Interview with Rocco Buttiglione: "Thomism and doctrine on the divorced and remarried in Amoris Laetitia", and a final note of Ariel S. Levi Gualdo 18 March 20183 April 2018 isoladipatmos - The theological debates - INTERVIEW WITH ROCCO BUTTIGLIONE: "Thomism AND DOCTRINE ON DIVORCED IN REMARRIED The joy», AND A FINAL NOTE OF ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO . "There are cases - a few or many do not know - in which the divorced remarried may have good reasons to tell the confessor to ask to be able to be admitted to communion, during a journey of penance and reconciliation to the faith ". . Author: Ivo Kerže * . . PDF format Print article . . . L'There. Prof. Rocco Buttiglione Rocco Buttiglione, eminent political and academic, certainly not require extensive presentations for de Readers The island of Patmos. Recently he laid out his name with a series of publications in defense of the doctrine of the Post-Synodal love, joy the possibility of allowing some to the Communion living divorced and remarried husband and wife. Among these publications, the latest and most complete, It is titled monograph Replies (friendly) to critical love, joy, which it appeared last October in bookstores [see WHO]. In it the argumentative system of Buttiglione leverages the subjective conditions of mortal sin, which are based on the full warning and deliberate consent. A few weeks ago I dedicated this book, It is mainly to its central thesis about the adhesion of The joy of love Thomism, an article on The island of Patmos [see WHO]. After a few days I sent to Hon. Prof. Rocco Buttiglione who very kindly not only responded, but it is made available to release to the telematics columns of this ecclesial theology magazine interview where we wanted to clarify the issues in depth. Concludes the reader which of the two parts, in this interview-dialogue, He has exposed the most convincing arguments regarding this serious matter for the life of the Church. In any case, the fact that, being able to talk with someone so deeply cultured and unprejudiced, it's a great pleasure, and at the same time also an honor, for any student of philosophical sciences. . . ________________________________________________________ . . Ivo Kerže - In His Book [by. 2.3] she says, starting in Article I-II, contest. 94, to. 6 of Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas, that the natural law is known to all of us by nature as the first principles, which they are actually quite generic, among them the fundamental one to do good and avoid evil. So far we all agree. In the same song, but, Aquinas speaks of the possibility of a darkening of the natural law in us with respect to the knowledge of the principles seconds - they are the most concrete, such as those of the decalogue - and to the knowledge of the correct application of the principles to the individual case. She concludes that, when about the prohibition of adultery it occurs such a darkening - which is a principle -, then there is full awareness and so there is no mortal sin. In this first part of the interview would stop me on the first point, regarding the darkening of the principles seconds, leaving the issue of the application for the second part. My first objection is that St. Thomas speaks in the passage quoted that this darkening can be caused by "evil persuasions», «vicious customs» ed «corrupt habits». All three names denote a vicious character - bad, right, corrupt ―, presuppose that seems so innocent ignorance. In addition, the cited passage - at the end of response ― the first chapter of Letter to the Romans where the Apostle is indeed a corrupt society but in a way guilty [cf. 1 Rom 20], because he knew what was good to do, but he did not do it. . Rocco Buttiglione - Ringtones eminent theologianæ, I-II seems to me clear. The secondary principles of natural law - and the prohibition of adultery is one of them - can be eradicated from the human heart in two ways: for a cognitive error similar to what can happen in speculative knowledge and a vice. The cognitive error is always bad but not always resulting moral fault. The bad conviction It may be a simple error without fault or it can also be the effect of a bad deed that the person is a victim rather than the protagonist. Think of a child raised in a cannibal culture where parents and other influential personalities of the tribe have taught you kill enemies and eat them is a meritorious act. The active subject of bad conviction It is the educator to the student relies. You can at least blame the student that he had given the wrong educator? No, if the educator is the parents where the subject is inclined by nature to rely. Unlike the case of the defect but also in this case the fault is at least greatly diminished if the defect is learned from a legitimate authority. The error is easier the closer you get to the individual case. It is here that shows the difference between the wise and the armature. The subjectivism does not want to see the ethics objective side. For it any judgment of conscience must be accepted because it is consciousness created the norm. Objectivism does not want to see the subjective side of ethics. For it the consciousness is limited to transcribe the judgment of practical reason. The ethical realist sees that the moral subject must obey the conscience and consciousness for its part can make a mistake in interpreting the norm. In this case, the conscience must be respected - the subject can not be considered guilty for having followed the judgment of conscience - but his judgment should not be made absolute. It, rather, It