Dear Eros Francesco.

I enter the speech to tell her that the episode to which she refers was humiliating not for Father Giovanni Cavalcoli and for me, who were denied the publication of articles of pure theological speculation by secular gentlemen who had begun to act as Lefebvrian politicians disguised as hard-core Catholics; for indeed it was humiliating to them, not for us. And I explain why: if Father Giovanni and I produced writings of a socio-political nature, in that case we should be subject to all disputes and choices of “editorial directives”. But if we produce – as we always have – writings on speculative theology or ecclesial theology, based on the deposit of faith, on the doctrine and magisterium of the Church, there really is only Lay Lords, without any serious and profound theological training, they begin to censure theologians because of them “politico” say certain writings do not match the “They” line “theological“.

It all means, against the other, cover up with an unspecified one Catholic tradition but ignore at the same time, maliciously and ideologically, that the the task of teaching it was bestowed on us; and it was given to us by the Church, for the Church and within the Church by Sacrament of grace, and it is the Church through her constituted Apostolic Authority, the only one who can tell us, eventually, what to write and how to write in matters of doctrine and faith, certainly not of the laity who often lack a basic theological formation.

I who am a presbyter, every time I administer confessions to my penitent priests, at the end of the confession, after the acquittal, I always kiss the hand of the confreres who have chosen me as their confessor; and this as a clear sign of the veneration that I have for the ministerial priesthood and for all those who, to the mystery of grace, however unworthy and sinners, by arcane mystery they participate in the ministerial priesthood of Christ.

We have therefore both left certain people free to live their subjective idea of ​​the Church and their even more subjective idea of ​​respect for the priestly figure; respected by them only and exclusively if the priest does what they are told, think what they think, confirms what is often doctrinally wrong – or sometimes even heretical – they claim.

Father Giovanni Cavalcoli and me, together with our young collaborator and talented philosopher and theologian Jorge A. Faccio Lince, with the precious technical help of our webmaster Manuela Luzzardi, we closed the year 2015 with over 3.000.000. of visits.
In this current year – even if in those days we didn't report it because we were busy with completely different writings – in the first four months of operation, from 1 January to 30 April we passed the 3.000.000. of visitors.
At the present day 23 May, the number of visits has already reached 3.652.000.

I therefore consider – and all together we think – to have had much more than we expected as compensation for our apostolic work carried out through the telematic network.

All this to tell you that among certain pro-Lefebvrian laymen and certain rowdy Neocatechumenals who dance tribal around the altar and which transform the Eucharist into an exotic dinner “celebrated” often outside sacred spaces, there is no difference, because basically, to both, the figure of the priest as teacher is not clear, guide and pastor in the care of souls.

Dear Mr. Bazzorini.

We too have raised and can raise some concerns about the “style” of the text of Amoris Laetitia, on the choice of his “expressive language”, on his “length”, on his “not particularly clear” on some pages … because all of this is legal, indeed in the precious theological criticism, done with charity and above all in deference to the Supreme Authority of the Church. And this is what Antonio Livi did, like other theologians and scholars.

She can express what she wants, it's his business and in some respects it's all a burden of his soul. What he cannot do, however, is to involve the eminent philosopher and theologian Antonio Livi in ​​support of his personal ideas, which in our opinion are somewhat peregrine.

We know Antonio Livi very well, not just because in October 2014 he founded this magazine with us, on which remains his name as founding father, but because we know his works and above all his priestly zeal.

Antonio Livi is the last heir of the great Roman school and is a refined epistemologist.

Following the ancient technique of the devil, she tries to drive turmoil by turning people against each other; and this is, precisely, diabolical.

For this we invite you, both here and elsewhere, not to involve the name of Antonio Livi in ​​these statements, and all for this simple reason:

– Antonio Livi would never accept that an act of magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff be defined as "blasphemous";
– Antonio Livi would never accept that the Supreme Pontiff be defined as a "heretic";
– Antonio Livi would never accept that the last ecumenical council of the Church is defined as "polluted by heresies".

Why the whole thing, for him as for us, it would be the denial of our priestly ministry and of the service rendered to the Church as theologians.

Therefore, if you want to support these absurd theses in supreme hatred of the Church and the Roman Pontiff – and it is his freedom and right to do so – do it in his name, but does not involve the name of an orthodox theologian and a zealous elderly priest like Monsignor Antonio Livi as suffrage of them, who, like us, he promised devoted and filial obedience to the bishop who consecrated him a priest in communion with the Bishop of Rome; and to this promise, which falls within the mysteries of faith and the mystery of participation in the ministerial priesthood of Christ, he has never failed and will never fail, we guarantee it to him who know him well both as a zealous priest and as a zealous philosopher and theologian to whom we will never cease to love and to pay fraternal priestly esteem.