.

.

Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos

No introductions would be needed, that we do just for the record — Sister Anna Monia Alfieri, nun of the Congregation of the Marcelline Sisters, jurist and economist, is a face known to the general public for her participation as a columnist and expert on school and training problems in the Mediaset program Fourth Republic, conducted by Nicola Porro. With our Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, columnist from the end of 2019 all program Straight and Reverse and subsequently to White area, both have dealt with it multiple times, in the various television programs, the problem of the Zan Bill, that if launched as it was drafted it could undermine the freedom of opinion guaranteed by the Constitutional Charter and put a gag on teaching in Catholic schools. Sister Monia spoke on 3 June 2021 at the IInd Commission of the Senate of the Republic on behalf of USMI (Conferences of the Italian Major Superiors of Religious Orders and Congregations) and of CISM (Italian Conference of Major Superiors of Religious Orders and Congregations). The 24 June, Sister Monia and Father Ariel also replied to the rapper Fedez that to defend this bill has made a false and inappropriate attack on the Vatican for non-payment of taxes on properties owned on Italian territory (!?). The President of theAPSA (Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See) S. AND. Mons. Nunzio Galantine, that further denied unfounded reports made to reach millions of his own by this "well-known intellectual" followers. This should already be enough to make some doubters understand the delicacy of certain themes and the vital importance of the presence of doctrinally and juridically trained priests and religious., able to communicate through television media. Otherwise, there is a risk of being locked in the ghetto of our sacristies and our Catholic peer schools, pretending not to see - if anything even with a dangerous spirit of careless superiority - that a large slice of the hostile world around us does not tolerate our very existence. Sister Monia and Father Ariel have never shown opposition to this Bill, how it has never been shown by the Italian Episcopal Conference and the Holy See, of which they became spokespersons in the media, clarifying that it is necessary to revise this text so that the crime of opinion does not end up being prosecuted [see last post of 24 June, by the minute 01.38]. Below is the text of the videoconference hearings with the intervention of Sister Monia in the context of the examination of the bills of law no.. 2005 e 2205 on combating discrimination or violence based on sex, gender or disability.

________________________

- Church news -

THE DRAWING OF THE ZAN LAW AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE ON THE MEDIA OF COMPETENT PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS ABLE TO GIVE A VOICE ALSO TO THE CHURCH AND CATHOLICS IN A COUNTRY THAT WANTS TO BE TRULY LAY AND READY TO DIALOGUE

.

The risks of resorting to "mass culture" and "punishment" to create a single thought are the two main limits that require us at least one revision of the Zan Bill, so that it is truly aimed at combating discrimination and not at exacerbating it with new figures. However, if the Bill recovers a harmonious development, then it can, perhaps, be a positive law, aimed at building bridges of integration; otherwise there remains the reasonable doubt that the interests that move the legislator are other

.

Anna Monia Alfieri, I.M.

.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

.

Anna Monia Alfieri in Mediaset studies on the program Fourth Republic conducted by Nicola Porro

Subject of great discussions and debates these days is the Zan Bill, whose content, in all honesty, walking to the bottom, does not seem convincing. Certainly it is a duty to combat any form of discrimination, respecting human dignity and the principle of equality, to oversee which there is certainly no lack of adequate legal protections in our legal system, also criminal. I believe, however, that this Design goes in the opposite direction. Are, in the understanding of the legislator, there was only the protection of the person, it would be enough (I add dutiful) apply the existing legislation established by the Constitution of the Italian Republic in art. 3, therefore in art. 604 to e 61 of the Criminal Code.

.

Does not exist, therefore, a regulatory gap to fill, as our legal system already protects life, the honor, the safety of people, without distinction of sex, religion, language, race and so on. Not the least, the aggravating circumstance is foreseen for having acted for abject and futile reasons. There is therefore the feeling that, since it is complicated to intervene with the certainty of the sentence and impunity, as on the training of young people in non-discrimination, there is a tendency to multiply the legislation and the consequent confusion. The legislation, not having to fill any void, necessarily creates confusion, given by a useless proliferation of the types of crime to be prosecuted, which will be clarified by the judiciary. This situation increases in an abnormal way the range of action of the judiciary and investigating power. We are all aware of the need to review the justice reform precisely in the light of the latest news events.

.

Anna Monia Alfieri in Mediaset studies on the program Fourth Republic conducted by Nicola Porro

Evidently it is in the folds of detail discrimination creeps in. Indeed, when the law specifies with excess protection, it actually discriminates, introducing categories. I myself feel a certain discomfort in the face of a law that protects me because of the dress I'm wearing: anyone who discriminates against a religious, as such, is punished with an aggravating circumstance. I wonder: because of my choice of life, I must be included in a sort of "protected category"? Those who are proud of their diversity live it in the ordinary, in normality. No law can ever take the place of respect, integration, to the capacity of proximity. To impose respect means the failure of civilization. Here in summary described the first two reasons that see me against.

.

I come to the third reason which reveals the true understanding of the law. The bill, creating a "protected category", opens the way to a new anthropological vision of a person raised to an anonymous system. Confusion is covered up with the law and the dominant thought is spread throughout the schools: any regurgitation of common sense is transformed into a crime.

.

