Reporting of Roman correspondence
Of Lupo Glori
While the Catholic Church (official, n.d.r.) she is overwhelmed, from one end of the world to the other, the daily newspaper of the bishops from shameful sexual scandals Future, in its supplement of 29 last July dedicated to world gathering of families which opens in Dublin, clears gender theory, by publishing an article in which the "goodness" of an unlikely theology from a "gender" perspective is exposed and, why not, also “queer”.
It is the theologian who advances the bold thesis Lucia Vantini, from the Facolthas Theology of the Triveneto, with an abstruse text, written according to the artificial and cryptic genderist language, in which the professor exposes her very personal gender-oriented "theology"., in his own words, ”not even the prospect is excluded a priori queer“.
In fact, Vantini explains how the Coordination of Italian theologians of which he is vice president, “is committed to a theology of gender” That “promises inclusiveness, (…) and provokes the male world to account for its own bodily and perspective partiality, masked under the sign of neutral even in theology. However, in this research of women the epistemology of difference and the politics of equality find space and are not excluded, a priori, not even the queer perspective, with its precious deconstructive force of the explicit and implicit stereotypes of the Christian symbolic order. These are epistemologies that do not foresee a definitive transition from one to the other but which open a spiral process towards the depth of the sexual being”.
Objective of the intervention of the Faculty teacherhas Theology of the Triveneto is to claim and demonstrate the feminist origin of the expression "sexual difference", improperly used, according to him, as an “anti-gender weapon” by detractors of gender theory, proposing its own particular reinterpretation.
His main concern therefore seems to be to jealously "reclaim" this term, hostage of the "rigidity" of thought of the "anti gender"., clarifying its authentic “free” character, which has its theoretical roots in French feminism and in particular in the thought of the Belgian psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray (in favor of contraception and abortion) and in the “Communityhas philosophical feminine of Diotima”.
In this perspective, explains the theologian, the expression “sexual difference” properly understood, “appears in friction with the politics of equality and originally accompanied by a symbolic force to be interpreted in subjective freedom. There seems to be nothing left of this free sense of sexual difference among the detractors of gender, lightly sold off in exchange for a reassuring essentialism. In certain theological and ecclesial contexts illiterate regarding the different feminist theories, in fact “sexual difference” is a prescriptive and deterministic category, used to confirm a concept of nature that has nothing natural about it, and to corroborate an irresistible patriarchal instinct for the preservation of power and tradition”.
In a writing, titled Voices of sexual difference: type , difference, differences, published on Bimonthly theology magazine from Edizioni Messaggero Padova, Believe today Vantini clarifies her concept of "sexual difference" better, writing: “A deep look does not escape the fact that the «living together» of men and women to which Irigaray referred appears today as a dream that is in some respects unrealized: the world is still torn apart by the violence of males abandoned by their partners, paralyzed by countless glass ceilings that hinder the work of women, obscured by various gender stereotypes, unprepared for an education that valorises sexual difference without hierarchising it, prisoner of an arrogant concept of nature, illiterate in relationships, deaf to those who suffer from the discomfort of homophobia”.
To get out of this impasse and we should therefore understand the real meaning of the expression "sexual difference"., according to Vantini, act on two distinct fronts: on the one hand "free the original manifestations of difference from its androcentric interpretations” and on the other “experiment with different mediations to give a subjective voice to the female experience”.
It is therefore necessary, on the one hand, get rid of that archaic and obtuse conception based on "patriarchal domination" which "divides the world according to a problematic binary that places rationality on the male sidehas, action, shape, culture, public space, world of production, and on the female affective onehas, passivithas, materia, nature, private space and world of reproduction” e, on the other, build a new "feminine symbolic order" according to - Vantini explains - what was suggested by the feminist Carla Lonzi (1931-1982) who wrote so: “The woman is not in a dialectical relationship with the male world. The needs that it clarifies do not imply an antithesis, but a moving on another plane”. For Vantini, the sexual difference is in fact “something complex, not traceable nand on the biological level, nand to the social one, nand to the cultural one: it is the perturbation of a field in which all these variables are active”.
In short, a matter too serious and complicated for ordinary people not accustomed to the intricate quibbles and intellectual sophisms on the subject to understand anything about it..
Ultimately, the theologian Vantini is, in fact, a contemporary epigone of the so-called "second wave" feminism that, between 1968 and the 1980, succeeded the first wave, who had fought in the name of achieving equality between men and women, placing the principle of "sexual difference" at the center of its claims, since the origins and causes of the subordinate position of women towards men were attributed to it.
