Text of my talk on Our Lady of Guadalupe

Here’s the text I wrote on which I based my talk about Our Lady of Guadalupe for Spirit and Truth, the Monday night Holy Hour organized by the Catholic Student Organization at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Auburn, Alabama:

I’m going to talk to you guys about the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe. But, I don’t want to talk about her in the “traditional” way of telling the story about the apparitions nor do I want to go through all these historical facts and important dates or names that we can’t even pronounce. What I’d like to do is to focus on the message that she brought, on what it meant to the people of that time and I’d like to see if she has anything to say to us today.

In order to fully understand the meaning of Our Lady’s message, we have to place ourselves in the context in which they took place. For that, we’re going to have to go some five hundred years into the past and a couple hundred miles south, to what today is Mexico. What was going on at that time? Well, Mexico was pretty much a huge mess. The Spaniards had just recently defeated the Aztecs so we had this bunch of people who had nothing to do the one with the other, trying to live in the same place. And trying to bring some order into this chaos, we had the missionaries who were trying to convert the natives to Christianity. That means that we are trying to understand not one, but two peoples, each of which were going through different situations.

Now, I want you guys to help me out by using your imagination. And I want you to imagine what these missionaries were feeling. Imagine the passion they must have felt in order to give up everything they had to embark on a trip from which they would probably never return, far away from their home, their families, their culture… Imagine the enthusiasm they felt when they arrived in these new lands and saw all the souls that were there, just waiting to receive the Gospel. And not only were they enthusiastic, they were absolutely confident that they would succeed since they were doing what God wanted them to do. Now fast forward a couple of years, to 1530 and try to feel the deep disappointment that these missionaries were then feeling. They had done everything they could, they had done things that we would consider humanly impossible just to convert these people and they were failing. They were failing miserably. Imagine their frustration and sadness.

Now think about the natives. These people were going through a very painful situation. They literally saw their whole universe shatter before their very eyes. Their bravest warriors were defeated, their emperor was humiliated and their city destroyed. But, I think that the most important thing was that at the moment of their greatest suffering, they called out to their gods for help and they found out that they were yelling into nothingness. They discovered, by the hardest way possible that their gods did not exist. And yet, they couldn´t accept this new god because he had nothing to do with them, it was a foreign god. They were a deeply wounded people. Life had lost all meaning to them. Put yourself in their place and try to feel their anguish and despair.

This was the context in which the apparitions took place. It was a time when both conquered and conquerors could see no hope. It was truly the darkest hour of the night for these peoples and it was a night that seemed to have no end. It was precisely at that moment, that one cold December morning, a native convert, known by the Christian name of Juan Diego, came, before sunrise, knocking on the bishop’s door with a very important message, so important that he would speak of it only to the bishop himself.

What was this message that Juan Diego considered so important? The message was very simple: the Mother of God had appeared to him and wanted the bishop to build a temple where all those who suffered and were in need could go to her and where she could lead them to the One and True God. That God who knew that what all these people really needed was a mother. So He decided to give them His own mother!

Imagine what her words spoke to those people who were in such a desperate situation: “Am I not here, I who am your mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need something more? Let nothing else neither worry nor disturb you”.

These words meant so much to the people back then that the change in the social situation changed radically. Before her apparitions, only a handful of natives had converted to the Faith, despite the missionaries’ best efforts. After 1531, they started converting by the thousands. The chronicles of the time speak of the missionaries being overwhelmed by the rivers of people that wanted to be baptized. The old, the sick, the young, the poor, everybody would walk for miles just to receive Baptism. This happened not only because of her words but because the image itself spoke to these people in a language that we, as Westerners, don’t understand. The image spoke to them in their own language.

So, if Our Lady’s message had such an impact on people five hundred years ago, is it possible that it can still have such an impact on us today? Is she trying to say something to us, twenty-first century Catholics? Is she trying to say something to you, American Catholics? I would answer that yes, she is. Because today, as well as back then, we, as Catholics, are, or at least should be, burning in passion for souls. We want to go out and spread the Gospel and have people believe in Christ and come home to the Church. And yet, despite our best efforts, we are confronted with rejection and hostility. We do our best and yet, many times we fail.

