and based my views on that alone...but the lie was too tempting. I didn't want to hear about heartbeats or souls or brain activity. Terminating pregnancies just had to be okay: Carrying a baby to term and becoming a parent is a huge deal, and society had made it very clear that sex is not a huge deal. As long as I accepted that for people to engage in sex in a contraceptive mentality was morally okay, I could not bring myself even to consider that abortion might not be okay. It seemed inhumane to make women deal with life-altering consequences for an act that was not supposed to have life-altering consequences.

So this idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should abstain if we're vehemently opposed to its life-giving potential, was a radical, new message. For me, being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and my mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.

The great temptation

All of these thoughts had been percolating in my brain for a while, and I found myself increasingly in agreement with pro-life positions. Then one night I was reading something, and a certain thought occurred to me. From that moment on I was officially, unapologetically pro-life.

I was reading yet another account of the Greek societies in which newborn babies were abandoned to die, wondering to myself how normal people could possibly accept something like that. Then, a chill tore through my body as I thought:

I know how they did it.

I realized in that moment that perfectly good, well-meaning people -- people like me -- can support gravely evil things through the power of lies. From my own experience, I knew how the Greeks, the Romans, and people in every other society could put themselves into a mental state that they could leave a newborn child to die: The very real pressures of life -- "we can’t afford another baby," "there's no dowry for another girl," "this disability would overwhelm us" -- left them susceptible to that oldest of temptations: To dehumanize other human beings. Though the circumstances were different, it was the same process that had happened with me, with the concurring Supreme Court Justices in Stenberg v. Carhart, the abortion doctors, the entire pro-choice movement, and anyone else who's ever been tempted to dehumanize inconvenient people.

I imagine that as those Greek parents handed over their infants for someone to take away, they remarked on how very unlike their other children these little creatures were: They can't talk, they can't sit up. Surely those little yawns and smiles are just involuntary spasms. I bet you anything they justified their choices by referring to these babies with words that stripped them of their human dignity. Maybe they called them something like "fetuses," and walked away confident that the lives that had been taken were not really human at all.

Jovem homossexual de 21 anos lidera "Mais gay sem matrimônio" na França

PARIS, 24 Jan. 13 / 12:49 pm (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- O jovem homossexual de 21 anos, Xavier Bongibault, é um dos líderes da grande coalizão que se formou para defender o autêntico matrimônio formado por um homem e uma mulher e assim opor-se ao projeto do presidente Francois Hollande para legalizar as uniões e a adoção de casais homossexuais.

Bongibault, assinala uma nota do jornal espanhol ABC, "converteu-se em um dos principais personagens do movimento contra as uniões homossexuais "que recentemente congregou a centenas de milhares de franceses em Paris".

Alguns dos organizadores chegaram a calcular perto de 1,3 milhões de pessoas que inundaram a capital francesa pedindo o respeito ao autêntico matrimônio formado por um homem e uma mulher.

Xavier Bongibault é o fundador da associação "Mais gay sem matrimônio" e aparece com frequência ao lado da dirigente do movimento "Manifa para todos" (a réplica do "matrimônio para todos" que propõe o governo socialista), Frigide Barjot.

Em suas declarações ao jornal Le Figaro, Bongibault assinala que "quando ouvi dizer que todos os homossexuais estavam a favor do projeto de lei, tomei a decisão de protestar".

Aos seus 21 anos, o estudante de Direito na Universidade de Paris 13, sublinha que "as crianças devem ser criadas por um pai e uma mãe. Os estudos demonstram que os que são educados por pais do mesmo sexo acabam tendo problemas psicológicos".

O jovem comenta também que é "muito altruísta" para ter um dia uma criança com seu casal homossexual.

"O filho não pode ser o objeto dos nossos delírios pessoais", conclui.

Bongibault participa da grande coalizão francesa que já saiu em duas ocasiões às ruas da França. A primeira, em novembro, reuniu a mais de 250 mil pessoas. E na de alguns dias atrás, em Paris, os mais de um milhão de participantes recordaram ao mundo que "não há nada melhor para uma criança que ter pai e mãe".

