THEOLOGICAL DEBATES – REPLICA OF JOHN CARR TO CRITICISM OF ANTONIO LIVI

.

I have said on many occasions that we do not know what the Holy Father will decide and that we must be available to maintain the current law that some its change. We tell the conservatives that the current law is not untouchable and the innovators that the dogma is not changeable. As is the case in the mystery of the incarnation, so it is in Christian morality and family: We must reduce the eternal in time, without eternizzare the storm and without temporalizzare the eternal.

.

.

.

.Monsignor Antonio Livi has published Apostolic Union website Faith and Reason [cf. WHO] an article entitled "In defense of the Catholic truth about marriage", in which he addresses many objections to me. The article was also reported by press agency Correspondence Romana [cf. WHO] and the online magazine Levied Christian [cf. WHO], and from various other sites and blogs, several of which have been limited to only report the criticisms addressed to me, looking though the return my texts published with my answers, all of them available on’Patmos Island, which thousands of visitors access every day, and that suggests that many readers went definitely read what I've written really.

We review the questions raised by Antonio Livi and give each answer.

.

1. I immediately replied, arguing that the pastoral and canonical consideration of the divorced and remarried as faithful obliged to come out of their "state of sin" cannot be considered contrary to the Magisterium and therefore theologically unfounded..

.

I have already explained elsewhere what can be understood by "state of sin". However, I repeat it. If by "state of sin" we mean that the cohabitants, under the single and simple situation, where there are, I'm permanently and necessarily, twenty-four hours a day to fall short of the grace of God, as if they were damned souls of hell, almost with the pretense of scrutinizing the depths of conscience known only to God, well, There is no doubt that this would be a rash judgment. If instead with that expression means the stable situation, which can be independent of the will of the two, in which they are taken easily to Sin, the expression may be acceptable, though it may seem ambiguous and may lead to understand it in the first meaning. Better to talk about a "dangerous situation", or use the term "irregular Union legal" or that "unlawful" morale [cf. doc. the, 1979, his The pastoral care of marriage of the divorced and remarried and living in difficult or irregular situations, WHO, WHO].

.

2. According To Carlson, "Sin is only a single act" that runs out when it is committed and does not give rise to a "state" or permanent condition of the soul: but this is an unfounded theory.

.

I never said that sin does not give rise to a permanent state or condition in the soul. I argue just the opposite, that is what Antonio Livi claims. I simply said that sin is not to be confused with the situation resulting from the Sin itself, fault situation, which can be more or less durable. Partners can and must terminate voluntarily anytime this inner situation with repentance, While you can make it impossible to stop the coexistence. In fact, however, one of the two can repent and the other cannot.

.

3. There is a semantic illogicality contained in the definition of sin as a "willed act, avoidable and winnable» (because what should be "winnable" not voluntary, but the disordered passion that drives the subject to it).

.

The will does not always and only have to overcome the passion, but also itself in the acts that are exhausted within the will itself and do not involve a relationship with passion. Will can be evil in itself, unrelated to the passions. In the event to, will must win herself. For instance, an intention of heresy, resides exclusively in the will. This, to return to the Orthodox intention, he must win and annul that intention of the will itself.

.

4. Carr thinks he can then say that the rules contained therein – starting with the one for which the divorced and remarried are excluded from Eucharistic communion – they are only one possible pastoral application among many possible ones, making it perfectly plausible – he says – hope that actually are taken completely different standards.

.

Christ commands us to feed His body. This is the divine law. But there are many ways to be able to apply it or not be able to apply it. In fact, he entrusted to Peter [Mt 16, 19] the task of regulating, determine or establish in detail about, come, When, where is that, under what circumstances, under what conditions and why allow or forbid access to Eucharistic Communion to the various categories of faithful. I don't see what is strange about this practice, that the Church has always at its discretion to the same mandate of the Lord.

.

5. Carr believes the dogma is perfectly compatible with a new law under which, even when the sacramental forgiveness denied (because the penitent was unable to show the minister of penance his sincere and effective decision to get out of the state of sin), the faithful can access the Communion if God forgives him otherwise. But how does a law of the Church predict the occurrence of this event of grace?? The church, at any level, can never become aware of when and how you can verify the justification of the sinner in the secret of his conscience and extrasacramentale. If the Church, aware of its limitations, in the new law proposed by Cavalcoli, simply faithful councelling set conscientiously, in practice we would return to traditional canon law, based on what was established by the Council of Trent: to access the faithful Communion must be certain in conscience about not being in mortal sin.

.

The law or the licence or permit that can be hoped for communion for divorced and remarried persons in special cases, Let the faithful recognize if he is in a State of grace necessary to access Communion. It is obvious that it is always the obligation of the Council of Trent, given that actually is based on the words of Saint Paul. Except that in our case the Church would allow for divorced and remarried persons to check themselves each time, How should you do any good faithful, whether or not the inner conditions suitable to receive communion. At this point, It is clear that the Church could and should give them even the sacramental confession.

.

6. But how does – at present – a divorced remarried to have the certainty that God has granted him in the secret of his conscience that forgiveness and that return to the grace of God the Church denied him in the celebration of the sacrament of penance, because they lack the qualifications required to demonstrate a genuine repentance?

.

If the Church denies the divorced and remarried the Sacraments, It has no power on the grace extrasacramentale, God only to the mysterious designs of his mercy. It is not necessary for the divorced remarried show confessor repentance: just that God manifests them. However, in the case that the Church would grant Fellowship, he should also grant Confession.

.

7. Many theologians (with which Cavalcoli seems to agree) envisage what the final document of the Synod calls, in a very vague way, «accompaniment and discernment ". But here too: What kind of discernment may have a extrasacramentale priest who serves as a spiritual counselor, a parish priest or the Bishop of the diocese? And on the basis of what knowledge of the action of grace in the soul of that single penitent and on the basis of what instruments of discernment can they authorize the faithful to approach Communion?

