Autant tu peux,autant tu oses!Osez avoir des enfants!

N’ayez pas peur des tigres de papier et laissez les morts enterrer les morts!La-mauvaise-parenthèse des « temps modernes »  se referme,le règne de la  bourgeoisie « Avare et sentimentale (Léon Bloy),  » Passionnée de politique et se justifiant sans cesse (Jacques Ellul )   -l' »Enrichissez-vous »-le protestant Guizot du juste -milieu et Emmanuel Macron « Devenez milliardaires » qui aboutissent à un   « Appauvrissez-vous,l’Etat vous donnera votre pâtée quotidienne »- est fini (Romano Guardini: »La fin des temps modernes ».

« Il faut marcher ou mourir;j’ai choisi de marcher

mais on peut mourir »-de Gaulle.

« La puissance de l’opinion est plus forte que la vérité »-Sophocle.

« La tolérance et l’apathie sont les dernières vertus d’une société mourante »-Aristote.

« Mon Père est comme un Roi qui tire de son trésor des choses nouvelles et des choses anciennes »-le Christ.

« La justice sans la miséricorde c’est de la cruauté mais la miséricorde sans la justice aboutit à la dissolution » saint Thomas d’Aquin.
« Ah quelle terrible époque que celle où des crétins dirigent des aveugles »-Shakespeare.

« Le monde moderne est contre tous les mondes »-Charles Péguy.
« La révolte contre la réalité ou la métaphysique du mal »-Georges Bernanos.
« La sainte réalité »-Paul Claudel.

Dressez haut la poutre maîtresse,charpentiers-et vous aussi  charpentières-sinon vous vivrez en rase-motte comme des vers de terre qui se prennent pour des étoiles.

« Ce n’est pas que le chemin soit difficile;c’est que le difficile est le chemin »-Rainer Maria Rilke.

Autant tu peux,autant tu oses mais n’oses jamais l’impossible car tu mourras et tu tueras-le fruit de tes accouplements irresponsables.


Autres sites:





Abonnements gratuits:plus de 3 000 articles de la théologie à l’économie en passant par la politique  et tout le reste:histoire,sciences humaines et sciences de la matière,biologie,esthétique,etc.De cinquante à cent nouveaux articles par jour.

Les Principes fondamentaux:le réalisme;la Vie.



American league for life:The Greatest Pro-Life Bill That No One Wants to Talk About BY JIM SEDLAK

Apr 20, 2018
The Greatest Pro-Life Bill That No One Wants to Talk About

Forty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, thrust abortion on the American public in the decision known as Roe v. Wade.
Week in Review
A lot has happened this week. Are you aware of it all?
ALL in the News
There are lots of opportunities for you to make your voice heard this week.
Pro-Life Social Media
This post is for mature audiences only because it contains (what else?) materials used by PP to indoctrinate children into sexual immorality.
Featured Video
This special feline came into their lives at the perfect moment.
Action Item of the Week
What will you do to show your solidarity with other pro-lifers next week?

LifeSiteNews staff:UK Supreme Court denies Alfie Evans’ appeal, ventilator to be removed Monday-La frigide May en plus est une salope et avec la bonniche Merkel « La femme est le-sale-avenir -de l’homme »‘

Alfie Evans in a recent photo with his eyes open, sucking his soother. Thomas Evans / Facebook

LifeSiteNews staff

NewsBioethicsFri Apr 20, 2018 – 10:48 am EST

UK Supreme Court denies Alfie Evans’ appeal, ventilator to be removed Monday

alfie evans

Save Alfie Evans! Tell the hospital to let his parents take him home. Sign here.

Update April 20, 2:15 EST: Tom Evans’ (Alfie’s father) statement that he will appeal the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights has been added. 

LONDON, April 20, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The UK Supreme Court will not allow the parents of Alfie Evans to take their sick child to a hospital in Italy. The ruling means that a previous court’s decision that Alfie be removed from his ventilator on Monday, April 23 remains in effect. Removing the baby from ventilation will likely cause his death.

Three Supreme Court justices denied an appeal to the baby’s parents today, saying the hospital must be « free to do what has been determined to be in Alfie’s best interests.” The decision is published in full below.

“Having considered submissions from the parties ‘on paper’, in the usual way, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has refused permission for the parents to appeal,” said a spokesperson for the Supreme Court.

Alfie’s father Thomas has released a press statement through the advocacy group Christian Concern.

« Like all Alfie’s family, I am very disappointed by the new decision of the Supreme Court which justifies Alfie’s imprisonment in Alder Hey Hospital, and refuses to let him go to Rome on the invitation of the Pope,” he said.

« Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Kerr are the same three judges who upheld Alfie’s original ‘death sentence’ back in March.”

« We have asked them to watch the recent videos of Alfie, and their decision now admits that Alfie ‘looks like a normal boy’,” Evans continued. “However, their paperwork still says his brain no longer exists, his life is futile, he may not be allowed to go, but must be made to die – all in his own best interests. Only the paperwork matters to these people – the real child does not.”

“This is not justice. This is cruel bureaucracy.”

Evans said that his lawyers have submitted an urgent application to the European Court of Human Rights.

« We will not give up,” he concluded. “We will continue to fight, by all means available to us within the law, to save our son’s life. »

Tom Evans and Alfie’s mother, Kate James, have been trying to overturn a court order directing Alder Hey Children’s hospital in Liverpool to remove their son’s ventilator.

They filed a petition to the Supreme Court after the UK Court of Appeal ruled this Monday against the parents’ argument that their son was being unlawfully detained by the hospital. It was the Court of Appeal that set Monday, April 23rd, as the date for the removal of Alfie’s ventilation.

Alfie Evans, born May 9, 2016, is lying critically ill in Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation in Liverpool. His doctors say that he has an undiagnosed neurological condition that has resulted in serious and irreparable brain damage. In February 2018, Alder Hey won a legal decision that continued life support was not in the child’s best interests. Alfie’s parents fought the decision to the Supreme Court and before the European Court of Human Rights. However, they were unsuccessful in overturning Mr Justice Heydon’s February 20 decision.

After Alfie’s parents filed their petition to the Supreme court this Tuesday, Tom Evans flew to Rome via Athens to meet with Pope Francis. The pontiff was said to be moved by the meeting with Evans and said that the young man’s courage reminded him of the love of God, Who is reluctant to lose any of His children.

At Pope Francis’ behest, Bishop Cavina is serving as the mediator between the Holy See and Alfie’s family. He may be the infant’s last chance to be released and treated in Italy, as Alfie’s parents wish.