Nos milhares de cartazes dos participantes que estavam com camisetas e bolas de cor celeste, rosa e branco, podia-se ler também: "Os pais e as mães viemos às ruas e o matrimônio defendemos", "Todos nascemos de um homem e de uma mulher", "Nem progenitor A, nem progenitor B: Pai e Mãe!".

Estima-se que 200 mil pessoas chegaram a Paris em trem e ônibus desde diversas cidades para participar da marcha. Logo no início da manhã de segunda-feira muitas delas retornaram já a seus lugares de origem.

Um total de 34 instituições, entre associações de família, católicas, protestantes, muçulmanas, jurídicas, infantis, e inclusive algumas organizações de homossexuais convocaram à marcha que superou todas as expectativas.

Primera catequesis del Papa sobre el Credo

VATICANO, 23 Ene. 13 / 10:21 am (ACI).- Queridos hermanos y hermanas:

En este Año de la fe, hoy me gustaría empezar a reflexionar juntos sobre el Credo, la solemne profesión de fe que acompaña nuestras vidas como creyentes. El Credo comienza así: "Creo en Dios". Es una afirmación fundamental, aparentemente simple en su esencialidad, que sin embargo abre al mundo infinito de la relación con el Señor y con su misterio. Creer en Dios implica adhesión a Dios, acogida de su Palabra y obediencia gozosa a su revelación.

Como enseña el Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica: "La fe es un acto personal: la respuesta libre del hombre a la iniciativa de Dios que se revela" (n. 166). Poder decir que se cree en Dios es, por lo tanto, un don y un compromiso al mismo tiempo, es gracia divina y responsabilidad humana, en una experiencia de diálogo con Dios, que, por amor, "habla a los hombres como amigos" (Dei Verbum, 2), nos habla para que, en la fe y con la fe, podamos entrar en comunión con Él.

¿Dónde podemos escuchar a Dios que nos habla? Para ello es fundamental la Sagrada Escritura, en la que, la Palabra de Dios se hace audible para nosotros y nutre nuestra vida de "amigos" de Dios. Toda la Biblia narra la revelación de Dios a la humanidad, toda la Biblia habla de la fe y nos enseña la fe, narrando una historia en la que Dios lleva a cabo su plan de redención y se acerca a los hombres, a través de tantas figuras luminosas de personas que creen en Él y confían en Él, hasta la plenitud de la revelación en el Señor Jesús.

Es muy bello, a este respecto, el capítulo 11 de la Carta a los Hebreos –que acabamos de escuchar– que habla de la fe y hace relucir las grandes figuras bíblicas que han vivido la fe, llegando a ser modelo para todos los creyentes: "Ahora bien, la fe es la garantía de los bienes que se esperan, la plena certeza de las realidades que no se ven" (11,1), dice el primer versículo. Los ojos de la fe son, por lo tanto, capaces de ver lo invisible y el corazón del creyente puede esperar más allá de toda esperanza, al igual que Abraham, del que Pablo dice en la Carta a los Romanos que "creyó, esperando contra toda esperanza" (4,18).

Y precisamente sobre Abraham, me gustaría que detengamos nuestra atención, porque él es la primera gran figura de referencia para hablar acerca de la fe en Dios: el gran patriarca Abraham, modelo ejemplar, padre de todos los creyentes (cfr. Rom 4,11-12). 

La Carta a los Hebreos lo presenta así: "Por la fe, Abraham, obedeciendo al llamado de Dios, partió hacia el lugar que iba a recibir en herencia, sin saber a dónde iba. Por la fe, Abraham, obedeciendo al llamado de Dios, partió hacia el lugar que iba a recibir en herencia, sin saber a dónde iba. Por la fe, vivió como extranjero en la Tierra prometida, habitando en carpas, lo mismo que Isaac y Jacob, herederos con él de la misma promesa. Porque Abraham esperaba aquella ciudad de sólidos cimientos, cuyo arquitecto y constructor es Dios". (11, 8-10).

