Friday, July 10, 2009

New Voices in the Church: Sr. Teresa Forcades i Vila

One of the more interesting emerging voices in the Church is Benedictine sister Teresa Forcades. Sr. Teresa was born in Barcelona, Spain in 1966. She has a doctorate in Public Health from the University of Barcelona with specialization in Internal Medicine (State University of New York). She also has a Masters in Divinity from Harvard University and a doctorate from the Facultad de Teología de Catalunya. She is the author of Crimes and Abuses of the Pharmaceutical Industry (Cristianisme i Justícia, 2006), La Trinitat, avui ("The Trinity, Today", Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2005), La teologia feminista en la història ("Feminist Theology in History", Fragmenta Editorial, 2007),  Ser persona, avui: estudi del concepte de ‘persona’ en la teologia trinitària clàssica i de la seva relació amb la noció moderna de llibertat ("Being a person today: a study in the concept of 'person' in classic Trinitarian theology and its relationship to the modern notion of freedom", Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2011), and És a les nostres mans ("It's in our hands", DAU, 2014). She is co-author of Una nova imatge de Déu i de l'ésser humà ("A New Image of God and the Human Being" -- Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2012) and Converses amb Teresa Forcades ("Conversations with Teresa Forcades" -- Ediciones Dau, 2012), She has been a Benedictine nun and a member of the community of Sant Benet de Montserrat since 1997 (click on "Teresa F." to reach a page with more of her writings).

An interview last month with Sr. Teresa on TV3 (see video below) has conservative Catholics going nuts. This article, while being negative does a pretty good job of summarizing Sr. Teresa's remarks so we will translate most of it into English while leaving out the unsubstantiated allegations that the sister is a chavista (supporting liberation theology DOES NOT equal supporting Hugo Chávez in our book):

"God has placed the life of the fetus while it is not viable in the hands of its mother [...] Because of this intimate link of the mother and the child while it is not viable outside of her, the decision to abort is inseparable from the mother's self-determination, from her personal freedom. This intimate link between two lives means that the life of the child cannot be saved against the wishes of the mother without violating her liberty."

These statements come from Sister Teresa Forcades, who sees herself as "a Benedictine nun and feminist, an activist in habit", just as she was presented last June 16th in an interview on the "Singulars" program on TV3, where for almost an hour, among other questions, she expressed her opinions with respect to abortion and the morning after pill at the same time as she justified them [well, actually, her moral analysis is a little more refined than this author gives her credit for].

Forcades has already expressed similar opinions in other public appearances and has gone twice to Venezuela to participate in activities related to liberation theology and feminism, where she was well-received by the chavistas.

[Here the author has inserted a brief biographical sketch with a number of inaccuracies, so we have omitted translating it]

To give you an idea of the controversy generated by Teresa Forcades, it would be best to review some of her speeches and published articles.

The TV 3 Interview: "The life of the fetus in the hands of the mother"
In her interview with the program 'Singulars', Forcades supports making the morning after pill available to all women.

"The pill has side effects and obviously it cannot be taken casually. But yes, I think it is a possibility that I would wish for. That it would be known to all women and available to all," she states.

Then, the interviewer asks about abortion and the Benedictine sister, after talking about the problem of "pro-life vs. pro-choice" in the United States, says the following: "Here too I have sometimes heard the argument that abortion is like homicide."

"Now...if we allow that a fetus in formation is a person, then to be able to decide about the life of this person, by criteria of conscience for example, having to respect the conscience of the mother at the moment when she decides about the life of this fetus would mean having to respect her decision," she continues.

"And she is the only one because the life of the fetus depends on the life of the mother as long as it is not viable outside of her. This is the basis for stating it this way, anthropologically, biologically, legally and morally, for deciding on considering this case of the life of the fetus completely differently and therefore it cannot be compared to any other 'interhuman' case," she adds.

Forcades thinks that "this particularity of the mother and the fetus allows us to understand that God put the survival of the fetus in the hands of the mother as long as it isn't viable. That is respect from a theological and Catholic perspective."

As an example and to conclude this part of the interview she adds that "I would not respect the conscience of a person who decided to end another's life, but this is a particular case. And this particular case is that God Himself put the life in the hands of the mother and therefore it can be treated in a special way."

The journalist then comments that "you already know that the Spanish Bishops' Conference is not characterized by its openness...", to which she responds: "it's true, [...] but since for the moment I don't have any teaching or pastoral responsibility in the Church, then -- perhaps if I had one there would be greater repercussions to what I say -- but at the moment I am not speaking in the name of the Church, but from my own judgement and I have not had any difficulties."

The interviewer then says: "Teresa Forcades, fortunately, you are not alone. Look at one of the guests on 'Singulars'." And Hans Küng appears on a video, for whom Forcades says she has a lot of sympathy, and who states that "The woman is a problem for almost all religions."

"Sexuality is fundamental"

A few days after this interview, Forcades participated in the ‘Sopar Debat 2009’ (Supper Debate 2009) organized by Valors journal, in collaboration with Acció Catòlica Obrera, Cristianisme Segle XXI, Justícia i Pau del Maresme and Grup Tercer Món Mataró.

On this occasion, the nun said the following: "Sexuality is fundamental not only for reproduction but also for relating to each other."

With her unique way of seeing the world of pleasure, Forcades added that "what is good is from God, therefore what is pleasing is from God."

At another point in her speech, the Benedictine states that "Sexuality is fundamental not only for reproduction but also for relating to each other and also for learning God's will."

In Foc Nou: "God put the life of the fetus in the hands of its mother"
In her interview with TV3, Forcades mentions an article of hers published in the May 2009 religious news magazine Foc Nou.

In that article, the nun develops at length the details of the same theories on abortion referred to previously before the Catalan public television cameras.

Below we will show some of the phrases that stick out from that article:

"Respect for human life as an unmanipulable gift from God has exceptions in the Catholic tradition that don't weaken it as a principle."

"Reflecting on the moral implications of Catholic just war theory can help to avoid the pharasaism in the case of abortion of invoking respect for life in a rigid way as if there were no exceptions in Catholic moral tradition."

"People who want abortion not to be legal tend to express fear, emotion, and very intense visceral reactions, which in part are a justified exasperation with the moral relativism centered in the womb itself of our society which has up until now been both very pampered and very unsatisfied."

"God has placed the life of the fetus as long as it is not viable in the hands of its mother (in the womb of its mother) and He has linked its biological life with her spiritual life. We would do well to respect this primary relationship."

"As long as the fetus cannot live independently from the mother, she has the moral responsibility to decide its future, which is also hers [...] Respecting the decision of the mother is respecting the integrity of her moral conscience, including accepting that objectively she might make a mistake."

"To deem that the will of the mother when she decides to abort the child who cannot survive without her should be respected and cannot be penalized, does not mean that there should not be discussion on this issue in the Church and society."

And, to conclude the article: "Because of the intimate connection of the mother to the child while it is not viable outside of her, the decision to abort is inseparable from the mother's self-determination, from her personal freedom. This unique relationship between two lives means that the child's life cannot be saved against the mother's will without violating the mother's personal freedom."

In Venezuela

On another topic, Teresa Forcades has visited Venezuela twice to speak about her ideas on liberation theology and feminism.

In November 2008, she was interviewed by writer and president of the Fundación Celarg, Roberto Hernández Montoya, on his program on Radio Nacional "Como ustedes pueden ver" ("As you can see").

In that interview the Benedictine talked about the subject of one of her books, "There are two absolutes: God and the poor", a phrase which she stated was from a Brazilian bishop [The phrase is from Msgr. Pedro Casaldáliga and should be "Everything is relative, except God and the poor". While Sr. Teresa has given talks on this topic, I find no evidence of a published book on the subject].
"One should be surprised at this statement, the kingdom of the "absolute" is one thing, not two, and if that absolute is God it would seem that there would be nothing else, but the idea is to not make that God into an idol, and that's what it is about", she said in the interview.

It is the second time Forcades has traveled to Venezuela. One year earlier she was present in a Liberation Theology meeting. As a feminist she stated then that her relationship with men is different because the issue of seduction is no longer there.

"There are codes between heterosexuals that have to do with seduction between men and women, but that is not bad, it usually happens in brief relationships, but each person has a world within themselves and will not look at people because they are men or women or professionals or young or old, that is without labels -- not to be reductionist, you have to look at them as unique people."

To which she added: "Celibacy doesn't mean that one can't fall in love, because celibacy doesn't mean amputating one part, it is experienced in a personal and different manner from sexuality, like the fidelity of a couple, which implies being satisfied with sexuality. There are more people who live without the sexual experience they would wish for than most people believe."

Forcadas continues by making a reference to liberation theology: "It is living according to the idea that God is love -- to add the adjective "liberation" is somewhat redundant -- it is what comes from Christianity, from the nucleus of the Biblical texts when God manifested Himself for the first time."

"Diversity is divine and forever, that means Trinity. Socialism is included in that, but as something that implies an egalitarian relationship among all," the Benedictine nun concludes.

For those who didn't like this post, sorry to offend but I plan to add more translations of articles and interviews with Sr. Teresa as soon as I can write them. This young theologian deserves a hearing.



  1. Please, translate as much articles as you can. We have to make her voice known.

  2. Thank you for making this avaiable in English. It is indeed most important to make this young feminist theologian known.

  3. What can you expect from someone who went through the US university brainwashing process, but to live by a completely perverted logic?
    The fact that the life of the foetus is dependant on the mother's body is a reason she gives for the later's right to decide if he/she lives or dies! Isn't the implication that the carers and doctors of the invalid should also have a right of life or death over their patients? What about people who live (temporarily or permanently) under some sort of support technology? This woman would feel at home at Barak's, Adolf's or Josef's cabinet.

    1. Apart from the apparent desire to offend with this post, it seems that you misunderstand deeply what she is saying. My understanding is that the case of mother/fetus is special exactly because there are no two lives / two creatures / two persons that we are talking about there. As long as the fetus is not viable, it should be treated as a single being. And that mother/fetus being has the right to decide about itself. That places the mother/fetus case worlds apart from the doctor/patient relationship, as in the first case we speak about one person and in the second about two persons. At least this is my way to simplify this, her line of thinking is a bit more complicated. I am almost convinced, but I need to give it a few more rounds. I agree with her that discussion should go on, but her opinion has merit and he is definitely not a fascist for expressing an opinion that you happen to disagree with.

  4. Pedro said it best!

    God owns everything, including our very bodies. We may know how our body works, but we have no control how it actually carries out the different functions it has. If you don't believe God owns everything, just go to a funeral home or read the obituaries! You can keep distracting yourself or denying the truth about life and death, but sooner or later you are going to have to return that body (life) you think you own!

    1. I fully disagree, I see vast evidence that God does not exist and practically none that he does. And I have been in numerous funerals and read obituaries. It is not a matter of distracting, it is a matter of letting yourself think freely, observing the world and using Occam's razor.

      In any case, even if God existed and owned the body of the mother+baby, you are still not providing any argument against the one of Teresa. Your response is practically equivalent to: "think and you will eventually see that I am right". That is: you are calling everyone who does not share your opinion a slow-thinker who did not spent enough time thinking about the subject matter, without you offering any new evidence to the discussion (just absolute opinions that if we do not share it is because we are not clever enough)... Would it be over the top if I got insulted by reading this?

  5. Thank You sister Teresa for your videos on the gripe AH1N1. It just make my decision of NOT getting the vaccine more logical. I decided not to have it as well none of my children will have it and most of my friends do not want to have it too.

  6. Pedro:
    Just about everyone has been through some sort of "Rockerfeller engineered" educational system, but it doesn't mean to say that we ALL have to be victims of it. With respect to abortions, it's important to understand the exact definition of "killing" in this sense. As we grow older we become more and more aware of "death" and usually fear it by pushing it further and further into the "future". It is this instinctual fear of death in a human being that makes killing someone an "ethical" issue. We have an accumulation of memories and an "idea" of continuity that gives us identity as an individual, and for this very reason we become afraid of losing it through the possibility of dying or being killed. This awareness of a "personal identity" begins to develop as we grow older and certainly doesn't exist in the fetal state inside the womb. The basic instinct for wanting to experience physical sensation may well exist whilst inside the womb, but certainly not the fear of death or losing one's personal identity. At this stage there is no personal identity to lose. This is why abortion cannot really be legitimately referred to as "killing" another human being. Personally I'm neither for nor against abortions, but I do realize that very often in the heat of the night babies are conceived by those who do not want them. And it would also be ridiculous to say that the couples themselves are to blame because they "made that decision at the time". At such particular times no decisions are usually made other than a mutual, irresistible urge for sensual pleasure. Why nature made it this way I cannot say. Finally, I have to admit that I'm not too convinced as to the "feminist" issue. Isn't that also the insidious work of Rockerfeller engineering?

  7. I don't read Catalan! Has she written anything in Spanish, or have any of her Catalan writings been translated?

  8. Excuse me ANONYMOUS but God does not "own" our bodies nore our "souls", and yes we do actually have control over our bodily you defficate in your own pants or can you go to the bathroom on time, can you control your own urges of pleasure? so on so forth, God just asks us to be "good" or "wholesome" people, the decision is ours, our actions are our own, and our own doing. If God owns everyones body then why do some people sin, is it Gods will for them to sin or to suffer, is it Gods will to make people mentally ill, is it Gods will for my perfectly roman catholic mother to die of bone cancer when she followed Gods words? If you are right and God "owned" her body then God placed cancer in her, and God made her suffer for being such a good catholic.

  9. To Anonymous who asked about translations of Sr. Teresa's writings: I have done some English translations on this blog. Just do a search for her name in the box at the top of the blog and you will find them. She has given a number of interviews in Spanish and had some materials in Spanish on her Web section of her monastery Web site -- although at last check (a couple of days ago) the Monestir Sant Benet Web site was down.

  10. So "nonviability" is her deciding point? Let's take any newborn, place him or her on the floor, and see how "viable" they are to continue living on their own. The anwser is clear: NONE! No one would condone the killing of any newborn, so it is clear that her starting premise is logically flawed. She may be young and interesting, but that certainly doesn't make her correct! Careful people!

    1. Hmm, interesting point of view. Thanks. But apart from nonviability, I also see the point of speaking about a single being while the baby is in the womb, making it impossible to decide for one without affecting the other. So nonviability is one factor, but not the only one, or the deciding one. Still thinking about it, I will most probably change opinions a few more times in my life:)

  11. Tom, you mentioned that no one would condone the killing of any newborn.... You obviously haven't taken into consideration the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or their murderous pharmaceutical companies alone. It might take some time to kill a newborn baby with their systematic and appalling array of toxic vaccines, but it's still "killing". Furthermore, having an abortion is not exactly akin to killing a newborn baby on the floor.

  12. In both cases, an innocent human life is terminated by the choice of another who is responsible for the well-being of that human life.

  13. Precisely, and what I'm saying is that countlesss parents worldwide are hardly what you could call "responsible" for their children in any case, and often cause them irreparable damage physically and/or psychologically. So what's more "ethical", an abortion or a childhood of ignorant parential abuse? Also, I'm not so sure that an "innocent" human life is terminated. Bearing in mind what some humans grow up to become (talking earlier of zionism!), I'd say that potentially there are many circumstances where human life is anything but "innocent" even it appears to be so in a helpless human baby.

  14. very interesting.
    please put more and more of this kind of things on the net.
    because, such unlogic sayings even most furious pro-abortionist could not swallow.
    if mother (or anyone taking care) doesn't give food and drink to a new born child, it will die in a few hours.what makes child few months after birth more viable than the child few months before it?
    and one more question:what about children which survives abortion?few minutes before they were nonviable "something" now they cry outside of mothers body.should they get help?or its still going on that "woohoo" connection that sister is talking about, and mother has right do you say when you think that ending someones life is killing?

  15. I mean: "...when you think ending someones life is NOT killing"

  16. Hi Anon, One thing I can assure you is that if ANYONE comes near me or any close friend with the intention of FORCING a toxic vaccines upon us I'll certainly end THEIR life right where they stand, and you can call it "killing" or whatever you want. As for abortions, I can't quite see how it's possible to "end" a life that hasn't even begun. The deeper you look into the truth the more it will be revealed that it's simply not possible to end ANY life no matter at what stage of development. Incredibly enough, I don't see how even GOD could (or "would") do that. Namaste.

