Ética republicana ?

"...we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

C.S.Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Veni, Sancte Spiritu

...homens comuns, com defeitos, com fraquezas, com a palavra mais fácil do que as obras...

“Estes eram os discípulos escolhidos pelo Senhor; assim os escolhe Cristo; assim se comportam antes de que, cheios do Espírito Santo, se convertam em colunas da Igreja (cfr. Gal 2, 9).

Viu que era bom

Que dia tão bonito !

Fides et Ratio (executive digest)

Para todos aqueles que, como Eu, desistiram de ler a Encíclica Fides et Ratio - sobre as relações entre Fé e razão, do Papa João Paulo II porque já estavam fartos de ler o mesmo parágrafo 3 vezes sem perceberem nada do que lá estava escrito por falta de tempo, um nosso irmão extremamente caridoso publicou um resumo de 6 páginas da referida Encíclica.

(O mesmo autor resumiu, também, as restantes Encícilicas do Papa neste livro).

Aqui está o resumo:

Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)
JOHN E. FAGAN

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart the desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that by knowing and loving God, men and women can come to the fullness of the truth about themselves” (n. 1). With these words Pope John Paul II begins the encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Some 12 years in the making, it is the first encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason since Pope Leo XIII issued Aeterni Patris in 1879.

Shortly after the encyclical was published, John Paul provided his own summary of some of its key elements in an address to a group of U.S. bishops who were visiting Rome. He said that he "wished to defend the capacity of human reason to know the truth. This confidence in reason is an integral part of the Catholic intellectual tradition, but it needs reaffirming today in the face of widespread and doctrinaire doubt about our ability to answer the fundamental questions: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life?” (Ad Limina Address of October 24, 1998, n. 5).

A lack of confidence in one's ability to know the truth has serious consequences for man's behavior in daily life. Without objective truth, man is left adrift (n. 5). Given human weakness and the strength of man’s passions, this inevitably leads to tragedy. As the Pope said to the U.S. bishops, “The violent history of this century is due in no small part to the closure of reason to the existence of ultimate and objective truth. The result has been a pervasive skepticism and relativism, which have not led to a more ‘mature’ humanity but to much despair and irrationality” (Address, n. 5).

Truth is known through a combination of faith and reason. The absence of either one will diminish man’s ability to know himself, the world and God (n. 16). Human reason seeks the truth, but the ultimate truth about the meaning of life cannot be found by reason alone (n. 42).

The Pope first explains the proper roles of faith and reason on man’s path to truth. He then explains how they compliment and support one another with complete compatibility.

Faith

The Church received the ultimate truth about human life as a gift of love from God the Father in the revelation of Jesus Christ. “God so loved the world that he sent his only Son…” (Jn. 3: 16). Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jn. 14: 6). The true meaning of life, therefore, is a person: Jesus Christ. The truth communicated by Christ is the absolutely valid source of the meaning of human life (n. 12). The ultimate answers to man's questions about pain, suffering of the innocent, and death are found in Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection (n. 12).
All human creatures, not just philosophers, have the right to receive the truth about their existence and destiny (n. 38). By the revelation of Jesus Christ, God has made the truth accessible to every man and woman. Jesus Christ is not only the revelation of God to man, he is also the revelation of man to himself. In the mystery of the Incarnate Word, man can understand himself. Christ "reveals man to himself and makes clear his supreme calling, which is to share in the divine mystery of the life of the Trinity" (n. 13). Man shares in this mystery on earth through grace and in heaven by direct contemplation of God.

Faith is man's obedient response to God's revelation (n. 13). By faith man accepts the truth of Christ's revelation which is guaranteed by God. Because an act of faith involves freely entrusting oneself to God and freely assenting to His revelation, it has a moral dimension. Preceded by the gift of grace and assisted by the Holy Spirit, it is an act of both the mind and the will. “Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth” (n. 13).

Reason

Man can know that God exists by reflecting on creation. As we read in the Book of Wisdom, “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” ( Wis. 13: 5, cf., Rom. 1: 20, n. 19). “If human beings fail to recognize God as the creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way” (n. 19).

Man’s intellectual capacity, his ability to reason and to think in abstract terms, is a great gift. Man can acquire true knowledge about himself, God and the world. Man is born with a desire to know the truth about himself. It is essential the he find the truth because only by choosing true values by which to live can he be true to his nature and find happiness (n. 25). No one can avoid the need to address life's ultimate questions (n. 27). In fact man can be defined as “the one who seeks the truth" (n. 28).

Man must depend to a great extent on others as source of knowledge. He is unable to factually verify even a small part of his knowledge himself. Therefore, he must trust in the veracity of those who teach him. “This means that the human being – the one who seeks the truth – is also the one who lives by belief” (n. 31).

Belief involves interpersonal relationships because it brings into play not only the capacity to know but also the capacity to entrust oneself to others. “Knowledge through belief, grounded as it is on trust between persons, is linked to the truth: in the act of believing men and women entrust themselves to the truth which the other declares to them" (n. 32). Martyrs are particularly trustworthy witnesses to the truth about human existence.

The search for the truth about the meaning of life can reach its end only in reaching the absolute because the finite world does not provide a satisfactory answer. Man must not only exercise his reason, he must also trust other persons in the search for ultimate truth. He experiences not only an innate need for the truth but also an innate need for a person to whom he might entrust himself on the journey to find it (n. 33).

At this point the Christian faith comes to meet him, offering the concrete possibility of reaching the goal he seeks. It enables him to encounter the mystery of Christ (n. 33). Jesus Christ is both the Truth that he is seeking and the Person to whom he can confidently entrust himself to find it. The unity of truth, natural and revealed, is embodied in a living and personal way in Christ. What human reason seeks so ardently can be found only in Christ (n. 34). With the gift of grace and man's personal assent to God's revelation, the human wisdom known by belief is transformed by theological faith. Thus, in knowing and loving God through faith, man comes to the ultimate truth about himself (n. 1).

The Interaction between Faith and Reason

The Holy Father next explains the proper interaction between faith and reason and between philosophy and theology. Philosophy is the study of ultimate truth under the natural light of reason. Theology is the study of the Catholic faith with revelation as its first principles. The purpose of theology is to permit a greater understanding of the faith so that it can be grasped more firmly (n. 93).

Reason supports faith and philosophy supports theology in the following ways:

1. Reason prepares the way to faith. St. Justin and the apologists used philosophy as a “preamble” to the faith (n. 38). Philosophical logic shows how the Catholic faith is not contrary to reason, and it can demonstrate the errors of arguments against the faith. Thus, St. Clement of Alexandria called philosophy a “stepping stone to the faith” (n. 38).
   
   
2. Reason can show that that there is a God and can demonstrate his primary attributes such as his power and divinity. Reason lays the foundation for faith and makes revelation “credible.” Reason is thus the common ground between believers and unbelievers.
   
   
3. Faith without reason withers into myth or superstition. Deprived of reason, faith is left with only feelings and experience. It loses its universality (n. 48).
   
   
4. Philosophy provides a language for theology. Its concepts and patterns of thought permit theology to have a logical structure and to be a true science (n. 65). For example, while the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is to be believed as a matter of faith, theology attempts to make it more understandable in terms of substance, accidents, transubstantiation, etc. Philosophical language permits theology to speak about God, the personal relations within the Trinity, God’s creative activity in the world, the relationship between man and God, and Christ’s identity as true God and true man, to take a few examples (n. 66).

