Reverend Fr. Brian Harrison:

I am writing to you after reading your recent open letter to the Roman Pontiff with much interest. While I recognize your concern for the life of the Church, I regret to say that I found certain statements in your letter which appear ambiguous and may contribute further to the ongoing controversy surrounding Amoris Laetitia.

For this reason, I address you in the form of an open letter, in the hope that by revisiting these statements from your letter, some of the potential confusion that may arise from them might be clarified and dispelled.

In your letter, you observe that (my emphasis from now on):

[Amoris Laetitia] teaches doctrines which none of its apologists have succeeded in reconciling persuasively with the bimillennial magisterial tradition of the Catholic Church, derived directly from Sacred Scripture.

As someone who published an entire book on this matter—The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia (Wipf and Stock, 2022)— I was initially intrigued by your claim and wondered whether you would present counterarguments I had not yet considered.

Regrettably, however, what followed was merely a repetition of citations from Familiaris Consortio, no. 84 and the Catechism, without substantive engagement with the arguments I had already advanced in my work.

Nevertheless, chapter 12 of my book is devoted entirely to reconciling Amoris Laetitia with Familiaris Consortio, and chapter 14 addresses the relevant passages of the Catechism.

In my work, I argue that the sacramental discipline laid out in Amoris Laetitia is based on the distinction between mortal sin and venial sin. Whereas mortal sin precludes someone from the Eucharist, venial sin does not.

Mortal sin requires three simultaneous conditions to be present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. If one or more of these is lacking, then there is no mortal sin.

Everything I have said above can be found in the Catechism:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.

Certain mitigating factors can impair full knowledge and deliberate consent to the point that a sin with grave matter is no longer a mortal sin.

The much-discussed footnote in Amoris Laetitia comes in the wake of a section dealing specifically with factors that diminish full knowledge and consent, so that it “can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin” (Amoris Laetitia, no. 301).

In your letter, you acknowledge that you are familiar with what I have expounded above. However, you also say that this is all “beside the point.”

Yet, the sacramental discipline at the heart of Amoris Laetitia rests precisely on this. How can this be considered “beside the point”, when it is the whole point?

Your answer:

Pope Francis’s predecessors in the See of Peter were of course well aware of such mitigating factors. But they nonetheless absolutely excluded from Communion anyone living in adultery, precisely because of their objective status.

This is true, and you cite Familiaris Consortio, no. 84, in support of your position. However, you omit from that quote a part of the text that is significant: That citation starts by saying that the Church is reaffirming her “practice.” In other words, what is being described is a matter of discipline, not immutable doctrine.

A discipline, by its nature, can be changed. The fact that the previous discipline was grounded in the objective status of the relationship does not preclude the possibility of a new discipline that takes mitigating factors into account.

You attempt to justify this point by stating that “dozens of Scriptural passages and magisterial interventions over two millennia bear witness to the fact that withholding the Eucharist from such persons is a matter of divine law, not mutable disciplinary legislation.”

This is a serious claim. Yet you do not indicate which Scriptural passages or magisterial interventions you have in mind.

If you do decide to provide them in the future, it is important to remember that the issue is not whether this objective situation is sinful, nor whether previous sacramental disciplines were different, nor whether people in mortal sin should be excluded from the Eucharist. Those are a given.

The issue is whether the exclusion from Communion in the circumstances permitted by Amoris Laetitia truly contradicts divine law or instead falls within the scope of mutable disciplinary legislation.

Any sources provided by you in support of that should be explicit on this matter; if they are used to support a point that, while related, does not address the actual question—whether this is a matter of divine law rather than mutable sacramental discipline—the discussion risks further ambiguity and may add to the considerable confusion that critiques of Amoris Laetitia have already created.

As for the Catechism, I would like to point out the words of Joseph Ratzinger in Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press, 1994), p. 26:

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receives no other weight than that which they already possess.

In other words, the section of the Catechism you cite in your letter is essentially restating Familiaris Consortio, reflecting the sacramental discipline that was in effect at that time, and deriving its authority from it.

Now that Amoris Laetitia has complemented the previous discipline, the Catechism should be understood in continuity with it, since its authority does not supersede that of Amoris Laetitia.

Indeed, the Catechism itself acknowledges the existence of mitigating factors in several passages (nos. 1735, 1860, 2352), which Amoris Laetitia, no. 302, cites in order to ground its sacramental discipline.

These points were already addressed in my book three years ago, though I am by no means the only apologist to engage in the very passages you cite.

For example, in his book Pope Francis, the Family, and Divorce (Paulist Press, 2018), Stephen Walford acknowledges the rationale presented in Familiaris Consortio, no. 84 (p. 16). Later, in chapter V, he outlines the moral theology underlying Amoris Laetitia, ultimately arguing that Familiaris Consortio allows for certain nuanced cases.

It is noteworthy that this book was prefaced by Pope Francis himself upon its publication.

Another author, Rocco Buttiglione, a disciple of St. John Paul II, wrote Risposte Amichevoli ai Critici di Amoris Laetitia (Ares, 2017). This book addresses Familiaris Consortio, no. 84, on two occasions: first, to explain how Amoris Laetitia does not repudiate Familiaris Consortio (pp. 105–109), and second, to outline the theological and anthropological continuity between John Paul II’s thought and Amoris Laetitia (pp. 117–169).

In my book, I also cite several references from theologians in good standing, published in reputable theological journals, who convincingly argue that Familiaris Consortio, no. 84, concerns a matter of discipline. Among them is Victor Fernández, future Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his article “El capítulo VIII de Amoris Laetitia: lo que queda después de la tormenta” (Medellín, Vol. XLIII, No. 168, May–Aug 2017, pp. 459–461).

In fact, in his papal biography The Wounded Shepherd (Henry Holt and Co., 2019, pp. 249–250, 361–362), Austen Ivereigh notes that some theologians were confused when Familiaris Consortio tied its sacramental discipline to the way divorced and remarried couples were understood to contradict the union between Christ and the Church.

According to Ivereigh, these theologians were “troubled with doctrinal continuity,” as this reasoning had “no provenance in the councils (Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II) nor in the two papal encyclicals on marriage: neither Casti Connubii of 1930 nor Humanae Vitae of 1968.”

This, of course, does not diminish the legitimacy of the sacramental discipline laid out in Familiaris Consortio, no. 84, during the time it was in effect. It does show, however, that one cannot simply assert this discipline to be a matter of unchangeable, divine law.

In spite of this, you assert that no apologist has succeeded in persuasively reconciling Amoris Laetitia with the Church’s tradition. But then, you simply re-quote passages that have long been addressed in the existing discourse.

Such a characterization comes across as dismissive, since a number of apologists have, in fact, engaged these passages in the past. Alternatively, your statement raises the question of whether you are fully aware of the extensive body of work that has been put forth on this contentious topic since 2017.

This is concerning for me, since in recent years, we witnessed a wealth of public petitions and open letters in which respected theologians urged the Vicar of Christ to withdraw or amend magisterial teachings, most notably Amoris Laetitia.

Regrettably, this same tendency now risks carrying over into the present pontificate.

This is troubling, for as Donum Veritatis, no. 30, reminds us, theologians who struggle with aspects of magisterial teaching are offered proper and respectful avenues for expressing their difficulties:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

Reverend Father, in light of the above, I respectfully invite you to consider the sources I have provided, in accordance with what Donum Veritatis, no. 29, asks of theologians: “[to strive] to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.”

I offer this not out of presumption, but simply to assist in what Donum Veritatis describes as a “loyal effort on the theologian’s part” to address his concerns. Should “difficulties persist” after such careful reflection, I would respectfully encourage following the proper venues outlined in the Instruction, which are intended to guide the resolution of such matters.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully in Christ,

Pedro Gabriel