September 20, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – This October 2026, Pope Leo XIV is convening a conference of bishops to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Amore Laetitia (see HERE). The meeting is not technically a “synodal” meeting, though its business will be conducted, apparently, in the synodal style. The participants will be the presidents of Bishops’ Conferences across the Catholic Church. The purpose of the meeting is said to discuss ‘ways to proclaim the Gospel to families today.’
According to Vatican News:
“The Pope said the event will provide an opportunity “to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Laetitia and taking into account what is currently being done in the local Churches.”” (see HERE)
Unfortunately, the meeting will be held ‘synodal style,’ which allows those running the meeting to keep away from controversial topics the pope might not want discussed, i.e., questions about Amoris Laetitia Chapter 8 and what it teaches about communion for Divorced and Remarried Catholics (D&Rs). One might be forgiven for concluding this is the intent. A preparatory document sent to the bishops earlier this year (see HERE) does not appear to include a discussion of communion for D&Rs. Of the proposed themes, none appear to intended to raise the question of communion for adulterers. Instead the five proposed themes are:
“1. Families today: reality, beauty, and challenges — Discerning the signs of the times starting from the experience of families and the commitment of the Church today.
2. Young people and the discovery of their vocation to marriage — Listen to young people and accompany them in discovering the value of marriage.
3. Married Life. The First Years of Marriage: A Decisive Time — Listening to and supporting couples in their first years of marriage and at every stage of their lives.
4. In life’s difficulties: accompany and support — Walking with families in complex situations.
5. Christian families, subjects of the Church’s mission — Welcoming conjugal and family love as an impulse to the mission.”
(Source: HERE)
Based on the themes above, it is improbable, in Roma Locuta Est’s view at least, that Pope Leo XIV wants to raise the subject of communion for D&Rs. If this pope ever wanted to consider this controversial issue, this meeting would have been a perfect occasion to do so. Yet, it appears to be excluded from the preparatory themes. This is quite remarkable. After all, how can one focus so much on the alleged ‘positives’ of Amoris Laetitia, and not address the glaring negatives surround it which divide the Church?
Still, there might be a slight glimmer of hope which might be found in the composition of the gathering’s participants. Had the meeting been one of the Church’s cardinals, the majority chosen by the Pope Francis, there would not likely be much criticism or a demand for a clarification. However, among bishops at large, and among presidents of bishops conferences attuned to the broader sentiment among them, there might be some willing to voice opposition to the standard interpretation of Amoris Laetitia (i.e., there are certain cases where D&Rs living in active adulterous unions could receive holy communion). For example, in a recent pastoral letter to his Archdiocese, the president of the Spanish Bishops Conference, Archbishop Luis Argüello, reaffirmed on the occasion of the most recent Feast of Corpus Christi, that D&Rs cannot receive communion (see HERE).
The other interesting thing here is that Argüello’s letter was published shortly before Pope Leo XIV’s pastoral visit to Spain. In that visit, Pope Leo XIV met Arguello and the episcopal conference of Spain (see HERE). That the president of the Spanish bishops conference did this on the eve of the pope’s arrival is a perfect example of the non-reception of the ‘standard’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Surely, Pope Leo XIV was aware of this.
Consequently, while I think it unlikely the topic will come up, I do believe there are voices among this group of bishops who could conceivably — if somehow the opportunity presents itself — speak up. I am not holding my breath, but we should pray that these bishops raise their voices in October in defense of the teaching of Familiaris Consortio 84 against communion for D&Rs in active adulterous unions. As I will argue below, they should pose dubia to the pope to make the Church’s teaching clear.
It has long been clear that there is certainly a seeming (to say it mildly), if not an actual contradiction between the teaching of Pope Francis and the teaching of his predecessors (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI) on the question of communion for the divorced and remarried, living in active adulterous unions. What follows below are some the questions which, in my opinion, should be discussed at this coming October meeting. Also, I include four other specific difficulties which should be addressed at some point.
