Catholic Bishops in Argentina issued a statement yesterday (17 August) that they fear for the security of Argentine citizens because of the increase in street crime. The episcopal conference called for greater security in the face of "so much violence in the streets."
Under a military dictatorship with people plucked out of their homes and tortured we got nary a peep from the Argentine pastors, but now, under a leftist government and a society embracing abortion and gay marriage, the Argentine Bishops are suddenly all abuzz with the fear of street crime.
The Archbishop / Jesuit / Cardinal Bergoglio (son of Italian Argentine rail workers) is a fairly conservative fellow and probably the closest competition Ratzinger had in the elevation to pope - but essentially just two opposing peas in the same very conservative pod. At any rate, Bergoglio's sudden concern for security as an issue is most likely a ploy to get involved with Argentine politics after the July name calling / mud slinging between himself and Presidente Fernandez de Kirchner (he said gay marriage was from Satan, she called him medieval, etc).
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Catholics and Living History
The debate between the PRD and the Catholic Church in Mexico is a great example (probably just to history geeks) of why history matters so much. The debate itself is gripping, but the response of people reading about the debate interests me even more. Responses to a column in Excelsior called Catolico y perredista generated some great statements like this one from 1857 ... oops, 2010:
Los prelados mexicanos son los seres más hipócritas del mundo... se desgañitan por temas como este pero olímpicamente se hacen pendejos cuando sus curas pederastras y lenones depredan a muchachitos.
Or this one from 1934 (though the enviado de Vaticano part is a little off):
¿Asi es que el enviado del Vaticano quiere que solo existan catolicos y neocristero?
Or this one from El Universal and 1946:
My favorite was the second part of the "neo-cristero" post:
¿Ciento cincuenta años no les han enseñado nada a la curia romana en México?
The recourse to history - the ever present use of it - is an amazing thing for an historian to see. Americans rarely take such a path, often going only as deep as some non-contextual quote from Jefferson. I know that author Richard Rodriguez has often argued that culture is the constant Janus of Mexico's existence, simultaneously binding and lifting Mexicans as opposed to history. I would argue that history is so much part of Mexican culture in a way that it has ceased to be in the United States. Our history is a closet of skeletons and ghosts trotted out to intimidate opponents while in Mexico the calaveras of history's dead dance in the streets like a Posadas engraving. U.S. history comes with interpretive panels and talking heads - Mexican history is waking up in the morning and lying down at night. And I don't mean this as some sort of attempt to romanticize the use and abuse of history in Mexico, but I do mean to say that it seems to be ever present in Mexican discourse in a conscious way, as opposed to the unconscious way it appears in U.S. life.
Los prelados mexicanos son los seres más hipócritas del mundo... se desgañitan por temas como este pero olímpicamente se hacen pendejos cuando sus curas pederastras y lenones depredan a muchachitos.
Or this one from 1934 (though the enviado de Vaticano part is a little off):
¿Asi es que el enviado del Vaticano quiere que solo existan catolicos y neocristero?
Or this one from El Universal and 1946:
Por favor, les pido que actuen de acuerdo a los "principios" que rigen al partido que yo pense era de izquierda. Respeten el apoyo de quienes votaron por ustedes y actuen. ¿Qué no quieren confrontaciones con la iglesia? Entonces ¿ella es la que gobierna al país?
My favorite was the second part of the "neo-cristero" post:
¿Ciento cincuenta años no les han enseñado nada a la curia romana en México?
The recourse to history - the ever present use of it - is an amazing thing for an historian to see. Americans rarely take such a path, often going only as deep as some non-contextual quote from Jefferson. I know that author Richard Rodriguez has often argued that culture is the constant Janus of Mexico's existence, simultaneously binding and lifting Mexicans as opposed to history. I would argue that history is so much part of Mexican culture in a way that it has ceased to be in the United States. Our history is a closet of skeletons and ghosts trotted out to intimidate opponents while in Mexico the calaveras of history's dead dance in the streets like a Posadas engraving. U.S. history comes with interpretive panels and talking heads - Mexican history is waking up in the morning and lying down at night. And I don't mean this as some sort of attempt to romanticize the use and abuse of history in Mexico, but I do mean to say that it seems to be ever present in Mexican discourse in a conscious way, as opposed to the unconscious way it appears in U.S. life.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
PRD Saddles Up... Against Free Speech?
Milenio today reports that deputies from the PRD have asked the Secretary of Gobernacion to go after the Catholic Church for expressing its views on gay marriage in D.F. According to the PRD, the Catholic Church has violated the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público (LARCP) which carves out a legal space for religious organizations in Mexican civil society.
