Algunos comentarios sobre el liderazgo masculino / Some comments on male leadership

El concepto de liderazgo es uno de tantos conceptos que, desgraciadamente, han sido pervertidos por la mentalidad contemporánea. Creer que el líder es aquél que es superior a los otros y que ejercer el liderazgo significa imponer su voluntad sobre los demás, es el resultado de la errada filosofía de Nietzsche y su locura de la voluntad de poder. Suponer que el liderazgo “activo” es mejor que el liderazgo “pasivo” sólo por conllevar una acción es también resultado de una obsesión moderna: la de la primacía de la acción sobre la contemplación.

Es este entendimiento errado de lo que es el liderazgo, el que lleva a mucha gente a juzgar la creencia católica de que el hombre es el que lidera por acción en una familia como denigrante para la mujer. Como supuesta prueba de que esta enseñanza es sexista, suelen citar las palabras de San Pablo en su carta a los Efesios: “Las mujeres deben respetar a su marido como al Señor, porque el varón es la cabeza de la mujer, como Cristo es la Cabeza y el Salvador de la Iglesia, que es su Cuerpo. Así como la Iglesia está sometida a Cristo, de la misma manera las mujeres deben respetar en todo a su marido.” Los que así argumentan creen tener la razón y la prueba de su falaz argumentación en este verso, pero olvidan un pequeño detalle: estos versos no se pueden entender correctamente si no se leen también los versos que siguen: “Maridos, amen a su esposa, como Cristo amó a la Iglesia y se entregó por ella, para santificarla. Él la purificó con el bautismo del agua y la palabra, porque quiso para sí una Iglesia resplandeciente, sin mancha ni arruga y sin ningún defecto, sino santa e inmaculada. Del mismo modo, los maridos deben amar a su mujer como a su propio cuerpo. El que ama a su esposa se ama a sí mismo. Nadie menosprecia a su propio cuerpo, sino que lo alimenta y lo cuida. Así hace Cristo por la Iglesia, por nosotros, que somos los miembros de su Cuerpo. Por eso, el hombre dejará a su padre y a su madre para unirse a su mujer, y los dos serán una sola carne. Este es un gran misterio: y yo digo que se refiere a Cristo y a la Iglesia. En cuanto a ustedes, cada uno debe amar a su mujer como a sí mismo, y la esposa debe respetar a su marido.” (Efesios, 5: 22-33)

El hecho de que se les pida a los maridos liderar a sus esposas como Cristo lidera a su Iglesia no es una afirmación de que éstos sean superiores a aquellas, y el que eso cree debería estudiar los fundamentos del pensamiento católico antes de intentar usar las Sagradas Escrituras para argumentar contra las enseñanzas de la Iglesia. El no hacerlo lo hace quedar como un simple ignorante. Amar a sus esposas como Cristo ama a su Iglesia es un llamado a dar su vida por ellas. El liderazgo en el pensamiento católico no es un asunto de poder, sino de servicio. El que quiera ser el más grande que se haga el servidor de los demás, dice el Evangelio. En el catolicismo, tanto hombres como mujeres están llamados a una vocación de servicio y auto-entrega, es decir, a liderar a su familia, aunque en formas distintas. Contrario al pensamiento contemporáneo, que cree que el hombre tiene el derecho de disfrutar del fruto de su trabajo, el pensamiento católico sostiene que el hombre vive su vocación de auto-entrega poniendo ese fruto a los pies de su mujer. Con su trabajo, el hombre hace entrega de sí mismo a su familia. Las mujeres tienen la maternidad como una forma de entregarse a sí mismas. Los hombres no poseen esto, pero tienen la posibilidad de vivir su llamado al servicio a través del trabajo, es decir, dejando su comodidad para proveer a su esposa e hijos de lo que necesitan. Si liderar significa servir y para servir es necesario hacerse menor que el otro, entonces creer que el hombre al liderar se vuelve superior a la mujer es un sinsentido.

Por otra parte, asumir que el liderazgo femenino, que se da principalmente a través de la inspiración es inferior al liderazgo activo que se requiere de los hombres, es igualmente errado. Ambos tipos de liderazgo son complementarios y el uno es inútil sin el otro. Actuar por el simple hecho de actuar, sin ninguna motivación, sin ninguna dirección, es una simple estupidez. De igual forma, una inspiración que no lleva a la acción es una inspiración estéril. La ideología del progreso (es decir, la ideología de la acción sin otra motivación mas que la acción misma) no nos ha llevado al mundo ideal que nos había prometido y, más bien, ha traído más problemas que soluciones. Eso debería de servir como un claro ejemplo de que la acción no es superior a la contemplación. Regresando al pasaje antes citado, si Cristo desea “una Iglesia resplandeciente, sin mancha ni arruga y sin ningún defecto”, es para contemplarla y regocijarse en su belleza y perfección. Es para encontrar inspiración en esa perfección para seguir entregándose a ella. Lo mismo aplica para un hombre y su mujer. Mientras más noble es una mujer más inspira a que las acciones de un hombre sean nobles. Las palabras de Monseñor Fulton Sheen son mejores que las mías: “Cuando un hombre ama a una mujer, se sigue que mientras más noble sea la mujer, más noble es el amor; mientras más elevadas sean sus exigencias, más digno de ella debe ser el hombre.”

No veo en qué sentido esto puede ser discriminatorio para las mujeres. Este círculo de auto-entrega conduce a una armonía en las relaciones entre hombres y mujeres y no a una tensión permanente como la que fomenta la ideología de género. Sin embargo, el fanatismo de los que acusan a los católicos de fanáticos les impide ver esta realidad tan evidente.

---

The concept of leadership is one of many that has been, unfortunately, corrupted by Contemporary mentality. To believe that a leader is he who is superior to the rest and that leading means to impose one's will over others is the result of the erroneous philosophy of Nietzsche and his insanity of the “Will to Power”. To suppose that “active” leadership is better than “passive” leadership just because it implies action is also the result of a Modern obsession: that of the primacy of action over contemplation.

It is this flawed understanding of what leadership is that makes many judge the Catholic belief that a man is the one who leads by action in a family as degrading to women. As a proof that this teaching is sexist, they resort to the words of Saint Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.” Those who argue in this manner believe that they are right and that they possess a valid argument in favor of their point in these verses, but they forget a small detail: these verses cannot be correctly understood if the following verses are not read as well: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.” (Ephesians, 5: 22-33)

The fact that husbands are required to lead their wives like Christ leads his Church is not an affirmation of superiority and whoever believes this should study the basics of Catholic thought before trying to use the Scriptures against Church teachings. Not doing so only makes him look like an ignorant fool. To love their wives like Christ loves his Church is a calling to give their lives for them. Leadership in Catholic thought is not a matter of power, but of service. Whoever wants to be the first in the Kingdom of Heaven should become the servant of all, says the Gospel. For Catholicism, both men and women are called to a vocation of service and self-giving, that is, they are both called to lead their family, but in different ways. Contrary to Modern thought, which believes that a man has the right to enjoy the fruits of his work, Catholic thought teaches that a man lives that vocation of self-giving by placing the fruit of his work at his wife's feet. With his work, a man gives himself to his family. Women have maternity as a means of self-giving. Men don't, but they have the possibility of living this call to service through their labor, that is, by abandoning their personal comfort in order to provide for what their wives and children need. If leading means to serve and in order to serve one must become less than the other, then believing that man, in leading, becomes more than woman, is nonsense.