Anna Monia Alfieri in Mediaset studies on the program Fourth Republic conducted by Nicola Porro

Gender identity - let's be clear - it is far from being connected with the shared condemnation of homophobia, it is quite another chapter that does not rhyme with guarantee, protection, but with indoctrination, single thought, probably to ensure certain and widespread gains for some circuits. And this is where the three major rights opposed and mortified by the Zan Bill come in, which as it is written actually limits the freedom of thought and expression. Why protect a freedom (cf.. art. 4 Zan draft law) putting it in conflict with the "freedom of thought" recognized in art 21 the Constitution, evidently it is not just a legislative error, but a very dangerous step for the constitutional order of the secular and legal state. In fact, Art. 4 of this Design regarding the "Pluralism of ideas and freedom of choices":

.

«For the purposes of this law, the free expression of beliefs or opinions as well as legitimate conduct attributable to the pluralism of ideas or the freedom of choices are reserved, provided that they are not suitable for determining the concrete danger of committing discriminatory or violent acts ".

.

And here it is not clear how "legitimate conduct" can lead to "discriminatory acts". Of the two one: or the conduct is not legitimate, or the acts are not discriminatory. It is clear that art 4 goes in the opposite direction to freedom of expression and thus voids art. 21 of the Constitution it states:

.

«Everyone has the right to freely express their thoughts with words, writing and any other means of dissemination ".

.

Anna Monia Alfieri in Mediaset studies on the program Fourth Republic conducted by Nicola Porro

A second order of problems always on this step is: what and who defines the concrete danger? A modality of expression so vague and contradictory that it evidently creates not only a void but opens a legislative chasm and therefore of orientation for the individual. In crimes involving concrete danger, the danger is a constitutive element of the law and belongs to the investigating magistrate, to the prosecutors to concretely ascertain whether the protected legal property has been endangered. Therefore, the judge's discretion widens in a dangerous way and opens up the disturbing season of reporting as an easy tool to oppose a different thought about man.

.

A law is not enough to not discriminate, because there will never be a law that can fill not the regulatory vacuum - which, however, does not exist - but that of thought that sometimes turns out to be a chasm. Gender equality requires the use of the right that exists, of the judiciary that must function and above all of a culture that is quite different from indoctrination and mass training.

.

All’art 7 the Zan Bill limits the parents' freedom of educational choice provided for in art. 30 the Constitution. And here we remember that the education of children is the primary responsibility of parents and that no one, the school, the church, the state can take their place. Introduce strongly divisive themes into the school, ideological and moreover related to the sphere of sexual identity and education to affectivity certainly has negative effects. First of all, that of dividing. Then, if we add to this the consideration that the Zan Bill envisages conduct that is not clearly defined (cf.. also use of unclear terms that can be criminally sanctioned), the fear increases.

.

Anna Monia Alfieri during the collection of the Ambrogino d'Oro award, Civic Merit Medal, for her civic commitment in favor of the freedom of educational choice and scholastic pluralism conferred on her the 7 December 2020

This art. 7 limits the freedom of teaching of teachers recognized in art. 33 the Constitution. Freedom of teaching would be emptied of its essential contents, that is, the didactic autonomy and the free cultural expression of the teacher. A freedom guaranteed by art 33 the Constitution: "Art and science are free and their teaching is free". Ratio: the freedom of teaching is functional to the development of the critical sense necessary for the achievement of the objectives of integral education of minors.

.

Educational freedom of parents and teaching of teachers, as well as freedom of expression, are strongly questioned, even more with an art. 2 (incitement to discrimination) and an art. 4 so vague that it opens up to the crime of opinion without any orientation. Simply said,: what can be said and not said? No if its, then it will be better to keep quiet. The passage to the single thought, to monopoly, it would thus become an obligatory direction for the country.

.

It is clear that in the combined provisions of art. 2, art. 4, so vague, and art 7 it is to be found the limit of the text of the Bill Zan che, as it is written, the gap of discrimination increases, feeds it, creates new legal figures of crime, it mortifies freedom of expression, parental education and teaching, it directs society towards a real ideological indoctrination.

.

The text needs to be revised precisely in these aspects who tend to create a unique thought through blanket training that is no longer information, it does not provide the tools for children to learn to orient themselves… but it indoctrinates them. Practically discrimination and violence in reverse.

.

the smile of a woman who reassures and honors the female Catholic religious world

The risks of resorting to "mass culture" and to the "punishment" to create a single thought are the two main limits that require us at least a review of the Zan Bill, so that it is truly aimed at combating discrimination and not at exacerbating it with new figures. However, if the Bill recovers a harmonious development, then it can, perhaps, be a positive law, aimed at building bridges of integration; otherwise there remains the reasonable doubt that the interests that move the legislator and that they are are other:

.

1. divide and rule to spread a unique thought. Monopoly is always dangerous and is preparatory to the regime;

2. of a commercial nature e marketing.

.

Then I turn to the boys: have the courage to know, to delve deeper, so as not to be influenced by me, nor by any puppeteer. Know how to orient yourself. So, if indeed to the legislator, as well as all those who have rediscovered themselves as champions of Art. 3 the Constitution, it is really about the defense of a right, they do so by dispelling any reasonable doubt of third-party interest.

.

From the Senate of the Republic, 3 June 2021

.

.

.

.

.

_________________________________________________________

27 JUNE 2021 FESTIVAL OF “EIGHTY MILLION”

.

WE THANK OUR READERS AND PLEASE DO NOT MISS YOUR SUPPORT, ESSENTIAL TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH OUR APOSTOLIC WORK

.

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system: