THE CASE WEDDING RING & CULTURE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT FOLLOWING A "THEOLOGY OF EMOTION" WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE MAGISTERY OF THE CHURCH

Theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In response to my recent article The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain laypeople by the "theology of the underpants", dr. John Zeno, director of Edizioni Fede&Cultura released a reply video which I insert here.

It is first necessary to clarify a methodological point: theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

My article advanced a precise thesis, articulated and verifiable (cf. Who). Anyone who reads it and then examines the content of Dr.'s reply. Zeno, will be able to ascertain an objective fact: the issues I raised are not addressed on their merits, but circumvented by shifting the discourse to lateral planes, which do not touch the argument I proposed, rather: they don't even touch it.

Anyone can verify that in the disputed text I explicitly clarified that I was intervening as a priest, pastor in care of souls, confessor and spiritual director. The reply of Dr. Zeno instead generically refers to the right of lay people to express themselves, however avoiding the central point, without taking into account that the speech did not concern the right to speak or criticize, but on the specific ecclesial experience from which the reflection originates: the Sacrament of Penance and spiritual direction, where the priests operate, not the laity. It is from this concrete practice, not from an abstract theoretical construction, that my intervention begins and is structured. And on this specific level, the reply is simply irrelevant.

The argument that having had six children suggests a sort of competence superior to that of priests in the moral and pastoral field, it falls within a well-known argumentative typology, historically used by secularist and anticlerical environments to delegitimize the magisterium and the word of the clergy on family and relational issues. Re-proposing this scheme does not strengthen the argument, but it reveals its methodological weakness.

Then there is a central point, which does not allow for ambiguity. The Dr. Zeno publicly objected several times, in harsh and disrespectful tones, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in relation to the Doctrinal Note Mother of the Faithful People, concerning the inappropriateness of the use of the title of "co-redemptrix" referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, the determining fact is the following: that document, approved by the Supreme Pontiff who ordered its publication, falls within the authentic Magisterium of the Church. This data, by itself, closes the problem on the ecclesiastical level to any specious "right of criticism".

Then reply by invoking freedom of thought to reject this act is equivalent to deliberately confusing the level of theological research with that of the assent due to the Magisterium. Theological freedom does not authorize the public and contemptuous contestation of a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff, nor does it allow personal opinions and acts of ecclesial authority to be placed on the same level, only to then proclaim themselves theologians, defenders of the faith and Catholic educators.

The call to saints, mystics or to individual statements by past Pontiffs does not change this picture, because Catholic theology has always distinguished:

– devotional or mystical expressions, which do not bind the faith of believers in any way;

– the statements made by the Popes as private doctors;

– the acts of the authentic Magisterium, which instead require ecclesial membership combined with filial respect and devout obedience to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that Saint John Paul II always rejected the request to define the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix; that Benedict XVI highlighted the Christological difficulties posed by the term itself; that Francesco, as well as finally Leo XIV, have confirmed this orientation, approving the doctrinal note in question. Faced with this coherent set of data, the insistence on isolated and decontextualized quotes does not constitute theological argument, but an ideological selection of sources, preceded and accompanied by their manipulation, after an amateurish approach to the theology and history of the dogma that arises, as an effect, that of poisoning the simplest members of the People of God, the same one that we must protect and protect by imperative of conscience, as Priests of Christ instituted to teach, sanctifying and guiding.

Applying the same criterion of extrapolation and manipulation, one could challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by recalling the reservations of Saint Thomas Aquinas, or call into question the current discipline of Penance on the basis of the positions of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory the Great, matured in a radically different historical context, when this Sacrament was not repeatable and could only be administered once in a lifetime and never again. Always following this anti-theological and anti-historical logic, one could even deny the First Council of Nicaea, referring to hypotheses and opinions expressed by various Holy Fathers before the year 325.

The inconsistency of this method is therefore immediately evident that — between saints and mystics, messages of Fatima and clumsy lives of Jesus fictionalized by Maria Valtorta - would bring the discussion back into the realm of pietism and the most desolate fideism, realities that have nothing to do with the Catholic faith and with theological speculation properly and scientifically speaking.

From the videos released by Dr. Zeno a not exactly correct and not fully orthodox approach to fundamental theology emerges: manifest forms of hostility towards the Magisterium of the Church are detected; we set ourselves up as defenders of the "true faith" and the "true tradition", that these groups would claim to protect in the face of actions by Pontiffs and Bishops that they consider doctrinally questionable; everything is masked under the reference to freedom of thought and opinion, which, however, in fact, results in ideological stances.

The picture is completed — and here I conclude — with a series of other videos “highly educational”, distinct and subsequent to that which is the subject of this response of mine, which speak for themselves. To name just one, among many, just think of statements of unprecedented gravity such as: «Heresy is worse than pedophilia»

This is a statement devoid of any logical and theological criteria, founded on an improper juxtaposition between radically different realities on an ontological and moral level. These are comparisons, if proposed by someone who presents himself as a theologian, Catholic pedagogue and trainer, they cannot be dismissed as simple naivety of expression, but they reveal a serious lack of prudence and methodological discernment on a pedagogical and theological level.

From the island of Patmos, 14 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.