Contents

Chapter III Doctrinal deviations, through Amoris Laetitia, regarding contrition and the very serious consequences they cause.

Preliminary note: the official text is only the one in Italian, the various versions in other languages ​​are neural automatic translations.

Let us first of all ask God for light so that his wisdom may guide us in everything we are about to say

"God of the fathers and Lord of mercy, * who created everything with your word, who formed man with your wisdom, so that you rule over the creatures you made, and rule the world in holiness and justice and pronounce judgments with an upright mind,
give me wisdom, who sits enthroned next to you and do not exclude me from the number of your children, because I am your servant and the son of your handmaid, a weak and short-lived man, unable to understand justice and laws. Even the most perfect of men, without your wisdom, would be esteemed a nothing. With you is the wisdom that knows your works, which was present when you created the world; it knows what is pleasing to your eyes and what is in accordance with your decrees. Send her from the holy heavens, from your glorious throne, to assist me and support me in my toil and to know what pleases you. She knows everything and understands everything: she will guide me with prudence in my actions and will protect me with her glory. " (Wis. 9, 1-6. 9-11)

The papal strategy of "paradigm shift" that we talked about in the previous chapter, has produced very serious deviations from sound doctrine regarding contrition and related issues, as we will see in this chapter where we will speak, in particular, of contrition. , of its necessity, of the affirmative and negative precepts of the divine Law and of their violation, in particular of adultery, of the law of graduality and of the graduality of Law, of sacramental absolution and its validity.

1) The Catholic doctrine on contrition.

a) Contrition within the framework of biblical doctrine regarding the conversion of the sinner.

“The message of the Old and New Testament, which far exceeds all human expectations, is fundamentally theocentric. Its content is that God's being-God and his glory be revealed, that the Kingdom come, that his will be done and that his name be glorified (Mt 6: 9f .; Lk 11 , 2). The beginning of the Decalogue corresponds to this: "I am the Lord, your God ..." (Ex 20, 2; Dt 5, 6). … Sin, on the contrary, is the attitude and action of man who does not recognize God and his Kingdom. Therefore in Sacred Scripture it is described as disobedience, idolatry and the absolutization of man's autonomy in his claim to self-sufficiency. … By turning again, through conversion, to God, the beginning and end of him, man thereby rediscovers the meaning of his own existence. "[1] Sin is therefore the attitude and action of man who does not recognize God and his Kingdom and is the breaking of the Covenant with God who is Father full of goodness, loving spouse, as the Theological Commission itself explains below. :

“In the Old Testament the idea of ​​God is determined by the idea of ​​the Covenant. God is described to you as a loving spouse, a Father full of goodness; he is dives in misericordia (rich in mercy), always willing to forgive and reconcile, always ready to renew his Covenant…. In this perspective, sin is described as a breaking of the Covenant and is compared to adultery. In the prophets, the experience of grace and God's faithfulness constitute the first and last word of the Covenant. "[2] Sin is an infidelity towards God who is a loving Spouse and therefore it is adultery that God himself is always ready to forgive. I emphasize that God is always ready to forgive the sinner through his conversion and the grace of conversion, which God wants to give, asks man for a triple answer, as the Theological Commission further explains:

“In the Old and New Testaments, both sin and the conversion of man are not understood in a purely individualistic way. … On the other hand, the prophets of the seventh and sixth centuries BC already discovered the personal responsibility of every man. … And more particularly, the grace of conversion requires a threefold answer from man. In the first place a real change of heart is necessary ... Secondly, we already see Jeremiah expect from the sinner a public confession of his guilt and the promise of amendment "before the Lord" (Jer 36: 5-7). " Jesus asks, in this line, a generous faith (cf. Mk 1, 15, Mk 10,52), a confession full of repentance with the request for forgiveness (Lk 18, 10-14;) Finally, penance must be expressed in a radical change in life as a whole and in all its sectors. "[3]

The grace of conversion therefore implies:

1) a real change of heart, a new spirit and sentiment "with a radical orientation towards God and a total renunciation of sin;

2) a public confession of one's guilt and the promise of amendment, which with Christ becomes generous faith, a confession of repentance and a request for forgiveness

3) a radical change of life according to the Word of God.

Already in the prophets and then in Christ the appeal to conversion and penance does not call first of all to external works but to the conversion of the heart, without which the works of penance remain sterile and untruthful and therefore do not carry out the will of God (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church no.1430).

In the book of the prophet Joel we read in c. 2, vv. 12s: “« Now then - oracle of the Lord -, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping and lamenting. Tear your heart and not your clothes, return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and compassionate,

slow to anger, of great love, ready to repent regarding evil ». (Gl 2,12: 13-XNUMX)

Particularly significant for us are the expressions: return to me with all your heart and tear your heart and not your clothes, return to the Lord, your God. Conversion is above all a return to God, a humble return to Him, in order to submit to Him. and do his will.

In the book of the prophet Isaiah we read: “Wash yourselves, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from my eyes. Stop doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, help the oppressed, do justice to the orphan, defend the cause of the widow ». (Is 1,16: 17-XNUMX)

Interior conversion brings man back to life according to the Word of God and pushes him, therefore, to the manifestation of this interior change with works of penance.

A typical example of true conversion, in the OT is the one seen in the prophet David after the very serious sin he committed against Bath-sheba and against Uriah, her husband: "Reprimanded by the prophet Nathan, David agrees to confront his own wickedness and confesses : "I have sinned against the Lord" (2Sam 12,13:51,5), and proclaims: "I recognize my crime, my sin is always before me" (Ps 9); but he also prays: «Purify me, Lord, and I will be world; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow "(Ps 2), receiving the answer of divine mercy:" The Lord has forgiven your sin: you will not die "(12,13Sam XNUMX:XNUMX)."[4]

In the New Testament we have many examples of true conversion, think of the forgiven sinner (cf. Lk. 7,1: 22,61 ff), think of the conversion of St. Peter after the betrayal (Lk. 9ff), think of the conversion of St. Paul (Acts XNUMX).

The International Theological Commission explains in particular regarding conversion to the NT: “Jesus knows that the salvation brought by the kingdom of God that comes (Lk 10, 23 f) is already present in his own existence. For him, therefore, the center of the need for conversion lies in the believing and filial acceptance of the salvation already promised (Mk 10, 15), in the full adherence of faith to his Person (Lk 12, 8 ff.), In the listening to his word and in faithful observance of it (Lk 10, 38-42; 11, 27 s.), in other words in following him (cf. Mt 8, 19 s .; 21 s.). … The obligation to walk in the wake of Jesus crucified, founded in our baptism (cf. Rom 6, 3 ff.), Gives penance its fundamental form. "[5]

The heart of the need for conversion in the New Testament therefore lies in the believing and filial acceptance of the salvation already promised, in the full adherence of faith to the Person of Christ, in listening to his word and in faithful observance of it, in other words in the following him on the way of the cross by participating in his own life, in grace, as the Theological Commission explains in the following text: “… Christian penance is a participation in the life, suffering and death of Jesus Christ. And this takes place per fidem et caritatem et per fidei sacramenta (S. Thomas Aq., Summa Theol. III, 49, 3.6.). Christian penance finds its foundation in baptism, the sacrament of conversion for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and the sacrament of faith; it must determine the whole life of the Christian (cf. Rom 6: 3 ff.). "[6]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies in this regard: “This conversion effort is not just a human work. It is the dynamism of the "contrite heart" (Cf Ps 51,19) attracted and moved by grace (Cf Jn 6,44; 12,32.) "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1428)

The "heart" of this conversion is precisely in this: "contrite heart" (Cf Ps 51,19) attracted and moved by God through the grace to respond to the merciful love of God himself.

And at n. 1432 of the same Catechism we read: "... Conversion is above all a work of God's grace ..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1432)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains: “Among the acts of the penitent, contrition occupies the first place.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1430) Contrition takes place under the motion of God with the collaboration of man.

Conversion and therefore contrition of the heart is above all the work of God, with whom, however, we collaborate.

God enlighten us.

b) The contritio: from the Hebrew and Greek terms of the Bible to the patristic tradition and therefore to the theological, medieval, Latin tradition.

God enlighten us

Psalm 50, which I think is the best known text on this point, presenting David's repentance for his sin and speaking in particular of the heart of repentant man after committing sin, says that: “Sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit , God does not despise a contrite and humiliated heart. " (Psalm 50, 19)

For the Hebrew text see the following sites: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/EBRAICO/at/Sal/51/

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/biblia-hebraica-stuttgartensia-bhs/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/19/510001/519999/ch/af74244f502aed87555a5e0658385b26/

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/study/psalms/51.htm

The Greek text, which translates this verse, is the following "θυσία τῷ θεῷ πνεῦμα συντετριμμμένον, καρδίαν συντετριμμένην καὶ τεταπεινμένην εσ εσ εσ εσ εσιν ὐεσ. (www.academic-bible.com, Read the Bible text :: academic-bible.com)

The Latin text in a translation reported by s. Augustine is the following (Psal. 51,19) "Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit."[7]

The Hebrew term that is translated as "contritus" "contritum" is shabar, this term comes from the root sbr and indicates a broken heart and spirit, destroyed for offending God.

: "The root sbr in the meaning of breaking occurs 145 times in the OT ... the word is used to indicate the breaking of objects ... sinking of ships ... crushing of bodies ... annihilation of enemies ... In a translated sense we speak of ... courage and hope and of broken heart. … A sbr of the Masoretic text corresponds in the LXX συντρίβω about 134 times… the Hebrew root indicates in the first place to chop while the basic meaning of the Greek term is to grate, to crush. "[8]

In the Bible, the translation of sbr with συντρίβω indicates processes of destruction that lead to total destruction.[9]  Furthermore: “… there are other 30 and more Hebrew roots which are translated with συντρίβω. In individual cases they are translated or replaced with συντρίβω… roots of similar meaning to. ex. dk ', to shatter …athan, to break… The noun mehittà, terror, ruin, appears 11 times in the Hebrew text; in the 5 passages of Proverbs it is always rendered as συντρίβω. "[10] They are also translated with συντρίβω roots as: "Ksl, incepiscare ... smd, nif'al, to be violently depopulated ... smd, nif'al, to be exterminated ... nps, to shatter ... The translation of sbr with other Greek words other than συντρίβω is limited to individual cases ... "[11]

It should be noted that in the text of Psalm 50 (51) in verse 19 that we are examining the verb shabar is used twice and is reinforced by the verb dakah which also means to shatter; these two terms that use the verb shabar are both translated into Greek using συντρίβω.

Among the important statements of the LXX, in order to the NT, regarding συντρίβω it is necessary to mention in particular, in Psalm 68,21: “Aquila and Symmachus have correctly translated ονειδισμόs sunέtriψεν tήn kardίan μου. The righteous view themselves as the brokenhearted. They know that the Lord is close to them ... He accepts a contrite spirit as a sacrifice and does not despise a broken heart "[12] God accepts a contrite spirit as a sacrifice and does not despise a broken heart, as stated in Psalm 50,19 and Dan. 3,39 in LXX. Furthermore, again among the important statements of the LXX in relation to the NT, it should be emphasized that God heals, heals broken hearts and binds up their wounds (Psalm 146,3 of the LXX); Isaiah assigns this healing task to the one sent by God (Is. 61,1). Aquila, translating Isaiah 53,5 into Greek, has in a certain way elevated his being contrite to a characteristic trait of the suffering Messiah[13]. Further, always among the important statements of the LXX in order to the NT, it should be noted that in the OT συντετριμμέnos and ταπeινόs that is contrite and humble become synonyms[14] Verse 19 of Psalm 50 in the version of LXX in the: “early Christian tradition is found quoted in I Clem. 18,17; 52,4; Barn. 2,10. Is. 61,1 is reported in Barn. 14,9 ".[15]

The verb συντρίβω in the Greek language appears around the fifth century. to. C. and it is a compound that means rubbing two things against each other and in some cases indicates a non-destructive purpose (grind, scratch etc), in other cases it indicates a destructive purpose (destroy, crush), in some cases it may indicate disturbance or contrition, in Hellenistic philosophy, above all among the Epicureans, this term understood as compunction indicates a necessary presupposition for moral ascent[16]

The verb συντρίβω highlights something very interesting in particular in Psalm 50 to verse 19 and that is that they are two realities that act one on the other and determine the contrition of the heart and spirit of David and more generally of the penitent, these two realities I am God and the human soul ... God breaks the heart and the spirit and leads to conversion.

The Latin verb, which for us has a special importance, and which translates the Hebrew and Greek terms just seen indicating to break, to break and in particular those indicating the breaking of the heart, is against a compound formed by cum and tero which actually means, like συντρίβω, rubbing two things against each other and then grinding, pulverizing, crushing, destroying; the verb in question is therefore extremely precise to translate συντρίβω and to discreetly highlight how precisely under the action of God the human heart is converted.

St. Augustine of Hippo reports some texts in which we can see how the verb contĕro translates the Hebrew sbr and the Greek συντρίβω think, for example. to this text quoted from the s. Doctor: "Contritus est malleus universae terrae" (Ier 50, 23)[17] in which contritus translates, in particular, the Hebrew verb sbr of the Hebrew text and the Greek συντρίβω of the LXX which reports this passage in Jer. 27,23 with these words πῶς συνεκλάσθη καὶ συνετρίβη ἡ σφῦρα πάσης τῆς γῆς [18]; think in particular of the passage so important for us from Psalm 50 verse 19 which was translated into Latin as follows: "Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus, cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit"[19] in which contritus translates the verb shabar and the Greek verb συντρίβω.

The translation of s. Jerome of Jeremiah 50,23 is precisely: "Quomodo confractus est et contritus malleus universae terrae." (“Liber Ieremiae”, PL 28, 923A) and that of Psalm 50,19 is: “Sacrificium [h. Sacrificia] Dei spiritus contribulatus [h. contritus]: cor contritum et humiliatum, Deus, non despicies. " ("Liber Psalmorum", PL 28, 1166C)

St. Ambrose presents this translation of Psalm 50,19: "Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit (Psal. L, 18 et 19)." (“Apologia Prophetae David”, PL14, 882C) From contero comes contritus (contrite) and therefore contritio, which in Italian we translate as contrition.

Significantly writes s. Ambrose speaking of justification: “Publicanus autem praedicatus est, here a longe stans nolebat oculos ad coelum levare, sed percutiebat pectus suum dicens: Domine Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori (Luc. XVIII, 13). Et ideo divina eum sententia praetulit dicens: Quia descendit hic publicanus iustificatus magis, quam pharisaeus (Ibid., 14). Ille enim iustificatur qui peccatum proprium confitetur, sicut locutus est ipse Dominus: Dic iniquitates tuas, ut iustificeris (Esai. XLIII, 26). Et David ait: Sacrificium Deo, spiritus contribulatus (Ps. L, 19). Et iterum: Cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit (Ibid.). Hieremias quoque ait: Anima in angustiis, et spiritus anxiatus clamat ad te (Baruch. III, 1) "(" De Cain et Abel ", PL 14, 333D) This essentially means, for our interest, that he is justified who humbly contrite confesses his sin. The tax collector mentioned in the Gospel of Luke in chapter 18 is justified precisely because of the humble contrition with which he recognizes his sin.

There is therefore a good contrition, says St. Ambrose which is precisely what David speaks of in Psalm 50:19 and for which God heals our souls wounded by sin: “Est autem bona contritio: cor enim contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit (Ps. L, 19). Et alibi: Sana contritiones eius (Psal. LIX, 4) "(Iob et David, PL. 14, 0804B)

And evidently it does us good to have a contrite heart, he still says yes. Ambrose: "Prodest tibi cor habere contritum." (Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, PL 14, 0939A)

The S. Doctor Bishop of Hippo, s. Augustine significantly affirms, precisely starting from Psalm 50,19, on the contritio “Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus; cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit. Habes quod offeras. Not gregem circuminspicias, not navigia praepares et permees ad extremas provincias unde aromata deferas. Quaere in corde your quod gratum sit Deo. Cor conterendum est. Quid times ne contritum pereat? Ibi habes: Cor mundum creates in me, Deus. Ut ergo creetur mundum cor, conteratur immundum. "[20]

What does it mean: " A contrite spirit is sacrifice to God, a contrite and humiliated heart God does not despise him (Ps 50:19). So here you have what to offer. Do not look around in search of the flock, do not prepare ships to go to distant regions to bring aromas. Search within your heart for what may be pleasing to God. It is the heart that must be broken. Are you afraid that, broken, it will perish? But in the same psalm you find: Create in me, O God, a pure heart (Ps 50, 12.) . So that a pure heart can be created, the impure one must be broken. "[21]

With contrition the unclean heart is broken so that a pure heart can be created.

Explain s again. Augustine “Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus; cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Intueamur quem ad modum, ubi Deum dixit nolle sacrificium, ibi Deum ostendit velle sacrificium. He did not vult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, et vult sacrificium contriti cordis. Illo igitur quod eum nolle dixit, hoc significatur, quod eum velle subiecit. Sic itaque illa Deum nolle dixit, quo modo ab stultis ea velle creditur, velut suae gratia voluptatis of him. Nam si ea sacrificia quae lui vult (quorum hoc unum est: cor contritum et humiliatum pain paenitendi) nollet eis sacrificiis significari, quae velut sibi delectabilia desire putatus est: non utique de his offerendis in Lege vetere praecepisset. "[22]

God wants the sacrifice of the contrite heart humbled by the pain of compunction.

And further he says yes. Augustine: “Confession and a prudent and humble way of living make us holy: praying with faith, having a contrite heart, sincere tears welling up from the depths of the heart, so that sins may be forgiven, which we cannot avoid in life. Recognizing them is our salvation, according to the expression of the apostle John: If we recognize our sins he is faithful and just because he forgives us our sins and purifies us from all guilt. "[23]

St. Anselm in the wake of this biblical and patristic tradition states: “37. Ergo, bone Domine, bone Deus, qui contribulasti capita draconum in aquis, et rogationem contribulati non adiicis, contribula venenatae superbiae meae caput in deluge lacrymarum, ut tibi sacrificem meum spiritum cum patientia tribulatum, nam et cor contritum, hoc est cum gratia tua tritum vel strictum. " ("Meditatio super Miserere", PL 158, 0847C) Beautiful prayer in which the holy Doctor asks God for the grace to crush his pride and to offer the sacrifice acceptable to God in true contrition of heart, that is, with a heart crushed by God with his grace.

Taking up s. Augustine, Gratian, in a distinction from the "Concordia discordantium canonum" in which he asks whether contrition alone with secret satisfaction is enough or whether the confession of the mouth is necessary to give satisfaction to God for the sin committed, that is, to repair the sin committed, writes : "C. LXIII. Item Augustinus in sermon de poenitentia, al. lib. de poenitentiae medicine.

Non sufficit mores in melius commutare, et a praeteritis malis recedere, nisi etiam de his, quae facta sunt, satisfiat Deo per poenitentiae painm per humilitatis gemitum, per contriti cordis sacrificium, cooperantibus eleemosynis et ieiuniis. "[24]

The precise text of s. Augustine translated into Italian says: “The sacrifice pleasing to God is the contrite spirit; Indeed, God does not despise a broken and humiliated heart. So David not only made his offering with a devoted soul but, with these words, he also indicated what is to be offered. In fact, it is not enough to change one's behavior for the better and not sin anymore; we also need reparation to God for what has been done; the pain of penance, the groan of humility, the offering of a contrite heart and alms. Indeed, the merciful are blessed because God will have mercy on them. "[25]

Contrition is needed to atone for sin.

Graziano then reports in Latin in the same distinction as the "Concordia discordantium canonum", an illuminating sentence of St. John Chrysostom in this regard: “C. XL. Item Ioannes Os aureum in hom. de poenitentia, quae lui incipit: "Provida mente". “Perfecta poenitentia cogit peccatorem omnia libenter sufferre. Et infra: § 1. In corde eius contritio, in ore confessio, in opera tota humilitas: haec est fructifera poenitentia ”.[26]

Which essentially means that perfect penance pushes man to suffer everything and that contrition is in his heart, confession in his mouth, all humility in his work, this is fruitful penance. An illuminating phrase that is also found in the Roman Catechism in the part relating to the Sacrament of Penance.

Bringing back another text considered then by s. Giovanni Crisostomo, Graziano writes: “Item Ioannes Chrysostomus [id est auctor Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum, homil. 40]. Quis aliquando vidit clericum cito poenitentiam medico agent? * Sed * et si deprehensus humiliaverit se, non ideo dolet, quia peccavit, sed confunditur, quia perdidit gloriam suam di lui. … Gratian. His * auctoritatibus asseritur, neminem sine poenitentia et confessione propriae vocis a peccatis posse mundari. (1554C) Unde praemissae auctoritates, quibus videbatur probari, sola contritione cordis veniam praestari, aliter interpretandae sunt, quam ab eis exponantur. "[27] For us this means in particular that contrition is necessary for salvation. We do not go into the question that Gratian is examining in this distinction that concerns the necessity of confession together with contrition for the salvation of the soul, we will see later what the current Catholic doctrine affirms in this regard. Here we are interested in pointing out some interesting presumed patristic reference such that Gratian offers us on contrition and on the other hand it is also interesting for us to see how in Gratian's time it was clear, on the basis of the Bible and therefore from the affirmations of the Fathers of the Church that the they had meditated and interpreted the fundamental importance of contrition for the remission of sins.

Interesting in this regard is a quote that Graziano makes of a statement of s. Ambrose: “Quod de interiori poenitentia, non exterior dictum accipitur. De exterior vero poenitentia Ambrosius ait super epistolam ad Romanos: Gratia Dei in baptismate non quaerit gemitum vel planctum, non opus aliquod, sed solum contritionem cordis, et omnia gratis condonat.[28] The words of s. Ambrose mean that the grace of God in Baptism does not seek groaning or weeping or any work but only contrition of the heart and condones everything for free.

In the same distinction and in the same work of Gratian we read: “C. XXX. … Voluntas remuneratur, non opus. Voluntas autem in cordis contritione est, opus vero in oris confession. Gratian. Luce clarius constat cordis contritione, non oris confession peccata dimitti.[29]

Will is rewarded, not the work. The will is in the contrition of the heart, the work in the confession of the mouth.

Graziano again writes on this topic “C. XXXIII. Separate the vestra rope, and do not dress. Gratian. Ostendens in contritione cordis, quae in eiusdem scissione intelligitur, not in confession oris, quae pars est exterioris satisfactionis, quam scissuram vestium nominavit, apart totum intelligens, peccata dimitti.[30] Which essentially means, for our purpose, that in contrition of the heart sins are forgiven.

Further, on the contrition Graziano writes “C. XXXVI. Qui natus est ex Deo, lui non peccat. Gratian. Ergo nec est filius diaboli. Only enim sin diaboli filii sumus. Ergo de eius his reign translati sumus in regnum caritatis filii Dei, et sumus erepti de potestate tenebrarum, et facti filii lucis. Quum ergo ante confessionem, ut probatum est, sumus resuscitati per gratiam, et filii lucis facti, very evident apparet, quod sola cordis contritione sine confessione oris, peccatum remittitur. "[31]

For our purpose this again means that by contrition sin is forgiven.

The fundamental importance of contrition is reaffirmed by a further statement by Gratian which you can read below:

"III. Pars. § 9. And contra ea, quae in assertione huius sententiae dicta sunt, partim veritate nituntur, partim pusione carent. Sine contritione etenim cordis nullum peccatum posse dimitti, occulta true sin secreta satisfactione, publica quoque manifesta poenitentia expiari debere, firmissima constat ratione subnixum. "[32] Without contrition, no sins of the heart can be forgiven.

The affirmations of Scripture, of the Fathers and of Gratian have shown us the fundamental importance of contrition for the true conversion of man and for the remission of his sins: without contrition no sin can be forgiven.

c) Fundamental affirmations of s. Thomas Aquinas on contrition.

God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

St. Thomas deals extensively with contrition in his works in particular in the Commentary on the Sentences, in the Sum against the Gentiles, in the Theological Sum, and in De Veritate.

Contrition, according to the Angelic Doctor, is the pain for sin that the one who has grace feels and is distinguished from the attraction that is pain for the sin that feels he who is deprived of charity and sanctifying grace: "... omnis dolor de sin in habente gratiam est contritio: et similiter omnis actus fidei gratiae contiunctus est fidei formatae actus. Ergo actus fidei informis, et attritio, de quibus isti loquuntur, tempore praecedunt gratiae infusionem. " (De veritate, q. 28 a. 8 co.)

Contrition is caused by charity: “Ad secundum dicendum, quod timor servilis quem caritas foras mittit, oppositionem habet ad caritatem ratione suae servitutis, qua poenam respicit; sed dolor contritionis ex caritate causatur, ut dictum est; et ideo is not similar. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 4 qc. 1 ad 2.) In the Commentary on the Sentences he dedicates an entire quaestio to contrition in which he asks the following initial question: “Videtur quod contritio non sit dolor pro peccatis assumptus cum concerning confitendi et satisfaciendi, ut quidam definiunt. " In his reply, among other things, he states: “… quia ad dimissionem peccati requiritur quod homo totaliter affectum peccati dimittat, per quem quamdam continuuitatem et soliditatem in sensu sua habebat; ideo actus ille quo peccatum remittitur, contritio dicitur by similitudinem. "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 co.)

So, according to s. Thomas, we speak of contrition (from the verb contero which means to grind, pulverize, crush, destroy) with regard to sin because it implies a destruction of the affection that drives man to sin. God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

St. Thomas, following the holy Fathers accepts various definitions of contrition:

"Dolor pro peccatis assumptus cum concerning confitendi et satisfaciendi" (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 arg. 1 e c.), "Dolor voluntarius, semper pro sin puniens quod dolet commisisse ... compunctio et humilitas mentis cum lacrymis, veniens de recordatione peccati et fear judicii ... dolor remittens peccatum ... humilitas spiritus annihilans peccatum, inter spem et timorem. "(Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc . 1 co.) Contrition, the Angelic Doctor further affirms, is the pain for sin that the one who has grace feels:

“… Omnis dolor de sin in habente gratiam est contritio: et similiter omnis actus fidei gratiae contiunctus est fidei formatae actus. Ergo actus fidei informis, et attritio, de quibus isti loquuntur, tempore praecedunt gratiae infusionem. " (De veritate, q. 28 a. 8 co.)

For us it is particularly important to state that, by itself. Thomas, contrition is: "dolor remittens peccatum" (Super Sentence, lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 co.) That is, a pain which remits sin, which annihilates sin. Without contrition there is no remission of sins. Explain s. Thomas: “… contritio potest dupliciter considerari; vel inquantum est pars sacramenti, vel inquantum est actus virtutis; et utroque modo est causa remissionis peccati. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 5 qc. 1 co.) Contrition is the cause of remission of sins both in so far as it is part of the Sacrament and in so far as it is an act of virtue. Insofar as it is part of the Sacrament of Penance, contrition works instrumentally for the remission of sins, insofar as it is an act of virtue it is almost the material cause of the remission of sin.

Without contrition there is no remission of sins:

“Contritio, quae hoc significat, importat aliquam rectitudinem voluntatis; et propter hoc est actus virtutis illius cujus est peccatum praeteritum detestari et destruere, scilicet poenitentiae, ut patet ex his quae in 14 dist., qu. 1, art. 1, quaestiunc. 3, dicta sunt. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 co.) And further "... caritas amissa non recuperatur nisi per contritionem de peccatis praecedentibus, quae est motus poenitentiae virtutis." (Super Sentence, lib. 4 d. 14 q. 1 a. 2 qc. 2 co.) ... for the remission of sins, contrition is necessary, charity is not recovered except through the movement of the virtue of penance which therefore leads to contrition for sins committed. Above all we understand the absolute necessity of contrition for the remission of sins when St. Thomas affirms that just as God's offense has a certain infinity, so a single act of contrition has a certain infinity, and therefore determines the remission of sin, both by virtue of the grace that gives works an infinite value, as well as by the merit of Christ who works in all the Sacraments and in all merits "Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut offensa habuit infinitatem, ita etiam et unus contritionis actus habet quamdam infinitatem, tum ex virtute gratiae quae dat operibus infinitum valorem, ut scilicet per ea homo infinitum bonum mereatur; tum ex merit Christi, quod operatur in omnibus sacramentis, et in omnibus meritis. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 14 q. 1 a. 4 qc. 1 ad 1) May God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

Furthermore, it is particularly important to consider that, according to the statements of s. Thomas contrition is pain for sins with the intention of confessing and satisfying the demands of divine justice "dolor pro peccatis assumptus cum concerning confitendi et satisfaciendi" (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc . 1 arg. 1 and c.). Contrition is a pain that annihilates sin also because in the purpose of satisfying and confessing there must be the resolution not to sin anymore. Thomas when he speaks of the sacrament of confession, in De articulis Fidei, pars 2 co. states “Quartum sacramentum est poenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus poenitentis, qui dicuntur tres poenitentiae partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio, ad quam pertinet quod homo doleat de sin committed, et proponat se de cetero non peccaturum. " Contrition therefore includes by itself. Thomas the resolution not to sin. God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

Contrition is an act of the virtue of penance "... contritio est dolor per essentiam, et est actus virtutis poenitentiae." (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 to. 1 qc. 2 to 1)

More precisely: contrition is an act of the virtue of penance which is responsible for detesting and destroying the sin committed, this act implies rectitude of the will: “.. contritio, quae hoc significat, importat aliquam rectitudinem voluntatis; et propter hoc est actus virtutis illius cujus est peccatum praeteritum detestari et destruere, scilicet poenitentiae. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 co.) ... and this rectitude of will necessarily implies the intention not to sin again in the future, as seen above, in fact a truly right will guided by grace, she always proposes to live according to God's will.

St. Thomas specifies that contrition, which also can forgive sins, must necessarily be followed by confession and satisfaction in order to be sure of the goodness of one's own contrition and because confession and satisfaction are commanded so that if the person, being able, does not if he confessed and did not satisfy, he would be a transgressor: “Ad octavum dicendum, quod quamvis tota poena possit per contritionem dimitti, tamen adhuc necessarily est confessio et satisfactio: tum quia homo non potest esse certus de sua contritione, quod fuerit ad totum tollendum sufficiens; tum quia confessio et satisfactio sunt in praecepto; unde transgressor constitueretur, si non confiteretur et satisfaceret. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 to 8)

Commenting on the Gospel of John St. Thomas explains that Christ absolved the adulteress from sin without imposing any punishment on her because by absolving outwardly he justified inwardly and He could transform her inwardly so that she through a suitable contrition for sins would become immune from all punishment. "Absolvit autem eam a culpa, non imposing ei aliquam poenam: quia cum absolvendo exterius iustificaret interius, bene potuit eam adeo immutare interius per sufficiently contritionem de peccatis, ut ab omni poena immunis efficeretur." (Superego, chap. 8 l. 1.) The greater the contrition for sins, the more the penalty for them decreases. “Vel dicendum, quod as much as est major contritio, tanto magis diminuit de poena; et how much aliquis plura bona facit in sin existens, magis se ad gratiam contritionis disponit; et ideo probable est quod minoris poenae sit debitor; et propter hoc debet a sacerdote discrete computari, ut ei minorm poenam injungat, inquantum invenit eum melius dispositum. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 15 q. 1 to. 3 qc. 3 to 1.)

For s. Thomas, note well, as we have seen, contrition is distinguished from attraction because the former is an act of charity and takes place when the soul is in grace, attraction is an act of pain for one's sins carried out without charity and without grace , in fact, says the s. Doctor: “Ad sextam quaestionem dicendum, quod contritio potest dupliciter considerari; scilicet quantum ad sui principium, et quantum ad terminum. Et dico principium contritionis cogitationem qua quis cogitat de sin et dolet, etsi non pain contritionis, saltem pain attritionis; terminus autem contritionis est, when dolor ille jam gratia informatur. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 2 qc. 6 co.)

Contrition is a pain informed by grace, the pain of attrition is not. The principle of contrition is fulfilled with attraction without the person having grace but the term is fulfilled with grace, therefore the movement that leads through contrition to the recovery of grace can be schematized in this way: the person, moved by Spirit of truth, begins to reflect on the wickedness of sin committed and grieve for such sins with attraction, then grace intervenes and leads the person to contrition. Whoever approaches the sacrament with attraction becomes contrite through the sacrament, if he does not pose an obstacle: "... when aliquis accedit ad confessionem attritus, non plene contritus, si obicem non ponat, in ipsa confessione et absolutione, sibi gratia et remissio peccatorum datur . Unde dicit Glossa super illud Psal. 95: confessio et pulchritudo in conspectu ejus: si amas pulchritudinem, confitere, ut sis pulcher, idest rectus. "(Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 22 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 3 co.) ... which means that in the same confession and absolution the attraction becomes contrition, if the person does not pose an obstacle.

St. Thomas explains in the Summa Theologica that under the action of God man is converted and reaches contrition: "... cum Deus sit primum movens simpliciter, ex eius motione est quod omnia in ipsum convertantur secundum communem intentionem boni, per quam unumquodque intendit assimilari Deo secundum suum modum. Unde et Dionysius, in the book of Div. Nom., Dicit quod Deus convertit omnia ad seipsum. Sed homines iustos convertit ad seipsum sicut ad specialm finem, quem intendunt, et cui cupiunt adhaerere sicut bono proprio; secundum illud Psalmi LXXII, mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est. Et ideo quod homo convertatur ad Deum, hoc non potest esse nisi Deo ipsum convertente. Hoc autem est praeparare se ad gratiam, almost ad Deum converti, sicut ille qui habet oculum aversum a lumine solis, per hoc se praeparat ad recipiendum lumen solis, quod oculos suos convertit versus solem. Unde patet quod homo non potest se praeparare ad lumen gratiae alzipiendum, nisi per auxilium gratuitum Dei interius moventis. " (I-II q. 109 a. 6)

Therefore it is under the motion of God that man is converted and reaches contrition, in fact it is necessary for man to be directed to the ultimate goal by the motion, by the "thrust" of the first cause, and since God is the prime mover, it depends by his motion, by his attraction, the turning of all creatures to him according to the common reason of good, by which every creature tends, in its own way, to be attracted to likeness to God. God attracts all things to himself. But God attracts righteous men to himself as to a special purpose, to which they are attracted and tend and to which they wish to adhere as to their own good. Therefore man's turning to God cannot take place without God turning man towards himself, attracting him. Man cannot prepare himself for grace if not for the free help of God who moves man inwardly.[33] Therefore the contrition, through which this turning of man to God takes place, is accomplished under divine motion.

In the Sum against the Gentiles of the same holy Doctor we read “… our soul acts in the dependence of God as the instrumental agent in the dependence of the principal agent. Therefore the soul cannot prepare itself to receive the influence of the help of God, if not inasmuch as it acts with the virtue of God. Therefore it is prevented by divine help in its well-working, rather than preventing this help, by deserving it. in some way, or by preparing for it ... the human soul is subordinate to God as a particular agent is subordinate to the universal agent cause. Therefore it is impossible for there to be a virtuous movement in it that is not prevented by divine action. This is why the Lord affirmed: "Without me you can do nothing" (John, XV, 5). "[34] Therefore the contrition, through which this turning of man to God takes place, is accomplished under divine motion. God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

Continue s. Thomas saying that the conversion of man to God is accomplished through free will, therefore God commands man to convert to God himself. Free will, however, cannot turn to God if God does not convert to himself, according to the word of the book of Jeremiah: "Convert me, and I will convert, for you are the Lord my God" (Jer. 31); likewise in the book of Lamentations we read: "Convert us to you, Lord, and we will convert".[35]

The Latin text is as follows:

“Ad primum ergo dicendum quod conversio hominis ad Deum fit quidem per liberum arbitrium; et secundum hoc homini praecipitur quod se ad Deum convertat. Sed liberum arbitrium ad Deum converti non potest nisi Deo ipsum ad se convertente; secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, convert me, et convertar, quia tu dominus Deus meus; et Thren. ult., converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur. ”(I-II q. 109 a. 6) Therefore the contrition, by which this turning of man to God takes place, is accomplished under the divine motion.

The biblical passage from the Lamentations just quoted (Lam 5,21:1432) can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n. XNUMX where, as we have seen, it is stated: "Conversion is above all a work of God's grace that makes our hearts return to him ..."

Explain s again. Thomas that man can do nothing if he is not moved by God, according to the Gospel saying: "Without me you can do nothing", therefore when it is said that man does what is in his power, it means that this is in the power of man as he is moved by God.[36]

Own to man, continues the s. Doctor Aquinas, is to prepare his soul, since man does this through his free will, but he does not do this without the help of God who moves man and attracts him to God: "Ad quartum dicendum quod hominis est praeparare animum, quia hoc facit per liberum arbitrium, sed tamen hoc non facit sine auxilio Dei moventis et ad seattrhentis, ut dictum est. "(I-II q. 109 a. 6)

God attracts but we must allow ourselves to be attracted! We can say that preparing for grace and therefore for contrition means allowing ourselves to be attracted and therefore collaborating with God who attracts us.

In this line in the Commentary on the Sentences s. Thomas had specified that: “Ad sextum dicendum, quod contritio est a Deo solo quantum ad formam qua informatur; sed quantum ad substantiam actus est ex libero arbitrio, et a Deo, qui operatur in omnibus operibus et naturae et voluntatis. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 to. 1 qc. 1 to 6)

Contrition is from God as to the form by which it is informed but as to the substance of the act it is from free will and it is from God, who works in all works of nature and will. God attracts us to himself but we must allow ourselves to be attracted and our leaving ourselves is accomplished by collaborating with God, God works in us who collaborate with him. God works in every worker. Obviously God works such contrition in us if we welcome such contrition; but if we reject it, God has his hands tied in a certain way and contrition does not take place in us. God works contrition in us insofar as we welcome this work of God in us and we allow ourselves to be moved by him to contrition.

Explain s again. Thomas that contrition must always remain: “Ad quintum dicendum, quod satisfactio attenditur secundum poenam taxatam, quae pro peccatis injungi debet; et ideo potest terminari, ut non oporteat ulterius satisfacere; haec enim poena praecipue proportionatur culpae ex parte conversionis, ex qua finitatem habet. Sed dolor contritionis respondet culpae ex parte aversionis, ex qua habet quamdam infinitatem; et ita true contritio must always remain. Nec est inconveniens, si remote posteriori, maneat prius. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 4 qc. 1 ad 5.)

The satisfaction for the sins committed can end so that it is no longer necessary to satisfy in this life but the pain of contrition has a certain infinity and therefore must always remain.

Adds s. Thomas in this line “Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod in contritione, ut dictum est, est duplex dolor. Unus rationis, qui est detestatio sins a if you commit; alius sensitivae partis, qui ex isto consequitur; et quantum ad utrumque, contritionis tempus est totus praesentis vitae status. … Oportet quod semper in vitae hujus tempore status contritionis maneat quantum ad peccati detestationem; similiter etiam quantum ad sensible painm,… et propter hoc dicit Hugo de sancto Victore, quod Deus absolvens hominem a culpa et poena aeterna, ligat eum vinculo perpetuae detestationis peccati. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 4 qc. 1 co.)

Therefore, summarizing, in contrition there is a double pain: that of reason which is the detestation of the sin committed, that of the sensitive part which is a consequence of the first. Our life in this world must be a time of contrition for both these pains.

God enlighten us and s. Thomas pray for us.

d) Illuminating affirmations of St. Anthony of Padua on contrition.

God enlighten us and s. Antonio pray for us.

On the XNUMXst Sunday of Lent s. Antonio dedicates an entire sermon to contrition of the heart, which he introduces by stating: "And since the days of penance have come for us for the remission of sins and for the salvation of souls, we will deal with penance, which consists of three acts: the contrition of heart, the confession of the mouth and the work of satisfaction (reparation) ... All these six arguments are taken from today's Gospel "[37]

I emphasize that for s. Antonio contrition is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins in fact he says: “In the blood of contrition all things are purified, everything is forgiven, as long as there is the intention to confess. Indeed, without the blood of contrition there is no remission of sin. "[38]

In fact, he explains. Antonio that contrition of the heart smashes the: ".. aspirations of the seculars, so that, transformed by contrition, they do not seek false enjoyment, but true one." [39] Contrition: ".. brings up the mind (vehemens, vehit sursum mentem), and because it suppresses the eternal" woe! " (vae àdimit). "[40] Contrition must be universal. The sinner must: "... yearn for all the sins committed, for all the sins of omission and for the forgotten ones, for all globally."[41] The sinner: "... cry in pain, and grieve in weeping, and be saddened more by a mortal sin committed, than if he had lost, after having come into possession of it, the whole world and all that is in it."[42]

God is the One who pushes man to conversion in fact: "... as Isaiah says:" The Exalted and the Sublime, which has an eternal seat, has his abode in the contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and vivify the spirit of the contrites "(Is 57,15:XNUMX). O goodness of God! O dignity of the penitent! He who has an eternal home also dwells in the heart of the humble and in the spirit of the penitent![43]

St. Anthony of Padua then has other admirable affirmations on contrition, for him it is "light" and it is "morning" "This light is the contrition of the heart that illuminates the soul, produces the knowledge of God and one's own infirmity, and shows the difference between the righteous and the wicked. … "In the morning" of contrition - says the Prophet - I exterminated all the sinners of the earth "(Ps 100,8), that is, I repressed all the disordered movements of my flesh. … As the dawn marks the beginning of the day and the end of the night, so contrition marks the end of sin and the beginning of penance. Therefore the Apostle says: "If you were once darkness, now you are light in the Lord" (Eph 5,8), and again: "The night is advanced, the day is near" (Rm 13,12). "[44]And yet contrition is "grass" from which the "ear" of Confession is born: "... the word of God, sown in the heart of the sinner, first produces the grass of contrition, of which it is said in Genesis:" The earth, that is, the mind of the sinner, let the green grass sprout (Gn 1,11), contrition; then the ear of confession ... "[45] Contrition is a “lamp” and allows the “trumpet” of Confession to be sounded: “The penitent, an attentive explorer, having made the rounds in this way, must immediately light the lamp that burns and illuminates (cf. Jn 5,35:3,20); in it contrition is indicated, which, by the fact that it burns, therefore also enlightens. … That's what true contrition does. ... all that is unclean, both in the soul and in the body, is consumed by the fire of contrition ... But here is finally the time of Lent, instituted by the church to atone for sins and save souls: in it it is prepared the grace of contrition, which now stands spiritually at the door and knocks; if you want to open and welcome her, she will dine with you and you with her (cf. Rev XNUMX:XNUMX). And then you will start playing the trumpet ... The trumpet is the confession of the contrite sinner. "[46]

St. Anthony, may he obtain true contrition for our sins.

e) Fundamental truths about contrition affirmed in the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent.

The Cross be our light.

The Council of Trent affirmed with regard to contrition that: the acts of the penitent himself are almost a matter of the Sacrament of Penance, namely: contrition, confession, satisfaction. Since these acts are required, in the penitent, for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are therefore considered parts of penance.[47]

Furthermore, this famous Ecumenical Council stated:

“Contritio, quae primum locum inter dictos paenitentis actus habet, animi dolor ac detestatio est de sin committed, cum concerning non peccandi de cetero. ".[48]

The contrition that has the first place among the acts of the penitent is the pain of the soul and the detestation of the sin committed, with the intention not to sin anymore. The Council of Trent specified that this act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in the man fallen into sin after Baptism it prepares for the remission of sins if accompanied by trust in divine Mercy and by the vow to fulfill everything. what is required to properly receive this Sacrament of Penance.[49]

This contrition contains not only the cessation of sin and the purpose (of a new life) and the beginning of a new life, but it also contains the hatred of the old life, according to the words of Holy Scripture: Remove all things from yourselves. your iniquities, with which you have overruled and built yourself a new heart and a new soul (Ez 18:31).

Certainly the one who reflects on those exclamations of the saints: "I have sinned against you alone and I have done evil against you" (Ps 50: 6.); "I am tired of groaning, I go washing my bed every night" (Ps 6: 7); "I will think back to all my years, in the bitterness of my soul" (Is 38, 15.), and on others like him, he will easily understand that they came from a truly vehement hatred of the past life and a great detestation of sin.[50]

May the sacred cross be our light.

Furthermore, the Council teaches that, even if it happens that this contrition can sometimes be perfect in love, and can reconcile man with God even before this sacrament is actually received, nevertheless this reconciliation is not to be attributed to contrition without the about receiving the sacrament included in it.[51]

The Council of Trent further affirms that imperfect contrition, which is called 'attrition' because it is commonly produced either by the consideration of the turpitude of sin or by the fear of hell and punishments, if it excludes the will to sin with the hope of forgiveness, does not only it does not make man hypocritical and more sinful, but it is even a gift from God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, who does not yet dwell in the soul, but who only moves it, an impulse by which the penitent, helped by God, the way to justice is prepared. And although by itself, without the sacrament of penance, such imperfect contrition is powerless to lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to implore the grace of God in the sacrament of penance. Affected, in fact, salutary by this fear, that is by this imperfect contrition, the inhabitants of Nineveh did penance under the influence of the preaching of Jonah, full of terrors and obtained mercy from God (cf. Jonah 3). Therefore, the Council continues, some falsely accuse Catholic writers, almost as if they have taught that the sacrament of penance confers grace without an interior, good movement of the one who receives it: something that the Church of God has never taught and never believed. But also this they teach falsely: that, that is, contrition is a thing extorted and forced, not free and voluntary.[52]

God free us from all mistakes.

Furthermore, the Council itself affirms that if anyone denies that for the complete and perfect remission of sins, these three acts are required in the penitent as almost a matter of the sacrament of penance: contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are the three parts of penance or he will say that only two are the parts of penance, namely: the terrors induced to conscience by the knowledge of sin and the faith, conceived through the gospel or absolution, whereby a person believes that his sins are forgiven for half of Christ, be anathema.[53]

Further: “Can. 5. Si quis dixerit, eam contritionem, quae paratur for discussionm, collectionem et detestationem peccatorum, qua quis recogitat annos suos in amaritudine animae suae (Is 38, 15), ponderando peccatorum suorum gravitatem, multitudinem, foeditatem, amissionem aeternae eteterinis, damnationis incursum, cum concerning melioris vitae, non esse verum et usefulm painm, nec praeparare ad gratiam, sed facere hominem hypocritam et magis peceatorem; demum illam esse painm coactum et non liberum ac voluntarium: an. s. [54]"[55]

So, if anyone will say that that contrition, which is obtained with the examination (of sins), the "collection" or rather the remembrance (of sins made), and the detestation of sins, by which a person rethinks his own life in the 'bitterness of his soul (cf. Is 38, 15) evaluating the gravity, the multitude, the ugliness of his sins, the loss of eternal bliss and being incurred into eternal damnation, with the purpose of a better life, is not a true and useful pain, which does not prepare for grace, but which makes man hypocritical and even more sinful and which, finally, is an imposed pain, not free and voluntary, let it be anathema.

It seems to me important to underline that, according to the Council of Trent: this act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in man who fell into sin after Baptism it prepares for the remission of sins if accompanied by trust in divine mercy and from the vow to fulfill all that is required to properly receive this Sacrament of Penance.[56]

The Council of Florence, about a century before that of Trent, had stated:

“Quartum sacramentum est paenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus paenitentis, here in tres distinguuntur partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio; ad quam pertinet, ud doleat de sin commisso, cum concerning non peccandi de cetero. Secunda est oris confessio; ad quam pertinet, ut peccator omnia peccata, quorum memoriam habet, his priests confiteatur integraliter. Tertia est satisfactio pro peccatis secundum arbitrium sacerdotis "[57]

The fourth sacrament is penance, of which almost matter are the acts of the penitent, divided into three parts: the first of which is contrition of the heart, which consists in the pain of sin committed, with the intention not to sin in the future; the second is oral confession, in which the sinner fully confesses to his priest all the sins he remembers; the third is the satisfaction of sins, according to the judgment of the priest.

May the sacred cross be our light.

f) Important statements of the Roman Catechism on contrition.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent stated in n. 247s[58] "As the human body is made up of many limbs, hands, feet, eyes and the like, none of which could be lacking without the imperfection of the whole, which we say perfect only when it possesses them all, so Penance results from the three aforementioned parts in such a way that although contrition and confession which justify the sinner are the only absolutely required to constitute it, in its absence it nevertheless remains imperfect and defective, when it does not include satisfaction. These three parts are therefore inseparable and so well connected to each other that contrition encompasses the intention and the will to confess and to satisfy; contrition and satisfaction involve confession; and satisfaction is the consequence of the other two.

Here is how the Fathers of the Council of Trent define contrition: Contrition is a pain of the soul and a detestation of sin committed with the purpose of no longer sinning for the future (Sess. 14, e. 4). Speaking further on contrition, they add: This act prepares for the remission of sins, provided it is accompanied by trust in God's mercy and the will to do what is necessary to receive the sacrament of Penance well. This definition makes it clear to the faithful that the essence of contrition does not consist only in refraining from sinning, in resolving to change one's life, or in actually starting a new life, but also and above all in detesting and atoning for the sins of the past life. . "

At no. 250 of the Tridentine Catechism[59] we find written:
"From what we have said, it is easy to deduce the conditions necessary for true contrition, conditions that must be explained to the faithful with the greatest diligence, so that all know by what means they can acquire it, and have a sure rule for discerning how far they are from the perfection of it. The first condition is hatred and detestation of all sins committed. If we detested only some of them, contrition would not be salutary, but false and simulated, since St. James writes: Whoever observes the whole law and lacks one thing alone, transgresses the whole law (Jas 2,10:18,21). The second is that contrition includes the intention to confess and to do penance: things we will talk about in its place. The third is that the penitent make a firm and sincere resolution to reform his life, as the Prophet clearly teaches: If the wicked do penance for all the sins he has committed, he will keep all my precepts and keep judgment and justice. , will live; nor will I remember any more of the sins he has committed. And further on: When the wicked will turn away from the wickedness he has committed and keep judgment and righteousness, he will give life to his soul. And further still: Repent and do penance for all your iniquities; so these will not go back to ruin. Throw away from you all the prevarications into which you have fallen, and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit (Ez 18,31:8,11 Ez 5,14:3,6,20). The Lord himself ordered the same thing in saying to the adulteress: Go and sin no more (Jn XNUMX); and to the paralytic healed in the pool: Behold, you are healed: sin no more (Jn XNUMX). Moreover, nature and reason clearly show that there are two things absolutely necessary to make contrition true and sincere: repentance of sins committed, and the resolution not to commit them again for the future. Anyone who wants to reconcile with a friend whom he has offended must at the same time deplore the injury done, and be careful, for the future, not to offend the friendship again. These two things must necessarily be accompanied by obedience, since it is right for man to obey the natural, divine and human law to which he is subject. Therefore, if a penitent has violently or fraudulently stolen something from his neighbor, he is obliged to return it; if he has offended his dignity and his life with words or deeds, he must satisfy him with the performance of some service or some benefit. In this regard, the saying of Saint Augustine is known to all: Sin is not forgiven unless the stolen goods are returned (Epist. CLXNUMX).
Nor should it be considered as unimportant among the other conditions required by contrition, to forgive entirely the offenses received, as our Lord and Savior expressly warns us: If you forgive men their shortcomings, your heavenly Father will forgive you your sins; but if you do not forgive men, not even your Father will forgive you your sins (Mt 6,14: 15-XNUMX). "[60]

St. Pius V and all the blessed spirits of Heaven pray for us and obtain true contrition for us.

g) Important statements from the Major Catechism of St. Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church on contrition.

God enlighten us

The Major Catechism of St. Pius X presents an excellent treatment of contrition, of its necessity and of its parts (in particular of pain and of purpose (purpose). For the text of the Major Catechism of Pius X see http://www.maranatha.it/catpiox /01page.htm.

First of all, this important Catechism speaks of contrition when it treats of Baptism and in particular of Baptism of desire ”567 Q. Can the lack of Baptism be made up in some way? Martyrdom, which is called Baptism of blood, or an act of perfect love of God or contrition, which is joined with the at least implicit desire of Baptism, can make up for the lack of the sacrament of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of desire. " Therefore a perfect act of contrition can make up for Baptism as long as it is conjoined with the implicit desire for Baptism.

On the other hand, an act of perfect contrition, normally, is not enough to receive the Eucharist in the one who knows he has committed a grave sin, but it is necessary for this person to confess:

“630 Q. Who knows he is in mortal sin, what must he do before receiving Communion? Whoever knows he is in mortal sin must make a good confession before receiving Holy Communion; the act of perfect contrition, without confession, is not enough for those in mortal sin to communicate themselves as is appropriate. 631 D. Why is not even the act of perfect contrition enough for those who know they are in mortal sin to be able to communicate? Because the Church has established, out of respect for this sacrament, that whoever is guilty of mortal sin should not dare to take Communion unless he has first confessed. "

Contrition is also indicated as an act that prepares a Holy Communion: “638 D. What does the preparation before Communion consist of? Preparation before Communion consists in staying for some time to consider who we are going to receive and who we are; and in making acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, adoration, humility and the desire to receive Jesus Christ. "

Starting from number 681 up to around 741, the Major Catechism of s. Pius X for a long time explains in depth, in a very precise way, what contrition is and its various parts. First of all, therefore, in the Catechism we are talking about it explains precisely what contrition is: “681. How many parts of the sacrament of Penance are there? The parts of the sacrament of Penance are: contrition, the penitent's confession and satisfaction, and the priest's absolution. 682. What is the contrition, that is the pain of the sins? Contrition, that is the pain of sins, is a displeasure of the soul, for which the sins committed are detested and it is proposed not to do more in the future. 683 What does this word contrition mean? The word contrition means breaking or breaking, as when a stone is crushed and reduced to dust. 684. Why is the name of contrition given to the pain of sins? The name of contrition is given to the pain of sins, to signify that the hard heart of the sinner in a certain way breaks for the pain of having offended God. The sacrament of Penance the most necessary is contrition, because without it the forgiveness of sins can never be obtained, and with it alone, when it is perfect, forgiveness can be obtained, provided that it is joined with the desire, at least implicit, to confess . " ... therefore, starting from number 689, an excellent and thorough treatment of pain and purpose is presented which are essential parts of contrition which, as we have just seen, is precisely: the pain of sins, a sorrow of the soul, for which the sins committed and it is proposed not to commit any more in the future.

"4. - About pain

  1. What is the pain of sins?

The pain of sins consists of a sorrow and a sincere detestation of the offense done to God.

  1. How many kinds is the pain?

The pain is of two kinds: perfect, that is, of contrition; imperfect, that is, of attraction.

  1. What is the perfect pain, or of contrition?

Perfect pain is the regret of having offended God, because he is infinitely good and worthy for himself to be loved.

  1. Why do you call the pain of contrition perfect?

I call the pain of contrition perfect for two reasons:

  1. because it concerns exclusively the goodness of God, and not our advantage or harm;
  2. because it makes us immediately obtain the forgiveness of sins, while remaining however the obligation to confess.
  3. So does perfect pain get us forgiveness of sins regardless of confession?

Perfect pain does not get us the forgiveness of sins regardless of confession, because it always includes the willingness to confess.

  1. Why does perfect pain, or contrition, produce this effect of putting us back in the grace of God?

Perfect pain, or contrition, produces this effect, because it arises from charity which cannot be found in the soul together with mortal sin.

  1. What is imperfect pain or attrition?

The imperfect or attrition pain is that for which we regret having offended God, as Supreme Judge, that is, for fear of the punishments deserved in this or the other life or for the ugliness of sin itself.

  1. What conditions must pain have to be good?

To be good, pain must have four conditions: it must be internal, supernatural, supreme and universal.

  1. What do you mean the pain must be internal?

You mean that it must be in the heart and in the will and not in the words alone.

  1. Why does the pain have to be internal?

The pain must be internal, because the will that has moved away from God with sin must return to God detesting the sin committed.

  1. What does it mean that the pain must be supernatural?

It means that he must be excited in us by the grace of the Lord and conceived for reasons of faith.

  1. Why does the pain have to be supernatural?

The pain must be supernatural, because the end to which it is directed is supernatural, that is, God's forgiveness, the acquisition of sanctifying grace and the right to eternal glory.

  1. Do you better explain the difference between supernatural pain and natural pain?

Whoever repents for having offended God infinitely good and worthy for himself to be loved, for having lost heaven and deserved hell, or for the intrinsic malice of sin, has supernatural pain because these are reasons for faith: who instead if he would repent only for the dishonor, or punishment that comes to him from men, or for some purely temporal damage, he would have a natural pain, because he would repent only for human reasons.

  1. Why does the pain have to be great?

The pain must be supreme, because we must regard and hate sin as the highest of all evils, being an offense of God the supreme Good.

  1. Is it perhaps necessary to weep for the pain of sins, as we sometimes cry for the misfortunes of this life?

It is not necessary materially to weep for the pain of sins; but it is enough that in the heart there is a greater case of having offended God than of any other misfortune.

  1. What does it mean that pain must be universal?

It means that it must extend to all mortal sins committed.

  1. Why must the pain extend to all mortal sins committed?

Because whoever does not repent of even one mortal sin remains God's enemy.

  1. What must we do to have the pain of our sins?

To have the pain of our sins we must ask God from the heart, and excite him in us with the consideration of the great evil we have done by sinning.

  1. How are you going to get excited about detesting sins?

To excite me to detest sins:

  1. I will consider the rigor of God's infinite justice and the deformity of sin that has marred my soul and made me deserving of the eternal punishments of hell;
  2. I will consider that I have lost the grace, the friendship, the sonship of God and the inheritance of heaven;
  3. that I have offended my dentor who died for me, and that my sins were the cause of his death;
  4. that I despised my Creator, my God; that I have turned my back on him, my highest good worthy of being loved above all things and served faithfully.
  5. Should we be very careful, when we go to confession, to have a real pain of our sins?

When we go to confession, we must certainly be very careful to have a true pain of our sins, because this is the most important thing of all: and if the pain is lacking, the confession is not valid.

  1. Who confesses only to venial sins must have the pain of all?

Whoever confesses only venial sins, to confess validly is enough that he is repentant of any of them; but to obtain the forgiveness of all it is necessary that he repent of all those that he acknowledges having committed.

  1. Who confesses to only venial sins, and is not repentant of even one, makes a good confession?

Whoever confesses only to venial sins and is not repentant of even a single one, makes a confession of no value; which is also sacrilegious, if the lack of pain is felt.

  1. What should be done to make the confession of venial sins only safer?

To make the confession of venial sins only safer, it is prudent to accuse, with true pain, even some sins more serious than the past life, although already confessed at other times.

  1. And what good is it to do the act of contrition often?

It is a good and very useful thing to often do the act of contrition, especially before going to sleep, and when one realizes or doubts that he has fallen into mortal sin, in order to get back into the grace of God more quickly; and above all it helps to obtain more easily from God the grace to do such an act in the greatest need, that is, in the danger of death.
5. - Of the resolution.

  1. What does the resolution consist of?

The resolution consists in a resolute will never to commit sin again and to use all the means necessary to escape it.

  1. What conditions must the resolution have to be good?

In order for the resolution to be good, it must have mainly three conditions: it must be absolute, universal and effective.

  1. What does it mean: absolute resolution?

It means that the resolution must be without any conditions of time, place, or person.

  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be universal?

The resolution must be universal, it means that we must want to flee all mortal sins, both those already committed on other occasions, as well as others that we could commit.

  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be effective?

The resolution must be effective, it means that we must have a resolute will to lose everything first than to commit a new sin, to flee the dangerous occasions of sinning, to destroy bad clothes, and to fulfill the obligations contracted as a result of our sins. .

  1. What is meant by bad dress?

By bad habit we mean the disposition acquired to easily fall into those sins to which we have become accustomed.

  1. What needs to be done to correct bad clothes?

To correct bad habits we must be vigilant over ourselves, pray a lot, attend confession, have a good stable director, and put into practice the advice and remedies he offers us.

  1. What is meant by dangerous occasions of sinning?

By dangerous occasions of sinning we mean all those circumstances of time, place, people, or things that by their nature, or by our fragility, lead us to commit sin.

  1. Are we severely obliged to dodge all dangerous opportunities?

We are gravely obliged to avoid those dangerous occasions which ordinarily lead us to commit mortal sin, which are called the proximate occasions of sin.

  1. What must one do who cannot escape some occasion of sin?

Who can not escape some occasion of sin, tell the confessor and heed his advice.

  1. What considerations are needed to make the resolution?

To make the resolution, the same considerations are needed, which are valid for arousing the pain; that is, the consideration of the reasons we have to fear God's justice and to love his infinite goodness. "

Where, then, this Catechism speaks of the moment of absolution affirms: "768 D. The accusation of sins completes what remains to be done? When the accusation of sins is completed, it is necessary to listen with respect to what the confessor will say; accept penance with a sincere will to do it; and while he gives absolution, renew the act of contrition from the heart. "

Furthermore, as soon as the person realizes that he has sinned, it is good that he immediately do the act of contrition explains this Catechism in n. 981 "D. When someone knows or doubts that he has committed some sin, what should he do? When anyone knows or doubts that he has sinned, he must immediately make an act of contrition, and try to confess as soon as possible. " St. Pius X may pray for us and obtain for us to know and to live ever better contrition.

As can be seen, the Major Catechism of s. Pius X offers a very thorough treatment of contrition which highlights in a very strong way the importance of this essential element of Confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not develop such a broad and thorough treatment of contrition as that of the Catechism of St. Pius X but still makes some important clarifications on this topic.

God enlighten us.

First of all it seems interesting to me to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1492 "Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by reasons dictated by faith." Contrition is therefore repentance.

Contrition is a salutary pain and sadness that accompanies the conversion of the sinner (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1431)

Contrition has always been one of the essential elements of Confession, the fundamental structure of this sacrament: "... it involves two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who is converted under the action of the Holy Spirit: that is, contrition , confession and satisfaction; on the other hand, God's action through the intervention of the Church. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1448)

Contrition has first place among the acts of the penitent (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1451)

With regard to perfect and imperfect contrition (attrition) the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in nos. 1452s that the contrition that comes from charity is perfect, the one that does not come from charity is imperfect, only perfect contrition remits even mortal sins if joined with the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

The Major Catechism of St. Pius X specified, as seen, in nos. 714 ff. that the pain required for contrition (both perfect and imperfect, evidently) must be supernatural. That is, pain must be supernatural, that is, it must be excited in us by the grace of the Lord and conceived for reasons of faith! The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1492: "Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by reasons dictated by faith." The contrition of which we speak is in fact fulfilled, as we said, under the action of the Holy Spirit; the conversion of man takes place under the action of God; in conversion the Lord gives us a new heart and makes us return to him in grace as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains very well in n. 1432 Under the action of the Holy Spirit and with our collaboration, conversion of the heart takes place, interior penance, with a radical new orientation of all life, a return, a conversion to God with all the heart, a break with the sin, an aversion to evil together with reproach towards the bad deeds we have committed, with the desire and resolution to change life with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace and with a salutary affliction of the spirit, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1431.

May God enlighten us more and more and make us more and more contrite for our sins.

g, 1) Contrition must be supernatural.

The Council of Orange stated: “Can. 4. Si quis, ut a sin purgemur, voluntatem nostram Deum exspectare contendit, non autem, ut etiam purgari velimus, per Sancti Spiritus infusionem et operationem in nos fieri confitetur, resistit ipsi Spiritui Sancto per Salomonem dicenti: 'Praeparatur voluntas a Domino' ( Prv 8, 35 sec. Septg.), And Apostolo salubriter praedicanti: 'Deus est, qui operatur in vobis et velle et perficere pro bona voluntate' (cf. Phil 2, 13). "[61]

Under the inspiration and work of the Holy Spirit we come to want to be purified, under the action of the Holy Spirit contrition is fulfilled in us and therefore our justification in fact under the action of the Holy Spirit our will is corrected by the impiety to pity and do all that according to God we must do.[62]

The Council of Trent states: “3. If someone affirms that man, without the prior inspiration and help of the Holy Spirit, can believe, hope and love or repent as is appropriate, so that the grace of justification may be conferred on him: let him be anathema. "[63]

We cannot repent properly without the inspiration and help of the Holy Ghost. The contrition that leads to deliverance from sins is accomplished under the action of the Holy Spirit.

The Council itself specifies its affirmations in this way: "... in adults the same justification must begin from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is, from the call, which they receive without any merit of their own, so that those who with their sins had turned away from God, are they willing by his grace, which solicits and helps, to orient themselves towards their justification, accepting and cooperating freely to the same grace, so that, touching God the heart of man with the illumination of the Spirit Holy, man must not remain absolutely inert undergoing that inspiration, which he can also reject, nor without divine grace can he, with his free will, turn to justice before God. Therefore when in the sacred scriptures it is said: Repent to me , and I will turn to you (Zk 1, 3), our freedom is mentioned and when we reply: Lord, make us return to you and we will return (Lm 5, 21), we confess that we are prevented from the grace of God. "[64]

God's grace prevents and attracts man to conversion and justification, through contrition and, as we saw above, and as the Catechism of St. Pius X, the pain of contrition must be supernatural: "

718. Why must the pain be supernatural?

The pain must be supernatural, because the end to which it is directed is supernatural, that is, God's forgiveness, the acquisition of sanctifying grace and the right to eternal glory.

719. Do you better explain the difference between supernatural pain and natural pain? Whoever repents for having offended God infinitely good and worthy for himself to be loved, for having lost heaven and deserved hell, or for the intrinsic malice of sin, has supernatural pain because these are reasons for faith: who instead if he would repent only for the dishonor, or punishment that comes to him from men, or for some purely temporal damage, he would have a natural pain, because he would only repent for human reasons. "

Under the action of the Holy Spirit, this supernatural pain, superior to our natural capacities, actuates in us, because the end to which it is directed is supernatural, that is the forgiveness of God, the acquisition of sanctifying grace and the right to eternal glory; it is pain conceived for reasons of faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1492: "Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by reasons dictated by faith."

Pope Innocent XI's condemnation of this statement also goes along this line: "Probabile est, sufficere attritionem naturalem, modo honestam."[65] The phrase affirms that natural attraction is enough for contrition and the Holy See rightly condemned it because supernatural (perfect or imperfect) contrition is necessary for a valid absolution.

I wanted to underline the necessary supernaturality of contrition because very little is spoken of supernatural and supernatural contrition in our times, Amoris Laetita does not speak of supernatural contrition ...

h) Recent documents and affirmations of the Popes and more generally of the Holy See that deal with contrition.

God enlighten us.

We saw above what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published almost 30 years ago, affirms of contrition and its importance, here we will examine other documents and affirmations of the Pope and more generally of the Holy See of the last decades that deal with the same topic.

St. John Paul II affirmed in an important encyclical on the Holy Spirit: "Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant. " [66]

Without contrition, sins are not remitted! If contrition is lacking, sacramental absolution is therefore invalid, as we will see well later.

In the Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, at n. 31, s. John Paul II wrote: "But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, that is, a clear and decisive repudiation of the sin committed together with the intention of not committing it again, for the love that one brings to God and which is reborn with repentance. Understood in this way, contrition is, therefore, the principle and soul of conversion, of that evangelical "metanoia" which brings man back to God as the prodigal son who returns to his father, and which has its sign in the sacrament of penance. visible, perfecting the same attraction. Therefore, "the truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart" (Rite of Penance 6c). " [67]

God enlighten us!

The truth of Penance depends on contrition of the heart ... if contrition is lacking, Penance is not true!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote a few years ago: "In any case, absolution can be granted only if there is the certainty of true contrition, that is to say" the interior pain and the reproach of the sin that has been committed , with the resolution not to sin anymore "(cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c.4). In this line, a divorced and remarried person cannot validly be absolved who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and therefore abstain from the acts proper to the spouses, and in this sense doing everything in his power. " [68] Without contrition there can be no valid absolution.

In the Rite of Penance in nos. 5-6 we read: “6. The disciple of Christ who, moved by the Holy Spirit, approaches the sacrament of Penance after sin, must first of all be converted wholeheartedly to God. This intimate conversion of the heart, which includes the contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life, the sinner expresses it through the confession made to the Church, due satisfaction, and the amendment of life. And God grants the remission of sins through the Church, which acts through the ministry of priests. a) Contrition. Among the acts of the penitent, contrition occupies the first place, which is "the pain and detestation of the sin committed, with the purpose of no longer sinning". And in fact, "we can only reach the kingdom of Christ with" metanoia ", that is, with that intimate and radical change, as a result of which man begins to think, judge and rearrange his life, moved by holiness and goodness of God, as she manifested herself and was given to us in fullness in her Son (cf. Heb 1, 2; Col 1, 19 and passim; Eph 1, 23 and passim) ".[69]

Among the acts of the penitent, contrition occupies the first place, which is "the pain and detestation of the sin committed, with the purpose of no longer sinning". … If contrition is missing, sacramental absolution is invalid! ... and the sins are not remitted !!

In a speech to groups of pilgrims, St. John Paul II affirmed: "To make a fruitful confession, in fact, an interior predisposition is needed, a reprobation of the sin committed, with the intention of not sinning anymore: in a word, true contrition is needed, that is, the sorrow for the offense against God and the malicious deformity of sin. "[70]

In a recent document of the Congregation for Divine Worship entitled "To rediscover the" Rite of Penance "which appeared in Notitiae in 2015 and which you can find at this address [71]  we can read the following: "In the absence of conversion / metanoia, the fruits of the sacrament fail for the penitent, since:" the truth of penance depends on this contrition of the heart "(RP 6)." … Without conversion and therefore without contrition the fruits of the sacrament fail! … And the penitent remains in his sin !! The conversion of the penitent, as the document just cited from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments explains, is an element of such extraordinary importance that it is not only the main among the acts of the penitent but it is a unifying element of all the acts of the penitent himself which constitute the sacrament. : "The conversion of the heart is not only the main element, it is also the one that unifies all the acts of the penitent constituting the sacrament, since every single element is defined in order to the conversion of the heart:" This intimate conversion of the heart , which includes the contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life, the sinner expresses it through the confession made to the Church, due satisfaction, and the amendment of life "(RP 6)"[72] God enlighten us. If contrition is lacking, the sacramental absolution is invalid, the fruits of the sacrament fail for the penitent ... and the sins are not remitted!

The absolute necessity of contrition with regard to salvation was reaffirmed, in the line of traditional doctrine, by the Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments in instruction: “Redemptionis Sacramentum” in n. 81: "The custom of the Church also affirms the need for each one to examine himself very thoroughly, (Cf. 1 Cor 11, 28.) so that whoever is aware of being in grave sin does not celebrate Mass or communicate to the Body of the Lord without having prematurely made sacramental confession, unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in which case it should be remembered that he is bound to place an act of perfect contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 916; Ecumenical Council Trid., Sess. XIII, 11 October 1551, Decree on the Holy Eucharist, chap. 7: DS 1646-1647; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 36: AAS 95 (2003) pp. 457-458; S. Congr. dei Riti, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, n. 35: AAS 59 (1967) p. 561.) "[73]

In the Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, s. John Paul II further stated:

"As we read in the instruction" Eucharisticum mysterium ", which, duly approved by Paul VI, fully confirms the teaching of the Council of Trent:" The Eucharist is also offered to the faithful "as an antidote, which frees us from daily sins , and it preserves us from mortal sins ", and the appropriate way of making use of the penitential parts of the liturgy of the Mass is indicated to them. «Whoever wants to receive Communion should be reminded ... of the precept: Let man prove himself (1 Cor 11,28:XNUMX). And the custom of the Church shows that that test is necessary, so that no one aware of being in mortal sin, however contrite he may think, should approach the holy Eucharist before sacramental confession. That, if he finds himself in case of need and has no way of confessing, first do an act of perfect contrition ".[74] …. Contrition, and in particular perfect contrition, is indispensable for the remission of sins and for the return to grace, and therefore to receive the Eucharist worthily.

May the sacred cross be our light.

2) How to verify that contrition, grace and charity are in the soul?

God enlighten us more and more.

Says s. John Paul II “The judgment on the state of grace, of course, belongs only to the person concerned, since it is an evaluation of conscience. "[75] These words of the s. Pontiff must be understood correctly because grace is not seen ... and conscience is not infallible ... to understand them correctly we listen to s. Thomas according to which one cannot know for sure but there are signs that indicate that there is probably charity and therefore grace in the soul: “Hoc autem nullo modo cadit in cognitionem nostram nisi per revelationem. Et ideo nullus certitudinaliter potest scire se habere caritatem; sed potest ex aliquibus signis probabilibus conjicere. " (Super Sent., Lib. 1 p. 17 q. 1 BC 4 co. ) The signs that indicate the presence of charity are indicated by s. Thomas in this text: “Dicendum, quod aliquis habens caritatem potest ex aliquibus probabilibus signis Conicere se caritatem habere; utpote cum se ad spiritualia opera paratum videt, et mala efficaciter detestari, et per alia huiusmodi quae caritas in homine facit. " (De veritate, q. 10 BC 10 co.) Therefore, the fact that the person is prepared for spiritual works and effectively detests evil and other similar ones are signs of charity in the soul. Explain s again. Thomas that signs that indicate the presence of contrition in a soul are pain for past sins and the resolution not to sin in the future: "Et in such casu non peccat sumendo corpus Christi, quia homo per certitudinem scire non potest utrum sit vere contritus. Sufficit tamen si in se signa contritionis inveniat, puta ut doleat de praeteritis et proponat cavere de futuris. " (III, q. 80 BC Reply to Objection 4) We point out that for s. Thomas contrition implies sanctifying grace, therefore these just indicated are signs of grace in the person and of charity, they are therefore signs that are combined with the previous ones to have an even more precise picture of the state of a soul, to understand if in it there truly be grace and charity and contrition. In another text, s. Thomas, speaking of the examination that man is called to do to see if he has grace and charity and therefore can receive the Eucharist, offers the most complete treatment of these signs which indicate that charity and the life of grace are in the soul: “Probet seipsum homo. Apostolus hic adhibet salutare consilium, ubi tria facit: first dat consilium, secundo consilii rationem assignat: qui enim manducat, tertio probat rationem ipsam: ideo inter vos. Dicit ergo primo: ex quo periculum imminet si indigne accipiatur corpus Christi, quod est faciendum? Quid? Probet seipsum homo, idest examinet conscientiam suam, Gal. VI: opus suum etc., II Cor. XIII: vosmetipsos probate et cetera. Et nota quod sunt quattuor signa per quae potest homo seipsum probare utrum dignus sit sumere corpus Christi, licet non possit esse certus utrum hate vel amore dignus sit: primum est si libenter audit verba Dei, Io. VIII: qui est ex Deo verba Dei audit; secundum est si inveniatur promptus ad opera caritatis, Io. XIV: si diligitis me, sermo etc .; tertium si detestetur peccata praeterita, Ier .: peccata praeterita non nocent si non placent, Ps .: peccatum meum contra me est semper; fourth si vadit cum concerning non peccandi, Eccli. XXI: sinful threads et cetera. Et tunc, si haec quattuor signa invenit in se, accedat et de pane illo edat et de calice bibat, Cant. V: comedite amici et cetera. " (Super I Cor., Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno chap. 11 v. 28) St. Thomas in the text just presented is therefore telling us that the Apostle offers us an important advice here: it is necessary to examine one's conscience before receiving the Eucharist and the s. Doctor specifies that there are four signs by which man can understand if he is worthy to receive the Eucharist: if he willingly listens to the Word of God because, according to the Gospel, "Whoever is of God hears the words of God." ( Jn 8,47); if he is ready for works of charity, because the Gospel says: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word" (Jn. 14,23:XNUMX) and "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn. 14, 15); if he detests past sins because, according to Psalm 50: 5, "peccatum meum contra me est semper"; if he proceeds with the purpose of not sinning because it is written in the book of Sirach: “Son, have you sinned? Don't do it again and ask forgiveness for your past sins. 2 As before a snake, flee from sin: if you come near, it will bite you. ”(Sir.

St. Thomas specifies that on the basis of these signs of contrition the priest can absolve the sinner “Constat enim quod dominus Lazarum alzitatum discipulis solvendum mandavit; ergo discipuli absolvunt. Per hoc ergo non ostenditur quod sacerdos dicere non debeat: ego te absolvo, sed quod eum non debeat absolvere in quo signa contritionis non videt, per quam homo vivificatur interius a Deo culpa remissa. " ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.). And adds s. Thomas that to those in whom he does not see signs of contrition, which are pain for the sins committed and a resolution not to sin, the priest must not give absolution "Ex quo etiam patet quod non est periculosum sacerdotibus dicere: ego te absolvo, illis in quibus signa contritionis vident, quae sunt dolor de praeteritis et propositum de cetero non peccandi; alias absolvere non debet. " ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 3 co.)

These signs are also found in a certain way in those who are not fully contrite but only friction but are evidently disposed to perfect contrition and therefore through Confession receives grace and charity. Therefore if the priest does not notice such signs in the penitent he cannot absolve him.

Whoever is well disposed with attraction and therefore with the signs we have seen, even if he is not fully contrite, can be absolved and through the Sacrament receives sanctifying grace and the remission of sins, if there is no obstacle: "... when aliquis accedit ad confessionem attritus, non plene contritus, si obicem non ponat, in ipsa confessione et absolutione, sibi gratia et remissio peccatorum datur. Unde dicit Glossa super illud Psal. 95: confessio et pulchritudo in conspectu ejus: si amas pulchritudinem, confitere, ut sis pulcher, idest rectus. "(Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 22 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 3 co.) ... In this line, the Council of Trent further affirms that imperfect contrition, which is called 'attrition' because it is commonly produced either by the consideration of the turpitude of sin or by the fear of hell and punishments, if it excludes the will to sin with the hope of forgiveness, not only does it not make man hypocritical and more sinful, but it is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, who does not yet dwell in the soul, but who only moves it, an impulse by which the aided penitent prepares the way to justice. And although by itself, without the sacrament of penance, such imperfect contrition is powerless to lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to implore the grace of God in the sacrament of penance.

Affected, in fact, salutary by this fear, the inhabitants of Nineveh did penance to the preaching of Jonah, full of terrors. And they obtained mercy from God (cf. Jonah 3).

Therefore, continues the Council, some falsely accuse Catholic writers, almost as if they have taught that the sacrament of penance confers grace without an interior, good, movement of the one who receives it: something that the Church of God has never taught and never believed.[76]

In conclusion, because a person, based on the words of St. John Paul II, may he say with a right conscience, enlightened by faith, and with a certain certainty, even if not absolute, that he is in the grace of God, it is necessary for the person himself to examine, guided by faith, various signs that emerge from his soul and which indicate in it the presence of grace, equally from signs that emerge from the soul it is possible to see if it is contrite or friction for sins and therefore can be validly absolved in Confession.

In an article on Amoris Laetitia, what is considered by some to be the "ghost writer", that is, the hidden author of the encyclical or one of its hidden authors, Msgr. VM Fernández, affirms: "Si bien la norma es universal, sin embargo," puesto que el degree de responsabilidad no es igual en todos los casos, las consecuencias o efectos de una norma no necessarily deben ser siempre las mismas "(AL 300) . “Tampoco en lo referente to the sacramental discipline, puesto que el discernimiento puede reconocer que en una situación particular no hay culpa grave” (note 336). La pregunta que surge es la siguiente: ¿Se puede discernir esto en el diálogo pastoral? El Papa argues that yes, y eso es lo que abre camino a change in discipline. ... "[77]

Although the norm is universal, however, as Amoris Laetitia says: “… since the degree of responsibility is not the same in all cases (Relatio finalis 2015, 51), the consequences or effects of a norm should not necessarily always be the themselves (Not even with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation there is no grave fault. Here what I said in another document applies: cf. after Evangelii gaudium (24 November 2013), 44.47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040.) "(Amoris Laetitia n. 300). That is, Amoris Laetitia invites us to make a discernment to see if the person is in a state of grace even though he is in a situation of evident objective grave sin. This implies that one can express a judgment on one's state of grace. Can this be discerned in pastoral dialogue? Fernández says taking up Pope Francis that such a judgment is possible and taking up s. John Paul II and Catholic doctrine affirms that this judgment must be made by the person himself and that it is not an absolutely sure judgment, it is only a certain moral security, the only one that someone can reach before approaching to receive communion. (for. 459-460) We note that, significantly, Msgr. Fernández who in other passages mentions s. Thomas, here does not report it yet the Angelic Doctor is illuminating on this point of doctrine and the Council of Trent and s. John Paul II, that Msgr. Fernández quotes, they certainly did not intend to deny but rather to confirm the validity of these statements of s. Thomas for whom the presence of grace in us can be known through signs including the resolution not to sin… Cite s. Thomas, however, meant referring to his doctrine, which we saw above, for which there are four signs by which man can understand if he is worthy of receiving the Eucharist: if he willingly listens to the Word of God because, according to the Gospel, "He who is of God hears the words of God." (Jn. 8,47); if he is ready for works of charity, because the Gospel says: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word" (Jn. 14,23:XNUMX) and "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn. 14, 15); if he detests past sins because, according to Psalm 50: 5, "peccatum meum contra me est semper"; if he proceeds with the purpose of not sinning because it is written in the book of Sirach: “Son, have you sinned? Don't do it again and ask forgiveness for your past sins. 2 As before a snake, flee from sin: if you come near, it will bite you. ”(Sir. 21,1: 2-XNUMX) (cf. Super I Cor., Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno chap. 11 v. 28), quote s. Thomas also meant referring to his doctrine that if the priest does not see in the penitent the intention not to sin and the disposition to follow the commandments, he must not absolve the penitent ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.), Cite s.

The Christian moral conscience, therefore, unlike what emerges from Msgr. Fernández judges about his state of grace through signs and these signs can also be known by the confessor, and the confessor must not absolve if he does not see certain signs in the soul (cf. "De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.). it is never lawful to commit adultery, therefore the penitent cannot appeal to his conscience to accept to continue to commit adultery; furthermore, it is gravely sinful to want to continue an adulterous relationship and obviously the confessor cannot absolve those who do not propose to live according to the commandments and therefore not to sin.

I add that Msgr. Fernández in an article of 2005 wrote: "Por otra parte, puesto que no podemos juzgar de la situación subjetiva de las personas (23), and counting with los condicionamientos que disminuyen o suprimen la imputabilidad (cf. CCE 1735), existe siempre la posibilidad de que una situación objetiva de pecado coexista with the vida de la gracia sanctifying. "[78] Here too, as can be seen, the Argentine theologian does not mention s. Thomas …. Unfortunately!

The Christian moral conscience judges about his state of grace through signs and these signs can also be known by the confessor, and the confessor must not absolve if he does not see certain signs in the soul (cf. "De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co .) moreover, it is never lawful to commit adultery, therefore the penitent cannot appeal to his conscience to accept to continue to commit adultery; further, it is gravely sinful to want to continue an adulterous relationship and obviously the confessor cannot absolve those who do not propose to live according to the commandments and in particular not to commit adultery and want to continue an adulterous relationship.

What we have already said above seems useful, at this point, to integrate it with what s. Thomas states in the Theological Sum where he specifically asks: can man know that he has grace? Explain s. Thomas in this article (I-II q. 112 a.5) that: the fact that a person is in grace can be known by revelation or through certain signs. Through certain signs one can know that he is in grace and that is because he perceives that he finds pleasure in God, that he despises the things of the world and is not aware of any mortal sin. However, explains s. Thomas, this knowledge through signs is imperfect. This is why the Apostle said: "I am not aware of any lack, but I do not feel justified for this" (1 Cor. 4). St. Thomas specifies that the realities which are found in the soul by their essence are known with an experimental knowledge, since man through acts experiences the interior principles of such operations. This is how we know the will through the act of wanting, and we know life through the acts of life. So from the acts we know the principles of these acts, from the effects we go back to the causes. (see I-II q. 112 a.5 to 1m)

The passages of the works of s. Thomas reported by us above help us to understand this text of the Sum Theological in the sense that the affirmation of s. Thomas for which the person in grace perceives to despise the things of the world means among other things that the person perceives to propose seriously and radically not to sin anymore and to have a true detestation for sin. In fact, charity and therefore contrition which is an act of charity if it leads us to love God also leads us to hate sin, as is clear from the many affirmations we have collected in this book.

