«I am Roberto Bolle, not a chicken scratching in the hen house ". Those depressed and depressing Catholics who lock morals inside a condom and who consider sex as the center of the whole mystery of evil

- The Theological Pages -



Someone sends me this message: "As promised compatibly with my commitments, I proceeded to make a video in response to his heterodox statements on contraception. Convinced that he personally knows what is sound doctrine and therefore to be considered and what to discard. It will certainly be useful to the many faithful who have followed us for years and who have the obligation to know the truth on matters of such importance ". For my part I want to clarify that if a layman accuses of heresy on the public square of social media a minister in sacred and a theologian, it is at least necessary to defend one's dignity as a priest and as a scholar from the false accusations of a subject who has proved himself to be an amateur theologian.



Ariel S. Levi Gualdo



PDF print format article




The Fathers of The Island of Patmos have included in the articles audio-reading for readers affected by those disabilities that prevent them from reading and at the same time providing a service to those who, being traveling and unable to read, can take advantage of the audio- reading




Roberto Bolle

… A brief introduction: a bishop my wise formator, which has served the Church and the Holy See for many years around the world, he explained to me - therefore he taught me as a reflex - why he had never defended himself, when on some occasions it was made the object of absurd attacks. There are two main reasons: the first is that often, who attacks, he does it precisely to spark a controversy. The second why, when you are a public person more or less known, it may happen that subjects who are much less public and known, try to gain visibility on the skin of others, if anything by attacking you.

Let's get it even better. Our great dancer Roberto Bolle has been kissed by nature, undoubtedly and in every sense: has a beautiful and expressive face, a statuary body, he is tall in stature, but above all he is gifted with extraordinary skill, besides being a lovable young man with a deeply good heart. Roberto Bolle, with the sum of all his natural gifts, it could have seriously overshadowed, on a stage, even the flying tatar, he great Rudolf Nureyev, called the flying Tatar. Yet there is an army of dancers, with serious difficulties to enter as extras dancing in a ballet company that, on Roberto Bolle, they express the worst things, finding in him the most unlikely defects and inability. All this to say, with the provocative tone that distinguishes me: I am Roberto Bolle and, as such leap high, I do not stalk in the yard with the chickens. All the more reason I have always adhered to the style of behavior of my wise trainer e, even when some have overwhelmed me with insults in the social hen house, I didn't defend myself, if not in one case: how far all the limits of human decency have been overcome.

Nobody can accuse me publicly of what I have ever done and what I have never said. And if that happens, it's not that I intervene to defend myself, but to indicate lying and manipulation. And unfortunately, in our increasingly schizophrenic society, manipulation is a very common exercise based mostly on cut and sew, until people say what they did not say in concrete facts.

But let's get to the specific case. It has happened that some of my sentences have been extrapolated from very articulate public speeches and writings, then my image was taken from some of my video conferences and, separating everything from the precise and articulated context, a sentence was brought back to make me say what I never said, therefore to support a real demolition action against me based on falsehood.

It was to realize this a Such belonging to those thinkers who find nothing better to do than to use Catholic morality, in the delicate and complex sphere of human sexuality, to enclose in sex and sexuality, or if you prefer inside a condom, the whole mystery of evil.

This amateur of theology and moral theology, introduces me and publicly treats me as a soul poisoner with very confused ideas about sexual morality, accusing me of having wasted away, always by virtue of my doctrinal ignorance, the encyclical Humanae Vitae of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI, which sanctions the prohibition for the Catholic faithful to resort to contraceptive means. In conclusion: I am publicly accused of heterodoxy, ie heresy.

On Humanae Vitae I have made and published several lessons and interventions over the years, which, however, he did not listen and read, he was so busy imputing to Roberto Bolle what he never said. All I repeat: with clumsy cut and sew.

