PRO

MAURIZIO INCERPI
AVVOCATO ROTALE
n° 69 dell'Albo 2003 degli Avvocati Rotali e Procuratori Rotali
del Tribunale della Rota Romana, Dicastero della Sede Apostolica, Città' del Vaticano
LUCCA 55100 VIA T. BANDETTINI, TRAV. VI - N° 100 - Telf. e Fax. 0583-584931 Cell. 339 4358750
SAVONA 17100 VIA E. DE AMICIS Nà 3712 - Telf. e Fax. 019-801210 Cell. 339 4358750
avvrotale.incerpi@lunet.it www.lunet.it/avvrotale_incerpi
Lucca (Italia), 5 agoso 2003

A Sua Eminenza
Il Signor Cardinale Joseph Ratzinger
Prefetto della Congregazione della Santa Sede per la dottrina della Fede
Santa Sede - Città del Vaticano
Al fax 06 - 6988 45 32

Subject: Open letter from a Lawyer at the Vatican Roman Rota Apostolic Tribunal addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger concerning the document CITTA’ DEL VATICANO, 31 July 2003 (VIS).
The document entitled: « Reflections on the legal recognition of the union between homosexual persons », published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was made public today.

Your Eminence,


1. In the name of His Holiness and in your function as Head of the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith, you decided to publicly take position on the above subject.
Whilst I share, in their broad lines, the views you expressed on Catholic marriage, I absolutely cannot support your intervention in the name of His Holiness on state legislation. To the contrary, I find your recall of the right of each State to control civil relationships, including marriage, an unjustifiable intrusion of the Vatican and the Catholic Church into the law and judicial system of both the Italian State and each State in the international context.
No doubt the Vatican has the right to address its “own” people, Christ’s followers, but by what right does it address , and in such a way, including in its judgement the citizens of States throughout the world who have other religions or who are “freethinkers” with no religion in the sense that they do not follow the dogmas of religious teachings?
You make His Holiness say: « By putting the homosexual union at the same level as marriage and family, the State is acting arbitrarily and in contradiction with its own obligations. »
By what right does the Vatican give moral advice to the State in its intrinsic function of State?
Before sending this message out to the whole world in the name of His Holiness, do you not think that it would have been more appropriate to limit its dissemination to the members of the Catholic church? And perhaps, with all due respect, Your Eminence, it would have better to look more closely at the internal ecclesiastic legal organisation and verify whether there are no “unlawful” homosexual unions there, whether among clerics, those “dedicated to God” or among the lay people faithful to the Christ of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church.
Why target only the matrimonial institution in relation to masculine or feminine homosexuality?
Why doesn’t the Congregation of the Holy See, that you head, deal with homosexuality in the context of the sacerdotal order, the solemn vow of the evangelical counsels of chastity, obedience and poverty?
Why didn’t the Congregation of which you are the Cardinal Prefect, before shouting out the message , speak to its own clerics and lay people, and take action in relation to homosexuality in general and, above all, in relation to the non-chastity of many clerics.

2. Another reflection, Your Eminence. You make the Holy Father say that:
« Marriage is sacred, whilst homosexual relations are contrary to the natural moral law. Homosexual acts exclude from the sexual act the gift of life. They are not the fruit of true complementarity in affectivity and sexuality. They cannot be approved. According to the teachings of the Church, however, men and women with these tendencies must be approached with respect, compassion and sensitiveness. Every effort must be made to avoid any unjust discrimination. They are also called upon, like other Christians, to live chaste lives. But the homosexual inclination is objectively disorganised and homosexual practices are serious sins against chastity. »
But, Your Eminence, do you realise that by putting these words into the mouth of His Holiness you have made him discriminate against homosexual men and women? What can be said, then, about the homosexual tendencies among clerics or those “dedicated to God” (whether men or women belonging to Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life) ? Are these “Clerics” and “Sisters”, in your opinion, in a position to give a suitable education to children, boys and girls, and teenagers, according to the Convention on Children’s Rights?

3. Another reflection, Your Eminence. In liaison with the Congregation of which you are the Cardinal Prefect, you make His Holiness say: « As experience has shown, the absence of sexual bi-polarity creates an obstacle to the normal development of children growing up within these unions. These parents lack the experience of maternity or paternity. Placing children in this context by adoption is nothing more than abusing them and taking advantage of their weakness by bringing them into contact with an atmosphere that does not encourage their full human development. Certainly such a practice would be seriously immoral and would be in clear contradiction with the principles also recognised by the UN International Convention on children’s rights. The inevitable consequence of the legal recognition of homosexual unions is the redefinition of marriage. This institution, in its legally recognised essence, would lose it essential reference, in embryo in heterosexuality, that is to say, procreation and education. »
But, Your Eminence, do you realise that in this way you call into question the ability to educate of all your clerics, “Sisters” and all the lay people who cannot have a lawful possibility of matrimonial union?
And here I am not referring to those with homosexual tendencies but to those who have no homosexual tendencies.
According to you, they are incapable of educating children, since they are not married? Or perhaps you mean they are incapable of educating children because they do not have the experience of heterosexual complementarity?
So what would you say about clerics and “Sisters” who have homosexual tendencies?

* * *

Your Eminence, with all due respect for the natural divine right and the natural right of “free choice”, when will you stop disseminating hypocritical words on masculine or feminine , when you should, to the contrary, be defending it?
Didn’t God – God, the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost – love the special humanity of each “human person” and the special dignity of each “human person”?


Maurizio Incerpi