Dv To Usb Adapter (dv)

Rafael Navarro-Valls

ReligionDigital.com (Interview of Jesus Enough)

"Sometimes the objection is the result of what we might call" the bad conscience of power ""

Rafael Navarro-Valls is one of the foremost experts in our country in Constitutional and Legal. Just published a book on a thorny issue: conscientious objections that in his opinion, "is often the manifestation of the bad conscience of power" . Abortion, euthanasia, Education for Citizenship . .. are some of the issues addressed in this interview.

brother Joaquin Navarro-Valls , press officer during the pontificate of John Paul II , Rafael is with emotion the next beatification of Wojtyla but denies that his ascent to the altar supposed to Benedict XVI a problem: "is beatified the person, not claiming all the pontificate of John Paul II " .

Hello and welcome to Digital Religion interviews. Today we are (by their works will be known, even for having been here a couple of times) with Don Rafael Navarro Valls.

Good morning and welcome to Digital Religion again.

Welcome again, actually.

Today is Don Rafael to introduce a book he wrote with another professor at the Complutense, Javier Martínez Torrón . The book is called "conflicts between conscience and law. The objections of conscience." One issue, as you see, very topical in today's Spain and the West.

We talked before the interview is a boom of objections, and you commented that is motivated by a kind of incontinence power.

Yes, I to the boom of which you speak, I call "big-bang" of conscientious objection : from a nucleus that was the objection to military service, have begun to emerge of abortion, the jury, medical treatment, that of bringing a suit or not suited to one's convictions, rejecting the educational content harmful to one's own awareness, etc.. And that, you just pass, I attribute to some incontinence power law , which is producing a cascade of laws that impact too in the privacy of consciousness. The lawyers often say with some irony that, at times, "lovers of laws and sausages lovers should not witness the manufacturing process" . Better not to know what they have gone inside. Sometimes the laws it passes, some of which are released internally have been burdened by a content not strictly fair. Hence the conscientious objections .

Where is the line between freedom-consciousness-laws? How far can you go? Have we passed the red line?

The first thing I say is that conscientious objection is part of the fundamental right of freedom of conscience therefore their protection must be comprehensive. Second, every fundamental right is not without its limitations . I will give you some examples. To distinguish between the objections do not imply (not part of a jury, not perform an abortion, not to attend some classes etc ...) from those that involve doing something against the norm. In the former, the social risk is lower and their protection must be as wide as possible. The latter should study them further. For example, years ago, when the state of Utah was formed within the United States, the Mormons wanted to be accepted, such as conscientious objection, his conception polygamous marriage, involving a positive act (having several wives). The U.S. Federal Court (Case Reynolds) noted that conscientious objection must be supervised within limits. And within these limits was polygamy because monogamy was a conception of the West.

Consider the issue of crucifixes. When a parent raises objections before a crucifix in a school, has the limit of the twenty-nine other parents want education class with a crucifix. Hence it can not impose their beliefs on the majority (eject the crucifix, a positive act), but demonstrates that passive exposure of the lesion is effective for your child. This is what you just said the Human Rights Tribunal in the case Lautsi .

So, forgive the digression: English transferring it to specific cases, doing as much harm to others would be the conscientious objection to abortion, for example, and in the other case, the non- do, we would talk of military service or, more topical, the objection of the course Education for Citizenship.

Actually, all I states are negative, mean a failure to act. A doctor can say no to performing an abortion exactly Like what happened now in a Texas penitentiary: the doctors and nurses had to put lethal injection, they refused saying they are physicians, not executioners.

On the Citizenship Education not receive a specific training offends the conscience, implies a lack of action. So I believe that conscientious objection it should have been supervised , or at least have offered an optional EpC that parents could have elected or not.

And the third he had told me, that of military service , in Spain makes little sense because it no longer exists. Yes there have been soldiers who have opposed a particular war, not all. In Sweden went to war in Iraq. There were problems: it initiated proceedings against them, but ultimately were not punished. But in Spain today there is no compulsory military service. It may be the case of a professional soldier who raised a conscientious objection to war selective for example, started in Libya . In this case study should be reasonable or not your objection.

How marries a democratic system where a political party majority, has the legitimacy to make and enforce laws, with a boom of conscientious objection? Can not make it a time when the general law is affected by the objections?

First, to conscientious objection must start from the point of view that is part of the law . The protection of minorities and the protection of conscience are rights enshrined in the Constitution. So what point is the clash of legal interests within a system. In this case, you have to do is a balancing of interests (which is called a balancing process ), an assessment of which of the two goods must be protected.

Moreover, this fear of "legal apocalypse" which sometimes speaks without many objections of conscience be admitted, is a sign of distrust capacity own right. For example, when Baldwin refused to sign the Belgian law of abortion, the right reacted by establishing a system through which Belgium had its abortion law and Baldwin, after a momentary loss of the throne , was later restored to him. Something similar to what happened recently with the great Duke Henri I of Luxembourg , which has refused to sign a law on euthanasia. The lawyers in this small country have launched a series of mechanisms, which have made possible the protection of these rights: the conscience of the Grand Duke and the law passed.

We can not deceive, in the sense that we're talking about very defined characters, who are the heads of state. We are not talking about an ordinary person who at one time want to exercise their right. Not change the Constitution by a person.

No, but what I mean is that even in those cases more strident, the State, the Government seeks a way to interested in adapting the collision. Even more so in situations that do not cause injury to public policy. Note that sometimes conscientious objection is the result of what we might call "the bad conscience of power" . When an abortion law, for example, allows for conscientious objection, what is happening is that the government knows that its law is controversial and will produce change. Then the power is caution and set a conscience clause, not being completely sure of the wisdom of the law itself has developed. It's what I call the bad conscience of power.

addition, in the case of abortion in Spain until at least this new law, not that abortion was recognized as a right but a lesser evil.

In December, the European Court of Human Rights has protected to Ireland from an Irish to the Irish Government said it would take an abortion. The Court of Strasbourg has ruled that abortion is a human right that states always have to assume. And indeed, not a right, but the exception to an offense .

course, decriminalization of certain assumptions ... There are special situations in which the government is making a compromise with a situation in its generality punished. In the case of Education for Citizenship, we are talking about exercising a right not directly affected children but their parents. Hence there is a double conflict, because obviously the parents are responsible for the education of their children, but also delegated to the school as a teacher, who chooses the book, subject, teacher, that is supposed to be responsible for delivering this subject.

Yes, what happens is that the delegation, in education, has its limits. The Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and our own Constitution states that the fundamental right to moral education of children belongs to parents. And when parents see that a law school or want to impose a particular conception of good and evil, which is something that is not theirs, they have every right to react and say no.

This reminds me of a movie Witness called (perhaps remember), which deals with Amish . They are a sect that believes that children, at one stage of adolescence, where they are educated is better within the family or in their own community. This posed a problem in America because these people refused a length of compulsory schooling. The issue came to the United States Supreme Court, in the case Yoder, filed criminal charges against the Amish , saying 'compulsory schooling must yield to the right of parents to the moral upbringing of their children ". It has therefore surprised that Spain, instead of talking with the parents concerned and reach a consensus, is bent on imposing a subject that has created a situation of conflict and political problems . The most reasonable position would have been an optional subject in that subject. In case of doubt we must choose freedom, not constriction.

I agree that very well could have been optional. What happens is that Education Citizenship is not too controversial in the thick of the subject. So to me I raised the question of whether certain aspects if they are designed as moral issues, taken to the extreme, in this case we must also talk about extremes, could be applied to other subjects such as literature, history, or science when discussing the theory of evolution or creationism. We return to the beginning of the interview: the question of limits. How far can you get consciousness in a democratic state?

Let me answer with a real example, because the issue of conscientious objection can not be addressed in a blue sky law : in the blue sky concepts, one must descend from heaven to the concrete. Just taken a decision the European Court of Human Rights ( case Folgerø ) in which some parents refuse to have their children attend the required classes Norwegian state-imposed on certain moral teachings. They are not Christians and say that in certain parts of the course content is reminiscent of Christianity. Sweden absolve them from that part and they say no, they want the waiver of the entire subject. In the end, the ECHR has ruled in favor of the parents, saying it is very difficult that when a subject is a part of, say, moral content, do not affect others. And therefore the natural is to prevent consciousness. In this case protection secular consciousness, because what they wanted to receive was not Christian content.

