sexta-feira, 16 de agosto de 2013

Senator Ted Cruz’s father: ‘ObamaCare is going to destroy the elderly’ - by Ben Johnson

AMES, IA, August 13, 2013 ( – Senator Ted Cruz's opposition to ObamaCare is well known. His father's feelings are equally intense, if not as well known.

In a fiery speech on Saturday, Rafael Cruz gave said ObamaCare will “destroy the elderly” by denying them treatment for life-threatening illnesses.

The Cuban native added that a national health care service, liberal abortion laws, and legalizing gay “marriage” are all related issues being used to transform the United States from a constitutional republic to a socialist system more closely resembling his native Cuba.

The elder Cruz told a rapt audience at the 2013 Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, that he had been imprisoned and tortured while supporting the overthrow of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. But his dreams that Fidel Castro would bring the island “hope and change” were thwarted.
He said he has seen the same process at work in the United States for a generation.

After the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “the church remained silent and more than 55 million babies have been massacred through abortion. How long are we going to remain silent? It is high time that pastors stop hiding behind the pulpit, that pastors stop hiding behind the 501(c)3, because we are going to have to be accountable unto God.”

He warned that “life is under attack” in the United States with abortion before birth and “at the other end with ObamaCare.”

“ObamaCare is going to destroy the elderly by denying care by even, perhaps, denying treatment to people that are in catastrophic illnesses.”

The most controversial component of the president's health care plan is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an unelected panel that will impose “cost-saving” measures on health care providers. Its foes, including an increasing number of Democrats, warn that amounts to rationing.
Family and freedom are also imperiled, Cruz warned.

“When you hear this attack on religion, it's not really an attack on religion, he said. “The fundamental basis is this: Socialism requires that government becomes your god. That’s why they have to destroy the concept of God. They have to destroy all loyalties except loyalty to government.”

He said the same process is “behind homosexual marriage. It's really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about exalting homosexuality, because you need to destroy, also, loyalty to the family.”

Antipathy to the natural family is a vital component of Marxism and totalitarianism, in general. Dr. Paul Kengor, executive director of The Center for Vision and Values and author of Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, told, “Marx in The Communist Manifesto literally writes about the abolition of the family.”

Cruz, who lived through Cuba's transformation, said it is well afoot in Barack Obama's America.

“Unfortunately, I hear people saying all too often, 'It can't happen in America,'” he said. “It is happening in America. And our rights are being eroded more, and more, and more everyday.”

Seeing familiar trends – he believed President Jimmy Carter implemented “socialist” policies – Rafael Cruz became active in politics, joining the Religious Roundtable. “It was the precursor of the Tea Party, even before the Moral Majority,” he explained.

His involvement heavily influenced his son, Ted. The father's pride shone through when he recounted that in junior high school, his son read Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, and other free market/Austrian school writers. Ted and his friends also memorized the U.S. Constitution.

Drawing on his own experiences, Rafael Cruz remembered how he, the Religious Roundtable, and a landslide number of American voters elected the most pro-life president in U.S. history, Ronald Reagan.

“We did it in 1980,” Cruz said. “We can do it again.”

Gay Panic Over New Russian Laws - by Austin Ruse

In Crisis 

A psychiatrist of the early 20th century coined “homosexual panic” to describe an overreaction by heterosexuals who have been hit on by a gay guy. Now it’s the gays turn to panic, in this case by any public criticism, imaginary or otherwise, or legal restriction on their proselytizing.

Gay writer Jonathan Capehart published a short piece in the Washington Post this week in which he oh-so-bravely spoke truth to Gospel power. He attended his aunt’s funeral in North Carolina at which the preacher’s “guest eulogy gave way to a harsh sermon about who can and cannot get into the kingdom of heaven.”

From what Capehart quotes, the preacher did not actually talk about who can get into heaven but rather who can “transform” their lives by washing themselves in the “blood of the Lamb.”

“During his oration, I vowed I would not shake his hand.” But Capehart did shake the Reverend’s hand and then said to him, “Your sermon was offensive to me.” Taken aback the Preacher say, “What?” “Your sermon was offensive to me. I need you to know that. That is all I have to say.” Not waiting for or even wanting a response, Capehart stalked off.

There’s a lot packed into this brief encounter. It is unclear whether the preacher even mentioned homosexuality. Capehart said the preacher quoted from a bible passage that mentions many sins including homosexuality but it appears that the preacher only highlighted a “pimp becoming a preacher” and a “prostitute becoming a prophet.” But that was enough to get Capehart going.

What followed was the classic sneak attack, assertion of victimhood, name-calling, followed by a refusal to engage in any meaningful way. Called “jamming,” the purpose is not to debate the issue respectfully or otherwise, but to shame opponents into silence, castigate them, and cast them into outer societal darkness.

“Jamming” comes from a book called After the Ball, a 1989 manifesto on how homosexuals could triumph over the culture. Capehart caught the preacher off guard, claimed he was a victim, implied the preacher is a hater and a bigot, and then walked off without giving the preacher a chance to talk, explain or even to apologize. Brave. Very brave, Jonathan and very textbook, too.

Something similar is happening with the evolving situation in Russia. The Russian parliament recently passed a national law forbidding homosexual proselytizing to schoolchildren. The law also forbids public manifestations like parades. An additional law forbids homosexual adoption of children or foreign adoption into countries that allow for homosexual “marriage.”

Opponents of the law are not content simply to shock their friends with what is really going on in Russia. After all, these new laws are enough to shock the sensibilities of westerners where homosexuality has largely triumphed over the culture.  But opponents of the Russian law must go further in gilding the lily.

They tell us that it is now illegal to be homosexual in Russia. Gay writer Harvey Fierstein wrote a few weeks ago in the New York Times that parents who speak positively to their children about homosexuality could lose their children and get jail time. He wrote that people even suspected of gayness could be jailed.