El autor de la Carta a los Hebreos se refiere aquí a la llamada de Abraham, narrada en el libro del Génesis ¿qué le pide Dios a este gran patriarca? Le pide que abandone su tierra para ir al país que le mostrará". El Señor dijo a Abram: «Deja tu tierra natal y la casa de tu padre, y ve al país que yo te mostraré" (Génesis 12, 1). ¿Cómo habríamos respondido nosotros a una invitación semejante? 

Se trata, en efecto, de un partir en la oscuridad, sin saber dónde lo conducirá Dios, es un camino que requiere una obediencia y una confianza radicales, a la que sólo la fe permite acceder. Pero la oscuridad de lo desconocido está iluminada por la luz de una promesa; Dios añade a su mando una palabra tranquilizadora, que le abre a Abraham un futuro de vida en toda su plenitud: "Yo haré de ti una gran nación y te bendeciré; engrandeceré tu nombre... y por ti se bendecirán todos los pueblos de la tierra" (Gen 12,2.3).

La bendición, en la Sagrada Escritura, se enlaza principalmente con el don de la vida que viene de Dios y se manifiesta ante todo en la fertilidad, en una vida que se multiplica, pasando de generación en generación. Asimismo, la bendición está relacionada también con la experiencia de poseer una tierra, un lugar estable para vivir y crecer en libertad y seguridad, temiendo a Dios y construyendo una sociedad de hombres fieles a la Alianza, "un reino de sacerdotes y una nación santa" (cfr. Ex 19,6).

Por lo tanto, Abraham, en el diseño de Dios, está destinado a llegar a ser el "padre de una multitud de naciones" (Gn 17,5; cfr. Rom 4, 17-18) y a entrar en una nueva tierra donde vivir. Y, sin embargo, Sara, su esposa, es estéril, no puede tener hijos, el país al que Dios lo conduce está lejos de su tierra natal, ya está habitado por otros pueblos y nunca le pertenecerá verdaderamente. 

El narrador bíblico hace hincapié en esto, aunque muy discretamente: cuando Abraham llegó al lugar de la promesa de Dios: " los cananeos ocupaban el país " (Gen 12:6). La tierra que Dios le dona a Abraham no le pertenece, él es un extranjero y lo seguirá siendo para siempre, con todo lo que ello conlleva: no tener intenciones de posesión, sentir siempre la propia pobreza, verlo todo como un don. Ésta es también la condición espiritual de quien acepta seguir al Señor, de quien decide partir aceptando su llamada, bajo el signo de su bendición invisible pero poderosa.

Y Abraham, el "padre de los creyentes", acepta esta llamada, en la fe. San Pablo escribe en la carta a los Romanos: "Esperando contra toda esperanza, Abraham creyó y llegó a ser padre de muchas naciones, como se le había anunciado: Así será tu descendencia. Su fe no flaqueó, al considerar que su cuerpo estaba como muerto –tenía casi cien años– y que también lo estaba el seno de Sara. El no dudó de la promesa de Dios, por falta de fe, sino al contrario, fortalecido por esa fe, glorificó a Dios, plenamente convencido de que Dios tiene poder para cumplir lo que promete".(Rm 4,18-21).

La fe conduce a Abraham a seguir un camino paradójico. Él será bendecido, pero sin los signos visibles de la bendición: recibe la promesa de formar un gran pueblo, pero con una vida marcada por la esterilidad de Sara, su esposa; es llevado a una nueva patria, pero tendrá que vivir como un extranjero; y la única posesión de la tierra que se le permitirá será el de una parcela de terreno para enterrar a Sara (cf. Gn 23,1 a 20).

Abraham fue bendecido porque, en la fe, supo discernir la bendición divina yendo más allá de las apariencias, confiando en la presencia de Dios, incluso cuando sus caminos se le muestran misteriosos.

¿Qué significa esto para nosotros? Cuando decimos: "Yo creo en Dios", decimos, como Abraham: "Confío en ti, me confío a ti, Señor", pero no como a Alguien a quien se acude sólo en los momentos de dificultad o al que dedicar algún momento del día o de la semana. Decir "Yo creo en Dios" significa fundar en Él mi vida, dejar que su Palabra la oriente cada día, en las opciones concretas sin temor de perder algo de mí mismo. 

