Rorate Caeli

The Law on Homophobia: a threat to freedom of speech

By Roberto de Mattei
Translation via Rorate's Italian contributor Francesca Romana:

“I’m all for freedom of speech…….as long as they keep their mouths shut!”

In the countries where “pseudo homosexual  marriage” has been enforced, it was generally preceded by two laws which accompany it: the recognition of the rights of gay couples and the introduction of the crime of “homophobia.” Even among Catholics there is no lack of those who delude themselves [into thinking], that in granting these laws, it is possible to placate excessive demands and avoid arriving at the “greater evil” the so-called “gay marriage.” In reality, when the lesser evil is granted, everything else is essentially granted, since in the case of the law against homophobia, between it and pseudo-gay-marriage, it is not easy to establish which is the greater evil.

Will the law against homophobia presented for the first time in 1999 by the government of  D’Alema, and then presented again without success under the governments of both Prodi and Berlusconi,  be associated with the name of Enrico Letta and his “broadminded coalition” government ?  What is certain is that the design of the law against homophobia and transphobia, approved by the Judiciary Commission of the Chamber and now up for discussion in Parliament, represents a grave threat to the natural Christian order and  freedom of speech, not only for Christians, but for all Italian citizens.

The essential idea is to punish whoever is guilty of “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation.” The concepts of “discrimination” and of “sexual orientation” are however devoid of juridical value and, above all, illogical.  To discriminate means treating a person in a less favourable way than another. But the principles of discrimination regulate social relations. Discrimination in itself, in fact may be a good or bad choice, according to categories of reference: in the participation of public or private competitions, in the selection of military corps or sport contests, as in the admission to a Catholic seminary, the criteria of choice changes, but discrimination is always present. Why should it not be licit, apart from the respect due to the fundamental rights of the individual?

Also ambiguous is the concept of “sexual orientation” defined according to the law as “attraction for a person of the same sex, for the opposite sex or for both sexes”. This definition is so wide and generic as to justify any choice whatever that arises from the desires of the single individual. The same is said for “gender identity”, defined in its turn from the text of the law, as “the perception that a person has about themselves as belonging to the female or masculine gender, even if it is the opposite of their own biological sex.” But what is graver is the legislator claims to attribute to this freedom of sexual orientation, the qualification of “status” which is a subjective situation that possesses rights as such, leaving out any reference whatever to an objective  vision of values.

If the value of unlimited freedom of choice is affirmed, denying a moral and natural law which constitutes limits, the concept of deviance and transgression falls with it.  Once the natural law is denied and the principle of absolute liberty is admitted, the way to pedophilia, incest and every other manifestation of  sexual life, today considered as deviant, is open. What is considered as abnormal today will be the normality of tomorrow. And vice versa. What appears as normal today, will be condemned as abnormal tomorrow.  Everything is permitted because everything arises from man’s free choice, which cannot be limited by absolute norms external to his will. The norms external to the will of man are those called moral laws. The foundation of morals is the distinction between the ideas of good and evil with the norms indicating the good to follow and the bad to avoid. If a moral order does not exist, crimes do not exist, absolutely speaking, since the notion of crime has its moral dimension which is dissolved by absolute relativism founded on the primacy of the absolute freedom of man to express and realize his personal desires.

In the laws regarding homophobia, like those under discussion [now] in Italy, absolute libertinism is inevitably made to coincide with the maximum totalitarianism. In the absence of any morals and of objective rights, society is reduced, in fact, to a place of conflicts, in which the rights of the weakest are sacrificed to the egoism of the strongest. It is not necessarily the strength of an individual with respect to another, as in the case of the mother and the baby in abortion. It may be the strength of organized groups, the power of the mass-media and financial interests. Homosexuals are not helpless and defenseless citizens in front of the law as are the babies who are victims of abortion, but they constitute a power-group: a lobby.

Today this lobby imposes the crime of homophobia, tomorrow it might impose the elimination of the criminal act of pedophilia in the name of the individual’s freedom to sexual orientation and the desire of gratifying personal sexual inclinations with a child.  From article 1. of the law against homophobia, it is inferred that the invented and protected  juridical good is not just homosexuality, but the freedom to choose sex in form and participation without limits. Why then exclude minors as a possible object?  If the unborn child can be killed for the sake of the psychological needs of the mother, why should a living child not be made the object of gratifying the sexual desires of an adult or of a group of adults, that democratically establish it by the majority? The nucleus of totalitarianism is not in the idea of limits and neither in the use of force, but in that disordered use of force which becomes blind violence, because it is free from all moral references.  In short, the roots of totalitarianism is disorder, the confusion between good and evil, between  what can and cannot be done. The  idea of the existence of an absolute order of values constitutes, on the contrary, an objective limit to abuse and totalitarian violence.

In introducing the criminal offence of homophobia, the protection the family has always enjoyed over the course of the centuries is subtracted and this juridical protection is transferred to homosexuals, recognized as holders of rights as such.  In order to obtain this goal a leap in logic is required: the passage from human rights to homosexual rights. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, being men, enjoy the rights of all men, but the rights of homosexuals, properly speaking, do not exist, just as abstract rights connected to the sex of men and women do not exist. In fact, rights do not exist where duties do not exist. Rights for mothers exist, because, above all, the duties of mothers (and fathers) exist. But the rights of women do not exist neither in the abstract nor concrete, since duties that are connected to the female status do not exist and even less so to that of the homosexual. The only rights possible are rooted in the natural law and in natural institutions such as the family.

Once there used to be in force a Christian family order, where homosexuality was banned as immoral. The new legislation wants to turn that order upside-down, by laying down that which was once considered deviant, as a new social model and isolating as crimes, and thus as deviant and abnormal, the affirmation of Christian principals.  The possibility of defining homosexuality as abnormal or deviant, is suppressed by law, since any criticism or reserve regarding homosexual people, of their activity and lifestyle, would be considered a form of unjust discrimination.

Few are aware however, that in the 21st century, the age of persecution against the defenders of the Christian and natural order has begun also in Europe.


poeta said...

He gets to the heart of it when he analyzes rights as flowing from duties. People only have rights to what they need to fulfill their duties.

Only God is the subject of rights independent of duties.

Roseanne Therese Sullivan said...

During the 1980s, psychology journals were publishing articles based on Alfred Kinsey's corrupt "research" and theories, that pederasty was actually a good thing for a child. They claimed that since a child was proven by the research of having sexual responses from babyhood, then sexual initiation by an adult was a loving act that free the child from what were being called harmful hangups. I had a homosexual friend I hadn't seen for more than ten years who called me one night and deplored the harmful Catholic conditioning he believed I was giving my children and who wished he could set them free of those hangups. Man Boy Love Assocation had a convention that was freely advertised in downtown Minneapolis. I believe that when they can no longer use the sex abuse by priests scandal against the Catholic Church, the pederasty normalizers will crawl out of the woodwork and start their propoganda again.

Johannes de Silentio said...

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

When Cardinal Ratzinger spoke those words, there were just a handful of jurisdictions that recognized same-sex marriage. Now, almost all of Western Europe either recognizes same-sex marriage or confers some array of government benefits and legal protection to same-sex couples. I suspect the Pope-to-be was thinking in broader terms than the farce of marriage between homosexuals, but it is becoming increasingly evident that this farce will become the chief means by which to persecute the Church.

(By the way, the Rorate twitter account has me in stitches).

Anonymous said...

Thank Johannes!

If you don't already, follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter and join in the fun!

Charles said...

The path the article describes is more or less accurate in terms of how these legal and cultural developments proceed. However, in the first paragraph there is an important premise upon which his moral argument in the article is based which I am not sure is accurate. He states: "when the lesser evil is granted, everything else is essentially granted."

Now, I grant him that if the choice is between something good and two things which are evil but evil to different degrees, then among the three 3 things it is the good thing which must be chosen. But if another person cannot be persuaded to do the good thing and is only going to do evil-1 or evil-2, then it is appropriate to counsel the lesser evil. The lesser evil does not "essentially grant" the other evil (even if it may follow at some later time) otherwise it would not be appropriate to counsel a lesser evil.

In legislation, we are often confronted with a string of difficult moral questions. When confronted with evil legislation, the appropriate vote is to vote against the legislation and advocate against it. But what if the legislature comes to the edge and it is very, very clear that the evil legislation is going to pass. It does not seem inappropriate to advocate for amendments to the legislation which makes the enactment less evil. Even the lesser evil should not be voted for because "no" is always an option, but attempting to make inevitable evil legislation less evil seems a legitimate choice.

Common Sense said...

Soon it's going to be a hate crime to voice disaproval of homo practices.

UnamSanctam said...

Where shirt-lifters reign, there will be pain.

Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

One thing that is interesting about sexual inverts is that they pose as intellectuals and yet adopt terms which make no sense in terms of etymology or morphlogical precedent. From the Greek, a 'homophobe' is logically a person who hates or fears people of the same sex: it is a man who hates or fears other men or a woman who hates or fears other women. In no way can it be someone who hates or fears buggerers. There are indeed women, for example, who socially avoid other women and prefer the company of men, and vice-versa.

