On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Of all the controversies surrounding Pope Francis, none has been as controversial as the publication of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. I continue to see in social media feeds calls for a papal response to the Dubia of the Four Cardinals as if this is either necessary or wise.{1} There has also been on occasion mention of the supposed Correctio{2} or the Open Letter to the Bishops{3} published earlier this year by many of the same folks involved in the Correctio with the same motivations in mind.
I have explained in no small detail and on a few different occasions{4} how to reconcile the teaching of Amoris Laetitia within the broader stream of Catholic traditional theological and spiritual principles. Most of those who struggle with this matter however are not as well informed of the intricacies involved as they think they are.{5} As a result, some take the easy route of presuming papal nefariousness{6} rather than being humble and presuming that there could be something being taught of value even if they do not fully comprehend it. Perhaps this kind of approach could spur them to greater humility when it comes to the realm of the theological sciences. It is not hard to proscribe these matters with greater severity.{7} But perhaps what is to be preferred here is "the balm of mercy to the arm of severity" (cf. Pope St. John XXIII: Second Vatican Council Opening Speech). The purpose of the present note is to provide that at this time.
In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.{9}This is a serious problem that infects no small number of folks who consider themselves faithful Catholics. For they think in the name of being faithful and traditional that zeal for the Catholic faith requires them to act presumptuously towards others. "Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name!"{10} For "[e]vil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God."{11}
One of the problems that permeates "the diseased and rebellious mindset of not a few of the so-called 'traditionalist' wing of the Church"{12} is their general bitterness. This is one of several indications that their zeal is not genuine. True zeal and charity are intertwined{13} and the habitual failure of some of these folks to manifest even the most rudimentary characteristics of charity{14} presents a strong probability that they are in the words of St. Paul "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."{15} The core problems of these supposedly "traditionalist" folks have now been identified using sources within the Catholic spiritual tradition: sources that a true Traditionalist worthy of the name{16} would be both familiar with as well as put into actual practice.{17} The question now remains: what remedies can we recommend?
It would seem appropriate to look for the answers in some of the material long recommended by the Church where these matters are concerned. The sources to consider for this are twofold. The first is from the official guide issued to confessors by the Vatican which is known as the Vademecum. The second is the guidance of the Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Ligouri who in writing on moral theology set forth some principles surrounding the Sacrament of Penance that are well worth considering. Let us treat on these sources now and do so in reverse order.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri is widely considered one of the pre-eminent writers in the Church on matters of moral theology. He lived in a time when Jansenism was rampant and he directed his efforts against it. Jansenism was a heresy which involved an excessive rigorist approach. St. Alphonsus Ligouri's approach to combatting Jansenist tendencies in moral theology were widely approved by many notable church leaders for their salutory effects amongst the faithful. He died in 1787, was beatified by Pope Pius VII in 1816, and was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839. Pope Pius IX then declared him a Doctor of the Church in 1871. Finally, Pope Pius XII proclaimed him the patron of confessors and moral theologians in 1950. So considering the latter factors, this should give his methodology a certain degree of credibility amongst those who would claim to be more Traditional in their approach to these matters.{18}
In his writings on matters pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance, St. Alphonsus Ligouri said some things that could well be quite shocking to modern-day neo-Jansenist sorts. For example, consider this instruction he gives to confessors on how to handle certain confessional difficulties:
The same Vademecum also makes it clear with one such example that it cites that frequent relapses into one sin considered objectively grave{22} does not in itself constitute a motive for denying absolution.{23} This principle therefore would apply logically to other sins considered objectively grave or mortal. Hopefully, those who up to now have continued to complain about the perceived errors of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in this area now realize that AL was not really saying anything novel in this area. What was new however was AL took a long established principle used by confessors and applied it in a more general sense. Or as I explained in one of the threads on the Correctio subject:
It is my hope that reflection on these matters from the perspective outlined in this thread will help those who have struggled in good faith{29} to cease "kicking against the goad" (cf. Acts xxvi,14) and accept this teaching of the pope's authentic magisterium{30} with the proper disposition of an authentically faithful Catholic. This is ultimately determined not by the opinions of others but instead by the Church's Magisterium itself.{31} Pope Pius XII once said "our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church" (Humani Generis §21). It would do well for those who consider themselves More Faithful Than Thou to remember this exhortation and seek to put it into practice themselves for it is only by "due reverend and submission" (cf. Humani Generis §42) thereby "[professed] toward the Teaching Authority of the Church" (cf. Humani Generis §42) that we know the authenticity (or lack thereof) of their claims to faithfulness.
