The interview with Fernando M. González is the result of an ever-present yet never fully realized dialogue between a psychoanalyst and a priest-anthropologist. It began many years ago when Enrique Marroquín, a priest, theologian, and anthropologist, had a conversation with the psychoanalyst, historian, and sociologist during a conference held in Cuernavaca, Morelos, in the 1990s. Over a few beers, Enrique Marroquín told Fernando how interesting it would be to write an article based on his experience as a confessor in two communities as distant as they are different. He was referring to an indigenous community in Oaxaca and to the parishioners of the church located directly across from Plaza del Sol, a shopping center situated in an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood in the city of Guadalajara.

Enrique talked to Fernando about the contrasts in the perception of what was considered a sin, since there were many differences in what needed to be confessed to a priest in different places; but also in the idea of sinning or not sinning between men and women. That informal conversation led to the idea that Enrique might publish an article on the subject, provided that the same ethical rules governing the production and dissemination of academic work—namely, anonymity—were followed. Fernando, who was already a member of the Institute for Social Research at the National Autonomous University of Mexico ((iis-unam), recommended that he submit it to that institution's academic journal and have it reviewed in advance, and offered to act as a mediator.

Enrique took on the task and applied what he had learned as an anthropologist to his experience as a priest and confessor to construct narratives of communion based on case studies of interest due to their comparative value in terms of cultural representations shaped by different ethnic, economic, cultural, generational, and gender conditions. The article was written and submitted to the Mexican Journal of Sociology, but it was rejected by the editorial board on the grounds that they considered it unethical to publish material derived from the confessional. Unfortunately, we cannot access the article because no one has a copy of it; however, we can draw on our memories to reconstruct its heuristic value and reflect both on the case itself and on the intricate relationships of knowledge differentiation within the academic field.

It is easy to imagine the dilemma posed by these hybrids, especially in academic societies such as those in Mexico that operate within secular contexts, where “the religious” is considered “suspicious” or, at the very least, frivolous in the face of the demands of scientific rigor. But, moreover, it was an article whose intersectionality produced an “in-between” work—that is, a hybrid work—that was difficult to classify and, therefore, to assess and evaluate. Returning to Homi Bhabha, I believe that reconstructing in this interview the article that was never published is an exercise in thinking about the boundary between religious and academic culture as a problem of articulating difference.

The concept of cultural difference focuses on the problem of the ambivalence of cultural authority: the attempt to dominate in the name of a cultural supremacy that is produced in and of itself only at the moment of differentiation, and the very authority of culture as knowledge of referential truth is at stake in the concept and at the moment of enunciation (Bhabha, 2002: 35).

The article that was never published, but sparked an interesting conversation

In 2025, a group of scholars from Guadalajara came together to organize a colloquium focused on the academic and theological contributions found in the work and career of Enrique Marroquín Zaleta, which we titled “Intersections in the Work of Enrique Marroquín.”.1 For this event, various scholars were invited to reflect aloud on the challenge of intersections in their work—both in the convergence of different academic fields (such as the philosophy of science, psychology, ethnography, history, education, and sociology—as well as at the crossroads between knowing and believing, the intersections between culturally distant worlds, and the comparison between specialized activities—such as psychoanalytic therapy and the act of confession. It is within this last point of convergence that the interview with Fernando González, which we are publishing in this issue of the journal, took on its full meaning Encartes. Since he was unfortunately unable to attend the event, a session was held in which the video recording of the interview with Fernando González was shown, and afterward, Enrique Marroquín (who did attend) continued the discussion.