St. Thomas speaks of this hatred of sin in various texts, including the following: "Ad octavum dicendum, quod Deus non odit in aliquo quod suum est, scilicet bonum naturale vel quodcumque aliud, sed solum illud quod suum non est, scilicet peccatum; et sic etiam nos in hominibus debemus diligere quod Dei est, et odire quod est alienum a Deo; et secundum hoc dicitur in Psalm. CXXXVIII, 22: perfecto odio oderam illos. " (De virtutibus, q. 2 a. 8 ad 8.)

The Tridentine Catechism affirms at n. 249: “Since perfect contrition is an act of charity that proceeds from filial fear, it follows that the measure of contrition must be charity. Since the charity with which we love God is the greatest, it follows that contrition must bring with it a very vehement pain of soul. If we are to love God above all, we must also detest above all what distances us from him.

It should be noted here that Scripture uses the same terms to express the extent of charity and contrition. In fact, he says of charity: "You will love the Lord your God with all your heart" (Dt 6,5; Mt 22,37; Mk 12,30; Lk 10,27); of the second the Lord says through the mouth of the prophet: "Repent with all your heart" (Jn 2,12:XNUMX).

Secondly, as God is the first of the goods to be loved, so sin is the first and greatest of the evils to hate. Therefore, the same reason that obliges us to recognize that God is to be loved supremely also obliges us to bring utmost hatred to sin. Now, that the love of God must take precedence over everything else, so that it is not lawful to sin even to preserve life, these words of the Lord openly show it: "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me "(Mt 10,37); "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it" (Mt 16,25:8,35; Mk 1992:249). " (From the Tridentine Catechism, ed. Cantagalli XNUMX, n.XNUMX) Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin utterly, therefore it makes us propose never to sin.

We therefore point out to Msgr. Fernández that true charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin supremely therefore makes us propose never to sin. True charity leads the divorced and remarried person to love God supremely and to hate sin supremely and therefore to get in line with the Law of God ... it does not lead him to continue in adultery ...

In this line it is necessary to realize that the pain necessary to be validly absolved in Confession, and the pain that accompanies true charity and true contrition is supreme. Charity leads one to hate sin above all evil and above all serious sin, such as adultery, and as we will see better later, it leads the person to radically propose not to sin anymore and to flee the next occasions of sin. .

The Catechism of St. Pius X states in this line: “720. Why does the pain have to be great?

The pain must be the highest, because we must regard and hate sin as the highest of all evils, being an offense of God the highest Good. "

St. John Paul II says: "As for humility, it is evident that without it the accusation of sins would be a useless list or, worse, a protracted claim of the right to commit them: the" Non serviam ", for which the rebellious angels and the first man lost himself and his offspring. Humility is indeed identified with the detestation of evil: “I recognize my guilt, my sin is always before me. Against you, against you alone I have sinned, what is evil in your eyes, I have done; therefore you are righteous when you speak, upright in your judgment "(Ps 51 (50), 5-6)."[79]

St. Alphonsus affirms: "He the Eternal Word as much as he loved his Father, so much he hated sin, whose malice he well knew: in order to take away sin from the world and not to see his beloved Father offended anymore, he had come on earth and became man, and undertook to suffer such a painful Passion and death. "[80]

This brings about true charity in us, a supreme hatred of sin that leads a person to lose everything rather than sin ... and indeed leads them to accept terrible sufferings so that others convert from their sin!

I add in this line that s. Paul in the letter to the Galatians chap. 5 speaks of the fruits of the Spirit and clearly says that the fruit of the Holy Spirit: it is charity, joy, peace, magnanimity, benevolence, goodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control ... The Holy Spirit produces in us good and holy fruits, life of grace produces good and holy fruits and among these fruits, with charity, the holy hatred for sin cannot be missing, the resolution to follow God's will and therefore not to sin anymore ...

God enlighten us! 

3) A fundamental element of contrition: the resolution not to sin and to flee the next occasions of sin.

From what has been said in the preceding pages, the presence, in true conversion and therefore in contrition, of the intention not to sin again is evident.

The Council of Trent, as seen, specifies that: “Contritio, quae primum locum inter dictos paenitentis actus habet, animi dolor ac detestatio est de sin committed, cum concerning non peccandi de cetero. "[81]

The contrition that has the first place among the acts of the penitent is the pain of the soul and the detestation of the sin committed, with the intention not to sin anymore. This contrition contains not only the cessation of sin and the purpose (of a new life) and the beginning of a new life, but it also contains the hatred of the old life, according to the words of Holy Scripture: Remove all things from yourselves. your iniquities, with which you have overruled and build yourself a new heart and a new soul. (Ez 18:31) [82]

The Council of Trent further affirms that imperfect contrition, which is called 'attrition' because it is commonly produced either by the consideration of the turpitude of sin or by the fear of hell and punishments, if it excludes the will to sin with the hope of forgiveness, does not only it does not make man hypocritical and more sinful, but it is even a gift from God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, who does not yet dwell in the soul, but who only moves it, an impulse for which the aided penitent prepares the way to justice. And although by itself, without the sacrament of penance, such imperfect contrition is powerless to lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to implore the grace of God in the sacrament of penance.

Affected, in fact, salutary by this fear, the inhabitants of Nineveh did penance to the preaching of Jonah, full of terrors. And they obtained mercy from God (cf. Jonah 3).[83]

I point out that, as the Council of Trent says, contrition, and therefore purpose, must exclude the will to sin.

The Second Lateran Council stated: “Can. 22. 'Sane quia inter cetera unum est, quod sanctam maxime perturbat Ecclesiam, falsa videlicet paenitentia, confratres nostros et presbyteros admonemus, ne falsis paenitentiis laicorum animas decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem paenitentiam esse constat, cum spretis pluribus, of one only paenitentia agitur: aut cum sic agitur of one, ut non discedatur ab alio. Unde scriptum est: 'Qui totam legem observaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus (Jac 2,10): scilicet quantum ad vitam aeternam. Sicut enim, si peccatis esset omnibus involutus, ita, si in uno tantum maneat, aeternae vitae ianuam non intrabit. False etiam fit paenitentia cum paenitens ab officio vel curiali vel negotiali non recedit, quod sine sin agi nulla ratione praevalet; aut si odium in corde gestetur, aut si offenso cuilibet non satisfiat, aut si offendenti offensus non indulgeat aut si arma quis contra iustitiam gerat. '"[84] What it means in particular, for us: among other things, one in particular disturbs the Church: false penance; God's ministers do not allow the souls of the laity to be deceived and pushed to hell by false penitents. False penance is accomplished when one does penance for a single sin and not for the others or when one distances oneself only from some sin and not from all. This is why in the Bible we read that: whoever observes all the Law except one command, is guilty for having broken all the Law. Whoever, freed from all sins, remains tied to a single sin will not enter through the door of eternal life.

St. John Paul II stated in this regard “Father, I have sinned ... I am no longer worthy to be called your son (Lc 15,21). 4. Lent is the time of a particularly loving expectation of our Father towards each one of us, who, even if the most prodigal of children, nevertheless becomes aware of the perpetrated dilapidation, calls his sin by name, and finally direct with full sincerity towards God. Such a man must come to the house of the Father. The path that leads you passes through the examination of conscience, repentance and the purpose of improvement. As in the parable of the prodigal son, these are the logical and psychological stages of conversion at the same time. "[85]. I emphasize that the purpose we are talking about is the purpose of living as a child of God, it is the purpose of improving one's conduct according to God; it is necessary that this purpose of the amendment for the future be solid, firm, generous and be accompanied by the confidence to achieve this same amendment, as stated by s. John Paul II “… it appears clear how confession must be humble, integral, accompanied by the solid and generous intention of the amendment for the future and finally by the confidence to achieve this same amendment. ".[86] This trust that accompanies the resolution we are talking about must not be excessive and must not be lacking.[87]

Without resolving not to sin, we do not prepare the way of the Lord, we do not welcome the good news of salvation and we do not see God's salvation, as St. John Paul II: “Please, dear brothers and sisters, to accept this invitation with all the simplicity of your faith. Man prepares the way of the Lord, and straightens his paths, when he examines his conscience, when he scrutinizes his works, his words, his thoughts, when he calls good and evil by their name, when he does not hesitate to confessing his sins in the sacrament of Penance, repenting of them and making the resolution not to sin again. This is precisely what "straightening the paths" means. This also means welcoming the good news of salvation. Each of us can "see the salvation of God" in his own heart and in his conscience, when he participates in the Mystery of the remission of sins, as in his own Advent. "[88]

To the admiration for the Redemption that is offered to us by Christ we must unite our participation with contrition and the resolution not to sin anymore: "In fact, to make a fruitful confession, an interior predisposition is needed, a reprobation of the sin committed, with the intention of not sinning sin more: in a word, true contrition is needed, that is, regret for the offense against God and for the malicious deformity of sin. "[89]

Without the intention of no longer sinning and therefore without contrition we do not collaborate with the saving intervention of God in our regard and we do not welcome the salvation that He offers us!

The resolve to correct themselves is essential in Confession, and the Church defending the sound doctrine that requires such a resolution for confession defends the right of the faithful to a true encounter with Christ: "... in my first encyclical letter I wrote these words:" The Church, therefore, faithfully observing the centuries-old practice of the Sacrament of Penance, the practice of individual confession, combined with the personal act of pain and the intention to correct oneself and to satisfy, defends the particular right of the human soul. It is the right of man to a more personal encounter with the crucified Christ who forgives, with Christ who says, through the minister of the Sacrament of Reconciliation: "Your sins are forgiven" (Mk 2,5); "Go, and from now on sin no more" (Jn 8,11:XNUMX) "([90]  …. therefore whoever does not repent, proposing not to sin anymore, will not be received by Christ !! God grant us the light of him and get us to repent perfectly for our sins.

Pope Benedict XVI affirmed in this line speaking of Confession "... to Christ himself, express the pain for the sins committed, with the firm resolution not to sin again in the future and with the willingness to welcome with joy the acts of penance that he points to repair the damage caused by sin. Thus you experience the “forgiveness of sins; reconciliation with the Church; the recovery, if lost, of the state of grace; the remission of the eternal punishment deserved because of mortal sins and, at least in part, of the temporal penalties that are a consequence of sin; the peace and serenity of conscience, and the consolation of the spirit; the increase of the spiritual strength for the Christian battle every day "(Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 310)"[91]

St. Anthony of Padua wrote: “… the wings of true contrition have four large feathers. The first is the bitterness of past sins, the second is the firm resolve not to relapse, the third is the forgiveness of every offense from the bottom of the heart, the fourth is reparation to all those who have been offended. " [92]

The same s. Doctor added: “… the confession of sin must be total, with the manifestation and clarification of all the circumstances; it must be yielding, soft, that is, wet with tears; it must be ample in reparation for all the offenses caused, in restitution of all the badly taken away and in the seriousness of the firm resolution not to fall back into sin. "[93]

Further affirms the s. Doctor: “We put all this in confession with the intention of never falling into it again, and we make a suitable penance of everything: the more the body has risen and rebelled, the more we humiliate it in confession; the more he abandoned himself to pleasures, the more we punish him with suffering (cf. Ap 18,7) ... "[94]

Still s. Antonio states: “Observe that in the bow there are four elements: the two flexible extremities (cornua), the rigid and inflexible center, and the elastic cord, with which the extremities themselves are stretched. Likewise in the confession there must be four elements. The two points of the bow represent the pain of past sins and the fear of eternal pains; the rigid and inflexible center is the firm purpose that the penitent must have, in order never to return to vomiting; the elastic cord is the hope of forgiveness, which really bends the two points of pain and fear from their rigidity. From this bow then "the sharp arrows of the mighty" are shot (Ps 119,4: XNUMX) "[95]

S. When Thomas speaks of the sacrament of confession he affirms in De articulis Fidei, pars 2 co. “Quartum sacramentum est poenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus poenitentis, qui dicuntur tres poenitentiae partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio, ad quam pertinet quod homo doleat de sin committed, et proponat se de cetero non peccaturum. " Contrition therefore includes by itself. Thomas the resolution not to sin. S. Thomas explains better what has just been said when he states “Ad secundum dicendum, quod peccata mortalia sunt in potestate nostra, ut vitentur non solum singula, sed etiam omnia; venialia autem, etsi singula vitari possint, non tamen omnia; quod ex infirmitate naturae contingit: et ideo in contritione de venialibus non exigitur propositum non peccandi venialiter, sicut in contritione de mortali exigebatur; sed quod displiceat ei et peccatum praeteritum, et infirmitas qua ad peccatum veniale inclinatur, quamvis ab eo omnino immunis esse non possit. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 p. 16 q. 2 BC 2 sth. 2 ad 2.) The resolution not to commit any mortal sin is necessary for contrition, but whoever confesses to venial sins must be sorry for the sin committed and for the infirmity for which he is inclined to sin, although from such sin venial cannot be completely immune. Without the intention of not sinning, the penitent cannot be absolved “… non est periculosum sacerdotibus dicere: ego te absolvo, illis in quibus signa contritionis vident, quae sunt dolor de praeteritis et propositum de cetero non peccandi; aka absolvere non debet. Periculose autem solam orationem dicet, quia hoc non est absolvere, sed sub dubio confitentem relinquere. Orare autem pro aliquo ut absolvatur potest sive sit contritus sive non. " ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 3) The lack of the intention of an amendment excludes that sins are forgiven: “Offensa autem peccati mortalis procedit ex hoc quod voluntas hominis est aversa a Deo per conversionm ad aliquod bonum commutabile. Unde requiritur ad remissionem divinae offensae quod voluntas hominis sic immutetur quod convertatur ad Deum, cum detestatione praedictae conversionis et concerning emendae. Quod pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. Et ideo impossible est quod peccatum alicui remittatur sine poenitentia secundum quod est virtus. Sacramentum autem poenitentiae, sicut supra dictum est, perficitur per officium priestis ligantis et solventis. Sine quo potest Deus peccatum remittere, sicut remisit Christus mulieri adulterae, ut legitur Ioan. VIII, et sinners, ut legitur Luc. VII. Quibus tamen non remisit peccata sine virtute poenitentiae; nam, sicut Gregorius dicit, in homilia, per gratiam traxit intus, scilicet ad poenitentiam, quam per misericordiam suscepit foris. " (IIIª q. 86 BC 2 co.) For man to be forgiven by God it is necessary that the human will of the sinner be converted to God with the purpose of amending himself.

Without contrition and therefore without the intention of no longer sinning: there is no forgiveness of sins, there is no reconciliation with the Church, there is no recovery of the state of grace, there is no remission of the eternal punishment deserved because of the mortal sins and temporal pains that are a consequence of sin, there is no peace and serenity of conscience, and consolation of the spirit, there is no increase in spiritual strength for the Christian battle of every day .
The purpose of avoiding the next opportunity for sin is linked to the purpose of not sinning, as we clearly say in the act of pain: "... I propose ... to flee from the next opportunities for sin."

St. Anthony of Padua states: “Whoever meditates carefully on his entry and exit from this life, would immediately leave Sodom, that is, from the stench of the world and of sin, and would save his soul; he would not turn back, that is, he would not return to past sins; and he would not stop around anywhere: he stops around him who, after having abandoned sin, does not care to flee even the occasions and fantasies of sin; but he would be saved on the mountain, that is, in a perfect life. "[96]

Adds the s. Evangelical Doctor "" Let the old things be eliminated from your mouth "(1 Kings 2,3), and the penitent eliminate from his heart and mouth not only sin, but also occasions and dangerous fantasies."[97]

In this line, this text by St. Antonio in which he notes that “The eyes are the first arrows of lust. Then the heart is troubled and so the fever of lust is ignited. But in order not to die with the consent of the mind or taking action, the heart is enlightened… with the septiform grace of the Holy Spirit. " [98]

To stay away from sin it is necessary to mortify the sight.

More generally, to stay away from sin it is necessary to avoid all those situations that ordinarily lead us to sin.

Note that it is a grave natural precept to avoid the next willful occasion of mortal sin; see in particular the texts of Pope Alexander VII [99] and of Pope Innocent XI [100] which reaffirm the Church's doctrine on the need to flee from forthcoming occasions of sin.

The Catechism of St. Pius X offers us important clarifications regarding the purpose and the need to flee the upcoming occasions of sin in nos. 731 ff. :

"731. What does the resolution consist of? The resolution consists in a resolute will never to commit sin again and to use all the means necessary to escape it.

  1. What conditions must the resolution have to be good? In order for the resolution to be good, it must have mainly three conditions: it must be absolute, universal and effective.
  1. What does it mean: absolute resolution? It means that the resolution must be without any conditions of time, place, or person.
  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be universal? The resolution must be universal, it means that we must want to flee all mortal sins, both those already committed on other occasions, as well as others that we could commit.
  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be effective? The resolution must be effective, it means that we must have a resolute will to lose everything first than to commit a new sin, to flee the dangerous occasions of sinning, to destroy bad clothes, and to fulfill the obligations contracted as a result of our sins. . "  [101]

It seems interesting to me to add here that St. Thomas explains that charity necessarily produces in us the observance of the commandments: “Secundum quod facit caritas, est divinorum mandatorum observantia. Gregorius: nunquam est Dei amor otiosus: operatur enim magna si est; yes true operari renuit, amor non est. Unde manifestum signum caritatis est promptitudo implendi divina praecepta. Videmus enim amantem propter amatum magna et difficile operari. Ioan. XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit. Sed considerandum, quod qui mandatum et legem divinae dilectionis servat, totam legem implet. Est autem duplex modus divinorum mandatorum. Quaedam enim sunt affirmativa: et haec quidem implet caritas; quia plenitudo legis quae consistit in mandatis, est dilectio, qua mandata servantur. Quaedam vero sunt prohibitoria; haec etiam implet caritas, quia non agit perperam, ut dicit apostolus I Cor. XIII. " (“Collationes in decem praeceptis”, proemium) If charity is truly in the soul, it makes the person observe the commandments. Charity, says St. In the text just presented, Thomas points out: both the affirmative commands because the fullness of the Law which consists in the commandments is the charity for which the commandments are observed, and the negative commandments, that is, those that prohibit certain actions, because charity does not act. unfairly. Therefore charity makes the person propose to live according to the Law of God and makes the person propose not to sin. Charity makes us act righteously but such righteous action also implies righteousness of intention, if a person intends to commit sin and in particular serious sin it is clear that his intention is evil and his action is evil; explains the Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. 1753: "... the presence of a bad intention (such as vainglory) makes bad an act that, in itself, can be good (such as alms)." ; at no. 1755 of the same Catechism we read: “…. The morally good act presupposes, at the same time, the goodness of the object, the end and the circumstances. " The bad end makes the action evil, even if its object, in itself, is good. Charity gives us righteous intentions, makes us choose good things and therefore gives us holy and not evil and sinful resolutions.

More precisely, it must be said that perfect contrition, which contains the pain and hatred of sin and the resolution not to sin, is an act of charity… The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms, in n. 1451 that perfect contrition comes from charity and that it remits venial sins and mortal sins if combined with the firm resolution to confess as soon as possible, we can understand better what the Tridentine Catechism affirms at n. 249: “Since perfect contrition is an act of charity that proceeds from filial fear, it follows that the measure of contrition must be charity. Since the charity with which we love God is the greatest, it follows that contrition must bring with it a very vehement pain of soul. If we are to love God above all, we must also detest above all what distances us from him.

It should be noted here that Scripture uses the same terms to express the extent of charity and contrition. In fact, he says of charity: "You will love the Lord your God with all your heart" (Dt 6,5; Mt 22,37; Mk 12,30; Lk 10,27); of the second the Lord says through the mouth of the prophet: "Repent with all your heart" (Jn 2,12:XNUMX).

Secondly, as God is the first of the goods to be loved, so sin is the first and greatest of the evils to hate. Therefore, the same reason that obliges us to recognize that God is to be loved supremely also obliges us to bring utmost hatred to sin. Now, that the love of God must take precedence over everything else, so that it is not lawful to sin even to preserve life, these words of the Lord openly show it: "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me "(Mt 10,37); "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it" (Mt 16,25:8,35; Mk 1992:249). " (From the "Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli XNUMX n.XNUMX) Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin utterly, therefore it makes us propose never to sin.

St. Alphonsus M. de 'Liguori states in this line: “The theologians say that contrition is a formal act of perfect love of God; while whoever has contrition is moved by the love that leads to the goodness of God, to repent of having offended him; and therefore it is very useful to make an act of contrition to first make an act of love towards God, saying thus: My God, because you are infinite goodness, I love you above all things: and because I love you, I repent more than anything. bad for having offended you. " [102] Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin supremely therefore it makes us propose to follow the Law of God, never to oppose it and therefore never to sin.

Wanting to sin and therefore proposing to sin is already committing sin ... but charity does not push us to sin, it pushes us to life according to the commandments and therefore makes us propose not to sin, it makes us propose not to perform acts contrary to the Law of God especially it makes us propose not to carry out acts gravely contrary to the Law of God, such as adultery, such as murder, such as homosexual acts, such as blasphemy, etc.

If there is charity there is the resolution not to sin ...

S. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori explains in his works regarding this purpose: “There are three conditions for the true purpose for confession: it must be firm, universal, and effective.

And for I. it must be stopped, so that the penitent has a resolute mind not to sin in any case. ...

For II. The purpose must be universal (speaking of mortal sins), as all teach with St. Thomas (III q. 87. a. 1. ad 1.) ...

For III. it must be effective, that is, that man proposes, not only not to commit sins, but also to take the opportune means to avoid them, especially to remove the next opportunities. . "[103]

In another of his works, s. Alfonso states: “Now for the purpose to be true, it has to have three conditions, it must be firm, universal and effective.

To 1. must be firm, so that the penitent resolutely proposes to suffer every evil first than to offend God. ... the true purpose, as I said above, is a firm and resolute will to suffer any evil before returning to sin . … God is stronger than the devil, and with his help we can overcome all the temptations of hell. … Who in temptation recommends himself to God, will never fall. ...

28.For 2., the purpose must be universal, that is, to avoid all mortal sin. ...

... because as for venial sins, one may have the intention of fleeing a venial sin, and another not, and with this regard confession can be good. .

30. For 3., the purpose must be effective, it comes to say that it makes us take the means to avoid sin in the future; and one of the most necessary means to make a good resolution is to avoid the opportunity to return to sin. Be careful at this point, because if men waited to escape from bad occasions, how many sins would they abstain from, and so how many souls would not be damned! The devil without the opportunity earns little; but when the person voluntarily takes the opportunity, especially of dishonest sins, it is morally impossible that he does not fall into it. " [104]

St. Alphonsus, pray for us and in particular for the Pope.

Card. De Paolis said about this point of contrition, referring in particular to the divorced and remarried “A second rule of divine law is that sexuality is lawful only between persons joined in marriage; this implies that whoever lives with a person who, according to the laws of the Church is not a spouse, finds himself in a serious situation of sin which excludes access to the Eucharist, and not only, but cannot even receive the sacrament of penance, because this implies that the penitent cannot be absolved because he intends and if he intends to persevere in that situation. In fact, absolution implies that there is repentance and the resolution not to repeat the sin. " [105]

Further, the Cardinal himself stated: “Divine law: the sacrament of penance. Any sin, however serious it may be, can be forgiven by God and the Church. However, in order to receive sacramental absolution, repentance for sin and the resolution not to relapse and therefore to flee the occasions of sin are required. "[106]

I conclude with an illuminating text from the Roman Catechism: “That if man can be justified, and from being wicked to become good, even before practicing the individual prescriptions of the Law in external actions; he cannot, however, who already has the use of reason, transform himself from a sinner into a righteous one, if he is not willing to observe all the commandments of God. "[107]

a) Sharp contrast between some affirmations of the letter of the Argentine Bishops with respect to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium regarding the purpose necessary for a valid absolution.

The letter sent by the Argentine Bishops to the Pope, approved by him and recognized as an Authentic Magisterium (AAS, 2016, n.10, p. 1074), affirms in particular with regard to the divorced and remarried: if possible, they should live in chastity, if this possibility does not a path of discernment is possible and then he adds: "Si llega a reconocer que, in a concrete case, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person consider que caería en a further falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetitia abre la posibilidad del access to the sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas 336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a the person to follow madurando y creciendo con la fuerza de la gracia. "[108] Unfortunately, this statement appears in clear contrast with what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote about 3 years ago: "In any case, absolution can be granted only if there is certainty of true contrition, that is to say "The interior pain and the reprobation of the sin that has been committed, with the resolution not to sin again" (cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c.4). In this line, a divorced and remarried person cannot validly be absolved who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and therefore abstain from the proper acts of the spouses, and in this sense doing everything in his power. "[109] Again the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemning the statements of Sister Farley, in 2012, stated among other things: “If the divorced have remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively conflicts with the law of God. Therefore they cannot access Eucharistic Communion for as long as this situation persists. For the same reason they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who have repented of having violated the sign of the Covenant and fidelity to Christ, and are committed to living in complete continence "[110]. "[111]  Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who are repentant of their sins and commit to live according to the Law of God ...

May the Lord enlighten us, his Truth and his Charity shine in our minds and in our hearts.

In Familiaris Consortio we read in n.84: "Reconciliation in the sacrament of penance - which would open the way to the Eucharistic sacrament - can only be granted to those who, repenting of having violated the sign of the Covenant and fidelity to Christ, are sincerely willing to a form of life no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage. This implies, concretely, that when a man and a woman, for serious reasons - such as, for example, the education of children - cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, "they undertake the commitment to live in full continence, that is to abstain from the proper acts of the spouses "[112] Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who are repentant of their sins and commit themselves to live according to the Law of God ... St. John Paul II, pray for us and obtain great supernatural wisdom for us.

In the famous document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the possibility of giving the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried we read: "For the faithful who remain in this marriage situation, access to Eucharistic Communion is open only by sacramental absolution, which can be given “only to those who, repenting of having violated the sign of the Covenant and fidelity to Christ, are sincerely willing to a form of life that is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when a man and a woman, for serious reasons - such as, for example, the education of children - cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, "they undertake the commitment to live in full continence, that is, to abstain from the proper acts of the spouses "(Ibid ,. n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 186; cf. John Paul II, Homily for the closing of the VI Synod of Bishops, n. 7: AAS 72 (1982) 1082 .). In this case they can access Eucharistic communion, without prejudice, however, to the obligation to avoid scandal. " [113]  Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who are repentant of their sins and commit to live according to the Law of God ...

God free us from all mistakes.

In the “Sacramentum Caritatis” Benedict XVI once again affirmed regarding the divorced and remarried: “29. Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not recognized and objective conditions are given which in fact make coexistence irreversible, the Church encourages these faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship according to the requirements of the law of God, as friends, as a brother. and sister; in this way they will be able to approach the Eucharistic table again, with the attention required by the proven ecclesial practice. "[114]  Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who are repentant of their sins and are committed to living according to the Law of God ... God grant us his Light and free us from all errors!

Among the various important texts that affirm the doctrine just presented, I want to indicate here in particular the following: the introduction by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to number 17 of the "Documents and Studies" series, directed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "On the pastoral care of divorced and remarried ", LEV, Vatican City 1998 pp. 7-29 and the letter sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to “The Tablet” (“The Tablet” 26-10-1991, pp.1310-11); one of my articles can also be fruitfully consulted on these two texts [115]  Of particular importance to see how the Tradition is clear in affirming the moral norm presented by St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI precisely in continuity with Tradition and the Bible regarding the divorced and remarried, it seems to me the introduction by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to number 17 of the "Documents and Studies" series, directed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, " On the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried ”, LEV, Vatican City 1998 pp. 7-29 [116] May God always clarify his Truth in us better and may he make us live it better and better in the unity of holy charity.

As is evident from what we have said so far, the letter of the Argentine Bishops approved by the Pope allows, unlike the magisterial texts just presented and against what the Church has established on the basis of Holy Scripture, that he receives sacramental absolution and then Communion Eucharistic, who does not have the purpose of no longer committing adultery. We have just seen how the resolution not to sin and in particular not to commit a grave sin is necessary for contrition which in turn is necessary for the remission of sin and in particular for a valid absolution. Therefore without purpose, and in particular without purpose to live the 10 commandments and not to commit acts objectively and gravely contrary to the commandments themselves, as we will see better, there can be no valid absolution….

This entire chapter must serve to better understand the sound doctrine on contrition and therefore to better understand this error in particular and its gravity and more generally other errors related to it in various ways ...

It should also be borne in mind, as mentioned, that the papal strategy is precisely to open the doors "to the" paradigm shift "and therefore to deviations from sound doctrine with the support of Bishops and theologians ... Obviously, as mentioned, the Pope does not intervene in correct those who spread errors in the line that the Pope himself supports or rather the Pontiff in some cases intervenes, indirectly or directly, to praise and support such errants ... below we will see errors that various important prelates have evidently spread in the line that he himself carries out precisely regarding contrition and which obviously, as they are known, have not been corrected but rather, in a certain way, supported by the Pope through his media.

God enlighten us!

b) Errors on the contrition of Card. Coccopalmerio, Card. Sistach, and of a famous Archbishop very close to the Pope ... obviously the Pope does not condemn such errors ...

May the sacred cross be our light.

More directly linked to the error just presented about contrition is the very serious error that Cardinal Coccopalmerio falls into in his commentary on chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. (F. Coccopalmerio, The eighth chapter of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia, Vatican City 2017) Commenting on this error d. Meiattini states: "For the author, if the divorced and remarried" are aware, have conviction, of the situation of objective sin in which they currently find themselves and, on the other hand, have the intention of changing their condition of life, even if, in at this moment, they are unable to carry out their purpose "[117], for them the possibility of access to the sacraments would be opened, even if they live the unlawful union more uxorio, without complying with the conditions provided for by Familiaris consortio n. 84. But a resolution issued in the awareness that it cannot be implemented because at the moment it cannot be implemented, as the cardinal claims, cannot be sufficient for a sacramental absolution. "[118]

We have seen previously that the resolution for a valid confession must be effective, serious and universal ... and this obviously means that the penitent must propose not to sin anymore from the moment in which he confesses and must, as we will see better in the following pages, propose to to flee from forthcoming occasions of sin. If this is not done, the absolution is invalid, as we will see better later ... Proposing to observe the commandments after a certain time from Confession means opening the doors to sin up to that time ... and in this case it means opening the doors to adultery ... a very serious and normally scandalous sin.

In particular, the Council of Trent requires that contrition, and therefore the purpose, exclude the will to sin. [119] therefore the statements of Cardinal Coccopalmerio are obviously inadmissible.

Moreover, no one can exempt the penitent from the observance of the divine commandments from the moment of Confession until the moment in which such a person thinks he can carry out the said purpose, as we shall see better later on.

Furthermore, it must be said that no penitent is sure to be alive a week or a year after confession ... we don't even know if we will be in this world tonight ... so this resolution may remain completely ineffective ...

We note that no condemnation has received this very serious error by Cardinal Coccopalmerio which unfortunately appears to be a very bad “fruit” of Amoris Laetitia.

Indeed, for the presentation of this book, published by the Vatican Publishing House (!), We can read the praises made by various experts to its author for this text!

In the report made by SIR we read: “We as publishers give voice to such authoritative interlocutors - Costa specified about the volume, signed by the cardinal and published by Lev - but the book by Cardinal Coccopalmerio is not an official response from the Vatican. The debate is always open, we encourage it and offer in-depth tools ". A book "intended for the people", Costa defined it, of a "pastoral" nature: "A readable, usable and clarifying text". " [120] A text that clarifies not the doctrine but the current situation in the Church after Amoris Laetitia, a situation of evident deviation from sound doctrine.

The theologian Gronchi made a review of the book by Cardinal Coccopalmerio for L'Osservatore Romano in which he wrote: "The main value of the guided reading of the eighth chapter of Amoris laetitia by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio (Vatican City, Vatican Publishing House, 2017 , pages 56, euro 8) is to make the document speak, letting emerge what at a quick, all too hasty glance risks being overlooked, if not sacrificed or even worse, misrepresented, as has sometimes happened. With dry precision and essential clarity, the canonist shows that acrobatics are not necessary to grasp the pastoral novelty in the continuity of the doctrinal tradition of the Church. The foundations of the theology of marriage are united, without confusion, with those of moral theology; the ideal profile of the Christian family is distinct, without separation, from the pastoral wisdom addressed to those who have experienced marriage failure. The acrimoniousness with which the pontifical document is commented clearly shows in what way it is always necessary to interpret the magisterial texts: not to doubt them, but to understand and welcome them. "[121]  Luciano Moia wrote in Avvenire, also reporting the words of Cardinal Coccopalmerio: “The heart of the matter, according to what Coccopalmerio explains, is the purpose of change. People who live in conditions of "irregularity" - the quotation marks are used in the text of Amoris laetitia - are "aware of their condition of sin ... they ask themselves the problem of changing and therefore - it reads in the text - they have the intention or, at least, the desire to change their condition ”. The seriousness of the question of conscience is therefore the decisive point, as also argued by Don Gronchi, for "the possibility of access to the sacraments by those who are unable to abstain from marital relations". A situation which, according to what the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts writes, does not negate either the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, nor that of sincere repentance, or even the doctrine of sanctifying grace. "And it is precisely this - he concludes - the theological element that allows absolution and access to the Eucharist, always in the impossibility of immediately changing the condition of sin". [122]

These judgments, too, are evidently bad “fruits” of Amoris Laetitia… they exalt a book that goes beyond the sound doctrine established by Trent and always reaffirmed about contrition and therefore about the intention of not wanting to sin.

The papal strategy of opening the doors "to the" paradigm shift "therefore to deviations from sound doctrine is proceeding smoothly and obviously the Pope does not intervene to correct the errors that support this change ... indeed in some cases he intervenes, indirectly, to praise and support doctrinal deviations, as is the case with the statements of Card. Coccopalmerio ...

May the sacred cross be our light.

To serve this strategy, it is also necessary to include the book of Cardinal Sistach…. published "strangely" by the Vatican Publishing House and entitled: "How to apply Amoris Laetitia" (ed. LEV, Vatican City, 2017); in it, on p. 57, Cardinal Sistach affirms that with point 6 of the letter from the Argentine Bishops, criteria and help are offered to accompany divorced persons who are about to remarry civilly; translated into Italian, this point 6 teaches that: “In other more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain the declaration of invalidity, the aforementioned option may in fact not be feasible. Nevertheless, a path of discernment is equally possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a given case, there are personal limits that mitigate responsibility and guilt (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considers that he would fall into further shortcomings by harming the children of the new union, Amoris laetítía opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. note 336 and 351). These, in turn, will dispose the person to continue the process of maturation and to grow with the power of grace. "[123]

On p. 62 of the same text of the Spanish Cardinal we read that: in the sixth criterion, that is precisely in n. 6 that we are seeing, only the extenuating circumstance is indicated for which a person (in particular a divorced and remarried person) believes that, with the rupture of the new, concubinary union, he would fall into a further lack, damaging the children of the new union. So the only extenuating circumstance well specified would be this ... and on the basis of it the sacraments could be administered in particular to the divorced and remarried who have no intention of not sinning anymore ... So concretely, for Cardinal Sistach, it could be absolved without purpose. therefore without contrition a person (in particular a divorced and remarried person), who believes that, with the rupture of the new, concubinary union, he would fall into a further lack, damaging the children of the new union. As you can well understand this goes radically against the affirmations of Tradition and in particular of the Council of Trent which affirms the necessity of contrition for a valid absolution, as we will see later on the absolution given to those who do not have contrition is invalid and the sins remain non remitted. I remember that, as we have seen, the Council of Trent affirmed that: the acts of the penitent himself are almost a matter of the Sacrament of Penance, that is: contrition, confession, satisfaction. Since these acts are required, in the penitent, for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are therefore considered parts of penance.[124] St. John Paul II affirmed in an important encyclical on the Holy Spirit: "Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant. " [125] I would also like to point out that, as we shall see better later, no one can exempt the penitent from the observance of the divine commandments, neither himself nor the Confessor (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072); negative commandments in particular, such as the one that prohibits adultery, are valid always and forever, St. John Paul II affirmed in this regard: "The negative moral precepts, that is, those that prohibit certain concrete acts or behaviors as intrinsically evil, do not they admit no legitimate exception; they leave no morally acceptable room for the "creativity" of some contrary determination. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule has been concretely recognized, the only morally good act is to obey the moral law and refrain from the action it prohibits "[126]

I also remember that charity, as seen before and as we will see better later, makes the person love God above all, even his family, and therefore makes the person never seriously violate a divine commandment, not even in the event that such violation avoids harm to children. God and his will come first. Card. Sistach's statement is another colossal error, another "rotten" fruit of Amoris Laetitia ...

Further I myself was able to hear an intervention in which an Archbishop, very close to the Pope, behind closed doors, presenting Amoris Laetitia to a group of priests, affirmed that with this document it is enough for the divorced and remarried to make a journey of penance, to return to receive the Sacraments, without the need for them to no longer sin and therefore, in particular, not to commit adultery ... obviously the prelate attacked me for my intervention, following his affirmations, in which I reiterated the traditional doctrine ... But, as we are seeing and as we will see better later, if the resolution not to sin is lacking, contrition is lacking, Confession is void and sins are not remitted.

May God arise and his enemies be scattered.

4) The true and therefore effective resolution not to sin includes the resolution to flee from upcoming occasions of sin, but Amoris Laetitia does not speak of this.

a) Magisterial indications regarding the obligation to flee from upcoming occasions of sin.

We still ask God to enlighten us so that only his Truth is manifested in us. The holy Popes who are in Heaven and all the saints intercede for us.

As we have seen, the Pope said that Amoris Laetitia is a Thomist [127]; unfortunately, however, Amoris Laetitia, unlike s. Thomas, and more generally contrary to the Bible and Tradition, not only does not speak of the need to flee from upcoming occasions of sin but rather allows the Sacraments to be given to those who want to continue living in adultery and therefore want to sin in an objectively serious way. and remain on the next occasion of objectively serious sin as is a more uxorio coexistence [128]. The Gospel states: “If your hand causes you to scandal, cut it off: it is better for you to enter life with one hand, rather than with both hands to go to hell, into the inextinguishable fire. And if your foot causes you to scandal, cut it off: it is better for you to enter life with one foot, rather than with both feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to scandal, throw it away: it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished. " (Mark 9, 43 ff)

Starting from this text, in particular, Tradition speaks clearly of the necessity and obligation to flee from upcoming occasions of sin. To the true purpose of not sinning is joined the resolution to avoid the proximate occasion of sin; in fact, it is a grave natural precept to avoid the next voluntary occasion of mortal sin, see in particular the texts of Pope Alexander VII on this point[129] and of Pope Innocent XI [130]. In the Act of Sorrow we reaffirm precisely the necessary escape from the next occasions of sin when we say: "... I propose ... to escape from the upcoming occasions of sin."

The Catechism of St. Pius X offers us important clarifications and insights regarding what we are saying: “735. What does it mean: the resolution must be effective? The resolution must be effective, it means that we must have a resolute will to lose everything first than to commit a new sin, to flee the dangerous occasions of sinning, to destroy bad clothes, and to fulfill the obligations contracted as a result of our sins. .738. What is meant by dangerous occasions of sinning? By dangerous occasions of sinning we mean all those circumstances of time, place, people, or things that by their nature, or by our fragility, lead us to commit sin. 739. Are we seriously obliged to avoid all dangerous occasions? We are gravely obliged to avoid those dangerous occasions which ordinarily lead us to commit mortal sin, which are called the proximate occasions of sin. 740. What must he do who cannot escape some occasion of sin? Who can not escape some occasion of sin, tell the confessor and heed his advice. 741. What considerations are needed to make the resolution? To make the resolution, the same considerations are needed, which are valid for arousing the pain; that is, the consideration of the reasons we have to fear God's justice and to love his infinite goodness. " (http://www.maranatha.it/catpiox/01page.htm) .. St. Pius X pray for us and obtain abundant divine light and profound contrition for our sins.

St. John Paul II affirmed “These two moments - the moment of conversion and the moment of vocation - have a decisive importance in the life of every Christian. It can be said that in them the whole salvific economy of God with regard to man develops, and in the context of this divine economy man is maturing from within. This maturation presupposes the removal from evil, the break with sin, the eradication of ugly predispositions, the sometimes hard struggle with the occasions of sin, the overcoming of passions: all the great interior work, thanks to which man he distances himself from everything in him that is opposed to God and his will, and approaches that holiness, the fullness of which is God himself. " [131] In the document "Persona Humana" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote: "In line with these insistent invitations, the faithful also in our time, indeed today more than ever, must adopt the means, which have always been recommended by the Church to live a chaste life: the discipline of the senses and the spirit, vigilance and prudence in avoiding occasions of sin, the care of modesty, moderation in entertainment, healthy occupations, frequent recourse to prayer and the sacraments of penance and of the Eucharist " [132]. Pius XII stated "There is therefore the moral problem of fashion, not only as a generically human activity, but more specifically, as it is expressed in a common field, or at least very close, to evident moral values, and, even more, in as the aims, honest in themselves of fashion, are more prone to be confused by the praval inclinations of human nature fallen due to original guilt, and transformed into occasions of sin and scandal. ... But however vast and unstable the moral relativity of fashion may be, there is always an absolute to be saved, after having listened to the warning of conscience, in perceiving the danger: fashion must never provide an immediate occasion for sin. "[133]

All the saints, especially the holy Pontiffs, intercede for us so that the divine Truth may fully penetrate our hearts.

b) St. Thomas speaks to us of the necessity and obligation we have to flee from upcoming occasions of sin.

S. Thomas says, commenting on the s. Gospel with a text taken from the Glossa: “Glossa. Quia non solum peccata vitanda sunt, sed et occasiones peccatorum tollendae, postquam docuit vitare moechiae peccatum, non solum in works, sed etiam in corde, consequenter docet occasiones peccatorum abscindere, dicens quod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te. " (Chain in Mt., chap. 5 l. 17) It is therefore necessary on the basis of s. Gospel, according to the text reported by the s. Angelic Doctor and appreciated by him, not only to avoid sins but to take away the occasions of sin. More generally we can say that, according to St. Tommaso, also by A. T. the obligation emerges to flee the next occasions of sin; in fact, whoever converts to Christ must avoid sin and occasions of sin, explains the Angelic Doctor, quoting a text from the Old Testament: “Item qui convertitur, debet non solum vitare peccatum, sed etiam occasionm peccati; Here they are. XXI, v. 2: almost a facie colubri, fuge peccatum. " (Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chap. 15 l. 2.) That the Bible brings out this obligation to flee the next occasions of sin reiterates more fully s. Thomas in a text in which he explains that to triumph over the sin of the flesh it is necessary, among other things, to avoid external occasions of sin: “Et sciendum quod in fugiendo istud peccatum oportet multum laborare, cum sit intrinsecum: difficileus enim vincitur inimicus familiaris. Win autem quatuor modis. First occasiones exteriores fugiendo, ut puta malam societatem, et omnia inducentia occasionaliter ad hoc peccatum. Here they are. IX, 5-9: virginem ne conspicias, ne forte scandalizeris in decore illius (…) noli circumspicere in vicis civitatis, nec oberraveris in plateis illius. Have it easy for you to have a complete muliere, and not circumspicias speciem alienam. Propter speciem mulieris multi perierunt, et ex hoc concupiscentia quasi ignis exardescit. prov. VI, 27: nunquid potest homo abscusione ignem in sinu sua, ut vestimenta illius non ardeant? Et ideo praeceptum fuit Lot ut fugeret ab omni circa region, Gen. XIX, 17. "(Collationes in decem praeceptis a. 12). As we can see, in the text just presented, s. Thomas reports various biblical passages which affirm the need to flee the next occasion of sin. The Bible, well interpreted, guides us to prudence and to escape from occasions of sin. Angelico further explains that the spiritual resurrection in Christ to new life implies that we avoid what were previously for us occasions and causes of death and sin: “Quarto ut resurgamus ad vitam novam et gloriosam; ut scilicet vitemus omnia quae prius fuerant occasiones et causa mortis et peccati. Rom. VI, 4: quomodo Christus surrexit a mortuis per Gloriam patris, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. And haec nova vita est vita iustitiae, quae innovat animam, et perducit ad vitam Gloriae. Amen." (In Symbolum Apostolorum a. 5 at the end) S. Tommaso further explains “Glossa. Quia non solum peccata vitanda sunt, sed et occasiones peccatorum tollendae, postquam docuit vitare moechiae peccatum, non solum in works, sed etiam in corde, consequenter docet occasiones peccatorum abscindere, dicens quod si oculus tuus dexter scandalizat te. " (Chain in Mt., chap. 5 l. 17) It is therefore necessary not only to avoid sins but to remove the occasions of sin, not all but those that we would call close to sin, that is, those occasions, not taking away which, it is not possible to avoid sin, in fact says St. Thomas: "Et praeterea non est necessarium omnes occasiones sins confiteri, sed solum illas sine quarum abscissione sufficiens remedium adhiberi non potest." (Super Sent., Lib. 4 p. 22 q. 1 BC Reply to Objection 4) What scandalizes, that is, the occasion of sin, must be removed, explains St. Thomas, because it is better to suffer any temporal evil than eternal pain! “Quod corrigit in agendis, est manus: quod supportat, est pes; unde Iob XXIX, 15: oculus fui caeco, et pes claudo. Unde si manus tua, idest ille qui dirigit operationem tuam, vel pes, idest ille qui sustentat te, scandalizat te, idest occasionio peccati est tibi, abscinde eum et proiice abs te. Et reddit causam bonum est tibi etc., quia melius est quodcumque malum temporal pati, quam mereri poenam aeternam. " (Super Mt., chap.

Note well: it is necessary to remove what scandalizes, that is, the occasion of sin, explains St. Thomas, because it is better to suffer any temporal evil than eternal pain…. and this also applies to those who live together more uxorio ... it also applies to the divorced and remarried: it is necessary to remove what scandalizes, that is, the occasion for sin, explains St. Thomas, because it is better to suffer any temporal evil than eternal pain ...

St. Thomas obtain divine wisdom and holy prudence to flee from sin.

c) St. Alphonsus M. de 'Liguori speaks to us of the necessity and obligation we have to flee from upcoming occasions of sin.

St. Alphonsus M. de 'Liguori deals at length and profoundly with the flight of occasions for sin in his works and explains above all in this regard that: “There are three conditions for the true purpose of Confession: it must be firm, universal, and effective. …. For III. it must be effective, that is, that man proposes, not only not to commit sins, but also to take the appropriate means to avoid them, especially to remove the next opportunities. " [134]

In the same work s. Alphonsus specifies his thoughts on occasions of sin by developing a broad discussion that seems useful to me to quote: Ҥ. I. How should he deal with those who find themselves on the next occasion of sin. The greatest part of the good direction of confessors in order to save their penitents consists in dealing well with those who are on the verge of sinning, or who are accustomed to, or repeat offenders. And these are the two rocks (occasional and recidivists), where most of the confessors collide, and fail in their duty. In the following chapter we will talk about the accustomed and repeat offenders; now let's talk about those who stand on the occasion. It is certain, that if men waited to flee from opportunities, most of the sins would be avoided. Without the opportunity the devil earns very little; but when the man voluntarily puts himself on the next occasion, for the most part, and almost always the enemy wins. The occasion especially in matters of sensual pleasures is like a net that pulls to sin, and at the same time blinds the mind, yes, that man does evil, almost without seeing what he is doing. But let's get to the practice. The occasion is primarily divided into voluntary and necessary; There voluntary it is the one that can easily escape. There necessary it is the one that cannot be avoided without serious damage, or without scandal. Second, it divides into next and remotes. There remount it is the one in which man rarely sins, or even the one who finds himself everywhere. There next, patter per se, is the one in which men commonly mostly fall: the next then by accident, or is respective, is that which, although in regard to others, is not close, in order not to be apt by its nature to commonly induce men to sin, it is nevertheless close to respect for someone, or because on such an occasion he has frequently fallen , or because it may prudently fear that it will fall due to the experience of its fragility. ...

After all, it is certainly on the next occasion 1. that he considers in his own home some woman with whom he has often been in the habit of sinning. 2. Those who have frequently fallen into blasphemies or frauds in the game. 3. Those who in some tavern or house used to fall into drunkenness, or fights, or acts, or words, or obscene thoughts. Now all of these cannot be absolute, unless they have taken away the opportunity, or at least if they do not promise to take it away, according to the distinction that will be made in the following number. And likewise no one can absolve himself who, by going to some house, although once a year, has always sinned there: since for him to go there is already the next opportunity. Nor can they be absolute those who, although they do not sin on the occasion, nevertheless are a grave scandal to others (Lib. 6. n. 452. v. Ex. Praemissis.). They add some dd. (Ibid.), And not without reason, also having to deny absolution to those who do not leave the external opportunity, when there is a vicious habit, or even a great temptation, or a vehement passion, even though he has not sinned there until then; for he can easily fall after you, if he does not turn away from the occasion. Hence they say, that if ever a servant were very tempted by her master, and she knew she was easy to fall, she is obliged to leave that house, if she freely she can do it, otherwise it is temerity to consider herself safe.

... And in this it is generally good to warn that where it is a question of the danger of formal sins, and precisely of foul sins, the more rigorous the confessor uses with the penitent, the more it will benefit his health. And at the meeting the more cruel he will be with his penitent, the more benign he will be in allowing him to put himself on the occasion. St. Thomas of Villanova calls the confessors condescending in this, employs pios. Such charity is against charity. In these cases penitents usually represent to the confessor that by removing the occasion a great scandal will arise: the confessor should be strong not to take such scandals into account; it will always be more scandalous to see the penitent not even after confession take away the opportunity. Or the others ignore his sin, and then they will make no suspicion of evil; or they know it, and then sooner the penitent will recover the fame, that he will lose it, by taking away the opportunity.

Many dd. Say, that for the first or second time anyone who is on the next occasion, albeit voluntary, can absolve well even before taking away the opportunity, as long as he has firm intention of immediately removing it. But here we must distinguish with s. Carlo Borromeo (in the instruction given to his confessors) the occasions that are in existence, as when someone keeps the concubine at home, or when a servant falls tempted by her master, and in similar cases; from those that I'm not in existence, like one who falls into blasphemies in the game, into brawls and drunkenness in taverns, into conversations into dishonest words or thoughts and c. On these second-rate occasions, that I'm not in existence, says s. Carlo, who when the penitent resolutely promises to leave them, he can absolve himself two or even three times; that if he does not amend it, he must defer his acquittal, until in fact it becomes clear that he has taken away the opportunity. On other occasions then first made that are in existence, says the Saint, that the penitent must not absolve himself if he has not taken away the opportunity at all first, and it is not enough for him to promise it. And this sentence I have held and I hold for certain, ordinarily speaking; and I think I have clearly proved it in the book (Lib. 6. n. 454.). The reason is, because such a penitent is indisposed for absolution, if he wants to receive it before taking away the opportunity; for by doing so he puts himself in immediate danger of breaking the intention of removing her, and of not fulfilling the strict obligation he has to take away the opportunity. It is certain, that whoever stands in the next voluntary occasion of mortal sin sins mortally, and does not take it away: now this work of taking away the occasion is a very difficult thing, which is carried out only by means of great violence. it is difficult for those who have already received absolution to do this violence; while having removed the fear of not being absolute, he will easily flatter himself to be able to resist the temptation, without removing the occasion: and thus remaining in that, he will certainly fall again: as we see all day with the experience of so many miserable people, who being absolute as careless confessors, they do not take away the opportunity, and they fall back worse than before. Hence, because of the aforementioned danger of breaking the resolution, that penitent sins gravely, who receives absolution before removing the opportunity, and the confessor sins more, who gives it to him.

I said ordinarily speaking, since the dd are the first to be excluded. (Ib. N. 454. v. Dixi tamen.) The case in which the penitent demonstrates such extraordinary signs of pain, so that he could prudently judge himself that the danger of breaking the intention of taking away the opportunity was no longer close to him; while then those signs indicate that the penitent has received a more abundant grace with which it can be hoped that it will be constant in removing the occasion. With all this, provided that the acquittal could comfortably be deferred, in this case I would still defer it to him, until in fact he takes away the opportunity. Except for 2. the case in which the penitent can no longer return, or even if not after a long time; then he too can absolve himself, if he sees himself well disposed with the intention of immediately taking away the opportunity; because in this case the danger of breaking the intention is considered remote, due to the great danger that the penitent should suffer, leaving without absolution, or of repeating his confession to another priest, or even of staying a long time without grace of the sacrament; so that since he is then in a moral necessity to receive absolution before taking away the opportunity, he is right to be immediately absolute (Ibid. 454. v. Excip. 2.); since he cannot take away the opportunity before the acquittal, he is considered as if he were on a necessary occasion. But this need not even be admitted, if the penitent has already been warned by another confessor to take up the opportunity, and he has not done so; because then one has as a recidivist, and therefore cannot be absolute; if he did not bring extraordinary signs of pain, as we will say in §. following the not. 12.

This is in regards to the next volunteer opportunity. But if the opportunity is needed, either physically, as if someone were in prison, or even on the verge of death, in which he did not have the time and the way to expel his friend; or mortally, that is, if the opportunity could not be taken away without scandal, or its serious damage, of life, fame, or fortune, as commonly teach the dd .; in this case the penitent can well be absolute without taking away the opportunity; because then he is not obliged to remove it, as long as he promises to carry out the means necessary to make the occasion from next become remote, as especially in the occasion the vile sin is to flee the familiarity, and also the appearance as much as possible of the accomplice : attending the sacraments; and often recommending oneself to God, with renewing every day (precisely in the morning) before the image of the Crucifix the promise not to sin anymore, and to avoid the occasion as much as possible. The reason is, because the occasion to sin is not properly sin in itself, nor does it induce the need to sin; hence a true repentance and a resolution not to relapse may well consist of the occasion. And although everyone is bound to get out of the next danger of sinning, this is understood when he spontaneously wants such a danger; but when the occasion is morally necessary, then the danger by means of opportune remedies becomes remote, and God then does not fail to assist with his grace those who are truly resolved not to offend him. He does not say the scripture, that whoever is in danger will perish, but whoever loves danger; but he cannot be said to love the danger, which underlies it against him wanting him; hence he said yes. Basil (In const. Men. C. 4.): Here urgenti aliqua causa et necessitate, se periculo obiicit, vel permittit se esse in illo, cum tamen alias nollet, non tam dicitur amo periculum, quam invitus subire; et ideo magis providebit Deus, ne in illo peccet.

And from this the dd say, that those who do not want to leave some office, shop, or house, in which they have used to sin, are well capable of absolution, because they cannot leave it without serious damage, provided they are truly resolved to amend themselves, and to take the means for the amendment; such are, for example, the surgeons who in medicar women, or parish priests who in hearing the confessions of women have fallen into sins, if by leaving these jobs they could not live according to their state (Lib. 6. n. 455. in fin.) . But everyone agrees, it is expedient to defer absolution in these and similar cases, so that the penitent is at least more careful in practicing the prescribed remedies. But I believe that the confessor not only can, but he is obliged to do this, as long as he can do it comfortably, especially when it comes to vile matter, since he is obliged as a doctor of souls to apply the appropriate remedies to them. ; and I believe, there is no more suitable remedy for those who are on the next occasion, than to postpone the absolution, the experience of so many being too well known, who after the absolution neglect the means assigned, and so easily fall back. Where at the meeting when absolution is deferred to someone, he will be more vigilant to carry out the means, and to resist temptations, for fear of being sent again without absolution, by the time he returns to the confessor. Perhaps in this some will think me too rigid, but I have always practiced this way and will continue to practice with those who are on the next occasion, even if necessary, and even if they had extraordinary signs of pain, provided I did not have a special obligation to absolve them immediately; and so I esteem much more good for the health of penitents. Oh God would, that everyone would practice it like this; how many fewer sins would be committed, and how many more souls would be saved! I go back to saying that where it is a question of freeing penitents from formal sin, the confessor must avail himself of the most benign opinions, as far as Christian prudence allows; but where benign opinions draw nearer the danger of formal sin, as precisely happens in this matter of upcoming occasions, I say, to be omninely expedient, and for the most part necessary, that the confessor avails himself of the most rigid sentences; since these are then more beneficial to the health of souls. That if any one, staying on the necessary occasion, always falls back in the same way, with all the remedies carried out, and with little hope of an amendment, I say then, I would have to deny him absolution in every account, if he does not remove first. the occasion (Ibid. n. 457). And here I judge that the precept of the gospel already enters: Si oculus tuus scandalizat te, eiice eum (Marc. 19. v. 46.). Except if the penitent showed signs of such extraordinary pain, which would make a prudent hope of amendment appear (Book 6. n. 457. in fin.). " [135]

As you can see s. Alphonsus offers us an excellent discussion on the necessity of the flight from occasions of sin and on the duties of confessors in this regard. It seems to me important to emphasize in a particular way one thing that has just said yes. Alfonso: "If anyone, staying on the necessary occasion, always falls in the same way, with all the remedies carried out, and with little hope of amendment, I say then, I should deny him absolution in every way, if it does not take away the opportunity first (Ibid. n. 457). And here I judge that the precept of the gospel already enters: Si oculus tuus scandalizat te, eiice eum (Marc. 19. v. 46.). Except if the penitent showed signs of such extraordinary pain, which would make a prudent hope of amendment appear (Book 6. n. 457. in fin.). " [136] This means in particular that if a divorced and remarried person or a "more uxorio" cohabitant considers it impossible not to fall back into impure sin by living with another person who is not his spouse, he cannot be acquitted unless he first abandons this occasion of sin, this applies here , in fact, the evangelical norm that if something scandalizes us we must remove it from our life. God must be put first and after God our soul must be put.

I WANT TO STRESS THAT THE LACK OF THE PURPOSE TO ESCAPE NEXT OPPORTUNITIES OF SIN MAKES THE CONFESSION INVALID BECAUSE THIS LACK DETERMINES LACK OF EFFECTIVE PURPOSE OF NOT SIN AND THEREFORE LACK OF TRUE PURPOSE AND IN THIS REGARD. part of the penitent the Confession is invalid. … If he doesn't have the pain and purpose due; especially if he does not want to give back as he owes the stuff, the honor, or the fame taken away: or if he does not want to take away the next voluntary opportunity. " [137]

St. Alphonsus, in the text presented by us above, specifies, in this line, that: “2. Moreover, on the next occasion he is certainly 1. the one who considers in his own home some woman with whom he has often been in the habit of sinning. 2. Those who have frequently fallen into blasphemies or frauds in the game. 3. Those who in some tavern or house used to fall into drunkenness, or fights, or acts, or words, or obscene thoughts. Now all of these cannot be absolute, unless they have taken away the opportunity, or at least if they do not promise to take it away, according to the distinction that will be made in the following number. And likewise no one can absolve himself who, by going to some house, although once a year, has always sinned there: since for him to go there is already the next opportunity. Nor can they be absolute those who, although they do not sin on the occasion, nevertheless are a grave scandal to others (Lib. 6. n. 452. v. Ex. Praemissis.). Add some dd. (Ibid.), And not without reason, also having to deny absolution to those who do not leave the external opportunity, when there is a vicious habit, or even a great temptation, or a vehement passion, even though he has not sinned there until then; for he can easily fall after you, if he does not turn away from the occasion. So they say, that if ever a servant were very tempted by her master, and she knew she was easy to fall, she is obliged to leave that house, if she freely she can do it, otherwise it is temerity she thinks she is safe. "[138]

On this point of the imminent occasion of sin it seems to me interesting to recall, among others, the text by F. Ter Haar “De occasionariis et recidivis” Marietti, Taurini-Romae 1927, a book that closely follows the Alphonsian doctrine.

What we have said in the last pages must also make us understand that when the magisterial texts speak generically of the necessity of the resolution not to sin in order to have the contrition required for a valid absolution they are implicitly saying that such a resolution necessarily includes the intention to flee from occasions of sin, without this latter purpose, as we have seen, the resolution not to sin is ineffective and therefore unable to cooperate in order to obtain a valid sacramental absolution of the penitent.

I EMPHASIZE THAT the rule according to which WHO LIVES MORE UXORIO, if he wants to be absolved in Confession, MUST PROPOSE not only TO NOT SIN ANY MORE BUT ALSO TO ESCAPE THE NEXT OPPORTUNITIES OF SIN IS EVEN FOR THOSE WHO FOR SERIOUS REASONS CANNOT SEPARATE; COSTORO ARE, as St. teaches. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, ON THE NEXT NECESSARY OCCASION OF SIN and regarding them, the same saint states: "But if the opportunity is necessary, or physically, as if someone were in prison, or even on the verge of death, in which he did not have the time and the way to expel his friend; or mortally, that is, if the opportunity could not be taken away without scandal, or its serious damage, of life, fame, or fortune, as commonly teach the dd .; in this case the penitent can well be absolute without taking away the opportunity; because then he is not obliged to remove it, as long as he promises to carry out the means necessary to make the occasion from next become remote, as especially in the occasion the vile sin is to flee the familiarity, and also the appearance as much as possible of the accomplice : attending the sacraments; and often recommending oneself to God, with renewing every day (precisely in the morning) before the image of the Crucifix the promise not to sin anymore, and to avoid the occasion as much as possible. The reason is, because the occasion to sin is not properly sin in itself, nor does it induce the need to sin; hence a true repentance and a resolution not to relapse may well consist of the occasion. And although everyone is bound to get out of the next danger of sinning, this is understood when he spontaneously wants such a danger; but when the occasion is morally necessary, then the danger by means of opportune remedies becomes remote, and God then does not fail to assist with his grace those who are truly resolved not to offend him. He does not say the scripture, that whoever is in danger will perish, but whoever loves danger; but he cannot be said to love the danger, which underlies it against him wanting him; hence he said yes. Basil (In const. Men. C. 4.): Here urgenti aliqua causa et necessitate, se periculo obiicit, vel permittit se esse in illo, cum tamen alias nollet, non tam dicitur amo periculum, quam invitus subire; et ideo magis providebit Deus, ne in illo peccet. "[139]

Therefore the DIVORCED REPONSORS WHO FOR SERIOUS REASONS CANNOT SEPARATE BUT MUST COHABITATE, IN ORDER TO BE VALIDELY ABSOLUTE, THEY MUST PROPOSE EFFECTIVELY NOT TO SIN ANY MORE AND TO ESCAPE THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY OF SIN, must therefore, according to the wise affirmations. Alphonsus, to promise to “carry out the means necessary to make the occasion from the next become remote, as escaping from familiarity is especially in the occasion of shameful sin, and also the aspect of an accomplice as much as possible: attending the sacraments; and often recommending oneself to God, with renewing every day (precisely in the morning) in front of the image of the Crucifix the promise not to sin anymore and to avoid the occasion as much as possible "in this line it seems clear to me that such cohabitants should absolutely avoid to sleep in the same room and above all in the same bed, because this is normally a very clear occasion for sin and moreover it is normally something obviously scandalous.

I reiterate and underline that a divorced and remarried person or a cohabitant if he deems it impossible not to fall back into impure sin by cohabitating with his partner, who is not his spouse, cannot be acquitted unless he first abandons this occasion of sin, in fact the rule applies here. evangelical that if something scandalizes us we must remove it from our life, God must be put in the first place and after God our soul must be put, above everything, including the family, in fact s. Alfonso affirms: "That if anyone, staying on the necessary occasion, always falls back in the same way, with all the remedies implemented, and with little hope of an amendment, I say then, I should deny him absolution in every way, if it does not take away the opportunity first (Ibid. n. 457). And here I judge that the precept of the gospel already enters: Si oculus tuus scandalizat te, eiice eum (Marc. 19. v. 46.). Except if the penitent showed signs of such extraordinary pain, which would make a prudent hope of amendment appear (Book 6. n. 457. in fin.). "[140] This means, I reiterate and stress, in particular that if a divorced and remarried person or a cohabiting partner, who for serious reasons cohabits, considers it impossible not to fall back into impure sin by cohabiting with the other person, who is not his spouse, he cannot be acquitted if first does not abandon this occasion of sin, in fact, the evangelical norm applies here according to which if something scandalizes us we must remove it from our life, God must be put in the first place and after God our soul must be put, above everything, including the family . May the Lord give us Light and Charity to always know the Truth of him and to walk swiftly on the path of holiness, avoiding the upcoming occasions of sin.

For the sake of completeness and for the true spiritual usefulness of the readers, it seems appropriate to me here to recommend the reading of a profound meditation on St. Alfonso on the need to flee from occasions of sin.[141]

God enlighten us.

5) Errors present in some books of prof. Buttiglione supported by some Cardinals.

It seems important to me here to examine some errors that prof. Buttiglione proposed in some works of him praised by Cardinals.

Card. Müller wrote the introduction to Buttiglione's book entitled "Friendly responses to critics by Amoris Laetitia" (Ed. Ares, 2017) and in it he praised it greatly with these words, among other things: "From the depths of my heart I thank Rocco Buttiglione for the great service he renders with this book to the unity of the Church and to the truth of the Gospel "(" Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia "page 32), see also the other praise he gives to this same book in the same introduction on p. 10 in which he says that Rocco Buttiglione offers the critics of Amoris Laetitia a clear and convincing answer.

Cardinal Antonelli wrote together with prof. Buttiglione: "Therapy of wounded love in" Amoris Laetitia "" (Ed. Ares 2017) In the presentation the two authors explain that they were able to clarify some statements and find some convergences for the practice ... and therefore they presented a single publication with two essays ... it seems clear to me that Cardinal Antonelli fully approves Buttiglione's writing ...

God's wisdom be in our hearts and be manifested in our words.

aContrary to what Buttiglione affirms, in order to have a valid Confession one needs contrition and therefore the penitent's resolution not to sin anymore. If the purpose is missing, the Confession is invalid.

Let's see first of all the error already proposed by prof. Buttiglione on p. 171s of his book "Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia" (Ed. Ares, 2017), praised by Card. Mueller, and then presented in the text by Card. Antonelli and R. Buttiglione "Therapy of wounded love in" Amoris Laetitia "" (Ed. Ares 2017) and which seems to have also been disseminated by Msgr. Girotti for which: “It is necessary, first of all, to ascertain the intention not to sin anymore, that is, to ascertain the commitment to get out of the situation of sin; only if the penitent is unable to achieve such a detachment, eg. a woman who lives in conditions of total economic and psychological dependence and on whom sexual relations are imposed against her will; in this case the subjective conditions of sin are missing (full warning and deliberate consent). The act, of course, remains bad, but it does not belong entirely to the person. Only in this case can it be lawful to give absolution. You cannot credibly promise not to commit a certain sin again if you live in a situation that exposes you to the irresistible temptation to commit it. " [142] Let's say first of all that the case just presented is proposed in a rather strange or ambiguous way; we speak of an impossible purpose, then we speak of a person raped, we therefore speak of sin suffered ... we speak of not being able to promise to commit a certain sin ... In short, it would be good if things were presented more clearly ... and precisely. If a person is raped by another and does not want to have such a relationship and does everything to not have it, the sin is obviously only of the one who rapes ... But of course the lady in question must think that she lives as a wife, even if she is not such , of that man, therefore she sleeps in the same bed, lives in the same house as that man ... she lives in a psychological and economic subjection to him who imposes sexual acts on her. She lives in a situation of cohabitation, scandalous, which also exposes the irresistible temptation to commit certain sins that she suffers. As we are seeing and we will see better and better, absolution implies contrition with the purpose of not sinning and fleeing the next occasions of sin. Without contrition and therefore without purpose there can be no valid absolution. The woman in question who obviously does not have such a resolution cannot be acquitted, just as all those who cannot make such a resolution cannot be acquitted. It is not a question of helping this woman to continue making herself available to carry out these objectively very serious and adulterous acts, and to continue a sinful and scandalous cohabitation, absolving her invalidly, but we must tell the woman to pray to get out of the situation in which she finds herself ... because to God nothing is impossible ... Then we should help the woman to report this man who practically rapes her ... and to get out of the hell she is in! And finally, we should finally help her, perhaps with the help of social services, to get out of this psychological dependence ...

All things that these authors do not say, strangely, even if they speak of mercy.

May God who is Light arise and enlighten us better and better!

Mercy does not consist in leaving people in the coils of rapists and impure acts, unworthy of human nature, perhaps giving a "divine" forgiveness, without such victims having a real purpose to get out of the sinful situation, and also adding the Eucharist ... mercy consists in truly elevating the penitent into the condition of a child of God, it consists in freeing people from the chains that imprison them, it consists in opening the heart of the penitent first of all to true faith and therefore to conversion and charity, which fulfill the commandments and has an intrinsic purpose to fulfill them, to never sin, to flee the next occasions of sin and which, with the grace of Almighty God, prefers to lose everything rather than sin ... Absolution must be given precisely when the person has the contrition and not when this is lacking ... otherwise the absolution is null; I will deal extensively with this point of Catholic doctrine later in this chapter, but even now it seems useful to me to report some significant affirmations in this regard.

The Council of Trent specified that this act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in the man fallen into sin after Baptism it prepares for the remission of sins if accompanied by trust in divine Mercy and by the vow to fulfill everything. what is required to properly receive this Sacrament of Penance.[143]

Furthermore, the same Council declared: "... that this contrition includes not only the cessation of sin and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also the hatred of the old life, in conformity with the expression: your iniquities, with which you have overridden and build yourself a new heart and a new soul (Ez. 18,31:XNUMX) ”.[144]

Contrition includes the resolution to live according to the divine Law and therefore not to sin again.

Says the great Doctor and thaumaturge St. Antonio: “In the blood of contrition, all things are purified, everything is forgiven, as long as there is the intention to confess. Indeed, without the blood of contrition there is no remission of sin. " [145]

St. Thomas affirms the necessity of contrition for the remission of sins: “… quia ad dimissionem peccati requiritur quod homo totaliter affectum peccati dimittat, per quem quamdam continuuitatem et soliditatem in sensu sua habebat; ideo actus ille quo peccatum remittitur, contritio dicitur by similitudinem ... "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 co.) Which means, in particular, for us: the act by which sin is forgiven is contrition, and as seen, contrition includes the resolution not to sin and to flee the next occasions of sin.

St. Alphonsus in his “Theologia moralis” clearly states that confession has as its proximate the acts of the penitent among which there is contrition; absolution is invalid if the penitent does not have imperfect contrition, that is, attraction[146] … And as seen, contrition includes a resolution not to sin and to flee from forthcoming occasions of sin.

The Major Catechism of St. Pius X states in n. 689 “Of the parts of the sacrament of Penance which is the most necessary?

Of the parts of the sacrament of Penance, the most necessary is contrition, because without it the forgiveness of sins can never be obtained, and with it alone, when it is perfect, forgiveness can be obtained, provided that it is joined with desire, at least implicit. , to confess. " (http://www.maranatha.it/catpiox/01page.htm)

The Romanum Ritual specified: “The priest must carefully consider when and to whom absolution is to be imparted, denied, or deferred; let it not happen that he absolves those who are incapable of this benefit, as it would be: who does not give any sign of pain; who does not want to put down a hatred or an enmity; or who, being able, does not want to give back the other; who does not want to leave an imminent occasion of sin, or otherwise abandon a path of sin and amend his life for the better; who has given scandal in public, unless he gives public satisfaction and removes the scandal; who has incurred in sins reserved for Superiors. "[147]

In the "Dominum et Vivificantem" of s. John Paul II we find written in n. 42: “Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant. ... "and at nos. 46 of the same encyclical we can read: “Why is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How to understand this blasphemy? Saint Thomas Aquinas replies… the "blasphemy" does not really consist in offending the Holy Spirit with words; it consists, instead, in the refusal to accept the salvation that God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working by virtue of the sacrifice of the Cross. … And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this remission, of which he is the intimate dispenser and which presupposes the real conversion, which he operated in conscience. … Now the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin committed by man, who claims his presumed "right" to persevere in evil - in any sin - and thus refuses redemption. Man remains closed in sin, making his conversion impossible on his part and, therefore, also the remission of sins, which he considers not essential or not important for his life. "[148]

In the Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, at n. 31, s. John Paul II further reiterated what we are saying about the absolute necessity of contrition: "But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, that is, a clear and decisive repudiation of the sin committed together with the intention not to return to commit it, for the love that one brings to God and that is reborn with repentance. Understood in this way, contrition is, therefore, the principle and soul of conversion, of that evangelical "metanoia" which brings man back to God as the prodigal son who returns to his father, and which has its sign in the sacrament of penance. visible, perfecting the same attraction. Therefore, "the truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart" (Rite of Penance, 6c). "[149]

The Code of Canon Law states: “Can. 962 - §1. In order for a faithful to validly take advantage of the sacramental absolution imparted simultaneously to several people, it is required that not only be well disposed, but together make the resolution to confess in due time the single serious sins, which at the moment he cannot confess. "

Even in the case of absolution given to several penitents it is necessary, for the valid reception of the same, that the penitent is well disposed, that is, has contrition as is well understood by what St. St. John Paul II below: "It is clear that penitents who live in a habitual state of grave sin and do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution." [150]

IF THE PURPOSE IS FAILED, contrition is lacking, THERE IS NO TRUE REPENTANCE, in fact it says yes. John Paul II: “It is also self-evident that the accusation of sins must include the serious resolution not to commit any more in the future. If this disposition of the soul were lacking, in reality there would be no repentance: this, in fact, concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not taking a position contrary to a possible moral evil would be not detesting evil, not having repentance. But just as this must first of all derive from the pain of having offended God, so the resolution not to sin must be based on divine grace, which the Lord never lets those who do what is possible to act honestly fail. " [151]

Mons. Livi stated "Repentance does not appear to exist when the faithful does not declare to the confessor that he wants to leave his state of" divorced-remarried "by severing the relationship with the cohabiting partner and working to return with the legitimate spouse, or when it does not propose to repair the damage caused to the legitimate spouse, to any offspring, to the cohabitant who led into sin and to the entire Christian community to which it caused scandal. In the absence of these conditions - which, from the theological point of view, constitute the "matter" of the sacrament of Penance - the confessor is required to deny, for the moment, absolution, which would not be an act of mercy but a deception (because acquittal would be illegal, and above all invalid) "[152]

May God who is Light arise and enlighten us better and better!

For the valid reception of the sacramental absolution, Baptism, faith are necessary ... and contrition if these are lacking, absolution is null! The reception of Baptism is necessary to validly receive sacramental absolution. Can there be people conditioned to the point of not receiving Baptism? I think yes! But if they are not baptized they cannot receive valid sacramental absolution. Faith is necessary to validly receive the Sacrament of Confession because contrition, even if imperfect, implies faith. A heretic as long as he remains such and does not return to the true faith cannot validly receive the Sacrament of Confession. Consider more generally that: “The sacraments are ordered to the sanctification of men, to the building up of the body of Christ and, finally, to worship God; as signs they also have a pedagogical purpose. Not only do they suppose faith, but with words and ritual elements they nourish it, strengthen it and express it ”.[153]

Canon 844 specifies that Ҥ4. If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference, there is an urgent need, Catholic ministers lawfully administer the same sacraments also to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot access the minister of their community and ask them spontaneously, as long as they manifest the Catholic faith about these sacraments and are well disposed. "

Without the penitent's faith, absolution cannot be administered validly.

Can there be people conditioned to such an extent that they do not believe and therefore do not have faith? I think so and if they persist in unbelief they cannot be validly absolved in confession!

The Sacrament of Penance is invalidly administered by the Confessor who is an accomplice of the penitent in the sin against the sixth commandment as stated in Can. 977 - the absolution of the accomplice in the sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except that in danger of death.

Can there be people conditioned to such an extent that they are unable to go to another confessor? I think yes! But if they do not go to another confessor they cannot be validly absolved!

The Sacrament of Confession absolutely requires the penitent's perfect or imperfect contrition. Can there be people conditioned to such an extent that they are incapable of de contrition? Yup! But if they don't, they cannot be validly acquitted.

Moreover, we must not help people to dispense themselves from the Commandments nor dispense them from them ... because no one can dispense from them; everyone is required to live according to the Decalogue to propose to live according to the revealed Law and we cannot dispense anyone from this obligation established by God. sin more to be validly absolved.

It must also be said that the adulterous lifestyle of that woman, of which prof. Buttiglione, is ordinarily scandalous…. therefore to absolve her and perhaps give her Communion means, further, to scandalize those who know that she has been acquitted even though she is willing to continue the adulterous life and it means to scandalize those who will see her receive the Eucharist knowing that she lives more uxorio ...

It should be added that the example given in the text of prof. Buttiglione that we are examining may also apply in analogous cases; Buttiglione presents a case of adultery which is a very serious sin, it is an act intrinsically which destroys families; but in this line of very serious sins, there may be pedophiles who due to psychological and economic dependence on other people are forced by them to carry out acts of pedophilia on children ... there may be murders that due to psychological and economic dependence on other people are to these forced to carry out murders, there may be people, who live in meeting houses and due to psychological and economic dependence on other people are forced into prostitution or forced to have relationships with animals and make pornographic films ... or who live among Satanists and they are forced to participate in satanic rites .. etc. … What do we do if they come to confess? Following the line of Cardinal Antonelli and R. Buttiglione, do we absolve and give them Communion without proposing not to sin and to flee the next opportunity of sin that leads them to sin? …. You also understand from this the absurdity of the proposal made by Cardinal Antonelli and R. Buttiglione.

For all this, contrary to the affirmations of Card. Antonelli and R. Buttiglione, sound doctrine has so far affirmed and continues to affirm that: "Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not recognized and objective conditions are given that in fact make coexistence irreversible, the Church encourages these faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship according to the requirements of the law of God, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to approach the Eucharistic table again, with the attention required by the proven ecclesial practice. "[154] The same had been said by Cardinal Ratzinger and by John Paul II etc. ... "For the faithful who remain in this matrimonial situation, access to Eucharistic Communion is open only by sacramental absolution, which can be given" only to those who, repenting of having violated the sign of the Covenant and fidelity to Christ , are sincerely willing to a form of life that is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when a man and a woman, for serious reasons - such as, for example, the education of children - cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, "they undertake the commitment to live in full continence, that is, to abstain from the proper acts of the spouses "(Ibid ,. n. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 186; cf. John Paul II, Homily for the closing of the VI Synod of Bishops, n. 7: AAS 72 (1982) 1082 .). In this case they can access Eucharistic communion, without prejudice, however, to the obligation to avoid scandal. "[155]  … And it should be noted that Cardinal Ratzinger, then Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II (saint) knew the extenuating circumstances very well… and Msgr. Hamer and Cardinal Seper… In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained in a famous letter from the early nineties to “The Tablet” (“The Tablet” 26-10-1991, pp. 1310–11) that Archbishop Hamer in his 1975 Letter[156], speaking of divorced and remarried couples whose marriage had not been declared null, when he stated that they could be admitted to receive the Sacraments ".. if they try to live according to the indications of Christian moral principles", he meant nothing other than that they abstain, as s. John Paul II, from the "proper acts of married couples" ... this severe norm is a prophetic witness to the irreversible fidelity of the love that binds Christ to his Church and also shows that the love of spouses is incorporated into the true love of Christ (Eph . 5, 23-32). And the "approved practice" of the Church referred to by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a 1973 document by Card. Seper, Card. Ratzinger explains, is that if a divorced and remarried person wants to receive the Sacraments, in the if for serious reasons he cannot cease cohabitation, he must repent of his sins and propose not to sin anymore and therefore refrain from acts that are proper to wife and husband as well as avoid any scandal. [157] …. All of them were well aware of the extenuating circumstances and precisely for this reason they wrote what we have just seen ...

In this line, what the Bishops of Kazakhstan said in the “Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage” seems to me illuminating and important; in it we read that the minister of confession cannot exempt the penitent, in particular the divorced and remarried, from the implementation of the sixth commandment and the indissolubility of marriage and therefore sacramentally absolve it and admit it to the Eucharist; an alleged conviction, in conscience, on the part of the penitent, of the invalidity of his own marriage in the internal forum cannot produce consequences regarding sacramental discipline in the external forum, so that, even if a valid sacramental marriage remains in existence, such penitent can live more uxorio with who is not his legitimate spouse and can receive the Sacraments despite his intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and the sacramental marriage bond that is still in existence in the future.
The text just quoted says: "A practice that allows civilly divorced people, so-called" remarried ", to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, despite their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their marriage bond in the future sacramental "is evidently" contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church and the proven custom received, faithfully guarded since the time of the Apostles and lately confirmed in a sure way by Saint John Paul II (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84) and by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 29) ”; this practice is contrary to the perennial practice of the Church and is a counter-witness, moreover it is widespread of the "plague of divorce"; whoever really wants to help people who find themselves in an objective state of grave sin must announce to them with charity the full truth about God's will for them; he must therefore help them to repent with all their heart of the sinful act of living more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse, as is also clear from the affirmations of s. John Paul II (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 33).[158]

Various other texts published after Amoris Laetitia and signed by Bishops and Cardinals who reaffirm sound doctrine also appear illuminating on this theme.[159]

May God who is Light arise and enlighten us better and better!

b) Contrary to what prof. Buttiglione grave sin is mortal sin and mortal sin is grave sin.

Moreover, in the books of prof. Buttiglione also finds another error, evidently also supported by Cardinals Antonelli and Müller who join him in supporting his theses and praise him; in fact the prof. Buttiglione presents an erroneous conception of mortal sin precisely in the text praised by Cardinal Müller and also proposes it in the text he wrote with Cardinal Antonelli… on p. 52 of the book "Therapy of wounded love in" Amoris Laetitia "(Ares, 2017)

On p. 52 of the book “Therapy of wounded love in“ Amoris Laetitia ”(Ares, 2017) prof. Buttiglione reiterates his error on grave sin as distinct from mortal sin which we also find on p. 173 of his text: “Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia”. In these texts, prof. Buttiglione makes a distinction between grave sin and mortal sin and says that grave sin is specified by grave matter while "mortal sin is specified by the effect on the subject (causes the soul to die)" and continues by stating that all mortal sins are serious but not all grave sins are mortal because a grave sin can be committed without full warning or deliberate consent

We note first of all that the soul is immortal ... therefore to affirm sic et simpliciter that sin kills the soul leaves us very perplexed ... it should be pointed out that it kills the divine life of the soul but not the soul which is immortal ... But the fundamental point of my criticism of the statements of prof. Buttiglione concerns the fact that the distinction he makes between grave sin and mortal sin appears wrong and outside the teaching of the Church because grave sin is mortal sin and mortal sin is grave sin; there is no grave sin without full warning and deliberate consent; if, on the other hand, a sin of grave matter is committed without full warning and / or without deliberate consent, this sin is venial; below we will show with magisterial texts or by important theologians that things are exactly as we affirm and not as prof. Buttiglione.

We start from a particularly illuminating text on this theme, it is a catechesis of self. John Paul II: “Hence also the difference between" grave "sin and" venial "sin. If grave sin is simultaneously "mortal", it is because it causes the loss of sanctifying grace in the one who commits it. ... But as we said, even in actual sin, when it comes to grave (mortal) sin, man chooses himself against God, chooses creation against the Creator, rejects the love of the Father as well as the prodigal son in the first phase of his crazy adventure. To a certain extent, every human sin expresses that "mysterium iniquitatis" (2 Thes 2: 7), which Saint Augustine enclosed in the words: "amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei": love of self to the point of contempt for God ("De Civitate Dei", XIV, 28: PL 41, 436). "[160] Grave sin is therefore mortal sin !!

Grave sin is such because it is a grave violation of the moral order, it is a grave violation of the Law of God, and it is mortal because it takes away the grace which is the divine life of the soul.

Here I place, with a short comment of mine, some texts that I draw from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and that show that there is no moral sin that is not serious nor a grave sin that is not mortal:

-N. 1385 ”… Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before accessing Communion. “Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin must receive Reconciliation precisely because such a sin is mortal and the soul has lost, with it, the life of grace! Grave sin excludes from sacramental Communion ... because it is mortal and causes the soul to die to sanctifying grace and makes Communion gravely illicit.