Cuando, en el rito del Bautismo, se pide tres veces: "¿Creéis? en Dios, en Jesucristo, en el Espíritu Santo, en la Santa Iglesia Católica y las demás verdades de la fe, la triple respuesta es en singular: "Yo creo", porque es mi existencia personal la que va a recibir un viraje con el don de la fe, es mi vida la que debe cambiar, convertirse. Cada vez que participamos en un Bautismo, debemos preguntarnos cómo vivimos cada día el gran don de la fe.

Abraham, el creyente, nos enseña la fe; y, como un extranjero en la tierra, nos muestra la verdadera patria. La fe nos hace peregrinos en la tierra, dentro del mundo y de la historia, pero en camino hacia la patria celestial.

Creer en Dios nos hace, pues, portadores de valores que a menudo no coinciden con la moda y la opinión del momento, nos pide adoptar criterios y asumir conductas que no pertenecen a la manera común de pensar. El cristiano no debe tener miedo de ir "contra corriente" para vivir su propia fe, resistiendo a la tentación de "adecuarse". 

En muchas de nuestras sociedades, Dios se ha convertido en el "gran ausente" y en su lugar hay muchos ídolos, en primer lugar el "yo" autónomo. Y también los significativos y positivos progresos de la ciencia y de la tecnología han llevado al hombre a una ilusión de omnipotencia y de autosuficiencia, y un creciente egoísmo ha creado muchos desequilibrios en las relaciones y el comportamiento social.

Y, sin embargo, la sed de Dios (cf. Sal 63,2) no se extinguió y el mensaje del Evangelio sigue resonando a través de las palabras y los hechos de muchos hombres y mujeres de fe. Abraham, el padre de los creyentes, sigue siendo el padre de muchos hijos que están dispuestos a seguir sus pasos y se ponen en camino, en obediencia a la llamada divina, confiando en la presencia benevolente del Señor y acogiendo su bendición para ser una bendición para todos. 

Es el mundo bendecido por la fe al que todos estamos llamados, para caminar sin miedo siguiendo al Señor Jesucristo. Y a veces es un camino, que conoce incluso, la prueba de la muerte, pero que está abierto a la vida, en una transformación radical de la realidad que sólo los ojos de la fe pueden ver y disfrutar en abundancia.

Afirmar "yo creo en Dios" nos conduce, pues, a ponernos en camino, a salir de nosotros mismos continuamente, al igual que Abraham, para llevar, en la realidad cotidiana en que vivimos, la certeza que viene de la fe: la certeza, es decir, la presencia de Dios en la historia, también hoy; una presencia que da vida y salvación, y nos abre a un futuro con Él para una plenitud de vida que nunca conocerá el ocaso.

Europeus Lançam Iniciativa para Deter Financiamento do Aborto - by Wendy Wright

NOVA IORQUE, EUA, 25 de janeiro (C-FAM) Uma vitória dos ambientalistas no tribunal europeu inspirou uma campanha no continente europeu inteiro para acabar com o financiamento da União Europeia ao aborto e às pesquisas que destroem embriões.

A campanha "Um de Nós" lançada neste mês por líderes em vinte países europeus pede que a União Europeia pare iniciativas de financiamento que destroem a vida antes do nascimento, inclusive grupos que realizam abortos nos países em desenvolvimento. Leia mais

40 Years of the Culture of Death: A Pastoral Letter on the Occasion of the Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade - by Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila

In AD 

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

 I went to college in 1968 with the idea of becoming a doctor, like my father. College campuses in the late ‘60’s and throughout the 70’s were places of turmoil. I didn’t practice my faith much in the first three years of college and I certainly never imagined that the Lord would one day make me a bishop.
I spent my first three years of college working as a hospital orderly and assisting in the emergency room, at a university student health center and in a hospital in California during summer break.  

When I began the job, I hadn’t thought much about human suffering, or about human dignity.

But during my employment in hospitals, something changed. At that time, some states had approved abortion laws that I wasn’t even aware of. Because of those laws, when I was in college I witnessed the results of two abortions.