must be corrected through the accompaniment and discernment. Do not forget that a cardinal principle of ethics is Thomist an erroneous binds. The conscience may be erroneous without fault. There is an honest mistake, and it apologized or at least diminishes the guilt. I believe that these principles are absolutely traditional Catholic ethics (and Thomist). . Ivo Kerže - In His interpretation of texts tommasiani respect of recognition of secondary principles I find expressed what St. Thomas says in Summa Theologica I-II, contest 100, to. 1, namely that the secondary principles which are also moral precepts of the decalogue («Honor your father and your mother, and, Do not kill, Do not steal») They are known immediately (immediately, and immediately, very little consideration) by the "natural right of every man ', also that grew up in a culture anthropophagous. I agree with you that "evil persuasions"The aforementioned contest 94, to. 6 seem to contradict what I have quoted the contest 100, to. 1, because Aquinas compares them to the errors speculative about the necessary conclusions - although generally well speculative errors can be guilty, if they derived for example from the neglect -. But I think this semblance of contradiction can be solved only by distinguishing secondary principles in the moral of the Decalogue, which include the prohibition of adultery. secondary principles that are comprehensible "immediately"Anyone, and other precepts - also called the tertiary Thomist, although St. Thomas does not use this term - following, but in a more complicated manner from first principles, in which instead can interfere the "evil persuasions"And where you can then verify ignorance shuffled. Do you see any other solution of this semblance of contradiction? . Rocco Buttiglione - in contest 100 I-II, St. Thomas tells us that we are the first principles that are immanent in practical reason, seconds the principles derived from them through the immediate reasoning and practical consequences. To find the correct consequence of the principle in a specific case must be learned and can easily induced mistakes without guilt. The The question 94 to. 6 adds that, while in general the latter principles are known because immediately derivable from the first, however in some cases they can be eradicated from the human heart. To understand how this can happen is necessary to make a digression on the Thomist theory of attention. Because the intellect can fulfill its own operation a certain concentration of attention is required. This, however, may be less or not guilty decision of the subject or even in circumstances beyond his control. I do not think Pascal has ever known Thomistic doctrine of attention, however, it virtually coincides with the theory of Pascalian entertainment. . Ivo Kerže - Regarding the attention Thomist theory shows in St. Thomas eminent theologianæ, I-II, The question 77, to. 2 The case of a surveyor who does not pay attention to some conclusions that soon - again uses the word "immediately'- the expected jump in the eyes. All right. But the other side of St. Thomas in Summa Theologica I-II, The question 6, to. 8, where ignorance is voluntary, He says that ignorance is voluntary and so guilty when he is about what one can and must know: «willful ignorance which one can and ought to know». In the case of natural law it is precisely the things to which we must turn our attention and, Regarding the principles of the second Decalogue, that we can understand right away so easy. So the surveyors here does not enter into play, because it is not our duty to know the geometry. . Rocco Buttiglione - But we must know that the Holy Doctor distinguishes blameless ignorance - I do not know things that are not supposed to know - from a culpable ignorance but not bad - I do not know the things that are supposed to know because I have been negligent - and a wicked culpable ignorance - I do not know the things that are supposed to know because I will not be hampered in my will malvagia-. The first type of ignorance excludes the blame, the second decreases, the third the worse (eminent theologianæ, I-II, quædown 76, to. 3 and 4). . Ivo Kerže - but then in St. Thomas eminent theologianæ, I-II, The question 6, to. 8, where he speaks of the relationship between ignorance and voluntary - even in Articles She cited the guilt of ignorance it depends dall'involontarietà that follows -, He speaks differently the kind of ignorance which I can not know things to know and must know how - in the passage of quædown 76: «is bound and able», in that of contest 6: «they must be able to know». In the passage of q. 76 Aquinas says what he has quoted Lei, namely that such ignorance diminishes sin without removing it entirely. In the passage of quædown 6, instead, He says that such ignorance can not cause the 'plainly. But only 'plainly reduce by itself the sin from mortal to venial (see Of bad, in quædown 7, to. 11, arg. 3, which is in my opinion a very important piece for our theme). So I think that the text of quædown 76 It is interpreted as meaning that ignorance of what I can and I know the blame falls, but not by reducing the serious sin from mortal to venial. . Rocco Buttiglione - I think we need to remember first of all that sin is always an act contrary to the judgment of reason assimilated by consciousness. Coscientia erroneous obligat. The judgment may be wrong because of the ignorance of things that the subject was not supposed to know and could not know by making use of ordinary diligence. It may happen that this ignorance seconds regards the principles of natural