John Paul also explains how faith supports reason and how theology supports philosophy:

1. Human reason is inherently weak and inclined to error. Deprived of revelation, reason can go off course and miss its destination (n. 48). Faith warns reason against the paths that will lead it astray (n. 73). It shines light on the true paths (n. 79).
   
   
2. Faith stirs reason to explore paths that it would not otherwise have suspected it could take (n. 56). It proposes truths that might never have been discovered by unaided reason. For example, the notions of free will and a personal God who is the Creator of the world have been crucial for the development of a philosophy of being. The Christian proclamation of human dignity, equality and freedom is reflected in modern philosophical thought (n. 76).
   
   
3. Faith gives the philosopher the courage to tackle difficult questions such as the problem of evil and suffering, the personal nature of God and the metaphysical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (n. 76). His faith gives him the conviction that his reason will find solutions, much as a trustworthy map gives one looking for buried treasure the confidence to keep digging.
   
   
4. Faith and spiritual life protect the philosopher from intellectual pride that would impede his ability to search for the truth. Faith, strengthened by love, facilitates the intellectual grasp of the truth about man and his real needs (n. 76).

The Holy Father thus confirms the harmony between the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of reason. "Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of reason; and at the summit of its searching, reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents" (n. 42). As St. Thomas Aquinas argued, because the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God, there can be no contradiction between them (n. 43).

With the rise of rationalism, faith and reason became separated with disastrous consequences. The end result is the nihilism that we are now experiencing. Nihilism contains no hope of meaning and admits of no objective truth (n. 46). It recognizes only the utilitarian ends of power and pleasure (n. 47). Men and women are treated as objects to be manipulated rather than as persons to be honored. Nihilism is reflected in contemporary culture, for example, in art, music, literature and entertainment. As the result of increasing nihilism, a culture of death is replacing a culture of life. If this continues, the Pope told the U.S. bishops, the next millennium will bring “a new era a barbarism rather than a springtime of hope” (Address, n. 3).

John Paul concludes the encyclical by providing challenges for philosophers and theologians. He states that philosophy needs to regain its sapiential dimension, that is, it must renew its search for wisdom and the ultimate meaning of life. Philosophy must transcend empirical data and consider spiritual realities such as truth, beauty, and universal moral values (n. 83). Theology must serve the proclamation of the Gospel in language that can be understood by modern man.

The Holy Father ends by expressing his hope that Mary, Seat of Wisdom, may assist all who devote their lives to the search for wisdom. "May their journey into wisdom, sure and final goal of all true knowledge, be freed of every hindrance by the intercession of the one who, in giving birth to the Truth and treasuring it in her heart, has shared it forever with all the world" (n. 108.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
John E. Fagan, "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)." from The Teachings of Pope John Paul II: Summaries of Papal Documents (New York: Scepter Publishers, 2005): 64-71.
Reprinted with permission of the author, John E. Fagan, and Scepter Publishers.

New federal rules let US public schools split up boys and girls

New federal rules let US public schools split up boys and girls. Research on the practice is inconclusive.

"The research, though it's ongoing and shows mixed results, suggests that single-sex education can provide benefits to some students under certain circumstances," said Assistant Secretary of Education Stephanie Monroe, in a news briefing. She emphasized any single-sex environment would be voluntary, and an equivalent coeducational option would be available.

..."For disadvantaged students, they don't necessarily identify with academic achievement, and for many families, the choice of a single-sex school is a very pro-academic choice," says Rosemary Salomone, a law professor at St. John's University in New York and author of "Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling."

"You're saying, particularly to teenagers, school is a very serious business," she says. "It frees them from the social distractions of the other sex."

O texto do artigo completo, que cita abundamente os opositores desta política - ou não fosse a ideologia PC a nova ortodoxia, está aqui escondido:

CHICAGO AND BOSTON – Controversial new regulations give educators far more latitude to establish schools and classes strictly for a single gender, even as research on the practice is scarce and inconclusive.
The regulations, released Wednesday by the Department of Education, mark a major shift in the interpretation of Title IX, approved 34 years ago to bar sex discrimination in schools.

It's a change that has intensified a long-running debate over whether boys and girls learn better in a single-sex environment, with critics warning the regulations may roll back years of hard-won ground.

Even the Department of Education, in announcing the rules, acknowledged research is mixed and backed away from endorsing single-sex classrooms.

"The research, though it's ongoing and shows mixed results, suggests that single-sex education can provide benefits to some students under certain circumstances," said Assistant Secretary of Education Stephanie Monroe, in a news briefing. She emphasized any single-sex environment would be voluntary, and an equivalent coeducational option would be available.

Research on the practice has been controversial. Theories that each gender has different learning styles or brain growth, or that boys are losing ground in traditional schools, have caught on in the media and popular imagination.

However critics say little of it stands up to scrutiny, and there are far more similarities between genders - and differences among individuals - than there are broad general differences between the sexes.

"Race and class are the two biggest predictors [of achievement] in every single study I've looked at," says Rosalind Barnett, a senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass. "Of all the things you could think about doing to improve educational outcomes, separating kids by gender is really low on the list."

Dr. Barnett questions using resources for something with so little scientific basis, and she worries there could be negative consequences if girls and boys start to believe what she says are myths of gender differences - that girls are challenged in math and science, and boys have a harder time with reading and verbal skills.

Nonetheless, single-sex classrooms are catching on among many parents and educators who feel they see a difference in kids and believe it might help them focus.

Public school districts have held off on doing much that's separated by gender for fear of legal challenges, but a few single-sex schools have opened in recent years as pilot programs or if the district could show a compelling reason for doing so.

Some 241 public schools now offer some single-sex classrooms, up from three in 1995, according to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE). Of those 51 are completely single-gender schools.

The Minneapolis Academy, a small charter school in Minnesota that opened two years ago, offers only single-sex classes for its seventh- and eighth-graders. Academy director Leon Cooper says he set out to create a school with high expectations for inner-city kids who typically start out behind grade level. He added the single-sex classes "on gut instinct" after seeing how the practice worked at private schools he visited.

The school has had success at bringing kids back up to grade level, he says.

"This separation is not segregation," Mr. Cooper says. "These kids have all kinds of social interaction, but during the day the reason to be here is not to interact socially, it's to learn to read and write."

Some advocates, aware of the scanty research, are pushing for the option for reasons of social justice and parental choice, more than because of differences in learning styles or brain development.

"Parents with lots of money can choose single-sex schools, so why can't parents who don't have a lot of money have the same kind of choice?" asks Leonard Sax, director of the NASSPE.

Critics dismiss that quickly.

"You could say that parents could choose to send their kids to racially segregated schools as well, but that isn't something we'd want to have in the public school system," says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

Other advocates say even if the focus on gender differences in learning is not reason enough for change, there may be social reasons.

"For disadvantaged students, they don't necessarily identify with academic achievement, and for many families, the choice of a single-sex school is a very pro-academic choice," says Rosemary Salomone, a law professor at St. John's University in New York and author of "Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling."

"You're saying, particularly to teenagers, school is a very serious business," she says. "It frees them from the social distractions of the other sex."

