«La Chiesa é l' ostacolo da abbattere» - di Massimo Introvigne

In NBQ

Il 16 gennaio 2014 la Pontificia Commissione Teologica Internazionale ha pubblicato un corposo documento «Dio Trinità, unità fra gli uomini. Il monoteismo cristiano contro la violenza» (aqui em HTML; aqui em PDF), presentato come frutto di cinque anni di lavoro e come testo specificamente approvato e rivisto dal Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, il prossimo cardinale Gerhard Müller. Temo di essere facile profeta se prevedo che questo documento, lungo e complesso, sarà letto da pochi, avrà scarsa eco sui media e finirà rapidamente nel dimenticatoio. Male: perché questo grande lavoro, voluto e richiesto da Benedetto XVI e ora completato sotto Papa Francesco, è di qualità veramente notevole e denuncia un'aggressione senza precedenti alla Chiesa che è in atto da parte della cultura laicista dominante, rispondendo colpo su colpo.

«La Chiesa è l'ostacolo da abbattere». Così il documento descrive l'attuale temperie culturale, dove agguerriti poteri forti danno il tono non solo alla cultura dominante nelle università, ma anche alla maggior parte dei media. Come si cerca di abbattere la Chiesa? Ascrivendole la responsabilità di tutte le violenze più gravi della storia. Queste, si afferma, derivano dalla fede nell'esistenza di verità assolute garantite da Dio creatore di una natura che la ragione può conoscere e decifrare come verità. Derivano, cioè, dal rifiuto cattolico del relativismo: e dal monoteismo, che rende fanatici e intolleranti.

C'è, anzitutto, un «disegno totalitario del pensiero unico», fondato su un «sentire relativistico totale»: è la dittatura del relativismo, che aggredisce chiunque pensi che esista la verità. Anzi, la verità «viene esplicitamente indicata come una minaccia radicale per l’autonomia del soggetto e per l’apertura della libertà. Soprattutto perché la pretesa di una verità obiettiva e universale, di riferimento per tutti, supposto che sia accessibile allo spirito umano, viene immediatamente associata ad una pretesa di possesso esclusivo da parte di un soggetto o gruppo umano. Essa porterebbe così alla giustificazione del dominio dell’uomo che ne rivendica il possesso sull’uomo che, secondo questa pretesa, ne è privo. In conseguenza di questa rappresentazione della verità, che la ritiene inseparabile dalla volontà di potenza, anche l’impegno per la sua ricerca, e la passione della sua testimonianza, sono viste a priori come matrici di conflitto e di violenza fra gli uomini».

Per la dittatura del relativismo, di questa violenza sarebbe responsabile la Chiesa perché insegna il monoteismo. Se c'è un solo Dio c'è anche una sola verità. Se invece ci sono più dei, allora sono possibili più verità. Solo il politeismo garantisce il relativismo. C'è una vera inversione rispetto alla tradizionale storia delle religioni, anche laica, che considerava il monoteismo un progresso rispetto al politeismo. Questo «rovesciamento del quadro moderno è inaspettato: ora il monoteismo è arcaico e dispotico, il politeismo è creativo e tollerante».

Per mettere in conto ai cristiani - che certo talora nella storia hanno ceduto alla tentazione della violenza, ma assai meno di altri, e certo meno delle ideologie anticristiane - anche massacri commessi da altre religioni, continua il documento, si ricorre a una categoria che la storia delle religioni ha invece da tempo messa in discussione, quella delle «tre grandi religioni monoteistiche», che esprime certo qualcosa di vero ma tratta l'ebraismo, l'islam e il cristianesimo. - che sono invece molto diversi fra loro - come se il loro «monoteismo» fosse identico. È un notevole merito del documento denunciare «la sommaria classificazione dell’ebraismo, del cristianesimo e dell’islam, come le tre grandi “religioni monoteistiche”», perché si tratta di tesi diffuse anche nel mondo cattolico. Lo scopo per cui il moderno laicismo ripropone queste vecchie teorie non è il dialogo interreligioso ma l'attacco alla religione, il cui scopo principale è attaccare il cristianesimo, anzi attaccare in particolare la Chiesa Cattolica. «Non possiamo passare sotto silenzio il fatto che, in qualche parte intellettualmente rilevante della nostra cultura occidentale, l’aggressività con la quale viene riproposto questo “teorema”, si concentra essenzialmente nella denuncia radicale del cristianesimo». «La puntigliosa identificazione del cristianesimo cattolico come l’ostacolo da abbattere, nella lotta contro il monoteismo che diffonde la violenza religiosa nel mondo, nonostante tutto, non cessa di stupire».

Il documento ribatte colpo su colpo a queste accuse. Interpreta alcune affermazioni bellicose dell'Antico Testamento, mostrando che s'inquadrano in uno specifico contesto storico, vanno lette anche come metafore della lotta contro il Diavolo e il male morale, e soprattutto sono state superate dal messaggio del Vangelo. In una parte di non agevole lettura del documento, ispirata al Magistero di Benedetto XVI, si fa anche notare che il cristianesimo ha permesso per la prima volta nella storia la distinzione - non la separazione - fra religione e politica, e ha fondato l’autonomia della politica, superando ogni tentazione teocratica.

Non è vero, si aggiunge, che il politeismo è tollerante: nel clima culturale creato dalle religioni politeistiche si sono consumate autentiche stragi contro i seguaci di religioni diverse. Associare politeismo e tolleranza appare persino «stravagante». La stessa «religione politeistica dell’impero romano, a sua volta, con tutta la straordinaria modernità del suo concetto di cittadinanza, e della sua struttura multi-etnica e multi-religiosa, perseguitò con specifico accanimento il cristianesimo, colpevole di rifiutare l’incensazione dell’imperatore come figura divina. La risposta si espresse nella testimonianza non violenta e nell’accettazione del martirio cristiano». Non parliamo, poi, delle ideologie moderne, portatrici di «un crescente e sconcertante dispiegamento di stili di vita e di comportamento ispirati alla violenza: spontanea, immediata, distruttiva. Sempre più inconsapevole di se stessa, e persino eticamente giustificata», o consacrata dalle leggi. Le ideologie, specie quelle distruttive del XX secolo, sono in realtà i nuovi politeismi, dove «l’uomo ostile al Dio buono e creatore, nell’ossessione di “diventare come Lui”, diventa un “Dio perverso” e prevaricatore nei confronti dei suoi simili. Dal politeismo di queste controfigure narcisistiche del “Dio perverso”, che viene dal peccato fin dall’origine, non può venire nulla di buono per la pacifica convivenza fra gli uomini».

Oggi l'aggressione contro la Chiesa Cattolica e i cristiani continua, fondata sul
«pregiudizio – tipico del modello razionalistico – secondo il quale, anche sul piano esistenziale e sociale, c’è un solo modo per affermare la verità: negare la libertà o eliminare l’antagonista». L'orizzonte è quello dell'eliminazione di Dio e dell'imposizione - ora suadente, ora violenta - dell’ateismo, con la conseguente negazione della libertà. «L’eliminazione di Dio, stabilita sulla base di una ragione "naturalistica", si associa oggi frequentemente alla risoluzione "biologica" della libertà umana. In questa prospettiva il nostro cervello si è costruito il pensiero di Dio per ragioni legate ad un determinato stadio evolutivo: in funzione del governo della complessità, per compensare l’inevitabilità della frustrazione, come dispositivo di neutralizzazione della morte».

La religione è dunque una patologia, che va eliminata. Il futuro che le ideologie preparano all'umanità è però un futuro di violenza e di morte. Già oggi viviamo - conclude il documento - nel «tempo della persecuzione», che «deve essere sostenuto, nell’attesa della conversione sperata per tutti. Di questa pazienza, di questa sopportazione, di questa tenacia dei “santi” nel portare la tribolazione dell’attesa, noi siamo in debito di riconoscenza verso molti fratelli e sorelle perseguitati per la loro appartenenza cristiana. Noi onoriamo la loro testimonianza come la risposta decisiva alla domanda sul senso della missione cristiana in favore di tutti. L’epoca di una nuova evidenza a riguardo del rapporto fra religione e violenza fra gli uomini è aperta dal loro coraggio. Dovremo sapercelo meritare. Dell’avvento di questa nuova epoca, e dei frutti dello Spirito che ne devono seguire, la Madre del Signore deve essere considerata l’insostituibile custode. La coscienza e l’invocazione della sua speciale intercessione, dovrà essere un tema speciale della nostra conversione e della nostra preghiera».

Amazing Interview With Cardinal Burke . . . Insights On The Church And Modern Society

In The Wanderer

By DON FIER (Editor's Note: Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, who formerly served as bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis., and archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Mo., recently spent some time in the United States. The Catholic Servant was granted the opportunity to interview His Eminence in mid-July on a variety of topics at Eternal Life's The Church Teaches Forum in Louisville, Ky. The Catholic Servant  a Minneapolis- based newspaper  gave The Wanderer permission to reprint the interview.

(Don Fier serves on the Board of Directors for The Catholic Servant and he writes the Learn Your Faith column for The Wanderer.) + + +

Q. Six years ago, Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed for the usage of the Tridentine Mass on a wider scale in the Church. In his accompanying letter to the bishops, the Holy Father stated that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching." Do you see concrete benefits that have come to the Church in the past several years because of Summorum Pontificum?

A. I have witnessed a number of benefits. First, there is now a much stronger sense of the divine action in the Ordinary Form. There was a certain tendency in the celebration of the Ordinary Form to center attention on the priest and the congregation rather than on Christ, Who comes into the midst of the congregation through the ministry of the priest acting in His Person to give the gift of His life as He first gave it on Calvary and to make that sacrifice new for us in each holy Mass.

Another closely connected benefit is an appreciation of the true reform of the liturgy desired by the Council, namely a reform that would be in continuity with the centuries-long tradition of the Church, not a renewal that would be a break from that liturgical tradition. The celebration of the two Forms of the Roman rite have led to a growing consciousness of the need to retrieve some of the elements of the liturgical tradition too quickly discarded after the Council, contrary to the intention of the Council.

In other words, what Pope Benedict XVI had in mind was to promote the reform as it was truly desired by the Council, namely a reform in continuity with the centuries- long tradition of the Church and not a rupture. The renewed

reformed rite of the Mass is not a new Mass, but is in continuity with the holy Mass as it has always been celebrated.

