The legal questions underlying the Vatican Note on the Zan bill. The analysis by Professor Franco Carinci for Atlantico Quotidiano
Blessed hypocrisy. At the same time that the whole left tears its hats off for the Vatican note, accusing it of interference from a foreign state, aimed at none other than to deprive the sovereignty of Parliament, Italy adds its signature to the manifesto of the 14 European countries that condemn the Hungarian law passed by that Parliament with almost unanimity, which, as far as I know, limits itself to prohibiting the propaganda of homosexuality in schools and in advertising, which is acceptable or not but certainly not scandalous. Imagine on the contrary if in our blessed country, the Catholic world pretended to organize and manage a school and advertising campaign in favor of heterosexuality, as the premise and basis of the natural family.
Although widely shared, the Zan draft law – smuggled as a simple and neutral enlargement of civil rights towards marginalized and persecuted subjects on the basis of their sexual orientation – constitutes a step that must be carefully considered. Certainly for its content, but also and above all for the message it intends to convey, an absolute and unconditional equation between the so-called traditional family, based on the heterosexual couple and potentially projected towards physical and cultural reproduction, and any other combination, perhaps not even exhausted by the current acronym that represents it, Lgbtq. Nothing wrong with that, just know, in this regard in the verbal note sent to the Italian embassy by the Vatican Secretariat, there is a fundamental passage,
“There are expressions of Sacred Scripture and of the ecclesiastical traditions of the authentic magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops, which consider sexual difference according to an anthropological perspective that the Catholic Church does not consider available because it derives from Revelation itself”.
It is a doctrinal “non possumus”, pertaining to the hard core of millenary teaching, incorporated in the catechism, taught in the oratories, present in Sunday sermons, transmitted by religion teachers, clearly perceptible in private schools, propagated by Catholic associations. All this would be guaranteed, according to the verbal note, by art. 2, co. 1 and 3, of the Concordat, according to which “The Italian Republic recognizes the full freedom of the Catholic Church to carry out its pastoral, educational and charitable mission of evangelization and sanctification. In particular, the freedom of organization, of the public exercise of worship, of the exercise of the magisterium and of the spiritual ministry as well as of jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters is assured to the Church. “; And,
Now this reservation is well founded
Without any claim to advance anything more than a perplexity, I refer to a previous writing, where regardless of the newly baptized “gender identity”, referred to in art. 1 of the project, which proved to be problematic where already introduced – given its generic and ambiguous nature as a criminally relevant case, depending on how one feels sexually speaking, without detecting the external appearance, nor a change witnessed by the identity card, nor a medical-surgical process in progress – apart from all this, to make us think and the art. 4 of the same project, where we are not satisfied with “without prejudice to the free expression of beliefs or opinions as well as specific conduct attributable to the pluralism of ideas or the freedom of choices”, thus referring to the constitutional and ordinary jurisprudence on the subject,
Not to mention that final firework, referred to in art. 7, paragraph 1, “The Republic recognizes May 17 as the National Day against homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia and transphobia”, a list that should be explained to be understood, with, in paragraph 3, the provision that in on this occasion “ceremonies, meetings and any other useful initiative are organized”, and that “the schools (all the Catholic ones, ed), as well as the other public institutions provide for the activities” in question.
And yet until yesterday the bishops’ conference had made it clear what has changed
Two fundamental things: the first is that despite some clumsy attempt to see an initiative of that part of the Roman curia contrary to the Pope’s ecumenical turn, and of all evidence that such a move could not have been taken without his conscious participation. It would always seem to be a surprise that pastoral openings are considered tacit renunciations of inalienable doctrinal identities, even elevated to sacraments, yesterday the priestly order reserved for men, bound to celibacy, today heterosexual marriage.
But it is the second thing that makes the whole question make a qualitative leap, because it transforms it from “political” into “juridical”, with the call into question of our own Constitution, to make the whole great case on the secular nature of the state and on the sovereignty of Parliament. To come in relief and the art. 7 of our Constitution, at the time the subject of a close confrontation in the Constituent Assembly, resolved with the approval of Togliatti himself, for which “the State and the Catholic Church are each in their own order, independent and sovereign. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran Pacts. The amendments to the Pacts, accepted by the two parties, do not require a constitutional revision procedure “. Now, by virtue of this article, the Concordat, as amended in 1985, and incorporated into our Constitution,
Now one of the two parties, the Church as a foreign state, the Vatican, believes that that treaty is at risk of being violated, it does so towards the other party, the Italian State, indeed literally the Italian Republic, making it possible to glimpse what it would be. the procedure to be followed, as provided for by art. 14 of the same Concordat, so that “if difficulties arise in the future in the interpretation or application of the previous provisions, the Holy See and the Italian Republic will entrust the search for a friendly solution to a joint Commission nominated by them”. I’m sorry for Mr. Draghi, but the potato is hotter than he seems to have judged it in his answer, because, I repeat, here it is he who is at stake, as Prime Minister: if he replied with a sharp refusal to the constitution of the Commission, he would automatically put himself in the wrong, a behavior that is not in the character of man; if he adhered to the constitution of that Commission, it would mark the death of the Zan project, which would be delayed indefinitely. It will take time, first of all in the absence of a formal request, which certainly will not be advanced in the absence of a previous manifestation of willingness to accept it, then favoring some modulation of the Zan project, which reassures the Church, but above all does not cause an irremediable wound to its heterogeneous majority. which would be delayed indefinitely. It will take time, first of all in the absence of a formal request, which certainly will not be advanced in the absence of a previous manifestation of willingness to accept it, then favoring some modulation of the Zan project, which reassures the Church, but above all does not cause an irremediable wound to its heterogeneous majority. which would be delayed indefinitely. It will take time, first of all in the absence of a formal request, which certainly will not be advanced in the absence of a previous manifestation of willingness to accept it, then favoring some modulation of the Zan project, which reassures the Church, but above all does not cause an irremediable wound to its heterogeneous majority.
It would not take long to make this project shared, especially as it does not guarantee safe navigation as it stands. It would be enough if not to eliminate, to specify what is meant by “gender identity”, what is its recognisability, regardless of mere self-certification; leave the guarantee of freedom of opinion, without the sword of Damocles constituted by that reserve, an authentic passpartout for an all-out criminal relevance, so that, as we have seen, such freedom can be judged suitable “to determine the concrete danger of carrying out acts discriminatory or violent “. As for the national day, it seems to me that it presupposes a good understanding of sexuality in all its complexity, which should be offered by the school, precisely in the phase in which it comes out of puberty,Article published on Atlantico Quotidiano, here the full version.

Previous articleDreaming of an airplane – in flight, on the ground, crashing
Next articleBerlin: the Christmas massacre – PHOTOS and VIDEO – Specials