The Supreme Court justices, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, and Lord Wilson have released their written judgment in full:

  1. “This is a desperately sad case. It is sad principally, of course, for Alfie’s parents, for they love their little boy dearly want to do all in their power to keep him alive. But it is also sad for the people who have been keeping Alfie alive for so long, the doctors and nurses who are treating him in Alder Hey Hospital. Those of us who have to deal with this case dispassionately as a point of law, can feel for their sadness.
  2. but they, and we, have to face the facts. Alfie looks like a normal baby, but the unanimous opinion of the doctors who have examined him and the scans of his brain is that almost all of his brain has been destroyed. No-one knows why, but that it has happened and is continuing to happen cannot be denied. It means that Alfie cannot breathe, or eat, or drink without sophisticated medical treatment. It also means that there is no hope of his ever getting better. These are the facts which have been found after a meticulous examination of the evidence by the trial judge.
  3. The Supreme Court is not court of trial. We hear only cases which involve an arguable point of law of general public importance. No-one could deny that this is an important case. But is there an arguable point of law?
  4. On the first occasion that an application came before us, we held that Alfie’s best interests were the ‘gold standard’ against which decisions about him had to be made. It had been decided, after careful examination of the evidence, that it was not in his best interests for the treatment which sustained his life to be continued or for him to be taken by air ambulance to another country for this purpose. Hence we refused permission to appeal and the European Court of Human Rights found the parents’ application inadmissible.
  5. This second application for permission to appeal comes before us on an application for habeas corpus. That is the only basis upon which we would have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. The writ of habeas corpus issues as of right and requires the person having custody of the body of the subject person either to produce the body or to show good legal cause why the body should not be produced or released.
  6. In the olden days, the way in which a father could enforce his right to the custody of his child was by way of a writ of habeas corpus. This was because a married father had, at common law, the right to the custody of his child. But that right has been circumscribed in modern times in the interests of the welfare of the child.
  7. Thus section 1 of the Custody of Children Act 1891, now repealed, provided that: “The power of court as to production of child” Where the parent of a child applies to the High Court or the Court of Session for a writ or order for the production of the child, and the court is of opinion that the parent has abandoned or deserted the child, or that he has otherwise so conducted himself that the court should refuse to enforce his right to the custody of the child, the court may in its discretion decline to issue the write or make the order.” This made it clear that parental rights are not absolute. This 1891 Act was followed by section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, now replaced by section 1 of the Children Act 1989, both of which make it clear that when any question of the upbringing of a child comes before the courts, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. As we explained in our earlier decision in this case, the best interests of the child are the “gold standard” which is not only adopted by our law but also reflects the international standards to which this country is committed.
  8. It is therefore clear law that the parents do not have the right to use the writ of habeas corpus to acquire the custody of their child if this will not be in his best interests. The decisions of the trial judge clearly amount to decisions that the parents have no right to direct Alfie’s future medical treatment. This is not a criticism of them. How could it be? It simply means that they cannot take Alfie from Alder Hey for the purpose of transporting him at some risk to other hospitals which can do him no good.
  9. There is no reason to suppose that in this respect UK law is contrary, either to the European Convention on Human Rights, or to the law of the European Union.
  10. The parents have already applied once to the European Court of Human Rights, which has held their complaint inadmissible. The argument then was that the parents were being unjustifiably discriminated against in their right to respect for their family life under article 8 of the convention.
  11. They now complain that Alfie is being deprived of his liberty contrary to article 5 of the convention. A person who is unable to move because of measures which are being taken in intensive care to keep him alive is not deprived of his liberty within the meaning of article 5. It is also seriously open to question whether a baby who is incapable of staying alive without the artificial ventilation nutrition and hydration currently being provided to Alfie is being deprived of his liberty. But what is not open to question is that those measures can only be imposed, whether on a child or on an adult person who is unable to make the decision for himself, if they are in the best interests of the person concerned. That is the “gold standard” so if this were ‘deprivation of liberty,’ it would not be lawful unless it was in Alfie’s best interests.
  12. It has been conclusively determined that it is not in Alfie’s best interests, not only to stay in Alder Hey Hospital being treated as he currently is, but also to travel abroad for the same purpose. It is not lawful, therefore, to continue to detain him, whether in Alder Hey or elsewhere, for that purpose. The release to which he is entitled, therefore, is release from the imposition of treatment which is not in his best interests.
  13. Every legal issue in this case is governed by Alfie’s best interests. These have been conclusively and sensitively determined by the trial judge. There is no arguable point of law of general public importance in this case.
  14. There is also no reason for further delay. There will be no further stay of the Court of Appeal’s order. The hospital must be free to do what has been determined in Alfie’s best interests. That is the law in this country. No application of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg can or should change that.

Magnifique VICTOIRE pour Vincent Lambert !

Magnifique VICTOIRE pour Vincent Lambert !

Paris, le 20 avril 2018

C’est une première et magnifique VICTOIRE. Le tribunal nous a entendus, il a ordonné une expertise dont les modalités précises seront connues bientôt. L’expertise portera sur le tableau clinique de Vincent Lambert et sur sa capacité à être rééduqué à manger par la bouche. Les éléments donnés par le docteur Sanchez sont donc manifestement insuffisants aux yeux du tribunal pour justifier un arrêt d’alimentation. La vérité va enfin éclater !



Les amis de Vincent Lambert, réunis dans son comité de soutien sont rassurés par le jugement rendu par le Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne. Il ordonne une expertise préalable en tenant compte des spécificités des patients comme Vincent Lambert.

Le jugement signifie que les affirmations du Dr SANCHEZ n’ont pas suffi à convaincre le tribunal devant les avis totalement opposés de 24 spécialistes qui avaient écrit au Dr SANCHEZ pour contester la situation d’obstination déraisonnable et devant l’évidence des vidéos produites..

Vincent est en vie, son alimentation et son hydratation vont être poursuivies.

Les avocats des parents de Vincent Lambert  avaient déposé un recours en référé-liberté, procédure d’urgence devant le Tribunal Administratif pour contester la décision du CHU de Reims d’arrêter l’alimentation et l’hydratation de leur fils.

De nombreux éléments avaient été apportés au dossier pour prouver que Vincent ne faisait pas l’objet d’une « obstination déraisonnable ». Soixante-dix médecins spécialisés  avaient signé un appel pour affirmer que Vincent Lambert n’était pas en fin de vie et que les preuves de sa volonté de continuer à vivre étaient manifestes. Ils dénonçaient les conditions de vie imposées à Vincent Lambert et demandaient son transfert dans un établissement spécialisé. Les amis de Vincent se réjouissent qu’ils aient été entendus.

Ils rappellent que plusieurs établissements sont prêts à l’accueillir. Son transfert est, depuis la création du comité de soutien, leur principale revendication. Ils vont poursuivre leur mobilisation pour l’obtenir enfin.


Alliance vita:Ouverture d’un showroom clandestin de la procréation le 17 avril 2018-et varia

Téléchargez les images - 0
Etats généraux de la bioéthique

L’actualité décryptée par VITA


Pour dénoncer la menace cachée derrière la notion de « PMA pour toutes », l’association expose pendant 3 jours un « marché de la procréation » dans une boutique située passage Choiseul, rue commerçante du 2ème arrondissement de Paris.

Bébés sur mesure

Dans une interview, Blanche Streb, directrice de la formation et de la recherche d’Alliance VITA, répond à des questions suite à la sortie de son livre le 18 avril.

Tugdual Derville sur la fin de vie

Tugdual Derville, fondateur de SOS Fin de vie, a été auditionné par la Commission des affaires sociales de l’Assemblée nationale, le 18 avril 2018, afin de partager son point de vue sur l’accompagnement des personnes en fin de vie.

Conférence de presse
Agenda bioéthique

Révision de la loi de bioéthique

du 18 janvier au 7 juillet 2018 : 

– Etats généraux de la bioéthique : débats dans les régions et sur le site  (jusqu’à fin avril pour le site)
4 juin 2018 :
– Remise de la synthèse des contributions aux États généraux par le CCNE a l’OPECST


Evaluation de la loi sur la Fin de vie 2016

Printemps 2018 : 

– Rapport IGAS, demandé par la Ministre de la Santé, Agnès Buzyn

Rendez-vous à ne pas manquer

Blanche Streb sera la « Grande invitée » de la Matinale RCF

lundi 23 avril à 8h10 à l’occasion de la sortie de son livre « Bébés sur mesure – Le monde des meilleurs (éditions Artège)

Les chroniques de Tugdual Derville sur KTOTV

tous les mercredis à 20h35 (rediffusion jeudi et vendredi)

25 avril « Intelligences »

L’édito de Tugdual Derville sur RCF

tous les vendredis à 7h55

Les chroniques VITA Clermont sur Radio Espérance (Didier Berge et Aurélie Garand)

tous les mercredis à 8h10, 12h50 et 19h15

Les chroniques VITA Toulouse sur Radio Présence (Grégoire Jahan)

tous les mercredis à 8h06

Alliance VITA ne vit que de la générosité de ses donateurs

IP5:Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death by Hugh Owen

IP5:Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death by Hugh Owen

Evolved from a Can of Worms: Evolution and the Culture of Death

It was Veterans’ Day in Washington, D.C., and evolution was the farthest thing from my mind. I had accompanied my friend, Fr. Jack Murphy, an Army veteran, to provide prayer support for him and for other veterans who were standing up for life at a D.C. abortion mill. A large group of pro-abortion hecklers had turned out to harass us, and the police cordoned off the parking lot and forced us all into one small area. A young man in his twenties held up a poster of a preborn child with the caption “Does this look like a blob of tissue?” Two young women who looked like college students mocked him. “Didn’t these people take high school biology?” one of them asked the other. “If they knew anything about evolution, they would know that the fetus isn’t human until the third trimester.” The other said something about the baby in the poster going through “the fish stage.” Another woman added that the souls of the “fetuses” were better off being aborted, since they would be reincarnated in better circumstances.

A Radical Rejection of God’s Revelation

It took many years for me to realize how many of the lies I heard that day derived whatever credibility they had from evolutionary theory. The denigration of the unborn child as pre-human, embryonic recapitulation, and the rationalization of reincarnation – not one of them could endure the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it had been proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. Yet such falsehoods thrive in the miasma created by the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionary theory.

All forms of evolutionary theory require a radical rejection of God’s revelation about the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis speaks of God forming Adam’s body from the slime of the earth and breathing into it the breath of life. Moses also speaks of God forming Eve’s body from Adam’s side and presenting her to him as his help-mate. The fathers and doctors of the Church held that God created the body of Adam together with his soul, not the body before the soul or the soul before the body. Summarizing the patristic doctrine, St. John of Damascus wrote:

From the earth He formed his body and by His own inbreathing gave him a rational and understanding soul, which last we say is the divine image[.] … The body and the soul were formed at the same time – not one before and the other afterwards as the ravings of Origen would have it. [1]

The Fathers rejected not only the idea of the pre-existence of souls, but also the notion that Adam’s body was formed before his soul, or that a human body could pre-exist a human soul. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa:

[A]s man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both parts, so that he should not be found to be antecedent and posterior to himself, if the bodily element were first in point of time, and the other were a later addition[.] … For as our nature is conceived as two-fold, according to the apostolic teaching, made up of the visible man and the hidden man, if the one came first and the other supervened, the power of Him that made us will be shown to be in some way imperfect, as not being sufficient for the whole task at once, but dividing the work, and busying itself with each of the halves in turn. [2]

Sacred Scripture teaches that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin and that He was already fully human in the womb of the Blessed Virgin a few days after the Incarnation, when His Mother visited her cousin St. Elisabeth. The Sacred Liturgy affirms the full Humanity of Jesus from the moment of the Incarnation on March 25, just as it affirms the sinless humanity of the Blessed Virgin from the moment of her Immaculate Conception. Thus, the Church’s teaching concerning the first Adam and the first Eve perfectly complements her teaching concerning the New Adam and the Second Eve. In both cases, a human body and soul were created together, not the soul before the body or the body before the soul.

This teaching on the creation of Adam and Eve has been the common teaching of all of the fathers, doctors, popes and councils since the time of the Apostles. However, recent popes, while not abrogating that teaching – which would be impossible – have held back from affirming it unequivocally for one simple reason. Since Darwin, they have been afraid to rule out the possibility that natural science might discover irrefutable evidence for human evolution.

In one sense, their hesitancy is understandable. It appears to follow from the Augustinian principle (affirmed by Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus) not to deviate from the plain and obvious sense of Scripture, except when reason dictates or necessity requires. In Humani generis, Pope Pius XII asked Catholic scholars to weigh the evidence for and against the hypothesis of human evolution, while defending many elements of the traditional interpretation of Genesis. To this day, the holy father’s request has not been heeded by the community of Catholic scholars, although there are three reasons why this request should long since have led to a definitive rejection of the human evolution hypothesis. The first reason has to do with the limitations of natural science, the second with the actual state of the scientific evidence, and the third with the obvious harm that this hypothesis has done and is doing to souls.

