GIACOMO BIFFI AND THE IDEA OF ESSENCE OF EVIL

On the occasion of the death of Giacomo Biffi of fathers’Patmos Island have devoted some comments to his figure and his works [WHO, WHO], which are followed today by some calm perplexities, because what first is not convincing, is the conception of the late Cardinal assumed reality to the idea of evil.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

the work of Giacomo Biffi [Ed. Cantagalli]

In the book by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi “Memories and digressions of an Italian Cardinal” [1] I read some of his thoughts about the essence of evil, that I wasn't entirely satisfied. He starts from the metaphysics of Soloviev, which saw reality as "unitotalità", that Biffi defines the "shape of the truth of being", that evil would be what "separates" from this all: “Evil is therefore essentially division and separation, because it is forfeiture from “unity”. The risk, in this view, is to conceive of evil as a forfeiture or removal from all, so the remedy results in a return of all to all, recovering herself, and the famous "apocatastasis" by Origen, condemned by the Church. If instead, as we'll see, evil is an ontological deprivation caused by the will of the creature, then we are ready to accept the Christian vision, for which the antidote to evil is not a simple return, but one recreation offered by God to the sinner, which offer, But, made in all, at some meets an irrevocable and absolute resistance.

the mystery of evil, depiction of the Dragon of the Apocalypse

For this the divine remedy evil does not reach all creatures, ma only those who accept. In the Christian view, in fact, not all creatures return to One-All, that is to God, not because God cannot bring them back, but because they don't want. In the Christian view of God allows that in the question of evil come in the free will of the creature, capable of choosing evil, i.e. divest divine well permanently and irreparably damaged.

The origenist vision, instead, similar to that of Plotinus, everything that comes out of one and back to One, everything that comes out of everything and return to All, is Grand and charming, but deviates from the given faith, which provides eternal punishment for the wicked. In interpreting the Word of God, one must not start from an idea, as beautiful and sublime, and wanting to force the Word of God to enter into that idea; ma, on the contrary, It is our vision that should, as much as possible, reflect the word of God. This is the true theology; the other is Gnosticism. The rest, as we also in other religions, There is no shortage of reasons to admit an award in the hereafter or eternal punishment [2].

depiction of hell [artwork of Claudia Rogge]

In truth, the devise evil as a property of an entity that isolates or separates from all or from the collection to which it belongs, it doesn't make me difficult. There is no doubt that is separate from the evil Church; it is bad that the organ of a living being separated from the organism; It is wrong to extrapolate a phrase out of context that ensures the real meaning, and so on. But in reality the evil is something much deeper, it pertains, as we'll see, the roots of being.

Mitigate or alleviate the idea and the presence of evil and conceive a universe in which evil will disappear entirely a solution may seem comforting and even more worthy of God's infinite goodness; but in reality that emerges when we watch their goodness evil in the face without concealing anything in its deepest essence. God shows more powerful if we have a fair idea of the ultimate root of evil.

What first of all does not convince me it is the conception of reality presupposed by Cardinal Biffi's idea of ​​evil. I observe first of all that only God is one and all at the same time. Unity is not the "form of the truth of being" UT do, but the divine being. Only God is absolutely one in his infinite simplicity and its unmistakable identity. And he includes virtually every perfection in his infinite essence, as the cause itself contains virtually all its possible effects. In this sense we can say that God is "all" [Sir 43,27]. Furthermore, there is the risk of pantheism: If the reality is unitotalità and unitotalità is God, then reality is God. Moreover, there can be nothing outside of unity; If no, it would not be totality. But then, if evil is "separation" and is outside this totality, evil is nothing. Or we must admit that in order to be in reality, that is, in totality, Evil, Although separation, must still be within this totality. But if this totality is God, then evil is in God. In short, from this vision of Soloviev, endorsed by Biffi, many inconveniences arise.

San Filippo casts out the Dragon Temple of Hierapolis [Filippino Lippi from Prato, XVI century.]

Evil, Certain, is a not-to-be. Yet there is. And therefore it must somehow be in reality, the totality of being, certainly not in totality understood in the divine sense, Since in God there is evil, but rather pluralistic in all, in the transcendental sense, in all things, where actually there is evil. But if you don't do this distinction, you end up falling in Pantheism. And then the problem becomes dramatic and insoluble: or deny the existence of evil, since God is good; or if you want to admit the existence of evil, one is forced to place it in God. Moreover, If the unitotalità is, as must be, It gave, evil cannot be a "decline" from God, a decrease or loss or lowering of divinity. Evil does not come from God, but from the creature. It is a forfeiture of or of the creature from its state of normality, as Adam has decayed from its state of innocence.

Certainly the rational creature Sin separates us from God: but the evil he commits is not a "decay" from divinity, as the creature, even if it is a sinner, It is not a lowering or waiving of divinity, but a being produced by God out of nothing, in itself is good and that it is not bad "decaying from God", but with their ill will. It sure turns away from God and opposes, but not in the sense of losing an original deity from which falls. It gave, to create a creature even peccabile, does not decay at all or she loses Him, but He is always in his infinite perfection and goodness.

God the father is not an Idol …

The totality as reality, instead, altogether, is the set of God and creatures. It certainly is the totality of everything that exists. But it's not all a unique one, of a single entity, How would the whole of an entire, as well as we could say: all Apple or any individual.

Nor is the divine totality, absolutely indivisible. Instead, the totality of a set of entities: God and creation. It is also wrong to call all things "whole", How does Bontadini, because this again gives the idea of a single entity, of which the entities are only parts. The reality is not a single substance, as Spinoza believed, a whole divine, which are bodies or parts ways, but it is a set of substances, each of which is distinct from the others and is a divisible integer, connected with the other to form a single unified set under the rule of the Supreme divine indivisible Entity.

The overall reality is the totality a collection of all, is a whole of all, each of which is an entirely different of the other. Different is the divine totality from the totality of the creature. With regard to the creature or creatures, We talk about all in a sense multiple, diversified, analog. An account is the metaphysical or transcendental and everything is all or substantial ontological. The latter can be a created whole or a divine whole. All results from the metaphysical entities collection: God and creation, which in turn is a collection of all, or substances.

the totality …

The totality of institutions includes God and creation. Therefore, God is conceived dialectically as if it were a part of it all, Although he is completely ontologically and above all, a more perfect the totality of all creatures combined. Each entity created is a substantial part of creation, Although also limited is an all. His being is a being by participation, Be dependent to that essence is God.