They tell us that athletes suspected of being gay will be arrested when they arrive in Russia for the winter Olympics next year. No less than Jay Leno on the Tonight Show said to President Obama that it has become “illegal” to be homosexual in Russia. He compared it to Germany under the Nazis, said it was like taking away the Jews. I would expect a firestorm after Jay Leno compared the gassing of 6 million Jews with the inability of homosexuals to tell their story to school children. You would think he might have been corrected by the President of the United States who was sitting right there, but he wasn’t.

Now, there are some very nasty things going on in Russia with regard to gays. Some are being beaten by vigilante mobs. Some say the thugs are encouraged and protected by the police though I see no evidence of that. In fact, the New York Times ran a picture this week of a gay-beating thug being physically detained and arrested by Russian police.

We cannot approve in any way the beating of people for the mere fact of being gay or even expressing it. But, I wonder if there is a bit of provocation going on. After all, pictures of gays with bloody noses are pure propaganda gold in the western press.

You have to wonder, though, is life so hard for gays in Russia? Do they have to live underground constantly in fear of their lives?

I was in Russia a few weeks ago and saw open transvestitism on the street not once but twice and both times within a stones through of the Kremlin and the Duma which is the Russian parliament that banned gay propaganda to school children.  And none of the dress-wearing men were being arrested, or beaten. In fact, they seemed to be having a good time.

Just how gay is Moscow? You don’t have to walk down a dingy street in the dark of night and knock on an unmarked door to find what you’re looking for. Google “Gay Moscow” and you find clubs, cafes, bathhouses, and dance parties.

Chubabar-BVP is “the best gay after party in Moscow. Trendy music. Trendy gays. Very friendly atmosphere.”

You can go to “Propaganda Gay Night” at a place called Propaganda for “Sunday gay parties … only gays there.”

Did you know that in Moscow there are two gay beaches? Silver Forest/Serebryanly Bor “is the most visited.”

There’s a place called 12 Volt Club that boasts a “UN certificate for the best gay bar in Moscow.”

What about St. Petersburg, you wonder? There is Club Central Station that is “located in the heart of the city … it features great looking dancers who you might wish to feed fruit.”

Club Cabaret is “the best gay place in town.” Located in the former Soviet Palace of Culture it features a midnight transvestite show “but before and after the performing drag queens you can dance, dance, dance.” A travel writer said of Club Cabaret, “We did not enter the dark room, but we know from stories that it can be pretty thrilling there.”

There’s a place called the Bunker “where you can meet people and watch gay videos, private rooms, showers, pleasant atmosphere.”

One website steers their clientele to a regular bathhouse “not a gay sauna” where it is fun to go on Tuesdays “to see a couple of hundred naked 18-22 year old cadets from the Naval Academy.”

Do gays in Russia live in the catacombs always fearful of their lives? You be the judge, and the next time a panic-stricken gay writer starts “jamming” that it is illegal to be gay in Russia, tell him about the Bunker.

Governments Increasingly Object to UN Abortion Agenda - By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, August 16 (C-FAM) A growing sense of urgency surrounds the UN development agenda as major milestones approach and long-term goals are set to expire. Of particular concern to some is the fate of sexual and reproductive health and rights. Indeed many governments are expressing increasing exasperation with abortion advocates. In the closing minutes of a recent conference, delegates complained that human rights were being reduced to sexual and reproductive rights. Read more

Omofobia, l'equivoco del male minore - di Tommaso Scandroglio


Come è noto è in corso nelle aule parlamentari il dibattito sulla proposta di legge anti-omofobia. Qual è l’atteggiamento che il politico cattolico dovrebbe tenere nei confronti di questo testo? Quali i suoi spazi di manovra leciti sul piano morale?

Ci viene in soccorso il numero 73 dell’Evangelium Vitae: “Quando non fosse possibile scongiurare o abrogare completamente una legge abortista, un parlamentare, la cui personale assoluta opposizione all'aborto fosse chiara e a tutti nota, potrebbe lecitamente offrire il proprio sostegno a proposte mirate a limitare i danni di una tale legge e a diminuirne gli effetti negativi sul piano della cultura e della moralità pubblica” (in modo analogo si esprime la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede nella Nota dottrinale circa alcune questioni riguardanti l'impegno e il comportamento dei cattolici nella vita politica al numero 4). Ovviamente il caso dell’aborto può essere esteso per analogia al caso di una legge come quella voluta dall’on. Scalfarotto.

Questo passo dell’Evangelium Vitae fa venire in mente immediatamente quegli emendamenti al testo presentato alla Camera che prevedono clausole di garanzia per la libertà di espressione e la libertà religiosa. Un modo – si potrebbe dire – per attenuare la portata lesiva della proposta di legge. In linea teorica dunque il politico cattolico che presentasse questi emendamenti migliorativi rientrerebbe nel caso prospettato al numero 73.

Però occorre fare due rilievi: uno di ordine valutativo e un secondo attinente alle strategie poste in campo. In merito al primo punto, viene da chiedersi se quella condizione prevista da Giovanni Paolo II che riguarda l’inevitabilità del varo di una legge ingiusta si sia effettivamente verificata nel caso di specie. Siamo davvero così sicuri che il meteorite della legge sull’omofobia colpirà il nostro italico stivale? Siamo certi che un’opposizione radicale e a tutto campo a questa legge, opposizione che coinvolga culturalmente anche il consesso sociale, non potrebbe sortire l’effetto di scongiurare il varo della proposta di legge? Viene il sospetto – ma è solo tale – che qualche politico cattolico quando qualche mese or sono vide spuntare all’orizzonte questa proposta di legge già si dichiarò sconfitto in anticipo.

Seconda nota di carattere strategico. Ammettiamo invece che questa legge sicuramente passerà, cattolici volenti o nolenti. Il Papa ci dice che non solo possiamo ma dobbiamo fare tutto il possibile per limitare i danni. Una strada che si potrebbe intraprendere è senza dubbio quella degli emendamenti. Però, ci viene da obiettare, forse non è più efficace, anche in questo particolare frangente, un’opposizione a tutto il testo, senza se e senza ma? 

E’ stata da sempre la tattica riuscitissima usata dai radicali per le campagne su divorzio, aborto, fecondazione artificiale e da ultimo eutanasia. Chiedi cento e mal che vada ti daranno dieci. Se chiedi dieci rischi di non avere nemmeno quello. La stessa strategia è utilizzata dai movimenti pro-life negli States dove si alzano cartelli con scritto “Stop abortion” senza specificare un limite temporale minimo per l’accesso all’aborto, oppure dai gruppi contrari alla pena di morte che non chiedono che il condannato venga ucciso senza farlo soffrire, ma chiedono che non venga ucciso. Punto. E i risultati si vedono.

E poi vale l’insegnamento della storia: le leggi su divorzio, aborto e Fivet non sono un po’ figlie di questa posizione minimalista? A calcio il catenaccio serve sì per non prendere gol, però non si segnerà mai e mai dunque si vincerà un campionato.

Un no a tutto il testo di legge porterebbe con sé anche altri due effetti positivi. In primis manderebbe un segnale culturale forte. L’uomo della strada non fa tanti distinguo tra legge sull’omofobia emendata e non emendata. Opporsi in toto alla proposta avrebbe il merito di denunciare con chiarezza quale è il vero DNA di questa legge: una norma liberticida e che vuole imporre la cultura di genere.

Un secondo effetto positivo sarebbe di carattere personale per il politico cattolico. Ne uscirebbe pulito dal punto di vista massmediatico, senza l’ombra di collusioni o inciuci, perché avrebbe assunto una posizione chiara e netta. I troppi distinguo portano con sé una lunga teoria di chiarimenti su intenzioni e modalità attuative delle intenzioni stesse che in genere interessano solo gli addetti ai lavori ma annoiano tutti gli altri.

Un nota bene doveroso: le considerazioni appena espresse in merito alla valutazione che questa legge può essere ancora uccisa sul nascere e in merito all’inefficacia della strategia che si incardina solo sulla presentazione di emendamenti: sono considerazioni ovviamente opinabili, proprio perché attengono al campo dei giudizi operativi. 

Non è opinabile invece la seguente considerazione: anche a fronte di un testo emendato in meglio il politico cattolico non può che votare contro questa legge.

La Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede nel documento Dichiarazione sull’aborto procurato al numero 22 scrive: “Dev’essere, in ogni caso, ben chiaro che, qualunque cosa a questo riguardo venga stabilita dalla legge civile, l’uomo non può mai ubbidire ad una legge intrinsecamente immorale[…]. Egli non può né partecipare ad una campagna di opinione in favore di una legge siffatta, né dare ad essa il suffragio del suo voto”. Dunque una legge intrinsecamente ingiusta non può essere votata.

Da qui la domanda: la legge sull’omofobia è una legge intrinsecamente immorale? Sì, perché si fonda sul concetto di “genere”, concetto che è in netto contrasto con la verità antropologica che vede l’uomo attratto dalla donna e viceversa. L’omosessualità è contro natura ed invece questa legge vuole imporre con il carcere l’idea che l’omosessualità sia cosa naturale. Poco importa che il concetto sia imbellettato da norme anti-discriminazioni et similia. E’ solo un cavallo di Troia per far passare una legge intrinsecamente ingiusta che rimarrebbe tale anche se emendata. Quello che si vuole vendere non è più tutela per le persone omosessuali, bensì l’omosessualità come orientamento normale.

Ora votare a favore di una legge come questa perché – così si sostiene – perlomeno in tal modo si faranno passare gli emendamenti migliorativi non è lecito sul piano morale. Perché quel voto direbbe sì agli emendamenti e nello stesso tempo direbbe sì anche alle altre parti della legge che accettano la cultura omosessualista.

L’Evangelium Vitae è chiara: il voto è lecito solo alle proposte “mirate a limitare i danni” (corsivo nel testo), non alle proposte mirate sia a limitare i danni che a provocarli seppur con minor carica virulenta. Il voto a tutta la legge Scalfarotto sarebbe da una parte un placet alla limitazione dei danni realizzata grazie agli emendamenti ma dall’altra anche un placet ai “danni” stessi, cioè a tutto il rimanente corpus. E’ un problema squisitamente morale: l’oggetto dell’azione sarebbe non solo la limitazione del danno ma anche la produzione del danno, cioè la generazione di un male morale. E mai si può compiere il male, anche a prezzo di essere costretti a vedere il varo della versione peggiore di una legge. In caso contrario cadremmo nell’utilitarismo: faccio il male ma in vista di un bene futuro.

Qualcuno dirà: meglio collaborare a fare il male minore, piuttosto che lasciare mano libera agli altri di compiere il male maggiore. Purtroppo, come accennato, il male anche se piccolo mai si può compiere. Si può compiere solo il bene, a volte il maggior bene possibile anche se non è quello perfetto.

Nozze gay in chiesa, a Londra si dovrà fare - di Gianfranco Amato


Lo scorso gennaio, quando Cameron spingeva l’acceleratore per l’approvazione della legge sul matrimonio gay, l’ex Arcivescovo di Canterbury barone Lord Carey of Clifton, denunciò il rischio per la Chiesa d’Inghilterra di vedersi costretta a celebrare le nozze di coppie dello stesso sesso. Per avvalorare le perplessità di ordine giuridico, lo stesso Arcivescovo inviò al governo un corposo parere legale dell’autorevole avvocato Aidan O’Neill QC. La replica del governo fu che il disegno di legge avrebbe previsto una disposizione di salvaguardia per tutelare la libertà di credo religioso, esentando espressamente le Chiese dall’obbligo di celebrare i matrimoni omosessuali. Con questa disposizione non si sarebbero corsi rischi di azioni legali. Parola dello stesso Cameron.