law, more often it concerns the empirical material that makes up the minor premise of the syllogism application of secondary principles to the concrete case. This ignorance excuse wholly. Then there is an ignorance that excuse but not quite. It covers things that the person must know and be able to know by making use of ordinary diligence but does not know. We can say that this ignorance is declassified sin from mortal to venial? I do not think this can be said. But I do not even think that we can say otherwise: that the concept of ordinary care to admit an infinite amount of gradations and I do not think we can determine in the abstract in this case the exact line between venial and mortal sin. How serious is the lack of diligence? What were its causes? Etc… Think of a student who has not studied at all for the exam and you compare it to one that has studied well all but a footnote on page. In both cases there is a lack of due diligence level, but the level of deficit is not the same. . Ivo Kerže - Leaving now the subject of knowledgeability of the principles seconds, let's move to another topic, on which lever is especially in His book: what concerns the ability to know the correct application of the principles. I think in his exegesis of the distinction between positive and negative precepts precepts is not highlighted enough. In fact, in I-II, quædown 94, to. 4 Angelico cites as an example of difficulty, in applying the precepts, the positive precept of the restitution of things deposited. The negative precepts of the Decalogue (the intrinsically evil), such as the prohibition of adultery, instead oblige Always and forever, in every circumstance application, as he explained in Comment St. Thomas to Letter to the Romans, (c). 13, l. 2. So in these cases, the error as to the application can not take place. . Rocco Buttiglione - There are two possible reasons error. One is the objective content of the secondary precepts of the natural law. Depending on the circumstances of the precept objective content may vary. The precept that mostly occurs (which is generally produced) but it suffers exceptions in extraordinary circumstances. This is not the case of intrinsically evil. They, as you rightly notes, are worth Always and forever. They escape this one cause of failure. The second source of error is contained in the nature of the practical syllogism. The major premise is unequivocal and certain a priori, the minor premise is rather empirical and error prone. In this second type of error it does not escape even the syllogism whose major premise is a viable proposition Always and forever. . Ivo Kerže - Regarding the less empirical premise in practical judgments can not quite understand how a mistake can occur here in the case of divorced and remarried. The major premise is in these cases the prohibition of adultery - "I do not have relationships husband and wife with a woman who is not my wife, "-, empirical minor premise is "this woman here, is not my wife, "said this wonder: in your opinion, there are people who confuse the woman he commit adultery with their wife? I do not think so, or perhaps in cases of mental illness or the like. . Rocco Buttiglione - Obviously there are cases of uncertainty about what is the real wife, otherwise they would have no reason to exist diocesan ecclesiastical tribunals, Sacred Rota and so on. A clear case in which one can apply the reference love, joy to possible access to the sacraments to divorced and remarried is precisely the belief in the consciousness of the nullity of the first marriage. In these cases themselves should have recourse to the ecclesiastical court but … not all the dioceses have a functioning ecclesiastical court, it is possible that crucial witnesses are unavailable or testify falsely and that it is impossible to provide the canonical trial, judgment may be delayed indefinitely, it is possible that the judge is wrong … The ministers of marriage are the spouses. If in them there is the will to contract a real marriage their union realizes the sacrament. If two divorcees whose previous marriages are null join with a genuine intention to double their will be a genuine marriage, although unlawfully contract, just as priestly ordinations performed by a bishop without the pope's consent is illicit but valid. You can impose as a canonical penalty for illegally marriage contract separation? Worse, you can force a man to leave the woman he in good conscience knows - or thinks he knows - to be his wife to live with another instead that he knows - or thinks he knows - not to be? The response of sum in the text of supplement, quædown 45, to. 4 is crystal clear: rather suffer punishment canonical or seek refuge among the infidels but do not betray the woman who in all conscience I know to be my wife. . Ivo Kerže - As far as I know, but, a wedding - unlike the orders of Ministers in sacris - if it does not happen in front of a representative of the ecclesiastical, usually the pastor, It is not only unlawful, but also invalid. For this reason marriages celebrated in the communities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X were not valid, until the Roman Pontiff has conferred this power in their priests 2017. . Rocco Buttiglione - The ministers of marriage, the spouses. The presence of the parish priest and witnesses has the function - very important - to certify that a true marriage, but it does not concern the essence of sacrament. The Church can, in external forum, refusing to recognize a marriage celebrated canonically but this is a provision of ecclesiastical discipline which can be waived for