The divorced and remarried and those theologians who exploit the “Family member company” of St. John Paul II
THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED AND THOSE THEOLOGIANS WHO EXPLOIT THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP OF SAINT JOHN PAUL II
.
The Family member company, precisely because it only touches the external hole, almost not even matter, the hole feature internal, i.e. the condition or State or inner dynamism of will of partners and thus leaves the door open to the legality of the ongoing discussion in the Synod, I know, in some severe cases, well specified and detailed, with strong excuses, the divorced may or may not have access to the sacraments.
.
Author
John Cavalcoli OP
.
. Pat
Ariel S. Levi of Gualdo with watchdog of a religious House in Castel Gandolfo. He harbors special affection for old Domini canes pure bred, that has always been able to distinguish modern chihuahua hysterical …
Introductory note — The fathers of’Patmos Island they don't “controversy”, but their “craft”: disseminate and defend the doctrine and the Church's Magisterium. In dealing with the latest topics on our telematics columns, Giovanni Cavalcoli and I found ourselves being attacked by intransigent lay people and self-styled Catholics who show a disturbing propensity to confuse politics with theology., which they edged accusations of heresy, including being modernist heretics and modernist doctrines diffusers. And like all insiders know, modernism, as defined today more than ever the Saint Pope Pius X, It is not a simple heresy, but the synthesis of all heresies. Below followed by signed articles’useful wooden head who used his name to support reasons given to it by a theologian, which could do firsthand to expose legitimate theories, but these are contradictions in terms under dogmatic disciplines, of moral and pastoral feel impressed in the principal documents of the past five decades of teaching. What about the rigor “morale” used in political way on issues related to various delicate sphere of human sexuality, by people who show no interest to take account of the principles of humanity and the founding of Christian charity policy, species in the face of human suffering that situation always demand attention and respect, In addition to competing solutions to the wise Ministry of the Church, not to the supposed claims of those who shout the loudest in an attempt to change the blind opinions of their own into dogmatic doctrines “I“. To no small worry were written and speeches full of self-righteous rigor from which emerge the spirit of an ancient heresy but always insidious: Manichaeism. This is the reason for this new answer given by Giovanni Cavalcoli, that does not call for the name his interlocutor for the respect which he intends to pay tribute to the free choice of those who decided to show up through dummy instead of firsthand. Personally I would like to take this opportunity to make grace to God for giving me the privilege of friendship of a wise gentleman like John Carlson, they are tied in fraternal blood kinship divine Redeemer in Christ through the Holy Priesthood.
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
the Pontifical academician John Carlson in the choir of the convent of Domini canes
Dear Brother.
Answer your objections to my ideas on the question of the divorced and remarried. You mthe charges "false theory that the pastoral and canonical consideration of divorced and remarried as of the faithful must get out of their" sin "would be a theological error and a rash judgment"». You know very well that that is not my opinion but the doctrine of Saint John Paul II " Family member company e The splendor of truth ―, For more on the external forum and not the conscience of individual (or, the internal forum, where the Guide and the Council entrusted to the prudence of the Confessor), in line with the traditional doctrine on the "State of grace" (and its contrary, also recently found in the moral theological studies of theologians and pastors such as Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, that you know well.
I answer with tell you I see you clearly misunderstood and you should know it too. Indeed, if you read well what I wrote, as well as my recent work onPatmos Island, What I call "rash judgment», It is not "pastoral and canonical consideration of divorced and remarried as of the faithful must get out of their" sinful State "», but rather the claim on the part of some to believe that certain cohabitants, that may not be removed from their unlawful and irregular status, they are necessarily a permanent state, inespiabile and irrepressible mortal guilt, they were almost devoid of free will and grace forgiving did not exist. This is a hallucinating judgment of someone who does not know what free will is or what grace is. Indeed, the incentive not to sin is still SIN. The incentive may be unwanted, inevitable and invincible. Sin is an act wanted, avoidable and winnable. Otherwise, do as Luther, that confounded the lust, that is only tendency to sin or desire to Sin, with sin, thereby falling under the clear condemnation of the Council of Trent.
