domingo, 24 de maio de 2015

Antonio Socci: A Destruição da Igreja (e da Missa) vista da Irlanda

Agradeço a indicação ao site Vox Cantoris de um texto de Antonio Socci, renomado jornalista e escrito italiano, especializado em assuntos do Vaticano,. Socci escreveu sobre o Efeito Francisco, impactado pela decisão da Irlanda (católica) em aceitar o casamento gay.

O texto se chama O Efeito Bergoglio na Irlanda: "A Missa terminou". É um texto que pode ser considerado apocalíptico para alguns. Socci pondera que João Paulo II e Bento XVI salvaram a Igreja do caminho do desastre, mas que agora, sob o Papa Francisco, voltamos ao caminho do desastre no qual só Deus salva.

É um texto bem interessante, pois Socci acaba escrevendo mais sobre duas coisas importantes:

1) O impacto do fim da liturgia da missa em latim, com as decisões do Vaticano II ( e do Papa Paulo VI),  e

2) Sobre como a defesa da Igreja está depositada em leigos, mas do que em clérigos. Desde o início, leigos intelectuais viram o potencial destrutivo do fim da missa tradicional.

Ele revela que o fim da missa tradicional latina foi sentido por intelectuais deste começo, que fizeram dois apelos ao Papa Paulo VI para rever sua decisão. Intelectuais como Jacques Maritain, Jorge Luis Borges e Agatha Christie, e por muitos outros, sendo que alguns não eram nem católicos.

E também revela um monsenhor dizendo: "quando a missa era em latim existia a Igreja Católica".

É realmente um texto muito bom. O site From Rome traduziu do italiano para o Inglês.

The Bergoglio Effect in Ireland: “The Mass has ended

by Antonio Socci,

That Ireland, ancient fortress of Catholicism, has gone over to the people of “gay” marriage (“and who am I to judge”, as the Bishop of Rome is want to say), is a historical event.  If this sounds like the profound rumble of an avalanche, as in the collapse of a mountain falling down, it is just to ask, “Is this an Bergoglio effect?”

Besides, in South America, the Church has already been crumbling for years (the statistics are horrible); now in Europe, the heart of Christendom.

That which renders secularism dominant — as Cardinal De Lubac used to say — is the propulsion and instrumentalization of “a Christianity ever more in the minority, reduced to a vague and impotent theism.”

Barack and his Puppets

Today, only such a theism is permitted.  Instead, the Catholic Church as She has been known upto now is threatened even as regards Her existence.

There is only place for a ridiculous laicized parody of Herself, as the humanitarian “courtesan” (as Andrea Emo would have it), as an “agency for religion” which on the great life issues submits herself to the dictates of Obama-like ideology, which renounces proselytism and the “Catholic God” (as Bergoglio says, “There exists no Catholic God”), which dissolves herself into an ecumenical freemasonry of so many religions, which busies herself with the climate and the recycling of garbage, teaching good manners (Good Morning! Good Evening! Thank you! and Pardon me!) and goofy-pleas for the help of the poor.  But for the true Catholic Church, there is no longer any seat at the table, as the drama of the last great pope, Benedict XVI shows, “fired”, self-incarcerated and silenced.

The True Church

The Church has illumined and conquered the darkness of the world of the gods and has rehabilitated the history of a pagan and anti-human age:  the Church of the Word of God made Flesh, who has the presumptuousness to announce the Truth, the Church of the great Saints, of the Martyrs, of the Missionaries, the Church of the Divine Liturgy and of the masterpieces of Art, the Church of Mother Teresa, of great ideas, of great popes, of Padre Pio, with Her outbursts of the supernatural, the Church which has held Herself firm head-to-head with the ferocity of the Mohammedan and the great genocidal totalitarianisms of the 20th Century: this Church, today, no longer has the rights of citizenship.

Yesterday, Msgr. Galantino (Secretary of the Italian Bishops’ Conference) — according to a tweet from Alberto Mingardi — seems to have said at a conference:  “When the  Church was Catholic and the Mass was in Latin …”.

A Freudian slip which is explosive and revealing.  In fact, today, we are in the midst of the last act of the “liquidation of the Catholic Church”, as Giuseepe Prezzolini foretold, a layman but concerned with the abyss to which the Catholic world was running, anxious as it was to be “modernized” and to surrender to all the ideological fashions of the moment.

