Unnatural, that is, against nature. To tackle the complex topic of civil unions (but not only), we necessarily have to start from this concept. It is not a matter of discrimination, but of anthropological definition – without manipulations – of what is a natural family.
Regulating the legitimate right of the partners is quite different from establishing that a couple living together shall be defined as a lawful “family”. In a civilized country it may be obvious that there should be a law governing the relations between people with regard to their mutual rights and duties, or on a wider level, the duties of the State towards them.
But today ideology has entered this topical and very complex issue, disregarding our culture, both from a civil and from a religious points of view. It determines position statements that are not acceptable.
Talking about unions recognized and regulated by the State, which regulates also their rights, does not mean that we are talking about the institution of marriage. We need to consider the value marriage grounded in the family has in the Constitution without underestimating those Christian principles that transform it into a sacrament. Legitimizing a union between people of the same sex does not imply their right to parenthood, no matter how we translate it. The latter is connected, in our civilization, to the concept of family, that is, to the fact that a child has to be conceived in love and that the parents do not have to transfer him or her only their genes, but also awareness about the differences between being a man and being a woman. Both figures are irreplaceable for the formation of a complete identity of the person in fieri, ”in becoming”.
On the other hand, thinking back, we may remember the battles made by a certain progressive movement which harshly criticized the famous Colleges which existed in the past where people of the same sex were forced to grow up; it stigmatized the absence of the two figures – male and female – fundamental, according to those people, for a balanced development of the person. The model they are now trying to propose again. inside the founding nucleus of society itself, forcing a child to live relating only to people of the same sex, was charged with having so many failures and provoking so much damage.
Family is already deeply in crisis for so many social and cultural reasons. This circumstance is producing a generation of young people who are disoriented, fragile, frustrated, with no points of reference, incapable of cultivating an authentic sense of personal responsibility. Let us not burden the current generation a with a weight whose consequences are unpredictable.
Many evils of our time result from the introduction of new rules which were supposed to express an idea of progress and conquest, while in truth, they have destroyed a fabric of values indispensable for a healthy society. Civil unions, stepchildren, uteruses for rent; as if because of the economic crisis and of the crisis of values we could rent anything now. The transformation of certain behavior patterns had taken place so rapidly that we realized only afterwards the fact that innovations were dragging behind negative consequences or offered an opportunity to complex problems.
The religious sense of life and the strength God has given the family, that of a little home-church, have been completely lost. Man has turned his back on the Creator, he has forgotten the precepts and teachings by choosing self-sufficiency and self-referentiality. All this apparently made everyday problems less serious and more pleasant, but in truth it only ruined and impoverished them without the prospect of commitment to a lasting purpose.
The Catholic Church does not judge nor condemn, but welcomes unreservedly every person; yet, it is also a witness and guarantor of irreplaceable and immutable Gospel principles. The model is unequivocal, from the first biblical teachings “God created man and woman”, to the Holy Family of Nazareth.
We are offering young people a society which is ethically more and more impoverished and subject to the rules of profit and selfishness, which proposes changes. But the latter are merely a mystification, not civilization achievements.
The devil has always worked to eliminate harmony, balance, and the function of the family; the attempt to suppress it, today seems to be more feasible than ever. Destroying the family, demolishing society: the end of the world.
It is time to fight and pray, because we will have to face situations whose complexity we do not know at the moment… but maybe we do imagine them; on the other hand, stepchild, for example, prefigures the future in the name itself: A step is also the ”step of a staircase”. The first of them is in front of us, and many people will stumble upon it… but what about the other steps? Where will they lead us?