Discussed in the Senate (the upper house of the Italian parliament), the bill aims to punish acts of discrimination and incitement to violence against homosexuals, lesbians, transgender people and people with disabilities. It was introduced by Democratic MP Alessandro Zan and approved by the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Italian parliament) in November.

At the time, the Italian episcopate had already vigorously challenged the law, prompting immediate protests from LGBTIQ + rights organizations and parliamentarians.

“The Italian bishops have said that the possible introduction of new punishment provisions could open the way for liberticidal abuse and discrimination,” they said, arguing that Italy already has the appropriate legal instruments.

But the story did not end there. According to the newspaper Corriere della seraArchbishop Paul Gallagher, who has been in charge of Vatican diplomacy since 2014, delivered a diplomatic “oral note” – an official communication written from a third person, without a signature, but usually initialed – to the Italian embassy on June 17, stating that some parts of the diploma violate bilateral agreements between Italy and the church.

The Vatican explains that the legislation calls into question the freedom guaranteed by the Italian Catholic Church to organize and practice religion, as well as the freedom of speech and thought afforded to citizens and Catholic associations, given the Concordat. [acordo entre a Santa Sé e um estado]…

According to the report, the law does not exempt Italian Catholic schools from the obligation to participate in the National Day Against Homophobia, which is set for May 17. The Church declares that this proposal threatens, in a general sense, the “freedom of thought” of the Catholic community.

The diplomatic note also expressed concern that the law could lead to new lawsuits. “We ask you to accept our concerns,” the archbishop said.

In turn, Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin explained Vatican news that there was no request to withdraw the bill, no undue pressure on the work of the Italian parliament, but only concerns about the interpretation of certain passages transmitted through normal diplomatic channels.

“I approved the note verbale sent to the Italian ambassador, and I definitely thought there might be a reaction. However, it was an internal document that was exchanged between government administrations through diplomatic channels. Will not be published,” he said.

<< We are against any attitude or gestures of intolerance or hatred towards people because of their sexual orientation, as well as their ethnicity or religion. We are concerned about the interpretative issues that might arise if a text with vague and vague content is adopted, which will ultimately lead to a shift in the judiciary's definition of what is a crime and what is not - but without providing the judge with the necessary parameters to make a distinction. " - he explained, reinforcing the idea that “the concept of discrimination remains very vague in terms of the content of the“ law ”.

“In the absence of adequate specification, there is a risk of combining a wide variety of behaviors and therefore punishing any possible difference between men and women, with consequences that may be paradoxical and which, in our opinion, should be avoided while there is still time. The requirement of definition is especially important because legislation is moving into the field of criminal law, where, as is well known, what is allowed and what is prohibited to do must be clearly defined, ”he said.

To the church what belongs to the church, to the state, what belongs to the state.

On June 22, Alessandro Zan rejected the Vatican’s arguments, stating that “the text does not in any way restrict freedom of expression or freedom of religion.”

On the other hand, the Church received the full support of the far-right leader of the League of the North, Matteo Salvini, who expressed his opposition to “the censorship and condemnation of those who believe that mother, father and family are the heart of our society.”

It is expected that after the delivery of the note, this issue will be brought to the attention of the Italian Prime Minister and Parliament. Although, Mario Draghi – a practicing Catholic – has already spoken out on the oral note, warning the Vatican not to interfere in parliamentary debates, since the state is secular.

“Our legal system contains all the guarantees to ensure that laws always respect constitutional principles and international obligations, including the Concordat with the Church,” he said.

According to the Concordat, if there are signs of misapplication of the agreement, a “mixed committee” could be called to analyze what happened to understand the next steps – but experts say it is too early for that decision.

In this sense, the Church defended that the memo presented acted as a “preventive intervention” to get people thinking about what was at stake. “Later intervention, that is, after the adoption of the law, would be belated. The Holy See could be accused of guilty silence, especially when it comes to the aspects that are the subject of the agreement, ”explained Pietro Parolin.

Thus, the Vatican does not consider the incident to be an “interference” in the affairs of the Italian state, which is of a secular and not confessional nature. “For this reason, we have opted for a note verbale tool, which is an appropriate means of dialogue in international relations,” said the cardinal.

<< We confine ourselves to recalling the text of the main provisions of the agreement with the Italian state, which may be affected. We did it in a loyal and collaborative relationship, and I dare say, a friendship that characterizes and characterizes our relationship. “The Concordat issue was not directly addressed in the legal debate,” he said. “Note Verbale wanted to draw attention to this point that should not be forgotten. As has also been pointed out by some, the issue of freedom of opinion concerns not only Catholics, but all people, touching upon what Vatican Council II defines. it is like a “sanctuary” of conscience, ”he concluded.

In addition to the Vatican, the Italian Episcopal Conference has also spoken out on this bill, proposing some changes, which are also requested at the end of the oral note.