From this heresy of Luther is much less rigorous than the laxity. Indeed, as you know, concupiscence is invincible. What do you say then? You can do things: or farisaicamente and relentlessly accuse of full time sin, like a damned soul, spend, for this simple fact, he is under the stimulus of lust. Or hypocritically excuse from sin, because it is said: "I'm not to Sin, but the lust that makes me SIN. So I am not guilty and I can continue to sin. God is good and always forgives me».
Partners certainly are required, If they can, to stop their relationship, that makes them a strong temptation and continues to Sin. But this break is not always possible, even despite all good wishes, and this for reasons of force majeure and also reasonable grounds, as is known in certain intricate and complex particular cases, where it is necessary to take account of the indispensable objective data, for example, the presence of children or civil obligations or financial benefits or sick partner. In that case, the two are in a State of life that remains, but this does not mean that they are necessarily in a permanent "state of sin", If this expression we intend to remain lengthily and willfully in Sin. Indeed, under the liberto will and action of grace, they can anytime and in any situation or condition, internal or external, current or usual, environmental or psychological, legal or moral, also very poor, cancel the blame and return to grace, without this requiring an impossible interruption of cohabitation and without the practice of the sacrament of penance, which was denied to them. It gave, indeed, as you well know, can give grace even without the sacraments.
Familiaris consortio, precisely because it only touches the external hole, almost not even matter, the hole feature internal, i.e. the condition or State or inner dynamism the will of partners and thus leaves the door open to the legality of the ongoing discussion in the Synod, I know, in some severe cases, well specified and detailed, with strong excuses, the divorced may or may not have access to the sacraments.
John Paul II merely reiterate the existing rule, expression of an ancient tradition, albeit accompanied by high theological reasons. But it is certainly based on the standard dogma, ma not necessarily associated with it, This teaching of the Pope is not immutable, as they are generally positive standards, the Church's pastoral and legal, without this leading to an insult to the dogma on which they are based. Indeed, the same moral principle can have different applications. It would not be wise or prudent to stick stubbornly to one of the possible applications, for the simple fact that it is based on an absolute value, who, vice versa, admits a plurality of different applications, without prejudice to the principle.
Now, Some fear that a change in the current regulations could affect the dogma, it is unfounded, because the current legislation is not so connected to the dogma as was the conclusion of a demonstrative syllogism, where the premise would be dogma; but the said legislation has only one connection of convenience col dogma, such as to admit other possible conclusions. Similarly, from the proposed live christianly ― absolute value and essential ― does not necessarily only the lay life, as Luther believed, but the priestly or religious choice can also arise.
So in theology, you teach me, the theologian, When explaining a dogma, adduces reasons you need dogmatic content, because the dogma you can't prove rationally, but further reasons of convenience, which make dogma compatible with reason, and allowing other possible explanations. If instead the dogma could be demonstrated rationally, there would be nothing but a single demonstrative conclusion - truth is only one -, While each other would be false. Then there are allowed and indeed may be helpful discussion and inconsistent, but in the mutual respect of our opinions, and avoid what absolutizing our personal opinion by passing the "doctrine of the Church", as if the contrary were against the dogma. Otherwise, if the Pope decides that Communion be granted to the divorced and remarried, What shall we say? The Pope is a heretic? That has changed the doctrine of the Church?
.
Varazze, 23 October 2015
.
_______________________________
by clicking the logo above inblu Radio, You can open and listen to the radio interview made to John Carlson on 22.10.2015
.
.
.
.
Reverend Father Ariel,
correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that what you mentioned is one of the few cases in which the priest can do the S. Communion doing an act of perfect contrition and postponing the Confession.
But I want to know exactly what principles you can do except in a case similar to the one presented above adulteress.
I tell you very frankly that I do not see any plausible possibilities, and it is precisely for this reason that I would understand the principles on which he relies for his statements.
Dear Richard.
I continue, for obvious reasons already explained, in answer to the questions based on relevant examples, in order to try them that morality is very complex, as is the analysis of sin with all its consequences variables that can make the exact same sin of such gravity as to affect the health of the soul, or make a venial sin, I repeat: all on the exact same sin.
