Em defesa da Sagrada Escritura

Eis um artigo que vale bem a pena ler, especialmente por todos aqueles cristãos que se interessam pelos estudos bíblicos. No sítio Catholic Apologetics International do Dr. Sungenis, podemos ler "Os Toledoth do Génesis", um artigo do Pe. Damien F. Mackey que deita por terra a teoria JEDP, que afirma que os primeiros cinco livros da Bíblia (Génesis, Êxodo, Levítico, Números e Deuteronómio) não foram inteiramente escritos por Moisés, uma teoria em voga nos estudos bíblicos liberais da actualidade, incluindo (infelizmente) os católicos.

Para todos aqueles que são competentes em língua inglesa, aconselho vivamente a leitura.

Disponível aqui.

Da heresia do clero português

D. Januário Torgal Ferreira: "Para mim, independentemente do conteúdo - eu não concordo com a noção de casamento -, concordo e aceito um homem que viva com um homem e uma mulher que viva com uma mulher." - Jornal I

São Paulo, Apóstolo: "Acaso não sabeis que os iníquos não hão de possuir o Reino de Deus? Não vos enganeis, nem os crapulosos, nem os idólatras, nem os adúlteros, nem os efeminados, nem os sodomitas... hão de possuir o reino de Deus." (I Coríntios, VI, 9-10)

"Pelo que os entregou Deus aos desejos dos seus corações, à imundície...Por isso os entregou Deus às paixões de ignomínia. Porque as suas mulheres mudaram o natural uso em outro uso, que é contra a natureza. E assim mesmo também os homens, deixado o natural uso das mulheres, arderam nos seus desejos mutuamente, cometendo homens com homens a torpeza, e recebendo em si mesmos a paga que era devida ao seu pecado." (Romanos, I, 26-27).

Santo António, rogai por nós!

"Alegra-te, feliz Lusitânia! Salta de júbilo, Pádua ditosa! Pois gerastes para a Terra e para o Céu um varão que bem pode comparar-se com um astro rutilante, já que brilha, não só pela santidade da vida e gloriosa fama de milagres, mas também pelo esplendor que por todas as partes derrama a sua celestial doutrina." Eis o esplêndido elogio que fez deste santo o Papa Pio XII. (1)

“Doutor da Igreja”, “Martelo dos Hereges”, “Doutor Evangélico”, “Arca do Testamento”, “Santo de todo o mundo” –– são alguns dos títulos com que os Sumos Pontífices honraram aquele cuja vida foi, no dizer de um dos seus biógrafos, um milagre contínuo. Natural de Lisboa onde nasceu em 1191 ou 1195, filho dos nobres Martinho de Bulhões e Teresa Taveira, o futuro santo recebeu no baptismo o nome de Fernando. De boa índole, inclinado à piedade e às coisas santas, a sua formação espiritual e intelectual foi confiada aos cónegos da Catedral de Lisboa por seu pai, oficial no exército de D. Afonso.

Segundo alguns dos seus biógrafos, na adolescência Fernando foi acometido por uma violenta tentação contra a pureza. Para aplacá-la, estando na catedral, o jovem traçou uma cruz com os dedos, numa coluna de mármore, ficando nela impressa como em cera. Avaliando nessa ocasião os perigos que corria, o adolescente quis entrar para o mosteiro de São Vicente de Fora, dos Clérigos Regulares de Santo Agostinho, nos arredores da capital portuguesa, quando contava 19 anos de idade.

Ali permaneceu dois anos, findos os quais, por ser muito procurado por parentes e amigos, pediu aos superiores que o transferissem para o mosteiro Santa Cruz de Coimbra, casa-mãe do Instituto. Foi ordenado sacerdote em 1220. Frei Fernando, entretanto, almejava abraçar um género de vida mais perfeito e mais de acordo com as suas íntimas aspirações.

Quando chegaram a Coimbra os restos mortais dos cinco protomártires franciscanos, que deram a sua vida pela Fé em Marrocos, Frei Fernando sentiu um imenso desejo de imitá-los, vertendo também o seu sangue por Cristo. Um dia, no verão de 1220, quando dois franciscanos foram ao seu mosteiro pedir esmola, Frei Fernando perguntou-lhes se, passando ele para a sua Ordem, o enviariam à terra dos mouros para lá sofrer o martírio. Eles deram resposta afirmativa. No dia seguinte, depois de obter, a duras penas, a autorização do seu Superior, mudou-se para o eremitério franciscano, onde se tornou um filho de São Francisco de Assis.

Frei Fernando mudou então o seu nome para o do onomástico do eremitério, António, que ele imortalizaria.

Conforme o combinado, Frei António foi enviado no fim desse mesmo ano a África. Entretanto, não estava nos planos da Providência que ele ilustrasse a Igreja como mártir, mas com as suas pregações e vida santa. Assim, chegando ao continente africano, foi atacado por uma terrível doença que o reteve no leito por um longo período. Os superiores decidiram que, para curar-se, Frei António deveria voltar a Portugal.

A mão da Providência, no entanto, desejava-o noutro campo de luta. O navio em que estava o convalescente, levado pela tempestade, foi parar às costas de Itália, onde o santo encontrou abrigo em Messina, na Sicília. Lá soube que o seráfico São Francisco havia convocado um Capítulo em Assis, para Maio de 1221. António poderia, enfim, ver o pai e fundador dos franciscanos e contemplar a sua angélica virtude. Naquela grande assembleia o Provincial da Roménia resolveu levá-lo consigo. Frei António obteve dele licença para permanecer no eremitério do Monte Paulo, a fim de entregar-se ao isolamento e à contemplação. Entretanto, a mão de Deus velava sobre ele, e chegou o tempo em que aquela luz deveria brilhar para o bem do mundo inteiro.

Foi enviado a Forli com alguns franciscanos e dominicanos que deveriam receber as ordens sacras. O padre guardião do convento em que se hospedavam pediu que algum dos presentes dissesse algo para a glória de Deus e edificação dos demais. Um a um, foram todos escusando-se por não estarem preparados. Restava António. Sem muita convicção, o Superior mandou-lhe então que falasse, à falta dos demais. Era a primeira vez que António falava em público, e então viu-se a maravilha: da sua boca saíram palavras de fogo, demonstrando um profundo conhecimento teológico e das Escrituras, tudo exposto com uma lógica, clareza e concisão que conquistou a todos.

Entusiasmado, o guardião comunicou aquele sucesso ao Provincial, que transmitiu a notícia a São Francisco. O Poverello mandou então que Frei António estudasse teologia escolástica para dedicar-se à pregação. Pouco depois, em vista dos seus progressos, ordenou-lhe S. Francisco que trabalhasse na salvação das almas. Era o ano 1222, e Frei António contava apenas 30 ou 31 anos de idade.

Segundo os seus biógrafos, “ele tinha um exterior polido, gestos elegantes e aspecto atraente. A sua voz era forte, clara, agradável, e a sua memória feliz. A essas vantagens, juntava uma acção cheia de graça”.(2) Entretanto, “o seu traço característico, o milagre constante de sua existência, é a força incontestável de sua pregação, o poder da sua voz sobre os corações e as inteligências”.(3)

“Quando ele fulminava os vícios e as heresias — das quais o mundo estava então extremamente infectado — era como uma torrente de fogo que tudo revira, e à qual ninguém pode resistir. [...] Frequentemente, se bem que falasse [durante o sermão] uma só língua, era entendido por pessoas de toda espécie de países”.(4) Daí o seu sucesso extraordinário, tanto em Itália quanto em França.

As multidões acorriam, e até os comerciantes fechavam as suas lojas para ir ouvi-lo; a cidade e toda a redondeza literalmente paravam. Sendo pequenas as igrejas para tanta gente — às vezes chegavam a juntar-se até 30 mil pessoas num só sermão — ele falava nas praças públicas. Quando terminava, “era necessário que alguns homens valentes e robustos o levantassem e protegessem das pessoas que vinham beijar-lhe a mão e tocar-lhe o hábito”.(5) O número de sacerdotes que o acompanhavam era pequeno para depois ouvirem as confissões dos que, tocados pelo seu sermão, queriam emendar-se de vida.

Os seus sermões eram seguidos de milagres como não se viam desde o tempo dos Apóstolos. Praticamente não havia coxo, cego ou paralítico que, depois de receber a sua bênção, não ficasse são. Numa ocasião converteu 22 ladrões, que por curiosidade foram ouvi-lo. O número de hereges por ele convertidos não tem fim.

Um dos milagres mais conhecidos de Santo António foi sua pregação aos peixes. Em Rimini, durante o seu sermão, o povo mantinha-se indiferente. Abandonando os seus ouvintes, foi pregar à beira-mar. Milhares de peixes de vários tipos e tamanhos puseram a cabeça fora da água para ouvir o santo, que tinha sido seguido pela população da cidade, testemunha do milagre.

Santo António foi cognominado “Martelo dos Hereges”, porque a heresia não teve inimigo mais formidável. A sua mais antiga biografia, conhecida pelo nome de Assídua, relata: “Dia e noite tinha discussões com os hereges; expunha-lhes com grande clareza o dogma católico; refutava vitoriosamente os preceitos deles, revelando em tudo ciência admirável e força suave de persuasão que penetrava a alma dos seus contrários”.(6)

Um heresiarca negava a Presença Real no Santíssimo Sacramento. Para acreditar, dizia, queria um milagre. E propôs o seguinte: deixaria a sua mula sem comer durante três dias. Depois disso, oferecer-lhe-ia feno e aveia, e Frei António a Hóstia consagrada. Se a besta deixasse a comida para ir adorar a Hóstia, ele creria, disse. Isso foi feito diante de toda a cidade. E a mula faminta, tendo que escolher entre o alimento e o respeito à Hóstia consagrada, foi ajoelhar-se diante desta, que o santo segurava nas mãos.

Desde a mais tenra infância António fora devoto de Nossa Senhora, e Ela várias vezes o socorreu. Um dia, por exemplo, em que o Demónio não podia mais suportar o bem que o santo fazia, agarrou-o pelo pescoço tão violentamente, que o enforcava. António mal pôde balbuciar as palavras da antífona a Nossa Senhora, “O Gloriosa Domina”. No mesmo instante o Demónio fugiu apavorado. Recomposto, António viu a seu lado a Rainha do Céu resplandecente de glória.

No ano de 1231, Frei António, sentindo piorar a hidropisia maligna que o perseguia havia tempos, percebeu que sua hora chegara e quis morrer em Pádua, a sua cidade de adopção. Quando o povo paduano ouviu dizer que ele estava a chegar, acorreu em tal quantidade, que os frades que o acompanhavam, para livrá-lo do assédio, levaram-no para a casa do capelão das freiras clarissas, onde ele faleceu com apenas 40 anos de idade. Imediatamente as crianças de Pádua saíram espontaneamente pelas ruas gritando: “O santo morreu! O santo morreu!”. Ao mesmo tempo, em Lisboa, sua cidade natal, os sinos puseram-se a repicar por si sós, e o povo saiu às ruas. Somente mais tarde é que souberam do ocorrido.

Tantos foram os milagres operados pelo santo no seu túmulo, que levaram o Papa Gregório IX a canonizá-lo apenas um ano depois da sua morte. Anualmente a sua festividade é comemorada no dia 13 de Junho.

Notas:

1. Pio XII, Carta Apostólica de 16 de janeiro de 1946, apud Pe. José Leite, Santos de Cada Dia, Editorial A.O., Braga, 1987, tomo II, p. 252.

2. Les Petits Bollandistes, Vies des Saints, d’après le Père Giry, Bloud et Barral, Éditeurs, Paris, 1882, tomo VI, p. 617.

3. Frei Justo Perez de Urbel, O.S.B., Año Cristiano, Ediciones Fax, Madrid, 1945, tomo II, p. 603.

4. P. Simon Martin, Vie des Saints, Bar-le-Duc, 1859, tomo II, pp. 946-947.

5. Pe. Pedro Ribadaneira, apud Dr. D. Eduardo Maria Vilarrasa, La Leyenda de Oro, L. González y Compañía, Barcelona, 1896, tomo II, p. 425.

6. Apud Pe. José Leite, S.J., op.cit., p. 251.

"Horresce judaicam perfidiam, respue hebraicam superstitionem."

"Repudiai a infidelidade judaica, rejeitai a superstição hebraica." - Fórmula do Ritual Romano para os catecúmenos provenientes do Judaísmo.

The Point, Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict Center, July, 1957.

THE JUDAISING OF CHRISTIANS BY JEWS

Tactics of the Church’s Leading Enemies

The recent death of Spain’s Cardinal Segura, Archbishop of Seville, offered our Judaeo-Masonic press an opportunity of the sort which it will always pounce upon, with gusto. His late Eminence provided a timely “for instance” for that legion of editors whose favorite national aversion is Spain, and whose notion of all that is black, backward, and evil remains epitomized in the words, Spanish Catholicism — or (in quick descent from genus to species) Spanish Inquisition.

Apace with this secular attack, explanations and apologies for Spain and the Inquisition fill the question-and-answer columns of our Catholic press, and the Spanish chapters of our Catholic history texts. And, as if by some eerie pre-arrangement, neither the offense nor the defense in this chronic war dares a frank discussion of that urgent problem which made the Inquisition necessary in the first place.

Actually, it is no secret that the Spanish Inquisition was somehow concerned with Jews. Least of all, do the Jews try to hide the fact. Any Jewish discussion of the Inquisition will invariably and boldly lay the historical cards on the table. With their incomprehensible eagerness to boast about anything that any Jew has ever done, current Jewish spokesmen will give detailed reasons why the Inquisition and the Jews are inseparable. Those reasons are the key to centuries of history on either side of the Spanish Inquisition. And they are best summarized in that one eloquent word, Judaizing.

Generally defined, Judaizing is a term for any activity which aims at softening the attitude of Christendom toward Jews, or which results in the overthrow of Christian doctrines in favor of Jewish ones. The Inquisition was Spain’s answer to Judaizing. And it was the most effective answer the Jews have ever been given.

