Italian, English, Español

 

FEMINICIDE SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT OBSERVATORY: THAT OF THE PRIEST IN CARE OF SOULS

Before the killer legalized by the State kills her, it would be appropriate to ascertain the sex of the creature to be aborted, because if it's a male everything is fine, but if the creature to be killed is a female, the crime of femicide should be applied, or not?

- Actuality -

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

 

.

When the legislator must study new laws, give life to new measures, correct old ones, or implement reforms in the social sphere, healthcare, school, he even consults experts, or presumed such, more unlikely.

Even within the Church and its various teams of scholars there are elements that could contribute to all this. but yet, before an ecclesiastical figure, or even to a lay Catholic, clerical interference is immediately shouted down. It is a selective exclusion: It's not about competence, it concerns the identity of the person wearing it.

For intellectual honesty it must be said that this reaction does not arise out of nowhere: we Catholics too - ecclesiastics and lay people - have ended up reaping what we have often sown. My teacher, Father Peter Gumpel S.J (cf.. who, who) sent as a visitor to Ireland by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI during the 1960s, he noted with disappointment that priests were involved in every political and administrative sphere, crucial for making certain choices and decisions, or to prevent others. He said that everything was not only wrong, but it was destined not to last: he would have fallen in the worst possible way, generating the opposite by reaction. The weather, four decades later, he proved him right. Yesterday in Ireland people stepped off the sidewalk to let a priest pass, the men took off their hats and the women bowed their heads; today, wearing ecclesiastical dress on the streets of Dublin means exposing yourself to insults that, if addressed to subjects belonging to other groups even subject to excessive protection, they would bring whoever utters them to the bar of a court. From an excess of presence we have moved on to total exclusion: two mirror errors, not a fix.

Whether certain secularist-fundamentalists like it or not — which have nothing to do with the secularism that we Catholics protect, because it establishes those separations between political and religious power that are beneficial, as well as the State, first of all of the Church - we priests remain people who have to deal with human material, often even with situations of extraordinary delicacy. It is reasonable to speak in the appropriate parliamentary commissions about issues related to terminally ill patients and at the end of life, inviting unspecified experts who have never attended hospitals, assisted the sick and dying, followed their relatives in post mortem, when for many of us certain realities are daily bread, not to mention those orders and congregations born precisely for this reason, with men and women religious who have been trained for centuries to carry out these delicate ministries, from the Fatebenefratelli to the Camillians? An elderly brother said: «We don't have any problems, even at the cost of annoying someone, to refer certain subjects to a good psychiatrist, or to convince family members, often inclined to reject the very idea of ​​certain mental disorders, to do it as soon as possible. However, the opposite almost never happens: than a psychiatrist, faced with an internal conflict within a Christian conscience, direct the patient to a spiritual director". «My colleagues», a Catholic psychiatrist friend told me, «rather they are willing to do damage, but not a priest, May!». It is a one-way channel and for this very reason pastoral competence on certain human phenomena remains structurally excluded from those who legislate them.

He's in this blind spot which fits the topic I want to talk about. As has already happened in other countries, Femicide has also been introduced in Italy as an independent form of crime (cf. Law 2 December 2025, n. 181), which punishes with life imprisonment for anyone who causes the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred towards her as a woman. He is a figure about which I believe it is legitimate to discuss: a murder remains a murder, always, killing a woman cannot be more serious than killing a man and vice versa. This, it must be said out of honesty, judges have always evaluated it in trial practice: when faced with the murder of a woman they have always applied all the aggravating circumstances of the case, due to the greater physical strength of the attacker and the lesser possibility of defense of the victim. In the history of criminal procedural law there have been sentences of the supreme penalty of life imprisonment against men who killed women not only due to the inferior physical strength of the victim, which has always been the almost obvious aggravating circumstance, but because they were pregnant, or because they had a baby of a few months that they were breastfeeding, or because they were mothers of several small children in need of their mother's care.

The murderer of Maria Goretti, killed in July of 1902 and proclaimed a saint half a century later in 1950, was sentenced to 30 year old, avoiding the life imprisonment that that crime would have entailed with all the recognized aggravating circumstances, because he was not yet of age: he was in fact just twenty years old and of legal age, at the time, in Italy it was reached a 21. And we are talking about criminal justice at the beginning of the twentieth century, when, according to certain complaining activists, women did not enjoy particular considerations, legal protections and penalties in case of crimes. If Maria Goretti's killer had killed a man he would not have received such a sentence and with all the aggravating circumstances of the case.

