sábado, 18 de maio de 2013

O novo Patriarca de Lisboa - por Nuno Serras Pereira

18. 05. 2013


A Nunciatura Apostólica tornou hoje pública a nomeação do Senhor D. Manuel Clemente como sucessor na Diocese de Lisboa do Senhor Cardeal Patriarca D. José da Cruz Policarpo. No entanto, desde ontem, por desrespeito do embargo, já se conhecia a notícia e logo se levantou um extenso e colorido coro de loas ao novo Bispo da capital. Todos lhe lisonjeiam a inteligência brilhante, a enorme erudição, a extraordinária simpatia, o tacto invulgar para o diálogo, a ingente capacidade de suscitar união. Não serei eu que lhe negarei o reconhecimento nem a gratidão ao Altíssimo por estes talentos que aprouve conceder ao Senhor D. Manuel Clemente. Porém, não posso deixar de lembrar que o Diabo também os possui, e num grau muitíssimo mais elevado e refinado – sim, o da união também, basta ver como conseguiu congregar a todos na construção da torre de babel. Pelo que muitos destes louvores poderão não passar de excrescências vãs e mundanas.


O que importa saber é se D. Manuel Clemente coloca todos esses talentos ao serviço d’ Aquele que veio para ser sinal de contradição, e assim reunir as ovelhas dispersas da casa de Israel, d’ Aquele que foi aclamado mas também ultrajado, que regozijou de alegria mas também suou sangue, que absolutamente inocente foi tido por criminoso, torturado, injustamente julgado e crucificado; entregando-Se pela Salvação de todos.


Quanto a mim, não tenho dúvidas que o Senhor D. Manuel é um varão episcopal fascinado por Jesus Cristo, dotado de um grande ardor apostólico, de salvação das almas, homem de muita oração, de confissão sacramental frequente, de grande caridade para com os pobres, quer materiais quer espirituais, e muito solícito pela justiça social. 


É verdade que num texto recente manifestei as minhas reservas quanto a uma sua possível nomeação para a missão que agora lhe foi confiada. Mas uma vez que o Santo Padre, o Papa Francisco, um grande homem de Deus, assim o determinou a nossa resposta só pode ser a de total acolhimento, de obediência e reverência, e inteira disponibilidade para o que ele entender, se o entender, para o que de nós quiser.

sexta-feira, 17 de maio de 2013

Quando Satanás domina os partidos do poder - por Nuno Serras Pereira

17. 05. 2013


A votação de hoje na assembleia da república que aprovou a “co-adopção” por parte de sodomitas sofregamente sobrepostos, macaqueando, em frenesins lascivos e invertidos, o casamento, é, para quem ainda tivesse dúvidas, a prova definitiva da entrega, ou “consagração”, de todos os partidos do parlamento, a Lúcifer.


A fuga cobarde e hipócrita de deputados do psd do hemiciclo, a hedionda votação favorável de 16 deles, a dolosa abstenção de três, que se somaram a outros tantos fingidos do cds, indica clarissimamente a cumplicidade activa destes dois partidos no resultado ignóbil da votação. Já o facto, de não terem posição enquanto partidos e de concederem “liberdade” de voto em mais uma questão inegociável e essencial para o Bem-comum, meta de toda a acção política, revelava claramente a infame cooperação com o mal que se preparava.


Sejamos cristalinos: Não só é totalmente impossível estar de bem com Deus e com o Diabo; mas também o é estar de bem com o valor transcendente da pessoa humana (e, ainda, com os bens da sociedade e da nação) e com o Maligno. Pelo que concluo que actualmente não existe nenhum partido político com assento parlamentar no qual um cristão possa votar ou com o qual possa cooperar. Quando a circunstância que nos é imposta nos quer forçar a escolher entre Mao Tsé-Tung e Estaline a única resposta legítima é a insurreição evangélica (o que se tem passado em França é um exemplo a considerar atentamente). A continuarmos nas estratégias de colaboração com alguns partidos, em nome do mal menor, temos vindo a escavar alegremente a vala comum, à beira da qual seremos eliminados e na qual seremos sepultados, caso não cessemos, de imediato, essas cretinices.


Há outros partidos políticos marginais, do ponto de vista eleitoral, que sendo aceitáveis para um cristão, infelizmente, não têm, geralmente falando, quadros credíveis e/ou suficientes para uma alternativa. Pelo que me parece absolutamente devido e urgente que os cristãos e demais homens de boa vontade, abandonando o vómito asqueroso em que estão mergulhados, se unam para constituir uma nova realidade. É um dever grave que se impõe, não só para a salvação das próprias almas, mas também para impedir que se continue a alargar o número de vítimas inocentes.


Sei que prelados, que chegaram a fazer por escrito profissões de “fé” nesta falsa democracia e nas suas instituições, e outros presbíteros vos dirão o contrário do que aqui digo. Estou consciente de que iluminados eclesiais, autênticos deuses dos modernos “fiéis” idólatras, ignorarão, descartarão ou ridicularizarão o que escrevo. Não tenho também dúvidas de que, como habitualmente, muitos se indignarão e enraivecerão, não contra mais esta abominação da política nacional, como seria de esperar, mas contra o “tom” do que aqui estampo.


Entretanto a RR, sempre solícita em participar, subtil ou descaradamente, nas campanhas contra os absolutos morais e os princípios inegociáveis, continua, nos seus noticiários, a cavilosamente chamar casais (sic) à perversa ficção jurídica do aberrante ajuntamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo. Pelo que é de esperar que a partir de agora chame família aos “casais” que têm filhos adoptados. E quando a assembleia da república legislar que a terra é quadrada, que as árvores são pastéis de nata, que os pedregulhos são manteiga, que os excrementos são alimentos saudáveis e recomendáveis, logo a RR, zelosa e diligentemente, se submeterá a esse nominalismo surrealista; porque não interessa o que as coisas são, porque elas são aquilo que delas dissermos: a nomeação que decidimos dar às coisas é uma varinha mágica que cria a sua realidade – e quem contradisser estas coisas é um perigosíssimo fundamentalista, ortodoxo raivoso, extremista barbudo, intolerante fanático, enfim é eu.