-N. 1446 "Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance ... in the first place for those who, after Baptism, fell into grave sin and thus lost their baptismal grace ..." Note well: those who, after Baptism, fell into sin serious… they thus lost baptismal grace and inflicted a wound on ecclesial communion. As can be seen, grave sin causes one to lose grace and therefore it is mortal… that is, it causes the soul to die to sanctifying grace!

-N. 1470 "... we can enter the Kingdom, from which grave sin excludes ... By converting to Christ ... the sinner passes from death to life" and does not face judgment "(Jn 5,24:XNUMX)."

It should be noted well: grave sin excludes from the Kingdom, that is, from eternal life… therefore it is mortal!

-N. 1472 “Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore renders us incapable of attaining eternal life, the privation of which is called the" eternal punishment "of sin. "

It should be noted well: grave sin deprives us of Communion with God and therefore makes us unable to attain eternal life… therefore it is mortal!

-N. 2390 “… the sexual act must have its place exclusively in marriage; apart from it it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes from sacramental Communion. "

Grave sin prevents sacramental Communion ... in fact it is a mortal sin and makes you lose the life of grace ... it is necessary to confess to receive the life of grace and to receive the s. Communion: the Eucharist is the sacrament of the living and not of the dead!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: "The question to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been raised, whether the discipline sanctioned by Canon 856 CJC should still be considered mandatory in relation to sacramental absolution to be given to Holy Communion when serious sin has been committed.

The response of the Superior Authority is that the discipline prescribed by the aforementioned canon remains mandatory, and that therefore all other interpretations are to be rejected as alien to the sensus Ecclesiae. "[161]

Grave sin prevents sacramental Communion ... in fact it is a mortal sin and makes you lose the life of grace ... it is necessary to confess to receive the life of grace and to receive the s. Communion: the Eucharist is the sacrament of the living and not of the dead!

The International Theological Commission stated “8.2. The Church believes that there is a state of definitive condemnation for those who die burdened with grave sin. It is absolutely necessary to avoid understanding the state of purification for the encounter with God, in a way too similar to that of condemnation, as if the difference between the two consisted only in the fact that one would be eternal and the other temporary; purification after death is "quite different from the punishment of the condemned".[162]

Note well: the Church believes that there is a state of definitive condemnation for those who die burdened with grave sin… therefore grave sin is mortal!

Pope Pius XII said “That, in the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for those who have the right, men and women, to take part in the elections. Anyone who abstains from it, especially out of indolence or cowardice, commits in himself a grave sin, a mortal sin. "[163]

Grave sin is mortal sin ... that is, mortal sin.

St. John Paul II affirmed: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly establishes in this line:" Whoever is aware of having committed a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before entering into communion "(n. 1385; cf. of Canon Law, can. 916; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 711.) I therefore wish to reiterate that the norm with which the Council of Trent concretized the severe admonition of the apostle Paul is in force and will always be in force in the Church, stating that, for the purpose of a worthy reception of the Eucharist, "the confession of sins must be premised, when one is conscious of mortal sin".[164] 37.… However, in cases of external behavior that is gravely, manifestly and permanently contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral care of good community order and respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel called into question. The norm of the Code of Canon Law on the non-admission to Eucharistic communion of those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" refers to this situation of manifest moral indisposition (Canon 915; cf.Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, can. 712. ) "[165]

Still s. John Paul II stated: "It is clear that penitents who live in a habitual state of grave sin and do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution."[166]

Penitents who are in grave sin and do not intend to change their situation do not validly receive absolution because they are deprived of sanctifying grace and want to remain in such privation ... grave sin is a mortal sin!

As is evident in all these texts grave sin is mortal sin and mortal sin is grave sin!

Healthy theology does not present grave sin as different from mortal sin, in this line the affirmations of prof. Buttiglione appear wrong and misleading. Contrary to what he says, the Magisterium states: all grave sins are mortal, all mortal sins are grave; if the matter is serious but full warning or deliberate consent is lacking, the sin is not grave but venial.

In an interesting article, Father Angelo Bellon op substantially reiterates, with some interesting clarifications, what I said in this paragraph [167]

May God who is Light arise and free us from all darkness of error.

c) Important clarifications regarding what prof. Buttiglione on pages 186ss of his book: "Friendly answers ..."

Furthermore, regarding what prof. Buttiglione on pages 186ss of his book "Friendly answers ..." I note that:

1) Even those who act according to conscience can sin gravely. The Catechism specifies in nos. 1791-1793 that the ignorance in which the conscience falls can be attributable, or not attributable. With regard to attributable ignorance it must be said that it occurs in particular "when man does not care to seek truth and good, and when the conscience becomes almost blind as a result of the habit of sin".[168] More precisely, explains s. Alfonso resuming s. Thomas: ”… some evils although currently not felt, nevertheless they are attributed to fault, according to teaches St. Thomas, if ignorance is in some way voluntary, either through negligence, or out of passion, or out of bad habits, or through voluntary inconsideration in operating. " [169]  In such cases the person is guilty of the evil he commits. Explain s. Thomas that the sentence of practical reason, that is the sentence of moral conscience, binds, that is, obliges to implement this sentence, whoever issues it: this, it should be noted well, means that anyone who does not conform to this sentence issued by him sins, but it does not mean that whoever follows this sentence does not sin (cf. De Veritate, q. 17 a. 4 in c.); Furthermore, according to St. Thomas, the sentence of conscience binds even if the precept of the prelate is contrary to it (cf. De Veritate, q. 17 a. 5 in c.), it binds purely and simply if the conscience is right, binds "secundum quid" if the conscience is erroneous (cf. De Veritate, q.17 a. 4 in c.) and also binds with regard to matters that are indifferent in themselves (cf. De Veritate, q. 17 a. 4 ad 7) ). If someone's conscience commands to do what is against the Law of God, continue s. Thomas, and he does not act according to this conscience, sins, but sins even if he acts according to this conscience, because ignorance of the law does not excuse from sin unless such ignorance is invincible as in the case of people suffering from certain psychic pathologies. The person in question can however lay down his conscience and act according to the Law of God and in doing so he does not sin. (Quodlibet III, q. 12 a. 2 ad 2) In another text s. Thomas specifies that whoever acts according to an erroneous conscience is sometimes excused from grave sin if this error proceeds from ignorance of what he cannot know and is not obliged to know; if, on the other hand, this error is itself a sin because it proceeds from ignorance of what the person can and is required to know, in this case the error of conscience has no strength to absolve or excuse and if the act that is carried out is serious , whoever commits it realizes a grave sin, as is the case of one who believes that fornication is a venial sin and with such conscience fornicates: his sin would be mortal and not venial (cfr. Quodlibet VIII, q. 6 a. 5 co .). As we said above: “So, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should meditate on the word of the Psalm:« Who discerns inadvertencies? Absolve me from the sins that I do not see "(Ps 181,13). There are sins that we are unable to see and which nevertheless remain sins, because we have refused to go towards the light (cf Jn 9,39: 41-63). "(VS n. XNUMX) ... St. Thomas specifies that: the corrupt rule it is not a rule, false reason is not reason (reason, from the Latin ratio, means proper rule), therefore the rule of human actions is not simply reason but right reason (see Super Sent., II d.24 q.3 a.3 ad 3m.)

2) Furthermore, as I have explained at length in this book in the chapter on moral conscience, the Christian moral conscience is a conscience illuminated by faith. As I just said: the corrupt rule is not the rule, the false reason is not reason (reason, from the Latin ratio, means proper rule), therefore the rule of human actions is not simply reason but right reason (see Super Sent., II d.24 q.3 a.3 ad 3m.), for the Christian the rule of actions is righteous reason enlightened by faith! We must be guided by the Christian moral conscience which is truly upright and is enlightened by the Holy Spirit through faith, it is the conscience we receive in Christ.

Faith, which is an infused virtue, in particular predisposes man to the fulfillment of the supernatural act which is called supernatural moral conscience: "Id enim quod universaliter fide tenemus, puta usum ciborum esse licitum vel illicitum, conscientia applicat ad opus quod est factum vel faciendum "(Super Rom., chap. 14 l. 3.) What we believe by faith, moral conscience applies to a work that has been done or must be done to judge what has been done and to establish what should be done. Says s. Thomas, as we will see, that we have received, by grace, the wisdom of Christ to judge (cf. Super I Cor. C.2 lec.3.); the supernatural moral conscience is an act illuminated by the wisdom that comes to us through faith, that is, in the last analysis, by the wisdom of Christ. Christ, the highest Rule conforming to us and Head of his Mystical Body, gives us supernatural wisdom in faith and charity (Super Sentence, III d. 13 q. 2 a. 1 in c.); from Christ the Head, therefore, we receive the intelligence, wisdom and charity to be able to carry out the perfect act of supernatural moral conscience. In this supernatural act, faith specifies the universal judgment of synderesis (see Super Sentence, lib. 2 d. 39 q. 3 a. 2 in c.). Faith is therefore the light on the basis of which supernatural moral conscience, that is, Christian moral conscience, is fulfilled; by faith we participate in the knowledge of God in Christ:

"... per potentiam intellectivam homo participat cognitionem Dei per virtutem fidei." (Cfr. I-IIae q. 110 a.4 in c.)

By faith, therefore, and therefore by charity, we participate in divine knowledge, in Christ, so that we can truly judge our actions.

The Catechism adds to n. 1794: ”The good and pure conscience is illuminated by sincere faith. In fact, charity "flows", at the same time, "from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith" (1 Tm 1,5): (Cf 1 Tm 3,9; 2 Tm 1,3; 1 Pt 3,21; Acts 24,16.) "In VS n. 62 we read: "As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 9,1: 2), it must be" pure "(1,3 Tm 2: 4,2), it must not cunningly falsify the word of God but clearly manifest the truth (cf 62 Cor XNUMX: XNUMX). " (VS, no. XNUMX)

Now ... it is evident that a Christian must have faith and therefore a moral conscience enlightened by faith ... if he does not have this he ceases to be a Christian, and he cannot even confess since faith is necessary to confess, as we say in this chapter on contrition … And for this faith it is clear that adultery like homosexual acts are very serious sins… Beyond our miseries there is the Holy Spirit, which the Catholic has received in the Sacraments and who enlightens him through faith. The Holy Spirit "does not sleep" and enlightens souls to make it clear that adultery, such as homosexual acts, etc. they are never lawful… The Catechism affirms in n. 2072: "The ten commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being." Note: the commandments are engraved in the heart of the human being but they are even more engraved in the heart of the Christian enlightened by faith… and for them it is clear that adultery is a very serious sin….

3) It is not a question of doing what is possible according to the measure of human strength, it is a question of doing God's will and living according to the divine commandments, with the help that comes from God and with the grace that God wants to give us. The commandments can never be violated ... The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2068: "The Council of Trent teaches that the ten commandments oblige Christians and that the justified man is still bound to observe them. (Cf Council of Trent, Sess. 6a, Decretum de iustificatione, canons 19-20: DS 1569-1570 .) "

The Second Vatican Council affirms: "The Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, receive from the Lord [...] the mission of teaching all peoples and preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men, through faith, of Baptism and the observance of the commandments, may they obtain salvation "[170]. VS affirms in this line, significantly: “The Church offers the example of numerous saints who have witnessed and defended moral truth to the point of martyrdom or have preferred death to a single mortal sin. By elevating them to the honor of the altars, the Church has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment true, according to which the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention to save his life. " (VS, no. 91)

d) Clarification regarding the statements of prof. Buttiglione on the correction, which the Confessor must carry out, of the penitent and in particular of the divorced and remarried penitent.

I also specify that, contrary to what prof. Buttiglione on p. 146 ff. of his book "Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia", the priest, on his part, must correct the divorced and remarried person who manifests himself as such in Confession. In this case, the rule according to which the warning should not be given if no fruit is hoped for does not apply. Adultery and homosexuality practiced are in evident and grave opposition to the 10 commandments; therefore the Confessor must warn the penitent who is adulterous or who practices homosexuality, because homosexual practice is a serious violation of the 10 commandments, adultery, and in particular adulterous cohabitation, is a serious violation of the 10 commandments and a scandalous fact, which therefore harms the community, and for this reason the adulterous penitent or one who performs homosexual acts cannot be left without warning [171] More precisely, Pope Benedict XIV said in this regard that "If the Confessor knows that the penitent commits some sins of which he is not accused ... the Confessor who has the obligation to preserve the integrity of the Confession must in a good way recall to his memory what he omits, correct him, admonish him, inducing him to a true Penance. "[172] Then the Pontiff recalls that San Bernardino of Siena wonders in his works (tome 2, ser. 27, art. 2, chap. 3, p. 167) whether the Confessor is obliged to diligently examine the conscience of the sinner; the great Sienese saint replies yes, and "... he says that this must be done not only in those things that the penitent is silent on" either through negligence or out of shame ", but also in those who are silent out of ignorance:" ... since it is possible fear that the penitent is ignorant of crass ignorance that according to William it is not an excuse; or because he does not understand that that action is a sin; in fact, according to Isidore, the ignorant sins every day, and he doesn't know it ”.[173]

Benedict XIV then continues the discourse stating that “In fact, since we are not dealing with some positive jus, from which a disorder known to the Confessor and unknown to the penitent has arisen, so much so that if it were notified to the latter it could result in some serious inconvenience; but now it is a question of conquerable ignorance, of actions that everyone should know are sinful; of things that if neglected by the Confessor give reason to the penitent to continue in his iniquitous custom, and to others or to be scandalized or to consider such things as indifferent (since they are practiced with great ease by those who frequent the Sacraments of the Church), the Theologians agree in affirming that the Confessor is obliged to question and admonish the penitent, regardless of the displeasure that, by admonishing him, he will give him, and hoping that if perhaps at that moment the admonition will not be entirely beneficial, it will be in future with God's help. "[174]. The same doctrine is affirmed by s. Alfonso M. de Liguori in the Theologia Moralis  [175] and it is in this passage that he reports the text of Benedict XIV just indicated. St. Alphonsus affirms, in particular, that the Confessor must give an admonition if ignorance is guilty, that is, winnable. [176]

On the other hand, S. Alfonso fully accepts what St. Thomas therefore: “… all are required to commonly know the things of faith, and the general precepts of law: each one is then required to know the duties of his own office. ... Now, it is evident that anyone who neglects the possession, or the accomplishment of the things that he is bound to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Therefore ignorance of what one is bound to know is sin, due to negligence. But ignorance of what one cannot know cannot be attributed to negligence. This is why this latter ignorance is called invincible: due to the impossibility of overcoming it with our commitment. And since it is not voluntary, due to the impossibility in which we are to remove it, this ignorance is not a sin. From this we conclude that invincible ignorance is never a sin; and that conquerable ignorance is a sin, only if it is a question of things that one is bound to know. " (I-II q. 76 a. 2 translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by ESD i.e. Editrice Studio Domenicano) Lack of knowledge of the things of faith, of the general precepts of law and of the duties of one's office is guilty. S. Alfonso M. de Liguori explains, taking up the text of s. Thomas (I-II q. 76 a. 2) who does not give himself invincible (innocent) ignorance of the first principles of the natural moral law and even of the immediate conclusions of them, as are the 10 commandments.[177] Therefore the Confessor must admonish the penitent that it goes obviously against the 10 commandments.

In another text, s. Alphonsus, citing Benedict XIV again, explains that the confessor is obliged to carefully examine the conscience of penitents, to instruct them and therefore to admonish the penitents: “For IV. The confessor is obliged to admonish the penitent. But to make the necessary admonitions not only the confessor must inquire about the species and number of sins, but also their origin and causes, in order to apply the appropriate remedies. Some confessors ask only the species and the number of sins, and nothing more; if they see the penitent willing, they absolve him; if not, without telling him anything, they immediately fire him, saying: go, I can't absolve you. Good confessors do not do this: they first begin to investigate the origin and seriousness of the evil: they ask the custom and the occasions that the penitent has had to sin: in what place: in what time: with what people: with what conjuncture ; since in this way they can better make the correction, dispose the penitent for absolution, and apply the remedies to him.

Having made the aforementioned questions, and having thus well informed the confessor of the origin and seriousness of the evil, he is to proceed to make the necessary correction or admonition. Although he as a father must charity to hear penitents, he is nevertheless obliged as a doctor to admonish them and correct them as necessary: ​​especially those who rarely confess, and are aggravated by many mortal sins. And this is also required to do it with accountants, magistrates, princes, priests, parish priests and prelates, when they confess to some serious deficiency with little feeling. Pope Benedict XIV said. in the bull, Apostolica, §. 22., that the admonitions of the confessor are more effective than the sermons from the pulpit; and with reason, while the preacher does not know the particular circumstances, as the confessor knows them; wherefore he can make the correction much better, and apply the remedies to evil. And so too the confessor is obliged to admonish whoever is in ignorance guilty of some obligation of him, either of natural or positive law. That if the penitent ignores her without fault, then when ignorance is about the things necessary for health, or even if she harms the common good, in every respect the confessor must admonish him of the truth, even if he did not hope for fruit. "[178]

The Catholic is required to know and observe the 10 commandments for his eternal salvation, and therefore it is necessary for the priest to admonish the penitent who performs acts contrary to them (among these acts there are, of course, those of adultery and homosexuality) precisely to in order to direct him on the true way that leads to Heaven. Adultery and homosexuality also normally cause scandal and therefore the faithful who commit them must be admonished even more.

God enlighten us better and better.

e) A fundamental error of prof. Buttiglione and some of those who follow him.

Furthermore, it seems to me important to state about the writings of prof. Buttiglione that this author shows not to realize that Amoris Laetitia is part of a strategy that has opened the "door" and led to so many doctrinal deviations that the Pope did not intervene to condemn and that in various cases he positively supported ... precisely because they are part of the "paradigm shift" strategy he pursued. As I already said criticizing some statements of prof. Buttiglione[179]  contrary to the “Correctio Filialis”: “By carefully reading the“ Correctio ”and the answer of prof. Buttiglione we note one fundamental thing: the "Correctio" refers not only to words but also to acts and omissions…. the professor. Buttiglione stops only at the words of the Pope, so his answer therefore appears to be inconsistent. " [180] Likewise, in his books, the professor does not realize that it is the whole set of actions of the Pope and not only his words, in various cases deliberately ambiguous, that clarify in depth the meaning of Amoris Laetitia ... God who is Light rises. and free us from all darkness of error.

I do not dwell on other aspects or errors of the works of prof. Buttiglione. This book of mine, inasmuch as it brings out the deep meaning, and deviating from sound doctrine, of Amoris Laetitia, brings out errors related to Amoris Laetitia, and on the other hand highlights the sound Catholic doctrine, it is, in a certain way, also a radical refutation of the texts of prof. Buttiglione and the errors contained therein. My criticism of the errors of Cardinal Vallini and Cardinal Müller, in the chapter of this book in which I speak of moral conscience, is also a criticism of the substantial support that prof. Buttiglione gives such errors; these errors were, moreover, fully legitimized by the Pope, as I explained in the chapter just indicated.

I invite prof. Buttiglione but also Cardinal Antonelli as well as Msgr. Girotti to read the book of Card. Coccopalmerio, that of Card. Sistach, read the rules of application of Amoris Laetitia written by the Maltese Bishops, by the German Bishops ... all accepted and in some cases praised by the current Pontiff ... Look at the widespread errors by Card. Schönborn and praised by the Pope examined by me in this book. Read also the errors of Card. Vallini and Müller, fully accepted by the Pope, errors of which I speak and which I refute in this book of mine in the chapter on moral conscience, and on which I also wrote an article[181] … Read the statements of Msgr. Elbs according to which: “Amoris Laetitia is not new, given that Catholics who have remarried and who are sexually active already receive the Eucharist. What's new, he says, is that now Pope Francis seems to be supporting this thesis. “Now the door is open. - Elbs said - People have behaved like this for a long time, but now, with the Pope's blessing, they can make this decision while respecting their conscience. "[182] ... declarations never condemned by the Holy See ... Read the declarations of Cardinal Kasper that I put in this book that speak of "opening doors", read the article by M. Tosatti that speaks of group ceremonies to grant the public Eucharist to divorced and remarried couples[183]… Read the interesting text by St. Magister which speaks of some articles which appeared after Amoris Laetitia, including that of Fr. Spadaro who states "The Exhortation takes up the path of discernment of individual cases from the synodal document without setting limits to integration, as it appeared in the past." [184] Magister also adds, in the same article, a significant statement by prof. Melloni for which "Francis tells those priests who have communicated the divorced and remarried knowing what they were doing that they did not act against the norm, but according to the gospel".

Magister then comments: “In various regions of catholicity, in fact, communion for the divorced and remarried has already been given for some time without problems. And now this practice finds in "Amoris lætitia" the approval it expected from the highest authority of the Church. " Here divorced and remarried stands for divorced and remarried who live more uxorio… obviously. God intervene !!

I invite prof. Buttiglione, Cardinal Antonelli as well as Msgr. Girotti to read what Luciano Moia says about Avvenire and what important moralists say ... become aware of the Pope's gestures and actions and open their eyes to understand that the "paradigm shift" of which Amoris Laetitia is part wants to open the doors so many serious deviations from sound doctrine not only with regard to the divorced and remarried but also with regard to those who commit homosexual acts, as I explained in the penultimate chapter of this book ... Read the clear slash made by Avvenire through L. Moia [185], under the clear direction of his superiors and therefore of the Pope, to Msgr. Melina precisely because she reaffirms sound doctrine and tries to interpret Amoris Laetitia in a line that conforms to sound doctrine[186]; practically the same can be said of Fr. Noriega ... and "obviously" ... Msgr. Melina with p. Noriega was ousted from the John Paul Institute despite the fact that these two theologians are recognized as among the best if not the best moralists in circulation especially in the field of marriage morality ... not for nothing Benedict XVI, after the defenestration of Msgr. Melina: “… wished to receive Prof. Mons. Livio Melina in a private audience. After a long discussion on the recent events of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute, he granted him his blessing, expressing his personal solidarity and assuring him of his closeness in prayer "[187]. An eloquent gesture… obviously!

The professor. Buttiglione, Cardinal Antonelli as well as Msgr. Girotti read ... and also read this book of mine ... and they too begin to courageously and seriously criticize the "paradigm shift" that is the subversion of sound doctrine implemented through Amoris Laetitia ...

May God who is Light arise and free us from all darkness of error.

6) Clarifications on the purpose of not sinning, on various issues related to it and on various statements by Amoris Laetitia.

It should be noted that the resolution required for absolution is essentially the purpose of living according to the Law of God and not acting against it with sin, this requires important clarifications both regarding our real possibility of living according to the commandments and regarding the content of the purpose, that is, in particular with regard to the commitment to the objective implementation of the commandments, and with regard to the possibility of the so-called "gradualness of the Law".

 

a) Can everyone live according to God's Law? What to think of those who at various levels do not have dominion over their actions and therefore are not responsible for their actions?

The sacred Cross be my light.

Let's start from a few passages of Amoris Laetitia:

"A subject, while knowing the norm well, can have great difficulty in understanding" values ​​inherent in the moral norm "[188] or he may find himself in concrete conditions that do not allow him to act differently and to make other decisions without new guilt. " (Amoris Laetitia n.301)

"We remember that" a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than the outwardly correct life of one who spends his days without facing important difficulties "[189]. The concrete pastoral care of ministers and communities cannot fail to make this reality its own. 306. In any circumstance, before those who find it difficult to fully live the divine law, the invitation to walk the via caritatis must resound. " (Amoris Laetitia n.305s)

The Maltese Bishops in their document for the application of Amoris Laetitia wrote: "On the other hand, there are complex situations when the choice to live" as brother and sister "is humanly impossible or causes greater damage" (cf. Amoris Laetitia, note 329). "[190]

Let us ask ourselves: is it possible for everyone to live the 10 commandments? The sacred Cross be my light.

In the VS we read: “The observance of God's law, in certain situations, can be difficult, very difficult: however, it is never impossible. This is a constant teaching of the Church's tradition ... "(VS, n. 102) God calls us to live the 10 commandments, God gives us the ability to live according to the commandments and Confession is the sacrament that must place us precisely in this life of grace and charity, that is, precisely in life according to the commandments. The sacred Cross be my light.

Veritatis Splendor cites, in the text just presented (VS 102) a passage from the Council of Trent, this Council in fact condemned the doctrine that it would be impossible to live the 10 commandments with these words:

“Nemo autem, quantumvis iustificatus, liberum se esse ab observatione mandatorum (can. 20) putare debet; nemo temeraria illa et a Patribus sub anathemate prohibita voce uti, Dei praecepta homini iustificato ad observandum esse impossibilia (can. 18 et 22; cf. DS 397). 'Nam Deus impossibilia non iubet, sed iubendo monet, et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis', et adiuvat ut possis; 'cuius mandata gravia non sunt' (I Jo 5, 3), cuius 'iugum suave est et onus leve' (cf. Mt 11, 30). Qui enim sunt filii Dei, Christum diligunt: qui autem diligunt eum, (ut ipsemet testatur) servant sermones eius (Jo 14, 23), quod utique cum divino auxilio praestare possunt.

… Can. 18. Si quis dixerit, Dei praecepta homini etiam iustificato et sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia: an. s. (cf. DS 1536). "[191] Our translation: No one, then, however justified, must consider himself free from the observance of the commandments (can. 20), no one must make that reckless expression his own and forbidden by the Fathers under pain of excommunication, that is, it is impossible for the justified man to observe the commandments of God (can. 18 and 22). Indeed, God does not command the impossible; but when he commands he admonishes you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot, and he helps so that you can: his commandments are not burdensome (1 Jn. 5,3: 11,30), his yoke is gentle and his weight light ( Mt XNUMX). …. If anyone says that even for man justified and constituted in grace the commandments of God are impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

These magisterial affirmations appear to be a luminous interpretation of the words of Jesus (Mk 10,17: 27-XNUMX) "Jesus, looking around, said to his disciples:" How difficult it is for those who possess riches to enter the kingdom of God! ". The disciples were bewildered by his words; but Jesus resumed and said to them: «Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God ». They, even more amazed, said to each other: "And who can be saved?". But Jesus, looking them in the face, said: «Impossible for men, but not for God! Because everything is possible with God "." The sacred Cross be my light.

We can live according to divine commandments with God's help, with divine grace.

St. John Paul II stated: "In this regard it will not be out of place to remember that faith teaches the possibility of avoiding sin with the help of grace[192]"[193]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2068 "The Council of Trent teaches that the ten commandments oblige Christians and that the justified man is still bound to observe them (Cf Council of Trent, Sess. 6a, Decretum de iustificatione, canons 19-20: DS 1569-1570.) ". The Second Vatican Council affirms: "The Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, receive from the Lord [...] the mission of teaching all peoples and preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men, through faith, of Baptism and of the observance of the commandments, may they obtain salvation ”.[194]

St. John Paul II affirmed: “We know that Jesus Christ has fully reconfirmed the divine commandments of Mount Sinai. He instructed the men to observe them. He indicated that the observance of the commandments is the fundamental condition of reconciliation with God, the fundamental condition for the attainment of eternal salvation. "[195]

Still s. John Paul II teaches: “The Master speaks of eternal life, that is, participation in the very life of God. This life is reached through the observance of the Lord's commandments, including therefore the commandment" Thou shalt not kill ". This is precisely the first precept of the Decalogue that Jesus reminds the young man who asks him which commandments he must observe: "Jesus replied:" Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal ... "" (Mt 19:18). "[196]

The Holy Pontiff himself affirms: "Charity constitutes the essence of the new 'commandment' taught by Jesus. It is in fact the soul of all commandments, the observance of which is further reaffirmed and indeed becomes the clear demonstration of love for God. : "This is the love of God, in keeping his commandments" (1 Jn 5: 3). This love, which is at the same time love for Jesus, represents the condition for being loved by the Father: “Whoever accepts my commandments and keeps them, he loves me. Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father and I too will love him and show myself to him "(Jn 14, 21)…. This mediation is expressed above all in the gift he made of his life, a gift that on the one hand testifies to the greatest love, on the other requires the observance of what Jesus commands: "No one has a greater love than this: to give life for your friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you "(Jn 15: 13-14)." [197] The sacred Cross be my light.

St. Thomas states: ".. dicendum quod implere mandata legis contingit dupliciter." (I-II q. 109 a.4)

That is, the precepts of the law can be fulfilled in two ways: as to the substance of the works, not only as to the substance of the works, but also as to the way of doing them, that is, by having them moved by charity. As for the first way s. Thomas states:

“One way, quantum ad substantiam operum, prout scilicet homo operatur iusta et fortia, et alia virtutis opera. Et hoc modo homo in statu naturae integrae potuit omnia mandata legis implere, alioquin non potuisset in statu illo non peccare, cum nihil aliud sit peccare quam transgredi divina mandata. Sed in statu naturae corruptae non potest homo implere omnia mandata divina sine gratia sanante. "(I-II q. 109 a.4)

This essentially means that the precepts of the law can be fulfilled as regards the substance of works, that is, inasmuch as one performs just, strong, and all other virtuous actions; and in this way in the state of corrupted nature man cannot fulfill all the divine precepts, without healing grace ...

"In the manner possunt impleri mandata legis non solum quantum ad substantiam operis, sed etiam quantum ad modum agendi, ut scilicet ex caritate fiant. Et sic neque in statu naturae integrae, neque in statu naturae corruptae, potest homo implere absque gratia legis mandata. " (I-II q. 109 a.4)

This essentially means that the precepts of the law can be implemented not only as regards the substance of the work, but also as regards the way it is done, that is, by carrying it out moved by charity, in this sense man is not able to fulfill the precepts of the work. law, without grace, neither in the state of intact nature, nor in that of a corrupt nature. Therefore s. Augustine affirms that grace is necessary not only for men to know what they must do but also for them to do with charity what they know.

The commandments have always required grace so that they could be lived in charity. To live the commandments we need the help of God who moves us to fulfill the commandments. The precept of charity cannot be fulfilled with the natural forces of man alone. The commandments are not impossible because we can fulfill them with the help of God, who wants to save us and therefore wants to help us. God is like a friend who makes possible what is not for us alone. We always need divine help and therefore it is necessary to pray continuously, says the s. Scripture "Pray without ceasing ..." (1 Thess. 5,17:6,18), ... "pray without ceasing with all sorts of prayers and supplications in the Spirit, keeping watch for this purpose with all perseverance and praying for all the saints" (Eph XNUMX:XNUMX) .

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the basis of the Word of God affirms in n. 2742 with the words of Evagrio Pontico: "unceasing prayer is a law for us" (Evagrio Pontico, Capita practica ad Anatolium, 49: SC 171, 610 (PG 40, 1245). "At n. 2743 the same Catechism states : “To pray is always possible ..."

Prayer, therefore, is a necessary activity for us, praying for us is a vital necessity that makes the impossible possible, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly says in n. 2744

S. Alfonso d 'Liguori states: “… whoever prays is certainly saved; whoever does not pray certainly is damned. All the Blessed (except the Children) were saved by praying. All the Damned are lost in order not to pray; if they prayed, they would not be lost. And this is, and will be their greatest despair in Hell, that they were able to save themselves with such ease, as it was to ask God for graces, and now do not be the poor in time to ask them. "[198]

St. Alphonsus pray for us.

St. Thomas states in this line: "Post Baptismum autem necessari est homini iugis oratio, ad hoc quod caelum introeat, licet enim per Baptismum remittantur peccata, remanet tamen fomes peccati nos contestans interius, et mundus et Daemones qui contestant exterius." (III, q. 39 a. 5 co.) For man, even after Baptism, continuous prayer is necessary in order to live the commandments and triumph over spiritual enemies who do not want them to live. Prayer must serve us to obtain grace and to live in it.

With prayer we open our hearts to God and therefore to grace and, as St. Thomas explains, the smallest grace can resist every concupiscence and avoid every mortal sin that is committed in the transgression of the commandments: "... minima gratia potest resistere cuilibet concupiscentiae , et vitare omne peccatum mortale, quod committitur in transgressione mandatorum legis, minima enim caritas plus diligit Deum quam cupiditas millia auri et argenti. "(IIIª q. 70 a. 4 n c.)

St. Thomas obtain divine wisdom for us.

The commandments are therefore possible for us with the help of divine grace and therefore prayer is necessary that opens the heart to this grace, but what does the sound doctrine say about those who at various levels are not masters of their acts and are not therefore responsible for such acts? The sacred Cross be my light.

Let's say first of all that, according to Aertnys Damen, all men are subject to the natural law, only in the first act are people subject to it as they lack the use of reason, they are subject to it also in act according to those who enjoy the use of reason (see Aertnys Damen “Theologia Moralis.” Marietti, 1956, vol. I p.139).

We then say that the divine law of the Gospel obliges all men (cf. Aertnys Damen “Theologia Moralis.” Marietti, 1956, vol. I p. 145) and, as affirmed by the Council of Trent and reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n. 2068 “The Council of Trent teaches that the ten commandments oblige Christians and that the justified man is still bound to observe them (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 6a, Decretum de iustificatione, canons 19-20: DS 1569-1570. ) "So even the demented, the incapable of understanding and willing and the children are obliged by the New Law and are required to observe it but are excused for their non-compliance (cf. Aertnys Damen" Theologia Moralis .. "Marietti, 1956, vol. I p. 182). The sacred Cross be my light.

In this regard it is important to remember that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2072: “Since the ten commandments reveal the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, in their essential content they reveal grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. The ten commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being. "

The fact that the law of God is indispensable, as also taught by St. Thomas (cf. Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) Implies that no one can dispense others or himself from the fulfillment of the Law. As we will see better later: no one can dispense himself or others from the implementation of the divine commandments and this is particularly true with regard to what is objectively serious they condemn; that is, no one can exempt himself or others from the observance of the commandments allowing himself or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, murder, pedophilia, i.e. sexual abuse of minors, rape, etc.) condemned by the divine commandments.

God who has given us the commandments gives us to be able to observe them and God is almighty, therefore it is possible to give him the full observance of them even to people who are not responsible for their acts. So there is no one who is absolutely unable, with God's help, to live the commandments. Everyone must undertake to live in these commandments which, as mentioned, are not subject to dispensation. Everyone must strive to follow the narrow path that leads to Heaven. May the sacred cross be our light.

Obviously the ultimate judgment on this observance comes from God who, on the basis of his help, our real collaboration and our real impediments to it, will issue his divine sentence. What I have just said also applies to those who are partially responsible for their actions. Also for them the rule that the law of God is indispensable is valid, as also teaches St. Thomas (cf. Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) So that no one can dispense others or himself from the fulfillment of the Law. As we shall see better later, I repeat it: no one can dispense himself or others from the implementation of the divine commandments and this is particularly true with regard to what is objectively serious they condemn; that is, no one can exempt himself or others from the observance of the commandments allowing himself or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, murder, pedophilia, rape, etc.) condemned by the divine commandments.

Everyone must commit to living in these commandments. Everyone must strive to follow the narrow path that leads to Heaven.

Even the demented, the incapable of understanding and willing, small children, those who are partially responsible for their actions are bound by the New Law and are required to observe it but to the extent that they are incapable they are excused for their failures (cf. Aertnys Damen “Theologia Moralis ..” Marietti, 1956, vol. I p. 182). The sacred Cross be my light.

The ultimate judgment on our work is of God who knows us thoroughly. God enlighten us more and more.

b) The resolution not to sin anymore, which is part of contrition, is a commitment to live according to all the Law of God, in charity, and not to violate even one of its commands.

God enlighten us and fill us with his Truth.

Sound doctrine affirms that the grace of conversion, which God wants to give, asks man for a threefold answer, which includes the radical change in the life of the penitent obviously according to the Law of God, in charity. [199]

The center of the need for conversion in the NT lies in the believing and filial acceptance of the salvation already promised, in full adherence of faith to the Person of Christ, in listening to his word and in faithful observance of it in charity.[200]

The prophet Ezekiel affirmed, under inspiration, very important things for us (Ezekiel 33, 12ss) which mean in particular that whoever has seriously sinned must necessarily convert to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and to have eternal life and this conversion implies a life according to all the Law of God, in charity; God has given us all of his Law so that we must observe all of it.

In the Gospel Jesus responds by saying to observe the commandments to those who want to obtain eternal life (Mt 19) Jesus is very clear in affirming that salvation is achieved by doing the will of his Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 7,21:XNUMX ), only by carrying out this will, in charity, does one enter the kingdom of heaven, therefore all are called to live in the will of God, in the holy divine commandments, out of this there is sin and therefore eternal damnation.

In the letter of St. James we read: "For whoever observes the whole Law, but transgresses it even in one point, becomes guilty of everything" (Jas 2,10:XNUMX)

In Deuteronomy we read: "" Cursed is he who does not keep the words of this law in force, to put them into practice! ". All the people will say: "Amen". "(Dt. 27,26)

And yes. Paul, referring to this text, states: "... it is written: Cursed is anyone who does not remain faithful to all the things written in the book of the Law to put them into practice." (Gal. 3,10:XNUMX)

Of course, salvation lies in living according to all the Law: "" If you listen to the voice of the Lord, your God, and do what is right in his eyes, if you listen to his orders and keep all his laws, I I will not inflict on you any of the infirmities that I inflicted on the Egyptians, because I am the Lord, the one who heals you! "." (Ex. 15,26)

“You will therefore observe all my laws and all my prescriptions and put them into practice. I am the Lord "" (Lv. 19,37).

"You will therefore observe all my laws and all my prescriptions and put them into practice, so that the land where I lead you to live there may not vomit you." (Lev. 20,22:XNUMX)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2053: “Following Jesus implies the observance of the commandments. The Law is not abolished (cf. Mt 5,17:XNUMX.), But man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master, who is its perfect fulfillment "... this following must be carried out in charity.

This following implies the observance of all the commandments: ”… the ten commandments reveal, in their essential content, grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.2072)

Charity is commanded by God (cf. Jn 13,34, Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1823 ff) charity makes us live all the commandments (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1824), charity is indissolubly united with sanctifying grace (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1996ss)

St. John Paul II affirmed: “We know that Jesus Christ has fully reconfirmed the divine commandments of Mount Sinai. He instructed the men to observe them. He indicated that the observance of the commandments is the fundamental condition of reconciliation with God, the fundamental condition for the attainment of eternal salvation. "[201]

The History of the Sacrament of Confession fully confirms what has been said: contrition, necessary to obtain the absolution of sins, evidently implies the intention to live according to all the Law of God, in charity!

As the International Theological Commission said: “The essential structure of the sacrament of penance is already attested in the primitive Church, since the apostolic and post-apostolic age. ... the sign of the sacrament of penance consists of a double step: on the one hand, there are the human acts of conversion (conversio) through the repentance that love arouses (contritio), of external confession (confessio) and of reparation (satisfactio ) ... "[202] Contrition is a fundamental constant of true penance… and true contrition evidently implies the commitment to live according to all the Law of God and not to violate it with sin!

The International Theological Commission significantly affirmed, in the line we are presenting, regarding the essence of penance: "Penance is therefore both a gift of grace and a free and morally responsible act of man (actus humanus), an act by which the human subject recognizes the responsibility for his bad actions and, at the same time, with a personal decision, changes his life by giving it a new direction that directs it towards God. "[203] … True contrition implies the commitment to live according to all the Law of God! The Roman Catechism will say in this line: “That if man can be justified, and from being evil to become good, even before practicing the individual prescriptions of the Law in external actions; he cannot, however, who already has the use of reason, transform himself from a sinner into a righteous one, if he is not willing to observe all the commandments of God. " [204]

The most ancient Christian writings after the New Testament show that in the early days of Christianity one does not see a penitential institution as well defined as it will later be seen but in any case those who wanted to be saved had to repent from the bottom of their hearts for their sins which implied the break with sin and obedience to the divine will; obviously those who submitted to Penance had to commit themselves to live according to the Law of God ... and practice satisfactory works[205]. Contrition evidently involved a commitment to live according to all of God's Law!

The penitential discipline is clarified and strengthened in the fourth century and for us it is of particular interest to examine the rite of the readmission of the penitent: on the one hand there is the action of the Church through the Bishop and the other sacred ministers and on the other c 'it is the penitent who, prostrate on the ground, after the penitential journey, with the radical commitment to implement the Law of God in its entirety, welcomes the words of the Bishop and then listens to the prayers made for him (cf. P. Adnès, "Pénitence (repentir et sacrement) ". Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, Tome 12 - Colonne 962). Contrition evidently involved a commitment to live according to all of God's Law!

St. Ambrose emphasizes the need for true contrition to include life according to God's Law[206]

Contrition and therefore true conversion has always been necessary for a true remission of sins; it is God who forgives through the Church and God is not satisfied with only apparent conversions, he wants a change of heart and life (cf. Ez. 23; Gl 2,12-13; Is 1,16-17; Mt 6,1 -6.16-18) otherwise there is no forgiveness.

St. Augustine affirmed: “Behold, I begin to examine these penitents and I realize that they continue to live badly. And how can you regret a thing if you keep doing it? If you are repentant, stop doing it! "[207]

Even the so-called "tariffed" penance introduced by the monks of northern Europe and then spread throughout Europe implies the conversion of the person and therefore true contrition with the commitment to live according to all the Law of God!

As É. Amann, the "tariffed" Penance is not substantially different from the other discipline of Penance that we examined above, in both we can see the same constitutive elements, among which we must underline the contrition "Paenitenda non admittere, admissa deflere", reprobate the sin and cry for sins committed, in these two maxims the penitential book of St. Colombano indicates repentance, evidently necessary for absolution.[208]

The "paenitenda non admittere" obviously includes the commitment to fully live the commandments in charity and therefore not to sin.

It will then become normal (probably around the year 1000) to give absolution immediately after the accusation of sins and without waiting for the fulfillment of the satisfaction[209]. True contrition, evidently implying the commitment to live according to the whole Law of God, was always necessary!

Pietro Lombardo will indicate contrition among the principal acts of the penitent ... and for him, too, true contrition obviously implies the commitment to live according to all the Law of God! This author says in this same passage "" Est autem poenitentia, ut ait Ambrosius, mala praeterita plangere, et plangenda iterum non committere ". Item Gregorius: "Poenitere" est anteacta peccata deflere et flenda non committere. Nam qui sic alia deplorat, ul alia tamen committat, adhuc poenitentiam agere aul ignorat, aut dissimulat. Quid enim prodest, si peccata luxuriae quis defleat, et adhuc avaritiae aestibus anhelat? "(Pietro Lombardo" Sententiarum Libri IV ", l. IV, d. XIV, ch. I-II) ... true contrition, as the Fathers say , evidently implies the commitment to live according to all the Law of God and not to violate it with sin!

The lack of true contrition and commitment to carry out all the Law of God renders Penance false, as the Second Lateran Council affirmed[210] Gregory VII had already spoken of false penitents in the V Roman Council and in the VII Roman Council (PL 148 col. 801. 815s), especially in the statements of the VII Roman Council (PL 148 col. 815s). The holy Pope clearly stated in these texts that as false Baptism does not purify the soul, so false Penance does not destroy the sin committed; therefore whoever has committed a grave sin must entrust himself to good and prudent priests and must convert so that, leaving bad deeds, he remains in good deeds, that is, evidently in life according to all the Law of God. If the sinner is converted he has life otherwise he remains in spiritual death.

Contrition, says St. Thomas, carries out an ordination and conversion of the mind to God with the aversion from sin, the pain for the sin committed and the resolution not to sin again (cf. "Summa Contra Gentiles", lib. 4 chap. 72 n. 4. ) which is the purpose of living according to all the divine law, in charity ... and the divine law commands to live all its precepts and to flee the so-called proximate occasions of sin[211]

In this line, the Council of Trent declared: "... that this contrition includes not only the cessation of sin and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also the hatred of the old life, conforming to the expression: Turn away from you all your iniquities, with which you have overruled and built yourself a new heart and a new soul (Ez. 18,31:XNUMX) ”. [212]

Therefore, contrition evidently includes a commitment to live according to all God's Law and not to violate it with sin. In fact, the Roman Catechism, quoting a passage from the Council of Trent itself states: "This is how the Fathers of the Council of Trent define contrition: Contrition is a pain of the soul and a detestation of sin committed with the purpose of no longer sinning for the future (Sess. 14, and. 4) "[213] … The resolution not to sin anymore is evidently the purpose of living according to all the divine Law; in fact in the same Catechism[214] we find written: "From what we have said it is easy to deduce the conditions necessary for true contrition, conditions that must be explained to the faithful with the greatest diligence, so that all know by what means they can acquire it, and have a sure norm to discern up to what point are far from the perfection of it. The first condition is hatred and detestation of all sins committed. If we detested only some of them, contrition would not be salutary, but false and simulated, since St. James writes: Whoever observes the whole law and lacks one thing alone, transgresses the whole law (Jas 2,10:XNUMX). "

The Roman Catechism further explains in this line: “That if man can be justified, and from being evil to become good, even before practicing the individual prescriptions of the Law in external actions; he cannot, however, who already has the use of reason, transform himself from a sinner into a righteous one, if he is not willing to observe all the commandments of God. "[215]… True contrition evidently includes the commitment to live according to all the Law of God, in charity and not to violate it with sin.

Further, in the same Catechism we read: "The third is that the penitent make a firm and sincere resolution to reform his life, as the Prophet clearly teaches: If the wicked do penance for all the sins he has committed, he will keep all mine precepts and will keep judgment and justice, will live; nor will I remember any more of the sins he has committed. And further on: When the wicked will turn away from the wickedness he has committed and keep judgment and righteousness, he will give life to his soul. And further still: Repent and do penance for all your iniquities; so these will not go back to ruin. Throw away from you all the prevarications into which you have fallen, and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit (Ez 18,21:18,31 Ez 8,11:5,14). The Lord himself ordered the same thing in saying to the adulteress: Go and sin no more (Jn XNUMX); and to the paralytic healed in the pool: Behold, you are healed: sin no more (Jn XNUMX).

Moreover, nature and reason clearly show that there are two things absolutely necessary to make contrition true and sincere: repentance of sins committed, and the resolution not to commit them again for the future. Anyone who wants to reconcile with a friend whom he has offended must at the same time deplore the injury done, and be careful, for the future, not to offend the friendship again. These two things must necessarily be accompanied by obedience, since it is right for man to obey the natural, divine and human law to which he is subject. Therefore, if a penitent has violently or fraudulently stolen something from his neighbor, he is obliged to return it; if he has offended his dignity and his life with words or deeds, he must satisfy him with the performance of some service or some benefit. In this regard, everyone knows the saying of Saint Augustine: Sin is not forgiven unless the stolen goods are returned (Epist. CL3,6,20). "[216]

Even some condemnations issued by the Popes, in line with the affirmations of the Council of Trent, reaffirm the need for true contrition which evidently implies the commitment to live according to all the Law of God.[217]

St. Alphonsus in his "Theologia moralis" and in various of his works clearly states that confession has as its proximate matter the acts of the penitent among which there is contrition which includes the purpose of living according to the Law of God, in charity, and therefore not to sin [218] particularly significant in this line is this affirmation of St. Alfonso: “For II. The purpose must be universal (speaking of mortal sins), as everyone teaches with s. Thomas (III q. 87. a. 1. ad 1.)… It has been said of mortal sins, because as for venial it is certain with s. Thomas (3. pq 87. a. 1. ad 1.), that it is enough to propose to abstain from anyone, without proposing to abstain from others (Lib. 6. n. 451. v. II. Requiritur.) . Moreover (as Suar., Croix etc. say) man can propose to flee all deliberate venials, and as the indeliberates it is enough to propose to flee them for what human frailty entails, as the angelic himself says to the place. quoted. "[219] True contrition includes the resolution to live according to all of God's Law, in charity, and therefore not to sin. This includes the commitment to flee from upcoming occasions of sin because the Law of God not only commands us to flee from sins but also occasions[220]

In line with what has been said so far, we read some important affirmations disseminated by the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (often referred to here as SC d. PF). First of all we read that in various cases it is necessary to deny absolution because true contrition is lacking and the penitent is not willing to turn away from sin and flee the next occasions of sin, etc. [221]

Evidently, those who do not make a serious commitment to live according to the 10 commandments and to flee upcoming occasions of sin should not be absolved.

Furthermore, according to the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide: before absolving confessors must see if in the souls of penitents there is the true contrition that is required for the integrity of the Sacrament, so they must see if there is true hatred in them. of sins, if there really is, and not only in words, true hatred for the life of sin and if there is the real beginning of the new life in Christ etc., in this line the instructions given on this point are recommended from s. Carlo Borromeo. ... and the new life we ​​are talking about is that linked to contrition ... which implies a serious commitment to live according to all the Law of God.[222]

The Catechism of St. Pius X states in this line: ""

731. What does the resolution consist of? The resolution consists in a resolute will never to commit sin again and to use all the means necessary to escape it.

  1. What conditions must the resolution have to be good? In order for the resolution to be good, it must have mainly three conditions: it must be absolute, universal and effective.
  2. What do you mean: absolute resolution? It means that the resolution must be without any conditions of time, place, or person.
  3. What does it mean: the resolution must be universal? The resolution must be universal, it means that we must want to flee all mortal sins, both those already committed on other occasions, as well as others that we could commit.
  4. What do you mean: the resolution must be effective? The resolution must be effective, it means that we must have a resolute will to lose everything first than to commit a new sin, to flee the dangerous occasions of sinning, to destroy bad clothes, and to fulfill the obligations contracted as a result of our sins. . "

The purpose or purpose, in order to have true contrition, must be universal, that is, it must imply the commitment to live according to the whole Law of God, in charity and to flee all acts gravely contrary to this Law, and in particular what is objectively mortal sin. Such a resolution must be effective because it must include a resolution to flee from forthcoming occasions of sin.

The Ritual specifies. “The priest must carefully consider when and to whom absolution is to be imparted, denied, or deferred; let it not happen that he absolves those who are incapable of this benefit, as it would be: who does not give any sign of pain; who does not want to put down a hatred or an enmity; or who, being able, does not want to give back the other; who does not want to leave an imminent occasion of sin, or otherwise abandon a path of sin and amend his life for the better; who has given scandal in public, unless he gives public satisfaction and removes the scandal; who has incurred in sins reserved for Superiors. "[223] ... the penitent must be willing to amend his life for the better ... obviously committing himself to live according to the whole Law of God, and to flee the upcoming occasions of sin.

In the "Dominum et Vivificantem" of s. John Paul II we find written in n. 42: “Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant. ... "[224] and at nos. 46 of the same encyclical we can read that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin committed by man, who claims his presumed "right" to persevere in sin and thus refuses redemption. In this case, the man refuses to accept contrition… which implies the commitment to live according to the whole Law of God, in charity, and therefore to flee the opportunity of sin.

In the Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, at n. 31, s. John Paul II further reiterated what we are saying about the absolute necessity of contrition: "But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, that is, a clear and decisive repudiation of the sin committed together with the intention not to return to commit it, for the love that one brings to God and that is reborn with repentance. ... "the truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart" (Rite of Penance, 6c). "[225] Obviously, man's return to God takes place through man's intention to live according to all the divine law… God enlighten us!

In the Rite of Penance[226] to nos. 5-6 we read: “6. The disciple of Christ who, moved by the Holy Spirit, approaches the sacrament of Penance after sin, must first of all be converted wholeheartedly to God. This intimate conversion of the heart, which includes the contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life, the sinner expresses it through the confession made to the Church, due satisfaction, and the amendment of life. …. a) Contrition. Among the acts of the penitent, contrition occupies the first place, which is "the pain and detestation of the sin committed, with the purpose of no longer sinning". And in fact, "we can only reach the kingdom of Christ with" metanoia ", that is, with that intimate and radical change, as a result of which man begins to think, judge and rearrange his life, moved by holiness and goodness of God, as it manifested itself and was given to us in fullness in his Son (cf. Heb 1, 2; Col 1, 19 and passim; Eph 1, 23 and passim) ". It should be noted well: the penitent must first of all be converted wholeheartedly to God. This intimate conversion of the heart includes the contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life… that is, of life according to all divine commands; only through this intimate and radical change, as a result of which man begins to think, judge and rearrange his life moved by the holiness and goodness of God, as it manifested itself and was given to us in fullness in the Son, we can enter the Kingdom of God ...

The truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart, if it lacks absolution it is invalid and Penance is false.

If true purpose is lacking, contrition is lacking, there is no true repentance, says yes. John Paul II: “It is also self-evident that the accusation of sins must include the serious resolution not to commit any more in the future. If this disposition of the soul were lacking, in reality there would be no repentance: this, in fact, concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not taking a position contrary to a possible moral evil would be not detesting evil, not having repentance. But just as this must first of all derive from the pain of having offended God, so the resolution not to sin must be based on divine grace, which the Lord never lets those who do what is possible to act honestly fail. " [227]  If the serious resolution not to commit sins in the future is lacking, repentance is lacking, contrition is lacking and absolution is invalid; the resolution not to sin is obviously the purpose of life according to all divine commands, in charity.

May the sacred cross be our light.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote a few years ago: "In any case, absolution can be granted only if there is the certainty of true contrition, that is to say" the interior pain and the reproach of the sin that has been committed , with the resolution not to sin anymore "(cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c.4). In this line, a divorced and remarried person cannot validly be absolved who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and therefore abstain from the acts proper to the spouses, and in this sense doing everything in his power. " [228] Without contrition there can be no valid absolution of the penitent. …. therefore, a divorced and remarried person who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and to abstain from the acts proper to spouses cannot be validly absolved ... and true contrition implies the intention to live according to all the Law of God , in charity!

The Roman Catechism had said brightly in this line: “That if man can be justified, and from being evil to become good, even before practicing the individual prescriptions of the Law in external actions; he cannot, however, who already has the use of reason, transform himself from a sinner into a righteous one, if he is not willing to observe all the commandments of God. "[229]

May the Trinity make this truth shine in his Church and free the Pastors and the faithful from any illusion of saving themselves without merit and without conversion.

b, 1) What resolution not to sin should be required of people with limited ability to understand and will?

As Amoris Laetitia herself points out, it may happen that there are people who have impediments to the voluntariness and freedom of their actions for which their responsibility for their objectively serious actions can be small or nil, so that objectively serious acts committed by them with such impediments are not serious sins.

We must ask ourselves whether people who have the aforementioned impediments could be acquitted in Confession even if they had the intention of carrying out objectively serious acts (murder, pedophilia, rape, adultery, etc.) or in any case if they did not have a real intention not to carry out objectively serious acts.

More precisely, it is necessary to ask whether such persons could receive sacramental absolution without having the intention of not committing objectively serious acts or even proposing to commit objectively serious acts, due to the aforementioned impediments which presumably would remain in the future as well, so that the fulfillment of objectively serious acts it would be for them only a venial sin and taking into account the fact that the intention to sin venially does not normally exclude contrition and therefore absolution.

Could, therefore, a person who has such impediments, be sacramentally acquitted while that person intends to kill an innocent person or to carry out an act of pedophilia or an act of adultery, or an act of homosexuality or in any case an objectively serious act?

A person who has such impediments could be sacramentally acquitted while that person does not propose not to kill an innocent person or not to commit an act of pedophilia or an act of adultery, or an act of homosexuality or in any case an objectively serious act, especially if it is in a situation that leads her to easily perform such an objectively serious act; then could a person be acquitted who is willing to commit an act grossly contrary to God's Law?

We have already stated above that whoever is incapable of contrition is evidently incapable of receiving this Sacrament of Penance.[230]; whoever has no use of reason does not validly receive this sacrament; whoever does not have contrition does not validly receive this sacrament (cf. Palazzini “Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum” Romae, 1968, v. IV, page 165); moreover this contrition is perfect (perfect contrition) and imperfect (attrition) and supernatural (cf. Major Catechism of St. Pius X nn. 714.717), it takes place under the action of the Holy Spirit[231] and it implies the intention to live in charity and therefore to live objectively according to the commandments of God, to flee the next occasions of sin and therefore not to carry out acts objectively contrary to this Law; therefore whoever is incapable of proposing, with God's help, not to commit an objectively grave act and to flee the next occasions of grave sin is incapable of receiving sacramental absolution.

More generally: a person who does not, under the guidance of God, make this intention of:

1) avoid what is in contrast with the Law of God and in particular that which is seriously and objectively in contrast with the 10 commandments;

2) to flee from upcoming occasions of grave sin.

In this line, unbelievers, children up to a certain age, people who are demented or otherwise unable to propose to live according to the 10 commandments, etc. cannot be validly acquitted. and more generally all those who do not propose, under the guidance of God, to live objectively according to the 10 commandments with the virtues indicated by the Bible, and therefore do not propose to avoid everything that objectively contrasts seriously with the 10 commandments: blasphemies , murder, rape, pedophilia, adultery, abortion etc. etc.

The Confessor cannot dispense from the implementation of the commandments, everyone must, under the guidance of God, propose seriously, effectively and universally not to sin anymore in order to be validly absolved.

God enlighten us more and more.

In concrete terms, therefore, if with regard to the past or the present a certain weakness of will has arisen in some penitents which presumably renders their objectively serious sins venial, the Confessor must help them to propose themselves, with the help of God and prayer:

1) to live according to the Law of God in charity and in particular not to carry out objectively serious acts;

2) to flee the upcoming occasions which lead to deviate from the divine law.

Thus they can receive valid sacramental absolution.

Without true purpose and true contrition, absolution is null for lack of contrition.

Nothing appears, in this line, the absolution given to a person with impediments that mitigate the responsibility for his actions in the event that this person intends to commit acts of pedophilia or adultery or homosexuality etc .; in fact, there is no real contrition, perfect or imperfect, which takes place under the guidance of God, which precisely directs us to observe all the divine Law and therefore to flee the upcoming occasions that distance us from such observance.

Nothing appears, in this line, the absolution given to a person with impediments that mitigate the responsibility for his actions in the event that such person does not propose to observe, under the guidance of God, all the law of God and therefore does not he proposes not to carry out acts of pedophilia or adultery or homosexuality etc., the absolution given to those who are willing to do what the divine law forbids is nothing; in fact, there is no true perfect or imperfect contrition that takes place under the guidance of God, which precisely directs us to observe all the divine Law and therefore to flee the upcoming occasions that distance us from such observance; I underline that true contrition is a supernatural act that is carried out under the guidance of God which obviously does not push the penitent to integrate the divine law.

The Confessor cannot dispense from the implementation of the commandments; all must, under the guidance of God, propose seriously, effectively and universally not to sin anymore in order to be validly absolved.

One of the characteristics of the resolution for a valid absolution is that it is universal, that is, that it directs the person to observe all the divine law and therefore to avoid all violations of it, especially the most serious ones; St. Alphonsus M. de 'Liguori states: “There are three conditions for the true purpose for Confession: it must be firm, universal, and effective. "[232].

The Catechism of St. Pius X states: “732. What conditions must the resolution have to be good? In order for the resolution to be good, it must have mainly three conditions: it must be absolute, universal and effective. … 734. What does it mean: the resolution must be universal?

The resolution must be universal, it means that we must want to flee all mortal sins, both those already committed on other occasions, as well as others that we could commit. " Obviously this means that in order to be absolved it is necessary to have the intention to observe all the Law of God ... The Confessor, I repeat, cannot dispense from the implementation of the commandments, everyone must, under God's guidance, propose themselves seriously, effectively and universally not to sin anymore in order to be validly absolved.

In such cases, it is important for the Confessor to do everything possible so that people with this incapacity pray and place themselves under the guidance of the Church so that they are controlled by their superiors and do not carry out objectively serious acts.

For the penitent to make a true act of contrition it is important that the Confessor guides him to insist with prayers to welcome the divine gift of true contrition, which makes absolution valid; remember the Confessor and remind the penitents that nothing is impossible for God and that indeed, He wants to save us, sanctify us and therefore give us contrition for our sins.

Nothing is impossible for God. Faith makes us lean on God's help and on his Omnipotence and therefore leads us to ask God for his grace. St. John Paul II affirmed, as we have seen: "In this regard it will not be out of place to remember that faith teaches the possibility of avoiding sin with the help of grace [233]. " [234] … With divine grace it is not impossible to avoid sin.

May God open our life more and more to faith in his Omnipotence.

It seems to me important to further underline that the resolution necessary for absolution is accomplished under the action of the Holy Spirit who certainly does not push a person to carry out objectively serious acts but wants holy acts to be carried out objectively and with the required virtues.

The Holy Spirit, in this line, guides us to implement what VS affirms: "Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule has been concretely recognized, the only morally good act is to obey the moral law and refrain from the action that it forbids. "(VS, n. 67)… once the objective gravity of an act has been recognized, the Holy Spirit moves us not to carry out this action, be it pedophilia, adultery, murder etc.

True contrition and the true purpose not to sin is a gift of the Holy Spirit that we must welcome; whoever is unable to accept this gift of contrition (therefore on purpose not to sin anymore and to flee the next occasions of sin) and therefore is not contrite is incapable of receiving the Sacrament, similarly whoever does not have faith cannot validly receive this sacrament, equally whoever has not received Baptism is unable to validly receive Confession, equally whoever does not confess to a priest other than the one with whom he has sinned against the sixth commandment, is unable to validly receive Confession (cf. Can. 977 )

Give us Lord to always be guided by your Spirit and give us to understand in his Light that there are no various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations, such as St. John Paul II clearly stated: "... the so-called" law of gradualness "or gradual path cannot be identified with the" gradualness of the law ", as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations."[235] … There are no various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations.

The commandments are indispensable, as we have seen (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072; Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.), Neither the penitent can dispense himself nor the Confessor can dispense him from the commitment to carry out the commandments.

God calls everyone to observe his Law; He is omnipotent and can heal and transform even the sickest souls; the faith in Him, necessary for a valid Confession, and divine help help us to propose not to sin and to flee the next occasions of sin, in this light the Confessor must help the penitent to carry out a true act of contrition with the aforementioned purpose and on the other hand the Confessor cannot absolve the penitent who lacks this supernatural contrition and this purpose.

Dom Giulio Meiattini wrote an interesting book on Amoris Laetitia and in an interview [236] he affirms, among other things: “… go so far as to affirm, as AL does, that, despite a lasting and unchanged conduct in objective contrast with evangelical morality, absolution can be given, this is to challenge divine grace. It is precisely the principle of discernment, much invoked, that should have steered us on a different path. "[237]

It seems interesting to me here to propose for your reading two texts on the Holy Spirit and his work in man. In the first text, s. Basil says of the Holy Spirit: “For him hearts are lifted up, the weak are led by the hand, the strong come to perfection. He shines upon those who have purified themselves of all ugliness and makes them spiritual through the fellowship they have with him. … From him eternal joy, from him constant union and likeness with God, and, more sublime than any other, from him the possibility of becoming God. "[238]

In the second text he affirms St. Cyril: "It is easy to demonstrate that the Spirit transforms those in whom he dwells into another nature and renews them in their life is easy to demonstrate with testimonies from both the Old and the New Testament ... See how the Spirit transforms, so to speak, into a ' other image those in whom he lives? In fact it easily leads from the taste of earthly things to that of heavenly things alone and from a cowardly shyness to a strength of spirit full of courage and great generosity. "[239]

The Holy Spirit, with sanctifying grace, divinizes and therefore transforms men, making them capable of living according to the word of God and therefore of overcoming all temptations.

I emphasize that the Holy Spirit can also transform people who are sick, incapable, etc. so let's not stop praying for them and inviting them to pray.

It is also necessary to consider that the Sacraments have a public dimension and that through them a healthy and upright teaching must pass to the People of God, there is a visible dimension of objective implementation of the commandments, of "visible" grace that the Sacraments must guard and show. as a testimony of real and visible holiness which is a gift of Almighty God and which is lived in faith in Almighty God.

In this line Fr G. Meiattini affirms: “It should instead be the theology of the sacrament, with its implications in actu celebrationis, that provides the comprehensive picture of the anthropological, psychological and situational criteria generally assumed by the moral theology of discernment; because the sacramental logic of the visible and objective sign has excess and wider needs, which cannot be reduced to the interior situation of the subject and of the conscience with respect to the norm (respected or transgressed) or to invisible grace (present or absent). The sacraments have to do with visibility

of grace, not with its interior invisibility. "[240].

The Sacrament of Confession must preserve its objective and "visible" holiness which precisely requires the penitent to open up to sanctifying grace and therefore the true, effective and universal purpose of living according to the Law of God, of not sinning anymore and of to flee from forthcoming occasions of sin.

It should also be noted that, as St. Thomas "Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut Deus non alligavit virtutem suam rebus naturalibus, ut non possit praeter eas operari cum voluerit quod in miraculosis actibus facit, ita non alligavit virtutem suam sacramentis, ut non possit sine sacramentorum ministris aliquem sanctificare" Super ., lib. 4 d. 6 q. 1 to. 1 qc. 2 co.). God has not linked his power to the Sacraments and he can sanctify someone even without ministers of the Sacraments.

This means in particular that those who are unable to perform an act of contrition such as the demented etc. and therefore they cannot receive sacramental absolution, they are not damned for this, God has other paths for their salvation and sanctification.

On the other hand, the Sacrament of Confession must guard its visible and objective holiness and offer sacramental forgiveness only to those who are really and "visibly" contrite and who, therefore, undertake to live according to the commandments in charity and therefore to give good example of life in the world.

May God enlighten us and grant us to always grow in the knowledge of his Truth.

May God fill us more and more with his Light on these important points of doctrine.

b, 2) Errors on the resolution necessary for valid absolution and on various issues connected to it in Msgr. VM Fernández, in the letter of the Argentine Bishops and in Amoris Laetitia.

What we have said highlights some errors that emerge in VM Fernández, considered by some to be the ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia [241], and in the letter of the Argentine Bishops ... then in the Amoris Laetitia because the letter of the Argentine Bishops authentically interprets the Amoris Laetitia ...

God enlighten us.

We immediately note that, as we will say better later, both Msgr. Fernández that the letter of the Argentine Bishops and the Amoris Laetitia are in fact, even if they condemn it in words, in line with the "graduality of the Law"…. a diverted and condemned line ...

Then we note that both Mons. Fernández and the letter of the Argentine Bishops allow to receive sacramental absolution and the Eucharist to people who do not have the intention not to commit objectively serious acts and in particular do not have the intention not to commit adultery ...

But let's see better ...

In his article entitled: “El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta.” Medellin / vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / pp. 449-468 - Msgr. VM Fernández commented on Amoris Laetitia also in the light of the letter from the Argentine Bishops. Mons. VM Fernández, as mentioned, is considered by some to be the ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia and undoubtedly some of his writings are found substantially in certain passages of this exhortation, as we shall see better; this prelate is very close to the Pope, who elevated him to the episcopate and appointed him archbishop, assigning him a diocese in Argentina; for all this it is very interesting to see what he says.

In his article just cited on pages 451ss the aforementioned author explains that Amoris Laetitia with the interpretation given to it by the Argentine Bishops and approved by the Pope changes the previous practice (p. 460) and admits divorced and remarried to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist cohabitants who do not have the purpose of living as a brother and sister.

At the beginning of his article he quotes the decisive text, in this line, of the letter of the Argentine Bishops: “no obstante, igalmente es posible un camino de discernimiento. It is linked to reconocer que, in a concrete case, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person consider caería en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris Laetitia abre la posibilidad del access to the sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas 336 y 351) ".

Therefore, the monsignor specifies that: "Francisco reconoce la posibilidad de proponer la perfecta continencia a los divorciados en nueva unión, pero admite que pueda haber dificultades para practicarla (cf. note 329)." (P. 453) Continence can be proposed but there are people who have difficulty in practicing it and in particular there are people who have limits, impediments: “Pero Francisco dijo explícicamente que“ los límites no tienen que ver only with an eventual desconocimiento de la norma ”(301). …. Los condicionamientos pueden atenuar o annular la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad frente a cualquier norma, aun frente a los preceptos negativos ya las normas morales absolutas. Ello hace posible que no siempre se pierda la vida de la gracia sanctifying in a convivencia "more uxorio". " (p. 455-6) The conditionings can attenuate or cancel the guilt in front of any norm even in front of the negative precepts and the absolute moral norms ... this last affirmation is substantially repeated on p. 458: "Due de los condicionamientos o factores atenuantes, es posible que, en medio de una situación objetiva de pecado —que no sea subjetività culpable or que no lo sea de modo pleno— se pueda vivir en gracia de Dios" (Amoris Laetitia no. 305). "

Therefore, there are some conditions that mitigate or cancel the responsibility before the norm so that evidently in some cases it is possible to remain in the grace of God while living in a situation of coexistence more uxorio and precisely in these cases, according to Msgr. Fernández, it is possible to give the Sacraments despite the fact that the person does not have the purpose of living objectively according to the Law of God. The discernment that the priest is called to do precisely serves this: "el discernimiento puede reconocer que en una situación particular no hay culpa grave "(note 336)." (p. 459)

Discernment is needed, according to Msgr. Fernández, to recognize if the divorced and remarried who live more uxorio have no grave fault, and therefore, even if they live in a sinful situation, they are in sanctifying grace because of the conditioning in which they find themselves.

The conscience of the person plays a central role in this discernment: “En este discernimiento juega un papel central la conciencia de la persona concreta sobre su situación real ante Dios, sobre sus posibilidades reales y sus limites. Esa conciencia, acompañada por un pastor e iluminada por las orientaciones de la Iglesia, esa capaz de una valoración que da lugar a juicio suficiente para discernir acerca de la posibilidad de acceder a la comune. "(P. 459)

Conscience, according to Msgr. Fernández, is capable of evaluating and therefore of offering a sufficient judgment to discern about the possibility of accessing Communion.

The change put in place by Pope Francis is specified in these terms: until now the discernment of an attenuated guilt did not allow to draw consequences in the external or disciplinary sphere. The disciplinary consequences of the rule remained unchanged, because they were based only on an objective crime contrary to an absolute rule. Pope Francisco proposes to take a step forward because sometimes "excessive conclusions are drawn from some theological reflections" (AL 2) when they are translated into a rigid discipline that does not allow for discernment. This is where Pope Francis makes a change, according to Msgr. Fernández, with respect to the previous practice: the current Pontiff allows a discernment to take place that can lead to the giving of the Sacraments to those who, having mitigating circumstances, do not propose not to carry out objectively serious acts (cf. p. 460)

Previously, the discernment regarding an attenuated guilt on the part of the divorced and remarried living more uxorio did not allow for consequences in the disciplinary or external sphere and therefore they, if they did not have the intention not to sin, could not receive the Sacraments; instead with Pope Francis we go further and allow a discernment and therefore the reception of the Sacraments where it is believed that the objective act is not accompanied by grave fault.

In essence, therefore, with Francis, even those who, for various limits, do not have the purpose of living objectively according to the 10 commandments can be absolved despite living and continuing to live in an objective situation of adultery and continuing to carry out objectively serious acts ...

It seems to me that the words of Msgr. Fernández illustrate well what Amoris Laetitia and the letter of the Argentine Bishops affirm and therefore their opposition to what we have said above ... As we have seen, whoever is incapable of contrition is evidently unable to receive this Sacrament of Penance (cf. Prummer " Manual Theologiae Moralis ”, Herder 1961, vol. III, p. 242;); whoever has no use of reason does not validly receive this sacrament; whoever does not have contrition does not validly receive this sacrament (see Palazzini "Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum" Romae, 1968, v. IV, page 165)

This contrition, whether perfect (perfect contrition) or imperfect (attrition), is supernatural (cf. Major Catechism of St. Pius X nn. 714.717), is accomplished under the action of the Holy Spirit[242] and it implies the intention to live in charity and therefore to live objectively according to the commandments of God, to flee the next occasions of sin and therefore not to carry out acts objectively contrary to this Law; therefore whoever is incapable of proposing, with God's help, not to commit an objectively grave act and to flee the next occasions of grave sin is incapable of receiving sacramental absolution.

It seems to me important to reiterate here too that the resolution necessary for absolution is accomplished under the action of the Holy Spirit who certainly does not push a person to carry out objectively serious acts but to objectively holy acts and with the required virtues, the Holy Spirit pushes those who let themselves be guided by him to implement the divine law. The Holy Spirit decisively distances those who let themselves be guided by him away from objectively serious acts.

True contrition and the true purpose not to sin is a gift of the Holy Spirit that we must welcome; whoever is unable to accept this gift of contrition (with the purpose of no longer sinning and fleeing the next occasions of sin) is unable to receive the sacrament, similarly whoever is unable to receive the gift of faith cannot validly receive this Sacrament, equally whoever has not received Baptism is unable to validly receive Confession, equally whoever does not confess to another priest other than the one with whom he has sinned against the sixth commandment, is unable to validly receive Confession ...

The commandments are indispensable, as we have seen (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072; Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.), Neither the penitent can dispense himself nor the Confessor can dispense him from the commitment to carry out the commandments, giving him absolution while the penitent does not propose to live according to the commandments.

God calls everyone to observe his Law.

In this light the Confessor must help the penitent to carry out a true act of contrition with the aforementioned purpose and on the other hand the Confessor cannot absolve the penitent who lacks this supernatural contrition and this purpose.

It should also be noted that, as St. Thomas "Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sicut Deus non alligavit virtutem suam rebus naturalibus, ut non possit praeter eas operari cum voluerit quod in miraculosis actibus facit, ita non alligavit virtutem suam sacramentis, ut non possit sine sacramentorum ministris aliquem sanctificare" Super ., lib. 4 d. 6 q. 1 to. 1 qc. 2 co.). God has not linked his power to the Sacraments and he can sanctify someone even without ministers of the Sacraments. This means in particular that those who are not radically capable of carrying out an act of faith or contrition such as infants or demented children etc. and therefore they cannot receive the Sacrament of Confession validly, they are not damned for this, God has other paths for their salvation and sanctification.

On the other hand, the Sacrament of Confession must safeguard its visible and objective holiness and offer sacramental forgiveness only to those who are really and "visibly" contrite and who, therefore, undertake to live according to the commandments and to give a good example of life. in the world.

The affirmations of Dom Giulio Meiattini who is a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of Madonna della Scala in Noci (Bari) also go along this line. He has a doctorate in fundamental theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, teaches at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Sant'Anselmo and in the Faculty Apulian theological in the specialization of theological anthropology.

Dom Giulio wrote an interesting book on Amoris Laetitia and in an interview  [243] he affirms, among other things: “… marriage as a sacrament has a public and ecclesial character, therefore the notorious violation of the marriage bond, which becomes a condition of permanent life, requires a corresponding penitential practice, which does not neglect this community value. This applies to any sin that is indeed public. A sinful situation, in general, cannot be forgiven if it persists without repentance and a commitment to change; a fortiori, a public sin cannot obtain absolution simply in the internal forum, while the condition of notorious sin remains unchanged for all to see. The confessor, in these situations, cannot remit sins by dispensing the penitent from visible and recognizable signs of conversion. "

I conclude by noting that what Msgr. Fernandez and with him Amoris laetitia and Argentine Bishops is like saying:

-I killed a person but I did it without wanting to… so I committed a venial sin and I can do it again, it's a venial sin;

-I destroyed a city with its inhabitants but I did it without wanting to… so I committed a venial sin and I can do it again, so much is it a venial sin;

-I raped a child but I did it without wanting to ... so I committed a venial sin and I can do it again, so much is it a venial sin!

All these are objectively very serious acts and adultery is also very serious.

What I have just said allows us to unmask more clearly the colossal error intrinsic to the way of thinking of Msgr. Fernandez and with him of Amoris laetitia and the Argentine Bishops. The fact that there are limitations of various kinds does not allow anyone to accept to carry out acts gravely contrary to the Law of God: massacres, rape, murder, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, unclean acts against nature etc.

The Confessor cannot endorse a dispensation of the penitent with respect to the obligation to observe all the Law of God: he cannot endorse rape, murder, adultery etc. … If the penitent does not propose, under the guidance of God, to live according to all the divine Law and therefore to flee the upcoming occasions that lead him to violate this Law, he cannot be validly acquitted! If the resolution not to sin and to flee the next opportunity for sin is lacking, absolution is invalid.

Furthermore, if a person has committed an objectively serious act such as murder, rape, acts of pedophilia, adultery etc. even if he committed it with mitigating circumstances, he caused a serious evil, therefore the Holy Spirit obviously moves the person to never cause this evil again and to propose never to commit it again and this radical disposition of opposition to this evil as it is found in the penitent makes the acquittal valid.

b, 2,1) Mons. Fernandez evidently does not know what scandal is according to sound doctrine ... and Amoris Laetitia seems to follow him in this error ...

Obviously scandalous is the practice whereby a person who is in a notorious situation of grave sin and who does not intend not to carry out objectively serious acts is acquitted in Confession and given the Eucharist, but Msgr. Fernández and the Pope obviously don't know what scandal really is…

That Amoris Laetitia opens to those who, according to sound doctrine, are real scandals is stated by the same alleged hidden author of the exhortation, Msgr. Fernández, when he says that when talking about the need to avoid scandal, it should be noted that this only happens when people "flaunt" their situation as if it were correct (cf. Amoris Laetitia n. 297). Otherwise the scandal would also occur when the first marriage has been declared null, since probably many who see them confessing and taking communion do not know the nullity; if we go to the case, they might not know if they live as brothers or not. Objective guilt is not "overt" as it cannot be confirmed from the outside, and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.[244]

Mons. Fernández says something very far from Catholic doctrine, in fact.

The scandal, as s. Thomas is a sin that is opposed to charity and in particular to fraternal charity in fact: it is a less right word or action that offers an opportunity for spiritual ruin to one's neighbor (cf. II-II q. 43 a. 1 ).

In the path of the spiritual path it happens that one is disposed to spiritual ruin by a word or by an action of another: that is, as the latter drags the first to sin with reproaches, with other forms of induction to sin, or with the example and this is the scandal (cf. II-II q. 43 a. 1).

The scandal goes against charity towards one's neighbor, whereby each is obliged to provide for the salvation of others; and therefore whoever does not avoid carrying out a scandalous act acts against fraternal charity (cf. II-II q. 43 a. 2).

According to s. Alfonso…: “The scandal is distinguished in active and passive. The assets are defined as: Est dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri Occasionm ruinae. This active scandal can be direct and indirect: direct, when the neighbor is directly induced to sin; indirectly, when some word is said, or some sinful action is done to induce others to sin. There is also the demonic scandal, which is committed when not only the neighbor is induced to sin, but more is induced mainly to make him lose his soul, an office proper to the devil. The passive is the same ruin, or sin, into which the neighbor falls; and this is divided into the given scandal, called de 'pusilli, that is, of those who fall for their own weakness; and in acceptance called Pharisaic, that is, of those who fall through their own malice. "[245]. So there is scandal when some words are said, or some sinful action is done to induce others to sin. So, in essence, it is false that there is scandal only for the ostentation that is made. Sinful action alone is enough to induce others to sin. The coexistence more uxorio between two people who are not husband and wife is obviously scandalous, and there is no need to flaunt it for there to be scandal, because it is in itself a sinful work capable of inducing others to sin. Moreover, certain things like the more uxorio life of a couple filter in many ways, they filter through the children, they filter through the abandoned spouse, they filter through those who enter the house and know that the couple sleeps together, in the same bed, in the same room, sometimes from the windows you can see clear attitudes that indicate the relationship between the two people, the members of the couple talk about it with others etc. etc. normally things come out .. and at least someone knows them and often many know… Furthermore, the combination made by Msgr. Fernández among the divorced and remarried and those who have received the annulment because even those who have obtained the annulment cannot live more uxorio with another person until after the marriage and if in fact he got married after the annulment he did so publicly. Furthermore, those who have obtained annulment and approach the Sacraments worthily and free from sins do not sin and do not actively scandalize because they do not do some sinful action capable of inducing others to sin and in this case even passive scandal can be permitted.

Obviously, the Communion given by those who live in a scandalous situation such as that of the divorced and remarried who lives more uxorio is a further scandal.

Therefore, the text of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rightly said: “Relevant for the juridical order is in particular the scandal that arises from the fact that the divorced and remarried, notorious sinner, receives the Eucharist. This scandal concerns the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage and occurs even if this behavior no longer generates wonder. "[246]

We will see better later on how the Pope with Amoris Laetitia practically legitimizes true serious sins and affirms that sinners can receive the Sacraments. We will see that in particular through the mitigating circumstances indicated in Amoris Laetitia and through some affirmations of this exhortation regarding conscience as well as through his work in favor of homosexual acts, Pope Francis practically legitimizes what in reality is, according to sound doctrine, a mortal sin. and practically provides for those who commit such sins the reception of the Sacraments without the intention of not sinning anymore ... In this paragraph we are seeing that even what sound doctrine considers scandal falls within the grave sins that Pope Francis through Amoris Laetitia practically legitimates and for the which provides that the sinner, with no intention of sinning no more, can safely receive, with further scandal, the Sacraments ...

It should also be noted that, obviously ... in words Pope Francis is opposed to the scandal ... and says: "I welcome the considerations of many Synod Fathers, who wished to affirm that" the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried must be more integrated into the communities Christians in the various possible ways, avoiding any occasion of scandal. " (Amoris Laetitia 299)

... but evidently the scandal in the "theology of JM Bergoglio" is not what sound doctrine considers scandal ... and moreover the "paradigm shift" must be done in a discreet way ... perhaps even affirming the permanence of certain norms, in general, as ideals , but not concretely ... the Pope's "cipher" implies that some general affirmations remain on paper but are actually superseded by the reality of the facts ... and in fact it is evidently scandalous what entire Episcopal Conferences such as the Maltese, the German, the of Emilia Romagna, and what bishops like Elbs or Macin etc. say. , as I have repeated many times in this volume, obviously all this is fully accepted by the Pope ...

b, 2,2) If the penitent has sanctifying grace, he has the charity that makes him radically oppose the performance of acts gravely contrary to the divine law.

It seems to me also important to note that the Catechism affirms: "Charity, fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, observes the commandments of God and of his Christ ..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1824), this means, as St. Thomas, charity necessarily produces in us the observance of the commandments: “Secundum quod facit caritas, est divinorum mandatorum observantia. Gregorius: nunquam est Dei amor otiosus: operatur enim magna si est; yes true operari renuit, amor non est. Unde manifestum signum caritatis est promptitudo implendi divina praecepta. Videmus enim amantem propter amatum magna et difficile operari. Ioan. XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit. Sed considerandum, quod qui mandatum et legem divinae dilectionis servat, totam legem implet. Est autem duplex modus divinorum mandatorum. Quaedam enim sunt affirmativa: et haec quidem implet caritas; quia plenitudo legis quae consistit in mandatis, est dilectio, qua mandata servantur. Quaedam vero sunt prohibitoria; haec etiam implet caritas, quia non agit perperam, ut dicit apostolus I Cor. XIII. " (“Collationes in decem praeceptis”, proemium) If charity is truly in the soul, it makes the person observe the commandments. Charity, says St. In the text just presented, Thomas points out: both the affirmative commands because the fullness of the Law which consists in the commandments is the charity for which the commandments are observed, and the negative commandments, that is, those that prohibit certain actions, because charity does not act. unfairly. And, further specifies s. Thomas, if the person is prevented from working, however, has the holy purpose of carrying out the good “Ad tertium dicendum quod amor Dei semper magna operatur in this regard, quod pertinet ad rationem caritatis. Non tamen semper magna operatur in actu, propter conditionem subiecti. " (IIª-IIae q. 24 a. 11 ad 3)

Therefore charity makes the person propose to live according to the Law of God and makes the person propose not to sin. If God is in a soul by sanctifying grace he moves her to live according to the commandments.

