Réplica parte 2 / Reply part 2

El matrimonio es un bien y debe, por medio de la razón, ser defendido contra toda calumnia.

San Agustín

La primera parte de esta réplica trató sobre ciertos malentendidos que surgieron en torno a mi entrada que trata del Matrimonio y el Estado. Espero que estos malentendidos hayan sido corregidos. Sin embargo, el comentario que causó este debate contiene algo más que simples confusiones respecto a lo que escribí. Contiene una serie de acusaciones contra la Iglesia Católica, así como varias afirmaciones históricas que son erróneas. Éstas son las que deseo tratar en esta ocasión.

La primera falsa afirmación es que el matrimonio como Sacramento fue instituido por la Iglesia hasta el Concilio de Trento y que, anterior a él, los católicos podían casarse, divorciarse y volverse a casar porque el matrimonio no se consideraba un Sacramento que durara toda la vida y que fuera indisoluble. Bastaría con mostrar una instancia previa a este concilio en que la Iglesia proclamara la indisolubilidad y sacramentalidad del matrimonio para probar la falsedad de esta afirmación, pero ello no bastaría para demostrar que la Iglesia siempre ha enseñado esto. Ahora bien, los documentos emanados de este concilio nos muestran que simplemente estaban reafirmando algo que se venía creyendo desde el principio de la Cristiandad: “Dado que el matrimonio en la ley evangélica supera en gracia, a través de Cristo, a los antiguos matrimonios, nuestros Santos Padres, los concilios y la tradición de la Iglesia Universal, han, con razón, enseñado desde siempre que debe ser contado entre los Sacramentos de la Nueva Ley” (Sesión XXIV, 11 de noviembre de 1563). ¿Qué otras pruebas tenemos de que esta creencia es anterior al Concilio de Trento? Veamos la Bula de Unión con los Armenios, del Concilio de Florencia, octava sesión del 22 de noviembre de 1439 (más de cien años antes de Trento): “El séptimo es el sacramento del matrimonio, el cual es un signo de la unión de Cristo con su Iglesia conforme a las palabras del apóstol: este es un gran sacramento, pero yo lo refiero a Cristo y a su Iglesia.” Esto no es prueba suficiente. Podemos ir otros doscientos años en el pasado y leer en la reconocida obra de Tomás de Aquino, la Summa contra Gentiles (escrita de 1261 a 1264): “El matrimonio, pues, siendo la unión de un hombre y una mujer, con la intención de procrear y criar a la prole en la adoración de Dios, es un Sacramento de la Iglesia” (Libro 4, capítulo LXXVIII). La indisolubilidad del sacramento también es tratado por el Doctor Angélico: “Luego entonces, el matrimonio, como Sacramento de la Iglesia, debe ser de un esposo con una esposa, y debe continuar sin separación: esto es lo que se entiende como fidelidad, conforme a la cual marido y mujer están unidos uno al otro.” Podemos ir aún más atrás en el tiempo, a los principios del Cristianismo y recordar las palabras de San Agustín, escritas en el año 401 D.C.: “Entre todos los pueblos y hombres, el bien que se obtiene del matrimonio consiste en la progenie y en la castidad de la fidelidad matrimonial, pero, en el caso del pueblo de Dios (los cristianos), consiste en la sacralidad del Sacramento, por razón de la cual está prohibido, aún después de una separación, casarse con otro mientras el primer compañero aún viva” (De bono conjugii, Del bien del matrimonio). Otros Padres de la Iglesia afirman la misma verdad, pero no es necesario enlistarlos aquí.

La segunda falsa cuestión que debe ser corregida es la de que “se impusieron medidas terribles” después de que el Concilio “impuso” su visión del matrimonio. Este tipo de medidas han existido desde tiempos anteriores al Cristianismo. En la antigua Roma, un hombre tenía el derecho de matar a su esposa si la descubría en adulterio. El emperador Augusto exilió tanto a su hija como a su nieta a una isla desierta a causa de sus adulterios. No se puede acusar a la Iglesia de esto. Sin embargo, estas medidas no se pueden tomar como enteramente irracionales o tiránicas, como mi lector supone. Necesitamos, para poder entenderlas, situarnos en el contexto y mentalidad de la época. Tanto adulterio como bigamia eran vistos (pues lo son) como ataques contra el orden social, esto es, contra el bien común. El Estado debía, conforme a su función, actuar en respuesta. Que el castigo fuera la muerte no debe sorprendernos pues ese era el castigo por muchos otros crímenes. No es como si nuestras sociedades modernas fueran mucho más civilizadas que la de aquella época. La cuestión de la Inquisición es una que, como señalé en una de las primeras entradas de este blog, está rodeada más por mito que por realidad. La Inquisición (al menos la española) raras veces ejecutaba a alguien. La mayoría de los acusados se arrepentía y participaba en una penitencia pública con lo que quedaba libre de toda culpa. Los revolucionarios franceses jamás mostraron este tipo de actitudes. Decir que “si no estas de acuerdo con la iglesia y su prohibición del divorcio te pueden hasta matar” es una ridiculez. Cuando la Iglesia tenía el poder de matar gente (y eso fue hace mucho tiempo), lo hacía con mucha más prudencia y misericordia que cualquier autoridad civil.