The particular, though not peculiar, tactic of the Spanish Judaizers was infiltration. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, hundreds of thousands of Jews entered the Church’s ranks in Spain. They were recognized as a problem almost immediately. But by the time the remedy of the Inquisition was introduced, these “New Christians” were firmly established in all the higher levels of Spanish society, including, in pronounced numbers, the clergy. Representative of the kind of clerical case brought to the attention of the Inquisitors was that of Andres Gomalz, a Jewish parish priest who, on trial at Toledo in 1486, confessed that for fourteen years as a Jewish infiltrator he had said his parish Mass having expressly no intention to consecrate, and that during the same period he had, secretly, never given absolution to the penitents who came to him for Confession.

It is small wonder that the word applied to these Jewish Christians was “Marranos,” a vivid colloquialism derived from the Spanish word for swine. In its article on the Marranos, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges this unsavory etymology and continues, quite defiantly, “The Inquisition, which was newly organized in 1481, was intended to suppress the remnants of the old Faith (Judaism) among the Marranos. However, the proceedings of the Inquisition showed clearly, for the first time, the strong attachment of the Marranos to Judaism, how deeply the Jewish religion and traditions were rooted in their hearts.”

Spain’s vigorous handling of the Judaizing problem kept the evil effects of Jewish influence at a minimum. The Church in other nations, under other Judaizing pressures, has been less fortunate. The Apostles themselves suffered much from the wiles of Judaizers. Saint Paul had constantly to battle them, saying finally, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that anyone who now supports the Old Law against the New is under a curse directly imposed by God. Despite this warning, however, great numbers of the early Church heretics (Theodotus, Neotus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Arius, etc.) were “sprung from the Jews,” as Bishop Challoner puts it.

The Church’s seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 787, was forced to enact severe legislation against Jews “who have become Christians in appearance only.” And it was, significantly enough, this same Council which condemned the widespread Eastern error, so identical with Jewish teaching, that the Faithful should not venerate images of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints.

In the West, the episode of the Spanish Marranos had been preceded by the heretical disruptions of the Albigensians in Southern France. Here again, Jews boast of being the fomenters of religious discord, and it took all the preaching of a Saint Dominic and all the papal power of an Innocent III to restore order.

The Jews’ greatest triumph, however, in the art of dividing Christendom by injecting new and Jewish ideas into the midst of the Church, came with the multiple revolts of the Protestant “reformers.” Each one of them is a detectable creature of the Judaizers, and Jewish commentators from Graetz down to Louis Israel Newman have been most happy to acknowledge them as such. In his Jewish Influence On Christian Reform Movements, Newman summarizes: “Protestantism made its greatest stand where the Marrano Jews were active … They helped break down the authority of the Vulgate and thereby prepared Europe for the Reformation.”

The reference to Saint Jerome’s “Vulgate” version, the Catholic version, of the Bible is no idle one. The entire Reformation era rocked with the “battle of the books” controversy, in which Jewish-trained Hebrew scholars were constantly pressing for the authority of Hebrew texts, and for the universal study of those numerous Jewish books which the Church had everywhere been censoring or burning — chief among them, the blasphemous Talmud.

To indicate the scope of Judaizing influence on the Protestant revolt, we need only mention the names of such leaders among the revolutionaries as Michael Servetus, initiator of the Unitarian movement, who took his anti-Trinitarian ideas from the Marrano teachers of his native Spain; John Hus, whose followers were called “the friends of the Jews” by Saint John Capistrano, and whose sentence of condemnation by the Church branded him as, “Thou accursed Judas, who, breaking away from the counsels of peace, hast consulted with the Jews”; John Calvin, whom the rigidly-Protestant Dr. Robert Willis lumps with the other “Judaic” reformers and charges they “interspersed the religion of Christ with such an amount of Judaism that their Christianity was in many respects a relapse into the bonds of the Law”; Martin Luther, who, though later embittered against the Jews who would not worship his religious authority, started off his movement by saying, “The Jews belong to Christ more than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papists, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.”

Unquestionably, the Jews had taken a long gamble in promoting revolt against the Church. If Catholic Europe had been able to repel the Reformation’s assaults on its Faith, it would then, inescapably, have turned its attention to the race which had instructed, financed, and urged on the heretics.

But the Jews’ gamble paid off. Luther and the heretics prevailed. Christendom was sundered. And, as the Jews had foreseen, a politically exhausted and doctrinally-divided Europe provided them the most satisfying climate for living and working that they had known in 1500 years.

Those nations that had remained faithful did, it was true, try to stay clean of Jewish influence. In 1555, Rome ordered its Jewish population into a ghetto. In 1582, Hungary expelled all Jews from the country; as did Austria in 1670, and France in 1682. But such efforts were just so many fingers in a fast-cracking dike. The Protestant states, though petty, were numerous, and they were committed to letting the Jews plot as they pleased. Using those states as bases, the Jews pressed steadily for the downfall of all Catholic governments.

Suddenly, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the floods came. Forgetting the lesson of the Reformation, the Catholic nations had thought to preserve their security simply by keeping an eye on the troublesome race itself. Now, too late, they realized that the Jews had once again enlisted Gentile agents to effect their will: this time a league of backroom atheists calling themselves Freemasons. And this group was far more consciously (and ruthlessly) dedicated to serving the Jewish cause than the Reformation heretics had been. Operating through secret and highly-placed agents in every country, the Freemasons staged a series of well-timed revolutions, beginning with the barbaric dismemberment of France in 1789, and culminating in the overthrow of the Papal States, the Pope’s own domains, in 1870. In place of the traditional Faith-enforcing, Jew-restraining regimes, the Masons then set up a network of constitutional republics, modeled to their own enlightened specifications. These governments were guaranteed to perform the double function of (1) keeping the Church from ever having the main say in society, and (2) allowing the Jews the run of the land.

Jewish emancipation was now complete, and Judaizing entered a new era.

Today it is no longer necessary for Jews to feign membership in the Church in order to attain respectability and authority. In our Mason-made world, they hold that status as Jews. They are thus enabled to work for the destruction of the Church from outside her — a far more efficient arrangement than working from within, where fear of discovery constantly deterred their ambitions. Consequently, for every Father Oesterreicher gnawing at Catholic teaching in New Jersey, for every Father Klyber nibbling away in Nebraska, there are thousands of steadfastly unconverted Jews subverting the Church from the outside — and with staggering success. For Judaizing is proceeding at a faster pace than ever in history. Objectives that a Marrano bishop in Medieval Spain would have considered fantastic are now being tidily accomplished by assistant directors of your local Jewish Community Center.

The following items — of a sort that can be plentifully culled from any newspaper — indicate how American Judaizers have been able to make a shambles of Catholic doctrine and tradition (themselves, meanwhile, climbing ever higher on the ruins).

— In one of our major east-coast cities, the Jews of B’nai B’rith announced that they had chosen the city’s Catholic Archbishop as their “man of the year,” and had a plaque they would like to give him. The Archbishop accepted gratefully, then, plaque in hand, repaid his Jewish benefactors by lavishing praise not only on themselves but on their Jewish Talmud (thereby, presumably, repairing the injury done by men of the Catholic past, like Saint Louis of France, who ordered the Talmud burned, and Pope Gregory IX who condemned it as “containing every kind of vileness and blasphemy”).