Pope Pius XII: "Be proud to be a Jew!"

The amazing testimony... originally appeared on April 28, 1944 in The Palestine Post (now, The Jerusalem Post), the most influential Jewish publication in the world at that time.

...Pius ... raised his voice so that everyone in the hall - including the German soldiers - could hear it and said (in a "pleasant voice"): "My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on our earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!"

...it may well be the most explicit single testimony about Pius’s personal feelings toward Jews that has ever been recorded. It is not too far removed from Pius XI’s famous declaration of September 1938:

"No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism.... Spiritually, we are all Semites."...

Artigo original: A Papal Audience in Wartime, by "Refugee" (Palestine Post, April 28, 1944, p.6)

Note: the original article can be found online by accessing the archives of the "Palestine Post," run by Tel Aviv University, here.

Follow the instructions to access the April 28, 1944 issue of the Palestine Post, forward to page 6, and go to the article entitled, A Papal Audience in Wartime, by "Refugee."

---

The Palestine Post, April 28, 1944; Page 6

A Papal Audience in Wartime
By "Refugee"

The author of this article arrived in this country in the refugee ship Nyassa.

It is on a sunny Wednesday morning in the autumn of 1941. An up-to-date Roman bus takes me from the center of the Eternal City to the Vatican. In the pocket of my dark suit I have a permit to enter the Palace of Vatican City for an audience with His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

As the bus crosses the Tiber, I can see the complex of Hadrian’s Tomb. A moment later we arrive at the huge square in front of St. Peter’s.

The portal di bronzo, leading to the Governmental Palace, is guarded by foot soldiers, who look like the lansquenets of some centuries ago. They are the Swiss Guards, and their multicolored uniforms and polished halberds and swords seem to be taken from a museum. An officer with a big moustache gives me the pass permit, the Guards take up their halberds and salute while I enter the Palace and mount a staircase. On the second floor a footman, in tight velvet trousers, shows me into a vestibule, where about 80 people are waiting. Among them are many German soldiers, in field uniform, their caps in their hands. For about an hour I stand around or pace the parquet floor among those warriors of Herr Hitler - probably on their way to Benghazi and Tripoli, anxious not to miss the chance of taking a papal blessing with them for further heroic deeds.

After some time we are led into another hall, its walls are decorated with oil paintings, antique engravings and maps. We then pass through a corridor into another anti-chamber, and, finally we stand before huge double doors ornamented with gold.

One of the Papal under-secretaries appears and gives us instructions about what to say to His Holiness and how to behave. Then one after the other, we are allowed to enter the richly furnished hall, where the Pope receives visitors.

I am the last one to enter, after the German soldiers. The Pope, sitting in a throne-like armchair, dressed in magnificent vestments, resembles some wise doctor, a good friend. His eyes shine in a friendly way through gold-rimmed glasses as each petitioner kneels to kiss the ring on the thin fingers of the Father’s right hand.

The Pope speaks to everybody--asking the soldiers in fluent German from which part of the Reich they come and whether they have a special wish. And he speaks so naturally and so simply that one cannot but feel his benevolent influence. Afterwards the Holy Father gives his benediction and hands over the petitions to his retinue: cardinals, bishops and other high dignitaries of Mother Church, officials of the Vatican Government, secretaries and diplomats. They stand respectfully in the background behind the audience chair, dressed in richly colored garments of mediaeval style.

At last it is my turn. I step forward, feeling very uneasy and shy. Then I kneel down on a velvet cushion, bow over the Papal hand, and breathe a kiss on the ring.

Then I look up and address him, stammering some Italian phrases.

But the Pope interrupts me; --"My son, you can speak your own language with me; you are German, too, aren't you?"--

--"No, your Holiness, I was only born in Germany. But I am not a German any longer--I am a Jew"--

--"So you are a Jew, what can I do for you? Tell me, my son!"--

I begin to explain why I have come. I report about the shipwrecked Jewish refugees, saved by Italian warships in the Aegean Sea and now starving in a prisoner of war camp on one of the islands. The Pope listens carefully to my explanations of how to help these poor people either by taking them to Palestine or by bringing them back to Italy to avoid epidemics and further starvation. Then Pius XII says:

"You have done well to come to me and tell me this. I have heard about it before. Come back tomorrow with a written report and give it to the Secretary of State who is dealing with the question. But now for you, my son. You are a young Jew. I know what that means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!" And the Pope raises his voice that everybody in the hall can here it clearly, "My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on our earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew! -- -- --

After having pronounced these words in his pleasant voice, the Pope lifts his hands to give the usual benediction. But he stops, smiles and his wonderful fingers only touch my head. Then he lifts me from my kneeling position.....

I join the others by the wall, not caring for the expression on their faces. Have they heard it too?

Now the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, rises from his chair, spreads out his hands over us and speaks the general benediction. I bow my head.

Afterwards, after leaving the Palace, I walk alone across the piazza before St. Peters, back to the Tiber embankment. I sit down on a bench looking at the Eternal City, at Rome, her ruins and palaces, at the Capital on which the sun shines brightly from a Roman sky.

Alternativas ao referendo

No início da década de 90, várias entidades americanas lançaram campanhas publicitárias anti-aborto.

Os anúncios publicitários desenvolvidos por estas organizações distinguiam-se pelo facto de não politizarem, nem radicalizarem a questão. Os anúncios encorajavam as mulheres a considerarem alternativas ao aborto, ilustravam (na primeira pessoa) as consequências negativas do aborto e a felicidade daquelas que, afinal, tinham decidido deixar viver os seus filhos.

Estas campanhas publicitárias tiveram efeitos surpreendentes: o número de apoiantes do aborto descreceu significativamente e, ainda mais importante, estes anúncios salvaram vidas.

Os anúncios de uma destas organizações - The Vitae Caring Foundation - encontram-se disponíveis online (aqui), nomeadamente este:



Warning: Por alguma razão estranha, os Americanos não legendam os anúncios em Português !

Moral da história:

• Aparentemente, e ao contrário do que este pobre neanderthal fundamentalista poderia pensa, o confronto não é a estratégia mais eficaz para promover a causa.
  
  
• Se os promotores deste referendo estivessem realmente interessado no bem estar das mulheres (já para não falar dos filhos), utilizariam os recursos que vão ser gastos neste referendo para informar todos os envolvidos sobre as consequências do aborto e, especialmente, sobre as alternativas existentes.

O BLOG do NÃO

O autor deste blog foi convidado a participar no Blog do Não. Para os visitantes que tenham chegado agora mesmo de Marte, trata-se de um blog que se dedicará a defender o Não no referendo sobre o Aborto que o PS e a extrema-esquerda decidiram convocar e que o Sr. Presidente se apressará a ratificar. (Nota mental: não esquecer de rezar pela salvação das almas de todos os envolvidos nesta abominação).

A qualidade da escrita e o génio argumentativo do autor desaconselhariam a participação em semelhante empreendimento. Mas já que a Providência Divina permitiu que tal ocorresse, melhor será aproveitar a situação.

P.S. Romaria diária aconselhada. Não tanto pelos posts assinados pelo autor, mas pelos contributos dos restantes membros.

P.S.2 Crescei e multiplicai-vos: antiaborto.blogspot.com.

