Rocco Buttiglione: a thinker at the crossroads of Amoris Laetitia and Thomism

- The Authors guests of The Island of Patmos

 

Rocco Buttiglione: A THINKER AMONG THE CROSSROADS The joy And Thomism

.

Rocco Buttiglione, Recalling the objective and subjective aspect of sin, He says that adultery of remarried divorcees sometimes it is not a mortal sin. St. Thomas, but, He does not think so.

.

.

Author:
Ivo Kerže *

.

.

.

the book of Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

I think the apology of Rocco Buttiglione the most problematic thesis The joy of love It should arouse some sympathy in all of us, to which its Replies friendly are addressed. Indeed, significant contributions of his book is the desire to present the argument of the defenders of The joy of love in a clear and comprehensive, which undoubtedly will facilitate the discussion. Of great value in this sense is primarily the engagement of Buttiglione reasoning to the texts of the Angelic Doctor, which make its position even more verifiable. This hook is at the same time the central point of its defense of love joy [cf. the. 91] but also, as we shall soon, one of its weakest points.

.

briefly the discussion we see that Buttiglione responds to critical love joy - especially to Prof. Josef Seifert [cf. WHO, WHO] - reiterating that the apostolic exhortation does not want to question the doctrine of Veritatis splendor [cf. text WHO] acts intrinsically evil. Indeed, according Buttiglione, said doctrine is only of objective wickedness of intrinsically evil and not of the subjective one, instead regards the thesis love joy - now officially confirmed in By Janet - on the admission of divorced and remarried to receive Communion. Indeed, only the subjective guilt can make a grave sin - such as adultery - a mortal sin, precluding access to Communion. For mortal sin are there so, Buttiglione reminds, three conditions: the objective part, the objectively gravely sinful action, the subjective part, deliberate consent and full awareness [the. 43].

.

Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

Unlike other apologists of love joy, Buttiglione focuses on the subjective condition on full alert, by hooking the speech [cf. the. 79] a Summa Theologica, where St. Thomas Aquinas is the permanent presence of natural law in human hearts. Here Aquinas exposes a distinction that will become the backbone of the Buttiglione reasoning:

.

"As regards the general principles of the natural law can not, abstractly, in any way be erased from the human heart. It can instead be deleted in concrete cases, to the extent that the reason an obstacle in applying the general principle to a particular action, through lust or some other passion " [I-II, q. 94, to. 6, (c)].

.

In the same sense can be erased in us the consequences - even the next - the general principles. In other words: our practical reason has the natural law that is written indelibly in us and to the general principles, the consequences - next and distant - of these principles and the correct applications can instead be darkened for effect of passion, as well as effect of 'perverse customs and corrupt habits' [ibid.], in which Buttiglione sees in nuce the possibility of a Thomistic interpretation of 'social sin' [cf. the. 88]. Therefore, conclude, it is possible that because of a passion - is invoked repeatedly fear as in the case of a divorced remarried with children to raise, Which is not to live a chaste with the new civilian husband, for fear of being abandoned - or a social climate - like ours - he has not seen in adultery a sin, those who objectively living in adulterous relationships do not live in a state of mortal sin because, Per the debt due, or apply the prohibition of adultery to their individual case, or do not see that this ban is a result of the next general principles of the natural law. In both cases forbid their full awareness and thus could be admitted to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, says love joy in note 351.

.

Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

The issue of the reasoning Buttiglione It is the simple fact that St. Thomas did not intend that his doctrine about the darkening of natural law in its consequences and its applications could serve as an excuse as to the subjective fault in case of serious habitual sin, such as that of divorced rested. He says it fairly clear at the end of The question 77 to which refers the passage quoted from Buttiglione, where St. Thomas thus answers the question whether a sin of passion can be deadly:

.

"It has already explained that mortal sin is to turn away at the last end, who is God: and this gesture is up to the deliberation of reason, whose task is to sort in order. Therefore it can happen that the soul turn to what is contrary to the ultimate end is not a mortal sin only if reason can not intervene to resolve: and what happens in sudden motions. But when the passion one passes upon sinful, or deliberate consent, the fact is not sudden. So the reason may intervene to resolve: it can suppress or prevent the passion, as seen. Whereby, if it does not intervene, It is a mortal sin: and in fact we see that passion you commit many murders and adulteries " [I-II, q. 77, to. 8, (c)].

.

We see in this text that St. Thomas, Unlike Buttiglione, does not require the current [or even regular, the. 80] cognition of the natural law in the coming consequences and applying it to their own case, but only the possibility of this knowledge, which is excluded - the healthy individual - only in sudden mood motions, but it is clear that this can not occur in the situation of divorced and remarried as it comes to a state of habitual life, for nothing sudden.

.

Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

In a similar route Saint Thomas the question whether ignorance can cause involuntary, where the type of ignorance of the law highlighted by Buttiglione is defined by Angelic Doctor as willful ignorance and therefore guilty, since 'it is about the things that one can and must do' [I-II, q. 6, to. 8, (c)] which certainly it can be said of natural law since it, as he admits the same Buttiglione, "Present in power ' [the. 79] in our practical reason. It is true that this habitual presence is completely guaranteed, as we have seen, only for the general practical principles, but, nonetheless, This presence enables us to become aware of even the most specific principles: on the contrary, The gain knowledge is a general imperative course of Practical Reason. Indeed, the presence in power of the natural law in practical reason does not have the character of a passive power, static, with which we can only deal with whether we feel like it. The practical reason is in fact also an active power [cf. The, q. 79, to. 7, (c)], a dynamic capacity, that - like every active power - gives birth in us the impulse, natural appetite to be fully realized [cf. The, q. 19, to. 1, (c)] and then, in the case of Practical Reason, to arrive at a correct cognition and application of natural law. So it is clear that there is in us the imperative to know and correctly apply the natural law in toto.

.

But we have seen that St. Thomas, in addition to the imperative to know something, lists as a voluntary ignorance condition as well the opportunity to learn something. The subject of Mr Buttiglione, indeed, We do not question the duty to know the natural law in particular situations of divorced and remarried, but the possibility to meet in the coming consequences and in the correct applications. Regarding the upcoming consequences of the general principles of practical reason, St. Thomas is, talking about the precepts of the Decalogue - which are precisely those coming consequences -, and he says that "there are some things that the natural right of any man judges immediately and directly as what to do or not to be: these, for instance, are the commandments: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead; not kill; Non ruberai» [I-II, q. 100, to. 1]. Therefore, the next consequences of the first principles, although there is not necessarily usually known as the first principles, There are notes for immediate reasoning - knowable "very little consideration», He says more above Angelic Doctor - of our intellect, that is, as we read, within reach of anyone.

.

Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

As for the question of the application of principles, instead, just keep in mind that St. Thomas admits the possibility of error with regard to the positive precepts - in the passage I-II, q. 94, to. 4, which refers to the passage quoted from Buttiglione, Angelico is the precept of return of deposited things -, but not as much to negative precepts of the Decalogue, such as the prohibition of adultery, which oblige "Always and forever», in all circumstances [cf. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (c). 13, l. 2]. So it is not compatible with the Thomistic doctrine of what he says when he says Buttiglione against Seifert, "That you can wander through no fault of applying first principles in a special situation ' [81]. St. Thomas, as we have seen we do not think so regarding the prohibition of adultery.

.

Actually, that's the point where the apologetic plant Buttiglione is in serious difficulties. It can be seen also from certain distinctions from paradoxical appearance in the text. One example. When Buttiglione, treating the error of conscience, says: "Conscientious error, however, never invincible; (It can be temporarily invincible but not forever)» [80]. If the error of conscience is never invincible - as the practical reason naturally understands the first principles and can always understand the future consequences of natural law -, as it can be provisionally?

.

If we now turn briefly, for completeness reason, also other subjective condition, that of deliberate consent, invoked here and there by Buttiglione [the. 37, 52, 60], we are faced with a situation similar to a certain point. St. Thomas is in the I-II, q. 6, to. 6, which answers the question if the fear makes an involuntary action. Defenders of love joy, indeed, when they talk about a lack of deliberate consent, usually occur in situations in which, according to their, is the fear to eliminate the voluntary action, as in the case of divorced remarried with children who does not live in a caste for fear of being abandoned. St. Thomas says that the fear does not make the involuntary action simply. This is the same term used by St. Thomas in the passage above [I-II, q. 6, to. 8] where he says, for the reasons given, the willful ignorance does not make the involuntary action simply. L’«plainly"It is a term used by St. Thomas to define the subjective conditions of mortal sin: the sin is mortal, if it is voluntary simply, otherwise it is not deadly [cf. Of bad, q. 7, to. 11, arg. 3]. Explaining the answer on the scheme presented above, we could say: the divorced rested which commits adultery for fear of being left mortal sin because she is operating in the active power of practical reason, demanding and making it instantly possible the knowledge of the prohibition of adultery and - being a negative precept - the application of it to his individual case.

.

Prof. Rocco Buttiglione

To recap: condoning love joy implemented by Buttiglione in his latest book it appears to be based on an unnatural reading of Aquinas' thought about the link between ignorance and subjective guilt, in which it seems to me that the author, one part, reduce the indelible presence of General prinicipi of natural law as a mere theoretical, static, passive, while it is, in truth, Gown of a natural active power that demands from all of us - even by the divorced and remarried - detailed knowledge of natural law and its correct application. On the other side, instead, Buttiglione does not understand that this knowledge and application - at least with regard to the negative precepts of the Decalogue - you can always in a simple way for anyone and therefore, the darkening of everything, It can only occur in a voluntary manner, and then guilty.