good reason. Think of the case of the school of a man and a woman isolated in a country where there are no priests; and the case is not so much school: Think of the dramatic story of the clandestine churches and persecuted in Japan, in Korea it in Albania. The Council of Trent has placed great emphasis on the canonical form of marriage and did so for a good reason. Just read William Shakespeare to see how many problems were born from the "elasticity" of the marriage forms before the Council of Trent. Obviously the refusal without good cause to celebrate marriage in canonical form prescribed may constitute gross negligence of disobedience to lawful authority, and also give rise to a presumption of disability but, obviously, It can not be absolute, is true that until proven otherwise. In other words marriage celebrated without the priest but with an authentic Intensity and conjugal affection It is real marriage before God. The canonical order, but, for its own purposes, It may refuse to recognize. It does not know whether it is true marriage and therefore refuses to consider it as such. More exactly: Marriage exists if the content of the spouses will coincide with the contents of Christian marriage. If this content has not been established in the form prescribed by canon law the canonical order does not have a certainty about it and assumed that there is a genuine marriage. Hence the issues - fortunately exceeded - for the recognition of marriages celebrated by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. . Ivo Kerže - However it seems to me that here we have gone beyond the topic of Communion for divorced and remarried. Divorce assumes originally a valid marriage. The case of the invalidity of the marriage that you have put here in relief seems a different theme. . Rocco Buttiglione - Not exactly. The divorce does not require a valid marriage but simply the choice of the parties to apply to the civil courts instead of the ecclesiastical. They can make this choice because we are convinced that the ecclesiastical court will not dissolve the bond but also because non-believers or simply because they want to regulate their economic relations and for the moment does not intend to enter into a new relationship. It happens that later, after he remarried, some want to return to the sacraments. They then present messy situations that ecclesiastical tribunals are not always able to solve. Let's just coincidence, that's probably more frequent. Two young baptized only superficially evangelized they marry. Every marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament. Why is a sacrament, but, just that the words of the double formula is pronounced? Or it is necessary that they be understood in the sense of the Catholic Church - for example including the desire to have children, the duty of loyalty, the commitment to witness to the love each other God in all circumstances of life etc … ―. What happens if the formula was made without understanding what it really did mean? The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took care of the problem and its prefect, Cardinale Joseph Ratzinger, It was inclined to believe that in those cases there was not a real marriage but felt that the matter should be further investigated. What if in this, and in other similar cases, it was not possible to produce the canonical nullity of the trial but the confessor will convince not only the penitent believes in good faith that the true marriage is the second but he probably is right? Admit to communion, after having taken all reasonable precautions to avoid scandal, It would really be so wrong? We have to remember the fact that the judgment of the ecclesiastical court is merely declaratory. It does not undo a valid marriage but declares that the marriage was never valid. It is possible that the judges being misled and to declare null and void a marriage that is valid instead? Despite all the efforts and all the care you can. It is possible that the judges are misled and declare invalid a marriage that is void instead? It's possible, indeed it is even more possible because the court acts based on a presumption of validity of the constraint. In other words, the court will declare that the hypothecation in all doubtful cases in which there is no proof of disability and even that of the validity. Even more is possible that the person does not have the possibility of recourse to the ecclesiastical court. There are cases - a few or many do not know - in which the divorced remarried may have good reasons to tell the confessor to ask to be able to be admitted to communion, during a journey of penance and reconciliation to the faith. . 17 March 2018 . _________________________ * Born in Trieste in 1976. Being Slovenian nationals studies undertaken at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Ljubljana where he graduated in 2000, the teaching in 2001 and a doctorate in 2007 in philosophy focusing especially on Thomistic philosophy. For many years she has been collaborator Third day which it is one of the leading magazines devoted to Catholic thought in Slovenia. In 2008 It was published in the necklace brightness its first monographic work entitled Beginning Slovenian philosophy (The beginning of the Slovenian philosophy). He currently teaches philosophy at the diocesan high school in Maribor. In Italy he works from 2014 with the magazine Common sense directed by Antonio Love. . . ONE FINAL NOTE . . Author Ariel S. Levi Gualdo . . . John Cavalcoli, o.p. e Ariel S. Levi Gualdo Father John Carlson, o.p. and I, now known as the Fathers de The island of