San Marino. Don Mangiarotti: “We do not need permission to speak, if we are in” democracy “!”
“I do not know if Bishop Turazzi’s recall on the occasion of the discussion on pdl IGV in the Permanente Commission is more” improper “, as claimed by Ciacci in Commission IV or his speech in which he affirms that” The Republic has a secular vocation and it was improper the intervention of bishop Andrea Turazzi: thus entering into an institutional discussion in a clear way is improper »”.
Thus Don Gabriele Mangiarotti, who adds: “The nineteenth-century fences that would like the Church to be silent in the world and at most free to express itself in the sacristies (even here, however, under certain conditions) are not part of a state that wants to be” secular “. Because we have learned that secularism correctly understood means openness to confrontation, respect for different positions, acceptance of minorities, whose rights must always be supported and defended. Otherwise we do not speak of a secular state, but of an intolerant “dictatorship of relativism”.
Who knows, when it comes to a serious accident because there is a motivated discussion on issues as serious as on the life of people and society, in the face of debate, there is always someone who wants to prevent free confrontation, by placing absurd prohibitions and above all by giving licenses of lawfulness or illegality to the various items (obviously illegitimate to those who think otherwise).
So I don’t think you can silence a free and respectful voice expressing dissent by invoking (as others have done on social) the Church’s commitment to “the defense of young couples who do not make it to the end of the month, who jump through hoops to support children and the home, which they fight every day knowing that they have precarious prospects ahead of them” (also because the Catholic Church she has not exactly flinched in the defense and support of these situations of need).
No one has asked for faith with respect to the defense of life and to reject abortion as an exclusive right of women. No one is allowed to dare patents of Christianity to address this issue in its political significance. Everyone can have their own personal thoughts on this topic, but when it comes to addressing the question, we cannot forget that a front of the so-called women’s right is the same right as the right destined to stay alive. And perhaps, in this context in which one would like to consider abortion a right, it would not be bad to show it in all its truth. And to show what really happens to this being that cannot be considered (only if you look at it in the face) as a mere lump of cells.
In any case, the opinions on what religion (and a Bishop) can and must say or do are precisely the opinions of a party, from which – at least in the “Ancient land of freedom – we hope they will disagree.
For some time we have been hearing about the “secularism of the state”, according to a totalitarian and intolerant meaning that we regret being spread without critical capacity, as a refrain whose values have however been lost. As if Christians were not fully entitled to rights (and we are silent here about what happened in Germany towards German Jews).
It is also surprising to see that the champions of “secularism” become promoters of initiatives that give voice to positions that are not secular, that are biased and, in some way, “foreign”. If the Church cannot and must not take a position in a secular state, as it has an extraterritorial origin (the famous “foreign state”), why should anyone who does not belong to this state but is an expression of values alien to ours should have this right. Republic?
What do the various Zan and Tonti and others have to do with our history?
Do we not realize that every form of censorship, if biased and not made against those who oppose the democratic principles of the common good, then gives rise to imbalances and privileges and intolerances that impoverish the democratic nature of the state itself?
Come on, let’s let the confrontation between civilized people be through serious reasons and motivations, avoiding partisans and fences that prelude forms, more or less disguised, dictatorships.
That the Bishop speaks and communicates reasons for living and that everyone is free to appeal to common sense and to give reasons for what concerns the human and social good.
Above all, this opportunity for confrontation should not be wasted by those who defend life is an “ideology” and that thinking of its beginning is a vain rant to prevent the right to suppress a life in the womb of a mother “.