Q. It has been about four months since Pope Francis became the 266th Roman Pontiff. From the vantage point of your office in Rome, have you observed any tangible changes in tone or day- today operation in the Vatican? What is the role of the group of eight Cardinals formed by Pope Francis?

A. Certainly Pope Francis, as is the case with every Pope, has his distinctive style which is not the same as Pope Benedict' s. Everyone is adjusting to that. It is a style that has very much appealed to the faithful in terms of the number of pilgrims coming to Rome and their positive and overwhelming response to the new Holy Father. He has a way of communicating with people that is direct and which demonstrates his fatherly concern for them as individuals. When people see the fatherly and spiritual care that he gives to others, they understand that he also has the same care for them.

With regard to changes, the Holy Father has indicated that he wants to study a reform of the Roman curia and that would necessarily mean also a reform in his way of relating to the particular churches throughout the world. He is studying all of that at the present moment. Those of us who hold offices in the Roman curia have been confirmed provisionally until he has finished this study. As Pope Francis has himself said, he was not part of the Roman curia and is just now coming to know the operation of the curia, and that takes time. He has only been in office for four months, so we are waiting to see.

The group of eight Cardinals Pope Francis named [ to advise him on the reform of the Roman curia] is the result of a suggestion made during the general congregation before the conclave and is actually a suggestion that was discussed some years ago. The norms for the functioning of the body have not yet been published and so I cannot say exactly what will be the scope of the considerations presented to the group or precisely how it will operate. I imagine that that type of document will be forthcoming and then we will know more about it. What seems clear is that the Holy Father wants to have a group of close and highly qualified advisors to consult with in carrying out his responsibilities.

Q. On May 13 Pope Francis consecrated his papacy to Our Lady of Fatima. What is the significance of this action?

A. I think it is deeply significant. First, it is an expression of profound devotion to Our Blessed Mother which clearly marks the life of Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his pontificate, he has repeatedly invoked the intercession of Our Blessed Mother whenever he offers holy Mass. He always reverences the image of the Blessed Mother in the sanctuary, not only by incensing her or praying before her  he will always reach up and touch the image in an act of special affection and devotion.

With regard to Our Lady of Fatima, we know well the prophecies that were given to the three seers at Fatima which have all now been published and what they indicate with regard to the attacks of Satan upon the Roman Pontiff. I am sure that Pope Francis has this clearly in mind and is invoking the intercession of Our Lady for her protection even as she protected Blessed John Paul II from an assassin' s bullet. It was on Our Lady of Fatima's feast day that the dreadful attempt occurred, and John Paul was fully convinced that she interceded to save his life. I believe that Pope Francis is imploring that same intercession and protection from her at this time.

Q. Things seem to be declining at an accelerating rate in our country. For example, it is shocking how quickly things happened in Minnesota. A year ago it seemed almost certain that a November ballot referendum would constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Despite a heroic effort by Archbishop John Nienstedt and many other Church leaders, it failed. Just four months later a law was enacted making Minnesota the 12th state to legalize so- called same- sex marriage. How did we get to this point? Aside from prayer and fasting, what can the faithful do?

A. First of all, I would underline the need for much prayer and fasting. The alarming rapidity of the realization of the homosexual agenda ought to awaken all of us and frighten us with regard to the future of our nation. This is a work of deceit, a lie about the most fundamental aspect of our human nature, our human sexuality, which after life itself defines us. There is only one place these types of lies come from, namely Satan. It is a diabolical situation which is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and eventually our nation.

How did we get to this point? The fact that these kinds of "arrangements" are made legal is a manifestation of a culture of death, of an anti- life and anti- family culture which has existed in our nation now for some time. We as Catholics have not properly combatted it because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention. I can say this because I was the bishop of two different dioceses.

After fifty years of this, we have many adult voters who support politicians with immoral positions because they do not know their Catholic Faith and its teaching with regard to same- sex attraction and the inherent disorder of sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. Therefore, they are not able to defend the Catholic Faith in this matter.

What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity. Charity means speaking the truth, especially the truth about human life and human sexuality. While we love the individual, we desire only the best for one who suffers from an inclination to engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex. We must abhor the actions themselves because they are contrary to nature itself as God has created us.

The virtue of charity leads us to be kind and understanding to the individual, but also to be firm and steadfast in opposing the evil itself. This confusion is widespread. I have encountered it many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence  people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not  politically correct. But we cannot be silent any longer or we will find ourselves in a situation that will be very difficult to reverse.

Canon 915

Q. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when recently questioned at a press briefing about the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did in murdering a baby born alive at 23 weeks as compared to the practice of aborting a baby moments before birth, refused to answer. Instead she is reported to have responded: "As a practicing and respectful Catholic this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don't think it should have anything to do with politics." How are we to react to such a seemingly scandalous statement? Is this a case where Canon 915 might properly be applied? [Editor's Note:Canon 915 of the Church's Code of Canon Law states that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."]

A. Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin  cooperating with the crime of procured abortion  and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must  in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.

What Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking of is not particular confessional beliefs or practices of the Catholic Church. It belongs to the natural moral law which is written on every human heart and which the Catholic Church obviously also teaches: that natural moral law which is so wonderfully illumined for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ by His saving teaching, but most of all by His Passion and death.

To say that these are simply questions of Catholic Faith which have no part in politics is just false and wrong. I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.

Q. Many faithful Catholics are troubled when high- profile political figures with unconcealed antilife, anti- family positions are honored in such ways as receiving invitations to speak at Catholic university commencement ceremonies and given honorary degrees or memorialized at public Catholic funeral Masses without having renounced their immoral positions. Faithful Catholics, at the same time, are taught they have committed a serious sin if they vote for these same candidates. How are those who are seriously trying to live out their faith to reconcile this apparent contradiction?

A. You cannot reconcile it, it is a contradiction, it is wrong, it is a scandal, and it must stop! We live in a culture with a false sense of dialogue which has also crept into the Church where we pretend to dialogue about open and egregious violations of the moral law. Can we believe it is permissible to recognize publicly people who support open and egregious violations, and then act surprised if someone is scandalized by it? For Catholic institutions or individuals to give recognition to such persons, to honor them in any way, is a source of grave scandal for which they are responsible. In a certain way, they contribute to the sinfulness of the individuals involved. There is no way to reconcile it; it simply is wrong.

Mass Attendance

Q. Polls consistently report that only 20- 25 percent of those who identify themselves as Catholics regularly attend Sunday Mass. Consequently, many seem to be unaware of how HHS mandate provisions will impact religious liberty despite the USCCB and bishops being outspoken in their warnings. So even though bishops are trying to get the message out about impending dangers to the family, religious liberty, and so forth, how can they do so in such an environment? How can the lay faithful best assist? [Editor's Note:  The  HHS mandate is the mandate by the Health and Human Services department of the federal government that requires all health plans to provide coverage at no cost for contraceptives, abortion- inducing drugs, and sterilization as part of so- called preventative health services for women.] 

A. Sadly, in the time after the Second Vatican Council, there was a reform of the sacred liturgy which made it man- centered and banal. In some cases it actually became hard for people to bear because of illicit insertions, foreign agendas, and imposition of the personalities of priests and congregations into the liturgy to the point that people began to think that the Mass was some sort of social activity. If they did not find it acceptable, they did not go anymore.

If one understands what the Mass truly is, Christ Himself coming down from Heaven to renew the sacrifice of Calvary, how could you possibly not be there on Sunday? In the past people understood this and Mass attendance was in the 80- 90 percent range. We have to restore the sanctity of the celebration of Holy Eucharist so that those who have fallen away will return to the practice.

Secondly, when people are not coming to Mass in great numbers, as is the case, they do not hear the Sunday homily which is the principal means for instruction of faithful adults in the Church. In some places, even where people do attend Mass, they are not being instructed as they should be. The bishops first, and then the priests with them, must be clear and consistent in presenting the truth about the freedom of conscience and the evils of the health-care mandate.

Thirdly, in the situation as it is, which we simply must recognize, lay people giving witness to fellow lay people is the only solution. More and more sincere and informed Catholics must be ready to give an account of their Faith to others even if they are not the most eloquent and articulate. The very fact that they approach and speak with a fellow Catholic about a question like freedom of conscience will not go without a positive effect on that individual.

Q. Are we on the verge of reaching a point when well- educated, well- trained Catholics who are faithful to Church teaching on morality will no longer be hired in fields like health care, education, social services, or counseling where their religious beliefs are at odds with government policies and deviant cultural norms that are considered mainstream in our society? Is widespread persecution imminent? Is it possible to hold the government back?

A. If the present government, which can be described in no other way than totalitarian, is not held back from the course it is on, these persecutions will follow. It will not be possible for Catholics to exercise most of the normal human services whether in health care, education, or social welfare because in conscience they will no longer be able to do what the government demands: to cooperate in grave moral evil. We are heading in that direction and even see it now.

I receive many inquiries from Catholic owners of small companies who are involved with insurance whose consciences are rightly deeply troubled by the present situation in our country. It is not easy to find a way to operate with reasonable health- care coverage for some of them. This is an intolerable situation in our country and it must stop.

Yes, it can be turned back, we are a democracy. A government like ours can and must be stopped in what it is doing. Polls tell us that the majority of Americans are opposed to procured abortion and also are opposed to the idea of recognizing the sexual union of two persons of the same sex in marriage or the equivalent of marriage. Why then is our government imposing this upon a people who, with rightly formed consciences, oppose these matters?

I never thought I would ever say this, but we should follow the example of France. The French people have a government that is sadly much like our own. In a totalitarian way, it passed and is trying to enforce a bill giving legal recognition to so- called marital unions between two persons of the same sex. The French people are out on the streets in protest, one demonstration had upwards of two million people. There has arisen in France among the people the will to resist the government and that is what we need in this country.

We cannot go along with government policies and laws which are destroying the most innocent and defenseless among us. This will also redound to great harm to those who have grown weak through advanced age or serious illness. This is all a pattern: the complete corruption about the truth of human sexuality which has already wrought such terrible harm to individuals and families and to our society has to be stopped.

