Nascimentos Delongados - Nuno Serras Pereira

O amor que se multiplica atrai as bênçãos do Céu e uma particular benevolência da Providência Divina. Deus, de facto, não se deixa vencer em generosidade e quando parece que até o necessário faltará ao empreender-se uma nova obra de misericórdia eis que surge, como por milagre, não só o indispensável como também o conveniente. E há medida que a pessoa se entrega, dando-se sem reservas, o amor nela se fortifica por uma especial afinidade com a Vontade de Deus de cuja Omnipotência de Amor passa a participar. Daí que os estorvos inultrapassáveis, os impossíveis do mundo, para quem vive na Caridade (amor) que brota da Fé, se transformem em facilidades ligeiras, como uma Cruz em que nos estendemos nas tormentas desta vida e que nos salva do naufrágio. 

Todos nós sabemos que existem nascimentos atempados e outros que são prematuros. O que provavelmente muitos ignorem é que existem também nascimentos venturos. Ainda ontem recebi uma mensagem de um casal com cinco filhos comunicando-me o parto de um novo rebento com dois anos e meio de idade. Em tempos em que as crianças nascituras são tantas vezes vistas como inimigos a abater e as portadoras de deficiência olhadas com um horror homicida, sendo raríssimas as que não são exterminadas antes de verem a luz do dia, esta família adoptou, ou pariu, um novo filho com trissomia 21. Dois dias antes, um outro casal com quatro filhos anunciou-me que dentro em pouco receberiam um novo filho de três anos, também ele com algumas debilidades psíquicas, embora diferentes da do anterior. E podia continuar desfiando histórias semelhantes que tenho vindo a conhecer ao longo de anos. Mas dado o perigo de enfastiar os leitores com um texto longo adianto somente o seguinte: a enorme maioria das famílias que se resolvem a adoptar crianças órfãs ou abandonadas são as numerosas, as que já têm uma ranchada de filhos; grande parte delas escolhe adrede as mais débeis e enfermas; e não são gente rica mas remediada. Ah!, já agora, só mais este dado, um casal com sete filhos e seis filhas adoptou também um rebento, já lá vão alguns anos.

É uma verdade irrefutável que quanto mais damos e nos damos a Deus mais recebemos, e recolhemos sempre muito mais do que entregamos. 

À Honra e Glória de Cristo. Ámen. 

08. 11. 2012

The Vampire State - by Anthony Esolen

In CWR

 Just loosen your collar—this will all be over in a moment

“They live in the northernmost community in Canada,” said the fellow at the hamburger joint. “They’re Inuit, and have been living there for more than 2,000 years. They used to follow the caribou herds from place to place, but the government has settled them down, and now they have a permanent village, with the houses built up high, above the permafrost.” 

He then told me that the government had given them a quota for fishing turbot, and if they fell short of the quota, the government would make up for the shortfall by a cash grant. Until recently, they’ve attached themselves to international fishing expeditions, but now they have purchased a ship of their own. That was why they had flown the 4,000 miles from the 15th parallel to our island on the 46th—to take possession of the ship. The cost of the ship was borne by the government. I don’t know whether the $20,000 for four round-trip plane tickets was also borne by the government—that is to say, by other people, with the government middlemen taking their substantial cut—but it wouldn’t surprise me. 

“I suppose,” I said, “that living in such a forbidding place, they don’t have the social problems they have in, say, Yellowknife,” the capital of the Northwest Territories, notorious for alcoholism and family breakdown. My reasoning was simple. You can’t survive from one year to the next unless you preserve moral order. 

“No, they have the same problems there that they have all over the Territories,” he replied, and he put the blame squarely on Ottawa. “Paternalistic” was the word he used. 

The conversation caused me to consider what a place like Yellowknife has in common with, say, Detroit. Yellowknife is a small town on the Great Slave Lake, in the midst of the richest mineral deposits on Earth. It is, for all that, a deeply dysfunctional place. Detroit used to be the jewel of the Great Lakes, the auto capital of the world. It is now a pit of crime. Whole neighborhoods have been abandoned. The current mayor, Dave Bing, has ordered some of them to be plowed under, to turn them back to grasslands, perhaps for pasturing sheep. 