The original reforms took place under the Salinas administration's very classical liberal drive to codify all segments of society, as well as their efforts to show the U.S. before and during NAFTA talks that Mexico could extend the rule of law to all areas of society. In short, it was Salinas de Gortari's way of signaling to the world (remember, he was gunning for UN or IMF positions at that point in time) that Mexico was "civilized" and that El Presidente was the grand reformer and modernizer of Mexico. Religious rights were human rights, as was argued at the time, and Mexico had a duty to protect those rights.
Move forward almost two decades, and we find ourselves in a conundrum. D.F. seeks to protect the civil rights of homosexuals to enter into the marriage contract (above all a civil act in Mexico - as thousands of dead liberals and conservatives can attest). The Catholic church seeks to excercise its rights to object without legal retribution - as laid out in the 2006 version of LARCP (Article 2, subparagraph e).
The PRD position is weak, but reforms in 2006 to the law could help their cause. Article 8 requires that churches "fomentar el diálogo, la tolerancia y la convivencia entre las distintas religiones y credos con presencia en el país." While you might argue that isn't the same as tolerance in general society, in combination with Article 14, it might have some punch. Article 14 states that "Tampoco podrán los ministros de culto asociarse con fines políticos ni realizar proselitismo a favor o en contra de candidato, partido o asociación política alguna." Taking a public stand against gay marriage might be seen as a violation of this portion of the law.
Finally, throughout the document the state reserves the right to protect the rights of third parties. Is it then the state's duty to mute the Catholic Church if the speech of the church could result in legislation that restricts the rights of a third party? My own U.S. history demonstrates that only the right of the central state is powerful enough to protect the rights of minorities - but the central state has also acted to protect the hateful language of those who would seek to terminate the rights of minorities. And the big gun, Article 29: "Convertir un acto religioso en reunión de carácter político." That statement is as loaded as Amy Winhouse.
I would tend to see the PRD as hunting flies with vinegar by taking this approach, and restricting speech to protect other rights seems counterproductive to civic society. I'd also point out that Mexico has "tolerated" plural marriage for the indigenous and quirky religious groups, as well as a mind-blowing amount of cohabitation for decades (well...centuries). The Catholic Church has complained the whole time, and those outside the reach of the Madre Iglesia continue on their way.
The original reforms took place under the Salinas administration's very classical liberal drive to codify all segments of society, as well as their efforts to show the U.S. before and during NAFTA talks that Mexico could extend the rule of law to all areas of society. In short, it was Salinas de Gortari's way of signaling to the world (remember, he was gunning for UN or IMF positions at that point in time) that Mexico was "civilized" and that El Presidente was the grand reformer and modernizer of Mexico. Religious rights were human rights, as was argued at the time, and Mexico had a duty to protect those rights.
Move forward almost two decades, and we find ourselves in a conundrum. D.F. seeks to protect the civil rights of homosexuals to enter into the marriage contract (above all a civil act in Mexico - as thousands of dead liberals and conservatives can attest). The Catholic church seeks to excercise its rights to object without legal retribution - as laid out in the 2006 version of LARCP (Article 2, subparagraph e).
The PRD position is weak, but reforms in 2006 to the law could help their cause. Article 8 requires that churches "fomentar el diálogo, la tolerancia y la convivencia entre las distintas religiones y credos con presencia en el país." While you might argue that isn't the same as tolerance in general society, in combination with Article 14, it might have some punch. Article 14 states that "Tampoco podrán los ministros de culto asociarse con fines políticos ni realizar proselitismo a favor o en contra de candidato, partido o asociación política alguna." Taking a public stand against gay marriage might be seen as a violation of this portion of the law.
Finally, throughout the document the state reserves the right to protect the rights of third parties. Is it then the state's duty to mute the Catholic Church if the speech of the church could result in legislation that restricts the rights of a third party? My own U.S. history demonstrates that only the right of the central state is powerful enough to protect the rights of minorities - but the central state has also acted to protect the hateful language of those who would seek to terminate the rights of minorities. And the big gun, Article 29: "Convertir un acto religioso en reunión de carácter político." That statement is as loaded as Amy Winhouse.
I would tend to see the PRD as hunting flies with vinegar by taking this approach, and restricting speech to protect other rights seems counterproductive to civic society. I'd also point out that Mexico has "tolerated" plural marriage for the indigenous and quirky religious groups, as well as a mind-blowing amount of cohabitation for decades (well...centuries). The Catholic Church has complained the whole time, and those outside the reach of the Madre Iglesia continue on their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