Aborto (4): "Abortar por razões económicas"

[Trata-se de uma história verdadeira, que cito de memória, e cuja fonte original não se encontra disponível online]

Um dia, entra uma Sr.ª grávida no consultório de um jovem médico. A Sr.ª, mãe de vários filhos, pede encarecidamente ao médico que lhe interrompa a gravidez visto que não tem meios para alimentar mais um filho.

O médico rejeita, explicando à Sr.ª a imoralidade do acto.

A Sr.ª insiste. Gera-se a discussão.

O médico, esgotada toda a argumentação, propõe-se então matar-lhe o fiho mais velho. De facto, é o filho mais velho que consome mais alimentos; o bébé será alimentado durante muitos meses pelo leite (gratuito)da mãe e, nos anos seguintes ao seu nascimento, consumirá muito menos recursos que esse filho mais velho.

É a solução financeiramente mais indicada. É fazer as contas...

Um blog com assinatura

Vou passar a assinar os posts como João P. Noronha.

O "P." é de Piedade - um nome bastante apropriado - e a sua função é impedir que:

- O João Noronha fotógrafo;
- O João Noronha ex-candidato à Câmara Municipal do Seixal;
- O João Noronha ex- membro do Conselho Fiscal do Benfica;
- O João Noronha informático;
- O João Noronha professor;
- O João Noronha engenheiro;
- O João Noronha advogado;
- O João Noronha vendedor de carros usados
- O João Noronha ex-estudante da Universidade de Évora;
- etc..., etc...,

sejam atacados na rua devido às opiniões do João Noronha escriba (e por vezes fariseu).

Para que não restem mais dúvidas sobre a minha identidade, deixo aqui uma fotografia. Eu sou o do cabelo preto que se encontra do lado esquerdo da fotografia.

Algemados pela palavra

"[Em 4/10/1910] Couceiro ... respondeu ao fogo de Artilharia 1. O fogo de Couceiro ... provocou um certo pânico. Vários soldados e vários «revolucionários civis» não tornaram a ser vistos naquelas paragens ...

Sem que ninguém os guardasse, os 15 oficiais do regimento, presos durante a revolta da véspera, passeavam-se ... «algemados pela sua palavra» (ou seja, pela promessa de não interferirem, feita, quando se haviam rendido, ao capitão republicano Afonso Pala).

...

Às cinco da manhã [de 19/01/1919]... chegou ao Porto o ministro da Guerra, que trazia consigo ... um novo governador civil e um novo chefe da Polícia. Couceiro prendeu os três, que depois de se comprometerem a «não tentar nada» contra o movimento monárquico, seguiram tranquilamente para Lisboa."

Vasco Pulido Valente

in Um Herói Português - Henrique Paiva Couceiro (1861-1944), Aletheia, 2006, pp.75-76, 133

O sorriso dá rapidamente lugar à tristeza.

Nota Pastoral da Conferência Episcopal sobre o referendo do aborto

Excelente !

Razões para escolher a vida:

1. A Assembleia da República decidiu sujeitar, mais uma vez, a referendo popular o alargamento das condições legais para a interrupção voluntária da gravidez, acto vulgarmente designado por aborto voluntário. Esta proposta já foi rejeitada em referendo anterior, embora a percentagem de opiniões expressas não tivesse sido suficiente para tornar a escolha do eleitorado constitucionalmente irreversível, o que foi aproveitado pelos defensores do alargamento legal do aborto voluntário.

Nós, Bispos Católicos, sentimos perplexidade acerca desta situação. Antes de mais porque acreditamos, como o fez a Igreja desde os primeiros séculos, que a vida humana, com toda a sua dignidade, existe desde o primeiro momento da concepção. Porque consideramos a vida humana um valor absoluto, a defender e a promover em todas as circunstâncias, achamos que ela não é referendável e que nenhuma lei permissiva respeita os valores éticos fundamentais acerca da Vida, o que se aplica também à Lei já aprovada. Uma hipotética vitória do “não” no próximo referendo não significa a nossa concordância com a Lei vigente.

2. Para os fiéis católicos o aborto provocado é um pecado grave porque é uma violação do 5º Mandamento da Lei de Deus, “não matarás”, e é-o mesmo quando legalmente permitido.

Mas este mandamento limita-se a exprimir um valor da lei natural, fundamento de uma ética universal. O aborto não é, pois, uma questão exclusivamente da moral religiosa; ele agride valores universais de respeito pela vida. Para os crentes acresce o facto de, na Sua Lei, Deus ter confirmado que esse valor universal é Sua vontade.

Não podemos, pois, deixar de dizer aos fiéis católicos que devem votar “não” e ajudar a esclarecer outras pessoas sobre a dignidade da vida humana, desde o seu primeiro momento. O período de debate e esclarecimento que antecede o referendo não é uma qualquer campanha política, mas sim um período de esclarecimento das consciências. A escolha no dia do referendo é uma opção de consciência, que não deve ser influenciada por políticas e correntes de opinião. Nós, os Bispos, não entramos em campanhas de tipo político, mas não podemos deixar de contribuir para o esclarecimento das consciências. Pensamos particularmente nos jovens, muitos dos quais votam pela primeira vez e para quem a vida é uma paixão e tem de ser uma descoberta.

Assim enunciamos, de modo simples, as razões para votar “não” e escolher a Vida:

1ª. O ser humano está todo presente desde o início da vida, quando ela é apenas embrião. E esta é hoje uma certeza confirmada pela Ciência: todas as características e potencialidades do ser humano estão presentes no embrião. A vida é, a partir desse momento, um processo de desenvolvimento e realização progressiva, que só acabará na morte natural. O aborto provocado, sejam quais forem as razões que levam a ele, é sempre uma violência injusta contra um ser humano, que nenhuma razão justifica eticamente.


2ª. A legalização não é o caminho adequado para resolver o drama do “aborto clandestino”, que acrescenta aos traumas espirituais no coração da mulher-mãe que interrompe a sua gravidez, os riscos de saúde inerentes à precariedade das situações em que consuma esse acto. Não somos insensíveis a esse drama; na confidencialidade do nosso ministério conhecemos-lhe dimensões que mais ninguém conhece. A luta contra este drama social deve empenhar todos e passa por um planeamento equilibrado da fecundidade, por um apoio decisivo às mulheres para quem a maternidade é difícil, pela dissuasão de todos os que intervêm lateralmente no processo, frequentemente com meros fins lucrativos.


3ª. Não se trata de uma mera “despenalização”, mas sim de uma “liberalização legalizada”, pois cria-se um direito cívico, de recurso às instituições públicas de saúde, preparadas para defender a vida e pagas com dinheiro de todos os cidadãos.

“Penalizar” ou “despenalizar” o aborto clandestino, é uma questão de Direito Penal. Nunca fizemos disso uma prioridade na nossa defesa da vida, porque pensamos que as mulheres que passam por essa provação precisam mais de um tratamento social do que penal. Elas precisam de ser ajudadas e não condenadas; foi a atitude de Jesus perante a mulher surpreendida em adultério: “alguém te condenou?... Eu também não te condeno. Vai e doravante não tornes a pecar”.

Mas nem todas as mulheres que abortam estão nas mesmas circunstâncias e há outros intervenientes no aborto que merecem ser julgados. É que tirar a vida a um ser humano é, em si mesmo, criminoso.


4ª. O aborto não é um direito da mulher. Ninguém tem direito de decidir se um ser humano vive ou não vive, mesmo que seja a mãe que o acolheu no seu ventre. A mulher tem o direito de decidir se concebe ou não. Mas desde que uma vida foi gerada no seu seio, é outro ser humano, em relação ao qual tem particular obrigação de o proteger e defender.

5ª. O aborto não é uma questão política, mas de direitos fundamentais. O respeito pela vida é o principal fundamento da ética, e está profundamente impresso na nossa cultura. É função das leis promoverem a prática desse respeito pela vida. A lei sobre a qual os portugueses vão ser consultados em referendo, a ser aprovada, significa a degenerescência da própria lei. Seria mais um caso em que aquilo que é legal não é moral.

3. Pedimos a todos os fiéis católicos e a quantos partilham connosco esta visão da vida, que se empenhem neste esclarecimento das consciências. Façam-no com serenidade, com respeito e com um grande amor à vida. E encorajamos as pessoas e instituições que já se dedicam generosamente às mães em dificuldade e às próprias crianças que conseguiram nascer.

Lisboa, 19 de Outubro de 2006

D. José Policarpo esclarece declarações à comunicação social (19/10/2006)

«A doutrina da Igreja sobre esta matéria, não mudou e nunca mudará. De facto, desde o seu início, a Igreja condenou o aborto, porque considera que desde o primeiro momento da concepção, existe um ser humano, com toda a sua dignidade, com direito a existir e a ser protegido.»

«Afirmei, de facto, que a "condenação do aborto não é uma questão religiosa, mas de ética fundamental". Trata-se, de facto, de um valor universal, o direito à vida, exigência da moral natural. Com esta afirmação não foi minha intenção negar a sua dimensão religiosa.»

«Se a condenação do aborto fosse só exigência da moral religiosa, os defensores do aborto poderiam argumentar, e já o fazem, que as Leis de um Estado laico não devem proteger os preceitos religiosos; basta-lhes respeitar a liberdade de consciência.»

«Se nós lutamos por uma Lei do Estado que defenda a vida humana desde o seu início é porque se trata de um valor universal, de ética natural e não apenas de um preceito da moral religiosa.»

«Fique claro que todos os membros da Igreja e todos os que defendem a vida são chamados a participar nesse debate esclarecedor das consciências. Compete aos leigos organizar e dinamizar uma campanha, no concreto da sua metodologia.»

«Os leigos poderão contar com todo o nosso apoio nesta luta por uma Lei que respeite a vida»

«Não fiz a apologia do abstencionismo. Aconselhar a abstenção não será, com certeza, a orientação dos Bispos portugueses perante um possível referendo.»

TEXTO COMPLETO DO COMUNICADO:

D. JOSÉ DA CRUZ POLICARPO, CARDEAL-PATRIARCA DE LISBOA, ESCLARECE POSIÇÃO QUANTO AO ABORTO

As minhas respostas à comunicação social, que me interpelou sobre a hipótese de um novo referendo sobre o aborto, foram incorrectamente utilizadas por alguns meios de comunicação e mesmo por forças políticas e parecem ter gerado confusão e mesmo indignação em algumas pessoas. Parece-me, pois, necessário retomar as afirmações aí feitas, com uma clareza que não permita interpretações ambíguas ou desviadas.

1. Comecei por afirmar, o que parece que ninguém ouviu, que a doutrina da Igreja sobre esta matéria, não mudou e nunca mudará. De facto, desde o seu início, a Igreja condenou o aborto, porque considera que desde o primeiro momento da concepção, existe um ser humano, com toda a sua dignidade, com direito a existir e a ser protegido.

2. Afirmei, de facto, que a “condenação do aborto não é uma questão religiosa, mas de ética fundamental”. Trata-se, de facto, de um valor universal, o direito à vida, exigência da moral natural. Com esta afirmação não foi minha intenção negar a sua dimensão religiosa. A mensagem bíblica assumiu, como preceito da moral religiosa este valor universal, dando-lhe a densidade do cumprimento da vontade de Deus. Não é só por se ser católico que se é contra o aborto; basta respeitar a vida e este é, em si mesmo, um valor ético universal.

É claro que o respeito pela vida é uma exigência da moral cristã, porque está incluído no quinto mandamento da Lei de Deus: “Não matarás”. Porque é um preceito da moral cristã, violá-lo é um pecado grave. Mas o Decálogo, estabelecido, pela primeira vez no Antigo Testamento, por Moisés, consagrou como Lei do Povo de Deus, alguns dos valores humanos universais, que interpelam a consciência mesmo de quem não é religioso. E de facto, na presente circunstância, há muitos homens e mulheres que, não sendo crentes, são contra o aborto porque defendem a dignidade da vida, desde o seu início.

Se a condenação do aborto fosse só exigência da moral religiosa, os defensores do aborto poderiam argumentar, e já o fazem, que as Leis de um Estado laico não devem proteger os preceitos religiosos; basta-lhes respeitar a liberdade de consciência. De facto não lembraria a ninguém exigir de uma Lei do Estado que afirmasse, por exemplo, que os católicos têm obrigação de ir à missa ao Domingo. Se nós lutamos por uma Lei do Estado que defenda a vida humana desde o seu início é porque se trata de um valor universal, de ética natural e não apenas de um preceito da moral religiosa.

3. À pergunta se a Igreja se iria empenhar nesta campanha, comecei por clarificar o sentido em que usavam a palavra “Igreja”, se referida a todos os fiéis, se apenas aos Bispos. Isto porque, muito frequentemente, os jornalistas quando falam da Igreja se referem só aos Bispos e Sacerdotes. Esclarecida esta questão, aproveitei para exprimir aquilo que penso ser o papel complementar dos leigos e da Hierarquia numa possível campanha a preparar o referendo. Devo dizer, agora, para clarificar o meu pensamento, que essa possível campanha deveria ser, sobretudo, um período de esclarecimento das consciências. Mas porque a proposta de leis liberalizantes da prática do aborto se tornou numa causa partidária, a campanha pode cair, na linguagem e nos métodos, numa vulgar campanha política.

Fique claro que todos os membros da Igreja e todos os que defendem a vida são chamados a participar nesse debate esclarecedor das consciências. Compete aos leigos organizar e dinamizar uma campanha, no concreto da sua metodologia. O papel dos pastores é apoiar, e iluminar as consciências com a proclamação da doutrina da Igreja, anunciando o Evangelho da Vida. Aos Sacerdotes da nossa Diocese eu peço que se empenhem nesta proclamação da doutrina da Igreja sobre a vida, mas que saibam sabiamente marcar a diferença entre o seu ministério de anunciadores da verdade, e as acções de campanha, necessárias e legítimas no seu lugar próprio. Mas os leigos poderão contar com todo o nosso apoio nesta luta por uma Lei que respeite a vida.

4. Não fiz a apologia do abstencionismo. Aconselhar a abstenção não será, concerteza, a orientação dos Bispos portugueses perante um possível referendo. A questão que me foi posta é outra: e os que têm dúvidas, como deverão votar?