We take this his statement: "Who does not confess mortal sins can not make S. Communion".
This is the healthy and holy suggested practices and to follow, But … There are many, however,. For instance: Suppose that I am a missionary priest and me take care of a community scattered in various villages of the Andes, where for months the snow is making it impossible for many months communications and move around the area. I'm in a state of mortal sin, but I can not but confess before two or three months, up to what will not be re-established communications and made possible the move, then I can meet as close confrere who will absolve me from sin.
According to certain penalties “logical moral”, I could not take Holy Communion, Consequently, for two or three months, I should not celebrate Mass, considering that the priest can not celebrate Mass without receiving communion. All this warning if anything the faithful “Because they are in a state of mortal sin, I will not until I confessed I can not take back the celebrations”, because she understands that, then, He is in a state of mortal sin, rather feed me the food of eternal life would eat my sentence.
Reverend P. Ariel,
its assumptions are correct. The case referred to, however, he spoke was very different from the example of abortion, because that person plans to keep living like this. Rather, it would be compared with the case of a woman who had an abortion, despite all possible extenuating, and he claimed to want to have an abortion again?
He gives the impression of wanting to "seize in chestnut" because it seems to me to talk about things completely obvious. But she tells me that they are not. To get to the crux of the matter, it seems to me that the inability to admit to the sacraments is founded on these issues:
a) marriage is insolvent;
b) extra-marital relationships, the adulterous relationships and engage with another person being married are objective sins;
(c)) we should not allow us to presume innocence subjective;
(d)) those who want to continue to sin can not be validly acquitted;
e) Who does not confess mortal sins can not make S. Communion.
I want to know with respect to which of these things, or to others, He wants to bend what he calls the "rules of the road".
Rev. Dad,
I had already reported on the writings of Father Michelet, discordant in positions , Magister now proposes a new.
sinodo discord. towards a “facto schism” in the Church?
Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet lays bare the ambiguities of the synodal text. Who did not drive but covered the divisions. The conflict between “hermeneutic of continuity” ed “hermeneutic of rupture”. Francesco's dilemma
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351170
Dear Andrea.
According to the general norms of the Church, Confession is a necessary condition for taking Communion, if the subject is in a state of mortal sin.
In the ordinary conditions of a normal Christian life, mortal sin can also be avoided for a long time. Remain to venial sins, which are frequent and inevitable. However, They can also be removed with personal penitential acts, even without prior Confession.
Anyhow, The Church approves and recommends frequent confession, although there are only venial sins. The other part, Communion is also a well-made enough to take away the sins venial.
This common rule could be extended to the divorced and remarried, once the Pope decides to grant them the sacraments.
Just about “Communion” for these pairs, as Communion, which it is sacramental communion with God and with our brothers, communion with the Church, as the word, It corresponds to the summit and to the fullness of the life of grace: source and summit of the Christian life, as the Second Vatican Council says.
But it is clear that, if the couple is admitted to Communion, It is why it is permissible to Confession.
However, speaking of Confession alone is not so clear how to speak alone Communion, because this supposes that, but that still does not say this necessarily, though that has to end this.
The granting of the sacraments to these couples seem on the other hand to give them a significant advantage, as well as an increase of therapeutic support is useful in cases of frequent falls in a certain morbid state. Not for nothing the traditional moral theology speaks of healing or medicinal grace.
Just because the couple is in a dangerous situation, It is to imagine that it can often fall into mortal sin, so that the rescue of a grace supplement can defend more from sin.
Which of course does not release the couple from the duty to strengthen the moral commitment, avoiding the subtle form of temptation of God, which leads emptying into the precipice with the vain hope in divine.
If the father thought Cavalcoli the possible granting of communion for divorced and remarried should still be contingent upon the prior confession, one could speak of a hypothetical “Access to confession” as a synonym for “access to communion” – perhaps it would be less irritating to many who read, and so it may help to understand (place that irritation hinders reflection).
Dear Richard.
Any rigor applied with mathematical rigor makes inhuman and immoral morality.
