A Marking victory for the Church in Italy
As I had alluded in my previous post, the Italian referendum on assisted reproduction and other ethical questions failed to obtain the quorum required for the results to be validated.
The total participation was of only 26 %, one of the lowest participation rate in the Italian popular initiative history. The historically low participation got analysts rushing to attribute the victory to this or that factor. The Italian magazine Panorama attributed the loss of the referendum to the « menefreghismo » (absence of concern) of the people towards the « plight » of sterile couples deliberately refusing to consider the effect of the Church’s stance on the question, while other analysts considered that it was an outright victory for Cardinal Camillo Ruini and the Catholic Church.
An important factor stressed by some French medias was that the failure of the referendum was the first great victory of Benedict XVI’s papacy, in its fight against the « dictatorship of relativism ». The Pope had thrust himself into the battle expressly supporting the intervention of the Italian Church in the debate.
If there is a victory to be found, then it is a victory on two fields for the Church and I’ll delve into both these fields, but it also holds a dispiriting finding for the Italian society.
First of all, Cardinal Ruini had a modest triumph: « this is not my victory, I only did my duty » he said yesterday, as the polls had closed and the final participation was known.
But, in fact, it spells the victory first on the merits of the case, the first field of which I wrote, and in the second place, in the strategy chosen to obtain this victory.
French Newspapers stressed (notably Le Figaro) that the victory was also the failure of the referendum to mobilize the man on the street around controversial and complex ethical debates. They agreed to find that these subjects cannot be discussed in referenda. One can’t help thinking that had the Italian society decided the other way round, those newspapers would have held exactly the other reasoning. While one can agree that ethical subjects should never be submitted to demagogy, I also believe that it is impossible to legiferate on these subjects with compromise as an objective. One has to keep in mind a clear view of what is the Common Good, and seek to enforce it through legislation. Hence, the work of legislators as well, ought to be evaluated at the light of the Common Good. A vote given to a representative is not a blank check to act in our name: it requires also being accountable to the elector and to justify the decisions before a view of the Common Good.
Now, on the merits, it ought to be recalled that before the Act n° 40 was voted, Italy was a sort of lawless land as far as reproductive bioethics were concerned. Now, since this act was enforced, a legislation has finally come in place to rule the experimentations which were already verging on human reproductive cloning. The Italian people clearly did not wish to see that situation return to the status quo ante . On the other hand, one must notice that there was an adhesion of the Italian people to the message of the Church in those fields: therapeutical cloning and excessive manipulation (such as congealing) of embryos, and IVF for homosexuals were clearly refused. That has maybe also to do with another factor: the rebirth of Catholic practice in Italy, where according to media sources, about 40 % of the people are practising Catholics.
On the strategy of the Catholic Church in this referendum, the low participation confirmed that the best choice was to recommend abstention. In fact, by expressing through that gesture the protest against the confiscation of direct democracy to serve the interests of a fraction, the Church evidenced that it was a means of getting the voice of Catholics heard beyond the astounding silence of the medias.
The strategy of abstention was a two-fold sound strategy: first, it denied legitimacy to a scrutiny put in movement by a minority of the public opinion; secondly, it was the only strategy with a reasonable chance of success given the complexity of the questions voted.
However, the choice made of calling to abstain, and the whole weight of the Church thrown behind that choice, has also another more unexpected effect: not one party can claim victory, on the failure of this referendum. While a number of parties and of leaders had made the choice to call to vote « yes », and some as Romano Prodi, went as an « adult Catholic » to vote four times « no », none engaged unreservedly behind the abstention. Of course, there were courageous individual leaders who made the choice of announcing their support of abstention, but no organized party had a clear position against the referenda. That speaks of a flagrant lack of communication between the political elites and the people, a lack of communication that could already been seen in the results of the French and Dutch referenda on the European constitutional treaty.
If you click on the title of this post, you may read an interview of Mr. Rutelli, who analyses the outcome of the referendum. You have to understand italian though...