To understand the significance of this dialogue, we must introduce both of them. Fernando González is a psychoanalyst and historian of religious institutions; he earned his doctorate in institutional analysis under the supervision of Professor René Loureau at the University of Paris. He is currently a tenured researcher at the iis-unam and a member emeritus of the National System of Researchers (Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation, Secihti). He is the author of several books that, throughout his academic career, have exposed silences shielded by the Catholic institution and have touched on sensitive topics—including those considered taboo. Some of his book titles are as follows: Una historia sencilla: the accidental death of a cardinal (1996), which deals with the murder of Cardinal Juan Jesús Posadas, Archbishop of Guadalajara, in which the Church was implicated in drug trafficking. De matar y morir por Cristo Rey (2001), a work that demystifies the memory of the Cristeros as victims of history by revealing the other side of martyrdom: the willingness to kill. Marcial Maciel. The Legionaries of Christ: Testimonies and Unpublished Documents (2006). This book was a watershed work that analyzes Father Maciel’s criminal profile based on the testimonies of those who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their spiritual guide. The Church of Silence: Of Martyrs and Pedophiles (2009), a book that brings to light Vatican files on Father Maciel’s child sexual abuse case and reveals the Church’s complicity in protecting him for several decades. In Crisis of Faith: Psychoanalysis at the Monastery of Santa María de la Resurrección, 1961–1968 (2011), González presents a fascinating case in which the psychoanalysis promoted by Ivan Illich throws a religious congregation into crisis. Finally, Cuando un futuro se disuelve: de identidades trastocadas y radicalizaciones no previstas (Mexico: iis-unam, (, 2023) is a book that explores the secret movements of Christian radicalism and their alliance with the guerrilla groups of the 1970s. In short, Fernando is a sharp-minded scholar who seeks to give voice to history through controversial topics or, as he has put it, “thinking where it hurts.”.

For his part, Enrique Marroquín is a member of the Claretian Order who, theologically speaking, pushed the boundaries of missionary work. One of his most famous books—which has even become a cult classic—is Counterculture as a Form of Protest, in which the Claretian's Christian mission led to his involvement with countercultural movements such as the Mexican hippie movement, which he referred to as jipiteca to distinguish them from American hippies, emphasizing that the jipitecas were a cultural hybrid that sought to find meaning in indigenous traditions. The rock, transcendental meditation, and the ingestion of power plants were not at odds with the mystical experience he promoted. Encouraged by the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council ii, Enrique associated with countercultural intellectuals and artists in Mexico. He incorporated the rock to the Eucharist, and his sermons blended Christian messages with themes typical of the counterculture.

Beginning in the early 1970s, Enrique became involved in the liberation theology movement, working closely with grassroots communities in neighborhoods and towns throughout the state of Puebla. He also wrote books in which the theme of inculturation is central, such as The Messianic Cross: Perspectives on Syncretism in Oaxaca (1986) and others, in which he explored the theological implications by advocating for the social construction of a world grounded in values, as stated in Another World Is Possible: Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation and Consecrated Life (2006). Enrique was also a pioneer in blurring the boundaries between humanistic and theological scientific knowledge. Although he was an ordained priest, his practice combined that of a religious leader with that of an anthropologist. In 1980, he studied anthropology at the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (buap) and later earned his Ph.D. from the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (uam)-Xochimilco. On the one hand, academia demanded a kind of cognitive puritanism in which professors urged objectivity as knowledge stripped of beliefs. At that time, religion was viewed as an ideology, and the expectation was that field research and its analysis should not be influenced by beliefs. Her doctoral dissertation addressed the topic of The Religious Conflict in Oaxaca, 1976–1992, a pioneering and unique study in the field of the anthropology of religion in Mexico.

Questions that Guided the Dialogue: Moral Crossroads Between Academia and Religion

Before beginning with the questions, I invited both of them to reflect on the ethical dilemmas involved in publishing the results of clinical case studies in psychoanalysis and the confessions made within a place of worship. Although both respected the ethical principle of protecting the informants“ identities by publishing under the guise of anonymity, that aspect was not the only ethical issue that clouded or called into question what was publishable. The article was rejected on the grounds of unethical conduct, since the cases stemmed from the act of confession, even though many journals publish psychoanalytic articles whose cases were conducted in therapeutic contexts and are not the result of academic interviews. For this reason, I found it interesting to reflect on what makes the former considered invalid in the ”academic” world, while the latter is not.

I believe that what happened with this unpublished article presents an opportunity to spark reflection in the field of the social sciences and the reasons (representations or habitus, (as Pierre Bourdieu would say) that lead an academic journal to reject one paper and accept others. I asked whether a Jacobinist mindset still influences the field or, on the contrary, a Catholic conception of the secrecy of confession that extends into academia, leading it to be viewed as an unethical matter. The first part of the interview focused on the dilemmas surrounding the rejection of the text for publication, recalling the arguments that led to the decision not to publish it.

The interview revisits several questions that I found key to understanding the tensions arising from the intersection of a little-studied and undervalued subject, such as sin and confession, in an attempt to explore—beyond the mere anecdote, which is interesting in and of itself—the structural tensions between these fields. Why was the decision made not to publish material from the religious field in an academic journal? Why is sin almost never considered a subject of study? Why might it be dismissed?

I wish to highlight the importance of critically and comparatively studying the socially situated content of narratives of sin, as this could lead to de-universalizing it by introducing recognition and situational analysis of the heterogeneous conceptions of sin across different cultures. Furthermore, this article could deconstruct sin as a totalizing concept by highlighting gradations of sinfulness, since some sins carry greater weight than others: some deserve punishment and others do not; some deserve to be confessed and others do not. What are the tensions that arise between the morality of sin and the morality of crime, which are not always synonymous and may even involve points of tension or conflict?

These reflections and the questions designed to spark dialogue were sent in advance to both Fernando González and Enrique Marroquín. I contacted Fernando, and we met to record the interview in a room at the ciesas Occidente. During an informal conversation, the interview took its course. It began with a review of the article’s main points, attempting to reconstruct the meeting between Enrique Marroquín and Fernando, the content and significance of the written article, and the process leading to its rejection by the publisher. One of the topics addressed was the concept of “sin,” in which Fernando explains how Marroquín’s article relativized the universality of sin by focusing on its social conception, which is represented in different ways depending on gender, ethnicity, social class, and age. The political economy of sin is a very important issue that has received little attention. The discussion also touched on the contrasts between confession and psychoanalytic therapy, addressing the differences in space (confessional/couch) and bodily postures within these spaces (kneeling/reclining).

For his part, Enrique Marroquín emailed me a text containing his reflections on the article that was never published and on the moral dilemmas inherent in the dialogue between a psychoanalyst and a confessor. The author read this text aloud during the event. I will return to this point iii: “My Confessions in Morelia”—and I’ll quote just one excerpt from it to situate the interview within this exchange of ideas:

Based on a misunderstanding of “cultural relativism,”,2 And because they refuse to accept that the Catholic Church should claim the right to decide on the morality of society as a whole, social researchers have paid little attention to moral culture. But because they are unaware of the actual moral practices in the very places they seek to influence, many cultural attitudes and behaviors escape their notice.3 Morality is intertwined with other disciplines, such as philosophical ethics, psychoanalysis (guilt), moral theology, and comparative religion. In Mexico and other countries with Christian majorities, the morality that is publicly espoused is usually the one preached by the churches.

Due to space constraints, I will summarize some of the ideas presented in his text, since it is more than ten pages long. I will focus on the section in which Enrique discusses the story of the unpublished article and the comparison between a confessor and a psychoanalyst.

At the beginning of the text, he explains that the idea for a dialogue with his friend and colleague Fernando González arose a few years ago. He recalls that at that time, Enrique had conducted three sociometric samples of his confessions: one in the city of Oaxaca, another in a town in that state, and the last in Guadalajara. He shared his work with Fernando, who suggested establishing a dialogue between a psychoanalyst and a confessor. The idea they both agreed on was to start with the scenographic elements themselves: the couch and the old confessional. According to Enrique, they wrote the article together and submitted it to the Mexican Journal of Sociology, which did not publish it, claiming that the topic was not within the scope of sociology and arguing that it would be better for that priest to focus on hearing confessions rather than playing the sociologist. Enrique regrets that they can no longer retrieve the article because it was lost, but he offers to try again by analyzing a sample of confessions from the parish in Morelia, where he currently serves as a priest.