Today, as in those times, those who don’t believe in God are a deeply wounded people. They have placed all their hopes and all their faith in many false “gods” –money, success, pleasure, drugs- and have found nothing but emptiness. They live in a world without any hope. It seems like there aren’t many differences between those times and ours.

In answer to Brea’s question from last week, as to why I think it’s so cool to be Catholic, I’d say that it’s freakin’ awesome to be Catholic because we have a mom. We have a mother to whom we can go to when we fail or when we feel frustrated and lonely. She will be there for us whether we’re saints or sinners, good Catholics or terrible Catholics, and who will always say to us: “Am I not here, I, who am your mother?”

To conclude, I’d like to say one last thing that is connected with what brings us here today. I believe that the whole apparitions would have been completely useless if they hadn’t led all these people to Christ. In the same manner, a talk about the Virgin Mary that doesn’t refer to her Son is a pointless talk. I’m convinced that the apparitions wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for the deep Eucharistic devotion of many people: of Juan Diego, in the first place, who would walk more than ten miles every day to go to Mass, all this before sunrise; of the missionaries who surely spent many hours kneeling before the Most Holy Sacrament asking God for his help, just as we will be doing in a few minutes. So yes, we can always go to Our Lady for help, but in the end, she will always take us to her Son.

Bienaventuradas tortugas

Por: Carlos Castillo Peraza
Publicado en el periódico La Jornada, 3 de abril de 1989.

Las tortugas son reptiles del orden de los quelonios. Su característica más importante es la de contar con una concha que alberga sus órganos vitales y los protege de las agresiones del medio. Paradigma de la lentitud y de la longevidad, estos animales han sido víctimas de la depredación humana que ha llegado al exceso de acabar paulatinamente con ellos disponiendo de sus huevos. La televisión mexicana –con el patrocinio de agencias internacionales y nacionales, tanto privadas como públicas, incluida una famosa marca de motocicletas japonesas y otra de llantas– ha alertado del peligro de extinción de alguna de las subespecies.

La Armada de México, biólogos graduados, estudiantes y amantes de la naturaleza despliegan una intensa y loable actividad encaminada a proteger de la voracidad humana los huevos de la tortuga marina. Brigadas de voluntarios recorren las playas en que las hembras entierran con delicadeza y paciencia centenares de futuras tortugas que nacerán gracias a la acción del calor solar.

Al parecer nadie duda de que esos huevos fecundados serán en efecto tortugas. Si supusieran que de ellos saldrán perros o caballos no habría tal actividad de protección. No he sabido hasta la fecha de debate alguno en torno a la “tortuguidad” de esos productos, ni he oído argumentos a favor de los depredadores en el sentido de que, como las futuras tortugas todavía no se “tortuguizan” por completo, resulte aceptable disponer de tales objetos como si no fueran a ser lo que ya comenzaron a ser. En el límite, la más leve sospecha de que de cada huevo pueda surgir una tortuga mueve a miles de personas a prodigar cuidados, recursos y trabajo para salvarlos a todos y cada uno. Disponer de uno solo de ellos está penado por ley.

Tampoco me ha tocado escuchar discusión alguna en torno a tortugas no deseadas, ni en relación con los peligros que las tortuguitas recién brotadas correrán en el mar para justificar matarlas antes de que ellas mismas asuman el riesgo de vivir. Sería absurdo que alguien se erigiera en último y definitivo juez de la “tortuguidad” de los huevos de tortuga y, con base en su juicio, determinara qué huevo merece pasar al plato de algún sibarita. No hay quien se anime a proclamarse creador de tortugas-sujetos-del-derecho-a-vivir. Todo huevo de tortuga tiene derecho, por ser tal, a ser respetado.