— In the same archdiocese, an auxiliary bishop recently urged the women of his parish to enlarge their scope by paying a visit to a local synagogue.

— In the Great Lakes area, a Catholic summer school attended by teaching-nuns has been put under the direction of a Jewish representative of the Anti-Defamation League.

— In the Midwest, one of the largest American Catholic universities has invited the Israeli Ambassador to the U. S. to deliver a major address to its student body, informing them of the reasons why Jews (not Catholics) should possess the Holy Land.

— In New England, a zealous member of the American Jewish Committee has been allowed to listen in on parochial school classes, just to make sure the students aren’t being taught anything detrimental to his race.

— In a popular weekly column, syndicated to diocesan newspapers all over the country, the author, a Paulist priest, has made this declaration of dependence: “We depend upon the Jewish religion just as much as we depend upon Jesus Christ.”

The main gain the Judaizers have thus far achieved, however, and the one ultimately responsible for such aberrations as the above, has been persuading Catholics to accept the Jewish cult of “Brotherhood.” This infidel innovation holds that all men, by some undefined lineage, are brothers. Moreover, in a strange interpretation of family life, the Jews insist that every brother (e. g., a Catholic) is bound to praise, honor, and glorify whatever opinions or creeds any other brother (e. g., a Jew) might happen to hold.

To see how effectively the Church in this country has been muzzled by submitting to this gibberish, we need look no farther than the recent, notorious “Hildy Case.”

Catholic spokesmen made it plain that they wanted the child, Hildy McCoy, to be taken from the Jewish Ellises and returned to the custody of her Catholic mother. (The mother had originally agreed to let the Ellises adopt Hildy, thinking they were Catholics; discovering she had been deceived, she had been trying, for six years, with the support of the Massachusetts courts, to get the child back.) The Jews of America, on the other hand, wanted Hildy to stay with the Ellises, and made their plans accordingly.

The Jews well knew that by accepting the terms of Jewish Brotherhood, Catholic ecclesiastics had effectively removed themselves from the fight. The strongest arguments they could offer for Hildy’s return were some rather stuffy, totally unavailing exhortations to the Jews to “respect the law.” These churchmen were obliged to iterate and reiterate that “there is no religious issue involved.” And so, when the governor of Florida, eyeing Miami’s heavy Jewish vote, decided the Ellises would not be extradited to face trial in Massachusetts, the jubilant Jews flaunted their victory over the Church in banner headlines.

In the face of the new and even graver “Hildy Cases” which are bound to follow, The Point will continue to remind American Catholics of the Church’s historical and unchangeable position against the Judaizing menace.

Yet more than for our own work, we ask the prayers of our readers for that one American bishop, wherever he may be, who will be the first to speak out against the Jewish threat; who in the ignominy of some future “Hildy” episode will decide that the time at last has come to turn the Judaizing tide.

It has always happened elsewhere. It will happen here.

O Padre e a Batina

“A batina recorda aos homens que sois discípulos de Jesus Cristo e é um sinal de que existe algo que ultrapassa a realidade dos homens: a fé, as realidades sobrenaturais. Sim, a batina fala e prega: diante dela os homens reagem, talvez mal, mas são com frequência afectados positivamente. Vêmos uma batina e vêmos um sacerdote. Hoje, esta imagem já não faz parte da realidade, salvo entre os tradicionalistas e na publicidade, precisamente porque sabem que, na alma dos cristãos, o sacerdote é o sacerdote de batina. E quando se pensa no sacerdote, pensa-se noutro Jesus, num homem que não é como os outros homens, que está separado do mundo. O preto da batina é o preto do luto, da morte ao mundo, da renúncia a ele. A batina é já um sacrifício, não pelo prazer do sacrifício como fim em si mesmo, como um estóico ou um masoquista, mas para se pôr à disposição das almas. E se essa batina se comporta bem, é uma verdadeira chama; se se comporta mal, é imediatamente um escândalo que produz um imenso mal”.

(Sermão de D. Fellay por ocasião da imposição da batina a 13 novos seminaristas em França)

Abençoado Natal: que reine o Menino!

"Caríssimos: Nasceu hoje o nosso Salvador; alegremo-nos. Porque não é permitido haver tristeza quando nasce a vida, a qual acabando com o temor da morte, nos infunde a alegria com a promessa da eternidade. E ninguém é excluído da participação desta alegria. Todos têm igual motivo de se alegrarem porque nosso Senhor, destruidor do pecado e da morte, assim como não encontrou ninguém livre de culpa, do mesmo modo veio a todos libertar. Exulte o Santo porque se aproxima do triunfo; alegre-se o pecador porque é convidado ao perdão; tenha ânimo o gentio porque é chamado para a vida. Com efeito, o Filho de Deus, na plenitude do tempo estabelecido pela imperscrutável profundeza do conselho divino, assume, para reconciliá-la com o seu autor, a natureza do género humano, a fim de que o demónio, inventor da morte, fosse vencido por aquela natureza que ele primeiro havia vencido."

Primeiro sermão do Natal; S. Leão, Papa. (séc. V)

"Casamento" Sodomita

Reproduzo-vos aqui o pertinente texto "Casamento entre homossexuais. É lá com eles?" do corajoso Pe. Nuno Serras Pereira, publicado no Logos e já divulgado também no conhecido blogue tradicionalista A Casa de Sarto. Vale a pena ler, especialmente nestes tempos de constante propaganda ideológica louvando a sodomia.

1. Muita gente ainda não se apercebeu dos grandes perigos para a liberdade que constitui o iniquamente chamado "casamento" entre sodomitas (pessoas que fazem poucas-vergonhas sexuais com outras do mesmo sexo). Cuidam que isso é lá uma coisa deles que nada implica com o resto da sociedade. Mas se assim é, como explicar que eles queiram institucionalizar essas abominações torpes, exigindo o reconhecimento social e o auxílio do estado?

2. A sodomia (ou como hoje se diz, a homossexualidade) é detestável aos olhos de Deus e repugnante à sensibilidade das pessoas normais. Reconhecê-la e tutelá-la legalmente significaria uma subversão da essência da lei e do seu carácter pedagógico. Para evitar males maiores a lei pode tolerar esses comportamentos, como já o faz. As pessoas que praticam devassidões sodomitas, merecem ser respeitadas enquanto pessoas, mas não podem exigir que o mesmo aconteça em relação aos seus actos degradantes. O estado, aliás, deve evitar o contágio e as influências nefastas que essas torpitudes podem ter particularmente nos jovens. Para além da sua integridade moral, estão também em jogo a sua saúde (1) e esperança de vida (2). O estado, contrariamente ao que vem propagando, não tem de ser neutro em relação aos valores e princípios, de resto algo completamente impossível, pelo contrário tem que actuar de acordo com a verdade (que por sê-la é universal) sobre o bem da pessoa e da sociedade, a qual pode ser reconhecida pela razão humana. A alternativa a esta concepção só pode ser o relativismo que entrega o poder aos mais fortes e poderosos de turno, provocando a opressão dos mais fracos.

