Chapter IV The sound doctrine on moral conscience, and some errors that emerge through Amoris Laetitia.

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

We ask God for the gift of wisdom:

"" God of the fathers and Lord of mercy,

... give me wisdom, who sits enthroned next to you,

and do not exclude me from the number of your children,

because I am your slave and the son of your slave,

… Unable to understand justice and laws.

.. Send it from the holy heavens,

send her from your glorious throne,

to assist me and support me in my toil

and I know what you like. " (Sap. 9)

The late Cardinal Caffarra wrote to Pope Francis: “a year has now passed since the publication of“ Amoris Laetitia ”. In this period, interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages of the Post-Synodal Exhortation have been publicly given, not diverging from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church. Despite the fact that the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith has repeatedly declared that the doctrine of the Church has not changed, numerous declarations have appeared by individual Bishops, cardinals, and even Episcopal Conferences, approving what the Magisterium of the Church has never approved. . Not only the access to the Holy Eucharist of those who objectively and publicly live in a situation of grave sin, and intend to remain there, but also a conception of moral conscience contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And so it is happening - oh how painful it is to see it! - that what is sin in Poland is good in Germany, what is prohibited in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is lawful in Malta. And so on. The bitter observation of B. Pascal comes to mind: “Justice on this side of the Pyrenees, injustice on the other side; justice on the left bank of the river, injustice on the right bank ""[1]

It therefore seems important to me to pause briefly on the sound doctrine on moral conscience and then on some statements of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.

1) Moral conscience in the light of sound doctrine.

 

 

God enlighten us.

In the Bible we find many times, especially in the New Testament, the Greek term συνείδησις

This term derives, according to F. Zorell[2] and Maurer[3] from σύνοιδα this verb which means sharing with others a knowledge of a certain thing based on eyewitness testimony, in the philosophy that begins with Socrates indicates both a negative judgment and a condemnation concerning man's own ignorance, and a judgment about actions, in the latter case it is the moral conscience, in this line especially starting from the first century. to. C. the term συνείδησις is used precisely to indicate moral conscience.

In Maurer's article it is very interesting to see how the concept of consciousness develops and spreads in Greece and in Roman culture (in particular Cicero and Seneca) and even more interesting to see how this concept is found in a certain way in the Old Testament and therefore in the LXX, in the Jewish intellectuals (Josephus, Philo) and therefore in the New Testament. (Maurer 286-325)

In the OT the concept of conscience is very little developed and this depends in particular on the Old Testament anthropology which sees man before the God of Revelation who speaks and guides man, so that man must essentially listen to God and be guided by Him. The knowledge of good and evil is from the word of God, it approves or condemns man. (Maurer 296-297)

In the New Testament it is above all St. Paul who speaks of conscience and uses the term συνείδησις.

According to F. Zorell συνείδησις means in some cases to be conscious but in the New Testament it always means conscience[4] in some cases it indicates rather the antecedent conscience by which we are informed about the good to do and the evil to flee (cf. Rom. 13,5; 1 Cor. 8,10; 10,25.27.28; 1 ​​Pt.2,19, 8,9) in other cases it rather indicates the consequent conscience that condemns the evil done by us and approves the good that we have done (cf. Jn. 2,15; Rm. 9,1; 1; 1,5.19 Thess. 3,9; 4,2; 1,15; Tit. 1; 3,16.21 Pt. 9,14; Hb. XNUMX). Conscience in this line is a judgment on the actions done or to be done.

Spicq specifies that s. Paul, s. Peter, Apollo, in the line of many of their contemporaries and of Philo, see human conduct as subject to the rule of conscience[5]. For the Christian, conscience must be guided by faith and charity because the Christian life is directed by God through these virtues (Spicq p. 601.603), faith offers more general indications about conduct while the Christian conscience offers particular, individualized indications. according to the divine precepts, which we must conform to. (Spicq p. 603)

In this line of Christian conscience, St. Paul can say: "Brothers, I have acted up to this day before God in full righteousness of conscience" (Acts 23,1)

... and again: "I thank God that I serve, like my ancestors, with a clear conscience, always remembering you in my prayers, night and day." (2 Tm. 1,3)

The same s. Paul specifies in this line: “The Holy Spirit thus intended to show that the way to the sanctuary had not yet been manifested, as long as the first tent remained. In fact, it is a figure of the present time and according to it gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot make perfect, in his conscience, the one who offers ... In fact, if the blood of goats and calves and the ashes of a heifer, scattered on those who they are contaminated, they sanctify them by purifying them in the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ - who, moved by the eternal Spirit, offered himself without blemish to God - will purify our conscience from the works of death, so that we serve the living God? " (Heb. 9, 8-9. 13-14). That is, we cannot serve God with an evil conscience and in Christ, and therefore in faith and charity, our consciences are sanctified, enlightened in fullness by God and precisely in Christ we, with St. Paul, we have a good conscience: “Pray for us; in fact we believe we have a good conscience, wishing to behave well in everything. " (Heb. 13,18:XNUMX)

And yes. Peter, in this line, can invite to have a right conscience and to act in it: "However, this should be done with gentleness and respect, with a right conscience, so that, in the very moment in which one speaks badly of you, those who malign your good conduct in Christ. "(1 Pt. 3,16)

Such a good and upright conscience, enlightened by faith (1Tm 1,5.19; Heb. 10,22:1) and by charity, and therefore by Christ, approves good, condemns evil and judges the actions of one's neighbor in this line (10 Cor. 28, 4,2s; II Cor. 1); however, it should be noted that it is necessary to be truly prudent and to be truly guided by Christ to judge others otherwise we can sin for lack of information (8,3 Cor. 602) (for all this see Spicq p. 3 note XNUMX)

The Christian conscience testifies together with the Holy Spirit (Rom. 9,1; 1 Thess. 5,19) and is before God (2 Cor. 4,2; 2 Tm. 1,3) The heterodox have a blind conscience and they are incapable of any good (Tit. 1,15) in fact one cannot serve God with an evil conscience (Heb. 9, 9.14); but believers in Christ have a right conscience and precisely in him this conscience must also be circumspect and must look for the truth in Christ to clarify his doubts (1 Cor. 10, 25-27) (for all this see Spicq p. 603 note 2)

The right Christian conscience, indicated by St. Peter with the words: “συνείδησιν θεοῦ” (conscience of God) is therefore a conscience implanted in us by God, it is the Word of God that descends into the soul and guides it, it is the theonomic conscience. (for all this see Spicq p. 603 note 3)

Examining Romans 2,14: 15-57 in which we read: “When the pagans, who do not have the law, by nature act according to the law, they, while having no law, are a law to themselves; they show that what the law requires is written in their hearts as it results from the testimony of their conscience and from their own reasonings, which now accuse them now defend them ”, Veritatis Splendor note in n. 57 that: "According to the words of St. Paul, conscience, in a certain sense, places man before the law, becoming itself a" witness "to man: a witness to his fidelity or infidelity to the law, that is, of his essential righteousness or moral wickedness. " (VS, no. XNUMX)

May God grant us to live always in fidelity to his Law.

St. Thomas in the line of Holy Scripture speaks in various texts of moral conscience giving us a fairly rich doctrine on the subject[6]. The term conscience for s. Thomas has various meanings, at times it can mean the same thing known together, at other times a habit for which we prepare to know together; more precisely the conscience according to St. Thomas is an act (De veritate, q. 17 BC 1 co.) For which science is applied to a certain particular act (cf. De veritate, q.17 a.2.); this application can take place in two ways: 1) according to whether we consider whether the act is about to be performed or was performed 2) according to whether we consider whether the act is right or not, s. In fact Thomas says: "Applicatur autem aliqua notitia ad aliquem actum dupliciter: un modo secundum quod consideratur an actus sit vel fuerit: alio modo secundum quod consideratur an actus sit rectus vel non rectus." De veritate, q. 17 BC 1 co.) The second method of application just indicated, the one by which we consider whether the act is right or not, can in turn be realized according to two ways: 1) one whereby, through the habit of science, we we direct us to do or not to do something, and it is like the way of invention, 2) and another for which, always through the habit of science, we judge whether or not what we have already done is right, and it is like the way of judgment (cf. De veritate, q. 17 BC 1 co.). In a more strictly moral sense, conscience is, therefore, an act of judgment or of invention of practical reason for which the science of man is applied to a concrete act to see whether it is right or not (cf. De veritate, q. 17 BC 1 co.); the act to which this science is applied can be past or present or future. Consciousness is like saying "science with another" because it applies universal science to a particular act and also because for it the person is aware of what he has done or what he intends to do; conscience is also called sentence or dictation of reason (cf. Super Sent., Lib. 2 p. 24 q. 2 BC 4 co.). Conscience is a consideration of why man determines what he must do and what he must flee (cf. Super Sent II d. 24 q.2 a.4.). The judgment of moral conscience is distinguished from the judgment of free will because the judgment of conscience consists only in knowledge while the judgment of free will consists in the application of knowledge to affection and is a judgment of election, that is of choice (De veritate , q. 17 BC 1 ad 4.). We specify that with regard to the things to choose or to flee, reason uses syllogisms; in the syllogism there is a triple consideration according to three propositions: from the first two propositions it ends with the third; in the syllogisms about the things to choose or flee, the greater of these three propositions is offered by synderesis, the lesser is offered by higher or lower reason, the conclusion is the act of practical reason which is called conscience (cf. De veritate, q.17 a.2. ; Super Sent., Lib. 2 p. 24 q. 2 BC 4 co.). The example that s. Thomas reports is the following: synderesis proposes this principle: one must not do what is forbidden by the law of God; the higher reason carries this principle: the carnal union with this woman is against the law of God; the conclusion that belongs to conscience is the following: this carnal union must be avoided (cf. Super Sent., Lib. 2 p. 24 q. 2 BC 4 co.). The "sentence" of conscience, continues St. Thomas is the application of the operative habits of reason which are synderesis, science and wisdom (cf. De veritate, q.17 a.

In the line of the Bible and of St. Thomas as well as of Tradition and in particular of the Second Vatican Council (Pastoral Const. Gaudium et spes, nn. 16.19.26.27.41.43.50.52 etc .; Declaration Dignitatis humanae, nn. 1.2. 3. 11.13.14.15) the Catechism of Catholic Church at no. 1778 presents the moral conscience as a judgment of recognition of the: "... moral quality of a concrete act that is about to perform, is performing or has performed."

This judgment of the moral conscience approves good, condemns evil and calls to do good (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1777).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in this line again in n. 1777 that: "When he listens to moral conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking."

Through the moral conscience man can listen to God, the Eternal Law and Author of the Law, the ultimate End of man, who, speaking to him, draws him to live in this Law. In this line, according to St. Bonaventure, conscience is like the announcer of God's truth so that what conscience commands does not impose on itself but as coming from God; for this conscience has the strength to oblige [7]

Explain s. John Paul II: "Moral conscience does not enclose man within an insurmountable and impenetrable solitude, but opens him to the call, to the voice of God. In this, and nothing else, lies the whole mystery and dignity of moral conscience: in that is, to be the place, the holy space in which God speaks to man ».[8]

Conscience is in particular a moral judgment on man and his acts: it is a judgment on what to do or a judgment on what has already been done and in the latter case it is a judgment of acquittal or condemnation according to whether human acts they conform or differ from the law of God written in the heart (cfr. VS, n. 59).

Precise s. John Paul II, in the line of s. Thomas that the natural law highlights the objective and universal needs of the moral good, conscience is the application of the natural law, of the divine law, to the particular case. Conscience establishes moral obligation on the basis of the natural law (cf. VS, n. 59).

The Angelic Doctor distinguishes the natural law, which is the set of principles of law, the synderesis which is the habit, or the power with habit, of these principles, and the conscience which, on the other hand, is the application of the natural law. , by way of conclusion, to something that must be done or that has already been done (cf. Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 24 q. 2 a. 4 co).

The judgment of conscience affirms the conformity of a certain concrete behavior with respect to the natural law.

The Pope then reports (see VS, n. 59) a quotation from a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 1956 against the ethics of the situation. Among other things, this document states that: "Auctores qui hoc systema sequuntur decisivam et ultimam agendi normam statuunt non esse ordinim obiectivum rectum, naturae lege determinatum et ex hac lege certain cognitum, sed intimum aliquod mentis uniuscuiusque individuals iudicium ac lumen, quo and in concrete situations posito innotescit quid sibi agendum sit. "[9] For the authors of this doctrinal current, the ultimate and decisive norm is not the objective, upright order established by the law of nature and known by it, but a particular judgment of the subject that makes him know what he must do.

John Paul II takes up a passage from this document pointing out that the judgment of conscience establishes the proximate norm of the morality of an act, realizing "the application of the objective law to a particular case".[10] Through the conscience the natural law thus becomes for man an interior rule to accomplish, in the concreteness of the situation, the good (cfr. VS, n. 59,).

Conscience therefore accepts the law, it is not an autonomous source of decision regarding the moral goodness of an act but it is a source related to the objective norm of the natural law: "Conscience is not an autonomous and exclusive source for deciding what is good and what is which is bad; instead, a principle of obedience with regard to the objective norm is deeply inscribed in it, which grounds and conditions the correspondence of its decisions with the commands and prohibitions that are the basis of human behavior ”.[11]

May God grant us to live ever more deeply under the guidance of the Christian conscience, in faith and charity.

 

 

2) Moral conscience is not infallible; the case of the erroneous moral conscience.

Moral conscience is not infallible, it can be wrong; such an error is not due to synderesis but to reason, explains s. Thomas. Let us remember that with regard to the things to choose or to flee, reason uses syllogisms; in the syllogism there is a triple consideration according to three propositions: from the first two propositions it ends with the third; in the syllogisms about the things to choose or flee, the greater of these three propositions is offered by synderesis, the lesser is offered by higher reason or lower reason, the consideration of the chosen conclusion is the act of practical reason which is called conscience (cf. . De veritate, q.17 a.2 .; Super Sent., Lib. 2 d. 24 q. 2 a. 4 co.) The example that s. Thomas reports, to highlight how moral conscience works, is the following: synderesis proposes this principle: one must not do what is forbidden by the law of God; the higher reason carries this principle: the carnal union with this woman is against the law of God; the conclusion that is proper to conscience is the following: this carnal union must be avoided (cf. Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 24 q. 2 a. 4 co).

In the various passages just seen, the error can enter due to reason; the superior perverse reason of the heretic, for example, leads him to believe that he can never swear and therefore he establishes in conscience that he never takes an oath even at the cost of dying (we note that for Catholic doctrine in some cases it is possible to swear , while for the heretics of which St. Thomas speaks it is never possible to lawfully take an oath) (cf. Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 24 q. 2 a. 4 co.).

If reason can be wrong, synderesis is infallible, according to St. Thomas:

"[...] in anima est aliquid quod est perpetuae rectitudinis, scilicet synderesis: quae quidem non est ratio superior, sed se habet ad rationem Superiorem sicut intellectus principiorum ad ratiocinationem de conclusionibus" (Super Sent., II d. 24 q.3 a .3 to 5m; d.39 q.3 a.1). Synderesis is an innate habit in our minds and springing from the light of the acting intellect, it is the habit of principles known per se such as: evil must not be done, God's commands must be obeyed etc .; for these principles, through synderesis, practical reason is guided in its action; practical reason is therefore distinguished from synderesis in that the latter is a habit while practical reason is a power; synderesis is precisely the habit of practical reason (see Super Sent., II d.24 q.2 a. 3; Super Sent., II d. 39 q.3 a.1ad 3m).

Veritatis Splendor states regarding erroneous conscience: "Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error." (VS, no. 62)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 1790: "... it happens that the moral conscience is in ignorance and gives erroneous judgments on actions to be performed or already performed."