But, to liquidate the Church, it is not the persecutions, nor the hatred of the secularist, but — as Paul VI said — its the “self-demolition” from within which is the cause.

The way to the abyss was undertaken not with the Council — as certain lefebrvians think — but at its end, exactly 50 years ago, with the “post-Conciliar” age.

In the days following, in the newspapers, one was reminded of the 5oth anniversary of the first Mass in Italian, and another layman like Elémire Zolla, in those days, came to underline the event in apocalyptic tones:  “The 7th of March, the Mass dies, Gregorian chant dies.  Heard for the last time.  Now, as a dry branch, the Church shall be burnt.”

In reality, the problem was not only the use of the vulgar language in the liturgy (a thing, which I think is  positive), but the successive “liturgical reform” of 1969 and above all the de facto, but illegal, banning of the Mass of the preceding millennia of Catholic liturgy.

Joseph Ratzinger made us understand, many years afterwards, the enormous error, even theological, which was committed at that time.  Which would have colossal consequences, even in the tragic loss of faith.

To Save the Cathedral

But, curiously, in those days, the ones to raise the alarm, in a dramatic manner, for this Church which in an instant has refused its own bimillenarian rite (that around which our Cathedrals were constructed), were above all the laymen-intellectuals.

Who protested with the same consternation with which we contemplate, today, the tragic devastation wrought by Isis in the ancient Middle-East.

On September 5, 1966, there was issued the first appeal to Paul VI to safe-guard the Latin-Gregorian liturgy (a few months before the devastating flood which struck the ancient, Catholic beauty of Florence).

That manifesto/appeal was signed by some 40 great intellectuals and it is impressive, today, to read some of their names: Jorge Luis Borges, Salvatore Quasimodo, Eugenio Montale, Giorgio De Chinco, Robert Bresson, Jacque Maritain, Françoic Mauriac, Gabriel Marcel, Maria Zambrano, Cristina Campo, Elena Croce, Wystan Hugh Auden, Jorse Guillen, Elémire Zolla, Philip Toynbee, Evelyn Waugh, Salvador De Madariaga, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Julien Green, Elsa Rspighi, Francesco Gabrieli, José Bergamin, Fedele D’Amico, Luigi Dallapiccola, Victoria Ocampo, Wally Toscanini, Gertrud von Le Fort, Augusto Del Noce, Lanza Del Vasto.

The appeal made a great impression, even in the Vatican, but di not succeed in stopping the landslide.  Thus, in 1971, another was made, and the number of intellectuals who added their names was even more.

I remember some of their names: Agatha Christie, Graham Green, Harold Acton, Mario Luzi, Andrés Segovia, William Rees-Mogg (the director of the Times), Joan Sutherland, Guido Piovene, Giorgio Bassani, Adolf Bioy Casares, Ettore Paratore, Gianfranco Contini, Giacomo Devoto, Giovanni Macchia, Massimo Pallottino, Rivers Scott, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Colin Davis, Robert Graves, Yehudi Menuhin, Kenneth Clark, Malcom Muggeridge.


It was for the most part, useless, but little by little the same Paul VI became aware of the tragedy which was in course:  the collapse of religious practice, the thousands of priests and religious who abandoned the habit, the catholic intellectuals who submitted to marxism, the great part of the youth seduced by the myths of the revolution (by Fidel Castro, by Mao, by the Vietcong, by Che Guevara, and last by Stalin), the spread of the Theology of liberation and of the modernist theologies which demolished Catholic Doctrine.

Paul VI, in his last years, spoke in ever increasing dramatic tones:  “We believed that after the Council there would have come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church.  There came, instead, a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness”, “from somewhere the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God”, “the opening to the world was a true invasion of worldly thought in the Church … We we have been, perhaps, too weak and imprudent.”

Paul VI denounced “those who try to knock the Church down from within” and he began to cite the books of Louis Bouyer, “The Decomposition of Catholicism” and “Religieux et Clercs contre Dieu.”

