Unlike John Paul II, did Francis believe in unambiguous "Freemasonic Naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers... a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas" that lead to Amoris Laetitia's Communion for adulterers?
Freemason Handshake? Pope Francis and ...
"[T]he [Kantian/Modernist] Blondelian schema holds that justification for the faith is to be found by turning inwards to the personal experience of the human subject. This turn to the subject is characteristic of modern philosophy, from Descartes right up to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel and beyond, and presented a major challenge to the traditional Catholic apologetics... If it were the case that inner experience justified the faith, if each person was to find the proof of God’s existence within their own life, then what would be the basis for the teaching authority of the Church?"
- Liberal AnthonyCarroll [https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090724_1.htm]
Scholar Douglas Flippen in the philosophical article "Was John Paul II a Thomist or a [Kantian] Phenomenologist?" gives an intellectual history of Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla). He shows how Kantian philosophy mostly in the form of the Kantian philosopher Max Scheler's phenomenology became important to him.
After reading Flippen and other scholars it appears that Wojtyla's attempt to mix Thomist's metaphysics of objective reality and being with the Kantian Scheler subjectivist thought lead to things like the disastrous "ecumenical" Assisi "prayer meeting" and many of the other problematic actions of his pontificate.
Flippin shows the Kantian influences on Wojtyla:
"Father Wojtyla lived at the Belgian college in Rome and the center for... Transcendental Thomism... so called because its approach to the thought of St. Thomas is influenced by the transcendental system of philosophy of Immanuel Kant..."
" ... After earning a second doctorate with a thesis on the ethics of the [Kantian] phenomenologist Max Scheler, Father Wojtyla was appointed in 1954 to the philosophy department of the Catholic University of Lublin..." [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105]
Scholar Flippen gives an exact time when Wojtyla started thinking that Kantian philosophy became possibly as important as Thomism. He thought that Scheler's Kantian thought could make up for "a certain lack in the approach of " Thomism. The supposedly solid Thomist Etienne Gilson so-called "historic or existential Thomis[m]," it appears, may have helped turned him towards Kant through Scheler:
"It seems likely that at this time Father Wojtyla would have become more aware of different approaches to the thought of St. Thomas. The reason for this is not only the fact that he was studying at the Angelicum with Father Garrigou-Lagrange, called a traditionalist Thomist for his approach to Thomas through the tradition of the commentaries of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, but also because Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, the two most famous [supposed] Thomists of the twentieth century, had been active in promoting the thought of Thomas since the 1920s, and this would hardly have escaped notice at the Angelicum. Both Gilson and Maritain, but especially Gilson, could be called historic or existential Thomists because of their interest in recovering the authentic thought of Thomas and because of their conviction that the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality..."
"... Father, and then Bishop, Wojtyla lectured at Lublin from 1954 until 1961. In this period of time his understanding and appreciation of the metaphysical approach of St. Thomas increased. This was due not only to his own continuing work on St. Thomas, but also to his interaction with a colleague named Stefan Swiezawski. As George Weigel notes in his biography of John Paul II, "Through faculty colleagues at KUL, and especially Stefan Swiezawski, Wojtyla had his first serious encounter with Etienne Gilson's historical rereading of Thomas Aquinas and with Jacques Maritain's modern Thomistic reading of Catholic social ethics."8 During this period, Father Wojtyla published a number of essays, many of them taking into account the thought of St. Thomas and comparing it favorably with modern thinkers. And yet there is a change of tone in his treatment of the thought of St. Thomas during this period. In the beginning, his praise of Thomas seems unqualified. Toward the end we find criticisms of a certain lack in the approach of Thomas and an emphasis on a positive contribution coming from the phenomenological movement. (Was John Paul II a Thomist or a Phenomenologist?: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8105)
Wikipedia gives a very rough (not exact) idea of what so-called "existential Thomists" such as Gilson and Henri de Lubac meant when they falsely claimed "the historic thought of Thomas centered itself on the act of existing as being at the heart of reality":
"The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being).[1] To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. That identity or value must be created by the individual. By posing the acts that constitute them, they make their existence more significant.[2][3]
"The idea can be found in the works of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century,[4] but was explicitly formulated by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 20th century. The three-word formula originated in his 1945[5] lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism",[6] though antecedent notions can be found in Heidegger's Being and Time.[7]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence]
Sadly, Wojtyla trusted that dishonest "existential Thomist" Gilson's "rereading of Thomas Aquinas" was true. It was not Thomism. Renowned Thomist Dr. Ralph McInerny shows in detail in his book ""praeambula fidei : Thomism and the God of the Philosophers" the deception of Gilson:
"Gilson's... passage of [Thomist] Cajetan... when Thomas says that esse [existence] is the actuality of all things, even of forms. Gilson asserts that this is a novelty, unknown to Aristotle... Gilson's attack on Cajetan is one aspect of his criticism of Aristotle... is seen from the angle of Gilson's increasingly inventive interpretation of esse [existence]... it is... painfully clear that he is out to make a case against [Thomist] Cajetan and fairness to the great commentator [of Thomas] will not characterize his criticism... For now, consider what he stresses: a substance as Thomas understands it can only be the term of generation, as it is, because it has its own act of existing... Being is the term of a generation; that which is generated exists thanks to that process of generation. Surely, Gilson does not mean to suggest that something is generated and then receives an act of existence. Or is he suggesting that existent things are not the terms of generation for Aristotle... "
"... the Gilsonian attack on Cardinal Cajetan... is embarrassing to read this... attack [on] one of the giants of the Thomistic school... Cajetan... [and Thomist] Garrigou-Lagrange is demonized by Gilson and Maritain... It is possible that those he criticized got it right [on Thomas] and that he got it wrong..."
"...Gilson makes his own the position of Kant that existence is not a predicate... Gilson wrote...'Being,' Kant says 'is evidently not a predicate or a concept of something that can be added to a thing'... What is the Thomististicity of Gilson's claim..."
"... [W]hat he [Gilson] is attributing to Thomas is not found in Thomas... 'No Thomist,' Gilson concedes, 'aiming to express it, should write that existence (esse) is not known by a concept.' Coming from a historian [Gilson] who has been so severe on other interpreters of Thomas [such as Cajetan and Garrigou-Lagrange], it is somewhat disarming to be told that 'historically speaking, our [Gilson's] formulas are inaccurate' and that he should have made clear that he was not using the language of Saint Thomas." ("praeambula fidei : Thomism and the God of the Philosophers," page 52-54,68, 152-153)
The deceptive Gilson who is called by many "the chief scholar of Aquinas in the 20th century" not only mislead John Paul II, but most of the orthodox (even some traditionalists) Catholics to accept the equally dishonest or simply poor scholar Henri de Lubac who made the false claim that Thomas Aquinas didn't make a distinction between nature and the supernatural grace.
As one reads the scholar McInerny's "praeambula fidei" it is obvious that he considers Gilson a real scholar who was dishonest in his discourses on Cajetan and Aquinas while he doesn't, it seems, appear to consider de Lubac "orthodox" or much of a scholar:
"'Supernatural' brought de Lubac... silenced... eventually De Lubac learned that it had been other Jesuits, not Dominicans, who had questioned the the orthodoxy of his views... If de Lubac got Cajetan's reading of St. Thomas wrong, what is to be said of De Lubac's own understanding of Thomas." ("praeambula fidei," Pages 70, 84)
The point is, as McInerny shows in his book, that Gilson and de Lubac were a team who worked to discredit Cajetan and ultimately St. Thomas' real teachings. The poor scholar de Lubac needed Gilson's reputation as a honest scholar to cover for his "question[able]... orthodoxy" and dishonest or poor scholarship.