El tercer punto que debemos tomar como falso tiene que ver con los hijos ilegítimos siendo considerados “basura humana”. Como el mismo San Agustín afirma, al hablar de los hijos de un relación adúltera: “Pero, cualquiera que sea la fuente de la nazca un hombre, si no sigue los vicios de sus padres y adora a Dios como debe, será honrado y a salvo”. Él mismo tuvo un hijo ilegítimo, Adeodato, nacido de la concubina que tuvo previo a su conversión y quien no sufrió discriminación por ello. Si eso no es suficiente, podemos acudir directamente al fundador del Cristianismo, Jesucristo, quien afirma en el Evangelio que los hijos no cargan con la culpa de los pecados de sus padres, como los judíos de Su tiempo creían. Hay otros ejemplos bastante tangibles que prueban esta afirmación como falsa, como el de Don Juan de Austria, hijo ilegítimo del Emperador Carlos I de España y V de Alemania. Su medio hermano, Felipe II (uno de los reyes más “fanáticamente” católicos) lo nombró comandante de la Armada que salvó a Occidente de los turcos en Lepanto. También fue asignado en diversos puestos militares y políticos de gran importancia a lo largo del reinado de su medio hermano. Nadie le negó el derecho a un trabajo, aún cuando había nacido fuera del matrimonio. Cualquier ley o costumbre que negara ciertos derechos a los hijos ilegítimos deben ser estudiadas en su contexto social y cultural y no pueden ser atribuidas a enseñanzas de la Iglesia, la cual nunca ha tratado a los hijos ilegítimos como inferiores.

Por último, tenemos la cuestión de que la Iglesia privilegiaba el matrimonio entre personas católicas y que “tuvieran alma”, y que éste, entendido como un Sacramento, fue instrumento del racismo y del imperialismo colonial. Esto es algo que nunca había escuchado y que vaya que me hizo reír. Si el Imperio Español usaba el matrimonio para discriminar a los nativos, entonces ¿por qué la mayoría de la población latinoamericana es mestiza? ¿Por qué las hijas de Moctezuma fueron enviadas a España a casarse con nobles españoles? La segregación de la población nativa no se hizo para proteger la “pureza de sangre” de los europeos sino para proteger a los nativos de la corrupción de la sociedad europea de la época. Esa era la intención de los misioneros que intentaban mantener a los dos pueblos separados. Esto, claro está, era la intención de sólo un grupo (los frailes misioneros) y no era una política de la Iglesia o del Imperio. Debemos recordar que este no era el colonialismo económico de las naciones protestantes (como Inglaterra u Holanda) sino la evangelización por un país católico. La discusión acerca de si los indígenas tenían alma o no se arreglo muy tempranamente en el proceso de descubrimiento y conquista. La reina Isabel prohibió la esclavitud de los nativos y los declaró súbditos de la Corona, como cualquier otro ciudadano (aunque en ese entonces no existía el término) del Imperio Español. Esto claramente no es racismo.

En conclusión, el matrimonio como Sacramento es algo que la Iglesia católica ha sostenido desde el principio, apoyada en la Sagrada Escritura y en la Tradición y que los católicos siempre han creído que es indisoluble. El supuesto uso del matrimonio como un instrumento de discriminación contra ciertos grupos es falso. La Iglesia no quiere que el matrimonio vuelva a ser un Sacramento pues para la Iglesia nunca ha dejado de serlo. Quiere protegerlo pues es esencial para el bien común de la sociedad y para la protección de los más débiles: los niños. Esta labor nadie la realiza mejor que la familia y el Estado debe aceptar este hecho y protegerla.

---

Marriage, I say, is a good, and may be, by sound reason, defended against all calumnies.

St. Augustine

The first part of my reply dealt with the misunderstandings that my post on Marriage and the State generated. These misunderstandings have, I hope, been clarified. The comment that sparked this debate, however, contains more than just misconceptions of what I wrote. It contains a series of accusations against the Catholic Church, as well as several affirmations of a historical nature which are erroneous. These I will address in this occasion.

The first false affirmation is that marriage as a Sacrament was first instituted by the Church until the Council of Trent and that before that, Catholics could marry and re-marry because marriage was not considered life-long and indissoluble. It would suffice to show one instance prior to this Council in which the Church teaches the indissolubility and life-long commitment of marriage to prove this wrong, but that would not be enough to prove that the Church has always taught this. Now, the documents that emanated from this Council show us that they were simply re-affirming something that had been believed since the very beginning of Christianity: “Since therefore matrimony in the evangelical law surpasses in grace through Christ the ancient marriages, our holy Fathers, the councils, and the tradition of the universal Church, have with good reason always taught that it is to be numbered among the sacraments of the New Law” (Session XXIV, November 11th, 1563). What proof is there of this belief prior to the Council of Trent? Let us look at the Bull of Union with the Armenians, from the Council of Florence, session 8, of November 22nd, 1439 (more than a hundred years before Trent): “The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the Church”. This is still not enough proof. We can go back yet another two hundred years and read in Thomas Aquinas' renown work, the Summa contra Gentiles (written from 1261-1264): “Matrimony then, as consisting in the union of male and female, intending to beget and educate offspring to the worship of God, is a Sacrament of the Church” (Book 4, chapter LXXVIII). The indissolubility of the Sacrament is also dealt with by the Angelic Doctor: “Matrimony therefore, as a Sacrament of the Church, must be of one husband with one wife, to continue without separation: this is meant by the faith (or troth), whereby husband and wife are bound to one another.” We can still go further into the beginnings of Christianity and recall the words of St. Augustine who writes in 401 A.D.: “Among all people and all men the good that is secured by marriage consists in the offspring and in the chastity of married fidelity; but, in the case of God's people [the Christians], it consists moreover in the holiness of the sacrament, by reason of which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives” (De bono conjugii, Of the Good of Marriage). Other Fathers of the Church attest to the same truth, but I believe there is no need to enlist them all here.

