Michelangelo Buonarroti, Il giudizio universale, Cappella Sistina

Che cosa può ridare entusiasmo e fiducia, che cosa può incoraggiare l’animo umano a ritrovare il cammino, ad alzare lo sguardo sull’orizzonte, a sognare una vita degna della sua vocazione se non la bellezza? Voi sapete bene, cari artisti, che l’esperienza del bello, del bello autentico, non effimero né superficiale, non è qualcosa di accessorio o di secondario nella ricerca del senso e della felicità, perché tale esperienza non allontana dalla realtà, ma, al contrario, porta ad un confronto serrato con il vissuto quotidiano, per liberarlo dall’oscurità e trasfigurarlo, per renderlo luminoso, bello.

Una funzione essenziale della vera bellezza, infatti, già evidenziata da Platone, consiste nel comunicare all’uomo una salutare “scossa”, che lo fa uscire da se stesso, lo strappa alla rassegnazione, all’accomodamento del quotidiano, lo fa anche soffrire, come un dardo che lo ferisce, ma proprio in questo modo lo “risveglia” aprendogli nuovamente gli occhi del cuore e della mente, mettendogli le ali, sospingendolo verso l’alto. L’espressione di Dostoevskij che sto per citare è senz’altro ardita e paradossale, ma invita a riflettere:  “L’umanità può vivere – egli dice – senza la scienza, può vivere senza pane, ma soltanto senza la bellezza non potrebbe più vivere, perché non ci sarebbe più nulla da fare al mondo. Tutto il segreto è qui, tutta la storia è qui”. Gli fa eco il pittore Georges Braque:  “L’arte è fatta per turbare, mentre la scienza rassicura”. La bellezza colpisce, ma proprio così richiama l’uomo al suo destino ultimo, lo rimette in marcia, lo riempie di nuova speranza, gli dona il coraggio di vivere fino in fondo il dono unico dell’esistenza.

Benedetto XVI agli artisti, 21 novembre 2009

Matteoli risponde a un giornalista respingendo l’idea del Pdl come un partito-caserma: “Ma quale caserma, stronzo. Solo il linguaggio è da caserma, per il resto il Pdl è un clan come tutti gli altri”

*

Brunetta attacca la politica di austerità di Tremonti. Berlusconi lo difende: “Il rigore è giusto”. Ma si riferiva a quello trasformato da Ronaldinho in Milan-Cagliari.

*

Ratzinger agli artisti: “La fede non toglie nulla al vostro genio, alla vostra arte, anzi li esalta e li nutre”. Vasco Rossi su facebook mostra il dito medio.

La storia dell’umanità è movimento ed ascensione, è inesausta tensione verso la pienezza, verso la felicità ultima, verso un orizzonte che sempre eccede il presente mentre lo attraversa.

Benedetto XVI agli artisti, 21 novembre 2009

Ai tuoi fedeli, Signore,
la vita non è tolta,
ma trasformata.

(Dal Canone dei defunti).

Potrebbe sembrare una brutta professione quella di dar sepoltura ai morti ma, come tutto, dipende dallo spirito con il quale si fa. Noi di Algordanza (http://www.algordanza.it/) siamo andati addirittura “oltre”. Il nostro mestiere è la post-sepoltura: trasformiamo le ceneri di cremazione in diamanti. Molti non sanno che ciò è possibile e rimangono meravigliati quando lo sentono per la prima volta, ma quasi tutti poi ci dicono “è molto bello quello che fate: trasformare il buio in luce”. Sì, in effetti è un po’ così, o almeno lo è simbolicamente in quanto per molta gente la morte è sinonimo di buio (“buio impenetrabile” se vogliamo utilizzare una vecchia espressione del cardinale Ratzinger) mentre per quasi tutti un diamante è sinonimo di luce.

Con il mestiere che abbiamo scelto di fare, trasformare il buio in luce, è facile imbattersi in situazioni di afflato mistico di fronte al mistero della morte ed al ricordo dei cari defunti. Siamo gratificati di poter dire che nel nostro piccolo aiutiamo le persone a vivere meglio e a metabolizzare l’evento della morte. E non importa che questi siano cattolici praticanti oppure no. Molti fedeli in occasione della morte vedono nel Diamante della Memoria l’essenza ultima della persona cara cui rivolgersi per una preghiera più intensa. Una sorta di esito finale della vita umana che tuttavia non vuole più nascondersi, occultarsi fino a “scomparire” in quei brutti luoghi che sono i cimiteri, né vuole stordirsi in una società dei consumi, civiltà dell’apparenza, che tende a nascondere la morte, a truccarla, per renderla estranea o irriconoscibile. Quante volte abbiamo sentito che il dovere di mentire si è sostituito a quello di avvertire il morente! Proprio per scacciare l’angoscia che si annida in profondità nella nostra anima, si fa morire il nostro caro sempre più frequentemente in un letto d’ospedale e sempre meno a casa propria. Non abbiamo il coraggio di educare ed educarci a capire la morte e quindi si perde anche l’occasione di educare a capire la vita.

In questa prospettiva, non possiamo non far nostre le parole del Cardinal Bagnasco: “oggi è diffusa la consapevolezza dell’urgenza di aiutare i nostri fratelli a pensare in maniera meno evasiva alla prospettiva dell’appuntamento con la morte come di una tappa non estirpabile dall’orizzonte concreto, comunque incombente sulla vita di ciascuno”. Proprio per questo motivo, per rendere meno evasiva la prospettiva dell’appuntamento con la morte, il Diamante della Memoria opera come segno di intelligenza, un modo prezioso per imparare a vivere. Il Diamante come strumento che innesta e avvia una controtendenza a rimuovere l’evento negativo, a scantonarlo, a scongiurare ogni coinvolgimento della persona.