The expression "for anyone who causes the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred" could be applied, reasonably, to a whole range of categories, or perhaps all that has ever happened is the death of a sick elderly person, of a disabled person, of a homosexual, of a Jew, of a priest and so on, was caused by reasons of discrimination and hatred?

In my experience as a spiritual director I have known cases of women who are difficult to talk about, because besides political correctness there is something worse than external censorship: self-censorship. It is a silent phenomenon and more insidious than actual censorship, because it doesn't need anyone to impose it: today there is no longer any need to be silenced, many silence themselves, convinced that certain things simply aren't said. Several times I have tried to convince girlfriends or wives of violent men, not just to leave them, but to report them. And time and time again the rejection came with the same two sentences: "But I love him", "but I'll change it". Desperate parents turned to me in front of a daughter who was stubborn in not listening to anyone who had bruises on her once a week, with brothers, sisters, friends who begged her: «Leave him, he is a dangerous violent man". Reply, always the same: "But I love him", "but I'll change it".

Having stated the obvious — which should not be assumed as such, that is, if a woman is stupid, imprudent and self-harming, no one has the right to kill her - it remains reasonable to ask: how many of these cases ended up in tragic feminicides? And when it happened, the great commentators and analysts have never gone to the real source of the problem? That said: considering how widespread and growing functional and digital illiteracy is, if someone suffering from this disorder accused me of saying that a murdered woman "asked for it", I dare say that it is a problem of those who cannot read, not mine, which I think I know how to explain myself and have explained much more: I spoke with sad realism about unconsciousness, of the lack of prudence and obstinacy of certain women who have decided to love the wrong man and even change him, refusing to leave very violent and very dangerous men, even if you pray in this sense as parents, siblings, sisters, family and friends.

Usually we try to end on a high note; in this case I intend to end in maximum ugliness. While certain laws on feminicide were passed in various countries, in Argentina — which has been around since 2012 includes femicide as an aggravating factor (L. 26.791) — in December 2020 there were celebrations in the square and the dome of Parliament was lit up in green for the legalization of abortion. The 4 March 2024, in France, first country in the world to do so, the Eiffel Tower lit up with the writing «My body, my choice» (my body, my choice) to celebrate the inclusion of the right to abortion in the Constitution, understood in both cases as a great social achievement. At this point, necessary coherence on the part of certain legislators should be required: before the killer legalized by the State kills her it would be necessary to ascertain the sex of the creature to be aborted, because if it's a male everything is fine, but if the creature to be killed is a female, the crime of femicide should be applied, or not? Question of coherence, just a question of consistency.

«Interrupting a pregnancy is like killing someone. It's right to take a human life to solve a problem? It's okay to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Killing a human being is like hiring a hitman to solve a problem." (Francesco, Supreme Pontiff, 10 October 2018).

From the island of Patmos, 6 September 2026

.

Dear Friends,

We invite those who have not done so to read these two messages WHO e WHO. Only the last effort is missing: help us! In the next few days we will send messages of thanks to every single friend who supported the Island of Patmos which will be able to continue to exist and operate thanks to you. In the meantime, your Airmen, They anticipate you grateful gratitude.

.

FEMICIDE SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINT: THAT OF THE PRIEST IN THE CARE OF SOULS

Before the killer legalised by the State puts her to death, it might be worth checking the sex of the child to be aborted — because if it is a male, everything is fine, but if the child to be killed is a female, should the crime of femicide not apply?

— Current Affairs —

.

When lawmakers need to draft new legislation, bring in new measures, amend old ones, or reform social, healthcare or education policy, they often turn for advice to experts — or self-styled ones — of the most improbable kind. Even within the Church, among its various circles of scholars, there are figures who could genuinely contribute to this. Yet the moment an ecclesiastical figure, or even a Catholic layperson, is approached, the cry of clerical interference goes up at once. It is a selective exclusion: it has nothing to do with competence, and everything to do with the identity of whoever holds it.

In all intellectual honesty, it must be said that this reaction does not come from nowhere: we Catholics too — clergy and laity alike — have largely reaped what we ourselves once sowed. My own teacher, Father Peter Gumpel S.J., who was sent to Ireland as an Apostolic Visitor by Pope Paul VI back in the 1960s, noted with dismay that priests were entangled in every political and administrative sphere, often decisive in making certain choices and decisions, or in blocking others. He said that this state of affairs was not only wrong but bound to collapse under its own weight — and that it would trigger, by reaction, the exact opposite. Time, four decades on, proved him right. Where once people in Ireland would step off the pavement to let a priest pass, men raising their hats and women bowing their heads, today wearing the clerical habit on the streets of Dublin means exposing oneself to insults that, had they been directed at members of certain other groups — now sometimes shielded to an excessive degree — would land the speaker in the dock. We have gone from an excess of presence to total exclusion: two mirror-image errors, not a correction.

