Marriage controversies (xxx): they are not shame

Hemos hablado un par de veces ya de una petición pública que algunos “teólogos” españoles han hecho al Papa para que dé la comunión a los divorciados en una nueva unión. Se trata de una iniciativa realizada a través de la plataforma Change.org, que permite que los particulares recojan firmas para todo tipo de cosas. El hecho de que haya sido urdida por Religión Digital con la colaboración de un grupito de teólogos heterodoxos ya dice mucho sobre la propuesta. Como era de esperar, la calidad de los argumentos esgrimidos es ínfima y, de no ser por los firmantes originales, uno estaría tentado de imaginar que es obra de algún becario adolescente al que le parezca muy significativo tutear al Papa, por ejemplo.

Apart from all that and for warning of unsusper.Indeed, no one would think that a normal person will lie so shamelessly and in that precisely resides the strength of deception.Let's see it.

After a first passion dedicated to appearing to the "brother Francisco", the petition enters the matter by making clear the theological basis of the entire petition:

Without a doubt, it is a reasonable statement.Those of us who defend marriage indissolubility and, therefore, we consider that the second union of the divorced is an adultery situation that prevents communion, we usually claim that our position is a dogma of faith defined by Trent.These theologians, however, do us the favor of getting off, patiently explaining that what Trento said was that the practice of not giving communion to the divorced was legitimate, but that does not prevent the opposite practice from being also.This happens, for example, with communion in the mouth, which does not necessarily make communion in hand illegitimate.

Given this argument, the "rigorist" position seems totally defeated from the beginning.After all, who can oppose a literal appointment of the Council of Trent?The "merciful" position of the authors seems irrefutable and it is impossible that it does not agree.To give an example, D.Joan Carreras explains in his blog that “what has convinced me to sign is not so much the reasons provided by theologians, but the fact that it is not a closed matter.The first two paragraphs can subscribe them and are enough to be encouraged to sign ”.The support of an expert canonist on the subject should be sufficient guarantee, if necessary, so that any good Catholic sign the petition.

Those who know the usual way of proceeding with digital religion, however, we know that their literal quotes in general are anything less literal and we immediately go to the original.Indeed, we immediately discover that, in this case, what comes in quotes in the petition is not an appointment of the Council of Trent, but a malicious deformation, which has nothing to do with the conciliar text.

Actually, the Council of Trent says:

As you can see, Trento does not say "the Church does not yerra when communion denies them", but something very different: the Church does not "yerra when it has taught and teaches, according to the doctrine of the Gospel and the apostles, which cannot bedissolve the link of marriage by adultery ".The authors of the pamphlet have intentionally modified the text to make him say what he does not say.

Let's look closely in the difference: "teach", "according to the doctrine of the Gospel and the apostles", which "cannot be" dissolved the link of marriage (for adultery, much less for any other reason).Then if the church does not yerra when teaching it is that it is true that it is impossible to dissolve that marriage.Against what the authors of the pamphlet intended to make us believe with a gross trick, the Council of Trent does not speak of a mutable ecclesial custom or in a circumstantial way of treating the divorced, but of the doctrine of the church.At no time does the council of a pastoral practice speak, but clearly of a dogmatic teaching, from Christ and the apostles, whose denial constitutes heresy ("Anathema SIT").

The council anathematizes anyone who affirms that the Church is wrong to teach that the second union of a divorced is fornication.That is, Trento directly condemns the Kasperian proposals and that of the Panfleto-Propuest.Against what was stated in the request that “applying the words of Jesus [prohibiting divorce] to another unknown situation in his time, where what is there is not the abandonment of a part but a failure of the two, could equivalent to disfiguring those thoseWords ”, the Council of Trent clearly establishes and without any doubt that this“ second union ”is fornication, regardless of the guilt or absence of it in the breakdown.And in another canon, conveniently forgotten by the authors, the council dogmatically condemns the idea that the "failure" of marriage makes divorce possible:

Thus, the authors of the petition cheaply deceive and in a very serious matter to the people of God.I do not know what the signatories of the letter will think of this, but they have clearly scammed them: they asked for bread and have given them a stone, they wanted fish and have served a snake (cf.Lc 11,11).

We could continue analyzing the other arguments of the petition, which are equally ridiculous, but I think it is not necessary.When someone starts missing the truth in a very serious way to deceive you, what one does is stop listening.Or repeat what San Pablo and the Council of Trent said: Anathema Sit!