Roma Locuta Est

August 11, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – It’s been a while since Roma Locuta Est has taken up the question of Amoris Laetitia in detail, though I touched upon it briefly in a recent article titled (see Regarding Synods, Sins, and Itching Ears). My attention has focused on other areas, such as publishing a book length refutation of Benepapism / Benevacantism (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI), as well as additional articles on the topic; and continuing working on book II of the historical fiction trilogy I am writing (see Book I: PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms).

Still, in the intervening period, I’ve tried to keep abreast of developments. One such development was the publication of Pedro Gabriel’s defense of Amoris Laetitia, titled The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.  Mr. Gabriel’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is similar to that of Stephen Walford, whose interpretation of Amoris Laetitia may be found in his book, The Pope, The Family, and Divorce.  Roma Locuta Est previously provided a detailed review and rebuttal of Mr. Walford’s book in a three part series (see The Errors of Mr. Walford’s ‘Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce; Part II: The Development of Mr. Walford’s Errors; Part III: Mr. Walford and the Magisterium). Given the similarity of Mr. Walford’s and Mr. Gabriel’s views and arguments, I will not go into Mr. Gabriel’s book in great detail in this article, though I would point out I replied to one of his articles on “mitigating circumstances” in my article, On the Doctrine of Mitigating Circumstances.

So as background, let us recall the teaching of Familiaris Consortio 84 regarding the Church’s discipline of withholding Holy Communion from divorced and remarried Catholics, validly married to another, and who are living in a ‘marital way’ (i.e., what we will call here, “D&Rs”).  Pope John Paul II taught in his exhortation (emphasis added):

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Source:  Familiaris Consortio 84

I.  Responding to Mr. Gabriel’s footnote 392 on the Dubia

I want to broadly address a few of Mr. Gabriel’s footnotes. Specifically, the scope of this article is to examine the text and footnotes where yours truly appears in Mr. Gabriel’s book[1], I thought I’d make some comments regarding them.  Below, we pick up in Mr. Gabriel’s book in a section on the “The Misuse of the Dubia.”

First, the dubia can be used to shut down debate. Sometimes, when discussing Amoris Laetitia, the critic will reply that he cannot give assent to it, because it is unclear what the pope taught. If you proceed to clarify the meaning of the document to this person, he will often retort that this is just the opinion of the apologist, but not an official reading.392

Source:  Gabriel, p. 196.

Mr. Gabriel’s assertion that submitting Dubia “shuts down debate“, rather than the Pope’s failure to even acknowledge them, is utterly absurd. This should give you, the reader, enough of a sense of the level of discussion found in Mr. Gabriel’s The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia. But, as said, the point of this article is to respond to the footnotes and discussion wherein I am mentioned. The section just quoted from Mr. Gabriel’s book is linked to his book’s footnote 392, wherein, Mr. Gabriel quotes me from one of my many articles rebutting Stephen Walford, a one-time, prolific Francis-Apologist:

1. 392. O’Reilly, “Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of Those Contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II”: “No such history supports any discipline suggested by Mr. Walford or a Walfordian Amoris Laetitia; indeed it might arguably be asserted of Pope Francis that not only has he not ‘repeated’ his doctrine, but he has not as of yet even affirmed it once himself. That is, due to his failure to affirm the nature of his teaching as requested in the Dubia.”

Source:  Gabriel, page 207

Then immediately after quoting me above, in the same footnote, Mr. Gabriel remarks on my “habit”:

This author, in fact, has the habit of calling “Walfordian interpretation” to the interpretation favored by the pope, so as to make it seem like it is only Stephen Walford’s personal opinion, robbing it of its legitimate authority.

Source:  Gabriel, page 207

In reply to Mr. Gabriel’s comments, I would remind him that Pope Francis has still not, as of yet, replied to the Dubia. Thus, in the case of Mr. Walford in particular, he has ventured, foolhardily in my view, to go further out on a limb than has Pope Francis himself (at least officially), certainly if one looks at Mr. Walford’s book, which we will discuss in more detail in Part II of this review of Mr. Gabriel’s The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.

But, to the point, I am not trying to “rob” the legitimate authority of anything, as Mr. Gabriel asserts. I am trying to assess footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia as a faithful, but puzzled Catholic. I know I am not alone in this, as questions remain at large among the laity, and the clergy, including high-ranking prelates, including Cardinals. As I have pointed out before about the confusion arising from Amoris Laetitia, some of the so-called “Francis-apologists” have arrived, at various times, at different answers to the Dubia. For example, one answers “yes” to the first Dubia, and another “no” (see discussin in Confusion at Vatican Insider? and The Confusion of the Francis-Apologists).

As Pope Francis has not authoritatively answered the Dubia, we do not know his official understanding of the Amoris Laetitia in relation to the Dubia questions. Although the Francis-Apologists may point to the Buenos Aires Guidelines, the Pope’s letter agreeing to its interpretation, and the entry of both documents into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), and thereby surmise his view from this; some have posited even the Buenos Aires guidelines might still be understood as consistent with the strict discipline of Familiaris Consortio 84.  Included among these, at least at one time, are Cardinal Muller, and Dr. Robert Fastiggi.[2] And even at that, Amoris Laetitia was not an exercise of the magisterium, as even Dr. Fastiggi — who no one can accuse of being an ‘enemy of Pope Francis’ conceded (emphasis added):

“In AL, 3 Pope Francis indicates that the exhortation does not represent an intervention on the part of the magisterium to introduce new teachings on “doctrinal, moral or pastoral” issues. Nowhere in AL does Pope Francis give explicit permission for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion who are not observing continence.” (see HERE)

So, if Amoris Laetitia is not introducing a new teaching on “doctrinal, moral or pastoral” issues, then it is meaningless to point to the Buenos Aires guidelines regarding a ‘non-intervention’ of the magisterium, and even the pope’s agreement with these guidelines regarding this ‘non-intervention’, or their subsequent insertion into the AAS. What we appear to have here is a circular nothing-burger. There is cause, in the first instance, not to consider Amoris Laetitia as an intervention of the magisterium which gives “explicit permission” for D&R’s to receive Holy Communion when not observing continence (cf Amoris Laetitia 3).

Further, if that is not enough, Pope Francis appears to have harbored some question, some sensitivity — dare we say “doubt,” about the orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia. It was once reported by a source friendly to the Pope that Francis had asked Cardinal Schönborn after-the-fact whether Amoris Laetitia was orthodox (see my discussion on this in Schonborn as Cardinal Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius).  See quote below from Austen Ivereigh‘s article, emphasis added:

Schönborn revealed that when he met the Pope shortly after the presentation of Amoris, Francis thanked him, and asked him if the document was orthodox.

“I said, ‘Holy Father, it is fully orthodox’,” Schönborn told us he told the pope, adding that a few days later he received from Francis a little note that said: “Thank you for that word. That gave me comfort.”

Source:  Austen Ivereigh, July 15, 2017.  Crux.  see HERE

So, above, we have the amazing spectacle of Pope Francis essentially posing his own Dubia to a Cardinal, Cardinal Schönborn.  Apparently, the Pope’s “dubia” was:  ‘Is Amoris Laetitia orthodox!?‘  The Catholic following this whole controversy well knows, it is not Schonborn’s answer to the question that matters one bit. In fact, that the Pope asked it, is disconcerting. It is the Pope’s answers we need.  If the Pope can ask that question, why cannot the ordinary Catholic? Thus, regarding Mr. Gabriel’s comment on the footnotes above, I am not “robbing” legitimacy of anything. I am trying to understand what the legitimate teaching is. He should not be insulted if faithful Catholics just want to take his, or Mr. Walford’s word for it.

II.  Mr. Gabriel’s attempted demolition of prior, authoritative documents

As I have said, this article is not intended as a complete critique of The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.  That said, I do believe a discussion in this article around his ‘O’Reilly footnotes‘ will highlight some of the central weaknesses of his case.

One thing is evident as one reads through Mr. Gabriel’s book. There is an utter lack of prior, authoritative documents which support his thesis. There are simply none. Thus, Mr. Gabriel, like Mr. Walford before him, is constrained to do two things. First, to he must try to claim that his view of Amoris Laetitia is a “development of doctrine.” With regard to his first stratagem, I will not say much. It is not the purpose of this article. However, his argument on this point is, in my opinion, fallacious. His attempt, like Walford’s, to claim a development is in line with the seven notes found in Cardinal St. John Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine fails. It is impossible to truthfully claim, citing Newman’s notes, that allowing communion in some circumstances for D&Rs living in a marital way is not in contradiction to a teaching that denied it to D&Rs in all circumstances.

Moreover, Mr. Gabriel, like Mr. Walford before him, fails to note that examples of bishops, apparently including Cardinal Bergoglio himself, allowing the practice of communion for D&Rs was in disobedience to the “manifest mind and will” – a phrase to which Mr. Gabriel often resorts in his book – of the reigning Pope John Paul II (see Amoris Laetitia: A history of doctrinal development or of doctrinal dissent?). But, perhaps Mr. Gabriel now allows an eighth note of doctrinal development, obstinate disobedience to the ‘manifest mind and will’ of the Roman Pontiff in pursuance of “doctrinal development?”

Aside from claiming “doctrinal development,” the second thing Mr. Gabriel must do, given the utter lack of any authoritative documents supporting his thesis, he is forced to either minimize the authority of existing documents, or claim through his convoluted Rube Goldberg-ish, hermeneutical treatment that they can be interpreted as being at least non-contradictory of his interpretation found in his The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.

Accordingly, given Mr. Gabriel’s dilemma, the many papal documents which specifically exclude D&Rs from communion, such as Familiaris Consortio 84, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 34, Sacramentum Caritatis 29, must be explained away. Several chapters are devoted to Mr. Gabriel’s contortions to make his Walfordian interpretation of Amoris Laetitia somehow fit into the clear teachings of these papal documents. There is a chapter devoted to Familiaris Consortio, and another to Veritatis Splendor. Then there is a chapter which addresses a number of other documents, problematic to his thesis, which must be brought into submission to his theology.  These include the Council of Trent‘s Decree on Justification (particularly canon 18), Pope Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis 29, Canon 915, Letters of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in particular, ccc. 1650).

Perhaps some day I’ll go through his fallacious treatment of these documents, but I will keep to my purpose of sticking to his references to me in his footnotes. This brings us to his footnotes 638 and 640 which are in reference to the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994.  My comments in the cited footnotes refer back to an article I wrote (see Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of Those Contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II) wherein I both cite and comment upon portions of this CDF letter.  One portion of this CDF letter reads:

5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994, 4-5)

The CDF is very clear on Familiaris Consortio 84:  The “constant and universal practice, founded on Sacred Scripture” of “not admitting the divorced and remarried” is, in Familiaris Consortio, “presented as binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations.” This strikes at the very heart of any interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that would suggest “modifications because of different situations”, e.g., such as “reduce culpability,” might be permitted.

Picking up Mr. Gabriel’s discussion on ways “papal critics” attempt to avoid the teaching of Amoris Laetitia, he writes, and then links to footnotes referencing me.  Mr. Gabriel in the text of his book writes:

The other way is to point out that the 1994 letter has the authority of Pope St. John Paul II, who “gave his approval to this letter, draw up in ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.” Donum Veritatis explicitly says that documents issued by the CDF and expressly approved by pope participates in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter. In other words, the papal critic points out that these letters are part of John Paul II’s ordinary magisterium.[638]

Footnote 638 is as follows:

638. See O’Reilly, “Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of Those Contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II”: “This CDF letter, ‘expressly approved’ by the Pope John Paul II, participates ‘in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter’ (cf DV 18).”

Returning to the main text, Mr. Gabriel replies:

However, Reverend Travers has argued that this papal approval of the CDF letters lacked proper form (forma specifica), which should contain the explicit words “in forma specifica approbavit” in the approval formula. Thus, it “remained only the action of a dicastery of the Holy See, subject to the normally applicable canon law, rather than the action of the Holy Father himself, which could derogate from that law.”

However, let us take for granted the critic’s assessment that these CDF letters are magisterial. Can these letters be definitive and, therefore, binding even on future popes? [640]

And here, Mr. Gabriel links to footnote 640, which reads:

640. O’Reilly, “Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of Those Contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II”: “This wording is quite clear, it is irreformable. Not even the Pope can change this ‘doctrine and discipline’ because of different situations.”

Mr. Gabriel then goes on to explain that only definitive pronouncements would bind a pope, while at best this CDF letter is only an exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the pope which “though authoritative, is not infallible (i.e., definitive)” (see Gabriel, p. 287).  As Mr. Gabriel adds:  “Definitive pronouncement of the magisterium come only in the form of extraordinary magisterium or ordinary and universal magisterium. The CDF has, therefore, no authority to do either.”

True enough.  So, what answer to give Mr. Gabriel?  First, I welcome Mr. Gabriel’s reference to the infallible nature of the extraordinary magisterium, as well as the ordinary and universal magisterium. But what he neglects is that the CDF’s 1994 letter explicitly appealed to the latter in giving its answer to some doubts raised by certain German bishops with regard certain “pastoral solutions” and Familiaris Consortio 84.  The CDF states in part (emphasis added):

4. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994, 4)

In sum, as seen in the letter, the CDF briefly reviews the doubts, then dismisses them as never being accepted so as to “constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline.”  Therefore, the CDF continues by recalling that “it falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.”  Having said this, the CDF letter then immediately repeats the substance of the teaching found in FC 84.

The import of this should not be lost, the CDF is stating the teaching of the Church “reaffirmed” in Familiaris Consortio 84 is part of the Universal Magisterium of the Church, and an authentic interpretation of the depositum fidei, i.e., it pertains to the Deposit of Faith, — and thus the “pastoral solutions” suggested by the Germans are not allowable!  Teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium, whether taught definitively or not, are nonetheless infallible.  Clearly, the CDF is linking the practice in a unique way to doctrine — such that a modification of the practice would constitute a contradiction of doctrine.

Thus, and as the remainder of the its letter goes on to show, the CDF is speaking as to the authority of Familiaris Consortio 84. To quibble as to the attribution of ultimate authorship of the CDF letter, as Mr. Gabriel speaks of the CDF letter lacking “forma specifica,” is to miss the point.  The CDF is linking the “doctrine and discipline” on this question as one, inseparable thing, which cannot be modified. The CDF letter is a statement about Familiaris Consortio 84, and its teaching on a “doctrine and discipline of the Church” as being an act of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and an authentic interpretation of the Deposit of the Faith; and that Pope John Paul II was both aware of the CDF’s text and its claims about his teaching in FC 84 which he ordered it to be published: “During an audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II gave his approval to this letter, drawn up in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication” (see Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. September 14, 1994).  

But all this brings us back to Familiaris Consortio 84. In his book, Mr. Gabriel wants to draw a distinction between the sacramental discipline, and doctrine.  He says the latter cannot be changed in this matter, but the former can be.  He writes (emphasis added):

Are we dealing with doctrine or discipline? Familiaris Consortio is very clear that the church is “reaffirming her practice.” Therefore we are dealing with a “practice,” a matter of sacramental discipline, which can be overturned if done authoritatively and without contradicting established doctrine. Amoris Laetitia has been promulgated by the pope, who has the authority to do so. So, we need only to focus on whether there has been any contradiction in doctrine.

Source:  Gabriel, page

The problem here is that Mr. Gabriel is thinking only in terms of a “doctrine or discipline.” As is clear in the CDF response, it points to the Deposit of the Faith for the answer. We are speaking of a “doctrine and discipline”, just as a the CDF states; or put another way, a discipline inextricably connected to the doctrine.  Mr. Gabriel is wrong in suggesting the issue with allowing communion or not for the divorced and remarried is just a question of a “sacramental discipline.” Such a suggestion smacks of an attempt to diminish this constant and universal practice of the Church as if it were something potentially transitory in nature, as if it were some ‘discipline’ that might be practiced now, but discarded later.

Mr. Gabriel appeared to approach the point, but seems to have failed to grasp it. So intent is he in feeling the need to diminish the authority of the CDF letter, as well as the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (which we’ll quote in a bit), he failed to consider the CDF was indeed suggesting Familiaris Consortio 84 was dealing with a practice that could not be changed without contradicting doctrine.

In this regard, we need to keep in mind that a “practice” can be something more than a fleeting thing which might be discarded at an opportune moment, such as no longer requiring women to wear veils in mass.  As suggested above, a doctrine might be implicitly contained in a practice (emphasis added):

“It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 29 1998. (n. 17).  Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [emphasis added])

Source:  Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 29 1998. (n. 17).  Retrieved February 17, 2017 from Vatican:  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

Thus, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, there are “doctrines implicitly contained in a practice of the Church, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition.”  Unfortunately, Mr. Gabriel’s treatment of the teaching of Familiaris Consortio 84 treats it only as a question of doctrine OR discipline, rather than addressing the possibility that Familiaris Consortio 84 is speaking of a doctrine AND discipline, i.e., a doctrine implicitly “set forth” or contained in a discipline or practice of the Church.

If a practice implicitly contains a doctrine, then the practice cannot be modified into any new practice which contradicts the former practice. To do so would contradict the doctrine that is “set forth” implicitly in the practice.  Thus we understand why the CDF, following John Paul II in FC 84, says the practice is “presented as binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations.”  Thus, also, we can understand why the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in its declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried states: “The prohibition found in the cited canon (NB: Canon 915, see note 3), by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.”[4]

Familiaris Consortio 84 teaches this practice is “based on Sacred Scripture,” as does Pope Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis 29 (cf Mark 10: 2-12).  The Gospel of Mark reads:

² And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. ³ But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? ⁴ Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. ⁵ To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. ⁶ But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. ⁷ For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. ⁸ And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ¹⁰ And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. ¹¹ And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. ¹² And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Source:  Mark 10: 2-12

Jesus is clear.  Anyone who puts aways a wife or a husband, and marries another, commits adultery.  Full stop. Thus, it should be clear why the Church adopted its “constant and universal practice” and considers it “binding.” Pope John Paul II was quite clear in FC 84.  After again reaffirming the ban on communion for D&R’s living in a marital way, i.e., in an objective state of adultery, and basing it on Sacred Scripture, he goes on to explain in the same paragraph:

“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.”

The requirements to receive absolution and then communion, are repentance for having broken “the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ” and a commitment to a life “no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage” – i.e., one cannot live in contradiction to what Jesus Christ calls “adultery” and receive communion. That is one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II says just a few lines later (emphasis added):

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

Note.  Pope John Paul II speaks of “by ACTING in this way.” In speaking of “acting” he is speaking of a practice or discipline — i.e., he is speaking among other things of the practice of “not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried,” and requiring repentance of having broken “the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ,” requiring undertaking of a life “no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage,” etc..  Further, Pope John Paul II says “by acting this way” the Church “professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth!”  That is to say, the Church’s practice is itself a profession of faith, a profession of “fidelity to Christ and His Truth,” i.e., it is a practice or discipline inextricably linked to doctrine, and indeed a practice that implicitly contains a doctrine.  Again, by this practice, the “Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.”  Thus, to do anything less, or to contradict this practice, is not to profess fidelity to Christ.

Thus ends Part I of my “Review of The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.” Stay tuned to Part II.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

[1]  Curiously, I have appeared in the footnotes of a several books related in one way or another in a veritable smorgasbord of controversies swirling around Pope Francis.  Related to my opposition to Benepapism, I appear in footnotes in books supporting Benepapism, including that of Estefania Acosta, and that of Dr. Edmund Mazza. I also appear in a footnote in Julia Meloni’s book on the St. Gallen Mafia.  And, now, as related in this article, I appear in several footnotes in Pedro Gabriel’s book on the topic of Amoris Laetitia.

[2] Dr. Fastiggi, certainly as of 2019, was of this opinion.  The Professor once wrote (emphasis added):

Others no doubt will appeal to the papally endorsed Guidelines of the Bishops of the Buenos Aires region as proof that Pope Francis wishes to allow Holy Communion for divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who are not living in continence. No such proof, though, is present because n. 6 of those Guidelines merely opens the “possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” for Catholics living in some complex circumstances when a declaration of nullity was not able to be obtained.

Since no change has been made to the Sacrament of Reconciliation by either Pope Francis or the Buenos Aires Bishops, we must assume that those who confess their sins also manifest a “purpose of amendment” as required by canon 987 of the CIC. To suggest that no purpose of amendment is required is to read into the Buenos Aires Guidelines something that is not there. Some might object that the Guidelines are silent on the purpose of amendment so we can’t assume that it is required. Such an argument based on silence, however, is extremely weak. It is as weak as the argument that Pope Francis, in footnote 351 of AL, is giving permission to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion without living in continence. Footnote 351, however, only says that—for those living in irregular situations—the assistance offered by the Church can, in certain cases, “include the help of the sacraments.” Because no change in the doctrine or discipline of the sacraments has been made by Pope Francis we must assume—in both justice and charity—that the help of the sacraments conforms to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

(Source: Vatican Insider: ” Responding to the Five Dubia from Amoris Laetitia Itself” by Robert Fastiggi. Published 3/9/2018; Modified 3/21/2018. Accessed 2/28/2019)

Dr. Fastiggi has supported, at least at one time, the view that Amoris Laetitia does not change the sacramental discipline.  His view on this may have or may not have changed to some degree. See my articles responding to Dave Armstrong, where in I respond directly to some of Dr. Fastiggi’s points (see A Response to Dave Armstrong and On a Correct Understanding of Amoris Laetitia: Which is it? (Part I) and On a Correct Understanding of Amoris Laetitia: Which is it? (Part II)).  I leave it to the reader to determine Dr. Fastiggi’s current views. Whether he has or has not changed his views, this does not impact my appeal to his writings in this article.

[3]  canon 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

[4] Just as with the CDF’s letter, Mr. Gabriel is forced by what is contained in the PCLT document to likewise argue against its authority on this matter.