On divorced and remarried. Continued discussion: replica of John Carlson on the response of Corrado Gnerre

ON DIVORCED AND REMARRIED. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: REPLICA OF JOHN CARLSON ON THE RESPONSE OF CORRADO GNERRE

.

Is now much quoted on no. 84 the Apostolic Exhortation Family company St. John Paul II, in which the Pope expresses the condition of the irregularities of the divorced and remarried, in outer hole or, and how he expresses, "Objectively"; but the Holy Pontiff is careful not to say that they would, subjectively or in the inner hole, in a continuous state of mortal sin, because, this, like I said, It would be a rash judgment, which claims scrutinize the intimate consciences and secret operations of grace. In second place, this teaching of the Holy Pontiff should not be taken as if it were an immutable doctrine of the faith, but only as a pastoral available, as such, changing, as the ancient tradition. But this is not Sacred Tradition, it only custodian of the data revealed, but only the canonical tradition. the years in which this apostolic Exhortation has been written, the question of divorced and remarried is somewhat extended, complicated and aggravated, so that the present Pope has decided to reconsider it in to see if they maintain the current discipline, or adopt different solutions from the past.

.

..

Author John Cavalcoli OP
Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

[To read the article by Prof. Corrado Gnerre, refuted the eight points that follow, click WHO]

.

the Dominican Pontifical academic John Cavalcoli

The Prof. Riccardo Gnerre again intervened against me the online magazine Levied Christian regarding the issue of the moral and legal issues pertaining to remarried divorcees [cf. article, WHO]. I believe that our discussion may offer a modest but sincere contribution and perhaps a help to the far more authoritative ongoing discussions of the Synod Fathers. But, these are serious issues of common interest, I think it's not bad that the two of us, ordinary faithful, we express our opinion in a constructive dialogue. Let's see the main and most significant criticisms and objections that makes me prof. Gnerre.

..

.

1. I really believe that the divorced and remarried are in a state of grave sin is "rash judgment"?

.

answer: It is a rash judgment, if you believe that they are necessarily and constantly in a state of guilt or shame, so as to be permanently and irreparably, around the clock devoid of grace, so that if they were to die should fall into hell.

NOn this, however, is the thought of the Italian Episcopal Conference which, already in 1979, It issued an important document "Pastoral of irregular marriage situations" [cf. WHO], in which you give instructions, even today very useful, the Christian conduct, that these couples can practice. From this it easily deduces that they may be gracefully and therefore are not in a constant state of mortal sin. Indeed, if he says, for instance, the two can do "spiritual Communion”. If they had a mortal sin on his conscience, They could never do it?

.

2. Gnerre makes me say that I would argue that one can be induced to sin against his will. In fact I objected saying that, if this were true, "Everyone could cite situations that would have prompted him, unwillingly, to sin: "The woman you put with me gave me the fruit, and I ate!» [GN, 3]. Adam tries to exonerate himself needlessly ".

.

But I said exactly the opposite. I said that sin is an act free and voluntary, for which there is a "sin spite of themselves". Certain, I can do an action objectively bad, but, if I make unintentionally or because forced or inadvertent or deliberate consent without, the action I can not be accused of negligence, at least before God. It is different on If Adam, paradigm of the one who has sinned really and voluntarily and, unfairly, He wants to shift blame on others; though it is true that Adam was led into temptation by Eve. But one thing is suffer a temptation is to yield and an account voluntarily the temptation. I, however, I was referring to the case in which, as for example certain cohabiting, in insurmountable objective situations, Peccano certamente, but have extenuating circumstances, for the fact that, for hypothesis, They are every day in front frequent occasion, urgent and inevitable fall. For this, also a sin in itself fatal to his subject, but with lack of full - mitigating subjective deliberation because of the violence of passion -, It can drop venial fault level.

.

3. Household members, says Gnerre, They have "an obligation to take off from the sinful condition, otherwise there is a risk of “try” It gave".

