Brexit e a Doutrina Social da Igreja Católica. Os Fundadores Católicos da União Europeia.

A União Europeia  logo no pós-guerra foi estimulado pela ideia de união em volta de valores do cristianismo, especialmente líderes católicos. Robert Schumann, Jean Monet, Konrad Adenauer e Alcide de Gasperi, eram devotos líderes católicos. Schumann (foto acima) e Gasperi estão inclusive em processo de canonização, eles advogaram o cristianismo europeu em defesa da Europa unida. Eles são considerados os fundadores da União Europeia.

Mas será que a atual União Europeia era o que eles tinham em mente? A União Europeia de hoje renega os valores cristãos em prol do que chama de valores seculares.

De que lado está a Doutrina da Igreja? Em que votariam os teólogos sociais da Igreja, ficar ou deixar a União Europeia? A Doutrina defende dois princípios: solidariedade e subsidiaridade. Os dois princípios precisam do cristianismo para se desenvolver apropriadamente.

Joanna Bogle no site Catholic.com escreveu um bom artigo sobre isso.

Vejam parte do texto de Joanna abaixo:

Brexit and Catholic Social Teaching

Joanna Bogle

June 24, 2016 | 30 comments

---

Precursor of the EU

The European Community—or Common Market as it was called in Britain in the 1960s and ’70s when suggestions were first made about British membership—always included the notion of some form of full political unity and integration. But it seemed a distant possibility right up until the 1980s. Britain joined in the early ’70s amid promises that political unity would never happen. Suggestions that it was on the agenda were met with scoffs from enthusiasts for the European project.

...

Pope St. John Paul II spoke often and with passion about Europe, calling for a revival of the Christian faith that had shaped European culture and values. He lifted the whole debate about Europe—not only in his native Poland but also in the hearts of Catholics across the continent—to a different level. But did he insist on the need for full political integration? And was the European Union that emerged into the twenty-first century one consonant with Catholic values?

...

And so to Brexit. Spiritual values and Catholic social teaching did not feature in the campaign. The issues were political and economic, many simply assuming that leaving the EU would be a financial disaster and voting accordingly. The main issue at stake was what even some Euro-enthusiasts admitted was a “democratic deficit”: the complete lack of any accountability on the part of the unelected bureaucrats running the EU. To a nation proud of its Parliamentary traditions, this is a major issue.

Catholics in Britain were and are divided on Brexit. Some (I’m one) believe that the EU stands in opposition to Church’s understanding of the need for subsidiarity, i.e., the principle that decisions should be taken by the smaller and more responsible levels of community life rather than the larger, the opposite corollary being that huge, impersonal organizations and structures are contrary to real human needs. Others argue that the original ideals of the founders of the whole project could still resonate and that opposition is centered on nationalism and is small-minded, even bigoted.

...

Meanwhile, from the general Catholic perspective, Europe’s need is not for political union, but for re-evangelization and a great Christian renewal. Nationalism is on the rise and could do much harm. Something deep and real needs to be on offer.

...

Post-Brexit, Britain will need work closely with Europe. How could it be otherwise, when cheap jet flights, the Internet, mobile phones, and the Channel Tunnel combine to make isolationism merely a bizarre nonstarter every day of the week? We may joke about enjoying warm beer and village cricket, but the reality is that a multiracial Britain shares with the rest of Europe common concerns on everything from militant Islam to drug abuse and family breakup.

Brexit will turn out to be a good decision. But to resolve Europe’s real problems, we should look to that Christian faith that has shaped Britain and the rest of Europe for centuries—and pray for its revival.

---

Joanna Bogle is an author, broadcaster, and journalist living in London with her husband, a lawyer. Her most recent book is English Catholic Heroines...

Em menos de 24 horas, Bernie Sanders Desaprova e depois Aprova Hillary Clinton. A Pressão deve ter sido Gigantesca.

