Paolo CiliaThere are two simple but clear issues for those with a minimum of humanistic education.
The problem of the English judges in the Indi affair (as in other similar affairs) is that of undue arrogance. And it is a very frequent judgement in our times, especially from the age of Enlightenment onwards, which cleverly mixes subjectivism, liberalism and statism, in a miasma typical of the deadly (and unreasonable) ideologies that innervate the paganism of our times.
The first. The state, properly understood, as it was by our constituent fathers, for example, does not have a 'substitutive' but a 'supplementary' dimension in the face of ethical-moral decisions.
That is, the state, in this case, does not replace the family proto-institution, but supplements it in borderline cases by helping to accomplish what the proto-institution cannot accomplish by its own 'nature'. It is a facilitator that never replaces.
That is why the constitutionally recognised family wants to be 'dismantled', to give way to the pagan camp of statism, which is the new totem. And into this totem all fall, from left to right, from liberals to Marxists, from greens to yellows. And several brothers and sisters, Catholics, confuse their plans precisely because of a lack of metaphysical formation and little in-depth study of the creed professed on Sunday. There is in fact a subterranean apostasy that touches the natural fundamentals as preambles of the Faith.
The second. At the same time, the State does not have the capacity to decide who is a Person and His interest but 'recognises' the Person and His interest.
A State that decides what is right in the relational basis for a Person, touching precisely His relational capacity with life and denying Him His life supports is simply a State that acts 'as a person in the manner of a non-person' by denying the Person. Not only does it deny that that Person is a Person, whose life and healthy, non-obstinate affection are like air, but it also denies itself (to itself State) of being what it is, i.e. a 'recognising suppletiveness' and therefore becomes its caricature, i.e. an ethical State.
The real neo-pagan drifts of some who say they follow Christ and confuse the planes between loving and keeping alive, with the plan of therapeutic obstinacy are in reality themselves, for various personal reasons, which cannot be investigated here but can be easily guessed, the avant-garde expression of the 'rich young man' who has no other outcome but to walk away sad not recognising the life-giving gaze of Christ.
Other than opinions and other than judges here we are at the gates of inhumanity and, unfortunately, England with this deadly methodology, towards the Person, towards Law and towards the protocols of respect for minors with neurological disorders, offers a devastating picture of a return to barbarism.