This error of theirs is constructed on an earlier mistake, for the misterm 'homosexual' is a malformation constructed from mixed Greek and Latin. It is particularly misleading and egregious because the Greek term in this misword happens to have a completely different and yet related meaning in Latin. Since sexus is from Latin alone, having no Greek meaning, the assumption must be that the homo is also Latin. Homo is the term for a person of either sex. Therefore, the misterm logically means (by extension in usage from other parallel terms) one who is [attracted sexually] to other human beings, as opposed to animals or things, like tractors or beach balls. One who is attacted to persons of the same sex is logically a homerast; one who is attachted to those of the opposite sex is then a heterast.

So we can see how one error in wording has been compouded by another. It leads to nonsense. This does have a certain aptness, though, since buggerers' arguments are also nonsense, and since most of them are subjectivists, whose ambiguity in terminology has led, by degrees, to the development of an entire culture of meaninglessness and uncertainty. It makes sense that retarded people should use retarded terminology. It is fitting.

I prefer the Victorian term of mild abuse, 'invert' because it wondrously parallels 'pervert' and suggests the real problem: that their proclivities are contra naturam owing presumably to a mental aberration. In other words, they're mental, just like schizophrenics or manic depressants. Theirs is a form of mental disorder; it is not a 'lifestyle choice' but a defect in the mind.


Peter Karl T. Perkins said...

Tactics of intimidation against opponents have been used before. There were the 'anti-discrimination' laws of the 1980s. They went to absurd proportions. I was upbraided once for referring to two loads of laundry as 'whites' and 'coloured'. It had never even occurred to me that this was bad, very bad, and suggested a racial categorisation. To me, they had always been whites and coloureds. What else could they be? I can remember, in an earlier generation, being told that we who were born in Canada were no longer allowed to call ourselves 'native Canadidans', as there were no differences between us and immigrants. We were made to feel guilty about using a term we had always used unthinkingly, as a matter of course. In the generation following 'native Canadian' was revived as a term and then misapplied to those whose ancestors had been here before the first European voyages of discovery. Then there was a certain colleague who told me that it was no longer proper to refer to polite and cultured women as 'ladies' (but nobody has ever said that 'gentleman' is now out as well).

This list goes on and on. Its purpose is really to convince people that their racism and sexism and sectarianism is so deeply ingrained that it affects everything they think and say. People of older generations are hopelessly infected with wrong and dangerous and 'scary' thinking. The only thing to do is patiently to wait for them to die off so that the work of creating an egalitarian paradise can be completed but, in the mean time, educating children differently. The real effect is simply to intimidate the greater part of the population. People now guard thier every word, afraid that it might convey some unintended meaning or offend someone. This puts the opponents of change on the defensive and makes it difficult for them to sustain arguments, for they spend much of their time contorting their wording to satisfy their enemies, and therefore their enemies' ideas. If you adopt the terminology of your enemies, you will lose the debate, for then you come to accept the assumptions hidden in the new terms. If, for you, an abortionist is not an 'abortion doctor' and if he does not commit but 'performs' an abortion, you will encounter howls of protest even before you enter an premise in an argument.


Hayfarmer said...

Political correctness, a communist idea, forces a change in language and thereby a change in thinking. Seeing what has happened in the Church since the 1960's, changing the language, Latin, will change the Faith.

Gratias said...

Roberto De Mattei is catholic treasure. "In fact, rights do not exist where duties do not exist. Rights for mothers exist, because, above all, the duties of mothers (and fathers) exist." This seems from a time far away and long ago from our perspective here in Southern California.

The brutal truth is that the US Supreme Court annulled the will of God and the vote of the people in the name of equality. From this Gay marriage decision pederasty, polygamy, and bestiality will follow. The Gay lobby (to use Pope Francisco's expression) is victorious in our USA. Next coming to a Parish near you catholic gay weddings under penalty of tax exempt status loss. It is all part of the long struggle between Western Civilization and Marxism. The papally-tagged pelagians are losing right now, but one day will rise again from the catacombs.

But wait, maybe if we place an inverted Monsignor in charge of room arrangements in the Papal Hostel and have him serve also as Papal prelate to the Vatican Bank the mainstream media will finally believe Catholics are cool with Gays and get the revolutionary Pope's picture on the cover of Time magazine.

Common Sense said...

Evil of modern times are closely associated with VII and policies of modern popes.

Barbara said...