In the public articles where I dealt with the specific topic, I have always proceeded to first place this encyclical in its proper context and to contextualize it in its historical-social and ecclesial context. I have not failed to explain what that encyclical constituted, for the Holy Pontiff Paul VI, an authentic trauma from which he never recovered, proof that it was the last one he wrote. Then they followed, before his return to the Father's House, another ten years of pontificate that went through one of the most delicate historical-social periods of modernity, but never again gave other encyclicals to the press. This is enough to understand that the Humanae Vitae left an indelible mark on first of all those who wrote it and for which he even had to suffer the serious affront of a public rebellion by various fringes of the northern European episcopate.

In this unhappy season of ours that marches dedicated of calling everything into question, the read, the reinterpret and rewrite, but most of the revolution - the word as I have often explained incompatible with the very essence of Christianity -, also there Humanae Vitae It had to be subjected to this process, as evidenced by the speech that the Reverend Professor Maurizio Chiodi made at the Pontifical Gregorian University in 2018, during a keynote dedicated to the "rereading" of this painful encyclical of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI [cf. WHO]. And here it is good to remember that, right on the columns of the online magazine The island of Patmos, both the pontifical academician Giovanni Cavalcoli, it's me, we contested that attempt at "questioning" very politely but very hard.

They are nothing short of thrilled that a Such accuse me of having stated that the Humanae Vitae it is a document that contains a simple ecclesiastical discipline, possibly reformable by another possible Supreme Pontiff, because my speculations were quite different, my theological discourses and my answers about the concept of reformability.

So I repeat what I have said many times, written and explained in the past, always in a detailed and clear way:


«The text of the Humanae Vitae is destined to remain a closed discourse on the level of discipline, but open on that of theological speculation. Indeed, the use of contraceptives prohibition, although it is an expression of the supreme magisterium supported on natural law and on traditio catholica, it can not be, today and even tomorrow, supported on dogmatic elements such as resorting ex cathedra to a definitive pronouncement the infallible teaching. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament literature and novo, there is only one solid supporting element to keep standing at the level dogmatic discipline which establishes the use of contraceptives prohibition; which it is a theological discipline in my opinion very wise and timely, but that can not be dogmatized. And who today dogmatizza, shows really do not know what is the dogma, or what it is instead, otherwise, the dogmatic support that supports an ecclesiastical or canonical discipline ".


These and my other statements they shocked that certain amateur theologian who for his part, for evident and crass ignorance, it seems unclear what a dogma of faith is, like all his associates who in an improvised and increasingly ridiculous way try obsessively-compulsively to dogmatize a condom.

Having said that let's clarify: those who have seriously accused me of heterodoxy have shown that they have no idea what it is, on a logical level, metaphysical and theological, an expression definitional and an expression final, indeed, in all his fantasy-theological and fantasy-moral arguments, he confuses one with the other, thus showing evidence of unfamiliarity with the theological language that, especially in the context of dogmatic theology, it is absolutely surgical precision. And lacking the correct dogmatic language property, he proves completely unaware of a non-passable fact of denial theology: regarding the doctrine contained in the Humanae Vitae which prohibits the use of contraceptives, the Church has never expressed a judgment in the solemn form of definition, like the first instance by targeting all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic and moral, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith. In this regard, just read the Apostolic Letter of the Holy Father John Paul II, To defend the faith, of 29.05.1998 [text WHO].

This discipline sanctioned by the Holy Pontiff Paul VI it is intended as a doctrine infallibly proposed. And with this it is soon said that no theologian, more or less versed in precise doctrinal and moral matters, should never confuse a pronouncement linked to the infallibility of the so-called "second degree", that is definitive, with the definition of a new dogma of the Catholic Faith, that is definitional. This is the grave error into which certain so-called penalty takers risk falling: inventing dogmas that do not exist, until you get to the point of dogmatizing a condom, after making a big mess between definitional and definitive, simply because they don't really know the lexicon of dogmatic theology.