I will not say bad, I replied, Perhaps it is you who does not want to understand, given that for my reply she has extrapolated a period in which plans to launch a dry question before which the intercutore is attached to the wall with four nails from his shrewd cleverness. typical attitude, this, who has made up his mind to have caught the other as they say “in chestnut”, so that the person trapped dall'altrui sagacity try to wriggle so desperate as a professional sophist.
It is not so, because it is more complex than you can “secularly” imagine; and I'll explain why I say “secularly”, since you first talk about the most delicate discipline of those sacraments that she, until the contrary is proved not easy, receives, but does not administer.
It therefore gives the impression that she has never made education courses promoted for confessors by the Apostolic Penitentiary, in which he also talks and especially the “difficult cases” and of “Extra ordinary situations”, etc…
Let me suppore that she has never had to deal with situations, anything but academic, of the so-called “difficult moral cases”, then finally, let me assume that you have never done nor the priest, nor the spiritual director or confessor.
And all this you can tell just by the way she puts style questions … “'Mo I catch you in Chestnut”.
I refuse to speak to both of “difficult cases” both gods “Extra ordinary cases”, opposite to the spirit of those who insist with the basic attitude of those in the states: “On the highway code is written this, in a clear and precise, so?”.
So let us take as an example a grave sin: abortion, the absolution of which in itself would be reserved to the bishop, unless otherwise specified dates or authority delegated to the major penitentiary or other priests and so on.
She knows that there are cases very complex and particular in which, this sin in itself and of itself serious, It can recede up to the rank of venial sin, so the person was really and objectively devoid of will, of deliberate consent but, above all, devoid of real perception of life and what really was doing?
Free her to apply “traffic laws” pretending with it to put questions nailing, I free not to answer questions that require both common sense and a lot of delicate and careful analysis of very specific cases. And that those who know it well as confessors sometimes have to manage really very difficult situations, before which often, several times, many priests have had to suspend the confession, ask opinion to their bishop, before giving absolution to the penitent.
Adultery exists, and is a major sin, but there may be situations in which the responsibilities of the adulterer or adulteress fade much for facts, circumstances and very complex situations, rather: always very complex and rigor. And I say adultery like so many other sins, including the murder and so on.
Faced with certain problems, you can not install’speed cameras and then say: the limit was 130, you were going to 140, so you're wrong, you take the pay the fine and the matter closed.
In Catholic moral things do not work properly so and, so if someone wants to make them work, in that case it should apply the wise maxim that "any rigor applied with mathematical rigor makes inhuman and immoral morality".
May the Lord grant me to follow him and all his words.
P. Ariel, for me it is an honor to be able to compare with her, but I would have preferred that responded to my arguments and not that attacked people. Persons with which among other things have nothing to do.
You think you can give extra-marital relationships and infidelity if the accomplice is a person "wonderful".
At this point, if all goes well the man "wonderful" maybe a little good: if one is content to live with a little good they are his business, no? And why not casual relationships?
And if you knew a woman "wonderful" with whom to start a family and bear children, You will feel entitled to fail in its commitments?
it is likely that the Father Giovanni Cavalcoli should answer him point by point …
Rev. Father Cavalcoli,
his confrere Fr. Riccardo Barile OP in this article 29-10-2015:
http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/articoli-leucarestia-il-peccato-e-la-coscienza-note-oltre-il-sinodo-14237.htm
while using very gently towards him, refutes what you have posted here and then reiterated in interviews.
A single combat of the past, a theological disputation hard to settle.
Dear Richard.
E’ right across from the sin which intervenes the grace and mercy of God, it does not follow either logic or the logic of our hard-core moralists Shaking “letter” the A “law” as if it were a club. And mercy of God does not listen to reason, as is humanly reasonable, son remained faithful at home with his father that welcomes celebrating the prodigal son who had given to every debauchery, who did not return because repentant, but because he was in need; his repentance is developed only after, before the great mercy of the father.
Obviously, needless to mention that, preaching vain to desert sand, I explained all the way in my past articles that those variously linked to lust, are not “the sin of sins” and in sex and human sexuality lies not the whole mystery of evil, because many worse sins exist, even if he does not speak at all.