.

slovenian Bistrica, 22 January 2018

.

.

_____________________

.

The island of Patmos takes the opportunity to remember past stories but always lives :

A UNFORGETTABLE HONOR OF CATHOLIC Rocco Buttiglione

When at the beginning of today's two thousand and powerful gaystapo He was taking quickly and forcefully foot, the Honorable Rocco Buttiglione, was subjected to a full-fledged public inquisition in Brussels, during which he was first asked if he was Catholic and if, as such, considered sin, homosexuality. The then MEP Buttiglione, He chose to fight for the nomination as European Commissioner, so as not to come to terms with his Christian conscience [to open the video click on the image].
..______________________

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.

.

.

«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 [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

6 thoughts on "Rocco Buttiglione: a thinker at the crossroads of Amoris Laetitia and Thomism

  1. Thanks, gentile prof. Kerže!…

    And’ all clear, I also understand a child:

    “…We could say: the divorced rested which commits adultery for fear of being left mortal sin because she is operating in the active power of practical reason, demanding and making it instantly possible the knowledge of the prohibition of adultery and - being a negative precept - the application of it to his individual case”.

    Elementary, Angelic Doctor… the d.r. in the example quoted, as an adult and vaccinated, He must decide between the compromise now, or the dubious salvation of his soul, on Judgment Day. Hand her this harsh but inescapable reality, now, Mercy is, create them erroneous alibi is false misericordismo.

    It comes also to say, what you are talking about?… Years tiresome discussions about philosophical razor wire, to deny what looks a manifest reality?… The blame for all this lost time (while there is much real work to do), Actually, It is ambiguous extender Amoris laetitia, and its supporters, as the Byzantine prof. Buttiglione…

  2. Given that the Holy Father, for the power of the keys, It can determine who has access and who does not in the Eucharist (Jesus has perhaps denied “his Body” Judas?), I think that the AT problem is to assimilate certain negative precepts to the positive precepts and then apply both to valid standards for positive precepts;

    an example:
    – in AL 301 we read that “one subject, while knowing well the norm, It can have great difficulty in understanding "values ​​inherent in the moral norm”,
    – however the FC (33) It specifies that these considerations apply to standards that indicate a way forward, Which “the divine law on transmitting life and that on fostering authentic married love”, and certainly not to norna prohibiting, without ifs and buts, adultery.

    I believe that such a “operation” It is also favored by No. 62 AL, where we read that “The indissolubility of marriage (Mt 19,6), It is not primarily intended as a "yoke" imposed on men, but as a "gift" made to persons married”: it was written that His “yoke is”, certain moderniste drifts would find less fertile soil.

  3. Actually even the cardinal of Dubia hann stated that the divorced and remarried can not be subjectively attributable and then in the grace of God despite their habitual sin.

    From here http://www.scuolaecclesiamater.org/2016/11/la-mancata-risposta-ai-dubia-sullamoris.html

    "So, for Statement, the question of admission to the sacraments of objective judgment about the life situation of the person and not the judgment that this person is in a state of mortal sin. In fact subjectively MAY NOT FULLY ATTRIBUTABLE ** , o DO NOT BE SO FOR NOTHING. "

    And

    "The question 3 of "dubia" would thus clarify whether, even after "Amoris laetitia", you can still say that people who usually live in contradiction to the commandment of God's law live in the objective situation of grave habitual sin, Although, for some reason, It IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE RESULTING for their usual transgression ".

    They will have it all wrong too, then.

  4. Refutation of the article with the words of the four cardinal

    "The question of admission to the sacraments of objective judgment about the life situation of the person and not the judgment that this person is in a state of mortal sin. In fact subjectively MAY NOT FULLY ATTRIBUTABLE ** , o DO NOT BE SO FOR NOTHING. "

    And

    "The question 3 of "dubia" would thus clarify whether, even after "Amoris laetitia", you can still say that people who usually live in contradiction to the commandment of God's law live in the objective situation of grave habitual sin, Although, for some reason, It IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE RESULTING for their usual transgression ".

    It is evident that there is no connection between this and the arguments dall'articolista.

  5. Can anyone clarify some doubts?
    When Jesus says that “whoever looks at a woman lustfully, He has already committed adultery with her in his heart”, I want to say that adultery is a subjective sin: then why so much insistence in wanting to assimilate adultery objectivity of sexual intercourse?
    It is not adultery the loss of a shareholder assumed before God?
    But if then the unconditional faithfulness of God's covenant with man is called, nellafi, Mercy, how it can appeal to the Mercy who does not keep a pact with a fellow? (Mt 18.23-35)

Leave a Reply