S. João Maria Vianney costumava dizer a muitos dos seus penitentes: podereis ir a outro confessor, há os muitos, que vos diga o contrário, mas eu não vos aconselho a que o façais. O mesmo digo eu, apesar de ser pecador.


À honra de Cristo. Ámen.

quinta-feira, 16 de maio de 2013

La movilización contra el «matrimonio» gay arrastra a los líderes de la derecha en Francia: La UMP de Copé, forzada a reaccionar

In RL

No hay mal que por bien no venga: pese a la derrota legislativa, ya nada será igual en la derecha sociológica tras siete meses de intensa oposición social al proyecto de "matrimonio’ gay" una de las promesas electorales más señeras del entonces candidato -y hoy presidente de la República- François Hollande, que, en este caso, ha cumplido fielmente.

Vingt-Trois, primer aviso
Curiosamente, pese a la claridad de ideas y a la rapidez exhibida por el Gobierno socialista -tomó posesión en junio de 2012 y el mes siguiente ya anunciaba su intención de permitir el "matrimonio" entre personas del mismo sexo-, los opositores al proyecto tardaron, en un primer momento, en reaccionar: el primer toque de atención procedió del cardenal André Vingt-Trois, arzobispo de París y presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal, quien, en su homilía del 15 de agosto, invitó a los fieles a orar al tiempo que denunciaba -con palabras suaves- los peligros del proyecto.

Vingt-Trois, sin embargo, se limitó a cumplir con su deber pastoral porque era lo suficientemente inteligente para saber que el protagonismo correspondía a los laicos y tenía que traspasar los límites del mundillo católico, le “milieu catho”, como dicen allí, para congregar a gente de cualquier procedencia sinceramente comprometida a favor del verdadero matrimonio. Y así ha resultado ser.

Escada: arranca la lucha
Sin embargo, el pistoletazo correspondió al católico tradicionalista Alain Escada, de nacionalidad belga y presidente del Instituto Civitas: convocó las primeras manifestaciones y fue quien empezó a sensibilizar a los alcaldes, sobre todo los de municipios rurales.

La clave: Manif pour Tous
Durante algunas semanas, Escada predicó prácticamente en el desierto durante algunas semanas. Pero no estuvo mucho tiempo solo –acabó perdiendo visibilidad mediática- porque para mediados de octubre ya se había configurado el movimiento que se ha ido articulando en torno a La Manif pour tous [La Manifestación para todos].

Un nombre para contrarrestar al Mariage pour tous –el Matrimonio para todos-, que así llamaron a su causa los partidarios de casar a personas del mismo sexo. Era la primera señal –pero no la última- de que los oponentes estaban dispuestos a librar batalla.

En Francia, en la últimas décadas, cuando un Gobierno decide promover leyes o proyectos muy ideológicos que dividen a la opinión pública, los oponentes suelen tomar las calles, en general con éxito: en 1984, un millón de personas en las calles de París logró que el Gobierno socialista de entonces renunciase a su proyecto de “gran servicio público laico y unificado” que hubiese acabado con la enseñanza privada; diez años después, los laicos causaron un fuerte desgaste al Gobierno de centro derecha de Édouard Balladur y le obligaron a renunciar a una modificación de la ley que, según ellos, beneficiaba a los colegios privados.

Así las cosas, no es de extrañar que los promotores de la Manif pour tous optaran por la calle. Pero, ya antes, la presión surtió un –pequeño- efecto de calendario al conseguir retrasar tres semanas –desde mediados de octubre a principios de noviembre- la presentación del proyecto en el Consejo de Ministros.

La explosión
Pero lo importante ocurrió el 17 de noviembre, día de las primeras manifestaciones importantes, que tuvieron lugar en París y en distintas ciudades de provincias: más de medio millón de personas. Buen preludio para la “macromanifa” del 13 de enero, que reunió a más de personas y que culminó en el Campo de Marte; aunque según las autoridades, fueron apenas la mitad.

Más allá de las cifras, esta manifestación significó la eclosión de una nueva tendencia en Francia: la de unos ciudadanos armados de valores dispuestos a defenderlos y a no sacrificarlos en aras de las conveniencias políticas del momento.

Hasta entonces, en Francia, la defensa de la visión integral del hombre –vida, familia…- descansaba en un puñado de asociaciones –la mayor parte católicas- cuyo mérito nadie discutía pero cuya capacidad de movilización era ínfima: baste decir que durante años la tradicional Marcha por la Vida de finales de enero apenas reunía a 5.000 personas; el grueso de los políticos –con alguna que otra excepción– la ignoraba olímpicamente.

Los políticos, obligados a reaccionar
Ahora es al revés: la mayor victoria estratégica -en clave política- del movimiento opositor ha consistido en obligar a la Unión por un Movimiento Popular (UMP), la principal formación de centro derecha, a pronunciarse mayoritariamente en contra del ‘matrimonio’ gay y –por lo menos- a cuestionarlo si vuelve al poder en 2017: hasta entonces era casi inimaginable ver a su presidente Jean-François Copé, participar en manifestaciones en defensa de valores; no era lo suyo.

Las manifestaciones le han cambiado: tiempo le ha faltado para presentar un recurso de inconstitucionalidad una vez se ha aprobado la ley. ¿Quién hubiera dicho hace unos meses que la UMP iría a remolque de las asociaciones? Los mismo cabe decir en relación con la penetración de elites: ¿quién hubiera dicho hace unos meses que 82 enarcas –agrupados en el Colectivo Camabacerès- hiciesen un llamamiento solemne a Hollande para que renuncie al proyecto? ¿O que un alcalde –Philippe Brillault- haya interpuesto un segundo recurso ante el Consejo Constitucional para defender su libertad de conciencia –y la de sus colegas- para no tener que celebrar ese tipo de ‘matrimonios’?