Essa é boa, eu nem consigo imaginar a pressão que ele sofreu durante a madrugada. Rm um programa de auditório ontem nos Estados Unidos, Em entrevista no programa Late Show, o comunista Bernie Sanders disse que não endossava Hillary Clinton. Quando perguntado ainda se ele indicava em quem os eleitores dele deveriam votar, ele disse que não ia dizer em que eles deveriam votar. Eles é que sabem. O entrevistador até tentou tirar o apoio a Hillary, mas não conseguiu.

Todo mundo sabe nos Estados Unidos que Trump está recebendo apoio de boa parte dos eleitores de Sanders. Essas declarações dele na verdade eram apoio a Trump.

Daí, pela manhã de hoje, em nova entrevista no jornal da MSNBC, Sanders votou atrás e disse que ia votar em Hillary e atacou Trump. Em menos 24 horas, o comunista mostrou claramente a sua hipocrisia nas telas de televisão.

Vocês podem ver os dois vídeos, um em que Sanders disse que não apoia Hillary, e o outro em que disse que vota em Hillary, clicando aqui.

Governo é Mal Necessário ou Bem Necessário? Deve Ser Mínimo ou Máximo?

O professor Thomas Storck (foto acima) escreveu um excelente artigo sobre governo, seria o governo um mal necessário ou seriam um bem necessário, deveríamos ter um governo mínimo ou máximo?. No paraíso, o homem seria governado por outro homem ou seria livre?

Vejam parte do texto:

GOVERNMENT: GOOD OR BAD? BIG OR LITTLE?

June 21, 2016

Toward the beginning of De Caelo (On the Heavens), Aristotle makes the well-known remark that “the least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand-fold”—or, as it is sometimes phrased, “a small error in the beginning leads to a large error later on.” We can easily see that this is true, whether in immediately practical operations or, more importantly, in intellectual investigations. If our first principles are not right, how can the rest of our reasoning be correct? This is true concerning our thinking about government. Is government a necessary evil? A necessary good? Is that government best which governs least? In thinking about these questions, it is good not only to begin at the beginning but to begin with the right questions and their correct answers.

If government were a necessary evil, one reason for this might be that it was something that would not exist had man not sinned. Christians believe that God originally created one man and one woman whose nature was untouched by evil and who were given special gifts to perfect that nature, but who were then tempted by the Devil and sinned. Because of Original Sin, all their descendants lost those extraordinary gifts, although man’s basic nature remains good, albeit wounded. Had Adam and Eve never sinned, and had they begotten children in the state of innocence, would there have been a need for government? To some, this may seem like a useless question, as removed from reality as to ask what lunar landings would be like if the moon were made of green cheese. However, this question reveals something about the place of government among men. If we answer it the wrong way, we will commit the small error at the beginning of our inquiry which leads to a big error later on.

Thomas Aquinas proposes to himself this very question. In his Summa Theologica (I:96:4), he asks whether there would be subordination of man to man in the state of innocence. Yes, he answers very clearly. Although there would not have been the domination characteristic of the slave (servus), who is “ordered to another,” there would still have been the kind of subjection proper to the free man, when someone directs him to his own good or to the common good. And the reasons given by Saint Thomas for this are two: First, because man is “naturally a social animal,” and “social life cannot exist unless someone presides who aims at the common good”; and second, because it would be unfitting for someone to have “supereminence in knowledge or justice” unless he could use this supereminence for the good of others. In other words, according to Saint Thomas, had Original Sin never entered the world, we would still have had a sort of government, one that did not need to punish anyone but was still there to coordinate and direct our common projects toward the public good. Adam and Eve, after all, were not omniscient. If our hypothetical unfallen brothers had wanted to build a road or a dam or a bridge, they would still have needed to put it in this place rather than that, and someone would have had to make the final decision as to where.

By his answer, Saint Thomas was already guarding us against many wrong conclusions that we might reach. One of them is the notion that government is a necessary evil. Government, on the contrary, is a necessary good and has a natural role to play in man’s affairs; as we consider the question of the proper size and activity of government, we must keep this truth in mind.

If government is a necessary good, the question of the size and responsibility of government should be approached in the spirit, not of trying to see how small we can make it, nor how large, but of calmly looking at those tasks that man can accomplish only or best via government, and setting government’s proper bounds in response to man’s nature and needs....

If there is some social need that we do not think appropriate for direct governmental action, what alternatives do we have? Often, in the Anglo-American political tradition, we are presented with only three alternatives: direct government control, private charity, or some kind of market-based approach. This is by no means an adequate enumeration of all possible approaches, for we must consider the principle of subsidiarity, first enunciated by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno. Subsidiarity holds that

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, FIXED AND UNCHANGEABLE, THAT ONE SHOULD NOT WITHDRAW FROM INDIVIDUALS AND COMMIT TO THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH BY THEIR OWN ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY. SO, TOO, IT IS AN INJUSTICE AND AT THE SAME TIME A GRAVE EVIL AND A DISTURBANCE OF RIGHT ORDER, TO TRANSFER TO THE LARGER AND HIGHER COLLECTIVITY FUNCTIONS WHICH CAN BE PERFORMED AND PROVIDED FOR BY LESSER AND SUBORDINATE BODIES. INASMUCH AS EVERY SOCIAL ACTIVITY SHOULD, BY ITS VERY NATURE, PROVE A HELP TO MEMBERS OF THE BODY SOCIAL, IT SHOULD NEVER DESTROY OR ABSORB THEM.

Now, this principle is often misunderstood and misapplied. Some seem to think, for example, that it is calling for matters to be committed as often as possible to for-profit groups or private charity. The “lesser and subordinate bodies” that the Pope speaks of, however, are not necessarily purely private, let along for-profit. Nor are they necessarily devoid of real authority. Since, later on in this same encyclical, Pope Pius strongly urges the reestablishment of something like the medieval guilds, we can assume that he is not opposed to the assumption of real authority for the common good by some of these “lesser and subordinate bodies.”

In the political traditions common in English-speaking countries, this sort of arrangement would probably be called delegation of governmental authority to nongovernmental bodies...

A Matemática na Ciência Econômica, a Nova Astrologia.

Por que a economia está tão dominada pela matemática, quando economia trata de interações humanas que não são quantificáveis? E quando os modelos matemáticos econômicos erram quase sempre?

Alan Jay Levinovitz escreveu sobre isso definindo a economia matemática como a nova astrologia.

E o estatístico William Briggs comentou esse artigo de Levinovitz em um ótimo texto.

32% dos Adultos Moram com Pais nos EUA. Por que Isso? Qual Será o Resultado disso?

Tem mais adultos (pessoas entre 18 e 34 anos) morando com os pais nos Estados Unidos, do que a percentagem desses adultos casados ou vivendo sozinhos, diz pesquisa da Pew Research. Isso ocorre pela primeira vez na história dos Estados Unidos.

Por que isso ocorre?

Muitas causas, falta de oportunidade de emprego em uma crise não acaba é uma delas, mas também, e deve ser o fator mais importante, tem a falta de valorização cultural do casamento, do relacionamento, do sacrifício pelos filhos. O mundo acha horrível ser casado, ter filhos, viver em casa para a família. O mundo valoriza o sexo casual irresponsável.

Em suma, a principal causa é o egocentrismo da sociedade moderna.

E qual será o resultado de uma sociedade que quer viver às custas dos pais?

No Brasil, foi noticiado recentemente que um jovem de 30 anos quis matar a modelo Ana Hickmann. Esse jovem morava com os pais, e não trabalhava, enquanto o pai fazia bico de porteiro para completar renda.

No Brasil, costuma-se chamar gente desempregada que não estuda nem trabalha e mora com os pais, de grupo "nem-nem". Esse grupo só aumenta no país.