  17. Sambhava: Consider this a warning. Your comment about ending the life of anyone who would force toxic vaccines on us is pushing the limit of the type of discourse I will tolerate and publish on this blog. It is a threat of physical violence and therefore offensive and inappropriate. And then to conclude such a message with a Gandhian "namaste" is, IMHO, pretty contradictory.

  18. My apologies, Rebel Girl!
    There are times when my bark can be far worse than my bite. And the thought of having brain dead so-called "healthcare" workers injecting me or any close friend with poison DOES happen to be one of those times. I'd love to be able to say that I'm a complete pacifist regarding these matters, but I do also know that I would NOT simply stand by and allow those who have become brain dead in this world to inject poison into me or any close friend. And in such a situation there could always arise the possibility of someone getting hurt (including myself). It is really the age old question of whether we should just watch while others commit atrocities upon us or whether we should resist, and IF we decide to resist then inevitably the possibility of violence and killing enters the equation. All this is hypothetical right now, and I'm very grateful that so far in my life I've never once had to resort to using any form of violence in any situation. But I'm perfectly aware that this could change under certain circumstances. Perhaps this is an admission of my own spiritual shortcomings, and that the only objective in this life at all is to come to the realization that there is only infinite love, with all else being illusion. In this case I could imagine myself "turning the other cheek" to the brain dead ignoramuses of this world who either knowingly or unknowingly cause us harm or even death. I really do wish that life was so clear cut. One thing I can say for sure is that I know that many times in my life I've been "protected" in certain very dangerous situations. Perhaps all I need now is to realize that such protection is ALWAYS there in such situations (oh me of little faith!). Namaste....?

  19. In response to the commentary of Pedro (October 29th) regarding the implications of Teresa Forcades' statement - "This particularity of the mother and the fetus allows us to understand that God put the survival of the fetus in the hands of the mother as long as it isn't viable"

    Pedro suggests that this would somehow implicate that the carers or doctors of an individual would have the right to 'choose' life or death for their patient.

    I am always concerned by those who would believe themselves to be well-educated, concerned citizens, not being able to grasp the very simple process of impartially reviewing a compelling argument. Just because somebody makes an extremely well educated, well researched and philosophically sound argument that doesn't automatically fit with our preconceived opinions and beliefs, does not automatically make it implausible.

    She is making a point which is grounded in moral philosophy and scientific fact, but which is also respectful to her religion, as she chooses to practise it. What many are too quick to suggest is that science and religion cannot coexist harmoniously. This is a complete fallacy and has been perpetuated by under-educated and fearful heads of religion for centuries. Those who are now considered to be the most influential scientists, scholars, philosophers of all time, who dared to suggest that there was a scientific, repeatable order to the world, were subject to public, humiliating and unfounded attacks from the religious world. This is historic fact.

    To argue that a mother carrying a foetus can be compared to a doctor caring for a patient is simply beyond comprehension.

    Firstly, we need to clear our minds of modern day complications and look upon the human condition in its very basic form. This is particularly important if you are looking at this from a religious standpoint, although I am an impartial bystander. If you were to believe that God created the world and the life which exists upon it, you should be able to realise that God did not create doctors, nurses, polititions etc. He created 'human beings'.

    Only through our own development have we recognised the need for, and created, specific roles of responsibility within our societies. So, the relationship between a patient and a doctor is of our own creation and is not comparable to the relationship between an expectant mother and the foetus.

    A doctor can choose to no longer be a doctor if they are not comfortable with any decisions they have to make in their role in society. They are also being paid to do what they do - they are not doing it because it is what they are 'made' to do. They can leave the patient and the hospital behind of their own free will.

    A woman in early pregnancy cannot make a decision to leave her body and the foetus within it. Well, clearly, suicide would be one way, but I think we can agree that this would be an extreme reaction and one that we would never wish for. So, what are we left with? A woman, very often young and afraid, trapped in a scenario where she has fallen pregnant and she is given no choice about HER life. The foetus cannot exist outside of the host mother and the mother cannot exist outside of her body. The foetus is not 'alive', as it cannot exist independantly, but the mother is very much alive and has a right to exert her free will, independant thought and, ultimately, her right to freedom.