Esta questão da dignidade da vida humana, desde o seu início, é hoje tão clara, mesmo do ponto de vista científico, que um dos objectivos a conseguir, durante o período de debate e esclarecimento é, pelo menos, lançar a dúvida em muitos que, talvez sem terem aprofundado a questão, estão inclinados a dizer “sim” à proposta de Lei referendada. Penso sobretudo no eleitorado mais jovem. Foi-me perguntado o que aconselharia a esses que duvidavam. A minha resposta é clara: se não têm coragem de votar “não”, que pelo menos se abstenham.

5. Àqueles que interpretaram abusivamente as minhas respostas ou, porque não as entenderam, ficaram confusos, aqui fica, com clareza, o meu pensamento. Mais uma vez se aplica a frase de Jesus: “A verdade nos libertará”.


Lisboa, 19 de Outubro de 2006


† JOSÉ, Cardeal-Patriarca

Lies, damned lies and advertising

Aborto (3): "Na minha barriga mando Eu"

Alguns apoiantes da liberalização do aborto consideram que a mãe deve ter o direito de abortar visto que "a barriga é dela".

O argumento poderá ser esquematizado da seguinte maneira:

1. A barriga é propriedade da mãe.
   
   
2. O feto invade a propriedade da mãe e impõe-lhe determinados fardos.
   
   
3. Logo, a mãe a tem o direito de expulsar o invasor. O meio utilizado para expulsar o invasor é a execução.

A questão que aqui se coloca é saber porque razão é que o feto é discriminado em relação a outros indivíduos que praticam crimes semelhantes.

Por exemplo, um violador que voluntariamente, com total discernimento e premeditadamente sequestra uma mulher durante 9 meses e a viola repetidamente será condenado, no máximo, a uma pena de 25 anos.

Se o violador é condenado a 25 anos de prisão, porque razão deverá o pobre e inocente feto que ocupa involuntariamente o útero da Mãe durante 9 meses ser condenado á morte ?

P.S. Alguns apoiantes deste tipo de argumentação consideram que o próprio feto faz parte do corpo da mãe, tendo esta o direito de fazer o que muito bem entender com o feto. Esta formulação é contraditada pela ciência. O feto é um organismo humano diferente da mãe. Por contrariar os resultados da ciência, esta hipótese não é considerada.

Contas furadas

Agradecimento ao André por ter divulgado o post sobre os erros de conta do Feakonomics n'O Insurgente. E também por ter feito a caridade de defender um post que não era dele na caixa de comentários.

Já agora, existiu de facto um erro de contas, já reconhecido pelo autor do livro (como está referido nos artigos citados). Existiram outros erros, ainda não assumidos e que estão documentados no meu post. Quanto ao resto, convido à leitura do texto de Ramesh Ponnuru - nenhum dos comentadores colocou em causa a evidência empírica apresentada ou os argumentos apresentados.

Em conclusão:

• "Even if Levitt were right that abortion cuts crime, what would follow from this conclusion? Levitt and Dubner note that their theory implies that it takes hundreds of abortions to reduce the homicide total by one. As a crime-control strategy, abortion is "terribly inefficient".
  
  
• "Even if it were more "efficient," it would raise obvious moral objections. Let's say that we could apply a kind of prenatal profiling to figure out which unborn children were the most likely to grow up to become criminals. Would we be justified in eliminating them for that reason?"

Um Matias para cada Judas

“...ainda que na Igreja não faltem indignos e traidores, a cada um de nós corresponde contrabalançar o mal que eles realizam com o nosso testemunho limpo de Jesus Cristo, nosso Senhor e Salvador.”

Bento XVI, 18/10/2006

El seminarista Ratzinger y el nazismo

Após a eleição do Papa, alguns órgãos de comunicação procuraram associar o então jovem seminarista Joseph Ratzinger ao Nazismo.

Um novo estudo demonstra que a única relação existente entre o nazismo e o jovem Ratzinger é a relação entre regime totalitário e cidadão oprimido.

O estudo documenta igualmente o feroz anti-catolicismo do regime nacional-socialista. Les bons esprits se rencontre...

Aborto (2): uma questão de “convicção individual” ?

De acordo com alguns apoiantes da liberalização do aborto:

• As pessoas têm diferentes opiniões sobre o estatuto e os direitos do feto e, logo, sobre a legitimidade de o matar.
  
  
• Por outro lado, o Estado deverá garantir que todos são livres de se comportarem de acordo com as suas convicções individuais.
  
  
• A única forma de garantir esta liberdade é promover a neutralidade do Estado face às diferentes convicções pessoais dos cidadãos.
  
  
• A única forma de garantir a neutralidade do Estado neste caso particular é liberalizar o aborto.
  
  A neutralidade do Estado garante que quem considera que o feto é um ser humano nunca será obrigado a praticar um aborto. Simultaneamente, quem considera o feto como um conjunto de células indiferenciadas poderá praticar o aborto de forma livre da coerção estatal e sem estar sujeito às convicções pessoais de terceiros. (Pelo contrário, ao proibir a realização de abortos, o Estado está a impor uma perspectiva particular).

Este argumento é falacioso.

O Estado nunca poderá ser neutro nesta questão.

Ou a Lei trata o feto como um ser humano que tem o direito a ser protegido de uma morte injusta ou considera que este não tem o direito à vida. A liberalização do aborto não é neutral visto que trata o feto de acordo com a segunda perspectiva.

João Paulo II em desenhos animados

"The Vatican will make history this week when it releases a cartoon film about the life of Pope John Paul II.

Lasting just over an hour, it charts the life of the man born Karol Wojtyla, from his humble beginnings in Poland to his death last year aged 84. John Paul II - The Friend Of All Humanity is the first cartoon account of a Pope's life." (Fonte)

Algumas imagens do filme (trailer).

Site da produtora/distribuidora.

Aborto: uma questão de liberdade individual ?

Por vezes, os apoiantes da liberalização do aborto apresentam-se como os defensores da liberdade individual das mulheres. Os opositores do aborto, pelo contrário, defenderiam a intervenção coerciva do estado para cercear essas decisões pessoais.

Infelizmente, nem todos os opositores do aborto são perigosos neandertais com tendências autoritárias ou mesmo totalitárias. (Nem todos são como eu).

Alguns questionam apenas se o aborto é o exercício legítimo de uma liberdade individual ou, antes, um abuso dessa mesma liberdade.

De facto, a liberdade individual não concede o direito de assassinar outrém. Se o aborto constituir uma forma de assassínio, então o Estado teria toda a legitimidade para proibir essa prática.

Conclusão: é errado formular o problema da liberalização do aborto como um confronto entre a defesa da liberdade e o autoritarismo. Não é a preferência pela liberdade ou pela autoridade que permite concluir se o aborto é ou não uma forma de assassínio.

Peregrinação: Fluvium.org

Saints Behaving Badly: The Cutthroats, Crooks, Trollops, Con Men, and Devil-Worshippers Who Became Saints

Sendo assim, pode ser que eu ainda me safe...

Recensão:

"The list of the evils that some saints engaged in before their conversion is long: thievery, embezzling, satanists, promiscuity, idolatry, drunkedness and even anti-popery. The list brings to mind St. Paul "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God" and what follows "And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11). Indeed!