Mas tem muita gente que trabalha, tem dinheiro e ainda foge de relacionamentos e fica no conforto da casa da mãe.

Vejamos o relato da pesquisa nos Estados Unidos:

For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds

BY RICHARD FRY

Broad demographic shifts in marital status, educational attainment and employment have transformed the way young adults in the U.S. are living, and a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data highlights the implications of these changes for the most basic element of their lives – where they call home. In 2014, for the first time in more than 130 years, adults ages 18 to 34 were slightly more likely to be living in their parents’ home than they were to be living with a spouse or partner in their own household. 1

This turn of events is fueled primarily by the dramatic drop in the share of young Americans who are choosing to settle down romantically before age 35. Dating back to 1880, the most common living arrangement among young adults has been living with a romantic partner, whether a spouse or a significant other. This type of arrangement peaked around 1960, when 62% of the nation’s 18- to 34-year-olds were living with a spouse or partner in their own household, and only one-in-five were living with their parents. 2

By 2014, 31.6% of young adults were living with a spouse or partner in their own household, below the share living in the home of their parent(s) (32.1%). Some 14% of young adults were heading up a household in which they lived alone, were a single parent or lived with one or more roommates. The remaining 22% lived in the home of another family member (such as a grandparent, in-law or sibling), a non-relative, or in group quarters (college dormitories fall into this category).

It’s worth noting that the overall share of young adults living with their parents was not at a record high in 2014. This arrangement peaked around 1940, when about 35% of the nation’s 18- to 34-year-olds lived with mom and/or dad (compared with 32% in 2014). What has changed, instead, is the relative share adopting different ways of living in early adulthood, with the decline of romantic coupling pushing living at home to the top of a much less uniform list of living arrangements.

Among young adults, living arrangements differ significantly by gender. For men ages 18 to 34, living at home with mom and/or dad has been the dominant living arrangement since 2009. In 2014, 28% of young men were living with a spouse or partner in their own home, while 35% were living in the home of their parent(s). For their part, young women are on the cusp of crossing over this threshold: They are still more likely to be living with a spouse or romantic partner (35%) than they are to be living with their parent(s) (29%). 3

In 2014, more young women (16%) than young men (13%) were heading up a household without a spouse or partner. This is mainly because women are more likely than men to be single parents living with their children. For their part, young men (25%) are more likely than young women (19%) to be living in the home of another family member, a non-relative or in some type of group quarters.

A variety of factors contribute to the long-run increase in the share of young adults living with their parents. The first is the postponement of, if not retreat from, marriage. The median age of first marriage has risen steadily for decades. In addition, a growing share of young adults may be eschewing marriage altogether. A previous Pew Research Center analysis projected that as many as one-in-four of today’s young adults may never marry. While cohabitation has been on the rise, the overall share of young adults either married or living with an unmarried partner has substantially fallen since 1990.

In addition, trends in both employment status and wages have likely contributed to the growing share of young adults who are living in the home of their parent(s), and this is especially true of young men. Employed young men are much less likely to live at home than young men without a job, and employment among young men has fallen significantly in recent decades. The share of young men with jobs peaked around 1960 at 84%. In 2014, only 71% of 18- to 34-year-old men were employed. Similarly with earnings, young men’s wages (after adjusting for inflation) have been on a downward trajectory since 1970 and fell significantly from 2000 to 2010. As wages have fallen, the share of young men living in the home of their parent(s) has risen.

Economic factors seem to explain less of why young adult women are increasingly likely to live at home. Generally, young women have had growing success in the paid labor market since 1960 and hence might increasingly be expected to be able to afford to live independently of their parents. For women, delayed marriage—which is related, in part, to labor market outcomes for men—may explain more of the increase in their living in the family home.

The Great Recession (and modest recovery) has also been associated with an increase in young adults living at home. Initially in the wake of the recession, college enrollments expanded, boosting the ranks of young adults living at home. And given the weak job opportunities facing young adults, living at home was part of the private safety net helping young adults to weather the economic storm.

