The spokesperson of the Mexican Episcopate on security: “If a reality is not recognized, we cannot change it”

Priest Mario Ángel Flores, director of the National Observatory of the Conference of the Mexican Episcopate.CEM

The violence crisis has represented a new point of clash between the Catholic Church and the Government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The official candidate Claudia Sheinbaum signed with reservations the National Commitment for Peace, promoted this week by the Conference of the Mexican Episcopate (CEM) and other religious and civil organizations, and made evident the disagreements in the diagnosis, scope and solutions proposed against to the insecurity problem that afflicts the country.

EL PAÍS approached the CEM to find out its perspective on the matter and take a position on some of the questions that have arisen in the heat of the controversy and the elections on June 2.

The Episcopal Conference entrusted the response to priest Mario Ángel Flores, director of the National Observatory of the CEM, a Church organization that is dedicated to analyzing political, social and religious events in Mexico.

Flores was ratified by Pope Francis as a member of the International Theological Commission and was rector of the Pontifical University of Mexico.

He has also been openly critical of some decisions of the current Government.

He accused, for example, this Administration of handing over the Ministry of Public Education to a “group of radical Marxists,” in the midst of the controversy over textbooks.

On another occasion, the Episcopate Observatory said that López Obrador's electoral reform proposal "exceeds the crude and the absurd" and "that it opens the door to drug trafficking operations in several regions of the country."

This is a condensed version of the telephone interview about the friction with the current Government, the intermediation of the clergy in the face of violence and the questions about the separation between Church and State.

Ask.

What conclusions does the Mexican Episcopate draw from the meeting with the three presidential candidates?

Answer.

It has been an opportunity achieved.

It was a desire of the Episcopate.

Since September when we had the National Dialogue for Peace and this document was prepared, we already had that desire and the possibility of presenting all this to the future candidates for the presidency of the Republic.

At that time, we did not know how many there would be or who, but once it was finalized, we began to work with their teams to achieve this meeting.

It needed to be a single call, naturally everyone in their own space, but it had to be a powerful message.

It is something that the Church has called for.

It must be remembered that the Episcopate convenes, but a broad representation of Mexican civil society participates.

It is not only the voice of the Church, but of many groups, universities, academics, social leaders, indigenous peoples, victims' groups, seeking mothers and businessmen.

Q.

Were you surprised by Sheinbaum's reaction?

A.

In some ways, it could be expected.

But we were surprised by the blunt way of saying “I do not agree with the diagnosis”, something that is not subject to opinions.

Is a reality.

Maybe you could say “I don't agree with some of the solutions.”

But if from the outset you do not accept a reality that we are experiencing... this is surprising.

Not that I couldn't propose other solutions, I believe this is in the field of public policies, but when what is happening is not recognized, logically it will not be possible to provide a response to that reality.

That's what's surprising.

Q.

Were you disappointed?

A.

Let's say that she left a small margin that allows civil society to continue having the possibility of moving forward, because she said “let's continue talking,” although she very definitively closed that dialogue with the observations she made.

But, come on, the political will was not closed and that is the important thing.

Q.

It seems that the big disagreement was the issue of militarization.

Sheinbaum also charged that the document was too “pessimistic.”

What would he answer?

A.

The word “pessimistic” that she used is precisely for the general diagnosis.

That is, the reality of the violence that we are experiencing.

It is enough to go to some towns where people live under the pressure of organized crime, with floor charges, road controls, threats... That is the diagnosis that she says is “very pessimistic.”

And she said about militarization that she doesn't see that there is militarization.

Well, if the military is already in the soup, I don't know what it will be like to further militarize this country.

If a reality is not recognized, we cannot change that reality.

Q.

From the perspective of the Episcopal Conference, what has failed in the security strategy of the current Government?

A.

One of the first parts, which was surely expressed in the document, is the lack of dialogue and consensus with society.

The problem of insecurity at this moment is a problem of the Mexican State.

And the State is not only the Government.

It is a problem that encompasses all its institutions and the citizens themselves.

But the Government has taken unilateral measures, supported by its popularity.

But popularity does not solve the problems.

Dialogue, experts, analysis, strategy reviews are required.

And that is the first thing that has failed.

We are ending the six-year term without having had a single confrontation of results.

They continue with their narrative, their way of presenting things, that everything is fine.

The electoral moment we are in is an opportunity to turn the page.

What else has gone wrong besides this closure?

That we have a growing dominance of organized crime and greater violence and criminality that is seen in so many numbers, of people executed, of massacres that are out of control, prisons in self-government and we can continue from there.

Q.

The López Obrador Government and the Catholic Church have already had other frictions when talking about violence.

Has that gap become larger after the signing of the National Commitment for Peace?

A.

No, I think it was a moment to approach each other with respect, with the Church being the spokesperson for civil society.

Our bishops are fully available to be collaborators of peace, to build bridges.

It has been an important moment.

It also seems to me that, although the president states that he does not agree with the content of the document either, he has an attitude of respect.

That is appreciated because two years ago, when this space opened, there was a frontal rejection.

Now there is another attitude and that is recognized.

Although there are differences, there is respect for the churches, because the visions of other churches are also included here, not just that of the Catholic Church.

There's a little more openness.

Q.

How has violence impacted this electoral process?

A.

In the message that the Episcopate sent out on March 3, it is stated that we all hope and long for a democratic electoral process, with cleanliness, clarity, peace and ensuring citizen participation, but that there are two risks in this process.

The first is the risk of organized crime in many regions of the country.

We are already seeing that there are many murders linked to candidates.

The other problem is the undue interference of the Government in power.

Whoever is in charge of the Executive and others who are in Government structures should not become governors, they should not interfere unduly, outside the law, so that this is done freely, without pressure or manipulation of the freedom of citizens.

These are two risks that are evident, we are seeing them.

It is requested that there be prudence in the Government and that we have control of crime.

Q.

What do you think of the proposals of the candidates for the presidency in Security?

A.

They are on the right track, but it seems very early to me because we are at the beginning of the process.

Many things are going to be improved and clarified, but in this confrontation that we have had with them, presenting them with an agenda and listening to them, it seems that they are going along the same line.

Even Claudia Sheinbaum is also concerned.

There is the same concern, recognizing that it is important to give a timely response to the problem of insecurity, which stops so many things.

We cannot talk about a normal, free, developmental life when we are faced with insecurity everywhere.

I think that

There is good spirit for this and they will have to mature their proposals along the way.

Q.

There are people who claim that the Church should not mediate in the crisis of violence due to the separation between Church and State.

What would you answer them?

A.

I believe that it is the responsibility of all citizens to seek a better social environment.

Everything that is local, such as neighborhoods or municipalities, is in the hands of the citizens and that is what is talked about in the Commitment for Peace.

The Church is part of those institutions.

Many in this country do not fully understand what the separation between Church and State means due to an anticlerical culture, which was constitutionally overcome in 1992, and they still do not understand that the Church also has a social responsibility.

Whoever comes in as a mediator to put a territory at peace, he hears... it is appreciated.

Businessmen can do it, organized unions can do it, churches can do it.

Because they are entities that have a role in society.

We are not entering into a terrain that puts the separation of Church and State at risk, but we must clearly state that it is not up to the Church to procure justice.

This corresponds to the State.

Why do citizens, institutions, and the Church have to intervene in these difficult problems?

Because the State does not contain crime nor is it seeking justice.

Instead of criticizing, I would like to see more people and more institutions take charge of peacekeeping.

Q.

You have been very vocal on other issues, describing the electoral reform as “absurd” or the controversy over textbooks.

Doesn't that cross the line between Church and State?

A.

The educational issue is very sensitive for the Church and, in accordance with its principles, which are recognized by the Mexican State, the Church has to speak about its points of view on how the education of children and young people is guided. .

It is also a right of citizenship.

Not a government imposition.

When a Government begins to manage ideology above citizen rights, that is where the right of the Church to express itself in a society of which it is part also comes into play.

On the other hand, in the electoral sphere, the Church joins the expression of citizens in defense of democracy and a policy for the common good.

We all have to agree that it will be a thousand times better to live in a democracy with its imperfections, than to fall into authoritarianism, a dictatorship, a populism that deceives us.

Q.

This week a report appeared on public television denouncing that the church has given workshops in which Xóchitl Gálvez is supposedly favored in this election.

How does the CEM respond?

A.

That is absolutely false.

It must be said, first of all, that the media of the Mexican State do not belong to the Government in power.

It is another confusion that this Government has.

They are means for the good of all, regardless of the party we are in.

This has been broken in this Government.

They are at the service of the Government in power, not at the service of the State or of all ways of thinking, which must be respected.

Furthermore, what they are transmitting is a lie.

The Church has been promoting democracy workshops for a long time.

They never have a partisan tone.

That they do not like that they are placed in the parishes or that it is proposed to reflect on the vote is another thing.

People are never told who they have to vote for.

That is the will of each citizen.

The Church does not do that.

Form criteria and awareness with the democracy workshops, also called citizen participation workshops.

Q.

What call does the Episcopate make to priests and members of the church in this election?

A.

First of all, caution.

Do not have the political theme in the holy mass.

Take care that the celebration of faith is not a reason for politics.

Second, promote citizen participation.

May we manage to move the young, the indifferent, the apathetic.

May this election not be won by abstentionism, as has happened on other occasions.

We want there to be responsibility, awareness, free voting, participation.

That's all.

Q.

Do you see political will to maintain dialogue between the Church and the ruling party?

A.

Yes, there must be respect on both sides.

The fact that the candidates have been there with their closest work teams is a very encouraging and hopeful sign.

Because nothing is resolved.

Who is going to be the president in Mexico... that cannot be resolved with rigged or managed polls.

It is resolved on election day.

That they have been in this call is encouraging for everyone.

Subscribe to the EL PAÍS México newsletter

and the

electoral WhatsApp

channel and receive all the key information on current events in this country.