![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/GabrielAmoris-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nDr. Pedro Gabriel<\/a>, a Portugese oncologist, is also a fine Catholic apologist. He co-founded and is a regular contributor to the excellent website, Where Peter Is<\/em><\/a>: which contains an extensive collection of articles in defense of the orthodoxy of Pope Francis. He is currently taking classes in moral theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, and earned a Diploma with Honors from the London School of Journalism. He also writes Catholic novels \u201cwith a Tolkienite flavor.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Dr. Gabriel\u2019s book, The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia<\/em><\/a>, was published on 18 February 2022 (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications). The introduction on its back cover reads:<\/p>\n When\u00a0Amoris Laetitia <\/span><\/em>was published in 2016, it became the most controversial papal document since\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/span><\/em>. Many said that\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/span><\/em>\u00a0was \u201cconfusing\u201d and \u201crequired clarification.\u201d Others claimed that it was heterodox, while comparing it unfavorably with other church documents. But is this really the case?<\/p>\n In this book, Pedro Gabriel sets out to explore Amoris Laetitia<\/span><\/em>\u2019s controversial eighth chapter. What does the document actually teach as it pertains to the access of divorced and civilly remarried people to the Eucharist, and how can it constitute a legitimate development? As Pedro Gabriel tries to answer these questions, he will also cover the most common arguments being leveled against\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/span><\/em>, and show how this exhortation can be reconciled with Catholic orthodoxy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Gabriel, in the Preface, wrote about the controversies surrounding the release of Pope Francis\u2019 post-synodal\u00a0apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia<\/em> on 8 April 2016, and mentioned a shortcoming that has been a hallmark of \u201cPope Francis criticism\u201d these past nine years:<\/p>\n I had learned a lesson during Benedict XVI\u2019s pontificate: never rely blindly on media reporting. So I did what I had learned during the previous papacy: not to be swept away by the tsunami of scandal, but to consult the primary sources instead. . . .<\/p>\n Time after time, I would read the actual church documents from primary, authoritative sources and feel like the commentaries from certified apologists and popular pundits\u00a0had missed the mark. It seemed like they were trying to read church doctrine according to a preconceived image of the church that did not always\u00a0correspond to reality.\u00a0(pp. xi, xiv-xv)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Indeed, this method is the only sensible (and charitable) way to go about things. But it is violated time and again. I can bear witness that this is the case, based on the course of my own apologetics endeavors: specifically those in defense of Pope Francis.<\/p>\n The moral and liturgical issues involved in the controversies surrounding this papal document are complex and multi-faceted. I can\u2019t possibly delve into all that in the space of a book review. So I have decided \u2014 for the sake of relative brevity \u2014 to concentrate on portions of Dr. Gabriel\u2019s book where he specifically notes continuity of Amoris<\/em> and Pope Francis\u2019 ideas and opinions, with those of the two previous popes: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II. This treatment of consistent development of the Church\u2019s doctrine was addressed in Section III (\u201cA Harmonious Development\u201d), comprising chapters 10-15, or roughly 100 pages out of 281 total.<\/p>\n One of the most important and central points of the entire book occurs in chapter 10, pages 142-143. Misunderstandings along these lines lie underneath much of the flawed and excessive criticism of Amoris Laetitia<\/em>:<\/p>\n Amoris Laetitia<\/em> relies on the teaching on mitigating circumstances. . . . mitigating circumstances do not contradict other parts of doctrine, namely the objectively evil nature of all intrinsically evil acts. In fact, in that very same chapter [7], I make a distinction between the doctrine of mitigating circumstances and situation ethics. Adopting the latter would be to adopt the illegitimate model of doctrinal discontinuity, since it contradicts the objectively evil nature of some sins. But the former is a legitimate development.<\/p>\n Therefore, if Amoris Laetitia<\/em> grounds itself on the teaching on mitigating circumstances, while the previous church pronouncements . . . based themselves on the doctrine of the objectively evil nature of sin, there can be no doctrinal contradiction. In fact, mitigating circumstances presuppose the doctrine of the objectively evil nature of sin. Mitigating circumstances diminish subjective culpability, and there can be no culpability in an act that is not evil. The teachings build upon each other.