On the other hand, to assume that female leadership, which manifests itself mainly through inspiration, is inferior to the active leadership that is required from men, is wrong as well. Both types of leadership are complementary and one is useless without the other. To act just for the sake of acting, without any motivation or purpose is simply stupid. In the same way, an inspiration that does not conduct to an action is sterile. The ideology of progress (that is, the ideology of action without any other purpose than action itself) has not taken us to the ideal world which it had promised and has, rather, brought more problems than solutions. This is a clear example of action not being superior to contemplation. Going back to the passage I cited above, if Christ wishes to “present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing” it is so He can contemplate and rejoice in her beauty and perfection. It is so He can be inspired in that perfection to continue giving Himself to her. The same thing happens between a husband and his wife. The more noble that a woman is, the more she inspires the actions of a man to be nobler. The words of Archbishop Fulton Sheen are much better than mine: “When man loves woman, it follows the nobler the woman the nobler the love, the higher the demands by the woman, the more worthy a man must be.”

I do not see in which way this could be discriminatory to women. This circle of self-giving brings harmony to the relationships between men and women, not a permanent tension and conflict like the one that gender ideology creates. Nonetheless, the fanaticism of those who accuse Catholics of being fanatics does not allow them to see this self-evident reality.

En la fiesta de Santo Tomás de Aquino / On the feast day of Saint Thomas Aquinas

"En su momento de mayor furia, Tomás de Aquino entiende, lo que muchos defensores de la ortodoxia no entienden.  No tiene sentido decirle a un ateo que es ateo, o imputarle al negador de la inmortalidad la infamia de negarla, o imaginar que uno puede forzar a un oponente a admitir que está equivocado, probando que está mal según los principios de alguien más, pero no los suyos.

Siguiendo el gran ejemplo de Santo Tomás, el principio permanece, o siempre debió haber permanecido, de que no debemos discutir con un hombre, o debemos hacerlo en su terreno y no en el nuestro."

G.K. Chesterton, Santo Tomás de Aquino, el buey mudo.

Ahora bien: entre los Doctores escolásticos brilla grandemente Santo Tomás de Aquino, Príncipe y Maestro de todos, el cual, como advierte Cayetano, «por haber venerado en gran manera los antiguos Doctores sagrados, obtuvo de algún modo la inteligencia de todos» (25). Sus doctrinas, como miembros dispersos de un cuerpo, reunió y congregó en uno Tomás, dispuso con orden admirable, y de tal modo las aumentó con nuevos principios, que con razón y justicia es tenido por singular apoyo de la Iglesia católica; de dócil y penetrante ingenio, de memoria fácil y tenaz, de vida integérrima, amador únicamente de la verdad, riquísimo en la ciencia divina y humana, comparado al sol, animó al mundo con el calor de sus virtudes, y le iluminó con esplendor. No hay parte de la filosofía que no haya tratado aguda y a la vez sólidamente: trató de las leyes del raciocinio, de Dios y de las substancias incorpóreas, del hombre y de otras cosas sensibles, de los actos humanos y de sus principios, de tal modo, que no se echan de menos en él, ni la abundancia de cuestiones, ni la oportuna disposición de las partes, ni la firmeza de los principios o la robustez de los argumentos, ni la claridad y propiedad del lenguaje, ni cierta facilidad de explicar las cosas abstrusas.

Añádase a esto que el Doctor Angélico indagó las conclusiones filosóficas en las razones y principios de las cosas, los que se extienden muy latamente, y encierran como en su seno las semillas de casi infinitas verdades, que habían de abrirse con fruto abundantísimo por los maestros posteriores. Habiendo empleado este método de filosofía, consiguió haber vencido él solo los errores de los tiempos pasados, y haber suministrado armas invencibles, para refutar los errores que perpetuamente se han de renovar en los siglos futuros. Además, distinguiendo muy bien la razón de la fe, como es justo, y asociándolas, sin embargo amigablemente, conservó los derechos de una y otra, proveyó a su dignidad de tal suerte, que la razón elevada a la mayor altura en alas de Tomás, ya casi no puede levantarse a regiones más sublimes, ni la fe puede casi esperar de la razón más y más poderosos auxilios que los que hasta aquí ha conseguido por Tomás.

Por estas razones, hombres doctísimos en las edades pasadas, y dignísimos de alabanza por su saber teológico y filosófico, buscando con indecible afán los volúmenes inmortales de Tomás, se consagraron a su angélica sabiduría, no tanto para perfeccionarle en ella, cuanto para ser totalmente por ella sustentados. Es un hecho constante que casi todos los fundadores y legisladores de las órdenes religiosas mandaron a sus compañeros estudiar las doctrinas de Santo Tomás, y adherirse a ellas religiosamente, disponiendo que a nadie fuese lícito impunemente separarse, ni aun en lo más mínimo, de las huellas de tan gran Maestro. Y dejando a un lado la familia dominicana, que con derecho indisputable se gloria de este su sumo Doctor, están obligados a esta ley los Benedictinos, los Carmelitas, los Agustinos, los Jesuitas y otras muchas órdenes sagradas, como los estatutos de cada una nos lo manifiestan.

Y en este lugar, con indecible placer recuerda el alma aquellas celebérrimas Academias y escuelas que en otro tiempo florecieron en Europa, a saber: la parisiense, la salmanticense, la complutense, la duacense, la tolosana, la lovaniense, la patavina, la boloniana, la napolitana, la coimbricense y otras muchas. Nadie ignora que la fama de éstas creció en cierto modo con el tiempo, y que las sentencias que se les pedían cuando se agitaban gravísimas cuestiones, tenían mucha autoridad entre los sabios. Pues bien, es cosa fuera de duda que en aquellos grandes emporios del saber humano, como en su reino, dominó como príncipe Tomás, y que los ánimos de todos, tanto maestros como discípulos, descansaron con admirable concordia en el magisterio y autoridad del Doctor Angélico.

[...]

Últimamente, también estaba reservada al varón incomparable obtener la palma de conseguir obsequios, alabanzas, admiración de los mismos adversarios del nombre católico. Pues está averiguado que no faltaron jefes de las facciones heréticas que confesasen públicamente que, una vez quitada de en medio la doctrina de Tomás de Aquino, «podían fácilmente entrar en combate con todos los Doctores católicos, y vencerlos y derrotar la Iglesia» (35). Vana esperanza, ciertamente, pero testimonio no vano.

