Acho que até o Rolling Stones consegue explicar melhor o demônio com a música Sympathy for the Devil (procurem a letra e traduzam para ver) do que muitos jesuítas.
O líder dos jesuítas, o venezuelano Arturo Sosa, resolveu dizer que o diabo não existe, o demônio é apenas uma representação simbólica, coisa que já ouvi até em homilia feita por um...jesuíta.
Bom, a primeira coisa que diz qualquer exorcista é que o diabo é uma pessoa (como diz a música do Rolling Stones) e como disse o exorcista López Sedano link sobre a 4 coisas sobre exorcismo: número 1 - "o demônio é uma pessoa".
Sem falar que a doutrina de que o demônio é uma pessoa é um dogma de fé da Igreja!!!. O reverendo está simplesmente sendo herético.
Em todo caso, se não querem ouvir o Rolling Stones, querem algo bem mais sério e católico, que tal ver o que disse o canonista Edward Peters, que disse exatamente isso: quem nega o demônio comete heresia. Peters pede que o Vaticano responda a Arturo Sosa . Hummm...melhor esperar sentado.
Aqui vai o que disse Dr. Peters:
Rev. Sosa’s remarks on the devil warrant official response
The existence of the devil as a personal reality,
and not merely as asymbol of evil, is an article of faith
(Ott, Fundamentals 126-131; CCC 395, 2851). Denial of an
article of faith is an element of the canonical crime of heresy (1983 CIC 751),
an act punishable by measures up to and including excommunication, dismissal
from the clerical state, and/or loss of ecclesiastical office (1983 CIC 1364,
194).
Rev. Arturo Sosa, sj, superior general of the
Society of Jesus, denies the personal reality of the devil, describes him
instead as a symbol of evil, and has expressed such views before (CNA
article here, Catholic Herald article here). Protestations of Sosa’s orthodoxy by Jesuit spokesmen
notwithstanding, Sosa speaks for himself, and clearly. I think his remarks
warrant response, not just from bloggers and scholars, but from those placed
in authority over such matters.
There are, I grant, some practical problems: the
term “heresy” has been thrown around too loosely for some decades (perhaps for
some centuries), the sanctions of excommunication and removal from office are
themselves very weighty, and the latae sententiae (automatic)
procedures by which such consequences are supposedly visited upon
offenders are controversial in theory and practice, such that few in ecclesiastical leadership (including most orthodox
members thereof!) wish to “pull the trigger” in such cases and, as a result,
utterances such as Sosa’s provoke little, usually no, response from Churchleaders with
inevitable harm to the faithful.
What to do?
The Pio-Benedictine Code, perhaps alert to the dilemma that all-or-nothing penal canons posed
for authority, had an interesting provision that allowed bishops and superiors
to take action in likely heresy cases without invoking the
full rigors of an excommunication process: 1917 CIC 2315 (see below)
established the distinct criminal category of “suspicion of heresy”
(my emphasis) that allowed Church authorities to demand formal clarifications
and/or retractions from those whose utterances smacked of heresy without
immediately requiring them to move to a full prosecution for heresy. If these
formal requests for amendment were not heeded, of course, a full heresy case
could then be undertaken. There are good discussions of “suspicion of heresy”
in the standard commentators. Unfortunately, Canon 2315 of the 1917 Code did not survive into the 1983 Code. Pity, it
would have been useful, I think, in a case like Sosa’s.
Even so, the elimination of “suspicion of heresy”
as a penal category does not absolve today’s bishops of their duty “to propose
and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed”
and “to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed” (1983 CIC
386). Indeed bishops are “to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep
into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word”
(1983 CIC 392). It is commonly recognized that the phrase “ministry of the
word” is code, if you will, for Church teaching,including her
teaching of the personal existence of angels good and bad. An authoritative, direct
contradiction of Sosa’s personal, direct errors is warranted, nay, I think
required, from those principally responsible for the ministry of the word in
their jurisdictions. They are two.
The bishop of the Diocese of Rimini (where Sosa’s made his latest remarks) should by now have
“knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict” namely, heresy, whereupon
“he is carefully to inquire personally or though another suitable person about
the facts” (1983 CIC 1412, 1717). Failure to act on such information as is
available in the public forum would constitute, in my view, a dereliction of
governing duty (see 1983 CIC 392, 1389). In addition, the bishop of Sosa’s
place of residence is also competent to inquire into the Jesuit’s remarks
denying the personal existence of the devil and, for that matter, on some other other topics (1983 CIC 1408). My understanding is that Sosa’s place of
residence is Rome.
+ + +
1917 CIC 2315. One suspected of heresy, who, having
been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion, is prohibited from
legitimate acts, if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated
without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months
from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely
amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic, and liable to the penalties
for heretics. (My trans.)