The second false claim which requires to be corrected is that “terrible measures were put into place” after the Council “imposed” its vision of marriage. This kind of measures had existed from pre-Christian times. In ancient Rome, a man had the right to kill his wife if she was caught in flagrant adultery. Emperor Augustus himself had both his daughter and grand-daughter exiled to a deserted island because of their adulteries. The Church cannot be blamed for this. However, these measures were not entirely irrational or tyrannical, as my reader supposes. We need to, in order to understand them, place ourselves in the context and in the mindset of the people of the time. Both adultery and bigamy were seen (because they are) as attacks against the social order, that is, against the common good. The State had to act, according to its function, in response to them. That the penalty was death should not surprise us, as that was the penalty for many other crimes. Our Modern societies are not much more civilized than they were. The issue of the Inquisition is, as I pointed out in one of my very first blog posts, more myth than truth. The Inquisition (at least the Spanish one) rarely executed anybody. Most would repent and carry out a public penance instead. The same laxity was not shown by the French revolutionaries. To say that “if you do not agree with the Church and its prohibition of divorce they can even kill you” is quite ridiculous. When the Church had the power to kill people (and that was a long time ago), it did it with much more prudence and mercy than any other civic authority.

The third point to be dismissed as false has to do with illegitimate children being considered “human scum”. As Saint Augustine himself affirms, when talking about the children of an adulterous relationship: “But from whatever source men be born, if they follow not the vices of their parents, and worship God aright, they shall be honest and safe”. He himself had a son, Adeodatus, born from the concubine that he had prior to his conversion and who was never discriminated against. If that is not enough proof, we can go to the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, who affirms that children do not carry the sins of their parents, as the Jews believed in His days. There are also other tangible examples of this affirmation not being true, like that of Don John of Austria, illegitimate son of Emperor Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V of Germany). He was named, by his half-brother King Philip II (and one of the most “fanatically” Catholic of all Spanish kings), commander in chief of the Spanish Armada that saved the Christian West from the Turks in the battle of Lepanto. He was also assigned to other important military and political posts during his half-brother's reign. Nobody denied him the right to a job, even when he was born out of wedlock. Any laws or customs that denied certain rights to illegitimate children must be studied in their social and cultural context and cannot be attributed to Church teachings, which, as has been seen, have never treated illegitimate children as inferiors.

Lastly, we have the issue of the Church privileging marriage between Catholics and “people who had a soul”, and the use of marriage, understood as a Sacrament, as an instrument of racism and colonial imperialism. This is something I had never heard before and which I found quite amusing. If the Spanish empire used marriage to discriminate against the natives then why is the vast majority of Latin American population of a mixed background? Why were the daughters of Emperor Moctezuma sent to Spain to marry Spanish noblemen? The segregation of the native population was not done in order to protect European “purity of blood” but rather to protect the natives from the corruption of the European society of the time. That was the intention of the missionaries who tried to keep both peoples separate. This, of course, was only the intention of certain groups (the missionary friars) and was not a Church or an Imperial policy. We have to remember that this was not the economic colonialism of Protestant nations (like the British or the Dutch) but rather the evangelization of a Catholic country. The discussion about whether the natives had a soul or not was settled very early in the process of discovery and conquest of the newfound lands. Queen Isabella forbade the enslavement of natives and declared them to be subjects of the Crown, like any other citizen of the Spanish Empire. This is clearly not racism.

In conclusion, marriage as a Sacrament is something that Catholic tradition has held from the very beginning, supported by Scripture and Tradition, and Catholics have always believed it to be indissoluble. The use of marriage as an instrument of discrimination against certain groups is false. The Church today does not want marriage to be a Sacrament once more because for the Church it has never stopped being one. It wants to protect marriage because it is essential for the common good of society and for the protection of the weakest, the children. This job is done best by the family and the State should accept and protect that.

Réplica parte 1 / Reply part 1

En mi última entrada quise comunicar algo que, al parecer, fui incapaz de comunicar. Por los comentarios que recibí me quedó claro que el mensaje que pretendía hacer llegar se perdió en algún punto entre mi mente y el teclado. Me disculpo por ello. Recuerden que no soy un escritor profesional y que mantener este blog es para mí un pasatiempo, no una actividad profesional, y que debe estar restringido por mis demás actividades, de las cuales la escuela es la que más tiempo consume (pero no la que más disfruto). Ahora bien, quiero aprovechar esta ocasión para aclarar algunos malentendidos entre mis lectores, así como corregir algunas imprecisiones que encontré en sus comentarios.

Lo primero que quiero aclarar es que nunca dije (ni pretendo decir) que el Estado deba mantenerse totalmente al margen de la institución matrimonial. Reconozco no haber profundizado lo suficiente para dejar esto claro, y eso es lo que espero hacer ahora. El Estado debe reconocer al matrimonio como una institución externa y anterior a sí mismo (pues el matrimonio es el núcleo de la familia, la cual es, a su vez, el núcleo de la sociedad, sin la cual el Estado no existiría), y, sobre todo, como una institución fundamental para la creación y el mantenimiento del bien común. Dado que la razón de ser del Estado es la protección del bien común, podemos concluir que debe ponerse al servicio de esta institución. Por ello, el Estado tiene el deber de proteger al matrimonio (y con él a la familia) y de poner todos los medios necesarios para que éste se pueda desarrollar de la forma más provechosa para el bien común. Aquí es donde el Estado puede (y debe) “intervenir” promulgando leyes que regulen cuestiones como la herencia, la protección de los niños y de las mujeres, etc. El problema surge cuando el Estado deja de reconocer al matrimonio como algo externo y anterior a él y pretende modificarlo o “redefinirlo”. Esto es algo que no le corresponde. La experiencia nos ha enseñado que siempre que el Estado interviene en alguna institución sin la regulación adecuada (que en este caso debería de ser el principio de subsidiariedad), éste tiende a abusar y a utilizar a esa institución en su beneficio. No creo que sea una coincidencia que los Estados totalitarios siempre hayan sido partidarios de todo tipo de redefiniciones.