Aeterni Patris. Encíclica del Papa León XIII sobre la restauración de la filosofía cristiana.(1879)

Por esto y por mucho más, Santo Tomás de Aquino es el santo patrono de este blog.

---

"At the top of his fury, Thomas Aquinas understands, what so many defenders of orthodoxy will not understand. It is no good to tell an atheist that he is an atheist; or to charge a denier of immortality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving that he is wrong on somebody else's principles, but not on his own.

After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours."

G.K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Dumb Ox.

Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because "he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all."(34) The doctrines of those illustrious men, like the scattered members of a body, Thomas collected together and cemented, distributed in wonderful order, and so increased with important additions that he is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith. With his spirit at once humble and swift, his memory ready and tenacious, his life spotless throughout, a lover of truth for its own sake, richly endowed with human and divine science, like the sun he heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his teaching. Philosophy has no part which he did not touch finely at once and thoroughly; on the laws of reasoning, on God and incorporeal substances, on man and other sensible things, on human actions and their principles, he reasoned in such a manner that in him there is wanting neither a full array of questions, nor an apt disposal of the various parts, nor the best method of proceeding, nor soundness of principles or strength of argument, nor clearness and elegance of style, nor a facility for explaining what is abstruse.

Moreover, the Angelic Doctor pushed his philosophic inquiry into the reasons and principles of things, which because they are most comprehensive and contain in their bosom, so to say, the seeds of almost infinite truths, were to be unfolded in good time by later masters and with a goodly yield. And as he also used this philosophic method in the refutation of error, he won this title to distinction for himself: that, single-handed, he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in after-times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.

For these reasons most learned men, in former ages especially, of the highest repute in theology and philosophy, after mastering with infinite pains the immortal works of Thomas, gave themselves up not so much to be instructed in his angelic wisdom as to be nourished upon it. It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others all testify that they are bound by this law.

And, here, how pleasantly one's thoughts fly back to those celebrated schools and universities which flourished of old in Europe - to Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, to Douay, Toulouse, and Louvain, to Padua and Bologna, to Naples and Coimbra, and to many another! All know how the fame of these seats of learning grew with their years, and that their judgment, often asked in matters of grave moment, held great weight everywhere. And we know how in those great homes of human wisdom, as in his own kingdom, Thomas reigned supreme; and that the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor.

[...]

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man-namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.(37) A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.

Aeterni Patris. Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Restoration of Christian Philosophy (1879)

For this and for much more, Saint Thomas Aquinas is the patron saint of this blog.

El relativismo y la familia / Relativism and the family

En repetidas ocasiones he escrito acerca del rol de la familia como el núcleo de la sociedad, así como de su importancia en la vida de los individuos. También he insistido en que el principal enemigo de la familia es el individualismo. Ahora bien, el individualismo hace uso del relativismo para minar todo aquello que se le oponga, empezando por la familia.

En mi entrada pasada, escribí acerca del relativismo cultural y de su nefasta influencia. Además, como refutación a la falacia del relativismo, propuse como medida de comparación entre las distintas culturas el respeto a la dignidad humana. De esta forma quedó demostrado que sí existen diferencias significativas entre las culturas y que, por tanto, es posible jerarquizarlas y declarar a unas mejores que otras. Pretendo hacer algo similar con los “modelos alternos” de familia.

Primero, sin embargo, es necesario aclarar algunas cuestiones respecto a lo que es la familia. La familia es una institución natural, es decir, no nace como parte de un pacto social o de alguna ley, sino que es inherente a la naturaleza humana. Lo que distingue a las familias humanas de las familias animales es que en las familias humanas, precisamente por ser humanas, la libertad juega un rol primordial. Sin esta libertad es imposible el amor, que es el principio creador y unificador de nuestras familias. Por amor, un hombre se casa con una mujer. Por amor, tiene hijos, por los cuales se sacrifica en su crianza y preparación para su ingreso a la vida comunitaria. Así, la familia colabora con la preservación de la especie no sólo dándole vida a nuevos individuos, sino también manteniendo la vida social, sin la cual ningún individuo puede subsistir.

Una vez hechas estas aclaraciones, podemos regresar al tema del relativismo y la familia. Aquí, como en todo aquello en que el relativismo está presente, encontramos una contradicción. Por un lado, el relativismo pretende crear toda una serie de “modelos alternativos” de familia, dando una impresión de diversidad, pero por el otro afirma que entre todos estos modelos no hay diferencias significativas. Al declarar a todos igualmente valiosos, en realidad está diciendo que no tienen ningún valor. Esto es falso. Suponiendo (por cuestiones argumentativas) que estos “modelos alternos” de familia se pudieran considerar como alternativas reales a la familia, podemos encontrar razones suficientes para sostener que el “modelo tradicional” (por llamarlo de alguna manera) es superior a los demás y que, por lo mismo, debería de ser protegido y fomentado por la sociedad en su conjunto.

Para poder evaluar estos modelos, usaré dos medidas distintas: el respeto a la dignidad humana y el grado de cumplimiento de las funciones de una familia. Me parece que estas dos medidas son razonables y válidas, pues cualquier persona sensata aceptaría que una institución que no cumpla con ellas no puede ser llamada familia (por más que nuestros legisladores así la definan).

Es evidente que sólo la familia formada por un hombre y una mujer es capaz de procreación (esto no lo digo yo, ni lo dice la Iglesia, así funciona la naturaleza). Si esta es una de las funciones básicas de la familia, entonces aquellas uniones que por su naturaleza misma son incapaces de ello ya llevan una seria desventaja. El uso de técnicas artificiales de procreación atentan abiertamente contra la dignidad humana por lo que no pueden ser consideradas como válidas en nuestro análisis.

En cuanto a la educación de la prole, es necesario antes dejar algo muy en claro. Las diferencias entre los sexos son una realidad. No importa qué tan masculina sea una mujer, no dejará por ello de ser mujer y, por lo mismo, jamás podrá experimentar lo que es ser hombre. Lo mismo ocurre en dirección contraria. La única forma en que hombres y mujeres pueden llegar a entenderse mutuamente es a través de una relación complementaria. Esto es un hecho, no depende de nosotros cambiarlo. Por ello, un niño necesita de un padre para desarrollarse como hombre y de una madre para aprender cómo son las mujeres (los hermanos y hermanas también son de gran ayuda, por cierto). De igual forma, una niña requiere de su madre para aprender a ser mujer y de su padre para aprender acerca de los hombres. Teniendo un padre y una madre es la mejor forma de lograr esto. Asimismo, es importante que tanto el padre como la madre estén presentes a lo largo del crecimiento y educación de los hijos, por la sencilla razón de que un padre (o madre) ausente es incapaz de enseñarle algo a sus hijos. Esta es parte de la justificación de que el matrimonio sea indisoluble y aquí, otra vez, la familia tradicional lleva la ventaja.