Diceva J. Ratzinger in una riflessione scritta nel 1971, quando era docente di Teologia dogmatica all’Università di Ratisbona, “Esiste un limite oltre il quale la ragione – declinata come scienza, come azione, persino come religione – non basta più a vincere l’angoscia: quello è il momento di una presenza che sappia comunicare com-passione, un esserci al di là dei mezzi materiali spesso limitati su cui possiamo contare”. Si tratta naturalmente di una meditazione ispirata dalla fede e non per tutti riuscirà credibile e convincente. Tuttavia essa contiene un insegnamento importante anche per chi non crede. Dice Ratzinger: “Si dà un’angoscia – quella vera, annidata nella profondità delle nostre solitudini – che non può essere cacciata via mediante la ragione, ma solo con la presenza di una persona che ci ama”.

Il fenomeno della rimozione della morte determina la scomparsa della sua esperienza e questo fatto non rende più allegra la vita, ma solo più superficiale. Invece, la memoria del proprio caro va vista come occasione straordinaria per lasciar emergere interrogativi, per addentrarsi nei meandri scomodi del mistero a sperimentare la crisi delle proprie certezze e delle proprie esuberanze, a meditare sulla possibilità di dare un’impronta diversa al resto della propria esistenza, a bonificare l’immagine della vita per imparare a godere realmente della stessa.

Il Diamante della Memoria è una forma di sepoltura che potrebbe rivelarsi educativa per interiorizzare la fragilità connessa alla vita e la capacità di vivere l’appuntamento con “sorella morte”. Il Diamante, dunque, per saper contare i giorni, per apprezzare i doni, per non sprecare né gli uni né gli altri. Il Diamante come un luogo tra i luoghi cari alla famiglia, un luogo dei “dormienti” e, per chi è credente, un luogo di attesa della resurrezione finale. Il Diamante come modo per bandire il macabro, come spazio della vita così concretamente trascendente da non affievolirsi mai, santuario della memoria che ci fa vivamente umani. Il Diamante come un ponte che ci unisce con l’aldilà, che infonde una dimensione diversa alla nostra vita: ce la profuma, ci rinfresca le giornate, ci riempie l’anima e alimenta il desiderio di eternità nascosto nel nostro cuore.

Algordanza Italia
(http://www.algordanza.it/)

Does it matter which way a church faces? The scripture readings this weekend were about the end of the world, and the second coming of the Son of Man. I chose to speak about the physical orientation of Christian churches: how it is an ancient tradition to build them on an east-west axis, so that you enter through the west door and face the sanctuary/altar at the east end. In this way you have a double symbolism: of Christ coming to meet you, like the rising sun, in the liturgy that you are celebrating; and Christ coming to meet you (soon, but not quite yet), at the end of time. So the sanctuary is a threshold that allows us to meet the divine now and to await the divine in the future.

This is all well-known, and doesn’t need blogging about. (See, for example, Part II, Chapter 3, of Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy.) What was interesting though was preaching about this in a church in Clerkenwell in the centre of London, with two medieval examples just a stone’s throw away. Today’s St Paul’s Cathedral is of course not medieval, but I assume (please correct me) that it roughly follows the floor plan of the previous cathedral. It’s like an arrow on a huge compass at the centre of London, running perfectly east-west. Yes, it happens to sit tidily on the line of the river Thames at that point too; but it illustrates the way the geography of a Christian city can reflect the spiritual longings of the human soul – for a saviour, for God’s final Word to greet us at the end of our lives, and at the end of time.

The second example, just down the road from Clerkenwell, is St Etheldreda’s, Ely Place, in Holburn. This church does not sit at all tidily into its present environment. The east end faces the street, so there is no easy access, and you have to enter the church through a warren of corridors and steps. But once you are there, the same spiritual/geographical truth is apparent, that you enter from the west, from the darkness, and look towards the east, towards the hope of Christ’s coming - in this case represented by a glorious wall of stained-glass above the altar.

There will be hundreds of other examples. It was good to have these at hand on Sunday.

Herr Posener, warum hassen Sie die Kirche?

Alan Posener: Was für eine schwachsinnige Frage. Ich hasse die Kirche gar nicht. Ich stehe auf dem guten, alten preußischen Standpunkt, dass jeder nach seiner Facon selig werden soll – der Christ, der Muslim, der Jude, der Atheist. Wer mich in Ruhe lässt, den lasse ich in Ruhe.

Sie sind ja bekannt für Ihre Frontalangriffe. In Ihrem neuen Buch „Benedikts Kreuzzug. Der Angriff des Vatikans auf die moderne Gesellschaft“ greifen Sie den Papst an. Ist Papst Benedikt ein Gegner von Demokratie und Aufklärung? Woran machen Sie es fest?

Posener: Was Frontalangriffe angeht, so sind sie wohl besser als Dolchstöße in den Rücken, meinen Sie nicht auch? Ich greife den Papst an, weil er die Demokratie und plurale Gesellschaft angreift. Er diffamiert sie als “Diktatur des Relativismus” und fordert nicht nur das Recht, etwa die Homosexualität als “objektive Ordnungsstörung im Aufbau der menschlichen Existenz” zu verurteilen, sondern eine Art Wächterrat, der die Entscheidungen des demokratischen Staates auf ihre Übereinstimmung mit der Moral überprüfen soll – eine Forderung, bei der er sich mit den Pius-Brüdern und den Teheraner Mullahs einig weiß. Ich greife den Papst an, weil er die Aufklärung angreift. Er sieht den “Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit”, wie es Kant formulierte, als Verfallserscheinung an und fordert die “Reinigung der Vernunft” durch den Glauben – was wiederum bedeutet: ich, Ratzinger, entscheide, was vernünftig ist und was nicht. Um es klar zu sagen: ich habe nichts dagegen, wenn der Papst sagt: Homosexualität ist eine Sünde. Bittesehr, das sollen die schwulen Katholiken, von denen es gerade in der Priesterschaft jede Menge gibt, mit ihm und ihrem Gewissen ausmachen. Das liegt auf der gleichen Linie wie das Verbot, Schweinefleisch zu essen bei Juden und Muslimen. So lange sie mir nicht verbieten, Schweinebraten und Schinken zu essen, ist es ihr Problem, wenn sie sich den Genuss entgehen lassen. Wenn aber gesagt würde, Schweinefleisch zu essen sei eine “objektive Ordnungsstörung”, dann habe ich ein Problem. Ich habe nichts dagegen, wenn der Papst sagt, wir setzen den Glauben über die Vernunft. Bittesehr, das sollen die mündigen Katholiken mit ihm und ihrem Gewissen ausmachen. Aber wenn er versucht, den Begriff Vernunft selbst so umzudeuten, dass er Glaube bedeutet, dann habe ich ein Problem.