Yes right, Common Sense ,with all due resoect our present Pope is very noticeable in his "loud silence" regarding this particular matter being discussed in Italy at the moment. It seems he has relegated these political matters to the care of the bishops...

I will be most upset if Italy falls for this "law" (which is no law at all but a farce and a fake) without clear intervention from the Church - the way Pope Benedict ALWAYS did when these issues were in the limelight and all his predeccesors before him.And this was the real reason they blocked this issue the times before.
The times indeed are changing. The Church spoke loud and clear.

But, what is Papacy coming to now?

What is a faithful Catholic to do when her her Commander-in-Chief - backs away from the battlefront?

The issues of the pro-life and family have always been close to my heart. I love Catholicism's beauty and clarity on these most essential matters.
I will not stop to speak about them with Catholic clarity and hopefully charity, as a teacher, despite the silence of our leaders....which will no doubt get me into hot-water. But no matter, I've been their before - and even lost work because of it. I don't care though - not to be superior - but I prefer to take all the "risks" being a faithful Catholic for love of Our Blessed Lord - than to live that mediocrity of compromise with the world which leads to perversity. And for what in the end?

Prayers for Italy please....she will probably succumb people generally speaking , seem not to care anymore about such serious matters and just get carried along with the tide...

May Our Heavenly Queen - so treasured and honoured in hundreds of sanctuaries dedicated to Her all over Italy,
PROTECT the land of Saints from this horrible proposal....

LeonG said...

Liberals are of one kind only. They want freedom of speech tailored to identify exclusively with their own predetermined viewpoint. Without this their recourse to epistemological control; linguistic manipulation and abuse of judicial process guarantees that their ideological hegemony will prevail.

"Phobia" represents one aspect of liberal modernist exploitation of popular fear. They spout endlessly about the "far right" and "right wing extremists"; the "Taliban" of the church and the fascist "phobias" of racists, xenophobes, homophobes and islamophobes. they will invent more to suit as and when the needs arise. Ultimately, they will desist nowhere until they have suppressed all individual liberty of thought and expression; misusing even those whom imagine currently that they have become free. Once they have complete tyrannical control they will then turn on the homosexuals, mahomatens and other marginal groups who refuse to be dominated by their liberalist dictatorship.

In the modernist church, we can demonstrate the same tendancies. The liberals set out at the councils in the 1960s to end tradition or "raze bastions" as was enunciated. They have not changed their objectives.

For a few years they have "tolerated" a reverse step with the Summorum and the reappearance of some dalmatics. However, they knew that once the so-called papacy of transition was terminated, there would ensue a renewal of the liberal modernist assault on the freedom of traditional Roman Catholics to practice their ancient Faith.

Indeed, liberal modernism is the worst "phobia" of them all.

New Catholic said...

Father Bonaventure McGuire, FFI,

New Bedford? Maine? New York? Baltic?

As I tried to explain to you and your FFI-dissident-minority attack dogs yesterday, you are very mistaken about our having any knowledge of what goes on inside the FFI. You say those place names, we see nothing - they obviously must mean something to you or inside the FFI, but we have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rorate really has no source or insider knowledge of what goes on inside the FFI, so all your strange references remain thus: strange and incomprehensible to us.

Could you stop harrassing us and please find some needy people on the street to help? They are all around, you will sure find them.


New Catholic said...

Fr. Bonaventure McGuire, FFI,

I am not Adfero.

Sorry, but we do not have an Ombudsman position open, and we would not take you in anyway to manage our blogroll and links.

No, unfortunately we have no friends in the FFI - though, by your harrassment (and that of some of your friends, including your mentor, the "Angel" - angel of light?), it maybe means we have enemies there, through absolutely no fault of our own. It does seem to me now that some of you have made a mistake of believing we have FFI sources or even FFI contributors (which may explain the "Angel"'s harrasment of us), but that has never been the case.

Now, please go help the needy, because you really cannot make them supper while stuck to your keyboard.


New Catholic said...

Fr. Bonaventure McGuire, FFI; Fr. Bonaventure's friend Dan,

I really appreciate your harrassing me in my time of grief. But I understand the internal rage that must be found in those who, probably with the same mischievous and relentless attitude you show here, bring the downfall of their own elderly Father. How much this elderly Father must be suffering now, brought down by some of his own sons! The spirit of Absalom is always present, alas: not something the Lord sees with favor...

Best regards, and a blessed Day of the Lord!


Anonymous said...

Father McGuire, all due respect, but how do you have time to try and comment here night and day? Maybe if your efforts were put towards supporting your order it wouldn't be in this mess today.