Abortion, automatic excommunication

Archbishop Norberto Rivera, head of the Mexican church informs the people that any woman who has an abortion -any abortion, for any reason - will be automatically excommunicated from the Catholic church, as will anyone assisting her.

It takes quite of bit of chutzpah to take on the role of god's enforcer, especially when you have through the years consistently protected pedophiles and pederasts in the church - yet Rivera isn't exactly known for his temerity nor compassion for his flock. Now he takes it upon himself to decide who goes to hell, and who does not.

At least Víctor Sánchez Espinosa, archbishop of Puebla, is somewhat more reasonable, calling for women who have an abortion, either by their free will forced by third parties, not to be thrown in jail. 

Cardinal Norberto Rivera: Divine law over constitutional law

Cardinal Norberto Rivera comes out as a catholic mirror image of any pro-sharia muslim:

Sure, the church should obey the government, but only to the extent that the church agrees with it:

"when the authorities move beyond the legal framework, where it can not and must not govern, there is no obligation to be obedient, and if they oppose openly fundamental rights, then one must deny it obedience."

Surely, if a government breaks the law, there should be room for civil disobedience - here, I could not agree more. The problem with the the church's statement is of a far different character: It assumes the right and duty to decide for itself, based on bronze-age texts written in the Middle East, what "fundamental rights" are, and use these to deny other people rights - that of divorce, that of marriage, that of birth control, and so forth. These are truly frightening ideas, and sounds just like any pro-sharia advocate.

On a side note: It makes my stomach churn to see SME representatives attend Rivera's mass and mutually extolling each other's efforts. So much for "independent" unions - now allied with the must reactionary elements found in Mexico!

Cardinal Norberto Rivera's cousin arrested with 39 kilos of weed

María Carrera Rivera, the cousin of Cardinal Norberto River, head of the Mexican Catholic church, was arrested in Durango after authorities found her Chrysler Voyager loaded with 39 kilos of marijuana.

The cardinal's sister said it was "probably a mistake."

Cardinal Rivera, a man who makes Pope Benedict XVI appear a liberal, called for the law to be applied, but also that every person is innocent until the opposite is proven.

Amen to that.

Church to PRD: Stop lawsuits, then we'll talk.

You really do get much further with a smile and a gun than with a smile alone, as Al Capone noted.
The PRD, after a series of vicious political attacks from the Catholic Church, finally launched a series of lawsuits, which clearly has worried the church. The most recent sign: Armando Martínez Gómez, legal representative of Cardinal Norberto Rivera (and, I assume, Hugo Valdemar, whom IFE recently found to have broken the law), said the church would be willing to talk with the PRD, but only if the party drops its lawsuits.

PRD's new national president, Jesús Zambrano, said he was willing to talk with Cardinal Rivera, but that the PRD would not retract the suits. Given the escalation of the church's rhetoric the past years - calling PRD fascists, an enemy of the faith, etc - PRD's conclusion seem to be that with the catholic high clergy, you do not get very far with a smile alone.

Clever response from PRD's secretary genera to church: Listen to your boss

The PRD's second in command, Secretary General Hortensia Aragón, in response to the Mexican Church's recent outrageous statements, pointed out to Norberto Rivera that his nominal boss, Pope Benedict XVI, on numerous and recent occasions has called for "social peace." This, in contrast to the Mexican branch of the franchise, which loudly declared it would break its "truce" with Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard and the Mexico City legislature. Why don't you listen to your superior, Norberto?

Yet the point is exactly that: Ratzinger, for all his flaws - and there are many - is somewhat of a "centrist," a traditionalist, while the like of Norberto Rivera, like many in the Mexican hierarchy, belongs to the most ultra conservative and virulently demagogic layers of the catholic church. Rivera brings shame upon the many clergymen and women in Mexico whose commitment to social justice and doing good is unquestionably genuine. They deserve a better cardinal than Norberto Rivera.