To his friend Jean Guitton, he confided:  “There is a great turmoil in this moment in the world and in the Church, and what is in question is the faith.  I find myself, now, repeating the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of Saint Luke:  “When the Son of man returns, shall He still find faith upon earth?”  What strikes me when I consider the catholic world,” the Pope continued, “is that inside Catholicism there seems to sometimes prevail a mentality of the non-catholic type, and it might happen that this non-catholic thought within Catholicism becomes stronger tomorrow.  But it shall never represent the thought of the Church.”

Then, thanks be to God, there arrived John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger.  The Barque of Peter was tirelessly repaired, the compass of the Faith found its way and a generation of young people experienced anew the beauty of Christianity.

But this was the spring which was bitten by some sort of powerful and obscure frost, which for the first time in the history of the Church, placed before us the drama of a “Pope emeritus” self-imprisoned in the Vatican and of a “bishop dressed in white” which was acclaimed by all the eternal enemies of the Catholic Faith, who has brought the Church into a submission with the worldly ideologies of the 70’s (having even re-exhumed the theology of liberation and its founder Gutierrez, which now pontificates from the Vatican).

We seem to have reached the final abyss.  Unless God….

(Published in the Libero, May 24, 2015:  this English translation is currently unapproved, but if the author gives us some corrections, it will be amended in the next few days.  — The translator, while not agreeing with all of the authors judgements, nevertheless believes that the article poses significant contributions to Catholic thought for the present hour).

sábado, 23 de maio de 2015

sexta-feira, 22 de maio de 2015

Obama diz que o "Amor vencerá e Gays serão Reconhecidos"

Quando eu dou aulas de estatística, eu aproveito e peço para meus alunos fazerem pesquisa de campo sobre questões sociais. Uma dessas pesquisa é sobre casamento gay. Eu peço que os alunos além de perguntar se as pessoas apoiam o casamento gay, perguntem também pelas razões que elas apoiam o casasmento gay.

Eu preparo o questionário junto com os alunos, e como eu sei que a resposta mais comum de apoio a casamento gay é dizer que "aqueles que se amam têm direito de ficar juntos", os alunos incluem perguntas para saber se a pessoa também apoia a pedofilia (pois adulto pode amar um menino ou menina e vice-versa), a poligamia (pois uma pessoa pode amar várias pessoas) e o bestialismo (pois uma pessoa pode amar uma cabra, um  bode, um cavalo).

Daí, eu digo para os meus alunos que só há lógica no uso do amor para justificar o casamento gay se a pessoa também aceitar pedofilia, poligamia, bestialismo, etc.

Em geral, eles percebem que as pessoas entram em contradição quando confrontadas pela lógica.

Meus alunos poderiam perguntar a Obama se ele aceita a lógica.

No momento, há um plebiscito na Irlanda para decidir sobre casamento gay, tenho certeza que o principal argumento usado pelos defensores é o que chamam de amor.

Na Igreja Católica, o "amor" é uma das três virtudes teológica, mas é o amor "caritas", caridade. Nesta virtude teológica, guerra pode ser caridade, como dizia Santo Agostinho. O amor sexual não é uma virtude teológica. É sim uma graça divina, que deve ser respeitada como tal, seguindo os preceitos de Deus.

(Agradeço o post de Obama ao site Weasel Zippers).

quinta-feira, 21 de maio de 2015

No momento em que o Papa escreve Encíclica sobre Meio Ambiente...

O Papa Francisco está escrevendo uma encíclica sobre meio ambiente. Tenho pra mim, que tenho dois artigos publicados no exterior sobre meio ambiente, que ele tem coisas bem mais relevantes para se preocupar.

Mas eu recomendaria que ele desse uma olhada na lista de fraudes científicas que envolve a pesquisa sobre mudança climática, são inúmeras. Depois de um certo tempo, eu deixei de contar. Mas eu falei aqui no blog de diversas fraudes como o climategate, e mencionei outras "gates" (Africagate, himalaiagate, Amazongate),e mostrei a posição de cientistas, como a do brasileiro Paulo Cesar Soares.

Cansei de falar deste assunto no blog, mas ontem no meu outro blog, chamado Bloco 11, Cela 18, eu mencionei a mais nova fraude, que envolve países como Paraguai, Suíça e Austrália. Vejam lá.