Patmos, thank elder philosopher and the young philosopher why their interview: l'On. Prof. Rocco Buttiglione and Dr.. Ivo Kerže, because their is a dialogue that welcomes us and honors us deeply. This dialogue represents the fruitful exchange that for centuries has characterized the best and most fruitful theological debates, before he could be reached at the current times in which he slipped into the worst moodiness self-righteous in the name of defense of a truth that for many is that just because a subjective, all manifested through that iocentrismo which was replaced - as years I go complaining -, to the christocentrism. All proceeds to spur beaten mostly by old heresies return, Today, unfortunately, the most current of the past and of which speaks of the recent text pleased, He commented a few days after his release from Father John and myself Cavalcoli [see WHO]. Just as I explained this morning in Rome the Sisters of the Holy Spirit in meditation at the Holy Gospel of the day [cf. GV 7, 40-53]: If the scribes and Pharisees did not believe, then nobody should believe. Thus, their non-belief, It becomes the certainty of truth that Christ Jesus is not from God, but instead he's just God from God, light from light, True God from God [God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God]. It's really terrible think you can say, like the Pharisees told in this passage of the holy Gospel [cf. GV 7, 40-53] that if I do not think, then the Lord Christ is false and therefore you even, you have to believe. All this based on the fact that my faith is raised to certainty for your faith. If for what I believe, you believe, but if I do not believe, you must not believe, because it is from me that certainty that emanates holding the truth. I always remember an article written by Father Giovanni Cavalcoli a few years ago, in which he devotes stern words to the worst pride: intellectual pride, it is no coincidence that he defines as "apology of pride ' [see WHO, WHO]. This act It is the horrible blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that for which Christ, God warns: "Therefore I tell you: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whosoever speaketh evil of the Son of Man will be forgiven; but the blasphemy against the Spirit, It will not be forgiven, either in this century, nor in the future " [cf. Mt 12, 31-32] The lack of remission is due to the fact that this kind of blasphemy not only closes, because the consequence of such a closure is the destruction of every action of grace. For this, the Church of Christ, God has given the mandate to absolve sinners sins [cf. GV 20, 19-31], It has no right to grant remission for grave sin against the Holy Spirit dell'impenitente totally refractory to any form of repentance and obstinate in sin [cf. Sant'Agostino, No speech. 71 blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, text in Italian WHO]. The sins against the Holy Spirit, known as "blasphemy against the Spirit", are six, and it is perhaps worth remembering that they are: the appeal of the known truth and envy the gifts of grace, to which is added the attempt to destroy the brother's spiritual gifts; the despair of salvation and the presumption of salvation without merit; stubbornness in sin and final impenitence. Today, the "Blasphemy against the Spirit", in my opinion - and of course it is, It is an opinion so modest as it is personal -, no longer it occurs in a so-called "classic", but a lot more refined and severe forms, for example through that diabolic inversion process by which the asset becomes bad and good evil, vice virtue and virtue vice, the revealed truth and heterodoxy heterodoxy the only authentic truth revealed. All this inevitably leads to live stubbornly in blasphemy, sin unto death; the terrible state of sin that St. Thomas Aquinas indicates how "obstinacy in sin ' [Summa Theologica, II-II, 14, 2]. Our two philosophers, dialogue showed the deep desire that drives them to seek the truth, but never to impose its truth, because the truth - and with it the grace and forgiveness of God -, It remains enclosed in the unfathomable mystery of the heart of the One to whom we acclaim: We believe in one God, father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible [I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible]. Who really need the truth, trying to make an instrument of truth, Never detach a moment of their lives from the Easter candle, who is Christ the light of the world before which none of us sings: “Oh, my God, as I am truthfully!”. anything. Before Christ Light of the world we sing praises to our sin on intuitive inspiration of St. Thomas Aquinas: «O felix culpa, , which gained for us so great a Redeemer» [O happy fault, which he made us deserve so great a Redeemer]. Because "Where sin increased, abounded grace » [RM 5, 20]. All this is very clear to our two philosophers, it is not an, unfortunately, new suffering Pelagian heresy return, whose conversion shall never cease to pray, so that they can get out of the dimension iocentrica to penetrate that dimension Christocentric which leads us to the eternal mystery of salvation. Rome, 17 March 2018 . . . «You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32], but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island with your offers through the secure Paypal system: or you can use the bank account: They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930 in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank It does not provide your email and we could not send you a thanksgiving [ firstname.lastname@example.org ] . . . . .