A Firm Condemnation of the Killing of Charlie Kirk: Rejecting Violence and Restoring Dialogue

A Firm Condemnation of the Killing of Charlie Kirk: Rejecting Violence and Restoring Dialogue

The death of Charlie Kirk, which occurred on September 10 during the first stop of his American Comeback Tour at Utah Valley University, is a devastating blow not only for the conservative world in the United States but for all who believe in freedom of expression, civil debate, and the value of dialogue. The 31-year-old activist, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated by gunfire, likely by a sniper positioned in a nearby building. It was an act of unspeakable violence, silencing not only a voice but also a method: the method of direct engagement, even heated, with those who did not share his views.

In the face of such an event, condemnation must be clear, without hesitation and without ambiguity. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, reminded us of this with great clarity on September 11: "The Vatican's position is against all types of violence. And we think we must be very, very tolerant, very respectful toward everyone, even if we do not share the same opinion." He further added: "If we are not tolerant and respectful and we are violent, this will create a really big problem within the international and national community." These words perfectly reflect the Gospel spirit, but also the guiding principle of every democratic society: violence is never an alternative to dialogue, and those who choose it destroy the very foundations of civic life.

Charlie Kirk was not an ordinary man. He was certainly an activist with strong and often divisive ideas: a critic of gender ideology, a staunch defender of free speech on college campuses, and a vocal supporter of Christian rights in hostile environments. But above all, he was a man of dialogue. He made public debate the core of his mission. He did not retreat to safe spaces, nor did he speak only to those who already supported him. Instead, he sought out confrontation where it was most difficult: in American universities, among students who often openly opposed him. He expressed his views, answered criticisms, and did so passionately, without abandoning respect for his audience.

To strike him down is to strike symbolically at anyone who believes that confrontation, even sharp confrontation, should prevail over hatred. It is to claim that words are no longer enough, that the only path left is weapons and violence. This is a devastating message, one that must be firmly rejected by everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

Sadly, what we are witnessing instead is the degrading spectacle of those who are using Kirk's death as a political weapon. Some right-wing newspapers in Italy twisted the news for partisan purposes, turning the tragedy of a man into propaganda. On the other hand, certain factions of the left reacted with embarrassment, minimizing the incident and seeming almost afraid to condemn it clearly. Two sides of the same coin: exploitation and fear. Both are equally unacceptable. The death of a man must never become a battlefield for politics but rather an occasion for unity in condemnation. Any hesitation represents a moral failure.

There is something even more troubling: Kirk's assassination is only the extreme consequence of a toxic climate that has long been corroding society. Too often we forget that physical violence begins with verbal violence. The daily insults, delegitimization, and mutual accusations that dominate political and media debates are not harmless: they are the breeding ground from which armed violence emerges. When the public is constantly conditioned to see the opponent as an enemy — as someone to be eliminated rather than debated — sooner or later someone will take this perverse logic literally and act on it.

The world is becoming more radicalized. We see it in the United States, where the divide between left and right has reached levels resembling a cold civil war. We see it in Europe, and we see it in Italy as well, where public discourse has devolved into a constant brawl. Every issue — whether it concerns the economy, the environment, or local governance — becomes a pretext for violent confrontation, for mutual accusations, for delegitimization. There is no longer room for constructive debate, only for sterile polemics.

The killing of Charlie Kirk must therefore serve as a warning. We can no longer underestimate the connection between words and actions. The verbal violence that dominates public discourse is already a form of violence, and it is often the prelude to physical violence. Continuing to insult, delegitimize, and dehumanize opponents means paving the way for new tragic episodes.

This is why the Vatican's condemnation is so important. It is not only a condemnation of one murder but also a universal call to a different way of living: one based on tolerance and respect. We can and must debate, even harshly, but never descend into hatred. For if dialogue collapses, coexistence collapses with it.

To honor the memory of Charlie Kirk means above all committing ourselves to breaking this spiral of hatred. It is not enough to condemn violence in words; we must also be vigilant about the language we use, the tone we adopt, and the image we paint of our political or cultural opponents. Each of us, in our own sphere, bears this responsibility: politicians, journalists, educators, and ordinary citizens alike. Violence does not arise in a vacuum; it arises from the climate we breathe every day. If we choose to lower the temperature of conflict, to recover mutual respect, to value what unites us instead of what divides us, then Kirk's death will not have been in vain.

His killing reminds us that democracy lives by words and dies by weapons. Now more than ever, we must defend free speech, even when it challenges us, even when it makes us uncomfortable. We must defend the right to debate, even fiercely, but without hatred. We must teach younger generations to see opponents not as enemies to be destroyed but as interlocutors to be heard. This is the real challenge of our time.

If we can succeed in this, if we can build a culture of dialogue and respect, then we will truly have learned something from this tragedy. If not, we will continue down a path where verbal violence turns into physical violence, and where words lose their power. And that would be a defeat for all.

Marco Baratto