.

It is necessary and sufficient that the priest checks if the subject has repented, If it is correct, If you want to improve, If it follows its guidelines, if you want to do penance, if he participates in ecclesial and civil life, If the care work, family and friends. Can then propose an ad hoc spiritual journey, you use the gifts God has given him his human qualities and service to others and the Church. As the Bishop, can possibly prepare a manual that, applying the general laws of the Church for these situations, provides guidelines and recommendations, especially for the most difficult cases, confessors, to spiritual guides, to teachers, educators, to the parishes, families, to the institutes of the diocese on how to deal with these people, How to accommodate their human contribution and faith, How to help them and correct them fraternally.

.

8. What is absolutely not possible is precisely what Cavalcoli thinks should be done and it is foreseeable that it will be done, i.e. establish that some local authorities (bishop, Pastor, Chaplain) they can judge me "from outside" that a person who is not able to receive sacramental absolution is back in "State of grace" (and therefore can receive Communion) through an intimate act of repentance (that would be ineffective, that is not enough to obtain sacramental absolution) and an absolving grace of an extrasacramental type.

.

The confessor has the authority to discern and judge If the penitent exist or no goodwill, based on the way to accuse of sins and signs giving of repentance and faith in God's mercy. And the penitent himself, enlightened by his faith, after an appropriate examination of conscience, based on the testimony of good conscience, is qualified to declare anyone fearlessly their innocence before God, recovering, following the example of the Apostle, to divine judgment, that searches hearts. How to repent, It is effective, even without sacramental absolution, because God provides to forgive him. It is therefore hoped that the Church will also grant sacramental confession.

.

9. Cavalcoli's speech does not agree with logic. The law of the Church concerning the "state of grace" to be admitted to Communion appeals to the discernment of the subject himself who is required to examine his conscience (eventually, with the prudent advice of a confessor "in foro interno"), as already established by the Council of Trent teaches that when the faithful must discern for themselves, in conscience, If you find it or not in mortal sin. This means that, logically, a human moral law waiver to provide all types of specific cases in which a person can be sure that you are not obliged to observe. Therefore, if the new pastoral practice requested by some synod fathers (and father Carr) it takes the form of a law which expressly provides for certain cases of exception to the rule, then one cannot speak of a different application of the same theological criterion possible of previous law. In short, the truth is that with this proposal the Familiaris consortio is abolished, as its explicit doctrine is substantially contradicted by another doctrine, albeit implicit. The go repeating, How does Carr, that it is just a different application of the same prudential practice doctrine is a mere rhetorical device.

.

Any new law should not expect "all types of specific cases in which a person can be sure that you are not obliged to observe it". That would be actually impossible. Nor should "make explicit provision for certain types of exception to the rule". The new law, instead, could maintain the current one of exclusion from the sacraments, just give a few examples of possible cases of exception to the law, but in a purely indicative form, website not, without claiming to exhaust all possible cases, but giving space to the work of careful discernment of the Confessor or the Bishop. If a Church law it contradicts another, there is no need to be alarmed. You may indicate a thousand examples of this in the history of ecclesiastical legislation. Just think of the prohibition on women for millennia to serve at the altar, prohibition that was overcome by allowing women to proclaim the Readings of the Mass or to distribute Communion to the faithful. So don't be scandalized or do a drama, if on this point the Family member company will be changed. How many reform laws implemented by the Second Vatican Council abolished or changed, since they are ecclesiastical and not divine laws. I have already discussed the difference between these two kinds of laws in recent articles on’Patmos Island [cf. WHO, WHO, WHO], so I'm not going back above.

.

10. The doctrine of Carr is incorrect: consists in attributing to the Magisterium prior knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments. But is this the only ordinary way that the Magisterium may know because he knows – not for human science or private revelation but only for public disclosure – that Christ has entrusted him to establish his Church. A new moral law that abolished the indissolubility?

.

No way. What does indissolubility have to do with it? It is not about, I repeat for the umpteenth time, of "moral law", which, as contained in divine revelation, it is divine law for us Christians: but of Church law, that ultimately, although dictated by utmost prudence and descended from dogma, still remains a positive human law, changing how all human laws. "To attribute to the Magisterium prior knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments, a priori knowledge of cases in which the divine grace, providing exceptionally to the saving action guaranteed by it in the ordinary way by the administration of the sacraments "? This is absolutely not at this, like I said, it is not a question of programming the freedom of the Holy Spirit, but to put in place a flexible and supernatural prudence, as well as an enlightened charity, worthy of the heart of Christ, that put us in listening to the needs of souls and make us wise discernment assess the diversity of cases and situations, in order to bring the law of the Gospel and the scent of eternal life.

.

11. Carr suggests that Pope's intentions are clear and binding, in the sense of wanting just what he's proposing with such ardor dialectic, that is a standard specification "" which puts the bishops the right to evaluate "in foro interno" grant opportunities, case by case, access to Communion for the divorced and remarried. Dominican theologian does not mention, but you should know that in the debate on the family on the occasion of the Synod many proposed a new ecclesiastical law, on the basis of a new doctrine, abolish the Familiaris consortio, and with it the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.

.

I have said on many occasions that we do not know what the Holy Father will decide and that we must be available to maintain the current law that some its change. We tell the conservatives that the current law is not untouchable and the innovators that the dogma is not changeable. As is the case in the mystery of the incarnation, so it is in Christian morality and family: We must reduce the eternal in time, without eternizzare the storm and without temporalizzare the eternal.

.

.

Varazze, 29 October 2015

.

.

.