Roma, 14 febbraio 2010. Un importante documento di S.Em. Card. Carlo Caffarra, Arcivescovo di Bologna:
Matrimonio e unioni omosessuali
Nota dottrinale
La presente Nota si rivolge in primo luogo ai fedeli perché non siano turbati dai rumori mass-mediatici. Ma oso sperare che sia presa in considerazione anche da chi non-credente intenda fare uso, senza nessun pregiudizio, della propria ragione.
1. Il matrimonio è uno dei beni più preziosi di cui dispone l’umanità. In esso la persona umana trova una delle forme fondamentali della propria realizzazione; ed ogni ordinamento giuridico ha avuto nei suoi confronti un trattamento di favore, ritenendolo di eminente interesse pubblico.
In the West, the institution of marriage is going through perhaps its most serious crisis. I say this not in reason, and because of the increasing number of divorces and separations, I do not say because of the fragility that seems increasingly undermining from within the marital relationship: I do not say because of the increasing number of free cohabitation. I am not saying that observing their behavior.
The crisis affects the assessment about the good of marriage. It is in front of the reason that marriage is in crisis, in the sense that it is no longer adequate to estimate the extent of its preciousness. Has obscured the vision of his incomparable uniqueness ethics.
The most obvious sign, although not unique, of this "intellectual disdain" is the fact that in some states is given, or is intended to grant legal recognition to homosexual unions equating legitimate union between a man and woman, including the possibility of adopting children.
Regardless of the number of couples who would benefit from this award - it was even one! - An equation that would be a serious injury to the common good.
This Note seeks to help you see this damage. It also aims to enlighten those who believe Catholics who have public responsibilities of any kind, why not make choices that publicly deny their membership in the Church.
2. The equation in any form or degree of homosexual unions to marriage would objectively the significance of declaring the neutrality of the state are faced with two ways of living sexuality, which are not in fact equally relevant for the common good.
While the legitimate union between a man and a woman ensures good - not only organic! - Procreation and survival of the human species, homosexual unions is no intrinsic capacity to generate new lives. The possibilities offered today by artificial procreation, in addition to being immune to serious violations of human dignity, does not appreciably change the inadequacy of homosexual couple in order to life.
Moreover, it is shown that the absence of sexual complementarity may create serious obstacles to the development of the child may be adopted by such couples. The fact would have the profile of violence committed against the smaller and weaker, as would be inserted in a non-fit for his harmonious development.
These simple considerations show how the state in its legal system should not be neutral in the face of marriage and homosexual union, it can not be in front of the common good: the company owes its survival not to homosexual unions, but the family based on marriage.
3. Another consideration I submit to those wishing to quietly think about this problem. Equating
would, first in law and then in the ethos of our people, a result that does not define devastating outcome. If homosexual unions to be equated with marriage, this would be downgraded to a possible way to get married, indicating that the state is immaterial whether one makes a choice rather than the other.
In other words, the equalization objective would mean that the binding of sexuality to procreation and raising children is a fact that does not affect the State, since it has no relevance for the common good. And with that a collapse of the pillars of our legal systems: the marriage as a public good. A pillar already recognized not only by our Constitution, but also by previous legal systems, including those so fiercely anticlerical of Savoy.
4. I would consider now some reasons given in support of that equation.
The first and most common is that the primary task of the state is to remove any discrimination in society, and positively as possible to extend the sphere of individual rights.
But discrimination is to treat unequally those who are in the same condition, as Thomas Aquinas says limpidly recovering la grande tradizione etica greca e giuridica romana: «L’uguaglianza che caratterizza la giustizia distributiva consiste nel conferire a persone diverse dei beni differenti in rapporto ai meriti delle persone: di conseguenza se un individuo segue come criterio una qualità della persona per la quale ciò che le viene conferito le è dovuto non si verifica una considerazione della persona ma del titolo» [2,2, q.63, a. 1c].
Non attribuire lo statuto giuridico di matrimonio a forme di vita che non sono né possono essere matrimoniali, non è discriminazione ma semplicemente riconoscere le cose come stanno. La giustizia è la signoria della verità nei rapporti fra le persone.
Si obietta che non equiparando le due forme the state imposes an ethical view rather than another ethical vision.
The state's obligation not to treat is not grounded in the negative ethical judgments about homosexual behavior: the state is incompetent in this regard. Arises from the consideration that in order for the common good, the promotion of which is the primary task of the state, marriage has a different significance homosexual union. The married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law and therefore must give them an appropriate institutional recognition to their task. Do not play this role for the common good, same-sex couples do not require equal recognition.
course - it is not in question - the same-sex partners can always use, like every other citizen, the common law to protect rights or interests born of their coexistence.
I do not take into account other difficulties, because they do not deserve it: they are commonplace, rather than rational arguments. Eg. the accusation of homophobia to those who argue the injustice of equivalency, the outdated reference in this context the secular state, the elevation of any loving relationship as sufficient for civil recognition.
5. I now turn to the believer that public responsibility, of any kind.
addition to the duty shared by all to promote and defend the common good, the believer also has the grave duty of full consistency between what he believes and what he thinks about it and suggests the common good. It is impossible to live together in his own conscience and the Catholic faith and support for equality between homosexual unions and marriage, the two contradict each other.
Obviously the most serious responsibility of those who propose to introduce in our legal system of that equation, or vote in favor of such a law in Parliament. This is a public act is gravely immoral.
But there is also the responsibility of those implements, in various forms, such a law. If there were needed, quod Deus avertat at the appropriate time we will give the necessary information.
You can not be considered Catholics in one way or another if it recognizes the right to marriage between persons of the same sex.
I like to conclude by addressing young people in particular. Have estimates of married love let its pure splendor appear on your conscience. Be free with your thoughts, and do not impose the yoke of the pseudo-truth confusion created by the mass media. The truth and the preciousness of your masculinity and femininity is not defined and measured by the procedures and consensual political struggles.
Log it
0 comments:
Post a Comment