It is also necessary to watch over our judgments of conscience as explained by Veritatis Splendor: ““ Paul's warning urges us to be vigilant, warning us that the possibility of error always lurks in the judgments of our conscience. It is not an infallible judge: it can err. "(VS no. 62)

Veritatis Splendor specifies in n. 63: “In any case, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives: in the case of an upright conscience it is a question of objective truth accepted by man; in that of erroneous conscience it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers true. "(VS, n. 63,)

The Catechism affirms in nos. 1791-1793 that such ignorance in which the conscience falls can be imputable, or not imputable. 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" (Vatican Council II, Past Constitution Gaudium et spes, 16: AAS 58 (1966) 1037.); in this case ignorance is guilty and therefore conscience is guilty erroneous and compromises its dignity (cfr. VS, n. 63)

More precisely, explains s. Alfonso resuming s. Thomas: ”… some evils, although they are not currently felt, are nevertheless attributed to fault, according to St. Thomas, if ignorance is in some way voluntary, either through negligence, or through passion, or through bad habits, or through voluntary inconsideration in operating. "[12]  In such cases where ignorance is voluntary, the person is guilty of the evil he commits even if he does it guided by conscience; ignorance of conscience, in fact, in these cases is attributable.

Veritatis Splendor specifies that: "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)

Regarding ignorance that cannot be attributed, it must be said that the erroneous judgment that takes place in this case is without responsibility on the part of the moral subject, therefore the evil committed by the person cannot be attributed to him. Ignorance is invincible when the subject is not aware and cannot emerge from such ignorance by himself (cf. VS n. 62) in this case: "... conscience does not lose its dignity, because it, while orienting us in fact in a way that differs from the objective moral order, does not cease to speak in the name of that truth about the good that the subject is called to sincerely seek. " (VS, no. 62)

But beware: this evil committed due to invincible ignorance and innocent error does not become a good but remains an evil, a privation, a disorder.

It is therefore necessary to work so that the fullness of the Light of Christ enters the moral conscience of men so that it is corrected by its errors. At the origin of the deviations of the judgment of conscience there can be various causes: unbelief in the Word of God, lack of knowledge of Christ and his Gospel, closure to divine grace and light, bad examples given by others, slavery of the passions, the claim of a misunderstood autonomy of conscience, the negligence in learning what we should know about our moral life, the rejection of the authority of the Church and its teaching, the lack of conversion and charity (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1792)

The theme of erroneous conscience brings with it an important question regarding the duty we have to obey conscience and the consequent "bond" that the judgment of conscience creates in us. The judgment of conscience is imperative and man must act according to this judgment, explains VS in n. 60: "If a man acts against this judgment, or, even in the absence of certainty about the correctness and goodness of a specific act, he performs it, he is condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality." (VS, n. 60) He explains 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, he sins, but he 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 the person can however lay down his conscience and act according to the Law of God and in so doing 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)

3) The good Christian moral conscience and the infallible conscience of the saints.

 

 

God enlighten us.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds to n. 1794: "The good and pure conscience is illuminated by sincere faith."

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 XNUMX Cor XNUMX: XNUMX). "

The corrupt rule, says s. Thomas, it is not a rule, false reason is not reason, therefore the rule of human actions is not simply reason but right reason (cfr. Super Sent., II d.24 q.3 a.3 ad 3m.)

St. Thomas specifies that the moral conscience to be upright must be guided and regulated by God: First Rule, Eternal Law (cfr. II-IIae q.23 a. 3 in c. And a.6 in c.).

Moral conscience as an act of (practical) reason evidently bears within itself the consequences of the wound caused to our reason by sin (original and actual), a wound that is the ignorance by which reason is displaced from its order towards the truth (“ratio destituitur his order ad verum”) (cf. I-IIae q.85 a.3).

Human moral conscience, insofar as it is deprived of grace due to original sin, by itself is not capable of knowing the things of faith and is not capable of opposing what goes against faith (cf. Super Sent., II d . 39 q.3 a.1 to 3m)

Through his Incarnation for our salvation, he explains the s. Angelic Doctor, the Lord has purified our conscience with his Blood (Super Heb., Chap. 9 l. 3) By accepting the gift of God in Christ our conscience is purified by grace and faith, it is a conscience illuminated by salvation carried by Christ, it is a Christian moral conscience, that is, a rectified conscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; s. Thomas says in this regard: "Testis infallibilis sanctorum est eorum conscientia, unde (Apostolus ed) subdit" testimonium mihi perhibente conscientia mea "II Cor.1,12" Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae ". Et quia interdum conscientia errat nisi per Spiritum Sanctum rectificetur, subdit “in Spiritu Sancto”. Supra 8,16 "Ipse Spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostra." (Cf. Super Rom. C.9 lec.1.) Note: for the saints the infallible witness is the moral conscience; and why is it infallible? Because he is a witness rectified, through grace, by the Holy Spirit who is God; he is, therefore, a witness fully guided and regulated by God: First Rule, Eternal Law (cf. II-IIae q.23 a. 3 in c. and a.6 in c.). Through faith and grace, God Truth rectifies the moral conscience of the faithful, making them participate in the wisdom of Christ, as confirmed by St. Thomas in this text that follows: “…“ nos autem ”, scilicet spirituales viri,“ sensum Christi habemus ”idest recipimus in nobis sapientiam Christi ad iudicandum. Eccli 17,6: Creavit illis scientiam spiritus, sensu adimplevit corda illorum "(Super I Cor. C.2 lec.3.). We, that is, spiritual men, have the thought of Christ, that is, we have received the wisdom of Christ to judge. Moral conscience as enlightened by faith, especially by living faith is what some call supernatural moral conscience[13], that is, we can say the Christian conscience, the conscience that we receive in Christ. In him we therefore receive the gift of a truly upright and holy conscience which includes the perception of the principles of morality according to revealed Truth, their application in factual circumstances through a practical discernment of reasons and goods and, above all, upright and holy judgment. concerning the concrete acts that must be carried out or that have already been carried out. The full truth about the moral good is practically and correctly recognized through the prudent judgment of a conscience illuminated by faith. The infused virtues dispose us to carry out the act which is supernatural moral conscience. The Christian moral conscience is an act, instead the infused virtues are dispositions to this act, therefore the infused virtues also predispose to the fulfillment of the act which is the Christian moral conscience. Faith predisposes man to the fulfillment of the supernatural act which is the Christian 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. , ch. 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 must be done.

The Sacred Cross be our light.

4) Faith, charity and Christian moral conscience.

Says s. Thomas, as seen, that we have received, by grace, the wisdom of Christ to judge (cf. Super I Cor. C.2 lec.3.); Christian moral conscience is an act illuminated by the wisdom that comes to us through grace, 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.). So, as mentioned, in the supernatural moral conscience, synderesis remains but assisted by faith, in this line we must understand what s says. Thomas in the following text:

"Deinde cum dicit" Beatus qui non iudicat "[...] 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.)

For us this means that the supernatural conscience, always guided by synderesis but precisely assisted by faith, applies to the concrete case what we universally hold by faith. Faith is therefore the light on the basis of which supernatural moral conscience is fulfilled, through faith we participate in Christ in the knowledge of God:

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

By faith, therefore, we participate in divine knowledge, in Christ, so that we can truly judge our actions. God give us an ever stronger faith.

By faith the principles of action are fixed in us on the basis of which we judge our behavior.

In this regard he says s. Thomas who

faith illumines the intellect by giving it the knowledge of supernatural truths which are principles for supernatural action (cf. De virtutibus, q. 1 a. 10 in co.); but it should be noted that the faith we are talking about here is, above all, perfect faith, and in order for the act of faith to be perfect and meritorious it is necessary that the habit of virtue be in the intellect, for faith itself, and in the will. (cf. II-II a. 2 ad 2m), for charity (cf. II-II a. 3).

Even shapeless faith illuminates reason and allows us to carry out an act of Christian moral conscience but not with the perfection of living faith which is perfected by charity and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

For the faith perfected by charity, the judgment of Christ on a determined action is fulfilled in us in the fullest way, it is for this faith that Christ's wisdom to judge is shared in a very high way, it is for this faith united to the charity that the divine life, through Christ comes into us and with it come the gifts of the Holy Spirit who root more fully in us the habit of faith and perfect our conscience.

The Theological Commission affirmed in this line: “Faith, as a theological virtue, enables the believer to participate in the knowledge that God has of himself and of all things. ... Through grace and theological virtues, believers become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pt 1,4) and are in some way made connatural to God. ... "[14]

The International Theological Commission further explains "Charity permits the unfolding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in believers, leading them to a higher understanding of the things of faith" with all spiritual wisdom and intelligence "(Col 1,9). [Cf. International Theological Commission, Theology today, nn. 91-92.] In fact, the theological virtues are fully expressed in the life of the believer only if he allows himself to be guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 8,14:XNUMX). " [15]

In this regard, it is necessary to consider that, as mentioned, consciousness, at a natural level, is the application of the operative habits of reason which are synderesis, science and wisdom; at the supernatural level, moral conscience is participation in the perfection of Christ, participation that is realized in us through faith, above all through living faith with charity, the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit: in fact, charity informs and perfects faith and carries in the human soul all the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit; through this participation in the perfections of Christ we can carry out in the highest and most divine way the 2 acts of which moral conscience consists: examination and advice or deliberation (cf. De veritate, q.17 a.1 in c.) through such participation we can judge our acts in the most perfect way. For this participation in the perfections of Christ, furthermore, our will, which is the fulcrum of the Christian moral life, can orient itself towards the beatitude of heaven and therefore towards all the holy and meritorious acts that truly lead to it.

Even shapeless faith, which is devoid of charity, makes us participate, in a certain way, in the wisdom of Christ but in a less perfect way than the living faith, and enlightens the Christian moral conscience.

The Sacred Cross be our light.

5) Education and formation of conscience.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

Conscience must be educated in faith and moral judgment enlightened by faith and grace. A well-formed conscience, enlightened by Christ through faith and grace, is truly upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments following, in Christ, faith, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience, in faith and in grace, is indispensable for it to judge correctly; men are exposed to negative influences and tempted by the powers of darkness and therefore by spiritual enemies to prefer their own judgment and to reject certain teachings (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1783).

May the Trinity give us a truly well-formed conscience.

In order for this formation in faith and grace to be carried out, the Christian moral conscience must be educated through meditation on the Word of God and therefore through the teachings of Tradition, through the reliable teachings of the Church; in this line it is necessary to realize that following the Christian moral conscience is very demanding and makes us walk the way of the Cross, therefore, as the saints teach, meditation on the Passion of Christ is an extraordinary light for our life both to make us strong and patient in the test and both because we can choose what helps us to truly follow our Savior on the way of the Cross (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1785). May the sacred cross be our light.

The Catechism states in n. 1787: “Man sometimes finds himself facing situations that make moral judgment uncertain and decision difficult. He must always seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in the divine law. " In the light of faith, man must discern the will of God in his life, this will goes in the sense of following Christ on the way of the Cross: whoever wants to go after Christ, must deny himself, take up his Cross and follow him (cf. . Luke 9, 22ff). Precisely for achieving this discernment in faith, in addition to meditation on the Word of God, especially the Passion, incessant prayer and liturgical life, the advice of wise people is important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers some fundamental norms for this discernment in n. 1789 "...

- It is never allowed to do evil because good will result from it.

- ... "Whatever you want men to do to you, you also do to them" (Mt 7,12:76) .XNUMX

- Charity always passes through respect for one's neighbor and his conscience. …. "

VS affirms something particularly important, in this line, at n. 64: "..." in order to be able to discern the will of God, what is good, pleasing to him and perfect "(Rm 12,2), knowledge of the law of God in general is necessary, but this is not sufficient: it is indispensable a sort of "connaturality" between man and true good. (Cf St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 45, a. 2.) ... In this sense Jesus said: "Who works the truth comes to light "(Jn 3,21:64)." (VS, no. XNUMX)

The words of Veritatis Splendor recall what we said earlier about supernatural moral conscience and its infallibility; it is under the action of God and his sanctifying grace that the connaturality mentioned above is realized and true judgments of conscience are made in the Light of God's will. Grace makes us participate in the divine nature, makes us connatural to God.

The International Theological Commission affirmed "Through grace and theological virtues, believers become" partakers of the divine nature "(2 Pt 1,4) and are in some way made connatural to God. ...

"[16] Living in God and of God, one shares in God's wisdom and one discerns his will well; living in grace and charity and therefore in living faith and guided by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, one participates in the wisdom of God in the highest way and one discerns his will well.

May the Trinity grant us to participate fully, by grace, in his divine wisdom.

a) Christian moral conscience in the face of the Magisterium and the errors of the "Magisterium".

God enlighten us more and more.

Faith teaches us to listen and to live the sacred and certain doctrine that Christ presents to us through the Magisterium; therefore a Christian moral conscience allows itself to be guided by Christ through the Magisterium of the Church and does not place itself before it in a sort of autonomy. The Christian has passed from self-nomy to “Christ-nomy”… that is, the Christian welcomes Christ and his word as Law; this is accomplished in the Church of Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ: "Christians, however, in the formation of their conscience, must diligently consider the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church (Cf. Pius XII," Radio Message ", March 23, 1952: AAS 44 (1952), pp. 270-278.). In fact, by the will of Christ, the Catholic Church is a teacher of truth and her mission is to proclaim and teach authentically the truth that is Christ, and at the same time to declare and authoritatively confirm the principles of the moral order that spring from human nature itself. . " [17]

Christians must form their conscience with the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church, in this context the Magisterium obviously has a fundamental importance.

As Veritatis Splendor explains: "... the Magisterium does not bring truths extraneous to it to the Christian conscience, but manifests the truths it should already possess by developing them starting from the original act of faith." (VS, no. 64)

The Church helps the conscience to judge in the light of Truth and not to be deceived by spiritual enemies.

However, it should be noted, as we have seen, that: “In the history of the Papacy there has been no lack of human errors and even serious shortcomings: Peter himself, in fact, recognized that he was a sinner (Cf. Lk 5,8.). Peter, a weak man, was chosen as a rock, precisely so that it was clear that the victory is Christ's only and not the result of human strength. The Lord wanted to carry his own treasure through time in fragile vessels (cf. 2 Cor 4,7.): Thus human frailty became a sign of the truth of divine promises and of God's mercy. (Cf. John Paul II, Lett . Enc. "Ut Unum Sint", of 25.5.1995, nn. 91-94.) "[18].

When the "Magisterium" deviates from sound doctrine and therefore from Tradition to affirm errors, as happened in some cases in the past or as unfortunately we are seeing in our day and as I am saying in this book, it is obvious that such errors and deviations, even if spread by the Pope, they are unacceptable and unacceptable, in this case it is precisely the Christian conscience and the Holy Spirit who works in it to reject what is wrong the "Magisterium" presents.

In this regard, it is interesting to note what the International Theological Commission says in a document on the "sensus fidei": virtue and therefore also faith moves the subject first of all towards a certain object, towards a certain act, but on the other hand it distances him. even from what is contrary to this object, in this line the sensus fidei is an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, which allows Christians to recognize authentic Christian doctrine and practice and to adhere to it. This instinct is supernatural, and has an intrinsic link with the gift of faith received in ecclesial communion, and allows Christians to respond to their own prophetic vocation.[19]

St. Thomas states: "... per habitum fidei inclinatur mens hominis ad absentiendum his quae conveniunt rectae fidei et non aliis." (II-II q. 1, a. 4, ad 3) Through faith the spirit of man is inclined to give his assent to what is appropriate to right faith, and nothing else. Faith makes the believer participate in God's knowledge of himself and of all things. Through grace and the theological virtues, believers become "sharers in nature and in the life of the Trinity (cf. 2 Pt 1,4)." [20]

At no. 58 of the same document we can read: "By means of these gifts of the Spirit, especially those of intelligence and science, believers are made capable of intimately understanding" the experience of spiritual things "[DV 8 ...] and of rejecting any interpretation contrary to faith. "[21]

According to s. Thomas is in particular the gift of science that leads the faithful to have a precise judgment on what must be believed and which, therefore, leads the faithful to discern what must be believed and what must not be (cf. II-II , q. 9, a. 1, c. et ad 2)

To nos. 61 ss of the same document we read again: "The sensus fidei fidelis also allows every believer to perceive a disharmony, an inconsistency or a contradiction between a teaching or a practice and the authentic Christian faith of which he lives." [22]

As s. Thomas for faith the believer is held back from giving his assent to what is contrary to the faith: "Fidei etiam habitus hanc efficaciam habet, ut per ipsum intellectus fidelis detineatur ne contrariis fidei assentiat." (De veritate, q. 14, a . 10, ad 10)

It still says yes. Thomas: “… sicut habitus temperantiae inclinat ad resistendum luxuriae, ita habitus fidei inclinat ad resistendum omnibus quae sunt contra fidem. Unde in tempore when emergit necessitas explicite cognoscendi vel propter doctrinam contrariam quae imminet, vel propter motum dubium qui insurgit, tunc homo fidelis ex inclinatione fidei non consentit his quae sunt contra fidem, sed differt assensum, quousque plenius instruatur. III d. 25, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 2, ad 3.)