In fact, she saw the “feminism of difference” in pregnancy, in childbirth, in breastfeeding, and in all the peculiar characteristics of the female role, of the unbearable limits to be removed, as the foundations of the inferior condition he had, until that moment, relegated women to domestic and nurturing tasks and roles.
In this perspective, the primary objective of the new feminist struggle became the demolition of all those "obstacles", so as to finally be able to ensure that women have access to public and social life that had until then been reserved for men. Hence the identification of new special "rights"., based precisely on sexual difference, which will constitute the foundations of the subsequent demands of the most radical feminist movement.
Rights linked to the possibility of autonomous and arbitrary disposal of one's own body, of their sexuality and reproductive capacity, which will transform, concretely, in the right to contraception and the right to abortion.
In the same writing dedicated to "sexual difference", Vantini also clarifies her thoughts on gender theories, writing as they are nothing more than "another way of signifying sexual difference”. About it, the theologian explains how gender theories in fact they simply constitute a different way of expressing sexual difference by proposing re-interpretations and re-readings of the pairing sex/gender system. Once distinguished sex e gender, inevitably, it ends, always according to the theologian, in an unprecedented ambiguous space where this binary system sex/gender he comes“perceived and managed as a simple theoretical differentiation between levels of the selfand, or as an irreparable fracture”.
In this dual representation Vantini takes the side of the first perspective, defined by her hermeneutics of distinction, which “it does not get rid of bodies and proves to be very useful for examining the imagery with which they are thought, expressed, and regulated the «male» and the «female"”, rejecting the second radical perspective of separation, That, “reducing the sexual body to a product of symbolic pressures, ritualhas and social practices, in curtains la materialhas”.
However, while rejecting the radical thesis of separation, Vantini justifies her adherence to the first perspective of the distinction, adopting exactly the same philosophical categories as gender theory, writing: “the resources of the first perspective are evident: it allows us to criticize gender stereotypes, to develop an education that frees subjects from expectations that do not respect their singularityhas, to focus on how a culture has signified sexual difference in order to divide qualitieshas and the roles of men and women in a contradictory or at least rigidly complementary way and to ask the question of how to generate communityhas inclusive”.
A logical and coherent point of view with his fluid and malleable conception of the expression "sexual difference", capable of plastically adapting to any context, contrary to the "rigid" binary vision of anti-gender people, guilty of not knowing how to adapt to the inevitable evolutionary process of reality.
Da teologa, In the end, la Vantini, starting and admitting that it is not always easy to distinguish between these two trajectories, than in reality, as we have seen, they overlap until they form a single whole, note how both are implicitly recognized in Amoris laetitia.
Theirs, explains the teacher of the Theological Faculty of Triveneto, it is a “silent presence”, However, the exhortation contains the fundamental dual structure sex/gender That "allows us to glimpse the different plausibilityhas of prospects”, when he states to the point 56 :”You shouldn't ignore that «biological sex" (sex) and social-cultural role of sex (gender) they can be distinguished but not separated”.
This clarification, Vantini always illustrates to give grist to the gender mill, was also taken up by Final report of the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, That “corroborates gender theory in its hermeneutic perspective”, according to which there is an undeniable intertwining between the natural and cultural levels in the process of establishing each individual's identity. The only fault of theThe joy of love, according to Vantini, would therefore be that of not having sufficiently distinguished between an acceptable and desirable prospect of separation and an unacceptable and radical prospect of separation.
If there had been this clarification, in fact the theologian concludes “the idea of ​​a deconstruction of the imaginary of complementarityhas between men and women it would be less scary, and perhaps it would be understood as a promise and not as a threat for the destiny of humanity and its relationships. From this deconstruction, Indeed, depends on the ecclesial future of that new integral and inclusive humanism that aspires to recognize and protect vulnerabilitieshas of everyone”.
The future of the Catholic Church, according to the thought of the theologian Vantini, made his own by the bishops' newspaper Future, it therefore depends on the deconstruction and denial of his thousand-year-old teaching on morality and homosexuality.
Perhaps this is why at the world meeting of families taking place in Ireland since 21 al 26 August, the American Jesuit James Martin was invited to speak, known for openly pro positions LGBT, expressed in his debated book Building a Bridge, where obviously the bridge to be built is the bridge that should joyfully welcome gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and who knows who else, within the Catholic Church (official, n.d.r.)?