Accidental hero
‘What else can they do, the poor people? Since the fall of the
Berlin wall, they can’t plausibly attack capitalism any more. So
they have fallen back on a different kind of étatisme — one where
the state controls our consciences, and leaves no room for personal
morality.’
This, for Buttiglione, is the true struggle. The EU he has always
known was founded by observant Catholics and reflected a great deal
of Vatican social theory. But that Europe is giving ground to what
he calls ‘the morbid totalitarianism of the Left’. Hence his call
for a reformist movement, a counter-reformation so to speak, that
would ‘give Europe its soul again’.
This is all well and good. But is Mr Buttiglione disinterestedly
arguing for religious pluralism, or does he secretly regret the
legalisation of homosexuality and the withdrawal of the state from
the bedroom? Many of his supporters — at least judging by the emails
I have received from constituents — are attracted precisely by what
they see as his homophobia. Equally, though, there are plenty of
people who dislike what one might call the ‘totalitolerance’ of the
Left but who want no truck with anti-gay prejudice. People like me,
in fact. To put my cards on the table, I supported the equalisation
of the age of consent, opposed Section 28 and would like to see the
repeal of the remaining legal anomalies that disadvantage
homosexuals, notably on inheritance rights. Can we not have a
genuinely liberal order which makes room equally for gay people and
strict Catholics?
‘When he was alive, I used often to discuss this with Giovanni
Testori [a gay Italian playwright]. He knew I supported the Church’s
teachings on marriage and sexuality, and he would say to me, “Never
forget that you are a sinner, too.” Which was true, of course.’
So, just to get this clear, is homosexuality sinful?
‘The Church teaches that the ideal is for sexual relations to
take place within a Christian marriage. Anything that falls short of
this ideal is an objectively wrong act; but that does not
necessarily make it sinful, unless it is also subjectively wrong. In
other words, there must be an element of conscious choice.
Objectively wrong acts may not be sinful if, for example, they are
committed in a blind passion, or in ignorance, or because of some
other circumstance. That is why we should try to judge only the act,
not the man — Jesus taught us to hold back from passing judgment on
others.’
Moving from the sacred to the profane, then, would he ban the rap
singers whose lyrics are said to stoke violence against homosexuals?
‘Any invitation to violence should be prosecuted. We need a society
in which we can all respect each other. I use that word precisely. I
don’t mean that we all agree with each other — no such society can
exist — but that we value one another as human beings and citizens.’
Some of my angrier email correspondents are perhaps by now
reconsidering their support for the man. In an attempt to draw him
on to more contentious ground, I asked him how he would have voted
in the US election. ‘For Bush, I suppose. Like most churchgoers.’
But doesn’t this sit uneasily with his insistence that there is a
distinction between public and private spheres? After all, his
stated position is surely closer to that of John Kerry, a fellow
Catholic who did not want to impose his own ethical code on
individual states. Or, to put it the other way round, if it is wrong
for Brussels to lay down the law on gay rights, is it not equally
wrong for Bush to propose a federal ban on same-sex unions rather
than leave the question to individual states?
‘That is a question for an American constitutional lawyer. I draw
a distinction between Caesar’s realm and God’s, not between federal
and state jurisdictions. But, by the standards on which we are now
evidently operating, neither Bush nor Kerry would be acceptable as a
European Commissioner.’
Talking of rendering unto Caesar, would he object to Catholic
bishops telling people to vote ‘yes’ to the constitution? ‘Even a
bishop, even the Pope, is entitled to free speech as a citizen. But
of course they should not say these things as doctrine.’
Once the wretched constitution comes into force, we shall all
enjoy rather less free speech — even the Pope. The ludicrously named
‘anti-discrimination’ provisions actually lay down a great deal of
legal, indeed compulsory, discrimination. L’affaire Buttiglione is a
mere canapé: just wait until Euro-judges start to decide, for
example, which Eurosceptic opinions qualify as ‘xenophobia’. Indeed,
the strongest argument for rejecting Buttiglione is that, despite
everything, he still backs the constitution. He, of all people,
should know where it will lead.
| 