Dever-se-ia fazer um apelo ao Papa: não entre nesta religião pagã da ONU, de idolatria da "Gaia" em detrimento do ser humano. É falso.

quarta-feira, 20 de maio de 2015

Cardinal Filoni: Passou a hora do Diálogo, Agora é Guerra contra Terroristas Islâmicos

O cardeal Fernando Filoni foi ao Iraque duas vezes a mando do Papa Francisco. Ele viu a situação de perto e disse que não há mais espaço para "palavras de boa intenção", pede que o mundo aja militarmente na região para defender os cristãos, Além disso, Filoni chamou a lei islâmica Sharia de muito perigosa para a convivência pacífica.

Diálogo é a grande arma do Papa Francisco para combater o extremismo islâmico. Seu ajudante no assunto diz agora que não funcionou.

Me assusta pensar que a Igreja tenha imaginado que funcionaria, dado séculos de guerra entre cristãos e islâmicos e o livro Alcorão.

Vejam o vídeo do Rome Reports no qual Filoni fala sobre o assunto. Transcrição do vídeo vai em seguida::

Cardinal Filoni: Proportional military action is needed in Iraq


Cardinal Fernando Filoni has traveled twice to Iraq on behalf of Pope Francis to bring comfort to victims of the Islamic State.

The time to act has come, according to Cardinal Filoni. He said that words and good intentions are no longer enough to protect people in the Middle East.  

Pope's Special Envoy to Iraq
"We need political action and proportional military action. This is not killing for killing. It should not be so ever, but defense mechanisms are needed.”

Cardinal Filoni was nuncio in Baghdad from 2001 to 2006. He knows the country well and understands that sectarianism is the root of tension. He asked that Christians be considered full citizens and not merely tolerated in their own country.

Pope's Special Envoy to Iraq
"Everyone has told me, 'Christians are the original native population and have the right to be.' FLASH The law needs to say it. One of the big problems in Iraq is that individual rights are not based in law. Everything is interpreted according to the law of Islam. It is dangerous.”

During his two trips, the cardinal visited Christian refugees. He says step by step, their material needs are being met. But other intangible problems persist.

Pope's Special Envoy to Iraq
"During my visit I was told, 'You are not going to solve our problems, but now we feel like we are not alone.'”

He said that in countries where Islam is the main religion, Muslims must promote peaceful coexistence and religious freedom.

Pope's Special Envoy to Iraq
"If there is no historical criticism that questions what jihad means, should we understand the word to mean the use of the sword and violent conquest? Or should we define it as conversion? That is, should people have the right to spread the religion, but also have the right to reject it?”

Pope Francis has expressed on many occasions his desire to travel to Iraq. Cardinal Filoni says that such a visit would stoke the hope of persecuted Christians. However, the deteriorating security situation in the country makes a visit impossible for now.

terça-feira, 19 de maio de 2015

Padre condena o "Efeito Papa Francisco" no Mundo e na Igreja

Padre Linus F. Clovis (foto acima) condenou fortemente a atuação do Papa Francisco, especialmente pelas palavras do Papa "Quem sou para julgar" e porque o Papa usa o preconceito do mundo em relação a Igreja contra a própria Igreja.

É a mais pura verdade, o Papa Francisco adota o preconceito do mundo, ele parece estar do outro lado do muro, do lado do mundo e não do lado do "Corpo de Cristo".

Padre Linus Clovis chegou a dizer que a piada "O Papa é Católico?" não é mais engraçada. E alertou para as previsões de Nossa Senhora de Akita. Ele também disse que devemos obediência ao Papa mas o Papa deve obediência à tradição apostólica. E mostrou exemplos na história de como Papas foram criticados por teólogos e leigos que estavam do lado da tradição apostólica.

Padre Clovis é um conhecido defensor da vida, na luta contra o aborto, foi ordenado por São João Paulo II, estudou em Roma, tem doutorado em matemática e graduações em teologia e lei canônica.

Ele disse estas palavras em uma apresentação recentemente.

