Recently, there has been a lot of talk in the press in reference to the Pope’s message for World Day of Peace. I mention only one article in the Corriere della Sera: “The Pope is against gay marriage: an offense against the human person“.
The Pope’s message really does not speak explicitly of homosexual couples, leaving the press the task of reading between the lines. I quote here below, inserting in note three topics for reflection, the passages more interesting to Homosexual Persons of the Message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace XLVI, 1 January 2013, on the theme: “Blessed are the peacemakers”. The full text of the message can be read at: http://www.toscanaoggi.it/Documenti/Benedetto-XVI/Beati-gli-operatori-di-pace
“Even the natural structure of marriage must be recognized and promoted as a union between a man and a woman, compared to attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it (1) and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role (2).
These principles are not truths of faith, or are just a tap of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, identified with reason, and therefore they are common to all mankind. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, regardless of their religious affiliation. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace. (3)”
(1) If this statement, which is deliberately not explicit, was referring to heterosexual unmarried couples it would be questionable but would make sense because it would be based on the actual fact that the choice of heterosexual unions in place of the marriage, is a cultural phenomenon in relation to which the Church can really play a major action to promote the values of marriage, if it was instead intended, as it would seem, despite the ambiguity of the expression, as referring to same-sex couples it would postulate a completely unreal conception of homosexuality as a cultural phenomenon against which it is possible to provide a competitive constraint through the promotion of the heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality is not a culture, not an ideology that is transmitted on a social level with the typical means of cultural communication (there isn’t any gay catechesis) but it is a deep personal identity against which it may be possible put into effect an action of repression, sure, but not an action of guidance through the promotion of marriage and the promotion of (heterosexual) marriage, in these cases, favors the creation of families in which the relationship between the parents is missing a very important component. The phenomenon of gay married men does really exist and is not even marginal. The problem is not, in these case, to do or not to do promotion of marriage to change a cultural attitude but to respect the natural sexual orientation of individuals.
(2) About the irreplaceable social role of marriage quote only one data provided by ISTAT (http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/66665) for the 2010 Italian Census. “The rates of separation and divorce for both phenomena show a continuous growth: in 1995, for every 1,000 marriages there were 158 separations and 80 divorces in 2010 they reach to 307 separations and 182 divorces.” This means that in Italy the 50% of marriages end in separation or divorce.
(3) It is natural to wonder if freedom itself constitutes “an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace.”