On the Zan bill, from the Vatican “no request to stop the law against homotransphobia nor undue pressure on the work of the Italian Parliament, but the signaling of some concerns regarding the interpretation of some passages of the Zan bill. This was underlined by the Secretary of Vatican State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, in an interview with the editorial director of the Vatican media Andrea Tornielli. “It was not an interference – says Parolin -. The Italian state is secular, it is not a confessional state, as the Prime Minister reiterated. I fully agree with President Draghi on the secular nature of the state and on the sovereignty of the Italian Parliament. For this reason, the instrument of the Note Verbale was chosen, which is the proper means of dialogue in international relations. At the same time, I appreciated the call made by the Prime Minister to respect constitutional principles and international commitments. In this context there is a fundamental principle, that according to which pacta sunt servanda “.” It is against this background – notes the cardinal – that with the Note Verbale we have limited ourselves to recalling the text of the main provisions of the Agreement with the Italian State, which could be affected. We did it in a relationship of loyal collaboration and I would dare to say of friendship that has characterized and characterizes our relationships. I also point out that until now the concordat issue had not been explicitly considered in the debate on the law. The Note Verbale wanted to draw attention to this point, which cannot be forgotten. As was also pointed out by some of the commentators, the issue of freedom of opinion does not only concern Catholics, but all people, touching on what the Second Vatican Council defines as the ‘shrine’ of conscience “. The Vatican Secretary of State. , speaking of the Note to the Italian government on the bill, Zan points out that “it was not in any way asked to block the law. We are against any attitude or gesture of intolerance or hatred towards people because of their sexual orientation, as well as their ethnicity or their beliefs. “Parolin explains:” Our concern is about the problems of interpretation that could arise if it were adopted a text with vague and uncertain contents, which would end up shifting the definition of what is a crime and what is not to the judicial stage. But without giving the judge the necessary parameters to distinguish. The concept of discrimination remains too vague in content. In the absence of an adequate specification, he runs the risk of putting together the most diverse behaviors and therefore making any possible distinction between man and woman punishable, with consequences that can prove to be paradoxical and which in our opinion should be avoided, as long as there is time. The need for definition is particularly important because the legislation moves in an area of criminal relevance where, as is well known, what is allowed and what is forbidden to do must be well determined. ” Parolin admits, “Yes, it was ‘preventive’, but precisely to present the problems before it is too late. The bill has already been approved, however, by a branch of Parliament. Only a subsequent intervention, that is, once the law had been adopted, would have been belated. The Holy See could have been accused of a guilty silence, especially when the matter concerns aspects that are the subject of an agreement “.
Welcome! Log into your account
Recover your password
A password will be e-mailed to you.