La independencia política se mantiene...
Todo esto, no obstante, no significa que los opositores vayan a amoldarse en el sistema y vayan a convertirse en soldados de plomo de la UMP o del Frente Nacional. Antes al contrario: su presión sobre esos partidos, a partir de ahora, va a ser constante y no descartan presentar candidatos allá donde los candidatos de la derecha –de toda la derecha- sean tibios.

...y la prensa acude
Ya nada será lo mismo en la derecha francesa: este miércoles, los líderes de la Manif pour Tous ofrecieron un rueda de prensa en el Campo de Marte para presentar sus reivindicaciones de futuro. Todos los medios estaban presentes para escuchar, entre otros, a Frigide Barjot, actriz que no sólo ha sido la musa del movimiento sino que se ha convertido en una líder de opinión a lo largo y ancho de Francia; Philippe Ariño, profesor de español y homosexual confeso, que optó por la castidad hace unos años y quien, de gira permanente por todo el país, es el símbolo de la falta de complejos; o Béatrice Bourges, presidenta de la Primavera Francesa, quien sin pelos en la lengua representa la voz tradicional del asociacionismo católico galo. 

Babel, Pentecostes, a Europa e a crise - Improvisos, por Frei Nuno Allen


quarta-feira, 15 de maio de 2013

Pope Francis and the Liturgy - by Alejandro Bermudez

In NCR

No genius is needed to figure out that Pope Francis is not a liturgist the way Pope Benedict was.

But the fear that Francis’ papacy may mark the “end of the reform of the reform” of the liturgical changes that were introduced after the Second Vatican Council is, frankly, unfounded.

Let me present the evidence.

Although his liturgical gestures as pope have not amounted to much so far, his ministry in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires convincingly shows his mindset on the liturgy.

In Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Bergoglio did not express significant interest in the extraordinary form of the rite. However, he put up no resistance to it either. Following Summorum Pontificum, he made the traditional Mass readily available. In fact, Buenos Aires is probably the Latin-American city with the largest number of Masses celebrated in the extraordinary form.

His lack of major interest was not hostility or indifference. Instead, he was concentrating on a far more daunting task: making sure that all of the faithful in his archdiocese had access to a decent Mass.

Let me explain. In Latin America, beside the beautifully and carefully celebrated Masses associated with the major popular devotions, liturgical abuses are still alive and constitute a massive problem in the region.

It is not a situation of omitting or changing the rubrics here and there. The liturgical problems are much more serious. They consist of events like priests “concelebrating” the Mass with the youth at the rhythm of tropical songs in Colombia; “consecrating” cakes with Guayaba marmalade in Venezuela; a “reggae” Mass in Panama; or a priest celebrating with vestments portraying Batman and Robin while squirting holy water with a green-and-red water pistol in Mexico.

This is no exaggeration. Such abuses are happening now.
Cardinal Bergoglio’s efforts for reform in Buenos Aires were not exclusively aimed at the liturgy. He sought to change priestly and sacramental life in general.

One of the most important and successful transformations in the archdiocese, with a significant impact on liturgy, was the cardinal’s approach to the “villero” priests.

Villa miseria” (miserable town) is the name Argentineans give to shanty towns in major cities. The villero priests were those who dedicated their pastoral ministry to work in these impoverished, usually very violent urban environments.

Although full of pastoral zeal, most of them were identified with Latin America’s theology of liberation, which incorporated Marxist ideas into Christianity as an indispensable means of understanding and dealing with social injustice. And, in general, they had a rebellious attitude towards authority, liturgical rubrics included.

In an interview for a book I recently finished about Pope Francis and his fellow Argentinian Jesuits, Jesuit Father Ignacio Perez del Viso, who taught Jorge Bergoglio as a seminarian, explained that, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he completely changed the dynamics of the priests and the shanty towns they served.

Father Ignacio explained, “In the ’70s, most bishops would be in constant tension with the villero priests, and, every now and then, one of them would be suddenly transferred or removed altogether.”

“By the ’90s, bishops would tolerate them … but Bergoglio, from the moment he became auxiliary [bishop] in Buenos Aires, changed all that,” he said.

The difference was that Cardinal Bergoglio embraced the priests and their ministry. He would visit them in the shanty towns, send them to rest if they were tired and replace them himself at their parish for a few days. He would personally take care of them if they were in bed sick — essentially, he looked after their particular needs.

The only time he removed a villero priest from a shanty town was to protect him from a local drug lord who sent death threats.

And with the same fatherly solicitude that he used to care for his priests, the archbishop requested that they return to wearing clerics; refrain from using “batata” (an Argentinean sweet potato) instead of unleavened bread to celebrate Mass; and use songs from Catholic songbooks rather than political or secular songs.

Most often, he used persuasion with his pastors to transform the liturgical abuses in Buenos Aires, but also, in the words of a fellow Jesuit, “he never flinched when tough measures were required.”

With the process of secularization and stiffer selection criteria applied to priestly vocations, the number of seminarians dropped during Cardinal Bergoglio’s years as archbishop. But friends and foes agree that the quality of the celebration and preaching dramatically improved in the archdiocese.

I can personally attest that a Catholic’s chances to attend a well celebrated Novus Ordo Mass, with an edifying homily, anywhere in the city on any given day, are very, very high. As someone who travels Latin America and the U.S. on a regular basis, I can attest that very few other major urban areas, if any, can provide a similar rate.

Rich, traditional liturgical gestures at Mass are highly edifying. I have the blessing of living in an archdiocese led by an archbishop who is an expert in the theology of the  liturgy, and I attend a parish with similar treasures.

But the number of Catholics who live under the liturgical tyranny of well-meaning priests who believe that the Mass is theirs and not the Lord’s is way too high in the U.S., in Latin America and around the world.

Returning to the faithful the right to attend a Mass that more fully transmits the experience of actually being the summit of Christian life is still a pending revolution, in many regions.

Pope Francis’ vision of the liturgy as a crucial part of personal conversion, as well as his pastoral experience in Buenos Aires, should be a source for hope rather than suspicion.

This task is Herculean, but let’s just give him time.

Alejandro Bermudez is the translator of On Heaven and Earth,
a dialogue between Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and Rabbi Abraham Skorka (Image Books, 2013).


El fundador de «Ginecólogos Católicos» conoce el otro lado: él también fue doctor abortista

In RL 

Al principio fue Bernard Nathanson. Hablamos del famoso ginecólogo estadounidense que durante su época de trabajo activo coleccionó más de 75.000 abortos, hasta que se dio cuenta de lo que significaba la «humanidad» del feto y realizó un auténtico camino de conversión que le llevó a escribir «La mano de Dios». Desde ese momento, su trabajo se convirtió en una lucha por completo a favor de la vida incipiente.

Pero «la mano de Dios» continúa trabajando en todos los continentes, y también Italia tiene su propio Nathanson: es el doctor Antonio Oriente. También él, como Nathanson, vivía su cotidianeidad practicando abortos rutinariamente y hoy, sin embargo, es fundador y vicepresidente de la Asociación Italiana de Ginecólogos y Obstetras Católicos. Un cambio radical que él explicó recientemente en un congreso realizado por la asociación.
 
Silencio absoluto
«Me llamo Antonio Oriente, soy ginecólogo y, hasta hace pocos años, yo, con estas manos, mataba a los hijos de los demás». Hielo. Silencio absoluto. La frase pronunciada es seca, sin reflejo de duda, lúcida. La verdad sin falsas beaterías, con la crudeza lógica y la simplicidad de quien ha comprendido y ya ha pagado las consecuencias. La de quien ha tenido el tiempo de pedir perdón.

Llaman la atención dos cosas de esta frase y son dos enormes verdades: la palabra «mataba», que desvela el engaño del término interrupción voluntaria, y la palabra «hijos». No embriones, no agrupaciones de células, sino hijos. Simplemente. Y el doctor Oriente consideraba que su práctica cotidiana de abortos era una forma de asistencia a las personas que tenían un «problema».
«Venían a mi estudio –cuenta-, y me decían: “Doctor, he tenido una aventura con una mujer, yo no quería dejar a mi familia, amo a mi esposa. Pero ahora esta mujer está embarazada, ayúdeme...”. Y yo le ayudaba. O a lo mejor llegaba una chica y decía: “Doctor, era la primera vez que me acostaba con alguien, no es el chico con el que me quiero casar, ha sido simplemente algo ocasional. Mi padre me matará si se entera... ¡Ayúdeme!”. Y yo la ayudaba. No pensaba que me estaba equivocando».
 
Años de calvario
Pero la vida continuaba haciéndole pensar: él, como ginecólogo que era, también traía niños a la vida. Su mujer, como pediatra, atendía a los niños de los demás. Pero no conseguían tener hijos propios. Una esterilidad insidiosa y sin motivo era la respuesta a su vida cotidiana.

«Mi mujer ha sido siempre una mujer de Dios. Sólo gracias a ella y a su oración cambió algo. Para ella no tener hijos era un sufrimiento inmenso, enorme. Todas las noches que volvía a casa la encontraba triste y deprimida. No podía más. Después de años de calvario, una noche cualquiera no tenía el valor de volver a casa. Desesperado, apoyé la cabeza en mi escritorio y comenzé a llorar como un niño».

Y precisamente allí, en ese momento, la mano de Dios se hizo presente a través de una pareja que el doctor Oriente atendía desde hacía tiempo. Vieron la luz encendida tarde en su estudio, temieron que hubiera pasado algo y subieron. Encontraron al doctor en este estado que el define como «de tener compasión» y, por primera vez, abre su corazón a dos personas que eran solamente pacientes, practicamente desconocidos.

Le dijeron: «Doctor, nosotros no tenemos una solución a su problema. Sin embargo, le podemos presentar a una persona que sí puede darle un sentido: Jesucristo». Y lo invitaron a un encuentro de oración que él esquivó hábilmente.

Pasó el tiempo y una noche, siempre inseguro sobre si volver a casa o no, decidió hacerlo a pie y, al pasar junto a un edificio, se sintió atraído por una música. Entró y se encontró en una sala donde algunas personas (casualmente el grupo de oración de la pareja que lo había invitado) estaban cantando.

En un momento se encontró de rodillas llorando y recibió una revelación sobre su propia vida: «¿Cómo puedo pedir un hijo al Señor cuando yo mismo mato a los hijos de los demás?».
 
El «no hacer» se convierte en un problema
Atrapado por un fervor improvisado, coge un papel y escribe su testamento espiritual: «Nunca más muerte, hasta la muerte». Después llama a su «Amigo» y se lo entrega, advirtiéndolo para que vigile sobre su constancia y su fe. Pasan las semanas y el doctor Oriente comienza a vivir de otra manera. Comienza también a coleccionar problemas, sobre todo entre los colegas en su ambiente de trabajo. En ciertos casos el «no hacer» se convierte también en un problema: profesional, económico, de imagen.
Una noche vuelve a casa y se encuentra a su mujer vomitando. Piensa en alguna indigestión, pero continua vomitando en los días siguientes.

Entonces, propone a su mujer hacer un test de embarazo, pero ella se niega vehementemente. Eran demasiados los meses en los que ella, silenciosamente, los hacía, y recibía una puñalada al ver que siempre eran negativos... Pero después de un mes con este malestar, él le obliga a hacer un examen de sangre que muestra presencia del BetaHCG: ¡Estaban esperando un hijo!

Han pasado los años. Los dos hijos que la familia Oriente ha recibido como un don son hoy adolescentes.

La vida de este médico ha cambiado totalmente. Es menos rico, menos famoso, una «mosca» en un ambiente donde el aborto se considera aún como una «forma de ayuda» a quien, debido a una vida poco ordenada o de un engaño, lo solicita.

Pero él se considera rico, profundamente rico. De alegría familiar, de sus valores, del amor de Dios, de esa mano que le acaricia cada día haciéndole sentir digno de ser un «Hijo suyo».




Diez comparaciones para entender las cifras: la Iglesia ha crecido un 17% desde el año 2000 - Pablo Ginés

In RL
 
Cada día se bautizan 50.000 nuevos católicos. Desde el 2000, la Iglesia ha crecido el equivalente a toda la población inglesa, española, portuguesa y francesa junta. 

 Este lunes por la mañana presentaron al Papa Francisco el Annuario Pontificio 2013, con datos estadísticos que se refieren a 2011, y que descubren en números el estado de la Iglesia Católica.

Así, en 2011 el catolicismo contaba con 1.214 millones de bautizados, un 17,5% de la población mundial. Les atienden 413.418 sacerdotes, 41.000 diáconos permanentes, unos 55.000 religiosos no sacerdotes y 713.000 religiosas.

De los 12 apóstoles que Cristo eligió, la Iglesia ha llegado a tener, para ese año, 5.132 obispos, que son sus sucesores. Esta cifra incluye muchos obispos eméritos y obispos auxiliares, porque en 2011 sólo había 2.979 diócesis y circunscripciones eclesiásticas.

Pero para entender mejor estas cifras, es bueno compararlas con una fecha tan reciente como el año 2000, para ver cómo está creciendo la Iglesia Católica en pleno siglo XXI.

1. Un crecimiento del 17%, unos 180 millones de personas
En el año 2000 (según el Annuario de dos años después) había 1.050 millones de católicos. En 2011 (últimos datos oficiales que tenemos, los presentados al Papa) eran 1.214. Pero estamos en 2013, y la Iglesia ha seguido creciendo, más o menos al ritmo de 16 millones al año. Tirando a la baja, habría hoy en realidad en el mundo unos 1.230 millones de católicos, un 17% más que en el año 2000, 180 millones de personas más


2. Ese crecimiento es igual a España, Portugal, Francia y Reino Unido juntos
Para imaginar lo que significan esos 180 millones de católicos más, imagínese toda la población de Portugal (10 millones), y toda la de Francia (62 millones) y toda la del Reino Unido (otros 62 millones) y la de España (46 millones). Eso son 180 millones. Eso sí, la mayoría son bebés y niños menores de 12 años, bautizados en su infancia.

3. Cada año, 16 millones más: el equivalente a todos los judíos del mundo
Después de más de 3.000 años de historia (y de vicisitudes históricas realmente duras) hay unos 14 millones de judíos en el mundo. Pero el Dios de Israel, de Abraham y de Isaac, gana esa cifra de adoradores año tras año en la Iglesia Católica.

Según los Annuarios Pontificios, desde el año 2000:
AP 2002, sobre 2000: 1050 millones de católicos; 17.4% de la población mundial
AP 2003, sobre 2001: 1.061 millones [creció en 11 millones]
AP 2004, sobre 2002: 1.071 millones [creció en 10 millones]
AP 2005, sobre 2003: 1.086 millones [creció en 15 millones]
AP 2006, sobre 2004: 1.098 millones [creció en 12 millones]
AP 2007, sobre 2005: 1.115 millones [creció en 17 millones]
AP 2008, sobre 2006: 1,131 millones [creció en 16 millones]
AP 2009, sobre 2007: 1.147 millones [creció en 16 millones]
AP 2010, sobre 2008: 1.166 millones [creció en 19 millones]
AP 2011, sobre 2009: 1.181 millones [creció en 15 millones]
AP 2012, sobre 2010: 1.196 millones [creció en 15 millones]
AP 2013, sobre 2011: 1.214 millones [creció en 18 millones]
Hipotético, sobre el año 2012: serían 16 millones más (una media de los últimos 5 años); total, más de 1.230 millones hoy.

4. En el mundo hay 67 millones de anglicanos; el catolicismo crece eso en 4 años
Al anglicanismo, en sus diversas ramas, incluyendo las vigorosas iglesias anglicanas de África, le ha costado 500 años llegar a tener 67 millones de fieles. 

La Iglesia Católica, para crecer esa cifra, sólo necesita esperar 4 años y bautizar a los bebés que nazcan en familias católicas. Aunque una decena de obispos anglicanos, unos 200 clérigos y algunos miles de fieles se hayan hecho católicos desde el año 2000, las cifras católicas de crecimiento deben mucho más a la demografía que a las conversiones en Occidente.

5. La Iglesia católica ha crecido en 8.240 sacerdotes desde el año 2000.
Desde el 2000 hasta el 2011, la Iglesia pasó de 405.178 a 413.418 sacerdotes. Es un crecimiento de 8.240 sacerdotes. Parece una buena noticia pero no lo es tanto, porque la población católica que hay que atender crece mucho más.

6. Con cada nuevo cura, llegan casi 20.000 nuevos feligreses
Exactamente, 19.000 nuevos católicos se han sumado a la Iglesia por cada uno de los 8.240 nuevos sacerdotes... Que, a su vez, en su momento heredarán muchos de los católicos ya mayores.

La desproporción numérica entre ovejas y pastores es uno de los puntos débiles de la estructura social del catolicismo. Norberto Strotman, obispo de Chosica (Perú), señalaba hace poco que "a cada presbítero de mi diócesis le corresponden 15.000 fieles, por lo que es imposible tener alguna relación. Todo lo que excede a 2.000 personas es imposible de llegar", admitía.

Incluso si se hiciera un "reparto equitativo" de fieles entre todos los curas del mundo (incluyendo los ancianos, enfermos y retirados), le corresponderían 3.000 fieles a cada uno. Es impracticable, y cada vez más.

7. Crecen curas, diáconos, seminaristas... pero bajan las religiosas: hay un 10% menos que en 2001
La Iglesia está sufriendo el descenso de las vocaciones religiosas femeninas: en 2011 hay 79.000 menos religiosas que en 2001, cuando eran 792.000 en todo el mundo. Con todo, esas 713.000 mujeres (una cifra equivalente a todos los habitantes de Zaragoza ciudad o de la provincia de Guipúzcoa) son un puntal indispensable para la Iglesia.

8. En 2020, la Iglesia habrá crecido en 112 millones más: habrá 1.342 millones de católicos.
Si se sigue el ritmo de crecimiento de16 millones al año, en 2020, dentro de 7 años, habrá 112 millones de católicos más: es el equivalente a toda la población de México hace tres años; o a todos los habitantes de la parte europea de Rusia.

9. Cada día se bautizan como católicos casi 50.000 personas
En realidad, si dividimos los 18 millones de nuevos católicos de 2011 por 365 días del año, salen unos 49.300 nuevos católicos diarios. Aunque no todos llegan por bautismo: especialmente en Pascua hay un pequeño porcentaje que llegan desde otras denominaciones cristianas y ya están bautizados.

10. En África, los católicos crecen a un ritmo que casi dobla al de la población
África es el continente de mayor dinamismo para la Iglesia. En 2011, la población creció en África un 2,3%, pero el número de católicos aumentó un 4,3%. Allí viven ya 16 de cada 100 católicos. Un ejemplo: en apenas 20 años, en Chad, los católicos han pasado de ser el cinco por ciento a más del veinte por ciento.

Al morir los Apóstoles, apenas 7.000 cristianos
Todas estas cifras contrastan con los humildes orígenes del cristianismo. El sociólogo Rodney Stark, en su libro «La expansión del cristianismo», calcula que en el año 200 debía de haber apenas 217.000 cristianos, un 0,36 por ciento de la población del Imperio romano.

Stark calcula que en el año 100 d.C. debía haber tan solo unos 7.500 cristianos en el mundo. ¡Quién le diría a esforzados apóstoles de esa época, como San Policarpo o San Ignacio de Antioquía, que llegaría un momento en que, día tras día, se bautizarían cada día 7 veces esa cantidad!

Take Back Your Kids: How to Teach and Get Respect - by William J. Doherty

In CERC 

We are facing an epidemic of insecure parenting. We may now have the most child-sensitive generation of parents the world has ever known and — the most confused and insecure.
 
This generation has determined not to repeat the mistakes of its own parents, who expected unquestioning obedience. But in rejecting outmoded models of authority, parents are now skittish about exercising any authority at all. 
  Children raised with insecure parents grow up too soon, become preoccupied with consumer goods and peer acceptance, and focus their lives on frenetic activity outside the home.  They know that their parents love them deeply and want to communicate sensitively with them, but they also know that their parents are unsure about what to require of them and how to say "no" to them.

A family now in therapy has a 10-year-old boy, who is an angel in school, but who has started to call his mother a "bitch" at home.  Rather than exercising legitimate authority, his mother responds by feeling sorry that her son is so distraught.  (An appropriate exercise of parental authority: "You may not speak to me like that EVER, not even when you are angry.  Go to your room and come back when you have a letter of apology.")

Another example: Our local newspaper has been running a series on alcohol and teens.  Kids in earlier generations drank alcohol, often to excess.  The difference now, as documented in the newspaper articles, is that parents supply the keg of beer, the house or hotel room, and the funds to enjoy a Mexican frolic of booze and sex during spring break. Most parents who were interviewed were reluctant to let their children go on a Mexican spring break this year, but were unable to say "no," particularly when most of the other kids announced they were going.


The Consumer Culture of Childhood


In the new culture of childhood, children are viewed as consumers of parental services, and parents are viewed as providers of parental services and brokers of community services for children.  What gets lost is the other side of the human equation: children bearing responsibilities to their families and communities.

Children should not only receive from adults but also actively contribute to the world around them, help care for the younger and the infirm, add their own marks to the quality of family life, and contribute to the common good in their school and communities.  If children live only as consumers of parental and community services, then they are not active citizens of families and communities.

If we see ourselves only as providers of services to our children, we end up confused about our authority, anxious about displeasing our children, insecure about whether we are providing enough opportunities, and worried that we are not keeping up with the output of other parents.  In a market economy, the service provider must offer what is newest and best, and at all costs, must avoid disappointing the customer.
When applied to the family, this is a recipe for insecure parents and entitled kids.  (One 17-year-old said to his parents, "Why should I mow the lawn?  It's not my lawn.")


The Therapeutic Culture of Parenting

How to Expect and Get Respect
  1. Respect Your Child. Let your children express their own opinions, tastes, and values — if they do so respectfully.
  2. Expect respect. Respect should be an expectation in your family because without it, little else will go well. Use terms such as "respect," "disrespect," "polite," and "rude" to develop a common language of respect.
  3. Explain your new policy on respect to your children. If they've been previously allowed to get away with disrespect, many children are unaware that they are being disrespectful. Meet with your kids at a quiet time to explain your new policy.
  4. Tune your ears to the sound of respect and disrespect. Sometimes parents fail to recognize the sound of their child's disrespect because they may be focusing too much on the content of what is said (interruptions, accusations, name-calling) and not listening to the child's tone of voice. A raised voice is not necessarily a sign of disrespect, but attacking, intrusive, sarcastic, and mean words and tone are.
  5. Nip disrespectful behavior in the bud. Respond immediately by saying sharply: "That was disrespectful."
  6. Use a special tone of voice in response to disrespect that communicates to your child, "You're in dangerous territory — back off immediately."
  7. Use time-outs for non-cooperation when the child will not stop the disrespectful behavior. After pointing out the disrespectful behavior in a firm voice, if your child continues, give a warning that a time-out will be enforced if they don't stop. If that doesn't work, enforce the time-out. Don't allow a nasty conversation to continue. With a teen, you may want to walk away from the conversation rather than try to enforce a time-out against physical opposition. The key is to pronounce the behavior as disrespectful and end the conversation rather than letting it escalate.
  8. Be firm but keep your cool. Confident parenting is almost always calm, clear, focused, and assertive in times of conflict.
  9. Combine zero tolerance with a long-term view. Challenge every disrespectful behavior–without exception — because that's the only way your child will understand your expectations and the meaning of the behavior you want to extinguish. Don't expect an immediate cessation of rudeness, but a steady decrease towards zero.
  10. If the problem is chronic and these strategies don't work, consider seeking family therapy to focus on your parenting skills. If you and your spouse or co-parent can't agree on a parenting style, consider getting professional help.