Two of the new "dogmas" proclaimed with defining formula these days by certain subjects with sexophobia, are n. 84 of Family company, far-sighted post-synodal apostolic exhortation of the Holy Pontiff John Paul II, followed by the "dogma" of "no to Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried". Soon these, in our churches, or maybe in theirs, they will begin to recite a Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of faith more or less integrated in this way: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; I believe that the divorced and remarried should be excluded from Holy Eucharistic Communion ". But above: "I believe in the dogma on contraception", a "truth of faith" inserted by them just before the lock that reads: "I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come". Or they will insert, directly before the part where the Flags acclaims the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and its consubstantiality with the Father, the far more important article of faith: "I believe in the dogma of the prohibition of contraception". Because they aim at this: to enclose the whole Catholic morality in a condom.

Having said that I can continue clarifying that items such as error, heresy and sin - all of which I was accused of by that certain Tale -, they have their own scale in relation to both the concept itself, and with the objective data of their gravity, all linked to the knowledge, to will and deliberate consent. In conclusion, the ethics of Aristotle good then transposed in support of the truths of faith by St. Thomas Aquinas. And, even without resorting to examples that would be many and articulated, I say "knowledge" because not everyone is aware that certain acts and actions are seriously sinful, especially in those in whom the natural sense of right and wrong is very small, in some severe and special cases is virtually non-existent. And in these specific cases, the concept of "real guilt" as we play it? Given that blame is not a useful game to give work to the modern revenants of the decadent neo-scholasticism, but objective data that comes from acting consciously subjective?

But let's talk of doctrinal errors or of the same heresies, for instance: by Joachim of Fiore, holy man of God, until the latest Antonio Rosmini, today Beato, It has happened that even saints and unquestionable men of God have inadvertently fallen into heretical thoughts, from which then they are corrected, without that an adverse effect on their holiness. Of the same Gioacchino da Fiore, whose heresy was condemned in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council, just as it was during his cause of beatification, the Fathers of the Church gathered in that meeting to reconcile, in pointing out the errors in his famous pamphlet, They did not fail to clearly highlight also its unquestionable sanctity of life.

All this is to introduce a simple question: It is more serious challenge and deconstruct the tenets of the Holy Catholic Faith, or it is more serious to proclaim new dogmas that do not exist? Undoubtedly it is more serious the second thing. Indeed, those who make mistakes and sow confusion among the People of God, It calls into question the dogmas through rereading and reinterpreting, until reaching to their de-construction, however, it is not certain that it is animated by diabolical intentions, because everything can also be the result of that bad theological formation that has been transmitted and acquired without any objective fault by presbyters and theologians who have received incorrect teachings. And if that happened, it is perhaps the fault of their will and their deliberate consent knowingly given to the error?

In any case, it remains certain than those who proclaim dogmas that do not exist, make a major mistake, because they act by placing themselves above the authority of the Holy Church itself Mater et Magistra, holder of an authority that derives from it in person. And the latter yes, which is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, which was not reached by logical deduction of faith, but on the basis of clear and precise words pronounced by the Word of God made man [cf. Mt 13, 16-20]. And when you proclaim dogmas that they do not exist and that may not even exist, in that case we are indeed in evil, because here the worst human pride enters the scene. It is in fact the case to remember that in the so-called scale of the deadly sins, pride occupies the first place, with sad peace of whom, so indeed stubborn and incorrigible, instead he would like to concentrate on lust - which we remember does not figure in the first place at all, but not even the second and third - the whole mystery of evil, regardless of the fact that the worst sins ranging everyone and rigor from his belt to rise, not instead of his belt to fall, as in an ironic but theologically very serious tone I wrote several years ago.

