UNHAPPY ABOUT THE LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE BISHOPS OF ARGENTINE: A NOTE ON THE ISSUE OF COMMUNION TO DIVORCED REMARRIED

.

If the Pope wants to change the law - and has the power to do so - however, must set aside that unhappy letter, evidently written on impulse to the Argentine bishops. That, remains a private document, which shows the generous soul of the Pope, but lacks juridical prudence, so it is worthless, not for the content, which can be valid - it is in fact up to the Pope to decide -, but for the shape.

.

.

Author
Giovanni Cavalcoli, ON

.

.

PDF print format article

.

.

The fathers of’Patmos Island they have in mind, as priests and theologians, who Peter is in his role as Vicar of Christ the Good Shepherd, but also the Vicar of Christ, outside the exercise of his infallible ministry, can fall into error, how Peter fell there and how many of his Successors fell after him [cf. WHO], without detracting from the supreme authority of Peter, linked by dogma of faith to the mystery of the Church.

It is known that the Bishops of the Buenos Aires Region they asked the Pope about their "interpretation" oflove joy, from which it would appear that she grants Eucharistic Communion to the divorced and remarried. And the letter with which the Pope approved this "interpretation" is equally well known..

We must observe with regret that this granting of Communion to the divorced and remarried is not an interpretation, my a change of the law contained in love joy, which confirms the provisions of St. John Paul II in Family member company to n. 84, that is to say, the prohibition of communion for the divorced and married, excluding those who choose to live in a state of sexual continence.

.

As I have already had the opportunity to explain publicly on several occasions on the island of Patmos and elsewhere, the Pope has, under the power of the keys, the right at its discretion to change the laws of the Church, although founded on divine right. Now the law of the exclusion of the divorced and remarried from Eucharistic Communion is one of these [see our previous articles from October 2015 in the archive of’Patmos Island, WHO , WHO , WHO].

.

the Episcopal Conference of Argentina

The content of the Pope's letter it is therefore inherently in line with its jurisdictional power, however lacks legal form, whereby, if one doesn't happen healing formal, it is legally invalid, for the reason that I said and I repeat: The Pope's letter is not an interpretation, but a change in the law. While the love joy prohibits Communion with the aforementioned restriction, The letter admits.

.

Until this happens healing, for now the rule of the Family member company, which is tacitly but validly confirmed in love joy. In fact, it is a common rule of legal exegesis that a legislator who returns to the matter dealt with and regulated by a previous legislator, unless explicitly introduced by the new legislator, he confirms the dictates of the law desired by the previous legislator.

.

a group of members of the Episcopal Conference of Argentina

Now this is precisely what the Pope did in love joy for the simple fact of not having explicitly changed the disposition of St. John Paul II. So it has implicitly but validly confirmed. It follows that now as now the norm established by St. John Paul II and confirmed in love joy. However, it should be noted that the love joy contains, with respect to the Familiar Consortium, two novelties, which can act as a premise for a change in the law:

.

– The admission that the divorced and remarried they can be in grace. Now, if one is in grace, It may receive Communion.

– The note 351, in which the Pope mentions "cases" in which the sacraments could be granted to the divorced and remarried.

.

I observe however:

.

collect and …

Ad 1m: an account is the premise from which a law can be derived and an account is the law itself. The premise alone is not true law. The legislator himself must draw the consequences. Only then will there be a true law. It can be said that the Pope did this in his letter. But our case presents the difficulty that these consequences they are contrary to a previous law.

.

The legislator by itself, as I said, has the right to draw the said consequences, but he must clearly state that he has changed the previous law and not that "interpreted" it. Only in this case the new law is valid and binding.

.

Ad 2m: a law must determine the cases in which it is to be applied or not applied, which is not done here, and cannot be stated in the conditional, as given here, ma all’imperative o all’indicative. For this he notes it 351 it has no legal value and does not at all abolish n. 84 from the Familiar Consortium.

.

Conclusion

.

… throw the balls, always has its risks.

If the Pope wants to change the law - and he has the right to do so - he must set aside that unfortunate letter, evidently written on impulse. That, remains a private document, which shows the generous soul of the Pope, but lacks juridical prudence, so it is worthless, not for the content, which can be valid - it is in fact up to the Pope to decide -, but for the shape.

.

I therefore allow myself to suggest to the Holy Father to issue a new document, possibly in the form of Motu proprio, in which, giving up talking about "interpretation", that is a legal monster, say with unequivocal clarity and evangelical frankness that abolishes the law of St. John Paul II and grants Communion to the divorced and remarried in certain cases.

.

It would not be the first time that the Church has changed its laws, but this must be done in due form, to show the face of divine mercy, as well as to reassure traditionalists and penalty takers, and also block the anomistic and treacherous attempts of the modernists and lax. There is a midpoint between the harshness of legalism and anarchist liberalism: legal prudence, which is justice and mercy.

.

Varazze, 14 September 2016

.

.

Text of the letter to the Argentine Bishops

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.