Die Aufhebung der Exkommunizierung der Pius-Brüder und des Holocaust-Leugners Williamson wurden in der Öffentlichkeit als eine Panne des Papstes dargestellt, der in diesem Fall einfach schlecht beraten gewesen sei. War das ein Versehen, oder steht dahinter eine bestimmte Haltung?

Posener: Der Versuch, die Affäre um Williamson und die Pius-Brüder als Panne abzutun, war ein dummer Schachzug der Benedikt-Verteidiger. Denn wenn der Papst nicht weiß, was er tut, ist er als Papst ungeeignet. Ratzinger weiß aber natürlich sehr genau, was er tut. Er war schon als Chef der Glaubenskongregation mit der Frage der Pius-Brüder befasst und kennt ihre Schriften. Um es deutlich zu sagen: die Pius-Bruderschaft ist keine konservative, sondern eine offen reaktionäre Vereinigung, die den kirchlichen Antijudaismus konserviert, die also mehr oder weniger institutionell antisemitisch ist. Die Bruderschaft befürwortet eine Abschaffung des weltlichen Staats und ihre Ersetzung durch eine Theokratie ähnlich der im Iran, die Drogen, Prostitution, Pornographie, Blasphemie, Homosexualität und so weiter verbieten und die Todesstrafe wieder einführen würde. Das weiß Benedikt, und trotzdem betreibt er die Annäherung an diese Leute und kommt ihnen weit entgegen, zum Beispiel mit der Aufwertung der lateinischen Liturgie, deren Abschaffung durch das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil vordergründig zur Abspaltung der Pius-Brüder von der Kirche geführt hat. In Wirklichkeit jedoch passte den Pius-Brüdern die ganze Richtung des Konzils nicht. Und sie passt Benedikt auch nicht.

Von kirchlicher Seite wird Ihnen vorgeworfen, dass Sie einen „atheistischen Fundamentalismus“ vertreten würden, und somit jede andere Einstellung als böswillig hinstellen. Manfred Lütz sagt, dass der Papst ein „brillianter Intellektueller“ sei und den Islam herausfordere. Ist das ein persönlicher Kreuzzug von Ihnen gegen die Kirche? Oder basieren Ihre Analysen auf Dokumente?

Posener: Ich bin zwar getaufter Anglikaner, zugleich aber Atheist, ja. Worin ein “atheistischer Fundamentalismus” bestehen soll, weiß ich nicht. Auf mich jedenfalls trifft diese Bezeichnung nicht zu. Ich stelle doch nicht jede andere Einstellung als böswillig hin, und wer mir das unterstellt, kennt mich nicht. Ich habe bekanntlich ein Buch über die Jungfrau Maria, die Mutter Jesu, geschrieben, das von allen Katholiken, die ich kenne, mein Freund Manfred Lütz eingeschlossen, gelobt wird – und in dem ich übrigens Joseph Ratzinger zustimmend zitiere. Ich habe nicht den geringsten Grund, einen “Kreuzzug gegen die Katholische Kirche” zu führen, was ohnehin ein Widerspruch in sich wäre, obwohl wir Anglikaner, wie Sie wissen, seit Heinrich VIII. unsere Probleme mit Rom gehabt haben. Ich greife an keinem Punkt die Kirche als solche an. Meine Analyse der Ansichten und Absichten Benedikts stützt sich mit seinen 274 Anmerkungen auf Reden, Schriften und Interviews von Joseph Ratzinger. Also auf öffentlich zugängliches Material.
Hat sich durch Papst Benedikt der Ton gegenüber den Juden verändert? Es gab ja heftige Kritik auf seine Rede in Ausschwitz…

Posener: Nun ja, es gab auch Lob für diese Rede von jüdischer Seite, zum Beispiel von Henryk M. Broder. Er hat Benedikt dafür gelobt, das er vom “Bösen” gesprochen hat, was allerdings jeder Christ tut, wenn er das Vaterunser spricht. Und Auschwitz war eben nicht Ausdruck des “Bösen”  schlechthin, sondern einer konkreten Ideologie, der Ideologie des Rassismus und Antisemitismus. Wobei der moderne Antisemitismus seinerseits auf einer zweitausendjährigen antijüdischen Tradition der Christenheit basiert. Davon allerdings hat Benedikt in Auschwitz ebensowenig gesprochen wie von der Schuld des Papstes Pius XII, der zum Holocaust schwieg, oder der Deutschen, die Hitler zur Macht verhalfen. Stattdessen stellte er die Deutschen als Opfer einer “kleinen Schar von Verbrechern” dar, und die Katholische Kirche als Bollwerk gegen den Nationalsozialismus. Hier wird Geschichte umgeschrieben. Benedikt ist kein Antisemit, aber er leugnet die Verbindung von Antijudaismus und Antisemitismus, er ist blind und taub gegenüber der Kritik von jüdischer Seite, etwa an der Seligsprechung von Pius XII oder an der neuen lateinischen Karfreitagsfürbitte, in der die Katholiken für die Bekehrung der Juden zum Christentum beten. Er ist das personifizierte gute Gewissen der Deutschen seiner Generation – er ist ja aufgewachsen in einer Atmosphäre der Verdrängung und Verleugnung, und sie hat ihn geprägt.