It’s not just Detroit, and money alone is not the problem. A good friend of mine used to tell me stories of growing up in Philadelphia after the war. His family was poor, but so was everybody else’s in the neighborhood. The streets were safe. He and his friends would often jump a train on the Main Line, just to hang around one of the outlying towns for a day, and then come back at suppertime, and nobody thought anything of it. People used to wonder how the economist Thomas Sowell could have attained such prestige, having grown up in Harlem; but he would tell them that when he was a boy, Harlem was a pretty good place for children, and the schools were solid. The teachers knew their subjects, and insisted on good behavior. And families were mostly intact. 

I don’t suggest that there is only one cause to explain what happened to Detroit, Harlem, Yellowknife, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, and so on. I do want to suggest a significant cause and, in a short time, a sufficient cause, which I’ll call the Vampire State. 

The two things to keep in mind about vampires are that they need blood and that they confer a wraith-like immortality upon their victims. It is an inverted symbiosis. Vampire and victim remain alive forever, but it is a death-in-life, dependent upon the consumption of health. 

The Vampire State needs blood. It can never have enough. The deal it cuts with the victim is simple enough. “You are weak,” says the Vampire State. “You are needy. You will soon die. I can help you. I can make you last forever. But you must give me your blood: your initiative, your moral strength, your independence, your manhood and womanhood, your folkways, and your self-government. I have the money—my business with other of my, er, clients. I will give this to you. The gift involves a little transfusion. Kindly loosen your shirt collar, and it will be over in a moment.” 

The Vampire State must have victims, whom it “helps” in this way. Its prime directive is to survive as it is, upon the blood of false charity. The Amish govern themselves, and keep the Vampire State at bay. The Vampire State will encourage none of the habits and the virtues that would make the victims of its benevolence more like the Amish. 

The Amish do not countenance divorce. Their families are strong and, as much as is possible in this vale of tears and sinners, happy. The Vampire State cannot abide strong families. So it seeks to divide man from woman, and woman from child. It will reward women with blood if they bear children out of wedlock; and if those women should be so foolish as to marry, the transfusion ends. “You had better stay single,” whispers the Vampire. “You need what I give you.” 

Vampires have a weird hankering for women. The Vampire is like the eunuch in charge of a great harem of female wraiths. How to build up the harem? The Vampire’s strategy these days is disarmingly simple: promote the independence of women, with great noise and chivalry. Now, most healthy women actually want to marry a good and reliable man, who will provide for them and their children. The Vampire despises such women, and encourages others to despise them too, so that the women themselves will begin to doubt that something may be wrong with them. The Vampire reasons thus. For every woman who goes forth in fierce independence, I will attain two or three who will either never find a completely reliable man, or who will turn to Me for their sustenance. It is a real bargain. And once I have them for a few years, their children will also be mine. Not one step will you take, without my permission or my “support.” 

Healthy people seek solutions to problems. The Vampire seeks problems. The Vampire State must, however, appear to be attacking crime, and will therefore multiply crimes to attack. This it will do in two ways. It will criminalize perfectly ordinary things, like spanking a child or drinking soda; and it will permit and encourage pathological things that help to destroy those institutions that provide for genuine life, genuine community, and genuine law. After it has reduced the churches to rubble, the Vampire expresses astonishment and grave concern when rogues rule the streets; which gives the Vampire cause to “intervene,” with canines. 

I’ve mentioned the churches. The Vampire State will, at times, tolerate the churches, and even appear to encourage them, so long as they remain subservient. But that tolerance is never stable. For there is a deep enmity between the Vampire State and the churches. The reasons are easy to see. The Vampire does evil, and on some level must know it; but the churches uphold an absolute condemnation of evil. The Vampire feeds on weakness; but the churches attempt to perfect the natural virtues by Christian love. The Vampire is gray and ugly and dead; the churches are founts of living water. Not all of them, mind you; the Vampire State has suborned quite a few. But even those can yet repent of their ways. 

