Severe Criticism of the Exhortation Amoris laetitia

Reductio ad absurdum

Representatives of the clergy and even of the Episcopate are already affirming that according to the spirit of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, the possibility that in exceptional cases, divorced-and-remarried persons may be admitted to Holy Communion without being required to live in perfect continence cannot be excluded.

“If we accept such an interpretation of the wording and spirit of Amoris Laetitia, we must, if we want to be intellectually honest and respect the law of non-contradiction, also accept the following logical conclusions:

• The sixth Divine Commandment, which prohibits any sexual act that does not take place within a valid marriage, would no longer be universally valid, but would admit exceptions. In the present case, this would mean that the divorced could practice the conjugal act and even be encouraged to do so to help them maintain ‘mutual fidelity’ (cf. AL, 298). There could therefore be ‘fidelity’ in a lifestyle that directly contradicts the express will of God. However, to encourage and legitimize acts that are and will always be, as such, contrary to the will of God, would mean to contradict Divine Revelation.
• The words of Christ himself: ‘What therefore God has joinedtogether, let not man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6) would no longer apply always and to all spouses, without exception.
• It would be possible, in a special case, to receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion while intending to continue one’s direct violations of God’s commandments: ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14) and ‘What therefore God has joinedtogether, let not man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6; Gen 2:24).
• The observance of these commandments and of the word of God would, in such a case, be a matter of theory rather than of practice, and would, therefore, lead the divorced and remarried into ‘deceiving themselves’ (James 1:22). It would, therefore, be possible to believe perfectly in the divine nature of the sixth Commandment and in the indissolubility of marriage without however acting accordingly.
• The divine word of Christ: ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery’ (Mark 10:12) would no longer be universally valid, but would be subject to exceptions.
• A permanent, deliberate and free violation of God’s sixth Commandment and of the sacredness and indissolubility of true and valid marriage (in the case of divorced-and-remarried couples) would no longer be always a grave sin, that is to say, a direct opposition to the will of God.
• There could be cases of serious, permanent deliberate and free violation of one of the other commandments of God (e.g. in the case of a lifestyle of financial corruption) in which the person concerned could be granted access to the sacraments due to mitigating circumstances, without such access being made contingent upon a sincere resolution henceforth to abstain from such acts of sin and scandal.
• The permanent and infallible teaching of the Church would no longer be universally valid, particularly the teaching confirmed by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris consortio, n. 84 and by Pope Benedict XVI in Sacramentum caritatis, 29, according to which the precondition for admitting divorced-and-remarried persons to the sacraments is perfect continence.
• The observance of the sixth Commandment of God and of the indissolubility of marriage would become an ideal that is not attainable by all, but only by a kind of elite.
• The uncompromising words of Christ commanding men to observe the commandments of God always and in all circumstances, and even to take upon themselves considerable suffering in order to do so, in other words, to accept the Cross, would no longer be valid as absolute truth: ‘And if your right hand causes youto sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be cast into hell” (Mt 5:30).

“Admitting couples living in ‘irregular unions’ to Holy Communion and allowing them to practice acts that are reserved for spouses in a valid marriage would be tantamount to the usurpation of a power that does not belong to any human authority, because to do so would be a claim to correct the Word of God himself.”

Disastrous Practical Consequences

In an interview granted to Catholic News Agency on April 28, entitled “Chaos was raised to a principle by a stroke of the pen,” the German philosopher and theologian Robert Spaemann lists the practical consequences of such a subversion of Catholic morality.

“The consequences are already foreseeable: uncertainty and confusion, from the bishops’ conferences to the small parishes in the middle of nowhere. A few days ago, a priest from the Congo expressed to me his perplexity in light of this new papal document and the lack of clear precedents. According to the respective passages from Amoris Laetitia, not only remarried divorcés but also everyone living in some certain ‘irregular situation’ could, by unspecified ‘mitigating circumstances’, be allowed to confess other sins and receive Communion even without trying to abandon their sexual conduct—that means without confession and conversion. Each priest who adheres to the discipline of the sacraments in force until now, could be mobbed by the faithful and be put under pressure from his bishop.

Rome can now make the stipulation that only ‘merciful’ bishops will be named, who are ready to soften the existing discipline. Chaos was raised to a principle by a stroke of a pen.

The Pope must have known that he would split the Church with such a step and lead toward a schism—a schism that would not dwell on the peripheries, but rather in the heart of the Church."

God forbid!

“One thing, however, seems clear to me: the concern of this Pope—that the Church should overcome her self-preoccupation so as to go out to meet people cheerfully—has been destroyed by this papal document for an unforeseeable amount of time. A secularizing push and the further decrease in the number of priests in many parts of the world are also to be expected. As anyone can observe, for quite some time the bishops and dioceses with an unambiguous stance on faith and morality have the greatest number of priestly vocations. We must remember the words of St. Paul in the Letter to the Corinthians:  ‘If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself to the battle?’" (1 Cor. 14:8).

Urgent need

According to Professor Spaemann, from now on “every single cardinal, but also every bishop and priest, is called on to uphold the Catholic discipline of the sacraments within his area of competence and to confess it publicly. In case the Pope is not willing to make corrections, it will be up to a later Pope to make things right officially.”

In the above-cited essay, Bp. Schneider recalls: “In the great Arian confusion of the fourth century, St. Basil the Great made an urgent appeal to Pope Damasus, asking him to give through his word a clear direction, so as finally to ensure unity of faith and charity (cf. Ep. 70).”

In an article published on April 13 by LifeSiteNews, Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., wonders: “Has the moment arrived to resist?” This theologian, originally from Australia and now living in the United states, asks more specifically whether we should think that Pope Francis alone is right on this issue and that all his predecessors were wrong and “unmerciful” in allowing no exceptions in this area.

He answers: “Isn’t it far more likely that, as in the 1330’s under John XXII, just one pope is wrong, and that all the others popes have been right? And that, as in that critical situation, respectful public ‘resistance’ to Peter (cf. Gal. 2:11), from cardinals, bishops, theologians and other faithful, is now urgently needed?”

Read also: Declaration of the Society of Saint Pius X Concerning the Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis (March 19, 2016) Amoris Laetitia: a Triumph of Subjectivism After the Synod: Indissolubility called into question Joys Mixed with Crosses; the Cross Transformed into Joy