Temperance leads to resisting lust and faith leads to resisting all that is against faith. Therefore the man of faith even in times of doctrinal confusion does not allow what goes against the faith.

Under the guidance of grace and the Holy Spirit, the faithful reject everything that goes against sound doctrine even if it is a Bishop or a Pope who affirms it.

May God make us ever more docile to his voice and ever more wise to reject what goes against sound doctrine even if it is a Bishop or a Pope who affirms such errors.

6) Questions concerning the situation of the divorced and remarried in the Church and Catholic doctrine regarding Christian moral conscience.

God enlighten us better and better

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in a famous document on the situation of the divorced and remarried: "The erroneous belief that a divorced and remarried person can access Eucharistic Communion normally presupposes that the personal conscience is attributed the power to decide ultimately analysis, on the basis of one's own conviction (Cf. Encyclical letter Veritatis splendor, n. 55: AAS 85 (1993) 1178.), of the existence or otherwise of the previous marriage and of the value of the new union. But such an attribution is inadmissible (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1085 § 2.). In fact, marriage ... is essentially a public reality.

... the consent, with which the marriage is constituted, is not a simple private decision, since it creates for each of the spouses and for the couple a specifically ecclesial and social situation. Therefore, the judgment of conscience on one's marriage situation does not only concern an immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could do without that ecclesial mediation, which also includes the canonical laws that are obligatory in conscience. "

[23]

I underline that: the erroneous belief that a divorced and remarried person can access Eucharistic Communion normally presupposes that the personal conscience is attributed the power to ultimately decide, on the basis of one's own conviction, of the existence or otherwise of the previous marriage and the value of the new union. Such an attribution is inadmissible because marriage is a public reality and it is only the ecclesial bodies in charge of it that can declare the nullity of a previous marriage. Therefore, in order to approach the Eucharist, the decision of the personal moral conscience about the validity and existence of the contracted marriage is not enough, but it is necessary to abide by the canonical laws that are obligatory in conscience.

God enlighten us better and better.

As we have seen above, it is necessary to distinguish a Christian conscience from a simply human conscience, the Christian conscience is enlightened by faith, but for this faith the person cannot judge by himself the validity of his marriage, faith teaches us that only the Church has power. to declare a celebrated marriage null and void. Therefore those who want to approach the Eucharist only on the basis of their judgment do not allow themselves to be guided by faith and therefore by the Christian moral conscience. As seen above, the Church helps us to form our moral conscience rightly, better still we could say that Christ and the Trinity help us to form our Christian moral conscience through the indications that the Trinity itself gives us through the Church; the Christian moral conscience, illuminated by faith, welcomes the teaching of God through the Church and guides the person to live according to it.

May the Trinity grant us to follow his Truth ever better through the teaching of the Church.

Card. Ratzinger, in 1998, in his "Introduction" to number 17 of the "Documents and Studies" series, directed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "On the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried", wrote something very important in this line , taking up the affirmations of the aforementioned letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“Others have proposed to distinguish between the official admission to Holy Communion, which would not be possible, and the access of these faithful to the Lord's table, which in some cases would be permitted, if they considered themselves authorized to do so in their conscience. In contrast to this, the letter of the Congregation underlines: “The faithful who habitually coexist more uxorio with a person who is not the legitimate wife or legitimate husband, cannot access Eucharistic Communion. If he deems it possible, the pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the requirements of the spiritual good of the person and the common good of the church, have the grave duty to warn him that this judgment of conscience is in open conflict with the doctrine of church. They must also remember this doctrine in teaching all the faithful entrusted to them " [24]. ... It is "only absolute fidelity to the will of Christ who has given us back and entrusted again the indissolubility of marriage as a gift from the Creator" [25] " [26]

May God make us ever more faithful to the will of Christ, God-man.

Cardinal Müller, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 2013 in the line just seen: “More and more often it is suggested that the decision to approach Eucharistic communion or not should be left to the personal conscience of the divorced and remarried. This argument, which is based on a problematic concept of "conscience", has already been rejected in the letter from the Congregation of 1994. ...

If the divorced and remarried are subjectively convinced of conscience that the previous marriage was not valid, this must be objectively demonstrated by the competent judicial authority in matrimonial matters. Marriage does not only concern the relationship between two persons and God, but it is also a reality of the Church, a sacrament, on whose validity not only the individual for himself, but the Church, in which he is incorporated through faith and Baptism. , is required to decide. "[27]

In 2011, the Osservatore Romano proposed again a writing by Card. Ratzinger, who later became Pope, in which we read: "If the previous marriage of divorced and remarried faithful was valid, their new union cannot be considered lawful in any case, for the the fact that the reception of the sacraments cannot be based on interior reasons. The conscience of the individual is bound without exception to this norm[28]» [29]

The Christian conscience is bound without exception to the Truth that if the previous marriage of divorced and remarried faithful was valid their new union cannot be considered licit in any case, and the reception of the Sacraments is not based on interior reasons.[30]

God binds our consciences better and better to his Truth.

7) Clarifications on some statements of Pope Francis on moral conscience in Amoris Laetitia n. 37.

At no. 37 of Amoris Laetitia we read “…. We find it difficult to present marriage more as a dynamic path of growth and fulfillment than as a burden to bear for a lifetime. We also struggle to give space to the conscience of the faithful, who many times respond as best as possible to the Gospel in the midst of their limitations and can carry out their personal discernment in the face of situations in which all schemes break. We are called to form consciences, not to pretend to replace them. "

First of all, I would like to point out that we are certainly called to form consciences but not only those of others…. we are first of all called to form our conscience rightly with sound doctrine and right and true faith, so that first of all our judgments are enlightened and with them we can enlighten other consciences! Errors about sound doctrine do not serve to form our consciences and do not serve to form the consciences of others.

As we said above, then, the Christian must have a Christian moral conscience, enlightened by faith, and on the basis of this faith and this conscience it is not enough, to be saved, to do "the best possible" in the midst of limits etc., as he says Amoris Laetitia, ... it is necessary to live in God's grace and therefore to live the commandments, with God's help. external the individual prescriptions of the Law; 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. "[31] ... The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds in n.2068 that the Council of Trent states 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). "

Further, the Catechism specifies in n. 2072 that no one can dispense from the 10 commandments.

We are called not to dispense anyone from the observance of the divine commandments and therefore we are called to consider the divine commandments as the true Law of God, whose negative precepts oblige always and in every circumstance, and not simply as an ideal ... and therefore we are called to oppose in doctrine and in practice the so-called "graduality of the Law" ...

It is not impossible to live by observing the 10 commandments… but it is difficult and we know that: “The truths concerning God and the relationships between men and God completely transcend the order of sensible things; when they then let themselves into the practice of life and inform it, then they require sacrifice and self-denial. In reaching these truths, the human intellect encounters obstacles of the imagination, both for the bad passions coming from original sin. It happens that men in these things willingly persuade themselves that it is false, or at least doubtful, what they "do not want to be true". For these reasons it must be said that divine revelation is morally necessary so that those truths which in religious and moral matters are not in themselves unattainable can be known to everyone with ease, with firm certainty and without any error. (Conc. Vat. DB 1876, Const. "De fide Cath.", Chap. II, De revelatione). "[32]

We are therefore also called to correct those who are persuaded that what is true is false, but that they would not want it to be true, we are also called to correct those who believe they are walking on the right path, and instead are in a path of sin. serious and we are also called to take serious measures to assert the truth. We are certainly called, along this line, to remove well-known sinners with charity but also firmly from the Sacraments that they want to receive without being truly converted, despite the fact that in conscience they "feel" that they can receive them, as can be said in can 915: " Excommunicated and interdict after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion "(can. 915). We are called to remove scandals from the Church even if in conscience those who do them feel right.

We are called to tell the whole truth ... even if it is uncomfortable ...

God free us more and more from errors and sins.

8) Clarifications on some statements of Pope Francis on moral conscience in Amoris Laetitia n. 303.

a) The statements of Amoris Laetitia and their meaning.

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. "

The passage from Amoris Laetitia we have just seen should be examined by considering first of all what we said at the beginning of this book: the "paradigm shift" that the Pope is carrying out is carried out with discretion and also using a certain "cipher" that also passes through a intentional ambiguity and in an inconspicuous way the betrayal of sound doctrine.

In the above passage it is therefore stated, according to the text, that "this conscience" that is evidently the conscience of which he spoke in the previous sentence and that is the enlightened conscience, formed and accompanied by the responsible and serious discernment of the Pastor can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for the moment is the generous response that can be offered to God, and to 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 it is not yet fully the ideal objective.

Examining this statement in the light of the aforementioned "cipher" and discretion, considering the words used in the text, considering the "authentic" interpretation made by Msgr. Fernández that we would see a few paragraphs later, as well as those made by the German and Maltese Bishops and approved by the Holy See and that we will see later, we understand that for this text and therefore for Pope Francis, conscience can recognize with sincerity and honesty and with a certain moral certainty. that God asks to remain in a situation of opposition to the commandments, asks to remain in carrying out objectively serious acts, or, better said, asks to continue to carry out what sound doctrine indicates as mortal sin.

The will of God is, therefore, for some, in certain cases, according to Pope Francis, that they practically go against the Law that God himself has established and continue to remain in an evident situation of grave sin; moreover, again according to the Argentine Pope, the upright conscience, the Christian conscience, can recognize with sincerity and honesty and with a certain moral certainty that precisely God wants these people to remain in this situation of grave sin.

We ask God for a special light to examine in the following pages and in the light of sound doctrine, the teaching which, as just said, emerges from the passage in question of Amoris Laetitia 303.

Let's say right away that the Pope does not support this statement of his to any quotation. Evidently, according to the Pope, Tradition and the Bible do not support this affirmation with their texts.

b) Can a Christian moral conscience believe with sincerity and honesty and discover with a certain moral certainty that God allows it to do what he himself absolutely forbids, always and without exception? Ordinarily not!

The Cross of Christ be our light.

As we said above, our moral conscience as Christians must be enlightened by true faith which also implies total acceptance of the affirmations that the Magisterium, according to holy doctrine, especially on a dogmatic or definitive level, has presented.

These high-level Magisterial affirmations are, among other things, fixed by the Council of Trent and are reported in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n. 2068

More precisely, the Council of Trent states: “No one, however justified, must consider himself free from the observance of the commandments, no one must make his own that reckless expression prohibited by fathers under pain of anathema (cf. Arausicano II (529) after chapter 25 (Msi 8. 717).), That is, it is impossible for the justified man to observe the commandments of God. God, in fact, does not command impossible things; but when he commands he warns you to do what you can (cf. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 43 (50) (CSEL 60, 270).) and to ask for what you cannot, and he helps so that you can: his commandments do not they are heavy (cf. I Jn 5, 3.), his yoke is gentle and their weight light (cf. Mt 11, 30.). Indeed, those who are children of God love Christ and those who love him (as he himself says, cf. Jn 14, 23.) observe his words, which with God's help they certainly can do. "[33] The Council of Trent itself also affirms. “18. If anyone says that even for man justified and constituted in grace the commandments of God are impossible to keep, let him be anathema. 19. Whoever affirms that in the Gospel nothing else is commanded, except faith, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded, nor forbidden, but free; or that the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Christians: be anathema. 20. If anyone affirms that man as justified and perfect as he likes is not bound to keep the commandments of God and of the church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were nothing more than a simple and absolute promise of eternal life, not conditioned to the observance of the commandments: let him be anathema. "[34] Therefore the sound doctrine proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council at a dogmatic level affirms that no one, however justified, must consider himself free from the observance of the commandments ... God commands us to observe the commandments and gives us the ability to observe them.

The Second Vatican Council affirms: "The bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, who is given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission of teaching all peoples and preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all may men, through faith, baptism and the observance of the commandments, obtain salvation (cf. Mt 28,18-20; Mk 16,15-16; Acts 26,17 ff). "[35] A Christian moral conscience judges according to this truth. God help us to have an upright moral conscience and help us to always live according to the divine law.

Further, the Catechism specifies in n. 2072 that: “Since they enunciate the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their essential content, 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. "

A truly Christian moral conscience lives enlightened by this truth of faith: the ten commandments are indispensable, substantially immutable and oblige always and everywhere ... The commandments are not simply an ideal but precisely they are commands that oblige always and everywhere, here and now!

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. … 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. … The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by moral commandments, expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments ”. (VS, no. 52)

Jesus, true God and true man, solemnly proclaims the binding nature of these prohibitions: “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. ..: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness "(Mt 19,17: 18-XNUMX)." A Christian conscience can never believe that God allows it to do what he himself absolutely forbids, always and without exception. ; never a Christian moral conscience can judge that God allows it to commit adultery ... or homosexual acts etc.

In an important article published in the Osservatore Romano we read "The Christian moral tradition has ... constantly and clearly affirmed that, among the negative ones, the norms that prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions: these acts, in fact, are" disordered "from the point of view of moral by 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. " (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 32). "[36].

In the VS we read, at n. 81: “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. 81)

The intrinsically bad acts are irremediably bad and cannot be ordered for the good of the person.

Adultery, like other intrinsically evil acts, 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 communion with 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.

Please note: always and in all circumstances, without exception, adultery is prohibited, therefore, adultery is also prohibited 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…. "[37] that is, contrary to what the letter of the Argentine Bishops says, it is radically forbidden to commit adultery even if the person thinks that by not yielding to this sin he would fall into a further sin damaging the children of the new union.

There are no exceptions, according to these affirmations, which justify the performance of acts contrary to the negative precepts of the natural law.

It is forbidden for everyone and always to break divine precepts that bind, everyone and at any cost… therefore even at the cost of bringing down the family! ... The end does not justify the means ... The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that some acts are for themselves, that is in particular for their object, always gravely contrary to the divine law among them are blasphemy and perjury, murder, adultery but also homosexual intercourse etc .. "It is not lawful to do evil because good will result from it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1753) It is not lawful to do evil for good to come from it: it is not lawful to commit adultery to save children or families ...

To save the family we are not allowed to put the 10 commandments under our feet !!

The affirmations we have just seen clearly go along the line, which appears to be the simplest and most precise, according to which God wants the negative precepts of the natural law to be universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and in every circumstance.

Christian moral conscience precisely follows the light and truths that emerge from these texts and believes that the negative precepts of natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and in every circumstance.

b, 1) Absolutely extraordinary cases, perhaps possible, which “confirm the rule”.

St. Thomas affirms that there are intrinsically evil acts which are always and forever forbidden and that the commandments are indispensable so that no one can dispense from the observance of divine precepts (cf. Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) But d ' on the other hand the same Doctor presents some absolutely exceptional cases for which God can dispense someone in some particular case so that he can perform acts which, without the divine dispensation are objectively serious sin, are real exceptions that confirm the rule, as we will specify.