Three Reasons to Reject Human Evolution

Nowadays, it seems unfashionable in many circles to suggest that natural science has limitations. But the Catholic doctors who laid the foundation for the positive development of the natural sciences during the past 800 years recognized and articulated these limitations. The spirit of the great medieval doctors is well expressed by the twelfth-century French scholastic philosopher William of Conches, who wrote:

I take nothing away from God. He is the author of all things, evil excepted. But the nature with which He endowed His creatures accomplishes a whole scheme of operations, and these too turn to His glory since it is He who created this very nature. [3]

Implicit in this enthusiastic attitude toward the scientific investigation of nature was the understanding that the origin of the order of nature and of the natures of living things could not be explained by natural processes, or, to use the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “[i]n the works of nature, creation does not enter, but is presupposed to the work of nature” [4]. Thus, St. Thomas and William of Conches knew for certain that the origin of human nature – the creation of Adam and Eve – lay beyond the sphere of natural science. While natural scientists could learn many things about the structure and functioning of the human body, it was obvious to the medieval doctors that scientific research could no more shed light on how God formed the body of Adam from the dust of the earth than it could shed light on how Jesus changed water into wine at the wedding of Cana. The great doctors distinguished between the order of creation, when God created the different kinds of creatures by His Word, and the order of providence, which began only after the creation of Adam and Eve.

Modern natural science has almost completely abandoned this distinction between the order of creation and the natural order, or the order of providence. Ironically, however, 21st-century natural science has amply confirmed the reasonableness of this distinction. For example, in the field of genetics, natural scientists have learned a great deal about the transmission and variation of genetic information, but no scientist has observed the spontaneous appearance of a new genetic program, such as would be needed to produce a new organ, like an eye or an ear, in an organism that lacked such an organ. Instead, 21st-century genetics has revealed that, far from evolving or increasing in functionality, genetic information degrades and devolves over time, at a rate that, in the words of one geneticist, places “a limit on the length of vertebrate lineages” – a limit much lower than the ages assigned to them by evolutionary theory [5]. Indeed, the discoveries of 21st-century genetics have been fatal to all current hypotheses of human evolution, as they demonstrate that it would be impossible for a common ancestor of chimpanzees and men to acquire the necessary “beneficial mutations” without acquiring a greater number of deleterious mutations – a number that would lead to extinction long before human evolution was achieved!

In short, not only does the hypothesis of human evolution collide with the unanimous teaching of the fathers of the Church and with nineteen hundred years of authoritative magisterial teaching, but it has also come into fatal conflict with the findings of natural science. Indeed, there is no doubt that if the balanced examination of the evidence called for in Humani generis were undertaken today, the hypothesis of human evolution would be rejected.

Embryonic Recapitulation: Devaluing the Human Embryo

Tragically, most Catholic intellectuals have not had the opportunity to study the evidence against evolutionary theory and continue to embrace the theory in spite of the harm that it has done – especially to respect for the pre-born child. Faith in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis has repeatedly led scientists and medical researchers to believe that organs of the human body that have no apparent function are “vestigial” and expendable. The full extent of the danger inherent in this unsubstantiated assumption emerged soon after the publication of Origin of Species with the popularization of the concept of embryonic recapitulation by Darwin’s disciple, the German medical doctor and professor of anatomy Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919).

Darwin had argued that similarities in structure among diverse life forms indicate that they all evolved from a common ancestor. According to Haeckel, the existence of similarities in embryos of various kinds of organisms proves that the higher life forms “recapitulate” their evolutionary history before birth and that they had descend from a common ancestor. To make this “proof” more compelling for his contemporaries, Haeckel doctored drawings of the embryos of fish, salamanders, chickens, turtles, rabbits, pigs, and human beings to exaggerate their similarities and minimize their differences [6]. Although Haeckel’s fraud was discovered and exposed during his lifetime, the evolutionary hypothesis demanded common descent, and the concept of embryonic recapitulation continued to exert a profound influence on the study of embryology for many decades.

According to Jane Oppenheimer in her work Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology, Haeckel’s influence on embryology was considerable, “act[ing] as a delaying rather than an activating force[,] and … was stifling to immediate progress” [7]. One of the leading lights in the study of embryology in the twentieth century, Gavin R. de Beer, wrote that “Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation … thwarted and delayed the introduction of causal analytic methods into embryology,” since “if phylogeny was the mechanical cause of ontogeny as Haeckel proclaimed, there was little inducement to search for other causes” [8]. De Beer’s observation implies that Haeckel’s influence had come to an end by the 1950s – but this was far from the case. To this day, biology textbooks all over the world argue that similarities among embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles, humans, and lower mammals constitute evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis. Typical of examples too many to cite is the caption that accompanies drawings of embryos of various life forms from a widely used American biology textbook published in 2002. Entitled “Embryonic development of vertebrates,” it states:

Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult. [9]

Although Haeckel’s distorted drawings do not accompany this caption, the statement gives the impression that human embryos – as members of the vertebrate phylum – possess gill slits. But this is patently false. The pharyngeal arches in human embryos have no connection with gill slits whatsoever; rather, they develop into the outer and middle ear, and into the neck bones, muscles, nerves, and glands.

Moreover, after the discovery of DNA, confidence in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis led many evolutionary biologists to predict that similar body parts in diverse organisms would be controlled by the same genes. This, however, proved to be false, as embryologists have discovered that the realization of the same body plan – such as five-digit extremities – in diverse organisms (such as whales and humans) is controlled by different genes and is achieved through totally different embryonic pathways [10].

Indeed, not only did the idea of embryonic recapitulation lead embryonic researchers down the wrong pathways – it has also led to a denigration of the unborn child. All over the world, abortion advocates have used the alleged similarity between human and lower animal embryos to trivialize abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. For example in Germany, pro-abortion activists (emphasis added):

… skillfully exploited the disunity of the German Catholic intellectuals to bring their demands for the legalization of abortion to the legislature. … Karl Rahner … wrote in Naturwissenschaft und Theologie (brochure 11, page 86, 1970): “I think that there are biological developments which are pre-human, but these developments are still aimed in the direction of man. Why cannot these developments be transferred from phylogeny to ontogeny?” [11]

With these words, the most influential theologian in the German-speaking world formulated a Haeckelian evolutionary rationale for abortifacient contraception and abortion long after Gavin de Beer had claimed that Haeckel’s influence had disappeared. In reality, in the “year of Darwin,” the implicit message of most high school biology textbooks is still clear: human embryos pass through a “gill slit” stage. These are “developments in the direction of man,” to use Fr. Rahner’s phrase. Therefore, to accord the human embryo the dignity of a human being from conception is biological nonsense.

In reality, of course, the development of the human embryo is quite distinct from that of the other vertebrates in Haeckel’s drawings, and there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that he passes through any stage that is not fully human, in the biological sense of the word. However, Fr. Rahner’s misguided faith in evolution continues to erode the faith of Catholics in the humanity of the unborn child.

