O Parecer do CNECV sobre as Alterações à Lei da PMA - por Pedro Vaz Patto

O Conselho Nacional de Ética para as Ciências da Vida (CNECV) emitiu parecer sobre as propostas de alteração à lei da procriação medicamente assistida.  Nele se afirma que não há uma justificação eticamente válida para negar o acesso a essas técnicas a pessoas sós ou que vivam em união homossexual (sobretudo se o fazem com os seus próprios recursos). E nele se aceita a maternidade de substituição (aí designada por “gestação” de substituição”), sob um conjunto de condições tendentes a eliminar ou reduzir os seus possíveis malefícios.

           

Invoca-se o direito à parentalidade de quaisquer candidatos, sem discriminação, e alega-se que não se justifica privilegiar uma forma de família em relação a outras e que o risco de instrumentalização do filho não depende do facto de os progenitores serem, ou não, um casal heterossexual.

           

Contra esta tese, há, porém, que invocar a primazia do bem do filho sobre as pretensões dos candidatos. De outro modo, o filho seria instrumentalizado como objecto de um direito que se reivindica (não há um “direito ao filho”). E o bem do filho exige, por um lado, que ele seja fruto de uma relação de amor, não de uma afirmação individual. E exige que tenha um pai e uma mãe (cada um deles único e os dois complementares), não só um pai, só uma mãe, dois pais ou duas mães.

           

Quanto à “gestação de substituição”, o parecer reflecte o propósito (louvável) de acautelar uma série ampla de riscos que essa prática tem suscitado nos países onde foi legalizada. Um propósito que, pelo contrário, os proponentes das alterações em discussão parlamentar têm descurado. Mas as soluções indicadas (como outras que poderiam ser alvitradas) serão sempre insatisfatórias e não eliminam esses riscos, que só a efectiva proibição dessa prática elimina. Mesmo com todas essas (ou outras) cautelas, não deixamos de estar perante uma instrumentalização da criança que nasce e da mulher gestante. A esta continuará a ser sempre imposta por contrato a obrigação de abandonar o ser que acolheu dentro de si e com quem partilhou aquela que é talvez a experiência mais íntima, intensa e marcante da vida de uma mulher.

           

Indica o parecer que à mulher gestante deve ser reconhecida a faculdade de mudar de ideias e assumir a maternidade até ao início do parto. E porque não logo a seguir, ou enquanto amamenta (uma questão – a de saber quem amamenta - que o parecer também indica como necessário objecto do contrato)? E, se não o fizer, fica privada do direito de visitar a criança no futuro? E, nesse caso, em que a mulher gestante muda de ideias e assume a maternidade, ficam os pais genéticos privados de qualquer direito, sendo eles pais genéticos?. Quem será, nesse caso, o pai da criança (se é que o tem)? Mudando de ideias, a mulher fica obrigado a indemnizar os pais genéticos (qual o sentido da sua vinculação)?

           

Indica, por outro lado, o parecer que a mãe gestante deve ser saudável e o contrato deve conter disposições para o caso de malformação ou doença fetal. Mas em que sentido devem ser essas disposições (obrigação de abortar, possibilidade de o casal beneficiário se desvincular e abandonar a criança)? Se a mãe gestante não for, afinal, saudável, ou vier a revelar-se uma sua doença durante a gravidez, que responsabilidade tem perante o casal beneficiário? Este pode, por isso, desvincular-se e abandonar a criança?

           

Pretende o parecer que seja garantida a avaliação da motivação altruísta da mãe gestante e a impossibilidade de subordinação económica desta em relação ao casal beneficiário. Mas a realidade é o que é e o direito não pode ilusoriamente pretender modificá-la: só o desespero de graves carências económicas leva mulheres a sujeitar-se a tão traumatizante experiência (é assim na Índia e em muitos países). De forma oculta ou indirecta, as contrapartidas económicas hão-de verificar-se. E as pressões que tal situação de carência suscita tornam vãs quaisquer cautelas e garantias jurídicas. Com tais pressões, a mulher gestante pode acabar, na prática, por sujeitar-se àquilo que o parecer pretende afastar (como a imposição de regras de conduta durante a gravidez pelo casal beneficiário).

           

Talvez só a ligação familiar entre a mãe gestante e o casal beneficiário possa garantir a motivação altruísta daquela. Mas os problemas que essa ligação acarreta (porque muito mais difícil será que a mãe gestante se desligue da criança e mais fácil e mais complexa a possível “concorrência” entre as duas “mães”) tornam-na desaconselhável a vários títulos.

