STILL ON “DIVORCED AND RESPONDED”, THE THIRD ROUND WITH ANTONIO LIVI
.

The Church does not say anywhere that these people are constantly deprived of the grace of God, that is in mortal sin. On the contrary, already allowed today that they have to make a spiritual communion, It supposes that they may be in grace, Giacchè, as you might think to make a spiritual communion in a state of mortal sin?

.

.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

Monsignor Antonio Livi asked me new objections on its website Apostolic Union Faith and Reason [see WHO, WHO]; site which can be accessed from home-page Dell’Patmos Island by scrolling to the right under the heading “publications and associations”. To them I reply. The objections are numbered. Each time I follow my answer.

.

1. The Church rightly considers these people as in "state of sin", namely in an objective situation that deprives them of the grace of God and that does not allow them to receive sacramental absolution until they have shown to the confessor concrete signs of conversion (repentance inner and outer repair), which would allow them to return to a "state of grace" and to be able to approach the Communion.

.

The Church does not say anywhere that these people are constantly deprived of the grace of God, that is in mortal sin. On the contrary, already allowed today that they have to make a spiritual communion, It supposes that they may be in grace, Giacchè, as you might think to make a spiritual communion in a state of mortal sin?

.

2. the Dominican theologian is not to take note of distinction (I remembered that I already) between "case" (hypothetical event considered in the abstract) it's done" (concrete event that can be the object of subjective experience and intersubjective). If he had taken account of this logical distinction, would not continue to accuse of "rash judgment" who, like me, only to remember that, according to the doctrine of the Magisterium, the baptized who have been divorced and have set up a public adulterous cohabitation are objectively (As free and responsible moral object of the action) in a state of mortal sin.

.

All we can and we have to say or know based on the doctrine of the Church, It is that the two are in a state of life illicit, irregular, very dangerous for their souls and give scandal to the faithful. But between knowing that and the support that they are unceasingly and inexorably into a state of mortal sin, He runs a lot and would, as they say in logic, a consequence of the larger premises. We must therefore distinguish the state of a person's life from the moral acts of this person, or the state of the will of this person. The state of life remains; the will can change at any moment from good to bad and from bad to good. A state of life can help or hinder sin or grace, but it can cause them, because sin is caused by ill will, while the good action is caused by the goodwill move on divine grace, what theologians have called "physical premozione". Like this, one that is in the state of remarried divorced, It may be in grace, while one that he has embraced the state of Carthusian, It may be in mortal sin.

.

3. Cavalcoli unduly restricts the case of the "state of sin" to cohabitation (oggettivamente counterfeit) among people who have been divorced from the legitimate spouse. With this undue restriction of the subject he does not take into account all the other serious moral responsibilities I mentioned before, and then he pretends to ignore that moral responsibility is personal: there is a responsibility of torque, and then there is even the possibility (proposed, as we have seen, Archbishop of Ancona) "discharge" the couple as a single moral subject.

.

Unfortunately Antonio Livi makes me say what I did not say. First, I never said that the two are limited to doing only sins against chastity, ma, on the contrary, I mentioned the possibility that they make also other sins. Second, I have never spoken of a "responsibility to couple", because I know that everyone has their own responsibility. So one of the two could be in grace and the other in sin.

.

4. Horses, that in recent times, in his polemic against "Lefebvre" she demanded that are considered "infallible" teachings of Vatican II, who also he wished to be a non-dogmatic Council (“pastoral”), now it requires them to be regarded as "infallible" even all the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, undogmatic, ma mere “pastoral”, of this Pope. At the same time, to justify changes “disciplinary” (but which may imply a radical reform of doctrine) he supposes and requires that the Pope wants to bring in pastoral practice on family, Cavalcoli claims it is regarded as merely "pastoral", and therefore reformable, the teaching of St. John Paul II on marriage: teaching instead is undoubtedly dogmatic in intention and matter, as this is already defined in terms of theological and moral irreformable from Scripture and from the Council of Trent. It is in fact the law of God, interpreted authoritatively and infallibly by the Church. Nonetheless, Horses, regarding the sacrament of marriage and access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist by the faithful who live in concubinage and not want to change their state of life, He insists that the Church can and must change this law, considering the nature purely "disciplinary", so accidental and temporary, when it is presented as fundamental and perennial.