Grace is the divine life in us and makes us live precisely in charity, in the commandments. Indeed, grace and charity make us ready to die rather than sin, as we will see better later when we speak in depth of true charity. Msgr.Fernandez and Amoris Laetitia and the Letter to the Argentine Bishops speak of a penitent in sanctifying grace who is willing to continue living in a situation of objective grave sin and to do objectively grave acts, but if the penitent is in grace and therefore has charity necessarily has, as we have seen and as we will see better speaking of charity, the purpose of getting out of this situation of grave objective sin, if God is in the soul and body of such a penitent, God makes him hate certain sins and makes him flee in a radical way and if the person is prevented from acting, he makes him propose to move away from such situations and such sins.

b, 2,3) Mons. Fernandez and Amoris Laetitia practically cancel important truths of sound moral theology including the need, for a valid sacramental absolution, of the resolution not to sin.

Professor Josef Seifert published an article in the 2/2016 issue of the German journal of philosophy and theology AEMAET entitled "Amoris laetitia: joy, sadness and hopes", in which he states: "I think that some passages of AL, especially those that probably will have greater impact, are a cause of great concern, not only because they can easily lead to misunderstandings and abuses in their application, but also because - at least in appearance - they enter into decisive conflict with the Word of God and the teaching of the Church regarding the moral order, inherently disordered actions, divine commandments, and our ability to fulfill them with the help of divine grace, from the indissolubility of marriage, to the sanctity of the sacraments of the Eucharist and Marriage, to eternal salvation (hell) and to the sacramental and pastoral discipline of the Church that comes from the Word of God and from 2000 years of sacred tradition of the Church "[247].

On 5 August 2017, in the German theological magazine AEMAET, professor Josef Seifert published an article with the title posed in the form of a question: "Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Church?". In it he stated that the aforementioned n ° 303 of Amoris Laetitia is "a theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the entire moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic moral teaching". And he justified the dramatic nature of the statement by asking himself:

“If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, does this not apply to all acts considered 'intrinsically wrong'? … Therefore, should the other 9 commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae and all the past, present or future documents of the Church, dogmas or councils, which teach the existence of intrinsically wrong acts, not also have to fall? ... They should not then, by pure logic, be good and commendable due to the complexity of a concrete situation, euthanasia, suicide or assistance to it, lies, theft, perjury, denial or betrayal of Christ, such as that of St. Peter or murder, in some circumstances and after adequate "discernment"? …. However, if the question contained in the title of this document is to be answered in the affirmative, as I personally believe is the case, the purely logical consequence of Amoris Laetitia's statement seems to destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church. "[248]. The professor. Meiattini added, in Seifert's line: "... the assertion that in certain cases God can even" ask "to commit an objective evil, because, in a given moment, it is the only thing that can be generously offered to Him ( no. 303). Here Seifert is right: if the meaning of that expression in AL is this, and I don't see what else it could be, then the whole Christian morality collapses. Basically, this statement contains the presuppositions of a neognostic thought that at other times the Pope (and more recently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) rightly says he wants to reject. Because if God positively asks for evil, the dimension of the "shadow", of the negative, is placed in God himself. If it can be God who asks what is bad, in certain concrete conditions, because it is what the person can do at that moment, then it would be AL who created a crack in a certain form of neognosticism, very present in certain cultural currents. "[249]

It is clear that, as they have seen in the previous pages, the line of Msgr. Fernández, of the Argentine Bishops and of Amoris Laetitia is radically wrong. No one can exempt himself or others from the observance of the 10 commandments especially with regard to the objectively serious acts that they condemn ... and everyone must undertake to implement these commandments with the help of Almighty God ... absolution cannot be validly given except to those who propose to live objectively according to the Word of God and the commandments… and who therefore propose not to carry out acts gravely contrary to this Law.

If the statements of Msgr. Fernández, of Amoris Laetitia and of the Argentine Bishops, one could come to think that the penitent is practically free from the observance of the commandments and in particular from the sixth commandment, due to "conditioning", with evident very serious damage to the person himself and for others who evidently would become victims of the deviant tendencies of this man ... I remember that among the serious sins against the sixth commandment there is also rape, pedophilia ... and that among the mortal sins there is murder, massacre, robbery etc. So on the basis of the aforementioned conditioning and following the speech of Amoris Laetitia, of the letter to the Argentine Bishops and of Msgr. Fernández we could have a pedophile or a rapist, or a criminal who would remain in grace while raping children, raping by killing ... and who when he confessed, while clarifying his situation as a sinner with such very serious sins would receive absolution and receive Communion without having the intention not to commit such violence… Obviously this is radically scandalous and contrary to sound doctrine.

I conclude this paragraph by noting that in reality, as we will see better later, the "paradigm shift" through Amoris Laetitia practically cancels the doctrine that the negative norms of the Decalogue are mandatory always and in all circumstances. Furthermore, this "change", as we will see better later, through the same apostolic exhortation practically affirms that God may want someone to remain in a situation of sin, so that while living in sin he practically does good and fulfills the divine will, therefore he can receive the Sacraments ... in this line in reality also the resolution not to sin is set aside therefore in a meeting for priests which I took part in several years ago a famous Archbishop very close to the Pope said that the divorced and remarried can get closer to the Sacraments by simply making a penitential journey, without this path leading to a real purpose of not sinning and fleeing the upcoming occasions of sin ... the German Bishops and Maltese Bishops, in this line, affirm that a person who lives in notorious sin can return to the Sacraments, if he considers it right in conscience, without proposing not to sin[250] ... and their texts have been fully accepted by the Pope ...

God enlighten us and free us from all errors.

b, 3) An important document signed by Cardinals and Bishops reaffirms, after Amoris Laetitia, the traditional doctrine on the resolution for the sacramental absolution of the divorced and remarried.

In an important: "Declaration of fidelity to the Church's immutable teaching on marriage and its uninterrupted discipline."[251] of 29 August 2016 and signed by many prelates including Cardinal Caffarra, Card. Burke and Card. Pujats, and following Amoris Laetitia we read, in part V:

"V. On the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist

19) We firmly reaffirm the truth that, in dealing with penitents, confessors must help them examine themselves on the specific duties of the commandments, assisting them to achieve sufficient repentance so that they fully accuse themselves of serious sins ... In this way the confessor is held to admonish penitents against serious and objective transgressions of the Law of God, making sure that they truly desire God's absolution and forgiveness, and are resolved to re-examine and correct their conduct. Even when frequent relapses are not in themselves grounds for denying absolution, absolution cannot be given without sufficient repentance or the firm resolve to avoid sin after the sacrament.

“… It is also self-evident that the accusation of sins must include the serious resolution not to commit any more in the future. If this disposition of the soul were lacking, in reality there would be no repentance: this, in fact, concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not taking a position contrary to a possible moral evil would be not detesting evil, not having repentance. ... It should also be remembered that the existence of the sincere resolution is one thing, the judgment of intelligence about the future is another: it is in fact possible that, despite the loyalty of the intention not to sin anymore, the experience of the past and the awareness of the present weakness destiny the fear of new falls; but this does not affect the authenticity of the intention, when that fear is combined with the will, supported by prayer, to do what is possible to avoid guilt ”(John Paul II, Letter to the Apostolic Penitentiary, 22 March 1996, nn. 3-5).

20) We firmly reiterate the truth that the divorced and "remarried" civilly and who have not separated, but remain in their state of adultery, can never be considered by confessors or other pastors of souls in an objective state of grace, capable of growing in the life of grace and charity and in the condition of receiving absolution in the sacrament of Penance, or of being admitted to the Holy Eucharist. This is unless they express contrition for their state of life and firmly resolve to abandon it, even when subjectively these divorcees may not feel guilty for their objectively sinful situation, or not completely guilty, due to conditioning or mitigating factors. ...

"It is clear that penitents who live in a habitual state of grave sin and do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution" (John Paul II, Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei, April 7, 2002, n.7 c).

21) We firmly reiterate the truth that, with regard to the divorced and "remarried" civilly and who live openly more uxorio (as husband and wife), no responsible personal and pastoral discernment can affirm that sacramental absolution or admission to the 'Eucharist, under the pretense that due to a diminished responsibility there is no grave deficiency. The reason for this is that their eventual lack of formal guilt cannot be a matter of public domain, while instead the external form of their state of life contradicts the indissoluble character of Christian marriage and the union of love between Christ and his Church. , which is signified and implemented in the Holy Eucharist. ….

22) We firmly reaffirm the truth that having in conscience a subjective certainty on the invalidity of a prior marriage by the divorced and civilly "remarried" (although the Church still considers the prior marriage valid) is never sufficient, by itself, to excuse some of the material sin of adultery, or of allowing one to ignore the canonical norm and the sacramental consequences of living as a public sinner. ...

23)… The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Circular on Penance, March 20, 2000, n. 9).

The prohibition [of giving Communion to public sinners] made in the aforementioned canon [can. 915], by its nature, derives from divine law and transcends the sphere of positive ecclesiastical laws: these cannot induce legislative changes that are contrary to the doctrine of the Church. … (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, June 24, 2000, nos. 1-4).

24) We firmly reaffirm the truth that, according to the logic of the Gospel, people who die in a state of mortal sin, without having been reconciled with God, are damned in hell forever. In the Gospel, Jesus often speaks of the danger of eternal damnation. ... "[252]

God always keep us in his Truth.

b, 4) Two documents of the Kazakh Bishops with which they reaffirm, against the errors that spread, the traditional doctrine on the intention for the sacramental absolution of the divorced and remarried.

The Kazakh bishops have produced two important documents with which they face and condemn various errors that have spread after Amoris Laetitia and because of it, in these documents they have reaffirmed fundamental truths on the necessary purpose regarding sacramental absolution as well as on Christian marriage.

-The first document, dated January 2017 entitled: "Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage"[253]  affirms that, after Amoris Laetitia and in application of it, norms and interpretations have been published, according to which the divorced and remarried can be admitted to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, without fulfilling the duty established by God and clearly affirmed by the Church to stop the violation of their sacramental marriage bond which is still in place. These norms, the aforementioned Prelates specify, are contrary to the sound doctrine and the Tradition of the Church, in fact everyone is absolutely obliged to observe the commandments and therefore also the sixth commandment for which acts of intimate union are lawful between sacramentally married persons; those who, while believing in the indissolubility of marriage, contradict it with their own adulterous acts, consider themselves exempt from grave sin and with faith in divine mercy reassure their conscience, deceive themselves. God gives everyone to be able to carry out his precepts; adultery is always an objectively grave sin, the aforementioned Bishops specify; an adulterous union between the divorced and remarried remains a violation of the sacramental marriage bond even if "consolidated" and characterized by a so-called "proven fidelity" in the sin of adultery which, precisely, is an objectively grave sin always. The minister of Confession, the aforementioned Prelates further explain, cannot exempt the penitent, in particular the divorced and remarried, from the implementation of the sixth commandment and the indissolubility of marriage and therefore sacramentally absolve it and admit it to the Eucharist; an alleged conviction, in conscience, on the part of the penitent, of the invalidity of his own marriage in the internal forum cannot produce consequences regarding sacramental discipline in the external forum, so that, even if a valid sacramental marriage remains in existence, such penitent can live more uxorio with who is not his legitimate spouse and can receive the Sacraments despite his intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and the sacramental marriage bond that is still in existence in the future. The text just quoted says: "A practice that allows civilly divorced people, so-called" remarried ", to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, despite their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their marriage bond in the future sacramental "is evidently" contrary to Divine truth and extraneous to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church and the proven custom received, faithfully guarded since the time of the Apostles and ultimately confirmed in a sure way by St. John Paul II (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84) and by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 29) "; this practice is contrary to the perennial practice of the Church and is a counter-witness, moreover it is widespread of the "plague of divorce"; whoever really wants to help people who find themselves in an objective state of grave sin must announce to them with charity the full truth about God's will for them, must therefore help them to repent with all their heart of the sinful act of living together more uxorio with a person who is not his legitimate spouse, as clearly emerges from the statements of s. John Paul II (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 33). The admission of the so-called "remarried" divorcees to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, without their real intention to live as brother and sister, that is, without being required to fulfill them, constitutes a danger for the faith and for the salvation of souls. of the obligation to live in continence. This pastoral practice of admission is never the expression of the "via caritatis" of the Church and therefore of her mercy towards sinful souls. For all this, these Bishops present. “… Urgent appeal to prayer for Pope Francis to unequivocally revoke the aforementioned pastoral guidelines already introduced in some particular churches.   [254]

- The second document of the Kazakh Bishops, dated December 2017, entitled: "Public Profession of Faith of the three Bishops of Kazakhstan on sacramental marriage"[255]  he affirms that, after Amoris Laetitia and in implementation of it, rules have appeared according to which the divorced and remarried who continue to live more uxorio can receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion; this is not lawful, the Kazhaki Bishops say, because these norms practically justify, approve or legitimize (directly or indirectly) divorce and a stable non-marital sexual relationship through a sacramental discipline opposite to the whole Tradition of the Catholic and apostolic faith. .
These norms evidently go against the principle that the discipline of the sacraments must never "contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage." The Catholic faith condemns a formal contradiction between the faith professed and the practice of the sacraments on the other. Christian life and therefore sacramental practice cannot be in contradiction with faith. Reaffirming "the immutable truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage", the Kazakh Bishops reiterate that intimate relationships between unmarried persons sacramentally are a grave sin and contrary to the will of God. It is not lawful to commit a grave sin like adultery to avoid another supposed sin.
The aforementioned Prelates specify: "The prohibition of admission to Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried does not mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public and objective character of their situation."
The divorced and remarried can be admitted to the sacraments only when they make a sincere resolution to live in chastity and to cease the scandal; true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment in the s. Church.
I emphasize that for the bishops: "It is not lawful (non licet) to justify, approve or legitimize, either directly or indirectly, divorce and a stable non-marital sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of the so-called" divorced and remarried "to Holy Communion" this discipline is in fact opposed to Tradition.   [256]

b, 5) The final Declaratio of the conference "Catholic Church, where are you going?", Rome, 7 April 2018, approved by various Cardinals and Bishops present, reaffirms the traditional doctrine on the resolution for the sacramental absolution of the divorced and remarried.

An interesting document to be noted in the line I am presenting is the final declaration of a conference on the current situation of the Church, entitled "Catholic Church, where are you going?", Held in Rome on 7 April 2018; this declaration emphasizes in particular that: ".. the judgment on the possibility of administering sacramental absolution is not based on the imputability or otherwise of the sin committed, but on the intention of the penitent to abandon a way of life contrary to the divine commandments." The text was approved by various cardinals and bishops who were present at this conference: cardd. Burke and Brandmüller, Bishops Schneider and Viganò.

More broadly, the document states: “Due to contradictory interpretations of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, confusion and confusion spread among the faithful throughout the world.

... Therefore we testify and confess in accordance with the authentic tradition of the Church that:

the marriage between two baptized persons, ratified and consummated, can be dissolved only by death.

Therefore Christians who, united by a valid marriage, join another person while their spouse is still alive, commit the grave sin of adultery.

We are convinced that there are absolute moral commandments, which always and without exception oblige.

We are also convinced that no subjective judgment of conscience can make an intrinsically bad action good and lawful.

We are convinced that the judgment on the possibility of administering sacramental absolution is not based on the imputability or otherwise of the sin committed, but on the penitent's intention to abandon a way of life contrary to divine commandments.

We are convinced that the divorced and civilly remarried and unwilling to live in continence, finding themselves in a situation objectively in contrast with the law of God, cannot access Eucharistic Communion. "[257]

b, 6) A recent document “The Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)… ”signed by Cardinals and Bishops reaffirms the traditional doctrine on the resolution for the sacramental absolution of the divorced and remarried.

In this statement[258] signed by various Cardinals and Bishops, important statements are made regarding the topic we are examining.

In fact, first of all something fundamental for the whole of theology is said: “The foundations of faith

1. The correct sense of the expressions "living tradition", "living Magisterium", "hermeneutics of continuity" and "development of doctrine" includes the truth that any new understanding of the deposit of faith cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense and in the same meaning (cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius, 3, chap. 4, "in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia"). "

I stress: any new understanding of the deposit of faith cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense and in the same meaning…. this also applies to the deposit of faith which concerns confession and the need for contrition in order to have a valid absolution.

The Declaration then affirms that: “8. Hell exists and those who are condemned there for any mortal sin without repentance are eternally punished by divine justice (cf. Mt 25,46:XNUMX). " ... mortal sin that remains without repentance therefore leads to hell ... .. if there is no repentance, sins are not remitted even with the Sacrament of Confession.

The Declaration goes on to say: “12. A justified person has the necessary strength, with the grace of God, to fulfill the objective requirements of divine law, since all God's commandments make themselves fulfilled by the justified. ...

  1. ... It is ... wrong to say that a person, obeying a divine prohibition - such as the sixth commandment, that is, not to commit adultery - can sin against God for such an act of obedience or harm himself morally, or sin against his neighbor.
  2. … There are moral principles and truths contained in divine revelation and natural law which involve negative prohibitions, which absolutely forbid a certain type of action as always being gravely illegal because of their object. "

These are words that obviously have an extreme importance for our times and with regard to what we are saying….

The Declaration also states: “20. ... it is contrary to Sacred Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can judge sexual acts between persons united by a civil marriage as morally justified or even required or even commanded by God, despite one or both persons already being sacramentally married to another (cf. 1 Cor 7,11:84; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 22). …. 84. Who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he is validly married (or married) and has entered into a civil marriage with another person during the spouse's life, and lives more uxorio with his civil partner, and chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of his act and with full consent of the will towards that act, he is in a state of mortal sin and, therefore, cannot receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they live as "brother and sister", cannot receive Holy Communion (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, XNUMX). " … The relationship between what I have said so far and what these prelates write is very evident.

But above all illuminating what I have said in the preceding pages is what the aforementioned prelates affirm when they affirm: "37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the immutable tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin and sacramental absolution cannot be given to those who express their reluctance to conform to divine law, even if this reluctance concerns only a single grave matter (cf. Concilio de Trento, sess. 14 , c. 4; John Paul II, Message to Cardinal William W. Baum, March 22, 1996). "

Therefore sacramental absolution cannot be given to those who express their reluctance to conform to the divine law, even if said reluctance concerns only a single grave matter: those who do not propose to live according to all the divine law cannot be acquitted.

b, 7) The conditional absolution and the situation of those who have various psychological conditionings and do not intend to live according to the whole Law of God.

May the sacred cross be our light.

It is lawful to administer absolution under conditions for a grave cause as stated in the declarations of the Holy Office of June 17, 1715, July 20, 1859[259]  As clearly explains s. Alfonso, in some cases it is permissible to give absolution under condition:

“It should be noted for 3., that in case of necessity it is lawful to administer the sacraments under conditions; and not only baptism, according to it is expressed in chap. 2. de baptism., But all the others, as Castropal commonly say., Suarez, Coninch., Habert., Roncaglia, Salm., Ec. with Bened. XIV., Against Giovenino: and not only in case of necessity, but as long as there is serious utility, or other just cause, as the aforementioned authors also commonly say, against Antoine. At the meeting without just cause, it would be gross negligence: although Tournely and Salmat. they are not to condemn a confessor of grave negligence who absolves the penitent for greater caution under the condition, if he is willing, even if he is willing to esteem him (Lib. 6. N. 27. et 28.). It is not necessary then, that the condition is expressed, it is enough that it be posed mentally, as Castrop., Tournely and the Salmat commonly want. (Lib. 6. N. 29.). "[260]

It still says yes. Alfonso: “The last question is here, when the absolution that is given under condition is valid and lawful. If the condition is of the future, doctors commonly say that it is invalid. However, Fr. Long live the power to absolve thus: absolvo te, si Deus cognoscit quod returns id quod debes; but this is rightly denied by Coninch., Dicast., Concina, Tournely, etc., because having given God the administration of the sacraments to men, those conditions cannot be affixed, which men cannot know (N. 431. et etiam n. 26.). If at the meeting the condition is de praeterito, or de praesenti, everyone agrees that the absolution is valid; and it is still licit, when there is just cause, according to the common sentence (against some few), as was said in Chapter XIV. n. 3. The just causes are for 1., if the confessor prudently doubts that he has not given absolution: Suar., Lugo, Ronc., Bonac., Salmat., Croix and c. For 2, if one doubts the disposition of the penitent, and at the meeting there is a need to absolve him, as will be said in the last chapter, speaking of children and the dying. Moreover, ordinarily the confessor must be certain of the disposition of the penitent, in order to be able to absolve him licitly; hence, the repeat offenders, not only in serious offenses, but also in the slightest ones, cannot be absolute, if they do not give certain signs of being well disposed, as will be said at length in point II. of the aforementioned last chapter. For 3., as Bonacina says, those pious persons who confess only to imperfections, about which one doubts, for lack of warning they have reached venial sins or not, can well absolve under conditions, and this it does not seem improbable, since the cause of absolving them thus seems sufficiently just, in order not to deprive these souls for a long time of the fruit of the sacrament: I say for a long time; because I would not admit that more than once a month. Fr. Sporer, that the confessor can give absolution if he doubts the jurisdiction; but I believe this should not be admitted unless the penitent is in mortal sin, and he would otherwise have to be without absolution for a long time. On the other hand, this must be understood only in doubt of fact; because if the jurisdiction is positively doubtful de iure, that is, if it is probable by the authority of doctors, absolution can be given absolutely, since then the church supplies always that there is a grave cause, as we said in chapter I. no. 27. Furthermore, Sporer and Mazzotta say that the penitent who needs to receive Holy Communion can absolve himself under condition, and is doubtless willing. But in this we must distinguish, as was said in Chapter XV. n. 34., and to see, if the doubt is of the committing of the sin, or also of the confession of the sin done; because if the penitent is certain of the grave sin committed, and his disposition is doubtful, he cannot communicate himself, even if he had been absolute under conditions; and if he cannot communicate himself, neither can he be absolute, since then the cause of the necessity of communion in order to be conditionally absolute is missing (Lib. 6. n. 432.). Observe the saying no. 34. [261]

In the Theologia Moralis s. Alfonso affirms in this line that the absolution that is administered under conditions is valid if the condition concerns the past or the present and if there is a just cause, that is, if the soul of the penitent should suffer great damage due to the denial of the absolution: “Omnes conveniunt (ut diximus de Sacram. in gen., n. 26.), validam quidem esse absolutionem quae datur sub conditione de praeterito vel praesenti. ... dummodo justa adsit causa, nempe si, negata absolutione, notabile detrimentum ìmmìneret animae poenitentis. "[262]

As can be clearly seen, conditional absolution can be given to penitents in various cases, of particular interest to us is the case indicated by s. Alfonso when he affirms that absolution could be given on condition: “… if one doubted the disposition of the penitent, and at the meeting there was a need to absolve him, as will be said in the last chapter, speaking of children and the dying. "

Interesting for us, in a special way, is the case of absolution to be given to children and semi-fatalities mentioned in the Alphonsian Theologia Moralis. [263]

As you can see, yes. Alfonso says that such absolution can be administered in these cases if the disposition of the penitents is doubted or if their capacity is doubted…. it should not be given, obviously, if this capacity and disposition undoubtedly does not exist…. but if the penitent does not have the intention of observing all ten commandments and of fleeing the next occasions of sin, evidently there is not the required disposition in him ... has the purpose of keeping the 10 commandments and therefore not to sin.

This is confirmed by the affirmations that we find in the text of Aertnys and Damen (see "Theologia Moralis .." Marietti, 1957, vol. II p. 320s), this manual develops, in the Alphonsian line, a profound treatment precisely of the acquittal given under the condition in which he specifies that it is administered when on the one hand there is the danger of administering a null sacrament and on the other hand, denied absolution, the penitent soul would have considerable damage. Aertnys Damen explains very precisely that it takes a grave cause to administer conditional acquittal and cases where there is a grave cause for conditional acquittal are considered as follows:

1 / when the Confessor doubts whether he has absolved or duly absolved the penitent who has confessed a grave sin;

2) when the Confessor doubts that the penitent is sufficiently present or whether he is alive or dead;

3) if the Confessor doubts about the aptitude of the matter and this can happen in two cases: if the adult baptized under conditions must be immediately acquitted or if the adult only leads to confession if not materia dubia;

4) if the Confessor doubts the disposition of the penitent and there is a grave cause which prompts the administration of the sacrament; in this line:

- the dying person can be acquitted if it is doubted that he is asking for the sacrament and that it is friction;

- the customary recidivist sinner in mortal sins can be acquitted if there is danger of death, etc.,

- the child or the partially demented person can be acquitted if the Confessor doubts about the existence in them of sufficient mental capacity to validly receive absolution or if the Confessor doubts that they have true pain and true purpose; they can be acquitted under conditions not only in danger of death but also when the precept of the Church is urgent and above all when they have confessed a sin that is doubtful to be serious;

- engaged couples who pay for sin or are repeat offenders and are about to start marriage can be acquitted;

- those who cannot postpone Eucharistic Communion without grave infamy or scandal and believe in good faith that they can receive the Eucharist despite their dubious disposition and in such good faith the Confessor prudently considers to leave them so that they do not access Communion in good faith can be acquitted. bad faith. I remember that it is a grave sin to receive a sacrament of the living with serious doubt about one's state of grace and this even if the person has obtained, for one of the causes indicated above, absolution under condition (cf. Aertnys and Damen "Theologia Moralis. ”Marietti, 1957, vol. II p. 320s).

In the "Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum" under the entry "Absolutio" the famous theologian P. Palazzini, later Cardinal of s. Roman Church, further specifies the doctrine about sacramental absolution given under condition by saying that, with regard to cases in which absolution can be given under conditions because the confessor doubts about the matter of the confession or because he doubts about the disposition, this absolution is he can give if this doubt cannot be clarified, if, on the other hand, this doubt can be clarified, it must be clarified before giving the absolution.

For Palazzini, moreover, conditional absolution can be administered in case of doubt about the penitent's capacity.

On the basis of what we have seen so far, let us examine more precisely the case of a penitent who, as Msgr. Fernandez and Amoris Laetitia, he has some psychological conditioning and he does not propose not to commit objectively serious acts.

Conditional absolution can be administered if the disposition of the penitents is doubted or if their capacity is doubted and this doubt cannot be clarified; it should not be given, obviously, if this capacity and disposition undoubtedly does not exist.

If the penitent evidently does not have the intention to observe all ten commandments and to flee the upcoming occasions that lead him to violate these commandments, evidently there is no disposition in him required for absolution, in fact true contrition is lacking, therefore neither can he be given absolution under conditionality. For the divorced and remarried, therefore, who have some conditions of various kinds and who obviously do not intend to live in continence, not even conditional absolution can be given, for what we have just said. More generally to all those who have some conditionings of various kinds and who obviously do not intend to observe all ten commandments and to flee the upcoming occasions that lead them to violate these commandments, it cannot be given, for what we have just said , not even conditional acquittal.

I also specify, for the avoidance of doubt, that absolution under conditions does not free the person who does not have contrition from grave sin; for sin to be remitted in Confession, true contrition is necessary with the true purpose of which we speak extensively in this chapter.

7) Regarding the law of graduality and "graduality of the law".

a) The affirmations of St. John Paul II and other important statements on this issue.

The theme of the "graduality of the Law" and the "law of graduality" was first dealt with by s. John Paul II in 1980 in his homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops with these words: "The Synod Fathers ... rejected any dichotomy between pedagogy, which proposes a certain gradualness in realizing the divine plan, and doctrine, proposed by the Church with all its consequences, which contain the command to live according to the same doctrine. It is not a question of looking at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with commitment. In reality, a "gradual process" cannot be accepted, except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law. Therefore the so-called "law of graduality" or gradual path cannot be identified with the "graduality of the law", as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. " [264]. In the Familiaris Consortio at no. 34 s. John Paul II, taking up what he had said in the above homily, wrote: "However, they cannot look at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome with I commit the difficulties. “Therefore the so-called“ law of graduality ”, or gradual path, cannot be identified with the“ graduality of the law ”, as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. All spouses, according to the divine plan, are called to holiness in marriage and this high vocation is realized in that the human person is able to respond to divine command with a serene soul, trusting in divine grace and in his own will "[265]. In this same line, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that spouses first of all clearly recognize the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae" as a norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and sincerely undertake to establish the necessary conditions for observing this norm. " [266]

There are not, therefore, for the s. Polish pontiff various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. All spouses are called, according to the divine plan, to holiness in marriage and this lofty vocation is realized in that the human person is able to respond to divine command with a serene soul, trusting in divine grace and in his own will.

St. John Paul II further stated: “It is necessary, first of all, to avoid" grading "the law of God to the extent of the various situations in which the spouses find themselves. The moral norm reveals to us God's plan for marriage, the whole good of conjugal love: wanting to reduce this plan is a lack of respect for the dignity of man. ... One can, in fact, ask whether the confusion between the "graduality of the law" and the "law of gradualness" does not have its explanation even in a low esteem for the law of God. It is believed that it is not suitable for every man, for every situation, and therefore we want to replace him with an order other than the divine one. 4.… The Spirit, given to believers, writes God's law in our hearts so that this is not only intimated from the outside, but is also and above all given within. To believe that there are situations in which it is not in fact possible for spouses to be faithful to all the requirements of the truth of conjugal love is equivalent to forgetting this event of grace that characterizes the new covenant: the grace of the Holy Spirit makes possible what man left to his own strength, it is not possible. ...

Every baptized person, therefore also spouses, is called to holiness, as Vatican II taught (cf. "Lumen gentium", 39): "In variis vitae generibus et officiis una sanctitas excolitur ab omnibus, here in Spiritu Sancto aguntur, atque voices Patris oboedientes Deumque Patrem in spiritu et veritate adorantes, Christum pauperem, humilem, et crucem baiulantem sequuntur, ut gloriae eius mereantur esse consortes "(Ibid., 41). All, including spouses, are called to holiness, and this is a vocation that can also demand heroism. It must not be forgotten. "[267]

St. John Paul II also said: "If it is not permitted to speak of" gradualness of the law ", as if the law were more or less demanding following concrete situations, it is no less necessary to take into account the" law of graduality " (cf. John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 34), since every good pedagogue, without invalidating the principles, is attentive to the personal situation of his interlocutors to allow them a better acceptance of the truth. "[268]

In another speech by St. John Paul II we read: "In the apostolic exhortation, I spoke not of the" gradualness of the law "because the demands of the creation and redemption of the body concern us all, starting today, but of the gradualness of the" pedagogical path of growth "( John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 9). Shouldn't our entire Christian life be thought of in terms of a journey? " [269]

So the spiritual life gradually grows but in this path there can be sins, falls, conversions etc., this however does not mean that the Law is gradual or that the requirements of the law are an ideal ... it means instead that the Law remains such, it remains the norm. and not ideal, and the path of growth in it is not, normally, a continuous growth, without shocks, there can be and normally there are falls… but precisely the Law remains Law, it remains a norm to which to conform here and now…. because the commandments oblige always and everywhere, in fact the Catechism affirms in n. 2072: “Since the ten commandments reveal the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, in their essential content they reveal grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. The ten commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being. "

What we have just said allows us to understand precisely what we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n.2343: "Chastity knows laws of growth, which passes through stages marked by imperfection and very often by sin." Here too the Polish Pope highlights that the spiritual life grows gradually but that in this path there can be sins, falls, conversions etc., this however does not mean that the Law changes or that the requirements of the law are an ideal and can be diminished ... it means instead that the Law remains such, it remains the norm and not the ideal ... the Law remains the Law, it remains a norm to which to conform here and now…. here and now ... because the ten commandments oblige everyone, always and everywhere. The fact that no one can dispense from the Ten Commandments (Catechism Catholic Church n. 2072) shows in a particularly clear way that "the gradualness of the Law", insofar as it claims to diminish the requirements of the divine Law and therefore to dispense from it, is evidently a colossal mistake.

The Vademecum published by the Pontifical Council for the Family makes an illuminating affirmation of great strength and precision regarding the law of graduality: "The pastoral" law of graduality ", which cannot be confused with" the gradualness of the law ", which claims to diminishing his needs, consists in asking for a decisive break with sin and a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and his lovable needs. ""[270]

The pastoral "law of graduality" therefore consists in asking for a decisive break with sin and a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his lovable demands. The norm taught by the Church is not only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the concrete possibilities of man, the norm that the Church teaches is a Law and with the Redemption we have from Christ the grace to live that norm and therefore to follow a progressive path towards total union with God and if the redeemed man still sins, this is caused by man's will to withdraw from grace, this is caused by man's closure to that sanctifying grace; God's commandment is certainly proportionate to the capabilities of man: but to the capabilities of the man who welcomes the Holy Spirit.[271]

In line with the statements presented so far, it seems interesting to me to introduce you to a paper by Dariusz Kowalczyk SJ entitled “The“ yes, yes; no, no "or the gradualness of the law - theological comment" which is a theological commentary on the intervention in the Synod of Mons. Stanisław Gądecki, President of the Polish Bishops 'Conference and is present on the website of the Polish Bishops' Conference, which states: " The "gradualness of the law" is a proposal of morality in stages, adapted to the attitudes and opinions of men hic et nunc. Its advocates adopt it above all in relation to sexuality but much less in reference to the sphere defined by the seventh Commandment ("Do not steal"). Sexual relations would thus be a relativized "form of communication" and, as such, should not be evaluated in the light of the unchanged laws of human nature whose very existence is, moreover, denied.

The "graduality of the law" referring to marriage makes it possible to justify positions according to which there are various types of union: heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, monogamous, and in each of them it would be possible to live in peace with God revealed in Jesus Christ, despite the the ideal is always the monogamous marriage between man and woman, lasting and open to life. "[272]

Kowalczyk concludes the article by specifying that the gradualness of the law is contrary to the sound doctrine that emerges from Holy Scripture and from the Tradition of the Church. The Law of God can be implemented with the grace of God, the Redemption makes this implementation possible, and we are called above all to conversion… and we are called to put into effect the divine Law even at the cost of our life.

So there is no morality in stages that allows sinful unions, such as adultery, always leaving the ideal that is monogamous marriage! There is no morality in stages that allows dispensations regarding the 10 commandments and therefore allows the carrying out of objectively immoral actions such as adulterers, murders, pedophilia etc.

As said s. John Paul II: “It is not a question of looking at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with commitment. In reality, "a gradual process" cannot be accepted, except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law. "[273]

God enlighten us better and better

b) Some important statements of St. Thomas which are connected to the theme of the law of graduality and which illuminate it.

St. John Paul II did not say this in the texts cited, but already St. Thomas Aquinas several centuries ago spoke of a gradual process set by God in his Law to lead man to the perfection to which God himself calls him. We will see that the illuminating words of St. Thomas regarding this gradual process are connected to the distinction between negative precepts and affirmative or positive precepts of the Law given to us by God. It therefore seems interesting to me, first of all, to dwell for a few moments on some important affirmations of s. Thomas regarding the distinction between negative precepts of the divine law before moving on to the text in which the s. Doctor speaks precisely of the aforementioned step-by-step process. St. Thomas specifies that the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige always and forever, always and in every circumstance, in an absolute way, while the affirmative precepts always oblige but not "ad semper", that is, they oblige a suitable place and time as can be seen in Super Sent., lib. 3 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 to 3, in fact in this text s. Thomas explains that we are required to observe the negative precepts of the Decalogue always and on every occasion and through this we avoid the sins of transgression; the positive precepts, on the other hand, we must always observe them, however, not on every occasion but at the right time and place.

In Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 15 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 4 co. s. Thomas specifies that the affirmative divine precepts do not oblige on every occasion although they always oblige, in fact they oblige to the convenient place and time and according to other certain conditions, in this line the precept to give alms which is part of the fourth commandment does not oblige in every circumstance but precisely at a convenient place and time and on the basis of other determined conditions. In Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 15 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 4 to 3 s. Thomas also explains that the affirmative precepts contain prohibitions for the time in which they oblige, as every affirmation has a negation attached to it, in this line it is stated that if you are required to feed a person and do not feed him, you will kill him, if you are required to give alms to a person and you do not do it you hurt him.

In the Sum Theological we read: “… while the negative precepts of the law forbid sinful acts, the affirmative precepts lead to acts of virtue. But sinful acts are evil in themselves, and can be done in a good way in any way, nowhere and in no time: since they are bound by themselves to an evil end, as Aristotle says. And so the negative precepts always and in all cases oblige. Virtuous acts, on the other hand, should not be done in any way, but by observing the due circumstances that are required for the act to be virtuous: that is, doing it where it should, when it should, and how it should be. And since the dispositions of things that are ordered to the end are carried out according to the reason for the end, among the circumstances of virtuous acts one must especially keep in mind the reason for the end, which is the good of virtue. Therefore if there is the omission of a circumstance relating to the virtuous act, which totally eliminates the good of virtue, the act is contrary to the precept. If, on the other hand, a circumstance is missing which does not completely remove virtue, although it does not perfectly achieve the good of virtue, the act is not contrary to the precept. This is why the Philosopher affirms, that if we deviate a little from the right means, we are not against virtue: on the contrary, if we deviate a lot, we destroy virtue in our own act. "(II-II q. 33 a. 2 , my translation following that of the "Sum Theological" made by ESD in CD Rom of 2001)

In many passages of his works, St. Thomas reaffirms this doctrine that the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige always and forever [274]

Let us now pass more decisively to the text in which s. Thomas speaks of a gradual process by which God wanted man to be introduced to perfection.

St. Thomas affirms that it was necessary in the Law of God to propose various positive and negative precepts so that men were gradually introduced to virtue, first of all by making them abstain from sin and then with the fulfillment of the good to which we are induced by the positive precepts (cf. I-II , q. 72 a. 6 ad 2) In this line, the gradual process or law of graduality is a process or law that first of all determines an abstention from sins and guides the person to a gradual and wise development of the divine life to reach the perfection to which God calls us. In this sense, the affirmation we found in the Vademecum published by the Pontifical for the Family seems to us to be truly perfect: "The pastoral" law of gradualness ", which cannot be confused with" the gradualness of the law ", which claims to diminish its requirements. , consists in asking for a decisive break with sin and a progressive path towards total union with God's will and with his lovable needs. "[275] The affirmation of St. Thomas, due to his importance, must however be deepened and we will develop this deepening in the next paragraph.

c) Important insights into the doctrine of St. Thomas on the New Law and its intrinsic gradualness.

May the sacred cross be our light.

Let's see better what s says. Thomas in the illuminating passage just quoted (I-II, q. 72 a. 6 ad 2) in which he speaks of a gradual process, therefore in a certain way of a law of graduality, through which man reaches perfection.

First of all, the article from which the passage in question is removed answers the question: is there a specific difference between the sins of commission and omission?

In the second objection (cf. Iª-IIae q. 72 a. 6 arg. 2) it is stated that sin is in itself contrary to the law of God, this is in the very definition of sin. In the law of God some precepts are affirmative, and against them is the sin of omission; others are negative precepts, against which there is the sin of commission. Therefore the sin of omission and the sin of commission differ according to the species.

In the body of the article s. Thomas explains that if we speak materially of the species of the sin of omission and commission, they differ in the species. But if we speak formally of the species of the sin of omission and commission, then the sin of omission and commission do not differ in the species: since they are ordered to the same thing and proceed from the same motive.

In the answer to the second objection, s. Thomas then states:

“Ad secundum dicendum quod necesse fuit in lege Dei proponi diverse praecepta affirmativa et negative, ut gradatim homines introducerentur ad virtutem, prius quidem abstinendo a malo, ad quod inducimur per praecepta negative; et postmodum making bonum, ad quod inducimur per praecepta affirmativa. Et sic praecepta affirmativa et negative non pertinent ad diversas virtutes, sed ad diversos gradus virtutis. Et per consequens non oportet quod contrarientur diversis peccatis secundum speciem. Peccatum etiam non habet speciem ex parte aversionis, quia secundum hoc est negatio vel privatio, sed ex parte conversionis, secundum quod est actus quidam. Unde secundum diverse praecepta legis non diversificantur peccata secundum speciem. " (Iª-IIae q. 72 a. 6 ad 2)

It was therefore necessary that in the law of God various affirmative and negative precepts were proposed, so that gradually men were introduced to virtue, first with the abstention from the evil to which we are induced through the negative precepts, and then with the attraction to good, to which we are induced through the affirmative precepts. And so the distinction between negative and positive precepts essentially concerns the different degrees of virtue and not the species of virtues, therefore yes. Thomas says that affirmative and negative precepts do not pertain to different virtues, but to different degrees in virtue; consequently it is not necessary that they are opposed to different sins according to the species. Sin does not have its species as it is estrangement (from God): because according to this aspect it is privation or negation; but it has its species insofar as it is conversion (to creatures), and therefore inasmuch as it is an act. Therefore, according to the various precepts of the law, sins do not differ as to their species.

By connecting what s. Thomas said in the passage just quoted with his other statements, it seems to me that I must affirm that the law of gradualness should be understood as an intrinsic law of the New Law which is grace and charity. This statement of mine requires that I first explain why I affirm that the New Law is grace and charity, then that I explain why the law of graduality must be understood as intrinsic to the New Law.

May the sacred cross be our light.

What s. Thomas qualifies the New Law as grace is known to practically all experts, VS affirms: "Gathering what is at the heart of the moral message of Jesus and the preaching of the Apostles, and re-proposing in an admirable synthesis the great tradition of the Fathers of East and West - in particular of Saint Augustine - (Cf De spiritu et littera, 21, 36; 26, 46: CSEL 60, 189-190; 200-201.) Saint Thomas was able to write that the New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ. (Cf Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 106, a. 1, conclus. And ad 2 um.) "(VS, n. 23s).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, along this line, affirms in n. 1966: "The new Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit ... It works through charity ..."

Now it must be said that grace is the divine, Trinitarian life in us, which makes us live in charity; grace is the divine nature in us that allows us to live the divine life, the supernatural life, through the virtues that dispose us to the End of eternal life; grace is distinct from the infused virtues, and these virtues derive from it and are ordered to it (cf. S.Th., I-II, q. 110 a. 3 in c.). The first of the infused virtues is charity and charity bears as fruit the spiritual life, the observance of the divine commandments (both affirmative and negative ones), guardianship against adverse realities, guidance to Heaven, remission of sins, the illumination of the heart, perfect joy, perfect peace, constitutes man in dignity, makes him not only free but children of God, as the s. Doctor in the preface of his "Collationes in decem praeceptis"…. therefore sanctifying grace is divine life that makes us live in the commandments and therefore in charity commanded precisely by God. Grace raises us to the supernatural level and makes us live in it the holy commandments in charity.

St. Thomas specifies that according to Aristotle everything is what is principal in it; in the New Testament the grace of the Holy Spirit is principal; therefore the New Law is principally the same grace of the Holy Spirit (cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 106, a. 1).

St. Thomas, however, calls the New Law, the Law of Charity (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, “Collationes in decem praeceptis”, proemio) and precisely in the aforementioned proem s. Thomas, after having said he spoke of the fruits of the Law of Love, makes it clear that this Law is charity itself and such fruits are the fruits of charity, in fact he first states: "Sed sciendum quod haec lex, scilicet divini amoris, quatuor efficit in homine valde desirabilia. " … And then when he explains these effects he says: “Secundum quod facit caritas, est divinorum mandatorum observantia. … Tertium quod facit caritas, est, quia est praesidium contra adversa. … Et sic patent quatuor quae in nobis efficit caritas. Sed praeter illa, quaedam alia efficit quae praetermittenda non sunt. "" Collationes in decem praeceptis "(St. Thomas Aquinas," Collationes in decem praeceptis ", proemio) The New Law is therefore, for s. Thomas charity, as well as grace!

St. Anthony of Padua says practically the same thing when he affirms that from the mouth of the prelate: "... the subjects will seek the law, that is, charity, of which the Apostle says:" Bear one another's burdens, and thus you will fulfill the the law of Christ ”(Gal 6,2), that is, his precept of charity; In fact, Christ only out of love carried the weight of our sins on the cross in his body. The law is charity, which subjects "seek outside" (ex quirunt), that is, they seek first of all in works, in order to receive it more willingly and more fruitfully from the very mouth of the prelate: because Jesus "first began to do and then to teach "(Acts 1,1: XNUMX)."[276]

That this New Law is in particular charity means:

1) that it implies a radical break with mortal sin;

2) that it bears in us the fruits of charity, among which the observance of the commandments and peace stand out;

3) that it carries all the virtues in us;

4) that it has, in particular, three degrees.

That this New Law is in particular charity means above all that it implies a radical break with mortal sin because grave sin excludes charity from the soul (cf. IIª-IIae q. 24 a. 12 co.) In the Commentary on the Ten Commandments s. Thomas states: “Sed ad hoc quod istud praeceptum dilectionis possit perfecte impleri, quatuor requiruntur…. Quartum est omnimoda peccatorum vitatio. Nullus enim potest diligere Deum in sin existens. Matth. VI, 24: non potestis Deo serve et mammonae. Unde si in sin existis, Deum non diligis. Sed ille diligebat qui dicebat, Jesse. XXXVIII, 3: memento quomodo ambulaverim coram te in veritate et in corde perfecto. Praeterea dicebat Elias, III Reg. XVIII, 21: quousque claudicatis in duas partes? Sicut claudicans nunc huc nunc illuc inclinatur; sic et peccator nunc peccat, nunc Deum quaerere nititur. " ("Collationes in decem praeceptis", a. 1) For the precept of charity to be perfectly implemented, four things are needed and the fourth is that sins are absolutely avoided. No one who is in grave sin can love God, so if you are in sin you do not love God. But the one who said to God loved (really) God: remember how I walked before you in truth and with a perfect heart (Isaiah 38).

That the New Law is charity also means that it bears in us the fruits we have listed: the spiritual life, the observance of the divine commandments (both affirmative and negative), guardianship against adverse realities, guidance towards Heaven, the remission of sins, the illumination of the heart, perfect joy, perfect peace, constitutes man in dignity, makes him not only free but children of God. These fruits are clearly listed by the s. Doctor in the preface of his "Collationes in decem praeceptis".

I also remember that the perfect peace of which he speaks of himself. Thomas is the tranquility of order (cf. II-II, q. 45 a. 6 co.)

It should also be noted that the virtue mentioned in I-II q. 72 a. 6 is, with regard to the New Law, the infused virtue, a supernatural virtue that comes into us through sanctifying grace; but the infused virtue, it should be noted, requires precisely sanctifying grace and therefore is lost due to grave sin, the infused virtue is first of all charity which bears in us the fruits we have indicated above and in charity are all the infused virtues.

S. Thomas in I-II, q. 72 a. 6 ad 2 speaks of degrees of virtue and in particular with regard to degrees of infused virtue s. Thomas explains elsewhere that: “… sancti distinguunt tres evangelicos fructus secundum tres gradus virtutis. Et ponuntur tres gradus, quia cuiuslibet rei perfectio attenditur secundum principium, medium et finem. " (I-II, q. 70 a. 3 ad 2.) The saints distinguish three evangelical fruits according to the three degrees of virtue. There are three degrees of infused virtue into which God introduces us through his Law and in particular through the law of graduality.

St. Thomas speaks, in particular, of these three degrees with regard to charity but I think they can be extended to all the virtues. Charity, therefore, according to St. Thomas has three degrees: incipient, profitable, perfect. These degrees are distinguished on the basis of the main tasks that man is led to perform with the increase of charity. In the degree of incipient charity, man has the main task of escaping from sin and resisting his lusts that lead him to sin, in this degree charity must be nourished and supported so that it does not get lost. - In the degree of profitable charity, the fundamental task is the effort to proceed in the good, strengthening and increasing charity in oneself. - In the degree of perfect charity the fundamental task consists in attending to union with God and to the fruition of God, in the desire to dissolve and to be with Christ (cf. IIª-IIae q. 24 a. 9 co.).

The main commitment of those in whom charity begins to be present, although they progress, explains St. Thomas, consists in resisting sins, from which they suffer the assault; subsequently, feeling less of this onslaught, they wait more surely to progress; however, if on the one hand they await progress, on the other they are careful not to succumb to the attacks of spiritual enemies (cf. IIª-IIae q. 24 a. 9 ad 2).

St. Thomas adds in his comment to the letter to the Hebrews that as for progress towards perfection man must always try to pass to the perfect state and adds that, as St. Bernardo, while we are on the way to Heaven we must always progress, whoever does not progress regresses: "Quantum ad progressum ad perfectionem semper débet niti homo transire ad statum perfectum ... In via enim Dei non progredi est regredi, ait Bernardus ... Duplex est perfectio, a scilicet exterior, quae consistit in actibus exterioribus qui sunt signa interiorum, sicut virginitas, voluntaria paupertas. Et ad hanc non omnes tenentur. Alia est interior, quae consistit in dilectione Dei et proximi, secundum illud ad Col. 3: "Charitatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis", et ad perfectionem hujusmodi non omnes tenentur, sed omnes tenentur ad eam tendere, quia si quis nollet plus diligere Deum, non faceret quod exigit caritas. " (Super Heb. VI, 1) Man must always try to pass to the perfect state and perfection is twofold: one that consists of external acts which are signs of interior acts, such as virginity or voluntary poverty, and not all of them they are required; another which is interior which consists in the love of God and neighbor and not everyone is bound to this perfection but everyone is bound to strive for it. All are therefore obliged to strive towards the perfect, interior state of love of God and neighbor; if someone did not have this tendency to love God more, he would not do what charity demands.

An intrinsic law of the Christian life, therefore, is that of progressing in charity, whoever does not go forward goes backwards, it is a gradual growth from good to better ... and as s. Thomas it was necessary that in the law of God various affirmative and negative precepts were given, so that gradually men were introduced to virtue, first with the abstention from the evil to which we are induced through the negative precepts, and then with the exercise of good, to which we are induced through affirmative precepts; and thus the affirmative and negative precepts do not pertain to different virtues, but to different degrees in virtue (cf. I-II, q. 72 a. 6 ad 2).

St. Thomas, specifies: “Quantum ad actus exteriores, quia non tenetur ad incertum, non tenetur homo ad meliora; sed quantum ad affectum, tenetur ad meliora. Unde qui non semper vellet esse melior, non posset sine contemptu velle. "[277] As for outward acts, man is not bound to the best things but as to affection he is bound to the best things; therefore those who do not want to always be better, cannot want it without contempt of this obligation.

As for affection, everyone is bound to a gradual growth in charity and more generally in the infused virtues, growth that in reality never ends down here because we can always improve ourselves.

God calls us to a gradual growth to reach the heights of Christian perfection. This gradual growth, due to the fact that the Law of God is indispensable (cf. Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) Does not provide for dispensations from this Law, it does not provide for intermediate stages that exempt from an objective implementation of the precept, perhaps for then reach a higher perfection: no one can dispense others from the fulfillment of the Law and therefore no one can set, for himself or for others, intermediate objectives, or intermediate stages, which are dispensations from the divine Law, through which one can then reach the ideal the actual implementation of the rule or a more perfect implementation of the rule; no one is allowed to choose objectively serious actions while waiting to reach the ideal of the real implementation of the Law of God!

The law of graduality is in the ever more perfect fulfillment of the Law and not outside it.

The law of graduality is intrinsic to the New Law and does not foresee dispensations from the Law of God but an ever more perfect fulfillment of it; in fact it is the law of graduality and non-graduality of the Law.

d) The "gradualness of the Law" in the letter of the Argentine Bishops, in Amoris Laetitia and in Msgr. Fernández, alleged ghostwriter of this exhortation.

What we have said allows us to affirm that certain passages of Amoris Laetitia and of the letter of the Argentine Bishops go in the deviated line of the gradualness of the Law and not in the straight line of the law of graduality, to understand it well it seems useful to start from some statements made by the one who is considered by some to be the ghost writer of Amoris Laetitia, Msgr. VM Fernández, a close collaborator of the Pope who elevated him to the episcopate a few months after being elected Supreme Pontiff, in fact on 13 May 2013 he was elected titular Archbishop of Tiburnia and then became Archbishop of La Plata (Argentina). We will therefore see some statements by Msgr. Fernández and then we will pass on to some affirmations of Amoris Laetitia and of the letter of the Argentine Bishops.

d, 1) The "gradualness of the Law" in some writings of Msgr. Fernández.

Let's start with an article by Msgr. Fernández of 2006 entitled: "The trinitarian dimension of the moral II: profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de" Deus caritas est ""[278]

Let's say first of all that Mons. Fernández in this article shows little competence regarding the doctrine of St. Thomas, he cites it superficially, presenting only some texts of the Supreme Theological and not others or other passages of other great works of the holy Doctor that would serve to clarify what St. Doctor; in reality Mgr. Fernández evidently tries to "pull" the texts of St. Thomas so that they say what interests the monsignor and not what the s. Doctor means. In this line, the Monsignor does not seem to realize in the aforementioned article that the order of charity wants, explains s. Thomas (cf. IIª-IIae q. 26 a. 4), that after God we love ourselves and then others and we notice, in passing, that "strangely" also Amoris Laetitia presents an error relating to the order of charity. on this same aspect, as will be seen in this book in the chapter on charity… therefore also on this aspect it seems that Amoris Laetitia follows the article by Msgr. Fernández and has himself as a “ghost writer”.

Then it should be noted that, unlike what emerges from the article by Msgr. Fernández, as s. Thomas, the greatest virtue for us is not mercy but charity (cf. IIª-IIae q. 30 a. 4 co.) Which, as we have seen, has the effect, among others, of full observance of the divine law. We also point out to Msgr. Fernández that true mercy is shown supremely in Christ, and such mercy seeks above all the eternal salvation of souls “Sic igitur rectitudo circa dilectionem proximi instituitur, cum praecipitur alicui quod proximum diligat sicut se ipsum; ut scilicet eo order bona proximis optet quo sibi optare debet: praecipue quidem spiritualia bona, deinde bona corporis, et quae in exterioribus rebus consistunt. " (De perfectione, chap. 13 co.) ... and everyone must exercise the first mercy, in a certain way, towards his own soul because the first "neighbor" for each of us is our soul (cfr. IIª-IIae q. 26 a.4), that is, first of all we must convert and sanctify ourselves and only then will we be able to truly convert and sanctify others; also for s. Bonaventure, in the Commentary on the Sentences, the order of charity is such that, after God, we must love ourselves and therefore our neighbor (cf. "In III Sententiarum" d. 29, a.1, q. 3) and the first mercy must be exercised towards oneself, explains St. Bonaventure: “Ad illum quod obiicitur quod caritas est amor liberalis; dicendum, quod quamvis liberalitas quantum ad suam completionem respiciat alterum, tamen quantum ad suum initium prius respicit ipsum qui liberalitatem impendit, sicut et misericordia. de qua dictum est quod primo debet homo sui ipsius misereri. " ("In III Sententiarum" d. 29, a.1, q. 3 ad 4m) The editors of Opera Omnia di s. Bonaventura, ed. Quaracchi specify that the affirmations of s. Bonaventure for whom it is necessary to love after God ourselves and then our neighbor if referring to our own soul are common doctrine; therefore it is the common doctrine of the Church that, after God, we must love our soul. (see Doctoris Seraphici s. Bonaventurae SRE Ep. Card. Opera Omnia, Ex Typographia Collegii Sancti Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, MCDCCCLXXXVII, vol. III p. 645)

St. Anthony of Padua states in this line, taking up s. Augustine: “Augustine says:“ Four things must be loved: first, he who is above us, that is, God; second, what we (ourselves) are; third, what is close to us, that is, our neighbor; fourth, what is below us, that is, the body. The rich man loved his body first and foremost; of God, of his soul, of him and of his neighbor he did not care at all, and therefore he was damned. "[279]

Precisely in this article of 2006 which evidently must have been followed on various points by those who wrote Amoris Laetitia, as shown by a careful comparison of the two texts, Msgr. Fernández states: "En algunas cuestiones de la moral sexual también es imperoso discernir bajo la luz directa del criterion hermenéutico central, para reconocer cómo una incapacidad para la abstinencia sexual suele implying an avasallamiento de la libertad del cónyuge, haciendo primar el propio de la felicidad del otro. However, there is the case of a sexual abstention that contradicts the Christian jerarquía de valores coronada por la caridad. No podemos cerrar los ojos, por ejemplo, ante la dificultad que se plantea a una mujer when she percibe que la estabilidad familiar se en riesgo por someter al esposo no practicante a períodos de continencia. In this case, an inflexible rechazo a todo use of preservativos haría primar el cumplimiento de una norma externa por sobre la obligación grave de cuidar la comuneón amorosa y la estabilidad conyugal que exige más directly la caridad. "(Page 150) the final part of the text is indicative: “But there is also the case of sexual abstention which contradicts the Christian hierarchy of values ​​crowned by charity. We cannot close our eyes, for example, to the difficulty a woman has when she perceives that the stability of the family is put at risk by subjecting her non-practicing husband to periods of continence. In this case, an inflexible refusal of any use of condoms would make compliance with an external norm prevail over the serious obligation to take care of loving communion and marital stability that charity most directly requires. "

The statement of Msgr. Fernández is obviously wrong ...

Charity, as St. Thomas, makes us observe the commandments and does not make us commit sin and above all does not make us commit serious sin, but the use of condoms and therefore contraception is an evident grave sin, it is an intrinsically evil act that can never be chosen.

In an important article published in the Osservatore Romano we read “The Christian moral tradition has always distinguished between 'positive' norms (which command to do) and 'negative' norms (which prohibit doing). Furthermore, it has constantly and clearly affirmed that, among the negative ones, the norms that prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions: such acts, in fact, are "disordered" from a moral point of view due to their very intimate structure, therefore in themselves and for themselves, that is, they contradict the person in his specific dignity as a person. Precisely for this precise reason, such acts cannot be made "ordered" from a moral point of view by any subjective intention and circumstance, which are not capable of changing their structure. Contraception also arises among these acts: in and of itself it is always a moral disorder, because objectively and intrinsically (regardless of intentions, motivations and subjective situations) it contradicts "the native language that expresses reciprocal total self-giving of the spouses "(Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 32)."[280]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 370 that "... it is intrinsically bad" ... that action which "... either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its fulfillment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, as an aim or as a means, to prevent procreation" . (St. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter "Humanae vitae", 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490.) "

In a 2011 article, Msgr. Fernández returns to the 2006 article that we have just examined, and regarding the question of the use of the condom he states: "En el artículo (pág. 150) I place the ejemplo de una mujer que, por preservar el amor y la estabilidad familiar, no rechaza and the use of condoms (cooperación material al pecado del cónyuge). Pretendo decir que, before a conflict of deberes, el cuidado del amor y la estabilidad familiar es una exigencia más directa de la caridad porque es un bien mayor por el cual puede ser lícito tolerar un misbehavior. ... Es lo que en la moral clásica se expresa como cooperación only material y propcionada en el mal. "[281]

So according to Msgr. Fernández the woman who, in order to preserve love and family stability, does not refuse the use of condoms is only making a material cooperation proportionate to the evil. Unfortunately, even saying this, Msgr. Fernández commits a serious mistake because in order to have material cooperation proportionate to the evil the act that takes place must not be objectively evil, more widely this cooperation can be lawful:

"... when these three conditions are given jointly:

the action of the cooperating spouse is not in itself illegal; (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2795, 3634)

there are proportionately serious reasons for cooperating in the spouse's sin;

try to help the spouse (patiently, with prayer, with charity, with dialogue: not necessarily at that moment, nor on every occasion) to desist from such conduct. "[282]

The answers of the s. Office cited[283]  clearly state that the act of the woman passively accepting the use of a condom by her husband in the intimate relationship with her is an intrinsically illicit act ... therefore the cooperation of the woman who accepts the use of the condom in the intimate relationship is grossly illicit and it is not material cooperation with sin.

We will return to the statements of Msgr. Fernández just examined later when we will show how the "paradigm shift" is evidently opening up to contraception.

God intervene!

In the same 2006 article that we are examining, Msgr. Fernández states: “En los aparentes conflictos de deberes se discierne otorgando prioridad a las personas. Así podemos decir, por ejemplo, que ocultar una información para avoid una masacre no es mentir, porque aunque contradiga una formulación de la ley natural ("no mentir") no contradict la ley natural en sí misma, que en ese concrete case exige preserve la vida de las personas de un agresor injusto. De otro way, se estaría subordinating the vida de las personas humanas –que son fin último de la acción moral y de la "inclinación autotrascendente hacia el otro– a la obediencia servil ante una expresión siempre imperfecta de la ley natural." (p. 156) I translate in an indicative way: “In apparent conflicts of duties one discerns by giving priority to people. So we can say, for example, that whoever hides information to avoid a massacre is not lying, because even if it contradicts a formulation of the natural law ("do not lie") it does not contradict the natural law itself, which in that particular case requires to preserve the people's lives from an unjust aggressor. Otherwise, the life of human persons - who are the ultimate goal of moral action and of the self-transcendent inclination towards the other - would be subordinated to servile obedience in the face of an always imperfect expression of natural law "."

I immediately say that hiding information is not precisely lying, there is a profound distinction between hiding the truth, by keeping silent, and lying.

Then I specify that "do not speak false testimony" is a divine commandment and the prohibition of lying is absolute and is included in this commandment. The eighth commandment clearly states that we must be truthful and never lie; the one who lies sins, the offensive lie is in itself a venial sin, the harmful one is a mortal sin. Whoever has ardent charity never accepts to sin, not even venially. Good intention does not change the evil of the object of action. The eighth commandment is a revealed law and its formulation was established by God to convey to us a norm that no one has the faculty to change and to which no one has the power to dispense. Msgr.Fernández speaks of people's priorities in resolving conflicts of duties but forgets that before people there are the Trinitarian Persons who are to be loved with all their heart, soul, mind and strength ... and loving God means observing the Law of him. St. Thomas affirms that every type of lie is prohibited by the Law of God: “In hac prohibitione prohibetur omne mendacium. Here they are. VII, 14: noli velle mentiri omne mendacium; assiduitas enim illius non est bona. Et hoc propter quatuor. First propter Diaboli assimilationem. … Secundo propter societatis dissolutionem…. Tertio propter famae amissionem. Here enim assuescit mendaciis, non creditur sibi, etiam si verum dicat. … Fourth propter animae perditionem. … Unde advertas, quia ipsorum mendaciorum quoddam est mortale, quoddam veniale. Mortale autem est mentiri in his quae sunt fidei; quod pertinet ad praeclaros magistros et praedicatores… Item aliquando mentiuntur aliqui in damnum proximi. Col. III, 9: nolite mentiri invicem. Et haec duo mendacia mortalia sunt. Aliqui autem mentiuntur pro seipsis; et hoc multipliciter. …. Aliqui propter alterius commodum, when scilicet volunt aliquem a morte vel periculo vel damno aliquo liberare: et hoc cavendum est, sicut dicit Augustinus. Here they are. IV, 26: non accipias faciem adversus faciem tuam, nec adversus animam tuam mendacium. " (Collationes in decem praeceptis, a. 10) Any kind of lie is prohibited! Lying should not be practiced, in particular, for four reasons: it assimilates to Satan, dissolves society, makes you lose your fame because it makes the liar not be believed in the future, and makes you lose your soul ...

In the Sum theological (cfr. IIª-IIae q. 110 a. 3) s. Thomas says that in no way can that which is bad for its genus be good and lawful, but lying is bad for the genus of the act itself, so it is never good. The lie, continues s. Thomas, it is always a sin, as also St. Augustine affirms and it is not lawful even to save from an unjust aggressor. The same s. Doctor specifies that it is not permissible to tell lies to remove any danger from a person, but it is permissible to prudently hide the truth with some excuse, as St. Augustine explains. (cfr. IIª-IIae q. 110 a. 3 ad 4) Here s. Thomas refers to an affirmation of St. Augustine who says: "to an exhibitor or treatiser or preacher of eternal truths, or even to a narrator or announcer of temporal things that aim to edify man in religion or holiness, it will be lawful to keep hidden for a certain time what is he believes he must remain hidden, but it will never be lawful to lie or even conceal [the truth] by resorting to lies. "[284]

And still s. Augustine specifies: “However, we must remember that it is not the same to hide the truth and utter a lie. Although in fact all those who lie want to hide the truth, not all those who want to hide the truth tell lies, being very numerous the cases in which to hide the truth one does not lie but only keeps silent. "[285]

St. Alphonsus says: “Therefore a lie is always a sin. When it is said without harm to one's neighbor, it is only a venial sin; but when there is grave harm to the neighbor, it is a mortal sin; and so is meant that writing he says. Os quod mentitur, occidit animam (Sap. 1). And when the lie is told before the judge, it is a double mortal sin. And when the oath is added to it, as is always practiced in judgment, there is more sacrilege for the false oath, which is a very serious sin, and is a reserved sin. "[286]

S. Thomas, s. Augustine, s. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori knew the Law of God well and they knew well that God is above everything and that the Ultimate End is God himself and not man and certainly their statements on this subject are not servile obedience to an always imperfect expression of the natural law but they are a wise interpretation and application of the law of God. In this regard it is important to remember that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2072: “Since the ten commandments reveal the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, in their essential content they reveal grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being. " The word of God and therefore the divine commandments must be interpreted and applied not privately, but with the Church, in the light of Holy Tradition and precisely in the Church and in the light of Tradition, it is necessary to resolve conflicts of duties and not simply by giving precedence to people, as instead says Msgr. Fernández. The light of Tradition and of the Church affirms, in particular, that the Ten Commandments reveal, in their essential content, grave obligations, they are substantially immutable, they always and everywhere oblige, and no one can dispense from them.

On p. 160 of this same article by Msgr. Fernández we read: “La ley moral en sí misma es siempre vinculante y no tener una gradualidad. Por consiguiente, las etapas de crecimiento se orientan a capacitar al sujeto para poder llegar to cumpl it fully and "es esencial en this educational dynámica la no disolución de la ley en las coordenadas de las posibilidades históricas factibles de la libertad humana" (L. Melina , Moral: entre la crisis y la renovación, Barcelona, ​​1996, 135. Pero no se puede aceptar the minimalist posture de este autor cuando allí mismo supports que la obediencia a los preceptos negativos es condición previa para la gradualidad, puesto que FC 34 se refiere a la gradualidad precisely when habla de las dificultades de los matrimonios para aplicar preceptos negativos as la no anticoncepción: Ibidem.) "[287] I translate in an indicative way: "

The moral law itself is always binding and does not have a gradualness. Therefore, the phases of growth are oriented to allow the subject to fully respect it and "it is essential in this educational dynamic the non-dissolution of the law in the coordinates of the feasible historical possibilities of human freedom" (L. Melina, "Moral: entre la crisis y la renovación ", Barcelona, ​​Ediciones Internacionales Universitarias, 1996, 135, my translation) in this note Mons. Fernández affirms that Melina's minimalist position cannot be accepted when she maintains that obedience to negative precepts is a prerequisite for graduality, since “Familiaris Consortio” 34 refers to gradualness precisely when it speaks of the spouses' difficulties in applying negative precepts such as that which prohibits contraception.

It is not Melina who is wrong but Fernández and this leads the latter to condemn Melina's words.

In fact, Bishop Fernández, while condemning the gradualness of the Law in words, affirms it in deeds precisely because he believes that there can be a law of graduation that includes disobedience to negative precepts!

Sound doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that negative precepts can never be violated and the Law of God is indispensable. Obviously, Msgr. Fernández, precisely because he follows an erroneous doctrine regarding the law of gradualness, comes to criticize Msgr. Melina because the latter affirms, following the right doctrine, that obedience to the negative precepts of the Decalogue is a prior condition to the law of graduality. The words of Msgr. Fernández obviously also make it clear that according to him in some cases the negative norms of the Law of God can be lawfully broken in fact this author states that in the context of the lawful law of graduality the negative precepts of the Law of God can be lawfully violated.

We will see that in the wake of Msgr. Fernández also Amoris Laetitia discreetly puts aside the validity of the doctrine that the negative norms of the Decalogue are obligatory always and in all circumstances.

The same Msgr. Fernández, in line with the article just seen, in an article commenting on Amoris Laetitia then affirmed that in it the general canonical norm is maintained (cf. 300), although in some cases it may not apply following a path of discernment; in this discernment the conscience of the concrete person plays a central role with regard to his real situation before God, with regard to his real possibilities and his limitations. That conscience, accompanied by a pastor and enlightened by the guidelines of the Church, is capable of an evaluation that gives rise to a judgment sufficient to discern the possibility of accessing communion. [288]

Msgr. Fernández: “Por eso mismo, el discernimiento no se cierra, until“ es dynámico y debe permanecer siempre abierto a nuevas etapas de crecimiento ya nuevas decisiones que permitan realizar el ideal de manera más plena ”(AL 303). He follows an authentic understanding of the "ley de gradualidad" (AL 295), which invites responders cada vez mejor to Dios confiando en la ayuda de su gracia of him. "[289]

The person, while not seriously proposing to live according to the Law and to flee the next occasions of sin and indeed remaining in a clear situation of grave sin and therefore remaining willing to carry out objectively serious acts, is practically confirmed through Confession in his evident sin and in her situation, she is acquitted, and can receive the sacraments publicly, with evident scandal, contrary to what the divine law affirms[290]

In this text by Archbishop Fernández the graduality of the Law is practically affirmed and not the law of graduality. True discernment is done by implementing the divine law as taught by St. Ignatius of Loyola… who with a discernment affirms the non-application of this Law places himself outside the law of graduality… and outside the sound Catholic doctrine.

Discernment, says Fernandez, remains open to new decisions that allow the ideal to be realized "more fully" ... Note: Fernández's text says that it is necessary to be open to a "fuller" realization of the ideal ... evidently the ideal it is already fully realized even if the divine law is not objectively implemented and indeed it is disregarded with the disposition to carry out objectively serious acts.

For Fernandez, acts objectively contrary to the divine law are permitted but the ideal of their real implementation remains firm and discernment remains open according to an “authentic understanding of the law of graduality”….

Unfortunately for Msgr. Fernández and for those whom he "inspires", the true law of gradualness cannot be invoked to legitimize objectively evil acts…. of murder, of pedophilia…. and adultery and scandal etc.! The true law of graduality does not allow dispensations from the divine law.

Continues Msgr. Fernández stating that Amoris Laetitia refers to people aware of the gravity of their situation, but with great difficulty in going back without feeling in conscience that they fall into new defects. (Amoris Laetitia n. 298) If the act remains objectively dishonest and does not lose its objective gravity, it cannot be chosen with conviction, as if it were part of the Christian ideal, nor could it be said that it becomes subjectively honest. Another very different thing is to propose, as Francis does, that in a context of attenuated guilt we try to respond to God's will with greater dedication, possible in the context of that situation. For example, with greater generosity towards children, or with the decision to make a more intense commitment as a couple for the common good, or with a maturation in family dialogue, or with the development of more frequent and intense reciprocal gestures of charity, etc. . … Therefore, according to Msgr. Fernández, the person who lives in adultery and who has conditions that mitigate his sins that make it very difficult for him to carry out the commandments, must do the good that is possible: with greater generosity towards children, or with the decision to assume in pairs a more intense commitment for the common good, or with a maturation in family dialogue, or with the development of more frequent and intense reciprocal gestures of charity, etc. ... [291] These acts, continues Msgr. Fernendez can be objects of a "personal choice" and are examples of that "possible good" that can be achieved within the limits of the situation one is experiencing. They are expressions of the "via caritatis", which can always follow "those who find it difficult to fully live the divine law". Situating itself in this way, the conscience is also called to recognize “what, for now, is the generous response that can be offered to God, the commitment that God himself is asking for in the concrete complexity of limits.[292] "For those who are" unable "to live the commandments, the door remains open to achieve a certain" possible good "which is the way of" charity "to follow and the conscience can therefore consider that practically God allows the person to carry out objectively immoral acts and ask practically only that "possible" good. Obviously, these statements by Archbishop Fernández are placed outside the law of graduality and sound Catholic doctrine and practically affirm for these "conditioned" people a dispensation from the commandments because for them it is enough to do their "possible" good and not the Law of God objectively , along this line these "conditioned" people can then receive the Sacraments without proposing to live according to the objective implementation of the commandments.[293]

We point out that, as stated by s. John Paul II: “We are all ... we are called to holiness, and this is a vocation that can also demand heroism. It must not be forgotten. "[294] …. That someone has great difficulty in following the narrow path of the Cross is normal and it is certainly not for this reason that the narrow path must be widened…. because only the narrow way leads to Heaven!

Continues Msgr. Fernández: Francis does not indicate that the conscience of each faithful is completely liberated at his discretion, what he asks for is a process of discernment accompanied by a pastor, a "personal and pastoral" discernment, which takes "the teaching of the Church very seriously and the guidelines of the bishop "(Amoris Laetitia n. 300) and presupposes a" rightly formed "conscience (Amoris Laetitia n. 302). It is not a conscience that tries to create the truth as it wants, or to adapt it to his wishes of him. On the part of the pastor, "it never implies hiding the light of the most complete ideal or proposing less of what Jesus offers to the human being" (Amoris Laetitia n. 307), nor "excessive respect when he proposes it (Amoris Laetitia n . 307). "[295] ... to note: the ideal remains, obviously the divine commandments lose their obligation here and now for everyone, and discernment, as seen above, which "takes the teaching of the Church very seriously" can practically lead to disapplying the commandments and to allow the person to carry out acts gravely contrary to the negative precepts and to receive the Sacraments: we are in full gradualness of the Law ... and outside of sound Catholic doctrine.

Continues Msgr. Fernández: "Francisco recognizes the posibilidad de proponer la perfecta continencia a los divorciados en nueva unión, pero admite que pueda haber dificultades para practicarla (cf. note 329)." (P. 453) ... note that perfect continence can be proposed …. I underline: it can be proposed… therefore continence and its proposition appear optional; in fact the norms of the divine law remain as ideal, they cease to be obligatory here and now and, as mentioned, they can be disapplied, as seen above!

We still remember the illuminating and "prophetic" words of St. John Paul II: "The Synod Fathers addressing those who exercise the pastoral ministry for the benefit of spouses and families rejected any dichotomy between pedagogy, which proposes a certain gradualness in realizing the divine plan, and doctrine, proposed by the Church with all its consequences, which contain the command to live according to the same doctrine. It is not a question of looking at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with commitment. In reality, a "gradual process" cannot be accepted, except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law. Therefore the so-called "law of graduality" or gradual path cannot be identified with the "graduality of the law", as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. All spouses are called, according to the divine plan, to holiness in marriage and this high vocation is realized in that the human person is able to respond to divine command with a serene soul, trusting in divine grace and in his own will. " (Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp -ii_hom_19801025_conclusione-synod.html) Therefore, according to sound doctrine, it is not a question of ideals but of divine norms, which obviously oblige ... and which absolutely forbid adultery, pedophilia, murder, etc. and they absolutely undertake not to commit objectively evil acts such as adultery, contraception, pedophilia, murder etc. etc. ! “… A“ gradual process ”cannot be accepted, except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law.”! The Law remains such, it remains the norm and not the ideal, it remains the norm to which to conform here and now…. here and now ... because the divine commandments oblige always and everywhere (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072) There is no true discernment except in the light of these truths ... no true discernment, no upright conscience can decide to continue to carry out objectively serious acts and to avoid fleeing the next occasions of sin: God calls everyone, here and now to follow his Law ... and therefore to flee what is gravely opposed to this Law!

May the sacred cross be our light.

d, 2) The "gradualness of the Law" in Amoris Laetitia and in the letter of the Argentine Bishops.

What we have just said about the statements of Msgr. Fernández seems important to us to realize in depth the deviated doctrine of the "sources" of Amoris Laetitia and therefore of the deviated doctrine that Amoris Laetitia and the letter of the Argentine Bishops present in a real but in a certain way hidden, discreet way. Msgr. Fernández says precisely about the discretion held by Pope Francis to pass his change of doctrine: "Aunque the cuestión del posible accede to the comunion de algunos divorciados en nueva unión has provocado mucho revuelo, el Papa intentó —sin lograrlo— que este paso se diera de a discreet manner. Por eso, después de desarrollar los presupuestos de this decision in the cuerpo of the document, the application to the municipality of the divorce in new unión se hizo explícita en notas a pie de página. "[296] This means that although the question of possible access to communion for some divorced in a new union has caused a stir, the Pope has tried - unsuccessfully - to take this step discreetly. Therefore, after developing the assumptions of this decision in the body of the document, the application to the communion of divorced in a new union was made explicit in the footnotes.

In reality, true discretion is united with the Truth and unfortunately both Mons. Fernández and the Pope show that they misrepresent the Truth ... even though they present themselves as champions of it ...

Mons. Fernández in his article of 2006, in fact said that the moral law in itself is always binding and does not have a gradual [297]  that is, he presented himself, in words, as a follower of the true doctrine on the gradualness of the Law, while in fact he denied it, as we have seen. In a similar way (it should be noted) Pope Francis also affirms in words, but denies in facts, his fidelity to the true law of graduality and his condemnation to the gradualness of the Law, in fact in Amoris Laetitia we read: "... St. John Paul II he proposed the so-called “law of graduality”, in the awareness that the human being “knows, loves and realizes the moral good according to stages of growth”. ap. Familiaris consortio (22 November 1981), 34: AAS 74 (1982), 123.] It is not a "gradualness of the law", but a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts in subjects who are not in a position to understand, to appreciate or to fully practice the objective requirements of the law. "(Amoris Laetitia n. 295)

Unfortunately, contrary to what he himself affirms, Pope Francis, as we are seeing and as we shall see better later, affirms a clear gradualness of the Law. The Law of God, in fact, contrary to the affirmations of Pope Francis is not simply an ideal but a command to be lived here and now; the law of gradualness cannot be invoked to "legitimize" today objectively evil acts waiting to be able to reach the ideal…. it cannot be invoked to "legitimize" objectively evil acts of murder, pedophilia or adultery because it is impossible for some people to live the divine commandments ... and it cannot be invoked to give the Sacraments to those who do not intend to live according to the holy Law of God and therefore it is not proposed to avoid adultery ... or murder or pedophilia etc.! I underline that the divine norms are norms ... therefore it is not a question of ideals but of divine norms, which obviously oblige here and now ... and which absolutely prohibit adultery, pedophilia, murder etc. and they absolutely undertake not to commit objectively evil acts such as adultery, contraception, pedophilia, murder etc. etc. ! As stated above, s. John Paul II "... we cannot accept" a gradual process ", except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law." A "gradual process" cannot be invoked to legitimize objectively evil acts of murder or pedophilia or contraception or fornication…. or adultery!

Let us now pass to the more direct examination of the texts of the Pope and of the Argentine Bishops and we start from the analysis of some texts of the letter of the Bishops just cited because it seems to me that, as it interprets Amoris Laetitia, it makes the graduality of the Law better emerge and therefore allow us to bring out more clearly in Amoris Laetitia the gradualness of the Law that it contains but conceals ...

To nos. 5 and 6 of the letter of the Argentine Bishops we read in particular with regard to the divorced and remarried: if possible they should live in chastity, if this possibility is not feasible, a journey of discernment remains possible and therefore: "Si llega a reconocer que, in a concrete case , hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considerable que caería en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetitia abre la posibilidad del access to los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas 336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a the person to follow madurando y creciendo con la fuerza de la gracia. "[298] ...

First of all we note that proposing chastity has become optional ... obviously chastity also appears optional ... it is an ideal to which to strive no longer an absolute norm that can be lived and must necessarily be lived ...

On the other hand, in some cases, as emerges from these texts, it may be "impossible" to live in chastity ... that is, impossible to live the 10 commandments ... so if there are limitations and in particular if the person thinks that leaving the situation of adultery would fall into further sins damaging the family, he can continue to commit adultery and not propose to stop and even receive the sacraments precisely without proposing not to sin.

So the Law, the sixth commandment in particular, remains as an ideal but is no longer a norm to be observed here and now! Practically the "conditioned" person is exempted from observing the Law ... such a person can remain in the situation of objective serious non-observance of the divine Law and, without seriously proposing not to sin and to flee the next occasions of sin, can access the Sacraments ... we are in full gradualness of the Law!

The sound doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that the Law remains such, it remains a norm and not an ideal, it remains a norm to which we must conform here and now…. here and now ... because the divine commandments oblige always and everywhere, no one can dispense from the law, from the commandments (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072)! ... not even the Pope can dispense from the observance of the commandments, they are substantially immutable and oblige always and everywhere!

St. John Paul II stated: “Therefore the so-called“ law of graduality ”or gradual path cannot be identified with the“ graduality of the law ”, as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. ... "[299] I stress: “… there are no various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. "…. I point out that what the letter of the Argentine Bishops affirms is, according to the Pope, the only accepted interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, that is, through the affirmations of the Argentine Bishops we can recognize the profound meaning of Amoris Laetitia ... therefore what they said the Argentine Bishops “illuminates” the whole Apostolic Exhortation… therefore in the “light” of the errors we have just seen we must see what this papal document says…. to manifest its true face and its opposition to the true law of gradualness.

At no. 303 of Amoris Laetitia we read: «But this conscience can recognize not only that a situation does not objectively respond to the general proposal of the Gospel; he can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for the moment is the generous response that can be offered to God, and discover with a certain moral certainty that this is the gift that God himself is requesting in the midst of the concrete complexity of limits, although not is still the objective ideal fully ". (Amoris Laetitia 303) The sincere and honest Christian moral conscience can never recognize what the Amoris Laetitia says here, because the Christian moral conscience, enlightened by faith, knows very well what the Catechism affirms in n. 2072: “Since the ten commandments reveal the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, in their essential content they reveal grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. The ten commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being. " No one can dispense from the 10 commandments, they oblige always and everywhere! Nobody can dispense from the command that prohibits adultery as nobody can dispense from the commands that forbid murder, pedophilia, etc. etc. The commandments are not ideals but norms that are substantially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Also this affirmation of Amoris Laetitia, connected with what we have seen above, indicates that this document follows not the law of graduality but the graduality of the Law. As s. John Paul II: “Therefore the so-called“ law of graduality ”or gradual path cannot be identified with the“ graduality of the law ”, as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. According to the divine plan, all spouses are called to holiness in marriage and this lofty vocation is realized in that the human person is able to respond to divine command with a serene soul, trusting in divine grace and in his own will. "[300]. God does not simply ask us to do what is possible according to our human strength, God calls us to carry out his Law ... and God is almighty ... The Law of God is not impossible for those who are justified. “The observance of God's law, in certain situations, can be difficult, very difficult: however, it is never impossible. This is a constant teaching of the Church's tradition "(VS, n. 102,) The Council of Trent affirms that no one, then, however justified, must consider himself free from the observance of the commandments (can. 20), no one must make his own that rash and forbidden expression by the Fathers under pain of excommunication is that it is impossible for the justified man to observe the commandments of God (can. 18 and 22) (Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n.1536 and 1568) Nobody should be considered free from the observance of the commandments ... all are called to propose to carry out the commandments.

At no. 304 of Amoris Laetitia we read: "A small passage, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than the outwardly correct life of one who spends his days without facing important difficulties" (Amoris Laetitia 304)

God has given us his standards to implement them…. no one can dispense from them! As mentioned, intermediate stages are not admissible which objectively contrast the divine laws while leaving the "ideal" intact, the commandments are obligatory here and now for everyone; in this line, the small steps are not enough ... the "intermediate steps", the "small steps" are not enough; God has given us the commandments so that we observe them with the help of grace but it is obvious that whoever wants to make the graduality of the Law pass into practice and does not present the true law of graduality, has every interest in launching phrases like these to justify "Intermediate stages"…. which are actually objectively immoral acts ...

In Amoris Laetitia n. 305 we read: “Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and of growth across limits. Believing that everything is black or white, we sometimes close the path of grace and growth and discourage paths of sanctification that give glory to God ”(Amoris Laetitia 305).

Attention: the commandments are possible with the help of grace and Divine Omnipotence and we as ministers of Christ must reaffirm it and guide people on this path of the commandments, talking about other possible paths that include the performance of objectively evil acts means talking about graduality of the Law and not of the law of gradualness ... no one can dispense himself or others from the observance of the commandments.