With arguments that denote a lack of knowledge of dogmatic theology and terrible gaps on the logical and philosophical system that supports it, an amateur theologian who proved himself to the test of facts accuses me of heresy, for having argued that tomorrow a Pontiff "could also decide to review this discipline". So, not so much to disassemble, but to attack me with cold and calm ferocity, he begins to display documents to demonstrate the "dogmatic unreformability" of certain disciplines, showing, among other things, to not be able to read the documents of the Church or to understand their language on the historical and ecclesiological level. All this proves that we are talking about an ignorant emeritus in the etymological sense of the term. Easy as such to disprove with a few examples linked to the history and evolution of the most delicate part of dogmatics: dogmatic sacramental. Let's proceed with the examples: For centuries, Confession, it was not a repeatable sacrament but could only be administered once in a lifetime and never again. If we go to read the texts of certain Holy Fathers and doctors of the Church of the time, including statements by the Roman Pontiffs, we will discover that when the possibility of making this Sacrament repeatable began to be aired, on the one hand he shouted heresy, other anathema sit! Come May, at the end, this Sacrament became repeatable? Simple: we owe it to the descent of the barbarians from the north of Europe who, to gradually, they converted en masse to Christianity.

For many centuries Holy Communion frequent it was not only discouraged but absolutely prohibited, even if the Holy Doctor of the Church Augustine Bishop of Hippo hypothesized the spiritual necessity of frequent reception, but to no avail. To men and women religious who lived in monasteries of contemplative life, it was granted as a real privilege to receive the Holy Eucharist once a week and no more. Certain ancient customs still survive today in various laws of the Church which recommend as a precept established by the IV Lateran Council to confess at least once a year, therefore to communicate, always at least once a year, for Easter [CF. Catechism of the Catholic Church nn. 2041-2042].

With a canon imprinted in its solemn acts, always in 1215, the IV Lateran Council established the prohibition of the foundation of new religious orders. Well let's reflect: we realize what it is, at the theological and ecclesiological level, the authority of an ecumenical council? And yet, soon after, at the end of 1216, the Supreme Pontiff Honorius III approved the foundation of the Order of Preachers of San Domenico di Guzmàn, and in compliance with the provisions of the Lateran Council, initially adopted the already existing rule of the Augustinian Friars. Years after, with the bubble accustomed of 1223, the Supreme Pontiff Honorius III approved the Rule of the companions of St. Francis of Assisi, without these, as was the case initially for the Dominicans, should adopt an already existing rule, because it seems that previously, around 1210, his Supreme Predecessor Innocent III had approved the rule orally, of which, however, there is no trace, because it has been lost. The narration of the visit made by the Seraphic Father Francis to the Supreme Pontiff who, three months have passed, he received it after having dreamed the night before a poor man who supported the ruined church of San Giovanni in Laterano - others speak instead of a vision had by the Supreme Pontiff - and who orally approved the first rule, it is a fact contained in the golden legend narrated by San Bonaventura di Bagnoregio, it is not properly a historically documented fact. Instead, it is historically documented that Santa Chiara, who later founded the Franciscan female branch, instead he had to adopt an existing rule, taking that of the Benedictine nuns.

Canon XIII of the 4th Lateran Council had in fact solemnly sanctioned:


"Because the excessive variety of religious orders does not cause serious confusion in the Holy Church of God, We strictly prohibit new orders from being founded in the future. So who would like to embrace a religious form of life, choose one of those already approved. In the same way, anyone wishing to found a new religious house should make the rule and institutions of the religious orders already approved his own » [translation from the Latin mia].


I ask my accuser: how was it possible that the canon of an ecumenical council convened and presided over by the Supreme Pontiff Innocent III, has thus been partially disregarded with some ploy starting from its High Successor Honorius III? But, above everything, how it is possible that it was subsequently completely disregarded and therefore totally canceled by subsequent popes, which allowed both the foundation of new orders and the approval of new specific rules? Clarified this, maybe someone would surely be able to answer ... "Ah, but because there they were religious orders, not about sex! Why Is That, there is no question of sex ".

When the Holy Pontiff Pius V published the missal, defined it intangible and unreformable with a lot of anathema sit. Well, the first who put his hand to it was his Supreme Successor Clement VIII just thirty years later, substantially modifying numerous rubrics and radically changing the gestures of the celebrant during the Eucharistic Prayer. Clarified this, maybe someone would surely be able to answer ... "Ah, but because it was only a question of celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is entirely secondary, I respect what can be one defining truth of faith such as the prohibition of the use of condoms ".