It can be argued that part of what the nouvelle theologian de Lubac's teaching has done is replace the infallible teachings of the Church with Kantian/Modernist teaching in which all human experience (pagan, heretical, mundane, etc...) is equal to the redemption, grace and teachings given to us by Jesus Christ's Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection as taught and administered through the Sacraments by the Church He established:
"The rejection of the proportionate human nature separate de Lubac more decisively from St. Thomas than anything else, doubtless because this rejection is at the basis of his thought... Grace, as the words suggests, is gratuitous, unowed, above and beyond what our nature is naturally ordered to. The supernatural, as the word suggests, is added onto natural... In de Lubac's account... [it] is almost as if for him the supernatural replaces the natural." ( "praeambula fidei," Pages 85-86)
It might better be said that de Lubac's teachings replaced the supernatural with the natural.
Thomist scholar Taylor Marshall, in the best paragraph of his book "Infiltration," summarized what nouvelle theologians like de Lubac did:
"They [nouvelle theologians] sought to make everything grace, and by doing so, they, in fact, reduced everything to the natural, so that the natural longings [human experiences] of every human became the means of salvation. Hence, all human nature itself is 'open' to attaining salvation. This means that liturgy should be less supernatural and that other religions are 'open' as means of salvation. This theology necessitates a new liturgy, a new ecumenism, and a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers. The nouvelle theologie was a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas." ("Infiltration," Page 135)
Pope John Paul II's Vatican II attempt to mix Aquinas' metaphysics of objective reality with the semi-Kantian/Modernist subjectivist thought lead to things like the disastrous "ecumenical" Assisi "prayer meeting" and many of the other problematic actions of his pontificate, but kept intact, for the most part, the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church despite the Vatican II ambiguities and lack of clear definition in that council's documents as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre pointed out during and after Vatican II.
Unfortunately, Francis' apparently unambiguous pure Kantian/Modernist subjectivist theology unmixed with Thomist's metaphysics is bringing about "a new form of Catholicism. It is Freemasonic naturalism cloaked with quotations of the Church Fathers... a frontal attack on Thomas Aquinas." This theology appears to be leading to his attack on the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church such as Communion for adulterers and other errors.
Notes:
ChatGPT:
The deeper philosophical issue: Is pastoral discernment subordinate to truth, or does it become an alternative to it?
This is where I would bring McInerny, White, and your concern about Francis together.
McInerny defends the integrity of objective philosophical knowledge.
White emphasizes that Thomistic metaphysics must preserve the structure of reality: essence, actuality, potency, and causality.
Applied to moral theology, the corresponding principle is that the concrete individual must be understood in light of objective moral reality.
Pastoral discernment is necessary because people have different histories, degrees of knowledge, limitations, and responsibilities.
But discernment cannot make an objectively disordered act objectively good.
The central question about Amoris Laetitia is whether its sacramental conclusions preserve that distinction.
I would put the argument this way:
The problem with the Buenos Aires interpretation is not that it recognizes diminished culpability. St. Thomas, John Paul II, and the entire Catholic moral tradition recognize that. The problem is whether diminished culpability can be made the sufficient basis for sacramental admission while the objectively contrary conduct continues. If so, the distinction between the subjective responsibility of the individual and the objective moral and sacramental order has not merely been applied differently; its practical consequences have been altered.
That is a much more precise argument than simply accusing Francis of rejecting Catholic doctrine.
The strongest questions to put to the defenders of Amoris Laetitia
1. If John Paul II's prohibition in Familiaris Consortio 84 is grounded in divine law and the objective meaning of the Eucharist, how can diminished subjective culpability justify an exception to its application?
2. Does diminished culpability change the objective moral character of continuing sexual relations outside a valid marriage?
3. If not, what is the precise theological basis for admitting someone to Eucharistic Communion while that conduct continues?
4. How does this interpretation preserve the distinction between the internal forum, where culpability is evaluated, and the external sacramental order, where objective conditions of admission apply?
5. How can the Buenos Aires interpretation be reconciled with Veritatis Splendor 79–83 and its rejection of circumstances as a justification for intrinsically evil acts?