Educational attainment, race and ethnicity linked to young adult living arrangements

Beyond gender, young adults’ living arrangements differ considerably by education and racial and ethnic background—both of which are tied to economic wherewithal. For young adults without a bachelor’s degree, as of 2008 living at home with their parents was more prevalent than living with a romantic partner. By 2014, 36% of 18- to 34-year-olds who had not completed a bachelor’s degree were living with their parent(s) while 27% were living with a spouse or partner. Among college graduates, in 2014 46% were married or living with a partner, and only 19% were living with their parent(s). Young adults with a college degree have fared much betterin the labor market than their less-educated counterparts, which has in turn made it easier to establish their own households.

Among racial and ethnic groups, record-high shares of black and Hispanic young adults (36% for each group) lived in the home of their parent(s) in 2014. By comparison, 30% of white young adults lived at home. White young adults are more likely to be living with a spouse or partner (36%). But the trends are similar for all major racial and ethnic groups including whites: Since 1960 a greater share are living at home and fewer are married or cohabiting and living in their own household.

For black young adults, living with mom and/or dad is now the most common arrangement, as only 17% were living with a spouse or romantic partner in 2014. For Hispanic young adults living with parent(s) is also the dominant arrangement as 30% were living with a spouse or significant other in 2014. Generally, young adult blacks and Hispanics lag behind young whites both in terms of educational attainment and employment status.

This report presents the historical trends in the share of young adults who live with their parent(s). The first section presents a simple classification of living arrangements. The second section examines trends in living with parents by demographic and geographic groups. The third section explores the shift away from living with a romantic partner and toward living with parents. The final section examines the relationship between living with parents and trends in the labor market opportunities of young adults.

Other key findings:
• The growing tendency of young adults to live with parents predates the Great Recession. In 1960, 20% of 18- to 34-year-olds lived with mom and/or dad. In 2007, before the recession, 28% lived in their parental home.
• In 2014, 40% of 18- to 34-year-olds who had not completed high school lived with parent(s), the highest rate observed since the 1940 Census when information on educational attainment was first collected.
• Young adults in states in the South Atlantic, West South Central and Pacific United States have recently experienced the highest rates on record of living with parent(s).
• With few exceptions, since 1880 young men across all races and ethnicities have been more likely than young women to live in the home of their parent(s).
• The changing demographic characteristics of young adults—age, racial and ethnic diversity, rising college enrollment—explain little of the increase in living with parent(s).

Pesquisa - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? E Obama foi um Sucesso?

Há aquilo que os governos se preocupam e há aquilo que a população se preocupa. Muitas vezes não são coincidentes. No Brasil, o povo deve estar preocupado com o desemprego e a inflação, enquanto o governo quer achar onde pode cortar gastos. Nos Estados Unidos, as pesquisas em geral mostram que o povo americano está preocupado com o desemprego e o terrorismo, enquanto o governo Obama tem mostrado preocupação com mudança climática e banheiros para transgêneros.

A Fox News pegou várias fontes de preocupação do povo americano e perguntou em quem o povo confia para tratar desses temas, Hillary Clinton ou Donald Trump.

Trump ganhou nas duas principais preocupações: economia e terrorismo, enquanto o povo americano acha que Hillary comandará melhor (gastará mais com) saúde, educação e até com imigração e outros tópicos sociais. 

A pesquisa também perguntou sobre o sucesso do governo Obama. Apenas 26% dos americanos acham que estão melhor agora que eram antes de Obama.




Interessante.

Vídeo: Hillary Clinton Mentindo sobre Casamento Gay, Nafta, Emails Secretos, Crise Financeira,...

Espero que entendam inglês, o vídeo abaixo é muito revelador sobre uma mentirosa compulsiva. Atenção jornalistas do Brasil que tentam relatar as eleições dos Estados Unidos.