Based on these considerations, which interpret Biffi's metaphysical-theological vision, You can now examine how he sees the essence of evil. He does not consider the ontological aspect, evil like privatio boni debts, the ὑστέρησις of Aristotle [hysteresis, “delay”], but the limits to a disorder or a disorganization between itself and complete good. It's a bit like it can happen in a collection of works of art, in which a is subtracted from a thief. It is always a work of art, but it is no longer in his place.

Separation, opera di Edward Munch

So evil, According to Biffi, is the Act of the party that is detached from everything and conflicts with all. It is a part that breaks unity. Now, I don't think this speech, in itself certainly valid, truly grasp the essence of evil at the root. Indeed, the radical aspect of evil does not so much concern the order or composition of the parts as a whole, but the lack of integrity or perfection of the institution itself. The evil has to do with the corruption of the subject, to the limit, for the Bible, with the death of the subject.

Evil is not just a matter of disharmony or of separation or division or contrast against a whole or a whole, rather it concerns the plane of being, Indeed the non-being. Evil is a shortage to be before being a separation of the part from the whole. Evil affects the substance of the body before you do the its position relative to other entities. Evil is about existence. Is a lack of being in a subject which in itself remains good. It is not a simple non-being, but is the non-being of something that should be there and there is. The deficiency can be in the spirit: in the intellect and the will. We then blame evil, the sin. Or it can be suffered by the subject. And we then the evil of punishment. If this punishment is right, then we have a good; If it is unfair, This presupposes guilt in court, for which this penalty, i.e. this evil should be removed. In any case, evil is a deprivation of being.

evil is connected with death …

For this evil in the Bible is connected with death. Evil is hatred of life and the suppression of life. Christ calls the devil, from that sin originates from evil, "a murderer from the beginning". The evil of guilt is an injustice, but not beyond the control of divine justice. Punishment is bad, but it is a bad thing right, for it is good that the wicked be punished. The eternity of hell penalty resolves to be an eternal good.

St. Thomas supports that the righteous in heaven will rejoice when they see the punishment of the damned. It is right that the relatives of a victim of terrorism rejoice in seeing the killer sentenced to life in prison. We don't have to do justice to ourselves, but only because, as the Bible repeatedly teaches, vengeance belongs to God [cf per es. RM 12,19]. As for the damned, he has nothing to complain about, Since the evil from which is afflicted if it is provided with their own hands. No wicked, so, if he does not repent, hope to be able to get away with taking advantage of God's goodness.

While clearly distinguishing good and evil, to condemn any duplicity, Christianity admits an evil that is well: the fitting punishment. Too bad that the evil is not punished. Also the cross is an evil that is well; saving bad. Avoiding the cross is bad. To bear the cross is good. Hence noShe Christian view evil in the end times is defeated in the sense that it ceases its activity against the good. And yet remain the eternal punishment for expressions of the divine justice. So, the "recapitulation of all things in Christ", of which St. Paul speaks [Ef 1,10] should not be understood in the sense of a origenista recomposition of broken unitotalità, Yes evil is totally abolished. This does not correspond to the revealed data, providing for the award of the good and the punishment of the wicked. Disappears so evil of guilt, but not the evil of punishment.

recapitulation of all things in Christ …

The unitotalità, which in reality is a divine attribute and not the character of the real, is not broken by the evil and therefore does not need to recompose. It does not decay by itself, but always remains intact and inviolable. Evil is totally absent in God. Instead the divine plan of salvation does not require the Elimination of guilt in all men, but only in the predestined. Even the willingness of reprobates, so, obstinately and irreversibly rebellious to God, contributes to the order of the universe, showing how God can draw good from evil.

The recapitulation commissioned by father and accomplished by Christ thus means that the father has subjected all things to Christ [CF. v. 22], "every knee should bow before Christ in heaven, on Earth and under the Earth " [Fil 2,10]. Christ is the Savior of the world, though not in the sense that everyone is saved, but in the sense that he offered everyone a chance of salvation, to which few escape blame for them, deserving the right punishment.

By his express declaration, Christ then the eschatological Judge function, that "separates the sheep from the goats". This recapitulation, so, should not be understood as final convergence origenista of all things to Christ, the bad disappear completely. But this convergence instead represents the Lordship of Christ over heaven and hell. The idea of a Christ who ricapitolatore reassembles the unit so that nothing remains outside in opposition to this unit (the damned), can have its own charm, but it is not Christian; it is a Gnostic idea, contrary to the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. Given that this "unitotalità" supposes a pantheistic background, it is understood that it is repugnant to admit evil in God. But in a pluralistic and non-monistic metaphysical conception, does fix admit next and under God, free from evil, the free will of the sinful creature.

… eternal damnation is a man's choice

In the Christian view the event of evil involves in certain cases (the damnation) a definitive separation of the sinner from All, that is, from God, Although this separation, permitted by God, does not result in any fault or blame God, but the responsibility of the act falls completely on the sinner. This means that the Christian vision of totality leaves room for evil not in God obviously, but in creation to witness God's dominion over evil, that God, that having created even those who damn themselves, continue to love him with his Providence.

The fact that some not be saved — as is attested by revelation — it is not a sign of some imperfections in the work of salvation. Christ puts us in hand the means to save us; but we can't actually save us if we don't cooperate with saving grace. Which means that the evil done by the damned is not repaired, but it remains only to testify the divine punitive justice which, even in this extreme situation, it is not separate, as St. Thomas observes, by mercy.

Christ pantocrator [Cefalù Cathedral]

Every man makes glory to Christ, even those who are "underground", i.e. to hell. Well due to deprivation remains forever in the will of the damned, marked by the sanction of divine justice. The work of salvation is not limited to reorder what was messy, to reunify what was divided, to reconcile what was inconsistent, but it involves a real work creator: give back to being what it was lacking: such is the forgiveness of sins, the ransom of the poor, the consolation of the afflicted, mercy for the poor, the release of prisoners, the resurrection of the dead. However even where sin is forgiven, the good of manifests divine justice.

In conclusion, It is impossible to understand the deep essence of evil and so the power of God in removing it, without a metaphysics of creation. The victory over evil is a new creation. Seeing evil only related to disharmony, gives us the idea of bad enough as it is clarified by the revelation. And gives us an idea not just of God's saving power. Much less can evil be conceived as a decay from or of the divinity or a fact internal to the divinity or a dialectical moment of divine becoming.. And then salvation is not even a reconstitution of divinity. In the Christian view that God incarnated doesn't mean dirty in God of evil: They, pure and innocent, knows better than us and we most of us abborre. For this he gave us his son who frees us from evil, but that is also a judge of the living and the dead. In the Christian view, the notion of evil assumes the non-being and then the deprivation and the other that of nothing, from which God draws the be. If some men remains forever the deprivation, This does not deny the infinite mercy, power and goodness of God, but it is a sign of God's power over hell and death.

Varazze, 23 July 2015

__________________________

NOTE

[1] Cantagalli, Siena 2007, p. 524.

[2] Cf my book Hell esiste. The truth denied, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2010.

INFALLIBILITY AND FALLIBILITY OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

The Roman Pontiff, although endowed with the charisma of infallibility as a teacher of the faith, he still remains a fallible and sinful human being, where does not play this charism. If the doctrine of the faith is infallible, in the field of his pastoral action and Government, as well as in private conduct he can sin in various ways, such as prudence, in justice and charity.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

the Holy Father with a native headdress during the visit to Brazil

The question of infallibility or not of the Roman Pontiff somehow coincides with that of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church. Which is in fact meant by this expression? The power that the episcopal college has, under the guidance of the Pope, to teach, interpret and spread the Gospel. Of course there is a magisterial power of the Pope's own personal: what he teaches his own initiative, regardless of whether or not consensus of the Episcopal body. For instance, the catechesis on the "Theology of the body" performed by Saint John Paul II from 1979 al 1983. We have here then the Papal Magisterium. But we again: the College of bishops has the duty to adopt this Magisterium, as application of Christ's command to Peter: “strengthen your brethren” [cf. LC 22,31-34]. E, other parte, It is inconceivable a Magisterium of the Bishops which is not chaired and approved by Pope.

the Holy Father with a native headdress during the visit to Brazil

Speaking of infallibility or papal infallibility not, It is as if you spoke then of infallibility or papal infallibility not of the Church, as guided by the Episcopal body United to the Pope, the so-called "teaching Church", though then in the end, as the Second Vatican Council says, the whole Church, and then every Member of the faithful, is infallible in believing and proclaiming the word of God, means under the guidance of the bishops and the Pope. The reader of the readings of the mass, when he proclaims them, foolproof. The child of the Catechism, If he responds well to teacher's questions, foolproof.

the Holy Father wearing the hat of a groom in St. Peter's square

However, in the Church the Pope is the only member to enjoy a personal charism of infallibility. All other bishops and Cardinals, however learned and holy, do not hold any personal charisma of infallibility and can fall into heresy, as is proved by the history. Or you can say I'm infallible, individually or in groups, It was a Conciliar Assembly, just as United to Peter and submitted to Peter. The conciliarism, repeatedly appeared in history, is a heresy, it does not correspond to the will of Christ. As well as the simple "primacy of honor" without judicial and magisterial power supported by the schismatic Eastern Churches, is a heresy contrary to what Christ willed and commanded to Peter and his successors.

the Holy Father with the hat of the infiorata of Spello

The Pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit infallibly When performs its task to proclaim and interpret the Gospel and strengthen his brethren in faith. Of course the Pope, because sinful man, son of Adam, fallible in things would also of Christian faith and morals, If you do not have this support and is indeed fallible, When, for different reasons, This assistance is not. And fallibile means you can't go wrong, who can pass up a mistake. Or you can give for sure what it is, or vice versa it can take what is certain for questionable. The greater certainty that the Pope is a master in faith and when infallibly teaches God's Word, We when he claims to speak on behalf of Christ and will define a dogma of faith, as is taught in the first Vatican Council.

the Holy Father wearing the hat of the alpini

For there to be infallibility These are not required explicit declarations and solemn, quite rare, but it is enough that the Pope proposes teachings that still refer to dogma or tradition or develop them and clarify or teach some doctrine necessarily connected to dogma or which in any way touches the truth of faith taught by our Lord Jesus Christ. As well as the doctrines of the ecumenical councils, that explain or deepen or interpret the truths of Scripture and tradition, even if they are not defined, however, they are final, that is absolutely and eternally true and infallible; and repeat their authority from that of the same Supreme Pontiff who approved. On the contrary, as is apparent from the letter To protect the faith of St. John Paul II of 1998, there are three degrees of infallibility of the doctrines of the Magisterium of the Church. The first, that requires faithful the Divine faith or theology reports, is that of the truths of faith defined, commonly called "dogmas". Reject this doctrine is heresy.

the Holy Father with the fire brigade helmet

On the second level are the doctrines not defined yet definitive, that is absolutely and eternally true, from the object of belief in the authority of the Church, the so-called "ecclesiastical faith". Can touch the thing revealed, or historical truths or necessarily connected with speculative thing revealed, as for example the existence of the human soul, of God, truth or freedom or the legitimacy of a Pope or a Council; things that, If they were not true, they would crumble or would make impossible the truths of faith. Reject this doctrine is error close to heresy.

the Holy Father with a sports copricato

The doctrines of the third degree yet concern issues of faith or faith-related, therefore it is always a question of true and certain doctrines, but the faithful must not give assent of faith, but only pay "homage of his intelligence". There is no question here of the Church, that proposes, without defining it dogmatically, a doctrine of faith, but a doctrine of the Church, which has connection with the doctrine of the faith. Doctrine of this kind is for instance the principle of religious freedom or the principle of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue announced by Vatican II. Reject this doctrine is error against the doctrine of the Church. In the first instance we have the doctrine defined, in accordance with the definitive doctrine, in the third binding doctrine.

Why these three degrees? They do not refer to the question of truth, as if, for instance, were true only the doctrines of first instance. They respond to a pastoral reason and how to join the real of the human mind. Meet, in other words, educational purpose and the nature of the human mind to accept the truth.

the Holy Father with the helmet of the workers of the steel mills of Terni

The Church has received from Christ the deposit of revelation in its entirety beginning. But it has not learned from the outset with equal clarity and certainty all the truths of the faith. Someone, those on which Christ had insisted that more or appeared in continuity with the old testament, or that seemed more appropriate to reason, have emerged for the first symbols of faith. Other, you could infer from early or were latent or implied under the first, maybe less important or maybe even more difficult to understand, "bear", at the beginning they were veiled or not as safe as the first. Hence this process of differentiation more degrees of certainty.

the Holy Father with the bersaglieri Hat

The progress of the Church in knowledge the data revealed does not imply that God throughout history add new truth, but in the fact that the Church always knows better and more clearly all those truths, which Christ taught the apostles before returning to heaven. Now Christ from heaven, now, and until the end of the world, adds nothing to what he then delivered to the Apostles, but through his spirit assists the Church under the guidance of Peter in ever better understand and explain the truth revealed.