We also live in the era of therapeutic parenting.  The parent becomes a junior therapist, and the child is seen as requiring special treatment that only a professional — or a trained parent — can provide.  Starting back in the 1970s with Parent Effectiveness Training, a then popular book by Thomas Gordon, parents have been taught to act like therapists with their children.

A therapist is supposed to be consistently attentive, low key, accepting, non-directive, and non-judgmental.  When the child acts up in a therapy session, say, by speaking disrespectfully to the therapist, the therapist's job is to explore the underlying reasons rather than focus on the child's immediate behavior.  In addition to distorting parents' reactions to their children's misconduct, the therapeutic culture of parenting suggests that children's psyches are fragile, easily broken by a parent who says the wrong thing.
The reality, according to loads of research, is that, if underlying parental care and attachment are present, most children are resilient in the face of ordinary mistakes in parenting.  If children can handle most of our non-abusive mistakes, they can certainly handle our strong responses to them when these responses are fully called for.  Children mostly know when they are off base, and feel safer when their parents step in assertively.
We know from research and observation that parents have a strong influence on their teenagers' behavior.  Teenagers whose parents talk to them regularly about avoiding drugs are much less likely to use drugs.  Teenagers whose parents give them both nurturing and firm limits are less likely to be involved in sexual activity.  They are also more likely to study hard.


How to Teach Teens Respect


We can restore parents' confidence in their authority without returning to authoritarian parenting.  There is a middle way between being dictatorial and insensitive on the one hand, and cajoling and debating with children on the other hand. 

A personal example: When my son Eric was 13, we had a brief but memorable encounter in the kitchen.  I was on the telephone with a friend in the early evening.  Unbeknownst to me, Eric wanted to make a phone call to one of his friends.  When I hung up the phone, Eric said to me, in an irritated, peremptory tone of voice, "Who was that?"
How do you think I should have responded?  Consider several possible responses I could have made, and then I'll tell you what I actually said.

Response 1:   (delivered in a mildly defensive tone): "I was on the phone with Mac.  I didn't know you wanted to use the phone."

The problem with this response is that it accepts the child's right to grill the parent about adult activities.  The key is not the question itself, but the disrespectful demand. 

Response 2:   (delivered with a mild reprimand): "I didn't know you were waiting to use the phone.  You should let me know.  How am I supposed to know?"
This might be an appropriate response to a spouse or another adult peer who has equal rights to the telephone and is therefore free to express annoyance if you are clogging its use.  Said to Eric, however, it would have accepted his implied claim of peer status, like a sibling he competes with for use of the shower or TV.

Response 3:   (delivered with a stern reprimand): "Who do you want to call anyway?  You are on the phone far too much.  You should be doing your homework."

This counterattack appears strong but misses the main point: The problem of the moment is not Eric's phone use but his disrespectful question.  To simply assert parental authority over his phone use would make him resentful and would not teach him about this disrespectful action or forestall his next.

I've made my share of mistakes as a parent, but somewhere I learned to have an instant awareness when one of my children is talking disrespectfully to me — and to make that the point of my response.  So here's what I said, making eye contact and speaking firmly:
You don't get to ask me that question, and particularly in that tone of voice.
The discussion was over.  Eric absorbed my comment and then went to the other room to make his phone call.  I did not name the person I was on the phone with.  I did not defend myself.  I did not counterattack.  I did not make Eric defend his question.  I did not punish him.
 
What I did was to directly defend and assert my right to respect as a parent.  And I did not feel angry at him during the rest of the evening.  During the subsequent years ahead we had the normal parent-adolescent hassles, but he never spoke disrespectfully to me again.
If I had taken a different path that evening, one that would lead to similar encounters in the future, my son's adolescence and our family life might have been much different.


Teaching Respect to Young Children


Four-year-old Jason developed the annoying habit of demanding his food.  At dinner, he would shout, "Pour me milk!" or "Give me more French fries!"

It's not as if Jason had an impulse control disorder.  He was a model of appropriate behavior in preschool where the standards for politeness were clear and consistently enforced.
How did Jason's parents respond to his demanding behavior?  Often they tried to shut him up by immediately fetching what he demanded.  Other times they got irritated with him and told him to ask nicely — but they still fetched his food without making him ask politely.  Psychologists describe this as reinforcing the child's behavior.

Parents whose children treat them disrespectfully will eventually start to fear and resent their children.  Parents will start withdrawing emotionally, or become punitive.  They will have explosions of anger they feel bad about later.  Or they will become sarcastic and passive-aggressive.

How did Jason's parents turn around his behavior at meals?  They firmly challenged him every time he asked for something rudely and waited for him to politely restate his request before giving him the item.  If he refused to ask politely, they withheld the food item and went about finishing the meal.  Jason eventually learned the meaning of "polite," and the incidence of demanding behavior at the table declined drastically.


Why Anger-Free Parenting Doesn't Work


To many parents, anger is one short step away from verbal and physical abuse of children.  But anger is a normal human emotion that signals "something's got to change here — right now." Without anger, parents are wishy-washy in the face of their children's willfulness.  Fear of showing anger to our children is at the heart of the impotence problem among many contemporary parents.

Recently I observed the following scenario: A boy (about 4) and his mother were walking on the beach.  The boy ran ahead.  He went under a fence and into a flower garden that was about 6 feet from a 30-foot drop to the railroad tracks below.

As she approached her son, I heard the mother say to him in a very mild tone, "Sweetie, I don't think it's a good idea for you to be back there."