From time immemorial, a phrase is known in the ecclesial and ecclesiastical sphere, whose first historical traces we find them in very distant ages, in the 11th century, at the time of certain heated disputes of St. Pier Damiani on the subject of morality, namely the following: «One Pope boils and another Pope boils». What do you mean, with a similar expression? One thing is certain: this does not mean that Blessed Pope Pius IX branded the dogma of the immaculate conception and that his High Successor Leo XIII could freeze it, because in this case we are talking about solemn dogmatic definitions of the truths of the faith. But it, everything that was not strictly related to dogmatic definitions, it has always been branded and cleared, even if those who at the time had branded used solemn terms on the irreformability over the centuries with a lot of recourse to anathema sit! Is this, just to be clear with the army of improvised theologians: I say so, the history of the Church demonstrates this without any possible penalty. Always proving that, without a solid and profound historical knowledge, one cannot play with dogmatic theology, nor with the sacramental liturgy, nor with exegesis and so on ...

Simply said,: my accuser, he demonstrates that he has no idea where the history of dogmatic theology and the history of dogma lodge. Indeed, many of those elements which in the first great dogmatic Councils of the Church were branded with anathema sit, later they became Church doctrines, until their full development in the Council of Trent before, finally in Vatican II to follow. And with this I reiterated and further demonstrated what blunders certain amateur dancers can take when they start playing fleas on Roberto Bolle.

What for Humanae Vitae the solemn dogmatic formula could not be used Definitory was a very clear problem first of all to his extensor Augustus. Having said this, I remember and clarify who accused me of heterodoxy, than by rejecting a dogmatic defining formula, Yes is that fact outside the communion of the Church, because the assent and respect that the faithful are given to keep to it, is based directly on the authority of the Word of God, or as they say in theological language: doctrines faith belief. Whereas, arguing, or even disagreeing, on a definitive pronouncement which also implies the exercise of the infallible ministry, on the other hand, one is not outside the Communion of the Church through blatant heresy, but one is simply wrong, because the definitive truths are based on our faith in assisting the Holy Spirit to the magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the magisterium, or as they say in theological language: doctrines Faith held. As for everything else, the history of the Church, I hardly, shows how "a pope boils and a pope boils", even if those who had previously branded had made solemn calls to irreformability, complete with "anathema sit!».

The Pontifical Council for the Family, issued a Handbook for confessors the 12 February 1997 within which it is clarified:


"The Church has always taught the intrinsic malice of contraception, ie, of every marital act intentionally infecondo. This teaching is to be considered a definitive and unreformable doctrine ".


As a priest and confessor, I have always followed scrupulously this doctrine. As a theologian and speculative mind with some decent knowledge of the history of the Church, of councils, of dogmatics and sacraments, I cannot omit to say, as indeed I did, that even the unrepeatable confession, it was a definitive and unreformable doctrine, in the same way that a council, in a definitive and unreformable way, imprinted in a canon that it was not possible to found new religious orders, except to allow, in the following centuries, the birth of other orders and hundreds of religious congregations. Also the Missal of Saint Pius V promulgated in 1570, it was irreformable, always with a lot of "anathema sit!». And unreformable it was to the point that, from the beginning of 1600 until the 1962, it has been corrected eighteen times, until reaching the liturgical reform outlined by COUNCIL that, this express, that Venerable Missal unreformable over the centuries with a lot of accompanied threat "anathema sit!», it was literally broken into pieces by the armed arm of Annibale Bugnini and his collaborators, finally promulgated with the approval and signature of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI.

Therefore, what are certain amateurs of theology talking about, before whom to speak and act we can only take note that for them, The Church, seems to have been born in the early twentieth century with the Holy Pontiff Pius X, who do not miss an opportunity to demonstrate, against the other, how much they do not even know?

