Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) -The understanding of the human person, man and woman, and the union of the same which receives a juridical form is no longer univocal. This is deducible once again from the interventions of Pope Benedict XVI in Spain. Gnoseological and moral relativism has undermined even philosophical and theological anthropology and new emerging opinions are leading to a dissolution of the image of the human person, and extremely serious consequences, which indeed we already see as debate on unmarried couples slides down the slippery slope to artificial fertilisation, to same sex ‘marriages’ with the possibility of adoption of children.
Assessing these erroneous opinions Catholic doctrine first of all reaffirms human dignity and rights which cannot be conditioned and are values which precede any sort of state jurisdiction and refer directly, with regard to origin, to the Creator ( ): that is, the permanent value of the Ten Commandments. In this sense it is important to analyse the relationship between human freedom and human nature as John Paul II did: “At this point the true meaning of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man's proper and primordial nature, the "nature of the human person", which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end” ( ).
Secondly, since, in a sense, faith in Revelation has changed because relativism leads to non perception of the natural order as the source of rationality, paradoxically today the Church is called to defend reason before faith; then the connection between reason and faith in order to heal the lethal separation of thought and ethics; and also to highlight the rational aspect of human nature as John Paul II did in his comment on the Humanae vitae Encyclical.
In this regard it would suffice to bring those who support the ‘naturalness’ of homosexuality to ask themselves: why are there men and women in the world, and not only men or only women? Faced with this evidence, homosexuality appears as an impossible attempt at the homologation of human nature to one or the other sex cancelling that evident difference, but ready to reinstate it when they want to claim the ‘right to be different’ in order to obtain juridical recognition ( ).
At this point it is would be good to affirm the significance of the term “right”: whether it is personal, or if it is a civic right, or the right of an active minority, and to show one is a group of pressure does not necessarily implicate recognition of the right. Reflection here is in the field of the right, the philosophy of the right. With regard to the ‘gay’ claim to homosexual marriage, it is useful to know that this is a minority which in no way represents the majority of homosexual persons, but which claims to represent them finding for its views political support. Therefore gay leaders and whatever, absurdly, end up without realising by reaffirming the difference the moment they postulate for a ‘marriage’, union or pact between them. Therefore, in contradiction with what they presuppose, that is that the State and society are incompetent with regard to their union considered part of the private sphere of affective interpersonal relations, - as it was stated by a party candidate for presidency in a region of Italy - they end up by petitioning the same for that public juridical recognition, also for the known reasons of economic convenience. If it is a question which concerns the “private sphere” it should never regard the State. The same is true for unmarried couples. But we will stop at our first reflection.
1) Cfr J.Ratzinger, Europa. I suoi fondamenti spirituali ieri, oggi e domani, in M.Pera-J.Ratzinger, Senza radici. Europa, relativismo, cristianesimo, islam, Milan 2004, p 67.
2) Enciclica Veritatis splendor, 50.
3) Cfr <Sébastien>: Ne deviens pas gay, tu finiras triste, Ed.du Seuil, Paris 2001. The book is a violent testimony against a former member of the gay community who rejects even the idea of a pact of solidarity, an idea which he regards as hypocritical and dangerous for any children adopted by homosexual couples. (Agenzia Fides 20/7/2006 - righe 44, parole 612)