Encourage The Young

Q. To close, what have you observed in your travels throughout the world that gives you the greatest reason for hope?

A. The greatest sign of hope for me is the young people I meet who believe more than my generation and recognize how bankrupt our culture is and want the truth. They realize that this whole bill of goods we have been sold with regard to abortion, same- sex unions, and so forth is ultimately destructive. So I would say that is the greatest single cause for hope.

But these young people need the encouragement of those of us who are older. They need to have the wisdom from those of the older generation who have valiantly fought the battle for the truth, for what is truly charitable because it is true and in accord with God's law. Those of us who are older should take great encouragement; at the same time, we must invest ourselves in communicating with the younger generation and helping them to build a better future.

I think of the little ones who are growing up now my great- nieces and nephews  and I am sometimes filled with much sadness because I see their parents work so hard to raise them in a truly Christian home and are adhering to the truths of the Faith and practicing their faith. But the world which they will enter as adults, if they are going to remain true to their faith, will require them to be courageously strong.

Intelijumento e impiedoso - por Nuno Serras Pereira

29. 08. 2013

Entre as formidáveis características da vasta maioria do povo português (para não dizer europeu) que se tem como católico, e tal se diz, há duas que se destacam sobremaneira: a boçalidade e a desumanidade. Estas propriedades espantosas são louvadas, encorajadas e mesmo abençoadas por amplos sectores da Hierarquia que parecem ver nelas instrumentos e sinais essenciais de comunhão, de unidade e de paz.

Muitos cuidam que desimitando a exemplaridade de Jesus Cristo, anunciando e afirmando tão só “coisas positivas”, descurando a denúncia e a oposição ao mal, ao erro e ao pecado sossegam os anticristos que por aí pululam ferozmente organizados, quando na verdade lhes abrem as portas à progressão, ao avantajamento, ao domínio implacável das consciências e de um criminoso poder totalitário. Outros descansam no dito de Jesus Cristo que se O perseguiram a Ele também nos perseguirão a nós. Asserção, de facto, infalível mas o que daí inferem é uma alarvice. De feito, concluem que nada lhes resta senão conformarem-se à perseguição entregando-se ao martírio; sem reflectirem que não são somente eles que estão em perigo mas também o bem das suas famílias, da sociedade, dos mais fracos e desfavorecidos, dos indefesos e dos inocentes, enfim o Bem-comum, pelo qual têm o dever estrito e grave de combater com todas as veras, prudência (não timoratamente, mas escolhendo os meios mais adequados fim que se propõem) e inteligência. Há ainda quem olhe para o presente com a mesma distância neutra e fria com que se consideram acontecimentos trágicos e nefastos de séculos passados, esquecendo que se nada podem fazer em relação ao que já sucedeu, têm a obrigação rigorosa de evitar que as mesmas catástrofes se repitam. Talvez se possa afirmar que os que assim pensam e procedem padecem de um embrutecimento comum: não aprenderem nada com o passado. De facto, temos aí todos os sinais e mais alguns que precederam os mais cruéis terrores e perseguições a que os povos e a Igreja foram submetidos – a revolução francesa, o socialismo, o comunismo, o fascismo (Mussolini), o nazismo -: o jacobinismo maçónico, a ideologia lgbt, a ideologia do género, a devastação da família fundada no matrimónio, a vigilância universal, a destruição da inocência das crianças nas escolas, a perversão das mentalidades pelas séries e telenovelas nas tevês, o eugenismo, o controlo demográfico, a matança sistemática, sem precedentes, dos inocentes, a experimentação descabelada, faustiana, nas pessoas na etapa inicial das suas vidas, a eutanásia, o efeminizar dos homens, o aniquilamento da maternidade e da nupcialidade, a fantasia de “parentalidades” canalhas, o rapto por parte do estado de crianças a seus pais, etc., etc. 

Os exemplos atrás que ilustram a cretinice e indiferença de tantos perante a malignidade que nos acomete e abocanha mostra outrossim o desprezo frio e cruel para com todas as vítimas, não só actuais mas futuras, das trevas que vertiginosamente se vão adensando. O carácter profundamente egoísta e inumano destas gentes revela-se com uma clarividência meridiana quando topamos com a reacção veemente e colérica da classe média e alta perante os cortes no bolso próprio, e o insensível marasmo displicente quando em relação aos pequeninos: os nascituros, as vítimas do divórcio, as crianças produzidas-congeladas-eliminadas-e-pouquíssimas-nascidas por processos técnico-laboratoriais, a co-adopção-adopção-plena por parelhas do mesmo sexo; e tudo o mais que já anteriormente foi referido.

O Senhor ensinou que quem procurar salvar a sua própria vida perdê-la-á mas quem a perder por Sua causa salvá-la-á. Também poderíamos parafrasear afirmando que quem procurar salvar a Igreja (espertezas saloias, diplomacias humanas, etc.) perdê-la-á (recordemos que historicamente ela já foi perdida em vários sítios do mundo, como lembrou o Papa Bento XVI) mas quem a perder (quem não recear a loucura da Cruz) por caus ade Jesus salvá-la-á. A Igreja é Cristo em nós. Nós somos o Corpo de Cristo. À honra e Glória do mesmo e de Sua e nossa Mãe a Imaculada Virgem Maria. Ámen.