La legge, in effetti, è passata con la previsione di tale deroga, e lo scorso 17 luglio è stato apposto il royal assent, la ratifica da parte della Regina Elisabetta, nonostante la ferma opposizione della Chiesa d’Inghilterra, di cui, peraltro, la stessa sovrana è Capo con il titolo di “Supreme Governor”. In realtà, la Church of England ha un rapporto particolare con lo stato, che implica, tra l’altro, l’obbligo giuridico di celebrare matrimoni riconosciuti come validi dalla legge.

A giugno dell’anno scorso, l’allora ministro della giustizia Crispin Blunt aveva già sollevato il dubbio che la proposta di legge del governo, nonostante qualunque norma di salvaguardia, avrebbe inevitabilmente innescato un contenzioso legale. Si trattò davvero di una facile profezia, perché neppure un mese dopo la firma della Regina, e nonostante le sperticate rassicurazioni del governo Cameron, sono arrivati i primi guai.

Il ricchissimo Barrie Drewitt-Barlow e il suo partner Tony hanno già annunciato, infatti, che inizieranno un’azione legale contro la Chiesa d’Inghilterra, citandola in tribunale per costringerla a celebrare le proprie nozze. I due sono noti per essere stati, nel 1999, i primi componenti di una coppia omosessuale indicati in un certificato di nascita come genitori del figlio avuto mediante fecondazione assistita. Grazie a quel procedimento oggi Barrie e Tony, legalmente uniti in una civil partnership dal 2006, sono i papà di ben cinque figli.

Pretendono ora di sposarsi in chiesa, e per ottenere questo risultato hanno dichiarato che ricorreranno in tutti i gradi di giudizio fino alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. C’è da credere che lo faranno, atteso che, peraltro, ai due non manca né l’ostinazione né i mezzi, come dimostra il fatto che abbiano donato più di 500.000 sterline (circa 715.000 euro) alla campagna per il riconoscimento del matrimonio omosessuale nel Regno Unito.

In un’intervista rilasciata il 2 agosto al settimanale Essex Chronicle, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow è stato assolutamente chiaro:

«L’unico modo che abbiamo per far riconoscere il nostro diritto a sposarci con rito religioso è quello di portare in tribunale la Chiesa d’Inghilterra, ed è veramente una vergogna che dei cristiani praticanti come noi debbano ricorrere a questo mezzo». «Il riconoscimento legale del matrimonio omosessuale», ha proseguito Drewitt-Barlow «è stato soltanto un piccolo primo passo in avanti, perché ancora non abbiamo ottenuto quello che vogliamo: è come se qualcuno ci avesse regalato un dolcetto incartato e ci avesse detto di succhiarlo». E dopo aver ribadito la propria ferma intenzione di «sposare in chiesa il proprio marito», lo stesso Drewitt-Barlow ha chiesto: «Non dovrebbero, forse, i cristiani essere i primi a perdonare, accettare ed amare?».

Questa vicenda rappresenta un’ottima lezione per tutti coloro che, in un tema così delicato, cercano di ridurre l’esperienza cristiana ad uno sdolcinato sentimentalismo, e per tutti quelli che ingenuamente credono di arginare i danni attraverso il velleitario tentativo di introdurre norme di salvaguardia, senza rendersi conto che così si apre la via ad un piano inclinato in cui la discesa diventa irrefrenabile. Si tratta, in realtà, di un tentativo patetico e disperato, come quello di arrestare una valanga a mani nude.