The first was in a surgical unit. I walked into an outer room and in the sink, unattended, was the body of small unborn child who had been aborted. I remember being stunned. I remember thinking that I had to baptize that child.

The second abortion was more shocking. A young woman came into the emergency room screaming. She explained that she had had an abortion already. When the doctor sent her home, he told her she would pass the remains naturally. She was bleeding as the doctor, her boyfriend, the nurse and I placed her on a table.

I held a basin as the doctor retrieved a tiny arm, a tiny leg and then the rest of the broken body of a tiny unborn child. I was shocked. I was saddened for the mother and child, for the doctor and the nurse. None of us would have participated in such a thing were it not an emergency. I witnessed a tiny human being destroyed by violence.

The memory haunts me. I will never forget that I stood witness to acts of unspeakable brutality. In the abortions I witnessed, powerful people made decisions that ended the lives of small, powerless, children. Through lies and manipulation, children were seen as objects. Women and families were convinced that ending a life would be painless, and forgettable. Experts made seemingly convincing arguments that the unborn were not people at all, that they could not feel pain, and were better off dead.

I witnessed the death of two small people who never had the chance to take a breath. I can never forget that. And I have never been the same. My faith was weak at the time. But I knew by reason, and by what I saw, that a human life was destroyed. My conscience awakened to the truth of the dignity of the human being from the moment of conception. I became pro-life and eventually returned to my faith.

I learned what human dignity was when I saw it callously disregarded. I know, without a doubt, that abortion is a violent act of murder and exploitation. And I know that our responsibility is to work and pray without ceasing for its end.
 
Repentance, Prayer, Renewal
At each Mass, before we receive the Eucharist, the Church instructs us to consider and confess our sinfulness. When we pray the Confiteor at Mass we proclaim the sins of “what I have done, and what I have failed to do.”

We ask the Lord for mercy. We ask one another for prayers.
At the Penitential Act, we recognize the times we have chosen sinfulness, and also the times we have chosen to do nothing in the face of the evil of this world. Our sins of omission permit evil. They permit injustice. At the Penitential Act, I sometimes think about the abortions I witnessed and my heart still experiences sadness. I beg forgiveness for the doctors, nurses, politicians, and others who so ardently support abortion and pray for their conversion.

Today we recognize the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade—we recognize 40 years of sanctioned killing in our nation. Today we recognize the impact of those 40 years. Tolerating abortion for 40 years has coarsened us. We’ve learned to see people as problems and objects. In the four decades since Roe vs. Wade, our nation has found new ways to weaken the family, to marginalize the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill—we’ve found new ways to exploit and abuse.
Today we must recognize that 40 years of sanctioned killing has given the culture of death a firm footing and foundation in our nation.

We must also recognize our sinfulness. When we survey the damage abortion has caused in our culture, we must repent for our sins of omission. We Christians bear some responsibility for our national shame. Some of us have supported pro-choice positions. Many of us have failed to change minds or win hearts. We’ve failed to convince the culture that all life has dignity. In the prospect of unspeakable evil, we’ve done too little, for too long, with tragic results.

Today is a day to repent. But with repentance comes resolve to start anew. The 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is a day to commit to a culture of life. Today the Lord is calling us to stand up.

When I worked in hospitals in college, I didn’t know or understand what the Church taught about human life. I learned by experience that a human life is destroyed in every abortion. But I was unprepared to defend life—unprepared to even see real human dignity, let alone proclaim it. I pray that none of you, dear brothers and sisters, will ever find yourselves in the position I was in so many years ago. I pray that you are prepared to defend the truth about human life.

Life is a Gift From God
The Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life is clear. “Human life” states the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”[1]

The inviolable right to life is taught in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and witnessed to in natural moral law. The Church believes that life is a God-given right, and a gift. Our very being is an expression of the love God has for us—the Lord literally loves us into existence, and his love speaks to the worth of the human person. We take the gift of life seriously because each human being is a unique creation of God the Father.

