25.9% of Italians voted in Sunday and Monday’s referendum on the law 40/2004 on assisted procreation. That’s less than one in four Italians entitled to vote.

And yet, in the last number of days, the papers and television have spoken about little else. We’ve been treated to the birth of dozens of new terms [at least to this monkey’s ears] to describe a new class of politically engaged, and victorious catholics. Theo-Cons, New-Traditionalists, and my particular favourite Neo-Guelphs (courtesy of Alfredo Biondi of Forza Italia ).

The mediatic birth of this class comes as a result of the failure of the referendum. For while scarcely anyone actually voted in defense of any of the law 40/2004*, the poor turn-out means that the law will remain as is. And remaining as is, it is seen by many (including – it would seem – the Church) that this law governing various different aspects of artificial procreation is as close to Catholic teaching as one is likely to get at the moment**.

That the non-vote is a crushing defeat for those involved in the referendum is certain. The leader of the Democrati di Sinistra, Piero Fassino, admitted disappointment having failed to convince many of his own party voters to go to the polls: “There were parts of our own electorate that we weren’t able to bring to the vote, particularly in the South, where the turnout was less than our natural vote. We have to reflect on this”[1].

“It’s a result of biblical proportions”, commented Prof. Bruno Dallapiccola, a member of the committee Scienza e Vita (Science and Life), celebrating the defeat of the referendum. His colleague Luisa Santolini, President of ‘Forum for the Family’ and one of the founding members of Scienza e Vita claimed “75% of the Italians listened to us and were with us”[2]. The committee was the primary campaigning force calling for Italians to not vote in the referendum, after that is the Congregation of Bishops and the influential Cardinal Ruini (who publicly called for an abstention on the part of Catholics).

While there are eminent scientists on the committee of Scienza e Vita (giving lie to the notion that this referendum was simply a choice between ‘science’ and ‘faith’), their claims that Italians have listened to and followed their advice is anything but scientific. In fact there are any number of reasons for the low turn-out (or high abstention – depending upon your view point). It could be that 75% of Italians are in agreement with their position. It’s just as likely, though, that a large number of the electorate chose not to vote as a)the issue doesn’t directly affect them, and b)there was a wealth of contradictory and confusing information making it difficult to choose. In fact, between 1990 and 2005 there have been ten different referenda, and 7 of them failed to reach a quorum.

It would be foolish, though, to discount that there is indeed a class of politically motivated, and more importantly strategically minded Catholics who in this case added their numbers to a traditionally high abstention rate (to pass the referendum requires by law a quorum of 50%+1). The question is really what the final division was – something that we’ll never know.
Rocco Buttiglione, our favourite ‘moderate’, obviously believes the ‘active-abstentionists’ were in the majority. He proposed that “with Christian values one wins, like Bush did in America, and as will happen in Germany and Poland”[3]. And Zapatero in Spain? Or, indeed, Tony Blair in Britain?

Buttiglione’s fundamental (pardon the pun – it’s irresistible) mistake, though, is to confuse the active and passive. It’s relatively easy to convince people not to vote, particularly on a complicated issue that affects a minority of the population. It’s quite another thing to convince people to vote.

It’s something that the shockingly pragmatic Cardinal Ruini seems to recognise. One of the major debates in this referendum has been what effect a defeat for the referendum would have on the existant abortion law. In theory, having established the legal rights of the embryo, the next battle should be over Italy’s abortion legislation. Ruini however, in a surprising piece of realpolitik announced that he and his Bishops have no such immediate intention, at least on the surface: “I don’t know who invented this small fairy tale that we intend to intervene against the law 194. We’re against abortion but we don’t want to modify the law”[4]. This may very well be due to the fact that, according to the latest opinion polls, 56% of Italians would vote against any moves to remove the option of legal abortion. Values and rights are one thing – picking only the battles you’re likely to win is another.

Ruini has been described as a general, giving Pope Benedict XVI his first victory. Perhaps Biondi put his finger on it perfectly when he coined the term neo-Guelf. The Guelfs*** were Papal allies during the medieval wars fought ostensibly between the Papacy and the Emperor. In reality, though, as Vatican historians will be all too aware, many of the alliances were short term and based upon a wide range of factors.

How large, influential, and above all durable this supposed coalition of Theo-cons is remains to be seen.

*Of the four elements being voted on, the highest vote in defence of the law was a meager 21.8% of votes cast (in the case of heterologous procreation – which many voters in favour fo the referendum saw as controversial).
**Whether any form of assisted procreation is in concordance with Catholic teaching is open to debate. According to documents available online, from the Archdiocese of Dubuque, science should only be used, morally, to assist in the functioning of the natural act.
***In 1334 Pope Benedict XII forbade, under pain of the censures of the Church, the further use of the Guelph and Ghibelline names.
[1]Piero Fassino interviewed by Goffredo De Marchis – La Repubblica 14/06
[2] – La Repubblica 14/06
[3] – La Repubblica 14/06
[4] – La Repubblica 14/06