3. As pessoas sodomitas mesmo que o queiram não são capazes de realizar entre si a comunhão de pessoas (corpóreo-espiritual) própria do acto conjugal, isto é, do varão e da mulher unidos pelo casamento. Esta, de facto, só é possível quando o varão e a mulher se entregam e acolhem reciprocamente na totalidade do seu ser, de modo irrevogável e exclusivo, naquele único acto ou princípio de tipo procriador que só pode ser realizado por ambos, constituindo assim um único organismo, uma só carne, uma comunhão de pessoas, capaz de suscitar a geração de outras pessoas, de as nutrir, educar e sociabilizar.

Não há proclamação, nem declaração, nem legislação, nem nome algum que torne as pessoas sodomitas capazes de realizar entre si aquilo de que são intrinsecamente incapazes,;a saber, de acasalar e, portanto, de casar. Os seus ideólogos sabem-no muito bem e apesar de todas as reivindicações não estão minimamente interessados em fazê-lo. Os seus objectivos são inteiramente outros. Somente 2% dos sodomitas têm menos de 10 parceiros ao longo da vida; 70% têm relações impessoais de uma só noite; 28% têm mais de 1000 (mil) parceiros ao longo da vida e 43% têm mais de 500. Acresce que os que têm ligações "estáveis" têm-nas, em média, durante dois anos e meio (3), sendo que o conceito de fidelidade que têm é tão só afectivo e não sexual.

4. Que objectivos são os seus? Consideremos alguns:

a) Em primeiro lugar, desligar o sexo do amor, acabando com o casamento. De facto, quando tudo se torna casamento, nada é casamento. Na perspectiva natural a sexualidade existe para o amor (para o casamento, precisamente), para a doação e o acolhimento assimétrico, e não narcisista, um amor que por sua natureza é difusivo e, por isso, naturalmente fecundo. O prazer não é procurado por si mesmo mas é, por um lado, um meio ao serviço da comunhão das pessoas e, por outro, um resultado dessa mesma comunhão. Na sodomia o prazer é o fim único, o bem absoluto, e, por isso, cada um instrumentaliza o outro, numa cumplicidade infame, para obter o que lhe dê maior prazer, sendo que essa obsessão se torna cada vez mais insaciável levando, por isso, a aberrações de tal modo abjectas que são inomináveis (4). Enquanto no casamento natural o outro é reconhecido na sua dignidade (essa é a sua lógica intrínseca), reconhecido como um fim e nunca como um mero meio, na torpe sodomia a pessoa é reduzida, mesmo que com o seu consentimento, a um mero meio, mais precisamente a um objecto instrumental.

b) Uma vez alcançado o "casamento" entre sodomitas, inevitavelmente daí decorrerá o "direito" a adoptarem crianças e a encomendá-las aos laboratórios de reprodução artificial. O superior bem da criança é desprezado em nome do interesse egoísta dos sodomitas. A criança injustamente violentada a introduzir-se nessa mancomunação impúdica será vítima de graves riscos, entre os quais, numa alta percentagem (muitíssimo maior do que na família natural) o de ser sexualmente abusada (5).

c) Conseguida a legalização do "casamento" daí decorrerá necessariamente que a sodomia seja considerada uma variante normal da sexualidade. Sendo assim, os filhos vítimas de uma opressão heteronormativa ou heteroimpositiva por parte dos pais terão de ser libertadas desse obscurantismo sufocante através da educação sexual obrigatória nas escolas que incutirão nas crianças, desde a mais tenra idade, a ideologia do género e as ensinarão a gozar desse bem absoluto que é o prazer sexual, induzindo-as a experimentar sexualmente qual a sua "identidade" ( 6). A escola transformar-se-á (aliás já começou (7), mas agravar-se-á muito mais) pois num viveiro ou templo de recruta perfeita de vítimas dos predadores sodomitas.

d) Uma vez que a sodomia seja considerada uma "identidade" ou uma variante normal da sexualidade procurar-se-á proibir todo o tipo de terapia, religiosa ou psicológica, pois isso será visto como uma agressão violenta e indevida à personalidade e ao eu da pessoa sodomita ( 8).

e) i) Adquirido o "casamento" logo a chamada discriminação por "orientação sexual" (o que é que isto quererá dizer? Não existe nenhuma definição rigorosa do termo, não passa dum chavão ou, pior, de uma palavra talismã para sugestionar toda a gente, impedindo-a de pensar) se transformará em "crime de homofobia" (mais um talismã…). Não se distingue sequer entre discriminação justa e injusta. Nada! A sodomia, que é um comportamento, passará a ser entendida como a cor da pele e o "crime de homofobia" equiparado ao de racismo ou de xenofobia (Embora agora só reivindiquem publicamente a "orientação" sexual para GLBT - gay, lesbian, bisexual e trangender - inevitavelmente, tarde ou cedo, o mesmo será feito para a pedofilia, bestialidade e incesto (9)) com a agravante de que os sodomitas são muito mais intolerantes e organizados que as, essas sim verdadeiras vítimas, do racismo.

ii) A liberdade de expressão será afectada. Já em vários países há pessoas que são despedidas dos seus empregos por discordarem com o comportamento sodomita ou por não felicitarem quem se "casa" com pessoa do mesmo sexo (10). A hiper-sensibilidade desta gente é impressionante como se pode ver pelo exemplo seguinte, que não é nenhuma excepção. Num discurso na Universidade de Harvard, para o qual tinha sido convidada, a actriz Jada Pinkett-Smith falou entusiasticamente sobre o seu casamento e os seus filhos. Pois a gay, lesbian, trangender e supporters alliance (BGLTSA) protestou iradamente porque "parte do conteúdo era extremamente heteronormativo o que fez com que os membros da BGLTSA se sentissem desconfortáveis.(11)

iii) A propriedade privada e as associações de todo o género ficarão sujeitos à "lei da não distinção ou discriminação". Um exemplo de que o processo já começou na expectativa da aprovação do "casamento" pode ler-se no jornal I de ontem:

"Discriminação? Promoção do Sporting exclui casais homossexuais: Tem o nome de "Gamebox Duo" e é uma promoção do Sporting para casais de sócios que queiram ter descontos na aquisição de lugares anuais no Estádio de Alvalade. Casais, sim. Mas apenas heterossexuais: embora não peçam documentos que comprovem a relação entre os sócios que queiram comprar o produto, os serviços comerciais do Sporting vedam o acesso a esta campanha a casais homossexuais, sejam eles gays ou lésbicas.

‘É ilegal. Não pode haver uma promoção que se destine apenas a casais heterossexuais’, diz o advogado José Miguel Júdice. ‘É absolutamente inaceitável. Pura maldade. Não há legislação que dê aval a uma discriminação dessas", reforça o deputado e activista do movimento LGBT Miguel Vale de Almeida." (12)

Quem for proprietário de um prédio onde vive não poderá recusar-se a alugar um andar a um "casal" sodomita mesmo que considere que isso vai contra a sua consciência e contra a educação que quer dar aos seus filhos que terão o dito como vizinho. Nenhuma escola ou infantário poderá evitar que os seus alunos sejam expostos ao mau exemplo e possível investida de professores que notoriamente são sodomitas activos e cujo "cônjuge" o vai buscar e beijar e dar a mão diante dos jovens e crianças.