¡Bienaventuradas tortugas! No hay quien afirme que sólo la libertad de matarlas las haría dignas de la vida. No dependen de las decisiones inapelables de seres más fuertes, más inteligentes, más dotados de recursos que ellas; les va mejor que a los judíos o a los gitanos bajo el régimen de Hitler; tienen más oportunidades que un disidente en tiempos de Stalin, que un negro bajo el régimen sudafricano, que un piel roja en los terrenos de Bufalo Bill. Tampoco están sometidas a aquel criterio del Marqués de Sade: “imaginar que no se puede destruir, si así se requiere, un poco de materia fecundada, es llevar demasiado lejos el respeto por ésta”.

¡Bienaventuradas tortugas! Parecen tener más defensores que algunos niños no nacidos.

---

Blessed turtles

By: Carlos Castillo Peraza
Published in La Jornada newspaper on April 3rd. 1989.

Turtles are reptiles of the order of the Chelonia. Their most important characteristic is that they possess a shell that encloses their vital organs and protects them from the aggressions of the environment. Paradigm of slowness and longevity, these animals are victims of human depredation, which has reached the excess of slowly wiping them out by disposing of their eggs. Mexican television, with the sponsorship of national and international agencies, private and public alike, including a famous Japanese motorcycle company as well as a brand of tires, has alerted about one subspecies being in danger of extinction.

The Mexican Navy, biologists, students and lovers of nature display an intense and laudable activity aimed at protecting sea turtle eggs from human voracity. Brigades of volunteers patrol the beaches where female turtles bury, with delicacy and patience, hundreds of future turtles that will be born thanks to the warmth of the sun.

It seems like nobody doubts that these fecundated eggs will certainly be turtles. If they thought that dogs or horses would come out of them, they would not protect them. I haven’t heard of any debate about the “turtleness” of these products, nor have I heard any arguments in favor of predators based on the fact that, since the future turtles haven’t “turtleized” completely, it’s acceptable to dispose of them as if they weren’t already what they have already begun to be. In the limit, the slightest suspicion that from each egg a turtle might be born moves thousands of individuals to offer protection, resources and work to save each and every one of them. Disposing of a single egg is against the law.

Neither have I heard any discussion about unwanted turtles nor discussions related to the dangers that newly born turtles will face in the ocean as a justification for killing them before they have taken the risk of living. It would be absurd if someone pretended to become the ultimate judge of the “turtleness” of turtle eggs and, based on his own judgment, determined which egg deserves to end in somebody’s plate. Nobody dares to proclaim her or himself creator of turtles-subject-to-the-right-of-living. Every turtle egg has a right to be protected, just because it is a turtle egg.

Blessed turtles! Nobody says that only the freedom of killing them would make them worthy of life. They don’t depend on the indisputable decisions of stronger, smarter and better equipped beings. They do better than the Jews or the Gypsies under Hitler’s regime; they have more chances than a dissident in the times of Stalin, than a black man in the Southafrican regime or than a redskin in Buffalo Bill’s lands. Nor are they subject to that criterion from the Marquis de Sade: “imagining that a bit of fecundated matter cannot be destroyed if needed, is taking the respect for it way too far”.

Blessed turtles! They seem to have more defenders than some unborn children.

Junto a los ríos de Babilonia...

¿Por qué será que un hombre extraña su país cuando se encuentra lejos de él? ¿Qué tendrá ese pedazo de tierra que hace que uno añore estar ahí? ¿De dónde vendrá esa nostalgia que le invade al recordar los colores, los olores y los sonidos de su patria?

Dudo que alguien pueda expresar ese sentimiento mejor que el pueblo judío, el pueblo que ha permanecido en un exilio constante:

Al borde de los canales de Babilonia
nos sentábamos y llorábamos
al acordarnos de Sión;
en los sauces que por allí se encuentran
habíamos colgado nuestras arpas.
Allí los que nos habían deportado
nos pedían palabras de una canción,
y nuestros raptores, un canto de alegría:
“¡Cántennos un canto de Sión!”