            

Todos estes riscos são inelimináveis se a prática não for proibida. Nenhuma das possíveis alternativas para as situações indicadas é isenta de malefícios e quase todas têm uma faceta chocante. É assim porque na “maternidade de substituição” (“barriga de aluguer”, “gestação de substituição” –chame-se o que se quiser), com todas as possíveis regulações jurídicas, a criança nunca deixa de ser tratada como um objecto de um contrato (uma mercadoria) e a gestação como uma qualquer prestação de serviços (como se a mulher gestante fosse uma máquina incubadora).

The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines - John Allen Jr. - YouTube

Les idoles de la modernité - entretien avec Mchel Schooyans

In La Nef N°225 d'Avril 2011

Mgr Michel Schooyans, professeur émérite de l’université catholique de Louvain, est l’auteur d’ouvrages importants qui ont marqué l’époque, notamment dans tous les sujets qui touchent à la Vie. Son dernier livre, Les idoles de la modernité, qui présente une bonne synthèse de sa pensée, est l’occasion de l’interroger.

La Nef – Vous avez intitulé l’un de vos livres La dérive totalitaire du libéralisme : qu’entendez-vous par là ?
Mgr Michel Schooyans – Alors que nous avons assisté à l’échec du système soviétique de gouvernement, nous sommes témoins de l’émergence d’une tendance totalitaire issue de l’idéologie libérale. Quand nous examinons les deux idéologies – la communiste d’une part, la libérale d’autre part – nous constatons qu’à première vue il y a une grande différence entre les deux. En réalité, les deux idéologies ont une caractéristique commune : elles exaltent la lutte, la survivance du plus apte. Dans le système communiste, la lutte des classes consacre la victoire du plus fort. Mais quand nous regardons ce qui se passe dans l’idéologie libérale, nous rencontrons la même dynamique, celle de la concurrence effrénée et de la survivance. Le marché subsiste mais d’importants instruments qui devraient le réguler sont enrayés. Il n’est plus une réalité humaine avec ses échanges et ses lois. C’est un champ de bataille où s’opposent les forces des plus faibles et celles des plus puissants. Ceux qui ont le droit de survivre, ce sont ceux qui ont la capacité de consommer et de produire.

Vous avez dénoncé la nouvelle conception des droits de l’homme prônée par l’ONU : de quoi s’agit-il ?
Nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle révolution culturelle. L’ONU est en train de mettre en place une conception nouvelle du droit. Les vérités fondatrices de l’ONU concernant la centralité de l’homme dans le monde, exposées dans la Déclaration de 1948, sont peu à peu désactivées. Selon la nouvelle conception onusienne du droit, aucune vérité sur l’homme ne s’impose à tous les hommes. Les droits de l’homme ne sont plus reconnus comme des vérités devant lesquelles on s’incline ; ils sont l’objet de procédures, de décisions consensuelles. Nous négocions et, au terme d’une procédure pragmatique, nous décidons, par exemple, que le respect de la vie s’impose dans tels cas mais pas dans d’autres, que l’euthanasie doit être libéralisée, que les unions homosexuelles ont les mêmes droits que la famille monogame et hétérosexuelle, etc. Ainsi naissent de soi-disant « nouveaux droits de l’homme », toujours renégociables au gré des intérêts changeants de ceux qui peuvent faire prévaloir leur volonté.
Pour acclimater ces « nouveaux droits » et surtout la conception du droit qui leur est sous-jacente, deux axes d’action doivent être privilégiés. Il faut d’abord affaiblir les nations souveraines, car elles sont normalement en première ligne lorsqu’il s’agit de protéger les droits inaliénables de leurs citoyens. Ensuite, dans les assemblées internationales, il faut obtenir le plus large consensus possible. Une fois acquis, le consensus peut être invoqué pour faire adopter des conventions internationales, des pactes ou des protocoles, qui acquièrent force de loi dans les États qui les ont ratifiés. Ainsi se constitue peu à peu un droit international purement positiviste et pyramidal, inspiré de Kelsen. À ce droit, et à lui seul, il appartiendra de valider les droits nationaux particuliers.

Que répondre à ceux qui croient encore au mythe de la surpopulation, prétexte facile pour imposer contraception et avortement ?
Ce qu’on ignore trop souvent, c’est que la grande cause de l’augmentation de la population, c’est l’accroissement de l’espérance de vie. Partout dans le monde, les hommes et les femmes vivent aujourd’hui plus longtemps qu’il y a 50 ou 100 ans. Les hommes qui aujourd’hui vivent jusqu’à 80 ans occupent la terre deux fois plus longtemps que ceux qui, jadis, pouvaient espérer vivre 40 ans.
Par ailleurs, en dépit de ce que l’on occulte généralement, on observe actuellement, partout dans le monde, une tendance à la baisse de la fécondité. Déjà en 1997, la Division de la Population de l’ONU a reconnu ce fait. Dans un bon tiers des 200 pays du monde, l’indice de fécondité est inférieur à 2,1 enfants par femme. Pour qu’une population se renouvelle, il faut en effet que chaque femme ait au moins 2,1 enfants. À terme, cette situation met en péril l’avenir de l’humanité.