Nenhum hotel ou restaurante ou salão de Igreja se poderá recusar a alugar o espaço e a receber uma "boda" de sodomitas. Nenhum fotógrafo se poderá recusar a fazer a cobertura do acontecimento.

iv) A liberdade religiosa será gravemente prejudicada. As casas de retiros ou exercícios espirituais ver-se-ão obrigadas a receber "casais" sodomitas em grupo ou misturados com os casais naturais com direito a pernoitar nas mesmas condições que os verdadeiros casais.(13) O Sacerdote não poderá recusar a participação desses "casais" sodomitas que se inscrevam. Os Padres serão perseguidos por pregarem a doutrina da Igreja sobre a sodomia, as Bíblias serão censuradas, os Seminários não poderão recusar a entrada a "sodomitas" activos. As confissões religiosas serão pressionadas a celebrarem "casamentos" religiosos entre sodomitas. As que resistirem serão perseguidas como homofóbicas.

v) Há certamente pessoas sodomitas que não concordam com o "casamento" e que percebem as manigâncias ardilosas, mas muitos outros seguem ingenuamente a propaganda dos ideólogos acreditando na bondade do que advogam. Esses poderão vir a ser também vítimas que pagarão caro o seu seguidismo. Os homossexuais que dominavam o partido nazi, cujas raízes são sodomitas, condenaram aos campos de concentração e à morte outros que não alinharam com eles. As ligações entre o nazismo e o movimento e ideologia "gay" são exaustivamente analisados no livro "The Pink Swastika - Homosexuality in the Nazi Party".(14)

Mas se o caso é assim tão grave, como é, pode-se perguntar por que não nos apercebemos dele, senão que até ganhámos alguma simpatia pela causa e compaixão pelos que se fazem de "vítimas" de todos nós? Para compreender a propaganda a que temos sido sujeitos é muito sugestivo um relatório - Selling Homosexuality to America　- sobre o que aconteceu nos EUA por que é praticamente o mesmo que tem sucedido por cá.(15)

5. "Casamento" entre sodomitas é lá com eles? Nada! É cá connosco. É cá com a nossa liberdade. É cá com o nosso bem.

Nuno Serras Pereira

01. 12. 2009

NOTAS

(1) Vide Homossexualidade, in http://osabortofilos.blogspot.com/?zx=ef1ff423ee15726d

(2) Idem; e Study: Homosexual Lifestyle Strongly Linked to Depression, Suicide

By Kathleen Gilbert

LONDON, September 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.

While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s. (See LifeSiteNews.com article

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040309.html)

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."

Fitzgibbons said the American Psychological Association, which is known for its support of homosexual "marriage," ignored the evidence he presented that homosexuality presents significant danger to psychological health. (See

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05072502.html)

See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured

^{http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050110.html}

APA Ignored Evidence that Homosexual Behaviour is Part of Psychiatric Disorder Says Noted Psychiatrist

^{http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05072502.html}

Expert Research Finds Homosexuality More Dangerous Than Smoking

^{http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040309.html
(3) Idem
(4) Idem}

^{[5] a) Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting - by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina. In http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf}

^{b) A study in Adolescence found: A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent...Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.60. In http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php}

^{c) No es igual - Informe sobre el desarrolo Infantil en parejas del mismo sexo: http://www.noesigual.org/manifestacion/documentos/noesigual3.pdf}

^{[6] a) São muito bem documentados numerosos estudos de mudança de atracção por pessoas do mesmo sexo para a de atracção por pessoas de sexo diferente. Exemplos eloquentes disso são os estudos do psiquiatra Robert Spitzer que tendo sido responsável, nos anos 70 do século passado, pela exclusão da homossexualidade como patologia do livro de Diagnóstico da Associação de Psiquiatria dos EUA, verificou que se tinha enganado: Robert Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from homosexual to Hetrosexual Orientation”, Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003): 403-417.}

^{Ver também: http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html e http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html}

^{b) Sobre as manipulações e trafulhices que levaram a APA (American Psiachitry Association) a deixar de considerar a homossexualidade como uma patologia ver: - Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D., Ph.D., Trojan Couch - the misrepresentation of science about the causes and roots of homosexuality:}

^{http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf}

^{c) Ver ainda: http://www.narth.com/menus/gasocsciences.html}

^{[7]Ver: http://www.narth.com/menus/schools.html e http://www.plataforma-rn.com/site/}

^{[8] Nalguns países já se processam judicialmente psiquiatras e psicólogos – www.lifesitenews.com}

^{Richard Cohen, ex-homossexual e terapeuta (sobre ele, inclusive na wikipédia, há uma fartura de calúnias na Internet) escreveu um livro muito interessante, agora traduzido em espanhol: Um livro do Terapeuta Richard Cohen com testemunhos - Richard, Marta, Luca... pruebas vivas de que se puede dejar de ser homosexual: http://www.religionenlibertad.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo=5346}

^{Ver ainda: Michael Glatze, (Um ex-líder "gay" conta como deixou a homossexualidade) - The 'straight' scoop – 2 years later: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112247}

^{[9] Cf. http://osabortofilos.blogspot.com/?zx=ef1ff423ee15726d}

^{[10] O Boletim electrónico Infovitae tem trazido bastantes exemplos do que fica dito e do que mais se dirá. Ver também www.lifesitenews.com}

^{[11] In Dale O’ Leary, One Man, One Woman – A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage, Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, New Hampshire,pp. 309, 2 007, p.66}

^{[12] http://www.ionline.pt/conteudo/35394-discriminacao-promocao-do-sporting-exclui-casais-homossexuais}

^{[13] O Cardeal Pell advertiu há pouco tempo: “If courts and governments were to decide that the general recognition and acceptance of same-sex marriage should be an important principle of public policy, the consequences for religious freedom could be enormous. Marriage preparation, relationship counselling, decisions about medical treatment by next of kin, school enrolments, sex and relationship education in secondary schools, the hire of parish, school and church facilities for functions and events, and arrangements for married couples in emergency housing, retreat, conference and aged care centres are only the most obvious examples of where Christian beliefs about marriage could collide with public policy on anti-discrimination which prioritises the equal treatment of same-sex marriage." In http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34922}

^{[14] Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pìnk Swastika - Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, Fourth Edition Published January, 2002, Veritas Aeterna Press, Sacramento, California, pp. 386 . Pode também ler o livro online: http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm}

^{[15] Paul E. Rondeau, Selling Homosexuality to America: http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf}

^{Paul E. Rondeau, Campaña de concientización a favor de la homosexualidad en EEUU: http://www.esposiblelaesperanza.com/images/stories/Cultura_Pro_Gay/Articulos/Campana_en_EEUU.pdf}

Dr. John Rao: Professor Gradgrind's Magisterium and recent Catholic Modernism

"There are times when an elevated spirit is a true infirmity. No one understands it. It even passes for a kind of parochialism." (Chateaubriand)

My closest friends at Rocco's are generally looking pretty gloomy these days. They attribute their gloom to the fact that the newspapers are filled with reports of big-buck bonuses, while nothing in their own personal economic lives seems to be in any way improving. Some people, they lament, are clearly "making it". Why can't they be among them?

