Sunday, March 25, 2007
Day of the Unborn in Peru
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Santa Presion - Caretas No. 1967
Santa Presión
15 de marzo de 2007
pp. 78-79
En la mañana del viernes 9 de marzo, el Presidente de la República recibió una visita tras la que no se ofreció ningún tipo de declaración. A Palacio de Gobierno llegaron el arzobispo de Lima, cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani; el presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal Peruana y arzobispo de Trujillo, Miguel Cabrejos, y el presidente de la Comisión Episcopal de Familia, Infancia y Vida y arzobispo de Piura, José Antonio Eguren.
La presencia de monseñor Eguren debe leerse entre líneas. Es el primer obispo ordenado del Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana. Su comisión asesora, promueve estudios y hace propuestas sobre todo lo concerniente al matrimonio y la familia. Además tiene bajo su cargo el comité de bioética de la Conferencia Episcopal.
Aunque a la reunión le prosiguió el silencio, es casi seguro que tuvo entre sus temas centrales la discusión sobre el aborto terapéutico, vuelta a poner sobre el tapete tras las revelaciones sobre el caso de Karen Llantoy, a quien el Estado le obligó a continuar con un embarazo a pesar de que el feto tenía una grave malformación, la anencefalia, que hacía imposible su subsistencia (CARETAS 1965, 1966). Naciones Unidas recomendó al Perú una serie de medidas para corregir el daño ocasionado a Llantoy y su cumplimiento se ha convertido en un dolor de cabeza para el sector Justicia.
A eso hay que añadir que se dio a conocer que el Instituto Materno Perinatal aprobó un protocolo para practicar el aborto terapéutico, que es permitido por el Código Penal cuando se pone en peligro la vida de la gestante, pero que hoy, tras casi ochenta años, sigue cubierto por un manto de vaguedad que ocasiona situaciones traumáticas como la de Llantoy.
Tras revelarse la existencia del protocolo (CARETAS 1966), que según algunas interpretaciones podía ser considerado una norma de alcance nacional por el rango de la institución que lo expidió, el Ministerio de Salud se vio obligado a encarar el tema. El ministro Carlos Vallejos anunció esta semana la creación de una comisión multisectorial –integrada por gremios médicos, sociedades científicas, sociedad civil y representantes ministeriales– para elaborar un protocolo a ser aplicado en todo el país. Al parecer, cedió a la presión para no darle ese peso al protocolo del Instituto, que solo regirá en esa entidad.
La Iglesia tiene como objetivo ocupar un asiento en aquella comisión. Representantes de una organización de defensa de los derechos reproductivos de las mujeres dijeron a CARETAS que, siendo esta institución contraria a toda forma de aborto, no sería ético que conformen una comisión que tendrá como mandato el explicitar los casos en los que se permitirá estas intervenciones.
Hace cuatro años y medio, el cardenal Cipriani y el entonces congresista Rafael Rey, declararon la guerra al intento parlamentario de reconocer el aborto terapéutico en el proyecto constitucional que entonces se discutía y quedó eventualmente truncado. La discusión motivó una cómica y “embarazosa” carátula de esta revista (edición 1749).
Rey, actual ministro de la Producción declaró entonces: “Nuestra sociedad admira a las personas que con riesgo de muerte toman acción para salvar a un amigo y no a aquel que escapa y deja al amigo en una situación difícil, o a aquel que mata para salvar su vida. Y eso es, precisamente, lo que el aborto terapéutico pretende”.
El entusiasmo con el que el Presidente recibió al cardenal el viernes pasado (ver foto) plantea interrogantes sobre el rumbo que tomará el debate. Durante la campaña, AGP se opuso a la propuesta de Ollanta Humala para legalizar el aborto. “Yo estoy a favor de la libre elección de métodos anticonceptivos, pero estoy en contra del aborto”, declaró en febrero del año pasado. Queda por verse si su negativa incluye también el aborto contemplado, esencialmente, por la ley.
Lo que en realidad está en juego no es la subsistencia legal del concepto del aborto terapéutico, reconocido en el Código Penal desde 1929, sino las causas específicas por las que será permitido. El protocolo del Instituto Materno Perinatal abre considerablemente el abanico de estas causales (CARETAS 1966). Si ese documento es un referente, es de esperar que la Iglesia luche cada línea al centímetro.