El segundo punto que quiero aclarar es que el tema de mi entrada anterior no es el divorcio. El divorcio no es el problema de fondo, es simplemente un resultado de la “redefinición original” y eso es lo que intentaba demostrar (y en lo que, al parecer, fracasé). Que el divorcio ha tenido consecuencias nefastas para la sociedad es algo que nadie puede negar, esto es un hecho. Que el número de divorcios ha incrementado desde su aprobación es una realidad que no se puede ocultar. Dadas las circunstancias actuales, querer prohibirlo (algo que jamás mencioné) sería quizá contraproducente. Lo que se necesita es un cambio cultural, se requiere revertir esa “redefinición original” en la sociedad. Las leyes vendrán a adaptarse después. Eso, claro está, no significa que debamos permitir todo lo que la sociedad desee en lo que cambiamos la cultura. Las cuestiones legales siguen siendo importantes y hay que continuar la lucha ahí para evitar, en la medida de lo posible, la descomposición de la sociedad. Sin embargo, la batalla real se está dando en el frente cultural y, mientras no reconozcamos esto, estaremos condenados a perder.

Un tercer punto tiene que ver con que nunca hablé del matrimonio como un sacramento ni mencioné a la Iglesia Católica. Mi argumento no está basado en la moral católica ni en que el divorcio o los “matrimonios” entre homosexuales sean inmorales. La única ocasión en que usé algo remotamente religioso fue en mi mención de que debemos entender al matrimonio como una alianza en el sentido bíblico. Ello porque la palabra alianza tiene, en la lengua española, un significado ambiguo y no tan claro como la palabra inglesa covenant, que se entiende como un pacto o alianza entre dos personas basado en un juramento o promesa. Mi argumento principal, usado no sólo en esta entrada sino en todo lo que he escrito acerca de la familia y el matrimonio, es que estas instituciones, entendidas en su sentido “tradicional”, son condición necesaria para la obtención del bien común. Y repito, si el deber del Estado es velar por el bien común, entonces debe hacer todo lo necesario para proteger estas instituciones. Aquí cabe aclarar, igualmente, que la finalidad del Estado no es garantizar las libertades o derechos de los individuos. Su finalidad es proteger el bien común. Las libertades y derechos de los individuos son parte fundamental de este bien común y por ello el Estado los protege, pero esa protección no es su finalidad. En ciertas situaciones (una guerra, por ejemplo), el Estado puede suprimir estas libertades y derechos para proteger al conjunto. Aquí, nuevamente, debe regir el principio de la subsidiariedad que limita este acto al tiempo que sea necesario. Ahora, concuerdo completamente en decir que los derechos humanos no están basados en opiniones personales, pero decir que la ley es la misma para todos porque si no se viola la constitución es el argumento más débil (y ridículo) que he escuchado sobre este tema. La ley es la misma para todos porque todos poseemos la misma dignidad como seres humanos y los derechos humanos no están basados en opiniones sino en el hecho de ser humanos. Esa es la base de esos derechos. Que la moralidad y doctrina católicas coincidan con esta perspectiva secular es simplemente porque ambas son verdaderas y la Verdad no se puede contradecir a sí misma. Que no creas que sean ciertas no las hace menos verdaderas, pero sí te hace estar equivocado.

Por último, quiero decir que prefiero que alguien me diga que lo que busca es imponer su forma de pensamiento sobre los demás a que pretenda ocultarse tras la falsa máscara de lo políticamente correcto. Al menos con el primer tipo de persona sé que lo que me espera es un combate abierto y de frente y no una puñalada traicionera. Decir que “los gays y las lesbianas queremos una sociedad democrática para todos y todas” cuando se niegan a someter la redefinición del matrimonio a elección popular después de que han perdido esa votación en todos los estados norteamericanos donde se ha realizado (incluyendo Nueva York y California, dos de los estados más liberales) es una hipocresía. Prefiero que me digan de frente que quieren imponer sus ideas y que lo que yo tengo que decir y lo que yo creo no les importa. Al menos así sé que son honestos.

En la segunda parte de esta respuesta (que espero publicar en estos días), voy a tratar con ciertos puntos de este comentario que son abiertamente falsos y cuya intención es atacar a la Iglesia Católica y que deben, por ello, ser tratados de forma especial.

---

This is a comment I received on my last post and to which I reply in this one. I translated it since it was published in Spanish. The original can be found here. If you find any translation error, please let me know. My intention is to show it as it was written, without modifying it to my advantage.

We live in a secular society and not in a theocracy. For that reason, governments take secular measures. It’s a different problem if religious people don’t like that. In any case, if the State were religious, we would be in a theocracy… and there wouldn’t be any religious freedom because the State would have to chose a religious dogma and marginalize the other options, both religious and secular. From the French revolution onward, religion is no longer a part of the State. That is why marriage is a contract and not a sacrament.

If someone is Catholic and considers marriage to be a sacrament and that it should last for a lifetime, they have the right to believe that. No one is demanding him to get a divorce; the State does not impose anything on him. However, he cannot pretend that everybody else shouldn’t have the right to get a divorce based on his religious principles. That would be, it’s worth repeating, a Theocracy. A dictatorship. Do Catholics have such weak beliefs that they need the State to sanction them in order to have them followed? Do they need the State to ban divorce so they don’t get divorced? Well yes, because a very high percentage of Catholics gets divorced. Should we ban it because they’re own religion forbids it? No. It’s a religious and moral problem in which you got yourselves in and you should fix it yourselves. The State is not here to solve moral and religious disputes unless it’s a dictatorship.