The Origin of the Question
A year ago June, readers may recall, Pope Leo XIV seemed to have contradicted something which Pope Francis had said about marriage. In a June homily, Pope Leo XIV said the following (bold and italics added):
“…For this reason, with a heart filled with gratitude and hope, I would remind all married couples that marriage is not an ideal but the measure of true love between a man and a woman: a love that is total, faithful and fruitful (cf. St. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 9). This love makes you one flesh and enables you, in the image of God, to bestow the gift of life.”
[HOMILY OF THE HOLY FATHER LEO XIV, June 1, 2025]
The key take away above is, Pope Leo XIV says “marriage is not an ideal.” However, Pope Leo XIV clearly appears to contradict Pope Francis on this point. Consider, Pope Francis, in Amoris Laetitia, wrote (bold and Italics added):
“When these factors affect our understanding of the family, it can come to be seen as a way station, helpful when convenient, or a setting in which rights can be asserted while relationships are left to the changing winds of personal desire and circumstances. Ultimately, it is easy nowadays to confuse genuine freedom with the idea that each individual can act arbitrarily, as if there were no truths, values and principles to provide guidance, and everything were possible and permissible. The ideal of marriage, marked by a commitment to exclusivity and stability, is swept aside whenever it proves inconvenient or tiresome. The fear of loneliness and the desire for stability and fidelity exist side by side with a growing fear of entrapment in a relationship that could hamper the achievement of one’s personal goals.”
[Amoris Laetitia, 34]
Above, Pope Francis speaks of the “ideal of marriage.” Nor is this an isolated reference. Pope Francis made multiple references to marriage as an “ideal” throughout Amoris Laetitia (cf AL 36, 38, 39, 119, 148, 157, 200, 230, 292, 297, 298, 303, 307, 308). Thus, it certainly appears on the face of it that Pope Leo XIV contradicted his predecessor in his homily when he said, as quoted earlier, “I would remind all married couples that marriage is not an ideal.”
Enter Michael Lofton
For me, this is might have been the end to it — this interesting curiosity of a papal contradiction. But last summer someone sent me a video of Michael Lofton where he discusses this seeming contradiction between Leo and Francis, and offers a way of resolving which teaching a Catholic should asset to (see Did Pope Leo Just Contradict Pope Francis on Marriage?). At the outset, I don’t believe Mr. Lofton necessarily conceded the two popes in this instance were actually contradicting one another. Rather, it seemed to me at least, Mr. Lofton wanted to illustrate a broader point, which is, how does a Catholic reconcile and decide which papal statements to give assent (“submission of mind and intellect”), when confronted with a seeming or actual contradictory magisterial teachings of different popes.
In the case of Pope Leo XIV vs. Pope Francis above, Lofton says, arguendo, that if there is a contradiction, we should defer to Pope Francis in this instance. Why? Lofton concludes this by using an approach outlined in Donum Veritatis (bold added):
“The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.”
(Donum Veritatis, 24)
So, per DV 24 above, in comparing two seeming or actual contradictory statements, we need to consider (1) the authoritativeness of the interventions (statements); (2) the nature of the documents (e.g., Encyclical, Apostolic Exhortation, homily, etc.); (3) the insistence with which the teaching is repeated; and (4) the way in which the teaching is expressed.
With the above in mind, Mr. Lofton says in his video (Bold and Italics added):
“…let me ask you a question if you have Pope Francis teaching one thing in an apostolic exhortation then Pope Leo teaching another thing in a homily and let’s assume there’s an absolute contradiction already which one is more authoritative all other things being equal an apostolic exhortation or a papal homily apostolic exhortation is is more authoritative right all other things being equal apostolic exhortation but all things aren’t equal here because there’s actually more that increases the weight of one of the propositions and that is the repetition now how many times did we see the claim that marriage is an ideal repeated in Amoris Laetitia and that’s just considering it within one document there’s other documents well it was repeated a lot a lot okay how many times did Pope Leo say that marriage is not the ideal that it’s not an ideal only once right so if there were an absolute contradiction which one would outweigh the other just based on that more all right so combine those together one instance from the papal homily versus maybe a dozen instances from an apostolic exhortation obviously if you’re going to say there’s an absolute contradiction which one do you have to accept you would have to accept and give your religious submission of intellect and will to Amoris Laetitita because it’s of a higher grade as far as the document and repeat it more times….”