The confessor is also obliged to instruct the penitent if he is culpably ignorant of any point of natural or positive law. If he is inculpably ignorant, it depends. If he is inculpably ignorant of something necessary for salvation, then the confessor is obliged to instruct him. If he is inculpably ignorant of some other matter (of which he can be ignorant) – even something of the divine law, the confessor should prudently decide whether the instruction will be profitable for the penitent. If it will not be profitable, he should not make the correction, but rather leave him in good faith.{19}In other words, the confessor is at times instructed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri not to correct the penitent if the confessor judges them as inculpably ignorant. Instead, the confessor is to leave the penitent to their error in good faith and absolve them. That methodology is strangely similar to a presumptively controversial part of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia! Moving onto the Vademecum, we find these instructions given to confessors by the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the Family in a collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Apostolic Penitentiary:
The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin.{20}The Vatican has made this principle of St. Alphonsus Ligouri one that it instructs its confessors to use. Confessors are to leave penitents in good faith and absolve them even if the confessor foresees that the penitent is likely not prepared to change their conduct. (Despite being generally oriented towards a life of faith.) This does not change the objective gravity of the sin of course. What it does however is recognize that at times a persons subjective ignorance is preferred to putting them in a state where their material sin becomes a formal one. This goes hand in hand with a principle quoted earlier in this paper from the Catholic spiritual tradition; namely that "by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn [it] often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence."{21}
The same Vademecum also makes it clear with one such example that it cites that frequent relapses into one sin considered objectively grave{22} does not in itself constitute a motive for denying absolution.{23} This principle therefore would apply logically to other sins considered objectively grave or mortal. Hopefully, those who up to now have continued to complain about the perceived errors of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in this area now realize that AL was not really saying anything novel in this area. What was new however was AL took a long established principle used by confessors and applied it in a more general sense. Or as I explained in one of the threads on the Correctio subject:
The idea that “[t]he Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301) is not new.[...] A consistent application of that data to all situations where grave matter is present however has long been lacking where the subject of marriage is concerned.[...] Pope Francis is putting an end to the double standard where this issue is concerned and saying it will henceforth be discerned in the same manner as any other is.{24}There is I suppose an argument that could be raised about whether this a prudent course of action of course. However, as I explained when going over the Malta dioceses guidelines subject, the binding and loosing authority on these matters in Catholic teaching is the Pope:
Pope Francis possesses the authority to make decisions pertaining to Church discipline as “the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance” (Pope Gregory XVI: Enc. Let. Quo Gravior §6)...Pope Francis is well within his right on these matters having “received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See” (Vatican I: Dogm. Const. Pastor Aeternus §2)...
Pope Francis can at his discretion allow persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin to receive holy Communion as long as judging by their own conscience and with the guidance of their confessor or pastor they are not in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin. The minimum requirement for reception of Communion is baptism and to not be conscious of unrepentant actual mortal sin.{25}When we consider all facets of this equation, the objections of the presumptively More Faithful Than Thou folks are without merit. They would be advised to approach these matters less like Pharisees{26} but instead with a humbler recognition of their own flaws. For they would be disqualified from receiving Holy Communion if their own standards{27} were applied with consistency.{28}
It is my hope that reflection on these matters from the perspective outlined in this thread will help those who have struggled in good faith{29} to cease "kicking against the goad" (cf. Acts xxvi,14) and accept this teaching of the pope's authentic magisterium{30} with the proper disposition of an authentically faithful Catholic. This is ultimately determined not by the opinions of others but instead by the Church's Magisterium itself.{31} Pope Pius XII once said "our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church" (Humani Generis §21). It would do well for those who consider themselves More Faithful Than Thou to remember this exhortation and seek to put it into practice themselves for it is only by "due reverend and submission" (cf. Humani Generis §42) thereby "[professed] toward the Teaching Authority of the Church" (cf. Humani Generis §42) that we know the authenticity (or lack thereof) of their claims to faithfulness.
"Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself." [Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42]
Notes:
{1} And it is neither as the Dubia of the Four Cardinals is not difficult to answer. See these threads for details:
{2} See these threads for details:
To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)
On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)
{3} See this thread for details:
On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc. (circa May 14, 2019)
{4} See footnotes one, two, and three for details.
{5} See footnote four.
{6} See footnote four. I should note as well that this is an area not well understood by virtually all pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists out there either -be they Catholic or not.
{7} See footnotes one, two, and three as well as the following material:
"[St. Robert Cardinal] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:
{8} "[S]urely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds." [Pope Gregory the Great: Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 (circa 601) as Quoted in the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)]
{9} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-154 (c. 1795)
{10} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)
{11} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)
{12} See the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia for details.
{13} "'If your zeal is bitter', says St. James, 'it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical'. (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.