Pena que eu não tenho tempo para traduzir tudo que ele disse, mas aqui vão algumas partes:

  • The Synod of the Family last year, set off alarm bells for most Catholics and we saw bishops against bishops and episcopal conferences fighting other episcopal conferences, and, in all of this, we…we know that heaven has given us a warning. And in 1973, at Akita, the prophecy was made that ‘The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops” and “the priests who venerate me will be persecuted.’ Of course, this is part and parcel of our experience.
  • When a bishop — a Catholic bishop — can applaud sin publicly, it causes us to tremble. But this is essentially the ‘Francis Effect.’ It’s disarming bishops and priests, especially after the Holy Father said, ‘Who am I to judge?’ I as a priest say Mass, preaching, and I make a judgment about a sin, one breaking the ten commandments, I would be condemned for judging. I would be accused of being ‘more Catholic than the pope’. There used to be a saying — rhetorical — ‘is the pope Catholic?’ That’s no longer funny.” (in reference to Dolan’s “Bravo!” comments regarding the coming out of football player Michael Sam.)
  • “Obedience is owed to the pope, but the pope owes obedience to the word and the apostolic tradition. We have to obey the pope, but the pope himself must obey the written word. He must obey the tradition. He must respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is owed to the pope, but it is the duty of the pope to give the character of possibility to this obedience. The pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God. Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’ So we have an obligation to resist error, and we must do everything that we can to promote the truth.”
  • “Once, we have had concerns about other popes, even St. John Paul, with the things he’s done which we felt uncomfortable about, I don’t think that…Pope Francis has done anything other than disconcert us. He has literally pulled the rug from under our feet. And so, he is the, the reason, the many reasons why we are concerned. Our Lord tells us in John’s Gospel, 15th chapter, ‘If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, and I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.’ The popes are hated, and I don’t think we had a problem with that per se. We didn’t like it. But I think that I’ll be correct in saying that we prefer our popes to be hated by the world than loved by the world. Because if he’s loved by the world, it indicates that he’s speaking the language of the world. And we know that there can be no relationship, no fellowship, between light and darkness. St. Paul tells us this.”
  • “The Church’s traditional enemies — and this is vocalized, articulated in Time MagazineRolling StoneThe Advocate, and so on — approve of him, he appeared on their front cover many times over the past two years. I came across a quote from someone who knew him in Argentina. ‘Apparently, he loves to be loved by all and please everyone, so one day he could make a speech on TV against abortion, and the next day, on the same television show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo; He can give a wonderful speech against the Masons and, a few hours later, be dining and drinking with them in the Rotary Club.'”
  • “So, how can you make a decision about a man like this, who is everybody’s friend? Our Lord tells us, ‘Nevertheless,’ this is 12th chapter of St. John’s Gospel, ‘Nevertheless, many of the authorities believed in him, [that’s in our Lord] but for fear of the pharisees they did not confess it lest they should be put out of they synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.’ Am I making judgment? I don’t think so. I’m quoting scripture. Where the die falls, let it rest.”
  • “The Holy Father has done many controversial things, and we are concerned with the major ones, not the aberrations which come up. And the one that will go down, I suppose, to the Second Judgment, is ‘Who am I to judge.’ One of the…effects that the Holy Father does is that he takes common prejudice against Catholics, and he uses it against us. So in other words, he’s accepting what is perceived, our position to be, as if it were true. The Church does not judge persons. The Church judges actions and teachings. Even the heretics. Luther wasn’t condemned for his personal moral life. He was condemned for his teaching. His doctrine. And so with all the other heretics. Arius. It was his teaching that the Church judged. And has the authority to judge. But when the pope says, ‘Who am I to judge?’, he is giving the impression that the Church judges individuals because of who they are and…what they’re doing in their personal lives. That is for the confession.”
  • Scripture tells us very clearly in First Corinthians chapter five St. Paul is writing to the Church of Corinth because they had accepted a man among them who was guilty of immorality. And the apostle writes, ‘But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?’ Aha! What have I to do with judging outsiders? ‘Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ So, how can the successor of Peter say, ‘Who am I to judge?’ without contradicting Scripture?”
  • We love the pope! He is our father. He is our sweet Christ on Earth. There is concern among Catholics who are confused and fearful. And we and they do not wish to criticize, or worse still, to judge the pope. But, again, we are judging not his person or his office but the results of his actions. And we’re not doing this out of indignation. Because what he is doing is the cause of our indignation. And it is a threat to our faith. And it’s a threat to the Church. And it’s a danger to the salvation of souls.”
  • So, can we judge the pope’s actions? Yes we can. We have no less a person than the apostle to the gentiles, St. Paul, writing to the Galatians. And he says, ‘But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” And this is what we are facing today. We have prominent cardinals taking an anti-Catholic stance on moral issues. Which we thought were settled! We have the holy father himself seeming to support them. To give his blessing to them. And what does Saint Paul said? Barnabus! St. Paul’s right-hand man was carried away by their insincerity.  So many bishops — and please, God, we have many good bishops still — when they see this, they also going to be carried away, and that’s why I think the suggestion made, that we should circulate our material to the bishops, and to priests — especially to priests — is so very, very important.”
  • We have the example of history, John XXII, who taught that the blessed do not see God until after general judgment. He was opposed by the theologians of the University of Paris. By cardinals and bishops and even by kings. So these were…we have the learned, the intellectuals, the theologians, who knew what was going on and were able to oppose the pope. And of course we have those in authority, the bishops. And we have lay people as well, the kings.
  • “The Code of Canon Law also tells us that we have a right to express our opinion, in Canon 212, section 3, ‘According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess,’ — and I think in this gathering…we’re showing our knowledge, the fact that we are heads of various organizations – our competence, and our prestige — we ‘have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…’ And this is very important. We have, in other words, to go public on this.”
  • “‘Now it can be said…’ — this is written by…Melchior Cano, a famous theologian in the 16th century — ‘Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.’ In other words, we must be vigilant. We must be objective in our approach to the present crisis in the Church.”
(Agradeço o texto ao site Big Pulpit)