Caso Cerrelli, prove tecniche di totalitarismo - di Massimo Introvigne

In NBQ

I professionisti dell’anti-omofobia – uso l’espressione nello stesso senso in cui lo scrittore Leonardo Sciascia (1921-1989) denunciava severamente i «professionisti dell’antimafia» – hanno finalmente gettato la maschera. Fino a ieri sostenevano che la legge sull’omofobia non impedisce affatto la libera espressione di opinioni sull’omosessualità, anche opposte alle loro. È bastato un piccolo granellino di sabbia in quello che credevano fosse un ingranaggio perfetto per indispettirli talmente da indurre a dire la verità. Ed è partito il contrordine compagni: la legge sull’omofobia è necessaria precisamente per impedire, brandendo la minaccia dell’azione penale e del carcere, che qualcuno esprima liberamente idee in tema di omosessualità difformi dall’omosessualismo dominante, perché queste idee sono intollerabili e pericolose.

Il granello di sabbia si è manifestato nel corso della trasmissione «Unomattina Estate» dello scorso 20 agosto, quando l’avvocato Giancarlo Cerrelli, vice-presidente dell’Unione Giuristi Cattolici Italiani, ha inflitto al portavoce del Gay Center, Fabrizio Marrazzo, quello che in gergo sportivo si chiamerebbe un cappotto. A Marrazzo, che sosteneva che una legge sull’omofobia è necessaria per impedire che i gay siano fatti oggetto di violenze e discriminazioni, Cerrelli ha replicato citando leggi e giurisprudenza in base alle quali le aggressioni e le vere discriminazioni degli omosessuali oggi in Italia sono già punite, lasciando l’attivista omosessuale letteralmente senza parole. Cerrelli lo ha incalzato elencandogli opinioni che, se liberamente espresse, sarebbero punite dalla legge sull’omofobia italiana come lo sono da analoghe leggi estere, fra cui quelle secondo cui la propria condizione è percepita come un disagio da molti omosessuali, che ricorrono alle cosiddette terapie riparative, o che l’atto omosessuale dal punto di vista morale è sempre oggettivamente disordinato, che è poi semplicemente quanto insegna il «Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica». Anche qui, gli oppositori non hanno potuto rispondere a Cerrelli – perché non è vero – che, dopo l’approvazione della legge sull’omofobia, queste opinioni potrebbero essere liberamente e tranquillamente espresse, senza tema di manette.

Indispettite per il successo dialettico di Cerrelli nel dibattito televisivo, le organizzazioni omosessuali hanno reagito con la ormai abituale virulenza. Franco Grillini, presidente dell’Arcigay, ha scritto in una nota che «il vizietto di confondere scienza e fede o, peggio, di far passare come scientifici pregiudizi sociali o religiosi costituisce un atto di indiscutibile disonestà che se compiuto da professionisti persino iscritti all’albo vanno [sic] segnalati come abuso e perseguiti come tali». Quello che è interessante, qui, è l’invito a «perseguire» Cerrelli e il riferimento a «professionisti pesino iscritti all’albo»: ispirato dal precedente canadese che abbiamo documentato su queste colonne, Grillini sembra «consigliare» all’Ordine degli Avvocati di prendere provvedimenti contro il giurista cattolico.

Ma c’è di peggio. Sull’onda delle associazioni gay è intervenuta anche la politica. Il deputato e capogruppo di Sinistra e Libertà in Commissione Ambiente alla Camera dei Deputati, Alessandro Zan, ha pubblicato una nota chiedendo che alla Rai sia impedito d’invitare nelle sue trasmissioni «ospiti ultra cattolici e omofobi», chiedendo subito «l’intervento della Commissione Parlamentare di Vigilanza». «È impensabile – scrive Zan – che il servizio pubblico si faccia megafono di tesi, teorie e personaggi che esprimono opinioni discriminanti». Con questa nota, il caso Cerrelli – ma anche la discussione sull’omofobia – fa un salto di qualità. Per chiunque si fermi un attimo a riflettere, si tratta di una presa di posizione gravissima e totalitaria. Un esponente politico chiede alla Rai d’imbavagliare una parte in una discussione politica e culturale. Chi esprime opinioni contrarie all’ideologia dominante in tema di omosessualità dev’essere silenziato ed escluso dal dibattito.

Il cerchio si è chiuso con un intervento, di non minore gravità, di Giuseppe Luigi Palma, presidente del Consiglio Nazionale dell’Ordine degli Psicologi, il quale ha dichiarato  «gravissimo che i detrattori della legge antiomofobia ripropongano, tra le altre, l’idea che […] l’orientamento omosessuale sia da modificare, contraddicendo palesemente quanto, invece, da anni sostiene la comunità scientifica internazionale che, a ragione, ha da tempo rigettato le cosiddette terapie di conversione e riparative. Affermare che l’omosessualità possa essere curata o che l’orientamento sessuale di una persona si debba modificare, come recentemente dichiarato dal vicepresidente Unione giuristi cattolici italiani, è una informazione scientificamente priva di fondamento e portatrice di un pericoloso sostegno al pregiudizio sociale ancora così fortemente radicato nella nostra società, come dimostrano, purtroppo, i sempre più diffusi fatti di cronaca. Ribadisco, se mai ce ne fosse bisogno che gli psicologi, secondo il Codice deontologico, non possono prestarsi ad alcuna ‘terapia riparativa’ dell’orientamento sessuale di una persona».