Ist diese Feindschaft gegen die Moderne eine neuere Entwicklung unter Papst Benedikt, oder war diese auch unter Papst Johannes Paul II. Vorhanden?

Posener: Johannes Paul II. war – im Gegensatz zu Benedikt XVI. – ein großer Mann. Er gehört, zusammen mit seinem Landsmann Lech Walesa, mit Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher und – vor allem – Michail Gorbatschow, zu den Persönlichkeiten, die das reaktionäre System des Kommunismus zu Fall gebracht haben. Aber für den polnischen Papst war das westliche System nur das kleinere Übel. Von Wojtila sagte man, er wolle zwei Revolutionen rückgängig machen – die russische und die französische. Dabei war er jedoch, vielleicht wegen seiner Erfahrungen mit dem Kommunismus, nicht so radikal wie Ratzinger, den er allerdings gefördert hat. Johannes Paul II. hat Galileo Galilei rehabilitiert und den Darwinismus anerkannt. Benedikt hat den Prozess der Inquisition gegen Galileo verteidigt und propagiert die unwissenschaftliche Lehre des “Intelligent Design” gegen den Darwinismus. In einer Zeit, die ohnehin von Wissenschaftsskepsis und Halbwissen geprägt ist, bedeutet Benedikts Abkehr von der Vernunft eine Katastrophe.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31468/1.html

Banda, acabo de toparme con este video. Lo conduce esta mujer hermosa y cínica, quien dice algo que más allá de lo mordaz, cagado o hasta blasfemo que pudiera parecerle a quien lo vea, se me hace chingón y sobretodo justo.

¿Por qué justo? ¡Sencillo! Porque el negocio de la iglesia católica es vender seguros -añadiría que de toda religión, pero ahorita los mojones van para estos tíos-. ¿Seguros? ¡Simona la mona!

A cambio del sostener que se cree en una existencia ultraterrena, con toda la mitología que esto implica (relato, narrativa, discurso y dogma) y de la aportación “voluntaria” de un bien mundano, el dinero (recuerden que la economía se mueve en gran parte por la confianza; nadie le compra nada a nadie sino confía en el comprador o en el producto), que en terminos “legales” católicos, o de cualquier religión que pida dinero, simboliza el desprecio de la avaricia y el desapego a lo terrenal, garantiza la entrada a un plano de existencia en el cual todos los problemas y vicios condenados por el discurso religioso, no existirán más, por ser imperfectos, execrables o no tener la virtud necesaria para existir en el mundo de dios.

Tons, si piden dinero para una buena causa, la salvación del alma, bien podría servir ese dinero para salvar el cuerpo de los millones de hambreados en el mundo. Con eso matan tres pájaros de un tiro: salvan a mucha gente de morir de hambre, los convierten al catolicismo por gratitud del que ahora no tendría hambre y salvan sus almas dado que ya no serían paganos.

Pero… por alguna razón no lo han hecho… quiero suponer que se les ha estado olvidando o que la batalla contra el diablo los tiene ocupados día y noche. Sepa…

È sempre più consistente l’interesse della Chiesa al mondo della grande rete: in questi giorni un’equipe di vescovi europei, supportati da hacker e consulenti informatici, ha studiato a fondo le potenzialità dei mezzi di comunicazione virtuali. I risultati della Commissione Episcopale Europea per i Media, al secolo CEEM, che sta ancora operando in Vaticano, sono piaciuti a Ratzinger: il Papa, peraltro dotto navigatore del web, è soddisfatto e invita la compagine clericale a gettarsi senza timori nello sconfinato macrocosmo di internet, per analizzare <<questa nuova cultura e le sue implicazioni per la missione della Chiesa>>.

Benedetto XVI rompe così l’ultimo baluardo del proprio aureo isolamento e scopre la nuova frontiera della comunicazione, dove spadroneggiano social network e altri ovili virtuali; non è nuova, in realtà, la tendenza di parroci e vescovi a creare il proprio profilo su Facebook, e moltissime diocesi sponsorizzano il loro gruppo reclutando le iscrizioni di altri utenti. La storia del Crocifisso, il nuovo incendio di proteste e polemiche devono aver acceso un campanello d’allarme alle alte sfere clericali, che si sono mobilitate in questo senso: l’ingerenza in uno degli aspetti più consolidati della società odierna si rende quasi necessaria.

<<La proclamazione di Cristo richiede una profonda conoscenza della nuova cultura tecnologica>>, dice ancora il Pontefice nel testo della plenaria firmato dal cardinale Tarcisio Bertone. Col tempo osserveremo quanto l’intento di evangelizzare una buona parte dello schieramento laico che si annida nei tessuti del web si rifletta sui contenuti, sulle tematiche proposte. È questo, forse, l’aspetto maggiormente cupo dell’intera faccenda: la solita deriva “missionaria”, tipica dell’operato cristiano-cattolico, che rischia di compromettere una volta di più la genuinità dell’informazione indipendente. Ma andiamoci piano con gli allarmismi.

I. Bececco

Eu não resisti quando ouvi o Prof. Felipe Aquino falar que tinha visto um adesivo assim em um carro. E eu amo mesmo!

“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia!”

Il giorno 26 di Ottobre il signor Ratzinger ha incontrato in vaticano gli studenti ed i docenti del Pontificio Istituto Biblico, ribadendo con fermezza che spetta agli organismi istituzionali della chiesa “interpretare autenticamente la Parola di Dio scritta e trasmessa“ , affermando inoltre che senza la fede e la tradizione della chiesa, la Bibbia resta un libro “sigillato”….