The State is here to guarantee the equal rights of all. There are a lot of right-winged and religious people who I do not like at all. And I believe that they shouldn’t raise their own children because they’re going to ruin their lives. However, it’s not my right to decide that they shouldn’t raise their own kids. Why? Very simple: the rights of people are not based on the particular opinions of each one of us. The law should be the same for all; otherwise, the Constitution would be violated. Otherwise, it would be a dictatorship.

In this article, it is said that the State applies the right of equality to marriage and considers it a contract when it should have stayed away from marriage. However, I ask, how can the State remain separated from marriage? There are a lot of matters related to marriage that have to be solved by the State. For example: inheritance, who has the right to inherit to who. For example: the union between people from different countries. The State must regulate that a person can stay in a country because his partner is native from that country. Marriage implies the regulation of many instances from which the State cannot back out. When a person is sick and is not in conditions to decide about a medical treatment, his partner is certified to make that decision. If the State does not legitimate this legal union, how would we know who can make these decisions? Of course, we could live in a Theocracy, or a feudal society, where the Catholic Church takes all the decisions. The Church would love this, but for the vast majorities it would be a nightmare.

As a matter of fact, let’s go briefly over the history of marriage:

1. In the first place, marriage is not an eternal institution, but rather it was defined as a sacrament by the Catholic Church a few centuries ago in the Council of Trent. For centuries upon centuries, Catholics would marry without the Church recognizing it as a life-long and inviolable sacrament. So, even the idea of marriage as a life-long sacrament is a recent invention.

2. After the Council of Trent imposed its vision of marriage as a life-long sacrament that implies the union of a man and a woman, terrible measures were put into place. For example, in Mexico and Spain, whoever got married for a second time without being able to divorce their former partner were considered “bigamist”. Whoever wants to know what happened to bigamists can go to the General Archive of the Nation in Mexico and check the colonial room, in the Inquisition documents. As a matter of fact, it is very easy; you have only to write the word “bigamy” in a computer that searches all the archives of the inquisition. I will simplify that search for you: death penalty for bigamists. So, if you do not agree with the Church and its prohibition of divorce they can even kill you.

3. Marriage as a sacrament also imposed the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. So, those who were born outside of a Church sanctioned marriage were pariahs that had no right to inherit. Besides, in general illegitimate people didn’t have the right to many other things; they couldn’t get a job, for example. And all of this with the approval of the Church that actually did everything it could so this distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children would not disappear. According to the Catholic Church, a boy or a girl born of illegitimate marriages carried the “stain” from their birth, and didn’t have the right to the same things, they couldn’t be treated equally. They had been born from a mortal sin and where, therefore, human scum. What a marvel, right? Now, those who want marriage to not be regulated by the State want to go back to that?

4. Lastly, given that the Church decided who could marry who, among many other things, marriage was privileged between people who were Catholic and who had a soul. The most important thing was to preserve the “purity of blood” and not allowing the people from different castes. That’s why everything was done to avoid the marriage between people of Native, African and European origin.

In conclusion, marriage as a sacrament is an institution that is recent in Catholic tradition, actually, Catholicism spent more centuries without this disposition that under it. Marriage as a sacrament meant condemning to death those who were divorced and would re-marry. Marriage as a sacrament implied considering the children of illegitimate marriages as human scum. Marriage as a sacrament was a fundamental instrument of colonial imperialism and racism. The Church today wants marriage to be a sacrament once more.

We gays and lesbians ask the opposite: that marriage be regulated by the State, that it be regulated by secular principles, that those who are religious people may practice their customs without them becoming State policy and that we all may be equal and have the same rights. We gays and lesbians want a democratic society for all, not a theocratic dictatorship for Catholic fanatics.

Pablo Ben

Bachelor in Anthropology, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Master, University of Chicago

Ph.D, University of Chicago

Assistant Professor, University of Northern Iowa

Specialist in Gender and sexuality studies in Latin America

This is my response:

In my last entry I tried to communicate something which, apparently, I failed to communicate. By the comments that I received, it became clear to me that the message I wished to convey was lost somewhere between my head and my keyboard. I apologize for that. Please remember that I am not a professional writer and that keeping this blog is only a hobby for me which is limited by my other activities of which school is the most time consuming (though not the one I enjoy the most). Now, I would like to use this post to clarify some misunderstandings among my readers, as well as correcting some imprecisions which I found in their comments.

The first thing which needs to be clarified is that I never said (nor do I wish to say) that the State should not have any sort of involvement with the institution of marriage. I admit to not having gone enough into depth to make this clear, and so I wish to do that now. The State has the obligation of recognizing marriage as an institution that is both external and anterior to it (because marriage is the nucleus of the family, which is, in turn, the nucleus of society, without which the State would not exist), but, above all, as an institution vital to the creation and maintenance of the common good. Given that the reason of being of the State is to protect the common good, we can conclude that it should be at the service of this institution. Hence, the State must protect marriage (and the family as well) and must work in order for it to develop in the way which will be most profitable for the common good. This is where the State can (and should) “intervene” by passing laws that regulate inheritances, the protection of women and children, etc. The problem comes when the State stops recognizing marriage as something external and anterior and seeks to modify it or “redefine” it. This is not one of the State’s prerogatives. Experience has taught us that when the State intervenes in some institution without the adequate regulation (in this case, the principle of subsidiarity), it tends to abuse and use that institution for its benefit. I do not think it to be a coincidence that Totalitarian States are so fond of all kinds of redefinitions.

The second point I want to clarify is that the subject of my last post was not divorce. Divorce is not the real problem, it is simply the result of that “original redefinition” and that is what I tried to show (though it seems I failed at it). That divorce has had terrible consequences is a fact that nobody can deny. That the number of divorces has increased since it became legal is a reality that cannot be hidden. Given the current circumstances, forbidding divorce (something that I never proposed) would very probably be counterproductive. What we need is a cultural change; we need to reverse that “original redefinition” in society. Laws will follow. This, of course, does not mean that we should allow everything while we change society. Legal matters are still very important and we must continue the fight there to avoid, as much as we can, the decomposition of society. However, the real battle is taking place in the cultural front and, if we do not recognize this, we will be condemned to defeat.