Por último queda por ver la cuestión de la dignidad humana. Es importante recordar que el respeto a la dignidad humana está por encima incluso que la misma libertad de los individuos. No hay ningún derecho que se pueda considerar como tal si atenta contra esta dignidad. En este sentido, la unión monógama e indisoluble es la que mejor cumple con este requisito. Monógama e indisoluble porque la dignidad de una mujer demanda que sea tratada como una persona y no como un objeto, tentación en la cual cae todo hombre que mantiene relaciones sexuales con distintas mujeres. La indisolubilidad del matrimonio es así una forma de protección pues esa “exclusividad” honra la dignidad tanto del hombre como de la mujer.

La familia tradicional, es decir, aquella basada en el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer cuya unión es indisoluble es, sin duda alguna, la única que alcanza la calificación más alta de acuerdo a las medidas propuestas. Podrá tener sus defectos y podrá no ser perfecta, pero no cabe duda de que es la mejor opción que tenemos. Me parece ridículo que sólo porque la hemos ido destruyendo y ahora no funcione como debería, creamos que es conveniente fomentar otros “modelos” que sólo resultan más disfuncionales aún.

---

I have written quite often about the role that the family plays as the nucleus of society, as well as about its importance in the life of individuals. I have also insisted that the worse enemy of the family is Individualism. Individualism makes use of Relativism in order to undermine all that which opposes it, starting by the family.

In my last post, I wrote about Cultural Relativism and its terrible influence. As a refutation of this nefarious belief, I proposed that the respect of human dignity be used as a measure of comparison between different cultures. In that manner, it was proven that there are significant differences between cultures and that it is possible to establish a hierarchy and to declare some to be better than others. I seek to do the same with the “alternative models” of families.

First, however, it is necessary to clarify certain things about the family. The family is a natural institution, that is, it is not born of a social pact or of any law, but rather it is part of human nature. What distinguishes human families from animal “families” is that in human families, precisely because of their humanity, freedom plays a significant role. Without this freedom, love is impossible and love is the creative and unifying principle in our families. Out of love, a man marries a woman. Out of love, they have children and sacrifice many things in order to raise them and help them integrate into the communal life. In that way, the family collaborates with the preservation of our species, not only by giving life to new individuals, but also by maintaining the social life, without which no individual can survive.

Once this has been made clear, we can return to the subject at hand: the family and Relativism. Here, as in every place where Relativism is present, we can find a contradiction. On one hand, Relativism seeks to create a whole series of “alternative models” of families, giving an impression of diversity. On the other hand it sustains that there are no significant differences between these models. By declaring them all equally valuable, it is just saying that they are not worth anything at all. This is false. Even supposing (for the sake of the argument) that these models could be considered as true alternatives to a family, we can find enough reasons to prove that the so-called “traditional model” is superior to them and, for that reason, should be protected by society as a whole.

To evaluate these models, I propose two different units of measure: the respect of human dignity and the degree of fulfillment of the functions of a family. I believe that these are quite reasonable and valid measures, since any sane person would accept that an institution that does not satisfy these cannot be called a family (even if our legislators define it as so).

It is evident that only the family formed by a man and a woman is capable of procreation (this is not something that I say, or that the Church says, it is the way nature works). If procreation is one of the basic functions of the family, then those unions which are incapable of reproduction because of their very nature are in a serious disadvantage. The use of artificial techniques goes openly against human dignity so they will not be considered in this analysis.

Before talking about the upbringing of offspring, it is important to set something straight. The differences between genders are a reality. It does not matter how masculine a woman is, she will never stop being a woman, so she will never be able to experience what it is to be a man. The same occurs in the opposite direction. The only way in which men and women can understand each other is through a complementary relationship. This is a fact and it does not depend on us to change it. Therefore, a boy need a father in order to develop fully as a man and he needs a mother to learn about how women are (siblings are useful in this as well). In the same way, a girl needs a mother to become fully a woman and she needs a father to learn about the nature of men. Having both a father and a mother is the best way to achieve this. It is also important that both the father and the mother be present during the whole development of their children for the simple reason that an absent father (or mother) is incapable of teaching them anything at all. This is part of the justification in favor of the indissolubility of marriage. Here, once again, the traditional family has the lead.

The question of human dignity is now to be addressed. It is vital to remember that the respect of human dignity is above the freedom of individuals. There is no right that can be considered as such if it goes against human dignity. In this sense, the monogamous and indissoluble union is the one that best satisfies this requisite. This is so because the dignity of women demands that she be treated as a person and not as an object, temptation in which men can easily fall when they have sexual relationships with different women. The indissolubility of marriage then becomes a sort of protection because this exclusivity honors the dignity of both men and women.

The traditional family, that is, that one which is based on the indissoluble marriage of one man and one woman is, without a doubt, the one that scores the highest according to the proposed measures. It might have its defects and it surely is not perfect but it is definitely our best option. I think it is ridiculous that only because we have destroyed it and hence, it does not work as it should, we should believe that it is good to foster other “models” which are even more dysfunctional.

Una meditación sobre el relativismo cultural / A meditation on Cultural Relativism

El relativismo cultural es la creencia de que todas las culturas son igualmente valiosas y que, por tanto, es imposible jerarquizarlas. Muchos han cedido ante la tentación de creer semejante patraña bajo el pretexto de la tolerancia, sobre todo en los círculos mal-llamados intelectuales (pues quien cree en el relativismo ha renunciado al pensamiento racional y no puede ser llamado intelectual).

Creer, por ejemplo, que la cultura del Nacional-Socialismo Alemán o la cultura Soviética no pueden ser condenadas como malas o como peores que prácticamente cualquier otra cultura que ha existido es una muestra más que evidente de la falacia que es el relativismo cultural. Ahora bien, para poder comparar y jerarquizar culturas, es necesario encontrar una referencia contra la cual medir la bondad o maldad de las mismas. Esta referencia, o unidad de medición, por llamarla de alguna manera, debe ser algún valor que podamos considerar supremo. Yo propongo como tal el respeto a la dignidad humana. Este valor es incluso superior a otro valor tan apreciado (aunque pésimamente mal entendido) como lo es la libertad, pues la libertad misma está contenida dentro del respeto a la dignidad humana y está sujeta a ella. Por tanto, podemos considerar al respeto a la dignidad humana como el valor supremo sobre el cual deberíamos construir nuestras sociedades y culturas.

Sé que por ahí podría surgir algún relativista seriamente dañado de sus facultades mentales a alegar que el respeto a la dignidad humana es un valor occidental y que no puede ser usado para juzgar a otras culturas. Este es un caso perdido y yo lo dejaría en manos de alguna institución mental, pues claramente ha perdido todo rastro de sentido común. Este valor es universalmente aceptado (o lo sería si todo mundo entendiera de qué se trata) y, por ello, es válido para construir esta jerarquía de culturas.