MA DAVVERO ???

E quindi perchè la “tradizione della chiesa” non ci spiega la Prima lettera ai Corinzi capitolo 4, verso 5 dove l’Apostolo Paolo scrive chiaramente:

“Non vogliate perciò giudicare nulla prima del tempo, finchè venga il Signore! EGLI metterà in luce i segreti delle tenebre e manifesterà le intenzioni dei cuori”

che spieghi come fanno ad interpretare qualcosa che il Signore ha riservato per sè stesso??

O perchè non spiega esaustivamente la lettera agli Efesini capitolo 1, versi dal 3 al 6 che dice:

“Benedetto sia Dio, Padre del Signore nostro Gesucristo, che ci ha benedetti con ogni benedizione spirituale nei cieli, in Cristo. In Lui ci ha scelti prima della creazione del mondo, per essere SANTI ED IMMACOLATI AL SUO COSPETTO NELLA CARITÀ, PREDESTINANDOCI AD ESSERE SUOI FIGLI ADOTTIVI PER OPERA DI GESUCRISTO, SECONDO IL BENEPLACIDO DELLA SUA VOLONTÀ. E questo a lode e gloria della Sua Grazia, che ci ha dato nel suo FIGLIO DILETTO”

spiegare il concetto di predestinazione che porta ad una salvezza acquisita per eredità e non per quanti paternoster recito in un giorno !!!

O perchè non ci spiega IL CELIBATO, del quale parla tanto chiaro la Prima lettera a Timoteo capitolo 4, versi da 1 a 3 che dice:

“Lo Spirito dichiara apertamente che negli ultimi tempi alcuni si allontaneranno dalla fede, dando retta a spiriti menzogneri e a DOTTRINE DIABOLICHE, sedotti dall’ipocrisia di impostori, già bollati a fuoco nelle loro coscienze. Costoro VIETERANNO IL MATRIMONIO, IMPORRANNO DI ASTENERSI DA ALCUNI CIBI CHE DIO HA CREATO PER ESSERE MANGIATI CON RENDIMENTO DI GRAZIE DAI FEDELI E DA QUANTI CONOSCONO LA VERITÀ“

versi che descrivono alla perfezione la setta degli abusatori di bambini!!

O se volesse darci lumi sulla lettera ai Galati capitolo 2, verso 7 che evidenza l’esistenza di DUE VANGELI, QUELLO DELLA CIRCONCISIONE E QUELLO DELLA INCIRCONCISIONE 

“Anzi, visto che a me era stato affidato il Vangelo per i NON CIRCONCISI come a Pietro quello per i CIRCONCISI”

e di seguito, per favore, una spiegazione della stessa lettera, stesso capito nel verso 14, dove l’Apostolo Paolo affronta a viso aperto l’ipocrita di Pietro dicendo:

“Ora, quando vidi che NON SI COMPORTAVANO RETTAMENTE secondo la verità del Vangelo, dissi a Cefa (Pietro) in presenza di tutti: “Se tu che sei Giudeo vivi come i pagani e non alla maniera dei Giudei, come puoi costringere i pagani a vivere alla maniera dei Giudei?”

o se volesse spiegare perchè continua a parlare del diavolo quando la lettera agli Ebrei 2, verso 14 dice, senza ombra di dubbio, che il diavolo è stato distrutto dal sangue di Cristo

“Poichè dunque i figli hanno in comune il sangue e la carne, anch’egli ne è divenuto partecipe, per DISTRUGGERE, mediante la morte, colui che della morte ha il potere, cioè il diavolo”

 e, di conseguenza, spiegare perchè BESTEMMIA il sangue di Cristo negando la sua azione sul diavolo e sul peccato.

e di questo passo se volesse spiegare tutte le altre menzogne che sono state spacciate per duemila anni dalla “chiesa” e che oggi vengono messe in luce da DIO STESSO nella Sua SECONDA VENUTA SULLA TERRA IN GESUCRISTO UOMO, IL DOTTOR JOSÈ LUIS DE JESUS MIRANDA, compiendo l’avvertimento di Paolo menzionato nella Prima lettera ai Corinzi 4:5 cioè che sarebbe tornato il Signore a togliere i sigilli alla Bibbia ed a spiegarla.

ti ricordiamo che le tue domande o commenti in lingua italiana dovranno essere inviate a

roberta@creciendoengracia.com

grazie per la tua attenzione

Just recently, many Italian bloggers and users of social networks — especially Facebook — have been writing angry posts and creating groups against Roman Apostolic Catholicism (for brevity, I will henceforth refer to it as Catholicism, or Catholic Church). I am going to try and explain what triggered this; it is not a matter quickly covered, so make a cup of your favorite tea before you keep reading.

First of all, though, a clarification: I am an atheist. My point of view will inevitably be biased, but then again: isn’t anyone’s point of view biased when it comes to these topics? Moreover, I consider myself fairly liberal; all my life, I’ve never voted to the right. That’s not because the Italian left is great (really, it’s barely a name on a piece of paper; they don’t even constitute any real opposition party), but rather because the alternative was giving my preference to that right, something I can’t stand. Read on and you’ll see why, at least in part.

Do you like history? I hope so, because I’m going to quickly tell you how the current religious situation in Italy came to be.

Italy is a very young country, younger than the United States of America. Unification didn’t happen until 1861, and it was a long and painful process. Before that, the boot-shaped peninsula was split in many different smaller states, usually under foreign domination and constantly at war with one another.