La posizione dell’Ordine degli Psicologi italiano sulle terapie riparative è nota, così come sono note le opinioni critiche di molti sull’Ordine degli Psicologi in genere e sulle sue frequenti prese di posizione di natura ideologica in particolare, che hanno spinto alcuni – dall’interno stesso della professione psicologica – a richiedere l’abolizione di tale Ordine. Ma anche in questo caso ora assistiamo a un salto di qualità. S’impugna il randello per picchiare sull’avversario ideologico e si chiede che a chi espone dottrine che Palma considera «pericolose» non sia dato spazio in pubblico. E se le opinioni pericolose «sostengono il pregiudizio sociale» – addirittura causano i suicidi, che è poi quanto vuole dire Palma con riferimento ai «fatti di cronaca» – non appena approvata la legge sull’omofobia queste opinioni diventeranno reati. E magari un giudice chiamerà a testimoniare qualche gerarca dell’Ordine degli Psicologi, il quale assicurerà che chiunque parli di terapie riparative è un omofobo e quindi un delinquente. Del resto, si capisce facilmente di quale natura siano i pregiudizi del suo presidente Palma considerando che alle elezioni regionali pugliesi del 2010 è stato candidato nella lista di Nichi Vendola.

All’avvocato Giancarlo Cerrelli va tutta la nostra solidarietà. In televisione, Cerrelli ha davvero combattuto la buona battaglia, costringendo i promotori della legge sull’omofobia a gettare la maschera e a rivelare che cosa pensano e che cosa vogliono davvero. Da oggi non è più lecito per nessuno, magari per quieto vivere parlamentare o per ragioni di convenienza politica, fingere di non avere capito. Lo scopo della legge sull’omofobia è far tacere chiunque si permetta di esporre opinioni contrarie all’ideologia omosessualista. Anzi, prima farlo tacere e poi espellerlo dal suo ordine professionale e mandarlo in prigione. Comunque la si pensi in materia di omosessualità, è essenziale rendersi conto che stiamo assistendo alla posa della prima pietra di quel carcere per tutti gli uomini e le donne libere che Benedetto XVI chiamava «dittatura del relativismo», e che è la versione aggiornata «gaia» dei totalitarismi del XX secolo.

Media e politici, complici dei nuovi tiranni - di Luca Volontè

In NBQ

Caro direttore,

esiste un limite al ridicolo che non può essere oltrepassato senza urtare il comune senso del pudore e della buona creanza.

Vorrei ricapitolare le ridicolaggini esplose nelle ultime settimane, comprensive di insulti e accuse allarmistiche varie, per cercare di valutare la situazione con un minimo di obiettività.

Molto prima della partenza per le mie brevi vacanze alpine, molto più scarne di quanto non lo fossero quando con onore rappresentavo il popolo italiano, mi è parso di capire da una serie di sevizi televisivi sui canali pubblici della Rai, che era stato incendiato il liceo Socrate di Roma. Si disse che fosse stato incendiato perché quel Liceo rappresentava a Roma il simbolo della libertà di espressione gay tra adolescenti italiani. Nessuna enfasi televisiva, in nessun telegiornale pubblico, tantomeno nella stampa italiana, sulla notizia furtiva apparsa on-line sulle agenzie, della scoperta che i dolosi incendiari fossero in realtà studenti bocciati per demerito scolastico. Dopo il caso fantastico del soldato Manning, avrei suggerito loro di dirsi 'gay e lesbiche' e inscenare una protesta per bocciatura causata da 'omofobia' del corpo docente...

Qualche settimana dopo, con incredibile enfasi, pari a quella che venne suscitata anni orsono per i medesimi tragici avvenimenti in Piemonte, viene data la notizia che uno studente si toglie la vita. La polizia indaga e nel frattempo si scatenano le voci sulla urgenza della norma illiberale contro la 'omofobia'. Putroppo solo taluni, pochi e onesti giornalisti, hanno l'ardire di fare sapere al popolo italico che paga il canone Rai, quanto i genitori e gli insegnanti dell'alunno non fossero né avessero mai sospettato della omosessualità del ragazzo. Egli, ormai morto, è oggetto di una insana speculazione e un incivile uso da parte dei sostenitori della legge in questione. Risultato: mentre le indagini sono ancora in corso, sembrerebbe che il suicido, come nei casi ricordati e altrettanto tragici degli ultimi anni, sia frutto di bullismo o eccessivo cameratismo tra studenti.

Infine, mi duole dirlo, la strumentalizzazione delle parole del Santo Padre, un amico come Egli preferisce definirsi, nel viaggio di ritorno dalla Giornata Mondiale della Gioventù e la 'protesta' reiterata e insistente contro uno spettacolo messo in scena dalla Azione Cattolica di Bisceglie su un gay che incontrando Cristo è cambiato. Ovviamente, tutto fa parte della commedia ridicola già messa in scena in molti altri Paesi europei, supportata da indagini statistiche della Agenzia dei Diritti Umani di Vienna sulla cui scientificità mia nonna avrebbe da raccontare molte storie alle amiche di cortile.