Mientras tanto, el pasado martes 13, DEMUS organizó un debate, moderado por el psicoanalista Jorge Bruce, en el que se presentaron las declaraciones por vídeo que Karen Llantoy, hoy de 22 años, envió desde España. La joven se ha convertido en el caso emblemático de quienes defienden la apertura de esta opción. (E.CH.)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Jesus isn't a theo-con, nor a fascist
The Vatican has been making appointments of individuals from the 'new ecclesiastical communities' that have been promoted since the council of the Vatican II. These communities include the Sodalit Family and Opus Dei. At the same time, Pope Benedict (ex. Cardinal Ratzinger) has been promoting his own agenda to remove liberation theologists (or Marxist theology as said by the Sodalit-run Catholic News Agency). I have shown examples of this in Puno, Perú recently, and here is another example in El Salvador.
The second piece talks about how Jesus wasn't a hippy, nor a guru, nor a philosopher, nor a revolutionary, nor a socialist, etc., etc., but the Son of God.
I could agree with the things he was not, provided we also say that Jesus wasn't a neo-con/theo-con, nor a fascist, nor a market liberal either... and nor did he condemn people for disagreeing with human authority on Earth.
The author tries to explain the troubling nature of why Jesus is seen as a 'revolutionary' in Latin America. I think he should also ask why conquistadors and other colonialists are praised for 'bringing God to the Americas', since Jesus wasn't for genocide and oppression... if Jesus did support it, that would make him some sort of a fascist dictator, wouldn't it?
-------------------------------
Sobrino, a Basque Jesuit who has lived in El Salvador since the 1970’s, where he has been a professor of theology at the Jose Simeon Cañas Central American University, which he founded together with several other Jesuits.
Although the sanction will be official made public on Thursday, Archbishop Saenz said during a press conference that “the Holy See tells us that the conclusions of his theological studies are not in accord with the doctrine of the Church.”
The sanction also will prohibit Jon Sobrino from teaching classes at any Catholic institution and from publishing as a Catholic author.
“For some time his writings have been under study, and for years he has been warned,” Archbishop Lacalle said, explaining that Sobrino, like many of his fellow liberationists, emphasizes the human nature of Jesus to the point of putting his divinity in doubt.
Like other authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez, Juan Luis Segundo and Pablo Richard, Sabrino contributed to creating profound division in the Church in Latin America by promoting a Marxist interpretation of theology. He has refused to make any comments until the Vatican officially publishes the sanction.
Archbishop Lacalle has requested Sobrino refrain from further controversies surrounding the activity of liberation theology proponents, especially in view of the upcoming General Conference of the Latin American Bishops’ Council, and that he “conform to the teachings of the Church.”
“I pray to the Lord for Father Jon Sobrino, that he may be docile to the teachings of the Church and will review his conclusions,” the archbishop said.
------------------------------------------------------------
“The person of Jesus, with his actions and teachings, has always inspired amazement and admiration in many, as well as questioning and even rejection in others,” the bishop wrote in an article for the diocesan newspaper.
“In modern times as well,” Bishop Moronta said, “the question about Jesus remains. The answer given is in accord with those who do the asking: Some have claimed he is an alien who has come from who knows what planet or galaxy in order to carry out a mission. Some have claimed he is a kind of ‘guru’ who, after his death in Israel, supposedly traveled to the Far East to achieve complete wisdom. Some claim he is a great teacher of wisdom. There is even no lack of those who would say he is a myth or an invention of the first Christians,” the bishop wrote.
“In our Latin American continent, there have always been attempts to answer the troubling question about Him,” he continued. “He has been identified as a ‘revolutionary,’ a ‘guerrilla,’ to the point that he has been depicted in paintings crucified on a cross of rifles. In our own national debate, he has been presented as a ‘Socialist.’”
“In every age,” Bishop Moronta said, “to not see Jesus in his true dimension produces in many a reaction against the Church, who is Mother and Teacher.”
“Therefore,” he recommended, “more than confronting those who do not understand the Church’s reasons, what we must do is show where the source of our answers is: in the Gospel, which is the Word of God,” where we find Peter’s profession of faith: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
“Here is the authentic answer to the question about Jesus. It is the recognition of his divine mission, of his divinity, of his final objective—the salvation of humanity,” the bishop stressed.
When somebody claims something about the person of Jesus,” Bishop Moronta added, “the attitude of believers in Christ must be that which is inspired by the Gospel: a profession of faith, made without hesitation and without fear, not to condemn another, but to invite him to understand what the true meaning of the existence of the person and work of Jesus the Lord is.”
“Therefore, neither a revolutionary, nor a Socialist, nor a hippie, nor a philosopher, nor a Gnostic deity, nor an alien, nor a ghost, nor a myth: Jesus is Lord, the Son of the living God, the Savior, the Word incarnate who has made the mystery and plan of God known to us, the Beginning and the End, the faithful witness, the same today, yesterday and forever,” Bishop Moronta emphasized.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
I would have rethought the title and the picture.