Whether or not it suits certain hard-line secularists — who have nothing in common with the secularism we Catholics ourselves defend, since it establishes a separation between political and religious power that benefits, above all, the Church even more than the State — we priests remain people who deal daily with human material, often in situations of extraordinary delicacy. Is it reasonable for parliamentary committees to discuss terminal illness and end-of-life issues by calling in unnamed experts who have never set foot in a hospital, never sat with the sick and the dying, never accompanied a grieving family through what comes after death — when for many of us these realities are our daily bread? Not to mention the religious orders and congregations founded expressly for this purpose, whose members have been trained for centuries to carry out precisely this delicate ministry — from the Fatebenefratelli, the Hospitaller Brothers of St John of God, to the Camillians. An elderly confrère of mine once put it this way: “We have no trouble, even at the risk of upsetting someone, in steering a person towards a good psychiatrist, or in persuading family members — often reluctant to accept the very existence of certain psychiatric disorders — to do so as soon as possible. But it almost never happens the other way round: that a psychiatrist, faced with an inner conflict within a Christian conscience, sends the patient to a spiritual director.” “My colleagues,” a Catholic psychiatrist friend once told me, “would rather do harm than send someone to a priest — never that!” It is a one-way channel, and precisely for this reason pastoral expertise on certain human phenomena remains structurally excluded from those who legislate on them.

It is in this blind spot that the subject I want to address lies. As has already happened in other countries, Italy too has now introduced femicide as an autonomous criminal offence (cf. Law No. 181 of 2 December 2025), punishable by life imprisonment for anyone who causes the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred against her precisely because she is a woman. This is a category I consider it legitimate to question: a killing is a killing, always and in every case — taking a woman’s life cannot be any graver than taking a man’s, and vice versa. And this, in all honesty, is something judges have always taken into account in practice: courts have always applied every relevant aggravating factor when a woman was killed, both for the greater physical strength of a male attacker and for the lesser capacity of a woman to defend herself. In the history of criminal procedure there have been sentences of life imprisonment handed down against men who killed women not only because of the victim’s lesser physical strength — which has always counted, almost automatically, as an aggravating factor — but because the victim was pregnant, or was nursing an infant only months old, or was the mother of several small children who depended on her care.

Maria Goretti's murderer — she was killed in July 1902 and canonised as a saint half a century later, in 1950 — was sentenced to 30 years, escaping the life sentence that crime would otherwise have carried with every aggravating factor recognised, because he was not yet legally an adult: he was barely twenty, and at the time the age of majority in Italy was 21. And this was the criminal justice of the early twentieth century — the very justice about which certain aggrieved activists today claim that women enjoyed no particular consideration, legal protection or punishment of offenders. Had Maria Goretti’s murderer killed a man instead, he would not have received a sentence of that severity, complete with every aggravating circumstance applied.

The phrase “causing the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred” could reasonably be applied to a whole range of other categories as well — has it never happened that the death of a sick elderly person, a disabled person, to homosexual, a Jew, a priest, and so on down the list, was caused by motives of discrimination and hatred?

In my experience as a spiritual director I have encountered cases involving women that are difficult to speak about, because beyond political correctness there is something worse than outside censorship: self-censorship. It is a silent phenomenon, more insidious than outright censorship, because it needs no one to impose it: today people no longer even need to be silenced — many simply fall silent on their own, convinced that certain things simply are not said. Many times I have tried to persuade the girlfriends or wives of violent men not only to leave them, but to report them. And many times the refusal has come back with the same two phrases: “But I love him,” “but I can change him.” Desperate parents have come to me over a daughter who refused to listen to anyone, who once a week had bruises on her body, while brothers, sisters and friends begged her: “Leave him, he’s dangerous, he’s violent.” The answer, always the same: “But I love him,” “but I can change him.”