First of all, St. Thomas reiterates that the dispensation implies a commensurate distribution of things common to the realities that are part of this community, in this way food is dispensed to the family (cf. II-II q. 88 a. 10)

The dispensation of a vote, states s. Thomas, should be understood as the dispensations that are granted in the observance of a human law. Now, the dispensation in human law must be given in the event that a certain law, given in consideration of what is good in most cases, is not good for someone, with this dispensation precisely he is freed from the observance of that law. he for whom such observance is not good. (cf. II-II q. 88 a. 10)

The precepts of God are precepts necessary for themselves to salvation, instead the ecclesiastical laws do not have as their object things which, by indication of the Church, and not for themselves, are necessary for salvation; therefore there may be impediments that determine for someone the dispensation from observing these laws, but there cannot be dispensations from observing the precepts established by God as necessary for salvation. (cfr. IIª-IIae, q. 147 a. 4 ad 1)

St. Thomas is very clear in denying that a man can dispense to the Law of God. (Cfr. Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 37 q. 1 a. 4; I-II q. 100 a. 8; Quodlibet 4 , a. 8).

In the Sum Theological in particular he says St. Thomas in this regard: “.. Praecepta autem Decalogi continent ipsam intentionem legislatoris, scilicet Dei. … Et ideo praecepta Decalogi sunt omnino indispensabilia. ”(I-II q. 100 a. 8) The precepts of the Decalogue contain the same intention of the Legislator, that is of God, therefore these precepts are absolutely indispensable!

In the article the s. Doctor explains in particular that: God himself would deny himself if he took away the order of justice from him, he being justice itself; for this reason God cannot dispense in such a way that it is lawful for man to deal in disorder with God himself, or not to submit to his order of justice, even in those things for which men are ordained among themselves (cf. I -II q. 100 a. 8 ad 2).

The precepts of the Decalogue are immutable as regards the rule of justice they contain. Compared, on the other hand, to a certain determination for the application to single acts, so that this or that is murder or theft or adultery, there can be changes: in those things that the Lord has instituted, only the authority of God himself is required; instead the authority of men suffices in those things which are entrusted to the jurisdiction of men.[38]

More precisely, examining various passages of his works, St. Thomas affirms the following: God cannot change the rules of justice that contain the precepts of the Decalogue: “… praecepta ipsa Decalogi, quantum ad rationem iustitiae quam continent, immutabilia sunt. Sed quantum ad aliquam determinationem per applicationem ad singulares actus, ut scilicet hoc vel illud sit homicidium, furtum vel adulterium, aut non, hoc quidem est mutabile, when sola auctoritate divina, in his scilicet quae a solo Deo sunt instituta, sicut in marriage, et in aliis huiusmodi; when etiam auctoritate humana, sicut in his quae sunt commissa hominum iurisdictioni. Quantum enim ad hoc, homines gerunt vicem Dei, non autem quantum ad omnia. "(I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 3m)

However, God can make a determination for application to individual acts, establishing, with his authority, that this or that is or is not murder or theft or adultery; in this way the Israelites who got things given by the Egyptians on their departure from Egypt did not steal because God established that they were due; similarly Abraham did not allow a murder when God commanded him to kill Isaac because God is the master of life and death and had decided that he be killed. In a similar way Hosea, uniting with his fornicating wife or with the adulterous woman did not sin because that woman was his, she belonged to him according to God's mandate that she is the author of marriage. In the way just said, however, God can in a certain way dispense from the precepts of the second table of the Decalogue, as St. Bernardo, not from those of the first plate.[39]

Caietano in his commentary attached to the Leonine edition of the Somma Theologica of s. Thomas reiterates the words of St. Thomas: the precepts of the Decalogue are immutable as to the rule of justice which they contain, with respect, instead, to a certain determination for the application to individual acts, so that this or that is murder or theft or adultery, there can be changes: in those things that the Lord has instituted require only the authority of God himself. When God commands to do something that without his command would be a grave sin such as murder, adultery or theft, his command is not against the precept or outside the precept but is against the precept.

Furthermore, as s. Thomas “… contra praecepta primae tabulae, quae ordinant immediate in Deum, Deus dispensare non potest; sed contra praecepta secundae tabulae, quae ordinant immediate ad proximum, Deus potest dispensare; non autem homines in his dispense possunt. " (Super Sent., Lib. 1 d. 47 q. 1 a. 4) God cannot dispense from the precepts of the first table of the Decalogue, he can instead dispense, as seen, from the precepts of the second table, but men cannot.

In De Malo in particular s. Thomas (De malo, q. 3 a. 1 ad 17) affirms that God cannot dispense from the precepts of the first table of the Decalogue, he can instead dispense, as we have seen, from the precepts of the second table, making that it is not a sin, otherwise it would be sin ; in fact with the precepts of the first table men are ordained to God, universal good, and God cannot deny himself by distancing men from himself. St. Thomas cites the case of Hosea but makes it clear that the thing is not certain because he points out how some say that those things that are affirmed of Hosea happened not in reality but in prophetic vision.

According to s. Thomas, therefore, the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige semper et pro semper but if God commands us to perform an act which in itself would be intrinsically evil, this command frees him from such wickedness and makes it lawful; concretely, what happens in the particular case is that the precept remains perfectly valid but the particular case no longer falls under that precept because God intervened and made that particular case pass over the precept.

Suarez, in particular, follows s very directly. Thomas and affirms that not even God can dispense from the precepts of the Decalogue; man, and in particular the Pope, can specify, in the Truth, about the matter of the precept, which is subject to mutation and clarification, p. ex. what previously belonged to one person can become another and therefore what was theft is no longer so ... (cf. F. Suarez "Tractatus de legibus et de Deo Legislatore" l. II c. XV n. 16) but not he can dispense from the precepts of the Decalogue.

The famous text of moral theology according to the Alphonsian doctrine written by Aertnys and Damen affirms that only God can dispense from positive divine law and from the norms of natural law, the Church does not have the power to grant dispensation properly so called regarding positive divine law; the Church can interpret the positive divine law and, by her vicarious power, she can improperly dispense in positive divine law as she relies on a human fact; in this line the Church dispenses in the marriage bond ratified but not consummated (cf. Aertnys and Damen "Theologia Moralis." Marietti, 1956, vol. I p. 145s)

However, it must be said that in reality the dispensations given by God to his law are not too clear, and do not seem to be true dispensations. The cases that s. Thomas mentions there are 3: the sacrifice of Isaac (Gn 22,1-18), the stripping of Egypt by the Israelites (Ex. 12, 35s), the case of Hosea (Hos. 1,2) who is invited to to take a prostitute for a wife.

The case of Abraham being invited by God to kill his son Isaac (Gn 22,1-18) is more a proof than a real command to kill an innocent, however the profound meaning of the passage is that Abraham must "kill spiritually" in himself the obviously very strong bond for the only son Isaac to be himself free to do God's will in everything and to keep his son free so that he too could do God's will in everything, so in reality Abraham really has " killed "but spiritually and in himself, that is, he deeply detached himself from his son, fully recognizing him as a gift from God and not as something belonging to Abraham himself. God intervenes when the full interior detachment of Abraham from his son has been accomplished because that was what God wanted to achieve. Moreover, it must be taken into account that in the Middle East the human sacrifice of the child was the custom of various peoples, the story of the sacrifice of Isaac must in fact be understood as the overcoming and also the condemnation of human sacrifices that is carried out by God and by true religion, Abraham detaches himself from paganism and detaches himself from it not only for the recognition of God but for the practice of true religion and therefore of the true morality that God teaches him. This morality and this true religion do not involve the practice of human sacrifice.

As for the case of the Jews leaving Egypt (Ex. 12, 35-36) and in particular the fact that they stripped Egypt, it does not seem that in this case the Jews stole, it was simply the Egyptians themselves who give them gifts at their request.

Finally, regarding the episode of Hosea (Hos. 1,2) the same St. Thomas makes it clear that there is no certainty that God actually commanded Hosea something that is normally sin, some interpret the passage as a prophetic vision. The text could also mean that the prophet must marry a woman who is part of the people who practice prostitution, that is, he betrays her God with false gods, not a true prostitute.

Moreover, marrying a prostitute is not a sin in itself.

So these handouts are not clearly seen.

Moreover, the aforementioned cases are all episodes of the A. Testament, with the coming of Christ these dispensations no longer seem admissible given that Christ has given us his grace in fullness and we are called to imitate Christ and to live as deified people and to give good example. to our brothers. The dispensations in question, to the precepts of the Decalogue, would create or could create situations in which we would spread a bad example, therefore it seems to me convenient that the perfection brought by Christ puts aside these dispensations completely.

Furthermore, these dispensations, even if they were true, would be communicated to true mystics, to holy men (such as Abraham, Hosea, Moses) to whom God speaks and who are truly guided by God, not to men immersed in sin, they would be absolutely extraordinary cases ... they would be exceptions so extraordinary that “they would confirm the rule”.

The Magisterium, as seen, does not seem to follow s. Thomas for this line of God's dispensation of his Law and in particular of the Decalogue.

God has given us his Law and gives us the strength to practice it, the negative commands of the law are absolutely insurmountable.

The absolute indispensability of the commands of the Decalogue is perfectly welded to the truth that the negative precepts of the Decalogue are valid always and forever ... always and in all circumstances[40] such negative precepts are always and absolutely obligatory to the point of being absolutely indispensable.

God does not want people to implement things contrary to his Law, and man cannot dispense himself or others from the Decalogue, and this also applies to the Confessor and to the penitent ... and this is also true after Amoris Laetitia and after the letter of Argentine bishops ...

The Christian moral conscience in its prudence remains steadfast in the sure truth that the Magisterium teaches and for which the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige semper et pro semper, while remaining open to possible, exceptional, super extraordinary and mystical cases.

b, 2) The affirmations of Amoris Laetitia 303 have nothing to do with extraordinary cases, perhaps possible,… they are simply colossal errors!

The affirmations of Amoris Laetitia 303, which moreover here do not mention s. Thomas neither the Bible nor the Tradition, evidently have nothing to do with the extraordinary and mystical cases perhaps possible just mentioned, therefore they simply contain colossal errors that should serve to open the doors to the "paradigm shift", errors that do not have nothing mystical and extraordinary, as seen in these presumed episodes of handouts indicated by s. doctor, and that they have everything sinful and perverse, unfortunately! We have confirmation of this in the writings, which we will see in the next paragraph, of the Bishops who have applied Amoris Laetitia in the line of the "paradigm shift" none of them when dealing with n. 303 of the papal exhortation speaks of extraordinary cases of mysticism ...

God does not want to keep anyone in a situation of evident opposition, especially if serious, to his commandments, the negative commands of the divine law are obligatory always and in all circumstances, the negative commands of the divine law are absolutely indispensable and an upright conscience, a Christian conscience , she can never sincerely and honestly acknowledge that God is asking her to continue to carry out objectively serious acts and to remain in a situation of grave sin. The super extraordinary, mystical cases are extraordinary exceptions that if possible "confirm the rule".

Anyone who carelessly raves about the possibility of dispensation from the precepts of the Decalogue, should realize that, moreover, he is opening the door so that criminals, mafiosi, pedophiles, massacres, rapists, abortionists etc. they may believe that their crimes are not really crimes because God has dispensed them from observing the precepts of the Decalogue which condemn such crimes.

Furthermore, the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia 303 evidently open the way to other errors ... because obviously if God wants a person to be dispensed from the divine law and in particular from its precepts that bind everyone and at all costs, this person, while performing acts objectively serious or true serious sins, and wanting to remain in this situation, he is realizing the "will of God" therefore he can receive the Sacraments and no one can prevent him, as, in a certain way, the Maltese Bishops and the German Bishops said, whose affirmations we will see more specifically in the next paragraph.

God enlighten us better and better.

In conclusion, on this issue 303 of Amoris Laetitia it is interesting to note some significant comments.

First of all, I would like to point out the comment made by prof. Seifert.

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, should 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 must have a

yes, as I personally believe is the case, the consequence purely

logic of Amoris Laetitia's statement seems to destroy the whole teaching

morality of the Church. "[41].

I point out, then the comment of prof. Meiattini “… 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 (n. 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. "[42]

c) Some significant statements of Bishops in the line of Amoris Laetitia 303.

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). " [43]

First of all we note the absurd statement that: the Law of God, therefore, is impossible ... or causes greater damage! Observing the Law of God causes damage ... indeed greater damage ... while, evidently, objectively serious sin does less damage! Furthermore, like Msgr. Melina was able to write about the guidelines for the application of chap. VIII of Amoris Laetitia issued by the Maltese and German Bishops: “A second theme to be carefully considered concerns sacramentality in relation to conscience. Some interventions of episcopal conferences (explicitly that of the bishops of Malta and, more implicitly, also that of the committee of German bishops), have affirmed that access to the sacrament of the Eucharist should be left to the judgment of each one's conscience. Obviously, it is not a question here of the interior verification of one's own situation before God, on which "each must examine himself" (I Cor 11:28). In fact, the evaluation of subjective guilt with respect to past sins is not in question. Rather, what is at stake is the judgment either on the existence of the public sacramental conjugal bond or on the fact that non-conjugal sexual relations, which are configured as adultery or at least as fornication, from which it is not intended to withdraw, are compatible or not with the Christian life. Such a vision introduces a wound to the sacramental economy of the Church and a radical subjectivization, so that a truth that the Church teaches as founded on divine revelation should ultimately be subjected to the judgment of conscience. The Church has never confused the sacramental forum with the forum of conscience; if this were the case, the words of the priest who said in the name of the Church would have no meaning: "I absolve you". Rather, he should say: "I acknowledge that your conscience absolves you" and thus the sacrament of confession would lose any objective ecclesial meaning, as it is among Lutherans. "[44]

On the other hand, conscience, as we saw above, according to the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia, can sincerely and with a certain moral certainty judge that God wants a person to remain in sin ... and therefore even if he is and wishes to remain in a situation of sin such a person he is doing God's will and can receive the Sacraments and no one can prevent him!

This is a colossal mistake, of course, completely contrary to sound doctrine.

The Maltese Bishops have followed "well" the grave error that the Pope spreads through Amoris Laetitia.

The Bishops of Emilia Romagna affirmed in this line: "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 had indicated and which was 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. "[45]

If the person in conscience, as we saw above, according to the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia, can sincerely and with a certain moral certainty judge that God wants him to remain in grave sin, such as adultery etc., that is, if God wants that person to continue to sin, such a person is doing "good" while sinning gravely and therefore can receive the Sacraments and no one can prevent him; in this line of course, if God wants men to sin seriously, it is not necessary for the divorced and remarried to live as a "brother and sister" to be able to access confession and Eucharistic communion ... The commitment to chastity of the divorced and remarried is therefore no longer necessary to receive the Sacraments but it is only a possibility ...

Obviously, here we are completely outside the Law of God and Catholic doctrine and in fact the text of the Emilian Bishops specifies that the need for the purpose of chastity and therefore to live as a "brother and sister" for the divorced is: "... teaching, that the Church has always indicated and that has been confirmed in the magisterium by Familiaris Consortio "...

The German Bishops have produced a very significant document in the line we are indicating, in it they underline that according to Amoris Laetitia no one can be condemned forever (see Amoris Laetitia n. 297), they underline that the Church has a solid body of reflection on the factors and mitigating situations, therefore it can no longer be simply said that all those who find themselves in an "irregular" situation live in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace (cf. Amoris Laetitia n. 301), they point out that Amoris Laetitia does not stop at a categorical irreversible exclusion from the sacraments, they cite note 336 (in Amoris Laetitia no.300) and note 351 (in Amoris Laetitia no.305) of Amoris Laetitia and also point out that, in a situation objective of sin (which may not be subjectively guilty, or not fully guilty) a person can live in the grace of God, can love, and can grow even in the life of grace and c arity (cf. Amoris Laetitia 305), receiving the help of the Church and in some cases even the help of the sacraments, then they affirm that not all the faithful whose marriage has failed and are divorced and civilly remarried can receive the sacraments without discernment and that Pope Francis underlines the significance of decisive decisions based on conscience when he says that we also find it difficult to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel in the midst of their limitations, and are able to carry out their own discernment in complex situations ; in fact we have been called to form consciences, not to replace them (cf. AL n. 37). The individual decisions of the divorced and remarried for which they believe that they cannot yet receive the sacraments deserve respect and recognition, but the decision of these in favor of respecting the reception of the sacraments must equally be respected.[46]

Therefore, according to the German Bishops, those who believe in conscience that they can receive the Sacraments can receive them without the intention of not sinning gravely and also practically continuing to sin gravely, if they consider it right in conscience ...

