The Harmony of Amoris Laetitia and Veritatis Splendor

Over at Where Peter Is, Brian Killian has a nice piece dealing with the Right Wing Panic Machine lie pitting Francis against the Tradition:

You often find the charge among critics of Pope Francis that his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, is opposed to Pope John Paul’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor. The differences between the two are exaggerated in order to set these two documents of the papal magisterium against each other; Amoris Laetitia against Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II against Pope Francis, Pope Francis supposedly against tradition.

Veritatis Splendor, according to this narrative, is the strong, bold, defense of immutable moral norms and laws. We expect to find affirmations of the truth and warnings of any threats against it. We expect to hear admonishments like:

• It is easy nowadays to confuse genuine freedom with the idea that each individual can act arbitrarily, as if there were no truths…
• A lukewarm attitude, any kind of relativism, or an undue reticence…would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel.
• Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. 
• Discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.

On the other hand, Amoris Laetitia is said to cast black and white immutable moral truths into doubt by teaching instead a mushy subjectivism that creates doubt and confusion about the eternal truths of God’s law. Amoris Laetitia is criticized for implying that there are exceptions to the norms and suggesting that it’s not possible to follow God’s laws. Amoris Laetitia is accused of undermining Veritatis Splendor for saying things like:

• Rational reflection and daily experience demonstrate the weakness which marks man’s freedom.
• Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner’s subjective imputability.
• It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent.
• Appropriate allowance is made for…the understanding of human weakness.

Such a capitulation to human weakness seems to cast into doubt (so we’re told) the declarations of the council of Trent that no one should say the laws of God are impossible to follow.

The problem is that this is selective nonsense. The nod to weakness above that is supposedly so threatening to Trent came from Veritatis Splendor, not from Amoris Laetitia. Likewise, the warnings above about false freedoms and relativism were taken from Amoris Laetitia, not from Veritatis Splendor.

The fact is that there are two dimensions in the moral life of human beings, the subjective dimension and the objective dimension. The objective dimension describes universal moral truths that constitute an immutable measure of human actions. The subjective dimension looks at the state of mind of an individual, and the quality of their moral acts in light of any limitations to their knowledge or their ability to act freely. The subjective dimension is necessary because we need more than a moral compass that always points north and gives us objectively true knowledge of where we stand. We also need to connect where we stand with where we need to arrive. We must be able to draw a map to see how we can realistically get to our destination. A compass shows us the objective coordinates, but the map shows us the terrain, where the obstacles and dangers are, and the areas where we might rest and regain our strength.

Neither dimension is reducible to the other and neither one detracts from the other. Veritatis Splendor and Amoris Laetitia are not opposed, but complementary. Veritatis Splendor’s primary focus is defending the objective dimension. Amoris Laetitia’s primary purpose (particularly in Chapter 8) is to defend the subjective dimension. Both perspectives are legitimate. Both perspectives are necessary. Both dimensions are capable of being degraded and deformed into a unique set of theological errors. But if one looks holistically and honestly, one can find the perspective of each of these documents within each other.

A concrete example: Amoris Laetitia gets a lot of flack for its emphasis on taking into account the “complexities” of an individual’s life circumstances, as in Amoris Laetitia 79 which says:

While clearly stating the Church’s teaching, pastors are to avoid judgements that do not take into account the complexity of various situations, and they are to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience and endure distress because of their condition.

In Veritatis Splendor 119, after talking about Gospel simplicity in the face of moral complexities, Pope John Paul II adds the qualification that:

Evangelical simplicity does not exempt one from *facing reality in its complexity*; rather it can lead to a more genuine understanding of reality, inasmuch as following Christ will *gradually* bring out the distinctive character of authentic Christian morality, while providing the vital energy needed to carry it out. [emphasis added]

This doesn’t merely confirm that the complexity of a person’s life cannot be ignored, it relates it to the law of gradualism, and therefore actually anticipates the exploration of the law of gradualism in Amoris Laetitia. Again in Veritatis Splendor 103 we hear words that sound a lot like criticisms leveled against Amoris Laetitia. Veritatis Splendor says:

It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man.

But a few sentences later, the Pope clarifies:

God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit”.

So Pope John Paul II is saying that yes, God’s law can be said to be adapted, proportioned, and graduated to the concrete possibilities of man, as long as the “possibilities of man” is understood as the possibilities of man redeemed by Christ and not man dominated by sin. For man “always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.”

Do read the whole thing.  And bookmark the site.  A refreshing antidote to the Francis-hating Lie Machine that is most of conservative Catholic media these days.  WPI constantly demonstrate that “orthodox” and “freak show Right” are not synonymous and are, these days, nearly always opposites.  Indeed, it is the mark of the Cult that they virtually never look to the Magisterium, but to folk heroes, nutty private revelations, Right wing media and even what they believe to be literal demons rather than to the actual teaching office of the Church to whom Jesus said, “He who listens to you listens to me.” Only a fool would trust their judgment.