¿Cómo íbamos a cantar un canto del Señor
en un suelo extranjero?
¡Si me olvido de ti, Jerusalén,
que mi derecha se olvide de mí!
Que mi lengua se me pegue al paladar
si de ti no me acuerdo,
si no considero a Jerusalén
como mi máxima alegría.
(Salmo 137, versículos 1 al 6)

Y sin embargo, el hombre no está en paz cuando está en su tierra. ¿No será entonces un sentimiento que va más allá del nacionalismo? ¿No será un sentimiento que apunta a nuestro anhelo por la “Nueva Jerusalén”?

---

By the rivers of Babylon…

Why is it that a man misses his country when he is far away? What makes that piece of land so special that one wishes to be back there? Where does that sadness that invades him when he remembers the colors, the smells and the sounds of his home come from?

I doubt that anybody can explain that feeling better than the Jews, the people who have lived in a constant exile:

By the rivers of Babylon
we sat mourning and weeping
when we remembered Zion.
On the poplars of that land
we hung up our harps.
There our captors asked us for the words of a song;
Our tormentors, for a joyful song:
"Sing for us a song of Zion!"

But how could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land?
If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand wither.
May my tongue stick to my palate
if I do not remember you,
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
beyond all my delights.
Psalm 137, verses 1 through 6

And yet, why is it that man is not at peace when he is in his land? Does that mean that this feeling goes beyond nationalism? Could it not be that it points towards our yearning for the “New Jerusalem”?

Las diferencias entre las derechas cristianas

Siempre he pensado que intentar clasificar las distintas tendencias políticas en “izquierdas y derechas” o en “conservadores y liberales” es una simplificación exagerada de la realidad. Esta clasificación generalmente está basada en cosas tan superficiales como “libre mercado contra intervención estatal”, por lo que llega a juntar en una misma categoría a formas de pensamiento político completamente dispares.

Esto se hace evidente no solo en aquellos casos en que los liberales resultan más conservadores que los conservadores o cuando la izquierda se adueña de las ideas de la derecha (sobra decir que cambiándolas al punto de echarlas a perder…) sino en un caso muy particular y en el que pocos de los expertos políticos han reparado: el de las “derechas” cristianas.

El agrupar a todas las formas de política cristiana en una misma categoría parece algo evidente, pero ello implicaría un muy grave error. Tan grave como equiparar el pensamiento de Lutero con el del Papa. Existen diferencias abismales entre el pensamiento político católico y el pensamiento político protestante. Está de más decir que el rompimiento del Protestantismo con el Catolicismo no fue un rompimiento meramente externo: fue un cambio profundo (y yo añadiría: un retroceso) incluso en la forma de entender al ser humano. Como ya he afirmado en otras ocasiones: un cambio en la concepción antropológica lleva a cambios en todo lo demás, especialmente en las cuestiones políticas y sociales.

Por ello, la posición política de los católicos en Estados Unidos nunca ha sido bien entendida por el resto de la población. Les parece contradictorio que sean “liberales” en lo económico pero “conservadores” en lo social. Hasta hace unos años, el electorado católico se inclinaba definitivamente por el partido demócrata. Hoy, a causa de la postura de ese partido en temas como el aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio entre homosexuales, ese mismo electorado se ha dividido. Aún así, el voto católico no encaja realmente en los ideales de ninguno de los dos partidos. Ni siquiera con el partido republicano, el cual tiene el monopolio sobre el “voto cristiano”. La pregunta es: ¿por qué?

La clave está, como mencioné más arriba, en las diferencias del concepto de ser humano que tienen el Catolicismo y el Protestantismo.

El Protestantismo es, por su misma naturaleza, individualista. Los dos pilares sobre los que Lutero fundó su movimiento así lo demuestran. El Sola Fides (creencia de que sólo basta creer en Jesucristo para ser salvado, sin necesidad de buenas obras) y Sola Scriptura (creencia de que la Biblia es la única fuente de revelación y que, por lo tanto, su interpretación es accesible a cualquiera) prácticamente permiten que un individuo se salve sin la necesidad de los demás.

En el Catolicismo, en cambio, no se puede entender a la persona sin la comunidad. Ideas como la Comunidad de los Santos, la salvación a través del amor al prójimo y la idea misma de “Iglesia” (proveniente de la palabra griega ekklesía, es decir, asamblea) como unión de todos los fieles en el Cuerpo místico de Cristo, apuntan a la necesidad del otro para poder alcanzar la salvación. Para el católico, nadie se puede salvar solo.

Con estas diferencias en mente, es fácil entender la divergencia de las posturas políticas. El protestante cree sobre todo en el mérito individual y, en sus ramas calvinistas, en que los pobres son pobres por maldición de Dios. El protestantismo exalta la iniciativa individual y encontró en el capitalismo su máxima expresión económica. El individuo es el centro de su política, el gobierno y la sociedad deben supeditarse a él. Se trata, pues, de una estructura jerárquica rígida en las relaciones entre niveles deben quedar reducidas a un mínimo.

El catolicismo encuentra su expresión económica en la responsabilidad social, la economía social de mercado y en la protección de los desamparados. Entiende al ser humano como un ser social. El individuo está inmerso en la sociedad y, por tanto, todo lo que hace (incluso en el ámbito privado) tiene una repercusión social. La estructura social no es jerárquica sino orgánica, donde las relaciones entre niveles deben estar reguladas por el principio de la subsidiariedad (esto da suficiente material para otra ocasión).

Aunque en muchos temas ambas posturas convergen, en el fondo son muy distintas. Tan distintas como las diferencias entre las religiones.

---

The differences among the Christian Right

I’ve always thought that trying to classify different political tendencies into “left and right” or “conservatives and liberals” is an oversimplification of reality. This classification is usually based on things as irrelevant as “free market versus state intervention” or other similar trivialities. As a consequence, most of the time, radically distinct political views are grouped into one same category.

This becomes evident not only in those cases in which liberals turn out to be more conservative than conservatives or when the left steals ideas from the right (completely messing them up), but especially in one case which political pundits rarely (if ever) talk about: that of the Christian right.

Grouping all forms of Christian politics seems something evident, but it implies quite a big mistake. A mistake as big as equaling the ideas of Luther to those of the Pope. There are abysmal differences between Catholic political thought and Protestant political thought. The fracture between Catholicism and Protestantism was more than a merely external rupture: it contained a deep break that changed the very way in which people understood man. As I’ve said in other occasions, a change in anthropological understanding brings with it a change in everything else, including social and political issues.

For that very reason, the political stance of Catholics in the U.S. is so often misunderstood. To many people it might seem contradictory to be economically “liberal” and socially “conservative”. Until some years ago, most of the Catholic vote would go to the Democrat party. Today, because of the Democrat position on issues such as abortion and gay rights, that electorate has become divided. Nonetheless, the Catholic vote doesn’t really “fit” in any of both parties’ ideals. Not even with the Republican Party which holds the monopoly on the “Christian vote”. Why is that so?

The answer to this question lies in what I said before: the differences in the understanding of what man is.

Protestantism is, by its very nature, individualistic. The two pillars on which Luther started his movement are a proof of this. Sola Fides and Sola Scriptura practically allow a person to be saved with no need of anybody else.

Catholicism, on the other hand, cannot understand the person without the community. Ideas such as the Communion of Saints, salvation through love of others and the very idea of “Church” as the community of faithful united in Christ’s Body, point to the need of others to be saved. For a catholic, nobody can be saved just by himself.

With these differences in mind, it’s easy to understand the divergence in political positions. A protestant believes, above all, in individual merit and, in its Calvinist branches, in the poor being poor because a sort of curse from God. Protestantism exalts individual initiative and found in Capitalism its maximum economical expression. That way, the individual becomes the center of all politics. Government and society are not more than necessary evils which must submit to the individual. That way, the social structure becomes a rigid hierarchy where contact between different levels must be reduced to a minimum.