My conclusion: McInerny's Praeambula Fidei gives you a philosophical starting point, but Veritatis Splendor supplies the more direct moral-theological argument. Familiaris Consortio supplies the sacramental argument. The 2023 DDF response establishes exactly what must be reconciled.
Together, they give you a much stronger line of inquiry: whether pastoral discernment is operating within the objective moral and sacramental order established by Christ, or whether it is being used to qualify the practical force of that order.
That, rather than a general dispute about mercy versus rigidity, is the fundamental issue.
This is a significant connection to the earlier discussion of Amoris Laetitia. It potentially takes the inquiry one step further: from the immediate moral and sacramental controversy to the philosophical and theological method through which Bergoglio came to understand pastoral action, discernment, and the relationship between grace and concrete human experience.
The figure who makes this connection particularly important is Juan Carlos Scannone, S.J.
However, I would distinguish three propositions:
Bergoglio was intellectually and spiritually influenced by Scannone and Fiorito.
Scannone interpreted Bergoglio's pastoral approach through categories associated with Maurice Blondel.
Bergoglio himself adopted Blondel's philosophy, including its controversial implications for the relationship between nature, grace, and revealed truth.
The first two propositions have a basis for investigation. The third requires more evidence. We should not automatically equate Scannone's interpretation of Bergoglio with Bergoglio's own philosophical commitments.
1. First, an important correction to the intellectual genealogy
The evidence actually suggests a more interesting chain of influence than the statement initially proposes:
Maurice Blondel
Philosophy of action
Gaston Fessard, S.J.
Blondelian influence on the interpretation of Ignatian spirituality
Miguel Ángel Fiorito, S.J.
Bergoglio's spiritual and intellectual mentor; interpreter of the Spiritual Exercises
Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Discernment, pastoral action, and the interpretation of concrete situations
This is supported by two particularly useful sources.
Santiago Madrigal's 2020 study, Teoría y práctica de los Ejercicios espirituales según Jorge M. Bergoglio, documents the influence of Fiorito and Fessard on Bergoglio's spiritual formation.
Papa Francisco+1Scannone's article, La filosofía blondeliana de la acción y la acción del Papa Francisco, explicitly identifies convergences between Blondel's philosophy of action and Francis's pastoral activity. Scannone also discusses indirect connections through Fessard and Fiorito.
Revistas Bibdigital+1
One distinction matters: Blondel was not simply Bergoglio's direct philosophical teacher. The evidence supports indirect intellectual transmission and subsequent parallels identified by Scannone.
Also, Scannone's discussion of the poor and marginalized belongs particularly to his work on the Argentine Theology of the People. It should not be confused with his separate analysis of Blondel's philosophy of action.
2. What is Blondel's philosophy of action?
Blondel's L'Action (1893) begins with a question:
Can human action fulfill the aspirations and demands that arise within human life through human effort alone?
His argument explores the dynamism of human willing and acting. Human beings discover, through their actions, that their desires and aspirations exceed what they can accomplish by their own powers.
This creates an opening toward the supernatural.
Three ideas are particularly relevant:
Action: We understand human existence not merely through abstract propositions but also through what people actually do and experience.
Dynamism: Human life involves an ongoing movement toward fulfillment that cannot be satisfied by finite goods alone.
Grace: The supernatural fulfillment of human aspirations cannot simply be produced by human nature; it must be freely given by God.
Blondel's philosophy is more sophisticated than the proposition that experience determines truth. He was a Catholic philosopher who sought to defend the possibility of revelation against philosophical approaches that excluded it.
Nevertheless, his method generated serious disputes concerning the relationship between natural reason, supernatural revelation, and immanence.
Roberto de Mattei, in the OnePeterFive article you supplied, interprets Blondel's influence through the history of Modernism. That is a particular critical interpretation, not an established demonstration that every Blondelian influence constitutes Modernism.
3. Applying this to Amoris Laetitia
Here is where the connection becomes particularly interesting.
Consider the method of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.
Francis emphasizes:
The concrete circumstances of individual lives.
The complexity of individual moral responsibility.