I indicated, one by one, the mannerisms and the malvezzi practiced in their lives and sexual double just from the hardest champions of defense of the family and marriage; but no one has replicated, no one has denied me, all flew over.
I explained – moral rigor to the hand – that a business that exploits black 20 underpaid workers without coverage assicurariva, to make money on their skin and their need, It commits a much worse sin of a pre-marital relationship or a fling adulterous, They are and remain sins, but much less serious than the one just shown.
And no one answered, Moral to the hand, that I was wrong; first of all have continued to make sex fleas.
All right, dear Riccardo, she is right: lead a guided sex life on the respect of all moral norms related exclusively to the sexual sphere, and will save the soul, apart from all the rest, It is morally secondary, rather, morally right does not count.
Because of this, Jesus, down and he wrote on the ground …
Dear P. Ariel,
I am a sinner and not hurl stones at anyone; judgment belongs to God and he will give, me and adulterers. But I have to call sin sin, and not allow myself to assume when God grants the grace outside the ordinary means.
Quell'adultera was forgiven by God that he said is "neither do I condemn you", that "from now on sin no more". I assure you I do not say this to support my "I", but even if I did the fact remains that this is what the Christ.
It seems to me that the whole argument will rest on the sentimentality of ' "wonderful man". So wonderful to be preferred to the living God?
Giovanni 7,53-8,11
7,53 And they returned to their homes.
8,1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 In the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and he, sat, he taught them. 3 Then he brought a woman caught in adultery scribes and the Pharisees and, post it in the middle, 4 tell: «Maestro, this woman was caught in adultery. 5 now Moses, in the Law, He commanded us to stone such women. What do you think?». 6 This they said to test him and to get an accusation against him. But Jesus, chinatosi, down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
7 And as they continued, he straightened up and said to them,: "Which one of you is without sin, be the first to throw the stone at her ".
8 And again he stooped down, He wrote on the ground. 9 but those, heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest to the last.
Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Then Jesus straightened up he said: «Donna, where am I? Has no one condemned?».
11 She replied,: "Nobody, Man". And Jesus said to her: "Neither do I condemn; will’ and from now on sin no more ".
A modest suggestion: does not stick to the phrase “VA’ and from now on sin no more”, to support his “I” instead of the word of God, but rather ask this: but Jesus, what he wrote, on the ground?
We do not know, Perhaps no one is given to know, but certainly he did not write what she wrote us in his commentary.
the Rev. Padri,
I'm a young lay person and I would like to express my strong disagreement with what you are saying.
It seems to me that you are justifying the woman above, on the grounds that "he met a wonderful man, proved very good man, good husband, great father ".
His heart knows only God, but what we see she preferred to join a '' good person 'rather than being in God's grace. The preconditions for this are thinking:
1) that this person could give her a love larger than you could give her God;
2) that God is an adversary and an enemy gives law man.
If this man was so great, and if she loved him with true love, no one would ever assembled as having engaged in a previous marriage (for all he knew).
People "that for the parish, for the elderly and for children they have never made even a thousandth part of what she has done over the years "have - as far as we are given to see - served God better than her, who preferred to lose sanctifying grace and ruin everything.
Say things in a certain way may derail the work of years? Then tell her the right way, and ditele.
Dear Giacarlo.
I'll know right away by repeating what has been said: no one is right, no one has wronged, Nobody won and nobody lost, because these are not matters of winning or losing, right or wrong.
For now, nothing has been corrected or modified in any way the current practice which remains the, as such, unless the Holy Father, in his Apostolic Exhortation, which is the whole to be written, decides otherwise.
but anyway, let me know, Kasper was right?
'Nnamo bbene. just bbene!
Thank you.
As soon as we have time we will read it with great interest.
http://www.fidesetratio.it/28.10.2015-monsignor-livi-risponde-a-padre-cavalcoli-e-don-ariel-levi..html
Dear Fabrizio.
