August 21, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – In Part I of Roma Locuta Est‘s book review of Pedro Gabriel’s The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia, we took a look at a series of footnotes wherein yours truly was mentioned (see Book Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia”). We examined the context of these footnotes and used them to underline the weakness of some arguments found in his book.
In Part I we examined several of these footnotes, and now in Part II we’ll examine the remaining footnote. This footnote arises in the following context. Mr. Gabriel writes of how “notable” Stephen Walford wrote a book defending Amoris Laetitia in 2018 against the Pope’s “detractors”; and how Pope Francis wrote the preface for this book. Mr. Gabriel writes (bolding added):
One final clue is given through an uncommon venue. Since the publication of the exhortation, notable Stephen Walford has taken up the task of defending Pope Francis against his detractors. In 2018, Walford published a book on this matter, titled Pope Francis, the Family and Divorce. Walford asked the Holy Father to write a preface for the book, and he accepted. In this papal letter, we can read:
Over the course of Exhortation, current and concrete problems are dealt with: the family in today’s world, the education of children, marriage preparation, families in difficulty, and so on; these are treated a hermeneutic that comes from the whole document which is the magisterial hermeneutic of the Church, always in continuity (without ruptures), yet always maturing. In this regard, Stephen Walford mentions Saint Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium Primum: “ut annis scilicet consolidetur, diatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate.” With respect to the problems that involve ethical situations, the Exhortation follows the classical doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas. I feel certain that this book will be helpful to families. I pray for this.
Papal critics have tried to invoke all kinds of objections, namely speculating about whether Francis had read the full book or not.[201] Yet, the rarity with which a successor of Peter allows himself to write a preface for a layman’s book should give us pause (especially a book written about a controversy at the root of many of the attacks against the pope). Also, Francis is sufficiently familiar with the book to know that Walford mentions St. Vincent de Lerins.
Source: The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia, p.120
The footnote above, i.e., 201, references an article I wrote, and appears as follows:
201. O’Reilly, “Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface.”
My article Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface first appeared on this blog, Roma Locuta Est, on May 5, 2019, and by the request of One Peter Five editor at the time, was reprinted the next day on that site as well (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface). My “Pesky Preface” article was in reaction to hearing that Pope Francis had agreed to have a letter he had written to Mr. Walford, or part of it, used as a preface for Mr. Walford’s book, The Pope, The Family, and Divorce, wherein Mr. Walford provides his interpretation of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. By that point in time in 2019, I had already written a lengthy set of articles reviewing the problems with Mr. Walford’s book (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). [NB: Roma Locuta Est has also published a series of articles on various articles written by Mr. Walford, see Summa Contra Stephen Walford].
So, the point is, there are — in my view — significant problems with Mr. Walford’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Now the specific accusation made by Mr. Gabriel against me here is as follows:
Papal critics have tried to invoke all kinds of objections, namely speculating about whether Francis had read the full book or not.[201] Yet, the rarity with which a successor of Peter allows himself to write a preface for a layman’s book should give us pause (especially a book written about a controversy at the root of many of the attacks against the pope). Also, Francis is sufficiently familiar with the book to know that Walford mentions St. Vincent de Lerins.
Now, it is true that in my “Pesky Preface” article I did wonder whether Pope Francis had in fact read Mr. Walford’s book because we know as a fact that the preface was written a year before Mr. Walford’s book was published! As I wrote in that article:
The second of the problems is the preface to Mr. Walford’s book. This preface was written by Pope Francis. In this preface, Pope Francis expresses his certainty “that this book will be helpful to families. I pray for this.”[1] Now, if the book is erroneous — indeed, if it is heretical in parts — then what to make of such words from Pope Francis? Well, for one, his words are certainly not magisterial. Furthermore, in the pope’s defense, he actually wrote the letter — from which the preface is extracted — a year before the book was published.
The question of the Pope’s preface to Mr. Walford’s book is an important one because Mr. Walford’s book appears to contain, as I have said, certainly in my opinion, a number of very grave errors. I outlined some those errors in detail in the original article (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface), comparing them against the heretical propositions outlined in the famous Open Letter by a number of prominent scholars which accused Pope Francis of the delict of heresy (see “Prominent clergy, scholars accuse Pope Francis of heresy in open letter”). The full document issued by these scholars may be found here.
My original “Pesky Preface” article raised the issue of the Pope’s preface, not to rob Mr. Walford’s book of authority, but rather to (1) provide a potential face-saving defense of the Pope to minimize his association with Walford’s, to put it charitably, ‘problematic’ book; and (2) raise the question as to the potential implication of the Pope’s association with the Mr. Walford’s book, if he were in fact aware of its contents. Hence the reason for calling it a “Pesky Preface,” i.e., for the problems it appears to raise.