Que pensez-vous de la notion de développement durable ?
Actuellement, c’est souvent au nom de la « surpopulation » qu’est invoquée la notion de développement durable pour prétendre que la terre est surpeuplée. Pour respecter le milieu ambiant, il faudrait définir certains quotas d’hommes admis à exister. On ne pourrait pas dépasser un certain nombre d’habitants sur la terre, parce que celle-ci ne serait pas capable de supporter une population mondiale arrivant à saturation. Or ce type de vision malthusienne est dépourvu de fondement scientifique. Personne n’est en mesure de fixer des limites à la créativité humaine. Les hommes ont une capacité d’invention indéfinie et indéfinissable, très palpable dans le domaine alimentaire. En matière d’énergie, on dit que le pétrole va s’épuiser ; cela est probable. Mais quand ? Observons que les hommes n’ont pas toujours connu le pétrole ni vécu avec lui, et qu’en second lieu, l’homme a prouvé qu’il était capable de découvrir et d’exploiter de nouvelles sources d’énergie.
En résumé, l’évolution de deux indicateurs démographiques majeurs, la fécondité et l’espérance de vie, confirme qu’il n’y a pas de danger d’« explosion » démographique. Ce qui, en revanche, justifie une vive préoccupation, c’est l’augmentation dans nos sociétés de la proportion des personnes âgées par rapport aux jeunes.

Finalement, le grand problème de l’Occident, n’est-il pas tout simplement le rejet de Dieu ?
L’indifférence face à la vérité est devenue une des caractéristiques des sociétés occidentales. « Toutes les vérités se valent » : c’est le « pluralisme » doctrinal qui va de pair avec l’agnosticisme de principe. Cette indifférence est aujourd’hui la faiblesse majeure de nos sociétés. Pour suppléer à cette faiblesse, on recourt à un expédient : la règle de la majorité. Ce qui ne devrait être qu’une règle de fonctionnement devient la référence ultime pour fonder les normes juridiques. On demande tout à la seule volonté de la majorité. Triomphe posthume de Rousseau et empire de la volonté générale, en un sens. Cette majorité est créditée de la capacité d’assurer aux lois une « sainteté » civile, en vertu de laquelle, pour être bon citoyen, il faut respecter inconditionnellement la loi, sauf à être accusé d’insociabilité et condamné comme tel. Il n’y a plus de place pour une instance supérieure qui puisse être invoquée pour contester la loi, quelle qu’elle soit. Le rapport devient ainsi aléatoire entre la loi positive et la requête de justice.

Ce rejet de Dieu est-il inhérent à la modernité ?
Beaucoup de nos contemporains croient que Dieu est un obstacle à leur bonheur. Dieu serait une entrave à la liberté humaine. Ces hommes refusent l’idée de dépendance ; ils rejettent a priori l’idée de création. Pour eux, être créé, c’est vivre dans la dépendance, et vivre dans la dépendance, c’est être esclave. À l’esclave, donc, de tuer le maître. Dans cette perspective, voir dans la création la première révélation est désormais dépourvu de sens. Voir dans l’être humain l’image de Dieu est tout autant dépourvu de sens. La seule loi qui doive être suivie, c’est celle de la nature entendue au sens purement matériel. Or cette nature-là est violente : elle sélectionne en éliminant les moins aptes. C’est à cette nature, exaltée dans la Charte de la Terre et célébrée sous le vocable de Gaïa, que les hommes doivent désormais se soumettre, car ils sont le produit d’une évolution purement matérielle, et ils retourneront à la terre dans une mort définitive. La culture de la mort a commencé lorsque les hommes ont décrété la mort du Père. Cela permet de comprendre que cette culture est une révolte contre Dieu et contre l’homme qui en est l’image.

Comment une démocratie pluraliste et laïque peut-elle « intégrer » Dieu ?
Commençons par lever la confusion, savamment entretenue, qui pèse sur les mots laïcisme et laïcité. Le laïcisme, c’est d’abord une doctrine intégralement rationaliste qui vise à détruire toute croyance religieuse. C’est aussi un ensemble de mouvements qui s’activent à généraliser ce rationalisme religieux. Par laïcité, on entend la distinction des deux sphères, politique et religieuse. Il y a longtemps que, dans nos sociétés occidentales, le pouvoir politique n’empiète pas sur le pouvoir religieux, ni vice-versa.
 

C’est sur fond de cette différence entre laïcisme et laïcité que surgit la question de la démocratie. Les grandes déclarations des droits de l’homme ont été proclamées par le pouvoir politique. Ces documents, dont plusieurs invoquent Dieu, sont fondateurs de la démocratie moderne, qui se définit essentiellement par la reconnaissance, par le corps social tout entier, du droit de tout homme à vivre, et à vivre dans la dignité. Or cette conception de la démocratie rejoint le fondement du christianisme : tous les êtres humains sont enfants du même Père, et par là même sont tous égaux en dignité. Sur cette base, un dialogue constructif peut s’ouvrir entre les différentes religions monothéistes et avec certains athées afin de combattre la barbarie. Quand est ébranlée la reconnaissance de cette dignité, on risque de retourner aux privilèges, aux injustices et aux cruautés des siècles de fer.
Propos recueillis par Christophe Geffroy

Vous avez dit « surpopulation » ?- Interview de Mgr Michel Schooyans

Paris, novembre 2011

- Existe-t-il un "plan mondial" de réduction de la population ? Si oui, quel est-il?

De nombreux organismes internationaux, publics ou privés, coordonnent, financent et exécutent des programmes de contrôle de la population mondiale. C’est le cas du FNUAP, de l’OMS, de l’UNICEF, du PNUD et d’autres agences de l’ONU. C’est le cas aussi de nombreux organismes « privés », dont la puissante IPPF. N’importe qui peut surfer sur le web et trouver les rapports et publications de ces organisations. Parmi les idéologues de ces programmes « contrôlistes », on relève Henry Kissinger et son célèbre Memorandum de 1974, et Robert McNamara et son rapport sur Une politique démographique mondiale, publié par l’ONU en 1991.

- Peut-on aller jusqu'à parler "d'eugénisme mondial" Si oui, pourquoi ?

Tout dépend de ce qu’on entend par eugénisme. Une des formes les moins connues d’eugénisme, c’est l’eugénisme qui veut contrôler la transmission de la vie parmi les populations moins favorisées. C’était déjà ce que préconisait le pasteur anglican Malthus. Celui-ci estimait qu’il fallait laisser faire la nature, qui procède d’elle-même à l’élimination de ceux qui, selon lui, sont de trop et qui, pour ce motif, ne sont pas invités au « grand banquet de la nature ». Plus tard, un autre auteur, Galton, développera cette vision pessimiste de Malthus et affirmera la nécessité de développer la sélection médicalisée des moins aptes.

- Comment dès lors faire face aux risques de surpopulation ? Quelles alternatives crédibles ?

La question que vous me posez se présente un peu comme une pétition de principe. Vous semblez présupposer qu’il est acquis qu’il y a « surpopulation ». Or c’est justement ce qu’il faudrait démontrer et qui ne l’a jamais été. Personne n’est en mesure de fixer des limites à la créativité humaine. Il y a cinquante ans, l’Inde comptait quelque deux cents millions d’habitants et ne parvenait pas à les alimenter correctement. Aujourd’hui, l’Inde compte plus d’un milliard d’habitants et elle exporte des céréales parce qu’elle a accueilli la révolution verte, avec notamment le prix Nobel de la paix Norman Borlaug (1970). Deux points méritent d’être soulignés pour en finir avec le mythe de la surpopulation. D’abord la fécondité, c’est-à-dire le nombre d’enfants par femme, est en baisse partout dans le monde. Pour qu’une population se renouvelle, chaque femme devrait avoir au moins 2,1 enfants. Or sur les 210 pays répertoriés par l’ONU, plus d’un tiers ont un indice de fécondité inférieur à 2,1. Presque aucun pays européen n’atteint le seuil de 2,1. Les populations de l’Allemagne et de la Russie sont en train de s’effondrer. Le second point à souligner et qui n’est presque jamais pointé par les médias, c’est que la grande cause de la croissance de la population n’est pas à chercher dans la fécondité, qui est en baisse partout, mais dans l’augmentation, partout dans le monde, de l’espérance de vie. L’enfant qui naissait en 1900 avait une espérance de vie de moins de 25 ans. L’enfant qui naît aujourd’hui a une espérance de vie près de trois fois supérieure. Il occupe donc la terre trois fois plus longtemps que ceux qui l’ont précédé.

- Pensez-vous que la récente réunion du G20 à Cannes puisse aider les gens à ouvrir les yeux sur ces questions ?

Je constate que les pays européens ont une tendance marquée à refuser la vie. Ils ont en particulier tendance à récuser les évidences démographiques en ce qui concerne les pensions. Je constate également que la croissance prévue du PIB allemand pour l’an prochain est de l’ordre de 1%. En face, le même taux de croissance pour la Chine devrait être de 9%. L’Europe continue à être malthusienne et a peur des pauvres. Les pays exploités pendant des siècles prennent en main leur destin. Comme me l’écrivait Alfred Sauvy dans une lettre qu’il m’a adressée le 7 octobre 1974 : « En face, les peuples jeunes, je veux dire à population jeune sont bien mieux armés ; ils peuvent souffrir de diverses façons, de famine même, mais ils l’emporteront fatalement puisqu’ils misent sur la vie ».

Mgr Michel Schooyans

Professeur émérite de l’Université Catholique de Louvain

Membre de l’Académie Pontificale pour la Vie

Michel Schooyans a publié récemment Pour comprendre les évolutions démographiques, Paris, Éd. APRD, 131 pages. L’ouvrage, hors commerce, peut être commandé à l’ASBL Le Feu, rue Douffet, 43, à B-4020 Liège, Belgique. Dans Renaissance catholique, numéro 116, mars-avril 2011, p. 20, Jean-Pierre Maugendre a rendu compte de son autre ouvrage Les idoles de la modernité, Éditions Lethielleux, 282 pages, 22 €.

Vatican Congress on Stem Cells cancelled - an interview of M. Schooyans - by C. Glatz, for CNS

Were you part of the group of members that called for its cancellation or did you know about people being opposed to it?

I was not directly part of the group of members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who called for the cancellation of the Pontifical Academy for Life Conference on Stem Cells. The Academicians being opposed to this conference had already reacted in 2009 against the statement of a member of the Vatican Curia about the Recife Affair. The unique concern of those Academicians is fidelity to the teaching of the Catholic Church about the respect of human life from the beginning to the natural death and about the defense of the family.

I understand there was opposition to speakers who are vocal proponents of embryonic research. Do you know why the academy invited these researchers? 

A previous question must be considered: Who selected and invited the speakers? On which criterions were they chosen? Who was approached to sponsor this meeting? Is it not to be feared that the weight of those persons could interfere on some running process? I observe that there were different organizers, some of them surprising. Were they unanimous in inviting the different participants? Were the positions of the participants on embryonical research known by the organizing committee? Happy enough some members of the Academy were better informed than the organizing committee!

I know the Pontifical Academy of Sciences invites speakers that don’t agree with the church on many matters, and the academy’s invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of these people’s views. Does the Academy for Life have a different procedure? Are all speakers at a PAL event expected to uphold church teaching? 

It is true that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences invites speakers that don’t agree with the Church on many matters, and, generally speaking, it is a good thing because the Academicians can discuss and exchange their points of view. But a subject like the respect of human life, especially of the most vulnerable, is non-negotiable. The halls of the Holly See should not be put at the disposal of researchers whose positions are in open disagreement with the teaching of the Church about life. Besides, because they were invited by the Vatican, some of those researchers will proclaim everywhere that the Church is changing her position about the research on embryo.

Will the academy still hold a conference on stem cells in the future?

It will be convenient to consider holding some other conference on adult stem cells in the future. Obviously, it will be important to stress the necessity of experimenting on animals rather than on human embryos. It is urgent as well to show that the researches on adult stem cells are much more promising than the researches on embryonic stem cells. Amidst the scientific community, the researches about embryonic stem cells are strongly controversial, both from the scientific and the ethical points of view. The Church cannot take the risk of being manipulated about topics which are so fundamental. She must support a vision of the Medicine which helps the patient, and not a vision that kills him. This is the reason why it was opportune to cancel the April-planned Congress.

Mgr Michel Schooyans

michel.schooyans@uclouvain.be

Michel Schooyans, Emeritus Professor of Political Philosophy at the Louvain University, is an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a member of several international scientific societies.

Some extracts of this interview appeared in the article of Carol Glatz, “Organizers: Vatican congress on stem cells canceled for lack of funds”,

Pro Manuscripto.

Privatizing Marriage Is Impossible - by by Jennifer Roback Morse

In The Publi Discourse

We cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly.

As a libertarian myself, I have been quite disappointed that the “default” libertarian position on marriage has become little more than a sound-bite: “Let’s get the state out of the marriage business.” With all due respect, this position is unsound.

I will not be able to respond to this sound-bite with another sound-bite. The issues surrounding marriage are too deep. But I am not deterred from trying to persuade thoughtful readers who are up to the task of following a complex and unconventional argument wherever the search for truth may lead.

I make three points in this series of articles. First, in today’s article, I show that it is not possible to privatize marriage. Second, in tomorrow’s article, I show that the attempt to privatize marriage will not result in an increase in freedom, but will actually increase the role of the state. Finally, in the third article, I show that attempting to privatize marriage will perpetrate great injustices to children. Any of these reasons is sufficient to put an end to the “get the government out of the marriage business” mantra. All three of these reasons taken together form a compelling case for absolutely opposing the redefinition of marriage and for working tirelessly to create a robust cultural norm of one man, one woman, for life.