The text draws a comparison between confessors and psychoanalysts. It states that confessors are priests and that “they do not like to hear confessions,” especially when they are young priests. It describes how the Church currently lacks confessors and that in most situations “confession in our parishes is unpleasant and tedious; there is a long line of penitents waiting, not even allowing the confessor to stand up.” In contrast, the author notes that “the psychoanalyst charges high fees and is sought after by the wealthy” and remarks that he does not know how experiences of group psychoanalysis are evaluated. He points out that “the confessor has to be a bit of a therapist, theologian, ethical philosopher, and companion”; he adds that he must also be resilient, since “he must know how to listen and give the penitent the weather ”what I really need,“ unlike the psychoanalyst, who ”has sessions that are scheduled, timed, and billed.".

He acknowledges that “the confessor is poorly prepared,” because seminaries do not typically provide students with adequate training in this practice. He recalls that things used to be different, as priests would hear a “moral case” in their communities once a month, which they would act out using fictional characters and then discuss as a group to determine the moral judgment and the confessor’s appropriate response. He regrets that this practice has fallen into disuse, partly due to the lack of vocations. On the other hand, he believes that, today, psychoanalysis is a formally recognized field of study in both academic and clinical settings.

In the text, Enrique included a new exercise for studying representations of sin; however, due to space constraints and authorship considerations, I will simply mention that I hope the reflective exercise—which allows for the creation of a comparative catalog of what parishioners in a parish located in a middle-class neighborhood in Morelia typically confess (it is assumed that one should confess what is considered a grave sin) will be published soon; but I also hope that the topic of those sins that are ignored in certain groups and social sectors will be addressed. The comparison shows that the various habitus4 Shaped by gender, class, and age, these structures define and establish a hierarchy of moral notions regarding what Catholics do and do not consider to be a sin—and these notions differ for men and women, as well as for those who hold certain positions of authority in society.

We invite you to watch and listen to the interview with Fernando González in the multimedia section of Encartes, and we hope to publish Enrique Marroquín’s essay “Confessions in Morelia” soon.

Bibliography

Bhabha, Homi (2002). El lugar de la cultura. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1990). Sociología de la cultura. México: Grijalbo/Conaculta.

González, Fernando M. (1996). Una historia sencilla: la muerte accidental de un cardenal. México: unam/Plaza y Valdés.

— (2001). De matar y morir por Cristo Rey. México: unam/Plaza y Valdés.

— (2006). Marcial Maciel. Los legionarios de Cristo: testimonios y documentos inéditos. México: Tusquets.

— (2011). Crisis de fe. Psicoanálisis en el Monasterio de Santa María de la Resurrección 1961-1968. Ciudad de México: Tusquets.

— (2009). La Iglesia del silencio: de mártires a pederastas. México: Tusquets.

— (2023). Cuando un futuro se disuelve: de identidades trastocadas y radicalizaciones no previstas. Ciudad de México: iis-unam.

Renée de la Torre Castellanos She holds a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology (ciesas) and the University of Guadalajara. Member of the snii level iii and the National Academy of Sciences. Research professor at the ciesas Occidente. Co-founder of the Network of Researchers on the Religious Phenomenon in Mexico (rifrem). During his research career he has dedicated himself to the study of religious diversity in Mexico; to the study of new religious movements; to the emergence of alternative spiritualities such as the new age and "Neomexicanidad"; more recently, he has researched the dynamics of the transnationalization of Aztec ritual dances and popular religiosity. He has held more than a dozen ethnographic photography exhibitions. Among his most recent publications is the book Latin American Variations on New Age. México: ciesas, 2013; published in English New Age in Latin America. Popular Variations and Ethnicity Appropriations., 2016. Author of “Ultra-Baroque Catholicism: Multiplied Images and Decentered Religious Symbols,”, Social Compass (2016); co-author of the following articles: “Routes and Postcolonial Meanings of Religious Transnationalization,”, Tiers Monde (2016); "Religious Studies in Latin America, Annual Review of Sociology (2016); "The temazcal: a pre-Hispanic ritual transculturalized by alternative spiritual networks", Social Sciences and Religion (2016) and "Religion and Rescaling: How Santo Toribio Put Santa Ana on the Global Religious Map." Current Sociology (2016). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3914-4805