Yesterday and the day before yesterday Cruciani and Porec, conductors up Radio24 of the transmission “The Mosquito” starting from 18.30 they tried in every way to put us in difficulty Matthew Castagna, who with the usual determined aplomb and with a little’ of healthy irony, he countered blow for blow, as an integralist Catholic, without fear and telling the truth about contraception, abortion, pre-marital relations, homosexuality, role of women in society etc.
Report BastaBugie editorial team

The motion of the City Council proclaiming Verona a "pro-life city", which commits the Municipality to promoting the regional program “Secret cradle” and to allocate budget funds for the Gemma project and the Chiara project, two initiatives that offer financial help to women who encounter material difficulties when becoming pregnant, does not in any way ask for the repeal of the law 194/78 which legalized abortion in Italy. The text of the motion actually cites the articles of the law which call for interventions to remove the reasons that can lead women to request an interruption of pregnancy. Why then the left-wing press and leading political exponents of the Democratic Party, Leu and the Five Star Movement lashed out with unprecedented violence against the vote of the Veronese city councilors? National exponents of the Democratic Party such as Andrea Orlando have even asked for the expulsion of the Piddina group leader in the city council Carla Padovani from the party, who voted in favor of the motion; Senator Monica Cirinnà declared herself "shocked and disgusted" by the Veronese vote.
MEDIEVAL DOGMS
The answer to the question is that the so-called progressive parties are based on certain dogmas, and what summarizes all the others is the dogma of relativism. For the leaders of the Italian Democratic Party it is “medieval” proclaim Verona as a "pro-life city", because death and life are on the same level: it is inappropriate to make value rankings, not even if the value in question is that of life. Life is not sacred in itself, just as nothing is sacred in itself: secularization has desacralized everything, and what is not yet desacralized will sooner or later be desacralized. There is currently only one thing that progressives recognize as sacred, and it is the choice that the human subject makes. To have an abortion or not to have an abortion are morally indifferent in the eyes of the progressive, the moral value of both things is manifested only when it is chosen by the woman: it is the woman's choice for one option rather than the other that makes her moral, which gives it value. In progressivism, the place of God is taken by the human being: it is he who decides what is good and what is bad, and decides it through his unquestionable choice. Arbitrary human decision apes the creative act of God: as God affirms the goodness of being by the very fact that he calls it into existence, man creates good from the nothingness of morally indifferent actions with his choice.
THE WOMAN NEVER MAKES WRONG
The vote of the Verona City Council therefore commits two very serious sins in the eyes of progressives (serious to the point that party member Padovani deserves excommunication): it claims to establish an objective hierarchy of values ​​and relativizes the value of choice. The woman's initial choice – the motion voted on essentially says – may be worthy of rectification, not truly free, or simply – that's the terrible word for progressives – wrong. Instead, in the worldview of progressives, no one should try to change the mind of a woman inclined to terminate a pregnancy, because this logically implies that the autonomous moral choices of individuals can be wrong. The woman never makes mistakes, both when she decides to keep the child and when she decides to get rid of him. The woman who changes her mind after being approached and persuaded by someone undermines this progressive dogma: for this reason it is necessary to prevent the development of any program that could lead to results of this type. It is the same logic why the coming out of a married man with children who declares himself to be an active homosexual is hailed as a triumph of progress, while the effort of a dystonic homosexual who wants to free himself from certain behaviors and discover within himself the attraction for the opposite sex is considered a disaster: the first dynamic embodies the free choice of a subject who gives himself his own nature, the revolutionary act that subverts dated social conventions and a presumed order of nature with the sole power of will; the second ignores the relativist dogma (insinuates that heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality) and casts doubt on the infallibility of human desire and the choices that are inspired by it.