The Vampire State, I’ve said, despises ordinary women. It fears ordinary men. An ordinary healthy man might command the respect of his fellows. He might preach a godly self-reliance which is a form of charity for his neighbors. He might wean some people off the dead blood. He might even try to hammer a stake through the Vampire’s heart. The Vampire can’t have that. For the Vampire is an effeminate old cad. His métier is not honest confrontation and clear debate, but subterfuge and seduction. 

So the last thing the Vampire State wants is a lot of strong men around. These days, the Vampire State has conceived the idea of promoting sexual deviance among men. A troop of Boy Scouts is dangerous—to the Vampire; silver bullets and all that. So the Vampire holds parades for men who depend completely upon the Vampire to enforce social approval for their pathologies. 

The Vampire State likes blood. More than one million unborn children in the United States every year shed their blood to keep the Vampire State alive. The Vampire knows well: if human life is sacred, then the sexual union of man and woman, which brings life, must also be sacred. If that union is sacred, then marriage is sacred. If the sanctity of marriage is upheld, then it is possible—just possible—that healthy and independent communities will be born. In such communities, the Vampire is not welcome. No, the Vampire will shed a little tear or two, and then consume the blood. Eventually the Vampire will get around to manufacturing his human victims—when his dependent vampires are sufficiently drained of genuine humanity and life to oppose him. 

What does the all-competent, all-meddling, all-controlling modern state do? Simple to answer. What would the Vampire do?

Dez por Cento - Nuno Serras Pereira

O meu avô materno, varão aristocrata e opulento, casado com uma das filhas abastadas do fundador da casa Ramos-Pinto – na família assim constituída se reuniram várias empresas de vinhos: a Real Companhia Vinícola, a Rebelo Valente, a Villar D’ Allen e a já referida Ramos-Pinto (falta uma outra que agora não recordo) -, teve uma juventude aventureira e algo desbragada. Mas aquele Senhor todo Ele benigno cuja Omnipotência se mostra sobretudo na Sua misericórdia e no Seu perdão saiu-lhe inesperadamente ao encontro. Esse acontecimento transfigurou inteiramente a sua vida. De escravo de satanás tornou-se discípulo e seguidor fiel de Jesus Cristo. O menino rico transformou-se num seguidor de S. Francisco, de Assis, membro e ministro da Ordem Franciscana Secular, entregando-se com determinação e constância ao anúncio do Evangelho, bem antes do Vaticano II, quer pela pregação, inclusive a seminaristas, quer pela divulgação, por escrito, de meditações, conselhos e orações, tornando-se benfeitor de várias Ordens Religiosas, particularmente as que se dedicavam aos pobres e à recuperação de marginais tais como, por exemplo, a reabilitação de prostitutas, bem como da Diocese do Porto. Todos os anos começava por doar dez por cento dos rendimentos familiares às obras de misericórdia. No entanto, o ardor impetuoso da sua caridade não se detinha nessa percentagem mas continuava a espargir, num crescendo, tantas vezes pessoalmente, os bens que lhe tinham calhado, por fortuna ou por indústria própria. E embora, por vezes, fosse enganado por vigaristas inimigos dos indigentes que se disfarçavam de pobres, persistia perseverantemente no seu bem-fazer. Nisto revelou-se um magnífico investidor, uma vez que aquilo que se dá aos necessitados é recebido pelo próprio Deus, sendo riqueza acumulado nos Céus para proveito eterno dos generosos. De facto, só teremos aquilo que damos; o avarento será despedido de mãos vazias. A maioria da família, todavia, não só não entendia como troçava, contando-me eu entre eles, desta bondade beata. Os desígnios de Deus eram-nos incompreensíveis e, de algum modo, detestáveis.

Minha mãe herdou de seu pai este dever de esmolar, pelo menos, dez por cento dos rendimentos auferidos e meu pai, por natureza um mãos largas, sobreabundou nessas dádivas. Não obstante as dificuldades que advieram no seguimento do 25 de Abril com o saneamento de meu pai e todos os demais estorvos surgidos nos períodos dos excessos revolucionários a prática manteve-se, apesar do comedimento em função da poupança, na família.

Nos tempos difíceis por que passamos em Portugal pareceu-me que devia contar aquilo que em circunstâncias normais porventura nunca me atreveria a desvendar – “Não saiba a tua mão direita, aquilo que faz a tua esquerda”.

O Senhor garante àqueles que o seguem e que por Seu amor partilham seus bens com os mais necessitados que nesta vida receberão cem vezes mais e no mundo que há-de vir a vida eterna. Há, porventura, aí algum cristão que não se fie do Senhor Seu Deus? Se, desventuradamente, o há é, então, porque não o é.

A multidão dos necessitados é imensa mas importará não esquecer que os mais indigentes são aqueles que não conhecem Jesus Cristo nem, por consequência, O amam a Ele mesmo nem à Sua Igreja; e ainda as crianças nascituras, eminentemente vulneráveis e indefesas, com as quais Ele se identificou ao dizer: O que fizestes aos Meu irmãos mais pequeno a Mim mesmo o fizeste; e o que deixaste de fazer por ele a Mim mesmo o deixaste de fazer; ama-Me neles, pois é n´Eles que principalmente quero ser amado.

07. 11. 2012

Five Key Features of the Theology of the Body - by Edward P. Sri

In CERC

There is much excitement today, especially among the young, about John Paul II's "theology of the body."

 
Theology of the Body from Eden to Today

There is much excitement today, especially among the young, about John Paul II's "theology of the body" — the 129 catechetical addresses he gave between 1979 and 1984 that have revolutionized the way many theologians now teach about love, sexuality, and marriage.

However, while lay Catholics initially may respond with much enthusiasm to the ideas they've heard about the theology of the body, many of those who actually dare to read these addresses quickly find themselves overwhelmed by the depth of John Paul II's philosophical, theological, and indeed mystical thought on this topic.

In this short article, I will offer a brief overview of some key features of the theology of the body that will make this monumental work a bit more digestible and practical for lay readers.  Though not intending to offer a comprehensive picture, I simply will highlight five aspects of the theology of the body that relate to themes we have already seen developed in John Paul II's earlier work, Love and Responsibility (see that series beginning here with subsequent articles listed at the bottom of the article)

1.  The Law of the Gift

 

In an age when many individuals approach their relationships as ways of seeking their own pleasure, interests, or gain, John Paul II constantly reminded us that such self-assertion is a dead end that will never lead to the love and happiness we long for.  Human persons are made for self-giving love, not a self-getting love, and they will find fulfillment only when they give themselves in service to others.

This "law of the gift," as it is called by Catholic commentator George Weigel, is written in every human heart.  And in the beginning of the theology of the body, John Paul II alludes to how it is based on man being made in the "image" of the Triune God (Gen. 1:26).  Since God exists as a communion of three divine Persons giving themselves completely in love to each other, man and woman — created in the image of the Trinity — are made to live not as isolated individuals, each seeking his or her own pleasure and advantage from the other.  

Rather, man and woman are made to live in an intimate personal communion of self-giving love, mirroring the inner life of the Trinity.  In the end, human persons will find the happiness they long for when they learn to live like the Trinity, giving themselves in love to others.

2.  Original Solitude

 

Here, John Paul II reflects on God's statement about Adam in Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for man to be alone."

At first glance, this statement seems odd.  Adam is not alone.  God has placed him in a garden with water, trees, and vegetation.  And He has even put Adam alongside other flesh-and-blood creatures just like him — the animals.  Yet, even though there are many other animal creatures with bodies in the garden of Eden, Adam is still in some sense described as being "alone."

This tells us that there is something about Adam that is not found in other bodily creatures.  By noticing how he is different from the animals, Adam comes to realize that he is more than a body — that he has a spiritual dimension.  As a body-soul creature, Adam is unique.  There is nothing else in creation like him.

And this poses a problem.  If Adam is made to live the "law of the gift" — to give himself in a mutual relationship of love — then Adam, at this stage, is in a certain sense incomplete.  He is not able to live out the law of the gift yet, for there is no one else like him to give himself to as an equal partner — no other human person, no body-soul creature, like him.  This is why God says, "It is not good for man to be alone."

John Paul II explains that man only finds fulfillment when he lives in a relationship of mutual self-giving, living not for himself, but for another person.  "When God-Yahweh said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone' (Gen.  2:18) he affirmed that ‘alone,' man does not completely realize this essence.  He realizes it only by existing ‘with someone' — and even more deeply and completely — by existing ‘for someone'" (p. 60).


3.  Original Unity

 

In response to Adam's solitude, the Lord creates another human person, Eve, to be his wife.  "Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'" (Gen.  2:23).  John Paul II notes how this is the first time man manifests joy and exultation.  Before this moment, he had no reason for rejoicing, "owing to the lack of a being like himself."  But now he finally has someone to give himself to in this unique way.  In ecstatic response, he sighs "At last!" for now he is able to live out the law of the gift and thus becomes who he was meant to be through his union with her.

Next, John Paul II reflects on how man and woman "become one flesh" (Gen.  2:24).  He notes how this oneness in flesh does not refer merely to a bodily union, but points to a deeper spiritual union, a union of persons.

Recall how a human person is not just a body, but consists of body and soul.  John Paul II expounds on how this union of body and soul in a person sheds light on human sexuality.  The body has a language that is able to communicate something much more profound than information or ideas.  What one does in his body reveals his very self, the "living soul" (p. 61).  The body expresses the person and makes visible what is invisible, the spiritual dimension of man (pp. 56, 76).

This has dramatic implications for understanding sexual intercourse.  The marital act is not meant to be merely a physical union.  It is meant to express an even deeper personal union.  Since the body reveals the soul, when man and woman give their bodies to each other in marital intercourse, they give themselves to each other.  Bodily union is meant to express a deeper spiritual union.  The physical intimacy is meant to express an even more profound personal intimacy (cf.  p. 57).

John Paul II calls this unique language of the body "the nuptial meaning of the body."  He says our bodies have a nuptial character in the sense that they have "the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and — by means of this gift — fulfills the meaning of his being and existence" (p. 63).

In this light, we can see that the body will be an important arena in which the drama of relationships between men and women will be played out — for better or for worse.  We can approach the bodily union of sexual intercourse as a means to deepening personal communion in marriage.  Or we can engage in sexual intercourse primarily with our own pleasure in mind and without any regard for the body's capacity to express self-giving love — in other words, without any regard for the nuptial meaning God has given to the body.

Put starkly: A man can view sex as a way of deepening his personal union with his wife, giving himself completely to her and expressing his total commitment to her as a person and to what is best for her.  Or he can approach sex merely as a physical act with some woman who happens to give him pleasure — without any real commitment to that woman's well-being.  Instead of being truly committed to the woman as a person and to her good, such a man is committed to the woman in that moment primarily for what she provides him: his own sexual satisfaction.  Such a denigration of sex, which is pervasive in our culture today, certainly is a far cry from the beautiful nuptial meaning God has given to the body.


4.  Original Nakedness

 

What does it mean when Genesis 2:25 says Adam and Eve were "naked and not ashamed"?  Shame involves fear of another person, when we're not sure we can trust that person.  We fear being used or being hurt, so we are afraid of being vulnerable in letting others see us as we really are.

Originally, Adam and Eve were not ashamed.  They each had complete confidence, trust and security in their relationship. Their bodily nakedness pointed to an even deeper personal "nakedness" in which they felt free to bare their souls completely to each other without any fear of being used, misunderstood, or let down.  Adam and Eve understood "the nuptial meaning of the body" — not just the body at face value, but the body's capacity to express love and the communion of persons.