The Church does not only have to clarify for itself the quality and number of revealed truths, but once it, under the guidance of the Pope, clarified, it is his duty to teach them to the world. And even at this point there is the need for a gradual approach: gradually in to propose so doctrinal content next, starting with the easiest or the most important or most urgent. And gradually the emphasis or force or emphasis or severity with which propose the same doctrines, according to the needs or requirements of the faithful.

two hats in addition to the Holy Father by the coast guard in Lampedusa

The infallibility of the Pope is historically proven: It has never happened that a Pope has belied his predecessor in matters of faith. Küng's thesis therefore is false. It may happen that a Pope instead accidentally fall into heresy or why not in full possession of his mental faculties or because threatened. The teachings of the Pope or his doctrinal position must be considered always with kindness, trust and respect, but also with wise discernment, in order to assess how, the level of authority and the kind of actions or pronouncements or the provisions of the acts or practices of Government.

the Holy Father wearing the hat of Special Olympics delegation

After you make sure, at safe sources, objective and authoritative of the true content of what he says or said, the first thing to do is categorize the type and level of decision. The post-Conciliar Popes, especially from San Giovanni Paolo II, increased and further diversified kinds of their speeches. Not uncommon is the fact that they intend to demonstrate simple personal views, for example publications, speeches or interviews, perhaps following certain trends or Exegetical theology. It is evident that here are not infallible. I'm, these, interventions that are added to the traditional exercise of their moral and doctrinal Magisterium, that is expressed in the documents at various levels, from encyclicals to speeches, at general audiences or homilies in Apostolic visits; they retain the expression of their jurisdictional power, pastoral, disciplinary, of Government, diplomat, legislative.

In their moral teaching, be careful as it is traceable to the truths of faith distinct directives, that can be discussed. To about, worthy of every respect, Indeed, obedience of faith, is papal moral teaching that makes reference to the natural moral law, as for example rules of sexual or social ethics, the pastoral care of homosexual persons, the prohibition of contraceptives, of artificial insemination, or the defence of the rights of the poor and oppressed.

the Holy Father with a hat of the alpine guides

Likewise with respect consideration should be given to the discipline of the sacraments and liturgical norms, even here, however, distinguishing what refers to the essential values of faith from what can be a simple pastoral value or changeable revisable. Also in directing the ways of salvation to those brothers and sisters who have travelled in an exemplary manner — the Saints — the Papal Magisterium cannot be infallible.

The case of judicial sentences is different in cases of schism or excommunication or death in canonical field, While the Pope can do no wrong in judging a heretical doctrine. As for pronouncements about charismatic phenomena, such as the Marian apparitions, Here the judgement is not infallible, However, it must be assumed that it is marked by prudence.

the Queen Elizabeth with his hat for special occasions close to the Holy Father at the hearing

The Papal Magisterium, and in general the Church can and should be assessed in the light of tradition, Yes and writing, but not with the watchful attitude, wary presumptuous, We could say pharisaical, of him which is held usually with gun pointed to see the Pope in challenge, Maybe to accuse him of modernism, but with the confidence that we have the correct interpretation of Scripture and tradition. It is wise and right well interpret some of its expressions that can surprise at first. So similarly, before denying the infallibility of the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council, as some do, It reflects well on the fact that they, If they do not contain new dogmas defined, however they present new developments of the Tradition and new explanations of Scripture, You cannot bind, Maybe the third degree of authority, the sincere treat of true Catholic.

But it is also the duty of loyalty and honesty to the sovereign pontiff pull on our side, like the modernists, just because the Pope shows open to the values of modernity, forgetting the huge attack that he addresses in his Encyclical Laudato si against what was the worst poison of modernity: the antropocentrismo.

the Supreme Pontiff Francis, 266° Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Chair of the Bishop of Rome

The Roman Pontiff, although endowed with the charisma of infallibility as a teacher of the faith, he still remains a fallible and sinful human being, where does not play this charism. If the doctrine of the faith is infallible, in the field of his pastoral action and Government, as well as in private conduct he can sin in various ways, such as prudence, in justice and charity. For this he needs our help, first prayer, but also, for those who can, of constructive proposals in the doctrinal field, moral and pastoral, always leaving him the last word. It is very important therefore to know clearly where the Pope can be criticized and which must be obeyed. This clarity is essential for continued fruitful advanced on the way of salvation.

Varazze, 13 July 2015

___________________________________

And I tell you:

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will be melted in heaven ".

[Mt 16, 18-19]

GIACOMO BIFFI HAS LOST THE TRAIN?

With Cardinal Giacomo Biffi returns to father's House one of many Bishops of the last fifty years of church history which seem to have lost the train, Despite having spent his life talking to great wealth and competence of railway stations, always and pontificando penalty from the first class waiting room of Central station, while in all the other stations of the railway network the systems to lower the bars at the level crossings when the freight trains were passing were not even active.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

the coffin of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi taken inside the palazzo arcivescovile di Bologna

I do not intend to do the so-called contrarian, because it was for me I would like not to do it and least of all to be. However, I do not intend to share this Italic mania to beatify the dead at all costs.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Metropolitan Archbishop of Bologna from 1984 al 2003, is one of several Italian Bishops that I respected and more appreciated aspects, but which I have not estimated. Nothing bad, because as a priest I must be devoted to any Bishop as such, Why is their due respect — as in the case of Bishop having jurisdiction over me, for my part, the branch is also due obedience — but no estimate, that is not due to no Bishop; and if the Bishop wants it, he must deserve it and earn it. This was written in a very polite to Cardinal Giacomo Biffi in 2011, When I sent him a copy of my book And Satan came Trino, in which I dedicated to him a polite critical section, what I propose below at the end, and through which I let the person concerned understand why I venerate him as a bishop but did not respect him.

The Metropolitan Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, in prayer before the corpse of his predecessor

Faced with the current ecclesial situation in which Peter's boat is battered by the stormy waves, the responsibilities of men like Cardinal Giacomo Biffi are enormous; and this responsibility must meet face to face with God, regardless of whatever style of italic which I said earlier, certain characters will then beatified during the short drive that leads them from the mortuary until the Tomb, even newspapers ultra secularists specialize always reduce the Catholic Church in real pulp.

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra blesses the corpse of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi

My modest and painful experience of priest and Pastor with the care of souls taught me to measure certain men of the church based on what they say, but what they do, or often what they don't do, because the sin of omission, together with the Sin capital of Sloth, they are the two most practiced sins of these times by clergymen. All beyond the fact that I am willing, as the Gospel, doing what right and wise to say but not to do what wrong do: «What they tell you, do it and look, but do not do according to their works, because they say and do. In fact, bind heavy burdens and impose them on the shoulders of the people, but they don't want to move them even with a finger " [CF. Mt 23, 3-4]. Unfortunately, really serious problems come when we find ourselves in difficult condition of not being able to do what they do but not what wrong say.

The bishop, depositary of the fullness of the Apostolic Priesthood and rightful heir of the Apostles, he is a Father who governs the particular Church entrusted to him. And a Bishop is not measured nor is judged historically by insightful jokes that gave us or from books he wrote, but from what he did, by the way in which he governed his Church and cared for the portion of the People of God entrusted to him. Therefore, if on one hand I consider Cardinal Giacomo Biffi a shiny pen, a sharp orator, a man of refined intelligence and a man of faith, on the other hand I have many reservations about his long pastoral Government, that is measured on all other items, I will mention only some of the many:

1. While a large slice of Bologna clergy slid in deeper secularization and modernist theologians led brilliantly out a real blow in the diocese felsinea, where he was and what he was, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, that that particular Church was not a simple sharp and ironic observer “exterior”, but the Supreme Guide?

2. While for lack of vigilance and inadequate training offered, over the years even priests who were not suitable for the priesthood left the Archiepiscopal Seminary of Bologna, often bad formats thanks to "good" offices of several villains masters, with all the problems, even serious ones, which usually ensue from this in the clergy, where and what did the Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Since priests he consecrated them? Mistake, or the word “bishop” derives from the Greek bishop, which literally means “controller”, “vigilante”?

3. When several senior priests and long-time parish priests begged him several times not to ordain certain subjects as priests, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, with irony - or perhaps with cynicism? — which has always characterized, leaving awestruck these elders replied that in the Church there was also need for labour» (!?). Responding to this way, he was never touched by the dramatic dilemma as to what would happen to the Church, When many of these "unskilled workers", good as few to snatch the good branches in the vineyard of the Lord, would become trainers, Faculty of theology, or even bishops?

4. While the scope and theological formation of Bologna was a powerful and impregnable feud of the dossettiani, while being recognized and allowed the license to teach in subjects who were delighted to sign posters against the Italian Bishops ' Conference and in fact against the Pontifical Magisterium [see WHO]; While a large number of teachers in charge of formation of future priests openly criticized the Magisterium of John Paul II in theological studies in Bologna, where and what did concretely the shrewd and ironic Giacomo Cardinal Biffi?

5. In a publication of the Cairo Cardinal Giacomo Biffi wove the praises of Joseph Babu, on whose sensational do not intend to dwell doctrinaire errors, I'd rather leave the unpleasant task to John Carlson, If you have time and desire, given that it was he — later our dear and esteemed Antonio Livi — to refute his Dominican friar, paying a very high price, aware of how they made it to unfairly pay for attack … “lesa majesta” [see WHO, WHO].

6. How many times has happened that Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, by no means exempt from that humor which is hardly suited to a man of government, in his capacity as President of the Episcopal Conference of Emilia Romagna led to the appointment of persons unsuitable to the episcopate and how many, then, when certain candidates proposed by him difettarono, rather than admit to having wrong to evaluate them, protected them before the Holy See, rather than invoke for them all due and strict references?

7. Because the Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Metropolitan Archbishop of Bologna, President of the Episcopal Conference of Emilia Romagna, Member of the College of Cardinals, Member of three important Roman dicasteries, with the possibility of contact and direct access to the Supreme Pontiffs John Paul II and Benedict XVI, of whom he has always enjoyed the profound esteem, It is instead limited to be ironic right and missing, through speeches and books, rather than exercise all the prerogatives of his high office for example epurando from theological studies some bad teachers responsible for breastfeeding future priests with poisoned milk of the worst heresies and modernist thoughts and ambiguous misunderstandings of Hegel and of certain theologians of the New Theology?

the homage of the Mayor of Bologna to the body of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi

The universal Church and the particular churches do not save with two shrewd ironic jokes, nor with very relevant and intelligent banter with dozens of publications; because when you got from God the gift of prophetic read in advance the evolve of certain problems in the course of time, It is required more than ever to act, always paying high prices, as we teach the story of salvation, as we teach the order given to Prophets of Israel, as in their little have paid without hesitation the fathers of’Patmos Island, never haggle on the truth and the mystery of salvation.

the homage of the faithful at the mortuary of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi

It's true, as the beatificators have written in recent days, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi had talked beforehand about the new danger "the Islamic invasion", as recently I reminded myself to its undoubted merit [see WHO], But while he spoke about this problem from there would create short-term emergency situations no longer arginabili, many of his priests were active more than ever to accept Muslims to glory, to put them to the best in our House; many of his priests were industrious in encouraging mixed marriages between Italian and Catholic Women Muslim men, as they were in carrying on that false and misunderstood ecumenism - which, moreover, does not reside in any document of the Second Vatican Council - which he always and rightly criticized. Unfortunately, While Cardinal Giacomo Biffi was insightful jokes, During the eighties, many of his priests organized inter-confessional meetings that would make the skin crawl to the most extreme ecumenisms of the Northern regions of Europe, in total silence and complete non-action and non-reaction of their Bishop.

the Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of Bologna, S. AND. Mons. Ernesto Vecchi, blesses the body of Cardinal GIacomo Biffi

I believe that Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, for gift and special grace of the Holy Spirit, have been able to read and describe the reality of the present and the future that awaited us, limited though to play before the home foil ironic enveloped by flames. Or to put it in other words: the Cardinal Giacomo Biffi was given not only the light of awareness, because with it he had been given a precise task and with it also the most adequate action tools, but with that typical cynicism of clericals cloaked behind as many clerical reasons “always higher”, did a halfway job. Returning to the father's House with a perception and objective awareness of that very dramatic reality which he has spoken and written, but which in fact he did not face and before which he did not act by making use of all the apostolic powers which he had been invested with by the gifts of grace of the Holy Spirit.

an image of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi with John Paul II

Not only the Cardinal Giacomo Biffi it had been equipped with all the pastoral instruments of government, but also the best supports, including the esteem of two Supreme Pontiffs and that of many Catholics who would have protected and followed him even in the face of his very unpopular decisions. Therefore, one of the many Bishops of the last fifty years of ecclesial history who missed the train returned to the Father's House, Despite having spent his life talking to great wealth and competence of railway stations, always and pontificando penalty from the first class waiting room of Central station, while in all the other stations of the railway network the systems to lower the bars at the level crossings when the freight trains were passing were not even active.