.

The obligation is, but if there are real possibilities and objective to terminate the relationship. But there are complex and complicated cases in which the separation is not possible - at least momentarily - even with all the good will of the pair, which could also have repented of the new union, but he does not know how to get out. In these cases an occasion of sin is inevitable and unavoidable, whereby, if it is true that the occasion is not the cause own, but only incentive the stimulus external to sin, and if it is true that the real cause of sin is only the ill will, it remains true that apply mitigating referred to in the previous issue. And if the two were to fall into mortal sin, They can be forgiven by God, even without the sacrament of penance. Clearly however, whenever they sin, to rise, They must have the intention to sin no more, despite the continuing supposed involuntary or greater than the power situation, which pushes to sin. However, it should never be called "sinful", but dangerous. Let us always remember that no situation is sinful the guilty in sé, but which, however, it can be an occasion of sin or temptation to sin. And if in some cases the situation can be avoided, It should be avoided.

The temptation of God is another thing. It involves asking a volunteer occasion or neglect to do everything possible to avoid sin, while claiming to enjoy the divine protection or escape, however the danger. God can not help if we throw ourselves voluntarily into the abyss.

The case of certain cohabitants is different. The hypothesis is that they are unable to avoid the opportunity or temptation. For this, when it comes, easily they fall into sin, but the fault decreases, as it is supposed that the will yields to the violence of passion. But if the fault is lowered to the level venial sin, they shall be removed by simple personal penitential practices, obtain forgiveness directly from God.

.

4. "Two cohabiting changing lives, demonstrate that their intention not to sin does not exist ".

.

They are cases in which, at least temporarily, you can not stop living together, which implies the existence of opportunities and inevitable temptations and perhaps irresistible to sin. This will mean frequent sins, more or less serious. But if their condition of life externally and legally is irregular and unlawful, and it is objectively reprehensible, we know then we of what grace can work in their consciences? It is true that the good intention proves with deeds. But it is also true that if you are in a situation like that of certain cohabitants, from which at the moment it is impossible to exit, Who prevents them from continuously renew and sincerely, with every effort, good intentions and good intentions, despite frequent falls?

To test the quality of an intent we should not ask the next actions that are beyond their strength. Two cohabiting obliged to remain living together can also perform acts of good will and then not at all excluded from God's mercy, maybe even more a married couple who live in a regular position. What do we know about the intentions of hearts? What do we know about the differences and conflicts that may arise between the two consciousnesses? What do we know of the violence with which certain forces of evil in contrast the good intention and good will of the subject? And if the good intention can not express the outside, Perhaps God does not see it and not the rewards? And we know what that grace operates in souls?

.

5. "We take the Confession. This, to be valid it needs some conditions, including being sincerely repentant and the resolution not to sin again. In connection also comes in the future behavior. If I stole and I am convinced that a particular occasion he made me do it, I have a moral obligation to avoid that next occasion of sin. The same applies if a woman living with her as my wife does not this being my wife Again: from a formal point of view the father Cavalcoli reasoning could also have value, but not from the substantive and purposeful. That's why Jesus says the words I quoted earlier: “If you look at a woman to lust after ...”».

.

No one stops to life partners to continually renew the resolution not to sin again whenever they sin. It is true that in ' Pain act in denominational we express the confessor this regard. But this does not prevent the next week we fall into the same sin, at least venial, without implying any recidivism or lightness or hypocrisy, but only because of the weakness of human nature. Which is not to say that there are not and should not exist healing processes, but they require their time and the confessor must know how to wait. In addition to, the aim must be weighed against their forces and their possibilities, compatibly to the condition of life in which there is located and from which it can not come out.

Now, our hypothesis is precisely that of a couple who, serious objective reasons, Larger and also in part reasonable force, can not stop the relationship. Certain, This requires continuous renewal of good intentions. But we must not believe that the two, for the simple fact of being in that situation, can not make sincere resolutions, that they open them to the grace of God.

