Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
December 20, 2017
The Renzi-Gentiloni
governments will go down in history as those that imposed two of the most wicked
laws in the Italian Republic: pseudo-homosexual-marriage, called “Civil Unions”
(May 20th 2016) and euthanasia, under the name of the “living will" or DAT (Dichiarazione anticipata di
trattamento [Declaration Advance of Treatment]), approved definitively by
the Senate on December 14th 2017. This law will be registered in the
Official Journal on the fortieth anniversary of the legalization of abortion, which passed on May 22, 1978 with Law
194. Thus the circle closes.
Forty years of
aggression against life and the family between abortion and euthanasia, with
civil unions and quick divorce along the way. It should be remembered that the
law which introduced abortion was signed by Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, and
Giovanni Leone, the President of the Republic, both Christian Democrats. The euthanasia
bill will be signed by a Catholic Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, and by Sergio
Mattarella, President of the Republic also a Catholic and former
Christian-Democrat parliamentarian.
Neither of them
will feel the need to appeal to conscientious objection which “La Piccola Casa Della Divina Provvidenza”
better known as Cottolengo, had the courage to do: “We – Don Carmine Arice, the Superior General of the historical
institute in Turin stated – cannot carry
out practices that go against the Gospel, even if the possibility of
conscientious objection is not provided by the law: Marco Cappato who
accompanied people seeking assisted
suicide, was taken to court, so we too will go there, in the event of a
possible conflict between the law and the Gospel; we must choose the Gospel.” Don
Arice continued by explaining that “faced
with a request to die, our structure cannot respond positively. At present,
objection of conscience is not provided for private health institutions. Nonetheless, I believe that in conscience we
cannot respond positively to a request for [assisted]death: therefore, we will abstain
with all the consequences that this implies” ( La Stampa, December 15th
, 2017).
A second betrayal
has been added to that of the Catholic politicians who approved the law.
In 1978, after the
approval of abortion, the Movement for Life came into existence, promoted by
the Italian Episcopal Conference. Officially its aim was that of giving a voice
in defense of [pre-born] life in Italy.
In actual fact the real role the bishops gave to it was that of impeding
the birth of an anti-abortion movement similar to the one formed in the United
States and other countries. This has appeared clear since 1981, when the
Movement for Life promoted an abrogative referendum to modify Law 194, wherein,
however, the following was confirmed: the legalization of therapeutic abortion
for the entire nine months of the pregnancy; public funding for the execution
of abortions; the obligation of hospital entities to execute abortions in any
case; the free distribution, on the part of consultants, of contraceptives
including early abortions for minors.
The
referendum which took place on May 17th 1981 – and in which coherent Catholics could
do nothing other than abstain – was a defeat for the Movement for Life. It was
the beginning of the “lesser evil” strategy, which concession after concession,
has brought us to the present disaster. “On the
basis of this strategy – wrote Mario Palmaror in a unforgettable article
for La
Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, May 1st 2013 – the Catholics in politics – and the information and formation entities
supporting them –can no longer “limit themselves” (sic) by affirming the non-negotiable principles in
opposition to the legislative initiatives which deny them, but must assume a
legislative initiative by promoting laws
that affirm those principles only in part, but which impede the approval of
worse laws. […] One might at least ask though – will this “doctrine of the of the lesser
evil” really obtain results? Yes, it
will: disastrous ones.”
Francesco
Agnoli wasn’t wrong then when he brought the ambiguities and compromises of the
Movement for Life to light (A History of
the Movement for Life. From heroism to concessions, 2010) and especially [those
of] Carlo Casini, who was its president for twenty-five years, until 2015, when
Gian Luigi Gigli succeeded him. Casini was a Christian Democrat parliamentarian
in Italy and Europe for thirty years; since 2009 Gigli has been in the people’s-Christian
Democratic party which has sustained the Monti, Letta, Renzi and Gentiloni
governments.
How can we imagine
a free and independent action on the part of public figures subject
simultaneously to two powers? That of the respective parties they belong to and
that of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, thanks to whose significant funding
the Movement for Life is prospering (and dying). Furthermore, if the Movement
for Life, which should have stirred up the public square, posed no resistance
whatsoever to the “living will”, how to ignore the responsibility of the
Italian Episcopal Conference, and especially its secretary, Monsignor Nunzio
Galantino, who see the main enemy not in euthanasia, but in “unnecessary life-sustaining
medical treatment”, and hopes “that
someone begins to realize the Church is less bigoted than what is thought”(Avvenire,
November 18th 2017)?
The Archbishop of Trieste, Giampaolo Crepaldi, one of the few prelates
who openly, publicly condemned the law, underlined the climate of indifference
in which the “living will” was approved, particularly in the Catholic world: “Large components [of this Catholic world] have avoided the commitment
in defense of fundamental values for the dignity of the person; fearful
perhaps, in this way, of creating walls, rather than bridges. However, bridges
not built on the truth will not stand up.”
The Vatican reporter, Giuseppe Rusconi, commenting on Monsignor
Crepaldi’s words recalls: “the grave responsibilities of the Catholic
hierarchy which has shown widespread public indifference towards such an ill-omened
bill, for the dignity of the human person, a stance in total contrast to the
social doctrine of the Church. Grave are the responsibilities of a large part
of so-called Italian press agencies, with “Avvenire” at the top of the list and which immediately raised
a white flag - even if they hid behind some apparently quasi-combative headlines,”
(www.rossoporpora.org 15 December 2017).
Avvenire depends on the Italian Episcopal Conference, whose secretary, Monsignor
Galantino, is one of the Pope’s right hand men. Further, Pope Francis’ words on the end of
life to the Pontifical Academy for Life on November 19th, were interpreted
by everyone as an “open door” to the form of euthanasia which the ‘living will’
represents. Necessary words, writes Corrado Augias, “to bring down the ultimate resistance of some Catholics and – probably
– convince at least part of them into giving their assent” (Repubblica,
December 16th 2017). To the question whether the Pope’s words had
been an opening for the law on the end of life Monsignor Galantino replied: I’m not a politician but I hope the
politicians will do their duty, not only on this aspect” (Avvenire, cit.).
For that matter, whom do we have to
appeal in order “to build bridges where walls are raised” (Audience of
February25th 2017) if not to the reigning Pontiff”? The walls have been torn
down and the bridges built: the result, as Monsignor Crepaldi stated, is that “a libertarian ideology has prevailed,
ultimately nihilistic, expressed in the consciences of many parliamentarians.
Thus, Italy is heading into a dark future based on a worn-out [idea of] freedom,
devoid of hope.”
Along with Paolo Gentiloni and
Matteo Renzi, Pope Francis and a large part of the Catholic world have taken
upon themselves the moral responsibility of this law. Yet nothing that happens
in history evades the judgment of God Who punishes those responsible for
scandals in time and eternity. Only by remembering the Lord’s supreme justice,
might we make appeal to His infinite mercy to spare us from the deserved
punishments on our ill-fated nation.
Translation: Contributor Francesca
Romana
