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.