.

Following the statements by the Popes Vatican II, instead we must first of all say that Vatican II was not only pastoral, but also doctrinal. And if by "infallible" means simply that the doctrines - mind: the doctrines, not the pastoral directives - the Council does not contain errors, that will always be true, and which they can not be mistaken neither now or in the future, Well I do not see what the problem is to say that they are infallible, in the obvious sense of the word and the current, ie "that can not be wrong", even if there are no new dogmatic definitions allegedly infallible. In second place, I have explained it on’Patmos Island that in other places that John Paul II in St. Family member company it is limited simply to remember, justify and recommend the ecclesiastical law in force, without posing the question of whether it can be changed.

I have already shown in previous interventions in the’Patmos Island and elsewhere, that the current rule, as in conformity with the divine law, It does not follow from it so necessary and unique, but it is a ministry among other possible. Because of this, the church, under its jurisdiction, (the "power of the keys"), on the grounds that she is a judge, can change it.

Here there is not at stake, says Antonio Livi, l '"interpretation", but the application of divine law, which, breadth of possible applications, can admit other, different from the present one. Of course the interpretation of the divine law is a matter of dogma. And here it is clear that the truth is only one. But here, instead it is a practical matter: how to make sure that the sacraments, respecting their unchanging essence, can bring the maximum possible result of grace? Here you can enjoy different possible solutions. And here we measure the pastoral wisdom of the Church.

Thirdly, I would like to ask Antonio Livi where I would have said "infallible" all the teachings of this Pontiff. If anything, I defended from those who accuse him of heresy. But this I think I have the right and duty to do so.

.
5. Cavalcoli it hides the alleged intention of Pope Francis to proceed in this direction.

.

On the contrary, I always said I do not presume to know at all what the Holy Father will decide. I just said and demonstrated that, if he thinks fit to give the sacraments to divorced and remarried, in special cases and on very strict conditions, It has the right and is free to do so, without him we should blame, as some exalted, of heresy.

.

6. Cavalcoli want the new sacramental discipline stipulates that "in the internal forum" you can authorize a faithful to receive Communion "but could not get absolution", precisely with the lack of requirements for true contrition and the way out of the situation of illegitimate. Of these requirements, as I said, Judge is the priest confessor, which operates in the inner hole, ie during the interview to the confessional. But can he, at the same time, deny the true sacramental absolution - for lack of objective requirements of divine and ecclesiastical law on the sacrament of Penance – and "authorize" to do likewise Communion as subjectively believes that this penitent was absolved by God "directly", ie by extrasacramentale?

.

If the penitent is only in a state of venial sin, It is not devoid of grace. Whereby, after being purified from sin with personal penitential acts, It may receive Communion, even without confession before. Ma, as I said, it's clear that, if the Pope gives the two sacraments, these also, if they have fallen into mortal sin, will have to go to confession before Communion, as do all the other faithful.
We have to remember also the doctrine of the Church, according to which even those who had fallen into mortal sin and does not have the opportunity to go to confession, He is forgiven by God by virtue of an act of perfect contrition or sorrow, in view of the Sacrament as soon as possible and if possible.

.

Varazze, 11 November 2015

.

.

______________________

NOTE

This article was written by the Dominican theologian John Cavalcoli few days after the release critical article by Mons. Antonio Love. We publish it only now because for a week Father Ariel S. Levi Gualdo was committed to preaching spiritual exercises to the clergy, while i, that in those days I was with him to assist him, I could in turn provide. Completed that commitment, we discussed various topics related to Christianity and Islam after the terrorist attacks in Paris. This is the reason why we published this article-written response on November 11, with several days of delay.

.

George A.. Faccio Lince

sub-editor

.

.

.