Una vez determinada nuestra unidad de referencia, podríamos proceder a calificar a cada cultura. Con ello, las mejores culturas serían aquellas en las que se respete la dignidad humana en mayor medida, y serían peores aquellas que no.

Es justo aquí donde encuentro la causa de que el relativismo cultural esté adquiriendo tanta fuerza en la civilización occidental. La causa es que Occidente fracasa miserablemente si lo sujetamos a esta medición. De ser una civilización en que las mejoras culturales se medían por el aumento en el respeto a esa dignidad, se pasó a la civilización de la objetificación del ser humano en sus relaciones interpersonales (sobre todo en las relaciones entre los sexos), de la explotación del hombre por el hombre (tanto en el capitalismo como en el socialismo) y en general a una civilización en que la dignidad humana quedó supeditada a muchos otros valores (a la libertad o al lucro) Una cultura en que la pornografía se permite por no limitar una supuesta libertad de expresión, en que el afán de lucro lleva a unos a esclavizar al pobre y en que la vida humana ha perdido todo valor, es una cultura que no tiene respeto alguno por la dignidad humana. En eso se ha convertido Occidente, y, aunque se repite constantemente que todos estos “avances” han sido para bien de la humanidad (creyendo que una mentira repetida mil veces se vuelve verdad), sabe en su subconsciente que no es así. Cada vez que se mide con la vara del respeto a la dignidad humana y ve su propio fracaso se sume más y más en la demencia del relativismo. Es su último y patético intento de justificación. Si todas las culturas tienen el mismo valor, entonces Occidente no puede ser inferior a las demás aunque sabe que lo es.  Bajo la hipócrita máscara de la tolerancia, ha fingido bajar de su pedestal para abrazar a sus hermanas, cuando en realidad lo que pretende es sumirlas en el mismo fango en que se encuentra.  Occidente ha perdido la razón pues ha intentado huir de la realidad y ha terminado en los brazos de la locura del relativismo.

---

Cultural relativism is the belief that all cultures are worth the same and that, therefore, it is impossible to hierarchize them. Many have given into the temptation of believing such nonsense under the excuse of tolerance, especially in the erroneously called intellectual circles (because anyone who believes in relativism has given up rational thought and cannot be called an intellectual).

To believe, for example, that the Nazi culture or the Soviet culture cannot be condemned as evil or cannot be considered worse than pretty much every other culture that has existed is a more than evident proof of cultural relativism being a fallacy. Now, in order to compare and hierarchize cultures, it is necessary to find a reference against which we can measure the goodness or badness of these. This reference, or unit of measurement, so to speak, must be some sort of supreme value. I propose the respect of human dignity as such value. This value is superior to that other value which is so appreciated (though incorrectly understood) nowadays: freedom. The respect of freedom is contained in the respect of the dignity of human beings and is subject to it. Hence, the respect of human dignity can be considered to be this supreme value around which we should build our societies and cultures.

I know that some severely deranged relativist could come up and argue that the respect of human dignity is a Western value and that it cannot be used to judge other cultures. This would be a lost cause and I would leave this person in the hands of some mental institution since he has clearly lost all trace of common sense. This value seems to be universally accepted (or would be if everyone knew what it means) and is valid to build our hierarchy of cultures.

Once we have determined our unit of reference, we can proceed to qualify each culture. In that way, the best cultures would be those in which human dignity is respected the most and those where it is respected the least would be the worst.

This is exactly where I see the cause of relativism becoming so strong in the West. The cause is that Western culture fails miserably if we subject it to this measurement. From being a civilization in which cultural improvements were thought of as improvements in the respect of that dignity, it came to be the civilization of objectification of human beings (especially in the relationships between the sexes), of exploitation of Man by Man (both in Capitalism and in Socialism) and of subjecting human dignity to so many other values (such as freedom and profit). A culture in which pornography is allowed because banning it would limit someone's freedom of expression; in which the search for profit has led many to enslave the poor and in which human life has lost its intrinsic value, is definitely a culture in which human dignity is not respected. That is what the West has become and, though it repeats to itself that these “advancements” have brought good to Mankind (believing that a lie repeated a thousand times will become a truth), it knows in its subconscious that this is not so. Each time that it measures itself with the scale of the respect of human dignity and sees its own failure, it sinks more and more into the madness of relativism. It is its last and most pathetic attempt at justifying itself. If all cultures have the same value, then Western culture cannot be inferior to any other culture, even when it knows that it is. Under the hypocritical mask of tolerance, it has pretended to come down from its pedestal to greet its sisters, when it was really trying to pull them down to the mud in which it lives.  The West has lost its mind because it has tried to flee from reality, straight into the arms of the insanity of relativism.

Apologetics of apologetics

This is the text on which I based my talk on Apologetics for Spirit and Truth, Monday Night Adoration, organized by the Catholic Student Organization on January 11th, 2010.

---

Tonight I'm going to talk to you guys about apologetics. Some of you already know what apologetics is all about and you're probably better apologists now than I will ever be. But there are also others among you who are probably wondering what the heck I'm talking about or just have a vague notion about it. Anyway, it's always good to start with a definition, just to put things in order. If you look it up in the dictionary, you will find that it is a systematic, argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine. This definition doesn't really help, with all these confusing and complicated words. Basically, what it means is that apologetics is a backed up defense of the faith.

Now, this defense of the faith can be, in some occasions, not more than an explanation of what we believe in. Like when someone asks you what the Mass is, or why the Church teaches something about a certain issue. But on other occasions (and these are the ones I personally enjoy the most) it means to actually get in an argument or a debate over the truths of our faith and defend it. It becomes a sort of intellectual duel and if you love a good fight (like I do), you will discover that these are the type of battles that are really worth fighting.

But even if you don't like to fight or argue you will need to learn how to defend your faith because these fights will show up whether you like it or not, especially in a secularist and hostile world like the one we live in. You see, apologetics is not about fighting for the sake of fighting, that's just stupid. Many times there won't even be a fight at all. The whole point of apologetics is to bring others to the Truth of Christ. They are an essential part of our vocation as Catholics to preach the gospel to all nations. What we learn in Apologetics classes is how to give reason of what the Church teaches so that we can go on to teach others. The whole point of these “fights” is to win souls for Christ!

I said before that these “fights” will come to you, whether you like it or not so you've probably already been an apologist, even without knowing it. Let me explain that in greater detail. I like to see apologetics in three different levels. The first level is what I call one-on-one apologetics. This is when you are hanging out with your friends and your conversation moves into the matters of faith and beliefs. These tend to be friendly conversations since they are mostly motivated by curiosity about the teachings of the Church. If these are so friendly and nice, how come you have to be prepared for them? Well, because, believe me, these situations can be scary and it is very easy for us to fail to witness to the Truth. I gotta come out clean and tell you guys that I have personally failed on this many times. The devil is present at those moments whispering into your ear that your friends are going to make fun of you, or that they won't understand and you'll look like a fool. That is a lie! If you bear witness with your life and then you have the courage to bear witness with your words as well, your friends are going to notice that you are a congruent person and they'll admire and respect you. And when they respect you, they'll look you up when they need advice because they'll know you will speak with the Truth. They'll ask you for advice because they know that you'll tell them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear! I'm sure most of you have gone through this kind of experiences, and, as I told you, they probably happened without you expecting them to happen. You have to be prepared so you don't mess up when the opportunity to evangelize your friends shows up. It is really important! Don't you want all your friends, relatives and acquaintances to believe in Christ and to live in the light of his Truth? Then take these things seriously!

The second level of apologetics is what I call classroom apologetics. I'm sure many of you have had your share of these experiences too. We've all had to deal with a hostile professor or an annoying classmate who will go on bashing the Church and its teachings. How many times has this happened and you've remained silent? Don't you see how important it is for you to speak up? It is a known fact that many college students will be deeply influenced by what they hear in their classrooms. If all they hear are the lies that these people feed them, then they will build their lives around those lies. And these people are the future leaders of the world. You have the opportunity to influence their lives and their future decisions by being a witness of the Truth! Is it hard? It's extremely hard! The devil will be there telling you to remain quite, he'll tell you that if you speak up people will think you're a fanatic, an ignorant or that you are intolerant. He'll tell you that your professor is way smarter than you are so you shouldn't question him at all. Well, guess what? All those things are lies! The purpose of a university (the Catholic Church invented them, by the way) is to seek for Truth. That they've become so secularized that they've forgotten their purpose shouldn't be an excuse for us not fighting to recover it. When you're classmates see that you have the guts to stand up for what is true, even if it means contradicting a professor, you will have made a deep impact in their lives. Could you get in trouble for this? You could, but then again, being a good Catholic implies being a bit of a rebel. Not a rebel without a cause, but rather, a rebel with a very good cause: the salvation of souls.

So finally we reach the third and last level, which is the apologetics of the culture. This is where apologetics are taken to the very front lines of the culture wars. And this is absolute hostile territory. This is where the World itself, with all its power, is set against the Truth. But this is also where the great stars of apologetics, the greatest apologists have fought and inspired the rest of us. This is where Thomas Aquinas refuted every single one of the heresies of the Middle Ages, where G.K. Chesterton and Cardinal Newman stood as beacons of the Truth amidst the darkness of their time. This is where John Paul II and Benedict XVI stand in our days. They are our leaders in this war. We might not be called to take their place, but we still have a role to play in this epic battle. We might not be called to be generals, but there's no doubt that we are called to be soldiers. It our duty to listen and learn from their teachings and to spread the word about them. One day you will have to be an apologist in your family, at your job or in the public square and there you must defend these truths that have been handed down to you. I won't lie to you, when I look at the current situation of the world, the view is pretty bleak. Things look really bad out there. This can be discouraging. Nonetheless, you might remember the words John Paul II had for all young men and women a few days before he died: “Be not afraid of being witnesses of Christ to the world!” We mustn't be afraid! We will find courage in the Eucharist!

That is why we are here tonight. We are called to do something that is way beyond our capabilities and our strength. The reality of the world and its attacks on the Truth is overwhelming. When we look at the enemies of the Church it’s normal to be scared out of our minds because there is no way we can defeat them. That is why we are here tonight. We will be kneeling before Him who is the Truth and whom the World killed only for Him to rise again. We will be kneeling before Him who already defeated the World! Remember that He came down to Earth and experienced in his own flesh that same fear and doubt that you feel. He understands. You can tell Him with all confidence: “Lord, it's impossible for me to defeat the enemies of your Church” and He'll say: “I know, but it's not impossible for Me”. He knows what it's like and He'll give you the strength to stand firm. Be not afraid for He has already triumphed over the World!

La locura del mundo moderno / Modern world insanity

Si necesitas evidencia de la locura de la cual hablé en mi última entrada, lee esto: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

---

If you need evidence of the insanity of which I spoke in my last post, read this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

La soledad del Hombre moderno / The loneliness of Modern Man

Muchos de nuestros expertos modernos han llegado a la conclusión irracional de que la familia “tradicional” está condenada a la desaparición porque es un obstáculo para la libertad individual. Algunos han llegado incluso a señalar que la familia es una creación artificial de la sociedad y que es una imposición del Cristianismo. Claro que rara vez presentan alguna prueba de lo que dicen. De lo que no se dan cuenta es de que, cuando la familia se rompe, también los individuos lo hacen. Un ejemplo de esto lo encontramos en los trágicos tiroteos que se han vuelto cada vez más comunes, no sólo en Estados Unidos, sino en todo el mundo desarrollado. Muchos de los analistas sociales atribuyen este comportamiento violento a algún desequilibrio psicológico pero dejan de lado el hecho de que estos desordenes son causas secundarias y no la causa primaria. La verdadera causa yace debajo, no escondida sino a la vista de todos, gritándole a una sociedad que no se preocupa por estas personas sino hasta que es demasiado tarde. La verdadera causa del colapso de estos individuos es una característica común entre todos ellos: que están desesperadamente solos.

Estos son, claro está, los casos más extremos de la locura que puede provocar la soledad. Sin embargo, en todas partes los individuos están padeciendo, en mayor o menor grado, de esta locura. Aún en nuestras inmensas y populosas ciudades, la gente vive encerrada en sus propios mundos, hechos a la medida, sin ninguna preocupación por los que los rodean. ¿Acaso no se define a la locura como el vivir en un mundo imaginario, desconectado de la realidad? No es bueno que el Hombre esté solo pues en la soledad pierde el juicio. Por esto existe la familia.

Esta locura alcanza proporciones épicas cuando el Estado y la sociedad entera deciden que, como la familia se está desintegrando, es mejor deshacerse de ella, en lugar de arreglarla. No sé qué tipo de lógica defectuosa los llevó a esta conclusión, pero parece ser la predominante en nuestros días. Esta tendencia perversa tiene, además, un grave defecto: es auto-destructiva. Una sociedad en la que las familias desaparecen o en la que son debilitadas es una sociedad condenada a su propia destrucción. Por tanto, la preservación de la familia es necesaria para el bien común y, por esa razón, debería de ser protegida por el Estado y por toda la sociedad.