An Abortionist Meets St. Thomas Aquinas

Ours is not the only period in Church history when the conventional wisdom of Catholic scholars has been influenced by a false hypothesis in natural science. Soon, the Catholic Church will celebrate the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Anyone the least bit familiar with the writings of St. Thomas knows how deeply he revered the Word of God. However, with regard to the time of human ensoulment, St. Thomas allowed Aristotelian natural science to overshadow the plain sense of the Word of God. Under Aristotle’s influence, St. Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization. In contrast, the Eastern fathers of the Church, who spoke the language of Aristotle, were much less likely than St. Thomas to let “the Philosopher” determine their interpretation of God’s Word. St. Maximus the Confessor exemplified the attitude of many Eastern fathers when he held (in II Ambigua 42) that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin and that therefore His assumption of our humanity from the moment of the Annunciation signified that we, too, become fully human from the moment of our conception.

The international pro-life community rightly rejoiced over the recent conversion of Serbian abortionist Stojan Adasevic through an apparition of St. Thomas, but scant attention has been paid to Adasevic’s interpretation of St. Thomas’s heavenly visitation. Educated in communist schools, Adasevic had been thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionism and had regarded the unborn child in the womb as nothing more than a blob of tissue. Before his conversion, Adasevic performed 48,000 abortions, as many as 35 per day. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came to him in a dream and showed him the souls of the unborn babies he had aborted. Although he resisted at first, Adasevic finally renounced abortion and embraced Christianity. He became Eastern Orthodox, but he also studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and was struck by the Angelic Doctor’s mistaken views on ensoulment. The former abortionist then concluded that the saint might have visited him “to make amends for his error” [12].

Nowadays one often hears that such and such a holy priest or bishop or even pope believed in evolution, so how could it be a dangerous doctrine? But Adasevic’s visitation suggests that if even a saint and doctor of the Church could be wrong about a hypothesis in natural science – with deadly results – how much more could modern Church leaders be deceived by a more far-reaching theory, with far deadlier consequences?

 The High-Stakes Debate on Origins

There is a lot at stake for the pro-life movement in the origins debate.

If God created the first man and woman body and soul from the first moment of their existence – and the “new Adam” and the “new Eve” body and soul from the first moment of their conception – then we can confidently hold that:

– Human life is sacred from the beginning.

– Abortion at any stage is murder.

– The human soul is the form of a particular human body.

But what if a subhuman primate could “evolve” to the point where it could “receive” a human soul?

This would mean that the same body that housed a human soul was the body of a modified brute whose animal soul was replaced by a rational human soul. This would seem to give plausibility to reincarnation – the transmigration of souls – and to the equally pernicious idea that ensoulment takes place at some point after conception.

What if the “parents” of the body that became the “fine tuned” body of Adam were themselves “brutes”?

This would mean that the bodies of brute animals would be deserving of honor as the ancestors, in a real sense, of all mankind and would give credibility to Peter Singer’s proposal to give chimpanzees the same legal rights as human beings.

What if the body of the first human being was the fruit of the sexual union of two brute animals?

This would mean that human sexuality comes up from the lower, irrational animals, rather than down from above, as a finite reflection of the love of the Most Holy Trinity.

What if the animal ancestors of Adam and Eve (and of us all) practiced promiscuity, polygamy, polyandry, or adultery?

This would mean that such behavior is “natural” and certainly not to be condemned as a crime “against nature.”

On the other hand: What if the common message of all of the Church fathers, doctors, popes, and council fathers in their authoritative teaching on the creation of Adam and Eve were boldly proclaimed from every pulpit in Christendom?

Then the faith of all Catholics in the dignity of the human person from the first moment of life would be strengthened, and it would no longer be possible for Catholics to use evolution to trivialize abortion and sexual perversion as some do now.

Therefore, the time has come for the pro-life community to recognize the strong link between evolution and the culture of death and to work and pray for a restoration of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation.


[1] ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, On the Orthodox Faith 2:12.

[2] ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, On the Making of Man 28-29.

[3] Quoted in THOMAS WOODS, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005), p. 87.

[4] ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, S.Th. I. q. 45, a. 8.

[5] ALEXEY KONDRASHOV, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1995, 175:583.

[6] Cf. MICHAEL K. RICHARDSON ET AL Anatomy and Embryology, “There is no highly conserved stage in the vertebrates; implications for current theories of evolution and development,” Vol. 196, No. 2, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1997, pp. 91-106.

[7] JANE OPPENHEIMER, Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology, MIT Press, 1967, p. 154.

[8] GAVIN DE BEER, Embryos and Ancestors, Third Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, p. 172.

[9] PETER H. RAVEN and GEORGE B. JOHNSON, Biology, 6th ed,, McGraw Hill, 2002, p. 1229.

[10] GAVIN DE BEER, quoted in “Homology: A Theory in Crisis” JONATHAN WELLS and PAUL NELSON (accessed 3-08-09).

[11] ALFRED HAUSSLER, The Betrayal of the Theologians, Human Life International, 1982, p. 2.

[12] In fairness to the Angelic Doctor, if St. Thomas were living on Earth today, he would be the first to reject the Aristotelian view of ensoulment in light of the scientific evidence – just as he would be the first to reject theistic evolution, on theological and scientific grounds.

:) cardinal: ‘The church is moving on the question of same-sex couples’ ​ By Lisa Bourne-mais quelle crapule,sa « fourberie » avouée lui jouera un sale tour un jour car il n’est qu’un « semi-habile »-Pascal-et varia

No Images? Click here
Thursday, April 19, 2018

Catholic News


Special Announcement

LifeSite is launching a daily Catholic email to coincide with our new Catholic Edition homepage. It will include all of LifeSite’s great pro-life and pro-family coverage, but with a special focus on our Catholic news. The standard Daily News email (which you are currently subscribed to) will continue to carry only Catholic stories of general public interest.

If you are most interested in LifeSite’s coverage of the Catholic Church, we recommend you click HERE to switch.


By Dorothy Cummings McLean
By Lisa Bourne

Editor’s Picks


By Diane Montagna

By Diane Montagna

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

By Lisa Bourne

Top News

By Doug Mainwaring
By Dorothy Cummings McLean
By Pete Baklinski & Maike Hickson
By Lisa Bourne
By Calvin Freiburger
By Lianne Laurence
By Estefania Aguirre
By Joseph Sciambra
By Edward Peters
By Rev. George Rutler
By Msgr. Charles Pope
By William Kilpatrick
By John-Henry Westen
By Dorothy Cummings McLean
By Lianne Laurence

Actuall – Papa Francisco saluda a un grupo de católicos chinos este miércoles 18 de abril, durante la audiencia general en la Plaza de San Pedro-pauvres catholiques chinois,François les a trahis pour la fausse église créée par le régime et avec un Xing Pei qui est un nouveau Mao


Estas son las historias más destacadas al comenzar este jueves 19 de abril, santos Mapálico; Marta; Elfego, mártires; Jorge de Antioquía, obispo; Geroldo, eremita; León IX, papa. Si te lo han reenviado, date de alta aquí para recibirlo en tu buzón.