When the 194 it was approved at the end of the seventies and then confirmed by a popular referendum in 1981, the main topic of propaganda in favor of the law was – we remember it well because we, unlike many who rant today, we were there – that legalization would have made it possible to better combat the scourge of abortion. For everyone – for and against – the goal was not freedom of abortion, but freedom from abortion. Which according to the supporters of the law would have been better pursued by bringing clandestine abortion to light rather than punishing it criminally. Today the situation has completely changed: the woman, if he says, has the right to have an abortion. If something is a right, it means that thing is good. Abortion is good? It is so to the extent that it is consciously chosen by a woman.
ABORTION LEGALIZED IN THE USSR
Free abortion is not a peripheral element, but a central component of the progressive worldview, as it embodies the principle of the free availability of human life by man. As long as there are sacred things in the world – and the life of the unborn child is one of these sacred things, as shown by the sense of horror towards abortion of all the civilizations that have prohibited it, and the sense of shame that surrounded the act in civilizations that allowed it – man cannot freely manipulate reality for the purposes that he autonomously decides. It should never be forgotten that the first state in the world to legalize abortion was Lenin's Soviet Union, that is, the country where the ideology in power predicted that a few million men were expendable for the liberation of the rest of humanity: the Bolsheviks consistently applied the principle of the availability of human life in all spheres to which it could be applied.
Pd is Leo, last heretical reincarnations of communism (heresy consisting in their radical-bourgeois evolution), they abandoned the anti-capitalist ideals of Bolshevism, but they have preserved the demonic legacy of the principle of the availability of human life: they imposed it in the field of assisted fertilization with the help of criminal constitutional judges, they would soon like to extend it to euthanasia, to free drugs, ecc. The Catholics who in recent years have approached these parties and proclaimed the legitimacy of the vote in their favor should do self-criticism, or at least publicly explain their problematic choice. And the discussion should be extended to all Catholics “pro-Europeans” who seem unaware of the fact that the principle of the availability of human life today deeply permeates the institutions of the European Union, starting with the European Parliament.
Note from BastaBugie: Stefano Fontana in the following article entitled “Double lesson from Verona's pro-life vote” explains that the motion approved by the Municipality of Verona in support of women who choose life by giving up abortion, confirm that – despite the difficulties – a few determined and intelligent Catholics can achieve valid results. And that there is no place for Catholics in the PD.
Here is the complete article published in La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana on 7 October 2018:
The resolution of the Verona City Council which committed the council to implementing some measures to support women to proceed with pregnancy without resorting to abortion is very instructive from several points of view.
It was approved the day before last night with 21 votes against 6. They would have been too 22 if a councilor who was outside the room at the time of the vote had heard the mayor's bell. Be careful though: This doesn't mean that everything went smoothly. The same evening as the vote – who knows why! – the issue was the last item on the agenda, in the hope perhaps that it might slip. It was the League councilor Alberto Zelger who asked for the agenda to be changed, placing the abortion motion as the first item. Left-wing uproar, vote, the request passes.
This is to say that some things have also been thrown in the way from within the centre-right majority, without a shadow of a doubt, also from within the Veronese League. Since last July Zelger himself began collecting signatures within the League group to present the motion, finally also obtaining that of mayor Sboarina, who honestly remembered that the issue was part of the electoral programme, until we finally came to the vote in the chamber, There were many obstacles to overcome, especially internal ones.
There is a good management group in the Veronese League, soundly convinced and capable, then there is a not very prepared mass and a few single individuals who make the frond, also on ethical issues. In the end, however, the Zelger line was successful and is proof that a group of Catholic politicians, although not numerous but with clear ideas, determined and who also finds alliances in individual councilors outside his party, he can lead the dance.
A second lesson comes from the vote of the Democratic Party leader Carla Padovani. Catholic, focolarina, former municipal councilor in past legislatures, she had always been uncomfortable with herself on ethical issues. This time the rejection of his conscience was stronger than in the past and he said no, despite being the one who, as group leader, he had to lead the no side. The reason given by it – that is, always be in favor of life, for the unborn child and for the immigrant – it is half valid. Being pro-life is always good. But it is not good to put the unborn child and the immigrant on the same level. However, the final operational choice was right and appreciable.