Amoris Laetitia affirms "To avoid any deviant interpretation, I remember that in no way should the Church renounce proposing the full ideal of marriage, the plan of God in all its greatness ... Lukewarmness, any form of relativism, or an excessive comparison with the moment to propose it, would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also a lack of love of the Church towards the young people themselves. Understanding exceptional situations never implies hiding the light of the fullest ideal or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being. ”(Amoris Laetitia n. 307)… the ideal… note well… we must propose the ideal…. not the rules that apply here and now to everyone!

But the sound doctrine, as seen, affirms that the Law remains such, it remains the norm and not the ideal, it remains the norm to which one must conform here and now…. here and now ... because the divine commandments oblige always and everywhere (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2072)

Even in exceptional situations the Law of God remains Law with substantially immutable norms that oblige always and everywhere… therefore here and now. Nobody could dispense from them. Says s. John Paul II in VS: “The Church offers the example of numerous saints who have testified and defended moral truth to the point of martyrdom or have preferred death to a single mortal sin. By elevating them to the honor of the altars, the Church has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment true, according to which the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention of saving his own life. "(VS, n.91)

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

St. John Paul II in 1980 in his homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops affirmed: "It is not a question of looking at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome with I commit the difficulties. In reality, "a gradual process" cannot be accepted, except in the case of those who sincerely observe the divine law and seek those goods, which are safeguarded and promoted by the same law. "[301].

At no. 304 of Amoris Laetitia we read: "It is petty to pause to consider only whether or not the action of a person responds to a law or a general norm, because this is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete existence of a human being".

Note well: here the Pope could have said: in order to be fully faithful to God, it is first of all necessary that the acts that take place fully respond to the Law of God and that they be carried out with a right intention, etc. … But he wants to convey the message that an objectively immoral act is admissible, intermediate stages are admissible, if there are limits; he wants to pass the message that man can honestly and sincerely judge in conscience that God does not ask him to live the commandments ... he presents the Law as an ideal, not as a truly obligatory norm always and everywhere ... therefore, in this passage, he attacks the "mean ones" who dwell only on the act conforming to the commandment, but does not attack those who dwell only on the good intention or on the circumstances and put aside the precise answer to the Law ...

In conclusion, Amoris Laetitia clearly goes along the line of the gradual nature of the Law; this gradualness is justified by the fact that some have great difficulties in implementing this Law and therefore it is justified on the basis of the extenuating circumstances ... we will see later that the extenuating circumstances mentioned by Amoris Laetitia and more generally the whole system of this exhortation leads to consider:

1) as practically licit those that sound doctrine indicates as true serious sins e

2) how lawful the reception of the Sacraments to those who want to remain in them and therefore leads to administering the Sacraments to those who do not propose to live according to the Law of God. Amoris Laetitia therefore, while opposing words, actually opens the door to the gradualness of the Law and precisely also through this discreet opening determines a colossal relaxation of morals, as we will see more and more, which practically comes to legitimize not only adultery but also homosexual acts ...

Illuminating to clarify everything we are saying is what a Cardinal close collaborator of the Pope said, without being denied, "" The door is open ", he said in reference to the discipline of the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, but" the Pope did not say how to get through it. But he - Kasper said - did not repeat the negative statements of previous popes about what is not possible and not allowed. So there is room for individual bishops and individual episcopal conferences "."[302] …. As Cardinal Kasper says: the door is open but the Pope did not say how to go through it. However, the Pope did not repeat the negative statements of previous popes about what is not possible and not allowed. Cardinal Baldisseri had already said: “And in fact, not so much the Synod, it will be important, but the synthesis that will be prepared, and which will be signed by the Pope as a“ Post-Synodal Exhortation ”. It is very likely that it will not be a clear and definitive text, but based on a "floating" interpretation. So that each reading it, can pull it to the side that suits them most. "  [303]

The papal strategy through Amoris Laetitia opens the doors so that each reading it, can pull it to the side that suits him most…. for a colossal relaxation of morals and therefore for the perversion of many souls, as we will see better and better ... and obviously the Pope does not intervene to condemn errors and to ensure that sound doctrine is observed.

d, 3) The "gradualness of the Law" as an act of "mercy".

Following a consolidated "tradition" that emerges above all among the proponents of the gradualness of the Law, the perversion of the doctrine that this Pope and in particular Amoris Laetitia is carrying out, especially in the moral field, is passed on as an implementation of mercy ...

As Dariusz Kowalczyk SJ says very well in the article I already presented above [304]: "The" gradualness of the law "referring to marriage makes it possible to justify positions according to which there are various types of union: heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, monogamous, and in each of them it would be possible to live in peace with God revealed in Jesus Christ, despite the ideal is always the monogamous marriage between man and woman, lasting and open to life. This reasoning is often accompanied by words about mercy, as opposed to the commandments. " This emerges clearly both in the article by Msgr. Fernández who speaks widely and in a distorted way of mercy, forgetting that, for us, charity is the highest virtue, and that, after God, we must love ourselves ... [305], both in the commentary article on Amoris Laetitia and Msgr. Fernández made in 2017[306] in which he contrasts the comfortable rigidity of some, which determines the watering down of the Gospel, to the evidently merciful indications of this exhortation (cf. Amoris Laetitia n. 311) evidently wanting to say that true mercy is not in the sound doctrine that the Church has widespread for 2000 years but in the moral perversions that he and Amoris Laetitia spread ...

In the same article from 2017[307] Msgr. Fernández also underlines the contrast between the actions of some confessors who make mercy fade in the search for a supposedly pure justice and the way of working that Pope Francis indicates through Amoris Laetitia (see Amoris Laetitia note 364).

This call to mercy to support errors can be clearly seen in Amoris Laetitia as well as in the two passages just cited (see Amoris Laetitia n. 311 and note 364), also in another passage in which, opening the doors to a subtle but real gradualness of the Law, it is stated: "However, from our awareness of the weight of extenuating circumstances - psychological, historical and even biological - it follows that" without diminishing the value of the Gospel ideal, it is necessary to accompany the possible stages with mercy and patience of growth of the people who are being built day by day ", leaving room for the" mercy of the Lord who stimulates us to do the good possible ". (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium (24 November 2013), 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038). " (See Amoris Laetitia n. 308)

That the affirmation of the gradual nature of the law is accompanied by the call to mercy and more generally to charity can also be seen in the letter of the Argentine Bishops which at the beginning and therefore in n. 3 states: “… Francisco has abierto varias puertas en la pastoral familiar y estamos llamados a aprovechar este tiempo de misericordia, para asumir como Iglesia peregrina la riqueza que nos toast the Apostolic Exhortación en sus distinctos capítulos. … 3) El acompañamiento pastoral is an ejercicio de la "via caritatis". It is an invitation to follow "el camino de Jesús, el de la misericordia y de la integración" (296). ”… The affirmations of Amoris Laetitia at n. 306 “In any circumstance, before those who find it difficult to fully live the divine law, the invitation to walk the via caritatis must resound. Fraternal charity is the first law of Christians (cf. Jn 15,12:5,14; Gal 1:4,8). Let us not forget the promise of the Scriptures: "Above all, keep fervent charity among yourselves, for charity covers a multitude of sins" (4,24 Pt 3,30); "Atone for your sins with alms and your iniquities with acts of mercy towards the afflicted" (Dn XNUMX); "Water extinguishes the fire that rages, alms atone for sins" (Sir XNUMX:XNUMX). "

I conclude by noting that true mercy is linked to charity and Truth ... therefore the fundamental errors presented by Amoris Laetitia and the moral relaxation that it is producing are not an exercise of mercy but of its precise opposite, they do not help to save souls but rather to set them on the path of sin and damnation ...

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error and false mercy be dispersed.

8) The negative precepts of the Law of God, including that which prohibits adultery, always oblige in all circumstances!

May the sacred cross be our light.

St. Thomas, on the basis of the revealed Law, specifies, as we have already seen above, that: the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige always and forever.

Explain the s. Doctor “Ad tertium dicendum, quod ad praecepta negative tenemur semper et ad semper; et per hoc vitantur sufficienter peccata transgressionis. Sed ad praecepta affirmativa tenetur homo semper, sed non ad semper, sed loco et tempore determined. " (Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 ad 3.) We are bound to observe the negative precepts of the Decalogue always and on every occasion and through this we avoid the sins of transgression; the positive precepts, on the other hand, we must always observe them, however, not on every occasion but at the right time and place.

In Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 15 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 4 to 3 s. Thomas also explains that the affirmative precepts contain prohibitions for the time in which they oblige, as every affirmation has a negation attached to it, in this line it is stated that if you are required to feed a person and do not feed him, you will kill him, if you are required to give alms to a person and you do not do it you hurt him.

The S. Doctor reiterates that negative precepts always and forever oblige also in the following text: “Ad tertium dicendum, quod retentio rei alienae invitation domino contrariatur praecepto negative, quod obligat semper et ad semper; et ideo tenetur statim ad reddendum. Secus autem est de impletione praecepti affirmativi, quod obligat semper, sed non ad semper; unde non tenetur aliquis ad statim implendum. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 3 a. 1 qc. 4 ad 3.)

Further, the absolute obligation contained in the negative precepts is stated in the following text of St. Thomas: "Ad octavum dicendum, quod voluntas creaturee rationalis obligatur ad hoc quod sit subdita Deo: sed hoc fit per praecepta affirmativa et negative, quorum negative obligant semper et ad semper, affirmativa vero obligant semper, sed non ad semper." (De malo, q. 7 a. 1 ad 8)

In the "Commentary on the Letter to the Romans" (c. 13, l. 2) s. Thomas states: “… negative precepts are more universal as regards times and people because negative precepts oblige“ semper et ad semper ”(always and forever). In fact, at no time should you steal or commit adultery. " NEGATIVE PRECECTS ALWAYS REQUIRE AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES! …. Further s. Thomas states in this line: “Sed considerandum est quod sicut praecepta negative legis prohibent actus peccatorum, ita praecepta affirmativa inducunt ad actus virtutum. Actus autem peccatorum sunt secundum se mali, et nullo modo bene fieri possunt, nec aliquo tempore aut loco, quia secundum se sunt conjuncti malo fine, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Et ideo praecepta negative obligant semper et ad semper. ”(II-II q. 33 a. 2 in c.) The negative precepts oblige always and forever because they forbid sins that are intrinsically evil and in no way, in no time and nowhere can they become good.

The same doctrine is also affirmed in the following text: “Tertium est peccatorum qualitas. Nam quaedam peccata consistunt in transgression, quaedam vero in omission. Graviora autem sunt prima secundis: quia illa opposuntur praeceptis negativis, quae obligant semper et ad semper, haec vero opposuntur praeceptis affirmativis quae cum non obligent ad semper, non potest sciri determined when obligant. " (Super Gal., C.6, l.1) The sins that oppose the negative precepts are more serious than those that oppose the affirmative precepts of the Decalogue because the negative precepts oblige always and forever.

Negative precepts are valid always and forever and no dispensation can be given for them, as we said above; the precepts of the Decalogue do not admit any dispensation (cf. I-II, q. 100, a. 8).

In the VS we read: “The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and in every circumstance. In fact, it is a question of prohibitions that prohibit a specific action semper et pro semper, without exception ... It is forbidden for everyone and always to break precepts that bind everyone and at any cost not to offend anyone and, first of all, in themselves. personal dignity common to all. … The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by the moral commandments, expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testament. "(VS, no. 52)

The commandments oblige and are possible to live with the help of God, we explained it amply above.

"The observance of God's law, in certain situations, can be difficult, very difficult: however, it is never impossible." (VS, no. 102)

No one, although justified, must be considered free from the observance of the commandments, in fact God does not command what is impossible, but while He commands He helps you so that you can![308]  LIVING ACCORDING TO SUCH DIVINE COMMANDMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR, NEVER VIOLATE THE NEGATIVE PRECECTS OF THE DECALOGUE IS POSSIBLE. It is possible not to commit adultery!

God is omnipotent and helps us to implement his Law, we can never dispense from it!

 May the sacred cross be our light.

I emphasize: “The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by the moral commandments, expressed negatively in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reiterates the imperative, always and in every circumstance, of these prohibitions: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments ...: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify false" (Mt 19,17-18)…. "(VS, n.52). Do not kill, do not commit adultery ... Just as murder is radically prohibited, so is adultery radically prohibited ... just as murder is always and under all circumstances prohibited, so adultery is always and under all circumstances prohibited.

Adultery, like murder, is forbidden semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of such behavior is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the person who acts, with his vocation to life with God. and to communion with one's neighbor. It is forbidden for everyone and always to break precepts that bind everyone and at any cost not to offend in anyone and, first of all, in themselves the personal dignity common to all.

Precise s. John Paul II regarding what we are saying: “95. The doctrine of the Church and in particular its firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts that prohibit intrinsically evil acts is often judged as the sign of an intolerable intransigence ... But, in reality, the motherhood of the Church cannot never be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always fulfill as the faithful Spouse of Christ, the Truth in person "(VS, n. 95s)

The Church, insofar as she is a teacher “… does not tire of proclaiming the moral norm… The Church is by no means the author or the arbitrator of this norm. In obedience to the truth, which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all men of good will, without hiding the demands of radicalism and perfection " .[309]

As the faithful Spouse of Christ, the Truth in person, and in obedience to him, the Church proposes to the world sound doctrine in the moral field without hiding its needs for charity and perfection.

a) Intrinsic wickedness of adultery.

The act of adultery is intrinsically evil (intrinsece malum) and is objectively serious. Regarding intrinsically bad acts s. Paul VI teaches: "... it is not lawful, not even for very grave reasons, to do evil, so that good may come from it (cf. Rom 3,8: XNUMX) ...". [310]

Veritatis Splendor states: “By teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the doctrine of Sacred Scripture. ... If the acts are intrinsically bad, a good intention or particular circumstances can attenuate their malice, but they cannot suppress it: they are "irremediably" bad acts, for themselves and in themselves they cannot be ordered to God and to the good of the person: … For this reason, circumstances or intentions will never be able to transform an intrinsically dishonest act for its object into an act that is "subjectively" honest or defensible as a choice. " (VS n.80s.)

May the sacred cross be our light.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Persona humana (29.12.1975) states: "Now, according to the Christian tradition and the doctrine of the Church, and as also recognizes right reason, the moral order of sexuality entails for human life values ​​so high that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious[311]. "[312] I stress: the moral order of sexuality carries such high values ​​for human life that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious.

The Catechism states: “There are acts which for themselves and in themselves, regardless of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1756).

Some may be surprised that adultery is associated here with murder and may think that such an association is absurd but I point out that both are serious sins and that both are ordinarily scandalous, adultery destroys families and spouses, children. Severe sin then mysteriously but really kills Christ, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 598 takes up the Roman Catechism which affirms that every single sinner is truly the cause and instrument of the sufferings of Christ (cf. Roman Catechism, 1, 5, 11: ed. P. Rodríguez (Vatican City-Pamplona 1989) p. 64; cf. Heb 12,3.)

The Roman Catechism adds "Whoever investigates the reason why the Son of God faces the most bitter of passions, will find that, in addition to the hereditary guilt of the progenitors, it must be found mainly in the sins committed by men from the origin of the world until today. , and in the others that will be committed until the end of the world. Suffering and dying, the Son of God our Savior aims precisely to redeem and annul the sins of all ages, giving the Father cumulative and copious satisfaction. To better evaluate its importance, it should be reflected that not only did Jesus Christ suffer for sinners, but that in reality sinners were the cause and ministers of all the pains suffered. Writing to the Hebrews, the Apostle admonishes us precisely: Think of the One who tolerates so much hostility from sinners, and your soul will not be discouraged (He 12,3).

Those who most frequently fall into sin are more closely bound by this guilt. Because if our sins drew Jesus Christ NS to the torture of the cross, those who plunge more ignominiously into iniquity, again, as far as it is from them, crucify the Son of God in themselves and despise him (He 6,6). A far more serious crime in us than in the Jews. These, according to the testimony of the Apostle, if they had known the King of glory, they would never have crucified him (1Co 2,8); while we, while professing to know him, deny him with facts, and we almost seem to raise our violent hands against him. " [313]

St. Francis affirmed, addressing the sinner, as reported in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. 598: “… it was you… who crucified him, and you still crucify him, when you delight in vices and sins“.[314]

May the sacred cross be our light.

b) Contrary to what the letter of the Argentine Bishops says, the negative precepts of the Law of God, including that which prohibits adultery, always oblige in all circumstances!

It should be noted well: as we have amply shown above, adultery is forbidden, always and in all circumstances, without exception, even in the case in which "se llega a reconocer que, in a concrete case, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considering caería en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión…. "[315] … Equally murder is forbidden always and under all circumstances… absolutely… and so are all acts contrary to negative precepts.

There are no exceptions that justify the performance of acts contrary to the negative precepts of the divine law, such as adultery, murder, homossual acts etc. It is forbidden for everyone and always to break binding precepts at any cost. It is not lawful to violate the negative precepts of the divine law to keep a family together or for any other reason. It is not lawful to kill or commit adultery, or perform homosexual acts to keep a family together or for any other reason. Moreover, I remember that the end does not justify the means… The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1753 “A good intention (for example, to help others) does not make a behavior that is in itself incorrect (such as lying and slandering) either good or right. The end does not justify the means. " … And the same Catechism further specifies in n. 1756 that: “… There are acts which for themselves and in themselves, regardless of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such are blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. It is not lawful to do evil so that good will result from it. "

To save the family we are not allowed to put the 10 commandments under our feet!

It is not lawful to kill or commit adultery, or perform homosexual acts to keep a family together or for any other reason. Negative moral precepts, such as those that prohibit homosexual acts and adultery, do not admit any legitimate exception, nor do they leave room for creativity: "But negative moral precepts, that is, those that prohibit certain concrete acts or behaviors as intrinsically evil, do not admit any legitimate exception; they leave no morally acceptable room for the "creativity" of some contrary determination. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule has been concretely recognized, the only morally good act is to obey the moral law and refrain from the action it forbids. " (VS, n. 67) The same is affirmed by an important article published in the Osservatore Romano [316]

I emphasize that, as mentioned above, LIVING ACCORDING TO SUCH DIVINE COMMANDMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR NEVER VIOLATE THE PRECECTS the negative precepts of the Decalogue IS POSSIBLE. God is omnipotent and helps us to implement his Law! It is possible not to commit adultery! God is omnipotent and helps us to implement his Law! Almighty God gives us unconditional respect for the irrepressible demands of the personal dignity of every man, for those demands defended by the moral norms that He has given us and which prohibit intrinsically evil acts without exception; again in the VS we read in this line: "The relationship between faith and morality shines in all its splendor in the unconditional respect that is due to the irrepressible needs of the personal dignity of every man, to those needs defended by moral norms which prohibit acts without exception inherently bad. The universality and immutability of the moral norm manifest and, at the same time, are placed in the protection of personal dignity, that is, the inviolability of man, on whose face shines the splendor of God (cf. Gen 9,5: 6-90) . "(VS, n.XNUMX)

Almighty God gives us, through obedience to the norms that He has given us, to protect personal dignity, that is, the inviolability of man, on whose face the splendor of God shines.

c) The testimony of the martyrs indicates that never violating the negative precepts of the Decalogue is possible; not committing adultery is possible.

Already in the Old Testament we have wonderful examples of men who precisely supported by God, in this line, gave their life rather than violating the holy divine laws.

"... In the New Covenant we encounter numerous testimonies of Christ's followers - starting with the deacon Stephen (cf Acts 6,8-7,60) and the apostle James (cf Acts 12,1: 2-1) - who died as martyrs for to confess their faith and their love to the Master and not to deny him. In this they followed the Lord Jesus, who before Caiaphas and Pilate "gave his beautiful witness" (6,13 Tim 91:XNUMX), confirming the truth of his message with the gift of life. "(VS, n. XNUMX) ) LIVING ACCORDING TO SUCH DIVINE COMMANDMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR NEVER VIOLATE THE NEGATIVE PRECECTS OF THE DECALOGUE IS POSSIBLE, not committing adultery is possible, the martyrs clearly show it to us!

Christ gave us the example, and true Christians, like martyrs, followed him, preferring, like him, to lose everything rather than violate the holy divine laws. The New Testament offers us the supreme example of Christ and with him that of various saints, such as St. Stefano and s. James, precisely dead so as not to betray God and his Law. But the whole history of the Church is full of martyrs:

“Countless other martyrs accepted persecution and death rather than placing the idolatrous gesture of burning incense in front of the statue of the Emperor (cf. Rev 13, 7-10). They even refused to simulate such a cult, thus setting an example of the duty to refrain from even a single concrete behavior contrary to the love of God and the witness of faith. "(VS, no. 91,)

Note: they even refused to simulate idolatrous worship, thus setting an example of the duty to refrain from even one concrete behavior contrary to the love of God and the witness of faith. I stress: we have the duty to refrain from even a single concrete behavior contrary to the love of God and the witness of faith.

Almighty God gives us, through obedience to the norms that He has given us, to protect personal dignity, that is, the inviolability of man, on whose face the splendor of God shines; we have the duty to refrain from even a single concrete behavior contrary to the love of God and the testimony of faith. the martyrs show us clearly!

The Church proposing the example of these martyrs has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment true: "The Church offers the example of numerous saints, who have testified and defended moral truth to the point of martyrdom or preferred death to a single mortal sin. By elevating them to the honor of the altars, the Church has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment true, according to which the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention to save his life. " (VS, n. 91) Charity, the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention of saving one's life. All this is, of course, possible; God is omnipotent and wants to make us charitable, holy. Living according to these divine commandments, and in particular never violating the negative precepts of the Decalogue is possible; not committing adultery is possible, the martyrs clearly show us this.

Almighty God, to whom nothing is impossible, has given us the commandments and everyone, including those who have impediments of various kinds, must commit themselves to implement them also trusting the help of the Almighty ... to whom everything is possible ...

d) The Law of God can be lived with the help of grace and prayer; an important text by s. Alfonso M. de Liguori.

God calls us to live the 10 commandments, God gives us to be able to live according to the commandments, therefore he gives us to live in holy purity, in the objective implementation of the commandments, in Christ. God has given us Sacraments to free us from sins and to make us walk in grace and charity, that is, precisely in life according to the commandments.

God does not allow his grace to be lacking, precisely to obey his Law, to those who do what is possible to act in a holy way: "But as this must first of all derive from the pain of having offended God, so the resolution not to sin must be founded on divine grace, which the Lord never lets those who do what is possible to act honestly lack. " [317]

Sanctifying grace, in particular, that God gives, is a form by which man is ordained to the ultimate end which is God and by which man truly loves God by obeying his commandments; s. Thomas explains, in fact, in Sum against the Gentiles “… since our operations are called to become perfect through sanctifying grace, as is clear from what we have said, it is necessary that God's love be produced in us from this grace. Hence the Apostle's words: "God's love has been poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us" (Rom., V, 5). Furthermore, it is to those who love him that the Lord has promised a vision of himself: "Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father: and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (John, XIV, 21). Therefore it is evident that grace, which guides towards the end which is the vision of God, causes God's love in us. "[318]

Grace makes us love God in charity and charity, the love of God, necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention of saving one's life. All this is, of course, possible; In fact, God is omnipotent and wants to make us charitable, holy, he wants to give us to live according to his Law and therefore to avoid acts that for themselves and in themselves, regardless of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object ( see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1756).

The VS explains: “…. it is by faith in Christ that we are made righteous (cf. Rom 3,28:19): the "justice" that the Law demands, but cannot give to anyone, every believer finds it manifested and granted by the Lord Jesus. Augustine summarizes the Pauline dialectic of law and grace: “The law, therefore, was given in order to invoke grace; the grace was given to keep the law ”. (De spiritu et littera, 4, 60: CSEL 187, 23.) ... "(VS, n. XNUMX ff.)

God gives us grace so that we can observe his Law even in the most difficult situations.

May the sacred cross be our light.

In a very interesting text by s. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori we read “We cannot already believe, continues St. Augustine, that the Lord wanted to impose on us the observance of the law, and that he then imposed on us an impossible law; and therefore the Saint says, that when God makes us know that we are powerless to observe all his Precepts, He admonishes us to do easy things with the ordinary grace that He gives us, and to do difficult things with the greatest help, which we can implore by means of Prayer ... But why (some will say) has God commanded us things that are impossible for our strength? Precisely for this reason, says the Saint, so that we may wait to obtain with prayer the help to do what we cannot ... The same St. Bernard wrote saying (Mansi, Disc. XIV, n. 4; Lohner, § III, n. . 40; S. Bern., In quadrag., Serm. 5, n. 4; PL 183, 179.): Qui sumus nos, aut quae fortitudo nostra, ut tam multis tentationibus resistere valeamus? Hoc erat certain, quod quaerebat Deus, ut videntes defectum nostrum, et quod non est nobis auxilium aliud, ad ejus Misericordiam tota humilitate curramus (S. Bern., In quadrag., Serm. 5, n.4; PL 183, 179. ). He knows the Lord, how useful the need to pray is to us, to keep us humble, and to exercise confidence; and therefore he allows enemies insuperable from our strength to attack us, so that through prayer we obtain from his mercy the help to resist. Especially be warned, that no one can resist the impure temptations of the flesh unless he recommends himself to God when he is tempted. This enemy is so terrible, that when it fights us, it almost takes away all light; she makes us forget all meditations and good intentions made, and makes us vilify again the truths of the Faith, almost losing even the fear of Divine punishments: since she conspires with the natural inclination, which with great violence pushes her to ' sensual pleasures. ... said St. Francis of Assisi, that without prayer no good fruit can ever be hoped for in a soul ... Therefore, those sinners are wrongly excused, who say they have no strength to resist temptations. But if you (St. James reproaches him) do not have this strength, why don't you ask for it? … We are weak, but God is strong; when we ask him for help, then he communicates his strength to us, and we will be able to do everything, as the Apostle himself rightly promised, saying: Omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat. Philip. 4. 13. He therefore has no excuse (says S. Gio. Grisostomo) who falls, because he neglects to pray, since if he prayed, he would not have been overcome by 'Enemies ... "[319]

... so it is not a question of opening the doors to adultery and the reception of the Sacraments by adulterers as the Pope and the document of the Argentine Bishops do, but it is a question of helping people to pray and convert so that they do not fall into this sin objectively serious!

May God enlighten us all and grant us to live in a holy way on the path traced by his holy commandments.

9) Chastity, adultery and divorce.

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

Let us now examine the sin of adultery in the context of the sixth and ninth commandments and the virtue to which those commandments call us.

In the Bible we read "You shall not commit adultery." (Ex 20,14:XNUMX).

“You will not desire your neighbor's house. You shall not desire your neighbor's wife, neither her slave nor her slave, neither her ox nor her ass, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor "(Ex 20,17:XNUMX).

“You have heard that it was said:“ You will not commit adultery. “; but I tell you: whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in her heart "(Mt 5,27: 28-XNUMX).

Jesus came to restore man so that he can live holiness fully and therefore can fully realize God's will by carrying out the commandments; Christ lived in the Law and gives us to be able to live it by living in Him.

In Christ, in particular, God gives us a pure heart. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2517: "The fight against carnal lust passes through the purification of the heart and the practice of temperance ..."

Christ has a pure heart and he triumphed over the temptations that pushed him to evil, in him we too have a pure heart and we triumph over the temptations that push us to sin.

In the sixth beatitude Christ proclaims: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5,8: XNUMX).

Christ is supremely pure in heart. The "pure in heart" are those who, in Christ and with Christ, have accorded their souls to the demands of God's holiness, through three virtues above all: charity (cf. 1 Thes 4,3-9; 2 Tm 2,22, 1), which is in particular rectitude of the will, chastity or rectitude of the sexual life, (cf. 4,7 Thess 3,5; Col 4,19; Eph 1,15:1.), Faith, that is, rectitude, in particular, of intelligence (cf. Tt 1,3; 4 Tm 2-2,23; 26 Tm 2518-XNUMX.) There is a profound link between the purity of faith, the purity of the heart, the purity of the body, God is Truth and Holiness and in us too the Truth is united with Holiness (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX).

The faithful must believe the articles of the Symbol of faith so that through faith they reach obedience to God and salvation: “This is the faith which, with short formulas, is offered by the Symbol to new Christians for their preservation. These brief formulas are presented to the faithful so that, believing, they submit to God, submit to him they live righteously, by living righteously they purify their heart and, once their heart is purified, they understand what they believe. "[320]  The pure in heart, in Christ, have the promise to see God and to be similar to him and in Christ they can already see things in the light of him, sharing in his wisdom. The purity of the heart allows us to see, that is to know, things, in the Light of God, in the Wisdom of God; this purity allows us to recognize the human body, ours and that of our neighbor, as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, in Christ who is the only Temple of God, and a manifestation of divine beauty (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2519 ). In Christ supremely pure of heart we can recognize the human body, ours and that of the neighbor, as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, we can respect it and we can walk towards the blessed vision of Heaven. In Christ the divine Light illuminates our way and deifies us so that the divine image and likeness with God may shine in us.

In Familiaris Consortio we read: “God is love (1 Jn 4,8) and lives in himself a mystery of personal communion of love. By creating it in his image and continually preserving it in being, God inscribes the vocation in the humanity of man and woman, and therefore the capacity and responsibility of love and communion (cf. "Gaudium et Spes", 12) . Love is, therefore, the fundamental and native vocation of every human being. "[321]

Jesus came to restore man, he came to recreate the divine likeness in him so that he can live holiness and therefore chastity to the full, that is, so that he may live rightly in particular sexuality and therefore rightly live, according to the divine will, his ability to weave relationships of communion with others, live his affective life rightly, the ability to love and be loved and live rightly his ability to generate life, according to the divine will. Christ is supremely chaste and gives us to be fully chaste in him. The Catechism affirms in n. 2336: “Jesus came to restore creation in the purity of his origins. In the Sermon on the Mount he gives a rigorous interpretation of God's plan: "You have heard that it was said:" Do not commit adultery "; but I tell you: whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in her heart "(Mt 5,27: 28-XNUMX)."

Jesus came to restore man to the purity of his origins, before original sin, to full likeness to God; in Christ man is raised to the life of grace, supernatural life and can be fully chaste. Christ is supremely chaste and through the Sacraments he immerses us in his perfection and calls us to participate in it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2348.: "At the moment of Baptism the Christian committed himself to living his affection in chastity." All believers in Christ are called to chastity and are helped by God to live in it according to their particular state of life.

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Chastity must distinguish people in their different states of life: one in virginity or consecrated celibacy, an eminent way of dedicating oneself more easily to God alone, with an undivided heart; the others, in the manner which is determined for all by the moral law and according to whether they are married or celibate ”. [322]

Married people are called by God and helped by Him to live conjugal chastity by which they can sexually unite with their spouse; other people are called by God and helped by him to live in continence (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms n. 2349).

Christ supremely holy and chaste gives us to live in him holiness and chastity, in Christ it is possible to be chaste and therefore not to fall into adultery or other sin against the sixth or ninth commandment. With the gift of chastity, which Christ gives us, interior unity is achieved, which the devil tries to break, of man in his bodily and spiritual being. With the gift of chastity, which Christ gives us, a perfect integration of sexuality in the person is achieved, according to the divine plan. Sexuality becomes fully personal and human through Christ because in him man returns to his original perfection so that sexuality is integrated in the mutual gift, total and unlimited in time, of man and woman, according to the holy will of God ( see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2337).

Thanks to Christ and in him we can be chaste and therefore keep the integrity of the forces of life and love that God gives us. This integrity ensures the unity of our persons, in Christ, in the likeness of God who is supremely one. God who gives us such integrity makes us oppose any behavior that would hurt it. God who gives us this integrity, gives us to understand that it is accompanied by the righteousness of life and the truthfulness of language (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2338). And in God who gives us such integrity and who makes us chaste we acquire the dominion of ourselves, true freedom and peace with our participation in the victory of Christ over the powers of darkness that want to enslave us and therefore with the victory over disordered passions.

But so that this victory is realized in us and we can welcome the gift of chastity in Christ we are called to take and use the suitable means to triumph over temptations: the reading and meditation of Holy Scripture, the other holy readings, life according to the indications. biblical, prayer, liturgical life, self-knowledge, examination of conscience, prudent asceticism, obedience to the divine commandments, the exercise of infused virtues.

Christ the God-man is supremely united and collected in himself; the divine Persons are supremely united among themselves, they are one God; using the means just indicated and thus participating in the life and virtues of Christ, in particular through chastity, we are gathered, by participation, in divine unity (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2340); equally by using the means just indicated and with God's help we can grow in virtues and in particular in chastity. We are called to always grow in our participation in the divine perfections and in the perfections of Christ, and therefore also in his chastity; this is accomplished, in particular, by letting oneself be guided by God himself and therefore making free choices corresponding to his will, on the way to the Cross.

The chastity to which God calls us is an infused virtue, therefore a supernatural virtue which is united with charity. Chastity is also a fruit of the Spirit. (cf. Gal 5,22: 23-1.) The Holy Spirit gives to imitate on a supernatural level the purity of Christ (cf. 3,3 Jn 2345.) to the one who has been regenerated by the water of Baptism and who through the other Sacraments , especially through the Eucharist, he immerses himself in the life of the Lord and is transformed into him (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 15,15), the true Christian is another Christ. Through Christ we have grace, divine life and therefore charity which is the form of all virtues; under the influence of grace and charity, under the guidance of the Trinity, chastity makes us masters of ourselves, orders us profoundly and therefore enables us to give ourselves rightly and holily first of all to God and then, in God, to our neighbor , in truth. Holy chastity makes the one who truly practices it a luminous witness to his neighbor of fidelity, truth, tenderness, love of the Trinity, in Christ. The infused virtue of chastity produces holy friendship, indicates to the Christian how to follow and imitate Christ who has chosen us as his friends in friendship (cf. Jn 2346:7.) The Trinity also teaches us through the infused virtue of chastity to participate in the perfect life of relationship of Christ who has holyly given himself to us and has given us a new relationship with the Trinity (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX-XNUMX).

Thanks to Christ, the Trinitarian life has come to us and has been transfused into family life, for it the matrimonial ties are sanctified, perfected and in a certain way divinized; the Trinity through holy chastity allows us to live sexuality as ordered to conjugal love and more deeply to the realization of God's will for the family and therefore to the attainment of Heaven and the divinization of man through participation in the Trinitarian life. The Trinity through holy chastity gives in Christ that the corporal intimacy of the spouses united in holy matrimony becomes a sign and pledge of the spiritual communion of grace. Through Christ, sexuality within the married couple is realized in a truly holy and human way as an integral part of the love with which man and woman are totally committed to each other until death and as part of the charity that binds man to God[323]. In this light, thanks to Christ: "the acts of union in chaste intimacy of Christian spouses are holy, honorable and worthy, and, carried out in a truly human way, favor the mutual self-giving that they signify, and enrich each other in joyful gratitude spouses themselves ". [324] Through these acts of conjugal union the precious good of life is transmitted; this precious good and the good of the family must also be protected with the fidelity of the spouses to the promises made before God. Christ is faithful and "The sacrament of Matrimony makes man and woman enter into Christ's fidelity to his Church." ( Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2365), that is, it makes them participate, in grace, in such fidelity. The conjugal couple through the sacrament forms, in the grace of Christ, an intimate community of life, founded by the Creator and: "... established by the conjugal pact, that is to say by the irrevocable personal consent".[325] .. and in Christ the spouses can be fully faithful to the covenant signed by them.

In Christ and in the Trinity that works through him, it becomes possible, through marriage, a total and holy donation of the spouses to God and to one another and a profound unification of the couple who come to form one "single flesh". The union achieved by God and freely accepted by the spouses imposes on them the obligation to faithfully preserve its unity and indissolubility in Christ (cf. CIC canon 1056.); the word of God is very clear in this line: “… man does not divide what God has joined together (Mk 10,9: 2364) (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2365). Through the Sacrament, God unites the couple deeply and indissolubly and gives them an invincible fidelity, assimilating them to himself. The Trinity is faithful and the sacrament of Marriage makes man and woman enter into the fidelity of the Trinity and into Christ's fidelity to his Church. By means of conjugal chastity, the spouses make manifest in their life before the world this mystery of fidelity of the Trinity, which is prolonged in the fidelity that binds Christ to the Church as his bride. The fidelity of the spouses implies firmness, amid the difficulties and joys of life, in keeping and carrying out the word given at the moment of marriage and in maintaining and implementing the commitments made at that time. (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX)

With the help of the Trinity, in Christ, with his grace, it is possible to be chaste in marriage or outside it and therefore, in particular, to avoid all sins against the sixth and ninth commandments; in Christ it is possible to carry out what is ordered and avoid what is forbidden by the sixth and ninth commandments.

The Major Catechism of St. Pius X affirms in particular with regard to the sixth and ninth commandments and their prohibitions in nos. 423 ff .:

"423. What does the sixth commandment forbid us: Do not fornicate? The sixth commandment: Do not fornicate, forbids us every act, every look, every speech contrary to chastity, and infidelity in marriage.

424. What forbids the ninth commandment? The ninth commandment expressly prohibits any desire contrary to the fidelity that the spouses have sworn to each other in contracting marriage: and it also prohibits any guilty thought or desire for action prohibited by the sixth commandment.

425. Is impurity a great sin? It is a very serious and abominable sin before God and men; it degrades man to the condition of brutes, drags him to many other sins and vices, and provokes the most terrible punishments in this life and in the next.

  1. Are all thoughts that come to our mind against purity sins? The thoughts that come to mind against purity are not in themselves sins, but rather temptations and incentives to sin.
  1. When is it that bad thoughts are sins? Bad thoughts, even if they are ineffective, are sins when we guiltily give them reason, or consent to them, or expose ourselves to the near danger of consenting to them.
  1. What do the sixth and ninth commandments command us? The sixth commandment commands us to be chaste and modest in acts, looks, bearing and words. The ninth commandment orders us to be chaste and pure also inwardly, that is, in the mind and heart.
  1. What should we do to keep the sixth and ninth commandments? In order to observe the sixth and ninth commandments well, we must pray often and from the heart to God, be devotees of the Virgin Mary Mother of purity, remember that God sees us, think about death, the divine punishments, the passion of Jesus Christ, guard our senses, to practice Christian mortification and to frequent the sacraments with due dispositions.
  1. What must we flee to keep chaste? To keep ourselves chaste it is best to flee idleness, bad companions, reading bad books and newspapers, intemperance, looking at indecent images, licentious spectacles, dangerous conversations, and all other occasions of sin. "

I emphasize that, as the Catechism of St. Pius X: the sin against the sixth commandment is a very serious and abominable sin before God and men; it degrades man to the condition of brutes, drags him to many other sins and vices, and provokes the most terrible punishments in this life and in the next.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Persona humana (29.12.1975) states: "Now, according to the Christian tradition and the doctrine of the Church, and as also recognizes right reason, the moral order of sexuality entails for human life values ​​so high that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious.[326]" [327]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith specified that: "Other examples of moral doctrines taught as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illegality of prostitution (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355.) and on the illegality of fornication. (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2353.) "[328]

The intrinsic evil of lust, that is, of the lack of chastity, and the colossal damage that lust causes are well summarized in the Catechism of St. Pius X: "425. Is impurity a great sin? It is a very serious and abominable sin before God and men; it degrades man to the condition of brutes, drags him to many other sins and vices, and causes the most terrible punishments in this life and in the next. "

Says s. Antonio: “Consider that, just as in this world the most frequent and numerous sins are lust and greed, so in hell the greatest torments will be fire and frost. Lust is the fire; in fact Job says: "It is a fire which devours to destruction and which also consumes every shoot" (Job 31,12) of virtue. We read in Natural History that the salamander lives in fire; so also the lustful live in lust. The fire of lust then generates the fire of hell. "[329]

According to s. Alphonsus lust is a terrible vice which also determines the blindness of the spirit regarding spiritual things: “7. And why? for 1., because this vice blinds the sinner and no longer makes him see the offense he does to God, nor the miserable state of damnation in which he lives and sleeps. The prophet Hosea says that these such also lose the desire to return to God. Non dabunt cogitationes suas ut revertantur ad Deum suum; (and why?) quia spiritus fornicationum in medio eorum7. For 2., because this vice hardens the heart, and makes it stubborn. For 3., the devil is so pleased with this vice, because a hundred other kinds of sins, thefts, hatred, murders, perjuries, murmurs come from it. Therefore, say no more, my Christian, that this vice is little sin. "  [330] I remember that among the sins linked to lust there is also rape and pedophilia ... which obviously destroy other people ...

After what I just said what to think of the following statements by Pope Francis? In a book he said: “The sins of the flesh are the lightest sins. Because the flesh is weak. The most dangerous sins are those of the spirit. I speak of angelism: pride, vanity are sins of angelism. Priests are tempted - not all but many - to focus on the sins of sexuality, what I call morality below the belt. But the gravest sins are elsewhere "[331]

Certainly, as we are seeing, these statements fit well into the "paradigm shift" with which Pope Francis is opening the door to practiced homosexuality, adultery and contraception, as we are seeing and will see better and better. To further specify the gravity of impure sins it seems useful to read also what s. Alfonso says where he says: “Incontinence is called by s. Basilio live plague, from s. Bernardino of Siena vice the most harmful of all: Vermis quo nullus nocentior; because, according to St. Bonaventure, shamelessness destroys the shoots of all virtues: Luxuria omnium virtutum eradicat germinates. Therefore she is from herself. Ambrose called the seminary and the mother of all vices: Luxuria seminarium est, et origo omnium vitiorum; while this vice also draws with it the others, hatred, thefts, sacrilegies and the like. And so he rightly said yes. Remigio that, exceptis parvulis, maior pars hominum ob hoc viteum damnatur. And the p. Segneri said that as hell is full of angels for pride, so it is full of men for dishonesty. In the other vices the devil fishes with his hook, in this one he fishes with the net; so he makes more money for hell with this vice than with all the others. And God at the meeting for incontinence sent the greatest punishments into the world, punishing it from heaven with a flood of water and fire. "[332]

Note well: for this vice most men damn themselves… for themselves. Bernardino of Siena lust the most harmful vice of all, for s. Bonaventure shamelessness destroys the shoots of all virtues, for herself. Ambrose lust is the seminary and the mother of all vices, for Fr. Note that hell for pride is full of angels, so for dishonesty it is full of men; moreover, in the other vices the devil fishes with his hook, in this one he fishes with the net; so that he makes more money for hell with this vice than with all the others.

Adds s. Alfonso: “Says s. Thomas (In Iob. Ch. 31.) that for every vice man turns away from God; he most of all he goes away for the dishonest vice: Per luxuriam maxime recedit a Deo. " [333]

The precise text of s. Thomas is the following: “… per peccatum luxuriae homo maxime videtur a Deo discedere” (In Iob. Ch. 31.) Man distances himself from God especially through the vice of lust.

St. Anthony of Padua states, in this line: “… that the sin of fornication destroys the heart is demonstrated by the example of Solomon, who devoted himself to the worship of idols (cf. 3 Kings 11,4). The Apostle says: "With the heart one believes in order to obtain justice" (Rm 10,10), but fornication destroys the heart, in which faith resides. faith is lost due to fornication. For this reason we say (in lat.) Fornicatio, almost to say formae necatio, that is killing of the form, that is killing of the soul, formed in the likeness of God. The life of the soul is faith. "Christ", says the Apostle, "by faith he dwells in our hearts" (Eph 3,17:XNUMX). But fornication destroys the heart in which life is and so the soul dies, because if the cause is missing, the effect is also lost. This is why the Lord says: "He will convince him of sin, because they did not believe in me". Then the Paraclete through the ministers of preaching will convince the world of the sin of fornication. "[334]

It still says yes. Antonio “Consider that, just as in this world the most frequent and numerous sins are lust and greed, so in hell the greatest torments will be fire and frost. Lust is the fire; in fact Job says: "It is a fire which devours to destruction and which also consumes every shoot" (Job 31,12) of virtue. We read in Natural History that the salamander lives in fire; so also the lustful live in lust. The fire of lust then generates the fire of hell. "[335]

The sound doctrine, in this line, teaches us that there are various offenses to chastity: adultery, prostitution, masturbation, fornication, rape, pornography, homosexual acts, bestiality, etc.

Among these offenses is adultery which is, in a certain way, a double sin in that it goes against the sixth commandment but also against the commitments made with marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in nn. 2380s. : adultery designates conjugal infidelity, the prophets affirm the gravity of this sin. The sixth commandment and the New Testament absolutely forbid adultery (cf. Mt 5,32; 19,6; Mk 10,11-12; 1 Cor 6,9-10.) Christ condemned adultery even though consummated with simple desire (Mt 5,27: 28-XNUMX.) Adultery is, objectively, a very grave sin, a very grave injustice against God and against the other spouse, it is an infidelity to the commitments undertaken before God in Marriage . Adultery also produces harmful effects on children, especially if it is discovered, also because it opens the door to the division of the couple.

The Roman Catechism affirms regarding the sixth commandment and therefore regarding adultery, in nos. 333s: "If the bond between husband and wife is the closest that exists, and nothing can be sweeter to them than to feel each other close by a special affection, nothing, on the contrary, can happen to one of them more bitter than feeling the legitimate love of the spouse to turn elsewhere. Reasonably, therefore, the law, which guarantees human life from murder, is followed by that which prohibits fornication or adultery, so that no one tries to contaminate or break that holy and venerable marriage union, from which such a burning fire of charity usually flows. ….
334. Adultery. To start teaching from what is forbidden, we will immediately say that adultery is a violation of the legitimate bed, either one's own or that of others. If a husband has carnal relations with an unmarried woman, he violates his marriage bond; if an unmarried individual has relations with a married woman, he is contaminated, by the crime of adultery, the bond of others. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine confirm that any dishonest and shameless act is prohibited with this prohibition of adultery. This results directly from the Scripture of the old as well as the new Testament. In the Mosaic books we see other kinds of carnal lust punished, besides adultery. We read in Genesis the sentence pronounced by Judas against the daughter-in-law (Gn 38,24); in Deuteronomy this precept is formulated: among the daughters of Israel no one should be a courtesan (Dt 23,17:4,13). Thus Tobias exhorts his son: Beware, my son, of every shameless act (Tb 41,25). And the clergyman says: Be ashamed to look at the sinful woman (Sir 15,19). In the Gospel, Jesus Christ declares that adulterers and dishonest actions that stain man emanate from the heart (Mt 1:4,3). The apostle Paul frequently dubbed this vice in hot words: God wants your sanctification; he wants you to abstain from impurities (1Th 6,18). And elsewhere: Avoid all fornication (1Co 5,9); Do not mix with the shameless (5,3Co 1); In your midst, let us not even mention incontinence, impurity of every kind and avarice (Eph 6,9: 5,27); Dishonest and adulterers, effeminate and pederasts, will not possess the kingdom of God (24Co 8). Adultery was expressly mentioned in the prohibition, because the filth that it shares in common with all other forms of incontinence is coupled with a sin of injustice towards one's neighbor and civil society. Furthermore, it is undoubted that those who do not keep away from the ordinary forms of shamelessness will easily fall into the crime of adultery. Thus it is easy to understand that the prohibition of adultery includes the prohibition of all kinds of impurities contaminating the body. Moreover, that this commandment invests every intimate lust of the soul, appears from the very nature of the law, which is spiritual, and from the explicit words of our Lord: You heard that it was said to the ancients: Do not commit adultery. But I tell you: whoever looks at a woman for dishonest ends, has already committed adultery on her in her heart (Mt XNUMX:XNUMX). To what we believe should be taught publicly to the faithful, we must add the decrees of the Council of Trent against adulterers and those who keep prostitutes and concubines (Sess. XNUMX, and. XNUMX), omitting to speak of the various and multiform kinds of sexual lust. , around which the parish priest will admonish the individual faithful, if the circumstances of time and of person require it. " [336]

The Tridentine Catechism continues by specifying the particular gravity of adultery with these words: “However, a particular wickedness is contained in the crime of adultery. In fact, as the Apostle wants, the spouses are so bound by a mutual subjection that neither of them has unlimited power over their own body, but they are so slaves to each other that the husband must conform to the will of his wife and his wife. to that of her husband (1Co 7,4). It follows that whoever separates his own body, subject to another's right, from the one to whom he is bound, is guilty of a very special iniquity. And since the horror of infamy is a valid incentive for men to do what is prescribed and to flee what is forbidden, the parish priest will insist on showing how adultery imprints on individuals a profound sign of infamy. It is written in sacred Scripture: The adulterer, because of his frailty of heart, will lose his soul; he condenses shame and abomination upon himself; his turpitude will never be canceled (Pr 6,32). The gravity of this guilt can easily be derived from the severity of the punishment established. In the law established by God in the Old Testament, adulterers were stoned (Lv 20,10 Dt 22,22). Indeed, sometimes due to the unbridled lust of one alone, not simply the offender, but the whole city was condemned to destruction; such was the fate of the Sichemites (Gn 34,25). Moreover, in Sacred Scripture there are numerous examples of divine wrath, which the parish priest will be able to evoke, to keep men away from reprehensible lust: the fate of Sodom and the neighboring cities (Gn XIX, 24); the torture of the Israelites who had fornicated in the wilderness with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25); the destruction of the Beniamites (Judg. 20).

If there is someone who escapes death, he does not escape intolerable pains, punitive torments, which fall inexorable. Blinded as he is in his mind (and this punishment is already very serious), he no longer takes into account God, fame, dignity, children, and even life itself. He remains so depraved and unused that he cannot be entrusted with anything important, or assigned as suitable for any office. We can see examples of this in David as well as in Solomon. The first, made guilty of adultery, suddenly changed his nature and from the most mythical became ferocious, so as to send the excellent Uria to his death (2S 2S 11); the other, lost in the pleasures of women, strayed so far from the true religion of God that he followed foreign divinities (3 Kings, 11). According to the word of Hosea, this sin leads astray man's heart (Hos 4,11:XNUMX) and blinds his mind. "[337]

Adultery, and more generally all carnal sin, leads astray in the heart and blinds in the mind the person who falls into it, therefore it is sometimes very difficult even to bring this person to understand that he is living in a situation of real grave sin and that he must convert. In fact, the blindness of the mind leads sinners to consider their situation practically normal and to find justifications for it.

Adultery often causes separation or divorce between spouses and therefore radically breaks the indissolubility that God wanted from the beginning. Marriage, in the original intention of the Creator, is, in fact, indissoluble and Christ precisely gives us to live it according to this intention. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2382 that Jesus reaffirmed the original intention of the Creator by clearly teaching marriage is indissoluble (cf. Mt 5,31-32; 19,3-9; Mk 10,9; Lk 16,18; 1 Cor 7,10-11 .) and abolishing the tolerances introduced in the ancient law (cf. Mt 19,7: 9-XNUMX).

As the Code of Canon Law says: "... a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power and for any cause, except death". (Canon 1141.) "

Not even the Pope can dissolve marriage rated and consummated between the baptized. Divorce, which is a grave offense against God's will, purports to dissolve the marriage declared indissoluble by God, those who marry another person before civil law while their marriage with their true spouse is still valid inflict a more serious wound to the marital bond as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. 2384: “The fact of contracting a new marriage bond, even if recognized by civil law, increases the severity of the break: the remarried spouse is in this case in a condition of public and permanent adultery. ”I emphasize: the remarried spouse is in this case in a condition of public and permanent adultery! … Resulting in a scandal! Divorce produces disorder in the family and in society and with it serious damage above all to spouses and children. It should be noted that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 2383 in some cases the divorce can be tolerated.

a) Between adulterers there is no married life and no lawful conjugal act!

It seems important to me first of all to reiterate and deepen here what I said above: Christian marriage is not the life of two people but God. The Gospel states: "man does not divide what God has joined together" (Matthew 19,6) ... to note: God has joined. The Greek text is as follows: ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. The Gospel of Mark (10) states the same ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 9 s. "The consent, through which the spouses give and receive each other, is sealed by God himself. (Cf Mk 1639.)"

In Gaudium et spes we read: “And thus, it is from the human act by which the spouses mutually give and receive each other, that the institution of marriage is born, even before society, which has stability by divine order. In view of the good of the spouses, of the offspring and also of society, this sacred bond does not depend on the will of man. Because God himself is the author of marriage ... "[338]

Again in the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read in n. 1640: “The marriage bond is therefore established by God himself, so that the marriage concluded and consummated between the baptized can never be dissolved. … It is not in the power of the Church to pronounce itself against this provision of divine wisdom (cf. CIC canon 1141). "

In the Wedding Rite we read: “The almighty and merciful Lord
confirm the consent you have expressed before the Church and fill yourselves with his blessing.
Man does not dare to separate what God unites. "

Again in the Rite of Marriage we read "pour out, Lord, the Spirit of your love on N. and N., so that they become one heart and one soul: nothing can separate these spouses whom you have united, and, filled with your blessing, nothing afflicts them. For Christ our Lord. "[339]

And always in the Rite of Marriage, in the nuptial Blessing that takes place after the Our Father we read: “O God, extend your hand to N. and N. and pour out the strength of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Arrange, O Lord, that, in the union you consecrated, they share the gifts of your love and, becoming a sign of your presence for each other, they may be one heart and one soul. "[340]

Therefore God unites two persons in marriage; if God does not unite, there is no marriage, despite all the shared life, children etc. If God does not unite, there is no marriage!

God establishes the marriage bond and by establishing this bond he confers the grace to live in this bond: this grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony immerses the spouses in participation in the divine life and therefore in the life of Christ and perfects the love of the spouses, unity indissoluble marriage is sustained by this grace. By virtue of this grace they "help each other to achieve holiness in married life, in the acceptance and education of children".[341]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies in n.1624: “In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as a communion of love of Christ and of the Church. (Cf Eph 5,32.) "

The Trinity and therefore Christ is the source of this grace. "As once God met his people with a Pact of love and fidelity, so now the Savior of men and the Spouse of the Church comes to meet Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony".[342], for it the Trinity unites the spouses to itself and unites them profoundly among themselves. Through the grace of the sacrament of marriage, Christ and in him the Trinity remains in a particular way with the spouses, makes them participate in the divine life, gives them to be saints, gives them to pray incessantly, gives them the strength and patience to follow him by taking upon himself his own cross, gives them light in the darkness of the world, gives them the ability to get up after their falls, to forgive each other, to bear one another's burdens (cf. Gal 6,2: XNUMX), to be " submitted to one another in charity and humility (cf. Ef 5,21:1642) and to love each other, in faith, with a supernatural, wise, tender and fruitful love. Through the joys of their love and family life, Christ grants Christian spouses, from here below, a certain foretaste of the joys and happiness of Heaven and through the crosses he unites them in a certain way to his Cross (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church no. XNUMX)

God is, therefore, the author of marriage, it is He who unites the spouses and it is He who calls some to this vocation which is also inscribed in the very nature of man and woman, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in n. 1603: "The vocation to marriage is inscribed in the very nature of man and woman, as they came from the hand of the Creator."

This vocation implies a special gift and Lumen Gentium affirms: "... by accepting and educating their offspring they thus have, in their state of life and in their function, their own gift in the midst of the people of God."[343]"Spouses have their own gift in the Church and this gift that God has given them is also that of holily physically uniting. Sexuality is ordered to the love of the spouses; from the union that was achieved in marriage, from God, the holy conjugal union springs (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2360).

In the Familiaris consortio we read "... sexuality, through which man and woman give themselves to each other with the proper and exclusive acts of the spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the intimate nucleus of human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way, only if it is an integral part of the love with which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to each other until death. Total physical donation would be a lie if it were not a sign and fruit of total personal donation ... "[344]

Only in holy marriage, united by God, do acts of sexual union become lawful and holy and in fact the Church teaches that: "The acts by which spouses unite in chaste intimacy, are honorable and worthy, and, carried out in a truly human beings, they favor the mutual donation that they mean, and mutually enrich the spouses themselves in joyful gratitude ".[345]

Pius XII affirmed: «The Creator himself […] established that in the reciprocal total physical donation the spouses experience a pleasure and satisfaction both of the body and of the spirit. Hence, spouses do no harm by seeking such pleasure and enjoying it. They accept what the Creator wanted for them. However, the spouses must know how to remain within the limits of a just moderation ».[346]

The conjugal act when lived in charity is holy and sanctifying for married people (cf. St. Josemaría Escrivà de Balaguer, Friends of God, n. 184). In this context, St. Josemaría stated: “What the Lord asks of them is mutual respect, mutual loyalty, a behavior marked by delicacy, naturalness, modesty. I will also tell you that conjugal relationships are decent when they are proof of true love and, therefore, are open to fruitfulness, to children "(Christ is Passing By, n. 25) (cf. Javier Escrivà Ivars" Intimacy in marriage: happiness for spouses and openness to life ", 31.7.2016 www.opusdei.org, https://opusdei.org/it-it/article/lintimita-nel-matrimonio-felicita-per-gli-sposi-e- opening -to-life-ii /).

This union achieved by God with the Sacrament enables spouses to live a particular type of chastity: conjugal chastity, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies in n. 2349.

Through the holy conjugal union, in particular, a twofold purpose of marriage is realized through the conjugal union: “… the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2363)

The conjugal act is the typical way in which the spouses express themselves as one flesh:

“The conjugal act is the proper and specific act of conjugal life. It is the typical way in which spouses express themselves as "one flesh" [Cf. Gen 2:24], and they come to know each other in their specific condition as spouses. It is the act in which the spouses communicate, in fact, the reciprocal gift that they have verbally confirmed in contracting the marriage; it is the language with which spouses say to each other: 'I love you unconditionally, faithfully, forever and with my whole being. I am committed to forming a family with you '. "[347]

Through physical and sexual union, spouses make themselves instruments of God for the creation of a new human life and imitate divine fruitfulness (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2335) Spouses are called to be cooperators of love of God the Creator:

“In the task of transmitting human life and educating it, which must be considered as their own mission, spouses know that they are cooperators in the love of God the Creator and as its interpreters. And therefore they will fulfill their duty with human and Christian responsibility ”. [348]

Spouses are called to be instruments of God in giving life and therefore to participate in the divine creative power and in divine fruitfulness, fatherhood and mercy (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2367)

Fertility, which assimilates to God, is a gift of God and is a gift and end of marriage, explains the Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. 2366, for this reason: “any matrimonial act must remain open for itself to the transmission of life”. [349]

In fact, according to God's will, there is an inseparable connection between sexual union and procreation for which every act of union must be open per se to procreation: "This doctrine, repeatedly expounded by the Magisterium of the Church, is founded on the inseparable connection, that God willed and that man cannot break on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning ".[350]

In this line, the acts of conjugal union: "... do not cease to be legitimate if, for reasons never dependent on the will of the spouses, they are provided to be infertile, because they remain ordered to express and consolidate their union." [351]

What we have seen so far must make us understand in the fullest way that relations of sexual union are lawful only within marriage, as explained by the document "Human Person" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for which according to Christian doctrine: "... every human genital act must take place within the framework of marriage. In fact, although the purpose of those who engage in such premature relationships is firm, it remains true, however, that these do not allow to ensure, in its sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship of a man and a woman and, especially of protect her from fantasies and whims. "[352] According to Christian doctrine, every human genital act must take place within the framework of marriage! This is God's clear will for man. Jesus came to restore man to his original condition and in it there is no room for polygamy or polyandry or for homosexual unions and there is no room for genital acts performed outside marriage. Christ wanted a stable union between man and woman, an indissoluble union in which genital activity must take place. The same document "Human Person" still specifies: "St. Paul is even more explicit when he teaches that, if celibates and widowers cannot live in continence, they have no other choice than the stable union of marriage: It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7,9). With marriage, in fact, the love of the spouses is assumed in the irrevocable love that Christ has for the Church (cf. Eph 5,25: 32-1), while the union of bodies in shamelessness (Extra-marital sexual intercourse is expressly condemned in 5,1 Cor 6.9-7,2; 10,8; 5,5; Eph 7-1; 1,10 Tm 13,4; Heb 1; and with clear arguments: 6,12 Cor 20-XNUMX.) contaminates the temple of the Holy Spirit, as the Christian has become. "[353]

What exactly do the biblical texts quoted above say? Let's see it below.

1 Cor. 6,9s: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not delude yourself: neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor depraved, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. "

1 Cor. 7,1s: "Regarding what you have written to me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but, because of cases of immorality, each one should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."

1 Cor. 10,8: "Let us not abandon ourselves to impurity, as some of them abandoned themselves and in a single day twenty-three thousand fell."

Eph. 5, 5-7: "Because, know it well, no fornicator, or impure, or miser - that is, no idolater - inherits the kingdom of Christ and God. No one deceives you with empty words: for these things, anger God comes upon those who disobey him. So don't have anything in common with them. "

1 Tim. 1,8ss: "We know that the Law is good, provided that legitimate use is made of it, in the conviction that the Law is not made for the just, but for the wicked and the rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the sacred and profaners, for parricides and matricides, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, merchants of men, liars, perjurers and for everything else contrary to sound doctrine, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, who is me been entrusted. "

Heb. 13,4: “Marriage is to be respected by all and the wedding bed to be spotless. Fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God. "

1 Cor. 6, 12-20: “Everything is lawful for me !. Yes, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me! Yes, but I will not let myself be dominated by anything. Foods are for the belly and the belly for food! But God will destroy this and those. The body is not for impurity, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. God, who raised the Lord, will also raise us with his power. Don't you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Don't you know that whoever joins the prostitute forms one body with her? The two - it is said - will become one flesh. But whoever joins the Lord forms one spirit with him. Stay away from impurity! Whatever sin a man commits is outside his body; but whoever gives himself to impurity sins against his own body. Don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you? You have received it from God and you do not belong to yourself. In fact, you were bought at a high price: therefore glorify God in your body! "

Scripture, as we can see, is very clear and precise in expressly prohibiting extramarital sexual intercourse!

The document “Persona Humana” continues: “Carnal union, therefore, is not legitimate if a definitive community of life has not been established between man and woman. This is what the church has always understood and taught, (cf. Innocent IV, Ep. Sub catholicae profession, 6.3.1254: Denz 835; Pius II, Propositions condemned in the letter Cum sicut accepimus, 14.11.1459: Denz 1367; Sant ' Offizio, Decrees of 24.9.1665 and 2.3.1679: Denz 2045 and 2148; Pius XI. Enc. Casti connubii, 31.12.1930: 22 (1930), 558-559; EE 5 / 497-499.) in the reflection of men and in the lessons of history a profound agreement with his doctrine. "[354]

In the case of the divorced and remarried, it is evident that God did not unite them with each other, but united them with their respective spouses, that is, with those with whom he sealed their sacramental and valid marriage, recognized by the Church, indissoluble; therefore between divorced and remarried there is no marriage… and there cannot be acts proper to spouses, acts of conjugal union! The life of the divorced and remarried as such, therefore, will never be a married life and can never involve acts proper to the spouses, acts of conjugal union. The divorced and remarried if they want to put themselves in order before God first of all they must not cohabit, unless there are serious reasons that justify such cohabitation, and if they cohabit they must live as brother and sister (as the Church clearly states in the texts that we have presented in the pages previous) ... therefore no act of the spouses, no act of conjugal union is lawful for the divorced and remarried!

Since there is no marriage and no married life between them, they cannot carry out, in particular, the intimate acts proper to married persons before God and since, moreover, they are already married before God with other persons, their cohabitation more uxorio is normally scandalous and any intimate acts between them are acts of particular gravity, that is, they are adulterous acts…. who combine the seriousness of the sin of fornication with the violation of the commitments established before God in marriage.

Obviously the divorced and remarried who really want to live in God's will cannot sleep in the same bed and in the same room, for obvious reasons of prudence and also to avoid scandal.

b) Important clarifications on adultery; theft in some cases can be an objectively venial sin but adultery is always an objectively grave sin.

We have already seen above that the negative precepts of natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and forever, in fact it is a question of prohibitions that prohibit a specific action without exception, because the choice of such behavior is not in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the person who acts, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with neighbor. Now it seems important to us to make a clarification on this point.

In the VS we read: “The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and forever. … The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by the moral commandments, expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testament. As we have seen, Jesus himself reiterates the imperative of these prohibitions: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments ...: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify to the false" (Mt 19,17: 18-52) . " (VS, XNUMX)

It is necessary to specify what VS affirms here in the sense that in some cases certain violations of negative precepts of the Ten Commandments are objectively light and give rise to objectively venial sins, for example theft in some cases is objectively venial sin, as St. Thomas: “Ad tertium dicendum quod illud quod modicum est ratio apprehendit quasi nihil. Et ideo in his quae minima sunt homo non reputat sibi nocumentum inferri, et ille qui accipit potest praesumere hoc non esse contra voluntatem eius cuius est res. Et pro tanto si quis furtive huiusmodi res minimas accipiat, potest excusari to mortal sin. Si tamen habeat animum furandi et inferendi nocumentum proximo, etiam in talibus minimis potest esse peccatum mortale, sicut et in solo cogitatu per consensum. "(II-II q. 66 a.6 to 3m)

Also the Major Catechism of St. Pius X speaks of some thefts as objectively venial sins

“443 D. Is it a grave sin to steal? It is a grave sin against justice when it comes to serious matters, it being very important that the right that everyone has over their own property is respected, and this for the good of individuals, families and society.

444 D. When is the matter of the theft serious? It is serious when you take away a relevant thing, and also when, by taking away something of little moment, your neighbor suffers serious damage. "

Obviously, when theft is a venial sin, it does not deprive the perpetrator of divine life. The same must be said of other disturbances of negative controls which have little matter.

On the other hand, there are negative commands that do not admit smallness of matter and their violations are always gravely illicit.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration "Persona humana" (29.12.1975) states: "Now, according to the Christian tradition and the doctrine of the Church, and as also recognizes right reason, the moral order of sexuality entails for the human life values ​​so high that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious.[355]

In this line, the Catechism states:

“There are acts which for themselves and in themselves, regardless of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such are blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. … ”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1756) As you can see, the Catechism does not state that the violation of the command not to steal is always gravely illicit, but is saying that it is always gravely and objectively illicit to commit adultery, blaspheme, kill.

God intervenes in his Church so that his Law is affirmed and respected by all but above all by the Pope and by the Pastors.

Most Holy Mary, pray for us.

10) If adultery is very serious, the homosexuality practiced is more serious ... but the "paradigm shift" also favors the latter.

We will devote an entire chapter to this topic later on, but already now it seems important to me to trace its fundamental lines. God enlighten us.

a) The condemnation of homosexual acts by sound Catholic doctrine.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in n. 2357 and following : “Homosexuality refers to relationships between men or women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards people of the same sex. ... Leaning on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravity, (Cf Gn 19,1-29; Rm 1,24-27; 1 Cor 6,9-10; 1 Tm 1,10.) Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered". (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana, 8: AAS 68 (1976) 85.) They are contrary to natural law. ... In no case can they be approved. "

For Catholic doctrine: “According to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts devoid of their essential and indispensable rule. They are condemned in Sacred Scripture as grave depravities and presented, indeed, as the fatal consequence of a rejection of God. (Rm 1,24-27 .. Cf. also ... 1 Cor 6,10 and 1 Tm 1,10.) This judgment of Scripture does not allow us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it attests that acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered and that, in no case, can they receive any approval. "[356]

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is stark and clear: “… there is an evident consistency within the Scriptures themselves about homosexual behavior. Therefore the Church's doctrine on this point is not based only on isolated phrases, from which questionable theological arguments can be drawn, but rather on the solid foundation of constant biblical testimony. "[357]

In this line s. Augustine stated: "Therefore, vices contrary to nature must be detested and punished everywhere and always, for example the vices of the sodomites, that even if all the peoples of the earth practiced them, the divine law would involve them in the same condemnation for their crime. , since he did not create men for such a use of themselves. Indeed, it is a violation of the bond that must exist between us and God the contamination of nature itself, of which he is the author, due to a perverse passion. "[358].

St. Thomas stated: “But the vices which surpass the way of human nature are even more reprehensible. And yet they too must be traced back to intemperance according to a certain excess: this is the case of those who delight in eating human flesh, or in mating with beasts, or with men "(II-II, q. 142, a . 4).

In the q. 154 of II-II a. 12 s. Thomas reports a text by s. Augustine that the same Angelic Doctor confirms when he says that in sins against nature man transgresses what is determined according to nature regarding sexual activity, therefore such sins, in sexual matters, are the most serious.

In the Catechism of St. Pius X states the following: “966. What are the sins that are said to cry out for vengeance in the sight of God?

The sins that are said to cry out for vengeance in the sight of God are four:

voluntary homicide;

impure sin against the order of nature;

oppression of the poor;

to cheat the wages of the workers.

  1. Why are these sins said to cry out for vengeance in the sight of God? These sins are said to cry out for vengeance in the sight of God, because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so serious and manifest that it causes God to punish them with more severe punishments. "

Obviously the impure sin we are talking about is practiced homosexuality.

In conclusion, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says: "The teaching of the Church today is therefore in organic continuity with the vision of Holy Scripture and with constant Tradition."[359]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith further specifies: “It is only in the conjugal relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally right. Therefore a person who behaves homosexually acts immorally. "[360]

Therefore the condemnation of these sins of homosexuality is absolute and clear-cut, based on Scripture and Tradition. But unfortunately also in this field the strategy of the “paradigm shift” is intervening precisely to subvert the sound doctrine.

God give us his wisdom.

b) Obvious "openings" regarding practiced homosexuality.

In his book Ureta states in chapter 7[361]that in the Synod of 2014 relatio post disceptationem was greeted with protests because it presented only the theses of the Kasperian minority and presented a significant moral principle, for which positive elements could also be grasped in objectively gravely sinful situations, such as premarital relationships or homosexual unions: " Although the drafting committee was forced to draft a compromise text, in the final vote three paragraphs did not reach the statutory majority of 2/3 for approval and inclusion in the final report: the paragraph concerning the pastoral care of persons with homosexual tendencies and the two paragraphs dealing with the question of communion for the divorced and remarried (thus recognizing the divergence of positions among the Synod Fathers). Despite this refusal, and notwithstanding the regulation, Pope Francis has significantly ordered that these passages result in the final text that would then be sent to the dioceses and parishes in order to inspire the proposals of the "base" for the Ordinary Synod of the year following [362]. "

I emphasize that: ... in the final vote three paragraphs did not reach the statutory majority of 2/3 for approval and inclusion in the final report: the paragraph concerned the pastoral care of persons with homosexual tendencies and the two paragraphs that dealt with the question of communion for the divorced and remarried but notwithstanding the regulation, Pope Francis ordered that these passages be found in the final text that would then be sent to the dioceses and parishes in order to inspire the proposals of the "base" for the Ordinary Synod of the following year ... a highly significant fact, as we can already understand now and as we will understand better and better in the course of this book ... unfortunately. As stated above: the ultimate control of everything was in the hands of the Pope!

Commenting on this fact, Cardinal Reinhard Marx stated: “Up until now, these two issues had been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they failed to obtain a two-thirds majority, the majority of the Synod Fathers still voted in their favor. "

"They are still part of the text," continued Marx. “I asked the Pope in particular about this, and the Pope said he wanted all the points published along with all the voting results. He wanted everyone in the church to see where we were. No, this Pope has opened the doors wide and the vote will not change the results at the end of the synod “.[363] I emphasize: Up until now, these two issues had been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they failed to obtain a two-thirds majority, the majority of the Synod Fathers still voted in their favor. ... this Pope has opened the doors wide ...

A few months later Cardinal Burke said: “I will resist the Pope if there are openings to the divorced and remarried and to gays. I can not do anything else"[364] To say such serious things, it is evident that Cardinal Burke realized that the Pope was working in the sense of those openings… unfortunately.

We said in the first chapter that, during the 2015 Synod, with an evident strategy…. "... and to the considerable surprise of the Synod Fathers, the text delivered to them, with absolute prohibition of dissemination extended to the 51 auditors and other participants of the assembly, was distributed in the evening and only in Italian, a language that the majority of the participants did not master totally (especially those coming from geographic areas more hostile to a change in the discipline of the Church, such as Africa, Poland and the United States). Furthermore, the text did not take into consideration the 1.355 proposed amendments and substantially re-proposed the position of the Instrumentum laboris, including the paragraphs that had raised the most criticism in the courtroom, namely those concerning homosexuality and the divorced and remarried. [365] I emphasize in particular: "the text did not take into consideration the 1.355 proposed amendments and substantially re-proposed the position of the Instrumentum laboris, including the paragraphs that had raised the most criticisms in the courtroom, namely those concerning homosexuality and the divorced and remarried." … Clearly there was an attempt to pass an “openness” to homosexual practice with a “clever” strategy.

The text was practically rejected by the Synod Fathers!

Then another text was created. "This new text eliminated references to homosexual couples and on the Communion of divorced and remarried persons," as a "compromise solution", an ambiguous paragraph of the report of the "Germanicus" circle - composed, among others, by Cardinal Walter Kasper, but also by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "  [366] This second text was approved by the Fathers.

The two Synods were followed by the exhortation Amoris Laetitia; in the chapter that I will dedicate specifically to "openness" regarding those who practice homosexuality we will see well how this "opening" was achieved through Amoris Laetitia, here it is enough for me to note what C. Spaemann significantly writes: "... the decisive steps in Amoris Laetitia, in which the Catholic Holy Order has been undermined, they do not speak only of the divorced and civilly remarried, but in general of "irregular situations" (among others in AL 305). Why should homosexual intercourse not be included? Why not also those among the priests? Why not also those of clerics who have the age of consent? There is a suspicion that the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia was created in the context of an agenda that aims at the establishment in the Church of the so-called "sexual diversity."[367] ... in reality, as we will see especially in the chapter in which I will speak extensively about such "openings" regarding homosexual practice, it is much more than a suspicion that through Amoris Laetitia such "openings" are intended ... we will see that this Exhortation speaks of homosexuals and that, as some moralists explain in Avvenire (newspaper of the Bishops and therefore ... of the Pope), what this papal document says about the divorced and remarried can be applied, similarly, to those who practice homosexuality ... We will see that, incredibly , precisely after Amoris Laetitia, in Avvenire, a newspaper of the Italian Bishops and therefore closely linked to the Pope and addressed by him, Luciano Moia was able to write: "" The doctrine speaks clearly ", would say those who use the rules as stones to be thrown in people's lives. Yes, but which norm? In Amoris Laetitia - which remains the most recent magisterial document on the subject - after recalling the Church's need for pastoral closeness to homosexual people, Francis does not add any ethical condemnation, he does not recall the passage from the Catechism regarding the "moral disorder objective ", as the previous documents of the magisterium had done. The same for the final document of the Synod of young people. A simple forgetfulness? Difficult to think. Perhaps the prevailing desire to read the question from a different perspective, to open the debate, to listen to the opinion of the base, in the conviction that "not all doctrinal, moral and pastoral discussions must be resolved with interventions of the magisterium". (Al, 3).[368]

Please note…. "... which norm?" ... therefore the Bible, Tradition, the Magisterium and the current Catechism that radically and absolutely condemn homosexual acts have disappeared for Moia and for the future ... Incredible but true and obviously very serious ... and seriously scandalous ... especially if we read that Pope Francis: "He does not add any ethical condemnation, he does not recall the passage in the Catechism regarding the" objective moral disorder "" ... that is, he did not give any ethical condemnation of homosexual acts ... These statements by Moia are the rotten fruits of Amoris laetitia that precisely " opens the doors "also on the subject of homosexual acts ... and these are signs that, together with others, clearly indicate what the Pope's profound address is on this topic in recent years ...

In addition to the indications presented so far, in fact, we will examine below, and then in the chapter dedicated to this topic, certain meetings, certain actions and certain statements of the Pope regarding the question of homosexual acts which in fact appear extremely significant in relation to the "openness "That he is implementing on this matter; the "paradigm shift" that Pope Francis is carrying out also concerns the "openness" on the subject of homosexual acts.

The Pope, in fact, has problems meeting a woman, an activist opposed to same-sex marriage, who also had 4 marriages (with men) on his shoulders, but he does not have problems meeting known homosexuals[369].

And equally the Pope does not mind having one of his s reads. Masses a pro LGBT activist, with great scandal[370].

The Pope does not censor and indeed "promotes" Fr. Martin SJ who even celebrates s. Pre-gay pride mass according to which: Pope Francis has LGBT friends and has appointed many i, archbishops and bishops who support the LGBT world[371]. According to the authors of the letter that accused the Pope of heresy: “Fr. Martin is a well-known advocate for the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and acts. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed him consultant to the Secretariat of Communications of the Holy See. "[372]

Fr Martin was received by the Pope in October 2019 and about a month later he said that in this meeting the Pope encouraged him to continue his ministry to LGBT Catholics.

In an article by S. Paciolla significantly titled: "A photo that certifies a" paradigm shift ""[373] and which concerns precisely the meeting of October 2019 between the Pope and Fr. Martin, the journalist explains that: “… Cardinal Robert. Sarah, in an editorial on the WSJ, called Father Martin "one of the most outspoken critics of the Church's message regarding sexuality." Cardinal Burke, in an interview with The Wanderer, said that what Father Martin said "is not consistent with the teaching of the Church" on homosexuality. The Archbishop of Philadelphia, Msgr. Charles Chaput, recently wrote that Father Martin "misrepresents the Catholic creed". Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, of the diocese of Springfield, on 19 September issued a statement in which, among other things, it is said that "Father Martin's public messages create confusion among the faithful and upset the unity of the Church, promoting the false sense that immoral sexual behavior is acceptable under God's law. "[374] … Pope Francis evidently leaves him free to speak and does not censor the erroneous and scandalous statements of Fr. Martin ... and indeed encourages him to continue his work!

One of the last cardinals created by Pope Francis is Msgr. Mendonça, we read the following about him: “known for being a fan of Sister Maria Teresa Forcades i Vila, ultra-feminist 'theologian' who advocates abortion and homosexual 'marriage'. Precisely in the preface to a book by Forcades the neo-e argues that "Jesus of Nazareth neither codified nor established rules". Furthermore, in an interview in 2016 he exalted Bergoglio by contrasting him with the "traditionalists". "[375]

The words of this theologian Forcades seem significant in this line: "Pope Francis I think he tried to take a step forward in this direction with the synod of the family, he was unable to do so but it is not the same atmosphere as when there was Pope Francis. For example, Sister Jeannine Gramick, who has worked for many years in the United States for the acceptance not only of being homosexual but also of homosexual activity, of physical homosexual love, said that since Pope Francis arrived she has not had any more the pressure he suffered before not to carry out this type of apostolate ”.[376]

His Eminence De Kesel, one of the cardinals created by Pope Francis, said: "The condemnation of homosexual acts is no longer sustainable".[377] I am not aware that the Holy See intervened to correct the statements of this Cardinal ...

Furthermore, “In 2013 Fr. Timothy Radcliffe has argued that homosexual acts can be an expression of the self-giving of Christ. Pope Francis appointed him consultant to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in May 2015. "[378] About this Dominican father you can read very specific links that indicate his openness regarding homosexuality[379] A significant sentence by Fr. Radcliffe is this: “This is not to denigrate committed love of people of the same sex. This too should be cherished and supported, which is why church leaders are slowly coming to support same-sex civil unions. The God of love can be present in every true love. But “gay marriage” is impossible because it attempts to cut loose marriage from its grounding in our biological life. If we do that, we deny our humanity. It would be like trying to make a cheese soufflé without the cheese, or wine without grapes "[380] These words essentially mean the following: Same-sex love is also to be appreciated and supported, so church leaders are slowly coming to support same-sex civil unions. The God of love can be present in every true love. But "gay marriage" is impossible because it seeks to eliminate free marriage from its foundation in our biological life.

He says of Fr. Radcliffe the Lifesitenews website: the English priest and author Radcliffe, whom Pope Francis appointed as a consultant for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2015, was a master of the Dominican Order from 1992 to 2001 and is a clear supporter of homosexuality . In 2013 he reflected on the fact that "gay sexuality" can be "expressive of Christ's gift of self.[381]

After p. Radcliffe seems important to me to see something about Cardinal Cupich:

“In the 2015 Synod on the Family, Cardinal Cupich supported the proposal to allow people living in adulterous relationships and sexually active homosexuals to receive the Eucharist in good conscience, in certain circumstances. Pope Francis appointed him Archbishop of Chicago in 2014, cardinal in 2016, and member of the Congregation of Bishops and of the Congregation for Catholic Education. "[382]

The words of Cardinal Cupich also go along this line, according to which in his Diocese it is not foreseen that the Sacraments be denied to those who are known to live in homosexual union. [383].

THE POPE, I stress, significantly, HAS NOT CONDEMNED all THESE ERRORS concerning homosexuality, AS HIS DUTY, but, IN VARIOUS CASES, HAS SUPPORTED AND PROMOTED, as seen, THOSE WHO SPREAD THEM!

In this line, the affirmations of a Cardinal close to the same Pope who even, with another Bishop, at least, wants to open the doors to the blessing of homosexual couples should be noted with special indignation. [384]  Card. Marx, in particular: "... Saturday 3 February 2018 interviewed by the B5 channel of the Bavarian public radio Bayerischer Rundfunk declared that Amoris Laetitia offered a general criterion of a pastoral nature to be applied to many situations of common life, including relations homosexuals: attention "to the single person, his history and his relationships". This criterion can allow homosexual couples to be blessed in some cases. But it is up to the priest's discernment to understand whether it is appropriate or not. "[385] Cardinal Marx is very close to Pope Francis, note very well; I repeat: very close to Pope Francis! Therefore the Cardinal's words have an extraordinary "weight".

These grave errors of Card. Marx etc. they were, however, condemned by Bishop Chaput[386], by Card. Cordes[387] who spoke clearly of sacrilege and by Cardinal Müller who significantly said: "If a priest blesses a homosexual couple, then this is an atrocity committed in a sacred place, that is to approve something that God does not approve."[388]

After all this ... given the trend and the favorable wind that seemed to blow in the Vatican for these blessings, others have joined Cardinal Marx ... and the statements that have been expressed by the large screens of the Assembly of Brisbane, a two-day event organized by the archdiocese in preparation for the Plenary Council… and the fact that the Archbishop does not seem to have intervened to radically condemn them is of greater concern.[389]

In this climate, the blessing ceremony of a lesbian couple carried out by a priest was made public and in fact released with photos through social networks, the diocese to which the priest belongs confirmed the news and did not take measures against the priest.[390] … Still it is not known that condemnation measures have been taken for all the ministers of God who show their willingness to open the doors to homosexual blessings. Even if in 2021, after 3 years from the beginning of the scandal of blessings to homosexual couples, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has produced a document in which the lawfulness of such blessings to homosexual couples is condemned[391] it is not known that any measures have been taken either against those who before this document scandalized the faithful by showing themselves in favor of the blessings of homosexual couples or against those who opposed this document[392] … We are confident that the Vatican will intervene completely to erase the aforementioned errors and the related scandals… but I fear that this will not happen in this Pontificate. Probably the Pope with the aforementioned document just wanted to throw smoke in the eyes of the Catholic faithful to make many think that he follows sound doctrine ... but in reality this is not the case, and in fact those who have scandalized the world with such blessings are theirs. placed as if nothing had happened and they probably continue to carry out "the paradigm shift", to support the legitimacy of such blessings for homosexual couples and to practice them because, evidently only on a "theoretical" level the Pope condemns such blessings not in reality concrete facts. Moreover, I am not aware that the Pope himself has remarked the affirmations of that document as it would be necessary ... so I have the clear impression that it is not "his" and that he had to approve it "obtorto collo" ... and that he has no intention or of enforce it or redress the scandals that such blessings and statements of support for them have created. In this line also the fact that the opponents of the document against blessings to homosexual couples remain in their posts appears significant and part of the Pope's strategy if we consider that, as we have seen, the two great moralists of the John Paul II Institute (Melina and Noriega Bastos) have significantly lost their place…! Evidently for the Pope the real danger is not the scandals for homosexual blessings and homosexualist ideology… the real danger for the Pope is sound doctrine !!

As mentioned, I refer, as mentioned, to the chapter dedicated to this theme (in the second volume) for a broader discussion of the subject but already now I think it is clear that the "paradigm shift" also provides for an "opening" regarding practiced homosexuality ... that is, it foresees deviations from sound doctrine also with regard to unnatural sins.

God intervene and quickly!

11) Clear openings of the "paradigm shift" to contraception also in the name of Amoris Laetitia.

He who is considered by some to be the ghost writer of Amoris Laetitia, Msgr. VM Fernández, a close collaborator of the Pope and who is now Archbishop of La Plata (Argentina) wrote an article in 2006 entitled: "La dimensión trinitaria de la moral II: profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de" Deus caritas est "", Revista Theology, Volume XLIII, Nº 89, 2006. [393]

Precisely in this article of 2006 which evidently must have been followed on various points by those who wrote Amoris Laetitia, as shown by a careful comparison of the two texts, Msgr. Fernández states: "En algunas cuestiones de la moral sexual también es imperoso discernir bajo la luz directa del criterion hermenéutico central, para reconocer cómo una incapacidad para la abstinencia sexual suele implying an avasallamiento de la libertad del cónyuge, haciendo primar el propio de la felicidad del otro. However, there is the case of a sexual abstention that contradicts the Christian jerarquía de valores coronada por la caridad. No podemos cerrar los ojos, por ejemplo, ante la dificultad que se plantea a una mujer when she percibe que la estabilidad familiar se en riesgo por someter al esposo no practicante a períodos de continencia. In this case, an inflexible rechazo a todo use of preservativos haría primar el cumplimiento de una norma externa por sobre la obligación grave de cuidar la comuneón amorosa y la estabilidad conyugal que exige más directly la caridad. "(Page 150) the final part of the text is indicative: “But there is also the case of sexual abstention which contradicts the Christian hierarchy of values ​​crowned by charity. We cannot close our eyes, for example, to the difficulty a woman has when she perceives that the stability of the family is put at risk by subjecting her non-practicing husband to periods of continence. In this case, an inflexible refusal of any use of condoms would make compliance with an external norm prevail over the serious obligation to take care of loving communion and marital stability that charity most directly requires. "

The statement of Msgr. Fernández is obviously radically wrong ...

Charity, we saw above, makes us observe the commandments and does not make us commit sin and above all it does not make us commit serious sin, but the use of condoms and therefore contraception is an evident grave sin, it is an intrinsically evil act than ever can be chosen.

St. John Paul II affirmed in this regard: “There are moral norms having their precise immutable and unconditional content. On some of them you are developing a rigorous reflection precisely during this Congress: the norm that prohibits contraception or the one that prohibits the direct killing of the innocent person, for example. Denying that there are norms having such a value can do so only who denies that there is a truth of the person, an immutable nature of man, ultimately founded on that creative Wisdom which gives the measure to every reality. "[394]

In an important article published in the Osservatore Romano we read that: “The Christian moral tradition has always distinguished between 'positive' norms (which command to do) and 'negative' norms (which prohibit doing). Furthermore, it has constantly and clearly affirmed that, among the negative ones, the norms that prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions: such acts, in fact, are "disordered" from a moral point of view due to their very intimate structure, therefore in themselves and for themselves, that is, they contradict the person in his specific dignity as a person. Precisely for this precise reason, such acts cannot be made "ordered" from a moral point of view by any subjective intention and circumstance, which are not capable of changing their structure. Contraception also arises among these acts: in and of itself it is always a moral disorder, because objectively and intrinsically (regardless of intentions, motivations and subjective situations) it contradicts "the native language that expresses reciprocal total self-giving of the spouses "(Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 32)."[395]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read that contraception is intrinsically bad, that is, as Humanae Vitae explains: "... every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its fulfillment, or in the development of its natural consequences, is proposed , as an aim or as a means, to prevent procreation. "[396]

In the Familiaris Consortio we read: "Contraception imposes an objectively contradictory language to the native language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the spouses, that is, that of not giving oneself to the other in totality: not only does it result in a positive refusal to open up to life, but also a falsification of the interior truth of conjugal love, called to give oneself in personal totality. "[397]

In the Familiaris Consortio at no. 34 s. John Paul II, also referring to the prohibition on the use of condoms, contained in Humanae Vitae, said that the spouses: "... they cannot look at the law only as a pure ideal to be achieved in the future, but must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with commitment. “Therefore the so-called“ law of graduality ”, or gradual path, cannot be identified with the“ graduality of the law ”, as if there were various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations. …. In this same line, it is part of the Church's pedagogy that spouses first of all clearly recognize the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae" as a norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and sincerely undertake to establish the necessary conditions for observing this norm. " [398]

There are various degrees and various forms of precept in the divine law for different men and situations, all are called not to commit serious sin and therefore not to practice contraception.

I add that a few years ago some statements of Pope Benedict XVI on the use of condoms were misinterpreted by some who believed that the Supreme Pontiff was legitimizing this contraceptive practice, I specify that Pope Benedict has never legitimized this practice and those statements must be understood in another sense, as a text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains well entitled: "Note on the trivialization of sexuality in relation to some readings of" Light of the world "of 21.12.2010 [399]

As we saw, in a 2011 article Msgr. Fernández returns to the 2006 article that we examined, and with regard to the question of the use of the condom he states: "En el artículo (pág. 150) I place el ejemplo de una mujer que, por preservar el amor y la estabilidad familiar, no rechaza and the use of condoms (cooperación material al pecado del cónyuge). Pretendo decir que, before a conflict of deberes, el cuidado del amor y la estabilidad familiar es una exigencia más directa de la caridad porque es un bien mayor por el cual puede ser lícito tolerar un misbehavior. ... Es lo que en la moral clásica se expresa como cooperación only material y propcionada en el mal. "[400]

So according to Msgr. Fernández the woman who, in order to preserve love and family stability, does not refuse the use of condoms (material cooperation with the spouse's sin) is only making material cooperation proportionate to the evil. Unfortunately, even saying this, Msgr. Fernández commits a serious mistake because in order to have material cooperation proportionate to the evil the act that takes place must not be objectively evil, more widely this cooperation can be lawful:

"... when these three conditions are given jointly:

the action of the cooperating spouse is not in itself illegal; (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2795, 3634)

there are proportionately serious reasons for cooperating in the spouse's sin;

try to help the spouse (patiently, with prayer, with charity, with dialogue: not necessarily at that moment, nor on every occasion) to desist from such conduct. "[401]

The answers of the s. Office cited[402]  clearly state that the act of the woman passively accepting the use of a condom by her husband in the intimate relationship with her performs an intrinsically illicit act ... therefore the cooperation of the woman who accepts the use of the condom in the intimate relationship is grossly illicit and it is not material cooperation with sin.

I conclude by saying that given the closeness of Msgr. Fernández to the Pope, and given the tasks that were conferred on him by the Supreme Pontiff despite the fact that, as far as I am aware, he never retracted the erroneous statements we have just seen ... and since the Pope shows to echo the words in Amoris Laetitia of him …. it is not strange that a nun said that the Pope indicated that she should recommend condoms, diaphragms, etc. to women who do not want to get pregnant[403]

… And it is not strange that with the new “course” of the John Paul II Institute and obviously with the blessing of Pope Francis, prof. Nails ...[404], the one who affirmed in a conference at the Gregorian University at the end of 2017 the responsible "duty" of spouses to practice contraception[405] … Which is radically contrary to sound doctrine.

The conference was published in Italian by Magister[406] In it we read: “The reflection carried out authorizes us to rethink the meaning of the norm of“ Humanae vitae ”, avoiding focusing on it as on an objective truth that would stand in front of reason. The intent is to resume the norm, to think it through. It will not be a question of abolishing it at all, but of demonstrating its meaning and truth: its anthropological meaning is, in the spousal bond, the link between sexuality and generation, which refers to the meaning of sexuality. … What the practice of “natural methods of fecundity” attests is the responsorial character of generation: they too say that to generate is not to create. ... If the responsibility of generating is what these "methods" refer to, then it can be understood how in situations where they are impossible or impracticable, other forms of responsibility must be found: these "circumstances", for responsibility, require other methods to birth regulation. In these cases, the "technical" intervention does not deny the responsibility of the generating relationship ... The magisterium's insistence on natural methods cannot therefore be interpreted as a norm for its own sake ... The technique, in certain circumstances, can make it possible to preserve the responsible quality of the sexual act. Therefore, it cannot be refused a priori, when the birth of a child is at stake, since it too is a form of acting and as such requires a discernment on the basis of moral criteria that cannot be reduced to a syllogistic-deductive application of the norm . "[407]

The famous professor J. Seifert commented on the statements of Msgr. Chiodi in this way: "" We can only hope that Pope Francis, Archbishop Paglia and the large majority of the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life will ask Fr Chiodi to correct these serious errors, or to resign immediately from the illustrious Academy, the whose founder and spiritual father John Paul II fought without ambiguity and continuously against those errors that Don Chiodi now proposes, and definitively condemned them "."[408]… Mons. Chiodi, according to prof. Seifert: "" proposes ethical and philosophical positions that are profoundly erroneous and totally destructive not only of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, but also of the essence of morality, and in fact of every truth and every teaching of the Church ".[409]

"For Seifert, when Don Chiodi, referring to" Amoris Laetitia "affirms that some" circumstances, precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception "," he actually directly denies the intrinsic mistake of contraception taught magisterially by Paul VI and his predecessors and successors and makes what is good or bad morally in the transmission of human life entirely dependent on concrete situations "."[410]

"The theory according to which there is" a duty to contraception "is such as to contain, according to Seifert," besides the open rejection of the teaching of the Church in Humanae Vitae, disastrous general philosophical errors ", already strongly rejected by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. "[411]

Illuminating in this line, to understand how the "new paradigm" opens the doors to contraception is also an article by St. Magister in which the well-known Vatican expert points out that: "" Humanae vitae "farewell. Half a century later, the encyclical against artificial methods of regulating births ... now gives way to its radical re-interpretation, to a "paradigm shift" undoubtedly wanted and encouraged by Pope Francis himself. … “It all depends on how 'Humanae vitae' is interpreted”, Pope Francis never fails to comment on each time :. Because "the question is not to change doctrine, but to go deeper and ensure that pastoral care takes into account situations and what it is possible for people to do". ... To give an authoritative guise to the new interpretative paradigm of "Humanae vitae", with an explicit green light to artificial contraceptives, a theologian of the most accredited to the current pope, Maurizio Chiodi, intervened ... newly appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life , already author in 2006 of a book, "Ethics of life", which supported the lawfulness of artificial procreation.

The authoritativeness of his position is confirmed by two linked facts.

The first is the context in which Chiodi dictated the new interpretation of "Humanae vitae": a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, on December 14 ... On Sunday, January 28, Chiodi's conference was republished with great evidence in the newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference " Avvenire ", in the monthly supplement" Noi, Famiglia & Vita ", introduced by a note with the title:" From Pope Montini to Francis, development in fidelity ""[412] The two linked facts that give authority to Fr Chiodi's position to which Magister refers are: the context in which Fr Chiodi dictated the new interpretation of "Humanae vitae" (a conference at the famous Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome), the publication of Fr Chiodi's speech on the daily future of the Italian Episcopal Conference.

S. Magister reports some part of the article of Avvenire that I cannot find on the Internet ... I hope that the article has not been hidden to prevent people from knowing how things really are. Avvenire therefore writes in the article just quoted: "'Humanae vitae', a text that is and remains the fruit of a prophetic and courageous choice for the time and for the historical situation in which Pope Montini conceived it, not without torments and not without having clarified that it was neither infallible nor irreformable magisterium. In this perspective, the theologian's reflection must be understood as a proposal that intends to represent the development of a tradition. … Fr Chiodi has the courage to define the problem that theologians and pastoral experts have been facing for some decades. Should natural methods really be understood as the only possible path of family planning? "[413]

S. Magister comments on these words of the Avvenire article by saying: “The note, as we can see, ends with a question mark. Which, however, is entirely rhetorical. The theses presented by Chiodi in his lecture, in fact, are not hypothetical, but assertive. There are circumstances - he argues - that not only allow but "require" other methods, not natural, for the regulation of births. "[414]

S. Magister also notes: "For the benefit of readers," Avvenire "summarizes Chiodi's reinterpretation of" Humanae vitae "in the center of the page:" If there are situations in which natural methods are impossible or impracticable, it is necessary to find other ways, because a responsible generation cannot ignore the offers of technology ”.[415]

The intervention of Mons. Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life appears significant in this line: “The norms must always be interpreted in the light of the tradition that illuminates the experience, not as abstract formulas to be applied abstractly. In this sense, the norms require an evaluation process that must take into account the concrete set of circumstances and relationships in which the person finds himself. It has always been like this: because the norms we speak of are for making humans live, not those for making robots work. … I think that the theme of the generation of human life addressed by Paul VI in 1968 with Humanae vitae is of capital importance. His intent to underline the responsibility we have towards the generation calls for further investigation. "[416] It is especially significant that Msgr. Paglia and the Pontifical Academy for Life did not intervene to condemn the statements of Msgr. Nails ... but they intervened to say what we have just read ...

An expert, Fr. Granados, said, after Fr Chiodi's lecture: “Now there are rumors that Professor Maurizio Chiodi will come to teach, who opens up to the lawfulness of contraception and admits homosexual acts as“ possible ”in certain situations. "[417] Do you understand? The experts clearly noticed the mistake of Msgr. Nails, but while Granados unmasks him… Msgr. Paglia does not speak about it directly but affirms things that seem to go in that line ... St. Magister adds that: "And even before Chiodi held his lecture at the Gregorian, even Monsignor Luigi Bettazzi, 94, ... had said to" Avvenire ", on 29 October 2017, that fifty years after "Humanae vitae" it is now "the time to rethink the question", because "it is not the doctrines that change, but it is we, over the years, who are always able to understand them better the meaning, reading them in the light of the signs of the times "." [418]

Finally St. Magister points out that: “… the study commission set up in the Vatican to reconstruct the genesis of“ Humanae vitae ”from a historical and documentary point of view has already been at work since last spring. ... But it is all too evident that the reinterpretation of the troubled path of preparation of that encyclical - in which even then the currents in favor of artificial contraception were much stronger and more pressing than the contrary ones, espoused by Paul VI - will only be beneficial to the change of paradigm that is in place. "[419] I also wonder if, from the Vatican, anyone notified the nun, who the Pope had told to recommend condoms and diaphragms to women who do not want to get pregnant.[420] that contraception is contrary to God's Law ... and that not even with the Pope's permission is it possible to do what God condemns ... but I fear that no one has notified all this to Sister Martha ... because it seems clear to me that the "new paradigm" provides that we go against sound Catholic doctrine also in the question of contraception ... obviously, as you can see, everything is done in a veiled way, in a discreet way ... but we know very well that Pope said about himself: "Yes, I can perhaps say that I am a bit clever , I know how to move, but it's true that I'm also a bit naive…. "[421] ... I'm a bit smart, I know how to move ...

God intervene!

12) Radical attack on the foundations of Catholic moral doctrine, and therefore on the precept that prohibits impure acts, also through n. 303 of the Amoris Laetitia; significant statements by A. Riva and the Maltese Bishops in this line ...

After all that we have said about sexuality and therefore about chastity and adultery we can better understand the error inherent in Amoris Laetitia n. 303

At no. 303 of Amoris Laetitia we read: “But this conscience can recognize not only that a situation does not objectively respond to the general proposal of the Gospel; he can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for the moment is the generous response that can be offered to God, and discover with a certain moral certainty that this is the gift that God himself is requesting in the midst of the concrete complexity of limits, although not is still fully the objective ideal. "

Ureta in one of his interesting books after quoting the words of prof. Seifert[422] for which the n. 303 of Amoris Laetitia threatens to destroy the entire Catholic morality, affirms: "In matters of adultery, the green light has already been given by the bishop of Como, who in a pastoral note, regarding the divorced and remarried cohabiting more uxorio, asserted that "The single conjugal acts (sic) remain an 'objective disorder', but they are not necessarily a 'grave sin' which prevents the full acceptance of the life of grace" (https://famigliechiesacomo.files.wordpress.com/2018/02 /diocesicomo_notapastorale_capviii_al2.pdf.). His text was published together with a "Deepening of Moral Theology" by the moralist Don Angelo Riva, who strictly states that such adulterous acts "are not sins, they are good acts of married life"[423]. [424]

Going to see the text of Don Angelo Riva on the website of the Diocese of Como[425] we read that to divorced and remarried penitents it can be proposed after Amoris Laetitia:

"➢ the way indicated by AL of personal and pastoral discernment in the internal forum (or of dialogical and formed conscience) with single confession and discernment that remains open with regard to conjugal sexual acts (considered legitimate if subjectively justified" ad acta ")"

It seems to me that this means that the person can, obviously, legitimately propose to commit impure acts ...

Furthermore, in the same text by the same theologian we read that: "Perspectives under study, in line with AL:

➢ the path of personal and pastoral discernment in the internal forum (or of formed conscience) with single confession and discernment concluded also with regard to conjugal sex (considered legitimate as they are subjectively justified)

➢ the path of personal and pastoral discernment in the internal forum (or of formed conscience) with single confession and discernment concluded also with regard to conjugal sex (acts considered legitimate as they are good in themselves) "

... It seems to me that this means that the person can, obviously, legitimately propose to commit impure acts as good ...

It seems to me that these are some of the "rotten" and poisonous fruits that Amoris Laetitia is producing ...

I am not aware that the Holy See has intervened to condemn these errors ... on the other hand, the text of Amoris Laetitia evidently leads to the belief that God can not only allow but positively want someone to sin seriously and remain in this sin ... obviously if God wanted this, such acts would not be sinful ... and would become good ...

The statements of prof. Seifert[426] for which the n. 303 by Amoris Laetitia threatens to destroy the entire Catholic morality hit the mark. No one can dispense himself or others from the command that forbids genital acts outside of marriage, we saw clearly above and the Christian conscience illuminated by faith and even more by grace and the Holy Spirit can never affirm that God asks of us. to sin, to commit adultery or homosexual acts etc.!

It should be added that, as we shall see, Amoris Laetitia presents the extenuating circumstances in a "so" "wide" and deviant way, that what sound doctrine indicates as true serious sins (with serious matter, full warning and deliberate consent) become, thanks to deviations and inaccuracies of Amoris Laetitia, practically lawful acts and those who perform them are considered worthy to receive the Sacraments without proposing not to commit them again.

We should read in this line what we see in the letter of the Argentine Bishops where he affirms in n. 5: “Cuando las circunstancias concretas de una pareja lo hagan factible, especially cuando ambos sean cristianos con un camino de fe, se puede proposer el empeño de vivir en continencia. Amoris Laetitia no ignora las dificultades de esta opción (cf.note 329) y deja abierta la posibilidad de acceder to the sacramento de la Reconciliación when you fail them en ese propósito (cf.note 364, según la enseñanza de san Juan Pablo II al Cardenal W . Baum, dated 22/03/1996). "[427]

Continence between two unmarried people, as we can see, is presented as something that can be proposed ... Practically it is optional to propose continence and optional is to live the same continence ... If there are limitations or conditionings, understood in a very broad sense, the person can be considered in the grace of God even if practically he is still willing to sin gravely and to this person the Sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist can be given… in this line at n. 6 of the letter of the Argentine Bishops we read: if the possibility of life in chastity is not feasible, a journey of discernment remains possible and therefore "Si se llega a reconocer que, in a concrete case, hay limitaciones que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad ( cf. 301-302), especially when a person considering caería en una ulterior falta dañando a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetitia abre la posibilidad del access to los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas 336 y 351 ). "[428]

In summary: as Cardinal Kasper said, the "door is open" ... The door is open so that even those who seriously sin and want to continue to do so and in particular those who live in adultery now have, with Amoris Laetitia, all the possibilities to remain in this situation, to feel practically holy and just and therefore also to receive the Sacraments ...

In fact, Card. Kasper, without being denied, was able to affirm on Amoris Laetitia what was reported by "La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana": "" The door is open ", he said in reference to the discipline of the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, but" the Pope did not say how to get through it. But he - Kasper said - did not repeat the negative statements of previous popes about what is not possible and not allowed. So there is room for individual bishops and individual episcopal conferences ". … The cardinal also gave a concrete example that reveals much of the "case by case" practice present in Amoris Laetitia, regarding the Eucharist for divorced and remarried people. When Kasper was bishop of Rottenburg a pastor asked him about a divorced and remarried mother who had prepared her daughter for Holy Communion "much better" than others. "A very active woman in the Church and who was in Caritas," he emphasizes. The priest did not forbid this mother to access the Eucharist on the day of her daughter's first communion. "That priest was right", explains Kasper, and "I said this to Pope Francis who confirmed my attitude". "[429] ...

In the wake of Amoris Laetitia, the Maltese Bishops were able to affirm: “In the process of discernment, we also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Although it is not an easy ideal, there may be couples who with the help of grace practice this virtue without risking other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations when the choice to live "as brother and sister" is humanly impossible or causes greater damage (cf. Amoris Laetitia, note 329). If as a result of the process of discernment, carried out with "humility, confidentiality, love for the Church and its teaching, in the sincere search for God's will and in the desire to reach a more perfect response to it" (Amoris laetitia, 300), a separated or divorced person who lives a new union arrives - with a formed and enlightened conscience - to recognize and believe that he is at peace with God, he cannot be prevented from approaching the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. Amoris laetitia , notes 336 and 351). "[430]

The Law of God, therefore, is impossible ... or does more harm! And therefore the Sacraments can also be given to those who are not married but live more uxorio and do not propose to escape the opportunity and not to sin anymore!

Yup! ... the door is open so that even those who seriously sin and want to continue to do so and in particular those who live in adultery now have, with Amoris Laetitia, all the possibilities to remain in this situation, to feel practically holy and just and therefore also to receive the Sacraments ... also because the Law of God is impossible or causes greater damage, as the Maltese Bishops say!

God intervene and bring all pastors, including the Pope, back to sound doctrine regarding the commandments and the holy sacraments.

13) Clarifications regarding what note 364 and n. 311 as well as nos. 296s of the Amoris Laetitia.

Amoris Laetitia in note 364 states: "Perhaps out of scruple, hidden behind a great desire for fidelity to the truth, some priests demand from penitents a resolution of repentance without any shadow, so that mercy vanishes under the search for a hypothetically pure justice . For this reason it is worth remembering the teaching of St. John Paul II, who affirmed that the predictability of a new fall "does not prejudice the authenticity of the intention" (Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary "[22 March 1996], 5: Insegnamenti XIX, 1 [1996], 589)". It should be noted that in Amoris Laetitia this note is placed within n. 311 therefore: although it is necessary to take care of "the integrity of the moral teaching of the Church", it is necessary to support in particular the highest values ​​of the Gospel, above all the primacy of charity as a response to the unconditional love of God.

At no. 296 of Amoris Laetitia, the Pope affirmed: “…“ two logics run through the entire history of the Church: marginalize and reintegrate […]. The path of the Church, from the Council of Jerusalem onwards, is always that of Jesus: of mercy and integration […]. The path of the Church is that of not eternally condemning anyone; to pour out God's mercy to all people who ask for it with a sincere heart […]. ... "

At no. 297 of the same Exhortation we read “It is a question of integrating everyone, we must help each one to find his own way of participating in the ecclesial community, so that he may feel the object of an“ undeserved, unconditional and free ”mercy. No one can be condemned forever, because this is not the logic of the Gospel! "

It seems to me important to point out immediately that, as we shall see better, charity makes us live according to the commandments and therefore according to truth, in the holy Law of God, on the way of the Cross, charity also helps others to live according to the commandments, on the way of Cross; moreover it is good to say right away that our salvation lies in welcoming God's love and therefore in conversion and repentance for sins, our salvation lies in confessing ourselves truly well with a true and holy contrition that includes a true and holy purpose ; and above all it seems to me important to specify that without true conversion, the sinner does not accept the love of God and is damned! And damnation is a terrible reality which is clearly presented by Holy Scripture and sound doctrine.

May God enlighten us and enlighten me in particular, below, to make important clarifications precisely on the numbers we have just talked about.

a) Clarifications regarding n. 311 of Amoris Laetitia: God's love is eternal and infinite but the sinner who does not welcome it with true contrition is damned.

The Church is 2000 years old and has very clearly established its doctrine about the justification of the sinner, his repentance and about the conversion, necessary to be saved. Speaking of conversion, of contrition with its various elements does not mean to condition the love of God, as some might think on the basis of the affirmations of Pope Francis in n. 311 or n. 297 of the Amoris Laetitia; it should be noted that the Pope speaks of the need to teach the unconditional love of God and then points out that some, out of scruple, would ask for a resolution without shadow and for such hypothetically pure justice mercy would fade under the search for a hypothetically pure justice ... Unfortunately the vagueness of the unexplained and specified papal expressions as well as the fact that he attacks unspecified confessors who seek a hypothetically pure justice and does not attack those who, on the contrary, do not care to verify well that the penitent really has the purpose required for confession and therefore expose the penitent to invalid confessions and the fact that the Pope, as seen and as we are seeing and will see, on various points does not follow sound doctrine, can create or create false ideas about the Love of God and the need for our conversion. It therefore seems important to us to clarify the following. God is Love but we welcome this love only through conversion and contrition which makes us righteous as sinners. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, presenting biblical doctrine, clearly speaks of: “… the great mercy of God who wishes to save all men [cf 1Tm 2,4]” (n.1261). God wants us all to be saved but we welcome God's offer by doing his will, therefore in the Catechism we find it written in n. 2826: “…. Jesus teaches us that he enters the kingdom of heaven not by force of words, but by doing "the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 7,21). "

God is Love but we must welcome this Love, if we do not welcome it and do his Will, we damn ourselves. If we do not accept the word of Christ, who calls sinners to conversion, we are not saved, the Catechism affirms in n. 543 that to enter the Kingdom of God "... it is necessary to accept the word of Jesus." There is no other way!

The Second Vatican Council affirms: “The word of the Lord is compared… to the seed that is sown in a field: those who listen to it with faith and belong to the little flock of Christ have welcomed the very kingdom of God; then the seed by virtue of its own germinates and grows until harvest time ". (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution" Lumen gentium ", 21.11.1964, 5: AAS 57 (1965) 7.)"

To access the Kingdom of God, it is necessary to accept the word of Christ, to do God's will, to collaborate with God, to accept justification; in the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read at n. 1989 ff. That first of all the Holy Spirit implements in us the conversion, which operates justification. Moved by God through grace, man turns to God (conversion) and moves away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from above, man therefore becomes righteous according to God. Justification therefore releases man. from sin and reunites and reconciles him with God. Through justification a collaboration is established between God's grace and human freedom; with it man is made righteous and becomes righteous through faith.

Therefore, in order to be saved, it is necessary to collaborate with God, it is necessary to accept the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ: that is, it is necessary to accept justification. Along with justification, faith, hope and charity are infused into our hearts, and we are granted obedience to the divine will. The Church affirms that God is Love and wants to save everyone but also affirms that we are saved by accepting the gift of salvation, by converting from sin, by doing God's will and the Church also affirms that he who is in grave sin and does not accept the gift of merciful love and therefore, the gift of contrition, is damned (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1036s)!

b) Clarification regarding n. 296s by Amoris Laetitia: hell exists .. and eternal condemnation too!

The Pope in Amoris Laetitia at n. 296 affirms that "The path of the Church is that of not eternally condemning anyone .." and at n. 297 of the same Exhortation we read: “297. It is a question of integrating everyone, each one must be helped to find his own way of participating in the ecclesial community, so that he may feel the object of an "undeserved, unconditional and free" mercy. No one can be condemned forever, because this is not the logic of the Gospel! " These statements could make some think that the Pope wants to practically cancel the truth about the existence of hell, a truth also fixed, in certain points, in an absolutely immutable way by the Church.

St. Thomas explains that God rewards and condemns: “Human acts receive punishment or reward from God. From the things already said it is clear that human acts must receive from

God, or the penalty, or the reward. … The error of some who said that God does not punish is thus refuted. Marcione and Valentino, p. eg, they affirmed that the good God is distinct from the just God who punishes [cf. S. Agost., De Haeres., 21, 22]. "[431]

Obviously, among the punishments there is the eternal punishment of hell.

Christ is God man, He is the Judge and He is the Head of the Church and condemns the wicked, and the Church is united with Him. First of all, Christ is Judge, the Creed clearly says it.

The Apostles' Creed clearly states that Christ: "sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty: from there he will come to judge the living and the dead."

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states: "And again he will come, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his reign will have no end."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 679: “Christ is Lord of eternal life. The full right to definitively judge the works and hearts of men belongs to him as the Redeemer of the world. "

The same Catechism adds to n. 682: "The glorious Christ, coming at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will reward each man according to his works and according to the acceptance or rejection of grace."

The Roman Catechism affirms: "For the sake of clarity, the parish priests will distinguish clearly the two eras, in which each must appear before the Lord to give an account of each individual's thoughts, works, words, and then hear the immediate sentence of the judge. The first comes when each one of us dies: immediately the soul presents itself to the court of God, where a very just examination is made of what he has done, said, or thought; and this is called particular judgment. The second will come when all men will be gathered together in a day and in a place established before the court of the Judge, so that all and individuals, spectators and listeners, men of all ages know their sentence. The verdict will not be the lesser of penalties for the wicked and wicked; while the pious and the just will draw great reward and fruit from it, since it will be clear how each one has carried out in this life. And this is called the "universal judgment". "[432]

In one of the Preface of Advent we read: "You have hidden from us the day and the hour when Christ your Son, Lord and judge of history, will appear on the clouds of heaven clothed with power and splendor". St. Thomas states: “… the judicial power is a prerogative common to the whole Trinity: which is true. However, by appropriation it is attributed to the Son ... "[433]

The Angelic Doctor then quotes the words of St. Augustine in the "sed contra" of the following article for which: ". And Augustine affirms: «He who was subjected to judgment will sit as judge; he will condemn the real culprits whoever was falsely found guilty "."[434] Such words s. Thomas shows that he fully accepts in the body of the article, in fact he affirms: “Christ, also because of his human nature, is the head of the whole Church, and that God has placed everything under his feet [Ps 8,8: XNUMX] . Therefore, judicial power belongs to him, even according to human nature. "[435]

So yes. Thomas adds: “… all human things are ordered to the end of beatitude, which is eternal salvation, to which all men are admitted or from which they are rejected on the basis of Christ's judgment, as is clear from the Gospel. Therefore it is evident that all human things fall under the judicial power of Christ. " [436]

Christ will judge and condemn ... and the Church, of which he is Head, will be united with him in eternally condemning ... in this line it is false to affirm that: "The path of the Church is that of eternally condemning no one." The Church is united with Christ in eternally condemning those who deserve it.

The Roman Catechism affirms: "Then, turning to those who stand on his left, he will strike at them his justice with these words: Away from me, you cursed, to eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25,41:XNUMX ). With the first, "Via da me", the greater of the punishments that will strike the wicked is expressed, with being driven out as far as possible from the sight of God ... This is called by theologians the penalty of damage; by which the wicked will be deprived forever, in hell, of the light of divine vision. The other word: "cursed", will significantly increase their misery and calamity. If while they are cast out of God's presence they are deemed worthy of at least some blessing, this would be a great relief to them; but since nothing similar they can expect, that it will alleviate their misfortune, divine justice, by rightly driving them out, strikes them with every curse of its own.

Then follow the words: "to the eternal fire"; is the second kind of punishment that theologians call the punishment of the sense, because it is perceived with the senses of the body, as happens with scourges, beating or other more serious torture, among which it is not to be doubted that the torment of fire causes the sharpest sensitive pain. Adding perpetual duration to so much evil, it can be deduced that the punishment of the damned represents the height of all tortures. ... Our Lord and Savior will rightly issue this sentence against the wicked, because they neglected all works of true piety: they did not offer food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty; they did not lodge the guest, dressed the naked, visited the sick person and the prisoner. "[437]

The words of the Gospel quoted in this passage from the Roman Catechism are illuminating and St. Alphonsus, taking them back, affirms: “At the meeting, my Jesus, what a pity that sinner will have, who, dying in sin, will look at you in anger when he appears before you! The soul that comes out of this life in God's disgrace, before the judge condemns it, it will condemn itself, and then it will hear the terrible sentence intimated by Jesus-Christ: "Discede to me, maledicte, in ignem aeternum" (Matt., 25, 41: "Discede to me, curse yourself, in ignem aeternum".) Separate from me ungrateful, go to the eternal fire, and do not appear before me again. "[438] Adds the s. Neapolitan doctor: “What will the sinner do, what will the sinner answer to Jesus-Christ as judge? He will do what he of the Gospel did, who came without the wedding garment, he was silent, not knowing what to answer. ... Here finally the judge will give the sentence. "Discede to me, maledicte, in ignem aeternum" (Matth., 25, 41: "Discede to me, curse, in ignem aeternum".) Oh what a terrible thunder this will be! "Oh quam terribiliter personabit tonitruum illud!" The Cartusian. (Dionysius Carth., De quatuor novissimis, art. XXVI; Opera, XLI, Tornaci 1912 530: "O quam horribiliter, penetrative ac desolatorie personabit tonitruum illud!") Says S. Anselmo: (S. Anselmus, op. cit., med. 2; PL 158, 722-723: "Dies iudicii venit, dies irae, dies illa ... Quid dormitas? Qui non expergiscitur, qui non tremit ad tantum tonitruum, non dormit, sed mortuus est".) "Here non tremit ad tantum tonitruum, non dormit, sed mortuus est ". "[439]

Christ is judge… and judges and condemns… and the Church is united with Him… and hell implies eternal condemnation. In the Catechism we read in n. 1034 that it will be Jesus who will pronounce the condemnation to damnation: “… he will pronounce the condemnation:« Away, away from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire! "(Mt 25,41). "

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms the sound doctrine on hell in numbers 1033 ff.

First of all the cause of our damnation is our sin and not God's "wickedness", God is not evil but infinitely good and does not predest anyone to damnation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1033)

Therefore the Church clearly affirms the existence of hell (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1035)

Through the Liturgy, the Church makes us pray like this: "Accept with kindness, O Lord, the offer that we your ministers and all your family present to you: arrange our days in your peace, save us from eternal damnation, and welcome us into the flock of the elect ".[440]

God grant us eternal salvation, and do not allow errors about contrition and its necessity for eternal salvation to spread. Welcoming the love of God means welcoming the Holy Spirit and letting ourselves be guided by him who makes us righteous by sinners through conversion and contrition ... God is love but without conversion and contrition our grave sins remain, according to the teaching. of God himself and of the Church, not forgiven ... and we run towards damnation! Hell is a reality. I remember that Our Lady at Fatima said: “Pray, pray a lot; and make sacrifices for sinners, because many souls go to hell, because there is no one who sacrifices and intercedes for them. ""[441] … And this is what also various holy doctors and mystics have affirmed… attention!

c) The true purpose of sinning no more, necessary for the remission of sins, and note 364 from Amoris Laetitia.

Msgr. Fernández, probable ghost writer of Amoris Laetitia, says “Aunque the cuestión del posible lit a la comune de algunos divorciados en nueva unión provoked mucho revuelo, el Papa intentó —sin lograrlo— que este paso se di una manera discreta. Por eso, después de desarrollar los presupuestos de this decision in the cuerpo of the document, the application to the municipality of the divorce in new unión se hizo explícita en notas a pie de página. "[442] This means that although the question of possible access to communion for some divorced in a new union has caused a stir, the Pope has tried - unsuccessfully - to take this step discreetly. Therefore, after developing the assumptions of this decision in the body of the document, the application to the communion of divorced in a new union was made explicit in the footnotes. This makes us understand the importance of the notes, especially of some, in Amoris Laetitia and among the really important notes it is necessary to insert precisely the n. 364. Amoris Laetitia in note 364 states: "Perhaps out of scruple, hidden behind a great desire for fidelity to the truth, some priests demand from penitents a resolution of repentance without any shadow, so that mercy fades under the search for justice hypothetically pure. For this reason it is worth remembering the teaching of St. John Paul II, who affirmed that the predictability of a new fall "does not prejudice the authenticity of the intention" (Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary [22 March 1996], 5: Insegnamenti XIX, 1 [1996], 589) "

Let us start first from the doctrine that we have already presented regarding the resolution necessary to obtain absolution.

We saw above that at n. 250 of the "Tridentine Catechism"[443] we find written:
"From what we have said, it is easy to deduce the conditions necessary for true contrition, conditions that must be explained to the faithful with the greatest diligence, so that all know by what means they can acquire it, and have a sure norm for discerning how far they are from the perfection of it. The first condition is hatred and detestation of all sins committed. If we detested only some of them, contrition would not be salutary, but false and simulated, since St. James writes: Whoever observes the whole law and lacks one thing, transgresses the whole law (Jas 2,10:18,21). The second is that contrition includes the intention to confess and to do penance: things we will talk about in its place. The third is that the penitent make a firm and sincere resolution to reform his life, as the Prophet clearly teaches: If the wicked do penance for all the sins he has committed, he will keep all my precepts and keep judgment and justice. , will live; nor will I remember any more of the sins he has committed. And further on: When the wicked will turn away from the wickedness he has committed and keep judgment and righteousness, he will give life to his soul. And further still: Repent and do penance for all your iniquities; so these will not go back to ruin. Throw away from you all the prevarications into which you have fallen, and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit (Ez 18,31:8,11 Ez 5,14:3,6,20). The Lord himself ordered the same thing in saying to the adulteress: Go and sin no more (Jn 250); and to the paralytic healed in the pool: Behold, you are healed: sin no more (Jn 1992). Moreover, nature and reason clearly show that there are two things absolutely necessary to make contrition true and sincere: repentance of sins committed, and the resolution not to commit them again for the future. Anyone who wants to reconcile with a friend whom he has offended must at the same time deplore the injury done, and be careful, for the future, not to offend the friendship again. These two things must necessarily be accompanied by obedience, since it is right for man to obey the natural, divine and human law to which he is subject. Therefore, if a penitent has violently or fraudulently stolen something from his neighbor, he is obliged to return it; if he has offended his dignity and his life with words or deeds, he must satisfy him with the performance of some service or some benefit. In this regard, everyone knows the saying of Saint Augustine: Sin is not forgiven unless the stolen goods are returned (Epist. CL94). " (n. 21 of the "Catechismo Tridentino" ed. Cantagalli XNUMX, n. XNUMX http://www.maranatha.it/catrident/XNUMXpage.htm)

We saw above that "Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant."[444]

We saw above that in the Major Catechism of s. Pius X is written: "

731. What does the resolution consist of? The resolution consists in a resolute will never to commit sin again and to use all the means necessary to escape it.

  1. What conditions must the resolution have to be good? In order for the resolution to be good, it must have mainly three conditions: it must be absolute, universal and effective.
  1. What do you mean: absolute resolution? It means that the resolution must be without any conditions of time, place, or person.
  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be universal? The resolution must be universal, it means that we must want to flee all mortal sins, both those already committed on other occasions, as well as others that we could commit.
  1. What does it mean: the resolution must be effective? The resolution must be effective, it means that we must have a resolute will to lose everything first than to commit a new sin, to flee the dangerous occasions of sinning, to destroy bad clothes, and to fulfill the obligations contracted as a result of our sins. .
  1. What is meant by bad dress? By bad habit we mean the disposition acquired to easily fall into those sins to which we have become accustomed.
  1. What needs to be done to correct bad clothes? To correct bad habits we must be vigilant over ourselves, pray a lot, attend confession, have a good stable director, and put into practice the advice and remedies he offers us.
  1. What is meant by dangerous occasions of sinning? By dangerous occasions of sinning we mean all those circumstances of time, place, people, or things that by their nature, or by our fragility, lead us to commit sin.
  1. Are we severely obliged to dodge all dangerous opportunities? We are gravely obliged to avoid those dangerous occasions which ordinarily lead us to commit mortal sin, which are called the proximate occasions of sin.
  1. What must one do who cannot escape some occasion of sin? Who can not escape some occasion of sin, tell the confessor and heed his advice.
  1. What considerations are needed to make the resolution? To make the resolution, the same considerations are needed, which are valid for arousing the pain; that is, the consideration of the reasons we have to fear the justice of Gd and to love the infinite goodness of him. "

Where, then, this Catechism speaks of the moment of absolution affirms: "768 D. The accusation of sins completes what remains to be done?"

We saw above that St. Alphonsus M. de 'Liguori explains in his works regarding the purpose of not sinning: “There are three conditions for the true purpose for confession: it must be firm, universal, and effective.

And for I. it must be stopped, so that the penitent has a resolute mind not to sin in any case. ...

For II. The purpose must be universal (speaking of mortal sins), as all teach with St. Thomas (III q. 87. a. 1. ad 1.) ... the particular purpose cannot be admitted, while each one has the will to avoid all the mortal sins that he can commit ... It has been said of mortal sins, because as for venial it is certain with s. Thomas (3. pq 87. a. 1. ad 1.), that it is enough to propose to abstain from anyone, without proposing to abstain from others (Lib. 6. n. 451. v. II. Requiritur.) . ...

For III. it must be effective, that is, that man proposes, not only not to commit sins, but also to take the opportune means to avoid them, especially to remove the next opportunities. But here one must be warned (whatever Fr Concina may say), that relapses are not always signs that the intentions previously made were not good, so that confessions made as invalid must always be repeated, because relapse is not always a sign that there was a will: but often it is only a sign of a changed will, while men often usually firmly propose and then go back to falling; and therefore the Roman ritual says: In peccata easy recidentibus utilissimum fuerit consulere, ut saepe confiteantur; et si expediat, communicent: he does not say that those who easily relapse should not be given absolution for the doubt that there is of their purpose, but that they should be advised as soon as possible, that they often confess and communicate: it is always understood that you know, there is the due disposition,... "[445]

Let us now see what the text of s precisely says. John Paul II quoted in note 364 of Amoris Laetitia "... The truth, which comes from the Word and must lead us to Him, explains why sacramental confession must derive from and be accompanied not by a mere psychological impulse, as if the sacrament is a substitute of psychological therapies, but from pain based on supernatural reasons, because sin violates charity towards God the Supreme Good, has caused the Redeemer's sufferings and procures for us the loss of eternal goods. From this perspective, it appears clear that confession must be humble, integral, accompanied by the solid and generous intention of the amendment for the future and finally by the confidence to achieve this same amendment. "[446] As we can see, the Polish Pope speaks of a solid and generous purpose ... which united with Confession must lead the penitent to renew, consolidate, direct his Christian life to holiness, that is, the life of supernatural charity, which is drawn from and exercised in the Church towards God, our Father, and towards men, our brothers. The Polish Pope speaks of pain based on supernatural reasons…. and the Catechism of St. Pius X, as seen, states: "

717. What does it mean that the pain must be supernatural? It means that he must be excited in us by the grace of the Lord and conceived for reasons of faith.

  1. Why does the pain have to be supernatural? The pain must be supernatural, because the end to which it is directed is supernatural, that is, God's forgiveness, the acquisition of sanctifying grace and the right to eternal glory.
  1. Do you better explain the difference between supernatural pain and natural pain? Whoever repents for having offended God infinitely good and worthy for himself to be loved, for having lost heaven and deserved hell, or for the intrinsic malice of sin, has supernatural pain because these are reasons for faith: who instead if he would repent only for the dishonor, or punishment that comes to him from men, or for some purely temporal damage, he would have a natural pain, because he would only repent for human reasons. "

The Polish Pope also states that "As for humility, it is evident that without it the accusation of sins would be a useless list or, worse, a protracted claim of the right to commit them: the" Non serviam ", for which the angels fell rebels and the first man lost himself and his offspring. Humility is indeed identified with the detestation of evil: “I recognize my guilt, my sin is always before me. Against you, against you alone I have sinned, what is evil in your eyes, I have done; therefore you are righteous when you speak, upright in your judgment "(Ps 51 (50), 5-6)."[447] The sin done must therefore be detested, hated…. The Catechism of St. Pius X states: “720. Why does the pain have to be great?

The pain must be the highest, because we must regard and hate sin as the highest of all evils, being an offense of God the highest Good. "

As can be seen, the s. Pope John Paul II in this letter reaffirms sound doctrine without any deviation from it and precisely in the light of sound doctrine the Polish Pope affirms: "It is also evident in itself that the accusation of sins must include the serious resolution not to commit them again. in the future. If this disposition of the soul were lacking, in reality there would be no repentance: this, in fact, concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not taking a position contrary to a possible moral evil would be not detesting evil, not having repentance. But just as this must first of all derive from the pain of having offended God, so the resolution not to sin must be based on divine grace, which the Lord never allows those who do what is possible to act honestly to fail. "[448] The words of the s. Father John Paul II affirm something very important in the text that I have just proposed to you: Confession requires a serious resolution not to sin anymore ... I underline a serious resolution ... and the Polish Pope adds that if such a serious resolution were missing, repentance would be lacking and therefore the confession would be null and void as we will see better later ... and as this text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly shows: "In any case, absolution can be granted only if there is certainty of true contrition, that is to say" the interior pain and the reprobation of the sin that has been committed, with the resolution not to sin again ”(cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c.4). In this line, a divorced and remarried person cannot validly be absolved who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and therefore abstain from the acts proper to the spouses, and in this sense doing everything in his power. " [449] … The absolution of the penitent who does not take the firm resolution not to sin anymore is not valid. St. John Paul II stated in another document: "Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Ancient and the New Covenant. "[450] … Without a sincere, firm and serious resolution not to sin anymore, confession is null and sins are not remitted! St. Alphonsus affirms in this regard “On the part of the penitent, the Confession is invalid. … If he doesn't have the pain and purpose due; especially if he does not want to give back as he owes the stuff, the honor, or the fame taken away: or if he does not want to take away the next voluntary opportunity. "[451] The same s. Alfonso in his "Theologia moralis" specifies that the confession is invalid if the penitent does not have the attraction[452]. St. John Paul II, as seen, in the letter to card. Baum quoted in note 364 by Amoris Laetitia[453] he is reiterating in a very precise way the sound doctrine and in the light of this doctrine he affirmed that repentance concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not to take a position contrary to a possible moral evil, it would be not to hate evil, not to have repentance. Those who do not seriously propose to sin in the future do not truly detest evil, sin and therefore are not truly repentant…. therefore he does not receive the remission of sins in the Sacrament ... The text of the Polish Pope also affirms, as seen, that while the detestation for sin must derive first of all from the pain of having offended God, the resolution not to sin must be based on divine grace, that the Lord never allows those who do what is possible to act honestly to fail. The resolution necessary for confession is based on divine grace, on God's help…. God wants to give us not to sin seriously, God wants us to be saints and we rely on his help to seriously propose not to sin anymore. If we are weak, God is almighty and wants to make us holy and he wants to free us from sins, Christ died to save us and make us holy! God wants to give us his divine life, which is precisely grace so that we live according to his word. It is not impossible to live according to the Law of God because God himself helps us to live according to the law that He has given us!

The Polish Pope continues: "It should also be remembered that the existence of the sincere resolution is one thing, the judgment of intelligence about the future is another: it is in fact possible that, despite the loyalty of the resolution not to sin anymore, the experience of the past and the awareness of the present weakness leads to the fear of new falls; but this does not affect the authenticity of the intention, when the desire, supported by prayer, to do what is possible to avoid guilt is combined with that fear. " " [454]

Here the Polish Pope touches precisely the point that the note 364 of Amoris Laetitia reports. We note that the Polish Pope speaks of a fear of sinning again that the penitent may have; but this fear does not invalidate, explains s. John Paul II, the true purpose, that is, the serious, sincere, solid resolution not to sin which, as we saw above, implies the purpose of fleeing the upcoming occasions of sin. I emphasize that the Pope speaks of a person who fears sinning not of a person who believes that he will return to sin, yes. Alfonso dealing with this topic affirms: “Here the doubt arises, whether the intention of someone is valid, who does not have the heart to sin, but he believes certain, that afterwards he will fall again. Suarez, Laym., Nav., Sporer etc., say that it is valid, because the purpose of the will can well be combined with the judgment of the intellect, which foresees a certain relapse for the experienced fragility. At the meeting, Fr. Concina also rehearses as infirm the intention of the one who is probably afraid of falling back. This second opinion is too rigid, and unreasonable, because the fear of falling again may well consist of the firmest intention that is given. But I don't like the first one either, at least practically speaking; since as La-Croix says well and Busembao is not far from this, in practice those who certainly believe that he has to fall again, gives to know that his purpose is not firm enough; while it is not possible that one, who already knows that God gives his help to those who hope for it, and asks him for it, and who does not allow anyone to be tempted more than his strength, firmly proposes to elect every evil first, that the offense of God, and who then certainly believes he will fall again; so if he believes this, it is a sign that his purpose is not firm. "[455]

And frankly the statements of s. Alphonsus appear to me to be completely convincing… especially if, as mentioned above, we consider that the true purpose of not sinning includes the purpose of fleeing the next occasions to sin. Therefore it is not possible that a man, who already knows that God gives his help to those who hope for it, and asks him for it, and knows that God does not allow anyone to be tempted more than his strength ... it is not possible for such a man to propose himself firmly to elect first every evil, that the offense of God proposes to flee the next occasions of sin and to pray in order to live according to God and then he certainly believes he will fall again; so if he believes this, it is a sign that his purpose is not firm. God's grace is not a theory or water, God's grace is divine life that comes into us and allows us to overcome every temptation to sin, especially if it is serious. Rightly Pope s. John Paul II highlights that true purpose is accompanied by trust and therefore with theological hope: "Trust is the possible and necessary exercise of supernatural Hope, for which we await from divine Goodness, for His promises and for the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior, eternal life and the graces necessary to achieve it. "[456] God calls us to holiness and wants to give us the ability to live his commandments and not to sin, in order to realize a true purpose of not sinning we must really trust him, hope in him and we must also have esteem for the supernatural life that God gives us; grace is not water, grace is divine, supernatural life that allows us to remain faithful to God and not to fall into sin.

In conclusion, it seems to me important to underline that s. John Paul II in this text reaffirms sound doctrine and affirms that in order to be absolved, a serious resolution not to sin together with trust and holy hope is needed, this purpose, according to sound doctrine, implies the intention to flee from the next occasions of sin.

Instead Pope Francis opens the doors to colossal errors in this field: he did not correct but rather supported the errors of Kasper, Coccopalmerio, Sistach, Elbs etc. and has publicly supported the affirmations of the Argentine Bishops who have set aside the purpose as an essential element for Confession and have opened the doors to the absolution of those who have no such purpose not to sin. Evidently scandalous appear, in this line, some events that appear to be bad fruits of Amoris Laetitia, such as the one for which the Cardinal of Portugal said that couples in irregular unions if they want to receive the sacraments must first try to live in continence, if this is the case. reveals impossible, they should go through a process of discernment that could lead them to rejoin the sacramental life of the Church, in the line of Amoris Laetitia, that is, even those who do not propose not to sin anymore can be admitted to receive the Sacraments ... (cfr. Patriarcado de Lisboa "Nota para a receção do capítulo VIII from exortação apostólica 'Amoris Laetitia'" 6.2.2018, www.patriarcado-lisboa.pt, https://www.patriarcado-lisboa.pt/site/index.php?id=8626) Obviously the Pope thanked the Patriarch with a special letter ... [457]

Another bad fruit of Amoris Laetitia is that for which spouses, divorced and remarried, while aware that their religious marriage is absolutely valid, are entitled to receive the Eucharist with the blessing of their Bishop, Antonio Marto, recently created a Cardinal by the Pope;[458] it is not clear that these divorced and remarried must make the resolution to live as a brother, if in conscience they believe they can receive the Sacraments they can receive them; in fact, as explained in the note issued by Msgr. Marto, it is not up to the spiritual adviser to make the decision, but to make sure that the whole process has gone as it should and to recognize the role of people's conscience; if so, he must also confirm, on the part of the Church, the decision made by the person or couple. In this way the process of accompaniment, discernment and integration will be concluded. Then, with the help of the spiritual advisor and his signature, the person or couple will write a testimony of the journey and the decision, in two copies. One remains in his possession and the other is sent to the diocesan bishop for knowledge of him.[459] So these people, while living more uxorio and continuing to live like this, can normally receive the Sacraments if in conscience they believe they can do it. ... and I am not aware that the Holy See has intervened ... do you think that these divorced and remarried people make Confessions if, as it seems, they do not have the true and serious intention of not sinning anymore !! … God intervene!

As I think I have already said, I myself listened to an Archbishop, a close collaborator of the Pope in the two Synods, who affirmed, in a meeting for priests only, that, to give the sacraments to the divorced and remarried, it was enough to commit them to a period of penance ... the resolution not to sin is no longer needed to be admitted to the sacraments of confession and therefore of the Eucharist!

On the other hand, if, as Amoris Laetitia says in n. 303, God can positively want a person to live practically in grave sin and there is no need for the resolution not to sin ... the indications of the German Bishops in this line, affirm that if the faithful who lives in a situation of notorious sin and perseveres in it wants to receive the Sacraments must be satisfied ...

Note 364 obviously must be inserted within this action by Pope Francis of opening for the subversion of doctrine and in particular for the subversion of doctrine regarding contrition and the purpose which is part of it.

More precisely, note 364, inserted in n. 311, discreetly attacks the sound doctrine about contrition and purpose and in particular attacks priests who "demand a repentance without any shadow whereby mercy fades under the search for a hypothetically pure justice" ... Obviously the Pope himself take care to reiterate and clarify the sound doctrine on the subject ... Its intent is obviously to unhinge the sound doctrine and open the doors to errors such as those of Sistach, Coccopalmerio, Elbs etc. ... then the Pope after attacking unspecified priests exalts mercy and presents the affirmations of St. John Paul II thinking he can draw from them support for his errors ... As seen, St. John Paul II in the text cited re-presents the sound doctrine on the necessity of contrition and purpose and for this doctrine justice is united with mercy and absolution to be valid requires that the penitent have a serious, universal and effective purpose which, accompanied by trust in God and from prayer and founded in his grace, may make the penitent sufficiently certain not to fall back into sin also because this resolution includes the intention to flee the next occasions of sin ...

Evidently everything that the sound doctrine affirms and s. John Paul II is radically different from the errors to which Pope Francis opens the doors so it is absurd that the latter wants to quote him to draw the statements of the Polish Pope in defense of the "paradigm shift" so if at first glance it might seem that this quote confers security doctrinal to the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia, after a careful examination we realize that the "patch is worse than the hole". The quote from St. John Paul II, carefully analyzed in the context of the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia, in fact, does nothing but more clearly unmask the subversion of the doctrine that the Argentine Pope is carrying out. The quote from St. John Paul II like those of St. Thomas (of which we speak elsewhere) does not refer only to an affirmation of the saint but to the correct interpretation of it in the true doctrine of these authors and therefore refers to their doctrine and to the sound Catholic doctrine, which they followed, and which stands out clearly contrast with the errors to which Pope Francis is opening the doors ...

Therefore, if to an inexperienced reader the quotation of these authors may seem to corroborate the statements of Pope Francis, on a more careful study it reveals a boomerang that "undermines the affirmations of the current Pope and his" openings "from the ground up, showing them errors with force ... and it should be noted that errors regarding contrition and the penitent's purpose are particularly serious because if the penitent lacks the necessary purpose, contrition is lacking and therefore the sacramental absolution imparted to him is null, as we will see later , and his sins are not forgiven him!

Note 364 refers to an important document by card. Vallini where he affirms that Amoris Laetitia opens access to the sacraments also for the divorced and remarried who do not propose to live as brother and sister; more precisely, this document refers to this note when it opens the doors, in the Diocese of Rome, with a very serious error, to Communion for those who believe in conscience that the first marriage celebrated by them is null and cannot prove such nullity in court. : “But when the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, that is to say when their journey of faith has been long, sincere and progressive, propose to live in continence; if then this choice is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple, Amoris Laetitia does not exclude the possibility of accessing Penance and the Eucharist (AL notes 329 and 364). This means some openness, as in the case where there is moral certainty that the first marriage was null, but there is no evidence to prove it in court; but not instead in the case in which, for example, one's condition is flaunted as if it were part of the Christian ideal, etc. "[460] The affirmations of the text of Cardinal Vallini make us understand the importance in relation to the subversion of the sound doctrine of note 364; it opens the doors, discreetly, for the divorced and remarried, who do not want to live as brother and sister, and who therefore do not propose to live according to the Law of God, to be equally admitted to the Sacraments ... more profoundly we can say that it supports the great edifice of the "paradigm shift" which, as mentioned, opens the doors so that even those who, according to sound doctrine, are in real serious sins (with serious matter, full warning and deliberate consent) feel justified in their evil, persevere in it and also receive the Sacraments as a reward for this. God intervene.

d) The necessary integrity of the Confession and some statements of Pope Francis on this topic.

The letter of S. John Paul to Card. Baum presented above also says something else very interesting, listen: "Confession must then be complete, in the sense that it must state" omnia peccata mortalia ", as expressly stated in session XIV, in chapter V the Council of Trent, which explains this necessity not within the limits of a simple disciplinary prescription of the Church, but as a requirement of divine law, because in the very institution of the sacrament so the Lord has established ...

... unfortunately today not a few faithful approaching the sacrament of penance do not make the complete accusation of mortal sins in the sense just mentioned in the Council of Trent and, sometimes, they react to the priest confessor, who dutifully questions about the necessary completeness, as if he allowed himself an undue intrusion into the shrine of conscience. I hope and pray that these poorly enlightened faithful will remain convinced, also by virtue of this present teaching, that the norm for which specific and numerical completeness is required, although honestly questioned memory allows to know, is not a burden imposed on them. arbitrarily, but a means of liberation and serenity. " [461]

The Polish Pope makes important affirmations based on practically dogmatic affirmations established by the Council of Trent for which the whole Church has always believed that the integral confession of sins was instituted by the Lord (cf. Jas 5, 6; 1 Jn 1, 9 ; Lk 5, 14 and 17, 14.), and that for all those who sinned after baptism it is necessary by divine right because Our Lord who was about to ascend from earth to heaven left the priests (cf. Mt 16 , 19; 18, 18; Jn 20, 23) vicars of himself, as leaders and judges (cf. Ambrose, "De Cain et Abel", II, 4 (CSEL 32/1, 391)), to whom they must refer all mortal sins, into which the faithful of Christ had fallen, so that, by virtue of the power of the keys, the priests themselves would pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of such sins. It is evident, in fact, that if the penitents declared their sins only generically, and not instead, in their species and one by one, the priests could not exercise this judgment without knowing the object nor could they impose penances with fairness; therefore it is necessary that penitents manifest in confession all the mortal sins of which they are aware after a diligent examination of conscience, even if these sins are completely hidden and were committed only against the two last commandments of the Decalogue (cf. Ex 20, 17; Deut 5, 21; Mt 5, 28.) [462]

Hence, when faithful Christians undertake to confess all the sins that come to their minds, they undoubtedly expose them all to divine mercy for forgiveness. Those, on the other hand, who do differently and consciously keep some of them silent, do not expose to divine goodness anything that must be returned through the priest. In confession, those circumstances must also manifest that change the species of sin: without them, in fact, neither the penitent fully exposes the same sins, nor could these be known by the judges and therefore it would be impossible for the judges to perceive exactly the gravity of the sins and to impose for it the punishment due to penitents.[463] To affirm that such a confession is impossible or to call it slaughter of consciences, as Luther said (“Homily for Palm Sunday” 1524, Weimar ed. 15, 484-485) is impious. Everyone knows, in fact, that the Church requires nothing more of penitents than that they confess - after each has diligently examined and explored all the most hidden corners of his conscience - those sins with which he remembers having mortally offended the his Lord and his God; the other sins, which do not come to mind to those who diligently examine themselves, are considered generically included in the same confession, for these we say with faith together with the prophet: From my hidden sins, purify me, Lord (Ps 18, 13.). The difficulty of this confession and the shame of having to manifest sins can certainly seem serious; but they are lightened by the many and so great advantages and consolations, that with absolution they are certainly bestowed on all those who worthily access this sacrament. The Church, with the Lateran council did not affirm that the Christian faithful should confess, - which she well knew was necessary and had been instituted by divine law -, but established that the obligation of confession was fulfilled at least once a year. by all and individuals those who had reached the age of reason (cf. Lateran Council IV, c. 21).[464]

And in the canons on the Sacrament of Penance, the Council of Trent stated: "If anyone says that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and individual mortal sins, which are remembered after due and diligent examination, even occult ones , even those committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue and also the circumstances that change the species of sin ... or that those who are trying to confess all sins do not want to leave any forgiveness to divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not permissible to confess venial sins, let it be anathema.

If anyone says that the confession of all sins, practiced by the Catholic Church, is impossible and that it is a human tradition that must be abolished by pious people, or that everyone and individuals are not obliged to it once a year the faithful of Christ of both sexes, according to the constitution of the great Lateran council[465] and therefore we must persuade the faithful of Christ not to confess in time of Lent, be anathema. "[466]

The Roman Catechism affirms in this regard. "255. Property of the confession
In making confession, many prescriptions must be observed, some of which belong to the very essence of the sacrament, while others are not so necessary. ...
First of all, the parish priests must teach that confession must be complete and absolute, since all mortal sins must be revealed to the priest. Venial sins on the other hand, which do not take away the grace of God and in which we fall more frequently, although they can be appropriately and usefully confessed, as the custom of good Christians shows, can nevertheless be neglected without guilt and expiated in many other ways. But, we repeat, mortal sins must be all and single utterances, even the most secret, like those that violate only the last two commandments of the Decalogue. … This is how the Council of Trent has defined (Sess. 14, e. 5 and can. 7) and has always taught the Catholic Church, as the testimonies of the Holy Fathers do. We read, for example, in Saint Ambrose: No one can be forgiven of a fault unless he has confessed his sin (Del parad. 14,71). … On this point the opinion of the holy doctors is unanimous.
In confession we must use that sum and most diligent care that we use in the most serious contingencies: we must aim with all our energies to heal the wounds of the soul and uproot the roots of sin. Nor should we limit ourselves to explaining grave sins in confession, but also the circumstances of each one, which greatly increase or decrease malice. ...
It is truly indispensable that the confession be integral and complete. Whoever deliberately confesses sins in part and in part omits them will not only not derive any advantage from confession, but will be guilty of a new guilt. Such a defective manifestation of sins cannot merit the name of sacramental confession. In this case the penitent will have to renew the confession, and moreover he has made himself guilty of another sin, because he has violated the sacramental sanctity with the simulation of the Confession. It should be noted, however, that the lacunae of the confession, not intentionally wanted, but coming from involuntary forgetfulness, or from a lack of exploration of one's conscience, even if the intention to confess all one's faults exists, do not require the whole confession to be repeated. On another occasion it will be enough to confess forgotten sins to the priest, after they have come back to memory. Care must be taken that the examination of conscience is not too brief and rapid. If we have been so negligent in examining ourselves on the sins committed, that it can be said of us that we did not really want to remember them, we will be bound to repeat the confession.
Confession must be frank, simple, open, not artificially conceived, as so many usually do who seem to make the story of their life more than confess their sins. It must show us to the Priest what we are, what we compare to ourselves, giving the certain for certain, the doubt for doubt. Such gifts will be lacking in confession, if sins are not clearly expressed, or if discourses extraneous to the matter are mixed in it. "[467]

The Catechism of St. Pius X states in this regard: "

744. What are the conditions that the accusation of sins or confession must have?

The main conditions that the accusation of sins must have are five: it must be humble, whole, sincere, prudent and brief.

  1. What does it mean: the accusation must be humble?

The accusation must be humble, it means that the penitent must accuse himself before his confessor, without haughtiness of soul or words, but with the sentiments of an offender, who recognizes his guilt and appears before the judge.

  1. What does it mean: the accusation must be complete?

The accusation must be complete, it means that all the mortal sins committed after the last well-made confession and of which one is aware must be manifested in their circumstances and in their number.

  1. What circumstances must arise for the accusation to be complete?

For the accusation to be complete, circumstances must manifest which change the species of sin.

  1. What are the circumstances that change the species of sin?

The circumstances that change the species of sin are:

those for which a sinful action from venial becomes mortal;

those for which a sinful action contains the malice of two or more mortal sins.

  1. Give me an example of a circumstance that makes a venial sin mortal.

Anyone who, to excuse himself, tells a lie from which serious harm would come to his neighbor, should manifest this circumstance that changes the lie from being offensive into seriously harmful.

  1. Now give me the example of a circumstance for which the same sinful action contains the malice of two or more sins.

Anyone who had stolen a sacred thing should accuse this circumstance which adds the malice of sacrilege to the theft.

  1. If someone is not sure that he has committed a sin, must he confess to it?

If someone is not sure that he has committed a sin, he is not obliged to confess to it; but if he wants to accuse him, he will have to add that he is not sure he has committed it.

  1. Who does not remember precisely the number of his sins, what must he do?

Whoever does not remember precisely the number of his sins, must accuse the approximate number.

  1. Has anyone who kept silent out of pure forgetfulness a mortal sin, or a necessary circumstance, made a good confession?

Anyone who has kept silent out of sheer forgetfulness about a mortal sin, or a necessary circumstance, has made a good confession as long as he has used due diligence to remember it.

  1. If a mortal sin forgotten in confession then comes to mind, are we obliged to accuse ourselves of it in another confession?

If a mortal sin forgotten in confession then comes to mind, we are undoubtedly obliged to accuse it the first time we confess again. "

Stated s. Antonio speaking of contrition and confession: "The sinner therefore, with the bow of confession must have the horn of sincere accusation, the dog of conscience that stings, in order not to leave out anything about sin and its circumstances."[468]

“These two… must… kill the devil and his pride and all that concerns him, that is, sin and its circumstances. And in this way they will be able to free their soul, their sister, a slave in the house of the devil, tied with the chain of bad habits. " [469]

The same holy Evangelical Doctor affirms: “And also in the wing of the confession there are four great feathers. The first is to humble oneself with the mind and body before the priest. ... The second is the complete and detailed accusation of one's sins ... The third is the clarification of the circumstances of the sin, which consists in the answer to these questions: What? Who? Where is it? By whom? How many times? Because? How? When? The fourth is the respectful and prompt acceptance of the penance ordered by the priest ... " [470]

S. Alfonso on the line of the Council of Trent states: “For IV. The confession must be complete, and here we must distinguish the material from the formal integrity. In itself, the confession must be materially complete, since the penitent is obliged to explain the species as well as the number of mortal sins. " [471]

Precise s. Alfonso: “We talked about material integrity; but sometimes formal integrity is enough in confession, that is, that the penitent confesses according to morally can by then, while remaining obliged to make the materially complete confession, when the impediment is removed, and there will be an obligation to confess to new one. So he excuses from material integrity the physical as well as moral impotence. And in the first place for physical impotence they are apologized for 1. the dumb, to whom, in time of death, as of the Easter precept, it is enough to explain a single sin by signs, if ever they could not explain the others (N. 479.). If the dumb, knowing how to write, are obliged to confess by writing their sins, Castrop., Gaet., Nav., Val. and others, saying, that such a mode is subject to the danger of manifestation. But more commonly and more likely Lugo, Bonac., Anacl., Croix, Salmat affirm it. ec., with s. Thomas (In 4. feels. distance 17. q. 3. a. 4. q. 3. ad 2.); while he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means. Of course, however, provided that these means are not notably difficult; because the mute is not obliged to write the confession, when there is extraordinary inconvenience, or when there is a danger that his sins will be known by others (Lib. 2. n. 479. n. 479. v. Quaer.). For 2. the deaf, who do not know how to explain their sins as they should, nor can they answer the questions of the confessor: this is understood by the deaf in everything, because the deaf must go somewhere remote to take their confessions. For 3. those who do not know the language of the country: these in time of the precept, or of other necessity, can well receive absolution by revealing the pain of their sins only by signs; nor are they required to confess as an interpreter, as Suarez, Vasquez, Lugo, etc. say. If then they are obliged to confess in this way in time of death; others affirm it, but others, such as Soto, Gaet., Castrop., Salmat., Viva, etc., probably deny it, if one were to doubt their contrition; because then they are obliged to confess only with the attrition they had, to receive grace through the sacrament, and also with contrition to receive the viaticum; but then it will be enough for them to make the confessor understand through the interpreter a simple venial sin (N. 479. v. 2.). For 4. the dying; but in this we must distinguish several things. [472]

Regarding moral impotence, s. Alfonso states: “39. Secondly, for reasons of moral impotence, the penitent is excused from material integrity, and the formal one will suffice in several cases: for 1. He is scrupulous, and is continually oppressed by the fear of past confessions, as Laymann commonly teaches, Illsung, Elbel and Holzmann. For 2. he is sick, and after having said one or two sins he fainted, or there was danger of fainting. For 3. If while the viaticum is brought to him, the confessor sees that past confessions have been void, and the sick person cannot then confess completely except with the danger of dying without absolution, or of scandal, as has been said to the previous head XV. at no. 24. And Roncaglia probably says the same, when there was an urgent need to celebrate or receive Holy Communion, and there was no time to finish confession. The same goes for a priest who had a reserved sin, and having the need to celebrate, there was no confessor who had the faculty, as was said in the preceding chapter n. 27. For 4. If the same priest were in danger of dying before giving absolution. For 5. When there is a grave danger of infection, because then the confessor can absolve the infected penitent, after having understood only one sin; Concina, Wigandt, Bonac., Abelly, and others. But if the confessor wants to hear the whole confession, the sick person is obliged to make it all (Lib. 6. n. 484. et 485.). For 6. If it overlooks shipwreck or combat; because then it is enough for each to say a single venial sin, and to confess himself a sinner in general; and then the priest can absolve everyone in general, saying: Ego vos absolvo etc. The only concurrence not of penitents, however, without any other cause, is not a sufficient reason to dismiss confessions, according to proposition 59. damned by Innocent XI. (No. 486.). For 7. If from the confession of any sin the penitent could prudently fear grave spiritual or temporal damage, whether personal or alien, v. gr. of revelation, of scandal (his or his confessor's), of death or infamy. But this is understood, when there is a need to confess because of some danger of death or to fulfill the Easter communion, or even (as Lugo, Enriquez, etc. say) if the penitent were in mortal sin, and otherwise he had to wait for two or three days to confess; indeed if even for just one day, according to what Lugo, Antoine, Viva, etc. say. (although for another purpose), as will be said in n. 40. follow. For 8. If he could not confess the sin without revealing the sacramental seal (N. 487. et 488.). "[473]

d, 1) The Confessor is required to inquire about the penitent's conscience and in some cases is obliged to question him.

S. Alfonso further explains that: “102. For I., therefore, the confessor is required to be fully informed of the penitent's conscience. The confessor is judge: the judge's office matters, that since the judge is obliged first to hear the reasons of the parties, then to examine the merits of the case, and finally to give the sentence: so the confessor must first inquire of his conscience of the penitent, then he must perceive his disposition, and finally give or deny absolution. And regarding the first obligation to inquire about the sins of the penitent, although the obligation of the examination belongs mainly to the penitent, nevertheless (although some dd. having examined the penitent sufficiently, he is obliged to question him, first of the sins he could have committed, and then of their species and number, as evidenced by the text in f. Omnis utriusque sexus, de poenit. etc., and from the Roman ritual4. And it does not matter that there is concurrence of penitents, while she is being damned by Innoc. XI. the prop. 5. which said: Licet sacramentaliter absolvere dimidiate tantum confessos, ratione magni concursus poenitentium "[474]

The Confessor is therefore obliged to instruct the penitent when he sees that he does not know the necessary things about faith or health: “For III. The confessor is obliged to instruct the penitent when he sees, or prudently judges, that he does not know the necessary things of faith or health. On the other hand, it will be enough for him to instruct her about the principal mysteries by then, before solving it, according to Chapter IV. num. 3., because as for the other things of necessity of precept, it is enough that the penitent promises to have them taught by others at least in substance; and confessors who have a lot of charity do not refuse to teach them themselves. Likewise, the confessor must instruct the penitent about the obligation to return the stuff, the fame, or the honor, to take away the next opportunity, to repair the scandal given, to make the correction, or alms when it is dee and c. Furthermore, he warns that if the penitent is indisposed, the confessor is required (as taught by Laym., Suar., Busemb., Sporer etc.) to do what he can to dispose him of absolution (Lib. 6. n. 608. v. Hic adverto.). " [475]

Finally, the confessor is obliged to admonish penitents: “For IV. The confessor is obliged to admonish the penitent. But in order to make the necessary admonitions not only the confessor must inquire about the species and number of sins, but also their origin and causes, in order to apply the appropriate remedies. Some confessors ask only the species and the number of sins, and nothing more; if they see the penitent willing, they absolve him; if not, without telling him anything, they immediately fire him, saying: go, I can't absolve you. Good confessors do not do this: they first begin to investigate the origin and seriousness of the evil: they ask the custom and the occasions that the penitent has had to sin: in what place: in what time: with what people: with what conjuncture ; since in this way they can better make the correction, dispose the penitent for absolution, and apply the remedies to him.

Having made the aforementioned questions, and having thus well informed the confessor of the origin and seriousness of the evil, he is to proceed to make the necessary correction or admonition. Although he as a father must charity to hear penitents, he is nevertheless obliged as a doctor to admonish them and correct them as necessary: ​​especially those who rarely confess, and are aggravated by many mortal sins. And this is also required to do it with accountants, magistrates, princes, priests, parish priests and prelates, when they confess to some serious deficiency with little feeling. Pope Benedict XIV said. in the bull, Apostolica, §. 22., that the admonitions of the confessor are more effective than the sermons from the pulpit; and with reason, while the preacher does not know the particular circumstances, as the confessor knows them; wherefore he can make the correction much better, and apply the remedies to evil. And so too the confessor is obliged to admonish whoever is in ignorance guilty of some obligation of him, either of natural or positive law. That if the penitent ignores her without fault, then when ignorance is about the things necessary for health, or even if she harms the common good, in every respect the confessor must admonish him of the truth, even if he did not hope for fruit. "[476]

Pope Benedict XIV said in this regard that "If the Confessor knows that the penitent commits some sins of which he is not accused ... the Confessor who has the obligation to preserve the integrity of the Confession must in a good way refer to his remember what he omits, correct him, admonish him, inducing him to a true Penance. "[477] The Confessor is obliged to diligently examine the conscience of the sinner "... not only in those things that the penitent keeps silent" either out of negligence or out of shame ", but also in those who keep silent out of ignorance:" ... since it can be feared that the penitent you ignore out of crass ignorance that according to William it is not an excuse; or because he does not understand that that action is a sin; in fact, according to Isidore, the ignorant sins every day, and he doesn't know it ”.[478]

Benedict XIV then continues the discourse stating that “In fact, since we are not dealing with some positive jus, from which a disorder known to the Confessor and unknown to the penitent has arisen, so much so that if it were notified to the latter it could result in some serious inconvenience; but now it is a question of conquerable ignorance, of actions that everyone should know are sinful; of things that if neglected by the Confessor give reason to the penitent to continue in his iniquitous custom, and to others or to be scandalized or to consider such things as indifferent (since they are practiced with great ease by those who frequent the Sacraments of the Church), the Theologians agree in affirming that the Confessor is obliged to question and admonish the penitent, regardless of the displeasure that, by admonishing him, he will give him, and hoping that if perhaps at that moment the admonition will not be entirely beneficial, it will be in future with God's help. "[479]. The same doctrine is affirmed by s. Alfonso M. de Liguori  [480]

Therefore the priest must question the penitent, when necessary, about his sins, this is fundamental to carry out his function as judge.

As seen, also s. John Paul II reiterates this great truth when he affirms: "Unfortunately today not a few faithful approaching the sacrament of penance do not make the full accusation of mortal sins in the sense just mentioned by the Council of Trent and, sometimes, they react to the priest confessor, who dutifully questions in order to the necessary completeness, as if he allowed himself an undue intrusion into the shrine of conscience. I hope and pray that these poorly enlightened faithful will remain convinced, also by virtue of this present teaching, that the norm for which specific and numerical completeness is required, although honestly questioned memory allows to know, is not a burden imposed on them. arbitrarily, but a means of liberation and serenity. "[481] The questions of the priest serve, as is evident, to ensure what the Council of Trent, from the top of its fundamental affirmations, requires. And in this regard it should be emphasized that as the Council of Trent says: when the Christian faithful undertake to confess all the sins that come to their minds, they undoubtedly expose them all to divine mercy so that they forgive them, those who do otherwise. and they consciously keep silent about some of them, they do not expose to divine goodness anything that must be remitted through the priest; which means that, as s. Alfonso: “For the penitent's part, the confession is invalid. .. If he leaves out of malice, or guilty negligence, to confess any serious sin. "[482] Anyone who neglects to confess some serious sin through malice or guilty neglect renders the confession invalid!

The Catechism of St. Pius X states: "

755. Who out of shame, or for some other reason guilty keeps silent in the confession some mortal sin, what commits? He who out of shame or for some other reason guilty keeps silent some mortal sin in confession, profanes the sacrament and therefore makes himself guilty of a very serious sacrilege.

  1. Who has culpably kept silent about some mortal sin in confession, how should he provide for his conscience? Whoever has culpably kept silent some mortal sin in the confession, must expose the unspoken sin to the confessor, say in how many confessions he has kept silent about it and repeat all the confessions from the last well done one.
  1. What must one consider who is tempted to silence some sin in confession? Whoever was tempted to keep silent about a grave sin in confession must consider: that he did not have the redness of sinning in the presence of God, who sees everything; that it is better to manifest one's sins to the confessor in secret than to live restlessly in sin, have an unhappy death and therefore be shamed in the day of the universal judgment in the face of the whole world; that the confessor is obliged to carry the sacramental seal under very grave sin and with the threat of very severe temporal and eternal penalties. "

d, 2) Some "significant" statements by Pope Francis regarding the integrity of the Confession and regarding the questions of the Confessor.

Let us now see some statements by Pope Francis on the necessary integrity of the Confession and on the questions that the Confessor, as we have seen, must ask the penitent. Listen to this video entitled: Pope Francis: "Priest in confession, do not dig the soul but bring God's forgiveness"  [483]

Listen to this speech to some confessors “It is the moment in which we entrust ourselves to the mercy of God, and we have full confidence in being understood, forgiven and supported by Him. We give great space to this desire for God and for his forgiveness; let us make it emerge as a true expression of the grace of the Spirit which provokes the conversion of the heart. And here I recommend that you understand not only the language of speech, but also that of gestures. If someone comes to you and feels that he has to take something off, but maybe he can't say it, but you understand ... and he's fine, he says it like this, with the gesture of coming. First condition. Second, he is repentant. If someone comes to you it is because he would like not to fall into these situations, but he does not dare to say it, he is afraid to say it and then not be able to do it. But if he can't do it, ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. And the Lord understands these things, the language of gestures. Open arms, to understand what is inside that heart that cannot be said or said like this ... a little bit of shame ... you understand me. You all receive with the language they can speak with.

... So many times shame makes you dumb ... A few months ago I spoke with a wise cardinal of the Roman Curia about the questions that some priests ask in confession and he said to me: "When a person begins and I see that he wants to throw something out, and me I realize and I understand, I tell her: I understand! Don't worry! ”. And forward. This is a father. "[484]

Listen to what the Pope says in the interview book made with him by a certain Wolton: “I know a cardinal who is a good example. Speaking of these things, he confided to me that as soon as someone goes to him to talk to him about those sins under his belt, he immediately says: 'I understand, let's move on to something else'. He stops him, as if to say: 'I understand, but let's see if you have something more important. Do you pray? Are you looking for the Lord? Do you read the Gospel? ' He makes him realize that there are far more important mistakes than that. Yes, it's a shame, but… he says to him: 'I understand': And he moves on to something else. On the contrary, you are certain that when they receive the confession of such a sin they ask: 'How did you do it, and when did you do it, and for how long?'… And they make a 'movie' in their head. But these need a psychiatrist "[485]

I understand that there may be some extreme cases of confessors who ask indiscreet questions but let us ask ourselves: these teachings of Pope Francis serve to teach and reaffirm to people the sound Catholic doctrine that all mortal sins must be fully confessed, as the Council of Trent teaches. and why the confessor must ask questions in certain cases to understand well the type of sins into which the penitent has fallen? … It seems to me not. And if I think of the errors to which this Pope is "opening" the doors regarding contrition and the terrible fruits that Amoris Laetitia is spreading, I must fear that even the declarations we have seen in this paragraph will bear terrible fruits and increase the number of Confessions. invalid because, as the Catechism of St. Pius X in the line of the Council of Trent: “Who out of shame, or for some other reason guilty keeps silent in confession some mortal sin, what does he commit?

Anyone who out of shame or for some other reason culpably keeps silent about some mortal sin in confession, profanes the sacrament and therefore makes himself guilty of a very serious sacrilege. "(Catechism of St. Pius X n. 755)

God intervene!

14) The sacramental absolution given to the penitent who lacks contrition is invalid.

Here we are at a very important topic that we will examine in the following pages, that of the nullity of the sacramental absolution given to the penitent who lacks contrition. May the almighty and infinitely wise Lord grant us to participate supremely in divine wisdom and charity and fill us with profound humility and with perfect and holy obedience. St. John Paul II and the holy Doctors pray for us and obtain us full submission to the holy Truth.

a) Biblical basis and patristic teaching.

As we saw above, “In the Old and New Testaments, both sin and man's conversion are not understood in a purely individualistic way. … On the other hand, the prophets of the seventh and sixth centuries BC already discovered the personal responsibility of every man. … And more particularly, the grace of conversion requires a threefold answer from man. In the first place, a real change of heart is needed, a new spirit and sentiment "with a radical orientation towards God and a total renunciation of sin. "Secondly, we already see Jeremiah expect from the sinner a public confession of his guilt and the promise of amendment" before the Lord "(Jer 36: 5-7)." Jesus asks, along this line, a generous faith (cf. Mk 1, 15, Mk 10,52), a confession full of repentance with the request for forgiveness (Lk 18, 10-14;) "Finally, penance must be expressed in a radical change in life as a whole and in all its sectors. This requirement entails above all the practice of justice and the disposition to forgive one's neighbor (cf. Mt 18, 21s. And 23-35; Lk 17, 4). "[486]

The grace of conversion therefore implies:

1) a real change of heart, a new spirit and feeling with a radical orientation towards God and a total renunciation of sin;

2) a public confession of one's guilt and the promise of amendment, which with Christ becomes generous faith, a confession of repentance and a request for forgiveness

3) a radical change of life according to the Word of God.

The International Theological Commission explains in particular regarding conversion to the NT: “Jesus knows that the salvation brought by the kingdom of God that comes (Lk 10, 23 f) is already present in his own existence. For him, therefore, the center of the need for conversion lies in the believing and filial acceptance of the salvation already promised (Mk 10, 15), in the full adherence of faith to his Person (Lk 12, 8 ff.), In the listening to his word and in faithful observance of it (Lk 10, 38-42; 11, 27 s.), in other words in following him (cf. Mt 8, 19 s .; 21 s.). … The obligation to walk in the wake of Jesus crucified, founded in our baptism (cf. Rom 6, 3 ff.), Gives penance its fundamental form. " [487] The heart of the need for conversion in the New Testament therefore lies in the believing and filial acceptance of the salvation already promised, in the full adherence of faith to the Person of Christ, in listening to his word and in faithful observance of it, in other words in the following him on the way of the cross by participating in his own life, in grace, as the Theological Commission explains in the following text: “Redemption from sin, in other words the forgiveness of sins, is therefore accomplished through admirabile commercium. "He who had known no sin, God treated him as sin in our favor, so that we might become God's righteousness through him" (2 Cor 5, 21; cf. Rom 8, 3 f .; Gal 3, 13; 1 Pt 2, 24)… Christian penance is a participation in the life, suffering and death of Jesus Christ. And this takes place per fidem et caritatem et per fidei sacramenta (S. Thomas Aq., Summa Theol. III, 49, 3.6.). Christian penance finds its foundation in baptism, the sacrament of conversion for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and the sacrament of faith; it must determine the whole life of the Christian (cf. Rom 6: 3 ff.). "[488]

Jesus is very clear in affirming that salvation is achieved by doing the will of his Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 7,21:XNUMX), only by carrying out this will does one enter the kingdom of heaven, therefore all are called to live in the will of God, in the divine holy commandments, out of this there is sin and therefore eternal damnation.

Those who have sinned gravely must necessarily convert to enter the Kingdom of Heaven ... and for those who do not want to convert, the words of the Gospel of St. Matthew: “Any sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks ill of the Son of man will be forgiven; but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven him either in this century or in the future "(Mt 12,31).

In the Catechism we read in n. 1034: "Jesus repeatedly speaks of" gehenna ", of the" inextinguishable fire "(cf. Mt 5,22.29; 13,42.50; Mk 9,43-48.) Which is reserved for those who refuse to believe until the end of life. to convert, and where both soul and body can perish. (Cf Mt 10,28.) "

The prophet Ezekiel stated, under inspiration: “Son of man, tell the children of your people: The righteousness of the righteous does not save him if he sins, and the wicked one does not fall for his wickedness if he turns from his wickedness, like the righteous will not be able to live for his justice if he sins. 13 If I say to the righteous: "You will live", and he, trusting in his righteousness, commits evil, none of his good deeds will be remembered anymore and he will die in the evil he committed. 14 If I say to the wicked one, "You will die," and he turns from his sin and does what is right and just, 15 he returns the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, keeps the laws of life, without committing evil, he will live and will not die; 16 none of the sins committed will be remembered anymore: he has practiced what is upright and just and will certainly live. "(Ezekiel 33, 12ss) For us this means in particular that whoever has seriously sinned must necessarily convert to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and to have eternal life.

Dying in mortal sin without accepting God's merciful love through our repentance means our self-exclusion from communion with God forever by our free choice. The state of our definitive and voluntary separation from communion with God and with the blessed is designated with various terms: eternal damnation, hell, Gehenna, eternal punishment, eternal death etc. (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1033)

The Holy Spirit convinces man of his sin and of the need for conversion: “And when he comes, he will demonstrate the guilt of the world regarding sin, righteousness and judgment. 9 Regarding sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you will see me no more; 11 regarding judgment, because the prince of this world is already condemned. "(Jn 16,8: 9-XNUMX)

This Spirit, in fact, is the Spirit of Truth: "When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me." (Jn 15,26:16,13) ... it is the Spirit who guides to complete Truth: "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth" (Jn 1,15:13) ... it is the Spirit of Christ who has called everyone to conversion: "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is now near; convert and believe in the Gospel "(Mk 5:XNUMX) .. it is the Spirit of Christ who said" ... if you are not converted, you will all perish in the same way "(Luke XNUMX: XNUMX)

To be saved, we must allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God. adopted children, through whom we cry out: «Abbà! Father!". 15 The Spirit himself, together with our spirit, attests that we are children of God. 16 And if we are children, we are also heirs: heirs of God, joint heirs of Christ, if we truly share in his sufferings to share in his glory as well. " (Rm. 17ff) Our salvation is in the welcome, necessary, of Christ and of the divine sonship that He offers us: "But to those who welcomed him he gave power to become children of God: to those who believe in his name, 8,14 which, not by blood or by the will of flesh or by the will of man, but by God were generated. "(Jn 13, 1-12) But this implies, for the sinner, the need for conversion, of the "denial of ourselves" to allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit and to follow Christ on the path of the commandments which is the way of the Cross; without this “denial” and this conversion, grace that is divine life does not live in us, Jesus also says this when he affirms: “If anyone wants to follow me, deny himself, take up his cross every day and follow me. "(Luke 13) and again:" He who does not carry his own cross and does not come after me, cannot be my disciple. "(Luke 9,23) Guided by the Spirit and accepting divine grace we are saved:" For by grace you are saved through faith; and this does not come from you, but it is a gift of God; 14,27 nor does it come from works, so that no one may boast of it. "(Eph. 9-2,8)

By grace we are saved ... but grace must be welcomed precisely with conversion and self-denial ... without conversion from grave sin we do not accept grace and we are not saved ...

In this light we must also see the forgiving power exercised by Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this in various ways in n. 1446 and n. 1442 speaking of the Sacrament of Confession; at no. 1442 in particular speaks of the Apostles as those to whom he entrusted the exercise of the divine power to forgive sins (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1442)

This "task of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, also appears to have been granted to the college of Apostles, united with its head (cf. Mt 18,18; 28,16-20)".[489]

After his Resurrection, Jesus said to his apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit; to whom you forgive sins will be forgiven and to whom you do not forgive, they will remain not forgiven "(Jn 20,22-23); He thereby gave them his divine power to forgive sins (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 976). But this power of remission of sins implies the conversion of the man who receives the remission and in fact, as we have seen, Jesus calls to conversion, calls to a change of life, as can be clearly seen in the episode of the forgiven adulteress (cf. Jn. 8); the prodigal son embraces his father again after retracing his steps and recognizing his sin (cf. Luke 15); salvation reaches sinners who break the sinful past with their own, see in particular the case of Zacchaeus (cf. Luke 19); St. Peter replies to those who asked him what they should do: ““ Repent therefore and change your life, so that your sins may be forgiven ”(Acts 3,19:XNUMX)… God saves us ordinarily with our collaboration.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in n.1447 that although the cocreta form has undergone variations, the fundamental structure of this sacrament has always remained the same: "It involves two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who is converted under the action of the Holy Spirit: that is, contrition, confession and satisfaction; on the other hand, the action of God through the intervention of the Church. ”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1448)… contrition has always been essential for the Sacrament of Confession! Without contrition and therefore without conversion there is no forgiveness of serious sins. The Council of Trent will say significantly precisely that the act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins.[490]

With regard to Penance in the ancient Church, in particular, prof. Roncari states: "Summarizing as much as possible and passing over differences, even notable ones, between the various great churches (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria ..), we can summarize in three moments the celebration of penance and forgiveness: the request for forgiveness made to the bishop and entry into the state of the Penitents; a time of penance that can last from a few months to many years, or even for a lifetime; reconciliation through the laying on of hands by the bishop. The penitential state was very hard and demanding and many began to postpone it until old age. It should also be noted that in the experience of sin the wound that this produces in the body of the Church and the need to heal it with medicines, even strong and bitter, are emphasized in particular. "[491]

In a famous text on the history of the Church we read: “The ancient Church, as a“ community of saints ”demanded a high standard of moral life from its members. The baptismal seal ... had to be kept "sacred and inviolable" (II Clem. 6,9; 8,6) "[492]

According to p. Adnès: "Les écrits des Pères dits apostoliques (DS, t. 1, col. 790-96), qui sont les plus anciens après ceux, canoniques, du Nouveau Testament, ne montrent sans doute pas encore l'existence d'une institution pénitentielle aussi organisée que cells qu'on rencontrera plus tard. … De la part des pécheurs par contre, s'ils veulent être sauvés, le repentir-conversion du fond du coeur (2a clementis éd. H. Hemmer, 2e éd., Paris, 1926, VIII ,. 1-3, p. 146), qui exige la rupture avec le péché et l'obéissance à la will divine (IX, 7-11, p. 150), constitue une grâce due au sang répandu par le Christ pour notre salut (Clément de Rome, Clément de Rome, Épître aux Corinthiens SC 167, 1971 7, 4, p. 110), et représente un enseignement fundamental de la tradition scripturaire (7, 5 à 8, 5, p. 110-14); puis l'exomologèse ou confession des péchés, qui paraît revêtir la forme d'un rite extérieur (51, 3, p. 182; 52, 1, p. 184), qu'il faut accomplir pendant que nous en avons encore le temps , "Car après être sortis du monde, nous ne pouvons plus la-bas faire l'exomologèse ni la penitence" (2a clementis VIII, 3, p. 146); et enfin les oeuvres satisfactoires par lesquelles on cherche à apaiser Dieu: prière, jeûne, aumône (XVI, 4, p. 162). "[493] This for us essentially means that in the early days of Christianity we do not see a penitential institution as well defined as we will see later but in any case those who wanted to be saved had to repent from the bottom of their hearts for their sins which implied breaking with sin. and obedience to the divine will. The letter of S. Clemente and Clemente's so-called “Second Letter” are extremely clear about it. As the Council of Trent will say: the act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins (cf. Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna , 2003, n. 1676).

St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the letter to the Philadelphians (96 AD, approximately) says: "God forgives all penitents if they convert to union with him and communion with the bishop"

Origen states in "Contra Celsum" 3,50 that Christians mourn as dead those who are guilty of debauchery or other sin because they have died for God. But if they give sufficient proof of a sincere transformation of their heart they are readmitted into a 'further epoch as if they were resurrected from the dead (cf. J. Quasten “Patrologia” ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. I p. 355) This transformation obviously implies true conversion and therefore contrition. Pierre Adnès specifies: "Qu'il y ait une" second pénitence "par laquelle on obtient le pardon des fautes commises après le baptême, c'est ce qu'explique Clément d'Alexandrie (qui enseigne au Didascalée de cette ville entre 180- 200). Mais ce pardon diffère de la rémission des péchés conférée par le baptême parce qu'il réclame une purification douloureuse et une lente guérison, grâce à ces remèdes que sont la prière, le jeûne et les oeuvres de charité. C'est l'exomologèse qui, de même que pour Irénée, semble se référer à une pratique déterminée, s'accomplissant dans un contexte ecclésial et embrassant les divers actes pénitentiels (Stromates II, 12, 55, 6; 13, 56, 1 -2; 13, 58, 1; 13, 59, 3, SC 38, 1954, p. 79-82). Aucun péché, même des plus graves, n'est exclu (Quis dives salvetur 42, 1-15, éd. O. Stählin, 958 GCS 17, 1909, p. 187-91: histoire du jeune brigand convert par l'apôtre Jean ). "[494] The second penance after Baptism is painful, it implies prayer, fasting and works of charity… as well as, of course, true conversion and abandonment of sinful works, as seen above.

Tertullian, in his important treatise De paenitentia, speaks, in this regard, of a second penance granted only once after Baptism and to obtain which the sinner, in addition to not continuing to break the Law of God, must confess his guilt to the Lord and must perform various penitential practices; this penance, which was an ecclesiastical institution, ended with an official absolution, carried out by the Pastors, which fully reintegrated the sinner into the Church (cf. J. Quasten “Patrologia” ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. I p. 541). It should be noted that first of all with Hermas in his "Pastor" this penance was granted only once after Baptism while, according to Bihlmeyer-Techle, for other Fathers such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria this penance is indicated without restrictions as a second means of salvation after Baptism. and Tertullian himself still admits penance on his deathbed [495] According to P. Adnès the uniqueness of the second Penance, so that there can be no ecclesial Penance for those who seriously sins after it, is the characteristic of the most ancient Penance[496]

Therefore the only possible Penance after Baptism was a characteristic of the most ancient ecclesial penitential discipline and was made known by Hermas with her Shepherd and was clearly affirmed by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian; s. Ambrogio and s. Augustine likewise affirmed it in a clear way, giving it justifications; It is not clear whether this second Penance could be offered to the faithful, who lived in penance after his further fall, in danger of death. [497] This post-baptismal penance allowed the sinner to recover the state of grace and consisted essentially in conversion and satisfaction, its final step was the ecclesiastical reconciliation conferred by the Bishop who also had the power to impose the excommunication (cf. J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009, v. I p. 568)

According to s. Cyprian no one is excluded from this second penance and there are no unshakable sins, this penance involves three acts: confession, satisfaction proportionate to sin and the reconciliation that follows this satisfaction (cf. J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009 , Reprint, v. I p. 568) Obviously the penitent had to change his life, that is to convert to obtain such reconciliation.

The Syriac Caption of the Apostles is very clear in affirming that those who repent can be admitted into the Church but those who do not repent are cut off and separated from the faithful (see J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. I p. 409).

The penitential discipline is clarified and strengthened in the fourth century and for us it is of particular interest to examine the rite of the readmission of the penitent in the refessions of P. Adnès, as we can see, in the rite on the one hand there is the action of the Church through the Bishop and the other sacred ministers and on the other hand there is the penitent who, prostrate on the ground, after the penitential journey, with the radical commitment not to fall into grave sin anymore, accepts the words of the Bishop who urges him to beware of sin and therefore listen to the prayers made by the Bishop and the deacon before the Bishop imposes his hands on the penitent himself, thus sanctioning the full return of the penitent in the life of the Church[498]. It should be noted that some consequences of this second Penance will weigh on the penitent for his entire life: not only can he not be admitted to sacred orders (cf. Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua, Canon 84, CCL 148, 179), but he cannot contract marriage or benefiting from the marriage already contracted, is condemned to an almost monastic life in the world. This post-penitential discipline, which the East does not seem to know, is attested for the West by some texts of the fourth and fifth centuries [499]

St. Basil the Great, author of the three important canonical letters to Anfilochio d 'Iconium in which he presents us with detailed ordinances on the penitential discipline, (see J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. II p. 226) in one of them he clearly explains that whoever has sinned by contaminating himself with his sister must not be allowed to enter the house of prayer before having renounced his unjust conduct. When he has become aware of this frightening sin he first of all weeps for three years standing at the door of the house of prayer asking for prayers to those who enter it; then he is to be admitted for three years only to hear the scriptures and instruction and then be put out of the house of prayer; afterwards, if he asked with tears and threw himself before the Lord with contrition of heart, let him be allowed to assist on his knees for another three years; in the tenth year, if he has shown worthy fruits of penance, he is only admitted to prayer, and in it he must remain standing and in the twelfth year he can take Communion (see J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. II p. 236).

Theodore of Mopsuestia speaks to us very clearly of the Sacrament of Penance and of the need to receive it in order to prepare ourselves worthily for Communion, if we have committed serious sins: he speaks of the need for penance and therefore of the remedy of contrition that God has given us for the remission of sins. (cf. J. Quasten "Patrologia" ed. Marietti, 2009, Reprint, v. II p. 426) After penance, the sinner must re-establish himself in the same confidence he had before, because he has amended himself and obtained remission with penance of faults (see J. Quasten “Patrologia” ed. Marietti, 2009, Ristampa, v. II p. 426).

As the Council of Trent will say: true contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins.[500]

St. Ambrose affirms in his writing on Penance: “Some ask to be admitted to penance only because they want communion to be returned to them immediately. They try not so much to loosen themselves as to bind the priest. In fact they do not relieve their own conscience, and aggravate that of the priest, who had this order: "Do not give holy things to dogs and do not throw your pearls to swine" (Matt., 7, 6. ...), that is : participation in sacred communion must not be allowed to unclean impurities. " (S. Ambrogio. "La penitenza" in Works (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 1279-12983). UTET. Edition of Kindle 2013, book II, 9,87) We understand from these words that penance it must lead to a true conversion of life, otherwise it only serves to condemn the penitent more gravely and whoever gives him the sacraments.

Continue s. Ambrose: "Therefore the Lord rightly says:" If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me "(Matt. 16, 24). Those who died with Christ and were buried with him (cf. Rom., 6, 4-8; Coloss., 2, 20), no longer have to return to dispose of this world, as if they were still alive. It is written: "Do not take, do not touch, all things destined to disappear in their own use" (Coloss., 2, 21), precisely because the very use of this life corrupts our innocence. Therefore penance is an excellent thing! "[501] Penance implies a radical transformation in man, it implies a true conversion… and true contrition.

Contrition and therefore true conversion has always been necessary for a true remission of sins; it is God who forgives through the Church and God is not satisfied with only apparent conversions, he wants a change of heart and life (cf. Ez. 23; Gl 2,12-13; Is 1,16-17; Mt 6,1 -6.16-18) otherwise there is no forgiveness.

The need for true conversion and contrition for salvation also emerges from this text of St. Augustine: " A contrite spirit is sacrifice to God, a contrite and humiliated heart God does not despise him (Ps 50:19). So here you have what to offer. Do not look around in search of the flock, do not prepare ships to go to distant regions to bring aromas. Search within your heart for what may be pleasing to God. It is the heart that must be broken. Are you afraid that, broken, it will perish? But in the same psalm you find: Create in me, O God, a pure heart (Ps 50, 12.) . So that a pure heart can be created, the impure one must be broken. "[502]

In this line we mean that contrition makes us holy, as the Doctor of Hippo himself explains: "Confession and a prudent and humble way of life makes us holy: praying with faith, having a contrite heart, sincere tears gushing from the heart, so that we may be forgiven of sins, which we cannot avoid in life. Recognizing them is our salvation, according to the expression of the apostle John: If we recognize our sins he is faithful and just because he forgives us our sins and purifies us from all guilt. "[503]

Sin must be repaired with penance and contrition, says St. Augustine:

“And what did he offer the Lord to propitiate him? He said: If you had wanted a sacrifice I would have offered it to you; but you do not delight in sacrifices. The sacrifice pleasing to God is the contrite spirit; Indeed, God does not despise a broken and humiliated heart. So David not only made his offering with a devoted soul but, with these words, he also indicated what is to be offered. In fact, it is not enough to change one's behavior for the better and not sin anymore; we also need reparation to God for what has been done; the pain of penance, the groan of humility, the offering of a contrite heart and alms. Indeed, the merciful are blessed because God will have mercy on them. "[504]

Contrition is needed to atone for sin.

But contrition and penance imply the passage to a new, holy life, as the holy Doctor of Hippo himself explains: “I see here present a multitude of penitents, who form a very long line at the moment of the laying on of hands. Pray, o penitents! and penitents go to pray. Here, I begin to examine these penitents and I realize that they continue to live badly. And how can you repent

of one thing if you keep doing it? If you are repentant, stop doing it! " [505]

For the remission of grave sin the Church has always required a change of life, contrition, that is, true conversion. The Council of Trent will say that true contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins.[506]

Contrition is a constant of true penance and therefore is necessary for the remission of sins through the Sacrament of Penance.

b) The teaching of medieval authors up to the XNUMXth century. and the statements of the Lateran Council II.

Even the so-called "tariffed" penance introduced by the monks of northern Europe and then spread throughout Europe implies the conversion of the person and therefore true contrition; it, explains Fr. Adnès, is a rather simple form of penance, which includes a confession made secretly to the priest, with a detailed accusation of sins, their frequency and their circumstances. The priest imposes a satisfaction to be done privately. Until the satisfaction is completed, the penitent must abstain from communion. Then the penitent returns to the priest to receive reconciliation or absolution, which is administered outside the presence of the people, and therefore, in a sense, privately.

In some cases the priest gives absolution immediately after confession, for example if the penitent lives too far away to return easily. This type of penance, which derives in its external form from the confession belonging to the monastic environment, has the characteristic existence of types of "tariffs" which determine for each species of sins the satisfaction that must be prescribed by the confessor. Hence the name of "tariffed" penance often applied to this penance. Unlike canonical penance, prized penance is open to all sins, not only serious, daily and venial. It can also be repeated when necessary, even in the event of a relapse. Clerics are admitted to this penance without their deposition. Finally, it does not know neither interdicted nor consequences similar to the interdicted. [507]

Since private penance is repeatable, the one who is guilty of grave sins is now naturally obliged to receive penance from the Church not only once in his life, as was the case previously, but every time he has seriously sinned. Some bishops have come to make the use of regular confession a duty for all and in this line we understand the decree of the IV Lateran Council of 1215, which makes confession at least once a year a precept for all the faithful. [508]

As É. Amann, the "tariffed" Penance is not substantially different from the other discipline of Penance that we examined above, in both we can see the same constitutive elements, among which we must underline the contrition "Paenitenda non admittere, admissa deflere", reprobate the sin and cry for sins committed, in these two maxims the penitential book of St. Colombano indicates repentance, evidently necessary for absolution. The preachers who in the line of s. Colombano spread this "tariffed" Penance they did not leave many documents about their teaching but it certainly had to greatly affect the hearts to move them to contrition and in particular to lead them to accept the harsh penances fixed in the tariffs[509]

In the meantime, it had become normal (probably around the year 1000) to give absolution immediately after the accusation of sins and without waiting for the fulfillment of the satisfaction due to the difficulty of returning the faithful and the danger of leaving them without sacramental reconciliation. . A reaction had also begun against the severity and automatism of the penitential tariffs. It belonged to the confessor himself to choose in each case the penance that he imposed and which remained in his discretion; to do this he had to draw more on the penitent's mercy and possibilities than on a legal text. .[510]

However, contrition was always necessary ... and in fact shortly thereafter we will have Pietro Lombardo who will indicate contrition among the main acts of the penitent.

From the second half of the XNUMXth century Penance was classified among the sacraments of the Church. Some, however, will tend until the end of the twelfth century to consider only the solemn and unrepeatable public penance as sacramental, of which the bishop is the minister and the imposition of the hand with prayer is the rite. But later, there will no longer be a sacramental difference between public and private penance[511]. Penance thus appears in the seven-year lists of sacraments, which appear in the mid-twelfth century. The famous Pietro Lombardo speaks of the sacrament of Penance in his Sentences, he is the first to explicitly note that penance is not only a sacrament but also a virtue, because it has two fundamental aspects, internal and external, which are both causes of justification and of salvation (IV, 14, 1, 2, 2) Contrition, confession and satisfaction are the principal acts of the penitent, whose triple modality corresponds respectively to the sentiment of the heart, to the oral expression and to the operative action (1, 1, 336 ). These three successive phases, which complement each other, will be called subjective "parts" of Penance[512] a term that will also be found in the Council of Trent[513]

Taking up what we already said at the beginning of this chapter, it seems to me important to note that Gratian, in a distinction from the "Concordia discordantium canonum" in which he asks whether contrition alone with secret satisfaction is enough or whether the confession of the mouth is necessary to give satisfaction to God for the sin committed, that is, to make amends for the sin committed, he writes with a passage from St. Agostino: “C. LXIII. Item Augustinus in sermon de poenitentia, al. lib. de poenitentiae medicine. Non sufficit mores in melius commutare, et a praeteritis malis recedere, nisi etiam de his, quae facta sunt, satisfiat Deo per poenitentiae painm per humilitatis gemitum, per contriti cordis sacrificium, cooperantibus eleemosynis et ieiuniis. "[514]

The precise text of s. Augustine is this: “Quid autem obtulit Domino unde illum propitiaret sibi? Quoniam si voluisses, inquit, sacrificium, dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus; cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernit. Non solum ergo devote obtulit, sed etiam ista saying quid offerri oporteret ostendit. Non enim sufficit mores in melius commutare, et a factis malis recedere; nisi etiam de his quae facta sunt, satisfiat Deo per paenitentiae painm, per humilitatis gemitum, per contriti cordis sacrificium, cooperantibus eleemosynis. Blessed enim misericordes, quoniam ipsorum miserebitur Deus.[515]

What exactly does it mean: “And what did he offer the Lord to propitiate him? He said: If you had wanted a sacrifice I would have offered it to you; but you do not delight in sacrifices. The sacrifice pleasing to God is the contrite spirit; Indeed, God does not despise a broken and humiliated heart. So David not only made his offering with a devoted soul but, with these words, he also indicated what is to be offered. In fact, it is not enough to change one's behavior for the better and not sin anymore; we also need reparation to God for what has been done; the pain of penance, the groan of humility, the offering of a contrite heart and alms. Indeed, the merciful are blessed because God will have mercy on them. " (translation taken from the Augustinus site which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publishing house online http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/index2.htm)

Contrition is needed to atone for sin.

Graziano then reports in Latin in the same distinction as the "Concordia discordantium canonum", an illuminating sentence of St. John Chrysostom in this regard: “C. XL. Item Ioannes Os aureum in hom. de poenitentia, quae lui incipit: "Provida mente". “Perfecta poenitentia cogit peccatorem omnia libenter sufferre. Et infra: § 1. In corde eius contritio, in ore confessio, in opera tota humilitas: haec est fructifera poenitentia ”.[516]

Which essentially means that perfect penance pushes man to suffer everything and that contrition is in his heart, confession in his mouth, all humility in his work, this is fruitful penance. An illuminating phrase that is also found in the Roman Catechism in the part relating to the Sacrament of Penance and which makes us understand how true penance contains contrition. Reporting another text that he believed to be true. Giovanni Crisostomo, Graziano writes: “Item Ioannes Chrysostomus [id est auctor Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum, homil. 40]. Quis aliquando vidit clericum cito poenitentiam medico agent? * Sed * et si deprehensus humiliaverit se, non ideo dolet, quia peccavit, sed confunditur, quia perdidit gloriam suam. … Gratian. His * auctoritatibus asseritur, neminem sine poenitentia et confessione propriae vocis a peccatis posse mundari. (1554C) Unde praemissae auctoritates, quibus videbatur probari, sola contritione cordis veniam praestari, aliter interpretandae sunt, quam ab eis exponantur. "[517] Contrition is necessary for salvation. We do not go into the question that Gratian is examining in this distinction that concerns the necessity of confession together with contrition for the salvation of the soul, we will see later what the current Catholic doctrine affirms in this regard. Here we are interested in pointing out how in Gratian's time it was clear, on the basis of the Bible and therefore from the statements of the Fathers of the Church who had meditated and interpreted it, the fundamental importance of contrition for the remission of sins.

Interesting in this regard is a quote that Graziano makes of a statement of s. Ambrose: “Quod de interiori poenitentia, non exterior dictum accipitur. De exterior vero poenitentia Ambrosius ait super epistolam ad Romanos: Gratia Dei in baptismate non quaerit gemitum vel planctum, non opus aliquod, sed solum contritionem cordis, et omnia gratis condonat.[518] The words of s. Ambrose mean that the grace of God in Baptism does not seek groaning or weeping or any work but only contrition of the heart and condones everything for free. Contrition is necessary for salvation.

In the same distinction and in the same work of Gratian we read: “C. XXX. … Voluntas remuneratur, non opus. Voluntas autem in cordis contritione est, opus vero in oris confession. Gratian. Luce clarius constat cordis contritione, non oris confession peccata dimitti.[519]

Will is rewarded, not the work. The will is in the contrition of the heart, the work in the confession of the mouth. Contrition is necessary for salvation.

Graziano again writes on this topic “C. XXXIII. Separate the vestra rope, and do not dress. Gratian. Ostendens in contritione cordis, quae in eiusdem scissione intelligitur, not in confession oris, quae pars est exterioris satisfactionis, quam scissuram vestium nominavit, apart totum intelligens, peccata dimitti.[520] Which essentially means, for our purpose, that in contrition of the heart sins are forgiven. Contrition is necessary for salvation.

Further, on the contrition Graziano writes “C. XXXVI. Qui natus est ex Deo, lui non peccat. Gratian. Ergo nec est filius diaboli. Only enim sin diaboli filii sumus. Ergo de eius his reign translati sumus in regnum caritatis filii Dei, et sumus erepti de potestate tenebrarum, et facti filii lucis. Quum ergo ante confessionem, ut probatum est, sumus resuscitati per gratiam, et filii lucis facti, very evident apparet, quod sola cordis contritione sine confessione oris, peccatum remittitur.[521]

For our purpose this again means that by contrition sin is forgiven.

The fundamental importance of contrition is reaffirmed by a further statement by Gratian which you can read below:

"III. Pars. (1558B) § 9. Econtra ea, quae in assertione huius sententiae dicta sunt, partim veritate nituntur, partim pusione carent. Sine contritione etenim cordis nullum peccatum posse dimitti, occulta true sin secreta satisfactione, publica quoque manifesta poenitentia expiari debere, firmissima constat ratione subnixum. "[522] Without contrition no sin can be forgiven.

Contrition is necessary for salvation.

Blessed Isaac of the Star stated: “There are two things that are reserved for God alone: ​​the honor of confession and the power of remission. We must make our confession to him; we must expect remission from him. In fact, it is only God who has the right to forgive sins and therefore we must confess to him. But the Almighty, having married a weak one ... The bridegroom is therefore one with the Father and one with the bride ... Therefore nothing can forgive the Church without Christ and Christ does not want to forgive anything without the Church. The Church can remit nothing except to the one who is repentant, that is, to the one whom Christ touched with his grace; Christ wants nothing to be forgiven for those who despise the Church. "[523]

St. Raymond of Pennaforte said in this line: "In vera et perfecta poenitentia tria sunt necessary: ​​cordis contritio, oris confessio, operis satisfactio" (Summa, de poenit. 1. 3, § 7)

True penance necessarily implies contrition of the heart!

We can say that since the 13th century penance has become what we know, administer or receive today. Since then it has hardly changed until today.[524] … Today like yesterday and the day before yesterday, contrition is a fundamental element of Confession, a necessary element to implore the remission of sins. The Council of Trent will say that the act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins.[525]

As the International Theological Commission said: “The essential structure of the sacrament of penance is already attested in the primitive Church, since the apostolic and post-apostolic age. A particular, though not exclusive, importance is attached to the expression "to retain and to forgive" in Mt 16, 19 and 18, 18, as well as to its variant in Jn 20, 23 (cf. above B, III, 4). The essential of this sacrament therefore consists in the fact that the reconciliation of the sinner with God is accomplished in reconciliation with the Church. Consequently, the sign of the sacrament of penance consists of a double step: on the one hand, there are the human acts of conversion (conversio) through the repentance that love arouses (contritio), of external confession (confessio) and of reparation. (satisfactio); it is the anthropological dimension. On the other hand, the ecclesial community, under the guidance of the bishop and priests, offers in the name of Jesus the forgiveness of sins, establishes the necessary forms of satisfaction, prays for the sinner and does penance in solidarity with him, to finally guarantee him full ecclesial communion and the forgiveness of one's sins; it is the ecclesial dimension. "[526] Contrition is a fundamental constant of true penance.

The lack of true contrition renders Penance false, as the Second Lateran Council affirmed: “Can. 22. 'Sane quia inter cetera unum est, quod sanctam maxime perturbat Ecclesiam, falsa videlicet paenitentia, confratres nostros et presbyteros admonemus, ne falsis paenitentiis laicorum animas decipi et in infernum pertrahi patiantur. Falsam autem paenitentiam esse constat, cum spretis pluribus, of one only paenitentia agitur: aut cum sic agitur of one, ut non discedatur ab alio. Unde scriptum est: 'Qui totam legem observaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus (Jac 2,10): scilicet quantum ad vitam aeternam. Sicut enim, si peccatis esset omnibus involutus, ita, si in uno tantum maneat, aeternae vitae ianuam non intrabit. False etiam fit paenitentia cum paenitens ab officio vel curiali vel negotiali non recedit, quod sine sin agi nulla ratione praevalet; aut si odium in corde gestetur, aut si offenso cuilibet non satisfiat, aut si offendenti offensus non indulgeat aut si arma quis contra iustitiam gerat. ' [527] What it means in particular, for us: among other things, one in particular disturbs the Church: false penance; God's ministers do not allow the souls of the laity to be deceived and pushed to hell by false penitents. False penance is accomplished when one does penance for a single sin and not for the others or when one distances oneself only from some sin and not from all. This is why in the Bible we read that: whoever observes all the Law except one command, is guilty for having broken all the Law. Whoever, freed from all sins, remains tied to a single sin will not enter through the door of eternal life. Gregory VII had already spoken of false penitents in the V Roman Council and in the VII Roman Council (PL 148 col. 801. 815s), especially in the statements of the VII Roman Council (PL 148 col. 815s). The holy Pope clearly stated in these texts that as false Baptism does not purify the soul, so false Penance does not destroy the sin committed; therefore whoever has committed a grave sin must entrust himself to good and prudent priests and must convert so that, leaving behind bad actions, he remains in good actions. If the sinner is converted he has life otherwise he remains in spiritual death. The S. Pontiff then invited penitents not to go to Pastors who lead more to the destruction of the soul than to salvation but to those who lead to salvation in the Truth, the Gospel clearly says that a blind man cannot lead another blind ...

St. Anthony of Padua, who was born in 1195, therefore after the Second Lateran Council, and who lived at the time of the IV Lateran Council, wrote significantly about contrition: "In the blood of contrition all things are purified, all is forgiven, provided that there is the intention to confess. Indeed, without the blood of contrition there is no remission of sin. "[528]

c) The teaching of St. Thomas, Leo X and the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent.

St. Thomas affirms the necessity of contrition for the remission of sins: “… quia ad dimissionem peccati requiritur quod homo totaliter affectum peccati dimittat, per quem quamdam continuuitatem et soliditatem in sensu sua habebat; ideo actus ille quo peccatum remittitur, contritio dicitur by similitudinem ... "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 co.) Which means, in particular, for us: the act by which sin is forgiven is contrition. St. Thomas explains again… “contritio, quae hoc significat, importat aliquam rectitudinem voluntatis; et propter hoc est actus virtutis illius cujus est peccatum praeteritum detestari et destruere, scilicet poenitentiae, ut patet ex his quae in 14 dist., qu. 1, art. 1, quaestiunc. 3, dicta sunt. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 co.) Contrition implies a certain rectitude of the will and is an act of that virtue which detests and destroys sin, that is, of penance. He further says s. Thomas "... caritas amissa non recuperatur nisi per contritionem de peccatis praecedentibus, quae est motus poenitentiae virtutis." (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 14 q. 1 a. 2 qc. 2 co.) ... for the remission of sins, contrition is necessary, charity is not recovered except through the movement of the virtue of penance which is the contrition for sins committed.

Above all we mean the absolute necessity of contrition for the remission of sins when St. Thomas affirms that just as God's offense has a certain infinity, so a single act of contrition has a certain infinity both through the virtue of grace which gives works an infinite value and through the merit of Christ who works in all the Sacraments. and in all merits “Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut offensa habuit infinitatem, ita etiam et unus contritionis actus habet quamdam infinitatem, tum ex virtute gratiae quae dat operibus infinitum valorem, ut scilicet per ea homo infinitum bonum mereatur; tum ex merit Christi, quod operatur in omnibus sacramentis, et in omnibus meritis. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 14 q. 1 to. 4 qc. 1 to 1)

Contrition, the Angelic Doctor further specifies, is a cause for the remission of sins both as part of the Sacrament of Penance and as an act of virtue: “… contritio potest dupliciter considerari; vel inquantum est pars sacramenti, vel inquantum est actus virtutis; et utroque modo est causa remissionis peccati ". (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 5 qc. 1 co.)

It still says yes. Thomas:

"Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod etiam in minor caritate potest homo resurgere: quia quantulumcumque de sin doleat, et ad gratiam se praeparet, dummodo ad terminum contritionis perveniat, qua plus displicet ei a Deo recessisse quam aliquod temporal placuit, gratiam habebit, etiam si non tantum praeparet se quantum prius, dum fuit innocens, praeparavit. "(Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 31 q. 1 to. 4 qc. 3 co.)

The spiritual resurrection of man is accomplished with contrition for which man is more sorry for having turned away from God with sin than he likes any temporal good; and only through the path that has contrition as its end, can man recover charity and therefore grace, as St. Thomas also in the following text: “Deinde ut in pluribus sequitur motus poenitentiae, et deinde motus caritatis et aliarum virtutum perordin. When etiam motus amoris motum poenitentiae praecedit, ut dictum est; sed ille amor non est caritatis, quia caritas amissa non recuperatur nisi per contritionem de peccatis praecedentibus, quae est motus poenitentiae virtutis. " (Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 14 q. 1 to. 2 qc. 2 co.)

Without the virtue of penance and therefore without the path that leads to contrition, explains St. Thomas, mortal sin cannot be remitted: “Respondeo dicendum quod impossible est peccatum actuale mortale sine poenitentia remitti, loquendo de poenitentia quae est virtus. … Offensa autem peccati mortalis procedit ex hoc quod voluntas hominis est aversa a Deo by conversion to a commutable aliquod bonum. Unde requiritur ad remissionem divinae offensae quod voluntas hominis sic immutetur quod convertatur ad Deum, cum detestatione praedictae conversionis et concerning emendae. Quod pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. Et ideo impossible est quod peccatum alicui remittatur sine poenitentia secundum quod est virtus. Sacramentum autem poenitentiae, sicut supra dictum est, perficitur per officium sacerdotis ligantis et solventis. "(IIIª q. 86 a. 2 co.)

Without penance, and therefore without contrition, which regards penance as a virtue, there can be no remission of grave sin. If there is no contrition, then, there is no valid sacramental absolution! God does not forgive us the sin if we do not convert!
Note that s. Although Thomas does not mention contrition in the text above, he speaks of it implicitly since he says that for the remission of God's offense it is required that man's will be changed so as to convert to God, with detestation included in the aforementioned conversion and making the resolution to amend; but all of this is part of the contrition, as seen. To the adulterous woman (Luke 7) and to the sinner (Jn 8), continues St. Thomas in the same article just seen, Jesus remitted sins without sacramental absolution but not without their penance and contrition.

Commenting on the Gospel of John (Jn 8) St. Thomas specifies that Christ absolved the adulteress from sin without imposing any punishment on her because by absolving outwardly he justified inwardly and He could transform her inwardly so that she through a suitable contrition for sins would become immune from all punishment. "Absolvit autem eam a culpa, non imposing ei aliquam poenam: quia cum absolvendo exterius iustificaret interius, bene potuit eam adeo immutare interius per sufficiently contritionem de peccatis, ut ab omni poena immunis efficeretur." ("Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura"., Chap. 8 l. 1.)

In another text s. Thomas specifies that through contrition the conversion and rearrangement of the mind takes place: "Primum igitur quod in poenitentia requiritur, est ordinatio mentis: ut scilicet mens convertatur ad Deum, et avertatur a sin, dolens de commisso, et proponens non committendum: quod est de ratione contritionis ". (" Summa Contra Gentiles ", lib. 4 chap. 72 n. 4.) Contrition, therefore, brings about an ordination and conversion of the mind to God with aversion from sin, pain for sin committed and the resolve to sin no more. As the s. Doctor: through contrition, by grace, an ordering or re-ordering of the mind is accomplished and so by contrition the offense of God is removed and man is freed from the crime of eternal punishment: "Haec vero mentis reordinatio sine gratia esse non potest: nam mens nostra debite ad Deum convert non potest sine caritate, caritas autem sine gratia haberi non potest, ut patet ex hisquae in tertio dicta sunt. Sic igitur per contritionem et offensa Dei tollitur et a reatu poenae aeternae liberatur, qui cum gratia et caritate esse non potest: non enim aeterna poena est nisi per separationem a Deo, cui gratia et caritate homo contiungitur. Haec igitur mentis reordinatio, quae in contritione consistit, ex interiori procedit, idest a free will, cum adiutorio divinae gratiae. " ("Summa Contra Gentiles", lib. 4 chap. 72 n. 5.)
St. Thomas specifies that on the basis of the signs of contrition that he sees in the penitent the priest can absolve the sinner, if these signs are lacking the penitent should not be absolved: “Constat enim quod dominus Lazarum aisitatum discipulis solvendum mandavit; ergo discipuli absolvunt. Per hoc ergo non ostenditur quod sacerdos dicere non debeat: ego te absolvo, sed quod eum non debeat absolvere in quo signa contritionis non videt, per quam homo vivificatur interius a Deo culpa remissa. " ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.). For s. Thomas signs of contrition are pain for the sins committed and the resolution not to sin, if these signs are missing, absolution must not be given: "Ex quo etiam patet quod non est periculosum sacerdotibus dicere: ego te absolvo, illis in quibus signa contritionis vident, quae sunt dolor de praeteritis et propositum de cetero non peccandi; alias absolvere non debet. " ("De forma absolutionis", chap. 3 co.).

The lack of contrition, as can be clearly seen from what has been said, therefore implies by itself. Thomas the non-remission of the penitent's sins; in this line we can affirm that, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, the priest must not absolve the penitent in whom he does not see signs of contrition because, lacking contrition, this confession is null and the sins are not remitted, in fact for himself. Thomas contrition is part of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance therefore if it is missing there is no Sacrament.

More precisely, Doctor Angelic states: “Since the sanctification of man is therefore in the power of the sanctifying God, it is not up to man to assume at his own will the realities that sanctify him, but they must be determined by divine institution. And so in the sacraments of the new law, which are made to sanctify men, according to the words of 1 Cor 6 [11]: You have been washed, you have been sanctified, it is necessary to make use of those elements which have been determined by divine institution. "[529] In order to have the sacrament it is necessary to make use of the things that have been established by God for that sacrament. According to the saint Aquinas: "... in the sacraments, words form and sensible realities form matter."[530]

Explain the s. Doctor who: "in those sacraments that have an effect corresponding to human acts, the same sensitive human acts act as matter: and this happens in penance and in marriage."[531]

Later, in the same work, s. Thomas reiterates that in the sacrament of penance, evidently by divine institution, human acts are matter (III, q. 90 a.1)

Further says the s. Doctor: “Sic igitur requiritur ex parte poenitentis, primo quidem, voluntas recompensandi, quod fit per contritionem; secundo, quod se subiiciat arbitrrio sacerdotis loco Dei, quod fit in confession; tertio, quod recompenset secundum arbitrium ministri Dei, quod fit in satisfactione. Et ideo contritio, confessio et satisfactio ponuntur partes poenitentiae. ”(IIIª q. 90 a. 2 co.) The penitent requires: the will to reward and this is accomplished with contrition; submission to the priest who is in God's place and this is accomplished with confession; reparation according to the indications of the minister of God, which is accomplished with satisfaction. Contrition, confession and satisfaction are therefore parts of penance.

Specifies the s. Doctor who: “… there are two types of parts, as Aristotle explains: the essential parts and the quantitative parts. The essential parts in nature are form and matter, while in logic they are gender and difference. And in this sense any sacrament is divided into its essential parts which are matter and form: for which we said above that the sacraments are constituted "of things and words". - But since quantity is connected with matter, the quantitative parts are parts of matter. And it is from this point of view that parts are assigned to the sacrament of penance, as specified above, in a special way in relation to the acts of the penitent, which form the material of this sacrament. "[532]. Contrition is part of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, without it one cannot have this Sacrament, in this sense contrition is truly the cause of the remission of sins, as explained by St. Thomas: “… contritio potest dupliciter considerari; vel inquantum est pars sacramenti, vel inquantum est actus virtutis; et utroque modo est causa remissionis peccati ". (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 17 q. 2 a. 5 qc. 1 co.) Contrition can be considered as part of the Sacrament and as an act of virtue and in both cases is the cause of the remission of sin, without it, in particular, the Sacrament of Penance is not fulfilled.

A necessary clarification must be added regarding the doctrine of St. Thomas: in some works he states that contrition is almost a matter of the Sacrament of Confession. In Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 16 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 4 co. s. Thomas states: "... et ideo praedicta tria non sunt partes poenitentiae virtutis, sed poenitentiae sacraments: quia ipsi actus sunt quasi materia sacraments, et penes divisionm materiae partes rei sumuntur when." In De articulis Fidei, pars 2 co. s. Thomas states: “Quartum sacramentum est poenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus poenitentis, qui dicuntur tres poenitentiae partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio, ad quam pertinet quod homo doleat de sin committed, et proponat se de cetero non peccaturum. " ("De articulis Fidei", pars 2 co.)

Now it should be noted that the fact of affirming that contrition is almost a matter of Confession does not mean denying that it is an essential element of the same or denying that it is a matter of the Sacrament, it simply means that it is a particular matter, different from that of other Sacraments, in fact writes s. Thomas: “… in poenitentia non est pro materia aliqua exterior res, sicut in Baptismo aqua; sed ipse actus humanus loco materiae in hoc sacramento se habet, here for quamdam recompensationem offensam culpae praecedentis tollit. "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 16 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 1 co.)

The same s. Doctor states: “… sed material in sacramento potest esse compositum, sicut patet in confirmatione et Eucharistia; et sic etiam ex parte actus nostra, qui est quasi materialis in poenitentia, partes ei assignantur. "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 16 q. 1 a. 1 qc. 1 ad 1)

Contrition is therefore truly an essential element of the Sacrament of Penance, it is its true subject but it is a particular matter and therefore it is sometimes called by St. Doctrore almost matter. This clarification is of considerable importance because we will soon see that important councils have taken up precisely the Thomist affirmation that contrition is almost a matter of the sacrament of penance.

I point out that also s. Thomas, as we will see better later, knew the extenuating circumstances, it is enough to read his texts to understand it, and, as we can see, he clearly and absolutely reiterates the importance of contrition for the remission of sin.

Therefore contrition is part of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, without it one cannot have this Sacrament ... and the absolution given is evidently null.

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

The Council of Florence, a few centuries after s. Thomas and about a century before that of Trent, stated: “Quartum sacramentum est paenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus paenitentis, here in tres distinguuntur partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio; ad quam pertinet, ud doleat de sin commisso, cum concerning non peccandi de cetero. Secunda est oris confessio; ad quam pertinet, ut peccator omnia peccata, quorum memoriam habet, his priests confiteatur integraliter. Tertia est satisfactio pro peccatis secundum arbitrium sacerdotis "[533]

The fourth sacrament is penance, of which almost matter are the acts of the penitent, divided into three parts: the first of which is contrition of the heart, which consists in the pain of sin committed, with the intention not to sin in the future; the second is oral confession, in which the sinner fully confesses to his priest all the sins he remembers; third, the satisfaction of sins, at the will of the priest.

The conciliar text takes up in a very evident way, summarizing it, the following affirmation of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Quartum sacramentum est poenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus poenitentis, qui dicuntur tres poenitentiae partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio, ad quam pertinet quod homo doleat de sin commisso, et proponat se de cetero non peccaturum. Secunda pars est oris confessio, ad quam pertinet ut peccator omnia peccata, quorum memoriam habet, his priests confiteatur integraliter, non dividens ea diversis sacerdotibus. Tertia pars est satisfactio pro peccatis secundum arbitrium sacerdotis, quae quidem praecipue fit per ieiunium et orationem et eleemosynam. "(" De articulis Fidei ", pars 2)

As we saw above for himself. Thomas contrition is true matter, that is, an essential element, of the Sacrament of Confession but it is not something material because it is actually an act and for this reason it is indicated by s. Thomas in some cases as quasi-matter.

God enlighten us more and more.

After the Council of Florence, the condemnation of some of Luther's affirmations fixed in the “Exsurge Domine” Leo X has particular importance for us: “11. Nullo modo confidas absolvi propter tuam contritionem, sed propter verbum Christi: 'Quodcumque solveris' etc. (Mt 16,19:12). Hinc, inquam, confide, si sacerdotis obtinueris absolutionem, et credo fortiter te absolutum, et absolutus vere eris, quidquid sit de contritione. XNUMX. Yes for impossible confessus non esset contritus, aut sacerdos non serio, sed ioco absolveret, si tamen credat se absolutum, verissime est absolutus. "[534]

Do not believe that you are acquitted for your contrition but believe that you are acquitted by the word of Christ: "All that you will loose ..." (Mt 16,19) Trust in this: in the absolution of the priest; and you strongly believe that you are acquitted and truly you will be acquitted regardless of Confession. If you believe that you are acquitted, even if you have confessed without contrition or the priest has acquitted you for fun, you are truly acquitted.

If you believe you are acquitted and you have obtained the absolution of the priest, even if the priest is playing, even if you do not have contrition, you are acquitted, essentially says Luther; for our interests it is good to underline that these statements are condemned by the Holy See because, as we are seeing, absolution is null without contrition. Contrition is a necessary element for a valid absolution. On the other hand, absolution given for fun has no value because the confessor must intend to administer the sacrament, as St. Thomas: “si minister sacraments non intendit sacramentum conficere, non perficitur sacramentum. "(" De articulis Fidei ", pars 2 co.)

The Council of Trent affirmed with regard to contrition that: “The acts of the penitent himself are almost a matter of this sacrament, that is: contrition, confession, satisfaction. And since these are required, in the penitent, for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are therefore considered parts of penance. " [535]

The Council of Trent then specified that this act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in the man fallen into sin after Baptism it prepares for the remission of sins if accompanied by trust in divine Mercy and the vow to fulfill. all that is required to properly receive this Sacrament of Penance.[536]

Furthermore, the same Council declared: "... that this contrition includes not only the cessation of sin and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also the hatred of the old life, in conformity with the expression: your iniquities, with which you have overridden and build yourself a new heart and a new soul (Ez. 18,31:XNUMX) ”. [537]

Thus contrition includes not only the cessation of sin and the purpose of living according to God's Law but also the hatred of the old life.

The fact that the Council speaks of quasi-matter regarding contrition does not mean that contrition is not matter, and therefore an essential element for a valid absolution, it means instead that, according to the affirmations already seen in s. Thomas, since contrition is a different reality from sensible things, which are matter of other Sacraments, it is spoken about almost matter, in fact the conciliar text affirms that true contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins [538]. True contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and therefore has always been an essential element of this sacrament. The Roman Catechism will further clarify, as we shall see, what I have just explained.

P. Adnès specifies: "The concile n'entendait certaininement pas trancher le débat, et il était loisible aux scotistes de ne voir dans la" quasi matière "qu'une figure métaphorique de style pour désigner les conditions sine qua non du sacrement, ce here a du reste pour conséquence de minimiser the idea of ​​a sacramentalisation of the conversion chrétienne par le sacrement. Parmi les actes du pénitent, la première place revient à la contrition, que rien ne peut remplacer, et qui est définie d'une manière générique comme «une douleur de l'âme et une détestation du péché commis avec la résolution de ne plus pécher à avenir "(ch. 4; n. 1676)." [539] For us this essentially means that without contrition there is no Sacrament of Confession, nothing can replace the penitent's contrition.

God enlighten us more and more.

d) Teaching of the Roman Catechism, of some Popes of that period and of St. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori.

The Roman Catechism explains in n. 244: “Matter of Penance. But since the people must know better than anything else, the matter of this sacrament, it must be taught that it differs from the others above all because, while the matter of the others is something natural, or artificial, the matter of Penance is almost the matter. acts of the penitent: that is, contrition, confession and satisfaction, as declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. 14, Della Penit. e. 3 and can. 4). These acts are called parts of Penance, insofar as they are required by divine institution, in the penitent, to obtain the integrity of the sacrament and a full and perfect remission of sins. They are said: almost matter not because they have no reason for real matter, but because they are not of that kind of matter that is externally used, like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. Nor, to understand well, have those who said that sins are the proper matter of this sacrament have affirmed something different: because, as we say that the wood is the material of fire, because it is consumed by fire, so we can rightly say that sins are matter of Penance, because by Penance they are canceled. " ("Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 244)

Without contrition, which is the true matter of the Sacrament of Penance, there is no Sacrament and there is no remission of sins. May the sacred cross be our light.

As Fr. Galtier in his text “De paenitentia” (Romae: Apud Aedes Pont. Universitatis Gregorianae, 1956) on p. 360 Suarez and Lugo also very clearly affirmed the necessity of contrition for the validity of absolution.

Even some condemnations issued by the Popes of this period, in line with the affirmations of the Council of Trent, reaffirm the need for true contrition; Innocent XI condemned the following statements "Paenitenti habenti consuetudinem peccandi contra legem Dei, naturae, aut Ecclesiae etsi emendationis spes nulla apparent, nec est neganda nec differenda absolutio, dummodo ore proferat, se dolere et proponere emendationem." "Potest aliquando absolvi here on the next occasion peccandi versatur * quam potest et non vult omittere, quin imo directe et ex concerning quaerit, aut ei se inherit"[540] For us this means in particular that those who do not have true contrition cannot be absolved and therefore a true resolution not to sin anymore and to flee the next occasions of sin and more precisely: those who find themselves on the next occasion of sin cannot be absolved. and he does not want to run away from it and rather seeks it directly or exposes himself to it; the absolution of those who have the habit of sinning cannot be absolved or must be postponed and there is no hope of an amendment, although the penitent claims to feel pain and to seek correction.

The condemnation issued by Alexander VII against the following statement also goes in this line:

"Non est obligandus concubinarius ad eiciendam concubinam, si haec nimis utilis esset ad oblectamentum concubinarii, vulgo dono, dum, déficiente illa, nimis aegre ageret vitam, et aliae epulae taedio magno concubinarium afficerent, et alia famula nimeturis difficile inveniris".[541]

For us this means more generally that whoever does not have true contrition and therefore does not have a real purpose of not sinning anymore and fleeing the next occasions of sin cannot be absolved, and more precisely: he cannot be absolved who does not want to remove his concubine (ie a person with whom she lives “more uxorio” without being united with her in marriage) because otherwise her life would become too hard.

St. Alphonsus in his “Theologia moralis” clearly states that confession has as its proximate the acts of the penitent among which there is contrition; absolution is invalid if the penitent does not have imperfect contrition, that is, attraction [542].

In another text, s. Alphonsus reiterates that the lack of due intention causes the sacrament to be invalid and specifies that the lack of the intention to flee the upcoming occasions of voluntary sin renders Confession invalid because this lack determines a lack of effective intention not to sin and therefore a lack of true contrition. : “On the part of the penitent, the Confession is invalid. … If he doesn't have the pain and purpose due; especially if he does not want to give back as he owes the stuff, the honor, or the fame taken away: or if he does not want to take away the next voluntary opportunity. " [543]

St. Alphonsus also says, in this line: “2. Moreover, it is certainly on the next occasion that 1. he considers in his own home some woman with whom he has often been in the habit of sinning. 2. Those who have frequently fallen into blasphemies or frauds in the game. 3. Those who in some tavern or house used to fall into drunkenness, or fights, or acts, or words, or obscene thoughts. Now all of these cannot be absolute, unless they have taken away the opportunity, or at least if they do not promise to take it away, according to the distinction that will be made in the following number. And likewise no one can absolve himself who, by going to some house, although once a year, has always sinned there: since for him to go there is already the next opportunity. Nor can they be absolute those who, although they do not sin on the occasion, nevertheless are a grave scandal to others (Lib. 6. n. 452. v. Ex. Praemissis.). Add some dd. (Ibid.), And not without reason, also having to deny absolution to those who do not leave the external opportunity, when there is a vicious habit, or even a great temptation, or a vehement passion, even though he has not sinned there until then; for he can easily fall after you, if he does not turn away from the occasion. So they say, that if ever a servant were very tempted by her master, and she knew she was easy to fall, she is obliged to leave that house, if she freely she can do it, otherwise it is temerity she thinks she is safe. "[544].

In the "Education to the people" s. Alphonsus states: “The pain of sins is so necessary for forgiveness that without this even God (at least according to ordinary providence) can forgive us. Nisi poenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis (Luc. 13. 3.). It may be the case that someone is saved by dying without being examined and without confessing sins, as when he had an act of true contrition, and had no time or priest to confess to; but without pain it is impossible for him to save himself. " [545]

In the same work s. Alfonso adds: “26. Pain and purpose necessarily go together. Animi dolor ac detestatio de sin committed; cum circa non peccandi de cetero (Trid. sess. 14. c. 4.). There can be no true pain of sins in a soul, if there is not yet a true intention not to offend God anymore. Now to be true the purpose, it has to have three conditions, it must be firm, universal and effective. "[546]

Explain s again. Alfonso: “Penance is taken as a virtue, and as a sacrament; as a virtue it is defined: Virtus tendens in destructionem peccati, quatenus est offensa Dei, medium pain and satisfactione. As a sacrament: Est sacramentum consistens in actibus poenitentis, et in absolutione sacerdotis. Penance as a virtue has always been necessary for health necessitate medii, but as a sacrament in the new law it is also necessary necessitate medii for those who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism, at least in vow, or whether it is desire, if it cannot really be taken. The remote matter of the sacrament of penance, according to St. Thomas (3. Pq 84. a 1. ad 1. et 2.), and the common sentence, are the sins committed after the sentence; but mortal sins are necessary matter: the venial and mortal already confessed are sufficient matter, since these are enough to receive absolution, but we are not obliged to confess them. The next matter then, according to St Thomas himself (3. p. Q. 84. a 1. ad 1. et 2.), are the acts of the penitent, called by the trid. almost matter, because they are not physical matter, as is that of the other sacraments; and these acts are (as the council declared) contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The satisfaction, however, is not an essential part, as the first two are, but only an integral part, since without that in some cases the sacrament may well be valid. "[547]

In line with the foregoing, yes. Alfonso specifies: "As we have seen above, and as the trident declared (Sess. 14. ch. 3), there are three necessary parts of penance, contrition, confession, and satisfaction."[548]

In his work against the reformed claims s. Alphonsus further specifies his affirmations: "More was said that the acts of the penitent, that is, contrition, confession and satisfaction, are almost matters of this sacrament and are sought by divine institution, for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full remission of 'sins, and therefore are called parts of penance. ... With this the Council (it was said in the end) condemns the sentence of those who say that faith and the terrors incurred on conscience are the parties of penance ... Luther blames Catholics, saying that they teach that the pain of sins is enough for this sacrament , without there being faith; but it errs, because the Catholic Church teaches well that you need the faith that God forgives sins in this sacrament for the merits of Jesus C., provided that we are disposed with contrition, which cannot be had without faith, but not that faith that establishes Luther; and it is heresy to say that to receive forgiveness it is enough for the sinner to firmly believe that his sins have been forgiven. ... When at the meeting we say that faith is necessary for the remission of sins, we mean the Catholic faith, which teaches that God forgives sins for the merits of G. Christ, as it is said in the Tridentine, sess. 6, chap. 6, but not down from heretical faith, that is, that faith (or is it trust) and certain belief in forgiveness is what justifies and therefore is part of penance. … 27 They oppose that contrition cannot be part of the sacrament, because it is internal and is not sensitive. The answer is that he is not sensitive in himself, but he becomes sensitive by confession or by asking for absolution or by any other external sign. Nor does it matter that sometimes the sacrament is taken without the confession of sins, as happens in those removed from the senses; because in them the confession made then or before by signs or signs suffices, which in such cases is a true confession. They reply that not even confession can be part of the sacrament, because it is a sign of sin committed, but not of grace or of the remission of sin. It is answered that confession divided by absolution is not already a sign of grace, but is well united with absolution or is a form of the sacrament: ego te absolvo etc .; since water in baptism is neither a sign of grace, but it is well united with the form: ego te baptizo etc. In the sacraments, therefore, for matter to be a sign of grace, it is enough that it is united with form. 28. They further oppose that Judas fulfilled the three parts of penance with contrition, confession and satisfaction, and with all this the sin was not remitted to him.

30 But as regards the parts of penance we not only have to contend with the heretics, but also with our Catholics. Says Scotus (In 4. feels. distance 14. q. 4.), that absolution alone constitutes the essence of the sacrament of penance; and in this he is followed by Ukamo, Almaino, Giovanni Maggiore and others: these however, although they deny that contrition and confession are essential parts of penance, they do not deny that they are necessary parts; not as essential, but as conditionals, without which the sacrament would be null. And to the opposition that could be made to them, that in this way the sensible sign would be missing, they reply that this sensible sign is found in the sound of the words of absolution. But contrary to this opinion of Scotus the contrary sentence is common with St. Thomas (3. p. q. 90. a. 2. et 3.) and it seems indubitable, according to the words of the Florentine council and then of the Tridentine. … 31 .. rightly says the Bellarmine in chap. 15 that Scotus and the others spoke thus because they spoke before the Florentine and Tridentine councils, from what these things were most accurately explained, and adds: Quod si hoc tempore superessent, sine dubio ecclesiae definitioni ac sententiae acquiescerent. Bellarmine therefore calls the sentence that the acts of the penitent are like the material of this sacrament, and the absolution of the priest is the form, very true; and certifies that it was she of s. Tomaso, Riccardo, Durando and others almost commonly (In 4. feels. Dist. 14.) 32… Bellarmine says that absolution is indeed the action of the priest, but penance is not the action of the priest, but of the penitent; and the sacrament is composed by both, as St. Thomas teaches, as we will see below. 33. But why did the council call the three acts of the penitent quasi matter, and did not call them matter? Bellarmine replies that the Tridentine called them almost matter; non quod non sint vere materia whichm sacramenta requirunt, sed quod non sint res aliquaolid ac tractabilis, qualis in aliis sacramentis cernitur. And the Roman catechism answers the same: Sed quia eius generis materiae non sunt quae extrinsecus adhibentur, ut aqua in baptismo et chrismatio in confirmatione. Since he says that for the matter of the sacrament only a sensible sign is required which is then declared with the words of the form; and of this kind are the acts of the penitent. Moreover, of no sacrament it can be said that matter is proper matter, physically speaking. … 39. Moreover, whatever the innovators say, the council in chapter 4 declared that contrition is the pain and detestation of the sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning more. It is said that contrition has been necessary at all times to obtain forgiveness and that it prepares man for the remission of sins, if he is joined with the trust of divine mercy and with the desire to fulfill all the other that is required to take. this sacrament. Therefore it is declared that contrition is not a mere cessation of sins, with the beginning of new life, but it is also a hatred of the past life. It is said moreover that although contrition sometimes, since she is perfect for the sake of charity, reconciles man with God before the sacrament, nevertheless reconciliation is always ascribed to contrition for the sake of the vow or is a desire for the sacrament, which at least implicitly in that. it is always enclosed. More is said that the imperfect contrition, called attrition, which is commonly conceived either out of the ugliness of sin or out of the fear of hell and pains, always excluding the will to sin and there is the hope of forgiveness. it is a gift of God, with which the penitent makes his way to justice. And although this attraction without the sacrament is not valid to justify, nevertheless it disposes us to implore grace in the sacrament. Hence some falsely slander Catholic writers as teaching that the sacrament of penance confers grace on penitents without any good motion; which has never been taught or understood by the church. [549]

Contrition has been necessary in all times and is a matter of the Sacrament of Penance, since contrition is lacking, absolution is invalid.

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

e) Teachings of the Catechism of St. Pius X, of the Roman Ritual, of the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide and of some important moralists.

In the line of what has been said so far, and in particular in the line of what the Doctors, Popes and Councils affirmed, in Bucceroni's Enchiridion Morale we read some important affirmations disseminated by the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (indicated here often with SC d. PF ). First of all, it should be noted that while everyone must be welcomed at Confession, only those who are willing must be acquitted. ([550]

Again, in the same work we read, as stated by the Sacra Congregatio De Propaganda Fide: “Multi profecto dantur casus, in quibus denegatio et dilatio absolutionis medicamen est opportunum, et subinde necessarium. “Videat”, inquit S. Carolus Borromaeus in Instructionibus poenitentiae, “confessarius ne quidem absolvat. qui vel odium inimicitiamve lay nolit. vel return pro facultate recuset alienam, vel a statu peccati mortalis paratus non sit discedere, occasionmve similis sins life. " Hinc Sedes Apostolica adversus mollem et praeposteram nonnullorum canonistarum in concedenda absolutione facilitatem, miro zelo semper insurrexit, ut ex propositionibus ab Alexandro VII .. Innocentio XI. aliisqne Romanis Pontificibus iure meritque damnatis, cuique legenti exploratum est. Valde autem prolixum foret casus hninsmodi enumerate. Sed videri possunt apud S. Carolum Borromaeum in Instructione confessariorum, et a sanctis istis regulis, totius Ecclesiae consensu firmatis, non sinant confessores se abduci falsa misericórdia erga poenitentes. "[551] Which for us means in particular: in various cases it is necessary to deny absolution because true contrition is lacking and the penitent is not willing to turn away from sin and flee the next occasions of sin, etc. The Holy See has always risen against those who presented a soft facility in granting absolution and who spread false mercy towards penitents. A false mercy that deceives penitents is, evidently, that of those who absolve those who do not have true contrition! As we are seeing, in fact, contrition is necessary for a valid sacramental absolution.

Furthermore, according to the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, the Confessor must diligently investigate: “… num qui ad poenitentiae sacramentum accedunt, eo animi pain commissa crimina execrentur, here in Conc. Tr. S. 14. chap. 5., de Contritione, ad sacramenti integritatem requiritur; num vitae novae inchoationem ac praeteritate odium no voice dumtaxat ac labiis, sed intimo cordis affectu polliceantur; num, in testimonium bonae huius ac firmae voluntatis, cease iam se aliquamdiu a peccatis doceant; num eas occasiones, quae vel per se, vel ex proprio malitia aut pravitate, ad peccatum inducunt, si in eorum potestate fuerit, plane dimiserint; num remedia alias ipsis proposita adhibuerint, quorum praesidio peccatum in necessariis atque involuntariis occasionibus devitent; num consuetudinem peccandi abiecerint; num si aliasbeneum absolutionis obtinuerint, iterum in eadem crimina ex own malitia relapsi, in eodem fuerint coeno volutati; num rerum, famae atque honoris in quo proximum

laeserint, wallpaper ac prompti sint sarcire damnum aut iniuriam, si vires aut occasionio suppetant. Haec, pluraque alia, quae a laudatis S. Caroli instructionibus petere missionarii possunt, diligenter ab ipsis expendenda sunt, priusquambeneum absolutionis impendant. "[552] Which for us essentially means: Confessors before absolving must see if in the souls of penitents there is the true contrition that is required for the integrity of the Sacrament, therefore they must see if in them there is the true hatred of sins, if there is really, and not only in words, true hatred for the life of sin and if there is the real beginning of the new life in Christ etc. In this line the instructions given on this point by s are recommended. Carlo Borromeo.

Further, the Sacra Congregatio affirmed: “Huic tuorum confessariorum customs oppositur etiam ipsum ritual romanum, iu quo (tit. De Sacramento poenit.) Legitur: Videat autem diligenter sacerdos when et quibus confer vel deneganda sit absolutio. Quod praescriptum non fuisset, si poenitentibus omnibus, etiam recidivis et in habinali peccandi consuetudine existentibus, indiscriminatim absolutio esset impertienda. Doceantur igitur confessarii tui de hac triplici poenitentium specie, iuxta mox laudatum ruale romanum, et absolutionem denegent iis qui vel nulla vel fictae tantum poenitentiae indicia praebent; illis vero différant quorum poenitentia incerta et suspecta merit habetur. Ita docent cordatiores theologi, ita docent Instructiones confessariis propositae to S. Carolo Borromaeo and to S. Francisco Salesio, qui regulas a S. Carolo traditas in synodalibus Constitutionibus adoptavit, uti videre est in earum titulo 9. art. 5. n. 3., ac meminisse debent mox praefati confessarii vicariatus tui, ex magna absolvendi facilitate, magnam peccandi facilitatem oriri necessário debere. "[553] This means, in particular, for us: absolution must be denied to those who show signs of no penance or false penance; absolution must be deferred to those whose penance appears uncertain or suspicious. It is necessary to follow sound doctrine in administering sacramental absolution because whoever wants to "widen" the narrow path of salvation and therefore using great ease in carrying out actually causes great damage and in particular necessarily determines great ease in sinning in penitents.

The Major Catechism of St. Pius X states in n. 689 “Of the parts of the sacrament of Penance which is the most necessary?

Of the parts of the sacrament of Penance, the most necessary is contrition, because without it the forgiveness of sins can never be obtained, and with it alone, when it is perfect, forgiveness can be obtained, provided that it is joined with desire, at least implicit. , to confess. " (http://www.maranatha.it/catpiox/01page.htm)

Obviously this also means that the absolution given without the penitent being contrite is invalid… and precisely the sins are not remitted.

I point out that also s. Pius X, as we will see better later, knew the extenuating circumstances, but, as we can see, he reiterates with clarity and absoluteness, that without contrition, absolution is nothing. May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

The Roman Ritual states: “Cum ad illud constituendum tria concurrant, materia, forma, et minister: illius quidem remote materia sunt peccata, proxima vero sunt actus poenitentis, nempe contritio, confessio, et satisfactio; true form, illa absolutionis verba: Ego te absolvo, etc. "[554] The text in Italian is the following: “This sacrament consists of three elements: the matter, the form, the minister. Remote matter are the sins of the penitent, proximate matter are his acts of contrition, confession, satisfaction of the penalty. The form is made up of the words Ego te absólvo, etc. "[555]. This sacrament consists of three elements: the matter, the form, the minister. Remote matter are the sins of the penitent, proximate matter are his acts of contrition, confession, satisfaction of the penalty. The form is made up of the words: I absolve you, etc.

Furthermore, the same Ritual specifies. “The priest must carefully consider when and to whom absolution is to be imparted, denied, or deferred; let it not happen that he absolves those who are incapable of this benefit, as it would be: who does not give any sign of pain; who does not want to put down a hatred or an enmity; or who, being able, does not want to give back the other; who does not want to leave an imminent occasion of sin, or otherwise abandon a path of sin and amend his life for the better; who has given scandal in public, unless he gives public satisfaction and removes the scandal; who has incurred in sins reserved for Superiors. "[556] Note: what this text states means that whoever does not have true contrition is incapable of absolution.

In the "Diccionario de Teologia Moral" directed by Card. Roberti we read: "Son elementos constitutivos del sacramento la sentencia absolutoria del sacerdote (forma) y los tres actos

of the penitent: la contricion, la voluntad de satisfacer y la acusacion de los pecados (subject

proxima); the contricion and the voluntad de satisfacer form part of the sacrament, manifestadas de modo sensible. "[557]

The absolution of the priest and the three acts of the penitent, including contrition, are constitutive elements of the sacrament. These acts are necessary for the validity of the sacrament. are necessary for part of the penitent: the confesion, the contricion with el thought and the voluntad de satisfacer. "[558] Contrition is required for the validity of the Confession. If contrition is lacking, the absolution is invalid!

In the text by P. Palazzini: “Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum” Rome, 1962, at T. I, p. 878 reiterates what has just been said on the need for perfect or imperfect contrition (attrition) for a valid absolution, and the same is found in Prummer: “Confessio toties est invalida, quoties pars essentialis sacramenti poenitentiae deficit, quod praecipue sequentibus modis accidere potest:

a) Ex parte confessarii ...

b) Ex parte poenitentis, qui non habuit Bastam contritionem, vel qui noluit debitam satisfactionem impositam implere, praecipue autem here in confession sacrilege omisit peccatum grave eiusve circumstantiam specificam. " ("Manual Theologiae Moralis" Herder 1961 III, p.277). In Aertnys Damen we read that the confession is invalid on the part of the penitent: "... ex defectu doloris et firmi propositi" ("Theologia Moralis .." Marietti, 1957, vol. II p. 300): the Confession is therefore invalid if the pain and the firm resolve not to sin and, therefore, to flee the upcoming occasions of sin. In fact, since contrition and therefore pain and purpose, as mentioned above, almost matter or proximate matter of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and an essential part of that Sacrament, in the absence of such contrition, Confession is null.

Whoever is incapable of contrition is evidently unable to receive this sacrament, as Prummer explains: “St. Raymundus de Pennaforte pulchre dicit: “In vera et perfecta poenitentia tria sunt necessary: ​​cordis contritio, oris confessio, operis satisfactio” (Summa, de poenit. 1. 3, § 7), de quibus seorsim dicemus. Subiectum autem capax sacraments poenitentiae est omnis homo baptizatus, qui hos tres actus vel saltem contritionem elicere potest. "[559]. A capable subject of the Sacrament of Penance is every baptized man who can carry out confession, contrition and satisfaction or at least contrition. Without contrition, sacramental absolution is invalid.

The famous p. Cappello SJ said practically the same in his "Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis" ed. Marietti 1953 pp. 16 and 88.

Konings stated the same in: “Theologia Moralis”, Benziger Fratres, 1888 p. 96.

Wouters said the same in: “Manual Theologiae Moralis”, Carolus Beyaert, 1933, pp. 30 and 216

The Dominican HB Merkelbach stated: "Ut homo sit capax verificiendi hoc sacramentum, non

sufficit ut sit viator, atque fuerit baptizatus et peccator, sed insuper intentio requiritur recipiendi sacramentum ac proinde usus rationis. Porro intentio non sufficit habitualis et implicita, sed etiam requiritur actualis vel virtualis moment quo poenitens partem ponit signi sacramentalis, ie contritionem elicit et accusationem facit, quae cum sint actiones humanae, sine usu rationis et due intentione fieri non possunt (n.93). Usus ergo rationis requiritur in poenitente momento quo format intentionem, contritionem elicit, accusationem facit. "[560] For man to be able to validly receive this sacrament, the intention of receiving the sacrament and the use of reason are necessary. The intention must be actual or virtual when the penitent places the part of the sacramental sign, that is, he implements contrition and accuses himself, these actions being human cannot be carried out without the use of reason and without intention. The use of reason is required of the penitent at the moment in which he forms the intention, produces contrition and accuses himself.

Casali in his "Sum" states: "That contrition is necessary for the remission of sins is of faith:" If anyone denies that contrition is required for the complete and perfect remission of sins, let him be excommunicated "(DB 914). " [561]

Ludwig Ott. In the "Compendium of Dogmatic Theology" states: "As also emerges from the nature of justification, contrition is the first and most necessary part of the sacrament of penance and was in every time necessary for the remission of sins (D. 897 [ DS. 1676]). After the institution of the sacrament of penance, it must also include in itself the will of confession and satisfaction. Being an essential part of the sacramental sign, when the sacrament is received, contrition must be expressly excited (contritio formalis). "[562] The same author continues saying: “Absolution in union with the penitent's acts produces the remission of sins. De fide. "(" Compendium of dogmatic theology "Marietti Herder, Casale, 1969, p. 721)

The same author in the same work also states: “The sacrament of penance can be received by any baptized person who after baptism has incurred serious or light sins. De fide. To receive it validly, according to the common sentence, the three acts of contrition, confession and satisfaction, which form the material of the sacrament, are required. "(" Compendium of dogmatic theology "Marietti Herder, Casale, 1969, p. 728)

May the sacred cross be our light.

f) Recent teaching of the Popes and of the Vatican Congregations.

In the "Dominum et Vivificantem" of s. John Paul II we find written in n. 42: “Without a true conversion, which implies an interior contrition and without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain" not forgiven ", as Jesus says and with him the Tradition of the Old and the New Covenant. ... "and at nos. 46 of the same encyclical we can read: “Why is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How to understand this blasphemy? Saint Thomas Aquinas replies… the "blasphemy" does not really consist in offending the Holy Spirit with words; it consists, instead, in the refusal to accept the salvation that God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working by virtue of the sacrifice of the Cross. … And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this remission, of which he is the intimate dispenser and which presupposes the real conversion, which he operated in conscience. … Now the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin committed by man, who claims his presumed "right" to persevere in evil - in any sin - and thus refuses redemption. Man remains closed in sin, making his conversion impossible on his part and, therefore, also the remission of sins, which he considers not essential or not important for his life. "[563]

As is clear from the text just seen: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin committed by man, who claims his presumed "right" to persevere in evil - in any sin - and thus refuses redemption; such blasphemy does not really consist in offending the Holy Spirit with words; it consists, instead, in the refusal to accept the salvation that God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working by virtue of the sacrifice of the Cross. We understand very well that this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit implies a refusal to convert, a refusal to accept the gift of contrition which, as we have seen, is necessary for our liberation from grave sin, a refusal, therefore, to accept from God: the gift of holy pain for our sins, the gift of hatred for sins, the gift of the resolution not to sin again and the gift of fleeing the next occasions of sin…. For a divorced and remarried person, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can imply the refusal to convert from sins and in particular from the sins of scandal and adultery…. therefore it can imply: the lack of purpose not to sin anymore, the lack of purpose not to commit adultery anymore, the lack of purpose not to flee the next occasions of sin ... etc. And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unshakable as it closes man to contrition, conversion and therefore to Redemption!

God free us from such a sin and always keep our hearts open to contrition and to the Holy Spirit who arouses it in us. The Holy Spirit is in fact the One who convinces man of sin and leads him to true conversion and therefore to contrition.

Continue s. John Paul II at n. 48 of the encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem: “In his farewell speech, Jesus united these three areas of" convincing "as components of the Paraclete's mission: sin, justice and judgment. …. Those who allow themselves to be "convinced as to sin" by the Holy Spirit, also allow themselves to be convinced as to "justice and judgment". ... In this way, those who "convinced of sin" are converted under the action of the consoler, are, in a certain sense, led out of the orbit of the "judgment": of that "judgment", with which "the prince of this world has been judged. " Conversion, in the depth of its divine-human mystery, means the breaking of every bond with which sin binds man in the whole mystery of iniquity. Those who are converted, therefore, are led by the Holy Spirit out of the orbit of "judgment", and introduced into that righteousness, which is in Christ Jesus, and is there because he receives it from the Father, as a reflection of Trinitarian holiness. … In this righteousness the Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Father and of the Son, who "convinces the world as to sin", reveals himself and makes himself present in man as the Spirit of eternal life. "[564].

The Spirit of truth therefore convinces man, who welcomes him, and leads him to conversion, to contrition and therefore to hatred and pain for the sin committed and to the resolution not to sin again and to flee the next occasions of sin. But it is necessary that man let himself be "convinced" of sin by the Holy Spirit ... and the sacred Pastors must obviously help the faithful to be convinced and therefore must help him to make an act of contrition.

God enlighten us and free us from all sin, especially from the sin against the Holy Spirit. May God open us to the gift of contrition and radical conversion, may God grant us to help others to convert and reach true conversion and therefore to the true purpose of never sinning again, so that it may be clear: without a sincere and firm intention of change, sins remain "not forgiven" !!

The Catholic Church, which proclaims that the Trinity is love and that it wants the salvation of all, clearly affirms that the passage from the state of sinners to that of the righteous implies conversion and contrition. God's mercy is infinite, but whoever deliberately refuses to accept it through contrition, refuses the forgiveness of his sins and therefore the salvation that God offers him; such refusal can lead to final unrepentance and eternal damnation, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 1864. God's mercy is infinite but must be welcomed through repentance and contrition; without this welcome there is no forgiveness of sins and there is damnation!

The Council of Trent, as we have seen, specified that this act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in the man who fell into sin after Baptism it prepares for the remission of sins if accompanied by trust in divine Mercy and by I vow to fulfill all that is required to properly receive this Sacrament of Penance.[565]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as we have seen, states at number 1033 that dying in grave sin determines eternal damnation of the soul, that is, it means eternal hell! God enlighten us and take us to Heaven one day.

In the Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, at n. 31, s. John Paul II further reiterated what we are saying about the absolute necessity of contrition: "But the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, that is, a clear and decisive repudiation of the sin committed together with the intention not to return to commit it, for the love that one brings to God and that is reborn with repentance. Understood in this way, contrition is, therefore, the principle and soul of conversion, of that evangelical "metanoia" which brings man back to God as the prodigal son who returns to his father, and which has its sign in the sacrament of penance. visible, perfecting the same attraction. Therefore, "the truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart" (Rite of Penance, 6c). "[566]

God enlighten us!

I underline: the essential act of penance, on the part of the penitent, is contrition, that is, a clear and decisive repudiation of the sin committed together with the resolution not to commit it again, for the love that one brings to God and which is reborn with repentance. . Penance is not true if contrition is lacking ... and sins are not remitted.

The Code of Canon Law states: “Can. 962 - §1. In order for a faithful to validly take advantage of the sacramental absolution imparted simultaneously to several people, it is required that not only be well disposed, but together make the resolution to confess in due time the single serious sins, which at the moment he cannot confess. "

Even in the case of absolution given to several penitents it is necessary, for the valid reception of the same, that the penitent is well disposed, that is, has contrition as is well understood by what St. St. John Paul II below: "It is clear that penitents who live in a habitual state of grave sin and do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution."[567]

Contrition with its parts, including the resolution not to sin, is necessary for a valid absolution, we have seen this very clearly so far.

Still s. John Paul II stated: “We know that Jesus Christ has fully reconfirmed the divine commandments of Mount Sinai. He instructed the men to observe them. He indicated that the observance of the commandments is the fundamental condition of reconciliation with God, the fundamental condition for the attainment of eternal salvation. "[568] Which also means that contrition with its parts, including the resolution that leads to living according to the commandments and therefore not to sin, is necessary for a valid absolution and therefore for the remission of grave sins and for eternal salvation.

May the sacred cross be our light.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published by St. John Paul II affirms in the line seen up to now, with regard to the sacrament of Penance, in n. 1448, that contrition is an essential element of the Sacrament of Penance. In the absence of the contrition of the repentant there is no sacrament and the eventual absolution is null. In the Rite of Penance[569] to nos. 5-6 we read: “6. The disciple of Christ who, moved by the Holy Spirit, approaches the sacrament of Penance after sin, must first of all be converted wholeheartedly to God. This intimate conversion of the heart, which includes contrition for sin and the purpose of a new life. , the sinner expresses it through the confession made to the Church, due satisfaction, and the amendment of life. And God grants the remission of sins through the Church, which acts through the ministry of priests. a) Contrition. Among the acts of the penitent, contrition occupies the first place, which is "the pain and detestation of the sin committed, with the purpose of no longer sinning". And in fact, "we can only reach the kingdom of Christ with" metanoia ", that is, with that intimate and radical change, as a result of which man begins to think, judge and rearrange his life, moved by holiness and goodness of God, as it manifested itself and was given to us in fullness in his Son (cf. Heb 1, 2; Col 1, 19 and passim; Eph 1, 23 and passim) ". It should be noted well: the penitent must first of all be converted wholeheartedly to God. This intimate conversion of the heart includes the contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life. The truth of Penance depends on this contrition of the heart, if it lacks absolution it is invalid and Penance is false.

If true purpose is lacking, contrition is lacking, there is no true repentance, in fact says yes. John Paul II: “It is also self-evident that the accusation of sins must include the serious resolution not to commit any more in the future. If this disposition of the soul were lacking, in reality there would be no repentance: this, in fact, concerns moral evil as such, and therefore not taking a position contrary to a possible moral evil would be not detesting evil, not having repentance. But just as this must first of all derive from the pain of having offended God, so the resolution not to sin must be based on divine grace, which the Lord never lets those who do what is possible to act honestly fail. " [570] If the serious resolution not to commit sins in the future is lacking, repentance is lacking, contrition is lacking and absolution is invalid.

May the sacred cross be our light.

The absolute necessity of contrition with regard to salvation was reaffirmed, in the line of traditional doctrine, by the Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments in instruction: “Redemptionis Sacramentum” in n. 81: "The custom of the Church also affirms the need for each one to examine himself very thoroughly, (Cf. 1 Cor 11, 28.) so that whoever is aware of being in grave sin does not celebrate Mass or communicate to the Body of the Lord without having prematurely made sacramental confession, unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in which case it should be remembered that he is bound to perform an act of perfect contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible.[571]"[572]

Whoever is aware of being in grave sin must not celebrate Mass or communicate to the Lord's Body without having first given sacramental confession, which includes contrition, unless there is a grave reason and the opportunity to confess is lacking; in which case it should be remembered that he is bound to perform an act of perfect contrition….

This act of contrition has always been necessary to implore the remission of sins and in the man who fell into sin after Baptism.[573]

In a recent document of the Congregation for Divine Worship entitled "To rediscover the" Rite of Penance "which appeared in Notitiae in 2015 and which you can find at this address [574]  we can read the following: "In the absence of conversion / metanoia, the fruits of the sacrament fail for the penitent, since:" the truth of penance depends on this contrition of the heart "(RP 6)." ... without conversion and therefore without contrition the fruits of the sacrament fail ... absolution is nothing! … And the penitent remains in his sin! The conversion of the penitent, as the document just cited from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments explains in the following passage, is an element of such extraordinary importance that it is not only the main among the acts of the penitent but it is a unifying element in all the acts of the penitent himself. constitutive of the Sacrament: "The conversion of the heart is not only the main element, it is also the one that unifies all the acts of the penitent constitutive of the sacrament, given that every single element is defined in terms of the conversion of the heart:" This intimate conversion of heart, which includes contrition of sin and the purpose of a new life, the sinner expresses through confession made to the Church, due satisfaction, and the amendment of life "(RP 6)"[575]

In the absence of contrition, a fundamental constitutive act of the sacrament is missing and therefore the sacrament is not there! … And the acquittal eventually given is null.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote a few years ago: "In any case, absolution can be granted only if there is the certainty of true contrition, that is to say" the interior pain and the reproach of the sin that has been committed , with the resolution not to sin anymore "(cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c.4). In this line, a divorced and remarried person cannot validly be absolved who does not take the firm resolution to "sin no more" and therefore abstain from the acts proper to the spouses, and in this sense doing everything in his power. " [576] Without contrition there can be no valid absolution of the penitent. …. therefore, a divorced and remarried person who does not take the firm resolution to “sin no more” and to abstain from the acts proper to spouses cannot be validly acquitted!

I would point out that a few years ago the doctrine on extenuating circumstances was known to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as we shall see further on, but, as we can see, it reiterates clearly and absolutely, that without contrition absolution is nothing.

May God who is Light arise and enlighten us better and better.

The Code of Canon Law significantly states: “Can. 980 - If the confessor has no doubts about the penitent's dispositions and the latter asks for absolution, it is neither denied nor deferred. " This means that if the fundamental dispositions in the penitent such as contrition are lacking, the penitent must be helped to arrange himself but if he is not disposed and therefore does not accept the gift of contrition he cannot be absolved ...

May the Trinity make this truth shine in his Church and free the Pastors and the faithful from any illusion of saving themselves without merit and without conversion.

The International Theological Commission significantly affirmed, in the line we are presenting, regarding the essence of penance: "Penance is therefore both a gift of grace and a free and morally responsible act of man (actus humanus), an act by which the human subject recognizes the responsibility for his bad actions and, at the same time, with a personal decision, changes his life by giving it a new direction that directs it towards God. "[577]

In the same text, the International Theological Commission further stated: “The essence of this sacrament therefore consists in the fact that the reconciliation of the sinner with God is accomplished in reconciliation with the Church. Consequently, the sign of the sacrament of penance consists of a double step: on the one hand, there are the human acts of conversion (conversio) through the repentance that love arouses (contritio), of external confession (confessio) and of reparation. (satisfactio); it is the anthropological dimension. On the other hand, the ecclesial community, under the guidance of the bishop and priests, offers in the name of Jesus the forgiveness of sins, establishes the necessary forms of satisfaction, prays for the sinner and does penance in solidarity with him, to finally guarantee him full ecclesial communion and the forgiveness of one's sins; it is the ecclesial dimension. "[578]

The sign of the sacrament of penance consists of a double step and in this double step contrition is included so that lacking it there is no sacrament, as we are seeing.

St. John Paul II clearly stated: "The celebration of the sacrament of Penance has developed over the centuries which has known different forms of expression, always, however, maintaining the same fundamental structure which necessarily includes, in addition to the intervention of the minister - only a Bishop or a presbyter, who judges and absolves, cures and heals in the name of Christ - the acts of the penitent: contrition, confession and satisfaction. "[579]

Contrition is one of the necessary acts of the penitent, it is indispensable for the remission of sins through the sacrament of penance. May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

g) Final considerations on the invalidity of the absolution given in the absence of contrition by the penitent.

The doctrine, as we have seen, is very clear: IF CONTRITION IS LACK IN THE PENITENT (WITH ITS VARIOUS ELEMENTS: PAIN, PURPOSE, DETESTATION), ABSOLUTION IS NOTHING AND HIS SINS REMAIN!

But starting from the last text quoted, that is the Apostolic Letter in the form of a Motu Proprio "Misericordia Dei" of 7.4.2002 written by s. John Paul II [580] some might say: confession and satisfaction are also essential elements of Confession, yet it does not seem that they are present in certain absolutions given to the dying or in certain general or collective absolution given in situations of extreme necessity? I answer with the words of St. Alphonsus who speaking of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance affirms: “The next matter then… are the acts of the penitent, called by the trid. almost matter, because they are not physical matter, as is that of the other sacraments; and these acts are (as the council declared) contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The satisfaction, however, is not an essential part, as the first two are, but only an integral part, since without that in some cases the sacrament may well be valid. "[581] Satisfaction is not an essential part of the sacrament therefore without it in some cases the sacrament may well be valid. While an essential part of the Sacrament is confession and contrition.

Explain s again. Alphonsus that the confession must be complete but: "... sometimes in the confession the formal integrity is enough, that is, that the penitent confesses according to morally he can by then, while remaining obliged to make the materially complete confession, when the impediment is removed , and there will be an obligation to confess again. So he excuses from material integrity the physical and moral impotence. "[582] In this line, the dying and other faithful such as the mute can be acquitted in some cases even if they cannot speak, in some cases even the dying person who is unconscious can be absolved as explained by St. Alfonso [583]

In the extreme cases mentioned above, absolution does not determine the remission of sins if the person is not contrite for sins… and therefore if he does not propose not to sin anymore… He explains in fact s. John Paul II: "7. As regards the personal dispositions of penitents, it is reiterated that:

a) "In order for a faithful to validly benefit from sacramental absolution imparted simultaneously to several persons, it is required that he not only be well disposed, but together make the resolution to confess individual grave sins in due time, which at the moment he cannot confess". (Canon 962, § 1)

b) As far as possible, even in the case of imminent danger of death, the faithful should be given "the exhortation that each one takes steps to make the act of contrition" (Can. 962, § 2.)

c) It is clear that penitents who live in a habitual state of grave sin and do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. " [584]

Penitents who are not who are not well disposed, who do not intend to change their situation of grave sin, that is, those who are not contrite of their own cannot validly receive absolution "general" or "collective" sins.

In his works, St. Alphonsus explains, in this line, that, in all cases, therefore even in the case of absolution when a moribund unconscious, contrition is always necessary in order to have the remission of grave sin: "The pain of sins is so necessary for forgiveness that without this not even God (at least according to ordinary providence) can forgive us. ... It may be the case that someone is saved by dying without being examined and without confessing sins, as when he had an act of true contrition, and had no time, or priest to confess to; but without pain it is impossible for him to save himself. "[585] and the same teaching also emerges from his other writings as we have seen above.

Collective absolution or absolution given in cases of extreme necessity always require contrition on the part of the penitent. It should be emphasized that these very particular confessions and absolution just examined are justified by the situation of extreme necessity of the penitents. Outside of these cases: “Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way in which the faithful, aware of grave sin, are reconciled with God and with the Church; only a physical or moral impossibility excuses from such a confession, in which case reconciliation can also be obtained in other ways. "(Can. 960) [586]

It should also be emphasized that the valid reception of such acquittals in cases of extreme necessity implies the commitment to make a precise and ordinary Confession as soon as possible, as seen above, s. John Paul II in fact affirms that in order to receive collective absolution the penitent: "make the resolution to confess in due time the individual serious sins, which at the moment he cannot confess"[587]

The penitent dying after a confession that is not materially complete, in the event that he improves and perhaps heals, explains s. Alfonso: ".. he is then obliged for when he can explain them in particular, to make the entire confession even materially (Book 6. n. 480.)". [588]

We know well that God is infinitely merciful but also infinitely just and our salvation implies our justification that is the real passage from the situation of real sin to the situation of real justification by which we become truly just before God! Contrition is necessary for the validity of the sacrament even in extreme cases.

The way that leads to Heaven is a narrow way that implies true holiness and therefore true justice before God ... And God, I stress, absolutely requires, for the valid remission of sins that the penitent pass, through contrition, from the way of sin to the way of the commandments ... The Second Vatican Council states: "The Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, receive from the Lord [...] the mission of teaching all peoples and preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men, through faith , of Baptism and of the observance of the commandments, may they obtain salvation ".[589] Veritatis Splendor significantly affirms in this line: “The Church offers the example of numerous saints who have witnessed and defended moral truth to the point of martyrdom or have preferred death to a single mortal sin. By elevating them to the honor of the altars, the Church has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment true, according to which the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention to save his life. " (VS, no. 91)

The remission of sins implies that the penitent, under the action of the Holy Spirit, makes a serious resolution to live according to the commandments in charity and therefore not to sin.

HOW IT IS ABSURD AND INVALID TO GIVE ABSOLUTION TO THOSE WHO DO NOT PROPOSE, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, NOT TO KILL OR EXPECT OR DO NOT PERFORM ACTS OF PEDOPHILIA or homosexuality, SO IT IS ABSURD AND INVALID TO GIVE ABSOLUTION TO THOSE WHO DO NOT PROPOSE NOT TO COMMIT ADULTERY!

In this regard it is also important to remember that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2072: “Since the ten commandments reveal the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, in their essential content they reveal grave obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. Nobody could dispense from them. The ten commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being. "

The fact that the law of God is indispensable, as also taught by St. Thomas (cf. Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) Implies that no one can dispense others or himself from the fulfillment of the Law. As we are seeing in this book: no one can dispense himself or others from the implementation of the divine commandments and this is particularly true with regard to what is objectively serious they condemn; that is, no one can exempt himself or others from the observance of the commandments allowing himself or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, murder, pedophilia, i.e. sexual abuse of minors, rape, etc.) condemned by the divine commandments, and this applies also for the confessor and for the penitent ...

Those who understand that he must confess and go to confession must also understand that he must live according to the commandments with the strength that comes from prayer and with the help that God certainly wants to give him ... God has given us his law to observe it ... The Holy Spirit which pushes us to confession pushes us to observe the Law… it is useless to look for other ways of salvation because there are none.

Without the intention of no longer sinning and therefore without contrition there can be no valid sacramental absolution and remission of sins.

In this line, what the Bishops of Kazakhstan said in the "Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage" seems illuminating and important to me. " penitent, in particular the divorced and remarried, from the implementation of the sixth commandment and from the indissolubility of marriage and therefore to absolve it sacramentally and admit it to the Eucharist; an alleged conviction, in conscience, on the part of the penitent, of the invalidity of his own marriage in the internal forum cannot produce consequences regarding sacramental discipline in the external forum, so that, even if a valid sacramental marriage remains in existence, such penitent can live more uxorio with who is not his legitimate spouse and can receive the Sacraments despite his intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and the sacramental marriage bond that is still in existence in the future. The text just quoted says: "A practice that allows civilly divorced people, so-called" remarried ", to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, despite their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their marriage bond in the future sacramental "is evidently" contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church and the proven custom received, faithfully guarded since the time of the Apostles and lately confirmed in a sure way by Saint John Paul II (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84) and by Pope Benedict XVI (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, 29) ”; this practice is contrary to the perennial practice of the Church and is a counter-witness, moreover it is widespread of the "plague of divorce"; whoever really wants to help people who find themselves in an objective state of grave sin must announce to them with charity the full truth about God's will for them, must therefore help them to repent with all their heart of the sinful act of living together more uxorio with a person who is not his legitimate spouse, as clearly emerges from the statements of s. John Paul II (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 33). The admission of the so-called "remarried" divorcees to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, without their real intention to live as brother and sister, that is, without being required to fulfill them, constitutes a danger for the faith and for the salvation of souls. of the obligation to live in continence. This pastoral practice of admission is never the expression of the Church's "via caritatis" and therefore of her mercy towards sinful souls.[590]

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

Mons. Livi said, criticizing the openings of Amoris Laetitia "Repentance does not appear to exist when the faithful does not declare to the confessor that he wants to leave his state of" divorced-remarried "by severing the relationship with the cohabiting partner and working to return with the legitimate spouse, or when he does not propose to repair the damage caused to the legitimate spouse, to any offspring, to the cohabitant who led into sin and to the entire Christian community to whom he caused scandal. In the absence of these conditions - which, from the theological point of view, constitute the "matter" of the sacrament of Penance - the confessor is required to deny, for the moment, absolution, which would not be an act of mercy but a deception (because acquittal would be illegal, and above all invalid) "[591]

As seen, Meiattini criticizing Amoris Laetitia, states that: "... in the absence of this repentance-purpose, the absolution is not valid and the sin remains (common doctrine!)."[592]

15) Clarifications on n.5 of the letter from the Argentine Bishops approved by Pope Francis: the priest must correct those who find themselves in a situation of sin.

At no. 5 of the letter from the Argentine Bishops states: "When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, the commitment to live sexual continence can be proposed".

Writes d. Meiattini: “Our italics highlights that the requirement of continence… becomes a simple proposal and moreover optional. In fact, it is not even considered a proposal that the confessor must make to them. At most it "can be proposed", when the circumstances do

make it doable. … In other words, continence is not only optional, reduced from requirement to proposal, but it is also optional for the priest to present it as such. According to the verbal tenor, the confessor could also not propose continence, for some unspecified reason, going directly to absolution without further asking or "proposing". … The question that arises is whether the penitent should at least be made aware that he should try to configure that purpose, if only to express a beginning of repentance. Otherwise, in the absence of this repentance-purpose, the absolution is invalid and the sin remains (common doctrine!). "[593]

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

Since we are in the field of pastoral care and given that the Pastor must help the faithful to live according to the Gospel, it seems rather strange to say that the pastor can propose to the couple to live in chastity, in reality the Pastor must say clearly and with charity to the couple which is the will of God towards them and that is, he must clearly enlighten them on their sinful situation and this is for their true good, but certainly this must be done with charity. Living outside the commandments is not good for the person himself. Whoever sins harms himself and others. Whoever does not allow himself to be guided by the Holy Spirit will not taste the fruits of the Spirit….

Let us remember the enlightening words of St. Gregory the Great: "" Son of man, I have set you to watch over the house of Israel "(Ez 3:16). it should be noted that when the Lord sends someone to preach, he calls him by the name of sentinel. "[594] Here we obviously speak of Shepherds and it is said that they are called sentinels. Now if we go to read the whole biblical text (Ez 3, 16-21) of which the s. Doctor cites a part, we note that the watchman must warn ... in fact in this text we read: "At the end of those seven days this word of the Lord was addressed to me:" Son of man, I have set you as a watchman for the house of Israel . When you hear a word from my mouth, you will have to warn them from me. If I say to the wicked one: "You will die!", And you do not warn him and do not speak for the wicked to desist from his perverse and living conduct, he, the wicked one, will die for his iniquity, but I will ask an account of his death. you. But if you warn the wicked and he does not turn back from his wickedness and his perverse course, he will die for his iniquity, but you will be saved. Thus, if the righteous strays from his righteousness and commits evil, I will put a stumbling block before him and he will die. If you do not warn him, he will die for his sin and the righteous works he has done will no longer be remembered, but I will ask you for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the righteous not to sin and he does not sin, he will live, because he has been warned and you will be saved ».

The sentinel must warn, the Shepherd must warn the sinner otherwise the sin of the latter falls on the Shepherd, the Gospel teaches to correct those who make mistakes, and the Shepherd must correct those who make mistakes, yes. Alfonso states: “The works in which the zealous priest must be employed are the following. For 1º goddesses wait to correct sinners. The priests who see the offenses of God and do not speak are called by Isaiah dumb dogs: Canes muti, non valentes latrare (Is. 56. 10). But these dumb dogs will be charged with all the sins that they could prevent and have not prevented: Nolite tacere, ne populi peccata vobis imputentur (Albinus epist. 18.). Some priests stop reproving sinners, saying that they do not want to worry: but he says yes. Gregory that these, for this peace they desire, will miserably lose peace with God: Dum pacem Desiderant, pravos mores nequaquam redarguunt; et, consentiendo perversis, ab auctoris se pace disiungunt (Past. n. 3. admon. 23.). Great thing! writes s. Bernard. A donkey falls and there are many who move to lift it; a soul falls and there is no one to help it get up: Cadit asinus, et est qui adiuvat; cadit homo, et non est qui sublevet. When, he says s. Gregory, the priest especially is appointed by God to teach the good way to those who err: Eligitur viam errantibus demonstrare. Whence adds s. Leo: Sacerdos qui alium ab error non revocat, seipsum errare demonstrat. Writes s. Gregory that we give death to as many souls as we see going to die and let us shelter you: Nos qui sacerdotes vocamur, daily occidimus quos ad mortem ire tepide videmus. "[595]

Charity, which Christ brought to give his life to enlighten and save us, leads Pastors, who truly have this virtue, to do as Christ did. We specify in this regard that the priest, on his part, must correct the divorced and remarried person who manifests himself as such in Confession. In this case, the rule according to which the warning should not be given if no fruit is hoped for does not apply. Adultery and homosexuality practiced are in evident and grave opposition to the 10 commandments; therefore the Confessor must warn the penitent who is adulterous or who practices homosexuality, because homosexual practice is a serious violation of the 10 commandments, adultery, and in particular adulterous cohabitation, is a serious violation of the 10 commandments and a scandalous fact, which therefore harms the community, and for this reason the adulterous penitent or one who performs homosexual acts cannot be left without warning[596] More precisely, Pope Benedict XIV said in this regard that "If the Confessor knows that the penitent commits some sins of which he is not accused ... the Confessor who has the obligation to preserve the integrity of the Confession must in a good way recall to his memory what he omits, correct him, admonish him, inducing him to a true Penance. "[597] Then the Pontiff recalls that San Bernardino of Siena wonders in his works (tome 2, ser. 27, art. 2, chap. 3, p. 167) whether the Confessor is obliged to diligently examine the conscience of the sinner; the great Sienese saint replies yes, and "... he says that this must be done not only in those things that the penitent is silent on" either through negligence or out of shame ", but also in those who are silent out of ignorance:" ... since it is possible fear that the penitent is ignorant of crass ignorance that according to William it is not an excuse; or because he does not understand that that action is a sin; in fact, according to Isidore, the ignorant sins every day, and he doesn't know it ”.[598]

Benedict XIV then continues the discourse stating that “In fact, since we are not dealing with some positive jus, from which a disorder known to the Confessor and unknown to the penitent has arisen, so much so that if it were notified to the latter it could result in some serious inconvenience; but now it is a question of conquerable ignorance, of actions that everyone should know are sinful; of things that if neglected by the Confessor give reason to the penitent to continue in his iniquitous custom, and to others or to be scandalized or to consider such things as indifferent (since they are practiced with great ease by those who frequent the Sacraments of the Church), the Theologians agree in affirming that the Confessor is obliged to question and admonish the penitent, regardless of the displeasure that, by admonishing him, he will give him, and hoping that if perhaps at that moment the admonition will not be entirely beneficial, it will be in future with God's help. "[599]. The same doctrine is affirmed by s. Alfonso M. de Liguori in the Theologia Moralis[600]  and it is in this passage that he reports the text of Benedict XIV just indicated. St. Alphonsus affirms, in particular, that the Confessor must give an admonition if ignorance is guilty, that is, winnable.[601].

On the other hand, S. Alfonso fully accepts what St. Thomas for which: “… all are required to commonly know the things of faith, and the general precepts of law: each one is then required to know the duties of his own office. ... Now, it is evident that anyone who neglects the possession, or the accomplishment of the things that he is bound to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Therefore ignorance of what one is bound to know is sin, due to negligence. But ignorance of what one cannot know cannot be attributed to negligence. This is why this latter ignorance is called invincible: due to the impossibility of overcoming it with our commitment. And since it is not voluntary, due to the impossibility in which we are to remove it, this ignorance is not a sin. From this we conclude that invincible ignorance is never a sin; and that conquerable ignorance is a sin, only if it is a question of things that one is bound to know. "[602] Failure to know the matters of faith, the general precepts of law and the duties of one's office is guilty. S. Alfonso M. de Liguori explains, taking up the text of s. Thomas (I-II q. 76 a. 2) who does not give himself invincible (innocent) ignorance of the first principles of the natural moral law and even of the immediate conclusions of them, as are the 10 commandments. [603] Therefore the Confessor must admonish the penitent that it goes obviously against the 10 commandments.

In another text, s. Alphonsus, citing Benedict XIV again, explains that the confessor is obliged to carefully examine the conscience of penitents, to instruct them and therefore to admonish penitents. [604]

The Catholic is required to know and observe the 10 commandments for his eternal salvation, and therefore it is necessary for the priest to admonish the penitent who performs acts contrary to them (among these acts there are, of course, those of adultery and homosexuality) precisely to in order to direct him on the true way that leads to Heaven. Adultery and homosexuality also normally cause scandal and therefore the faithful who commit them must be admonished even more.

God enlighten us better and better.

Says s. John Paul II “The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by moral commandments, expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testament. As we have seen, Jesus himself reiterates the imperative of these prohibitions: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments ...: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify to the false" (Mt 19,17: 18-52) . " (VS, n.598) Some may be surprised that adultery is associated here with murder and may think that this association is absurd but I point out that both are grave sins and that both are ordinarily scandalous, the adultery destroys families, spouses and children. Severe sin then mysteriously but really kills Christ, says the Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. XNUMX, and these we are talking about are very serious sins…. so how absurd it is not to forcefully say, in confession, to a murderer to convert and not clearly propose to him to do so, how absurd it is not to say forcefully to a liar, that with his lies he is causing serious damage to someone, who must convert , so it is absurd not to clearly and forcefully tell an adulterer to convert and not to clearly propose to him to do so! And obviously if the penitent does not have true repentance for the sin he has done and does not have the intention of no longer sinning, he cannot be given absolution.

16) Clarifications on note 329 of Amoris Laetitia and on the errors to which it opens the doors.

First of all, I remember that, as we saw, Msgr. Fernández, probable ghost writer of Amoris Laetitia, stated “Aunque the cuestión del posible lit a la comune de algunos divorciados en nueva unión provoked mucho revuelo, el Papa intentó —sin lograrlo— que este paso se di una manera discreta. Por eso, después de desarrollar los presupuestos de this decision in the cuerpo of the document, the application to the municipality of the divorce in new unión se hizo explícita en notas a pie de página. "[605] This means that although the question of possible access to communion for some divorced in a new union has caused a stir, the Pope has tried - unsuccessfully - to take this step discreetly. Therefore, after developing the assumptions of this decision in the body of the document, the application to the communion of divorced in a new union was made explicit in the footnotes. This makes us understand the importance of the notes, especially some, in Amoris Laetitia and we will see that among these important notes we must insert note n. 329.

At no. 298 of Amoris Laetitia we read: "The Church recognizes situations in which" man and woman, for serious reasons - such as, for example, the education of children - cannot satisfy the obligation of separation "." (Amoris Laetitia 298) The text of note 329 is inserted at this point and in it we read: “John Paul II, Esort. ap. Familiaris consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In these situations, many, knowing and accepting the possibility of living together "as brother and sister" that the Church offers them, note that, if some expressions are missing of intimacy, "it is not uncommon for fidelity to be endangered and the good of children may be compromised"[607] ”

After all that we have said in the previous pages on adultery and which we will reiterate and expand, in the following pages we will clearly see that the affirmations of note n. 329 of Amoris Laetitia are a colossal mistake.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the "Persona humana" (29.12.1975) states: "Now, according to the Christian tradition and the doctrine of the Church, and as also recognizes right reason, the moral order of sexuality entails for life human values ​​so high that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious.[608]"[609]  . In the encyclical Veritatis Splendor we read: “The negative precepts of natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and in every circumstance. In fact, it is a question of prohibitions that prohibit a specific action semper et pro semper, without exception .... The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by moral commandments, expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testament. . "(VS, n. 52) Jesus underlines the imperative of these negative commands:" If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments ...: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify to falsehood "(Mt 19,17, 18-1) St. Paul states: "Do not deceive yourselves: neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor slanders, nor rapacious will inherit the Kingdom of God" (6,9 Cor 10, 80-XNUMX). Again in Veritatis Splendor we read “By teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the doctrine of Sacred Scripture. If the acts are intrinsically bad, a good intention or particular circumstances can attenuate their malice, but they cannot suppress it: they are "irremediably" bad acts, for themselves and in themselves they cannot be ordered to God and to the good of the person…. " (VS, no. XNUMXs)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2348: “Every baptized person is called to chastity. … At the moment of Baptism, the Christian committed himself to living his affection in chastity. "

The Second Vatican Council states: "The acts by which the spouses unite in chaste intimacy are honorable and worthy, and, carried out in a truly human way, favor the mutual self-giving that they signify, and enrich each other in joyful gratitude the spouses themselves" .[610] ...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n.2363: “Through the union of the spouses the twofold purpose of marriage is achieved: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. "

Pius XII in a series of catecheses on conjugal fidelity held in 1942 affirmed, among other things, that such fidelity: "... judges unfaithful and perjury not only those who attempt with divorce, otherwise unworthy and without effect, the indissolubility of marriage, but also who, even without materially destroying the home he founded, while continuing the commonality of married life, allows himself to tie and maintain another criminal bond in parallel; unfaithful and perjury who, even without entering into any illicit lasting relationship, disposes, even once, for the pleasure of others or for his own selfish and sinful satisfaction, of a body - to use the expression of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7 , 4) - to which only the legitimate bridegroom or bride has the right. "[611]

Pius XII himself affirms, always in this cycle of catechesis: "But always against every deceptive fascination true fidelity rises and magnifies, which, as we said in our last discourse, has as its object and foundation the mutual gift not only of body of the couple, but also of their spirit and heart. Is it not true that the slightest infringement of this exquisite and cordial fidelity easily leads, sooner or later, to the great failures of married life and happiness? "[612] If outrages such as bold looks and familiarity are outrages to healthy fidelity, what to think of those who, like the divorced and remarried, live together more uxorio, without being husband and wife? Their prolonged coexistence can never be called fidelity since it is a very serious outrage to marriage!

Pius XII adds, in an illuminating text also about the terrible damage of adultery: “Oh how the heart bleeds to think that these children, growing up, will end up understanding their misfortune…! What a horrible temptation to end life or to rebuild a different life and a different home! "[613]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemning some expressions of Sister MA Farley, affirmed that some of her statements are in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage and added: "Conjugal love requires from spouses, by its very nature, an inviolable fidelity . … This intimate union, as the mutual gift of two persons, as well as the good of the children, require the full fidelity of the spouses and demand their indissoluble unity. … From the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and to bear witness to it. .. "  [614]

Again the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the same document just seen, affirmed, regarding the divorced and remarried: "Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance cannot be granted except to those who have repented of having violated the sign of Covenant and fidelity to Christ, and are committed to living in complete continence "  [615]" [616] Adultery violates the fidelity to Christ to which spouses have committed themselves.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2364 that the union achieved by God through the celebration of marriage imposes on the spouses: “the obligation to preserve their unity and indissolubility. (Cf CIC canon 1056.) ”The same Catechism affirms in n. 2365 “Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's word. God is faithful. The sacrament of Matrimony makes man and woman enter into Christ's fidelity to his Church. "

St. John Paul II affirmed: "Perfect conjugal love must be marked by that fidelity and that donation to the only Spouse (and also by the fidelity and donation of the Bridegroom to the only Bride), on which the religious profession and priestly celibacy. " [617]What we have just said and what we said above makes us understand that note 329 contains a gross error: the statements concerning the intimate life of a couple united by God cannot be applied to a couple who are not united by God. There is talk of fidelity between spouses, which is true between them and with God, when it is stated in Gaudium et Spes: "The Council knows that often spouses, who want to lead their married life harmoniously, are hindered by certain conditions of the life of today, and they may find circumstances in which the number of children cannot be increased, at least for a certain time; not without difficulty then it is possible to preserve the practice of faithful love and the full community of life. Where, in fact, the intimacy of married life is interrupted, it is not uncommon for fidelity to be endangered and the good of children may be compromised: then the education of children and the courage to accept others are also in danger. "[618] Intimate relationships between spouses are blessed by God, when they are made according to God's Law, and help to be faithful to the choice made in God and before God. Outside the Sacrament of marriage, intimate relationships are gravely sinful, as seen. , and, for those who were already married, they are adulterous relationships, therefore they are relationships that imply infidelity to God, to oneself and to one's neighbor…. they serve to be faithful to the devil and to walk on the path of damnation and not on that of eternal life…. THE ADULTERINE ACTS OF A COUPLE OF DIVORCED PEOPLE REPLY WITH THE HOLY ACTS OF A COUPLE OF SPOUSES UNITED LEGITIMATELY IN MARRIAGE BEFORE GOD CANNOT BE SHARED ... FAITHFULNESS IN GOD, HIMSELF AND NEIGHBOR THAT SUCH INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS DETERMINE IN A COUPLE OF UNMARRIED PEOPLE.

I emphasize that adultery is an intrinsically and gravely evil act that no circumstance can make lawful; it is not lawful to commit adultery to keep together a union between the divorced and remarried (cfr. VS, n. 80s). ......

And it should not be said that Amoris Laetitia presents certain statements like the words of others since it says: "many, knowing and accepting the possibility of living together" as brother and sister "that the Church offers them, note that, if some expressions of intimacy, "it is not uncommon for fidelity to be endangered and the good of children may be compromised"[619]. It appears evident that these statements are reported in Amoris Laetitia and are not condemned by it ... they evidently open doors that should never be opened and are clearly connected with the statements of the letter of the Argentine Bishops and with the statements of the Pope reported by Msgr . Forte therefore «If we speak explicitly of communion for the divorced and remarried - reported Mgr. Forte referring a joke from Pope Francis - you don't know what mess they make us. So let's not talk about it directly, make sure that the premises are in place, then I'll draw the conclusions ».[620] … Are connected in a certain way with the statements of Cardinal Vallini and Cardinal Müller etc. …. And they lead to the subversion of Catholic morality and therefore to the ABSURD CONCESSION OF THE SACRAMENTS TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO PROPOSE TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENTS!

Note no. 329 of Amoris Laetitia inspires, in fact, this text of application of Amoris Laetitia created by the Bishops of Emilia Romagna: “9. Discernment on marital relationships

The possibility of living as a "brother and sister" in order to be able to access confession and Eucharistic communion is contemplated by the AL in note 329. This teaching, which the Church has always indicated and which has been confirmed in the magisterium by "Familiaris Consortio" 84, must be presented with prudence, in the context of an educational journey aimed at recognizing the vocation of the body and the value of chastity in the various states of life. This choice is not considered the only possible one, since the new union and therefore also the good of the children could be put at risk in the absence of the marital acts. It is a delicate matter of that discernment in the "internal forum" of which AL deals with in n. 300. " [621] As the note insinuates and as the Emilian Bishops specify, the new union and the good of the children could be put at risk in the absence of marital acts ... the choice of life as a "brother and sister" is no longer the only possible one for a couple of unmarried people, who want to live according to Christ, therefore the doors are opened so that those who live in adultery and do not want to propose to avoid absolutely such sin still receive the Sacraments!

The Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, with an article signed by L. Bertocchi states in this regard: "This passage has a certain coherence with the infamous note 329 of Amoris laetitia, even if the bishops of Emilia-Romagna make it explicit in an even more evident way . In certain cases, conjugal acts that are not such can be performed and access to the sacraments. Note 329, in fact, quotes Vatican II's Gaudium et spes out of context. Out of context because clearly the pastoral constitution of the Council at number 51 refers to spouses and not to those who are not married: "Where - we read in Gaudium et spes - the intimacy of married life is interrupted, it is not uncommon that fidelity is endangered and the good of children may be compromised: then the education of children and the courage to accept others are also in danger ». According to note 329 of Amoris Laetitia, on the other hand, it seems that the conjugal acts between divorced and civilly remarried (and therefore there is no marital intimacy interrupted because there is no sacramental marriage) could, in some cases, represent a sort of good. possible. ”… It seems that these guidelines from Emilia Romagna were strongly desired above all by three bishops - Zuppi of Bologna; Castellucci of Modena and Perego of Ferrara - who had to overcome the resistance of other confreres. "[622]

Mons. Livi, as we have seen, wrote an interesting article precisely on the errors of this text of the Emilian Bishops, in this article he stated that the "desired ambiguity" of Amoris Laetitia indicates the desire of Pope Francis to introduce with "discretion" and surreptitiously a reform that on the level of doctrine is unjustifiable. The consequence of this papal action and its ambiguity is that the Catholic bishops have applied Amoris Laetitia in many different ways. The bishops of Emilia Romagna have decided to consider that a divorced and remarried person who does not intend to renounce sexual acts with the new partner is "in a state of grace" and therefore free to receive Eucharistic communion as they would be necessary to maintain the emotional bond of the couple and the union within the new family.

This is obviously an operational indication that contradicts directly what St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI had taught and what the "proven practice" accepted by the Holy See indicated. The Emilian bishops recognize that this is a break with the dogmatic-moral tradition, but they justify themselves by saying that this is precisely what chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia suggests, in fact they affirm: "The possibility of living as a" brother and sister "for to be able to access confession and Eucharistic communion is contemplated by Amoris laetitia in note 329. This teaching, which the Church has always indicated and which has been confirmed in the magisterium by Familiaris Consortio 84, must be presented with prudence, in the context of a educational journey aimed at recognizing the vocation of the body and the value of chastity in the various states of life. This choice is not considered the only possible one, since the new union and therefore also the good of the children could be put at risk in the absence of the marital acts. It is a delicate matter of that discernment in the "internal forum" of which AL deals with in n. 300 ".

So these bishops make explicit what Pope Francis was merely hinting at [623]

Obviously the Pope did not condemn these statements of the Bishops of Emilia and Romagna and indeed, the Archbishop of Bologna was created Cardinal in the Consistory of 2019 ... together with the "Portuguese priest-poet José Tolentino Mendonça," ... former vice-rector of the Catholic University of Lisbon, later promoted by Francis archivist and Vatican librarian after last year, on behalf of Bergoglio himself, he preached the spiritual exercises to the pope and to the Roman curia.

“Mendonça is known for being a fan of Sister Maria Teresa Forcades i Vila, an ultra-feminist 'theologian' who advocates abortion and homosexual 'marriage'. Precisely in the preface to a book by the Forcades, the new cardinal argues that "Jesus of Nazareth neither codified nor established rules". " [624]

Note 329 refers to the document of Cardinal Vallini which opens the doors, with a very serious error, in the Diocese of Rome, to Communion for those who believe in conscience that the first marriage celebrated by them is null and cannot prove in court. this nullity: “But when the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, that is to say when their journey of faith has been long, sincere and progressive, they propose to live in continence; if then this choice is difficult to practice for the stability of the couple, Amoris laetitia does not exclude the possibility of accessing Penance and the Eucharist (AL notes 329 and 364). This means some openness, as in the case where there is moral certainty that the first marriage was null, but there is no evidence to prove it in court; but not instead in the case in which, for example, one's condition is flaunted as if it were part of the Christian ideal, etc. "[625] The affirmations of the text of Cardinal Vallini make us understand the importance in relation to the subversion of the sound doctrine of note 329; it opens the doors, discreetly to that the divorced and remarried, who do not want to live as brother and sister, and who therefore do not propose to live according to the Law of God, are equally admitted to the Sacraments. This note effectively supports the statements of Mons. Elbs (La Fede Quotidiana "An Austrian bishop:" Communion for the divorced and remarried is an irreversible practice ", La Fede Quotidiana 11-1-2017 http://www.lafedequotidiana.it/un -Austrian-bishop-communion-for-the-divorced-remarried-irreversible-practice /) and other statements or incorrect practices in this line that we are seeing and that we will see ... STATEMENTS AND PRACTICES THAT EVIDENTLY ALSO INCLUDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS TO THOSE WHO WANT LIVING IN ADULTERY.

It is no wonder that Pope Francis told the super abortionist Biden, president of the United States, that he is a good Catholic and can take Communion! After a famous conversation with the Pope, Biden himself affirmed: "With the Pope we talked about the fact that he is happy that I am a good Catholic and that I continue to receive communion" (Niccolò Magnani "Communion in Biden, ok Pope: anger US bishops / "Francis, abortion is sacrilege!" "1.11.2021, www.ilsussidiario.net, https://www.ilsussidiario.net/news/comunione-a-biden-ok-papa-ira-vescovi- usa-francesco-laborto-e-sacrilegio / 2244042 /) The Holy See has not denied the words of Pope Francis ... so IF A SUPER ABORTIST CAN MAKE COMMUNION EASILY AS MUCH AS AN ADULTERY ... AND MAYBE AN ACTIVE HOMOSEXUAL ... OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT PROPOSING TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE… clearly all of this is scandalous at the highest level and radically contrary to sound doctrine, as we will see better later, in the second volume! Meanwhile, we must note that words like these said to President Biden also indicate that whoever confesses with the will to continue to commit a real grave sin (Biden has not given any public indication of conversion regarding his support for abortion) can be acquitted and therefore receive the Eucharist.

The subversion of sound doctrine proceeds ...

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

May the glorious Mother of God intercede for us, who annihilates heretical doctrines, crushes the power of error and unmasks the snare of idols[626], and which since ancient times has been invoked by the Christian people "in" defense "of the faith".[627]

17) Concluding clarifications of chapter III: the Pope is betraying and not developing sound doctrine!

God enlighten us better and better.

Taking up what we saw above when we dealt with the difference between the development of doctrine and its change, we must remember that the Magisterium, as mentioned, is called to interpret Tradition and Scripture and that the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition or Scripture but it therefore serves her the Magisterium must interpret and not destroy or distort the deposit of faith.

We saw what s stated. Vincent of Lerins affirmed (cf. Sancti Vincentii Lirinensis “Commonitorium” PL 50, 640s.649).

As a child develops while always remaining the same person, true progress occurs through internal development, "the genre of the doctrine, the doctrine itself, its meaning and its content must always remain the same."; the dogma of the Christian religion also progresses but must always remain absolutely intact and unaltered and, for true development, there must be no contradictions between the preceding and the following doctrine. (Cf. "Primo Commonitorio" by Vincent of Lérins, Chap. 23; PL 50, 667-668; Office of Friday Readings of the XXVII week of ordinary time in the Italian Episcopal Conference "Liturgy of the Hours according to the Roman Rite" ed. LEV 1993 (reprint) vol. IV p. 323s https://www.maranatha.it/Ore/ord/LetVen/27VENpage.htm)

In the Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" we read that: "... that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence . Therefore, along the course of the ages and centuries, may the intelligence and wisdom grow and vigorously progress, both of the centuries and of men, as of the whole Church, but in their own sector only, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., N. 28]. "(Pius IX, Dogmatic Constitution" Dei Filius "24.4.1870, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei- filius-24-aprilis-1870.html) The rule established by the First Vatican Council also applies to the Pope: "that meaning of the sacred dogmas that the Holy Mother Church has declared must be approved in perpetuity, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or with the appearances of a more complete intelligence. " ... indeed the Pope should give an example of the implementation of this rule ... the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" of Pius IX reaffirms this rule (Text taken from www.totustuus.it, http://www.totustuustools.net/magistero/p9ineffa.htm ) and with it the “Mysterium Ecclesiae” Declaration on Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some errors of today published in 1973 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cfr., www.vatican.va, http: // www. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_it.html)

In line with these affirmations, we recall that modernism with its errors was also condemned by the Church for: "... the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one meaning to another, different from what the Church previously held ". (Pius X, Motu proprio "Sacrorum antistitum", anti-modernist oath, Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3541)

The development of the doctrine implies that the faith remains substantially the same and that the doctrine must be understood "in the same sense and always in the same content" ... otherwise there is no development but a deformation and betrayal of the doctrine ...

I emphasize that, as we saw above, to verify that the interpretation of dogmas and the development of doctrine is rightly fulfilled and is not a distortion or destruction of the truth spread by Christ, St. JH Newman, a famous English theologian, offered seven principles (International Theological Commission "The interpretation of dogmas." 1990, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretation-dogmi_it.html)

Says s. Thomas Aquinas: "Dicendum quod hoc pro firmo est tenendum, unam esse fidem antiquorum et modernorum: alias non esset una Ecclesia."(De veritate, q. 14, a. 12c). … It must be firmly maintained that the faith of the ancients and of the moderns is one, otherwise the Church would not be one. In order to always be one, the Church must profess only one faith; the unity of the Church implies the unity of faith.

Some errors I have highlighted in this chapter in the Pope's affirmations, in the moral sphere, do not appear to be a development of sound doctrine but a change in it, in fact they do not appear in the sense of the continuity of principles, they do not develop as a logical consequence and not they achieve a preservative influence of the past, they are simply a betrayal of sound doctrine ... they betray fundamental doctrines, especially in the moral sphere, some of which are already established in a dogmatic way, doctrines clearly connected to Holy Scripture and reaffirmed by Tradition ... think in particular to the necessity of a true contrition, and therefore of a true resolution not to sin and to flee the next occasions of sin, for a valid sacramental absolution. Even certain Bergoglian statements, which we have seen, on the work of the Confessor within the Sacrament of Reconciliation, do not appear in the line of the evolution of sound doctrine.
The "dispensation" (which we will see better in the next chapters) which, practically, is granted by the implementation of divine commands allowing, practically, the penitent to continue to sin seriously and to receive the Sacraments, without true contrition, as mentioned, it appears in absolute contrast to fundamental affirmations of our faith. This "dispensation" is connected, as we will see better, to the action with which Pope Francis is practically canceling the doctrine on the absolute mandatory nature of the negative precepts of the Decalogue. This "dispensation" emerges, as seen, also through the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia about the "graduality of the law" and the "law of graduality". Absolutely contrary to the fundamental doctrines of our faith are the openings that the Pope is making regarding adultery, contraception and homosexuality practiced.

This betrayal of sound doctrine, it should be noted, is not an evolution but a change, in fact it has been defined by Bergoglio's own collaborators: "change of paradigm", that is precisely a radical subversion of sound doctrine. Although the Pope and some of his collaborators try to pass this doctrinal perversion as an evolution and as a pure Thomistic doctrine, we have seen that in many fundamental points Bergoglio's affirmations are in evident contrast to the true affirmations of St. Thomas and his doctrine are contrary to the doctrine that Tradition offers us and are precisely defined by the same Prelates close to the Pope as a "change of paradigm".

With this "change of paradigm" the sound doctrine is shrewdly put aside and the doors are obviously opened to invalid confessions, serious sins, sacrileges etc. ! Extremely significant in this line are the words that Pope Francis addressed to the super abortionist Biden, president of the United States and for which Biden is a good Catholic and can receive Communion! After a famous conversation with the Pope, Biden himself affirmed: "With the Pope we talked about the fact that he is happy that I am a good Catholic and that I continue to receive communion" (Niccolò Magnani "Communion in Biden, ok Pope: anger US bishops / "Francis, abortion is sacrilege!" "1.11.2021, www.ilsussidiario.net, https://www.ilsussidiario.net/news/comunione-a-biden-ok-papa-ira-vescovi- usa-francesco-laborto-e-sacrilegio / 2244042 /) The Holy See has not denied the words of Pope Francis ... so IF A SUPER ABORTIST CAN MAKE COMMUNION COMFORTABLY AND THEN CONFESSION OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT PROPOSING TO CHANGE LIFE ... HOW MUCH MORE AN ADULTERY ... AND MAYBE AN ACTIVE HOMOSEXUAL ...

This betrayal of sound doctrine is not allowed to the Pope ... we are also made to understand by the many statements of Prelates and theologians who in recent years, after Amoris Laetitia, have strongly reaffirmed the traditional doctrine and in some cases have even affirmed that the current Pope is opening the doors to heterodox doctrines and practices; in our journey, in this volume, we have seen and will see several of these public statements by Cardinals, Bishops and theologians.

The Pope is not above the Word of God and Tradition but at the service of them (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church" 31.10.1998 n. 7, www.vatican .va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html) The Pope must not decide according to his own will, but according to the will of the Lord, who speaks to the man through Holy Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition; the Pope's ministry has the limits that proceed from the law of God and from the inviolable divine constitution of the

Footnotes

[1]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, www.vatican.va, B, I, 1 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[2]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, I, 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[3]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, I, 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[4]St. John Paul II, “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” 2.12.1984, n. 23, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

[5]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, II, 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[6]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, II, 2s, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[7]S. Agostino "Sermo XIX", www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_023_testo.htm

[8]G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 329 ff.

[9]G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 330

[10]G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 330s.

[11]G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 327 ff.

[12]G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 334

[13]See G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 334s)

[14]See G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 335

[15]See G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 335

[16]See G. Bertram “συντρίβω” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1981 vol. XIII, 328s

[17]"Enarratio in Psalmos", Ps. 97, 6 www.augustinus.it, http://www.augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_salmi/esposizione_salmo_118_testo.htm

[18]www.academic-bible.com ; https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/24/270001/279999/ch/78c781793a71d465781fca70bde0f5ba/

[19]S. Agostino "De Civitate Dei", l. X n. 5 www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/latino/cdd/cdd_10_libro.htm

[20]"Sermo XIX" n. 3, www.augustinus.it https://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/index2.htm

[21]"Speech 19", n. 3 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_023_testo.htm

[22]De Civitate Dei, l. X n. 5 www.augustinus.it https://www.augustinus.it/latino/cdd/cdd_10_libro.htm

[23]"Discorso 181" 6.8 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publishing house online, https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_234_testo.htm

[24]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1544 D, 1545 A https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[25]"Discorso 351" 5,12 translation taken from the site www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_513_testo.htm

[26]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1 PL 187 1532C https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[27]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1554C and 1555A https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[28]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1557C https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[29]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1528B https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[30]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1529B https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[31]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187, 1531B and C https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[32]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum”, c. 33, d. 1, PL 187,1558C https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[33]See I-II q. 109 a. 6, "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte/index.html#1157/z

[34]S. Tommaso "Sum against the Gentiles", and UTET, 2013, ebook, book III c. 149)

[35]See I-II q. 109 a. 6 "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte/index.html#1157/z)

[36]See I-II q. 109 a. 6, "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, ESD https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte/index.html#1157/z

[37]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 887

[38]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 887

[39]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 80s

[40]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 80s

[41]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 80s

[42]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 80s

[43]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 80s

[44]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 30s

[45]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 43

[46]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 71

[47]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1673

[48]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[49]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676)

[50]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[51]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1677

[52]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1678

[53]See Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1704

[54]cf. Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n.1676 .1456

[55]Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1705

[56]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[57]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1323

[58]See "Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, http://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm

[59]See "Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, http://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm)

[60]See "Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, http://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm

[61]Heinrich Denzinger, “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 374

[62]Heinrich Denzinger, “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 375ss

[63]Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 8564-8565). UTET. 2013 Kindle Edition; cf. Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1553

[64]My translation, cf. Aa. Vv .. Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) UTET. March 2013 Kindle Edition (Kindle locations 8361-8369); cf. Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1525

[65]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 2157

[66]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter “Dominum et Vivificantem”, 18.5.1986, n. 42, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.pdf

[67]St. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Exhortation "Reconciliatio et paenitentia" 2.12.1984, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio -et-paenitentia.html

[68]L. Bertocchi “Communion for the divorced? But first we need confession "La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, 14.11.2014 https://www.lanuovabq.it/it/comunione-ai-divorziati-ma-prima-serve-la-confessione

[69]Italian Episcopal Conference (edited by) "Rite of Penance" ed. LEV 1993 n. 5s, text also available on this site http://www.liturgia.maranatha.it/Penitenza/p1/2page.htm

[70]John Paul II "Address to groups of diocesan pilgrims" of 3.3.1984, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1984/march/documents/ hf_jp-ii_spe_19840303_ diocesan-pilgrims.html

[71], www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_notitiae-2015-quaderno-penitenza_it.html

[72]Congregation for Divine Worship "To rediscover the" Rite of Penance "" in Notitiae 2015/2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_notitiae-2015-quaderno - penance_it.html

[73]Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments, Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" 23.4.2004, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_it.html

[74]John Paul II, “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” 2.12.1984 n. 27, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

[75]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" n. 37, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch.html

[76]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1678

[77]Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / pp. 459)

[78]Fernández, Víctor Manuel, “El sentido del carácter sacramental y la necesidad de la confirmation”, Revista Teología • Volume XLII • N ° 86 • Año 2005, p.42

[79]"Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary" [22 March 1996], 5: Insegnamenti XIX, 1 [1996], 589, www.vatican.va, https: // w2 .vatican.va / content / john-paul-ii / it / letters / 1996 / documents / hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html

[80]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, "The love of souls", in "Ascetic Works" Vol. V, CSSR, Rome 1934 p. 56s. c. VI, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PZ.HTM

[81]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676)

[82]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676)

[83]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1678)

[84]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 717

[85]"Homily" of 16.3.1980, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19800316_visita-parrocchia.html

[86]"Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary" [22 March 1996], www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii /it/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html

[87]See John Paul II "Address to the Members of the Penitentiary, to the Penitentiary Fathers, and to the participants in the course on the" Internal Forum "" of 18.3.1995 www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john -paul-ii / it / speeches / 1995 / march / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19950318_penitenzieria.html

[88]John Paul II "Homily" of 16.12.1982, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1982/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19821216_universitari.html

[89]John Paul II "Address to groups of diocesan pilgrims" of 3.3.1984, to groups of diocesan pilgrims, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/ 1984 / march / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19840303_pellegrini-diocesani.html

[90]John Paul II, “Homily”, 29.9.1979, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1979/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19790929_irlanda-dublino. html

[91]"Homily" of 29.3.2007, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070329_penance-youth.html

[92]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 969

[93]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 373

[94]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 94

[95]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 119s

[96]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 199

[97]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 785

[98]S. Antonio "Sermone" 20st Sunday after Pentecost, www.santantonio.org, https://www.santantonio.org/it/sermoni/sermoni-domenicali/domenica-xxi-dopo-pentecoste?highlight=la%20febbre%3 % C8% A1 & strict = XNUMX

[99]See Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 2061

[100]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 2161, 2162, 2163

[101]Major Catechism of Pius X http://www.maranatha.it/catpiox/01page.htm

[102]S. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori "Instruction to the people over the Precepts of the Decalogue to observe them well and over the sacraments in order to receive them well for the use of parish priests and missionaries and all the ecclesiastics who undertake to teach Christian doctrine" www .intratext.com p. 960, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PVT.HTM#TW

[103]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 373s Chapter XVI, Point II. On contrition, and on purpose, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXS.HTM

[104]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction to the people”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. VIII, Turin 1880, pp. 962-964, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PVM.HTM

[105]Prolusion by His Eminence Cardinal Velasio DE PAOLIS, President Emeritus of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See on the theme: «The divorced and remarried and the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance. », 27 March 2014, n. 5.2 www.familiam.org, http://www.familiam.org/pcpf/allegati/8558/Prolusione_De_Paolis.pdf, consultation of 24.5.2021; see also in “Ius Communionis” 2, 2014, pp. 203-248

[106]Prolusion by His Eminence Cardinal Velasio DE PAOLIS, President Emeritus of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See on the theme: «The divorced and remarried and the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance. », 27 March 2014, www.familiam.org, http://www.familiam.org/pcpf/allegati/8558/Prolusione_De_Paolis.pdf, consultation of 24.5.2021; see also in “Ius Communionis” 2, 2014, pp. 203-248

[107]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 299 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/25page.htm

[108]Pope Francis, “Charter of the Holy Father Francisco a los obispos de la region pastoral de Buenos Aires en respuesta to the document“ Criterios basicos para la aplicacion del capitulo VIII de la Amoris Laetitia ”, www.vatican.va, http: // w2. vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html

[109]L. Bertocchi “Communion for the divorced? But first we need confession "La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, 14.11.2014 https://www.lanuovabq.it/it/comunione-ai-divorziati-ma-prima-serve-la-confessione

[110]Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1650; cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982), 184-186; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Annus Internationalis Familiae on the reception of Eucharistic communion by divorced and remarried faithful (14 September 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 974-979.

[111]Notification on the book: “Just love. A framework for christian sexual ethics ”, by SR. Margaret A. Farley, RSM 30 March 2012, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20120330_nota-farley_it.html#_ftn6

[112]John Paul PP. II, "Homily for the closing of the VI Synod of Bishops", 7 [25 October 1980]: AAS 72 [1980] 1082) "(John Paul II," Familiaris Consortio "22.11.1992, www.vatican.va, http: //w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[113]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic Communion by the divorced and remarried” 14.9.1994, n. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[114]Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, n. 29, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

[115]Tullio Rotondo "A serious mistake committed by Card. Schönborn in the presentation of Amoris Laetitia", Apologetica Cattolica.net 31.10.2017 http://apologetica-cattolica.net/component/k2/item/469-un-grave- Error-del -card-schonborn-in-the-presentation-of-amoris-laetitia

[116]An extract of this text can be found on the Vatican website at this address, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980101_ratzinger-comm-divorced_it.html#_ftn1

[117]F. Coccopalmerio, The eighth chapter of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia, Vatican City 2017, p. 21

[118]Giulio Meiattini, “Amoris laetitia. The sacraments reduced to morality ”, Ed. La Fontana di Siloe, 2018, p. 48s.

[119]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1678

[120]SIR “Amoris Laetitia: Don Costa (Lev), book by card. Coccopalmerio "is not the Vatican's answer to doubts", February 14, 2017, www.agensir.it, https://agensir.it/quotidiano/2017/2/14/amoris-laetitia-don-costa-lev-libro- card-coccopalmerio-is-not-the-Vatican-answer-to-doubts /

[121]Maurizio Gronchi, “Repentance and desire for good. A comment by Cardinal Coccopalmerio on the eighth chapter of "Amoris laetitia" ", Osservatore Romano of 14 February 2017 http://www. Osservatoreromano.va/it/news/pentimento-e-desiderio-del-bene

[122]Luciano Moia: “Written by Cardinal Coccopalmerio. "Amoris Laetitia, respected doctrine" ", Avvenire, 14-2-2017, https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/pagine/amoris-laetitia-dottrina-rispuita-coccopalmerio

[123]Pope Francis "Pope Francis - To the bishops of Buenos Aires: your interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is excellent and is the only possible one" Like Jesus 9.9.2016 https://mauroleonardi.it/2016/09/09/il-papa- supports-as-the-only-possible-interpretation-that-the-Argentine-bishops-give-of-amoris-laetitia /

[124]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1673

[125]s. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter “Dominum et Vivificantem”, 18.5.1986, n. 42, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.pdf

[126]VS, no. 67 cf. ibidem n. 52.102,; S. Tommaso in Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 to 3; II-II q. 33 a. 2

[127]La Civiltà Cattolica, “A private meeting of the Pope with some Colombian Jesuits” year 2017, notebook 4015, volume IV pag. 3 - 10, 7 October 2017 https://it.aleteia.org/2017/09/29/amoris-laetitia-papa-francesco-risponde-dubia-morale-tomista/2/

[128]Pope Francis, “Charter of the Holy Father Francisco a los obispos de la region pastoral de Buenos Aires en respuesta to the document“ Criterios basicos para la aplicacion del capitulo VIII de la Amoris Laetitia ”, www.vatican.va, http: // w2. vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html; AAS, 2016, n. 10, p. 1074 n. 6

[129]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 2061

[130]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 2161, 2162, 2163

[131]"Homily" January 24, 1982, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1982/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19820124_visita-parrocchia.html

[132]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Persona Humana", 29.12.1975 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[133]Pius XII, "Speech to the participants in the 8.11.1957st International Congress of High Fashion promoted by the" Latin Union of Haute Couture "" of 2, www.vatican.va, http://w1957.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/ it / speeches / 19571108 / documents / hf_p-xii_spe_XNUMX_alta-moda.html

[134]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 373 Chapter XVI, Point II. On contrition, and on purpose, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXS.HTM

[135]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Last chapter, p. 612-615, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PYE.HTM

[136]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Last chapter, p. 615, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PYE.HTM

[137]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors” in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, c. XVI p. III n. 43, p. 383, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXT.HTM

[138]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, Instruction and practice for confessors, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Last chapter, p. 612-615, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PYE.HTM

[139]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Last chapter, p. 612-615, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PYE.HTM

[140]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Last chapter, p. 615 www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PYE.HTM

[141]S. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori, “Summarized Sermons”, “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. III, Turin 1880, p. 436ss., Sermon XXII, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__P31P.HTM

[142]See Ennio Antonelli - Rocco Buttiglione, “Therapy of wounded love in“ Amoris Laetitia ”, Ares Edition, 2017 pag. 50s; see also the report by Msgr. Girotti on Amoris Laetitia held in the Diocese of Bologna https://www.academia.edu/39060524/Amoris_Laetitia_Gianfranco_Girotti

[143]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[144]Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 9200-9202). UTET. Kindle Edition.

[145]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 887

[146]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953 t. III p. 419 n. 425 and p. 511, n. 501

[147]"Ritual Romanum", Editio Nona 1952 https://www.maranatha.it/r Ritual/21page.htm

[148]St. John Paul II "" Dominum et Vivificantem ", 18.5.1986," n. 42, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html

[149]John Paul II, “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” 2.12.1984 n. 31, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

[150]John Paul II, APOSTOLIC LETTER "MISERICORDIA DEI", 2.5.2020, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020502_misericordia -dei.html

[151]"Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary", 22 March 1996, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/ it / letters / 1996 / documents / hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html)

[152]A. Livi "Moral doctrine and pastoral practice in" Amoris laetitia ", Disputationes Theologicae, 6.5.2016 http://disputationes-theologicae.blogspot.com/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-mons-livi-parla-ai.html

[153]Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, 4.12.1963 n. 59, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_it.html

[154]Benedict XVI, "Sacramentum Caritatis", www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

[155]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic Communion by the divorced and remarried”, 14.9.1994, n. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[156]"Littera circa partecipationem" in J. Ochoa "Leges Ecclesiae post Codicem iuris canonici editae", Ediurcla, vol, VI, 1987, vol. VI, n. 4657, p. 7605

[157]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Letter concerning the indissolubility of marriage", 11.4.1973, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730411_indissolubilitate- matrimonii_it.html

[158]"Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage" Church and post council 18-1-2017 http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2017/01/appello-alla -prayer-why-the-pope.html

[159]“Supplica Filiale” https://www.supplicafiliale.org/full; https://lucediverit.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/dichiarazione-di-fedelta-allinsearning-immutabile-della-chiesa-sul-matrimonio-e-alla-sua-ininterrotta-disciplina/; “Final Declaratio of the conference“ Catholic Church, where are you going? ”, Rome, 7 April 2018 https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2018/04/percio-noi-testimoniamo-e-confessiamo.html;

"The Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) Declaration on the truths concerning some of the most common errors in the life of the Church in our time "Church and post council 10.6.2019 http: // church and post council. blogspot.com/2019/06/la-chiesa-del-dio-vivente-colonna-e.html

[160] "Catechesis" of 29.10.1986, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19861029.html

[161]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Response concerning the obligation to precede sacramental confession before Holy Communion when there is awareness of grave sin", 11.7.1968, www.vatican.va, http: //www.vatican. va / roman_curia / congregations / cfaith / documents / rc_con_cfaith_doc_19680711_responsum_it.html

[162]International Theological Commission "Current problems of eschatology", 1990 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1990_problemi-attuali-escatologia_it.html

[163]Pius XII "Speech" A very intimate joy "" of 10 March 1948, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1948/documents/hf_pxii_spe_19480310_intima-gioia. html

[164]“Address to the members of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary and the Penitentiaries of the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome” January 30, 1981: AAS 73 (1981), 203. Cf. Ecumenical Council of Tridentine, Sess. XIII, Decretum de ss. Eucharist, chap. 7 et can. 11: DS 1647, 1661.

[165]St. John Paul II “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” 17.4.2003 nn. 36-37, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch.html

[166]APOSTOLIC LETTER

IN THE FORM OF MOTU PROPRIO "MERCY DEI" 2.5.2002, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020502_misericordia-dei .html

[167]A. Bellon “According to the Magisterium of the Church, mortal sin is identified with grave sin; that's why "21.5.2018 Dominican Friends https://www.amicidomenicani.it/secondo-il-magistero-della-chiesa-il-peccato-mortale-si-identifica-col-peccato-grave-ecco-perche/

[168]Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et spes" 7.12.1965, 16, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_it.html

[169]S. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori "Education and practice of the confessor" "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 67, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PWP.HTM#-70V

[170]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 24: AAS 57 (1965) www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[171]See HB Merkelbach “Summa Theologiae Moralis”, Desclée de Brouwer, Brugis - Belgica, 1962, III, p. 572; A. I note “Admonitio in confessione” in “Dictionarium Morale et Canonicum” v. I p. 104s

[172]Benedictus XIV, Apostolica Constitutio 26.6.1749, n.19, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedictus-xiv/it/documents/enciclica–i-apostolica-constitutio–i—26 -June-1749 – callback.html

[173]Benedictus XIV, Apostolica Constitutio 26.6.1749, n.19, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedictus-xiv/it/documents/enciclica–i-apostolica-constitutio–i—26 -June-1749 – callback.html

[174]Benedictus XIV, Apostolica Constitutio 26.6.1749, n.20, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/benedictus-xiv/it/documents/enciclica–i-apostolica-constitutio–i—26 -June-1749 – callback.html

[175]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953 t. III p. 640 n. 615

[176]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953, t. I p. 146 no 168; t. III p. 633ss, n. 610

[177]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953t. I p. 147

[178]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 413, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXW.HTM#-8OE

[179]Tornielli A. ““ The correctio? Incorrect method: they do not argue, they condemnˮ La Stampa, 3.10.2017

https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2017/10/03/news/la-span-class-corsivo-id-u57618634544ybk-correctio-span-metodo-scorretto-non-discutono-condannano-1.34395817 (consultato il 25.5.2021)

[180]T. Rotondo “Reply to prof. Buttiglione regarding the “Correctio Filialis” ”Apologetica Cattolica.net 7.11.2017 http://apologetica-cattolica.net/component/k2/item/471-risposta-al-prof-buttiglione-riguardo-alla-correctio-filialis

[181]T. Rotondo “Refutation of some affirmations of card. Vallini and card. Müller regarding the divorced and remarried. ”Apologetica Cattolica.net 17.2.2018 http://apologetica-cattolica.net/teologia/teologia-morale/item/492-confutation-di-alcune-affermazioni-del-card-vallini-e- del-card-muller-regarding-the-divorced-remarried

[182]La Fede Quotidiana "An Austrian bishop:" Communion for the divorced and remarried is an irreversible practice ", La Fede Quotidiana 11-1-2017 http://www.lafedequotidiana.it/un-vescovo-austriaco-la-comunione-ai- divorced-remarried-irreversible-practice /

[183]M. Tosatti, "Confusionis Laetitia, group ceremonies to grant communion to the divorced and remarried", La Bussola Quotidiana 16/06/2017 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/confusionis-laetitia-cerimonie-di-gruppoper- grant-communion-to-the-divorced-remarried

[184]St. Magister "Francesco and Antonio, a couple in excellent Company", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 12.4.2016 http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1351273.html

[185]L. Moia "No showdown at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute" in Avvenire Friday 2 August 2019 https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/pagine/amoris-laetitia-scelta-matura

[186]L. Melina, "Livio Melina:" The challenges of 'Amoris Laetitia' for a theologian of morality ", in Settimo Cielo, by Sandro Magister, 28.6.2017 http://magister.blogutore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/ 06/28 / livio-melina-the-challenges-of-amoris-laetitia-for-a-theologian-of-morality /; cf. article by Mons. Melina entitled: “Divorced and remarried” in Apostolic Penitentiary: “Sin Mercy Reconciliation. Theological-Pastoral Dictionary. " LEV, 2016, pp. 152ss.

[187]"In the midst of the disputes of the JPII Institute, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI meets Melina" 5.8.2019 www.sabinopaciolla.com https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/nel-mezzo-delle-controversie-dellistituto-gpii-il- pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-meets-melina /

[188]John Paul II, Exhortation ap. Familiaris consortio (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121.

[189]Exhortation ap. Evangelii gaudium (24 November 2013), 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1039.

[190]Charles Jude Scicluna and Mario Grech "Application criteria of" Amoris laetitia ", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 14.1.2017, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1351437.html

[191]Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n.1536 and 1568

[192]Cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, can. 18; cf. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1568

[193]"Address to the Members of the Penitentiary, to the Penitentiary Fathers, and to the participants in the course on the" Internal Forum "of 18.3.1995, to the Members of the Penitentiary ,, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/ john-paul-ii / en / speeches / 1995 / march / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19950318_penitenzieria.html

[194]Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 24: AAS 57 (1965), www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[195]"Homily" of 10.3.1985, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1985/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19850310_nostra-signora-bonaria.html

[196]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter “Evangelium Vitae”, 25.3.1995, n. 52, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[197]St. John Paul II, “Audience”, 13.10.1999, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_13101999. html

[198]Sant'Alfonso Maria de 'Liguori, On the great means of prayer, part 1, c. 1, ed. G. Cacciatore (Rome 1962) p. 32, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PH4.HTM

[199]Cf. International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, I, 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[200]Cf. International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, II, 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[201]"Homily" of 10.3.1985, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1985/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19850310_nostra-signora-bonaria.html

[202]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" B, IV, a, I, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[203]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance", 1982, A, I, 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[204]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 299 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/25page.htm

[205]P. Adnès, “Pénitence (repentir et sacrement)”. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, Tome 12 - Columns 956

[206]See S. Ambrogio. “La penitenza” in Works (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 1279-12983). UTET. 2013 Kindle Edition, Book II, 9,87; 10,97

[207]St. Augustine of Hippo, "Discourse 232", 8: P. Bellini - F. Cruciani - V. Tarulli

(ed.), (Works of Sant'Agostino, XXXII / 2), Città Nuova Editrice, Rome 1984, pp.

569-571 https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/index2.htm

[208]See. É. Amann "La pénitence privee" Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, Paris 1933, XII, p.860

[209]fr. P. Adnès, “Pénitence (repentir et sacrement)”. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, Tome 12 - Columns 969

[210]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 717-718

[211]Chain in Mt., chap. 5 l. 17; Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chap. 15 l. 2. ; In Symbolum Apostolorum a. 5 in the end; Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 22 q. 1 a. 4 to 3

[212]Aa. Vv .. "Decisions of Ecumenical Councils" (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 9200-9202). UTET. Kindle Edition.

[213]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 248 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm

[214]"Catechism of Tridentine", ed. Cantagalli, 1992, n. 250, http://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm

[215]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 299 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/25page.htm)

[216]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 250 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/21page.htm

[217]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 2061s, 2160s.

[218]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR, Romae, 1953, T. III p. 419 n. 425 and p. 511, n. 501; S. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori "Education and practice of the confessor" "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, pp. 362s, 365s, 383, 612-615, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PYE.HTM; "Instruction to the people over the Precepts of the Decalogue to observe them well and over the sacraments to receive them well for the use of parish priests and missionaries and of all the ecclesiastics who undertake to teach Christian doctrine" in "Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori ”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. VIII, p. 962, Turin 1880; "Dogmatic work against the alleged reformed heretics" in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. VIII, pp. 915-920

[219]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 373s Chapter XVI, Point II. On contrition, and on purpose, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXS.HTM

[220]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 373s Chapter XVI, Point II. Of contrition, and of purpose. , www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXS.HTM

[221]See Instr. SC de PF 29. Apr. 1784 cit. in Bucceroni, “Enchiridion Morale”, Romae, 1900, p. 352

[222]See Instr. SC de PF 29. Apr. 1784 cit. in Bucceroni, “Enchiridion Morale”, Romae, 1900, p. 355

[223]Ritual Romanum - Editio Typica 1952 in Italian, www.maranatha.it; https://www.maranatha.it/ruale/21page.htm; in English www.ewtn.com. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/roman-ritual-part-i-11882

[224]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter “Dominum et Vivificantem”, 18.5.1986, n. 42, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.pdf)

[225]John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 31, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

[226]Italian Episcopal Conference (edited by) "Rite of Penance" ed. LEV 1993, also available at this address http://www.liturgia.maranatha.it/Penitenza/p1/2page.htm

[227]"Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary" [22 March 1996], www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii /it/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html

[228]Bertocchi “Communion for the divorced? But first we need confession "La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, 14.11.2014 https://www.lanuovabq.it/it/comunione-ai-divorziati-ma-prima-serve-la-confessione

[229]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 299 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/25page.htm

[230]See Prummer "Theologiae Moralis Manual", Herder 1961, vol. III, p. 242

[231]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1678; "Catechism of Tridentine" and Cantagalli 1992, n. 249

[232]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 373 Chapter XVI, Point II. On contrition, and on purpose, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXS.HTM

[233]Cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, can. 18 cf. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1568

[234]"Speech to the Members of the Penitentiary, to the Penitentiary Fathers, and to the participants in the course on the" Internal Forum "" of 18.3.1995 http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1995/ march / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19950318_penitenzieria.html

[235]Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp- ii_hom_19801025_conclusion-synod.html

[236]L. Scrosati, "Mitigating out of the game, marriage is not a moral", La Bussola Quotidiana, 11.3.2018 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/attenuanti-in-fuori-gioco-il-matrimonio-non -and-a-morality

[237]L. Scrosati, "Mitigating out of the game, marriage is not a moral", La Bussola Quotidiana, 11.3.2018 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/attenuanti-in-fuori-gioco-il-matrimonio-non -and-a-morality

[238]From the treatise "On the Holy Spirit" by St. Basil the Great, bishop (Chap. 9, 22-23; PG 32, 107-110) Italian translation edited by the Italian Episcopal Conference and published by the Vatican Publishing House for the texts of the Liturgy of the Hours , Office of Readings of Tuesday of the VII week of Easter, www.chiesacattolica.it, https://www.chiesacattolica.it/la-liturgia-delle-ore/?data=20210518&ora= ufficio-delle-letture&data-liturgia=20210518

[239]From the "Commentary on the Gospel of John" by St. Cyril of Alexandria, bishop (Book 10; PG 74, 434) Italian translation edited by the Italian Episcopal Conference and published by the Vatican Publishing House for the texts of the Liturgy of the Hours, Office of Readings of the Thursday of the VII week of Easter, www.chiesacattolica.it, https://www.chiesacattolica.it/la-liturgia-delle-ore/?data=20210518&ora= ufficio-delle-letture&data-liturgia=20210520

[240]Giulio Meiattini, “Amoris laetitia. The sacraments reduced to morality ", Ed. La Fontana di Siloe, 2018 p. 70

[241]See M. Pakaluk “Ethicist says ghostwriter's role in 'Amoris' is troubling” Crux 16.1.2017 https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/01/ethicist-says-ghostwriters-role-amoris-troubling/; S. Magister, "" Amoris laetitia "has a shadow author. His name is Víctor Manuel Fernández ", www.chiesa.espressonline.it, 25.5.2016, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1351303.html

[242]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1678; "Catechism of Tridentine" and Cantagalli 1992, n. 249

[243]L. Scrosati, "Mitigating out of the game, marriage is not a moral", La Bussola Quotidiana, 11.3.2018 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/attenuanti-in-fuori-gioco-il-matrimonio-non -and-a-morality

[244]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 453

[245]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori "Education and practice of confessors" in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, pp. 85s, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PWR.HTM

[246]Pont. Cons. For the Interpretation of the Legislative Texts “Concerning the admissibility to Communion of the divorced and remarried”, L'Osservatore Romano, 7 July 2000, p. 1, no. 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

[247]www.aemaet.de, http://www.aemaet.de/index.php/aemaet/article/view/35/pdf; J. Seifert "On Pope Francis' Amoris laetitia: joys, questions, sadness." Roman Correspondence 8.6.2016, https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/le-lacrime-di-gesu-sulla-amoris-laetitia/

[248]http://www.aemaet.de/index.php/aemaet/article/view/44/pdf_1 ; Josef Seifert: “La logica pura minaccia di distruggere l’intera dottrina morale della Chiesa?” Corrispondenza Romana, 2017 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Testo-Seifert-italiano.pdf?it

[249]L. Scrosati, "Mitigating out of the game, marriage is not a moral", La Bussola Quotidiana, 11.3.2018 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/attenuanti-in-fuori-gioco-il-matrimonio-non -and-a-morality

[250]See Charles Jude Scicluna and Mario Grech “Application criteria of“ Amoris laetitia ”, 14.1.2017, www.chiesa.espressonline.it, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ Articolo/1351437.html; Permanent Council of the German Bishops' Conference “The joy of love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church” 23.1.2017 https://www.katholisch-in-lutherstadt.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/dossiers_2017/2017 -ENG_Statement-by-the-German-Bishops-Amoris-laetitia.pdf

[251]https://www.supplicafiliale.org/full ; https://lucediverit.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/dichiarazione-di-fedelta-allinsegnamento-immutabile-della-chiesa-sul-matrimonio-e-alla-sua-ininterrotta-disciplina/

[252]https://www.supplicafiliale.org/full ; https://lucediverit.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/dichiarazione-di-fedelta-allinsegnamento-immutabile-della-chiesa-sul-matrimonio-e-alla-sua-ininterrotta-disciplina/

[253]"Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage" Church and post council 18-1-2017 http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2017/01/appello-alla -prayer-why-the-pope.html

[254]"Appeal to prayer so that the Pope confirms the constant teaching (and practice) of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage" Church and post council 18-1-2017 http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2017/01/appello-alla -prayer-why-the-pope.html

[255]"Public profession of faith of the three bishops of Kazakhstan on sacramental marriage" Church and post council 2.1.2018 http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2018/01/pubblica-professione-di-fede-dei-tre.html

[256]"Public profession of faith of the three bishops of Kazakhstan on sacramental marriage" Church and post council 2.1.2018 http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2018/01/pubblica-professione-di-fede-dei-tre.html

[257]Final Declaratio of the conference "Catholic Church, where are you going?", Rome, 7 April 2018 https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2018/04/percio-noi-testimoniamo-e-confessiamo.html

[258]"The Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) Declaration on the truths concerning some of the most common errors in the life of the Church in our time "Church and post council 10.6.2019 http: // church and post council. blogspot.com/2019/06/la-chiesa-del-dio-vivente-colonna-e.htm

[259]See Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, vol. I, Romae, Ex Typographia Polyglotta, 1907 p. 93. p. 642.

[260]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, "Instruction and practice for confessors", in "Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, P. 307, www.intratext.com, http: //www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXK.HTM#$854

[261]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction and practice for confessors”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 365, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PXR.HTM

[262]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis”, Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumplibus CssR. 1953, Tomus Tertius, p. 426s http://www.santalfonsoedintorni.it/Libri/Morale3/3Mor6-04-01a.pdf

[263]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis”, Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR. 1953, Tomus Tertius, p. 426s, www.santalfonsoedintorni.it, http://www.santalfonsoedintorni.it/Libri/Morale3/3Mor6-04-01a.pdf

[264]Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp- ii_hom_19801025_conclusion-synod.html

[265]John Paul PP. II, Homily for the conclusion of the VI Synod of Bishops, 8 [25 October 1980]: ASS 72 [1980] 1083

[266]John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio” 22.11.1981, n. 34 www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[267]"" Address to priests participating in a study seminar on "Responsible procreation", "Saturday, September 17, 1983, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/ it / speeches / 1983 / september / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19830917_procreation-responsible.html

[268]"Address to the participants in the III Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Family" of 13.12.1985, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1985/ december / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19851213_iii-plen-pcfamily.html

[269]"Address to the members of the International Movement" Foyers des Equipes des Notre-Dame "" 23.9.1982, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1982 /september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19820923_foyers-equipes-notre-dame.html

[270]Pontifical Council for the Family, "Vademecum for confessors on certain moral issues relating to married life." 1997, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia//pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_it.html#_ftnref43

[271]See John Paul II "" Address to the participants in the seminar on "Responsible procreation", "March 1, 1984, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it /speeches/1984/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840301_procreazione-responsabile.html

[272]Dariusz Kowalczyk SJ “The“ yes, yes; no, no "or the gradualness of the law - theological commentary", Konferencja Episkopatu Polski https://episkopat.pl/il-si-si-no-no-o-la-gradualita-della-legge-commento-teologico/

[273]John Paul II "Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops", 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980 /documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19801025_conclusione-sinodo.html

[274]See in Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 to 3; Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 15 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 4 arg. 3; Super Sent., Lib. 4 d. 17 q. 3 a. 1 qc. 4 to 3; De malo, q. 7 a. 1 to 8; Super Romanos c. 13 l.2; In Gal, c. 6, l.1

[275]Pontifical Council for the Family, "Vademecum for confessors on certain moral issues relating to married life." February 12, 1997, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia//pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_it.html#_ftnref43

[276]St. Anthony of Padua “Quinquagesima Sunday Sermon” n. 12, http://www.centrostudiantoniani.it/, http://www.centrostudiantoniani.it/ Lista-sermoni

[277]Super Mt., chap. 19 l. 1 http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cml17.html#87382

[278]Fernández, Víctor M., "The Trinitarian Dimension of the Moral II:

profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de “Deus caritas est” ”[en línea].

Theology, 89 (2006). Available at: http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/rectorado/dimension-trinitaria-moral-etico-fernandez.pdf

[279]St. Anthony of Padua “Sunday Sermon I after Pentecost” n. 7 https://www.santantonio.org/it/sermoni/sermoni-domenicali/domenica-i-dopo-pentecoste

[280]* * "The moral norm of" Humanae vitae "
and the pastoral task ”L'Osservatore Romano, 16 February 1989, p. 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19890216_norma-morale_it.html

[281]See VM Fernández, “Vida trinitaria, normas éticas y fragilidad humana. Algunas breves precisiones ”[en línea]. Universitas, 6 (2011) pp. 68s Available at: https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/7827, consultation of 15.10.2020

[282]Pontifical Council for the Family, "Vademecum for confessors on certain moral issues relating to married life." 1997 n. 3, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia//pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_it.html#_ftnref43

[283]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 2795, 3634

[284]"Sulla menzogna", 10,17 translation taken from the site www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/menzogna/index2.htm

[285]Against the lie, c. 10,23 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publishing house online http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/contro_menzogna/index2.htm

[286]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Instruction to the people”, in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. VIII, Turin 1880, p. 949, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PVM.HTM

[287]Fernández, Víctor M., La dimensión trinitaria de la moral II:

profundización of the ethical aspect in the light of “Deus caritas est” [en línea].

Theology, 89 (2006). p. 160 Available at: http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/rectorado/dimension-trinitaria-moral-etico-fernandez.pdf

[288]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 459

[289]Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) p. 464

[290]See Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, from 24 June 2000, nos. 1 and 4 https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

[291]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 463s

[292]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 464

[293]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 451s. 459s

[294]"" Address to priests participating in a study seminar on "Responsible procreation", "to priests, Saturday, September 17, 1983, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ii / it / speeches / 1983 / september / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_19830917_procreation-responsible.html

[295]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 466

[296] Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 467

[297]See VM Fernández: “The trinitarian dimension of the moral II: profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de“ Deus caritas est ”” Revista Teología Tomo XLIII, Nº 89, 2006 p. 160

[298]"Charter of the s. Father Francisco a los obispos de la region pastoral de Buenos Aires en respuesta to the document "Criterios basicos para la aplicacion del capitulo VIII de la Amoris Laetitia", www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco /es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html

[299]John Paul II "Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops", 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980 /documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19801025_conclusione-sinodo.html

[300]Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp- ii_hom_19801025_conclusion-synod.html

[301]John Paul II "Homily at the conclusion of the V General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops", 25.10.1980, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1980 /documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19801025_conclusione-sinodo.html

[302]Lorenzo Bertocchi "Kasper: Divorced and remarried, the Pope has opened the door", La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana 26-04-2016 http://lanuovabq.it/it/kasper-divorziati-risposati-il-papa-ha- Aperto-la -port # .Vzcm7XRyzqA

[303]Marco Tosatti, "Synod: how I handle it ...", La Stampa, The blog of La Stampa, 21 September 2014
https://www.lastampa.it/blogs/2014/09/21/news/sinodo-come-lo-manovro-1.37276215 attualmente, 24.5.2021, è scomparso dal sito ma si può trovare qui  https://anticattocomunismo.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/sinodo-come-lo-manovro/ e E. Pentin “The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?”, Ignatius Press, 2015, cap. 5 September 2014

[304]D. Kowalczyk SJ “The“ yes, yes; no, no "or the gradualness of the law - theological commentary", 13.10.2015, Konferencja Episkopatu Polski https://episkopat.pl/il-si-si-no-no-o-la-gradualita-della-legge-commento -theological/

[305]Fernández, Víctor M., “The trinitarian dimension of the moral II: profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de“ Deus caritas est ”” [en línea]. Theology, 89 (2006). Available at: http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/rectorado/dimension-trinitaria-moral-etico-fernandez.pdf pp. 135-150

[306]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 467

[307]See Mons. VM Fernández: "El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta." in Medellin, vol. XLIII / No. 168 / Mayo - August (2017) / p. 453

[308]VS, no. 102; Sess. VI, Decr. on justification Cum hoc tempore, chap. 11; DS, 1536; cf can. 18: DS 1568; s. Augustine of Hippo De natura et gratia, 45, 50 (CSEL 60, 270)

[309]Exhortation ap. "Familiaris consortio" (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 120, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/ hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[310]Paul VI Encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae" (25 July 1968), 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491, www.vatican.va, www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it /encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

[311]Cf. Cf. Innocent IV, Ep. Sub catholicae profession, 6.3.1254: Denz 835; Pius II, Propositions condemned in the letter Cum sicut accepimus, 14.11.1459: Denz 1367; Sant'Offizio, Decrees of 24.9.1665 and 2.3.1679: Denz 2045 and 2148; Pius XI. Enc. Casti connubii, 31.12.1930: 22 (1930), 558-559; EE 5 / 497-499. Cf. Leo IX, Ep. Ad splendidum nitentis, a. 1054: Denz 687-688; Holy Office, Decree of 2.3.1679: Denz 2149; Pius XII, Allocutions of 8 October 1953 and 19 May 1956: AAS 45 (1953), 677s and 58 (1956), 472s. Sant 'Offizio, Decree of 18 March 1666: Denz 2060; Paul VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, nos. 13 and 14: nos. 65-69; EV 3 / 599s.

[312]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Persona humana" n. 10, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[313]Tridentine Catechism ", and Cantagalli 1992, www.maranatha.it, https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/08page.htm

[314]Saint Francis of Assisi, Admonitio, 5, 3: Opuscula sancti Patris Francisci Assisiensis, ed. C. Esser (Grottaferrata 1978) p. 66.

[315]Pope Francis, “Charter of the Holy Father Francisco a los obispos de la region pastoral de Buenos Aires en respuesta to the document“ Criterios basicos para la aplicacion del capitulo VIII de la Amoris Laetitia ”, n. 5 www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regione-pastorale-buenos-aires.html

[316]** "The moral norm of" Humanae vitae "
and the pastoral task ”L'Osservatore Romano, 16 February 1989, p. 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19890216_norma-morale_it.html

[317]John Paul II "Letter to Card. William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary" 22 March 1996, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ii / it / letters / 1996 / documents / hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html)

[318]S. Tommaso d 'Aquino “Sum against the Gentiles”, Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese; First edition eBook: March 2013, l. III c. 151

[319]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori “Of the great means of prayer” S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, “Ascetic Works” Vol. II, Editions of History and Literature, Rome 1962, p. 18ss. p. I c. I, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PH4.HTM

[320]Sant'Agostino, Faith and the symbol, 10, 25: CSEL 25, 32 (PL 40, 196) translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https: //www.augustinus .it / italian / fede_simbolo / index2.htm

[321]John Paul II, Exhortation ap. "Familiaris consortio", 11: AAS 74 (1982) 91-92, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19921122_familiaris- consortio.html

[322]Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decl. "Persona humana", 11, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[323]See John Paul II, Exhortation ap. "Familiaris consortio" 22.11.1981, 11, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[324]Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et spes", 7.12.1965, n. 49 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_it.html

[325]Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et spes", 7.12.1965, n. 48 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_it.html

[326]See Innocent IV, Ep. Sub catholicae profession, 6.3.1254: Denz 835; Pius II, Propositions condemned in the letter Cum sicut accepimus, 14.11.1459: Denz 1367; Sant'Offizio, Decrees of 24.9.1665 and 2.3.1679: Denz 2045 and 2148; Pius XI. Enc. Casti connubii, 31.12.1930: 22 (1930), 558-559; EE 5 / 497-499. Cf. LEO IX, Ep. Ad splendidum nitentis, a. 1054: Denz 687-688; Holy Office, Decree of 2.3.1679: Denz 2149; Pius XII, Allocutions of 8 October 1953 and 19 May 1956: AAS 45 (1953), 677s and 58 (1956), 472s. Sant 'Offizio, Decree of 18 March 1666: Denz 2060; PAUL VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, nos. 13 and 14: nos. 65-69; EV 3 / 599s.

[327]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Persona humana", 29/12/1975, n. 10, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[328]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Illustrative doctrinal note

of the concluding formula of the Professio fidei "29.6.1998, n. 11, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_it.html

[329]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 798

[330]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori "Instruction to the people over the Precepts of the Decalogue to observe them well and over the sacraments in order to receive them well for the use of parish priests a