At the moment of conception we receive the gift of life, and lay claim to the right of life. “Before I formed you in the womb,” says the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, “I knew you. Before you were born, I consecrated you.”[2]

Human dignity begins with the divine gift of life. But our dignity is enriched because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, chose to live among us as a human being. Because of the Incarnation, all humans can share not only human dignity, but divine dignity. Our human life allows us to share in God’s own life—to share the inner life of the Trinity. “Life is sacred” the Church teaches, “because… it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.”[3]

The dignity and sacredness of human life have very clear moral implications: innocent human life is absolutely inviolable. “The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being,” teaches the Church, “is always gravely immoral.”[4]

“It makes no difference,” Blessed John Paul II taught in 1993, “whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal”[5]. The Church unequivocally condemns abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive experimentation, and the targeting of civilians in war.

The Church takes human dignity so seriously that she even teaches that in all but “cases of absolute necessity” capital punishment is immoral.[6]

Unjust killing is a rejection of the gift of God.
 
Abortion is always wrong
This letter wishes to reflect particularly on the Church’s teaching regarding abortion.

In 1974, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reflected that “in the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine,” namely that abortion is an “objectively grave fault.”[7] In 1972, Pope Paul VI declared that “this doctrine has not changed and is unchangeable.”[8]

Today many Catholics seem to believe that while abortion is unfortunate, it is not always a moral evil. Secular arguments to justify abortion abound. New life often represents difficulty. When pregnancy seems to threaten health or life, or poverty, or when a child may be born with grave disabilities, abortion is often the secular solution.

But, as the Holy See noted in 1974, “none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute… to choose in the child's name, life or death…Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.”[9]

Though abortion is never a justifiable action, the response of the Church to women who have undergone abortions should be one of compassion, of solidarity, and of mercy. Abortion is a sinful act, and a tragedy. The fathers and mothers of aborted children are beloved by God, and in need of the mercy and healing of Jesus Christ. Programs like Project Rachel exist to help women who have had abortions encounter the merciful and forgiving love of God, our Father.

Just Law Protects All Life
Because life is a fundamental value, we have a duty to proclaim its goodness, and its dignity. We also have a duty to protect it in law. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith observed in 1987 that “the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the State: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his or her origin.”[10]

Clearly, just laws should respect the dignity of the unborn, and their right to life. Laws which fail to do so should be defeated. And it is the vocation of all Catholics, most especially lay Catholics, to work to change unjust laws which allow for the destruction of human life. The Second Vatican Council decreed that “since laity are tightly bound up in all types of temporal affairs, it is their special task to order and to throw light upon these affairs in such a way that they may come into being and then continually increase according to Christ to the praise of the Creator and the Redeemer.”[11]
Despite the clear teaching of the Church, many Catholics, and especially Catholic politicians, maintain that their personal opposition to abortion should not affect their participation in civic life. These arguments are unreasonable, and disingenuous. No one, especially a person in public office, is exempt from the duty to defend the common good. And the first and indispensable condition for the common good is respect for the right to life. Our Declaration of Independence begins with an argument that all men should protect the inalienable rights granted them by God—among them, the right to life.

At the basis of arguments which recognize abortion’s immorality, but support its legal protection, is relativism, and cowardice: a refusal to stand for basic and fundamental truth. Law does nothing more important than protect the right to life.

The fathers of the Second Vatican Council reminded Catholics, “Nor,…are they [the faithful] any less wide of the mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age. …Therefore, let there be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life on the other. The Christian who neglects his temporal duties, neglects his duties toward his neighbor and even God, and jeopardizes his eternal salvation”[12]

This statement resonates even more true today, as many Catholics have withdrawn their faith from the world and public square.  

In 1987, Blessed John Paul II said to Americans that “every human person -- no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter how young or how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped or sick, no matter how useful or productive for society -- is a being of inestimable worth, created in the image and likeness of God. This is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition for her survival -- yes the ultimate test of her greatness -- to respect every human person, especially the weakest and the most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.” [13]

The legacy of America is respect for human dignity—most especially respect for the innocent, vulnerable, and marginalized.

Catholic political leaders who claim that they can separate the truths of faith from their political lives are choosing to separate themselves from truth, from Christ, and from the communion of the Catholic Church.