Alas, poor souls! They do not realize that "making it" for them is utterly impossible. "Making it" would entail remaking themselves according to the revolutionary dictates of Professor Gradgrind's Magisterium, and this they are in no way ready to do. Nor should they do so, whatever the wisdom of the moment might dictate.

Who is Professor Thomas Gradgrind? He is one of the main characters in Charles Dicken's Hard Times (1854), and an enthusiastic collaborator in the construction of the new capitalist, industrialized, "making it" Britain of the nineteenth century. What is his Magisterium? It is a teaching regarding the character of an autonomous natural order of things; a very specific example of what we Catholics would broadly call Modernism.

Gradgrind as educator considers himself bound to raise children to understand and obey laws of nature built upon obvious "facts" that no one under any circumstances can even question, much less disobey. Let us allow Dickens to introduce us to him and to his educational philosophy as he sets to work in a classroom filled with students:

"'Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir! In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!...'

"The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim."

Teaching the Facts about the laws of nature was ultimately rather easy for Professor Gradgrind. It did not involve anything more than teaching knowledge of a simple machine closed in upon and content with itself:

"Thomas Gradgrind, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir - peremptorily Thomas - Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic."

Gradgrind's instruction came at a price, however. His Magisterium required that whatever other non-mechanical Facts had shaped his students in the past be ruthlessly purged from their benighted souls:

"Thomas Gradgrind now presented Thomas Gradgrind to the little pitchers before him, who were to be filled so full of facts. Indeed, as he eagerly sparkled at them from the cellarage before mentioned, he seemed a kind of cannon loaded to the muzzle with facts, and prepared to blow them clean out of the regions of childhood at one discharge. He seemed a galvanizing apparatus, too, charged with a grim mechanical substitute for the tender young imaginations that were to be stormed away."

An opening to the mechanical Facts bought at this price of a closing to knowledge of a different and perhaps broader quality could be utterly baffling to those multi-dimensional fools whom Gradgrind was dedicated to enlightening. Hence the circus girl Sissy's confusion regarding how to respond to the Professor's command to define a horse---an animal that to her was everything from mere beast to noble symbol. And hence, also, Gradgrind's sense that her discomfit confirms the truth of his mechanical wisdom. He triumphantly appeals to one of the pupils he has already remade to definitively resolve the issue of ignorance and enlightenment:

"'Girl number twenty,' said Mr. Gradgrind, squarely pointing with his square forefinger... 'Let me see. What is your father?'
'He belongs to the horse-riding, if you please, sir.'
Mr. Gradgrind frowned, and waved off the objectionable calling with his hand.
'We don't want to know anything about that, here. You mustn't tell us about that, here. Your father breaks horses, don't he?'
'If you please, sir, when they can get any to break, they do break horses in the ring, sir.'
'You mustn't tell us about the ring, here. Very well, then. Describe your father as a horsebreaker. He doctors sick horses, I dare say?'
'Oh yes, sir.'
'Very well, then. He is a veterinary surgeon, a farrier, and horsebreaker. Give me your definition of a horse.'
(Sissy Jupe thrown into the greatest alarm by this demand.)
'Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!' said Mr. Gradgrind, for the general behoof of all the little pitchers. 'Girl number twenty possessed of no facts, in reference to one of the commonest of animals! Some boy's definition of a horse. Bitzer, yours.'"

Finally, in one quite extraordinary passage, Dickens offers a Platonic judgment on the final results of Professor Gradgrind's Magisterium and the remaking of human beings that it involves. The extra, broader---and possibly higher---illumination that Sissy might have brought to those buried in her modernist cave of a classroom, where only a little light involving simple mechanical Facts shone, cannot be permitted to penetrate. Thus, Bitzer, the student called upon to enlighten her, is seen to be not only in desperate need of further light himself, but also stripped of whatever visible defining features he probably once possessed. Gradgrind, the self-proclaimed Master of Them That Know, therefore reveals to us that he has no clue concerning real darkness or enlightenment at all:

"The square finger, moving here and there, lighted suddenly on Bitzer, perhaps because he chanced to sit in the same ray of sunlight which, darting in at one of the bare windows of the intensely white-washed room, irradiated Sissy. For, the boys and girls sat on the face of the inclined plane in two compact bodies, divided up the centre by a narrow interval; and Sissy, being at the corner of a row on the sunny side, came in for the beginning of a sunbeam, of which Bitzer, being at the corner of a row on the other side, a few rows in advance, caught the end. But, whereas the girl was so dark-eyed and dark-haired, that she seemed to receive a deeper and more lustrous colour from the sun, when it shone upon her, the boy was so light-eyed and light-haired that the self-same rays appeared to draw out of him what little colour he ever possessed. His cold eyes would hardly have been eyes, but for the short ends of lashes which, by bringing them into immediate contrast with something paler than themselves, expressed their form. His short-cropped hair might have been a mere continuation of the sandy freckles on his forehead and face. His skin was so unwholesomely deficient in the natural tinge, that he looked as though, if he were cut, he would bleed white.
'Bitzer,' said Thomas Gradgrind. 'Your definition of a horse.'
'Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.'
Thus (and much more) Bitzer.
'Now girl number twenty,' said Mr. Gradgrind. 'You know what a horse is.'"

Professor Thomas Gradgrind, as presented by Dickens, is one of the all too many arrogant ideologues emerging out of the eighteenth century's so-called Enlightenment. All Enlightenment thinkers insist upon building their knowledge of the universe and man's role within it upon "nature" and the "facts" of natural life. Never mind that their notorious disagreements over what these "obvious" natural facts might be---class struggle, laws of supply and demand, race, sex, national identity---have caused contemporary societies shaped by them to endure psychological and physical suffering of a subtlety and intensity unknown to earlier human beings. Each proponent of each and every varied, Enlightenment-inspired key to nature's teaching and the human liberation that must come from acceptance of it has been absolutely and arrogantly certain that his school possesses the sole rational, infallible path to Freedom and Progress.

It is this certainty that requires a program of revolutionary remaking of men and women, clearly described in the 1700's in Jean Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, the Emile, and the Social Contract. Natural man is declared trapped in an unnatural condition. He needs urgently to be returned to life in a natural way. Souls who offer resistance to nature and nature's laws must be subject to a consciousness-raising education awakening them to their true natural selves and the well being that they still so pathetically reject. None of their continued calls for nuance or consideration of other, broader facts in making decisions regarding both nature's rules as well as individual and social happiness can be rationally addressed. Reason, by definition, is on the side of the man of Enlightenment alone. Unnaturalness, and therefore irrationality and even non-humanness as a whole, are the lot of his opponents. The arguments of those in unquestioned need of being remade must be either ignored or ridiculed. When, as has all too often happened in the last few centuries, the revolutionary Will to Power that underlies the whole Enlightenment vision of intelligence triumphs, and a remaking of human beings is actually undertaken, the Gradgrinds succeed in giving the world the appearance of operating as they say it does. In the name of nature's laws they cut off sources of light that draw from the whole of nature---not just the ideologue's portion of it---essential facts to teach us. They make natural men as unnatural as they are capable of becoming. And since the Gradgrinds are the masters of the dessicated and unnatural world and individuals they create---i.e., the ones who "make it"---they have yet another argument for rejecting further criticism of their vision. Critics are envious losers in addition to being mentally incompetent. As neat Sophist approaches goes, this Enlightenment pedagogue's program is probably unmatchable.