(20:05-21:57)
So, it’s clear. In the case of either a seeming or actual contradictory case of Pope Leo XIV vs. Pope Francis over whether marriage is an ideal, we should defer to Pope Francis, according to Lofton.
To briefly sum up, Mr. Lofton concludes this because (1) Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia, as a Apostolic Exhortation, has higher magisterial value than what Pope Leo XIV said in a mere homily, and that (2) Pope Francis repeated ‘marriage is an ideal‘ many times both within Amoris Laetitia, and in other documents. On these grounds Mr. Lofton would argue Catholics should accept and give religious submission to Pope Francis’s teaching that marriage “is an ideal,” rather than to Pope Leo XIV’s teaching that it is “not an ideal.”
The criteria then to use in deciding between seeming or actual contradictory statements — as outlined in DV, and by Mr. Lofton — requires we look at the following:
- A comparison of magisterial weight of documents
- The way in which the teaching is expressed
- A comparison of repetition, or insistence upon the teaching
The Question of Holy Communion for Divorced and Remarried Catholics
This post is not a criticism of Mr. Lofton’s commentary outlined earlier. Rather, his commentary attracted my attention because it seemed a handy structure for a conversation on a more glaring, seeming or actual contradiction involving the controversy over Holy Communion for Divorced and Remarried Catholics.
That is to say, it would be interesting to take Mr. Lofton’s methodology on comparing the seeming or real contradiction over whether marriage is or is not an ideal, and apply it to the question of Holy Communion for D&R couples living in active adulterous unions. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Mr. Lofton has applied this structure in a such a way.
Although there is still ambiguity over what Pope Francis meant to teach in Amoris Laetitia, we will assume, arguendo, here that he intended that D&R couples in active adulterous relationships could, in some circumstances, receive Holy Communion. If this is indeed the case, then the teaching of Pope Francis is actual contradiction with the teaching of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI who taught there are no exceptions that would allow Holy Communion in such instances.
So, let us examine the teaching of Pope Francis vs. his predecessors on communion for D&Rs using Mr. Lofton’s and DV’s methodology as a guide, and see if this helps understand to which teaching Catholics should give religious submission of mind and will.
1. Magisterial Weight of the Documents:
Pope John Paul II wrote two apostolic exhortations in which he said communion for D&Rs in active adulterous unions was not permissible. He did so in Familiaris Consortio (84), and again in Reconciliato et Paenitentia (34). For his part, Pope Benedict XVI repeated the same teaching in his own Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis (29). Communion for D&Rs in active adulterous unions is forbidden in all cases, no exceptions.
By comparison, Pope Francis wrote one Apostolic Exhortation which touched upon the issue.
In sum, there are three Apostolic Exhortations which reject communion for D&Rs, and only one — depending on how it should be interpreted – which seems to approve it in “certain cases.”
So, with regard to this criteria, the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XIV prevails in terms of number and clarity relative to the teaching of Pope Francis is arguably obscure, and reserved to a footnote. But we will get to the footnote below.
2. The way in which the teaching is expressed:
Let us now look at how the relative teachings are expressed by the popes. Beginning with Pope Francis, in Amoris Laetitia, he appears disclaim the notion that his document is even an intervention of the magisterium (cf AL 3).[Note 1]
What’s more, Pope Francis does not explicitly teach that D&R couples in active adulterous unions may, in some circumstances, receive Holy Communion. Rather, in section 305 of AL he writes:
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
(Amoris Laetitia, 305)
To this, Pope Francis adds a footnote which reads as follows (bold added):
“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”
(Amoris Laetitia, 305, n. 351)
That is the extent of Amoris Laetitia commentary on the question, i.e., Pope Francis relegates his ‘teaching’ to a footnote, and an ambiguous one at that. But even here, it must be noted that it is not permissible to receive communion in a state of mortal sin. Read strictly, Francis is not doing away with the necessity for sacramental absolution, which in turn requires a firm purpose of amendment.