<\/p>\n What we have observed is a shift of emphasis. Francis chose to emphasize subjective culpability, while his predecessors chose to emphasize\u00a0the objectively evil nature of sin. Papal critics observe this shift of emphasis and wrongly conclude that a de-emphasizing of the objectively evil\u00a0nature of sin means that this part of doctrine was abandoned in favor of a new, contradictory teaching. This is, however, erroneous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the next chapter (11), Dr. Gabriel tackles the alleged discontinuity or contradiction between Pope St. John Paul II\u2019s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio<\/em><\/a>, from 1981. It was exactly the same sort of papal document as Amoris Laetitia<\/em>, although, as Dr. Gabriel noted, \u201cpapal critics will sometimes ascribe a low magisterial weight to Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u201d (p. 152), while viewing Familiaris<\/em> as considerably more authoritative. This has no canonical basis.<\/p>\n Dr. Gabriel (on p. 154) cites Familiaris Consortio<\/em>, section 84, which asserts that divorced and remarried couples may not receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. But Pope John Paul the Great went on to specify a condition in which such persons could<\/em> receive Holy Communion:<\/p>\n . . . a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of\u00a0marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children\u2019s upbringing, a man and\u00a0a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they \u201ctake on themselves the duty<\/strong><\/em> to live in complete continence<\/em><\/strong>, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.\u201d [my bolding and italics]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that such a couple is still living together, but abstaining from sexual relations. Thus, this is an example of a divorced and remarried person being able to receive the Eucharist. But<\/em><\/strong> they can only do so by refraining from sexual activity with the person to whom they are not truly married, in the eyes of the Church. This was proclaimed by Pope St. John Paul II over forty years ago. Yet we saw no firestorm of protest or accusations of doctrinal \/ moral heterodoxy; no \u201cdubia\u201d confronting him<\/em>.\u00a0Dr. Gabriel demonstrates a direct line of continuity in development between Familiaris<\/em> (still in section 84) and Amoris<\/em>:<\/p>\n Also, even if Familiaris Consortio<\/em> did not go as far as Amoris Laetitia<\/em> regarding sacramental discipline, it certainly laid out the foundations for Amoris Laetitia<\/em>, by saying:<\/p>\n Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations<\/em>. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a\u00a0second union for the sake of the children\u2019s upbringing, and who\u00a0are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid. (pp. 162-163; italics added by Dr. Gabriel to Pope St. John Paul\u2019s words)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dr. Gabriel then observed:<\/p>\n Anyway, we should bear in mind that Familiaris Consortio<\/em> does not claim to have the last word on the matter. Familiaris Consortio<\/em> urges a greater dialogue between pastors and laity, pastors and families, and theologians and experts in family matters. \u201cIn this way the teaching of the Magisterium becomes better understood and the way is opened to its progressive development<\/em>.\u201d [section 73]<\/p>\n It seems to me to be undeniable that this dialogue is precisely what Pope Francis sought to undertake with the two synods of the bishops on the family. (p. 163; italics added by Dr. Gabriel to Pope St. John Paul\u2019s words)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In chapter 12, Dr. Gabriel ably shows how Amoris<\/em> Laetitia<\/em> does not contradict (rather, consistently develops<\/em>) the outlook of Pope St. John Paul II\u2019s 1993 papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n In chapter 13, Amoris<\/em> is shown to be in harmony with Pope Benedict XVI\u2019s a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis<\/em><\/a> (2007). As with Familiaris<\/em>, that document (cited by Dr. Gabriel on pages 183-184) also affirmed the validity of Catholics in an irregular marital situation being able to receive Holy Communion, if they abstain from sexual relations:<\/p>\n Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is\u00a0not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God\u2019s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church\u2019s established and approved practice<\/em> in this regard. [section 29; italics added by Dr. Gabriel]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On page 200, Dr. Gabriel notes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em> (#1650<\/a>) also teaches the same doctrine and practice.<\/p>\n If we go back to chapter 4, where Pope Francis\u2019 own views are discussed, we see that they are developments of the thoughts of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Dr. Gabriel observed, in answering his own question about whether \u201cevery\u201d divorced and remarried person could receive Holy Communion:<\/p>\n I think the answer to this question is found in footnote 351 itself. The footnote starts with \u201cin certain cases<\/em>, this can include the help of the sacraments.