Now my good friends at Rocco's are "Sissys" as opposed to "Bitzers". They are bewildered by the Gradgrind Magisterium and resist being remade according to its teachings. If they were to "make it" in a world that were shaped by its principles---say, by winning the lottery, which is the only way they could do so---they would find that they would be still more miserable than they were beforehand. They are too natural, normal, and, I would argue, too unconsciously Catholic in their mentality, to do violence to their souls either as "losers" or "winners". I feel very sorry for them---and ultimately for all of us---in consequence, and this for three reasons.

First of all, I feel sorry for them because we do live in a world ruled by the Gradgrind Magisterium. Moreover, we live in a country that has found a seemingly foolproof way to propagate its teachings while convincing almost everyone that we have not been revolutionized by them one bit at all. It has been the particular genius of the Anglo-American Enlightenment---which Chris Ferrara and I have spent years explaining in these pages and elsewhere---to continue to allow people the freedom to present their own varied magisterial teachings for the guidance of their little, impotent, cocktail party worlds, while insisting that they live their practical political, social, and economic lives in line with Thomas Gradgrind's vision of reality.

Secondly, I feel sorry for my friends for not realizing that it is only Catholicism that can provide them the arguments to understand their predicament fully; that only Catholicism can end their tongue-tied, Sissy-like bewilderment in the face of the sophistic arguments and power of their naturalist "liberators".

It has been the particular genius of the anti-Enlightenment Catholic movement of the post-revolutionary era to spell out with greater discernment than ever before what it is that is wrong with Gradgrindism in all of its forms, ancient and modern, violent and Anglo-American. What that counterrevolutionary movement has taught us is that the "facts" of nature are always those of a world where evil is mixed with good and perceived by limited individuals open to error and sin. This means that the perceived natural "facts" are often not those of nature as such but of erroneous and fallen aspects of it: the errors of a narrow vision which tell us that might makes right; the fallen, selfish, materialist concerns that lead us to take advantage of the sins of the world to ride roughshod over everything else that our "better selves" warn us to avoid. And this, in consequence demands two things: 1) that what is narrow in our natural vision be corrected by broader factual information; and, 2) since "every good and perfect gift comes from above, from the Father of lights", that the facts regarding nature, seen under the full sunshine of supernatural truth, always be recognized as trumping those of Gradgrind's half-blind Magisterium.

All those who prefer to view nature with blinders on, refusing the "boat rocking"effect brought about by correcting what is narrow and parochial through the dictates of what is broader and higher, place a dead weight on the human mind and spirit. They form a depressingly similar force throughout the ages---what I like to call a Grand Coalition of the fallen natural Status Quo. A truly open mind helps to crush this Coalition's influence, but one cannot possess such an open mind and explain its conclusions coherently without the divine wisdom and ultimate organizing principles provided by the Catholic Faith. Again, most of my friends at Rocco's do not have that faith.

Finally, I feel sorry for all of us that Catholic Modernists---just another name for the naturalists I have been describing---seem to have gained the upper hand in the United States among the "salt of the earth" here; namely, conservatives and traditionalists. Prominent among Modernism's recent supporters are libertarians, all of whom insist upon the bending of the classical and Catholic tradition, politically and morally, to a naturalist economic order explained by simple, mechanical, uncontestable, Gradgrind-like "facts". Such Modernists tend to treat all criticism of their narrow facts as either the product of naive minds eager to return to a society where Everyman milks a cow for a living (certainly not my decidedly urbanite vision of existence) or, all too predictably, as the envy of losers who just do not know how to "make it" in a totally sensible market environment. The truth that we critics loathe the kind of world that has been constructed by these "facts" as a one-dimensional and unnatural zoo does not seem to be taken as anything other than a sign of our need for revolutionary consciousness-raising and further re-education.

These Catholic Modernists have convinced otherwise solid believers that Gradgrind's Magisterium is the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Many well-meaning conservative and traditionalist Catholics in the United States, justifiably proud of their loyalty to Catholic dogma, have thus proven decidedly unwilling to examine whether these dogmas really mean anything serious in their daily economic, social, and political activities; whether they really rock the boat of a fallen status quo.

While looking for abstruse philosophical and esoteric explanations of Modernism and the way it has corrupted the Catholic Faith in our day, they have lost sight of the very essence of Modernism: once again, the treatment of nature as a closed system, sufficient unto itself, whose laws can be understood on its own terms, without reference to its marred character and its desperate need for redemption. While holding up the Catholic banner, they have welcomed the modernist libertarian invader, his naturalism, and the teachings of his Gradgrind Magisterium into their souls.

Some Catholics, suspicious that all may not be well with the libertarian vision, seem to be terrified into silence by the sheer number and specificity of the works that these Modernists produce. They ought to take heart from Aristotle's explanation of how the discerning rational mind can spot a quack and avoid his ministrations without being a knowledgeable surgeon himself. Catholics should realize that libertarians are quack doctors, and precisely because they are not operating with all of the knowledge that they need in order to make sensible statements about their chosen field of endeavor. They can write as many books as they want to on every economic issue imaginable, from the role of the Federal Reserve to the value of strip malls, and even make some solid points along the way. Nevertheless, there is no way that anyone can take any of these specific insights seriously until they abandon their embrace of the Gradgrind Magisterium and subject their "facts" to correction and consideration alongside non-economic natural concerns and divine truth. Until they do so, they will always be "Bitzers": sucked dry of everything valuable they might have to say. No one should lose a night's sleep worrying how to answer their massive but blind economic data. One should worry, instead, about how to counteract the damage this narrow knowledge is causing in the souls of its victims.

All of which brings me full circle, back to my Stammtisch and my friends at the cafe. Rocco's clientele is not unique. There is a world out there filled with normal but bewildered people who are not "making it", wonder why this is the case, and have a gut but unformed feeling that man does not live by "making it" through enslavement to a stunted soulless vision of nature alone. All such people deserve the chance to learn how they can really "make it" in a truly natural world. What they require is knowledge of the full Facts of Life.

Only the "boat rocking" fullness of a Catholicism that teaches that nature needs the light of supernatural truth and grace to unfold its real innate glories and explain its sad problems can answer that need. Our latest crop of Catholic Modernists cannot do this work because their teaching tool is Gradgrind's Magisterium. Let us respond to the hunger of a world that senses there is something wrong with the natural status quo with the teachings of the broader and higher Catholic Magisterium. And let us ignore the modernist libertarian taunt that we display our economic ignorance in doing so. Such taunts are only to be expected. For Chauteaubriand is wrong. Those who would shove mankind back into the darkness of the cave and fasten a blindfold over its eyes always, at every moment in history, make the effort to lift minds and hearts to the light appear ridiculous.