How were they able to have this ideal relationship?

Imagine living in a relationship in which there were absolutely no selfishness.  You knew that your beloved was always seeking what was best for you, not just his own interests.  He truly viewed you as a gift that was uniquely entrusted to him and he took this role seriously with a profound sense of responsibility.

This is the kind of relationship Adam and Eve had in the Garden.  Before the Fall, sin had not yet entered the world, and human persons had self-mastery over their passions and appetites.  Thus, with total purity of heart, they each were free from selfish desires and approached each other with reverence, seeking the good of the other and never viewing the other merely as an object to be used.

John Paul II explains that Adam and Eve saw each other with a supernatural perspective — with "the vision of the Creator" (p. 57).  In other words, they saw each other the way God Himself saw them.  Adam saw not just the beauty of Eve's body, but the whole truth of his beloved as a person.  And just as God rejoiced in creating man and woman by saying, "It is good!," so Adam would have looked upon his wife with a profound sense of awe and wonder, seeing her as the daughter of God who had entrusted herself to him in marriage.  Likewise, Eve would have accepted Adam interiorly as a gift and responded to him with similar love and responsibility.  "Seeing each other, as if through the mystery of creation, man and woman see each other even more fully and distinctly than through the sense of sight itself... They see and know each other with all the peace of the interior gaze, which creates precisely the fullness of the intimacy of persons" (p. 57).

In this kind of environment of complete mutual love and responsibility, personal intimacy could flourish.  In such a relationship of total security and total trust in the other person — when there is no fear of being used or hurt — one feels free to give himself as he really is, knowing that he will be welcomed and fully received as a gift.  "The affirmation of the person is nothing but acceptance of the gift, which .  .  .  creates the communion of persons" (p. 65).  Thus, originally man and woman did not experience the walls of shame in their relationship. They had no fear that the other would use them, hurt them, or ever reject them.  Free from sin, they were free to love.  In a relationship of total reciprocal love, the walls of shame are not necessary.  Indeed, as John Paul II explains, "immunity from shame" is "the result of love" (p. 67).

5.  Original Shame

 

However, once sin entered the world, man lost the self-mastery necessary to keep selfish desires from growing in his heart and poisoning his relationship. Wounded by original sin, man finds that it is no longer easy for him to control his passions and appetites.  No longer does man easily look upon his wife with "the vision of the Creator" ("It is good!").  No longer does he easily see her as a person who has been entrusted to him and as a gift which he longs to serve with selfless love and responsibility.

Now his heart's love for her is tainted by selfish desires to use her.  He begins to view her primarily in terms of her sexual value — the value of her body or the value of her femininity — as an object to be exploited for his own sensual or emotional pleasure.  He no longer easily sees her value as a person to be loved for her own sake.

Imagine the shock Adam must have experienced at that first moment in which he felt the effects of original sin in his life.  John Paul II says it is as if Adam "felt that he had just stopped .  .  .  being above the world of" the animals, which are driven by instinct and desires (p. 116).  Almost like the animals, Adam now finds himself powerfully swayed by his desire to satisfy his sexual desires.

No longer mastering their passions, man and woman tend to approach each other with selfish and lustful hearts.  That's why Adam and Eve instinctively conceal their sexuality from each other the moment sin and lust enters their lives (p. 117).  They each no longer have total trust that the other is truly seeking what is best for them.  They instinctively know that their beloved may use them.  Thus, the biblical account of the Fall tells us that right after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, they were naked and ashamed (Gen.  3:7).

The introduction of sin shatters the original unity of man and woman and hinders personal intimacy in their relationship, for now the defense mechanism of shame enters their relationship. "This shame took the place of the absolute trust connected with the previous state of original innocence in the mutual relationship between man and woman" (p. 120).