...Of course this exactly what Saints Behaving Badly does for the reader, it gives them a solid lesson in Christian spirituality by showing them how the great saints have overcome the very evils that plague many of us."

Contra a deselenização

Na sequência do discurso de Regensburg e das reacções que se seguiram, o CL publicou um press release que subscrevo:

«Noi stiamo col Papa. Affermando che “non agire secondo ragione è contrario alla natura di Dio”, Benedetto XVI dice una cosa vera che vale per chiunque, a cominciare da noi cristiani.

Sublinham-se as críticas que o Papa dirigiu aos reformadores protestantes, à teologia liberal dos sécs XIX e XX e à exegese histórico-crítica do Novo Testamento e ainda àqueles para quem inculturação exige a deselenização.

Os erros do Freakonomics sobre o aborto

Em 2005, dois economistas escreveram um livro - Freakonomics - no qual utilizam a metodologia e as técnicas da ciência económica para explicar variadas situações do dia-a-dia e, simultaneamente, para ilustrar determinados conceitos económicos.

Este livro rapidamente se tornou um best-seller e gerou uma série de outros livros do mesmo género.

Num dos capítulos do livro, os autores defendem que a legalização do aborto nos EUA contribuiu para a redução do crime (ou, mais concretamente, do número de criminosos). Esta tese rapidamente se tornou uma verdade absoluta e é, por vezes, utilizada pelos partidários da liberalização do aborto.

Acontece que os autores de Freakonomics se enganaram nas contas e as conclusões que apresentam sobre esta questão estão erradas.

Os erros de Freakonomics sobre os efeitos do aborto foram tratados, nomeadamente, no The Economist (Oops-onomics, Dec 1st 2005) e no Wall Street Journal ('Freakonomics' Abortion Research Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists, November 28, 2005).

No entanto, a melhor e mais completa refutação dos argumentos dos Freakonomists foi publicada por Ramesh Ponnuru em The Party of Death (Regnery, 2006, pp. 66-72):

"CAUTION! THE FETUS YOU SAVE WILL GROW UP TO MUG YOU!"

In 1999, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and Stanford law professor John Donohue wrote a paper arguing that abortion cuts crime. The legalization of abortion in the 1970s, they said, accounts for as much as half of the reduction in crime in the 1990s. Crime fell because criminals had been imprisoned, sure, but also because many had never been born.

When their paper was publicized that year, there were pro-lifers and pro-choicers who accused them of racism. But by 2005, their thesis seemed to have become uncontroversial in the mainstream media.

The most-hyped portion of Freakonomics, a 2005 bestseller that Levitt wrote with journalist Steven Dubner, is devoted to the abortion-cuts-crime theory'. The book presents Levitt as a "fearless," unconventional "rogue economist." 4 Yet he does not appear to have paid any substantial price for violating some alleged taboo against truth-telling. He has merely had to bask fearlessly in the media's praise. Reviewers in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal accepted Levitt's theory without a word of criticism.' (The Journal's reviewer wrote, "Criticizing Freakonomics would be like criticizing a hot fudge sundae." What could he more delightful than proof that abortion mows down the criminal class?) Forbes called the theory "entirely convincing," and The Economist claimed the hook "moved methodically and persuasively through the statistical evidence" for it.6 The New York Times stands out for having run three positive articles on the book. Some of them were gushing, and none of them questioned the abortion theory.'

Perhaps this uncritical reception reflected the surface plausibility of the theory. As Levitt and Dubner summarize it: "Legalized abortion led to less unwontedness; unwontedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime." They draw on another study to argue that "the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortion" would have been more likely than most children to be poor and to grow up with one parent—and thus to be criminals. "In other words, the very factors that drove millions of women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives."

It should he noted that all references to race in the 1999 paper have been studiously scrubbed from the hook version of Levitt's argument. Levitt and Dubner are very careful not to say that the unborn children were disproportionately black, that blacks account for a disproportionate amount of crime, and that abortion therefore reduced crime by reducing the black population. Had this point been made explicit, the reviews might not have been quite so glowing.

If the abortion-cuts-crime theory is true, then its truth should be faced and its implications pondered. If it is true, then Levitt, Donohue, and Dubner deserve credit for advancing our understanding of some complicated social phenomena.
But is it true? For a long time, the only people who challenged it were a few researchers (notably Baruch College economist Ted Joyce) whose papers received rather less attention than Levitt's, and the journalist-blogger Steve Sailer. It is these critics, however unheralded, who appear to have the stronger case.
The most impressive evidence for the Levitt theory is that the states that legalized abortion a few years before Roe saw their crimes rates drop a few years earlier than the rest of the country. What Freakonomics ignores, however, is that crime had risen earlier in those same states. As Sailer writes, "[T]he two big urban areas that were the first to enjoy the purported crime-fighting benefits of legalized abortion in 1970, New York City and Los Angeles, were also the ground zeroes of the teen murder rampage that began, perhaps not coincidentally, about 16 years later."[1] (Levitt also ignores the facts that people move from state to state and that they cross state lines to get abortions, weakening the value of his correlations.)

If Levitt's theory were correct, one would expect murder rates to have dropped among younger teens before it dropped among older teens. The fourteen-year-olds of 1993 should have been more law-abiding than the fourteen-year-olds of 1983, since legalized abortion would have, supposedly, snuffed out man- criminals in the later group. There should have been a much smaller drop in crime among the twenty-five-year-olds, all of whom in both years had been born before Roe.

As Sailer notes, this is the reverse of what happened. Between 1983 and 1993, murder rates went down among people older than twenty-five and went up among those younger. "[T]he first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history." The murder rate among the over-twenty-five set started falling in 1981. It started to go back up only when the set started including people born after Roe[2].

Joyce notes that Levitt's theory also implies that crime should have fallen more among blacks than whites—since blacks would have reaped more of the supposed crime-fighting benefits of abortion. Didn't happen[3].

In the fall of 2005, Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, an economist and researcher, broke through the media's wall of protection around Freakonomics with a study pointing out that some of Levitt's key evidence was based on a programming error and a faulty choice of statistics. Once those errors are corrected, that evidence "vanishes."[4]

The theory seems plausible to many people because of a common mistake. People naturally assume that if abortion had been prohibited (and the prohibition perfectly enforced) in America, the forty-five million unborn children aborted would have instead been born. But that is not the case. One effect of legalized abortion was to increase the rate of careless conceptions. Its availability made it easier for people to have casual sex and to dispense with contraceptives. Abortion is almost always "birth control" in the sense that it aims at preventing birth. The high repeat abortion rate—44 percent of abortions today are repeat abortions; 18 percent of abortions are performed on women who have already had two—suggests that it is sometimes the birth control of first resort[5].

Further evidence of the effects of liberal abortion laws on sexual behavior comes from researchers Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann. They have estimated that the legalization of abortion increased rates of syphilis and gonorrhea—accounting for a quarter of the incidence of these diseases.'[6] Freakonomics got this much right: The legalization of abortion caused the number of conceptions to go up by 30 percent, while causing the number of births to go down by only 6 percent[7].

Many of the unborn children who have been aborted since Roe, in other words, would never have been conceived in the first place without it. Every once in a while you will hear a pro-lifer arguing that without Roe and legal abortion, America would benefit from having forty-five million more workers and taxpayers. Whatever else may be said about this argument, it fails to reckon with abortion's full range of effects.