In contrast to the ambiguities of Francis, and a ‘teaching’ relegated to a mere footnote; Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI were abundantly clear, decisive, and authoritative.
In 1981, Pope John II, in his Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, clearly set forth what the Church reaffirms: [emphasis added below]:
…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.
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. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[180]
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.
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.
With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity…
The contrast between Pope Francis’s ‘teaching’ relegated to be found in an ambiguous footnote, and the words of Pope John Paul II above cannot be more stark.
Regarding the D&Rs in active adulterous union, John Paul II taught “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effect by the Eucharist.” Therefore, as he teaches in FC 84, there are no exceptions for the divorced and remarried which would allow them to receive communion if they continue to have sexual relations with one another, and do not live as “brother and sister” should they be “unable to satisfy the obligation to separate” for some “serious reason.”
It is important to note the language with which a teaching is expressed. John Paul II declares “the Church reaffirms” the teaching he then expresses. Thus, he is not asserting something that might be merely his opinion, and certainly contrasts with Pope Francis disclaiming an intervention of the magisterium in AL 3, as previously noted above. Further, by using the phrase “the Church reaffirms”, obviously, John Paul II clearly indicates the teaching has been the received teaching of the Church, i.e., the Church is now “reaffirming” what it has previously “affirmed”. Pope Francis made no such appeal or claim.
Look as hard as one might, but one will not find Pope Francis even attempting to claim his teaching is something the Church previously affirmed. Surely this points to its relative novelty. Furthermore, the reader should also observe, that in the last paragraph of FC 84 above, after again reaffirming the necessity of sacramental confession and a firm purpose of amendment (i.e., not to continue in acts of adultery), as well as forbidding ceremonies for adulterous couples, John Paul II writes:
“By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth.”
That is, by its very practice of denying communion to those involved in an active adulterous relationships, and by denying them ‘marriage’ ceremonies; the Church professes fidelity to Christ and to His Truth. The implication is clear. To act contrary to what the Church reaffirmed in FC 84 is to fall into error.
Pope Benedict XVI again took up the question of Communion for the divorced and remarried, and repeated the same doctrine in his own Apostolic Exhortation ( Sacramentum Caritatis). In it, Pope Benedict XVI wrote (emphasis added):
The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2-12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.
Just as Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the Church reaffirming‘ its practice of not admitting divorced and remarried to communion, Pope Benedict XVI also speaks of the Church’s practice being “based on Sacred Scripture.” It is noteworthy the Sacred Scripture cited is Mark 10:2-12, where our Lord is quite clear, that any who divorces and remarries commits adultery (bold added):
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
The practice of refusing communion to D&R in adulterous relationships is taught to be “based on scripture” by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis does not even suggest the practice of communion for those in adulterous unions in ‘certain cases’ is “based on scripture.” While he does cite himself in 305 n. 351, twice, he does not cite any scripture in that footnote.
Here again, the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XIV prevails in terms of the way the teaching is expressed relative to the teaching of Pope Francis. This is not even arguable.
3. A comparison of repetition, or insistence upon the teaching
We have already seen John Paul II repeated his teaching Familiaris Consortia 84 in a subsequent Apostolic Exhortation as well. But aside from this, Pope John Paul II repeated this same teaching in other ways, and places. For one example, speaking to lay representatives during a trip to the United States in 1987, he said (bold added):
“Although, in fidelity to Christ and to his teaching on Christian marriage, the Church reaffirms her practice of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion those divorced persons who have remarried outside the Church, nevertheless, she assures these Catholics too of her deep love. She prays for them and encourages them to persevere in prayer, to listen to the word of God and to attend the Eucharistic Sacrifice, hoping that they will “undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage” (Ioannis Pauli PP. II Familiaris Consortio, 84). At the same time the Church remains their mother, and they are part of her life.”
(APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA, MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CATHOLIC LAY PEOPLE OF AMERICA, ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II, Cathedral of Saint Mary, San Francisco, Friday, 18 September 1987)
Here John Paul II repeats in an address what he had taught in Familiaris Consortio 84. There are other examples of repetition by other means, such as Pope Benedict XVI’s comments during a pastoral visit to Milan in 2012 (see HERE) where, speaking of the divorced and remarried, again reaffirms in absolute terms: “they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist.”
This same teaching shows up in other Church documents. For example, the Code of Canon law approved by John Paul II in 1983, states
Can. 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. (see Canon 915)
In the year 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts offered an interpretation of the above canon (see II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED). The PCLT document said in part: “The prohibition found in the cited canon, 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.”
Then there is the Catholic Catechism on the question (bold added):
“Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ — “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
What about Pope Francis? Did he repeat his teaching? No. [see note 2]
Consequently, if we are to consider the teaching of Pope Francis relative to the teaching of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XIV on the question of communion for D&Rs living in active adulterous unions, it certainly seems to be the case one would have to accept and give your religious submission of intellect and will to the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because their teaching is echoed more often at a higher grade, the way they clearly and authoritatively express their teaching, and how they repeated more often in more places.
Outstanding Difficulties to be Addressed
The section above used a set of criteria to consider, by weight of the evidence, the question of which teaching regarding communion for D&Rs in active adulterous unions requires submission of the mind and intellect.
Below, I list what I consider to be four other serious difficulties which need to be addressed by the magisterium.
(1) Authentic Magisterium: Pope Francis placed the Buenos Aires guidelines, and his letter approving its interpretation of Amoris Laetitia into the Acta Apostolica Sedes (AAS). Some seem to suggest this closes the door on the question at hand, in favor of the Pope Francis. By placing these documents in the AAS, it is said Francis raised his teaching to the level of “Authentic Magisterium.” There are some problems with this. First, some have made the case — remote as it may seem — that the Buenos Aires guidelines can be interpreted in an orthodox sense, i.e., consistent with the teaching of John Paul II.
However, even if we assume the most controversial interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, the fact something may be “authentic magisterium” does not mean it is infallible, and free from the possibility of error. Placing these documents in the AAS does not resolve the controversy in favor of the most controversial interpretations of Amoris Laetitia.
Consider, all of the Apostolic Exhortations of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI cited above, as well as other documents–these too are included in the AAS, and are “authentic magisterium.” Surely, these have a claim to being part of the “authentic magisterium”, and deserving of our religious submission.
This returns us to the original question. Which teaching deserves submission of intellect and will?
Pope Leo XIV needs to address this.
(2) Re Dubia: There remain questions regarding how Amoris Laetitita and Familiaris Consortio were addressed by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) under Pope Francis, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under Pope John Paul II. Here I plan only to outline some of the oddities in this comparison, without going into great detail to prevent this article from getting too long.
Under Pope John Paul II, in 1994, the CDF issued a response to several German bishops who queried Rome as to whether there might be any exceptions to the teaching of FC 84. The exceptions the CDF considered in its response certainly fell into the “certain cases” proposed by defenders of Amoris Laetitia, including: (1) being “authorized according to a judgement of conscience”; (2) cases where the individual is “convinced of the nullity of their marriage” but are unable to demonstrate it in the external forum, and (3) cases where there exists “morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate” (i.e., they can’t separate, but maintain sexual relations).
In a very clear, non-confusing response, the CDF rejected that there were any exceptions to the prohibition of FC 84. It said in part, that Familiaris Consortia 84:
“At the same time it (i.e., Familiaris Consortio) 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”. 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)
Here we have a clear statement of a CDF document, approved, signed and dated by Pope John Paul II that the teaching “confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice” which is “founded on sacred scripture” and is “presented as binding“, and “cannot be modified because of different situations.” Quod erat demonstrandum.
What about in the case of Amoris Laetitia? Well, Pope Francis went on for years, infamously so, not responding to five Dubia submitted by Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller, et al, regarding Amoris Laetitia. He never responded to them.
That said, the DDF under Cardinal Fernandez did respond to Dubia submitted by Cardinal Duka (see HERE). These ten Dubia, related to Amoris Laetitia, submitted by Cardinal Duka were made public, along with the answers to them by the Prefect of the DDF, Cardinal Fernandez (see HERE). No where is it suggested in Fernandez’s reply that Pope Francis is adhering to a “constant and universal practice”, or suggested it is “founded on sacred scripture”, or that it is “presented as binding”, etc.
Cardinal Müller wrote an open letter outlining difficulties within the DDF’s response to Cardinal Duka (see HERE). Müller sums up the problems with the DDF response, saying that the text and meaning of the Buenos Aires Guidelines and the ‘Risposta’ (The Vatican’s response to Cardinal Duka’s Dubia) “are not precise.” He adds (emphasis added):
“They do not state clearly what they mean and thus leave open other interpretations, however improbable. This imprecision allows doubts to arise about the interpretation of these documents.”
Cardinal Müller allows that the imprecision of the ‘Risposta‘ and the Buenos Aires Guidelines leaves open the possibility of “other interpretations“. Here, I take him to mean the “other interpretations” would refer to orthodox interpretations of the document. For example, the Buenos Aires guidelines could be interested to allow the possibility of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Communion to D&Rs. Yet, given the sacrament of Reconciliation requires a firm purpose of amendment, it could be argued the Buenos Aires guidelines would deny communion to D&R couples who do not have such a firm purpose. Returning to Cardinal Müller’s open letter, although he essentially seems to admit that deriving such orthodox interpretations from these texts are possible, he deems them “improbable.”
Consequently, Cardinal Müller, reflecting on these “hesitations” about the text and authority of the “Risposta” received by Cardinal Duka, posed his own Dubia for the Pope Francis to answer. Müller wrote (emphasis added):
“We can find support in these hesitations to raise a new “dubium”: are there cases in which, after a period of discernment, it is possible to give sacramental absolution to a baptized person who maintains sexual intercourse with someone with whom he lives in a second civil union, if this baptized person does not want to make the resolution not to continue to have sexual intercourse?”
Now, it should be noted that Cardinal Müller’s Dubia above bears resemblance to a reworded dubia submitted by the original five “dubia cardinals” related to Amoris Laetitia:
“We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?”
Both are excellent Dubia and get to the heart of the debate over Amoris Laetitia. Regarding his own Dubia, Cardinal Müller makes this interesting final statement (emphasis added):
Dear Brother, as long as this “dubium” is not resolved, the authority of the “Risposta” and of the Buenos Aires’ document remains in doubt, given the imprecision they reflect. This imprecision leaves a little room for hope that there will be a negative answer to this “dubium”. The primary beneficiaries of this negative answer would not be the faithful, who in any case would not be obliged to accept a positive response to the “dubium”, for such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine. The primary beneficiary would be the authority that responds to the “dubium”, which would be preserved intact, since it would no longer require of the faithful a submission of mind and will to truths contrary to Catholic doctrine.
[Cardinal Muller, Letter to Cardinal Duka, (see HERE)]
The noteworthy thing here is, Cardinal Muller states “a positive response to the Dubium” would be “contrary to the Catholic doctrine.” I agree.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis never responded to these dubia. Pope Leo XIV should answer them.
(3) Papal Signatures: In Cardinal Muller’s response to Cardinal Duka, he points out an oddity involving how Pope Francis signed the dubia response to Cardinal Duka, suggesting this raises doubt about the authority of the DDF’s response. Cardinal Muller writes:
“On the other hand, the way in which the “Risposta” bears the approval of the Holy Father, with a simple dated signature at the bottom of the page, is unusual. The usual formula has been: “The Holy Father approves the text and orders (or allows for) its publication”, but none of this appears in this careless “Appunto”. Here opens another window of doubt on the authority of the “Risposta”.”
Indeed, if we look at the CDF’s response to certain questions raised about Familiaris Consortio during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II — a response which said there were to be no exceptions to the teaching of Familiaris Consortio; the document signed by Pope John Paul II reads at the bottom:
“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”
Therefore, as the DDF’s response to Cardinal Duka lacks these provisions, there appears to be another potential doubt regarding the authority of the DDF’s response to Cardinal Duka.
(4) Pope Francis’s Preface: There is, in my opinion, is another problem that requires the attention of the magisterium. The problem is the appearance of a preface written by Pope Francis found in Stephen Walford’s 2018 book on Amoris Laeatitia, titled Pope Francis, the Family, and Divorce: In Defense of Truth and Mercy.
There are those who see this preface by Pope Francis as a confirmation of the most extreme interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, that it allows communion for D&Rs in active adulterous unions to receive communion in certain cases. For example, in November 2020, Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is would go on to cite this preface as an example of Pope Francis confirming that D&Rs in active adulterous union can receive Holy Communion in certain cases. Lewis writes:
“This interpretation was also articulated in great detail in the book Pope Francis, the Family, and Divorce: In Defense of Truth and Mercy by Stephen Walford, which received the endorsements of three more prominent churchmen close to Francis—Cardinals Donald Wuerl, Kevin Farrell, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga— and includes a preface written by the pope himself.”
(see HERE)
However, already in a 2018 series of articles, Roma Locuta Est had reviewed problems it saw with Mr. Walford’s book. In a 2019 article, I was the first to point out what are, in my opinion at least, clearly erroneous, if not heretical statements in Walford’s book which make Pope Francis’s preface grievously problematic. I detailed these in my original article here on Roma Locuta Est, titled Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface. OnePeterFive would go on to reprint my article HERE.
In sum, the magisterium must address the question of Pope Francis’s preface given it is taken by many as an endorsement of Mr. Walford’s problematic interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. If Mr. Walford’s interpretation is heretical, then the provision of a preface to the book by Pope Francis favors heresy. In addition, the roles of various cardinals in advising Mr. Walford must be serious examined by the DDF. These cardinals include: Cardinals Donald Wuerl, Kevin Farrell, and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga.
Pope Leo XIV should address this.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, even though the current agenda does not seem to account for it, Pope Leo XIV should allow bishops attending the meeting on the 10th anniversary of Amoris Laetitia to raise concerns about the seeming if not actual contradictions between it, and the teaching of John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, etc.
Regardless, the bishops attending this meeting should request a clarification from Pope Leo XIV of the teaching of the Church. This they should do publicly on behalf of all Catholics. In October, the bishops attending the conference should pose to Pope Leo XIV something like the following two dubia, along the lines previously suggested by the “dubia cardinals” and Cardinal Müller:
(1) Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?
(2) Are there cases in which, after a period of discernment, it is possible to give sacramental absolution to a baptized person who maintains sexual intercourse with someone with whom he lives in a second civil union, if this baptized person does not want to make the resolution not to continue to have sexual intercourse?”
Let us hope and pray that Pope Leo XIV clarifies these questions, or ones’ similar to them.
Let us pray for Pope Leo XIV 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 (PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms) of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.
Notes:
[1] Amoris Laetitia 3, emphasis added: “Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it…”
[2] Francis-apologist Mike Lewis attempts to cite Francis’ book and comments on communion as a proof of repetition. See my response HERE. Of special note, Mr. Lewis cites the preface written by Pope Francis for Stephen Walford’s book on Amoris Laetitia as a confirmation of the more extreme, problematic interpretation of the document. I discuss this in my article above. I discuss the Pope’s preface, and what I believe are clear errors, if not heresies in Mr. Walford’s book (see Roma Locuta Est article titled Pope Francis, the Open Letter and the Pesky Preface. OnePeterFive would go on to reprint the article HERE.