Stating things like this, it does not mean being dangerous crypto heretics or soul misleaders, but simply to say what it is historically, theologically and ecclesially true. It is also true that, is the Humane Vitae, instead of human sexuality, had dealt with the biblical sciences or the social doctrine of the Church, certain controversies staged by armies of sexophobic subjects who consider sex and only sex, the origin and center of the entire mystery of evil, they would never be unleashed.

It is increasingly lawful, always speculating, to wonder and to ask: pay the due taxes, it is an imperative given by Christ God himself [cf. Mt 22, 21]. Indeed, Christ himself, paid the tax to the Temple, considering it legitimate and proper. In this regard, he instructed Pietro to pay it "for you and for me" [cf. Mt 17, 22-27]. So it is an imperative founded directly on the authority of the Word of God, or as they say in theological language: doctrines faith belief. Come May, a solemn definitional pronouncement of the highest infallible magisterium has not yet been carried out? All, always talking and proceeding by speculation far from peregrine.

Therefore, those theologians hard-core, not to mention the lay people who have improvised dogmatic theologians from blog to blog and who today claim to dogmatize Humanae Vitae elevating it to the rank of solemn definitive pronouncement, not only make disservice to this beautiful encyclical, but put into serious question the theological and doctrinal abilities of those who wrote it and then donated to the Church, showing not even knowing how to distinguish the very different degrees that run between a pronouncement definitional and a pronouncement definitive; or what it means to reject the first and what it means to discuss the second, without ever questioning the doctrine given by the Church and above all applying it always and scrupulously in the exercise of the sacred priestly ministry.

This encyclical, the Church, it was also donated by a Holy Pontiff who was perfectly aware of not being able to "lock" the prohibition of the use of contraceptives with the solemn dogmatic defining formula. It would be enough just to know the history of Humanae Vitae and therefore know, for instance, that the majority of members of the episcopate and theological experts were in favor of a moderate use of contraception. Among those in favor there was also the then Bishop of Vittorio Veneto, Albino Luciani, later became Patriarch of Venice and later successor of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI with the name of John Paul I. The discussions ended and the encyclical was promulgated, Bishop Albino Luciani summoned his diocesan clergy and told his presbyters gathered in assembly:


«Many of you know, as I thought. Now the Supreme Pontiff has issued an encyclical and has given us a doctrine and a discipline to which we must all devote respect and spread its teaching among the Catholic faithful ".


In this sentence it is contained, among other things, the difference between a man of God and a bigot who invests the whole world with the sound of ... «It is not discussed! Heterodox ... heretic!». But no, because on certain disciplines born from definitive pronouncements, it can be discussed. On the other hand, what cannot and must never be done, is to reject them and not apply them, this cannot be done, never and in any case.

Years ago, just by speaking provocatively with obsessed with human sexuality, of those for whom the Seven Deadly Sins were reduced solely to lust and who considered and presented the prohibition of contraception as an intangible defining dogma of the faith, I remembered that condoms were not invented and marketed in the early 1970s, but which were already used by Egyptians and Greeks, very skilled, against the other, to produce them with very thin animal blisters. And yet, Jesus Christ, who was certainly aware of this, in his public preaching he never referred to this, nor did he ever issue any imperative prohibition. Quite the contrary, Jesus Christ, he said clearly and clearly that it was a duty to pay taxes to Caesar. Therefore, Jesus Christ, he expressed himself clearly in this regard. But, even though, I am not aware that the payment of taxes - which is a duty and an obligation to be fulfilled - has been solemnly defined as a dogma of faith. Therefore, what we can and must say?

To this I added more: two Catholic spouses who, in contravention of the provisions of the Church, use contraceptives in their closed bedroom or other suitable private place, to the whole community, perhaps they cause serious damage to it caused by the army of tax evaders? Why Is That, who does not pay taxes, it not only robs the entire community and obliges the State to increase tax revenues on those who pay them and who cannot evade them, being workers with fixed salaries or retired people, but by evading the tax authorities, they lack the necessary money that our system serves to ensure education and free health care for all, to pay pensions to the elderly who have worked and paid contributions for a lifetime and so on.