So Roe stimulated a lot of conceptions and a larger number of abortions. The next thing to remember is that it stands to reason that some of those extra conceptions made it through to birth. Some kids, paradoxically, would not have been born if not for legal abortion. Our intuitions guide us astray here: We cannot simply assume that abortion reduces the number of kids born in circumstances that are conducive to a life of crime.
We cannot even assume that abortion reduces the number of illegitimate kids. Many people, again, make an intuitive link: They think that because most pregnant single women face a choice between abortion and single motherhood, society therefore faces the same choice at the macro level. But that's not necessarily so.

In 1996, two liberal social scientists wrote a paper noting that the availability of abortion and contraception had raised out-of-wedlock birth rates:

Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in pre-marital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

Advances in reproductive technology eroded the custom of shotgun marriage in another way. Before the sexual revolution, women had less freedom, but men were expected to assume responsibility for their welfare. Today women are more free to choose, but men have afforded themselves the comparable option. "If she is not willing to have an abortion or use contraception," the man can reason, "why should I sacrifice myself to get married?" By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Many men have changed their attitudes regarding the respon¬sibility for uplanned pregnancies. As one contributor to the Inter-net wrote recently to the Dads' Rights Newsgroup, "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child." That attitude, of course, makes it far less likely that the man will offer marriage as a solution to a couple's pregnancy quandary[8].

Abortion may not lead to fewer unwanted children; it may lead to the birth of more children who aren't wanted by their fathers. While this result may sound counterintuitive—and some research supports the opposite view[9]—it is worth noting that abortion and illegitimacy rates rose in tandem during the 1970s and have fallen in tandem since the 1990s.

The trends on infanticide are one place to look to check the thesis that abortion reduced "unwantedness." But the infanticide rate increased steadily during the three decades after 1970—from a rate of 4.3 per 100,000 infants to a rate of 9.2. "Infanticide fell dramatically" because abortion was legalized, claims Freakonomics. It cites one study. Here's what the abstract of that study says: "The legalization of abortion was not associated with a sudden change in child homicide trends. It was, however, associated with a steady decrease in the homicides of toddlers (i.e., one- to four-year-olds) in subsequent years. Although in the predicted direction, the decrease in homicides of children under 1 year of age was not statistically significant."[10]

Joyce has said that the drop in crime that Levitt attributes to abortion has much more to do with the end of the crack wars's[11]. The crack wars caused a massive increase in murder starting in the mid-1980s, and then petered out in the mid-1990s. That raises the question of what effect abortion had on the crack wars. The truth is that we have no idea. Levitt assumes that abortion had nothing to do with its beginning but everything to do with its end[12].

In what may be the strangest passage of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner invoke the example of Romania. The Communist regime banned abortion in 1966 on the ground that the fetus was the collective property of the nation. The result, according to our freakonomists, was an increase in crime and, eventually—they leave the chain of causation obscure, perhaps out of necessity—the violent end of the regime. Communist Romania may not make for good analogies with the U.S. for a variety of reasons. One stands out: The ban led to a 100 percent increase in Romanian fertility rates. American fertility rates, remember, dropped only 6 percent when abortion was legalized here. The magnitudes aren't remotely similar[13].

Even if Levitt were right that abortion cuts crime, what would follow from this conclusion? Levitt and Dubner note that their theory implies that it takes hundreds of abortions to reduce the homicide total by one[14].21 As a crime-control strategy, abortion is "terribly inefficient."

Even if it were more "efficient," it would raise obvious moral objections. Let's say that we could apply a kind of prenatal profiling to figure out which unborn children were the most likely to grow up to become criminals. Would we be justified in eliminating them for that reason? What if we could pinpoint with complete accuracy which five-year-olds were budding criminals? Obviously we would not think it permissible to eliminate them. Whether it is morally permissible to eliminate unborn children is what the abortion debate is about. Anyone who thinks abortion should be tolerated as a way of reducing crime probably already favors tolerating abortion for other reasons. People who think that abortion should itself be considered a crime will not be swayed.

Pro-lifers thus need not fear that their case will be weakened should research ever prove that abortion really does reduce crime. At present, the balance of evidence suggests that- it does not. The eagerness with which many people greeted claims that it does shows how much some people want to find social benefits from abortion and its legalization.
Chief among those alleged benefits has been a reduction in the number of "unwanted children." The argument that abortion reduces illegitimacy is a sub-species of that claim, and the argument that it reduces crime is a corollary of it.

[1] Steve Sailer, "Pre-Emptive Executions?" The American Conservative, May 9, 2005. See also his follow-up comments at www.isteve.com/abortion.htm.

[2] See also John Lott and John Whitley, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births," Yale Law School Program for Law, Economics and Public Policy Working Paper # 254, 2001.

[3] Ted Joyce, "Further Tests of Abortion and Crime", National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 10564, 2004.

[4] Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, "Testing Economic Hypotheses with State-Level Data," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Working Paper 05-15. This research led The Economist, to its credit, to take a more skeptical look at the Freakonomics theory. "Oopsonornics," Dec. 1, 2005.
[5] Laurie Elam-Evans et al, "Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2002," Centers for Disease Control, Table 13. (I'rn assuming, conservatively, that where the number of abortions a woman has had is unknown, she has had only one.)

[6] Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann, "The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmit ted Diseases," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32 (June 2003).

[7] Freakonomics, p. 139
[8] George Akerlof and Janet Yellen, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Births in the United States," Brookings Policy Brief #5, 1996 (www.brook.edulcomm/policybriefs/pb05.htm ). It is based on a paper by Akerlof, Yellen, and Michael Katz with the same title, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that year.

[9] For a review of the literature, see Jonathan Klick, "Econometric Analyses of U.S. Abortion Policy: A Critical Review," Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 31 (2004).

[10] Information in this paragraph comes from Sailer's website.

[11] Sharon Cohen, "Freakonomics in Chicago," Northwest Indiana Times, May 6, 2005.

[12] See http://www.isteve.comlabortion.htm/

[13] Joyce, op. cit.

[14] Freakonomics, pp. 142-44.

Jovens Ricos

"O ser humano não está criado para encontrar a felicidade em si mesmo, no seu egoísmo, no seu individualismo. Isso seria narcisismo, amor excessivo e doentio a si próprio...

No entanto, ... a cultura actual é exactamente isto que promove. Fomenta ... [o] [s]entir-se bem, sentir-se realizado, triunfar na vida, alcançar o êxito acima de tudo... a vida livre de quaisquer compromissos, a satisfação imediata dos desejos. Viver centrados em si mesmo como Narciso...

É o estreito mundo do egoísmo, totalmente diferente da grandeza e da paz de centrar a própria existência nos outros e esquecer-nos de nós próprios. Esse é o verdadeiro caminho da felicidade, mas é um caminho que exige esforço.

Exige não pensar só no momento presente, porque a vida tem un sentido. E esse sentido é transcendente, não está neste mundo, não está no cemitério..."

in Notícias de Setúbal, 13 de Outubro de 2006, p. 6

Ultrapassadas algumas questões existenciais associadas à identidade deste blog, este assume-se finalmente como blog individual e poliglota (!). A 'linha editorial' mantém-se.

Agradeço os comentários.