Interesting and rather puzzling comment by Mexico City cardinal Norberto Rivero in Milenio, yesterday:
"cuando la autoridad se sale del marco legal desde donde puede y debe gobernar no hay obligación de tributarle obediencia y si se opone abiertamente a los derechos fundamentales, entonces hay que negarle la obediencia”
'"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." (Translation by Aguachile)
What does the cardinal mean? What are the fundamental rights Rivera refers to? Blogger Aguachile, a keen observer of Mexican politics, states the following:
"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."
It might be so that the cardinal is in fact merely stating that he is in favor of civil empowerment, should the Mexican government develop, say, dictatorial tendencies violating fundamental (constitutional) rights of civilians. The devil, however, is in another quote by Rivera in the article in Milenio:
"Y destacó que debemos “poner la obediencia a Dios por encima del respeto al César”"
"And he pointed out that we must "place obedience before God above respect for Caesar."
To understand the implications of these words, we should go back to 2007 and 2009, when the catholic church in Mexico City opposed itself strongly against the Federal District Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard's legalization of both abortion and gay marriage. The church went as far as to accuse the supreme court of being bribed by the PRD, as well as calling Ebrard's PRD 'fascist' and even calling on catholics not to vote for the PRD, an action clearly prohibited by the Mexican constitution as a violation of the separation between church and state.
If we consider these earlier transgressions by ultraconservative elements in the Mexican catholic church, what did Rivera mean to say here? Is this another attempt to undermine the PRD and cross over from the realm of religion into politics? Is this a subtle attempt to rally catholics against abortion and gay marriage in a way that goes further than just protests?
What exactly does Rivera mean?