What happens is that, ultimately, the content of citizenship is a little lame ...

So what would have been no difficulty in going to a middle point for the sector of the population is not reasonable to opt for it?

But this is a minor part. Most of the content of EPC deal of civility, traffic ... behaviors accepted by all, if you have to give them another subject ...

But that was before in cross content. I have nothing against Citizenship Education, but against attempting to impose a particular conception of the good or bad parents. If the European courts protect, and let some children do not attend.

The solution has given the English TS, will result in unnecessary litigation. Mentor just a guy who had since suspended for not attending. Another father said "the teacher that is manipulating my children," and given the reason, because the Supreme Court has said that when parents are indoctrinated to react by rejecting such attitudes. That is, on one hand the TS said that subject in accordance with legal guidelines, but otherwise has warned that if a teacher or a particular provision goes too far, the Court foster parents. This is making many demands. optional subjects would have been better , I insist.

"Behind these debates about conscientious objection is a deeper, on the conception of the state and its relationship with the Church or other denominations?

Yes, indeed. In the background is the idea of \u200b\u200bwhether the state should be the repository and custodian of all securities. What I call "Put back to Jonah in the belly of the whale" , ie establish a ideocracies to replace the old theocracies . The system of previous theocracies, who are well disposed, has been subtly replaced by ideocráticos States, making their own ideology a condition sine qua non . There are citizens who say they have another, and then hits you in saying that, at bottom, is a contest between ideologies. A State which in theory should be neutral, guardianship, arbitrator comes into play and impose ideas. That is where consciousness is offended.

continue dragging ideological burden of the past. We come from a confessional state and now ...

Now there is a civil religion, a civil denominational may be pressing on the conscience . So the large number of objections. What I call a big bang

of conscientious objection.

Yes, what I also see is that there is no more conflict between faiths because in general, the set of values \u200b\u200b(protection of life, protection of children ...) is similar. But it is difficult to find each its place and that the State recognize them all equally.

State which has to be the referee a pitch, the freer and more pluralistic. E intervene only when kicked or foul play.

But do not get the feeling that sometimes in this country, the Catholic Church hierarchy, tends to maintain the privileged status that has been found throughout history, not to release the cat ...?

The problem of values \u200b\u200bthat may be of a Catholic or Christian roots, stems not so much in the institutional Church and the Church and society, as a unit, as the People of God. And that's where they exist, although it may happen that, at any given time, a hierarchy is too interventionist . Therefore, in church-state relations it is best to give the Church doctrine to their citizens and are citizens who play, which is manifest in the public square, without involving the hierarchy. You see, the objections of conscience we are taking different approaches ...

Yes, let's change of line, if you like. On 1 May is a very important date for many, I guess for you too, and obviously for his brother Joaquin much more. Is the beatification of John Paul II. I do not know if you will be ...

Yes, I think I'll go. God willing, I'll be there.

What do you think? What is too hasty, given at the right time ...? John Paul II is a figure to which the faithful themselves called "the holy sudden" ...

Indeed, John Paul II is a special phenomenon . She was in life, in the sense that he went straight to the grassroots, bypassing the bureaucracy closer to the people. Traveled halfway around the world saying a great truth: 'human rights are also the rights of God ". Then, when he was placed in a favela in Brazil or a hospital for AIDS patients in Calcutta, when attending to the disabled in Manila or consoling sick or dying in Africa, was saying that solidarity, it was vital.

Pope John Paul II was the one who had, moreover, that live between two dictatorships : in his youth had to fight against the Nazi dictatorship, and when he stood up to adult real socialism in Communist Poland. And with his strength helped the two walls to fall. That's not politics, is to defend human rights, for him and as I said, were "rights of God" . All this has been enlarging its shape. Ratzinger realized that there was a desire canonize popular

Like John Paul II realized that he had in the case of Teresa of Calcutta.

indeed realized it was a great saint ...

have been necessary given the circumstances: there has been a notable miracle -you know you can not be psychological, but physical, "although he has anecdotes about all kinds, also moral.