A third point has to do with the fact that I never talked about marriage as a sacrament nor did I mention the Catholic Church. My reasoning is not based on Catholic morality or on considering divorce or homosexual “marriage” as immoral. The only moment in which I used something remotely religious was when I mentioned that we must understand marriage as a covenant in the biblical sense. I said this because the Spanish word alianza is quite ambiguous and is not as clear as the English word covenant, which is a pact or alliance between two persons based on an oath or promise. My main argument, which I have used not only in this post but in everything I have written about the family and marriage, is that these institutions, understood in the “traditional” way, are a necessary condition for reaching the common good. And I repeat, if the State’s duty is to guard this common good, then it must do everything it can to protect these institutions. Here it is important to clarify that the goal of the State is not to guarantee individual rights and freedoms. Its goal is to protect the common good. The rights and freedoms of individuals are, without a doubt, an important part of the common good and that is why the State protects them, however, that protection is not its main purpose. In certain situations (such as a war for example), the State is allowed to suppress those freedoms and rights in order to protect the social body. Here, once again, the principle of subsidiarity should limit the time this suppression lasts. Now, I agree in saying that human rights are not based on the particular opinion of each one of us. Saying that the law should be the same for all because otherwise the Constitution would not be obeyed is the weakest (and most ridiculous) argument I have ever heard in defense of this idea. The law is the same for all because we all have the same dignity as humans and human rights are not based on opinions but on the fact that someone is human, that is the basis for his rights. That Catholic morality and teachings and this secular perspective coincide is simply because they are both true and Truth cannot contradict itself. The fact that you do not believe it to be true does not make it any less true, it just makes you wrong.

As a last point, I want to say that I would much more prefer someone to come up and tell me that they want to impose their views on everyone else instead of trying to hide behind the false mask of the politically correct. At least with the first kind of persons I know I can expect a frontal and open fight and not a treacherous stab in the back. To say that “we gays and lesbians want a democratic society for everyone”, even when they have opposed letting people vote on the issue of redefining marriage, especially after they have lost every single election in which that has been considered (including in New York and California, two of the most liberal states) is hypocrisy. I much rather have them tell me that they want to impose their beliefs and that they care not about what I have to say. At least I would know that they are honest.

In the second part of this answer (which I hope to post very soon), I will deal with certain aspects of one comment which are openly false and aimed at attacking the Catholic Church and that should, because of that, be dealt with in a special manner.

El matrimonio y el Estado / Marriage and the State

Cuando la gente habla de la redefinición del matrimonio, lo hacen como si esto fuera una novedad o uno de los grandes avances de nuestra época. Parecen ignorar (o más bien, ignoran) el hecho de que el matrimonio fue redefinido hace unos cuantos siglos y que los intentos actuales no son más que una continuación de aquella sandez primera. También parecen ser incapaces de entender que si hay gente que se opone a estos intentos (y algunos que quisieran revertir el matrimonio a su condición original) es porque son conscientes del daño que este error ha traído consigo.

Esta redefinición original, como muchas de las cosas humanas, puede ser vista en dos niveles: un nivel superficial y visible, o nivel de las instituciones; y un nivel más profundo, el de las ideas y conceptos que tiene una cultura. En el nivel superficial, este cambio tuvo lugar cuando el matrimonio dejó de ser algo que el Estado simplemente reconocía pero con el cual no interfería y se convirtió en algo sancionado por el Estado. En el nivel más profundo, sucedió cuando el matrimonio dejó de ser una alianza (en el sentido bíblico) entre un hombre y una mujer y se transformó en lo que sea que nuestros filósofos, intelectuales y científicos lo consideren (y que suele ser un concepto bastante vago sobre el cual no se pueden ni siquiera poner de acuerdo). Cómo sucedió esto es algo que le corresponde a los historiadores averiguar y que va más allá de los alcances de este humilde blog.

La forma en que este cambio en el concepto del matrimonio se manifestó es algo bastante obvio: el matrimonio se convirtió en un contrato. Este es el concepto de matrimonio que el Estado (y un gran sector de la sociedad) tiene hoy en día. Las diferencias entre una alianza y un contracto son evidentes, empezando por el hecho de que una alianza está hecha para durar toda la vida, mientras que un contrato puede ser cancelado. Así, el Estado un buen día decidió permitir el divorcio. Al principio, claro está, sólo se permitía si ambas partes estaban de acuerdo y sólo cuando las condiciones que conducían a él eran suficientemente graves. Después, el Estado decidió que no había necesidad de ser tan estricto y lo permitió por casi cualquier razón. Hoy en día, ni siquiera se requiere que las dos partes estén de acuerdo y se permite hasta por las razones más ridículas. Como si eso no fuera suficiente, hay gobiernos que se enorgullecen de hacer los juicios de divorcio “más eficientes” (mientras el resto de su administración sigue igual de ineficiente), es decir, más fáciles y más rápidos. De esta forma, la excepción se convirtió en la regla.

De esta contractualización del matrimonio también surge otra cosa, más sutil y quizá, por lo mismo, más importante. Una alianza se establece entre dos personas, mientras que un contrato entre dos partes. Este cambio de terminología contiene en sí mismo un grave peligro y explica, al menos parcialmente, la aceptación tan generalizada del divorcio. Esta abstracción hace del matrimonio algo menos personal y más legal. A través de esa abstracción, ya no se ve al matrimonio como el pináculo del amor humano, sino más como un transacción de negocios cualquiera. Por ello es tan difícil objetar a los mal-llamados “matrimonios” entre personas del mismo sexo. Si el matrimonio no es más que un contrato que el gobierno puede definir a su antojo, ¿qué impide que las dos partes sean del mismo sexo? El desprecio del Estado (al menos el moderno Estado liberal) por el matrimonio auténtico parece no conocer límites.