.

6. "The divorced and remarried can not access the Eucharist because their condition is objectively negative. The Family company (n.84) [Ed. WHO] He speaks for divorced a condition of life that contradicts "objectively" the natural and Christian truth about marriage: "Are they (the divorced and remarried) unable to be admitted, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, signified and effected by the Eucharist "".

.

The Pope expresses here the condition of their irregularities, in outer hole or, and how he expresses, "Objectively"; but is careful not to say that they would, subjectively or in the inner hole, in a continuous state of mortal sin, because, this, like I said, It would be a rash judgment, which claims scrutinize the intimate consciences and secret operations of grace. In second place, this teaching of the Holy Pontiff should not be taken as if it were an immutable doctrine of the faith, but only as a pastoral available, as such, changing, as the ancient tradition. But this is not Sacred Tradition, it only custodian of the data revealed, but only the canonical tradition. In fact, the years in which this apostolic Exhortation has been written, the question of divorced and remarried is somewhat extended, complicated and aggravated, so that the present Pope has decided to reconsider it in to see if they maintain the current discipline, or adopt different solutions from the past. For this he convened the Synod. The question puts a game two values ​​of faith, that is connected to the Church with wise pastoral: one part, respect for the sacraments, Immutable means of grace and salvation, instituted by Christ; other, the care of souls, nourished by sacramental grace, administered by the Church.

Depending on where hangs, as it were, the balance, the Church can give precedence to Sacramento; and then from this springs the current framework; or can put up more clearly the salvation of souls; and then the current rules could be changed. We await the Holy Father's decisions, such that they are, no alarmism of a narrow-minded conservatism and without the superficiality of the modernists.

.

7. "Father Cavalcoli falls into heresy today: sin in itself does not exist, It should rather be regarded as a fine halved. Cavalcoli Father should know that if there is absolute good, not the absolute evil exists, but no evil is not and will not remain evil ".

.

The professor. Gnerre gives me horrible things that I never said, nor can absolutely draw from my statements. Why such a blinding? What happened? He believes he can get this view from my words: "The sin of living together, as sinning, It is not necessarily coextensive with their live. It is not that their whole life is a sin?. They may very well have good quality in other respects, quality that they can and should enhance, without sin on the merits ".

As for the "good half", we must be understood. If I make only half of my duty, I certainly sin. But if I cut in half an apple, to eat I do not do anything wrong, Halve a good is sin, if the asset is to be whole: if I cut in half a human person, certainly I am doing wrong, that sin.

Adultery is bad, it's a shame, because it destroys a marriage, source of human life. But the new couple is adultery, once you committed this sin, it is said that later in life following it is always sin, devoid of grace, even if it lasts a state of deplorable life. Indeed, the two can repent every sin and regain whenever grace, although it remains the illegitimate union or reprehensible.

Perhaps Professor. Gnerre, with its reference to buonismo, He intended to refer to the theory of sin as "imperfection", devised by the modernists to apply to cohabiting under the pretext that the two possess the human qualities, to minimize their faults. Instead the moral imperfection is quite distinct from sin, because imperfection is in good line, is an action essentially good, although it lacks its fullness, but not bad agent will, but only to the limits of his will. It is therefore the result of goodwill. The sin, vice versa, It is an evil act, effect of ill will. It is voluntary imperfection, is a volunteer had to halve the fine.

Therefore, I would say that sin in itself does not exist? There is pure evil? I simply say that cohabiting, like any human being Adam's son, mixed good deeds with bad deeds. I also recalled that, if you are not in grace, also good works are not for the salvation. I have said and repeated, in addition to, that sin is a bad voluntary act performed with caution and deliberate consent.

Where here prof. Gnerre reason of his delirious accusations against me? He rather, with his theory of full-time SIN - "sinful situation" - approaches to horribly Manichean conception of evil and to hell relentlessly poor sinners ignoring the work of grace; a serious problem, this, also indicated by Ariel S. Levi Gualdo since the subtitle of his last thundering article [cf. The island of Patmos, WHO].