Obviously, if, as Amoris Laetitia says, the conscience can recognize with sincerity and honesty and with a certain moral certainty that God asks to remain in a situation of opposition to the commandments, the person does God's will by remaining in this situation and in it he can receive. even the Sacraments without proposing to leave them ...

All the aforementioned statements of these groups of Bishops were obviously accepted by the Pope who had nothing to complain about ... indeed they were published and disseminated in the universal Church with considerable scandal ...

God intervene and free his Church from these grave errors.

9) Analysis of the significant comment by Msgr. Fernández, allegedly hidden author of Amoris Laetitia, to the exhortation's statements about moral conscience.

a) The significant comment of Msgr. Fernández to the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia about moral conscience.

After the appearance of the aforementioned texts of the Maltese Bishops and of the German Bishops for the application of Amoris Laetitia, Msgr. Fernández, allegedly hidden author of Amoris Laetitia, published an article on this exhortation [47], in it he speaks at various points of the moral conscience. The examination of the text of Msgr. Fernández must be done, first of all on what he says and then considering who he is supporting and who he is attacking.

Fernández says that the great novelty of Pope Francis is the fact that he affirms that a pastoral discernment in the field of the internal forum carried out in particular in Confession can have practical consequences in the application of sacramental discipline (p. 459).

According to Fernández, the general canonical norm is maintained, according to which the divorced and remarried who do not propose to live as brother and sister cannot receive the Eucharist, even if in some cases it may not be applied as a consequence of a path of discernment. in which the conscience of the concrete person plays a central role with his real situation before God, his real possibilities and his limits. (p. 459)

Mons. VM Fernández, affirms in particular that 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 same (Not even with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation there is no grave fault. Apostolic Exhortation 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 a judgment be given on this point of the person's state of grace in pastoral dialogue? Francesco believes it is possible and this opens the way for a change of discipline.[48]

Fernández resuming s. John Paul II and Catholic doctrine affirms that this judgment must be made by the person himself, by his conscience, and that it is not an absolutely sure judgment, it is only a certain moral security. (p. 459-460)

We are therefore talking about a certain moral security that the person can achieve later

a process of personal and pastoral discernment. This discernment must be done taking into particular account the limitations of the person, who must not present objectively disordered acts as righteous and holy but affirms that they are difficult to avoid in his specific circumstances, even if he is sincerely willing to grow in this point (p. 463). Circumstances can mitigate guilt (p. 463) and therefore can mitigate or cancel responsibility and guilt in the face of any norm, even in the face of negative and absolute moral precepts, this makes it possible that the life of grace is not always lost. sanctifying in a coexistence "more uxorio" (p. 456) The discernment that the person with the minister of God and through conscience must carry out goes along this line: he must see if for himself the objectively evil acts (in particular adulterous) are difficult to avoid in your specific circumstances and therefore you find yourself in a situation of lessened guilt; if there is such attenuated guilt, according to what Fernández says, she remains in grace while performing these acts (cf. )

Francis, according to Msgr. Fernández, does not assert that these objectively evil acts are justifiable as a personal choice (p. 463), the act is and remains objectively dishonest and does not lose its objective gravity, so it is not possible that it can be chosen, as if it were part of the ideal, nor does it become subjectively honest. Furthermore, Pope Francis, in this context of attenuated guilt, invites these people to try to respond to the will of God with the greatest possible dedication in that situation with various acts such as: greater generosity towards children, the decision to take on a more commitment as a couple. intense for the common good, the development of more frequent and intense reciprocal gestures of beneficence, etc. These acts can be the subject of a personal choice, and are an example of the "possible good" that can be done within the limits of one's situation. (p. 464)

In this way, the conscience is called to recognize what is the possible good on the part of the subject and therefore what, for now, is the generous response that can be offered by the subject to God, this response is what God asks in the middle. to the concrete complexity of limits (see Amoris Laetitia n. 303).

Fernández also cites and appreciates some statements with which prof. Buttiglione defends Amoris Laetitia and for which Pope Francis does not put himself in the justification of the act, but of the subjective circumstances and mitigating factors that reduce the agent's responsibility. The rule that people in God's grace are excluded from communion as a canonical penalty for the anti witness they have given may be subject to exceptions, and this is what Amoris Laetitia says. (p. 462s)

In the discussions around Amoris Laetitia, Fernández continues, some argue that the Pope intends to grant the conscience of the person the power to create truths and rules at will, but Francis speaks of a process of discernment accompanied by a pastor, so it is a "personal and pastoral "(Amoris Laetitia n. 300), which also requires taking very seriously" the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the Bishop "(Amoris Laetitia n. 300) and presupposes a correctly formed conscience (Amoris Laetitia n. 302) is not a conscience that pretends to create truth as it pleases or adapts it to its desires. (p. 466)

b) Analysis of the significant comment by Msgr. Fernández to the statements of the exhortation about moral conscience.

b, 1) Archbishop Fernández does not specify fundamental things regarding the judgment that a person must make in conscience regarding his state of grace.

Let's say first of all that the judgment of conscience mentioned by Msgr. Fernández is twofold: one is about the past and one is about the future.

The judgment concerning the past and the present concerns the present state of grace, the judgment concerning the future concerns the will of God to live in grace.

b, 1,1) On what signs to base the judgment of moral conscience on the past to verify the present state of sanctifying grace of the soul.

God enlighten us better and better.

As we noted above, and as Msgr. Fernández, s. John Paul II stated: "The judgment on the state of grace, of course, belongs only to the person concerned, since it is an evaluation of conscience."[49] 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 says that it is not possible to know for sure but there are signs that indicate that there is probably charity in the soul and therefore grace: “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 already 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 signs 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.

I emphasize that s. Thomas says that it is a sign of charity that the faithful are ready for works of charity, because the Gospel says: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word" (Jn 14,23:14) and "If you love me, you will keep my commandments "(Jn 15, 112), the texts that s. Thomas reports obviously indicate that the works of charity of which he speaks are first of all the actions according to the programs, whoever has charity is willing to observe the Word of Christ and his commandments and not to start or continue a life as an adulterer, or as a murderer. etc. In the Sum Theological s. Thomas will say (I-II q. 5 a.XNUMX) that: the fact that a person is in grace can be known by revelation or through certain signs; in this passage of the Somma Theologica s. Thomas adds to the signs already seen the fact that the person is not aware of having committed mortal sins, in fact he says that the signs that indicate that a soul has charity are: perception of finding pleasure in God and despising the things of the world, not be aware of having committed any mortal sin.

How much s. Thomas said about the indicators of charity is connected with what he himself says in another article (cfr. II-IIae q. 24 a. 11) The Holy Spirit, specifies the s. Doctor, moves the soul to love God and not to sin, the Paraclete with the influence of him preserves those whom he moves as he wishes, immune from sin. Charity can do nothing other than what belongs to its essence, therefore it cannot sin in any way, charity that could be lacking in its very nature of charity would not be true charity, yes. Gregory said in this regard that "God's love, if it exists, does great things: if it ceases to do them, there is no charity" ("Quadraginta Hom. In Evangel.", L. II, h . XXX, PL. 76, 1221). Charity has an intrinsic purpose to accomplish great things. Charity, according to the nature of its act, excludes all motives for sin.
It belongs to a dress, says s. Thomas, to push power to act, as the dress makes what suits it look good, and bad when it opposes it ...  [50]

The article in question offers us a clarification regarding the affirmation according to which: "..." the love of God, if there is, does great things: if it ceases to do them, there is no charity "." [51]

Here s. Thomas specifies that this statement by St. Gregory means that as long as the soul has charity, the latter makes the person do great things, when instead the soul loses charity it does not do great things anymore.

What we have said must be integrated 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 (cf. I-II q. 112 a.5) that the realities that are found in the soul by their essence are known with an experimental knowledge, since man through acts experiences the inner 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, therefore from the acts we know the principles of these acts, from the effects we go back to the causes (cfr. I-II q. 112 a. 5ad 1m), therefore from the act by which the person willingly listens to the Word of God, from the act by which the person is ready for works of charity, from the act for which the person detests past sins, from the act for which such a person proceeds with the purpose of not sinning and from the act by which a person is not aware of having committed serious sins, the person himself can understand that there is charity in him (see Super I Cor., Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno ch. 11 v. 28; I-II q. 112 a.5ad 1m)

I emphasize that, as we saw above when we dealt with contrition and the resolution not to sin, this purpose includes, also according to St. Thomas, the intention to flee the occasions of sin, therefore in those who have true charity this holy purpose is also manifested.

The teaching of St. Thomas is therefore that if there is charity in the soul and the Holy Spirit with it, this presence is manifested in the acts of the person; when there is no longer such a presence, it cannot manifest itself; if there is charity it manifests itself through the signs we have seen above.

I emphasize that whoever truly has charity is willing to live in the Law of God and has a true hatred, a true detestation for sin, especially if it is serious and therefore for acts that are objectively serious, that is, gravely opposed to the divine Law.

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 249:XNUMX). " (From the Catechism of Trent n.XNUMX) Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us radically oppose acts that are objectively contrary to his Law. Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin supremely therefore it makes us propose never to sin.

True charity leads in particular the divorced and remarried to love God supremely, to observe his Law and therefore to radically oppose acts that are objectively contrary to his Law such as adultery, etc. God is to be loved above all and therefore the implementation of the law. his Law must stand above everything, on the other hand, it is necessary above all to oppose acts that go against his Law, especially if such acts are serious.

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. 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. "[52]

This too brings about true charity in us: a supreme hatred towards acts that go against the Law of God, a supreme hatred that leads the person to want to lose everything rather than sin!

I remember that in this line 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 cannot be lacking, with charity, the radical commitment to follow the divine Law, the opposition to acts that go against the Law of God, the holy hatred for sin, and therefore the resolution to follow God's will and not to sin again.

St. Thomas in this line affirms that the fruits of the Holy Spirit are the holy acts that the Holy Spirit himself, when he is in us, leads us to do, therefore acts of charity and of all the holy virtues with it and not acts of adultery or homosexuality (cf. I-II q. 70 a. 1); acts of radical commitment to follow the divine law, acts of opposition to acts that go against the law of God, acts of holy hatred for sin, and therefore acts of purpose to follow God's will, to sin no more and to flee upcoming occasions of sin.

From the fruits the goodness of the tree is recognized, says the Gospel (Matthew 7, Luke 6) and precisely from the fruits, that is, from the acts and signs that I have indicated so far, it is clear if in the soul of a person there is grace and charity. , s. Thomas specifies that on the basis of the signs of charity, contrition or attraction mentioned above, 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.)

I emphasize that, according to St. Tommas, 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 sacramental absolution.

In conclusion, the Christian moral conscience can judge correctly about its present state of grace through signs and these signs can be known, in a certain way, even by the confessor, and the confessor does not have to absolve if he does not see certain signs in the soul (cf. "De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.) Therefore why 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 and correct doctrine, various signs that emerge. from his soul and which indicate in it the presence of grace, equally by signs that emerge from the soul, and following the sound doctrine on Confession, the Confessor can see if the soul is contrite or friction for sins and therefore can validly and sacramentally absolve it. Among these signs that indicate that there is charity in a soul, I have emphasized in particular the radical detestation for sin and therefore the serious, effective and supernatural resolution not to sin anymore and therefore not to carry out objectively serious acts; the Holy Spirit, if he guides a soul through charity, makes that soul radically oppose what goes against the Law of God and therefore radically oppose sin and above all serious sin. I add that even in the case that a soul is friction for sins the Holy Spirit arouses in it a radical detestation for sin and therefore the serious and effective resolution not to sin anymore and therefore not to carry out objectively serious acts. Bishop Fernández does not speak of these very important and indicative signs, his treatment is seriously incomplete. Bishop Fernández who in other passages reports the affirmations of St. Thomas, here does not mention 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, made on the basis of the doctrine of the Bible, for which the presence of grace in us can be known through signs including the resolution not to sin… Quote s. Thomas, however, means referring to his doctrine, and more generally to sound doctrine, so that among the signs by which man can understand whether he is worthy of being in grace are the love of God and his Law, the detestation of acts contrary to the Law of God (and therefore of sins), the purpose of living according to the Law of God, the purpose not to sin in the future and to flee the next occasions of sin. Quote s. Thomas also means referring to his doctrine that if the priest does not see in the penitent the intention not to sin and to flee the occasion of sin and therefore the disposition to follow the commandments, he must not absolve the penitent (cf. "De forma absolutionis", chap. 2 co.) Cite s.

All of this we have just said gives a fatal blow to the "paradigm shift" that Pope Francis is carrying out ... consciously or unconsciously Msgr. Fernández avoiding mentioning s. Thomas avoided showing what clearly highlights some errors that Pope Francis spreads through Amoris Laetitia and that Msgr. Fernanedez supports.

God enlighten us better and better.

b, 1,2) The judgment of the moral conscience on the future and the moral disposition of those who accept to commit serious acts, contrary to the Law of God.

With regard to the judgment of the Christian moral conscience on the future it is evident, from what we have said a few paragraphs earlier, that it cannot judge that it is allowed to carry out objectively serious acts, such as adultery, murder, etc.

No one does God grant to do what goes against his Laws.

The negative commands of the divine law, as we have seen, are obligatory semper et pro semper therefore no one is exempted from proposing to observe them semper et pro semper.

Furthermore, the fact that in the past one has sinned venially while committing objectively serious acts does not allow him to avoid proposing not to commit such acts in the future and therefore to feel practically exempt from proposing to live the commandments that prohibit such acts.

The Holy Spirit and therefore faith, grace and charity do not tolerate the Christian moral conscience judging that God leaves it to carry out objectively serious acts.

The Holy Spirit and therefore faith, grace and charity do not tolerate the moral conscience judging that the person can continue to carry out objectively serious acts.

The Holy Spirit and therefore faith, grace and charity do not tolerate that the person does not seriously and supernaturally propose not to carry out objectively serious acts.

The Christian moral conscience as regulated by true faith and by the Holy Spirit knows that God calls the person to live according to the commandments and therefore this conscience sincerely judges that he cannot continue to carry out objectively serious acts therefore it guides the person to propose himself seriously and radically. not to commit objectively serious acts.

What has just been said is clearly and radically contrary to what Amoris Laetitia and Msgr. Fernández; in this too, therefore, their doctrine is radically opposed to sound doctrine.

God intervene.

In this line it should be emphasized that the people of which Msgr. Fernández talks about and of which he says that they cannot propose to carry out such objectively evil acts with "conviction", they are people who remain in a coexistence more uxorio by choosing to do them, in a certain way they make this "choice of life" (p. 464), that is, they choose to continue to carry out objectively serious acts; their choice is part of what in good morals is defined as positive or negative volunteer: the person either wants to positively do a certain act or fails to do what he must to avoid it… The people mentioned by Msgr. Fernández, are people evidently capable of acting, of willing, they can in fact implement a greater generosity towards their children, or decide to take on a more intense commitment as a couple for the common good, or commit to a maturation in family dialogue, or develop gestures more frequent and intense mutual benefits, etc. (p. 464) now such people, inasmuch as they either want to positively do a certain objectively serious act in the future or voluntarily and consciously omit to do what they have to do to avoid it, perform voluntary acts in order to an objectively serious act. See also what sound morality says about the voluntariness of the effects of the act: the effect of an act is willed if it could or should have been foreseen, if it could have been avoided, if it had to be avoided.

With regard to all this, it should be pointed out that Christian moral conscience, inasmuch as it is guided by faith, radically condemns the fact that the person performs voluntary acts in order to carry out objectively serious acts.

The Holy Spirit, through grace, charity and Christian moral conscience, guides souls to never carry out objectively serious acts contrary to the divine law, and in particular guides the will to radically oppose the carrying out of objectively grave acts; whoever has charity and grace is ready to lose everything and die rather than carry out objectively serious acts such as adultery, murder, etc. !

Significant in this line is the fact that in the situation of objective grave sin in which the divorced people of which Msgr. Fernández, their moral conscience is not addressed by Amoris Laetitia and by Msgr. Fernández in the sense of choosing to radically oppose such objectively serious acts and to pray for this ... but she is oriented to doing acts of kindness of another kind: with greater generosity towards her children, or with the decision to take on 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 beneficence, etc. ; this would be the possible good that God wills, according to Amoris Laetitia n. 303 ... Therefore it is practically impossible to propose not to sin in an objectively serious way, but it is possible to propose to do something else ... and in the line of this practically impossible implementation of God's law the person, on the basis of Amoris Laetitia, can understand sincerely and with a certain certainty that God wants you to continue to carry out objectively serious acts, combining this, however, with some possible good deed.

Therefore it is practically impossible to propose not to sin in an objectively serious way, but it is possible to propose to do something else ... yet sound doctrine teaches, as seen, that: "The observance of God's law, in certain situations, can be difficult, very difficult: it is never, however, impossible. This is a constant teaching of the Church's tradition "(VS, n. 102) ... The Council of Trent affirms that no one, however justified, must consider himself free from the observance of the commandments (can. 20),

no one should make his own that rash expression 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)[53] 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 statements of Msgr. Fernández and Amoris Laetitia are clearly a colossal perversion of Catholic doctrine.

Obviously, given that the Pope and his followers must pass this perversion as a development of doctrine, Msgr. Fernández affirms that what Pope Francis indicates is a "personal and pastoral" discernment (Amoris Laetitia n. 300), which also requires taking very seriously "the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the Bishop" (Amoris Laetitia n. 300) and it supposes the "rightly formed" conscience (Amoris Laetitia n. 302) which does not pretend to create the truth as it pleases, or to adapt it to its desires.

In reality, what Pope Francis says and what Fernández maintains has nothing to do with the teaching that the true Church spreads, it has nothing to do with true Catholic pastoral care and with a correctly formed Christian conscience because it is a betrayal of Christ, of the Church and of the true Christian conscience!

With regard to the quotations from Buttiglione, which Fernández makes in his article on Amoris Laetitia (p. 462s), I note that Familiaris Consortio 84[54] it says that the divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist if they come out of the situation of grave sin in which they find themselves and propose to live according to the Gospel; the situation of grave sin in which they find themselves makes them notorious sinners, is contrary to the Gospel and scandalous, therefore they cannot receive the Eucharist; whoever is in grave sin cannot receive the Eucharist and notorious sinners cannot be admitted to the Eucharist as the Code of Canon Law clearly states (can. 915) and as a document of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts also states .[55] I have the impression that Buttiglione is not well aware of what Familiaris Consorto 84 really says and that he only partially presents, in the text quoted by Msgr. Fernández, what this exhortation of John Paul II really affirms in this passage ...

God intervene.

b, 2) Bishop Fernández supports the errors of Amoris Laetitia and criticizes those who oppose them ...

We continue our analysis of the text of Msgr. Fernández considering who he is supporting and who he is attacking.

Mons. Fernández, alleged author of Amoris Laetitia, "obviously" supports the affirmations of this exhortation which, as you can see in this book of mine, are opposed to sound doctrine, to Tradition, especially to Veritatis Splendor, and to s. Thomas in particular regarding the absolute obligatory nature of the negative precepts of the Decalogue and regarding the doctrine regarding moral conscience, as we are seeing in this chapter. His commentary article on Amoris Laetitia is a total assent to everything that Amoris Laetitia affirms, I do not find in it any critical relevance to it. Faced with the Pope's affirmations, the monsignor does not feel the need to reiterate the fact that the right moral conscience, the Christian moral conscience, will never be able to accept that one can go against the negative precepts of the Decalogue, in fact for the Christian conscience these negative precepts are absolutely mandatory. Mons. Fernández before n. 303 of Amoris Laetitia does not feel the obligation to stand up against the affirmation that “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. "... Msgr. Fernández with Amoris Laetitia reiterates that "this discernment is dynamic and must always remain open to new stages of growth and new decisions that allow the ideal to be realized more fully." … Obviously Msgr. Fernández fully accepts that conscience can truly recognize with sincerity and can discover with a certain moral certainty that God asks it to remain in the performance of objectively serious acts. Fernández himself does not speak significantly of absolute mandatory rules always and in all circumstances ... which therefore must always be obeyed and implemented ...

Often Msgr. Fernández speaks of ideal ... as in this case: "De parte del pastor," nunca implies ocultar la luz del ideal más pleno ... Cada Iglesia local irá encontrando

el adecuado equilibrium a través de la experiencia, el diálogo y la guía del Obispo. " (p. 466) The ideal remains ... and with regard to it every local Church must find the balance between rigorism and laxity. We do not speak here of absolute norms, which prohibit adultery always and in all circumstances ... but it is affirmed that a balance must be found, with regard to the ideal ... a balance that implies discernment and therefore the possibility of continuing to live in adultery and receive also the Sacraments obviously without proposing not to sin… in this line it is no longer strange that in Poland the Sacraments are denied to notorious sinners and in Germany they are publicly granted… According to Monsignor Fernández the line followed by the Pope is very demanding; according to the Argentine prelate it would be easier or more comfortable to apply the rules in a rigid and universal way and to draw conclusions without taking into account the complexity of people's concrete life. It should be noted well: the Argentine Bishop does not specify that there are absolute norms that are insurmountable always and in all circumstances, he affirms that God can ask someone to continue to carry out acts objectively contrary to his Law, he affirms that the Christian conscience can recognize with sincerity and honesty and with a certain truth that God asks her to remain and carry out objectively serious acts, not to mention real serious sins (according to sound doctrine, as we will see more later) ... and "obviously" all this, for Msgr. Fernández, is very demanding, in fact he demands that a person put himself against the Law of God and practically walk towards damnation.

Following his line of clear opposition to the sound traditional doctrine we can better understand against whom the Argentine monsignor hurls his attacks ...

First of all, he points out that the Pope rejects the claim of those who "sueñan con una doctrina monolítica defendida por todos sin matices" (EG 40), that is, dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances. Then Msgr. Fernández attacks the opponents of Pope Francis who, in his opinion, try to force others to assume a certain logic, within which there is no exit and therefore subject the Gospel to a sort of theological and moral mathematics, so that it does not there is no choice but to accept all the logic and consequences of this way of using reason; they would canonize a certain type of reasoning, a philosophy to which the Gospel and the whole Church should submit; for them a certain reason occupies the place of the Gospel and of the action of the Spirit in his Church and the Scriptures would serve only to illustrate the logic of "that" reason, administered by an oligarchic group of philosophers of morality, that is, of ethicists.

The Gospel, however, continues the monsignor is not enclosed in a philosophy, but is above it, and if a certain way of using reason is absolutized, only those who possess that mental structure will be able to interpret Revelation, and they also place themselves above the Pope but in this way the supernatural vision of the Church and of the Petrine ministry is lost.

We must ask ourselves: who would be these rationalists and traitors of the Gospel of which Msgr. Fernández?

The attack of Msgr. Fernández seems, unfortunately, quite clearly addressed to the healthy Catholic morality supported by Msgr. Melina and those who are in his line, then by the professors of the John Paul II Institute who a few years after Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis substantially "reformed", that is, deformed, removing some professors including Msgr. Melina and p. Noriega Bastos and inserting other theologians who follow the line of the Pope himself ...

It should be noted that Msgr. Melina and others in this line follow the Tradition and St. Thomas who talks a lot about conscience ...

The attack of Msgr. Fernández appears to be directed more generally against Veritatis Splendor (never mentioned in Amoris Laetitia) and his followers and therefore more generally still against the Tradition of the Church, especially against the magisterial affirmations of recent decades, and against those of St. Thomas Aquinas, on the subject of moral conscience and absolute moral norms that are always mandatory and for everyone ... we have seen and more and more we will see how Amoris Laetitia goes with discretion but radically against the true Thomist doctrine, against Tradition and also against magisterial affirmations of the last Popes… so it is not strange that Msgr. Fernández goes with discretion against all this, since he is on the side of Amoris Laetitia ...

The attack of Msgr. Fernández appears particularly directed against those who, on the basis of sound doctrine, have criticized Amoris Laetitia ...

Mons. Fernández justifies his attack by stating that these authors dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances ... and practically submit the Gospel to reason, that is, they are rationalists, and they lose the supernatural vision of the Church and of the Petrine ministry.

In reality, those who reaffirm the sound doctrine and rightly criticize the errors of Amoris Laetitia are ordinarily based on Scripture interpreted by Holy Tradition, however, Scripture itself refers to Tradition, as we saw above and as it shows to affirm s. Paul (2Ts 2,15:1, and above all 11,23Cor XNUMX:XNUMX) ... instead it is Amoris Laetitia who discreetly sets aside Tradition, as we will see more and more, and even sets aside the divine law revealed with its clarity and imperative for to affirm the natural law and therefore human reason… therefore it is Amoris Laetitia who distances himself from Holy Scripture and from the Gospel. Furthermore, the traditional doctrine is deeply rooted in the Bible which Tradition has interpreted precisely ... and precisely because of this root it has clearly affirmed the doctrine about the absolute moral norms that are obligatory always and for everyone and the doctrine that conscience cannot sincerely recognize that God he calls to carry out objectively serious acts against his Law. St. Thomas precisely on the basis of biblical affirmations follows the traditional line and strengthens it. The theological school that is linked to Melina, Caffarra and therefore to the John Paul II Institute has followed the Bible and Tradition, and Benedict XVI's support for Msgr. Melina should be understood in this sense as the support for a theologian who followed the Tradition and served the Church by spreading the Truth. Benedetto “… 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 his blessing, expressing his personal solidarity and assuring him of his closeness in prayer "... Benedict XVI" has always closely followed the work of Mgr. Melina in the chair of fundamental moral theology ”, Fr. Juan José Pérez-Soba, professor of pastoral theology and director of international research in moral theology at the Institute. ...

Joseph Ratzinger, later elected Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in 1998 to praise Melina's work in moral theology, and in 2003 participated in a conference on the encyclical Veritatis splendor, organized by the academic department of Melina at the John Paul II Institute. " [56]

In this line we can understand that in reality the heavy statements of Msgr. Fernández against those who oppose the errors of Pope Francis fall on the monsignor himself… in fact it is not the opponents who deviate from the Word of God but Fernández and Pope Francis, unfortunately.

Moreover, the article by Msgr. Fernández is full of clear errors that I have pointed out in various points of this book and which denote the rather precarious and deviant doctrinal basis of this article from which Msgr. Fernández launches his boomerangs, which in fact return heavily to the sender ... Such a basis deviating from sound doctrine appears to be a "worthy" foundation of Amoris Laetitia, unfortunately, so it is not strange that Msgr. Fernández is considered to be the hidden author of this exhortation.

God intervene!

10) Errors of Cardinal Vallini and Cardinal Müller regarding the divorced and remarried who are convinced in conscience of the invalidity of their first marriage.

Let us ask the Holy Trinity for light to guide us to and in the Truth.

I present here what I consider important and necessary to refute some statements of Card. Müller and Card. Vallini regarding the possibility of giving Eucharistic Communion to some divorced and remarried who believe that their marriage is null but have not obtained a sentence of nullity from the Church.

Let's see first of all the affirmations of Cardinal Vallini set out in the document with which he implements in the Diocese of Rome the papal directives that emerged from Amoris Laetitia: "But when the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, that is to say when their journey of faith is long, sincere and progressive state, 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. "[57]

Let us therefore examine what Cardinal Müller says in the introductory essay to the text by prof. Buttiglione “Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia" and. Ares, on pp. 23ff, when he affirms: “The real matrimonial will therefore plays a fundamental role in a matrimonial nullity procedure. In the case of a conversion at a mature age (of a Catholic who is such only on the baptismal certificate) it may happen that a Christian is convinced in conscience that his first bond, even if it took place in the form of a marriage in Church, was not valid as a sacrament and that his current marriage-like bond, cheered by children and with a coexistence matured over time with his current partner is an authentic marriage before God. Perhaps this cannot be canonically proven because of the material context or for the culture of the dominant mentality. It is possible that the tension that occurs here between the public-objective status of the "second" marriage and subjective guilt may open, under the conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and Holy Communion, passing through a pastoral discernment in the internal forum. . ... If the second bond were valid before God, the matrimonial relations of the two partners would not constitute any serious sin but rather a transgression against the ecclesiastical public order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a slight sin. " [58]  Cardinal Müller himself in a recent article affirmed in the same line: "A case of a completely different nature arises if, for external reasons, it is impossible to canonically clarify the status of a union, such as when a man has proof that the his alleged marriage with a woman was invalid, although for some reason he is unable to adduce this evidence in the ecclesiastical forum. This case is quite different from that of a validly married person who requests the sacrament of Penance without wanting to abandon a stable sexual relationship with another, whether in a situation of concubinage or civil "marriage", which is not valid before God and to the Church. While in the latter situation there is a contradiction with the sacramental practice of the Church (matter of divine law), in the first case the discussion concerns how to determine whether the marriage is null or not (matter of ecclesiastical law). " [59]

Further, Cardinal Müller presented practically the same statements in an interview given to the newspaper La Stampa and more precisely to Andrea Tornielli, we read in this interview these words of the German theologian: good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though it is not possible to offer canonical proof. In this case, marriage valid before God would be the second and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the appropriate precautions so as not to scandalize the community of the faithful and not to weaken the belief in the indissolubility of marriage "."[60]

God enlighten us.

We note first of all that the famous canonist Cardinal Burke affirmed “… Christ Himself declared that he did not come to destroy" the very rich heritage of the Law and the Prophets "but to fulfill it (cf. Mt 5, 17.). Indeed, the Lord teaches us that it is discipline that opens the way to freedom in the love of God and neighbor. … It is evident that the discipline of the Church can never be in conflict with the doctrine that comes to us in an unbroken line from the Apostles. Indeed, as Pope Saint John Paul II observed, “in reality, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church” (“Ecclesiae omnino necessarius est.” SDL, p. Xii. Italian version: SDLIt, p. 64.). Because of the close and inseparable relationship between doctrine and law, he then recalled that the essential service of canon law to the life of the Church requires that the laws be observed and, to this end, "the expression of the norms should be accurate, and so that they were based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation "[61]

Card. Herranz, in this line, affirmed: "... Law belongs, as the necessary organizer of the social structure of the People of God, to the" Mysterium Ecclesiae ", And testifies, as Paul VI ruled with a lapidary phrase, that:" Vita ecclesialis sine ordinatione iuridica nequit exsistere - The life of the Church cannot exist without a juridical order "[62] …. Canonical laws, as well as ecclesiastical administrative and judicial activity, thus appear as indispensable instruments of that just order, the essential basis of which are found in the divine constitution of the Church itself. … John Paul II… said: «Justice is the fundamental principle of the existence and coexistence of men, as well as of the human community, of society and of peoples. Furthermore, justice is the principle of the existence of the Church, as the People of God "[63]. In this justice in the People of God, which is elevated but not replaced by charity, the "magna Discipline Ecclesiae" finds its perennial foundation ... [64]

The life of the Church cannot exist without a juridical order that allows everything to be done with due order and Scripture says, along this line: "But everything should be done with dignity and order." (1 Cor. 14,40)

We also note that Cardinal Vallini and Cardinal Müller do not cite any text of Tradition on which they base their affirmations in fact, as we will see, Tradition goes in the radically opposite sense ... an important document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "Letter concerning the indissolubility of marriage"[65] . In this text it is stated: "With regard to admission to the Sacraments, the local Ordinaries should, on the one hand, invite the observance of the current discipline of the Church and, on the other, ensure that the pastors of souls have a particular concern for those who live in an irregular union, applying in the solution of such cases, in addition to other just means, the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum. " as you can see, this text speaks of an approved practice… and the approved practice indicated by the document is that which is specified on 21 March 1975 by Msgr. Hamer, in the «Littera circa partecipationem» available in J. Ochoa “Leges Ecclesiae post Codicem iuris canonici editae”, Ediurcla, vol, VI, 1987, n. 4657, p. 7605, here are the words of Msgr. Hamer: “This sentence [probata Ecclesiae praxis] must be understood in the context of traditional moral theology. These couples [of Catholics living in irregular marital unions] may be authorized to receive the sacraments under two conditions: that they try to live according to the requirements of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches where they are not known, so not to create any scandal ".

The N. 84 of the Familiaris Consortio reiterates this probata praxis when it affirms, as we have already seen: “The Church, however, reaffirms its practice, founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion. ... 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, 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 to live in full continence, that is to abstain from the proper acts of the spouses "(John Paul PP. II, Homily for the closing of the VI Synod of Bishops, 7 [25 October 1980]: AAS 72 [1980] 1082)."[66]

The letter sent by Card. Ratzinger to "The Tablet" also goes in line with what has been said so far.[67]  in which we find precise indications for resolving the cases of those who consider their marriage certainly invalid but cannot prove such invalidity, below we present in summary and with our summary translation the contents of this letter. The Cardinal says first of all that of the "internal forum solution" (solution in the sacramental internal forum, in particular, which concerns marriages that are known as invalid but such invalidity cannot be proven in court) that it is considered a way to resolve the question of validity of a previous marriage, the Magisterium has never accepted the use ("the Magisterium has not sanctioned its use") for various reasons including the intrinsic contradiction of wanting to resolve something in the internal forum that by its nature concerns the external forum and thus has great consequences for the external forum; marriage is not a private act and has profound implications for both spouses and their children and also for civil and Christian society. Only the external forum, continues Cardinal Ratzinger, can give real assurance to the one who applies, and who is not a disinterested party, that he himself is not guilty of "wanting to justify himself"; only the external forum can give an answer to the rights and requests of the other spouse of the previous union and in the case of a declaration of nullity it can make it possible to enter a canonically valid and sacramental marriage. The numerous abuses, continues the Prefect of the Roman Congregation, committed in many countries under the title of the "internal forum solution" show that it does not work, for these reasons the Church in the Code of Canon Law has disseminated the criteria for the admissibility of the testimony and evidence in the courts that deal with marriages, so that the request for an "internal forum solution" does not arise; in some extreme cases in which recourse to the Court is not possible and a problem of conscience arises, recourse can be made to the Sacred Penitentiary. Archbishop Hamer in his 1975 letter, Card. Ratzinger further specified, speaking of divorced and remarried couples whose marriage had not been declared null, when he affirms that they can be admitted to receive the Sacraments ".. if they try to live according to indications of Christian moral principles ”, does not mean anything other than that they abstain, as St. John Paul II, from the "acts proper to 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 the spouses is incorporated into the true love of Christ (Eph . 5, 23–32). Also in 1973 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document seen above[68] on marriage he referred to the "approved practice", this practice affirms Card. Ratzinger is that according to which the divorced and remarried can be admitted to receive the sacraments if repentant for their sins they propose to abstain from "the proper acts of married couples" , even if in some cases they cannot interrupt the cohabitation, and every scandal is avoided. I underline that in some extreme cases in which a problem of conscience arises, contrary to what Cardinal Müller seems to affirm, it is not the individual confessor who can solve the problem, but the Sacred Penitentiary, to which the priest must have recourse; and in any case the Magisterium has never accepted the use of the "internal forum solution" for various reasons among which there is the intrinsic contradiction of wanting to resolve in the internal forum something that by its nature belongs to the external forum and has such great consequences for the external hole; marriage is not a private act and has profound implications for both spouses and their children and also for civil and Christian society.

Read the following text, which is subsequent to the letter just seen from Card. Ratzinger:

“If the divorced have remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively conflicts with the law of God and therefore cannot access Eucharistic Communion for as long as this situation persists…. 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 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.) "[69]

As we can clearly see, the divorced-remarried who live more uxorio cannot receive absolution and receive Communion, evidently even those who are in conscience sure of the invalidity of the first marriage.

Access to the Sacraments is open only to those who are repentant of having violated the sign of the Covenant and fidelity to Christ and are sincerely willing to a form of life that is no longer in contradiction with the indissolubility of marriage; this implies that if the man and the woman, for serious reasons, cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, they must seriously and effectively propose not to sin and in particular to live in full continence and therefore not to cause scandal.

To receive the sacraments, therefore, the divorced and remarried who for serious reasons are forced to live together, must live as brother and sister and not cause scandal. It should also be noted that: if these people, divorced, remarried and living more uxorio, were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion, and therefore scandalized about the Church's doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage[70] …. That this is the case and that there are no possibilities to accept the affirmations of the cardd. Vallini and Müller also specify this text taken from the same document presented above:

: "7. The mistaken belief that a divorced and remarried person can access Eucharistic Communion normally presupposes that the personal conscience is attributed the power to decide ultimately, on the basis of one's own conviction (Cf. Encyclical letter Veritatis splendor, n. 55: AAS 85 (1993) 1178.), of the existence or otherwise of the previous marriage and of the value of the new union. But such an attribution is inadmissible (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1085 § 2.). ...

... The discipline of the Church ... confirms the exclusive competence of the ecclesiastical courts ... "[71]

God enlighten us and enlighten our Shepherds.

Marriage is a public reality whose invalidity can be declared, in the external forum, only by an ecclesiastical body competent for this! In case of doubts or certainties about the validity of a failed marriage, these must be verified by the competent judicial bodies.

It is also necessary to consider that, as Pope Pius XII said: "As for declarations of nullity of marriages ... who does not know that human hearts are, in not rare cases, unfortunately too prone ... to try to free themselves from the marital bond already contracted?" [72]

As seen above, marriage is not a private act and has profound implications for both spouses and their children and also for civil and Christian society. Only the external forum, that is a regular process, can give real assurance to the person who applies, and who is an interested party, that he himself is not guilty of "wanting to justify himself"; only the external forum can give an answer to the rights and requests of the other spouse of the previous union and in the case of a declaration of nullity it can make it possible to enter a canonically valid and sacramental marriage[73]

Only after the first marriage is declared invalid and only after having celebrated a "second" sacramental marriage, can the faithful, who is morally certain of the invalidity of the first marriage, have lawful sexual relations with his "new" wife. Not before!

This was clear, as far as we understand, to Cardinal Müller himself, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who in an article published in the Osservatore Romano affirmed regarding the 1994 text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: " furthermore, that interested believers must not approach Holy Communion on the basis of their judgment of conscience: "If he judges it possible, pastors and confessors (...) have a grave duty to warn him that this judgment of conscience is in open contrast with the doctrine of the Church "(n. 6). In case of doubts about the validity of a failed marriage, these must be verified by the judicial bodies competent in matrimonial matters (cf. no. 9). ... " [74]

God enlighten us and enlighten our Shepherds.

What we have said is further confirmed by reading a text by Cardinal Ratzinger which is the introduction of an "Aid for Pastors" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "On the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried. Documents, comments and studies, ”(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 1998, pages 7–29); in it Card. Ratzinger, after reiterating the fundamental principles of Catholic doctrine on the subject, already seen above, stated "If the divorced and remarried faithful believe that their previous marriage had never been valid, they are therefore obliged to apply to the competent court ecclesiastical, who will have to examine the problem objectively and with the application of all the juridically available possibilities.

… Many theologians are of the opinion that the faithful must absolutely abide by the judgments of the court in their opinion which are false even in the "internal forum". Others believe that here in the "internal forum" exceptions are conceivable, because in the procedural order it is not a question of norms of divine law, but of norms of ecclesial law. However, this question requires further study and clarification. In fact, the conditions for the occurrence of an "exception" should be clarified in a very precise way, in order to avoid arbitrators and to protect the public character - removed from subjective judgment - of marriage. "

With these words, obviously, the Cardinal, as we said above, further closed the door to the exceptions of the "internal forum" because marriage has a public character and it is not clear how such exceptions can avoid arbitrators and protect precisely this character of marriage. in the Sacramentum Caritatis, Joseph Ratzinger himself who became Pope Benedict in the “Sacramentum Caritatis” stated: “Where doubts legitimately arise about the validity of the sacramental marriage contracted, one must undertake what is necessary to verify its validity. ... 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. "[75] As can be seen, no openness to the affirmation that exceptions are conceivable in the "internal forum"; on the contrary, the doctrine according to which: marriage is a public reality and only the courts have the competence to declare its nullity is fully reaffirmed. Pope Benedict then reiterates the only practice accepted by the Church regarding the return of the divorced and remarried to the Sacraments: that they seriously commit themselves to live according to the requirements of God's law, and therefore that they commit themselves in particular to living their relationship as brother and sister. , obviously avoiding any scandal.

It seems to me that the affirmations of Cardinal Muller and Vallini, tending to allow a "more uxorio" life and the reception of the Sacraments to the divorced and remarried, who are certain in conscience of the invalidity of their marriage but cannot prove it, collapse across the board ...

May the Lord enlighten us and our Pastors so that we resolutely follow the narrow path of Truth and the Cross.

Some Bishops of Kazakhstan in 2017 issued an important document in which they condemned statements such as those presented here by Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Vallini[76]  Here are some statements taken from the document of these Bishops and which interest us in particular for our topic: "Since the valid marriage of the baptized is a sacrament of the Church and, by its nature, a reality of a public nature, a subjective judgment of awareness of the invalidity of one's marriage which conflicts with the definitive sentence of the ecclesiastical tribunal, cannot have consequences for sacramental discipline, since it always has a public character. " 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 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. [77] ... and in this line it seems to me interesting to note what Cardinal Burke, an eminent canonist, told me, in line with what has been affirmed so far by sound doctrine: "Marriage is not in" my head "." meaning that marriage is not a private act but a sacrament of the Church and, by its nature, a reality of a public nature.

May God enlighten us and enlighten our Pastors so that we know, with courage, to reaffirm the Truth that saves.

What we have said so far helps us to carry out a further reflection on the words of Cardinal Müller. He states that "... it may be the case that a Christian is convinced in conscience that his first bond, even if it took place in the form of a marriage in the Church, was not valid as a sacrament and that his current marriage-like bond , cheered by children and with a coexistence matured over time with his current partner is an authentic marriage before God. Perhaps this cannot be canonically proven due to the material context or the culture of the dominant mentality. It is possible that the tension that occurs here between the public-objective status of the "second" marriage and subjective guilt could open, under the conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and Holy Communion, passing through a pastoral discernment in the internal forum. . ... If the second bond were valid before God, the matrimonial relations of the two partners would not constitute any serious sin but rather a transgression against the ecclesiastical public order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a slight sin. "[78]

Let us reflect: if it were not the exclusive competence of the Church, through ecclesiastical courts and through a fair trial, to declare the invalidity of a marriage, it could easily happen that those who one day affirm with certainty that a certain marriage is invalid the next day could say that he has better remembered and considered valid what he previously said invalid, or he could also consider the second "marriage" invalid and therefore move on to a third ... and so on. Therefore, given that in this second "marriage" of which Cardinal Müller speaks, the consent is entirely internal, there would be people who could consider themselves free, even if already married once in a valid and external way, to marry several times in an interior way and therefore to subsequently consider such marriages invalid and then continue to marry "internally" at other times, thus realizing "saints" and "numerous marriages" ... implicitly blessed by confessors and therefore "by the Church" ... I wonder, therefore, following the reasoning of the Cardinal if, for him, the error is admitted only to the first marriage (celebrated in the light of the sun) (of which there is certainty and which would render it invalid regardless of the canonical process), or even to the second "marriage" entirely "interior ”, Which according to the Cardinal would be valid or could be valid before God… or even the third…. because there can always be people who believe "in conscience" that previous marriages are invalid and maybe they can bring "evidence" to the Confessor ...

In line with what I am saying, it is also necessary to reflect on the scandal that arises due to the fact that, according to the words of Cardinal Müller and Card. Vallini, a person already married in the Church, considering his first marriage invalid, without going through the Courts Ecclesiastics, and with the permission of the Confessor, he believes he can unite carnally and live together more uxorio with a person who is not his spouse.

Isn't scandal condemned by divine law? And is not scandal a grave sin?

This situation for which, despite there being a valid marriage, a second "interior" marriage with relative sexual acts is "legitimized", is obviously something that generates scandal in itself and in what it determines: uncertainty and disorder about marriage in the Church.

What we have just said makes us understand that in reality if the affirmations of Cardinal Müller were accepted, the order within the Catholic Church would be practically subverted and the doors would open to scandals, conflicts and therefore very serious evils.

Similarly, in this line, the affirmations of Cardinal Vallini are scandalous because they convey the idea that who in conscience considers his first marriage invalid can, through Confession, be legitimized to unite sexually and live more uxorio with a person other than his own. spouse. As we have seen, Marriage is a public reality that does not admit the "solution" through the internal forum. [79]

We do not live as islands, we are in the midst of other people whom we must build with our behavior, we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and to help our neighbor to carry the Cross with us ... this explains the magisterial affirmations seen in precedence that condemn the novelties that cardd. Müller and Vallini are spreading. The practice that Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Vallini consider lawful is in reality gravely contrary to the doctrine of the Church and to charity; whoever puts it into effect would commit a grave sin against the Church, against the brothers and therefore ultimately against God.

If, as s. Alphonsus, an act that is objectively a venial sin becomes a grave sin if the action causes scandal  [80] all the more serious sin is a practice, such as the one I am criticizing, which is completely contrary to the doctrine of the Church and creates such a great scandal.

God enlighten us more and more.

What benefits the true spiritual good of the faithful is not to decide with the Confessor whether their marriage is valid or not and, on the basis of this, to unite more uxorio with a person other than their spouse ... what benefits the true spiritual good of the faithful is live according to the Truth of Christ and his Church for which only the ecclesiastical courts, in a just process, can decide on the nullity of a marriage and therefore can open the way to a new valid Marriage and only after a valid sacramental marriage is it lawful to a couple living together more uxorio, carrying out acts of intimate union and then receiving the sacraments living in this relationship with these acts.

God enlighten us better and better.

I conclude by noting that the statements of Cardinal Vallini have been accepted by the Pope, who has allowed this Cardinal to publish them as norms for the Diocese of Rome. In this way people clearly united in valid Marriage can lawfully unite and coexist more uxorio with people other than their spouse and, remaining in such sinful relationships, can receive the Sacraments, with the Pope's permission ... and with a clear subversion of sound doctrine. The "paradigm shift" proceeds: serious sins, disorders and scandals spread with the papal "blessing".

I also note that the words of Cardinal Vallini follow the "cipher" that belongs to the "paradigm shift" in fact they affirm that "... 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. "[81]

Note well: if it is feasible to propose to live in continence this should be proposed to the couple, if this purpose is difficult: "... for the stability of the couple, Amoris Laetitia does not exclude the possibility of accessing Penance and the Eucharist (AL note 329 and 364). This means some opening… ”So Amoris Laetitia allows to receive the Sacraments even to those who do not propose to live in continence and remain in a more uxorio coexistence. Vallini specifies a case in which this permission takes place: that of those who deem their previous marriage invalid but cannot prove this in court. Vallini's words, however, do not close the door to other cases in which this permission is implemented, there are also other cases that he does not name but that the Pope shows to accept, just think of what the German or Maltese Bishops have said. and to many other errors that the Pope does not correct because they obviously follow his line of "paradigm change" and which, therefore, are valid or may also apply to Rome. Vallini does not specify ... but the doors are open ... With discretion and precisely by following the "cipher" of this "paradigm shift" through the words of Cardinal Vallini in the Diocese of Rome, the doors are opened to errors, scandals and immorality that this Papa and his supporters, through Amoris Laetitia, are spreading.

God intervene!

May the glorious Mother of God intercede for us, who annihilates heretical doctrines, crushes the power of error and unmasks the snare of idols[82], and which since ancient times has been "invoked by the Christian people in" defense "of the faith"[83]

11) Final clarifications Chapter IV:: the Pope is betraying and not developing sound doctrine!

God enlighten us better and better.

Taking up what we saw above, in the concluding clarifications of the third chapter and what we saw in the first two chapters and avoiding reproposing all the doctrinal texts of the Tradition that are the basis of our judgment and that you can see in these clarifications, it is necessary to underline that some affirmations of the Pope, in the moral sphere, examined in this chapter, 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 do not realize a preserving influence of the past. , they are simply a betrayal of sound doctrine ... they betray fundamental doctrines, especially in the moral sphere, doctrines clearly connected to Holy Scripture and reaffirmed by Tradition ...

This betrayal, it should be noted, is not an evolution but a change, in fact it was defined by Bergoglio's own collaborators: "paradigm change". With this "paradigm shift" the sound doctrine is cleverly put aside and the doors are opened to invalid confessions, serious sins, sacrileges etc., as seen! In this regard, Cardinal Muller has rightly said: "Behind the pseudo-intellectual discourse of the 'paradigm shift', there is only the unmasked heresy that falsifies the word of God" (S. Paciolla, "Card. Müller: no Pope can propose his subjective points of view to the faith of the whole Church "The Blog of www.sabinopaciolla.com, 30.10.2020 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-Müller-nessun-papa-puo-propose -to-the-faith-of-the-whole-church-its-subjective-points-of-view /)

With this "paradigm shift", as seen in this chapter, the doctrine on moral conscience is altered and betrayed, and, in particular, the grave error is spread that a Christian moral conscience can believe with sincerity and honesty and discover with a certain moral security that God allows her to do what he himself absolutely forbids, always and without exception. The error indicated, as seen, has nothing to do with absolutely exceptional, extraordinary and mystical, perhaps possible cases; it is fundamentally opposed to biblical affirmations and to affirmations of the Tradition[85] which present the doctrine on Christian moral conscience and on the Truth that it must follow. This error is also fundamentally opposed to the statements of s. Thomas on the Christian moral conscience and on the absolute obligation of the negative precepts of the Decalogue; it is also more directly connected to another error, of which we will speak more extensively in chapter V, which is spreading through Amoris Laetitia, that of the marginalization and cancellation of the doctrine for which the negative precepts of the Decalogue are always and everywhere obligatory; moreover it is also connected to other errors spread in various ways by Pope Francis, it is a powerful picklock to undermine all Christian morality.

The words of prof. Seifert who on 5 August 2017, in the German theological magazine AEMAET, published an article with the title placed in the form of a question: "Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Church?". In it he affirms 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'? ... 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. "[86] ...

Equally it appears as a change and not as an evolution of doctrine, the error that the Pope has clearly accepted and which was spread by his Vicar Cardinal Vallini, an error which, as we have seen, upsets Christian marriage and is a source of scandals, Kazakh bishops, as we have seen, in condemning this erroneous practice have significantly affirmed that it 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 lately 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.

In the line of subversion of sound doctrine there are also other strange Bergoglian affirmations about the "fidelity" of concubinary unions and the correction of wanderers.

May the glorious Mother of God intercede for us, who annihilates heretical doctrines, crushes the power of error and unmasks the snare of idols[87]

Footnotes

[1]Caffarra "Dubia, the 4 cardinals:" Holiness, receive us "But only silence from the Pope" the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana 20.6.2017 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/dubia-i-4-cardinali-santita-ci - he received-but-from-the-pope-only-silence

[2]F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti”, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, 1990, col. 1269s

[3]C. Maurer “σύνοιδα, συνείδησις” in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament” Paideia, Brescia 1970 vol. XIII p. 269ss

[4]F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Pontifical Biblical Institute Rome 1990 col. 1269s

[5]C. Spicq "Theologie morale du Noveau Testament." Librairie Lecoffre J. Gabalda et. Cie., Paris, 1970 tome II p. 602

[6]See Super Sent., II d.24 q.2 a.4, q.3 a.3, d.39 q.3; De Veritate, q.17; Summa Theologiae I q.79 a.13; I-IIae q. 19; Quodlibet VIII q.6 to 3; IX q 7 to 2; III q.12 to 2; there are also important indications on this subject in the comments of s. Thomas to the letters of s. Paul as Super Rom. C.9 lec.1; Super I Cor. c.2 lec.3; Super Gal. c.5 l.1.

[7]See s. Bonaventure “In II librum Sententiarum”, dist. 39, a. 1, q. 3, concluded: Ed. Ad Claras Aquas, II, 907 b.

[8]"Speech" (General Audience, 17 August 1985), 2: Insegnamenti VI, 2 (1983), 256

[9]Supreme S. Congregation of the Holy Office, Instruction. on the "ethics of the situation" "Contra doctrinam" (February 2, 1956): AAS 48 (1956), 144, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-48 -1956-ocr.pdf

[10]Supreme S. Congregation of the Holy Office, Instruction. on the "ethics of the situation" "Contra doctrinam" (February 2, 1956): AAS 48 (1956), 144, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-48 -1956-ocr.pdf

[11]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Dominum et vivificantem", May 18, 1986, 45: AAS 78 (1986), 859 www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it /encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem.html; cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Past Constitution. on the Church in the contemporary world Gaudium et spes, 16; Declaration on religious freedom Dignitatis humanae, 3 .; see VS n. 60

[12]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

[13]See HB Merkelbach “Summa Theologiae Moralis”, Desclée de Brouwer, Brugis - Belgica, 1959, I, pp. 203ss; HD Noble, “The moral conscience”, Paris 1923 pp. 135-159; HD Noble, “Le discerniment de la conscience morale”, Paris 1934 pp. 53-76. 96-126.

[14]International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 52, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68

[15]International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 52, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68)

[16]International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 52, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68

[17]Vatican Council II, Decl. on religious freedom "Dignitatis humanae", 14, 7.12.1965, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_it.html

[18]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The primacy of the successor of St. Peter in the mystery of the Church ”31.1.1998, n. 15, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_it.html

[19]Cf. International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68

[20]Cf. International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 52 ss, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68

[21]International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014, www.vatican.va ,, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus -fidei_it.html # _ftnref68

[22]International Theological Commission, "The sensus fidei in the life of the Church" of 10.6.2014 n. 61, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_it.html#_ftnref68

[23]“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church regarding the reception of Eucharistic communion by the divorced and remarried faithful” of 14.9.1994 n. 7, www.vatican.va,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[24]Letter, no. 6; EV 14/1458 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[25]Letter, no. 10; EV 14/1464, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[26]Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "Introduction" in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "On the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried", LEV, Vatican City 1998, pp. 14 ff. n. 4

[27]GL Müller: “Indissolubility of marriage and the debate on the divorced and remarried and the Sacraments” L'Osservatore Romano, ed. daily, Year CLIII, n. 243, Merc. 23/10/2013, www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/muller/rc_con_cfaith_20131023_divorziati-risposati-sacramenti_it.html

[28]“In this regard, the norm reaffirmed by John Paul II in the post-synodal apostolic letter Familiaris consortio, n. 84… Cf. also Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Letter Sacramentum caritatis, n. 29. "

[29]Joseph Ratzinger, The pastoral care of marriage must be founded on truth, "L'Osservatore Romano", November 30, 2011, pages 4-5

[30]Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church regarding the reception of Eucharistic communion by the divorced and remarried faithful” of 14.9.1994 n. 6, www.vatican.va,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[31]"Catechismo Tridentino", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 299 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/25page.htm

[32]Pius XII, Encyclical letter "Humani generis" introduction, 12.8.1950 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

[33]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536, Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8448ss). UTET. Edition of the Kindle, translation by me retouched in some places

[34]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536; Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8595 ff.). UTET. Kindle Edition.

[35]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 24, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[36]* * "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

[37]"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

[38]See I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 2 "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte/index.html#993/z

[39]See Super Sent., Lib. 1 d. 47 q. 1 a. 4; Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 37 q. 1 a. 4; De malo, q. 3 a. 1 to 17; q. 15 a. 1 to 8

[40]See VS no. 13, 52, 67, 99, 102; ** "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; S. Thomas Aquinas in Super Sent., Lib. 3 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 2 to 3; I-II, q. 72 a. 6 to 2; II-II q. 33 a. 2 in c .; De malo, q. 7 a. 1 to 8; SuperRm. c. 13, l. 2; Super Gal., C.6, l.1

[41]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

[42]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

[43]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

[44]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 /

[45]Emilia Romagna Episcopal Conference "Indications on chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia", 20.1.2018, Diocesi Imola https://www.diocesiimola.it/2018/01/20/indications-sul-capitolo-viii-dellamoris-laetitia/

[46]See German Episcopal Conference "The joy of love lived in families is also the joy of the Church" 23.1.2017, www.jesidiocesi.it, http://www.jesidiocesi.it/download/scuola_teologia/anno_3/sarti/vescovi_tedeschi .pdf

[47]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) www.archidiocesisgranada.es, http://www.archidiocesisgranada.es/images/pdf/Amoris-Laetitia.-Articulo-Buenos-Aires.pdf (accessed on 29.5.2021

[48]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) / pp. 459

[49]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

[50]See St. Thomas Aquinas "Sum Theological", online edition, ESD, II-II q. 24 a. 10 https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte_2/index.html#258

[51]St. Gregory the Great “Quadraginta Homiliarum in Evangelia Libri duo”, PL. 76, hom. XXX, c. 1221

[52]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

[53]Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n.1536 and 1568

[54]John Paul II, Exhortation ap. "Familiaris consortio" 22.11.1981, n. 84, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[55]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, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt /documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html

[56]Sabino Paciolla "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 -the-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-meets-melina /

[57]Card. Vallini "The joy of love": the journey of families in Rome "Diocese of Rome 19.9.2016 ,. http://www.romasette.it/wp-content/uploads/Relazione2016ConvegnoDiocesano.pdf

[58]GL Müller "Communion for the divorced and remarried, Müller:" In guilt there can be mitigating circumstances "La Stampa 30.10.2017 http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/ita/vaticano/comunione-ai- remarried-mller-in-fault-there may-be-mitigating-uK39UZsbZ580Xv9cVK2kUP / pagina.html

[59]GL Müller “What does it mean to say« I absolve you »” La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana 29.1.2018 http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/che-cosa-significa-dire-io-ti-assolvo

[60]A. Tornielli: "Müller:" Buttiglione's book dispelled the cardinals' doubts ", on Vatican Insider of 30/12/2017 http://www.lastampa.it/2017/12/30/vaticaninsider/ita/inchieste -and-interviews / mller-the-book-of-buttiglione-has-dispelled-the-dubia-of-the-cardinals-BGa9DT809pw5WyEgRdZC9I / pagina.html

[61]Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke "Marriage is natural and sacred". Intervention in the context of "Remaining in the Truth of Christ", International Conference in preparation for the Synod on the family, Angelicum - Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas 30 September 2015, www.maranatha.it; http://www.maranatha.it/sinodo/RLB01.htm

[62]Allocutio Membris Pontificiae Commissionis Codes Iuris Canonici Recognoscendo, 27 May 1977, in AAS 69 (1977), p. 418.

[63]John Paul II, Allocution, 8 November 1, in Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol, 1978, (1), p. 1978.

[64]J. Herranz, "Canon Law, Why?" , Lecture at the Catholic University of Milan, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20020429_diritto-canonico_it.html

[65]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Letter concerning the indissolubility of marriage" of 1.4.1973, www.vatican.va ,, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents /rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730411_indissolubilitate-matrimonii_it.html

[66]John Paul II, Exhortation ap. "Familiaris consortio" 22.11.1981, n. 84, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[67]See J. Ratzinger "Church, Pope, Gospel." in The Tablet 26–10 –1991, pp. 1310–11

[68]"Letter concerning the indissolubility of marriage" 1.4.1973, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730411_indissolubilitate-matrimonii_it.html

[69]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”, 14.9.1999, 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

[70]See John Paul II “Familiaris Consortio” 22.11.1992, n. 84, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

[71]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” 14.9.1999, n. 7ss, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_it.html

[72]Pius XII, “Speech to the Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota”, 3 October 1941, n. 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1941/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19411003_roman-rota.html

[73]See J. Ratzinger "Church, Pope, Gospel." in The Tablet 26–10 –1991, pp. 1310–11

[74]GL Müller “Indissolubility of Marriage and Debate on the Divorced and Remarried and the Sacraments” L'Osservatore Romano, ed. daily, Year CLIII, n. 243, Merc. 23/10/2013, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/muller/rc_con_cfaith_20131023_divorziati-risposati-sacramenti_it.html

[75]Benedict XVI "Sacramentum Caritatis" 22.2.2007, n. 29, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html

[76]"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

[77]"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

[78]GL Müller "Communion for the divorced and remarried, Müller:" There can be extenuating circumstances in guilt "", Vatican Insider, La Stampa 30-10-2017 http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/30/vaticaninsider/ita /vatican/communion-the- remarried-mller- in- the- blame- can- be- mitigating-uK39UZsbZ580Xv9cVK2kUP/pagina.html

[79]See J. Ratzinger "Church, Pope, Gospel." in The Tablet 26–10 –1991, pp. 1310–11

[80]See s. Alfonso de 'Liguori "" Education and practice for confessors "", in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880, Vol. IX, Chapter III, Point II. n. 60; p.78s, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PWP.HTM

[81]Card. Vallini "The joy of love": the journey of families in Rome "Diocese of Rome, 19.9.2016 ,. http://www.romasette.it/wp-content/uploads/Relazione2016ConvegnoDiocesano.pdf

[82]See Hymn Akathistos, vv. 111-112; and. GG Meersseman, Der Hymnos Akathistos im Abendland, vol. I, Universitatsverlag, Freiburg Schw. 1958, p. 114

[83]See "Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary", s. Mass "Virgin Mary support and defense of our faith". https://www.maranatha.it/MessaleBVM/bvm35page.htm

[84]Cf. Vatican Council II, Const. Past. Gaudium et spes, 16.19.26.27.41.43.50.52 etc .; Vatican Council II, Decl. Dignitatis humanae, 1.2. 3. 11.13.14.15 Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536, Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8448ss). UTET. Kindle Edition,; See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536; Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8595 ff.). UTET. Kindle Edition; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Lumen gentium", 21.11.1964, 24, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html

[85] See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536, Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8448ss). UTET. Kindle Edition,; See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1536; Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (position in Kindle 8595 ff.). UTET. Kindle Edition; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. “Lumen gentium”, 21.11.1964, 24, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_it.html; Second Vatican Council, Past. Gaudium et spes, 16.19.26.27.41.43.50.52 etc .; Vatican Council II, Decl. Dignitatis humanae, 1.2. 3. 11.13.14.15; Supreme S. Congregation of the Holy Office, Instruction. on the "ethics of the situation" "Contra doctrinam" (February 2, 1956): AAS 48 (1956), 144; Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1776- 1802. 2072; VS, no. 62. 52; * * "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; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Persona Humana” 22.1.1975, n. 3. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html

[86]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

[87]See Hymn Akathistos, vv. 111-112; and. GG Meersseman, Der Hymnos Akathistos im Abendland, vol. I, Universitatsverlag, Freiburg Schw. 1958, p. 114

[88]See "Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary", s. Mass "Virgin Mary support and defense of our faith". https://www.maranatha.it/MessaleBVM/bvm35page.htm