And may the Lord have mercy on him, because who like us priests has had so much in gifts of grace, for both had very seriously will have to answer to God, He will use towards us a totally proportionate severity, opinion having entrusted his Church, his People and his message of Salvation.

____________________________________________

Opera And Satan came Trino

click below for april text file:

THE PRETTY FOIL GIACOMO BIFFI

In memory of Giacomo Biffi, bishop

KILLING IN THE NAME OF GOD, REFLECTIONS ON ISLAM

On the question of how to punish the impiety is interesting comparison between the Bible and the Koran. In both the use of force or killing the enemy's legitimate, of the attacker and the wicked. Both the Bible and the Koran admit one God who reveals himself to the prophets. But here ends the contact between the Bible and the Koran, because according to Islam the revelation that God has made his salvific will humans not culminates in Jesus, but it goes beyond, Jesus corrects to culminate in the Mahomet, who claims to correct Jesus because not only would he be made God, but falls in the pagan polytheism, stating that in God there are three people, then claiming three gods, impiety worthy serious Muhammad of capital punishment.

.

which we now present, 2 August 2016, this article last year

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

. .

Muslims are convinced to conquer the West, even those among them who are not jihadists or extremists, They are convinced. I've heard him say many times: "We will conquer Europe with faith and with the fruitfulness"

His Bechara Boutros Raï Beatitudine, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites [cf. WHO]

.

.

.

.

.

militants of the Islamic Jihad

It is often said that one cannot kill in the name of God, why, if he says, God is the God of life and does not want anyone's death. It does not make sense, It is a crime to attack next in the name of religion [1]. So motivated, This speech can have its validity, and it is important to stimulate the love of neighbour and honor of God, especially in our time, in which, with the terrible weapons that we, if a serious conflict arises, We know how it begins, but we will not know how it will end up. This talk also stimulates the faithful of different religions to mutual respect and to refrain from violent actions under the pretext of defending their religion. However remains a puzzlement on three points: first, There is no way to kill: it is one thing to kill an innocent, for example an abortion, an account is to kill in self-defense or to save the homeland. It is true that God does not want anyone to die.

.

running a Chaldean Catholic in Iraq

Let us ask ourselves then how exactly that principle should be understood. About it remember that legitimizes the killing is nothing but a way to put into practice a principle of Justice, that is the moral or legal law. But who is the tutor first and high of every law and every right, name Dio? Killing in the name of the law, of justice, of the common good, of freedom, What is then ultimately, except to kill legitimately in the name of God? We must not be too hasty in saying that you can not kill in God's name, without making the necessary clarifications; otherwise you end up endorsing that injustice and violence that would prevent, as it is just the right murder or the proper use of force, that punish and prevent in some extreme cases the injustice, violence or actual mass sterminî.

.

a group of Blue Helmets United Nations

Peace is not built and defended only peacefully, but also coercively. To spare those who are submissive and to conquer the proud, as the great poet Virgil. Already the ancient Romans had the motto: If you want peace, prepare for war. The enemies of peace must be overcome or kept at bay. War is not remedied only by inviting the belligerents to peace, but also indicating what concretely the aggressor must give up why don't both move a just war. This is the work of Evangelical advocates of peace. The work of justice and peace.

.

armed robbery

It would be nice to be able to persuade a gangster (c)he looks threatening to us with the gun aimed to desist, maybe in the name of God, from his bad deed. But experience shows that, unfortunately, hardly the criminal has the fear of God, so this noble call, unless we are gifted by God to a rare gift of persuasiveness and the gangster is touched by grace, it has no effect. But you can't ordinarily rely on these supernatural interventions and God commands us to resort to human prudence. Hence the need to move to pickax. The give up self-defense or combat, When would be necessary and possible "we think for example to warring military" is a serious indiscipline or cowardice toward themselves and toward the common good, that may be subject to criminal penalty, as in the case of renegade soldier. It is said that saving the skin is always a legitimate defense.

.

painting of Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe in the concentration camp

Different is the sacrifice of one's life, in the civil field, see for example Salvo d'acquisto; or religious, see for example St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe. This can be a most noble gesture of heroic love. And here we have Christ himself and the martyrs as our supreme model, who allow themselves to be killed - for example a Saint Ignatius of Antioch - to testify their faith or to save a multitude. Maybe that even in these cases is not acting "or rather" do not suffer in the name of God? Therefore God wants the death of the martyr? The father wanted as such and the death of her son? It would be ungodly to say so. The father wanted his son's sacrifice, which resulted in death.

.

the sacrifice of the Lamb of God

If I pay a fee to buy a well, don't pay for the sake of spending money, but to buy that good. Don't accuse me of having squandered the money, ma, If I made a good deal, I'll be worthy of praise. Which one “deal” more advantageous to us the Father, for his glory and that of his son, he could devise what to give his Son for our salvation? For this St. Paul says that we were ' bought dearly» [The Cor 6,20]. Those who foolishly, as Edward Schillebeeckx, focus on the material fact of Christ's death, to deny the value of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ by his father and wanted to make sure only the murder committed by killers of Christ, they don't know what they say.

.

depiction of civil justice

Second point. Acting in the name of someone, If it is sincere, is an act for which the agent performs an action, the qualification which involves moral and responsible person on behalf of whom the agent acts. From him, in the name of such acts, people, after all, receives the endorsement or the mandate to do what it does in its name. The action of the agent, so, It is not that the execution of the will or of the person in whose name the agent acts. What the agent does, It does for the principal authorities, guaranteed by that authority and to honor the same principal, receiving glory from the action of the agent, assuming of course that it is a good deed.

.

The priest acts in the name of Christ, when this occurs validly and legitimately, it means what it does, it does so either because of or by the power of Christ or by the authority of Christ or by mandate or on behalf of Christ. Ultimately, what the priest does as a minister of Christ, it comes from Christ. Christ is the ultimate justification of what the priest does.

.

Beyond a purely reading material of the fifth commandment, fashionable today, but only when it's convenient, it must be borne in mind that killing in itself is not yet a sin or a crime. It is necessary to see why or in the name of what or of what value or of what idea one kills. The judge who in the name of the law imposes the death penalty on the criminal, It is not a killer, but he acts according to justice, vindex is the law and defender of the common good of threatened criminal. The jeweler who, threatened with death by a thug, to defend the prevents and kills him, It is not a murderer, but he defended the inviolable value of his life as an innocent. The unjust aggressor loses the right to live with his own act of aggression, While the attacked unjustly has the right and duty to defend, up to kill, If necessary, the aggressor.

.

self-defense

The Righteous Kill It is therefore the right, as justified by a value or by a law that give sufficient legal or moral reason at the time of killing. In the name of defending innocent life may be safe to suppress a life. A lower level of life can and must be sacrificed to the higher, When this is endangered by the first. An idolatrous cult of life would make it impossible to supply the same. But let's ask ourselves: what is it or who, ultimately, justifies or establishes the bloody defense of life, unless the creator and Lawgiver of life, i.e. God? Here, then, as is evident, in the aforementioned cases, the killing of a criminal in the name of God.

.

It is obvious that God is the God of life and does not want the death of the living, not even that of an Ant, because every living thing from him is created, loved, guarded and preserved. But precisely because God is such, protects life from defends unjust assailant, much to enable legally or even control the killing.

.

massacre of the innocents, work by Duccio di Buoninsegna

Let's ask ourselves another question: It may be right to kill the wicked, that is, the one who dishonors the name of God? God punishes the wicked with death? Surely God is immortal and does not need neither to defend nor be defended. However, even those who kill in self defense, even the judge who sentenced to death, even those who fought in a just war or for Justice or for freedom, ultimately fighting for God or in the name of God, that tutor and of vindex is all these values. As Scripture says: «Save the weak and the poor, liberatelo by the hand of the wicked» [Shall 82,4].

.

On the question of how to punish wickedness, the comparison between the Bible and the Koran is interesting. In both there is coercion or the use of force or the killing or legitimate enemy or assailant or killer, and even the wicked. In both of these sacred texts, such acts, in appropriate conditions and circumstances, are undeniably taken from God or made in his name.

.

the Holy bible

Both the Bible and the Koran admit a one God, single, spiritual, personal, creator of heaven and earth, then the angels and mankind, Eternal, Infinity, very high, wise, Provident, Almighty, mysterious, salvatore, just and merciful, that rewards with good paradise, the believers and the obedient, and punishes the wicked with hell, the infidels and the disobedient.
This God is revealed to the prophets, as it is revealed to Adam, to Abraham, Moses and Jesus. But here ends the contact between the Bible and the Koran, why, as we know, According to Islam, the revelation that God has made his salvific will humans not culminates in Jesus (Issa), but it goes beyond, corrects Jesus and culminates in Muhammad, who, without denying qualities and virtues in Jesus by Muhammad himself considered holy, up to chide the Jews killed him, However claims to correct Jesus because not only would have made God "and Muhammad here coincides with Judaism", but falls in the pagan polytheism, stating that in God there are three people, so, in the eyes of Muhammad, claiming three gods, impiety serious, worthy of capital punishment.

.

the Koran, Italian Edition

Salvation, so, According to the Qur'an, does not take place by means of Christ's sacrifice, but with submit to God wholeheartedly and with absolute faith (Islam), in prayer, in ritual practices and in listening to the spiritual guide (Imam), in keeping to the Koranic law (Sharia), the study of the Qur'an, in the practice of virtue and in repairing the wrongs done. To this cultic sacrifice of the lamb is not a priestly Act, but simple to treat God, that can be accomplished by any faithful, as a member of the religious community (Umma).
Different is the method of the diffusion or promulgation of the divine orders concerning salvation in the Bible and in the Koran. In both cases you intimate with every man to accept and obey orders, under penalty of eternal damnation. «Who believes will save; Whoever does not believe will be condemned " [cf. MC 16, 15-16]. These words of Christ, mutatis mutandis, feedback can be found in the words of Muhammad. But there is also this profound difference: that while Christ refers to the afterlife damnation, the Qur'an also speaks of an earthly immediate coercion.

.

Also different is the salvific message content in one and in the other case. The maximum difference is noted between the Koran and the Gospel: While the Quran merely transmit prescriptive orders with promise of reward and threat of punishment, This is not present in the Gospel; This however has as main announcement, entirely absent in the Quran, the coming of Christ the incarnate Son of God, that redeemed us with the sacrifice of the cross, giving us the remission of sins, the advertisement so that God wants us to grace, to make us his children and to give us his own divine life through Christ.

.

order and authoritarianism

The faithful relationship with God in the Quran It then summarizes the “devotee” (muslim, from which “Mussulman”). The perspective of the faithful as is completely absent “son of God”, which instead, as you know, it is fundamental in the Gospel. On the contrary, for the Qur'an, that does not accept Jesus as the son of God, the idea of a divine sonship bears an inexcusable familiarity with God, which the Koran, without excluding leniency, However, accentuates the transcendence and temibilità.

.

Also note that in the Koran the subjective consciousness has a very small part. What man thinks or wants so it does not affect anything; for which the Koran leaves little room for personal reflection or being examined for signs of credibility that may lead to a convinced and reasoned faith. The faithful is more moved by fear of retribution that the love of a God who is love, as in Gospel. He must obey and just, more so than God, whatever human decisions, does what it wants without taking account of human choices. Hence the distinctive Islamic fatalism, which human free will crisis straining to derive from God as much good as bad.

.

men, means and tools of forced conversion to Islam

The coercive element appears in the religion of Islam also under this angle: the faithful believe and obey not so much for love or free personal reflection in consciousness, but for fear of eternal punishment and threatened thunderstorms. It is therefore necessary to make a distinction between divine injunctions announced in the Old Testament and those announced by Christ. Moreover, in Church history, It should be about, distinguish three periods: first, the early Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire; second, the Constantinian era, inaugurated by Constantine in 315, the Christian religion has become religio bid and even the official religion of the Empire. And finally we have the third period, currently in progress, whose preparations begin, After the Protestant crisis and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, principle whose region, his religion, the religious freedom enshrined in the peace of Westphalia the 1648. This approach of the Church-State relationship reaches maturity in civil field with the French Revolution, which puts an end to the medieval theocracy (old regime), he founded the democratic secular state and confirmed the right to religious freedom, without admitting that misfortune atheist state, that was the tragedy of the 20th century, of which we have not yet completely freed: see for example the Chinese Communist regime.

.

Camillo Benso count of Cavour and the principle “Free Church in a free State”

This new type of relationship between state and church "free church in a free State" as Cavour, released by Liberals from which grain was infected, was officially recognized ecclesial field, After being put into practice since the past centuries, from the Second Vatican Council. Instead, the Qur'anic style the announcement of divine commands resembles that of mosaic Church of the medieval regime “secular arm“, When the Pope ruled a Western European Christianity entirely cattolica, so that you can serve in some degree of civil power and the public force to enforce the rules of Christian ethics and the contents of Catholic doctrine, approved the State law.

.

the secular arm

It is to be noted that the Constantinian recognition of Catholicism as the State religion, if on the one hand it helped and protected the Church to assert itself on the civil level and to expand geographically in accordance with its mission and spiritual purposes, on the other hand not allowed to implement properly the Lord's command to spread and sustain the Gospel with the simple testimony of charity, of solidarity and human promotion, without the use of coercive apparatus provided State, what later would be called “secular arm“. In this the Church assumed the new style of Apostolate established by Christ, but it still remained influenced by the Mosaic tradition, who wanted the announcement of divine orders was meant by the Prophet and the priest, but supported by coercive power and King's justice. Moses himself, as you know, It was not only the Prophet and liturgist, but also political and military leader of the people of Israel; and Muhammad, for his prophetic style, not taken to model Christ, but Moses.

.

The states of the Italian peninsula and the Papal State

Thus the papacy over the centuries acquisì, as is known, a real temporal power with territory, that was the so-called “States of the Church“, equipped with military forces like any other European state. In the field of ecclesiastical discipline the death penalty for heretics was tacitly abolished only with the abolition of the Criminal Code of the Papal States following the fall of the temporal power in 1871.

.

The birth of the Italian, inspired by the principles of secularism and then open the right of religious freedom and the end of the temporal power marked the beginning of a new era in the relationship between Church and State in relation to evangelization and to the question of ecclesiastical use coercive power. The church, while maintaining its own judiciary and coercive power against the faithful, it stood towards civil society no longer Catholic but religiously divided or pluralistic, no longer as the State religion that is ultimately as one of the powers of the State, although under the presidency of the Pope, but as a public community competitor to the common good of society and the State within the State and obedient to civil laws, Despite its autonomy as a church, while at the same time it was protected by civil law.

.

the first conquests of Islam

As the project of Koranic spread of Islam, It is inspired on the one hand by the Jewish people created by Moses "always, is intende, in the name of God "and the other towards Evangelical program of world conquest for Christ. Indeed, While on the one hand, the practice of the Islamic faith is associated with the possession of a territory, and therein the Qur'anic project resembles that of mosaic conquest of Palestine as the promised land, with the forced expulsion of peoples formerly therein in, on the other, Unlike Israel, the Muslims, taking a cue from the Christian perspective of world conquest, they believe that God sends them to conquer the world not only in the sense of global spread of Islam, but also in the belief that God has given to them the physical possession of the entire Earth, something that cannot happen without the use of arms. Hence the concept of “Holy war” (jihad), as military support of the preaching of the Koran from Islamic preachers.

.

Syria, stoning of a woman …

The Islamic religious authority does not claim to have only that coercive power that is allowed in principle to censor the faithful deviants, as is also given in Christian canon law, But u.s. threats and coercion even against the infidels or those to whom it is directed the Koranic message. The words of Christ ' who does not believe, will be condemned ", After having changed the reference to the Gospel, are therefore adapted to the Koran and preaching are intended in the sense that whoever does not accept the Islamic faith, he is punished up to the death penalty or forced to accept it by force.

.

… at the end of which the criminals of Isis have spread the video

The use of force in the name of God in Islam until you come to the murder in jihad, goes beyond any reasonable limit of respect not only the conscience of others, but his own physical safety. It is a missionary zeal whose doctrinal content may be partially acceptable, such as divine attributes or certain duties of morality or divine worship; But what is absolutely unacceptable and, to the limit, inhumane and barbaric, it is this method of violent and aggressive pressure, that oversees each method of calm and thoughtful persuasion, with the adduction of evidence and signs of credibility, that characterizes so obvious the Christian apostolate.

.

the triumph of Saint Thomas Aquinas in philosophical dispute with the Muslim philosopher Averroes

It's not that the religious culture, philosophical, Theology and Islamic mysticism, mind you, It is not full of great values and great thinkers, Masters, moralists, poets and mystics, only this immense literature formed over the centuries, not at all a free charm, of its suasiveness and credibility, then instead of fact sets by force from religious authority-Islamic policy in its inexorable motion of expansion and conquest of peoples not yet subdued to the Qur'an. And that is because the motor of Islamic expansion is not only the religious interest, but inextricably to this joint, is a thirst for power and political and even economic domain.

.

In conclusion, we can say that appealing to God to justify the use of force or the Suppression of a human life can be lawful or a laudable action if it is right in itself, Since God is the Foundation of Justice and the Supreme Lawgiver, so everything is right can be found in Him its latest justification. This appeal, however, it must be sincere and well founded and must not be a pretext for coonestare an act of violence or an injustice. We must therefore see many acts of Saints who in the past have resorted to the use of force or endorsed in the name of God and for the love of God. We cannot think that they were all or cruel fanatics or hypocrites. They were in good faith, Although the time was not yet ripe, and even if undoubtedly they have done acts that we would not do today. But this does not mean that they remain our models, Once we have adapted their testimony to the needs of the Church today. Many doubts instead leave us some Islamic habits and stubborn inveterate, "not to mention the terrorists, they have nothing of religious, but they are pure criminals ", which make us suspect that the God in whose name they claim to act in reality is only the pretext of their pride, their arrogance and intolerance.

.

Varazze, the 2 July 2015

.

____________________________________

NOTE

[1] Hence the disapproval without appeal of the wars of religion, even those carried out by Catholics against Protestants or Muslims.

.

.

In the town of Scicli, in south-eastern Sicily, the statue is kept in the Madonna of the Militia that Hunt via the Saracens who had invaded the territory. Every year the statue of Lady Warrior is carried in procession through the streets, at least until it is outlawed for “religious discrimination” …