At this point the lesson could have been as follows: you see? You can be Catholic and feel at home even in the Democratic Party. You can follow your conscience and join the Cirinnà party, of Scalfarotto, of Fedeli and Boschi. It would have been a disruptive message, which would have put Catholics who think the opposite on the ropes. A message that would have brought people who had drifted away from it closer to the Democratic Party – and we all know how many there are by now – including many Catholics who vote for the League because in the Democratic Party freedom of conscience on the right to life or the natural family is not respected, because in the Democratic Party they want to abolish the very right to conscientious objection of doctors and state healthcare personnel, because left-wing ideology has become a leaden cloak and so on. Padovani, with his gesture, ultimately it would have brought a benefit to the party, removing it from the ideological shallows – bourgeois, individualistic, elitist, who wear Prada – which has been closed for some time now. If I had been Martina I would have said: long live Padovani.
But Martina didn't say long live Padovani, he irremediably crucified her, like the TG1 on the same evening as the motion, like the left-wing national intelligence gurus who in an instant hijacked the acquittal of the mayor of Riace with the condemnation of Padovani. Martina and the representatives of the Democratic Party, parties and intellectuals alike, they have re-presented the grim face of an inquisition party, of a party-court, of a guillotine party that considers its militants as soldiers of the regime. Without conscience.
But liberal culture, radical and left-wing of which the Democratic Party is understood as the first-born heir had not always proposed the untouchability of conscience? Not just that of women who want to have an abortion, but also that of the mayor of Riace who, according to Saviano and Don Ciotti, evaded the law to respond to the call for solidarity expressed by his conscience? For Padovani, but, the only freedom of conscience allowed is that recognized by the party. What the party judges to be good is good. And anyone who opposes ends up in front of the special court.
The Veronese motion was therefore very important. He confirmed that a few determined and intelligent Catholics can achieve valid results. He confirmed that a Catholic cannot be in the Democratic Party, unless the judgment on good and evil is delegated to the party: what is valid in Riace is no longer valid in Verona. Padovani could have cleared the participation of Catholics in the Democratic party. Martina reiterated this impossibility. Thanks Martina.
The Truth and Life committee in the following press release entitled “One step forward, but without misunderstandings” shows the shadows of the motion approved by the Municipality of Verona.
Here is the complete press release published on the Verità e Vita website on 11 October 2018:
The Truth and Life Committee, regarding approval by the Verona City Council, of the resolution 4.10.2018, in expressing deep satisfaction for the important step taken in defense of the life of the conceived child, firmly reiterates that, albeit in a gradual manner, However, a negative opinion on the Law cannot be ignored 194/78 which is, in fact and beyond certain literal expressions, the law of free abortion.
Every initiative to protect life, therefore, it cannot seriously be based on a rule whose aim is the destruction of the unborn child; which presupposes the legal availability of maternity; who sees motherhood only as a choice of the mother and not as a phenomenon, as it is in nature, it also affects the son and the father; that allows eugenics; which overturns the meaning of the medical art by enslaving it to the suppression rather than the care of human life.
An honest and concrete look at 194 does not allow you to find yourself “good parts”, since even those provisions that apparently protect maternity do not protect the life of the child but exclusively the mother's freedom to continue the pregnancy or request the suppression of the conceived child.
The Truth and Life Committee, therefore, states once again that the gradual nature of interventions and initiatives must invariably be accompanied by clarity in objectives and judgements, without attempts to tame that which, actually, it is a law that has allowed and caused the death of six million innocent people to date.
Lacking such clarity, any significant goal would risk degrading into a compromise, with the dramatic effect of blessing, even only in part, the status quo and bring grist to the mill of that mentality that, although she formally declares herself against abortion, he then believes that from a lesser evil perspective it should still be legalised.
This is a pro-choice mentality that has nothing to do with the serious and coherent defense of human life from conception to natural death.
The Truth and Life Committee will always encourage those, by virtue of the entire Truth about Life, will maintain a high level of cultural and operational quality that has the life of every conceived child at heart, just as every true prolife should feel encouraged.