Catholicism finds its economical expression in social responsibility, such as the social market economy and in helping the weakest members of society. It understands the human being as a social being. The individual is immersed in society and, therefore, anything he does (even in privacy) has a social repercussion. The social structure is not hierarchic but organic and relationships between levels must be regulated by the principle of subsidiarity (more on that on some other post).

Though both positions meet on certain issues, they are profoundly different. As different as the differences between religions.

Lo absurdo del psicoanálisis

El psicoanálisis es una confesión sin absolución.
G.K. Chesterton

Cualquier católico que se confiesa con cierta frecuencia y que lo hace saber a algún conocido, seguro se ha topado con la siguiente afirmación de parte de su interlocutor: “Yo no me confieso porque no tengo por qué contarle mis pecados a alguien que es igual o hasta más pecador que yo”. Dejando de lado el hecho de que afirmar eso es, por sí mismo, muestra de una soberbia tal que basta para declarar al que eso dice más pecador que el mayor de los pecadores; nos encontramos con una paradoja aún mayor. Esa paradoja (que es de tal magnitud que se vuelve un absurdo) es que estos individuos, si se presenta la necesidad (que en el mundo actual es casi en todos los casos), no tendrían inconveniente alguno en acudir a un psicólogo para revelarle sus más oscuros secretos.

Si en ese caso les señalaras que prácticamente se “confesaron” (aunque, como bien señala Chesterton, lo hicieron sin recibir una absolución), seguramente se reirían de tu ingenuidad y te contestarían que, a diferencia de las “supersticiones de la Iglesia” que existen para “esclavizar” al ser humano, su terapia los ha “liberado”.

Es precisamente en este punto donde se equivocan. El psicoanálisis no es liberador sino todo lo contrario. La confesión, por su parte, es la que realmente libera. Estoy casi seguro que el mismo Freud reconocería que el psicoanálisis no pretende liberar sino encontrar las causas científicas del comportamiento mostrado. Freud no creía en la libertad porque tenía una concepción determinista del mundo (de ahí su pesimismo). Ese determinismo lo condujo a creer que los seres humanos estaban condenados a constantemente causar sufrimiento al prójimo, sin la posibilidad de actuar de otra manera. En ese mundo no había lugar para la libertad (para conocer un poco más sobre las ideas de Freud y contrastarlas con una visión completamente distinta, recomiendo leer La pregunta acerca de Dios. C.S. Lewis y Sigmund Freud debaten acerca de Dios, el amor, el sexo y el significado de la vida, del Dr. Armand Nicholi publicado por la editorial Free Press. Desconozco si exista una edición en español…).

Por otro lado, la confesión tiene su raíz en la libertad y tiene, a su vez, un efecto auténticamente liberador. Está enraizada en la libertad porque de entrada, requiere que te consideres culpable de lo que confiesas. Sólo puedes ser culpable de algo si lo hiciste libremente y, por tanto, debes asumir la responsabilidad por lo hecho. Tiene un efecto liberador porque al confesarte, eres absuelto (es decir, perdonado): se trata de un “borrón y cuenta nueva”. Adicionalmente, siendo tú el responsable de lo que has hecho, eres también responsable de cambiar y mejorar. Como si eso no bastara, el creyente confía en que, al confesarse, recibe un auxilio divino para no volver a cometer los mismos errores. Si eso no es suficiente para generar un sentimiento liberador, no sé qué lo sea…

El psicoanálisis, en cambio, tiende a la supresión de la libertad. A todo acto que hagas le encuentra una justificación. La relación causa-efecto que establece entre las experiencias infantiles y los actos adultos es una relación de necesidad donde la libertad no tiene cabida. Si haces algo, no es porque libremente hayas decidido hacerlo sino porque en tu infancia sufriste un trauma que ha sido reprimido y que se manifiesta “obligándote” a hacer lo que ahora haces. El rol del psicólogo es escucharte y ayudarte a encontrar la causa de tu comportamiento. En pocas palabras, en el psicoanálisis, “confiesas tus pecados” pero no recibes el perdón sino una bonita excusa de por qué los cometiste. Así, puedes salir sabiendo a quién culpar de que te comportes como un animal pero no con la consciencia de que tú eres el animal y que, por lo mismo, eres el responsable de dejar de serlo. Siempre podrás culpar a alguien o algo, excepto a ti mismo.

Me queda claro que a una cultura que cree que libertad significa hacer lo que desees, sin temor a enfrentar ningún tipo de consecuencia, el psicoanálisis le queda como anillo al dedo. Sin embargo, si lo que queremos es una cultura que busque una mayor madurez entre sus miembros, quizá nos convenga regresar a las “supersticiones” del cristianismo…

---

The absurdity of psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is confession without absolution.
G.K. Chesterton

Any catholic that goes to Confession with certain regularity has probably heard the following statement after revealing that he does so: “I don’t go to Confession because I shouldn’t have to reveal my sins to someone who is probably much more a sinner than I am.” Leaving aside the fact that saying something like that proves such arrogance that would make you the worst among the worst of sinners; we find a rather absurd paradox. The paradox consists in that these individuals, if they found themselves in the need (which, in our modern world is pretty much always) of going to a psychologist, would have no problem at all in doing it and letting him know of even their darkest secrets.

If that were the case and you pointed out that they practically “confessed” their sins (though, as Chesterton rightly indicates: they did it without receiving an absolution), they would surely laugh at your naivety and would answer that, unlike the “superstitions of the Church” which exist to “enslave” mankind, their therapy has “set them free”.

It is precisely in this point where they are wrong. Psychoanalysis is not liberating, it is quite the opposite. Confession, on the other hand, is the one that truly liberates. Freud himself would admit that the goal of psychoanalysis is not to set people free but to explain, scientifically, their behavior. Freud didn’t believe in freedom because he had a deterministic conception of the world, which clearly explains his pessimism. That determinism led him to believe that men were doomed to cause pain to one another, without the possibility of acting differently. In that kind of world, freedom can’t exist (if you’re interested in learning more about Freud’s worldview and comparing it with a completely opposite worldview, I highly recommend reading The Question of God. C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, by Dr. Armand Nicholi).

The sacrament of Confession is deeply rooted in the idea of freedom and it has an authentically liberating effect. It is rooted in freedom because it requires you to recognize your own guilt in what you confess. You cannot be guilty of something unless you have freely chosen to do it. Only if you do something freely can you be held responsible for its consequences. Confession has a liberating effect because you are absolved from your sins (they are forgiven); therefore, you get to start again: you get a “blank sheet”. Since you are responsible for what you have done, you are also responsible for changing and becoming better. Additionally, believers trust that they will receive divine assistance in not sinning again. If that’s not enough to cause a liberating feeling, then I have no idea what could…

Psychoanalysis tends to suppress freedom. It finds a justification for everything you do. It establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between your childhood experiences and your adult actions. This kind of relationship is one of necessity (in the sense that a cause will necessarily produce a determined effect), where freedom has no place. If you do something, it is not because you freely chose to do it, but rather because of some childhood trauma which you have repressed and that manifests itself by “making” you act in the way in which you do. The role of the therapist is to listen to you and help you find the causes of your behavior. In other words, during therapy, you “confess your sins” but instead of receiving forgiveness, you receive a nice excuse of why you committed them. That way, you can walk away knowing who (or what) to blame about your beastly behavior but not with the consciousness that you are the one acting like a beast and that, because of that, you’re responsible of not acting like one anymore. You always leave knowing who or what to blame, except yourself.

It is very clear to me that psychoanalysis fits perfectly in a culture that believes that freedom means doing whatever you want, without having to deal with the consequences of your actions. However, if what we want is a culture where its members grow in maturity, then it might be a good idea to go back to the “superstitions” of Christianity…