translated from Spanish: The definitions of Paola Binetti, Opus Dei Italian Senator declaring leftist-centrist

Italian Senator Paola Binetti recently visited our country invited by the Academy of Catholic leaders. Until 2007 he played in La Margarita, centrist party left, whom he described as “very attentive to social justice and the needs of the weak, and able to defend life in all its manifestations”.
However, his party is allied with one larger which finally ended by absorbing it. “It was taking very radical positions that I finally left and joined a party of Centre (Centre Union Party),” he says.
Has been censured by their own parties and conglomerates by the view which is in matters more values? In general, the left moves away from conservative positions.
Yes, that same I left the party. On one particular occasion there was a vote on a particular topic, I voted against, and me censored. I understood at that time that they no longer them could take some battles from there.
How to combines this practicing Catholic and left?
As Catholic each assume their responsibilities, I did it at a time and then I left a party more than Center. The world needs to reflect on what is to be Catholic in 360 degrees, since it covers the social, cultural, bet by an economic policy that facilitates life to people who have less resources in promoting positive family measures, such as reduce your taxes. We need to be Catholic politicians who take seriously the Social doctrine of the Church.
This is very clearly seen in the discussion on abortion. How is this discussion in Italy lived?
In 1978, when abortion was adopted there were great difficulties because Catholics were against and the world of liberal left was in favour.
Finally, a play on words was made to put it in positive, under the name of “Law on the social protection of motherhood and the voluntary interruption of pregnancy”. The interesting thing, in my opinion, is that having the guardianship of motherhood as first point says a lot, since the intention was to limit abortion, with the objective that no woman had to abort due to poverty or inability to take care of the child to the maximum . The initial sense is to foster that the women who were going to have an abortion did not.
You have been leading the discussion on euthanasia, taking a position quite contrary, why?
Medicine has advanced a lot in the control of pain to nearly eliminate it entirely. Despite that, the patient does not want to be a weight for your family, or rely on someone when his life has cultivated the sense of autonomy as extreme value. Clearly if you are sick you depend on others, and you have to accept that they take charge of you. The political challenge is to demonstrate that it is worth living: we must nurture the taste for the lives of these patients, so that one comes to ask for euthanasia.
The prochoice you is Vice Chairman of the Commission on human rights of his Government, and has declared in this subject who wants to is to implement the human rights that were defined in 1948 in the Universal Declaration. What is it that you would be leaving out?
Human rights have replaced them for individual rights, which are exclusively individualistic, where the will of the individual above overlaps that of anything else. That is what we know as “prochoice” or current “I decide”, where only prevails what one wants, without being limited by a reality external to me.
Have you had problems be designated Vice-President of the Commission on human rights, with this vision more criticism of the agenda of the UN?
Not for now. Integrate people with different views, different cultural heritages of the Commission and we have decided that our purpose is to work for human rights and not this individualistic logic in which progress has been made. Our commitment is to defend human rights as they have been recognized.
“Democracy is very imperfect” inside of democratic systems have emerged figures like Bolsonaro, Trump even Chavez who then decanted in ripe. It’s wrong this political system?
In Italy, fascism came to power also under a democratic regime. Therefore, rather than be failing, we must understand that it is a highly imperfect system, only slightly better than the others. Thus, these cases demonstrate that democracy does not always reaches its objectives.
Explains that these new figures of world politics have erupted with such force?
Those who govern and legislate, rather than worry about making laws that facilitate this logical individualist that you mentioned earlier, must work to reduce poverty and create jobs. The policy has lost touch with the real problems of the people, which are always the same: family safety, work, education, health, have freedom of expression, etc.
What worries me, is that we are going to suffer much until the policy again to discover their mission in a different key. Policy must respond to the problems of the population, to the means and resources available to all.
Do you think that this individualistic logic that speaks, is majority politicians?
I think that it is being driven by radical minorities focusing on problems that do not interest everyone. The problem is that on the other side appears a populist majority that tells people that the most important thing is, for example, combating immigration.
Who has failed then?
It is a too extensive worldwide phenomenon as serious so let us not questions about where we are wrong. It is that allowed, as in my case, that a party such as the Christian Democrats, who were sensitive to social issues and sufficiently protective in some values, disappears. We have lost the ability to talk. In Italy a few decades ago parties had seats in every corner, where people went to discuss everything and the political debate was everyone.
What happened them?
We believed that you could substitute an actual contact by a virtual contact. We figured that the iPhone, a notebook was enough for or put on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter to have connections with voters.
Democracy, to be effective, has to be representative: “I am here to represent your problems, your challenges, your interests”; and also participative, so effectively the politicians can know what are the real concerns of the people.
One of the flags on the left were the poor. Do you think that you lost the course?
Yes, of course, but not only it. In Italy at the moment, we have a Government that we do not like almost anyone. He was legitimately elected and came to power promising things that in fact cannot meet, as for example, that he would govern differently with both the right and the left. People bet on that things would change almost miraculously, but policy does not work as well.
However, the most serious problem is that, in spite of this, neither the right nor the left have done a mea culpa or made a new proposal.
What should they do then both blocks?
The left must discover differently does mean today be beside the poor, the handicapped. In the case of the right, clarify what means to be next to the companies.
However, we believe that the best form of Government is the alternation. There is a saying that says: “the right produces wealth and the left distributes it”. Each party has its strengths and weaknesses.
The problem is that, at least in Italy, right not yet drawn up still a new vision and left less yet, to which we hope that in the course of this legislature can mature for upcoming elections.
And finally, how do you see Europe?
It is a time of crisis, they may have seen it in England, in France, Spain. Today we are living a cycle of crisis of the parties and have to start a new political development. I think the whole world needs a better Europe.

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment