Was Scalfari right when quoted as saying, “Pope has De Facto Abolished Sin with Evangelii Gaudium“?

 

Scalfari: “Pope has De Facto Abolished Sin With Evangelii Gaudium”
Source: “Pope Francis Just Abolished Sin” — Scalfari’s New Christendom, Where God is Replaced by I, Monday, December 30, 2013 | The Eponymous Flower.

Vatican responded: cf. It’s official: Pope has not abolished sin, says Vatican, Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:29am EST | Reuters.

It appears that this is the case from 2014 Synod’s “Relatio post disceptationem”

cf. Erdö’s Relatio cancels sin and the natural law in an instant, October 15, 2014, Il Foglio | Roberto de Mattei – Source: De Mattei on the Synod Relatio: “The Need to Resist Heretical Tendencies” | RORATE CÆLI.

Sin abolished by: “gradualness of law” vs. “law of gradualness”.


And mostly it would dispense of the need to observe the commandments, a power that no one on earth has. – RORATE CÆLI: Socci: The Pope Who Wants to Put Himself in God’s Place


In the incriminating article, Seifert, asked Pope Francis to retract an affirmation in Amoris laetitia from which, on the basis of convincing logic, would result in the  dissolution  of  Catholic moral teaching in its entirety. **

 
Seifert cites the sentence in Amoris laetitia according to which the conscience of adulterous couples, otherwise known as “irregular couples” can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel.  It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL, no. 303). 
 
In other words, Seifert comments, besides defining the objective state of grave mortal sin “not yet fully the objective ideal”, Amoris laetitia affirms that we can know with a certain moral security that God Himself asks us to commit intrinsically wicked acts, like adultery and active homosexuality. 
 
The Austrian philosopher at this point poses his question:” I ask: Can pure Logic fail to ask us under this assumption: If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can want an adulterous couple to live in adultery, should then not also the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery!’ be reformulated?  […] Must then not also the other 9 commandments, Humanae VitaeEvangelium Vitae, and all past and present or future Church documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? […]Must then not from pure logic euthanasia, suicide, or assistance to it, lies, thefts, perjuries, negations or betrayals of Christ, like that of St. Peter, or murder, under some circumstances and after proper “discernment,” be good and praiseworthy because of the complexity of a concrete situation.” 

The Seifert Case: Who is separating themselves from the Church? by Roberto de Mattei | Corrispondenza Romana. September 6, 2017

Cf. Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church? by Josef Seifert, August 5, 2017 | AEMAET


In Support of Dr. Seifert:

Josef Seifert, Pure Logic, and the Beginning of the Official Persecution of Orthodoxy within the Church by Claudio Pierantoni, 2017 | AEMAET

Cf. All the Reasons of Professor Seifert, Fired For Too Much Fidelity to the Church di Sandro Magister, Sep 14, 2017 | Settimo Cielo

Cf. Bishop Schneider on Prof. Seifert, Cardinal Caffarra, and the Duty to Resist by Maike Hickson, September 17, 2017 | 1P5


Cf. Joyful, Fruitful Racism by Guy McClung • September 17, AD2017 | Catholic Stand