quinta-feira, 15 de agosto de 2013

Francesco contro Benedetto? Nient'affatto: ecco le prove - di Antonio Socci


E' ormai la mania dei media: attribuire a papa Francesco idee opposte a quelle di Benedetto XVI, soprattutto sui temi più cari al mainstream giornalistico, cioè gay, donne, Chiesa, ambiente, capitalismo, povertà.
Lo si è visto dopo la famosa conferenza stampa sull'aereo. Il salotto radical-chic è così convinto che Francesco stia rovesciando l'insegnamento del predecessore che ieri perfino uno che non sa nulla di cristianesimo – come Claudio Sabelli Fioretti – su un magazine di "Repubblica" lo rappresentava come "uno straordinario folle che potrà finalmente mettere in crisi la Chiesa".
Visto l'andazzo, al di qua e al di là dell'Atlantico, Pat Archbold nel suo blog, sul sito americano del "National Catholic Register", si è divertito a farsi beffe del pigro conformismo liberal, secondo cui Francesco dice il contrario di Ratzinger.
Ha scritto che – ebbene sì – il Papa si schiera con i gay. Ecco le parole che lo provano:
"È deplorabile che le persone omosessuali siano state e siano oggetto di odio violento nei discorsi o nelle azioni. Un simile trattamento merita la condanna da parte dei pastori della Chiesa ogni qual volta si verifichi".
Ha proseguito affermando che il Papa spara a zero sui ricchi ed esalta la causa dei poveri. Eccone la prova:
"Se ci rifiutiamo di condividere ciò che abbiamo con il povero e l'affamato, rendiamo il nostro possesso un falso dio. Quante voci nella nostra società materialista ci dicono che la felicità si trova nell'accumulare proprietà e lussi! Ma questo è rendere il possesso un falso dio. Invece di portare la vita, essi portano la morte".
Non solo. Egli demolisce l'idea teocratica del papato ed è un papa umile. Ecco la dimostrazione: "L'autorità del Papa non è illimitata". "I signori cardinali hanno eletto me, un semplice e umile lavoratore nella vigna del Signore. Mi consola il fatto che il Signore sa lavorare ed agire anche con strumenti insufficienti e soprattutto mi affido alle vostre preghiere".
E l'insegnamento del Papa finalmente riconosce il giusto posto della donna nella Chiesa:
"È importante dal punto di vista teologico e antropologico che la donna sia al centro della cristianità. Attraverso Maria, e le altre donne sante, l'elemento femminile è posto al centro della religione cristiana".
Infine il Papa preferisce ai "bigotti" la carità: "Se nella mia vita trascuro completamente l'attenzione agli altri, tutto preso dalla brama di essere 'devoto' e di compiere i miei 'doveri religiosi', allora la mia relazione con Dio sarà arida. Diventerà più 'appropriata', ma senza amore".
E poi è ambientalista ("Ascoltate la voce della terra…") e condanna il capitalismo ("La prevalenza di una mentalità egoista e individualistica che trova espressione anche in un capitalismo sregolato").
Parrebbe evidente da questi pronunciamenti che Francesco è l'opposto del predecessore e di tutti gli altri papi. C'è solo un piccolo problema, ha spiegato il sarcastico americano: tutte le citazioni che avete letto non sono di Francesco, ma di Benedetto XVI.
Quel Ratzinger che i media non hanno mai ascoltato e quindi non conoscono. Come quei cattolici – di destra e di sinistra – che contrappongono lui e Francesco.
Sentite queste fiammeggianti parole:
"Ma non dobbiamo pensare anche a quanto Cristo debba soffrire nella sua stessa Chiesa? A quante volte si abusa del santo sacramento della sua presenza, in quale vuoto e cattiveria del cuore spesso egli entra! Quante volte celebriamo soltanto noi stessi senza neanche renderci conto di lui! Quante volte la sua Parola viene distorta e abusata! Quanta poca fede c'è in tante teorie, quante parole vuote! Quanta sporcizia c'è nella Chiesa, e proprio anche tra coloro che, nel sacerdozio, dovrebbero appartenere completamente a lui! Quanta superbia, quanta autosufficienza!".
Parole di Francesco? No, di Ratzinger. Come pure queste che – se fossero pronunciate oggi da Francesco – susciterebbero gli anatemi dei tradizionalisti:
"Al di sopra del papa, come espressione della pretesa vincolante dell'autorità ecclesiastica, resta comunque la coscienza di ciascuno, che deve essere obbedita prima di ogni altra cosa, se necessario anche contro le richieste dell'autorità ecclesiastica. L'enfasi sull'individuo, a cui la coscienza si fa innanzi come supremo e ultimo tribunale, e che in ultima istanza è al di là di ogni pretesa da parte di gruppi sociali, compresa la Chiesa ufficiale, stabilisce inoltre un principio che si oppone al crescente totalitarismo". 
Vi piace la tenerezza di Francesco che preferisce i sofferenti ai potenti? Sentite questa perla:
"Le vie di Dio sono diverse: il suo successo è la croce… non è la Chiesa di chi ha avuto successo ad impressionarci, la Chiesa dei papi o dei signori del mondo, ma è la Chiesa dei sofferenti che ci porta a credere, è rimasta durevole, ci dà speranza. Essa è ancora oggi segno del fatto che Dio esiste e che l'uomo non è solo un fallimento, ma può essere salvato".
Di nuovo sono parole di Ratzinger. Che possono sorprendere solo chi non lo ha mai ascoltato.
Come ha osservato Andrea Gagliarducci, gli stessi che oggi si entusiasmano quando papa Francesco chiede "una chiesa povera per i poveri" o spiega che "le istituzioni (come lo Ior) servono, ma fino a un certo punto" o quando fulmina la "mondanizzazione" e "l'autoreferenzialità" della Chiesa, ignorano gli strali di papa Benedetto contro "carrierismo e clericalismo", contro "una Chiesa soddisfatta di se stessa, che si accontenta in questo mondo, è autosufficiente e si adatta ai criteri del mondo. Non di rado dà così all'organizzazione e all'istituzionalizzazione" proseguiva Benedetto "un'importanza maggiore che non alla sua chiamata, all'essere aperta verso Dio e ad un aprire il mondo verso il prossimo".
In quel fondamentale discorso a Friburgo, Benedetto concludeva: "Liberata dai fardelli e dai privilegi materiali e politici, la Chiesa può dedicarsi meglio e in modo veramente cristiano al mondo intero, può essere veramente aperta al mondo".
Ovviamente si può fare anche il gioco inverso. Per mancanza di spazio farò un paio di esempi recenti.
Il "Corriere della sera" del 6 agosto – in un servizio che magnificava la vita "childfree", cioè libera dal generare figli – ha preteso di arruolare pure Francesco in questa moda perché – stando al giornale – il papa ritiene che i pastori della Chiesa "non hanno diritto di intromettersi nella vita privata di nessuno".
Ma il vaticanista Magister giudicando "molto fantasiosa" questa idea ha ricordato che – appena pochi giorni prima, il 27 maggio – Francesco nella sua omelia riportata dall' "Osservatore romano", ha tuonato proprio contro quella "cultura del benessere che ci fa poco coraggiosi, ci fa pigri, ci fa anche egoisti…" e come esempio ha riprodotto il dialogo di una coppia che decide di non avere un figlio per non rinunciare alle comodità.
Un altro esempio è la lettera che papa Francesco ha fatto recapitare il 9 agosto ai "Cavalieri di Colombo", riuniti in Texas. Sembra Ratzinger. Infatti li esorta a continuare la "testimonianza dell'autentica natura del matrimonio e della famiglia, della santità e della dignità inviolabile della vita umana, e della bellezza e verità della sessualità umana".
Bisogna sapere che questa organizzazione negli Usa è al centro di polemiche per la sua vigorosa opposizione alle leggi sulle unioni omosessuali.
Alla fine la verità è quella che Benedetto XVI – secondo il giornale tedesco "Bild" del 5 giugno – ha confidato a due amici, il cardinale Paul Cordes e il teologo psichiatra Manfred Lutz, che gli hanno fatto visita nel suo eremo vaticano: "Dal punto di vista teologico siamo perfettamente d'accordo". Parlava di lui e Francesco.
La loro è la stessa Chiesa e la stessa fede. Benedetto doveva ridare ragioni ai cristiani, mentre Francesco cerca di parlare alle 99 pecorelle che sono fuori dall'ovile, per farle incontrare con Cristo e la sua misericordia. Tutto qua.