segunda-feira, 18 de maio de 2015

Vaticano vai esclarecer sobre o "Anjo da Paz"? Só acredito vendo.

Ontem, eu falei aqui que o Papa Francisco tinha chamado Mahmoud Abbas de "Anjo da Paz". A controvérsia continua.

Meu amigo Lura do Grilo comentou aqui no blog que talvez ele não tenha dito isso. Bom, as minhas fontes eram inúmeras, e eu usei um vídeo do momento em que ele disse do site Rome Reports.

Apareceu uma versão espanhola e italiana de que o Papa teria dito que Abbas "pode ser" um Anjo da Paz, querendo implicar que se Abbas buscar o caminho da paz com Israel ele será um "anjo de paz".

Edward Pertin colocou o que disseram diversas fontes, a maioria aponta que o Papa Francisco chamou realmente Abbas de "Anjo da Paz".

Pergunto: A Igreja vai esclarecer a história?

Duvido. Pois se disser que chamou Abbas de "Anjo da Paz", será lembrado dos seguintes fatos por inúmeros blogs, como o American Catholic:

1) Mahmoud Abbas ajudar a financiar o terrorismo nas Olimpíadas de Munique em 1972 que matou atletas israelenses;

2) Mahmoud Abbas escreveu dissertação de doutorado negando o holocausto judeu;

3) Mahmoud Abbas organizou o sequestro do navio italiano Achille Lauro durante o qual um veterano da segunda guerra dos Estados Unidos em cadeira de rodas, chamado Leon Kinghoffer, foi assassinado.

4) Abbas é riquíssimo, está no poder há quase 11 anos, e deve ter seguido o modelo de Arafat para ficar rico (corrupção);

5) Abbas nunca mostrou interesse em alcançar um acordo com Israel, mesmo porque pode ser morto pelas facções militares do Fatah se fizer isso.

Se, por outro lado, negar que disse, pode ofender a Abbas. E este pode se vingar. Ou Abbas pode contradizer o Papa, mesmo que o Papa não tenha dito.

Em suma, o Papa, ao dar um anjo para Abbas e relacioná-lo a um Anjo da Paz, fez um extrema estupidez política e também teológica. Infelizmente.

Rezemos pelo Papa Francisco.

sábado, 16 de maio de 2015

Papa Francisco chama Mahmoud Abbas de "Anjo da Paz"!!!

A bandeira acima é do Fatah, não parece uma bandeira que exalta a paz, não é? O Fatah é um partido político palestino que tem grupos paramilitares terroristas que de vez em quando atacam Israel. O presidente do partido é Mahmoud Abbas, que é lider há dez anos, não parece também ter muito apego pela democracia.