John Paul II explains that the original unity of Adam and Eve dissolved at the Fall because, without the total mutual selfless love and trust, they no longer felt free to truly give themselves to each other: "Having facilitated an extraordinary fullness in their mutual communication, the simplicity and purity of the original experience disappear... That simple and direct communion with each other, connected with the original experience of reciprocal nakedness, disappeared.  Almost unexpectedly, an insuperable threshold appeared in their consciousness.  It limited the original giving of oneself to the other, in full confidence in what constituted their own identity" (p. 118).

Back to the Garden?

 

As sinful creatures constantly battling concupiscence, we may never be able to return to the ideal relationship of pre-fallen Adam and Eve.  However, there is hope.  Through Christ's redemptive work in our lives, we may begin to experience the healing of those disordered passions that keep us from the great trust, love, and personal communion that God wants us to experience in our relationships.  The more the Holy Spirit transforms our selfish and lustful hearts with the total self-giving love of Jesus Christ, the more relationships between men and women will begin to recover something of the original unity of man and woman and the nuptial meaning of the body (cf.  p. 213).

A Malícia dos Políticos no Poder - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Ainda há pouco, eu que sou um sobrevivente, em virtude da fortaleza de meus pais, de uma tentativa de neticidio, escrevi sobre as avós que se têm vindo cada vez mais a transformar-se em lobos malvados.  
 

Agora, com extrema amargura, tenho de me referir aos políticos que actualmente estão no mando da nação portuguesa como extremamente suicidários. Sei que isto parecerá chocante àqueles cronistas que porventura no intuito de dar esperança procuram com afinco destacar uma ou outra medida que, pela sua raridade e positividade, se podem considerar benéficas para o país.

A maioria que está no poder tem sido dotada de uma perversidade singularmente violenta que poderá ser fraseada do seguinte modo: “aquilo a que me oponho, quando na oposição, pela sua radical desumanidade consolido-o quando o poder me é dado”. De facto, os partidos que se opuseram veementemente em 1984 à despenalização/liberalizante do aborto em determinadas circunstâncias votaram-na favoravelmente, com unanimidade, quando Durão Barroso era primeiro-ministro e tinham maioria absoluta na assembleia da república (anteriormente, aquando da primeira maioria absoluta de Cavaco Silva foi-lhe proposto em Conselho Nacional revogar essa “lei” profundamente injusta e ele recusou por concordar com ela). O que então sucedeu repete-se de novo. Tendo, grande parte dos eleitores, corrido com a anterior maioria pela sua patológica mentalidade necrófila na esperança de barrar a cultura da morte e incentivar uma cultura da vida e do amor eis que os mais lúcidos percebem que voltaram a ser astuciosamente atraiçoados e impiamente enganados. Com a agravante de que declarando-se uma coisa mas na prática fazendo o seu contrário iludem uma multidão que não dando acordo do que se passa se deixa mornamente mergulhada na panela colocada ao lume que acabará por lentamente escaldá-la até à morte sem que se dê conta da sua aniquilação. É diabólico. E o que mais espanta, se é que ainda alguma coisa nos assombra, é que nesta conjura macabra estejam envolvidas pessoas que se dizem católicas e recebem a Sagrada Comunhão da mão de Bispos, Arcebispos e Cardeais.

As notícias de hoje reportam que em Portugal nunca houve tão poucos nascimentos como este ano. Se já antes, depois da Bósnia, eramos o país com a segunda mais baixa natalidade do mundo que seremos agora?

Nas palavras muito elucidativas do Presidente da Associação Portuguesa das Famílias Numerosas para o ministério das finanças um filho, cada filho, equivale a nada, a zero, para o da economia equivale a um quarto e para o da segurança social equivale a meio. Este governo e maioria parlamentar que desprezam e prejudicam a família e a vida não só deixando iniquamente de garantir que é dado a cada um o que é devido mas também incentivando através do patrocínio activo da contracepção, da esterilização e do aborto estão a produzir um extermínio qualificado, genocida, do povo português.

05. 11. 2012