Granting the obvious — which, being obvious, should not even need to be granted, namely that no one has the right to kill a woman merely because she is foolish, reckless or self-destructive — it remains fair to ask: how many of these cases have ended in tragic femicides? And when that has happened, have the great commentators and analysts ever traced the problem back to its true root? That said: given how widespread — and increasingly so — both functional and digital illiteracy are, should someone afflicted by either accuse me of having claimed that a murdered woman “had it coming”, I would simply say that this is a problem for whoever cannot read properly, not for me, since I believe I know how to make myself understood, and that I have addressed something quite different: I have spoken, with sober realism, of the recklessness, the lack of prudence and the sheer obstinacy of certain women who have chosen to love the wrong man and even to change him, refusing to leave men who are highly violent and highly dangerous.

One usually tries to end on a high note; in this case I mean to close on the ugliest note possible. While certain laws against femicide were being passed in various nations, in Argentina — which has recognised femicide as an aggravating factor since as far back as 2012 (Law 26,791) — crowds celebrated in the streets in December 2020 as the dome of parliament was lit up green to mark the legalisation of abortion. On 4 March 2024, France, the first country in the world to do so, lit up the Eiffel Tower with the words “My body, my choice” (“my body, my choice”) to celebrate the inclusion of the right to abortion in its Constitution — both events hailed, in their respective countries, as a great social triumph. At this point, one might reasonably ask certain legislators for a little consistency: before the killer legalised by the State puts her to death, it might be worth checking the sex of the child to be aborted — because if it is a male, everything is fine, but if the child to be killed is a female, should the crime of femicide not apply? A question of consistency. Simply a question of consistency.

“Terminating a pregnancy is like doing away with someone. Is it right to do away with a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Doing away with a human being is like hiring a hitman to solve a problem” (Francis, Supreme Pontiff, 10 October 2018).

From The Island of Patmos, 6 September 2026

.

.

FEMICIDE SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT OBSERVATORY: THAT OF THE PRIEST IN THE CURE OF SOULS

Before the murderer legalized by the State kills him, It would be advisable to check the sex of the child to be aborted, because if it's a man everything is fine, but if the creature that is going to be killed is a girl, Shouldn't the crime of femicide be applied??

- Ecclesial news -

.

When the legislator needs to make new laws, carry out new provisions, correct the old ones, or promote reforms in the social field, health or educational, often resorts to consulting even the most unlikely experts—or alleged experts—. Also within the Church, and among its different circles of scholars, There are figures that could contribute a lot to all this.. And yet, before an ecclesiastical figure, or even before a Catholic layman, Immediately the cry goes up against clerical interference. It is a selective exclusion: It has nothing to do with competition., but with the identity of the person who owns it.

For intellectual honesty It must be said that this reaction does not come from nowhere: We Catholics too – clerics and lay people – have ended up reaping what we have often sown.. my own teacher, el Padre Peter Gumpel S.J., sent at the time as Apostolic Visitor to Ireland by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI during the sixties of the last century, He noted with disgust that the priests were involved in all political and administrative spheres, decisive when making certain decisions or preventing others. He said that all of that was not only not right, but it was destined not to stand: would fall in the worst way, generating the opposite effect by reaction. time, four decades later, he agreed. Yesterday in Ireland people came down from the sidewalk to let a priest pass, The men took off their hats and the women bowed their heads.; hoy, Wearing the ecclesiastical habit on the streets of Dublin means exposing oneself to insults that, directed against members of other groups—sometimes even subject to excessive protection—, they would take the person who pronounces them to court. We have gone from an excess of presence to a total exclusion: two specular errors, not a correction.

Whether certain fundamentalist secularists like it or not — that have nothing to do with the secularism that we ourselves, the Catholics, we defend, because it establishes that separation between political and religious power that benefits, in addition to the State, above all to the Church —, We priests are still people who deal with human material, often in situations of extraordinary delicacy. Is it reasonable that parliamentary committees talk about terminally ill patients and the end of life by calling anonymous experts who have never set foot in a hospital?, They have never cared for a sick or dying person., They have never accompanied their families in the post mortem, when for many of us these realities are our daily bread? Not to mention the religious orders and congregations born precisely for this, with religious men and women trained for centuries to exercise this delicate ministry, from the Fatebenefratelli – the Hospitaller Brothers of Saint John of God – to the Camillians. An old confrere told me: «We have no problem, even at the risk of annoying someone, in guiding certain people towards a good psychiatrist, or in convincing family members — often reluctant to accept the very existence of certain psychological disorders — to do so as soon as possible. But the opposite almost never happens.: than a psychiatrist, faced with an internal conflict typical of a Christian conscience, send the patient to a spiritual director. "My colleagues", A Catholic psychiatrist friend told me, «rather they prefer to do harm, but send someone to a priest, never". It is a one-way channel, and precisely for this reason pastoral competence over certain human phenomena remains structurally excluded from those who legislate on them..