The rare cases in which can doubt that the Pope may have erred in interpreting sacred tradition, well-known scholars son seri, and were carefully screened, which you can verify by consulting a good history of the Popes ol'Catholic Encyclopedia or a good Treaty of Apologetics: We must not listen to sophistry and deceit of modernists like Hans Küng or certain traditionalists, they don't know what is sacred tradition, and that's about it tend to do and sow confusion.
These are cases that, mostly – as you say -, not touching the doctrine, and then the interpretation of tradition, but the Government of the Church, where the Pope is not infallible.
As for John XXII, It was actually a case of doctrinal error, but he argued not as Pope, in other words, teacher of the faith, but as doctor privatO, where even the Pope can err. And the rest is retracted.
The Synod concluded. striking less than expected.
The vexed question just talking to in paragraphs 84,85 e 86, without ever mentioning the word Communion.
On paper, apparently, nothing changed, compared to the teachings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, In the confessional, with far-sighted prudence, the priest will help the penitent to discern considering reviewing their lives and to recommend it to let him find his “salvation of his soul;”, peace with God, via, Truth and the Life. Giustappunto what we profess, repentance, mercy and forgiveness for our sins and our brothers, and how should we implore in our prayers entrusting to Mary, Refuge of sinners, Consolatrix afflictorum,
Sincerely, Rev. Don Roberto, I did not understand very well the case proposed by you. As explained by Don Ariel to the reader, of course the canonical separation is expected and allowed, and nobody here can hardly sindacarla, God forbid. Place after the Declaration of invalidity, the problem does not arise, It appears that she has admitted to the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist because obviously the Lady had to adhere to a judgment in the internal Forum of that that was somehow some of nullity of marriage, and also even if there had been a bad pronunciation of ecclesiastical court on. Then the facts proved him right. Strange case, I would say, and still pretty awesome. Definitely, in the presence of that negative (the Court which had rejected the nullity) another priest could refuse communion and penance,in the absence of change in assumptions (Penance). She has done differently,and we had “seen right”. But this very special case, allow me, does not detect much in today's discussion of the Synod,unless it comes to marriages void, ma “losers”.And to give communion for divorced and remarried persons …
In my humble opinion, personal and subjective, and as such I express, I don't think anybody, in these last weeks of “Synodal fire” (made fire outside and from outside), the service you have done with your balanced articles, enlightening and, above all, full of lots of good Christian meaning.
and I don't think being the only thank you.
Dear Don Roberto,
ecclesiastical standards are prudential directives, inspired by considerations of common wisdom, descending from the General charity law course and an application or determination in common cases, in particular areas of the Christian life, How can this be the relationship.
These laws, dictated by human prudence of the Church, don't have the absoluteness and the indispensability of divine law or natural law, that may happen or allow exceptional cases, where the Minister of God, especially if the care of souls, must be able to assess whether the situation, that assumes great, requires a decision on an ad hoc basis, Maybe just for that case, so he can, not to say must take on its own initiative before God, following the example of Christ the good Shepherd, asking the Holy Spirit for light, a different way of acting or not, and then a suspension of the law.
In that case, he is authorized to decide what to do conscientiously and prudently, If this decision to deviate from the wording of the law, It has to end and get the respect of essential values and higher, What are precisely the divine commandments, which can be summed up in the law of charity.
Find the priest.
I know that you know how to swim, and it is good.
Come to think of it, are others who drown.
Dear Mr. Bazzorini.
If father John Carlson had made serious allegations public, heretical even, would be first invoked by the master General of the order of Friars preachers, its claims would have asked Bill at the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith and, last, but certainly not what secondary, I would definitely resign forthwith by the Pontifical Academy of theology, that is a full member.
I suggest reading the Aesop's fable, one in which the Fox, Unable to reach grapes, SE ne va’ around saying that the grape is bad.
The cheated wife and made the subject of violence is legitimate for separate. What is not according to God's law is what this woman said (civilly) or unless living with the new “Companion” not alive “brother and sister”. One among the “My theologians” trust is Mons Livi which today made me know I broke the doctrinal relations with Father Carr for the extremely serious allegations of the latter on the communion for divorced and remarried persons.
p.s: for serious means heretics
Dear father Ariel. You said everything there was to say and so much better than I would have said I.
