By Fr. William MacGillivray

From subjectivism and situation ethics, it’s an easy step to sacrilege.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in The Fatima Crusader Issue 131, “Exposed: Errors of the 2023 Synod.” Due to space limitations in the Crusader, we were unable to include endotes. The complete article is posted here. To receive printed copies of The Fatima Crusader, please visit our online shop.

Readers who have followed the debate surrounding the 2014 Synod on the Family will not be surprised to learn that the subject of Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried’ has resurfaced in the recent Synod on Synodality’s “Document for the Continental Stage” (henceforth, “DCS”).^[1]

The DCS speaks of ‘remarried’ divorcees who “feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationships” and who ask for “a more welcoming space” (No. 39). It further addresses “the pain of not being able to access the Sacraments experienced by remarried divorcees and those who have entered into polygamous marriages” and states that there is “no unanimity on how to deal with these situations” (No 94). Some Catholics defend the Church’s traditional discipline, while others argue that the Church should be “more flexible.”

Christ’s Teaching Is Clear

These passages of the DCS pretend, misleadingly, that the question of Communion for ‘remarried’ divorcees remains an open one. But taking into account the clear words of Scripture^[2]

and the Church’s perennial teaching,^[3]

there is no doubt that Holy Communion must be denied to the divorced who have attempted to contract a second marriage while their first spouse is still living, and who continue to live with their adulterous partner in a sexually active way. Such adulterous couples persist in an objective state of manifest grave sin and give no credible signs of repentance.

True repentance would require such individuals to separate or to live “as brother and sister,” abstaining from all sexual relations if the good of their children requires them to live together. Until they take these steps, they must not be allowed to receive Holy Communion, which requires them to be in the state of grace^[4]

and live publicly in accordance with the laws of God and the precepts of the Church.

Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this perennial teaching of the Church.^[5]

Under his pontificate, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued clear directives on the conditions under which Communion should be denied to public sinners, including the divorced and ‘remarried.’^[6]

The minister of Holy Communion is not bound to assess the subjective dispositions of someone who finds himself in an objective state of mortal sin as these subjective dispositions are known fully to God alone. However, being divorced and ‘remarried’ – of itself – merits the refusal of Holy Communion. Those who, being unable to separate on account of their children, engage themselves to live chastely as brother and sister can be given Holy Communion privately (in order to avoid giving scandal to people unaware of the couple’s resolution to live together chastely).^[7]

A Grave Error

Since Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium have spoken with one accord, how does the DCS dare to give voice to an opposing viewpoint? It follows the lead of Pope Francis, who in his 2015 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris lætitia, called into question the Church’s perennial teaching on precisely this same subject.

In Amoris lætitia, Pope Francis asserts that the minister of Holy Communion may sometimes give Holy Communion to divorced and ‘remarried’ persons if he judges that there are “forms of conditioning and mitigating factors” that diminish the gravity of the sin of adultery. “[I]t is possible,” he writes, “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.”^[8]

He adds in a footnote that “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,” since “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”^[9]

Pope Francis insinuates that it is Jansenistic, or overly rigid, to deny Communion to someone on the basis of their public sin. But this is contrary to the constant practice of the Church, typified in St. Ambrose’s courageous refusal to admit the Emperor Theodosius to Communion after a public massacre that the emperor perpetrated in the year 390 in reprisal for a popular uprising.^[10]

St. Ambrose’s refusal shows that the decision to give Holy Communion lies ultimately in the hands of the minister, who judges the recipient according to objective moral laws. Saint Ambrose did not allow for any “mitigating factors” (such as the bad counsel that the emperor had been given, or his praiseworthy desire to punish crime and maintain public order).^[11]

The emperor’s action was objectively a grave injustice and a public scandal; that was enough for him to be refused even entrance into the church. St. Ambrose remained inflexible until the emperor had done public penance for his sin.^[12]

Justifying Sin?

Pope Francis, on the other hand, would like to reverse the precedent set by St. Ambrose, making subjective dispositions the determining factor for admission to Holy Communion. When put into practice, this spells the end of any attempt to consistently apply Church discipline. How can the minister of Communion know the internal dispositions of the communicant? Should he simply trust the communicant’s own affirmation that he is in the state of grace? Can’t the communicant lie or deceive himself about this? Won’t giving Communion to public sinners give the impression that the Church accepts and legitimizes their sin? When there are no objective standards, everything is permitted.

But even granting Pope Francis’ premise, we might ask ourselves what “mitigating factors” can exist for persons who have divorced and ‘remarried’? Catholic Tradition recognizes only two factors capable of turning a mortal sin into a venial sin (or no sin at all): lack of awareness (either of the sin or of its gravity), and lack of consent.^[13]

It is hard to imagine how either of the two could apply to the divorced and ‘remarried.’ The Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is well known. Few, if any, divorced and ‘remarried’ persons who attend Catholic Masses are unaware that their situation does not conform to Church teaching. Since such persons continue to live together and engage in sexual relations on a free and voluntary basis, there can hardly be lack of consent either. There seems to be no way to excuse their sin.

Pope Francis, however, believes he has found a way. “More is involved here,” he writes, “than mere ignorance of the rule,”^[14]

or of the objective moral law. For “conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God Himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”^[15]

In other words, some divorced and ‘remarried’ persons, despite their awareness of the moral law which forbids all sexual relations outside of marriage, may conclude that, in their situation, God does not hold them to a strict observance of the law because it is too onerous. This amounts either to a denial of the objectively sinful character of sexual relations outside of a legitimate marriage, or to a denial that God gives sufficient grace to do what is right. In either case, Pope Francis sets himself against the entirety of the Church’s Tradition.

Situation Ethics Is False

Intrinsically evil actions can never be justified under any circumstance because their very object is evil. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes: “There are certain human actions that have a moral deformity inseparably attached to them, such as fornication, adultery, and others of this kind; all of these can in no case be rightly carried out.”^[16]

Pope Pius XII condemned the system of thought that denies the absolute prohibition of intrinsically evil actions under the name of Situation Ethics.^[17]

John Paul II renewed the condemnation in his encyclial Veritatis Splendor.^[18]

In his apostolic exhortation Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, he wrote: “[T]here exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.”^[19]

To those who allege a practical impossibility of acting in accordance with universal moral laws, John Paul II replies: “[I]t is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.” ^[20]

Stand Fast in the Faith

In conclusion, Pope Francis and the new “Synodal Church” are wreaking havoc in the domains of both doctrine and discipline. Doctrinally, they appear to deny the existence of intrinsically evil actions as well as the sufficiency of God’s grace for keeping the moral law. On the basis of these doctrinal errors, they wish to undermine the perennial discipline of the Church regarding Holy Communion. The result will be not only innumerable sacrilegious Communions, but also legitimizing adulterous unions. Allowing the divorced and ‘remarried’ to receive Communion, will undermine the faithful’s regard for the indissolubility of marriage, and the Sixth Commandment will be seen as little more than optional.

For ourselves, we must remain steadfast in the doctrine that has always been taught by Holy Mother Church in conformity both with Divine Revelation and natural reason. At the same time, by our prayers and sacrifices, we should offer reparation and seek the conversion of those who err, no matter how high their dignity. Meanwhile, remain convinced that Christ will never abandon His Church, even if He seems to be asleep, and the bark of Peter threatens to capsize (Lk. 8:23-24).

---

ENDNOTES:

[1] See the ‘Working Document for the Continental Stage’ at the Synod’s Vatican’s website.

[2] Cf. especially Mark 10:2-12, Rom. 7:2-3; and for the reception of Communion, see 1 Cor. 11:27-29 and Matthew 7:6.

[3] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 80 A. 6; cf. CIC 1917 Can. 855. § 1. “Arcendi sunt ab Eucharistia publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti manifestoque infames, nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet et publico scandalo prius satisfecerint.”

[4] Cf. The Baltimore Catechism, n. III, QQ. 597-599.

[5] Cf. John Paul II, Familiaris consortium, n. 84; CDF, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (14 September 1994), n. 6.

[6] See Declaration of the PCLT at the Vatican’s website.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Pope Francis, Amoris lætitia, n. 305.

[9] Ibid., footnote n. 351.

[10] Cf. Letter 51 of St. Ambrose: This dramatic scene has often been portrayed in religious art: e.g., by Anthony Van Dyck.

[11] Cf. St. Ambrose, On the Death of Theodosius, n. 34: “He wept publicly in church for his sin, which had stolen upon him through the deceit of others.”

[12] Cf. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, vv. 17-18.

[13] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 88 A. 6: and Baltimore Catechism n. 3, Q. 282.

[14] Amoris laetitia, n. 301.

[15] Ibid., n. 303.

[16] Cf. Quodlibet IX, q. 7 a. 2 co.: “[A]ctionum humanarum multiplex est differentia. Quaedam enim sunt quae habent deformitatem inseparabiliter annexam, ut fornicatio, adulterium, et alia huiusmodi, quae nullo modo bene fieri possunt.” Cf. also De decem praeceptis, a. 1: “Frequenter enim aliquis bona intentione operatur, sed inutiliter, cum bona voluntas desit; ut si quis furetur ut pascat pauperem, est quidem recta intentio, sed deest rectitudo debitae voluntatis. Unde nullum malum bona intentione factum excusatur.”

[17] Pius XII, Soyez les bienvenues, Discourse to the Participants in the Congress of the World Federation of Catholic Young Women, April 18, 1952.

[18] See John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor.

[19] John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Pænitentia, n. 17.

[20] Ibid., n. 52.

The post Out of All Proportion first appeared on The Fatima Center.

These views are those of the Fatima Center and do not necessarily reflect the views of Immaculata South Africa

To read similar articles please visit the Fatima Center by clicking here.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.