In a moment of international crisis, war, clashes between police and demonstrators, continuous strikes, our Parliament deemed it appropriate to dedicate time to the establishment of a new national religious holiday: the feast of Saint Francis, to be celebrated on 4 October starting next year. We know well that Parliament can and must discuss more proposals every day; yet it is difficult not to hear the clash between the seriousness of the present moment and the ridiculous futility of such discussions.

A poorly written law that creates inconsistencies

Not only that: the law also presents several problems, as noted by the President of the Republic, who had to intervene with a letter to the Chambers to ask that the law be written well. Well written precisely in the sense of clarity suited to the legislative texts. In addition to this, the president points out a problem that the law would produce, namely the coincidence on that date of the national holiday for Saint Francis and the civil solemnity in honor of Saint Catherine of Siena. In fact, the two things are incompatible, because a civil solemnity requires that celebrations, meetings and initiatives be organized in schools and municipalities, which is instead impossible on a national holiday: schools would be closed, as would all public and private offices.

The dystopian discussion among parliamentarians

From this note from the president therefore arises a further, very serious discussion among parliamentarians: how to get around this obstacle, so as to be able to guarantee citizens the religious celebration they urgently need? It seems like a parodic film, an article by Lercio. Maurizio Lupi, the first signatory of the law, reassures: he has found the answer to this age-old problem. Santa Caterina moves to April 29th, and so on. After long deliberation, as the solemnity of the circumstance requires, the leader of We Moderates arrives at this solution, considering that if we put Saint Francis and Saint Catherine together, a debate could spark. Be careful: parliament could find itself arguing, “because when Saint Catherine is added, why not Saint Joseph?”. Truly a dramatic situation, which the intervention of parliament, timely and effective as we know it to be even in matters of little importance such as work and justice, will promptly resolve.

Therefore, not only parliament, in a historical moment like this, in which citizens feel pressing problems and in which the world is facing a massacre and the developments that will now take place, starts discussing the saints; but he is not even capable of writing the laws. How is it possible that none of the deputies and senators noticed the coincidence with the solemnity of Saint Catherine? It took the President of the Republic to make people look at the names on the calendar and remember that laws are not written with the feet. Imagine if he had to write serious laws.

A message of faith in a secular state

It is also interesting, and crucial, to observe the reasons for this choice. Saint Francis transmits a message of universal peace, which therefore must be valued and spread. Peace is very important, we know it; in fact it is quite funny that we want to celebrate the saint of peace when we continue not to openly take sides against those who instead make war, and much worse.

In addition to this, of course, the message of Saint Francis is a message of faith and spirituality (he is a saint, after all). This is considered fundamental in a State that should be called secular but which, in fact, of all the national holidays only has three of a civil and non-religious nature. It is not in the interests of citizens that we want to promote a message of faith, but in the interests of a parliamentary majority and therefore of government which focuses much of its propaganda on belonging to the Christian religion. In open contradiction, in fact, with the policies carried out by the government itself in recent years.

The invitation to poverty has been forgotten

Also curious is the fact that one of the key elements of the Franciscan message is austerity, rigor and the renunciation of luxury. This is not mentioned at all in the discussion of the law; It could actually put people who earn ten thousand euros a month in a bit of difficulty. It is therefore clear that there is no real attachment to the great figure of the saint, certainly important even for non-Christians and the bearer of a message that can also be read in a secular sense. There is a desire to get lost in trivial issues, outrageous for citizens, completely useless from every possible point of view, thus diverting attention from what is happening in the meantime in Italy and in the world.

Furthermore, that of the poor man from Assisi is a winning card: who would ever say that he is not a figure to be celebrated? How can you criticize someone who only wants to honor the symbol of peace and brotherhood? After all, the important thing is the symbols, not the facts.