Ahora bien, tenemos sociedades para ayudarnos los unos a los otros a sobrevivir. Puesto que este es el propósito de vivir en sociedad, podemos deducir que tenemos una obligación especial de proteger a los miembros más débiles de la misma. Todos podemos estar de acuerdo en que los miembros más débiles de la sociedad son los niños y los ancianos. La experiencia acumulada por milenios es que la mejor protección que pueden recibir estas personas se da dentro de una familia. Por ello, desde siempre, las viudas y los huérfanos han recibido (por lo menos en las sociedades más merecedoras del adjetivo de humanas) una atención especial pues no cuentan con la protección de una familia y se encuentran solos en el mundo. En nuestros días, en cambio, los niños crecen solos (educados por la televisión, como si no estuvieran lo suficientemente dementes) pues sus padres están ocupados en sus propios asuntos. Los ancianos, por lo general, son abandonados o enviados a asilos donde se les deja sufrir enfermedades y la muerte por sí solos. De esta manera, esta demencia social se perpetúa, mientras los adultos permanecen indiferentes ante ella, estando tan ocupados en tantas otras cosas.

Por otro lado, nos encontramos que, aunque las familias sean destruidas y la sociedad se derrumbe, no desaparece la necesidad que tenemos de vivir juntos, y, como consecuencia, es el Estado el que toma cargo de toda la vida social. No debemos olvidar que los Estados totalitarios siempre han visto a la desaparición de la familia como algo bueno. Los nazis, los soviéticos y todos los demás idólatras del Estado siempre han buscado formas de debilitar a la familia para poder así controlar a los individuos. Al arrebatarle sus hijos a los padres y eliminando a los ancianos, minaban el orden social para imponer sus creencias sobre todo el mundo. Nuestra moderna sociedad relativista no es tan diferente de aquellos totalitarios. La aparente cordura impuesta por una dictadura (aún una dictadura cultural, como lo es la dictadura del relativismo) parece una buena opción para aquél que ha perdido la razón. Yo todavía estoy lo suficientemente cuerdo para darme cuenta de que esto no es cierto.

---

Many of our Modern day experts have come to the irrational conclusion that the “traditional” family model is bound to disappear because it is not fitting for personal and individual freedom. Some go as far as saying that the family is an artificial creation of society and an imposition of Christianity. Of course, they rarely, if ever at all, present any proof of what they say (as most scientific dogmatists tend to do). What they do not realize is that because the family is breaking up, individuals are breaking down. There is a perfect example of this which is to be found in the tragic shootings that have become ever more common, not only in the United States, but around the developed world. Most social pundits attribute this violent behavior to psychological disorders but fail to notice that these are only secondary causes, not the true cause. The true cause lies beneath, not hidden but in the view of all, yelling out to a society that does not care about these people until it is too late. The real cause of these persons' breakdown is a common trait among all these killers: that they are desperately alone.

This is, of course, the most extreme case of the insanity which can be caused by solitude. However, everywhere individuals are victims in a lesser degree of this insanity. Even in our large and crowded cities, people live locked up in their own little custom-made worlds with an absolute disregard for those who surround them. And is not the definition of insanity to live in an imaginary world, disconnected from reality? It is not good for man to be alone for in loneliness he loses his sanity. That is why the family exists.

This insanity reaches epic proportions when the State and society at large decide that, since the family is broken, it is better to get rid of it instead of fixing it. What kind of defective logic led them to this conclusion, I do not know, but it seems to be predominant nowadays. This perverse tendency has an additional flaw which its supporters ignore: it is self-destructive. A society where families disappear or are weakened is a society condemned to it own destruction. Therefore, the preservation of the family is necessary for the common good and, for that reason, it should be protected by the State and by all society.

Now, the whole point of having a society is that we might help each other survive. Because this is the purpose of living in society, we can deduce that we have a special obligation to protect the weakest members. I am quite certain that we can all agree that the weakest members of society are the children and the elderly. It is proven by human experience over thousands upon thousands of years that the best protection they can receive is within a family. Hence, widows and orphans have always been treated (at least in truly humane societies) with special attention since they lack the protection of a family and are left alone in the world. In our days, children are growing lonely (and raised by television, as if they weren't quite insane already) since their parents are occupied in their own business. The elderly are usually abandoned or sent away to retirement homes where they are left to illness and death all by themselves. In this manner, the insanity perpetuates itself, while adults remain indifferent towards it, being busy as they are in their many occupations.

On the other hand, just because families are destroyed and society as a whole starts to crumble, the need to live together does not disappear, and, as a consequence, the State steps up and takes charge of all social life. We must never forget that totalitarian States have always seen the disappearance of the family as something good for them. The Nazis, the Soviets and all other State worshipers have always looked for ways to weaken the family so they can take control over individuals. By taking children away from their parents and by eliminating the elderly, they would undermine the social order so they could impose their beliefs over everybody. Our Modern relativist society is not that different from these totalitarians. The apparent sanity of order imposed by a dictatorship (even a cultural one, as is the dictatorship of relativism) seems like a good option when everyone has lost their mind. I am still sane enough to realize that this is not true.

Sexualidad y la familia / Sexuality and the family

He escrito un par de veces sobre la vocación del Hombre a la familia. En mi última entrada, mencioné brevemente que las enseñanzas de la Iglesia Católica respecto a la sexualidad y a las cuestiones sociales están relacionadas con esta vocación. Esto lo hice de forma superficial, sin adentrarme en los detalles. En esta ocasión, me gustaría profundizar en el aspecto sexual de esta vocación, particularmente a la luz de la encíclica Humanae Vitae de Pablo VI. Trataré los aspectos sociales de esta vocación en otro momento.

Para poder iniciar la discusión sobre la sexualidad y la familia, es necesario aclarar dos cosas: primero, que el amor debe ser entendido como un acto de auto-entrega; segundo, que el Hombre se vuelve plenamente Hombre (y plenamente feliz) cuando vive sus relaciones interpersonales de forma madura y amorosa, específicamente sus relaciones familiares. Esto es, el Hombre encuentra su plenitud en la familia. Esta es la definición de la vocación familiar del ser humano. Estas dos afirmaciones no requieren de justificación alguna pues son cuestión de sentido común.

Ahora bien, ¿cómo se relacionan estas dos ideas con las enseñanzas de Pablo VI respecto a la sexualidad humana? Pablo VI habla de los dos significados de la unión conyugal: el unitivo y el procreador. Ambos significados están estrechamente relacionados con la familia: el unitivo nos dice, como su nombre lo indica, que este acto une a un hombre y a una mujer y los mantiene unidos, con lo cual se forma una célula familiar. El significado procreador, por su parte, permite que esta célula familiar crezca. Usando una analogía arquitectónica, podríamos ver al significado unitivo como los cimientos y al significado procreador como el edificio que se construye sobre esos cimientos.