If I may, I will tell very personal. My father had just died , we gathered as a family (my brother Joaquin was too), and suddenly the phone rings. Someone picked up the phone and told someone Joaquin foreign voice calling him. We were shocked when we learned that was John Paul II himself expressing his condolences , asking especially for my mother. This is a small story in the small world of a family, he did with all kinds of people. I remember in central Africa, a missionary asked him how he felt knowing that the Pope had moved to that place hidden. He replied that only God knew what that would produce in the people of that place, but in his soul had already produced the miracle of a new push to see pope "wasting time with him" .

Do not you think that, if not the majority, have aroused some resentment toward beatification not in itself but to its speed and to some aspects not well clarified ( Maciel theme ... and a case)?

A beatification beatified person, not claiming all pontificate of John Paul II. However, the fact that his successor be beatified him so immediately, may give the wrong impression that somehow, it is sanctifying his pontificate.

What is your opinion on such nuances?

My opinion is that every man, especially if a saint is sign of contradiction . I remember when Mother Teresa died, a great saint, there was a very tough campaign in England, saying he had manipulated the nuns and a number of slurs to smear the figure, of course, were absolutely false.

On the issue of Maciel John Paul II, Pope was deceived. He demanded that Maciel, and this is strictly true-to swear before God that what they said it was inaccurate . He swore the oath and appeared on the Vatican's own website. What have you done?

also reported then that they backed by other pressures. Looks like it is beginning to show that around the Curia might have ...

was very confusing everything and Pope as anyone could be deceived . But what is required for sainthood is that he lived in a heroic Christian virtues.

How's your brother?

Very good and very busy, there in Italy. You know he is a doctor and chairman of the executive board of a university called Biomedical Campus .

Would you convince to write his memoirs or not yet?

In this we are! trying, but he says he did not have time. We will have to shut him up a year or so or what you need ... I think the publishing end. Something has advanced in a book that has appeared in several languages \u200b\u200b "Memories and Reflections" in the English edition.

By age, my dad has been John Paul II. What differences are there, and we are done, between Benedict XVII and him? Can you choose which one is the pope? Maybe yours is Paul VI or John XXIII ...

(Laughter) I can have likes and dislikes, but the subject of potatoes, being vicars of Christ, the vicecristo on earth, I have all the same affection and the same duty of obedience.

Ratzinger is a great intellectual , probably the pope who, throughout the long history of the Church, the papacy has become more scientific and theological production. It's slower, more reflective . John Paul II was a philosopher and a man of action : going to the grassroots, so he traveled a lot. But it's the same difference can be at any given moment between, say, San Pablo and San Pedro ... God divided: each is each and every one has its "cadaunadas" we say in our land. It is the human condition.

And his talent, of course.

I think each potato has been a God I have chosen the right time . And they both did well, in which a man can do, because there are things that you know well, or the God out ahead or not there are those who serve.

The hope is in him, that's clear. One last question: Do you think that in this world of globalization, where everything goes so fast, everything is known and we must provide answers immediate, the Church will do well rid of these recent scandals, especially the one that hurts so many people, that is pedophilia, child sexual abuse?

As canon history buff, I noticed that when there has been a major scandal or a big problem, God has intervened and brought good things usually . With all the mess of priests cohabiting at the time of Gregory, was put in place a mechanism for Gregorian reform reaffirmed celibacy. When Luther attacked the priestly celibacy, the Council of Trent sought to reform and reaffirm that Luther denied. These painful incidents that we are all upset and worried now, probably what is produced that pastors have to be more careful in the selection and training of priests , as well as individual attention, always knowing that we are all men and that at any time we fall. I believe therefore that all this rot, eventually, will for good , albeit a terrible and disgusting thing that has happened. No one knows what, but God will bring good things there. I hope.

In this I agree: the most difficult moments of his spirit always appears to place each in its place. It is a pleasure talking with you. Unfortunately, we have run out of time. Just then the speaker has the opportunity to continue the privilege outside antenna

(laughs). Thank you, Don Rafael.

Thank you and Religion Digital, which hosts for the second time in this venue.

simple mode to submit articles