Pope Francis said this month in an interview with the Argentine daily newspaper La Nación that "gender ideology is one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations". Some years ago the Pope made a appealHe then reiterated, to deny "the new ideological colonizations that seek to destroy the family".
The reading of the reflection entitled 'Materniphobia: neither mothers, nor fathers, nor children', where it was written that "it is undeniable that, in our society, we find a current that tries to erase any positive sign of motherhood or fatherhood", can adequately introduce this interview.
The immediate antecedent was a conference on "The family in the face of the new laws of social engineering", which are being implemented in various parts of the world, not only in Spain, organized by Jara Siglo XXI.
The speaker was Professor Julio Banacloche PalaoProfessor of Procedural Law at the Complutense University of Madrid, prolific author on legal matters, who talks to Omnes, for example, about the neutrality of the State, or 'counter-education' at home.
Another close antecedent is the document "The faithful God keeps his covenant". (DT 7.9), of the Spanish Episcopal Conferencepresented in January of this year. It is an instrument for pastoral work on the person, family and society, to which the interviewee refers in the conversation.
You began your speech by quoting sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. Why Bauman?
-Because Bauma, despite his adherence to Marxism (which is always a theoretical conditioning factor), was a great sociologist who characterized our time very well, defining it as a liquid society, in which the great pillars that gave stability and solidity to life in the Western world (the family, work and the nation) have crumbled, generating a situation of insecurity and uncertainty.
This lack of "solid" references, on the other hand, is what has allowed ideas and constructions about man, the world and life to come to the forefront that are contrary to science and common sense, and inconceivable fifty years ago.
I don't know if among Bauman's ideas, or as your conclusions, you have referred to insecurity and fear of the future.
-These are Bauman's ideas. In his opinion, this loss of security (marriage is no longer forever, employment is not stable, the nation is diluted by global powers) generates an insecurity in the present and an uncertainty for the future that generates fear and incapacitates especially for commitment. The only sure thing is consumption ("every desire for happiness ends up in a store," Bauman said), although this is also ephemeral and generates more frustration (there will always be a better iPhone than the one I just bought).
This makes it very difficult to build a society based on classical values, forged in Christianity (loyalty, commitment, solidarity), because the dominant virtue is flexibility, which Bauman himself defines as the ability to break commitments made without any feeling of guilt or regret ("we must adapt, these are the new times, it's the right thing to do").
You mentioned a document of the Spanish Episcopal Conference. How does free self-determination of will affect us? What do you highlight from this text?
The most interesting thing about this document of January 2023 is that the Spanish bishops detect that we are facing a change of era, where it is not necessary to analyze each legal change resulting from the so-called "social engineering" in isolation, but as a whole. They are precisely trying to "dissolve" what is left of the solid pillars of which Bauman spoke: instead of the idea of community, individualism and solipsism are being imposed, where one only sees oneself, is what one wants to be, and even decides on matters that are imposed on him. As Benedict XVI said, this is the last stage of the creature's rebellion against its Creator.
The principle of free self-determination of the will, which has its roots in Hegel, is projected in that I decide whether or not to allow the life of others (abortion), whether to continue living or to end my life in an "official" way (euthanasia), or whether I am a man or a woman according to how I feel now (trans law).
In these decisions, which the State has to recognize, promote and carry out, others do not matter at all: neither the father (much less the child who is aborted) in the euphemistically called "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" (when nothing is interrupted, but rather it puts an end to it), nor the relatives in euthanasia, nor the rest of the people and groups affected by a change of sex in the trans law.
In addition to abortion and euthanasia, you have also referred to the so-called 'trans law'...
-Yes, it is the penultimate product of the social engineering factory that has managed to gain access to government and parliament. Once again, it is about taking advantage of a reality that deserves a respectful, balanced and adequate treatment to its circumstances (such as that of intersex or transsexual people), to impose a disproportionate, ideologized and contrary to science, logic and the most elementary legal and social security regulation.
No one understands that a person can change sex simply by saying so at the registry window, and from that moment take advantage of the benefits attributed to the new sex.
On the other hand, the great victims of these reforms are women, who see how, through these norms, all the social and labor conquests achieved in the last decades are diluted. But this law is not the last one in this legislative delirium we are living through ("diarrhea", the Secretary of Equality called it, never better said because of the decomposition and lack of consistency implied by the term): the animal welfare law, which grants rights to animals in their condition of "sentient beings", or the draft bill on families, which considers eighteen different realities as such, are other examples.
The question now is why does the state have to proselytize so many things?
-The State must be ideologically neutral, as required by our Constitutional Court. That is what it means to live in a plural and diverse society: that all approaches to moral issues are accepted, as long as they do not exceed the basic rules of coexistence, which are embodied in the constitutional principles and values.
For this reason, the State should not assume or make its own the Christian or Marxist perspective of the world or of man, but neither the gender perspective, which is nothing more than an ideological approach based on the existence of a heteropatriarchy and a secular invisibilization of women, and which promotes a destructive nihilism.
What we are seeing is that the State, through its legislation, becomes an activist of certain ideas and a proscriber of others, excluding not only from the debate but also from legality those who hold contrary views. And implanting a single way of thinking and punishing administratively or criminally anyone who thinks otherwise brings us dangerously close to totalitarianism.
What is 'counter-education' at home?
-It is a call to the responsibility of parents and families, especially Catholic families, but in general to all those who want their children to have moral values. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and the ideological winds are not favorable to those who defend a Christian -or simply a moral- vision of life.
For this reason, it is no longer possible to leave formation to the schools, not even to those that have a Catholic ideology or are run - often only nominally - by religious, but, in religious or moral matters, it is necessary to ask at home what has been explained at school, or what has been seen on the networks, and to explain and correct what is not in conformity with the convictions that parents want to transmit to their children.
Along the same lines, how can parents have more influence on education, or on schools?
-The current situation is a great opportunity to assume a greater social commitment in all areas. The fact that these crazy and anti-human laws have managed to be passed is largely due to the "silence of the good guys", to the passivity of normal people who have preferred to do their own thing (which is enough) and not get involved in the political or civil society sphere.
That is why I believe that the time has come for all of us to courageously assume personal and social commitments in the defense of the common good: parents dedicating time and effort to the education of their children (sometimes sacrificing time for leisure or personal fulfillment), teachers dedicating ourselves to our students, and in general all of us forming part of entities and associations that can influence society.