The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. 'Charity', says St. Paul, 'is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own.' (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)" [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 158 (c. 1795)]
{14} "Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil." [1 Cor xiii,4-5]
{15} 1 Cor. xiii,1
{16} To the degree that such terms should even be used to begin with that is:
{18} It would be an odd thing indeed for any of them to accuse these pre-Second Vatican Council popes of being less than fully Traditional after all!
{19} St. Alphonsus Ligouri: Excerpt from Guide For Confessors, pg. 14 (circa 1755)
{20} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,8 (circa February 12, 1997)
{21} See footnote twelve.
{22} Namely, contraception.
{23} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,11 (circa February 12, 1997)
{24} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
{25} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
{26} See the quoted material in footnote seven.
{27} See this for details:
{28} "According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]
{1} And it is neither as the Dubia of the Four Cardinals is not difficult to answer. See these threads for details:
Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject (circa April 9, 2017)
More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)
More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)
{2} See these threads for details:
To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)
On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)
{3} See this thread for details:
On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc. (circa May 14, 2019)
{5} See footnote four.
{6} See footnote four. I should note as well that this is an area not well understood by virtually all pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists out there either -be they Catholic or not.
{7} See footnotes one, two, and three as well as the following material:
"[St. Robert Cardinal] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:
As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.[...]To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]
{8} "[S]urely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds." [Pope Gregory the Great: Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 (circa 601) as Quoted in the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)]
{9} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-154 (c. 1795)
{10} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)
{11} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)
{12} See the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia for details.
{13} "'If your zeal is bitter', says St. James, 'it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical'. (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.
The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. 'Charity', says St. Paul, 'is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own.' (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)" [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 158 (c. 1795)]
{14} "Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil." [1 Cor xiii,4-5]
{15} 1 Cor. xiii,1
{16} To the degree that such terms should even be used to begin with that is:
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §24 (circa November 1, 1914)]{17} "Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, Section II, In Brief §2505 (circa October 11, 1992)]
{18} It would be an odd thing indeed for any of them to accuse these pre-Second Vatican Council popes of being less than fully Traditional after all!
{19} St. Alphonsus Ligouri: Excerpt from Guide For Confessors, pg. 14 (circa 1755)
{20} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,8 (circa February 12, 1997)
{21} See footnote twelve.
{22} Namely, contraception.
{23} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,11 (circa February 12, 1997)
{24} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
{25} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)
{26} See the quoted material in footnote seven.
{27} See this for details:
{28} "According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]
{29} I have long sought to presume the good faith in folks a priori unless by their actions and statements they show a habitual pattern of not returning the favour unto others. When that sort of thing happens, then the reference in footnote twenty-eight applies.
{30} By including the similarly-outlined Buenos Aires guidelines and Pope Francis' letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires in the Acta Apostolicae Sanctis (AAS), it was made clear by Pope Francis how he intends the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on the points in question. This was further buttressed by a papal rescript included in the AAS by Cardinal Pietro Parolin the Vatican Secretary of State indicating the manifest mind, will, and intention of the Supreme Pontiff. Cardinal Francisco Coccopalmerio of the Pontifical Commission For Legislative Texts confirmed Cardinal Parolin's rescript position as did Bishop Juan Ignatio Arrieta, secretary of the pontifical council and prelate to the Apostolic Penitentiary. See this link for more details.
These are matters which are frequently not well grasped by most folks including various pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who think they know more than they do. For this reason, I will be addressing in expository format the subject of the magisterium, all its pertinent intricacies, as well as what it is not. This is a project that will be published early in the coming year.
{31} See footnote thirty and also recall this passage from the Second Vatican Council (all emphasis is mine):
{30} By including the similarly-outlined Buenos Aires guidelines and Pope Francis' letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires in the Acta Apostolicae Sanctis (AAS), it was made clear by Pope Francis how he intends the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on the points in question. This was further buttressed by a papal rescript included in the AAS by Cardinal Pietro Parolin the Vatican Secretary of State indicating the manifest mind, will, and intention of the Supreme Pontiff. Cardinal Francisco Coccopalmerio of the Pontifical Commission For Legislative Texts confirmed Cardinal Parolin's rescript position as did Bishop Juan Ignatio Arrieta, secretary of the pontifical council and prelate to the Apostolic Penitentiary. See this link for more details.
These are matters which are frequently not well grasped by most folks including various pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who think they know more than they do. For this reason, I will be addressing in expository format the subject of the magisterium, all its pertinent intricacies, as well as what it is not. This is a project that will be published early in the coming year.
{31} See footnote thirty and also recall this passage from the Second Vatican Council (all emphasis is mine):
[R]eligious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §25 (circa November 21, 1964)]