This map shows was it was like in 1494. I want you to pay attention to the size of the Papal State (Stato pontificio in Italian). Pretty big, isn’t it? The point is that the Pope — the Catholic Church in general, for that matter — was not strictly working for the souls. On the contrary: their interests were quite worldly. As many of my readers probably know, by the 16th century the Catholic Church had deviated so much from the original teachings of Jesus that the second big schism of Christianity (the first being the one between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). A thorough list of how Catholicism differed from the New Testament as time went by can be found on this page. Note that the Bible has been translated many times, and is being revised right now. There are websites (such as Utopia, in Italian) that point out how the same passage can be dampened or entirely rewritten with every revision, in order to better fit not only the historical moment in which it is published, but also and especially the target it is intended for. Think of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible, for instance: all references to the word God have been replaced with Jehovah, among other things. I strongly suggest this comparison experiment to anyone; the internet makes it extremely quick, easy and cheap to do, and it provides a very interesting example of how subtle changes allow to tell the same anecdotes in different ways. (This is not to say the Bible is any less interesting; it should be taken for what it is: a series of books written by men who lived in different parts of the world and at different moment in history, and who spoke and wrote different languages.)

As I was saying, the Catholic Church was not behaving exactly as Jesus wanted. The sale of indulgences, the enforcement of Latin at a time in which Latin was not spoken anymore, the Inquisition, the not-so-secret sons and daughters of priests and cardinals… and the taxes. Many taxes were collected by the Papal state, be them in ready cash or in produce. A famous tax was called the decima: everyone was expected to pay at least one tenth (hence the name) of their total income to the state. Monks, however, were exempted: keep this in mind. Such kind of privileges didn’t end with the Middle Ages.

Foreign dominations constantly changed the political map of the Italian peninsula during the decades, and shaped the languages and the thought of its inhabitants. The long road that led to unification began in the early 1800s, but the first two wars of independence were not enough to be done with it: Pope Pius IX refused to recognize the Italian Kingdom even after it had been constituted in 1861 and Victor Emmanuel II of Savoy (Vittorio Emanuele II di Savoia) proclaimed king. Historians call this the Roman Question, since Rome could not be made capital of the Kingdom as it belonged to the Papal state. It is interesting to note that the outer borders of the new kingdom were quite different from what they are today.

In 1870, Rome had to be seized by military force. On September 20th, the Aurelian Walls were breached at Porta Pia (breccia di Porta Pia) and the Bersaglieri marched on Rome. Pius IX still refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Italy, and declared himself a political prisoner in the Vatican.

A few decades later, shortly after the end of the Great War, a man called Benito Mussolini progressively took power in Italy, paving the way for his dictatorship. Fascism, like many modern organized crime groups in Italy (mafia, camorra, ‘ndrangheta) have a close relationship with Catholicism. The Church is effectively everywhere, and it is a fact that people from southern Italy have a higher rate of belief, so to speak, than people from the north (even though the Catholic beliefs can become entangled in ancestral pagan cults: just like the Romans integrated their culture with that of the peoples they conquered, so they did with their religions and cults; a prime example of that is the Serpari festival in Cocullo).

Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty (Patti Lateranensi) in 1929, which created the modern State of Vatican City (usually called Città del Vaticano in Italian), defined a financial settlement for the territorial losses of the Papal state (to be paid yearly by Italy), and defined an agreement between the Italian state and the Holy See about religious matters (Concordato); the latter is what we are mostly interested in.

Such agreement involved, most importantly, the institution of Catholicism as a state religion. What that means is that the Italian state officially endorsed Catholicism, and made the Catholic Church exempt from paying taxes for its buildings and activities on the Italian territory. It is fundamental to remember that at this point the Vatican is another state, albeit geographically an Italian enclave.

In 1984, the Concordato was revised. The most important change was the introduction of a new Italian tax called otto per mille (8‰) to sustain the Catholic Church. Internet blog posts and articles pointed out the inner workings of such tax, which is only in theory voluntary: those who decide not to assign their own otto per mille will effectively give it to the Catholic Church. In 2004, only 34.5% actively signed to deliver their part to the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church got 87.2% of the total fund. In 2000, the most recent information available, such part amounted to a billion euro.
Note that tax exemptions remained; one that was recently talked about by many people is the ICI exemption, a local tax about real estate property. Such tax was cancelled for estate property where citizens dwell by the current Berlusconi-IV government, causing protests by cities since that was the main source of local income (additional houses and properties do require payment). Someone playfully pointed out that at least this put an end to such a privilege to the Church.

Most Italians are officially Catholics. That’s because they are baptized as young children (usually at a few months of age) as it is an established tradition, and will usually go through the first few Sacraments (up to Confirmation) before their adolescence begins. After that, most will lose interest in religion and will turn their spirituality into a Catholic hybrid, not confessing their sins to a priest anymore and seldom going to Church. They will almost invariably define themselves as cattolici non praticanti (non-practicing Catholics); such a thing is in stark contrast with Commandment #3 clearly states that the holy day should be honored. Some will dedicate their spirituality to specific saints, others to the Virgin Mary (the Madonna). As I said before, this is increasingly common while going southward. Some will also stop believing altogether, but will still claim to be Catholics. Save rare exceptions, most parents will end up baptizing their children as soon as possible; that is not out of a real fear of eternal damnation due to the Original Sin (let’s face it: with modern medical cures, it’s unlikely that a kid will die during his first few months of life), but rather out of tradition.
In Italian, the word religione is pretty much a perfect synonym for Catholic Church, unless otherwise clearly and explicitly specified.

This results in the statistics being completely skewed. A 2006 survey reveals that 87.8% of Italians claim to be Catholics, but only 36.8% say to be practicing Catholics. Interestingly, 74% believe that there is “some God”.
Such high official figure causes a huge conflict of interest between the Vatican and the Italian political scene. The latter certainly can’t afford to lose the powerful support of the former (and who knows what else; to whet your appetite, please refer to the IOR scandals), which in turn is able to push its own agenda unto the whole Italian population.