On the contrary, Catholic political leaders who truly understand the teachings of the Church and who use their creativity and initiative to develop new and creative ways to end the legal protection for abortion deserve the praise and support of the Church, and of the lay faithful. All of us must put our energy and effort into ending the legal protection for abortion. It is, and must be, the primary political objective of American Catholics—it is difficult to imagine any political issue with the same significance as the sanctioned killing of children.

Building a Culture of Life
Protecting life is our duty as Catholics, and ending legal protection for abortion is imperative. 40 years have passed and still we have not found a successful strategy to end the legally protected killing of the unborn. But we have also failed to win public opinion. Polling today suggests that 63% of Americans support legal protection for abortion.[14] This is where change must begin.

Although we must continue legal efforts, we must also recognize that law follows culture—when we live in a culture which respects the dignity of all human life, we will easily pass laws which do the same.

Our task, said Blessed John Paul II in 1995, is “to love and honor the life of every man and woman and to work with perseverance and courage so that our time, marked by all too many signs of death, may at last witness the establishment of a new culture of life, the fruit of the culture of truth and of love.”[15]

A culture of life, quite simply, is one which joyfully receives and celebrates the divine gift of life. A culture of life recognizes human dignity not as an academic or theological concept, but as an animating principle—as a measure of the activity of the family and the community. A culture of life supports most especially the life of the family. It supports and celebrates the dignity of the disabled, the unborn, and the aged. A culture of life seeks to live in gratitude for the gift of life God has given us.

If we want to build a culture of life, we need to begin with charity. Social charity, or solidarity, is the hallmark of a culture of life and a civilization of love. It allows us to see one another through the eyes of God, and therefore to see the unique and personal worth of one another. Charity allows us to treat one another with justice not because of our obligations, but because of our desire to love as God loves.
This charity must begin in the family. Our families are the first place where those who are marginalized, and whose dignity is forgotten, can be supported. To build a culture of life we must commit to strengthening our own families, and to supporting the families of our community. Strong families beget the strong ties which allow us to love those most in danger of being lost to the culture of death.

The charity of the culture of life also supports works of mercy, apostolates of social justice and support. Families impacted by the culture of death are often broken.

Supporting adoption, marriage, responsible programs of social welfare and healthcare, and responsible immigration policy all speak to a culture which embraces and supports the dignity of life.

A true culture of life is infectious. The joy which comes from living in gratitude for the gift of life—and treating all life as gift—effects change. When Christians begin to live with real regard for human dignity, our nation will awaken to the tragedy of abortion, and she will begin to change.

Finally, dear brothers and sisters, I wish to remind you of the power of prayer. Our prayer and sacrifice for an end to abortion, united with Christ on the cross, will transform hearts and renew minds. In prayer we entrust our nation to Jesus Christ. In doing so, we can be assured of his victory.
Today I ask you to join me in a new resolve to build a culture which sees with the eyes of God—which sees the dignity of the unborn, of women and men, of the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled.

Our forefathers saw with the eyes of God when they recognized in the Declaration of Independence that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, to join me in building a culture of life which ends the brutal killing of the unborn—the smallest and least among us. There is no greater task we can undertake. I pray that the words of Scripture may burn within our hearts, “You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise you, because I am wonderfully made; wonderful are your works!”[16]
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, STL
Archbishop of Denver

---

[1] CCC 2270

[2] Jeremiah 1:5

[3] CCC 2278

[4] Evangelium Vitae, 57.

[5] Veritatis Splendor, 97

[6] Evangelium Vitae, 56

[7] Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, 1974.

[8] "Salutiamo con paterna effusione," December 9, 1972, AAS 64 (1972), p. 737.

[9] Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, 1974.

[10] Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation., Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, 1987.

[11] Lumen Gentium, 31.

[12] Gaudium et Spes, 43.

[13] John Paul II, Farewell Ceremony, Apostolic Visit to the United States and Canada, September 19, 1987

[14] Roe v. Wade at 40: Most Oppose Overturning Abortion Decision, Pew Research Center, 2013

[15] Evangelium Vitae, 77.

[16] Psalm 139: 13-14