(El Papa Francisco saluda a un grupo de católicos chinos este miércoles 18 de abril, durante la audiencia general en la Plaza de San Pedro.– Fotografía: Giuseppe Lami /EFE)

Roma. El Papa Francisco recibió este miércoles a Thomas Evans, el padre de Alfie Evans, el bebé británico hospitalizado para quien los médicos del centro Alder Hey, de Liverpool, no encuentran cura y han pedido que se le deje morir. Varias resoluciones judiciales han autorizado al centro a desconectar la tecnología que mantiene con vida a Alfie Evans, de 23 meses de edad. Sus padres quieren llevarlo a otro hospital, en otro país, en busca de una segunda opinión, y se oponen a que se deje morir al pequeño Alfie en el hospital de Liverpool donde se encuentra actualmente. El Santo Padre dio ánimos y ofreció palabras de esperanza al señor Evans. El padre de Alfie leyó una declaración en la que enfatizó que su bebé “está enfermo, pero no muriendo”. También rogó al Papa Francisco su intercesión para que el niño pueda ser atendido en el hospital Bambino Gesú, administrado por el Vaticano. “No entendemos por qué nuestro hijo, junto muchos otros, está siendo tratado así. Creemos que es porque él está discapacitado y el Reino Unido quiere legalizar la eutanasia”, dijo el padre de Alfie Evans. El señor Evans dirigió esta petición al Santo Padre: “Por favor, ayúdenos a salvar a nuestro niño inocente y concédanos la gracia del asilo para mantener a nuestra familia a salvo y detener todo esto”. El Papa dijo lo siguiente: “Llamo de nuevo la atención sobre Vincent Lambert [un joven tetrapléjico francés para quien su esposa y los médicos reclaman ‘el derecho a morir’, en contra de la opinión de los padres] y el pequeño Alfie Evans, y querría subrayar de nuevo, y confirmar fuertemente, que el único dueño de la vida, desde el inicio hasta el fin natural, es Dios. Es nuestro deber, nuestro deber hacer de todo para custodiar la vida. Pensemos en silencio y oremos”, pidió el Santo Padre. (ACI Prensa, vía Actuall; The Independent, en inglés)

Cuba. En los próximos días, la Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular de Cuba elegirá al sucesor de Raúl Castro en la Presidencia. La elección, en la que probablemente resulte ganador el actual vicepresidente, Miguel Díaz-Canel, será la primera en que alguien sin el apellido Castro gobernará Cuba desde la caída del dictador Fulgencio Batista el 1 de enero de 1958 y otro dictador, Fidel Castro, tomó el poder. El relevo en la Presidencia cubana se produce en el contexto de unas relaciones con los Estados Unidos que vuelven a pasar por malos momentos, después del aparente deshielo impulsado por el presidente Barack Obama. (The New York Times)

Brasil. La procuradora general brasileña presentó una acusación contra el senador Jair Bolsonaro, candidato presidencial de extrema derecha situado en segundo lugar en las encuestas. Los cargos contra él son por incitar al odio y la discriminación contra las personas negras e indígenas, mujeres e integrantes de la comunidad LGBT. El señor Bolsonaro concurrirá como candidato presidencial a las elecciones generales de octubre. Los sondeos electorales sitúan en primer lugar al candidato del Partido de los Trabajadores, el exrpesidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, actualmente encarcelado por corrupción. Los mismos sondeos sitúan en segundo lugar al senador Jair Bolsonaro, de 63 años de edad, con un ideario nacionalista de extrema derecha. El senador Bolsonaro tiene un fuero jurisdiccional, por su condición de senador, y su caso solo puede ser examinado por el Tribunal Supremo. El candidato ultra tiene otra denuncia pendiente, por haberle dicho a una legisladora en 2014 que era demasiado fea como para ser violada. (The New York Times)

España. El Tribunal Supremo ha pedido al ministro de Hacienda, Cristóbal Montoro, que explique en qué se basa para afirmar que en el referéndum independentista de Cataluña, celebrado ilegalmente el 1 de octubre pasado, no se emplearon fondos públicos. El ministro Montoro hizo esta afirmación en una entrevista publicada por el diario El Mundo este lunes 16 de abril. Las palabras del ministro podrían servir a la defensa del expresidente de la Generalidad, Carles Puigdemont, actualmente huido en Alemania y bajo custodia de sus autoridades, para pedir que no se le extradite a España por malversación de fondos públicos, tal y como solicita el Tribunal Supremo español. El juez Pablo Llarena, que instruye la investigación del referéndum, ha señalado que las declaraciones del ministro Montoro contradicen las pruebas del caso. (El País, El Mundo)


Liberalismo, utopía y Dios, por Carlos Rodríguez Braun. El autor es catedrático de historia de las ideas políticas y económicas, y también, un divulgador singularmente ameno y elocuente de la tradición liberal. En esta nueva columna para Actuall, el profesor Rodríguez Braun escribe: “El liberalismo no se parece al socialismo –ni al carnívoro comunista ni al vegetariano socialdemócrata–, porque no aspira a cambiar el mundo convirtiéndolo en el nuevo Edén, sino que se basa en el respeto hacia los planes de vida de cada persona.

Hay que pagar más a los parlamentarios (como haría Lucky Luke), por Pablo Gutiérrez. El autor es doctor en Historia y editor. En este artículo para Actuall, el señor Gutiérrez ironiza sobre la remuneración de los representantes políticos: “¿Que cobran mucho los parlamentarios? Yo les pagaría más. ¿Qué trabajan poco? ¡Por Dios, qué sería de nosotros si trabajaran más!”

Así se adelantó el almirante Cervera al desprecio de Ada Colau, por Nicolás de Cárdenas. La alcaldesa de Barcelona, ha retirado el nombre de una calle dedicada a Pascual Cervera y Topete, uno de los héroes de las guerras de Filipinas y Cuba. La alcaldesa ha explicado la decisión de su Gobierno municipal en que, en su opinión, el almirante Cervera fue un “facha” –apócope de fascista, en España. En este artículo, el jefe de Redacción de Actuall comenta la medida y divulga la figura y el papel histórico del almirante Cervera.


En la edición anterior, publicamos una carta de uno de nuestros suscriptores, Roberto Grao Gracia, desde Zaragoza, sobre una iniciativa de acogida y adopción de niños, en los Estados Unidos, que está ayudando a reducir el número de abortos. Nuestra compañera en la Redacción de Actuall, Miriam Calderón, informó de esta medida en este artículo, de lectura muy recomendable.

Otro suscriptores se suman a esta discusión:

Estimados lectores:

Quiero contestar a la carta escrita hoy [por este miércoles 18 de abril] por Roberto Grao Gracia, que, a mi modo de ver, queda incompleta.