What these people it rankles me (and that disappoints me by those who “load”), is the huge damage that bring us. Let me explain: a subject like that within these terms not only qualifies as “Catholic”, but as authentic interpreter of true Catholicism, can frustrate the whole work that, If anything for years, We priests we brought forward in an attempt to recover persons who have drifted away from the Church, but they are still open to dialogue, to reason and, eventually, to retrace their steps. there, such subjects, can, sometimes, zero years of our work with one their unhappy, touching it more sensitive balls and often painful for people, then away again after confirming their opinion, that “with Catholics do not think”.
[ Gianluca Bazzorini is back ! ]
Dear Mr. Bazzorini.
Perhaps no one has informed that the code of Canon law – that certainly does not provide for divorce – provides for and regulates, however, the separation of the spouses.
Can. 1153 – § 1. If one of the spouses seriously undermines both spiritual and corporal of the other or of the offspring, or makes it too hard otherwise the common life, gives the other a legitimate cause to separate, by Decree of the local ordinary and also for its decision, If there is danger in waiting.
In some cases, separation, their pastors with the care of souls should solicit and recommend, How many times I did in foro interno and in foro outside; and in as many holes as I have done various situations my brothers to objective and high risk.
I then a clear and precise application: before a woman after marriage has the misfortune of having an adulterous husband, aggressive, for this dangerous and violent towards his wife and his physical safety, with all the serious psychological damage that can result from this to the children, If she takes the responsibility to tell her: "You have to stay in all ways with your husband and keep it how it is»? And pastorally, tell us, How will comfort her, Maybe her: «Offer your sufferings for the salvation of souls in purgatory "?
Please consult, if anything, even with his trusted theologian, then let us know.
E’ a specific question that I before his unfortunate comment and please respond on the merits.
The Divine Law, She has contravened, Don Robert, not to the ……law of the Pharisees. She also like Bergoglio and many others confuse God's law with that of the Pharisees and I will answer.
Rev. and dear Don Bruno.
I take this reply, I feel honored, like pearls of wisdom given to anyone who will listen and understand the real world.
A deep gratitude.
I add my brief testimony: I had to do over the last 10 years with 5 different cases but totally anloghi to that reported by don Roberto and before which, different but similar words, in a discreet and private, My Bishop, gave me the same answer.
P.S.
The attacks that have targeted in recent days, for the article of the patmosiani fathers, they are simply shameful, but they are primarily a result of a truly disturbing blindness.
Dear Father Giovanni, a concrete case: a parishioner at a young age, she married a man who soon after became a “animated” aggressive, violent, traitor, but most of all dangerous. She was separated, and returned to his parents ' home with baby, remaining alone for years, devoting himself in his spare time to volunteer in the parish. Then graduated from the higher Institute of religious sciences and became an excellent Catechist. While in, the ecclesiastical Tribunal, replied that there were no elements for nullity of marriage. He met, then, a wonderful man, proved very good man, good husband, excellent father, with whom you married civilly, and with whom she had another son. At a certain point, the people who for the parish, for the elderly and children have never done even a thousandth part of what she did over the years, principiano means that a divorced remarried may not teach catechism. She knew, and to my great regret, He stopped doing the Catechist. Two years ago, the ecclesiastical Tribunal, implicitly acknowledged that the practice, earlier, had not been assessed properly, and in just 6 months recognized the nullity of marriage, and one morning at 7.30 on a weekday in the presence of sunshine 6 people got married in church.
The Catholics “for case” that put her in a position to not teach catechism, almost all children living with, divorced, and remarried, etc ..
He always continued to devote himself to the elderly sick people in difficulty, creating a highly efficient group volunteers, but he never wanted to teach catechism. And the parish lost the best Catechist who had.
In such a situation, According to the rigour of modern Pharisees, as a parish priest, I should have:
a) tell her to return with her lawful husband, regardless of the risks and dangers?
b) I had to deal with her and her husband as partners in “Permanent” State of mortal sin?
b) I should deny communion?
(c)) I would have to exclude it from the teaching of the Catechism?