The total participation was of only 26 %, one of the lowest participation rate in the Italian popular initiative history. The historically low participation got analysts rushing to attribute the victory to this or that factor. The Italian magazine Panorama attributed the loss of the referendum to the « menefreghismo » (absence of concern) of the people towards the « plight » of sterile couples deliberately refusing to consider the effect of the Church’s stance on the question, while other analysts considered that it was an outright victory for Cardinal Camillo Ruini and the Catholic Church.
An important factor stressed by some French medias was that the failure of the referendum was the first great victory of Benedict XVI’s papacy, in its fight against the « dictatorship of relativism ». The Pope had thrust himself into the battle expressly supporting the intervention of the Italian Church in the debate.
If there is a victory to be found, then it is a victory on two fields for the Church and I’ll delve into both these fields, but it also holds a dispiriting finding for the Italian society.
First of all, Cardinal Ruini had a modest triumph: « this is not my victory, I only did my duty » he said yesterday, as the polls had closed and the final participation was known.
But, in fact, it spells the victory first on the merits of the case, the first field of which I wrote, and in the second place, in the strategy chosen to obtain this victory.
French Newspapers stressed (notably Le Figaro) that the victory was also the failure of the referendum to mobilize the man on the street around controversial and complex ethical debates. They agreed to find that these subjects cannot be discussed in referenda. One can’t help thinking that had the Italian society decided the other way round, those newspapers would have held exactly the other reasoning. While one can agree that ethical subjects should never be submitted to demagogy, I also believe that it is impossible to legiferate on these subjects with compromise as an objective. One has to keep in mind a clear view of what is the Common Good, and seek to enforce it through legislation. Hence, the work of legislators as well, ought to be evaluated at the light of the Common Good. A vote given to a representative is not a blank check to act in our name: it requires also being accountable to the elector and to justify the decisions before a view of the Common Good.
Now, on the merits, it ought to be recalled that before the Act n° 40 was voted, Italy was a sort of lawless land as far as reproductive bioethics were concerned. Now, since this act was enforced, a legislation has finally come in place to rule the experimentations which were already verging on human reproductive cloning. The Italian people clearly did not wish to see that situation return to the status quo ante . On the other hand, one must notice that there was an adhesion of the Italian people to the message of the Church in those fields: therapeutical cloning and excessive manipulation (such as congealing) of embryos, and IVF for homosexuals were clearly refused. That has maybe also to do with another factor: the rebirth of Catholic practice in Italy, where according to media sources, about 40 % of the people are practising Catholics.
On the strategy of the Catholic Church in this referendum, the low participation confirmed that the best choice was to recommend abstention. In fact, by expressing through that gesture the protest against the confiscation of direct democracy to serve the interests of a fraction, the Church evidenced that it was a means of getting the voice of Catholics heard beyond the astounding silence of the medias.
The strategy of abstention was a two-fold sound strategy: first, it denied legitimacy to a scrutiny put in movement by a minority of the public opinion; secondly, it was the only strategy with a reasonable chance of success given the complexity of the questions voted.
However, the choice made of calling to abstain, and the whole weight of the Church thrown behind that choice, has also another more unexpected effect: not one party can claim victory, on the failure of this referendum. While a number of parties and of leaders had made the choice to call to vote « yes », and some as Romano Prodi, went as an « adult Catholic » to vote four times « no », none engaged unreservedly behind the abstention. Of course, there were courageous individual leaders who made the choice of announcing their support of abstention, but no organized party had a clear position against the referenda. That speaks of a flagrant lack of communication between the political elites and the people, a lack of communication that could already been seen in the results of the French and Dutch referenda on the European constitutional treaty.
If you click on the title of this post, you may read an interview of Mr. Rutelli, who analyses the outcome of the referendum. You have to understand italian though...
posted by dawnofeurope | 6:06 pm
<< Home