The boy stood and waited for her to arrive.  Leaning over the fence, she put out her arm and said:
Jeffrey, come.  Please get out of there.  Those are flowers you are standing in, and you are too near the tracks.
Motionless and defiant, the boy just looked at her.  "Here, take my hand," she pleaded.  Still no movement.  It was clear that the child was enjoying this moment of stubborn victory.
As my wife and I continued our walk, I looked back for a while to see if there was any progress.  The mother was leaning as far as she could over the fence and begging her son to take her hand, while he stared at her.

Scenes such as this one point out the danger of anger-free parenting.  Trying to remain cool and rational in a situation of defiance and danger makes parents look foolish.


Problematic Advice From the "Experts"


No parenting expert would have supported the mother's pitiful pleading approach to this problem, but how would experts suggest she respond?

Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training would tell the mother to calmly deliver an "I message" such as, "I get very scared when I see you standing there because it's dangerous."

The assumption is that your child will spontaneously decide to cooperate if you express your true feelings.
But what if your child, like the boy behind the fence, is enjoying seeing you afraid in demonstrating your lack of control over him?  Sharing your vulnerable feelings is not going to get the job done in that case.


The Consequences Approach


Another major school of parenting advice from the 1970s (written about extensively by Haim Ginott) would recommend a "consequences" approach.  You would give your son a choice: If he continues to stand there, he is choosing to accept a negative consequence you have promised.  You could tell him that there will be no more walks this week unless he cooperates.
Children mostly know when they are off base, and feel safer when their parents step in assertively.
Laying out consequences and waiting for the child to make a choice is a normal technique for effective parenting.  When your teenager won't do the dishes in a timely fashion, it's generally better to connect the chore with a consequence — say, no watching TV or talking on the phone that evening — and let the child choose to cooperate.  Continued non-cooperation means escalating consequences, until almost all kids will decide it's less hassle to do the dishes.

A limitation of the consequences approach to discipline, however, is that it is not powerful and immediate enough for some situations.  The defiant little boy in the flower bed required a stronger response than the mother laying out the consequences for his continuing to stand there.  In moments of willful confrontation, some children don't care about future consequences — they want things their way right now, thank you.  In these situations, discussing future consequences rather than rising to the occasion comes across as weak.

What most of the rational, anger-free parenting advice misses is the importance of occasional angry power assertions by a parent.  I say "occasional" because research has clearly pointed out that rigid, authoritarian parenting ("I'm the boss; be quiet and do what you're told") that doesn't explain the reasons for a directive or allow kids to express a point of view, is counter-productive because it tends to breed anxiety and rebellion.


Appropriate Power Assertion


What do I mean by appropriately angry power assertion?  In the case of the mother and her defiant boy, I would call him by name and say in a strong, loud voice:
"Jeffrey, get out of there right now!"
I would be moving towards him as I said these words.
If he did not immediately move back towards the fence, I would shout
"Come here!" as I arrived at the fence.
If he did not instantly move towards me, I would climb the fence and retrieve him physically.  Then I would get down face to face with him, and say:
I am FURIOUS with you.  First, you went under a fence and into the flowers — and you know better.  Second, you were near the railroad tracks — and you know better.  And third, you did not come back when I told you to.  You are in big trouble with me.
I would take him home, with no further discussion.
Later in the day, I would talk calmly with him about what happened on that walk, and what level of cooperation I wanted on walks in the future.  I would expect him to agree to cooperate better in the future.
The new parenting problem is "anger phobia."

There are psychological levels deeper than what I have described, levels that could be explored after the original power assertion is successful.  Perhaps the child's behavior, if it's unusual for him, reflects the stress of a recent family move.  Perhaps he is angry at his mother about something.  Perhaps he is testing his newly found 4-year-old independence.  On the other hand, if the behavior is chronic, then it also suggests a misalignment of authority between parent and child.

But whatever the deeper meaning of the boy's risky, defiant behavior, the parent must deal with the immediate situation.  If a child is stealing because of a troubled childhood, we must first stop the stealing; then we can talk about the underlying problem.

The new parenting problem is "anger phobia."  We end up with bland parents who refuse to ever show anger to their children.  They consequently lack authority and allow their children to walk over them.  In my experience as a therapist, however, I have found that such parents can take back their kids if they have a mind to.

Parenting Resources

20 Gifts of Life: Bringing Out the Best in Our Kids, Grandkids & Others We Care About by Hal Urban The Biggest Job We'll Ever Have: Character-Based Education & Parenting by Laura and Malcolm Gauld Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons by Meg Meeker, M.D. Character Building: A Guide for Parents & Teachers by David Isaacs Character Matters by Thomas Lickona Compass: A Handbook on Parent Leadership by James Stenson The Difficult Child by Stanley Turecki & Leslie Tonner Endangered: Your Child in a Hostile World by Johann Christoph Arnold The Family Virtues Guide by Linda K. Popov Help Me Be Good (series) by Joy Berry How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk by Adele Faber & Elaine Mazlish The Intentional Family by William Doherty MegaSkills: Building Our Children's Character and Achievement for School and Life by Dorothy Rich Negotiation Generation: Take Back Your Parental Authority Without Punishment by Lynne Reeves Griffin No More Misbehavin': 38 Difficult Behaviors and How to Stop Them by Michele Borba Parenting for Character: Equipping Your Child for Life by Andrew Mullins Parenting for Character: Five Experts, Five Practices David Streight, Editor Parenting for Good by Marvin Berkowitz Parents, Kid, & Character by Helen LeGette The Parents We Mean to Be by Richard Weissbourd Raising Good Children by Thomas Lickona Raising Respectful Children in a Disrespectful World by Jill Rigby Sex, Love, & You (for teens) by Tom & Judy Lickona and William Boudreau, M.D. Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters by Meg Meeker, M.D. You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child by Miriam Grossman, M.D. The 6 Most Important Decisions You'll Ever Make (for teens) by Sean Covey The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families by Stephen Covey