“Get the government out of the marriage business,” or its close cousin, “Leave it to the churches,” is a superficially appealing slogan. When I hear this, I often get the feeling that it is a way of avoiding the unpleasant dispute currently raging over the proper definition of marriage. I sense that its proponents are hoping we can remove this whole contentious topic from the public square and put it into the private sector. Each person or group can have its own version of marriage. The state, with its powerful coercive instruments, need never get involved in resolving this seemingly impossible stalemate.

While I understand this impulse, I believe it is fundamentally misguided. Taking a stand on the purpose and meaning of marriage is unavoidable. Here is why.

Marriage is society’s primary institutional arrangement that defines parenthood. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. A woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of any children she bears during the life of their union. These two people are the legally recognized parents of this child, and no one else is. The grandparents are not; the former boyfriend is not; the nanny who spends all day with the kids is not. These two hold their parental rights against all other competing claimants. This is an intrinsically social, public function of marriage that cannot be privatized.

You might reply, “Dr. Morse, your understanding of marriage is all about parenthood, and not about marriage itself. Not every marriage has children, after all.” And it is perfectly true: not every marriage has children. But every child has parents. This objection stands marriage on its head by looking at it purely from the adult’s perspective, instead of the child’s. The fact that this objection is so common shows how far we have strayed from understanding the public purpose of marriage, as opposed to the many private reasons that people have for getting married.

If no children were ever involved, adult sexual relationships simply wouldn’t be any of the state’s business. What we now call marriage would be nothing more than a government registry of friendships. If that’s all there were to marriage, privatizing it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if there were literally nothing more to marriage than a government registry of friendships, we would not observe an institution like marriage in every known society.

Perhaps libertarians might concede that marriage attaches children to their natural biological parents. They might even agree that this is a fine and necessary thing—and then try to imagine that the institution now known as marriage could be replaced by private agreements among prospective parents. I will argue later that this policy will inflict serious injustices on children. For now, I want to show that it is an illusion to think that these contracts can dispense with any and all state involvement.

Disputes that arise between the contracting parties must be resolved by an overarching legal authority. Let’s face it: that overarching legal authority always will be some agency of the government. “Getting the government out of the marriage business” amounts to refusing to define marriage on the front end. But the state will end up being involved in defining what counts as a valid marriage or parenting contract, on the back end, as it resolves disputes. We cannot escape this kind of state involvement.

No-fault divorce provides an analogy. No-fault divorce allows one party to end the marriage bond for any reason or no reason. In effect, the state redefined marriage by removing the presumption of permanence. Marriage became a temporary arrangement rather than a permanent union of a man and a woman. No-fault divorce was supposed to increase personal freedom.

But the result of this legal change has been state involvement in the minutiae of family life, as it resolves disputes over custody, visitation, and child support. Family courts decide where children go to school, or to church. I’ve even heard of a family court judge choosing a teenaged-girl’s prom dress because the divorced parents couldn’t resolve the issue.

Married spouses disagree with each other over all sorts of issues, of course. But it is literally unthinkable that the state would be involved in resolving these kinds of disputes in an intact marriage. One might have thought that no-fault divorce would “get the government out of the divorce business.” In fact, it did no such thing. The government got out of the front end of deciding what counted as a valid reason for divorce. But the government reappeared on the back end, in a far more intrusive form, as it decides how to divide family assets and resolve post-divorce conflicts.

Furthermore, “leaving marriage to the churches” is a fantasy. At this point in history, churches are not the ultimate legal authority for anything. There is exactly zero chance that the state will permit religious law to be the legal authority for its members on issues such as custody, visitation, and child support. In fact, the “Lifestyle Left” has spent considerable energy marginalizing the churches, reducing even further their ability to shape the behavior of their members and influence the wider society. They’ve done this, I might add, with scarcely a peep of protest from libertarians.

Even if the state did grant churches binding legal authority over their own members, the state would still be drawn into disputes between people in mixed religious marriages, as well as people of no religion at all. Thus, what appears to be “leaving it to the churches” will be in fact no such thing. The state will end up shaping people’s behavior by how it chooses to resolve the disputes that will inevitably arise.

Finally, getting the government out of the business of giving out marriage licenses does not mean that the government will be completely neutral with respect to kinds of relationships. The government is already deeply involved in many aspects of human life that affect people’s decisions of what kind of relationship to be in. For instance, government’s policies regarding welfare, health care, and housing have contributed to the near-disappearance of marriage from the lower classes, not only in America, but throughout the industrialized world.

Miss Octo-Mom, to take a specific example, thought it was in her interest to give birth to fourteen children without ever even having a relationship with a man, much less being married to one. Surely government policies had something to do with her decision-making. Agencies of the state provided her with income support, free medical care, the use of a stranger’s sperm, as well as legal assurance that said sperm donor would never show up and bother her. Every one of these policies has implied views about marriage. If libertarians ever succeed in getting the government out of all of these areas of life, maybe we can talk about making the government “neutral” with respect to marriage. Until then, forget it.