When I consulted with Bishop, He stated, in a completely private, that deny communion to a Christian couple so specimens, It would have been a cruelty, and remarked: do you need consciousness as do, Why is a case all to itself.
I maybe wrong and violated the … law of the Pharisees?
Thank You Father!
Dear Daniela, We also have our faults: once, i laici, with the exception of those involved in the service of the altar, they could not cross the space of balustrade, before which knelt at the appropriate time to receive communion. I remember that in 1975 (I had 30 and I was a priest from 4 year old), was Bishop to administer the confirmations in the small parish of which from 2 I was parish priest, a small and picturesque mountain church, held by the faithful as a jewel, 400 Church rebuilt in the ' 700, in a very sober Baroque style, nave. The Bishop said “was taken off the balustrade”, Why “It was a sign of division between the priest and the faithful”, is that “the altar was turned towards the people”. I replied that, the balustrade, I had been taught was a “mark of respect” and not a “partition sign”, and I added that it was impossible to replace the altar to the East and with the banister formed, in the small presbytery, a single block of marble.
Two years later I was moved to a larger parish, in the city, and my successor, just arrived, demolished the balustrade and did remove the marble altar, replaced with a “bar table”, as the faithful. And the Church was irreparably damaged, with the people and the City Council who protested at the Bishop for what havoc. If indeed it was possible to turn the altar towards the people, without damaging the Church, I would have done it myself.
I have often used the image of the balustrade to explain that was “abolished” respect, that have been abolished “the roles”. He said the card. Ratzinger first and then after Benedict XVI (I am quoting from memory): “You are assisento to a secularization of the clergy and a clericalization of laity”.
Today I have 70 year old, are preacher 44, and I have always been parish priest, and I think I can say, with desolation, Some faithful, also young, arriving at Church one day a week, TI si “impose” own, the presbytery, e, boys and girls, to which I might be grandfather, I come to say what they want to do their, and what to do, and how you must do it.
The real balustrade (that was a sign of respect), was not, so, the visible, the one in marble, that could also be removed (as long as this does not deturpasse the natural architecture of the churches), the real was that invisible balustrade, and that sort of balustrade, not to be removed.
And it is clear: This has nothing to do with Vatican II, but with its misapplication, or with its non-application.
Don Bruno
“if the Pope decides that Communion be granted to the divorced and remarried, What shall we say? The Pope is a heretic? That has changed the doctrine of the Church?”
I take a comment made a few days ago, lost for a technical reason, as explained Don Ariel. It is well documented, in Church history, that some Pope applied acts of wrong Government (Lamb during the Arian heresy), others wanted to approve reforms that would have been erroneous theological (John XXII). The latter expressed a misconception on the judgment of souls, three times in three homilies; was subjected to the Holy Inquisition and retracted. What happened in the meantime so as to categorically exclude this possibility?
Don Andrea I would submit that anyone who is expressing criticisms are not just a couple of sites, or a couple of community. There are bishops and Cardinals who have evidently pastoral experiences (also very difficult environments, as in some African countries) and written books about. Is not in fact want to reduce everything to a gang of “Hyper-conservatives”.
Reverend Father, How many problems would be avoided, If political scientists do political scientists and theologians not, and if theologians were theologians and not political scientists. And that sorrow, see you, you do the theologians, finish with a stick inflated as Christmas traditions!
Those who speak in tones that speak “Lay”, and again, “i laici”, of Collected correspondence and Christian Roman, similar and similar … and so on and so on … aside from merciless and harsh spirit of language, have not the faintest idea what it is, for example, a priest Pastor, the intimate touch with the concrete, with real pastoral dimension, in dealing with the individual and the community of believers. These characters speak of a church that does not exist, pastoral and before which the criminal code would pale by a dictatorial regime. The problem, not what some people express, but the confusion they do, the souls who confuse, and also, above all, throwing accusations the priests and theologians trained and balanced as you.
Sincere thanks, Father Giovanni.
Caro Father, self-righteousness is a disease so serious from which not even Jesus was able to cure and heal many who were suffering, According to the Gospels. Interesting, and disturbing, because true, What support both, She and Ariel's father, about the resurgence of Manichaeism.