Turning then to the question of absolute good and absolute evil, what I have always said is that there is absolute good and absolute evil does not exist, because, while the well can be totally free from evil, evil is nothing but a deficiency or an accidental character deprivation, because it needs a substance or subject, to which inhere. The total evil, absolute or substantial, therefore, does not exist, because, in the moment when all the substance is destroyed, evil cancels itself.

But the sin is not an evil that destroys himself, come pensa Karl Rahner; In fact, in the case of sin, the subject is the soul, which, as sin is serious, It can not be destroyed by this evil, which remains in the soul. How do I remove this evil? It is God who takes away in Christ, provoking repentance or giving grace, and this also happens in divorced and remarried, even if they have the ability to terminate their relationship.

.

8. To say that the Pope can never speak against the Tradition, even though it will be caretaker, It means in fact considers it infallible on everything. Graziano writes in his decree of Pope: “A nemine is judicandus, unless it is found to have deviated from the faith,”, What does that mean: "It should not be judged by anyone, unless it turns away from the faith. "

.

The Pope is infallible interpreter of Tradition, not all? Those who have never supported? If the Pope speaks of the game Milan-Inter, It is not infallible. Graziano is a hypothetical reasoning purely formal and abstract, where it is a result, not the consequent. It's like if I said: if I were to throw from the fifth floor, I'd kill. But I do not mean to throw myself from the fifth floor.

The Pope, as Teacher of the Faith, Supreme unchanging saving truth interpreter, revealed to us by Christ and contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as the Vicar of Christ in teaching gospel doctrine, the contents of dogma and morality, the demands of divine law and natural law, although not formally ruling - a very rare thing - a new dogmatic definition, according to papal infallibility conditions laid down by the First Vatican Council, in his public teaching ordinary, oral or written, encyclical, exhortation or apostolic letter, a Motu Proprio, a general audience or a homily of the Mass daily, or a public talk to anyone or at any level, or an interview with a journalist or by famous people, benefits from the charism of Peter, to whom Christ said: «strengthen your brethren» ['Strengthen your brothers in the faith ", cf. LC 22,32] and therefore can not be deceived and does not deceive, errs not and is not fallible, but he always says with certainty true, that, if it is not immediately truths of faith, it is still connected with faith or descends from the faith.

The Pope is not infallible instead and indeed may err or deceive or be deceived, or sin in everything else, It may be unfair or reckless in his moral conduct, in making a decision, in governing the Church, in enacting or repealing or changing a canonical law or a standard liturgical, expressing a theological opinion, in speeches or private behavior, in the choice of collaborators, in the appointment or promotion or dismissal of bishops or prelates, in dealing with the political power or political judgments. It can be deposed or unworthiness or incapacity or for grave reasons that affect the well or peace in the Church, but he can never be convinced of heresy, which, moreover, it has never happened. Himself, as now we know now, It can make withdrawal from the sacred ministry for good cause, more or less freely.

The only valid hypothesis of a heretic pope is the case of manifest dementia, something which has never occurred, or had undergone constriction, case, the latter, that has occurred; my Dad it, Free return, It canceled the act invalid, accomplished in need.

It is therefore inconceivable vergognosissima idea and that of some self-styled Catholics or Catholics, which, false supporters of Tradition, dare advance the possibility of the Pope "heretic", with the clear intention to put a basic "legal", to accuse the current Pontiff, while some come audacity to openly accuse, taking occasion, an example among many, by his decision to allow the Synod will discuss the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to receive Communion, as if this constituted an attack on "Tradition" and the dignity of the Sacraments.