Yo me quedé embarazada en el año 1966 y, por razones familiares, me tuve que ir de casa. Pues bien, en Madrid había una casa de acogida del Gobierno […] y a allá me fui. Allí estudié oposiciones, y tuve a mi hijo y, cuando me dieron destino, a él me fui con mi hijo de dos meses  y dos días. Había la posibilidad de darlo en adopción o quedártelo, como hice yo, pero nunca la posibilidad de asesinarlo dentro de tu vientre.

Como verá, señor Grao, eso no acabó en el año 1939, sino cuando entró la Democracia.

Hoy en día, esa labor se hace a nivel privado, a través de entidades de la sociedad civil como la Fundación Madrina, ONG en la que yo colaboro económicamente, porque a los políticos, tanto los de un bando, como los de de otros, les importa más repartir condones, sin dar una salida a esas mujeres que no quieren abortar y se ven obligadas a ello, sin pensar los problemas posteriores que eso acarrea.

Un saludo.

Carmen Garijo

Elisabeth Garnier, sobre el mismo asunto:

¡Buenos días!

No estoy totalmente de acuerdo con el asunto de las inclusas, tendiendo en cuenta la mortandad tan abrumadora que existía entonces, no por culpa de la institución en sí, por supuesto, que era estupenda, sino de las circunstancias. Pienso en el sufrimiento de estos pobres niños: hambre, frío y, quizás, algún que otro maltrato (por parte de las inclusas que vivían fuera). Esto no quiere decir que esté a favor del aborto, desde luego. Pero, quizás las inclusas no fueran una solución tan buena como se quiere hacer ver en la carta.

Un saludo.

Elisabeth Garnier

Una Europa sin alma que no me gusta

Pudo ser una Europa de estados soberanos, pero ha venido a parar en una Europa totalitaria que demoniza a quienes piensen distinto.

Recuerdo cuando empezó a hablarse de Europa como un proyecto que evitara nuevas guerras. Unos gobernantes decididos, Adenauer, Schuman, Spaak y De Gasperi, dieron vida a diversos tratados que ligaban a sus estados en asuntos concretos: el carbón y el acero, la energía atómica, etc. y en 1957 se firmó el Tratado de Roma y se creó el mercado común.

España solicitó su ingreso en 1962, que no fue aceptado  por carecer de un régimen democrático y muchos españoles jóvenes lamentamos nuestra marginación de un proyecto ilusionante. En nuestro periodo de transición Adolfo Suárez volvió a solicitar el ingreso en 1977 y tras un periodo larguísimo de negociaciones entró en la Unión Europea en 1985.

Desde que comenzó a gestarse Europa como mercado común hasta nuestro ingreso habían ocurrido muchas cosas, alguna tan grave como las revueltas de mayo de 1968, que introdujeron la modificación de nuestras costumbres sociales y junto con la difusión de los métodos anticonceptivos, un rechazo de los valores familiares y del cristianismo que los sustentaba.

Se fue pasando de una Europa de los estados a una unión europea en la que los estados empezaron a ceder parte de su soberanía y en 1993 el tratado de la Unión Europea, firmado en Maastricht, dió paso al sistema actual en el que se consolida un gobierno y un parlamento para toda la Unión, cuyas decisiones son de obligado cumplimiento.

El Tratado de Maastricht elimina cualquier referencia a las raíces cristianas de Europa e impone desde una mentalidad totalitaria, de la que no se puede disentir so pena de ser demonizado, no la revolución comunista que había caído en el 1989, sino la lenta introducción de nuevos derechos, como el aborto o la aceptación de diversos tipos de familia, que en realidad representan su desaparición.

Los estados como Hungría o Polonia que no están dispuestos a abandonar sus propios valores son atacados sin contemplaciones, como “extrema derecha”.  En España un decidido seguidor de los nuevos valores y los nuevos derechos fue Rodríguez Zapatero, pero su sucesor Mariano Rajoy, olvidando lo que prometió en su propios programa, ha aceptado y mantenido las leyes de Zapatero, no sé si por presiones políticas o por un cambio de sus convicciones, si las tuvo.

Al mismo tiempo se impone la obligación de abrir las fronteras al islam que, si bien resulta un multiculturalismo imposible, sirve para expulsar al cristianismo de la plaza pública y reducir cada vez más su papel inspirador de valores. Los inspiradores de la Unión Europea ven la cultura cristiana como un obstáculo a sus objetivos  de lograr una libertad sexual expansiva y la eliminación de la familia tradicional.

Los resultados e esta política están a la vista: caída en picado de la natalidad y la nupcialidad, un envejecimiento progresivamente acelerado de la población y una juventud sin referencias históricas ni culturales que cree tener derecho a toda y no estar obligado a nada.

La disminución de la población es un viejo sueño maltusiano para salvar el planeta. La ecología se presenta como el nuevo valor a defender y el cuidado de las mascotas va sustituyendo rápidamente al cuidado de los niños. 

La Europa de las naciones y los valores cristianos se ha hundido, pero la Europa que la ha sustituido marcha también hacia el fracaso. 

Todo es cuestión de tiempo si continuamos gobernados por esa nube de burócratas amaestrados desde Bruselas.

Francisco Rodríguez Barragán

La Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires ha publicado una declaración institucional sobre el debate del aborto. Informamos de ello en la edición anterior de este boletín. Puedes leer la declaración completa en este enlace.

José Luis Palacio Gallo, abogado, aplaude la iniciativa de los médicos argentinos:

¡Bravo por la Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires! 

No se puede decir más claro que como ella lo ha hecho en su reciente Declaración, qué es, científica y biológicamente, un niño concebido y por nacer, y desde qué momento comienza su existencia (desde el instante mismo de su concepción); y lo que esto conlleva, por la ética y el juramento médico, de exigencia para la defensa y protección de su vida, y desde el punto de vista jurídico, que es un sujeto de Derecho que  debe ser respetado absolutamente (con la única excepción, añado, de que se plantee una incompatibilidad entre su vida y la de la madre, supuesto que en el actual estado de la Ciencia Médica es prácticamente imposible que se dé).

Un fraternal abrazo.

José-Luis Palacio Gallo


Escuchando a Vox

Ayer tuve la oportunidad de asistir a una charla organizada por Vox, en la que intervinieron Santiago Abascal, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, Rocío Monasterio y Javier Ortega.

Todos los asistentes conocimos que, por fin, algunos quieren, si les damos la oportunidad, trabajar por España y los españoles.

Sus propuestas son tan razonables, que no deja de sorprenderme que solo las haga un partido que ni siquiera tiene representación parlamentaria. ¡Será porque una de ellas es terminar con los privilegios de los políticos! 