Non ultimo, l'attacco sfrontato nei confronti di Tempi e del Meeting di Rimini, tutto nella linea di cercare di indurre la convinzione psicologica negli italiani che la proposta di legge contro l'omofobia, una vera e propria legge stalinista e hitleriana per dirla con il grande liberale Ostellino (medesima opinione dei liberali Giacalone, Veneziani o del politico Brunetta), è urgente e indispensabile.

Un mio vecchio e sempre giovane amico, anche in questi pochi giorni di riposo, mi ha suggerito la sempreverde verità che cioè ci troviamo in un crinale della storia in cui dire il vero e promuovere l'umana natura è perciò stesso pericoloso reato.

In tutto questo bailamme, io accuso pubblicamente la gran parte dei mass media italiani - inclusi coloro che per origine del proprio stipendio dovrebbero avere il pudore della verità e dell'equilibrio - di ignavia e pavidità. Molti dei politici liberali di codardia per non volersi assumere quella responsabilità pubblica di denunciare, se passasse questa legislazione illiberale e contraria ai basilari diritti umani, l'infamia che si sta perpetrando a danno dei cittadini italiani di questa e della futura generazione. I miei amici politici cristiani di non voler finalmente abbandonare il vizio diabolico della superbia e della presunzione, della vanagloria e del discredito altrui, pur di apparire più ragionevoli o credibili di altri. Non è il tempo degli orpelli, è il tempo della battaglia dura, seria e generosa per la difesa della umanità e della democrazia.

Sono molto amico e mi pregio della reciproca stima di molti omosessuali in Europa, taluni la pensano esattamente come me e sono sconcertati dalla lobby gay, altri sono gay e mi contrastano e rispettano. Forse sarebbe utile spiegare la differenza tra omosessuali e membri della lobby gay anche ai consiglieri del Santo Padre che a volte appaiono molto confusi in materia.

Caro direttore,
mi lasci spendere una ultima parola sulla consapevolezza della Chiesa italiana - mi riferisco alla consapevolezza sinora dimostrata pubblicamente - della drammatica situazione che stiamo vivendo in Italia nei confronti della ideologia totalitaria del Gender, di cui questa leggiucola è un primo e fondamentale tassello diabolico. Confido che l'Assemblea Permanente della Cei sappia aggiungere la sua autorevole voce alle tante associazioni laiche e cattoliche e metta in campo le proprie ragioni in difesa dell'Italia e del popolo italiano anche in questa circostanza.

Mi sembra che esista una 'pruderie', un senso del 'pudore' eccessivo nel dire con chiarezza la verità, tra l'altro nota a tutti e così diffusa nel mondo occidentale: in diverse forme lobbies LGBT e ideologia totalitarista gender vogliono 'ri-fare', con ogni mezzo, l'umanità e la società, privare i genitori dei propri diritti-doveri nei confronti dei figli, limitare l'insopprimibile diritto umano al pensiero, parola, credo, manifestazione, educazione etc...Perchè ogni ideologia è per sua natura insaziabile.

Nel difendere l'umano, ho più volte detto pubblicamente, si difende la base civile e sociale della democrazia e si evita che essa, come dicevano Washington e Lincoln, deperisca e decada verso forme di aristocratiche tirannie. Per passione di libertà, per fede o per promozione del benessere della civiltà, tutte ragioni vere che indicano perchè non votare in nessun caso, con o senza emendamenti ambigui e ulteriormente discriminatori, una legge incivile e barbarica.

Ho sentito dire da Vladimiro Guadagno che descrivere l'omosessualità una malattia sarebbe reato di omofobia: ovviamente dovrebbe arrestare 3/4 della popolazione mondiale. Ho ascoltato il ministro Franceschini e il Segretario del Pd Epifani parlare di questa legge come un necessario progresso prioritario per il Paese e per il Governo. Non commento le barzellette, ci rido sopra. Tuttavia valga la semplice considerazione che per coloro che 'corrono all'indietro progressivamente', anche un solo individuo che compie un passo nella direzione opposta è un inciampo.

Visto dai corridori all'indietro, provare per credere, colui che cammina in avanti appare un retrogrado.

In conclusione, 26 parlamentari di centro sinistra hanno chiesto di pubblicare una lettera aperta sul quotidiano cattolico Avvenire: mi pare che nella risposta del direttore Tarquinio sia chiarissimo che nessuna modifica toglie le grandi preoccupazioni. Dunque, non ci sono scuse, si voti contro e sin da ora ci si mobiliti per informare e alzare il popolo italiano contro una 'priorità' del governo tanto illiberale quanto contraria a quel minimo senso della realtà che tutti noi possediamo.

Direttore, la rassicuro sin da ora, essendo io stesso tra i più pericolosi omofobi e antiabortisti europei, le invierò qualche riflessione anche dal carcere, sia esso in Italia o in altri paesi occidentali.

Suo

Luca Volontè

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

AMES, IA, August 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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 LifeSiteNews.com, “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.”

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

In CWR 

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 www.kath.net. 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 20^th 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.