On the other side we have the most consistent and dangerous modernist faction, arrogant, skeptically, liberal, subjectivist, historicist, evolutionary and relativistic, which, denies any certainty how or universal and objective evidence - contemptuously called "abstract" – and then not only the immutability of dogma, but also of the truth of reason, promotes, under the pretext of "progress", "freedom", "mercy" and "modernity", a change of discipline, not to adapt it better to dogma or to divine law, waves implement a better application, but because he does not believe in any absolute value.

Impersonate Catholics and not be is a serious scam or a purely political, much worse than those who claim to cure the sick, without proper title. The Catholic is neither one who is in charge of overseeing the orthodoxy Pope, to ensure you are faithful to the Tradition, or one that, believing they have a direct line to the Holy Spirit or with the Bible, It acts according to his subjective consciousness, in absolute autonomy, as Fichte was the "absolute I", like it or not the Pope, which for him it is a believer on a par with all other, with his own questionable and even backward opinions, as he said Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, shortly before his death, that "the Church of Benedict XVI is back two centuries', and fortunately "Today we have great theologians like Rahner" [ CF. the Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, please refer to our past articles: WHO, WHO].

The Catholic stands out among all other Christians - and he has - because of its loyal obedience to the Pope, that is not obedience supine, but the intelligent and responsible people, enjoying the freedom of God's children, and therefore they know when the Pope must be obeyed, and when it can be criticized, withn the basis of criteria of discernment that the Pope himself gives, and not those that come from Mons. Marcel Lefebvre o da Hans Kung.

Although the Pope is not perfectly impartially between the two parties in conflict, we should not trouble us that much: It is one of those things where he is not infallible and can correct itself. We express our disagreement fairly, where it is allowed, But look above him as the successor of Peter. Let us be neighbors in the struggle and suffering, we call upon him for the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of Our Lady, so that "there may be one flock and one shepherd".

.

Varazze, 22 October 2015

.

.

__________________________________________

Dear readers,

Please note that occasionally The island of Patmos and all the work and care that it requires for site maintenance, needs your support. Grant us a little, but grant us anything to support us, using the convenient and secure Paypal system.

Thanks.

.

.

About isoladipatmos

5 thoughts on "On divorced and remarried. Continued discussion: replica of John Carlson on the response of Corrado Gnerre

  1. Dearest Father, may God bless you seventy times seven!
    Read in one breath, and then re-read again.
    Thank you for all you are doing from the island of Patmos, especially to inform us priests, and to support us with the authentic teaching of the Church, because we pastors and curates, we live on “battlefield”,we have more and more difficulty in answering people's questions, with confusion circulating, Species Network. Thanks!

    don Marco

      1. I share, I approve and endorse greatly compliment the distinguished Dominican theologian Father John Cavalcoli. By adding a special thank, as pastor of a large parish: these items (those of Father John and those of the Father Ariel), I served so much to give many specific answers, because I do not tell you, nowadays, how many questions, and as articulated, do we often feel from people on both new canonical procedure for judgments of nullity of marriage, for the various issues related to divorced and remarried.
        For me, these items, They have been an illuminating grace.
        Don Vittorio

  2. Let's say that Professor Gnerre seem suffering from acute lefevrite, which mainly consists in giving, with extreme nonchalance, heretic to anyone who does not fall into their doctrinal knowledge canons … in the case of relatively narrow lefevristi. The good Father John Cavalcoli simply drafted the articles where I have been places of questions and very interesting theological reasoning on the case in question … Open up Heaven! I understand that today we all feel “doctors of divinity”, but perhaps it would be better to think, in the first place, to become saints on a personal level and to do the fleas to others throughout making panic unnecessarily.

    1. Gentile Say. George M. G.
      the “acute lefebvrite” it's a “disease” severe that he did suffer much, and above all to no avail, many of us priests, when we had the misfortune to find ourselves around people who, verbatim to Neocatechumenals, claim to establish the ecclesial and liturgical rules which, the pastor first, You must be followed, just as if it were one of their employees subordinate.
      Don Vittorio

Leave a Reply