The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom - by Gabriele Kuby


German sociologist Gabriele Kuby has been warning the public about threats to society and dangers to the Catholic Faith for years. She has warned of the excesses of the cultural revolution of 1968, offered a critique of the ideology of feminism, and warned of the destructive effects of the sexual revolution. But what makes her especially qualified to speak about such matters is that she herself was a revolutionary soixante-huitard before converting to the Catholic Faith in 1997. 

Born in Konstanz, Germany, in 1944, Kuby studied sociology in Berlin and completed her Master’s degree in Konstanz under Ralf Dahrendorf in the late 1960s. For several decades before her conversion, she dabbled in esoteric material and worked as a translator and interpreter. Her first book, Mein Weg zu Maria—Von der Kraft lebendigen Glaubens (My Way to Maria—by the Power of the Living Faith), published by Bertelsmann Verlag in 1998, is a diary of her encounter with Christ and her life-changing conversion. 

Since then she has published ten other books about faith and spirituality, the 1968 cultural revolution, feminism, gender and sexuality, and how to find hope through a reaffirmation of Christian values. 

Kuby is a frequent lecturer in Germany and around Europe, and has written for numerous print and on-line publications in Europe, including the Die Tagespost in Germany, Vatican Magazin in Germany, and She has also been a guest on talk shows aired by German public service broadcasters ARD and ZDF, as well as global television network EWTN. 

In 2012, Kuby’s latest book, Die globale sexuelle Revolution: Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit (The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom)was published by Fe-Medienverlag in 2012. Recently, she spoke with Catholic World Report about her book, her work, and today’s dangerous challenges to the Faith. 

CWR: What has most influenced your intellectual development? 
Gabriele Kuby: My lifelong search for truth. My father, Erich Kuby, was a left-wing writer and journalist. That set me on the path of the 1968 student rebellion and eventually led to the study of sociology in West Berlin. But to me, neither Communism nor feminism, nor the sexual revolution, was convincing—especially given the gap between human reality and the ideals proclaimed by these groups. So I soon moved on. 

After a direct experience of God in 1973, I began to search for God on paths where you can’t find Him: esoterics and psychology. For twenty years I worked as a translator in these fields. And I moved through the ideological currents of our time—which made it very difficult to walk through the door of the Church and discover the treasures she offers. But eventually, in 1997, I did. Since then, I have been writing books on spiritual matters and socio-political issues. 

CWR: Last September, you published The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom.Why did you write this book? What has been the response?
Gabriele Kuby: After my conversion, it became increasingly clear to me that the deregulation of sexual norms is at the front lines of today’s cultural war. So, in 2006, I published my first book on the topic: Gender Revolution: Relativism in Action. This was, in fact, one of the first books to shed light on a hidden agenda. 

As I continued to watch developments in our society, I felt a need to show the whole picture. This is what I have tried to do in The Global Sexual Revolution. 
The book has had three editions within a few months, although the mainstream media have ignored it. In German we have the expression totschweigen, which means “silencing something to death.” But it doesn’t seem to have worked! The book has been published in Poland and Croatia, and will be published in Hungary and Slovakia this autumn. And there are ongoing negotiations with publishers in other countries, too. 

On September 31, 2012, I had the privilege of putting the book into the hands of Pope Benedict XVI, who then said to me, “Thank God that you speak and write.” This is a great encouragement! 

CWR: What is the main message of the book? 
Gabriele Kuby: That the deregulation of sexual norms leads to the destruction of culture. Why? Because, as established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the family is the basic unit of society—and it needs some basic moral conditions in which to thrive. 

But children—brought up today in a hyper-sexualized society in which they themselves are sexualized by the entertainment industry, the media, and mandatory school programs—are increasingly unable to become mature adults that are up to the demands of marriage, and the obligations of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. 

Furthermore, such a hyper-sexualized society cannot do without contraception and abortion. And the outcome of all this is the “culture of death,” a term coined by John Paul II.
CWR: Your book is subtitled, The Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom. What do you mean by that? 
Gabriele Kuby: In the wake of the dictatorships of the 20th century, and after a few centuries of the philosophical glorification of the individual, the highest value in our time is “freedom.” The deregulation of sexual norms has been “sold” to people as part of this freedom. 

But what happens if you do not control and master the sexual drive? You become a slave of that powerful drive—a sex addict who is constantly on the prowl for sexual satisfaction. And as Plato already showed 2,400 years ago, this leads to tyranny. 

Of course, this is all a rather complex process. But a simple thought can make it readily apparent: If people live in a culture where they lose sight of self-giving love—and, instead, use each other for sexual satisfaction—they will use others for anything that satisfies their needs. The only limits will be determined by how much power an individual has. And the ensuing social chaos produced by such sexual deregulation eventually calls for ever more control by the state. 

CWR: But doesn’t real freedom mean being able to live without any rules, norms, mores, or laws?
Gabriele Kuby: Freedom is, indeed, a fundamental human value. The freedom of the will is one of the essential differences between man and animals. Even God respects our freedom and allows us to destroy ourselves—and our world. 

But freedom can only be realized if it is related to truth—the truth of man, the truth of the relationship, the truth of the situation. Jesus says “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Freedom depends on people who take responsibility for the consequences of their actions on themselves and on others. 

In every society, the achievement and preservation of freedom is a battle that can only be fought by mature human beings—people who have realized an inner freedom within themselves. The idea that “freedom” means the ability to do what we like is adequate for a three-year-old child but not for those beyond that age. 

CWR: In Chapter XV, you say: “Man is born an egoist. But he must be taught virtue.” Can you elaborate on this?
Gabriele Kuby: A new-born baby cries when he feels any dissatisfaction; and for a year or two, parents should, as best they can, give the baby the experience of Paradise: immediate and total satisfaction. But very soon, as the child grows up, he leaves that Paradise and has to learn that there are other people around him who also have needs, and that there is good and bad in the world—this, the child knows intrinsically. 