It's in this blind spot Where is the topic I want to talk about?. As has already happened in other countries, Also in Italy, feminicide has been introduced as an autonomous crime. (cf. Law no. 181, from 2 December 2025), which punishes with life imprisonment anyone who causes the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred towards her because she is a woman. It is a figure that I consider legitimate to discuss: a homicide is still such, always and in any case; Killing a woman cannot be more serious than killing a man., and vice versa. This, it has to be said honestly, judges have always valued it in procedural practice: In the case of the homicide of a woman, they have always applied all the aggravating circumstances of the case, both due to the greater physical strength of the aggressor and the lesser ability of the victim to defend himself. In the history of criminal procedural law, there have been sentences to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment against men who killed women not only because of the victim's lesser physical strength — which has always constituted an almost automatic aggravating factor —, but because they were pregnant, or because they had a baby who was only a few months old whom they were breastfeeding, or because they were mothers of several small children who needed their care.

The murderer of Maria Goretti —killed in July 1902 and proclaimed saint half a century later, in 1950 —was sentenced to 30 years, thus avoiding the life sentence that this crime would have entailed with all the recognized aggravating factors., because he was not yet of age: I was barely twenty years old, and at that time the age of majority in Italy was reached at 21. And we are talking about criminal justice at the beginning of the 20th century., the same one about which certain complaining activists claim today that women did not enjoy special consideration, legal protection or punishment of crimes. If Maria Goretti's murderer had killed a man, I would not have received a sentence of that caliber, with all the aggravating factors applied.

The expression "causing the death of a woman as an act of discrimination or hatred" could reasonably be applied to a wide range of categories: Has it never happened that the death of a sick old man, of a disabled, of a homosexual, of a jew, of a priest, and so on, has been caused by reasons of discrimination and hatred?

In my experience as a spiritual director I have known cases of women that are difficult to talk about, because beyond political correctness there is something worse than external censorship: self-censorship. It is a silent phenomenon and more insidious than censorship itself., because it does not need anyone to impose it: today it is not even necessary to be silenced, many are silent on their own, convinced that certain things just aren't said. Many times I have tried to convince girlfriends or wives of violent men, not just that they left them, but that they were denounced. And many times the refusal has come with the same two phrases: "But I want it", "but I'm going to change it". Desperate parents have come to me about a daughter who refused to listen to anyone., that once a week I had bruises on myself, while brothers, sisters and friends begged him: «Leave it, "He is a dangerous and violent man.". Answer, always the same: "But I want it", "but I'm going to change it".

Taking the obvious for granted — that, for being, It shouldn't even need to be said., namely, that no one has the right to kill a woman even if she is foolish, reckless or self-destructive —, it is still legitimate to ask: How many of these cases have later ended in tragic femicides?? And when that has happened, Have the great commentators and analysts ever gone to the true origin of the problem? That being said: considering the widespread, and increasing, What is functional and digital illiteracy?, If someone affected by this disorder accused me of having stated that a murdered woman "asked for it", I allow myself to say that it is a problem of those who do not know how to read., not mine, since I think I know how to explain myself and have exposed something very different: I have spoken, with sad realism, of unconsciousness, of the lack of prudence and the obstinacy of certain women who decided to love the wrong man and even change him, refusing to leave very violent and very dangerous men.

They usually try to finish on a high note.; In this case I intend to close in the ugliest way possible. While in several nations certain laws on feminicide were approved, in Argentina — which since 2012 considers femicide as an aggravating circumstance (Ley 26.791) — in December 2020 Celebrated in the streets and the dome of Parliament was illuminated green for the legalization of abortion. The 4 March 2024, in France, first country in the world to do so, The Eiffel Tower lit up with the phrase "My body, my choice» ("my body, my decision") to celebrate the incorporation of the right to abortion in the Constitution, understood in both cases as a great social achievement. At this point, due coherence should be requested from certain legislators: before the state-legalized murderer kills him, It would be advisable to check the sex of the child to be aborted, because if it's a man everything is fine, but if the creature that is going to be killed is a girl, Shouldn't the crime of femicide be applied?? Question of coherence, just a matter of consistency.

«Interrupting a pregnancy is like getting rid of someone. Is it fair to throw away a human life to solve a problem? Is it fair to hire a hitman to solve a problem? Getting rid of a human being is like hiring a hitman to solve a problem." (Francisco, Supreme Pontiff, 10 October 2018).

From the Island of Patmos, 6 September of 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

 

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos