And on the other, a perceptive analysis of two Catholic intellectuals from Italy, the legal philosopher Palmaro, and journalist Alessandro Gnocchi. The letter and article have received great approval. Many Catholics feel it has expressed their own thoughts, fears and feelings. Palmaro and Gnocchi were also dismissed from Radio Maria and there were some intense and sometimes understated criticism. Being uncomfortable with the criticism falls to an almost categorical refusal to face up to a substantive discussion. Was he Pope right in his controversial statements? These statements are Catholic? What does this mean for the Church and its doctrine? What impact do these statements have on Catholics in the world?
The legal philosopher Corrado Gnerre who teaches, among other things, at the European University of Rome Philosophical Anthropology spoke against this criticism of the criticism of Pope Francis, which ignores the content on the points raised. In the example of a response by the Catholic journalist Antonio Socci, "which is no answer", Gnerre shows how this discussion is the same as a a denial of reality, and therefore, solves nothing and helps no one. The question is still in the air: Did Pope Francis produce substantial problems by some statements: yes or no? Some suspect it was up to an incomplete mastery of the Italian language. Even then consequences would be offered. An ostrich attitude on this question may be convenient, but it's good for nothing, such the thesis Gnerres.
From "Denzinger-Catholics" to "Moralistic Catholics", Some More Labels, Yet the Problems Are the Same
by Corrado Gnerre
In our time, biodiversity is celebrated. The conviction prevails that diversity is generally beautiful, the more the better, the more colorful, the more fascinating ... In short, as they say in my area, a Pizza with all the toppings: the more you put on it, the more you enjoy it!
Even in the Church one lives in this atmosphere in some way. Were it a symphonic atmosphere, there would be nothing wrong with it, because the symphony is "unity in diversity". Diversity in manner, but unity in doctrine. This has always been so in the Church. Rather, it's ever been its hallmark. But that is not what we are experiencing today. We can not even deceive ourselves: it's not. Not the symphony is celebrated today, but the opposition, otherness, and that is something else entirely.
If Words Have Any Meaning, How Are They Interpreted That Way?
For the past several days we have had to discover that there are also "the ideological and moralistic Catholics" [a painful discovery no doubt.] . If we interpret the words according to their literal meaning, then such a discovery should have been made long ago, in fact. If words have any meaning namely, the ideological Catholic would have to be the one who turns his own faith in ideology, and ideology is again the claim to transform reality into an intellectual and subjective construction. The father of the ideology is the way of the rationalist René Descartes.
And if words really have a meaning, then the moralistic Catholic would have to be the one who transformed the natural and supernatural morality in human ethics, or in other words, that which replaced the law by rules . Those rules, which are based only on the weakness of human opinions and socio-cultural contexts.
So these days we had to discover not only the existence "of the ideological and moralistic Catholics", as if it were a novelty. We had to also discover that you have under these labels to understand something completely different than really mean the words, so that one has in reality that we understand the Catholics who hold true to the tradition (i.e. the living and eternal God, in history and thus quite different from ideology) and those who remain faithful to morality (ie the obeying of the living and eternal God in history, and thus very different from moralism).
The Orientation is Lost, Nothing More and Nothing Less
But why this confusion? For a very simple reason: because the orientation is lost, nothing more and nothing less. Due to the loss of consciousness of the truth and especially the fact that the truth must be "information" (in the formal sense), is everything, not just diversity for its own sake, and thus dissolves the meaning of the words.
Thus we neglect the problem and focus instead on method and form. Take the case of Gnocchi and Palmaro. I will not go into the question of method, because even I could may be able to have vague ideas in this respect, namely whether Gnocchi and Palmaro have done well, or not so, to write certain things. What I do reject is that the discussion was primarily limited to whether they were disrespectful or not, that not one critic - and I repeat no one - dares to prove if what they wrote was wrong .
The recent contribution of the Catholic journalist Antonio Socci of the 24th of October in the daily newspaper Il Foglio, only complicated the thing. He has written a lot, but ultimately said nothing. He has informed us that Benedict XVI. a master of the Logos was. Good. He has informed us that Paul VI. has written many interesting things about the fidelity to tradition. Very well. He has informed us that all are in continuity. We hope so. He garnished everything so that he attracted a number of intellectuals and theologians Gnostic fashion as they like Eugenio Scalfari, lend an ear. This pleases us. He has informed us about many beautiful things ... but the problem he has not provided a solution.
Is Pope Francis' Statement on Conscience Compatible with the Church's teaching? Yes or No
For example, he does not explain how the statements of Pope Francis on conscience in his talks with the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica are in agreement, and I did not even say with the whole Denzinger, but at least in line with the encyclical Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II. Apodictically he just announced that it is, without explaining it. And if he is convinced of it only because Pope Francis is a son of St. Ignatius, this is not such a strong case ... if it's true, and it is true, then Cardinal Martini was also a Jesuit. If Socci is convinced that what Pope Francis says is always in keeping with the Logos is because he is the Pope, in line with that Logos, which - as Socci writes himself - reduces Christianity to emotions and feelings - always according to opinion of Socci - as the charismatic groups tend to do, but then Socci should inform them about which opinion of the charismatic groups Pope Francis holds. His Holiness has always praised and supported them.
"Denzinger-Catholic" is Not Offensive, but a Superfluous Labeling
But we return back to the "biodiversity" that brings everything in line and all harmonized in the dialectic and struggle, as the wolf with the lamb and the leopard with the gazelle. And so back to Socci's essay. The Lefebvrian (the author of these lines is neither Lefebvrian nor otherwise associated with the label) to be described as Denzinger-Catholics may be pejorative, but it is not necessarily. But put the question of elegance of expression aside and consider the substance of the statement. A Denzinger-Catholic is to say, that Catholic who looks to the totality of the Magisterium. But this is - and Socci should know it - for a Catholic is not an option but an obligation, because there is only one teacher, and that is in an unbroken continuity. What is meant is that continuity which is so important also in Socci's own words, and he wants to express by making citations by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI. This brings us back to the usual point: You throw some out to attack someone (in this case, the duo Gnocchi and Palmaro), but without really explaining anything.
There are moralists, but not moralistic Catholics
So we come to another point. The Catholic moralist would therefore insist on too much of morality. But have we ever asked ourselves what actually is morality in the field of Catholic theology? The God- Logos is a God who is not about good and evil, but is constitutive good. Therefore, the moral law of God is not an arbitrary decision, but his own nature. The Ten Commandments, for example, are nothing else than the codified nature of God. TO Obey the law of God, therefore, is to partake of His nature, embracing God. On the other hand, it is not possible to decide for God, but not to observe his law. There is nothing moralistic in all this, because for moralism morality is something abstract and an intellectual decision that fails in a particular way, but might as well turn in a different way. The Saints, however, have understood that there is no God without the moral law and no moral law without God, because God is a living God. Those to be called moralists who pay attention to the moral law and to urge others to do likewise, means contradict the saints. What else should we say about a saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, who insisted so unyieldingly. Jesus is very clear: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " (Matt. 5:19).
In this sense, Benedict XVI insisted so strongly on the so-called non-negotiable principles, because of dealing with human life depends also on how to deal with all the other big issues that dominate our time. As Benedict XVI. designated the gender ideology as a serious attack against peace and as a major challenge that is facing the Church. In connection with human life it is reflected in witness and expression for them of the love alone, the truth alone, life alone and the life alone.
An appeal: Do We Want to Discuss Content or Not?
I 'm making an appeal: do we or do we not have to think about and discuss content, instead of insulting definitions to fill the space and catalog Catholics? Do we want to address and solve problems or not? To say it would be enough to follow their own subjective ideas of good and evil, to save themselves, to say that you can not lose regardless, the faith of Christ, to say that God is not Catholic, to say that it is not the primary goal of Christians to convert others, that they also may be saved ... all this talk, is there a problem or not? That is the question!
In the fable of Pinocchio, it was a simple cricket that spoke (to mention the Entomology, since we started with Biodiversity), and he was crushed. He spoke, but he fulfilled his duty. He posed the right questions. Pinocchio told him to be quiet because he was only a measly cricket and crushed him. But he did not solve the problems with this ... not even his doubts and his "father".
Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Link to katholisches...
Link to katholisches...