This means that the ability to choose good requires self-control—and the ability to renounce small satisfactions in order to achieve a greater aim. Sociologists call this a “deferred gratification pattern.” But it must be learned or taught in children. And more than anything else, children learn from the example of their parents, whatever that example may be. Lucky are those children who learn virtue by the virtuous example of their parents. 

CWR: You make extensive references to Aldous Huxley’s 1931 classic, Brave New World. Why? 
Gabriele Kuby: It’s amazing to read Huxley’s prophetic work today! In Brave New World, people are produced in bottles; they are collectively conditioned to be “happy” by the media and psycho-pharmaceuticals; children entertain themselves with sex, like everybody else; and everything is controlled by “Ford (Our Lord).” 

While Huxley had originally conceived of his utopia 600 years into the future, by 1949 he saw it happening within a century. At that time there was no artificial insemination, no prenatal selection, no surrogate mothers, no genetic manipulation, no “parent 1” and “parent 2.” But it took less than fifty years for all that “progress” to occur! 

For Huxley, there was no reason why the new totalitarianism should resemble the old. He was aware that a dictator will give more sexual freedom—the more political and economic freedom is restricted. He knew that the real revolution happens “in the souls and bodies of people.” 

CWR: How is it that human beings have gained so many new rights but have also lost so much dignity?
Gabriele Kuby: We have not created ourselves nor can we create life. If we lose awareness that we have received our life from God, and that He has made us in His image and endowed us with an immortal soul, then we lose our dignity. And Man then succumbs to the temptation of “improving” man through genetic manipulation, and by discarding human beings at the beginning and end of life ad libitum. 
We protect the copyrights of authors with quite fierce laws. Let us also protect the copyright of God for the creation of man. It could save us from many man-made problems. 

CWR: So are we in a crisis–of civilization, of the family, or of belief? Where do its roots lie?
Gabriele Kuby: Sometimes at my talks I ask the audience to raise their hands if they think life for our children will be better, say, thirty years from now. Hardly any hands go up. We have this strange phenomenon in which people feel the crisis we are in, but they largely seem to be blind to the evil that brings it about. 

The cultural revolution of 1968 brought many ideas and social movements to their apogee. It attacked the Christian values to which the European culture owes its amazing flourishing—that is, its family-sustaining values, which even the Nazis and the Communists were unable to eradicate completely. 

CWR: Can you elaborate on the significance of the 1968 cultural revolution? 
Gabriele Kuby: The cultural revolution of 1968, brought about by the well-groomed bourgeois student generation of that time who had nothing to complain about, united three revolutionary impulses. First, young people became enthralled with Communist theory at a time when Berlin was divided by a wall and Russian tanks had rolled into Prague. Second, they also followed the call of radical feminist Simone de Beauvoir and others “to get out of the slavery of motherhood” and, above all, propagated—and lived—“sexual liberation.” Finally, there was a philosophical impulse that came from the Frankfurter School, which was made up of people like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse. 

The poisonous temptation was: If you “liberate” your sexuality—that is, if you tear down all moral restrictions—you can build a society free of repression. For more simple—and hippie—minds, this was condensed into the slogan, “Make love, not war (and take drugs).” 

The academically trained generation of 1968 realized that they could not mobilize the masses, least of all the “proletariat,” so they set out to “march through the institutions.” And this actually brought them into eventual positions of power in politics, media, the universities, and the judiciary. 

The goals of 1968 are now being realized through institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, and through left-wing—and even some “conservative”—governments, in unison with the powerful support of the mainstream media. 

CWR: The Brussels-based analyst Marguerite Peeters has also written about the globalization of this revolution. How is this happening?
Gabriele Kuby: Marguerite A. Peeters' 2007 book The Globalization of the Western Cultural Revolution was an eye-opener to me. I focus on the core of this revolution, which involves the deregulation of the moral norms of sexuality. 

This global sexual revolution is now being carried out by power elites. These include international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, with their web of inscrutable sub-organizations; global corporations like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft; the big foundations like Rockefeller and Guggenheim; extremely rich individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner, Georges Soros, and Warren Buffett; and non-governmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the International Lesbian and Gay Association. 

All of these actors operate at the highest levels of power with huge financial resources. And they all share one interest: to reduce population growth on this planet. Abortion, contraception, the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) agenda, the destruction of the family—all serve this one aim. 

However, this doesn’t satisfactorily explain why, for example, an ideologue like American theorist Judith Butler—who wants to destroy the identity of man and woman in order to undermine society through a political strategy of “gender mainstreaming”—is considered a philosopher laureate by these elites. But it perhaps does suggest a hidden agenda of the new world order. 

CWR: What exactly is “gender mainstreaming”?
Gabriele Kuby: The term “gender” was introduced into official documents at the UN’s International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 held in Cairo, Egypt, and at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 held in Beijing, China. The idea was to create the linguistic vehicle for a new ideology. “Gender” was to replace the term “sex” in the sense of referring to the binary sexual order of man and woman. Then radical feminist ideas and the LGBT agenda united and gave birth to the idea of “gender mainstreaming.” 

The term “gender” implies that a person’s sexual identity need not necessarily be identical to that person’s biological sex. It breaks down the binary male-female sexual nature of human beings. 

This dissolution of the binary sexual nature of man and woman serves two primary purposes: First, it aims to destroy the so-called “gender hierarchy” between man and woman. In other words, there are—according to gender theory—not two but many gender identities, which can include lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual men and women. Second, it aims to dissolve heterosexuality as the norm. This gender-based conception of man and woman aims to enter the mainstream of society—and, indeed, this is already happening at an incredible speed ! 

CWR: What role does pornography play in what you have diagnosed?
Gabriele Kuby: Pornography plays a huge part in the revolution. Maybe it is a kind of male revenge for the feminist war against men. People who drug themselves regularly with pornography lose sight of love, the family, the ability to become a father and mother. They become addicted and many end up on a slippery slope into the criminal use of sex. The alarming fact is that pornography has become “normal” for young people: 20% of teenage boys in Germany look at pornography daily; 42% view it once a week. What kind of people will they become? 

It is hard to understand why the EU fights so aggressively against pollution through smoking but not against pollution through pornography. The latter is more serious because it destroys the family. One cannot get rid of the images in one’s mind, even if one wants to. 

CWR: In Chapter V, you focus on the Yogyakarta Principles. What are they? 
Gabriele Kuby: The Yogyakarta Principles [on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity] were formulated by a group of so-called human rights experts meeting in the Indonesia town of Yogyakarta. They were then presented to the world in March 2007 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. 

This media event gave the world the impression that it was an official UN document. It is not! But if you do a quick search on the internet, you will be amazed to see how many governments, parties, and organizations are behind it. 

I devoted a whole chapter to this document because it clearly illustrates the totalitarian drive of the LGBT agenda. For example, Principle 29 calls for the establishment of “independent and effective institutions and procedures to monitor the formulation and enforcement of laws and policies to ensure the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” This means that a super-structure above the level of the nation-state should be established to reorganize and control the whole of society towards the privileges of the LGBT movement. 

I urge people to take a minute and read the Yogyakarta Principles—or at least just this one Principle 29—in order to get a sense of the document’s totalitarian agenda. 

CWR: Values like tolerance and diversity seem to have been appropriated to further this agenda.
Gabriele Kuby: The essential values of our time—freedom, justice, equality, non-discrimination, tolerance, dignity, and human rights—have been abused, distorted and manipulated by the cultural revolutionaries. 

In much the same way that an embryo is manipulated, the nucleus or core has been taken out of these honorable concepts and filled with something entirely new. One of the chapters in my book is called “The Political Rape of Language” and it considers this phenomenon. 

We must remember that the function of language is to communicate truth. So it is, in fact, very dangerous to corrupt language in the service of political mass manipulation. Throughout history, every totalitarian system has corrupted language in their efforts to manipulate people. Recall that the main Russian newspaper was called Pravda or “truth.” Sadly, in today’s media age, the opportunities to do this are much more sophisticated. 

CWR: Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre has written that concepts like virtue, beauty, and truth have lost their meaning in the modern world. How can we talk of such things in a world in which they are no longer understood? 
Gabriele Kuby: I don’t believe they are not understood. The problem is the cultural revolution which aims at destroying their content—and our cowardliness in failing to stand up for them. 

The very reason why the LGBT movement is becoming more totalitarian is that it recognizes that man has a conscience, that man yearns for love, and that he seeks truth, beauty, and goodness. Therefore, everything which tends to wake up man’s conscience must be eliminated. 

Thus, children must be programmed and sexualized in kindergarten so that they may lose their natural ability to distinguish between good and evil, and lose their natural inner orientation towards the good. 

CWR: John Paul II never shied away from speaking of the sexual nature of man and the beauty of the conjugal union. How do you understand his vision?
Gabriele Kuby: John Paul II gave the Church a great treasure with his “Theology of the Body,” and with the wealth of encyclicals and letters concerning the integrated vision of the human person—in body, soul, and spirit. In this time of great confusion, his is a light that shines into our minds, our hearts, our bedrooms. 

If God is love, and if we are called to be fellow citizens for God (Ephesians 2:19), then it follows that in this life we need to learn to love. The most intimate and all-encompassing expression of that love is the sexual union of man and woman out of which a new human being can arise. 

The modern world has reduced this sexual union to bodily satisfaction, and in so doing, it has separated body and soul. We already have a word for the permanent separation of body and soul—that is ‘death.’ By reducing sex to the level of the body—that is, the animal level—we have created a “culture of death.” 

We need to re-learn that sex is an expression of self-giving, of life-giving love. This would lead to a recovery of our terribly sick society. 

CWR: What is the “new anthropology” that you mention in Chapter X?
Gabriele Kuby: Pope Benedict XVI gave a very enlightening speech as part of his Christmas Greetings to the Curia and the Cardinals on December 21, 2012. He spoke then of the “anthropological revolution” of our time, pointing to the “attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family” in the form of a false understanding of man’s sexual nature. 

If man denies that he is created as man and woman in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that his sex is a “given element of nature,” and that he is called to love and to give life, then the root of human existence is being destroyed. The “new anthropology” refers to this conception of man. 

CWR: How would you describe yourself? Do you consider yourself a cultural critic, an intellectual historian, or a sociologist of religion?
Gabriele Kuby: People keep calling me a “prophet.” But I don’t, of course, compare myself with such giants—and I don’t particularly like the way they normally died! But as far as the inner obligation goes to speak the truth, no matter what, I feel I am part of their extended family. 

CWR: How should faithful Christians respond to the global sexual revolution? 
Gabriele Kuby: That, of course, is the big question for each and every one of us. Whether we like it or not, each of us must tidy up our own sexual life and order it according to the call for true, faithful, life-giving love. If we don’t, we will not see clearly—and we will have no motivation or power to participate in the ongoing battle. It is a battle for the dignity of man, for the family, for our children, for the future. Ultimately, it is a battle for the Kingdom of God. 

God wants us to live. Jesus says, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). There are many encouraging developments in Europe—stories of resistance to the global sexual revolution coming out of France, Lithuania, Russia, Hungary, Norway, and Croatia. But we need a strong, courageous movement in every country of people who are still able to recognize that 2 + 2 = 4; that is: that the eradication of sexual norms destroys the person, the family, and the culture. 

CWR: Do you think we can succeed? 
Gabriele Kuby: Let us not worry about success. We are working for a good cause now; our lives are worthwhile. The ultimate success is in the hands of God.