Legionaries of Christ, that of child rapist Marcial Maciel, turn 70; Mexican Church ends truce

After a brief Christmas "truce" (the church´s own word), the Mexican Catholic Church is again on the attack, in the process sounding like a prepubescent, immature 11-year old. From its organ Desde La Fe, the Mexican Catholic Church, among the world´s most reactionary and historically anti-democratic, comes the following: The Mexico City government and/or the Mexico City Legislature (the Church never seems to be able to distinguish fully between the two) are "true secular Talibans," and

"individuals intolerant to criticism, fundamentalists in their immoral principles, incapable of accepting the challenge of dialogue with rationality and law."

A better description of the Mexican Church, rather than the Mexico City government, is hard to come by. The Freudian reference here is just too tempting to resist.

But today is also another important day for the Church: The Legionaries of Christ/Legion of Christ is turning 70 years today. Los Legionarios de Cristo, to recall, was founded by whom?
a) A fascist
b) A child raper
c) An incestuous pedophile raping his own childen
d) A morphine junkie
e) All of the above.

You got it: All of the above. Marcial Maciel founded the Legionaries in 1940, yet his name has brought shame to his native Michoacán ever since the scandals involving his habitual raping of children and teenage boys, which even included his own children - yes, he fathered several, though never accepted paternity - really became known to the wider public in 2000.

Yet back to the Mexican Church. I am currently reading the absolutely marvelous and fresh-off-the press book "Marcial Maciel: The Story of a Criminal" by Mexican journalist Carmen Aristegui. I am not done with it yet, but it appears absolutely stunning, and well worth your time and money. Among the key testimonies in this book, a key conclusion is drawn that while Marciel Maciel was a sick and evil man - he never asked for forgiveness, manipulating his victims into believing they were doing god´s will - an even bigger story is that ever since the 1950s, stories abounded, including letters to the Vatican, detailing the abuses of Maciel, yet they were constantly ignored, for a half century, by both the Vatican and the Mexican Church. Indeed, two of the individuals who come out the worst are exactly Norberto Rivera, head of the Mexican Church, who defended Maciel to the extreme, covering up his abused of hundreds or thousands of children, as well as Ratzinger himself, who accepted that Maciel was doing bad things, yet argued, as cardinal, that he was nonetheless beloved by Pope John Paul II, and that the case was better left alone. Only toward the end of the 2000s did the Church admit to Maciel crimes, though this is hardly the end of it: As Aristegui exposes, the Legion and the Vatican may have erased the image of Macial from its annals, yet the organization remains intact, as does the vertical, authoritarian structures that allowed for the abuse in the first place.

It will be up to others to outline the legal responsibility of Ratzinger and Norberto Rivera for having essentially protected a child raper, knowing full well that Marcial Maciel was one. Yet it certainly puts into perspective the church´s recent declarations against the Mexico City Government

Cardinal Norberto Rivera takes a rare worthwhile stand

Statement: 

"It is a shame that they are always concerned about unimportant and trivial matters... ignoring human situations such gravity that require effective responses and solutions background."

This criticism might very well have been hurled against the Mexican church, which in the past weeks have been, among other things, remarkably preoccupied with the sex lives of others, and more seriously still hurling baseless insults at its opponents (including calling one of Mexico's largest parties "fascist"), whipping up hysteria among its followers,and rejecting the laws and institutions of the Mexican state itself. 

Yet the words come from Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, and were reported in the church's printed organ Desde la Fe. Rivera calls on the authorities to do more to protect migrants, criticizing the Calderón administration for not doing enough to punish those responsible for atrocities such as the recent massacre of 72 immigrants in Tamaulipas. 

Rivera declared, "A mute church does not serve god nor mankind." Yet this is exactly the point: Speaking out to defend immigrants and attacking the government for not following its own laws is clearly a very different issue than the spewing of hate-speech toward gay people, whose right to marry was recently declared constitutional by law, or outrightly rejecting the secular state and Mexico's laws, products of institutionalized democratic processes, even if the latter allow for practices adamantly opposed to by the church, such as abortion in Mexico City. 

It is a shame that the church apparently cannot easily or will not see the monumental differences between the two types of "speaking up."

Brinkmanship from the Mexican Church: No apology or retraction, but attack

It is now clear that rather than stepping back from its aggressive rhetoric the past days, the Mexican catholic church is rather going on the attack. 