Los anticonceptivos atacan al significado procreador directamente pero también atacan al sentido unitivo de una forma más sutil. De hecho, minan la estructura familiar por completo y, con ello, la esencia misma del ser humano. ¿Cómo ocurre esto? Habíamos acordado que el amor es un acto de auto-entrega. El amor es más perfecto a medida en que el individuo se entrega más completamente. Al utilizar anticonceptivos, tanto el hombre como la mujer le están negando su propia fertilidad al otro lo cual hace que su amor sea menos perfecto, además de que bloquea por completo la posibilidad de entrega (y, por tanto, de amor) hacia su potencial prole. Una vez que el amor desaparece, las relaciones sexuales conducen, como señala claramente Pablo VI, a la objetificación del otro, objetificación a la cual son particularmente vulnerables las mujeres. Esta objetificación, que es lo opuesto al amor, trae consigo un distanciamiento entre el hombre y la mujer con lo que se destruye el significado unitivo del acto conyugal. Sin amor, no pueden haber familias y entonces, tanto hombres como mujeres son incapaces de alcanzar su plenitud.

Hay personas que argumentan que tener hijos obstaculiza su realización personal o que tener muchos hijos es irresponsable. La verdad es que esto sólo es una forma políticamente correcta de decir que son egoístas. Sin duda alguna, tener hijos requiere que se inviertan grandes cantidades de tiempo, dinero y esfuerzo para criarlos. Requiere que cambies tu estilo de vida por completo y que te tenas que entregar de una forma radical. ¡Esto no tiene nada de malo! ¡Eso es precisamente lo que se requiere cuando se ama a alguien! Y el amor es, como ya dije, la base de todas las familias. Sabiendo esto, podemos concluir que para que hombres y mujeres se puedan realizar plenamente, deben entregarse el uno al otro y a sus hijos. Si evitan tener hijos, ¿cómo podrán lograr eso?

La Iglesia no enseña que la sexualidad sea mala. Al contrario, cree que la sexualidad que ofrece el Mundo no es suficientemente buena. Cree que hombres y mujeres merecen algo mejor y más acorde con su naturaleza. El tipo de sexualidad que ofrece nuestra cultura está basado en una visión individualista del ser humano y está, por tanto, errado. Por eso es una sexualidad que fomenta los anticonceptivos. Ignora el hecho de que el Hombre está llamado a formar una familia. Las consecuencias de esta mentalidad son por demás evidentes: con la desintegración de las familias, se desintegran nuestras sociedades.

Muchos de los oponentes de las enseñanzas de la Iglesia acusan a los católicos de decir que estas enseñanzas son ciertas sólo porque la Iglesia así lo dice. Estas cosas no son ciertas porque la Iglesia lo diga; la Iglesia las defiende porque son ciertas. El que sostenga que las enseñanzas de la Iglesia sólo son imposiciones arbitrarias no es más que un ignorante. Si esa persona hiciera una investigación honesta sobre por qué la Iglesia enseña lo que enseña, las cosas serían diferentes. Sin embargo, la mayoría de estos individuos no se toma la molestia de hacerlo por pereza intelectual (y yo agregaría, por falta de capacidad intelectual). Aquellos que se hacen llamar libre-pensadores rara vez piensan. La Iglesia parece ser la única institución en el mundo que activamente defiende a la familia y por ello deberíamos de darle las gracias. La supervivencia de nuestra civilización depende de la supervivencia de las familias.

---

I have written about the vocation of Man to a family life in some of my recent posts. In my last post, I mentioned briefly that the Catholic Church's stance on sexuality and its social teaching are both related to this vocation. I did this in a rather superficial way, without getting into details. On this occasion, I would like to delve deeper into this vocation from the side of sexuality, particularly in the light of Paul VI's marvelous encyclical Humanae Vitae. I will deal with the social aspects of this vocation at some other moment.

In order to begin discussing the matter of sexuality and the family, we must first set two things straight: first, that love is to be understood as an act of self-giving; and second, that Man will be fully Man (and is truly happy) when he lives his relationships with others in a mature and loving way, specifically his family relationships. That is, Man finds his fulfillment in a family. This is the definition of the vocation of Man to family life. These two things need no justification other than common sense, so I will not try to explain them in greater detail.

Now, how do these two ideas relate to Paul VI's teachings on human sexuality? Paul VI talks about the two significances of the conjugal act: the unitive significance and the procreative significance. Both of these meanings are directly referring to a family: the unitive significance means, as its name clearly indicates, that this act unites a man and a woman and it also keeps them together forming what we could call a family cell. The procreative meaning, on the other hand, enables that family cell to grow. Using an architectonic analogy, we could see the unitive meaning as the foundations and the procreative meaning as the construction which is being built upont those foundations.

Contraceptives attack the procreative meaning directly but they also attack the unitive meaning in a more subtle way. They actually undermine the whole structure of the family and with it, the very essence of Man. How is this so? We agreed that love is an act of self-giving. The more completely a human being gives him or herself, the more perfect the love. When using contraceptives, both man and woman are denying their own fertility to the other, which makes their love less perfect and completely blocks the possibility of giving themselves to their potential offspring, which, in turn, totally destroys the possibility of love. Once love ceases to exist, sexual relationships lead to, as Paul VI clearly states, the objectification of the other, an objectification to which women are particularly vulnerable and which leads to a separation between the man and the woman and the destruction of the unitive significance of the conjugal act. This objectification is the opposite of love. With no love, there are no families and then both men and women are incapable of being fulfilled.

Some people argue that having children gets in the way of their personal fulfillment or that having many children is irresponsible. The truth is that this is just a politically correct way of saying that they are selfish. Does having a child require you to invest large amounts of time, money and effort into his upbringing? Yes it does. It requires you to change your whole lifestyle and to give yourself in a very radical way. There's nothing wrong with that! That is exactly what is required of anyone who loves somebody else! And love is, as I have already said, the basis of all families! So, after knowing this, we can conclude that in order for a man or a woman to be fulfilled, they must give themselves completely to one another and also to their children. But, if they avoid having children, how can they do that?

The Church does not teach that human sexuality is bad; it believes that the type of sexuality offered by the World is not good enough. It believes that men and women deserve something much better and more according to their own nature. The type of sexuality offered by our culture is based on an individualistic view of Man and is, therefore, wrong. That is why it is a pro-contraceptive type of sexuality. It ignores the fact that Man is called to a family life. The consequences of that mentality are more than evident in our days: as families disintegrate, so do our societies.

Most opponents of Church teachings accuse Catholics of saying that these teachings are true only because the Church says so. These things are not true because the Church says so; the Church upholds them because they are true. Whoever sustains that Church teachings are nothing but arbitrary impositions is not more than an ignorant. If that person did some honest research in order to understand why the Church teaches what it teaches, then things would be different. Most of these individuals do not bother to do that research because of mental laziness (and in many cases, because of mental inability). Those who call themselves free thinkers rarely do any thinking at all. The Church seems to be the only institution in the world that is actively defending the family and we should be thankful for that. The survival of our civilization depends on the survival of the family.