Are Church-State agreements obsolete? 

In my opinion, no. They are still valid and it is desirable that they remain valid. Personally, I question the validity of some specific points. I will give two examples. The disappearance of compulsory military service left some parts of it without object. At present there is a great difference between canonical marriage and Spanish marriage; consequently, perhaps it is no longer of interest for canonical marriage to serve as a form of civil marriage. However, these and other points do not affect the general validity of the agreements as an instrument of cohabitation. It may be worthwhile to consider minor modifications, but not a general revision. However, I do not think we have reached the heart of the matter. 

In order to do so, it seems important to me to allude to the "background" of the agreements. Let us place ourselves in the time of the Transition. The common feeling of the Spaniards after Franco's death could be formulated as follows: "Not another war, please"; and this means "not again the two Spains", "we have to get together at agreement". That is why reconciliation was sought. And it was achieved by means of a work of art composed of many elements. The main one was the Constitution. Others, for the purposes that interest us here, were the Organic Law of Religious Freedom and the agreements with the Catholic Church (later on, also with other confessions). 

The four 1979 agreements were approved by a large majority, including the PSOE vote (except for one of them: the one on military service, if I remember correctly). These three elements (Constitution, organic law and agreements) form a fairly successful basis that facilitates coexistence. I would like to emphasize that this is what is important: it is not a question of achieving a juridical status "in which the Catholic Church feels comfortable", but a good basis for coexistence "for all", a social order in which we all feel reasonably comfortable. For this is the task of legislation. And this is what that legislation, including the agreements, sought. Let us return to what was said two paragraphs above. Any reconciliation is fragile, it can be broken, and we must make efforts to nurture it. I believe that both the Church and politicians can learn from the experience of the last century. Let us begin with the Church. In my opinion, the Spanish Church became too politicized in the 20th century. 

To put it very simply: it first identified itself with the monarchy; then with the republican right; then with the Franco regime; in the post-conciliar period, with the civil service examination a Franco; then with the task of the Transition; later it made its nods to the left; and, finally, it looked again to the right to see, bewildered, that no one found its company profitable anymore. 

I believe that the Church should make an effort to "get along equally well with everyone": with the right and with the left, with the independentistas and with the supporters of a united Spain. These issues are not totally alien to him, but they are not his specific skill . Sometimes it will have to speak out, but it must avoid the danger of becoming a social services NGO, or an anti-abortion International (or being perceived as such). 

It is not healthy for us to see one political faction as "our potential friends" and another as "our potential enemies. Let's put it this way: insofar as it depends on us, Catholics should not be perceived as a "fishing ground for votes" or as a "civil service examination" by any party. I believe that the attitude of Francis can enlighten us a lot in this regard. 

Let us now turn to the other side. We would be grateful if the politicians would facilitate this "difficult balance" of which I spoke in the previous paragraph. Not only to the Catholic Church, but to all confessions. On the one hand, anticlericalism does not harm only the Church: like all "anti", it harms the whole of society. On the other hand, let the same be said of the "attempt to use the Church" for political ends: it harms the Church and the polis. 

Going down to our topic: I do not think it is right to accuse the opposing party of "submission to the bishops", because that, today, is simply impossible (fortunately). It is even less correct if, as a consequence of this unrealistic accusation, the revision of the agreements is then used as a "weapon of war". I conclude: Spain is, unfortunately, a very Manichean country, a country of good guys and bad guys. Of course, the good ones are mine, and the bad ones are those on the opposite side (in politics, in religion, or in any other sector). But the reality is that nobody is an angel, nor a devil. However, we manufacture them: we make ghosts and worship them as angels or exterminate them as demons. Therefore, there is a real danger that reconciliation will break down, of returning to the two Spains. 

We must all make an effort (the different political forces, the different social agents, believers of different confessions and non-believers) to gradually overcome this Manichaeism.