A well-aimed blow. A move that could inspire the debate and get the approval of the Ddl Zan: If the Vatican’s intent was to complicate the process of the most-discussed bill of the moment, that proposal has received a respectable following.
From the diplomatic note, politics has had a lot to do. With an apostille: The Holy See has declared that it is not against the law. At the most, the Vatican has asked for changes to protect freedom of expression, which is also enshrined in the Concordat, an international treaty that Italy must respect. The cardinal also repeated this Gualtiero Bassetti, President Cei, in an interview with Republic: A review was requested, not an excerpt. And then that note, according to the intentions of the Leonine walls, it had to be anything but public.
The Democratic Party however, he was blown away. Secretary Enrico Letta responded by erecting a barrier against which the Zan Bill could crash. Al Nazareno is clearly in trouble. That the Holy Palaces are masters of tactics is no mystery. That particular policy does not excel in its strategic capacity either. The uproar associated with this phase is indicative: the disruption concerns the same certainties about that measure. Which the Dems no longer have.
If the Democratic Party had decided to mediate, today we would be telling a different story. But so be it. Tuesday is the key day: the day to clarify the fate of a law that has become the symbol of today’s ideological clash. A smoother political discussion would have made the Zan bill a subject that was perfected, but nevertheless feasible. The Democratic Party has decided that this possibility does not exist. So the bioethics and its surroundings have been elevated to a battlefield. As happens in the polarized framework of States, where almost nothing else is talked about, with everything that follows about the climate.
There is at least one misunderstanding in this story: Pope Francis has always been crystal clear on the matter. Anyone who thought the Pope was a supporter of the so-called “gender theory” reads little or is wrong. Also the secret of it document it should have made for a low-flying flight. Someone (there are some who speak of “handje”) has opted for the publication: the rest is news. The Vatican did not want to break in – as the anticlerical think – but to raise a few problems, with the right instruments and with the tip of a pen. That was enough to confuse the “progressive pope” theorists. The same ones that have been proven wrong by the facts. And they don’t want to hear it now.
The secularists – we said – replied with a chorus seasoned with the usual peaks of anti-clericalism. The Vatican he posed legal and compatibility questions between a possible state law and the concordat. Fedez wondered “who agreed on the concordat”. There are two different methods: one, legitimate, which has raised the dialectical level; the other, always legitimate, but simplistic, which makes ideological anger its substrate.
The Holy See does not seem to fear the passing of a law that contrasts and punishes homotransphobia, quite the contrary. Church circles are in any case concerned about the cultural soil in which the promoters of the Zan Ddl move, with the possible evolutions illiberal as background. A single diplomatic note has sent an entire ideological universe into a downward spiral. It becomes legitimate to ask, as some expected, what would have happened if Pope Francis had openly expressed his disappointment, while looking out over St. Peter’s Square.