Especially with the right-wing governments of the last few years, Italy has lagged behind when it comes to medical improvement. Just a few examples: few women are even aware of the existence of epidural anesthesia; artificial insemination procedures are extremely crippled (no pun intended), putting women’s own health at risk by forcing them to accept insemination even when pre-procedure examination proved that the resulting fetus would be malformed; many doctors not only refuse to perform abortion surgeries (therefore forcing women to resort to illicit and insecure procedures), they also refuse to prescribe contraceptives and after day pills (and even if they get prescribed, finding a pharmacist that will actually sell them can be extremely difficult); there is acknowledgement for the so-called “biological testament”, that is the right to have feeding and therapy suspended for terminally ill patients and for patients in vegetative state or irreversible coma (refer to the stories of Eluana Englaro and Piergiorgio Welby); any attempts to give some kind of legal recognition to same-sex couples have been constantly brought down; and so on.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church strongly opposed divorce, which was introduced in Italy only in 1974. It is even more interesting to note that most right-wing politicians who claim to be devout Catholics and took part to a rally in defense of the “values of the traditional family” a couple of years ago, are divorced and remarried: Silvio Berlusconi (divorced, remarried, separated), Pier Ferdinando Casini (divorced, remarried), Ignazio La Russa (divorced, lives with another woman), Roberto Calderoli (divorced, remarried with a celtic ritual), Gianfranco Fini (divorced, had a daughter from a divorced woman), Marco Follini (divorced), Franco Frattini (separated), Letizia Moratti (divorced, remarried with a divorced man), and the list could go on and on…

That is one of the reasons for the anger that many Italian atheists — and some Catholics too — direct to the Vatican and the Catholic Church. One would expect the ecclesiastical hierarchies to complain, yet no member of the clergy ever said anything about it.

Another reason is the cover-up of pedophilia among the clergy. Many cases have been discovered, but the news seldom mention anything like that and the offenders aren’t even reported to the Italian police. The Church prefers to wash its own clothes, so to speak, and such offenders are merely transferred to another parish, and oftentimes they keep teaching catechism to kids.

It is also quite difficult for atheists to accept that people who cannot marry (and are not supposed to have sex or children) insist in knowing what’s good and what’s bad about having and running a family, and about the pleasures of the flesh.
It is however enraging that the Italian political class of Italy lets another State’s absolute monarch rule the ethical agenda that will affect millions of citizens, for instance preventing same-sex couples from being recognized as such. Picture two men (or two women) living together for decades; one of them dies, and the surviving partner has no right to anything, because they were complete strangers for the law. The same thing applies to heterosexual couples that cannot, or just don’t want to marry: take for example the case of two widows who enjoy their elderly age together, but feel too old to marry again, or just don’t feel like doing it; when one dies, the other will have absolutely no part in anything, and who cares if he/she had been changing her/his diapers three times a day for five years.

It is also extremely difficult to accept that such an organization encourages people to help the poor, but gives no example whatsoever. It is simply disgusting to see the Pope talk about poverty while wearing specially-crafted Prada robes and unique and very expensive jewelry. Incidentally, when the tax season comes, TV channels are flooded by dramatic commercials about priests going all over the world helping the poor, apparently thanks to the otto per mille money. Official figures show that about 8% of all the money raised is used for that; almost 45% is used for “cult needs” (which include building new churches) and 35% are to pay the clergy.

The point is that religion pays big money. It’s a fact. Italy, with its plethora of saints and dubious relics (there are some people worshipping the alleged foreskin of Jesus Christ — yes, we’re talking about Jesus’s penis… isn’t that a bit blasphemous?), has many people traveling great distances to go to sanctuaries and churches. Religious tourism is an industry that will never see any crisis whatsoever, and while I can’t talk about miraculous healings (that have apparently happened), it is encouraged through debatable means.

Padre Pio, now known as San Pio, was a friar who died in the 1960s and who apparently had stigmata. It was found out that he secretly had a pharmacist give him carbolic acid to self-inflict the wounds. That did not stop the beatification process and he was appointed a saint a few years ago. A grandiose church was built in his hometown, with common people paying to finance even customized bricks bearing their names on the sides of the entrance… only to find out that it was a fraud and no names were engraved anywhere: the construction company that had such idea had mysteriously disappeared with the money.

The recent wave of anticlericalism was however caused by a verdict of the European Court about the bearing of a crucifix in public schools (the complete text of the verdict can be read here), or rather by the political response it sparked. A Finnish woman (therefore a European citizen with full rights) living in Italy asked her children’s school’s principal to remove such symbols, because she felt that they were an imposition of a given religion on her children. Effectively, the Italian Constitution says that “all citizens [...] are equal under the law, with no distinction of gender, race, language, religion, political opinion [...]“ (art. #3), and that “all religions are equal under the law; religions other than the Catholic are free to organize themselves according to their own regulations, as long as they are not against the Italian law; their relationship with the State are defined by specific agreements” (art. #8); “everybody has the right to follow his/her religious faith in any form [...]“ (art. #19); “religious associations and institutions cannot be the cause of special legal limitations [...]“ (art. #20). The European Court based its decision upon the fact that public schools should be as neutral as possible, because the State itself is neutral about religions (art. #8 of the Constitution). Nothing more, nothing less.

With the revision of the Concordato in 1984 and the removal of any State religion in Italy, any obligation to display a crucifix in public offices was also removed. It seems only fair, in today’s multicultural and multiethnic reality (albeit some political parties are founded on racism and xenophobia and a specific politician said that Italy is not and should not be multiethnic), that people with a different or no religion shouldn’t be forced to see a symbol that doesn’t belong to them; or at least, other symbols should be added as needed, albeit that would prove quite impractical. Moreover, since Italy is a secular State with no State religion, the crucifix could simply be removed, rendering classrooms’ walls as neutral as possible.

Such verdict from the European Court caused all sorts of angry responses by the political side that’s closest to the Vatican hierarchies (you guessed it: the same family value defenders who, quite aptly, have lots of experience since they have more than one family). The secretary of defense, Ignazio La Russa, said: “They can all die; the crucifix will stay where it’s always been”. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, roamed the earthquake-torn city of L’Aquila in an impromptu procession bearing a crucifix bigger than he is. Deputy Paola Binetti (inexplicably part of the left-wing Democratic Party, proud member of the Opus Day and outspoken wearer of the cilice to provide herself with constant pain to feel closer to Christ’s passion — I swear I’m not making this up) claimed that the crucifix is an Italian tradition and should not be touched; I admit I would like to see a pizza and an Arlecchino action figure on classrooms’ walls too, because those are two other important Italian traditions. Someone else, whose name or face escape me, managed to produce the most creative response ever: the crucifix, he said, is not a religious symbol (what is it, then?)

Faith is faith, it just cannot be explained. I don’t have it, but I respect those who do, whichever religion it is. I respect Catholics; most of them are good people. The problem is that Italian politicians are faux Catholics, and those are the worst, because they affect me and my rights until I leave this country. I have nothing against Islam either; I actually feel sorry for Muslims, who are all considered terrorists on the basis of their religion (especially in Italy), just because some fundamentalist blows himself up in the name of Allah. While I haven’t read it in full, I’m sure the Qur’an is not any worse than the Old Testament in terms of violence (there is a passage, in Deuteronomy, that says that one should throw stones at adulterers; that’s quite far from the modern concept of Christian forgiveness, to say the least), and Christians – most notably Catholics — weren’t much better: the crusades, the Inquisition, and so on.

Religion, or lack thereof, is an intimate trait of one’s personality. Forcing it upon students simply shouldn’t happen, just like the other things I mentioned in this post shouldn’t happen in what is supposed to be a secular State. There should be a clear separation between State and Church, and the State should only work with the Vatican for what it is: a foreign country.

In this country, though, such things are a hopeless utopia. Mutual and dubious interests pillage religion of the purely spiritual connotation it should have. When the shepherd uses sheep to merely obtain more land, you know there is a problem.

¿Cuántos católicos socialistas habrá en el mundo?. Una primera respuesta irreflexiva nos llevaría a pensar que no pasarían de dos docenas. Si tuviéramos que fiarnos del punto de vista que transmite diariamente la llamada “prensa respetable” como el País, el Mundo, ABC o la Razón, parecería que se tratase de un grupo completamente marginal. El catolicismo, según la visión que interesa transmitir a los medios capitalistas, se trataría de un movimiento básicamente de derechas. Sin embargo un ejercicio simple de investigación nos revela los siguientes datos: El país del con más católicos del mundo es Brasil con 147 millones de personas. El socialista PT (Partido de los Trabajadores) es el más votado, con fuerte apoyo también para el MST (Movimiento Sin Tierra) y la Teología de la Liberación. El 86% de la población venezolana (casi 25 millones) son católicos, con apoyo mayoritario para Chávez. En Ecuador el 90% de la población es católica, con apoyo mayoritario para Correa. En Bolivia el 80% de la población es católica, con apoyo mayoritario para el Movimiento al Socialismo de Morales. Así podríamos seguir con la Nicaragua (83%) de Ortega, con el Paraguay de Lugo (75%), Cuba (55%), El Salvador (76%), España…

Es muy posible que si se hiciera una consulta electoral entre todos los católicos del mundo estaría garantizada una aplastante victoria para el SOCIALISMO, en alguna de sus diversas vertientes. Muchos de esos votantes de la circunscripción mundial se declararían además abiertamente anticapitalistas. ¿Es esa la visión que nos transmiten diariamente los medios de (des)-información masiva? ¿Representa el ultraconservador Papa Ratzinger, jefe de la oligarquía Vaticana, la forma de pensar políticamente mayoritaria entre los católicos del mundo?.

Fuente estadística: http://www.nationmaster.com

En la foto Ernesto Cardenal, cura revolucionario nicaragüense, tomado de esta preciosa entrevista del blog esquinamontevideo.

L’inquietante presenza del rabbino capo di Roma e d’Europa Joseph Rabbinger in quel di Brixia, risveglia incubi cristiani che sembravano svaniti da tempo.
Fa davvero specie che nel 2009 una città ricca, evoluta e soprattutto lombarda come la città del Leone, sfoderi pubblico delle grandi occasioni e pletore di leccapiedi per accogliere il losco figuro di bianco vestito, in visita nel Bresciano per onorare la memoria della checca massonica Paolo VI.
Non pensavo a questo successo (per il Vaticano), eppure pioveva, il morbo infuria, e non c’è assolutamente nulla di interessante nel vedere il capo dei diversamente ebrei che con voce rauca dice messa in latino davanti al duomo della città.
Li facevo un po’ più patrioti e orgogliosi questi Bresciani, che insultano i loro fratelli bergamaschi o veronesi, ma blandiscono la pretaglia e il suo credo alieno, si lasciano sommergere dal liquame di Italiani, Senegalesi e allogeni vari, e si pavoneggiano col titolo blasfemo di “Leonessa d’Italia”, che alle orecchie identitarie suona un po’ come “eunuchi schiavi di Roma”.
Il simbolo di Brescia è un leone maschio e Brescia è in Lombardia. Carducci e il Risorgimento possono allegramente impiccarsi assieme al cristianesimo.
Brescia deve risorgere e la sua resurrezione passa per la riscossa identitaria e lombardista. Via la marmaglia allogena, che ha fagocitato la città e macella gli autoctoni con la complicità dello stato italiano, via le infami insegne italiane, insulto alla celto-germanica schiatta, via clero, Chiesa, crocifissi (molto di moda ultimamente), e cristianesimo, ciarpame ereticale ebraico.
Svegliati dal sonno della Ragione Brixia, e torna padrona di te stessa e del tuo destino!