The catholic church He came back to deal with the activity of the Italian legislator, and he returned to the secular debate with the same text, whether it was with or against the Vatican.
The shock of the diplomatic note directed at the Italian state – the one on Zan Ddl and compliance with the Concordat Agreement – would make history anyway. A fair distinction for the previous strong moves of this papacy. Because no one on this tour risked the usual question of how Joseph Ratzinger should act. Because the papacy that preceded this certainly acted, taking similar if not completely identical paths.
Pope Francis and Benedict XVI It has often been compared especially when stylistic, ideological or communicative differences arise: it is the triad of differences that are used to present them. In this Zan Bill story, the Catholic Church appears to have preferred the timing and methods of “Ratzingerie”. Some insiders have referred to “breakdown,” meaning Cardinal Camilo Ruini’s school of thought and action. But they were different times: those in which the highest ecclesiastical circles were accustomed to making their voices heard. The rhymes of ruin rhyme with political activism in the highest sense. Today, strategies, at least communicative and political, anticipate fewer upheavals. At least until a few days ago, when the Holy See returned to speak calmly but in a firm tone on the issue of the very hour. Not in the sense that many expected.
The truth is that the Vatican, especially in recent times, has not been so starkly marked. Perhaps only for relations with former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner: in some cases there was talk of an “antagonist”. But here we are in Italy and everything is getting bigger. He also identified the Cardinal and the Secretary of State Pietro ParolinThe Note Verbale was not intended to be published. A sign of how rudeness shouldn’t accompany this move either.
To better understand the actors and causes of this issue, it is necessary to be aware of the procedure that allowed those diplomatic lines to become public, where they were not expected. Be that as it may, the oral note, in addition to being an official act, makes clear once and for all what the Vatican and the Holy Chambers thought of Ddl Zan. There is no opposition but concern on some points.
Meanwhile, the Catholic rule did not raise an eyelid. Indeed, those who have listened hear thunderous applause coming from “below”: it is the satisfaction of those who have long called for institutional mobilization, above all Professional life, Who often ask the CEI to mobilize the streets as they did in the early family days, why this change of course?
When rewinding the tape, one cannot help but think of the “German Shepherd”. Joseph Ratzinger was a pioneer, in the wake of Saint John Paul II, in the battle against the spread of “new rights.” That note of mouth testifies that the music has not changed. The perplexity of the Holy See relates – it is now clear – to the discretion that affects the limits of freedom of expression. The jurists taking the exams – and above all former Under Secretary Alfredo Mantofano – warn of certain dangers that the Catholic Church seems to have recognized. Although many consider Ratzingerism and interest in bioethical issues dead.
Whoever drags the “Pope on the Left” between them and the hierarchical leap that could have been achieved (there are still those who think the Pope may not have known) may have missed out on something. In November 2018, Francis and Pope Emeritus simultaneously spoke “against” new rights In the relevant letters written on the occasion of the international symposium “Fundamental Rights and the Conflict between Rights”, the fruit of the organizational work of the Benedict XVI Foundation. The Argentine Pope noted this in his text “Over the years, the interpretation of some rights has gradually changed, to include a number of ‘new rights’, which often conflict with each other.” These are not words far from the vision of a German theologian, quite the contrary. Interpretation is the center of ecclesiastical ideas on Zan Ddl.
By “new rights” we must also mean those that multiply themselves – as Ratzinger wrote in his book Message As for the symposium – it de-centralizes the rights that precede it, perhaps from a dual legal and temporal point of view. As if an endless job devalues the job itself.
New Fact: The facts have disproved the humor according to which anti-conservative ideological progress could have supplanted Ratzingera. Progressives also noted this which, as many have noted, the “Bergoglio line” suddenly seemed hostile. The Holy See does not want to interfere with the activity of the Italian legislator, but it does not intend to overlook some points which are considered necessary. Just as during the emeritus years and presentations of the Italian Episcopal Conference by Ruini-Bagnasco.
Looking at the times, the astonishment is justified: “Church Exit” Francis has always focused at least, on the economic and existential fringes and on compassion. Bergoglio never wanted to “interfere” – as critics of the Vatican’s intervention say today – in Italian political affairs. It is plausible and certain that there was pressure, but on many occasions when the Church has avoided silence it seems to have returned.
Qualified sources said a ilGiornale.it Two different elements: there are those who say the State Secretariat has just realized, given the time available, the scope of the bill and those who insist on discussions with conservative circles that would have expressed at least all their interest in the Vatican for the Ddl. In any case, enthusiasm: this is the tone of most comments you read or hear from those who, as if within an expectation that does not seem to have been resolved, hope that sooner or later it will happen. Again, as when Joseph Ratzinger was on the throne.