“There is no going back on rights”. With these words the icon of the law of civil unions made his new media debut, Monica Cirinnà.
Obviously the controversial reference is entirely aimed at the minister of the Fontana family, guilty of having brought conceptual and cultural order to a topic that is too often the subject of propaganda and ideological manipulation, especially on the part of secularists.
The message is clear: this yellow-green government is turning the clock back on history, and stops the civil conquests of the Renzi and Gentiloni governments (“voted” by the people no?).
What did the new minister Fontana say that was so negative?? That rainbow families do not exist and that family is one, the natural one, provided for in the Constitution (item 29). And for Italy to start again, it must reduce the birth rate and focus on life, considering abortion a plague. And Cirinnà, not by chance, on the occasion of Prime Minister Conte's speech she appeared in the Chamber wearing a t-shirt praising gay families. Just to warm the spirits and stir up the fibrillations of the new majority who see Northern League members and Grillini as belonging to opposite sides on the subject (at least on paper).
But here we are not interested in re-proposing a debate in which the positions between believers and secularists are irreconcilable. Rather, it is interesting to understand what it means go forward or go backwards. Compared to what?
It's not a given progress, in the purely evolutionary sense, is always a positive thing. We move forward or backward with respect to civilization. Civilization that does not always coincide with progress.
On the contrary, if technical progress, economic, social, etc is not accompanied by a deep cultural and existential basis, and it is exclusively in the name of profit, from single consumption, completely reduced to things, of the value-free economy, of materialism, it has only one name: it is nihilistic modernization.
Forward or backward, Therefore, compared to what?
1) First of all, there is not a single idea of modernity. There is the secularist one and there is another, anthropological, Christian: perhaps focused on the centrality of the person, of life, on family and non-material values. The modernity that progressives want to impose on us is the forced introduction of the "Northern European" model, the same as in the name of defunding public health, eliminates the incurable but not incurable (i casi Charlie Gard e Alfie Evans), to reduce costs and cut branches seen as dead;
2) And then, modernity must be evaluated on results. And here the donkey falls. Let's evaluate, for example, secularist modernity on its own numbers. The philosophical premises? They are known and have now become commonplace: the rights, happiness, liberation from every bond, individual freedom. The results? A massacre: in Italy 6 millions of depressed people, 8 millions of singles without genuine relationships, 11 millions of people who use psychotropic drugs, 4 millions of people who take drugs, il 75% who uses alcohol, 10 thousand people who die every year from accidents related to alcohol consumption. 6 millions of unborn children since the law was introduced 194. This is happiness, this is social achievement, freedom, liberation? A virtuous society can be built on these foundations? It is a culture of death or life?
3) The drama of numbers has only one meaning: the lack of values, of sense, of ethics. A sign that the commercial offer they have forced us to live in is not enough and that more is needed, better.
A fact to reflect on when we talk about backwards and forwards in history. Subjective rights have nothing to do with it. We need to talk about it once and for all anthropological putty of a society, which cannot be the logic of value-free individualism, the cult of a community built on desires that must necessarily become rights.
Civil unions should be seen in this sense. And Cirinnà knows it well. I am the trailblazer of equal marriage (always considered irreversible according to the myth of moving forward); rainbow marriage that cannot be equated with the natural family, that in addition to the legitimate subjective aspect, he has a great gift, openness to life, to the life project that only a man and a woman have, by nature, they can guarantee and insure. Without life there is only sterility and infertility, and no society can be based on the culture of death, even if dressed in subjective love. And if they don't have children, children are bought (with the womb for rent).
Last joke: Fontana is medieval? Here too, clarity must be made. The Middle Ages are ahead of paganism (the Roman Empire fell due to moral and political implosion, there was pedophilia, total sexual promiscuity, life had no value). And indeed, today we live in a sort of new paganism.