Pois, o Papa Francisco chamou Mahmoud Abbas de "Anjo da Paz", ao presentear Abbas com uma medalhão de um anjo. Vejam o momento em que Francisco fez isso, do site Rome Reports:

Abbas seguiu o modelo Al Gore e Raul Castro e colocou (ou observou) o Papa como defendendo o mesmo programa do Fatah (foto abaixo):

A Igreja Católica chamou a Palestina de Estado pela primeira vez na semana passada.

Li muito sobre o assunto, mas o ponto em comum dos textos que li, é a Igreja fez uma bobagem pois isso não ajuda o processo de Paz.

Li hoje sobre isso do jornal New York Post, de Linda Chavez.

Ela lembra, por exemplo, que o Fatah já recebeu oferta de estado três vezes e sempre preferiu a guerra. E agora a autoridade moral do Papa foi colocada do lado de quem pratica terrorismo e corrupção, em um momento de extrema perseguição religiosa de cristãos por muçulmanos.

Linda também fala da proximidade de Francisco com a Teologia da Libertação.

Vejamos parte do texto de Linda Chavez:

Pope Francis’ decision to give formal recognition to a Palestinian state is puzzling at best.
Some conservative Catholics — most prominently scholar and papal biographer George Weigel — have given a wide berth to the pope’s views on income inequality, climate change and how best to integrate gay and divorced Catholics into the Church’s ministry, even as the left has gleefully embraced the pontiff’s rhetoric.
Francis’ latest foray into controversy is harder to explain.
Unlike Francis’ positions on the poor, which Weigel avers are rooted in the pope’s pastoral history and mission, the decision on Palestinian statehood is purely political — and, as such, is open to criticism.
Jonathan Tobin, writing online in Commentary magazine, notes: “For all his good will, the pope is mistaken to think that giving the Palestinians such recognition will advance the peace process.”
Tobin reminds us the Palestinians were offered an independent state in 2000, 2001 (in an offer that included almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and part of Jerusalem) and 2008, and they refused to negotiate in 2013 and 2014 under an Obama administration-led framework that included a two-state solution.
I would go further: By signing a treaty with the Palestinians that includes recognition of the “state of Palestine,” Francis has legitimated the Hamas terrorists who govern Gaza and the corrupt Palestinian Authority that rules the West Bank.
Certainly Francis is not alone in rushing to embrace unilateral, non-negotiated Palestinian statehood.
Some 135 nations have done so, and parliaments in France, Britain, Spain and Ireland have urged their governments to recognize statehood, as well.
The Vatican has welcomed a Palestinian ambassador since the United Nations granted the Palestinians observer status in 2012. Nonetheless, his recent decision carries moral weight that in this case is deeply troubling.
As a political act, Francis’ recognition of Palestinian statehood is the most troubling evidence to date that he is indeed a man of the left.
Coupled with his overtures to radical priests in the Latin American Liberation Theology movement, it becomes harder to slough off the pope’s negative comments about “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.”
The Vatican recently invited the founder of the Liberation Theology movement, Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez, to write a piece for the official Vatican newspaper, excerpting a book by Gutierrez that owes as much to Karl Marx as Jesus Christ.
Francis also lifted the suspension of Maryknoll priest and former Marxist Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, who was famous in the 1980s for his denunciations of the United States and his support of armed revolution.
In d’Escoto’s case, Francis’ actions might be interpreted as bringing back into the fold an octogenarian prodigal son.
But unlike the original model in the parable, d’Escoto shows no remorse for his past distortions of the Christian gospel to endorse redistribution of wealth at the point of a gun.
For the estimated 60,000 Christians living in the Palestinian territories, radical Islam in the region, not Israel, is the main threat. Throughout the Middle East, Christians are fleeing the advance of ISIS and other Islamist jihadists, not the Israel Defense Forces.
Chamar Abbas de "Anjo da Paz" realmente ultrapassou qualquer fronteira de bom senso, sem falar em Doutrina da Igreja.
A solução deve ser chamar Benjamin Netanyahu também de "anjo da paz" e assim destruir o que se pensa  sobre anjo e sobre paz.
A Igreja sob Francisco parece ter perdido os parâmetros do certo e errado em Cristo.