In short, the idea that we can get the government out of the marriage business in the early twenty-first century is an illusion. Marriage performs an irreducibly public function, of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Given the current scope and size of the government’s activities, the state cannot be completely neutral with respect to different types of relationships.

We simply cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly. “Privatizing marriage” is impossible. Adopting this position on the marriage issue as an attempt to avoid conflict is unworthy of thoughtful adults.

But the attempt to do the impossible is not harmless. In my next article, I will show that “getting the government out of the marriage business” will actually amount to an increase in the size and scope of the government.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund.  She is the author of Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, available in paperback and digitally at the Ruth Institute store.

The Pope's Challenge to Cuba—and the World - by James V. Schall, S.J.

In The Catholic World Report

“Anyone who acts irrationally cannot become a disciple of Jesus. Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the pursuit of truth. God created man with an innate vocation to the truth and he gave him reason for this purpose. Certainly, it is not irrationality but rather the yearning for truth which the Christian faith promotes. Each man and woman has to seek the truth and to choose it when he or she finds it, even at the risk of embracing sacrifices.”

— Pope Benedict XVI, Homily, Plaza de la Revolución, Havana, March 28, 2012.

 

 I.

Cuba has been, in effect, a Marxist ideological dictatorship for half a century. It would be difficult to know how else accurately to describe it. Whether it can go on after Castro brothers' deaths can be wondered about, but possibly. The Cuban government controls the population of the relatively small island. Many who might have caused an inner revolt have usually managed to escape to other countries. The remaining population is kept passive by government aid and coercion. Most of the methods of tyrannical control that are found described in Aristotle or Machiavelli have been successfully employed to keep power: keep people busy, control friendships and communication, and use force when necessary. Control of military, police, economy, education, health services, and culture have been in place. Chances of a John Paul II type peaceful revolt from within seem slim, though they also seemed remote in Poland also.

The Church in Cuba exists, with hierarchy and parishes, but the schools and other services fall under state control in one way or another. It is a difficult situation. Objectively, it is not free, but it is there. Do we go along the best we can or protest? Protesting usually means long prison terms, as many brave Cubans know. Though there are sanctions designed to mitigate the severity of Cuban control, no one wants to bother doing anything rash. And so the Cuban establishment feels fairly secure in its own world. Outside powers have varying relations to Cuba, usually on its terms, depending on the political situation of the country involved. The Cuban government likes to think—or at least insist—that its shabby economy and social conditions are rather a small Marxist paradise, long after most Marxists utopias have been shown to be what they are: human and transcendent failures.

Following the example of John Paul II, Benedict XVI also went to Cuba, a land of long Catholic tradition. It is the Jubilee Year of Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre. Even Castro did not suppress that devotion. When Benedict visited the Plaza de la Revolucion on Wednesday, March 28, the Mass was taken from the Lenten Mass of the day. He greeted the Archbishop of Havana, other bishops, priests, seminarians, religious, and lay faithful. He mentions also “civil authorities who join us.” Since no names were mentioned, we assume that no high official was allowed to appear; otherwise he would have likely been mentioned by name.

The pope appropriately cited the passage from John 8 (v 32) in the Mass, the famous passage stating, “…and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” This is Benedict’s basic message to the Cuban regime. They are not free insofar as they oppose the truth. Who else could tell them this fact? Benedict adds that Christ’s “teaching provokes resistance and disquiet among His hearers and He accuses them of looking for reasons to kill him.” The theme that those who uphold the truth will be killed is striking. It takes right back to Socrates and Christ. The Cuban Marxists, no doubt, will say that, since they have the truth, this saying applies only to their enemies. But Benedict notes that Christ exhorted even those who would kill Him to believe.

Benedict next explains what truth indicates. “The truth is a desire of the human person, the search for which always supposes the exercise of authentic freedom.” Many do not want to face this relationship between freedom and truth. They are like Pilate who wanted to wash his hands of the whole mess. They elevate Pilate’s cynical “What is truth?” to a philosophical principle. Truth cannot be known. Once we hold this version of skepticism or relativism, our hearts are “changed.” We doubt everything. All is permitted. Like the Roman governor, we do not take a stand. But the Cuban rulers take a stand on their “truth.” They allow no one the public freedom to doubt it.

Benedict then takes up the question of those who have a fanatical version of truth. “They close themselves up in ‘their truth,’ and try to impose it on others.” This is hitting pretty close to home. Benedict is blunt. They are like the ‘blind Scribes” who yell “Crucify Him” (Jn 19:6).