    I agree with the Sister in her assertion that this compromise of an individual's freedom cannot be compared to other scenarios where one person makes a decision about whether or not another should live or die. The ultimate responsibility for a foetus lies with the mother. This is, and always has been, the case. If God created the human form, He clearly did not intend it any other way. He would have designed the human form not to 'carry' a foetus, but for it to be developed outside of the body.

  20. no one of people who agree with sister dint answer my question: what about babies that survive abortions?

    how it is possible that only few seconds make such huge amazing difference between nonviable bunch of "something" and alive person?
    and about what kind of science we are talking there?

    please be very precise, because its about pure biology.not philosophy, not to even mention spirituality

    thank you


  21. "The foetus is not 'alive', as it cannot exist independantly, but the mother is very much alive and has a right to exert her free will, independant thought and, ultimately, her right to freedom."

    I am again asking, what with foetuses that CAN live outside of the mother???

    because, you talk about abortion, as a right of women
    so, are you suggesting that women whose foetuses can survive outside of the mother have no right to abort?
    yes or not?

  22. "It is a threat of physical violence and therefore offensive and inappropriate."

    how would you, witk whole your heart call this?:

    was baby Rowan alive?
    was this phisical violence?
    did he have right to be protected?

    just for the record; here is Wil, born, same as Rowan, with 22 weeks

  23. l'altre dia vaig veure el vídeo sobre la grip a, felicitats Teresa, per fi algu ens parla desinteresadament sobre el tema. Malauradament avui he parlat en un familiar i m'ha dit que ja s'havia vacunat d'aquesta!!!! ella es molt aprensiva en tot i preferia previndre!!!! despres d'això li van ficar un líquid al braç per fer-li la proba de la tuberculosi (una mica de mala sort, ja que havia estat hospitalitzada i just una emfermera la tenia, tenint que fer-se la prova tothom en contacte amb ella). El líquid li va reaccionar al braç i se li ha possat un braç super lleig,tot unflat i ple d'ampolles que fa por!! ella es una persona alèrgica, tot es te que dir!!
    Teresa, trobes que la causa pot ser deguda a la barreja de l'íquids?, els de la vacuna de la grip a, i els de la tuberculosi?

  24. Avui dia de Nadal de 2009 Vull felicitar i donar suport des de el mes profund de la meva essencia a Teresa Forcadesi Vila, per la teva enteresa, serenitat, autenticitat, cohèrencia i espiritualitat.
    Germana Teresa gracies per el teu testimoni en un món tan caotic, sense nord en plena crisis de valors. Si noia Si, el que cal es una reconstrucció estructural i sistemica per afontar els reptes socials i culturals d'aquests dificils moments.
    Força per seguir la veu interior, Deu apreta però no ofega.
    Que la LLum, la Pau i l'Amor del Nadal puguis continuar reflectint-los per tot arreu allà ont passis. Les teves obres son les que deixen petxada vivent del Crist a la terra.
    Una forta abraçada des de Girona

  25. You can found more information in the link
    and with English subtitles in the link
    and some references in my Multiply blog
    Regards. Enric, a catalan friend

  26. hello
    teresa, do you believe jesus is coming , and will finished with this all caos in the world?

    mi e mail
    i know he is coming

  27. Hola Teresa,

    Ting una questio amb la religio que crec que podrias ajudar-me i molt. Aquesta questio religiosa ha malmes de forma important la meva vida quotidiana. Si pogues parlar, t'esteri molt agraida.
    Soc concient de que et dediques a coses molt importants, pero m'atraveixo a demanar-te ajuda.
    El meu mail es

  28. hola:soy de argentina y aquí estan colocando la vacuna contra la gripe a millones de personas y niños, a partir de los 6 meses, quisiera saber si es posible pedir a la hermana teresa de algún modo información , contienen adyuvante y son monovalentes y trivalentes las están comprando de Italia. Dios quiera y me puedan contestar.

  29. Hello Teresa,

    First of all I would like to thank you for the information about the swine flu. You were almost the only person that was telling the truth about this.The last months I was wondering if you have send al your information to wikileaks. They can let the world know about your information.