Below, I repeat some of what I said in my original “Pesky Preface” article, but also point back at Mr. Gabriel’s book, The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia.
Consider, as I raised in my “Pesky Preface” article, in his book, Mr. Walford argues that there are certain cases when a divorced and remarried spouse — with an existing, valid marital bond to another person — can still receive sacramental Confession and the Eucharist without having to abstain from adulterous sexual relations with his/her new ‘spouse’. Mr. Gabriel makes a similar argument in his book (cf. Chapter 16, see especially pages 342-346).
What are these “certain cases,” what are these situations? In his book Mr. Gabriel gives us the case of “Irma.” She is a lapsed Catholic who has a valid marriage to a man who turned abusive. She leaves and divorces him, and then marries a non-Catholic, “Tony.” “Tony” is initially supportive of her subsequent return to religion, but will not consent to living as “brother and sister” as required by Familiaris Consortio 84. Mr. Gabriel’s example introduces various pressures upon that now press upon “Irma” — e.g., her husband might leave her, depriving her young child of a father figure, etc. — which, per Mr. Gabriel, reduces her culpability to a venial sin because she no longer has “full consent,” thus enabling her to receive communion. Mr. Gabriel does add that before every mass she will need “to perform a conscience exam to ascertain whether she has sinned with full consent or not” (cf. p. 346).
Now, the case presented above by Mr. Gabriel’s is something of a standard one brought forward by those who interpret Amoris Laetitia to allow communion for adulterers in “certain cases.” That is, there is one spouse who wants to return to the full practice of the Catholic Faith, and the reception of communion; but the current ‘spouse,’ usually a non-Catholic, will not consent to living as “brother and sister.” Various pressures upon the Catholic which somehow diminish his/her moral culpability to such an extent his/her acts of adultery are now only venial sins, thereby allowing him/her to receive Holy Communion. Such is the standard argument.
Although he cites the Pope’s preface as giving full credibility to Mr. Walford’s book, what Mr. Gabriel does not tell his reader is whether he fully accepts the example given in Mr. Walford’s book, which departs in significant ways from Mr. Gabriel’s example. The case presented by Mr. Walford involves a couple in which both of the spouses in the non-valid marriage are Catholic, and both of whom want to return to the Faith. They know their union is wrong. Returning to the practice of the Catholic Faith, they tried to lives as “brother and sister,” but finding it difficult for various specious reasons — now want to return to living in a marital way and continue receiving communion!
I will provide a critique (based on my “Pesky Preface” article) of Mr. Walford’s example below, which also applies to Mr. Gabriel’s. I will compare the relationship outlined by Mr. Walford against some of the heretical propositions detailed in the Open Letter, as indicated earlier. Again, Mr. Walford presented one detailed example of an adulterous couple and the proper intention whereby, per Mr. Walford, these adulterous ‘spouses’ could receive Holy Communion while continuing their sexual relationship. He writes (emphasis added):
“So what exactly is this situation to which we allude? It would be the case where children are born out of a civil, invalid union. The couple have at some stage returned to the faith and seek a loving relationship with Jesus. They know and accept their union is wrong, but there is no going back. Former marriages are irreparably damaged. In this new union they have tried hard to live as brother and sister, but their attempts have caused great tension and constant arguments. The husband is now fighting temptations against impurity of various kinds. The peace of the home if fragmenting and the children are being affected. No longer are the arguments kept behind closed doors, but abuse is being hurled across the room while the children play. There is a real danger of the home becoming a quasi-war zone, and possibly a family break-up is imminent. Not only have the children had to experience this, but they have also not experienced for a considerable time any affection between their parents; on the contrary, coldness has been apparent even in “good” times. They are confused; what they hear preached at Church is not replicated at home. The older ones are asking questions why mom and dad no longer love each other, and there is the distinct possibility they begin to see nothing beneficial in Catholicism based on their experience at home, in fact, there is the danger of blame being attributed to the faith.
At this point, the parents make the decision that living celibate lives is unworkable. They say to God: “We cannot continue like this, we don’t have the strength even though we have tried. For our children, we are now witnesses for the devil more than you. We are spreading poison and it is ruining them. If we continue like this, we are causing greater evil, and we feel we may turn the children away from the faith. Our conscience tells us we risk breaking the fifth commandment and in real sense, destroying their emotional and spiritual lives. It is our honest intention to flee from all these evils including the sexual relationship, and we long to live lives of purity. We ask your constant forgiveness even though our weakness means we cannot fulfill what you desire from us. We shall strive in whatever way we can to respond to your grace knowing that your love and mercy will lead us toward salvation. As proof of our good intention, what we lack now, we will make up for in other areas; in almsgiving and fasting.” (p. 102-103)
There are a lot of problems with this passage from Mr. Walford’s book (addressed here in more detail). But in this current article, we will focus on a comparison of Mr. Walford’s example of the adulterous couple above with several of the Open Letter‘s seven heretical propositions — of which the Open Letter’s authors claim Pope Francis holds. The first of these heretical propositions is as follows:
“I. A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.” (Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, Easter Week 2019, p. 1)
As the authors of the Open Letter note, this proposition is heretical, among other things, because it is contrary to teaching of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” [2]. Now, if we examine Mr. Walford’s example, it appears to depart from this teaching of the Council of Trent in that the theology underlying his example favorably describes the moral thought process of the adulterous couple (emphasis added):
“At this point, the parents make the decision that living celibate lives is unworkable. They say to God: “We cannot continue like this, we don’t have the strength even though we have tried. For our children, we are now witnesses for the devil more than you…We ask your constant forgiveness even though our weakness means we cannot fulfill what you desire from us.“
In Mr. Walford’s example, we see that this adulterous couple is conscious of what God wants of them, but they express that God’s commandment is impossible to fulfill (“we cannot fulfill what you desire“). Thus, we see here that Mr. Walford’s thinking behind this example shares the error of the first heretical proposition found in the Open Letter.
Continuing on, we find that the second heretical proposition outlined in the Open Letter also applies to Mr. Walford’s example. The second heretical proposition is as follows:
“II. A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action. (Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, Easter Week 2019, p. 2)”
The second heretical proposition appears to be found in the thinking behind Mr. Walford’s example. Mr. Walford’s couple have full knowledge of the divine law (“They know and accept their union is wrong, but there is no going back“). Yet, despite knowing they are wrong with respect to Divine Law, the adulterous couple of the example do not find themselves bound by the 6th commandment. Even so, Mr. Walford cites this within an example where the couple can receive Holy Communion, i.e., thus not being in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, the theology underlying Mr. Walford example directly contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” [3].
Moving on again, Mr. Walford’s example of an adulterous couple also seems in accord with the third heretical proposition outlined in the Open Letter. This third heretical proposition is stated as follows:
“III. A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.” (Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, Easter Week 2019, p. 2)
Mr. Walford’s book certainly appears to share the same sentiment as the heretical proposition above. Indeed, the adulterous couple in Mr. Walford’s book says (emphasis added):
“For our children, we are now witnesses for the devil more than you. We are spreading poison and it is ruining them. If we continue like this, we are causing greater evil, and we feel we may turn the children away from the faith. Our conscience tells us we risk breaking the fifth commandment and in real sense, destroying their emotional and spiritual lives.”
That is to say, the adulterous couple in Mr. Walford’s example essentially reasons ‘if we continue not engaging in adulterous sexual acts, we are causing a greater evil.’ Thus, the couple may say they sin by keeping a commandment! The authors of the Open Letter show such a view is heretical by citing various sources, including scripture (Ps. 18:8: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls”) and Clement XI’s Unigenitus (Condemnation of the Errors of Paschasius) which condemned the proposition “For the preservation of himself man can dispense himself from that law which God established for his use.”
Considering that each member of Mr. Walford’s adulterous couple judges they can continue to have sexual relations – without sinning mortally, it certainly appears his theological explanation shares the view stated by the fourth heretical proposition outlined in the Open Letter, namely:
“IV. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right, or requested or even commanded by God.” (Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, Easter Week 2019, p. 2)
The authors of the Open Letter cite various sources to demonstrate this statement is heretical. A couple of these many sources include, but are not limited to, the following canons from the council of Trent: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” [4] and “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” [5]. And, we saw earlier in Mr. Walford’s example, the couples’ consciences have decided it is morally right to have sexual relations with each other for the sake of their happiness, from which their kids are said to benefit, etc.
And finally, the logical consequence of Mr. Walford’s example — as it allows sexual relations in certain cases among civilly married adulterers — is a practical denial that adultery is absolutely forbidden because it is “always gravely unlawful.” Thus, the theology underlying Mr. Walford’s example clearly appears to share in the error of the sixth heretical proposition outlined in the Open Letter, namely:
“VI. Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.” (Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church, Easter Week 2019, p. 2)
This sixth heretical proposition above, among other things noted by the authors of the Open Letter, contradicts the following teaching of John Paul II (emphasis added):
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts.” (Veritatis Splendor, 115).
In this article I pulled out one passage from Mr. Walford’s book to demonstrates some of its key errors, though I am of the opinion there are other deficiencies in it [6]. I cited Mr. Walford’s own example of how an adulterous couple might yet receive the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist without having to refrain from adulterous sexual acts. At least several components of this one example, and the theology underlying it, are consonant with the propositions listed in the Open Letter (p. 1-3), and therein suggested and demonstrated to be heretical.
The Pesky Preface and Mr. Gabriel
The commentary above on Mr. Walford’s example is taken from the original article (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface). I point the interested reader to that original article for the remainder of the treatment of the “Pesky Preface.”
Here, I would underline again that Mr. Walford[7] goes much further than does Mr. Gabriel — or any other “Francis-Apologist” that I know of — in suggesting a Catholic D&R couple who both recognize their relationship is wrong; want to return to the practice of the Catholic Faith and are initially willing to live as “brother and sister” and receive communion; then intentionally return to living in a marital way when they encounter difficulties, but are still able to receive communion on the suggestion they are only in venial sin! But if one examines Mr. Walford’s example in light of the heretical propositions above, one can see that the same problems beset Mr. Gabriel’s case involving “Irma.”
But, let’s return to Mr. Gabriel’s reference to my “Pesky Preface” article in his footnote number 201. Does Mr. Gabriel really intend by his commentary on the importance of the Pope’s preface for his readers to understand that Pope Francis is endorsing the example presented by Mr. Walford and the theological musings behind it? That does appear to be the suggestion, given the context of Mr. Gabriel’s footnoted reference to my original article (see Pope Francis, the Open Letter, and the Pesky Preface).
For my part, as I indicated in my original “Pesky Preface” article, I offered a potential defense of Pope Francis, noting that he actually wrote the letter – from which the preface is extracted – a year before the book was published. My intent was to potentially give the Pope some distance from Mr. Walford’s book — ‘covering his nakedness’; but Mr. Gabriel adamantly wants to tie him closely to Mr. Walford’s book and its interpretation, whence the example above comes. But, if Mr. Walford’s book is erroneous — indeed, if it is heretical in parts — then it would be interesting to see how Mr. Gabriel would then explain the Pope’s “pesky preface.”
Let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).
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
- This quote is found in both the preface (p. xii) and the appendix (p. 207) of Mr. Walford’s book. The full letter is found on p. 206-207 of the appendix.
- The “Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church” (Easter Week 2019, p. 1) citing Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18 (DH 1568).
- The “Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church” (Easter Week 2019, p. 2) citing Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20 (DH 1568).
- The “Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church” (Easter Week 2019, p. 2) citing Council of Trent, session 6, canon 21 (DH 1571).
- The “Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church” (Easter Week 2019, p. 2) citing Council of Trent, session 24, canon 2 (DH 1802).
- Mr. Walford’s treatment of his subject matter is stilted and one-sided, and thus is both unfair to his reader and a disservice to the truth. He makes no real attempt in his book to rebut the substantial counter-arguments to the position he defends. While, for example, he tips his hat at various points to John Paul II and his writings (e.g., Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor), he neither quotes them extensively nor sufficiently explains how – for example – the argument he defends can be reconciled with John Paul II who wrote (emphasis added):“In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor 81)Thus, we see in this example above, Pope John Paul II states that adulterous acts cannot be justified as either subjectively good or as a defensible choice. In fact, Pope John Paul II quotes St. Augustine who condemns those who would dare say that for “good motives” these sins would either “no longer be sins” or “what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified.” However, it is precisely this “absurdity” Mr. Walford proposes and defends. Mr. Walford is sincere – but he is sincerely wrong. The argument he defends cannot be reconciled with Sacred Scripture, the constant and universal practice of the Church, Tradition, St. Thomas Aquinas, or the papal magisterium (e.g., John Paul II, Benedict XVI) or the Catholic Catechism.
- See the blog site Where is Peter and its interview with Mr. Stephen Walford. In it, the writer and interviewer, Mr. Mike Lewis–who is more than favorably inclined towards Mr. Walford–makes this observation of Mr,Walford (emphasis added): “Catholic websites such as La Stampa and Crux often refer to him as a “theologian,” which immediately garners negative responses on social media, usually along the lines of “he’s a piano teacher, not a theologian.” Walford doesn’t refer to himself as a theologian, although he doesn’t seem to mind when others use that title to describe him.”
Roma Locuta Est 