\u201d By definition, this wording excludes some cases. . . .<\/p>\n On the other hand, the main topic of Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u2019s eighth chapter (where the footnote is located) is discernment. If Amoris Laetitia<\/em> simply opened up the possibility to any civilly remarried person who sought it, why spend so much time talking about discernment at all? . . .<\/p>\n Nevertheless, is there actual textual evidence supporting the claim that the exhortation does not simply open access to the Eucharist to every single divorced and remarried person? Let us read #300:<\/p>\n These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can\u00a0quickly grant \u201cexceptions,\u201d or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours.<\/p>\n Amoris Laetitia<\/em> does not give carte blanche for a priest to grant exceptions or sacramental privileges at will. According to the pope himself,\u00a0that would be a \u201cgrave misunderstanding.\u201d\u00a0(pp. 49-50)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Gabriel elaborates upon Pope Francis\u2019 teaching; getting to \u201cthe heart of the matter\u201d in terms of the current \u201ccontroversy\u201d:<\/p>\n Since it was in #303 that Pope Francis mentions not fulfilling the objective ideal, let us contextualize by reading the beginning of that paragraph:<\/p>\n Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors<\/em>, we can add that individual conscience<\/em> needs to be better incorporated into the Church\u2019s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.<\/p>\n Previously, we saw that conscience determines what the most generous\u00a0response is, even if it is not yet the fully objective ideal. This same conscience needs to be \u201cbetter incorporated into the Church\u2019s praxis.\u201d How?\u00a0By \u201crecognizing the influence of such concrete factors.\u201d<\/p>\n What \u201cconcrete factors\u201d are these? This directs us to the previous couple of paragraphs, which in fact deal solely with those \u201cconcrete The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any \u201cirregular\u201d situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. [AL<\/em>, 301]<\/p>\n The church teaches that these mitigating factors may reduce culpability in such a way that a sin with grave matter is not a mortal sin. This is doctrinally sound . . . It is also doctrinally sound to state that a person can receive communion if he or she is not in mortal sin . . .\u00a0 Pope Francis would only incur heresy if he stated the opposite, allowing people in mortal sin to receive communion.<\/p>\n Pope Francis brings up the church\u2019s \u201csolid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors\u201d explicitly to prevent the notion that \u201cthe demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised.\u201d [AL<\/em>, 301] (pp. 52-53)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So what is the bottom line in Pope Francis\u2019 development of sacramental and pastoral practice?:<\/p>\n [T]he permissibility of communion to some who have divorced and civilly remarried,\u00a0per footnote 351, has everything to do with mitigating factors diminishing subjective culpability, so that the person can \u201clive in God\u2019s grace\u201d (i.e.,\u00a0not be in mortal sin).<\/p>\n In fact, this interpretation is even confirmed elsewhere in the text:<\/p>\n What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since \u201cthe degree of\u00a0responsibility is not equal in all cases,\u201d the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [AL, 300] (p. 54)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I think the examples I have shown illustrate the remarkable cogency and articulate nature of this wonderful and immensely helpful book. The above material only scratches the surface (though I hope it adequately covers the \u201cheart\u201d of it). Dr. Gabriel seems to comprehensively approach the vexed topic from all angles: always bringing to it a faithful attention to orthodoxy and Church precedent, including very subtle and nuanced aspects of moral and pastoral theology, and a proper understanding of Newmanian doctrinal development (itself a very poorly understood element among far too many).<\/p>\n This is sorely needed in our time, in which suspicions and polarization run rampant, and in which (sadly) Catholic apologetics itself is sometimes prone to outside corrupting influences, including cultural and political factors (whether from the \u201cright\u201d or \u201cleft\u201d) that are \u201cextraneous\u201d to the Catholic Mind and contradictory to it.\u00a0 Dr. Gabriel, in his Conclusion, notes how such critical apologists are habitually \u201cscrutinizing every single
\nfactors\u201d:<\/p>\n
\nact of the Holy Father and portraying it in the worst possible light, in order to validate a narrative that slowly took form and shape. They did this sometimes with open hostility and sometimes in more subtle ways, . . .\u201d (p. 260).<\/p>\n