Hay un caso en la historia que es ejemplar de esta actitud del Estadio hacia el matrimonio. Ese caso es el de Enrique VIII, rey de Inglaterra, quien convirtió su propio matrimonio en una burla. La historia no necesita ser repetida pues cualquiera la conoce. Este caso es paradigmático pues muestra, de forma clara, cómo el matrimonio, una vez que cae en las manos del Estado, es reducido a algo sujeto a los caprichos de los poderosos. En aquellos días estaba sujeto al rey, ahora, a los intereses económicos e ideológicos.

El matrimonio no tiene ninguna importancia para el Estado. Por ello, hoy en día, incumplir cualquier tipo de contrato (sobre todo si tiene que ver con alguna transacción comercial o involucra dinero) se castiga con grandes multas o incluso con prisión pero incumplir un contrato matrimonial se permite en prácticamente todos los países de Occidente. Por qué el moderno Estado liberal tienen tal odio al matrimonio, no lo sé, pero me queda claro de que hace todo por destruirlo.

---

When people talk about re-defining marriage, they do it as if it were some sort of novelty or one of the great advancements of our time. They seem to ignore (or rather, they do ignore) the fact that marriage was re-defined some centuries ago and that our modern day attempts at re-defining it are nothing but a continuation of that first blunder. They are also incapable of understanding that if there are those who oppose these attempts (and some who would actually like to revert marriage to its original condition), it is because they are aware of the havoc that was brought by this initial mistake.

This original re-definition, as many things in human history, can be seen in two levels: the superficial and visible level, or that of the institutions; and a more profound level which is that of the ideas and concepts of the whole culture. On the superficial level, it took place when marriage stopped being something that the State simply recognized but did not interfere with, and became something sanctioned by the State. On the deeper level, it occurred when marriage was no longer considered a covenant (in the biblical sense) between a man and a woman and began to be seen as one of the many things which today's philosophers, intellectuals and scientists consider it (and which is usually some vague concept on which they can't even agree). The details of how this came to be is a matter for historians and goes beyond the scope of this humble blog.

The way in which this change in the concept of marriage manifested itself is pretty obvious: marriage became a contract. That is the concept of marriage for the State (and for a large sector of society) today. The differences between a covenant and a contract are quite evident, beginning by the fact that a covenant is meant to last a lifetime, while a contract can be canceled. So the State decided to allow divorce. At first, of course, it was allowed only when both parts decided to terminate their marriage agreement and when the circumstances that led to it were grave. Later on, the State decided that there was no need to be so strict and allowed it for almost any reason. Today, divorce does not even require both parts to agree on it for it to take place and is allowed for even the most ridiculous reasons. As if that were not enough, we have governments seeking ways to make divorce trials “more efficient” (while other things that should be more efficient are left unattended), that is, faster and easier. In this manner, the exception has become the rule.

From this “contractualization” of marriage also stems another thing which is more subtle and, perhaps because of that, even more important. A covenant takes place between two persons, while a contract takes place between two parts. This change in terminology contains in itself a grave danger and explains, at least partially, the modern acceptance of divorce. This abstraction makes marriage something less personal and more of a legal matter. Through it, we no longer see marriage as the pinnacle of human love, but more as a business transaction. This is also why it is so hard to object to allowing so-called “same sex marriage”. If marriage has been turned into this contract which the government has the power to define, then what can impede the two parts from being of the same sex? The scorn of the State (at least the modern day liberal State) for true marriage seems to have no limits.

There is a case in history which is exemplary of this attitude of the State towards marriage. This case is that of Henry VIII, king of England, who turned his own marriages into a mockery. The story needs not to be repeated for anyone with a basic knowledge of world history knows it. This case is paradigmatic because it shows, in a clear and unmistakable manner, how, once marriage has fallen into the hands of the State, it is reduced to something subject to the caprice of the powerful. In those days it was subject to the King, nowadays, it is subject to economical and ideological interests.

Marriage has no significance for the State. That is why today, not fulfilling any other kind of contract (especially if it has to do with some form of commercial transaction or money) is punished with severe fines and even jail time, while failing to do so with a “marriage” contract is allowed in almost every country in the West. Why the modern liberal State has such contempt for marriage, I do not know, but it is clear to me that it is doing everything to destroy it.

Lo que dice una mirada / What a look can say

Hay muchas cosas que se pueden ver en los ojos de una persona pues los ojos son la ventana del alma. Aquellos que están mintiendo o que están haciendo algo que no deberían, evitan hacer contacto visual con los demás para mantener sus intenciones en secreto. De la misma forma, alguien que está avergonzado instintivamente baja la mirada como si ello le permitiera esconderse de los que le rodean. Por otro lado, aquél que es honesto y transparente mantiene la mirada y no rehuye del contacto visual puesto que no tiene nada que ocultar. Con suficiente experiencia, uno es capaz de ver el “corazón” de otros a través de sus ojos, aunque sólo lo revelen por un instante.

Sostener que una simple mirada tiene mucho que ver con los muchos y graves problemas de nuestros tiempos podrá parecer una exageración, sobre todo porque el mundo moderno está enfermo de megalomanía y tiende a descartar las cosas que parecen pequeñas e insignificantes. Sin embargo, la suma de estos detalles pequeños e insignificantes es la que hace una gran diferencia, igual que una obra maestra en arte nace cuando se cuidan hasta los detalles más imperceptibles. Así ocurre porque los detalles generalmente apuntan hacia algo más: hacia una actitud. Un hombre que hace su trabajo sin cuidar los detalles está mostrando no tener un auténtico interés en su trabajo, aún cuando haga todo lo que se pide de él. Con eso en mente, uno puede ver cómo una simple acción, una mirada, es de gran importancia pues refleja una actitud interna del hombre hacia algo.