The pope then reiterates one of the principle themes of his whole pontificate and intellectual life: “Anyone who acts irrationally cannot become a disciple of Jesus. Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the pursuit of truth.” Of course, Benedict does not deny that even the best of our kind sometimes act irrationally. What he does mean is that what is irrational in principle cannot be Catholic, cannot be the faith that is directed to reason. This is the import of the “Regensburg Lecture.”

“God created man with an innate vocation to the truth and he gave him reason for this purpose.” The purpose of reason as a power is that we actually use it to know what is, to know the truth of things. In much of modern society, all religion is defined to be “irrational” and potentially fanatical, no matter what it holds. This dubious theory happily justifies state control, as we are seeing every day in our own society and throughout the world. 

The fact is that some religions do have fanatical elements that do need control. This is why Benedict stresses the distinctiveness of Christianity precisely here. It rejects irrationality, be it that of Marxism, relativism, skepticism, liberalism, pragmatism, or that found in any religion including Christianity.

 

II.

Looking at these principles to answer the objection that Christian itself is “fanatical,” Benedict writes: “Certainly, it (‘man’s inner vocation to truth’) is not irrational but rather the yearning for truth which the Christian faith proposes. Each man and woman has to seek the truth and to choose it when he or she finds it, even at the risk of embracing sacrifices.” Benedict is speaking clearly and profoundly here. It is a precise instruction on what we are about, to know the truth, and what to do about it, follow it, even at great cost.

Truth is not something we concoct for ourselves. We seek it; we discover it; we do not create it. “The truth which stands above humanity is an unavoidable condition for  attaining freedom, since in it we discover the foundation of an ethics on which all can converge and which contain clear and precise indications concerning life and death, duties and rights, marriage, family and society, in short, regarding the inviolable dignity of the human person.” This is a very insightful sentence. Truth is the same for all men. It “stands above humanity” to judge them all, not just Cuba, but Cuba too. Without truth about what God, cosmos, man, society, family, and the world are, we cannot deal with one another in the freedom in which we all understand the basis of truth.

Benedict is here speaking to all cultures, religions, and nations. He is upholding the universality of reason in all men and giving a foundation for its validity. Yet, “Christianity, in highlighting those values which sustain ethics, does not impose, but rather proposes Christ’s invitation to know the truth which sets us free. The believer is called to offer that truth to his contemporaries, as did the Lord, even before the ominous shadow of rejection and the Cross.”

Again these are penetrating words. One wonders whom in Cuba, or elsewhere, is free enough of soul to ponder them. The Church proposes. What it proposes in the name of Christ can be rejected and has been rejected often from the beginning. Men are free to reject the truth. But they are not free to avoid the consequences of their rejection; nor are they free to exclude responses to their claims against truth.

Christ, Benedict tells us, is the “true measure of man,” something John Paul II taught in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis. “I (Benedict) wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.” The Church lives to make clear this truth, which it does not “make up” but receives from Christ to be handed down. This faith and truth are also “public.” Benedict sees in Cuba steps being made to enable the Church “to carry out her essential mission of expressing her faith openly and publicly.” He asks the government to strengthen these apparently initial endeavors.  To do so is a service to the “Cuban society.”

Benedict then reaffirms something he reiterates often: “The right to freedom of religion, both in its private and in its public dimension, manifests the unity of the human person, who is at once a citizen and a believer.” Believers also contribute to the good of society by being reasonable and rational persons.

Benedict ends with a tribute to Father Felix Varela, who once was a vicar in the diocese of New York and the founder of a newspaper in St. Augustine, Florida. He lies now buried in the Aula Magna of the University of Havana “He has taken his place in Cuban history as the first one who taught his people how to think.” That is no mean feat indeed! Varela gives us a way to think about how to “transform society.” We need to form “virtuous men and women in order to forge a worthy and free nation, for this transformation depends on the spiritual, in as much as ‘there is no authentic fatherland without virtue’” The pope is citing from Varela’s letter of 1836. He is telling Cuba, in other words, that there is a peaceful way.

Somehow, this phrase “No authentic fatherland without virtue,” itself sounds to me like a passage from Cicero. It is not in my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. I also checked Google. I was amazed at how many times that passage from the pope’s Havana address was cited, many dozens and dozens of times. I suspect the reason for this attention to Varela’s striking passage is because it is directly pertinent to our “fatherland” and the struggle over virtue and religious freedom that we now face with the culture and the government.

 

“Cuba and the world need change,” Benedict finally tells us, “but this will occur only if each one is in a position to seek the truth and choose the way of love, sowing reconciliation and fraternity.” Perhaps we can consider these words the last legacy of Fidel Castro to the world, to be the occasion of reminding us all, though the Pope of Rome and Father Felix Varela, that virtue and fatherland go together, that “truth stands above humanity,” that we cannot be free unless we seek and know the truth, and that we may well have to suffer if we do, even in our fatherlands, wherever they may be.