If the discipline that prohibits the use of contraceptive methods does not support itself and cannot support itself on dogma - Thing that, I repeat, the Holy Pontiff Paul VI knew very well -, however, it can be supported by many other passages of the Holy Gospels, from the following:


"Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:; How narrow is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and few there be that find!» [Mt 7, 13-14].


Starting from this Gospel passage, I would like to go back to explaining what I have always explained every time I have presented or illustrated this encyclical, clarifying why, today, even more than fifty years ago, When in 1968 it was promulgated, it contains within itself a current message, prophetic and as such to follow. The key to understanding the Humanae Vitae, in fact, it is not the misogynistic or sexophobic spirit, or worse still, the so-called obsession with sex and human sexuality by certain amateurs of theology and morality: anything. The Humanae Vitae It exalts what is given and is made to love. And what is given and is made to love, not dirty, as I once said in a private sitting room to a famous porn actor who was among the guests, replying to certain of his bizarre concepts imprinted on a false idea of ​​"sexual freedom", he did not relieve anything, starting from the first woman, treated in any pornographic film as an object of pleasure, often with all the contempt case. Because the figure of all privileged and most of all in attenzionata Humanae Vitae it is the woman, I'm sorry that in the seventies, the angry feminists on the streets, they never understood how the Holy Pontiff Paul VI, with this encyclical, said a resounding and extraordinary "no, to the woman-object!”.

And today, both those who strike the nail on re-reading the Humanae Vitae, both those that, suffering from incorrigible sexual phobia, consider the prohibition of contraception a dogma of the Catholic faith above the dogma of the incarnation of the Word of God, of this prophetic and far-sighted text they did not understand anything. Because the teaching and ministry of the pilgrim Church on earth, It is not based, nor was it ever based on Freudian castration man, but far from the full liberation of a man called by God to use his sexuality to love, until reaching the culmination of love through the gift of life.

My modest experience of a person who studies and dedicates himself to incessant research in the field of philosophical sciences, historical and theological, it has always been accompanied by the exercise of the sacred priestly ministry, especially as a confessor and spiritual director, in a real and incessant relationship with i Christi fideles and the close contact with human lives and their often very complex stories. This has always been my living theology immersed in the real world, brought me to touch a truly dramatic as well as pernicious element: those self-styled Catholics, as well as more or less improvised practical theologians who rage on sex and human sexuality as if it were the center of the entire mystery of evil. And if we go to analyze these subjects, we mostly discover unhappy who, in their poor existences, they have never been able to develop a serene and balanced emotional and sexual dimension. Often, if not almost usual, behind these figures there are great frustrations and dissatisfactions, that they then vent through an inhuman morality to say the least, through a Holy Gospel deprived of its essence and reduced to an arid highway code. And precisely to these people, Christ gave, he reproached at the time:


"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they don't want to move them even with a finger» [Mt 23,4]


To all the questions expressed here, the result of speculations that are anything but subject to canonical censorship, amateur theologians never replied, they just retorted, by making dishonest cuts and stitches on my words or extrapolating phrases outside their precise context, until publicly accusing me of being against the Humanae Vitae, the laws and ... "dogmas" of the Church.

Despite not having time to waste, I am unfortunately obliged, before certain materials circulating on social media, to clarify that I have never made such statements e, who accuses me, he is truly dishonest. Because I'm Roberto Bolle, not a chicken scratching in the social henhouse. So as such I have an image, but above all I have talents given to me by God that, in devoted deference to God, I have to defend, finally returning them to God after making them bear fruit, just as the Holy Gospel teaches us through the Parable of the Talents [cf. Mt 25, 14-30].


the Island of Patmos, 6 August 2020




«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

or you can use the bank account:

payable to Editions The island of Patmos

IBAN IT 74R0503403259000000301118

in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanksgiving [ [email protected] ]





About Padre Ariel

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo Presbitero e Teologo ( Click on the name to read all its articles )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters remaining

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.