The Mexican Episcopal Conference, a permanent organization of bishops that make out the official leadership of the Mexican Church, expressed full support for the statements by cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera  and Juan Sandoval íñiguez, defending its right to "free speech"  and astonishingly referred to its critics as "intolerant."  

To recall, not only is the Church's denigration of Mexican political institutions, its interference in national politics, and call to not vote for the leftwing PRD ("a fascist party") blatantly unconstitutional, but its attacks on gays is nothing but hate speech.

(the story was also just picked up by L.A. Times, which offers a good summary of the controversy).

Yet the church also accused the Supreme Court of having been bribed by no less than Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard (thanks to Mexfiles for an etymological exploration of the word used by the church, "maicedo").

Sandoval, however,  declared he would not apologize or retract the statements, and that "proof" existed.

Ebrard followed through on his warning yesterday that that unless the church retract these very serious accusations - can one even imagine an equivalent situation  in the United States? - Ebrard would take legal action, bringing a complaint to the to the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Mexico City. 

The general perception, judging from the reactions of newspaper editorials and national political actors, is that the church has gone too far with its shrill statements and accusations.  

Nnotable political figures like Enrique Peña Nieto,  Fidel Herrera, Juan Manuel Oliva and José Reyes Baeza Terrazas, governors of Mexico State,  Veracruz, Guanajuato and Chihuahua, respectively, unequivocally stated they would not question the Supreme Court's ruling.

Notably, CONFRATERNICE, the National Fraternity of Evangelical Christian Churches - of ever-growing importance in Mexico - notably distanced itself from the catholic church, noting: 

"it is clear that we disagree with the policies carried out by the chief of government of the Federal District, Marcelo Ebrard, and with with the legal criterion of nine of the 11 ministers who supported the reforms; however, we respect the laws of democratic institutions."

It remains equally clear that the same cannot be said for the Mexican Catholic Church.

Norberto Rivera Carrera calls the Supreme Court "deviant."

Cardinal Rivera Carrera, the highest authority of the catholic church in Mexico and an extremely controversial archconservative cleric in Mexico - not only for his many blatantly partisan calls and interference in politics, but also for such transgressions as being more concerned with protecting pederasts rather than their victims -  came out swinging against the recent declaration by the Mexican Supreme Court that the gay weddings allowed in Mexico City are indeed constitutional. 


Rivera called the supreme court decision aberrante, which one may translate directly as aberrant, or even deviant. This is the same man who once declared, to the victims of pedophile priests,

"You will forget quickly what father Nicolás Aguilar Rivera did. Soon you will not even remember it. You must know how to forgive him. The father is a sick man."

Does Rivera Carrera have any moral authority to call for prayers against the enemies of the church, when, as far as I know the catholic doctrine, he appears its own worst enemy? Given the fantastic work performed in so many parishes by well-meaning, good-hearted catholics, priests or not, it is sad to see that the church is represented by a man like Rivera.




One personal comments on this issue, beyond Mexican politics:
I do understand and also respect that people oppose gay marriages due to their personal religious or moral convictions, as defined subjectively. For instance, Cardinal Rivera stated:

"These de facto or legalistic unions of persons of the same sex are intrinsically immoral, as they contradict the divine proyect, distorting the nature of marriage."

OK, I don't agree with it, but if that is Rivera's reading of the bible, fine. But it is what follows that truly puzzles me:

"Such immoral activity can never be equivalent to the sexual expressions of the love of married life, as it puts into danger the dignity and the rights of the family, which constitutes the common good of society."

This is what I can't understand: How is a christian, catholic marriage in any way threatened by gay marriage? How is allowing gay people to marry in any way connected to threatening their marriages, let along the "rights of the family"? From what I gather, allowing gay marriages, or civil unions for that matter, has to do exactly with giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Why is this so threatening? If the church is truly anticipating a flood of unraveling man+woman marriages as a consequence of allowing gay marriage in Mexico city, perhaps the foundations on which these marriages were built were not the strongest to begin with.