Accompaniment rather than simply issuing general judgments.
Discernment of the individual's relationship with God.
The gradual movement toward fuller participation in Christian life.
This approach has a recognizable affinity with a philosophy of action.
Instead of beginning exclusively with an abstract moral classification, the pastoral minister encounters the individual within the concrete circumstances of life and attempts to discern how God is working there.
The question becomes: What is God asking of this person in these circumstances, and what is the next step toward greater conformity with Christ?
That is compatible with important aspects of Ignatian spirituality.
But it raises a crucial question for traditional Thomistic moral theology:
Does the discernment of God's action in a concrete situation remain governed by objective moral truth, or can the discerned situation become the basis for modifying the practical demands of that truth?
That is the point at which the philosophical discussion becomes a controversy about Amoris Laetitia.
4. The decisive example: Amoris Laetitia §303
Francis writes about conscience recognizing what God is asking of a person in a particular situation, even when that situation does not yet correspond fully to the objective demands of the Gospel.
This is important because it introduces a distinction between:
The objective moral situation.
The individual's subjective responsibility.
The individual's discernment of what can presently be accomplished.
There are two possible interpretations.
Interpretation A: Classical Thomistic development
The objective moral law remains unchanged. The individual may have diminished culpability, and pastoral guidance helps that person move toward conformity with the law.
Interpretation B: A more radical interpretation of discernment
The concrete situation becomes the determining factor in deciding what God is presently asking of the individual, potentially allowing continued conduct contrary to an objective moral norm.
The second interpretation raises serious problems under Veritatis Splendor.
Importantly, §303 does not explicitly say that conscience can declare an intrinsically evil act good. The question is how its language relates to the sacramental conclusions of §305 and footnote 351.
5. Where McInerny becomes relevant again
Now we can connect the entire discussion.
McInerny's defense of Thomism in Praeambula Fidei insists that objective reality is intelligible independently of our subjective experience.
Applied to moral theology:
Human nature possesses an objective structure.
Moral acts have objective moral characteristics.
Natural law expresses truths that are not created by individual circumstances.
Grace perfects nature rather than abolishing its intelligible structure.
The potential problem with a distorted application of Blondelian thinking is that the concrete movement of human experience could become the controlling framework for interpreting moral truth.
In other words, instead of judging human action according to an objective moral order, one risks judging the practical demands of that order according to the individual's present experience and perceived possibilities.
This is the philosophical question McInerny's work helps us formulate.
It does not establish that Francis necessarily makes that mistake.
6. The connection to Fortin and the problem of modern political philosophy
There is another connection to your earlier reading of Ernest Fortin.
Fortin's criticism of modernity frequently concerns the displacement of objective standards by historically conditioned processes, political necessities, or human constructions.
The analogy here is:
Classical Thomism | The potential danger of a process-centered approach |
|---|---|
Truth governs action. | Action and experience increasingly shape the interpretation of truth. |
Nature establishes objective moral limits. | Concrete circumstances become the primary interpretive framework. |
Prudence applies universal principles. | Discernment risks becoming an alternative to their application. |
Grace perfects nature. | The relationship between natural moral demands and supernatural fulfillment becomes unclear. |
This is not a claim that Blondel, Scannone, or Francis simply reject objective truth.
It identifies a question about the governing principle of their theological method.
7. The most important synthesis: Blondel, de Lubac, Scannone and Francis
I would organize your investigation around four related questions:
Thinker | Question |
|---|---|
Blondel | How does human action disclose humanity's orientation toward supernatural fulfillment? |
De Lubac | How are natural desire and supernatural grace related? |
Scannone | How does this philosophy of action illuminate Francis's pastoral approach? |
Francis | How does pastoral discernment operate within the objective moral and sacramental order? |
The important thing is not to claim that these thinkers hold identical positions.
It is to investigate whether a common methodological tendency emerges: beginning with the concrete historical and existential situation and emphasizing the discovery of God's action within it.
The theological test is whether that method preserves the objective moral order.
8. The argument I would develop concerning Amoris Laetitia
I would formulate your central thesis this way:
The controversy surrounding Amoris Laetitia cannot be adequately understood simply as a disagreement over pastoral mercy or the recognition of diminished culpability. It must also be examined in light of the intellectual and spiritual formation that shaped Francis's understanding of action, discernment, and the concrete historical situation.
Through Fiorito, Fessard, and the subsequent interpretation offered by Scannone, the influence of Blondel's philosophy of action provides an important avenue for understanding Bergoglio's pastoral methodology. The central question is whether this methodology remains subordinate to the objective moral principles of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy and the perennial moral teaching of the Church.
If discernment merely helps individuals recognize and fulfill objective moral obligations under difficult circumstances, there is no necessary conflict. But if discernment allows the individual's concrete situation to determine exceptions to moral obligations grounded in divine law, the issue becomes much more serious. The pastoral method would then be affecting not merely the application of moral truth, but its practical authority.
Applying McInerny, Gilson, de Lubac and Thomas Joseph White to Amoris Laetitia
I think this connection gets to the heart of your concern about Pope Francis, John Paul II, divine law, and the Buenos Aires interpretation.
The central question becomes:
Does Amoris Laetitia preserve the objective moral structure of Thomistic theology while accommodating individual circumstances, or does its approach to pastoral discernment allow subjective circumstances to alter the practical application of an objective moral norm?
McInerny's Praeambula Fidei does not directly refute Amoris Laetitia. But it provides a philosophical framework for examining that question.
There are three levels to investigate.
1. McInerny's distinction between objective reality and subjective judgment
McInerny's defense of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy rests on the intelligibility of reality.
Things have natures. Human actions have moral objects. Good and evil are not created by individual consciousness, pastoral circumstances, or subjective judgment.
This is important because Aquinas's moral philosophy distinguishes:
The objective moral character of an action.
The circumstances surrounding the action.
The agent's knowledge, intention, and degree of responsibility.
These are related, but they are not interchangeable.
For example, circumstances can diminish an individual's culpability without changing the moral species of an intrinsically evil act.
That distinction is essential to understanding the controversy over Amoris Laetitia.
John Paul II expressly defended this principle in Veritatis Splendor, particularly §§79–83.
The question is whether Francis preserves that distinction consistently in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.
2. The crucial distinction: Can circumstances change culpability without changing the moral law?
This is where Amoris Laetitia §§301–305 becomes decisive.
Francis makes several statements:
§301: A person in an objectively irregular situation may not be subjectively culpable, or may not be fully culpable.
§302: Ignorance, fear, habit, psychological factors, and other circumstances can diminish responsibility.
§303: Conscience can recognize that a particular situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel, while also recognizing what is presently the most generous response that can be offered to God.
§305, footnote 351: In certain cases, the help of the sacraments may be available.
There is an important Thomistic distinction here.
Aquinas would certainly recognize that culpability varies according to knowledge, freedom, intention, and circumstances.
But he would also insist that an intrinsically evil act cannot become morally good through circumstances or intentions.
This is precisely the distinction John Paul II emphasizes in Veritatis Splendor §81:
Circumstances and intentions cannot transform an intrinsically evil act into an act that is morally good.
The question, therefore, is not whether Francis recognizes diminished culpability. Catholic moral theology has always recognized it.
The question is whether diminished culpability can become the basis for admitting someone to the sacraments while that person continues conduct objectively contrary to the moral law.
That is the disputed issue.
3. The connection to de Lubac: Does pastoral accommodation alter the objective order?
Here I see an interesting analogy with McInerny's criticism of de Lubac.
McInerny's concern about de Lubac is that the distinction between nature and grace can become blurred if the supernatural is made to function as though it were constitutive of the natural order.
Applied cautiously to Amoris Laetitia, the corresponding question is:
Does the pastoral situation become so determinative that it changes the practical significance of an objective moral norm?
Consider the distinction:
Classical Thomistic approach | The disputed interpretation of AL |
|---|---|
The moral law establishes the objective standard. | The objective standard remains acknowledged. |
Circumstances affect responsibility. | Circumstances affect responsibility. |
Culpability is distinguished from the moral object of an action. | The relationship between diminished culpability and sacramental access becomes controversial. |
Pastoral care helps a person conform to the moral law. | Pastoral discernment may permit sacramental access in certain cases despite continuing objectively irregular conduct. |
The last row is where the controversy lies.
The analogy with de Lubac is not proof that Francis adopts de Lubac's philosophical position. It is a way of identifying a similar structural question: does the concrete situation merely affect how an objective truth is applied, or does it begin to determine the practical meaning of that truth?
4. The decisive test: John Paul II and Familiaris Consortio 84
This is where your earlier divine-law argument becomes especially important.
John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio §84 addresses divorced Catholics who have entered new unions.
He teaches that their admission to Eucharistic Communion cannot be granted when they continue to live in a manner objectively contradicting the indissolubility of marriage, unless they undertake to live in complete continence.
His reasoning is not merely disciplinary.
It involves:
The indissolubility of marriage.
The objective meaning of the Eucharist.
The public significance of sacramental Communion.
The relationship between Christ's teaching and the Church's sacramental practice.
John Paul II also explains that admitting such persons to Communion would lead the faithful into error concerning the indissolubility of marriage.
This is an objective theological argument, not simply a rule designed for administrative convenience.
See .
The important distinction is that John Paul II does not deny the possibility of diminished subjective culpability. He distinguishes that question from the objective conditions for Eucharistic admission.
5. The 2023 DDF response: The controversy becomes explicit
There is a particularly important development here.
In September 2023, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, responded to questions from Cardinal Dominik Duka concerning the administration of the Eucharist to divorced people living in new unions.
The response explicitly states:
Amoris Laetitia is ordinary pontifical Magisterium.
Francis's Buenos Aires interpretation was published as authentic Magisterium.
Francis maintains the proposal of complete continence.
Nevertheless, in certain cases, after discernment, sacramental access may be possible even when a person fails to maintain that continence.
The justification involves limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability.
This is important because it removes one possible ambiguity.
The Buenos Aires interpretation is not simply an argument that people who are already living in continence may receive Communion.
It explicitly contemplates certain cases in which continence is not maintained.
The question is whether this interpretation can be reconciled with the objective sacramental and moral principles articulated by John Paul II.
The DDF response asserts continuity with previous papal teaching. It cites John Paul II and Benedict XVI as recognizing sacramental access for divorced persons in new unions under the condition of complete continence, while explaining Francis's development as addressing cases where that condition is difficult to maintain.
But citing a previous teaching does not by itself demonstrate that the new application follows from it.
That is precisely where the philosophical and theological argument must be made.
6. Applying McInerny's argument directly
I would formulate the connection in four propositions.
First: Moral truth is grounded in the objective nature of human acts, not in subjective evaluation.
Second: Human responsibility is affected by knowledge, freedom, intention, and circumstances. Aquinas recognizes this.
Third: A reduction in subjective culpability does not change the objective moral character of an act.
Fourth: Therefore, a pastoral judgment about diminished culpability cannot, without further argument, establish that a person may receive the Eucharist while continuing conduct objectively contrary to the moral law.
The fourth proposition is the critical one. It requires a separate sacramental argument, not merely an argument about conscience.
That is where Familiaris Consortio 84, Veritatis Splendor 79–83, and the Eucharistic theology behind the prohibition become indispensable.
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and for the restoration of the Church.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo
I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo
Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To ...
Daily news from a Catholic perspective on issues relating to current events in the Catholic Church, world politi...
Conclave Notes:
-- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]
-- Dr. Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, to Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid" [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/dr-seifert-philosopher-personal-friend.html]
-- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy? [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]
-- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
Francis Notes:
l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
|
Conclave Notes:
-- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]
-- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy? [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]
-- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
Francis Notes:
l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]
– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Election Notes:
– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html
– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.
Comments