Esto es exactamente lo que Juan Pablo II busca dejar en claro cuando insiste en la importancia de las palabras de Cristo: “Quien mira a una mujer con malos deseos, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón” (Mt. 5:28). La gravedad de esta mirada cargada de lujuria no viene de la acción física sino de la intención del que la sostiene. Alguno podrá argumentar que eso sigue siendo una exageración porque, al final del día, el hecho de que un hombre vea a una mujer de esta forma no la afecta a ella pues todo sucede en la imaginación del hombre y no en la realidad. Sin embargo, al mirar a una mujer de tal manera, un hombre la está objetificando en su mente, con lo que su concepto mismo de lo que una mujer es se corrompe. Al suceder esto, lo más lógico es que proceda a tratarla como un objeto. Por ello es natural que una mujer sienta asco y vergüenza ante este tipo de miradas.

Algunas mujeres creen que no deberían de avergonzarse ante estas miradas y que simplemente deberían de ignorarlas, como si la vergüenza fuera algo negativo. Por ende, creen que si un hombre las ve de forma libidinosa entonces es problema de ese hombre y no suyo. Algunas usan esto como una justificación para vestir de forma poco pudorosa. La verdad es que tanto la vergüenza como el pudor son algo que trasciende la mojigatería. La vergüenza es un mecanismo de defensa que protege a la persona de ser vista y tratada como un objeto. Es una reacción natural contra el intento de ser reducida a un objeto. El pudor es el medio por el cual este mecanismo de defensa actúa. Es más que un intento por ocultar partes de nuestro cuerpo o de pretender hacerlo desaparecer. Se le podría comprender mejor si se le viera como una forma de cubrirnos con un velo. Uno vela algo por reverencia y así, al velar nuestros cuerpos mostramos una profunda reverencia hacia ellos, lo que significa que mostramos gran reverencia a nosotros mismos. Esto es así porque, en la Antropología Cristiana, el ser humano es la unión de cuerpo y alma. Por lo mismo, somos nuestros cuerpos y, al proteger la dignidad de nuestros cuerpos, protegemos nuestra propia dignidad.

Ahora bien, lo dicho respecto a los hombres en relación con las mujeres también aplica en dirección opuesta puesto que las mujeres también pueden ver a los hombres como objetos. En qué manera podrían hacer esto no lo sé, pues no soy mujer (¿quizá en una forma menos física y más emocional?). Aún así, los principios aquí expuestos permanecen y el llamado de Juan Pablo II al corazón (y los ojos) humano va dirigido tanto a hombres como a mujeres.

---

Many things can be seen in a person's eyes for the eyes are the window to a person's soul. Those who are lying or doing something they should not be doing avoid making eye contact with others as to keep their intentions secret. In a similar fashion, someone who is embarrassed will instinctively look down as if that would allow him to hide from others. On the other hand, you can tell when someone is honest and transparent because that person will not avoid making eye contact and will be capable of maintaining it during a conversation (in a non-creepy way of course). With enough experience, one is capable of seeing people's “hearts” through their eyes, even if they only reveal them for a split second.

To say that a simple glance has much to do with the many problems of our age might seem like an exaggeration, especially because our Modern world is sick with megalomania and tends to disregard those things which seem small and insignificant. However, it is the sum of these small and insignificant details which make a true difference, just like an art masterpiece is made by taking care of even the most imperceptible of details. They do so because details point to something else, to something beyond themselves, to an attitude. A person that does his work without attention to details is showing that he does not really care about it, even when he does everything he was told to do. With that in mind, one can see that this simple action, a look, is of great importance because it reflects an internal attitude of Man towards something.

This is exactly what John Paul II aims at making clear when he insists on the importance of Christ's statement that “Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt. 5:28). The gravity of this lustful look does not come from the physical action itself, but rather from the intention of he who gives it. Someone might argue that this is still an exaggeration because, in the end, the fact that a man looks at a woman in a lustful way does not affect her, since all this happens in a man's imagination and not in reality. However, by looking at a woman in that way, a man is already objectifying her in his mind, his very concept of what a woman is is thus corrupted. By doing so, he will, consequently, treat her as an object. So it is just natural for women to feel disgusted and ashamed because of these looks.

Some women think that they should not feel ashamed by these looks and that they should just ignore them, as if shame were a negative feeling. Hence, they believe that if a man looks at them in a reductive way it is “his problem” and not theirs. Some use this as a justification for dressing immodestly. The reality is that shame, as well as modesty, are more than mere prudishness. Shame is a defense mechanism that protects a person from being seen (and treated) as an object by others. It is a natural reaction against being reduced to an object. Modesty is the means through which this defense mechanism acts. Modesty is more than just trying to hide parts of our bodies or pretending to make our bodies disappear, it can be better understood as a veiling of ourselves. Things are veiled out of reverence, and in that way our bodies are veiled as a sign of reverence towards them, which means that we have reverence towards ourselves as a whole. This is so because, according to Christian anthropology, we, as human beings, are a union of the body and the soul. Therefore, we are our bodies, and, by protecting the dignity of our bodies we protect our own dignity.

Now, what I said about men in relation to women, also applies in the opposite direction because women are also capable of seeing men as simple objects. In which way they could do this I do not know because I am not a woman (perhaps in a less physical and more emotional way?). Yet, the principles remain the same and John Paul II is addressing this appeal to the human heart (and eyes) not only to men, but also to women.