    I really hope that you have time to answer me.

    Regards Eric from the Netherlands

  30. Hola Teresa,

    First of all I would like to thank you so much for the information you gave about the swine flue.
    But did you send this to Wikileaks? I think they are the right persons to let the whole world know about this.

    I hope that you have time to answer me because I really would like to know if Wikileaks is real or not. If they are real they should publish your work.

    Best regards, Eric(Netherlands)

  31. A esta señora que utiliza la palabra de Dios le digo con toda sinceridad, que apoyar a un demonio como hugo chavez la hace complice de los delitos de lesa humanidad que él y sus ministros y seguidores cometen en Venezuela, solo le hago mención de los pocos que sé: el primero es que cada 30 minutos muere un venezolano en manos del hampa, y en 14 años de gobierno de su ídolo Chavez ya han muerto mas de 150mil Venezolanos? eso le parece heroico? mas de 2 millones de toneladas de comida se pudrieron en manos del gobierno de su ídoloy no hay culpables porque su ídolo lo perdonó, sabe usted cuantas personas hubiesen comido de esos 2 millones de toneladas de comida en el mundo?, en Venezuela esta prohibido disentir del gobierno porque le pudiera costar incluso en ocasiones hasta la vida. Tambien en Venezuela sra monja la iglesia catolica es ofendida cada vez que puede por su ídolo chavez, si me cree llame a la conferencia episcopal venezolana y pregunte. Creo que tampoco sabe que mas de 2 millones de personas se quedaron sin trabajo por haber firmado contra chavez.... Entonces señora monja eso es lo que usted le parece que Chavez salva al mundo? a eso llaman salvación? pues no me quiero salvar entonces porque en Venezuela la realidad es otra. No se meta en politica Señora porque la realidad de Venezuela es diferente a lo que usted cree.

  32. No me sorprenden sus comentarios socialistas respecto al régimen de chavez en Venezuela, ya que a muchos europeos les apasiona ver sufrir a los demás. Completando la lista mencionada por anonymous, la invito a venir a nuestro país a observar de primera mano cómo el régimen se burla de sus ciudadanos descaradamente. No se ocupa de sus carencias mucho menos de sus necesidades. Todo está absolutamente politizado, si le asignan una casa Ud. no tiene derecho a disentir, puede ir presa por ello. Qué opinión le merece a Ud. un gobierno al cual no le interesan los DDHH? O al cual no le interese producir alimentos y prefiera beneficiar a sus colaboradores más cercanos comprándolos en el extranjero? Que opina Ud. de un gobierno que le quita la propiedad privada a sus propietarios para humillarlos? Y luego permite que esas haciendas, industrias y compañías quiebren al no saber qué hacer con ellas? Es que acaso desperdiciar comida dejando que se pudra es bueno para la población? Es tener educación de calidad suspendiendo actividades escolares por cualquier motivo? Si esos niños no van a clases no comen! Salvar al mundo? Acaso Ud no es cristiana y Cristo es el único salvador? No hable de lo que no sabe o no conoce, venga y viva desde adentro la inseguridad, la carencia, la humillación de solicitar un documento público, la trácala, la corrupción... Sabía que en Venezuela mueren más personas los fines de semana que en cualquier conflicto bélico en un mes? Venga, disfrute de esta maravilla de inflación, de la ausencia de dólares o de cualquier otra moneda extranjera, donde se pagan impuestos pero jamás ve un centavo de lo que aporta...donde el sistema de salud consiste en visitar diferentes centros y no conseguir nada, ni quien la atienda! Venga y disfrutes de no tener electricidad, la calidad del agua es pésima, la diferencia entre ricos (ellos, los del gobierno) es inmensa, y se hacen llamar socialistas!
    Venga, disfrute de primera mano como se nos muere un familiar por falta de medicinas y el presidente (que no se sabe si esta enfermo) se da la gran vida en Cuba!

  33. Es increíble cómo se ha expresado esta monja en favor de Chávez... En qué planeta vive esta señora?

  34. Teresa is not in any way a benedictin none becouse her acts are acts of direct disobedience to her order and the holly catholic church. To much running for her own glory made her a fool.