[ad_1]
Franco Bechis
If Francesco Boccia wanted to give birth to a premature baby Jesus, by forbidding the midnight mass at Christmas, Ursula von der Leyen would like not to give him birth at all. According to the sensational draft of the “Stay Safe” document circulated last night, the European Union intends to ask member governments not to make the faithful celebrate in the presence of the liturgies of the Christmas holidays. The indication also addressed to the Italian government is to “not allow the celebration of masses”, asking to broadcast each liturgy only online or on radio and television. A document that does not yet have the paraphernalia of the bureaucracy, but that aims to steal from the faithful on Christmas days from Pope Francis and from the Christian churches. It is not the only indication contained in the guidelines of the commission led by von der Leyen to enter together into the intimacy of the citizens of the old continent on foot, as it is also requested that rules be established on family visits both at Christmas and at New Year New. , establishing a maximum number of diners present for lunch or dinner and even asking that the guests at the table be the same both for Christmas dinner and to celebrate the arrival of the new year.
This invasion of the life of the Church, of families and of individuals is even more surprising when compared with the timidity of the European Commission in regulating the economic life of the member countries themselves, a task that it is legitimately called upon to undertake. perform. Not a line, for example, on the Italian government’s request to standardize snow vacation options, so as not to create undue competition between countries during the health emergency. There they were afraid of Austria that it had no intention of closing its mountains and ski slopes, unless it did not receive a soft drink from the European Union itself (that is the ridiculous advice invented by Giuseppe Conte in Italy), but 100% compensation of the GDP that would disappear with the closing of the snow festivals. Europe is, therefore, timid, very timid, in the face of portfolio needs, but at the margin of those of the spirit. It is his original sin, well said for his stubbornness in denying his roots when talking about the European Constitution. And it has a bit the attitude of cowards, who speak aloud with the weak and keep quiet in front of the strong (not a word, not a generic indication has been in all these months, for example in other celebrations and religious meetings) . I think that in this case your calculations are wrong, because it is unthinkable that the voice of the Church remains silent in the face of this arrogance, and I am sure that this unfortunate and grotesque indication to the governments will disappear in the next few hours from the final and official document . But the mere fact that it appeared in a draft is serious.
They are steps of this type that offer useless fuel to the bonfires of conspiracy theorists, who argue that this dictatorship of substantial health that we live in is not right, but the only pretext in the spread of the virus. I do not think that these protests are entirely unfounded: in Italy as in Europe there is very little transparency about the decisions taken in recent months, almost never motivated as if they were a whim of the power in power towards which citizens increasingly suffer. .
I wrote it about the controversy over the Christmas midnight mass: what is the sanitary reason for its anticipation? Do you think that less faithful would attend at 20 or 21 hours than at the last minute? Based on what? And what evidence has there been so far about infections during religious services to have to reinforce freedom of faith? Of the data I consult each week there is none, unlike the data on infections at school that the executive had long stubbornly denied.
When the Italian government has difficulty justifying what does not seem explainable, it tends to blame the “scientists” who would have suggested those rules. I can say it, having not stopped reading a single report of the scientific technical committee (CTS) despite the serious delay in publications: it is a lie. The Cts has almost never proposed the harsh rules inserted in the various dpcm of Conte or in the decrees of Roberto Speranza: they have been subjected to texts on which the assessment has been many times: “this might not be necessary, but if you want to be So prudent we do, we will not object. ”Other times, however, as happened with schools and transportation, scientists did not share the rules about reopening, but the government did what they wanted. I think this is also happening at Christmas . But the minutes of these days, not wanting to be transparent at all, we will read them if everything goes well in February, when we will talk about something else. However, a doubt came to me when scrolling through the texts of the latest documents revealed, those included among the October 7 and 14. They still did not talk about Christmas, but about Conte’s new closing dpcm. There it was recommended to avoid parties and “receive non-cohabitants of more than 6 in private homes.” he government, it was a request of the usual scientists. Instead, this is his report: “The Cts, sharing the inspiring principle based on the utmost caution related to the limitation of meetings in closed places, EVEN THOUGH ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, take note of the number indicated in the Dpcm scheme.” The same formula regarding the choice of the dpcm to limit participation in receptions related to civil and religious ceremonies to a maximum of 30 people: there is no scientific evidence on that maximum number. So intimidating. Small and large, but you have to take into account.
[ad_2]