Otra, que produce una gran alegría a los sufridos contribuyentes, es la bajada drástica de los impuestos: fuera el impuesto de sucesiones, el de donaciones, el de patrimonio, bajada del IRPF, del impuesto de sociedades,… y así, reducir enormemente la presión fiscal. ¿Con qué objeto? Promover la creación de empresas y la contratación laboral. 

Otra promesa fundamental para los españoles es la garantía y la mejora sustancial de las pensiones y como saben que los demás partidos van a decir que es imposible, explicaron cómo puede hacerse.  Muy fácil, eliminando todas las Autonomías, los observatorios, las agencias de ‘chichinabo’, ….  ¡Ah, esto va a doler mucho a todos los que están en el pesebre!  Es cierto, de golpe y porrazo va a haber un montón de gente en el paro y van a tener difícil encontrar un trabajo con la remuneración que han estado percibiendo…, porque muchos han actualizado su CV “rebajándolo” para evitar lo que le ha pasado a Cristina Cifuentes. ¡Porque ya es hora de que alguien trabaje por el “estado del bienestar de los españoles” y no por el “estado del bienestar de los políticos”.

Y dijeron muchas cosas más, todas las cuales me gustaron y no puedo detallar aquí pero para que tengan la oportunidad de hacerlo, hay que votarles.  En caso contrario, ¿qué va a hacer el gobierno actual con el golpe de Estado de Cataluña? ¿qué va a hacer con las pensiones de miseria que ni siquiera están garantizadas? ¿Vamos a consentir que Montoro siga aumentando la presión fiscal? ¿Vamos a permitir que nos impongan la Ley de memoria Histórica reforzada? ¿Y qué va a ser de nuestros niños con la Ley de ideología de género? Y así, muchos disparates más.

¡Ah, por favor, no digan que es mejor votar el PP que arriesgarse a que llegue Podemos al poder! ¿De verdad consideran que su voto al PP ha sido útil?  ¿Qué promesas de su programa de gobierno ha cumplido? España está como está porque muchos españoles así lo han querido.

Aunque me da rabia tener que recurrir a Francia como ejemplo, no me queda más remedio. ¡Los franceses han sido más valientes que los españoles votando a Macron, en lugar de mantener en la “poltrona” a los políticos de los partidos tradicionales!  ¡Olé por ellos!

Agradeciendo su atención, les saluda atentamente. 

María Losada

Feminismo, violencia machista e ideología de género

Es sabido que el objetivo declarado de la izquierda marxista-leninista, es fomentar la lucha de clases y destruir el sistema capitalista, para imponer en su lugar, la dictadura del proletariado.

Fracasado en primera instancia ese objetivo, por la práctica desaparición de su base (el proletariado como clase social enfrentada a la burguesía capitalista), y el desmoronamiento del bloque soviético, los marxistas-leninistas, lejos de rendirse a la evidencia, adoptaron otra estrategia mas sutil, consistente en socavar las bases y los fundamentos ideológicos y  socioculturales en que se basaba la sociedad capitalista. Y El feminismo constituyó parte de esa estrategia; apropiándose, para ello de dicha bandera, surgida, inicialmente, en el seno de la ideología liberal que reivindicaba únicamente la igualdad derechos civiles y políticos del hombre y la mujer.

Conseguida dicha meta, en las democracias avanzadas, el feminismo clásico, lejos de desaparecer, se trasformó en feminismo rabioso o radical, sustituyendo la fracasada lucha de clases por la de sexos, utilizando como herramienta la llamada « liberación sexual » de la mujer y buscando como meta la desaparición del hombre (o « macho », según su terminología ) como máximo exponente de un imaginario « Patriarcado » opresor y responsable exclusivo, por tanto, de la dominación y violencia sobre la mujer (violencia « machista » se dice, con termino ya oficializado por repetición cansina) y por extension , de la violencia en el mundo. Y todo ello con el citado objetivo final de socavar los pilares de la familia y con ello los de la sociedad entera. Así se estigmatizó al hombre, como « machista », y se consideró al « machismo », como forma de violencia estructural contra la mujer, y se vinculó a esta con la estructura patriarcal de la familia. Con semejante asociación de ideas, ser hombre era sinónimo de « machista » y tal condición era la base y causa de toda opresión y violencia sobre la mujer, víctima inocente de la estructura patriarcal de la sociedad, generadora de la llamada « violencia machista ».  

En una nueva vuelta de tuerca, la fracasada izquierda marxista leninista, para reforzar el acoso al hombre y a la familia se invento la hoy conocida como « ideología de genero », hija putativa de ese feminismo rabioso, como nueva herramienta para el gradual y silencioso proceso de deconstrucción de la familia. Ahora ya no era el simple patriarcado la estructura social opresora, sino que esta se había transformado en el « heteropatriarcado » que, en este caso, no oprimía solo a   la mujer, sino también a los diversos « géneros » u « orientaciones sexuales », sentidos o practicados, distintos de la natural relación heterosexual . 

Pues bien, después de vendernos que el culpable de todos los males de nuestra sociedad es el « macho », o lo que es lo mismo, en el neolenguaje de la izquierda, el « heteropatriarcado”, ( hombre heterosexual en román paladino ), como fuente única de violencia sobre la mujer ( violencia machista ) y de todo el conglomerado surgido al calor de la ideología de género, una noticia publicada en las ediciones digitales del pasado día 16 de abril de varios diarios y agencias ( ABC, La Vanguardia, Europa Press etc. ) siguiendo lo publicado e la Web de la asociación LGTB, « COLEGAS »  que, además de la ya conocida violencia machista, también existe la que denominan como « violencia intragénero »; es decir, aquella que se produce entre parejas del mismo sexo en sus diversas y variopintas variantes. Y no solo eso, sino que estadísticamente las cifras de violencia son muy similares en ambos tipos de parejas ( las convencionales o heterosexuales y las LGTB).

Después de este reconocimiento,  a partir de ahora ¿Con que cara van a seguir sosteniendo, los de siempre, al patriarcado y al heteropatriarcado como causas de la violencia « machista » contra la mujer  y como la unica existente dentro de la pareja?

¿Hasta cuando vamos a seguir manteniendo una ley sectaria que solo considera al hombre como sujeto activo de la violencia de género ( que curiosamente todos los medios se empeñan, machaconamente, en denominar « machista » ) y a la mujer como ùnica víctima?.

Una vez más se viene abajo el edificio marxista-leninista construido sobre los falsos pilares de las mentiras y contradicciones y con materiales de una ideologìa caduca, aunque no caducada, desgraciadamente.

Un cordial saludo.

V. García

Envíanos comentarios, pistas de noticias y críticas a

Únete a nuestra conversación en Twitter y Facebook.

¡Que pases un buen día!

El Brief de Actuall