Analysis: Was ‘Amoris Laetitia’ the beginning of the end?

Among the many documents issued by Pope Francis, perhaps the most consequential was his post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. While the document aimed to offer a broad and predominantly positive vision of marriage, its message and legacy became overshadowed by controversy surrounding a brief footnote in Chapter 8 — one that had profound repercussions.

This footnote, which permitted limited access to Holy Communion for divorced individuals in new unions, not only ignited a heated debate over the legitimacy of such a teaching but also marked a turning point in Pope Francis’ relationship with a significant segment of the Catholic faithful. Many began to view him as doctrinally unreliable, causing a deep rift within the Church.

Ultimately, Amoris Laetitia became the moment when a substantial number of Catholics lost trust in Pope Francis’ pontificate, triggering criticism — at times harsh and uncharitable — that continues to shape perceptions of his leadership.    

The First Synod on the Family (2014) 

The controversies began during the First Synod on the Family, convened by Pope Francis in October 2014, which was marked by intense debate and media speculation, particularly following the publication of the midterm Relatio (Relatio post disceptationem). The secular media quickly seized on its language regarding homosexuality and the divorced and remarried, producing headlines such as “Synod signals Catholic shift on gays” and “Vatican’s New Views On Gays, Divorced.”

The Holy See Press Office soon released a statement to clarify that the document was “a working document, which summarizes the interventions and debate of the first week.” It further noted, “often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature.”

Among the most vocal critics of the Relatio was Sudafrican Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, then archbishop of Durban who then stated, “that’s Cardinal Erdo’s text, not the synod text.” He questioned whether “some expectations of the synod are unrealistic” and stressed that “the synod is not called to discuss contraception, abortion, same-sex marriages. It was convoked to speak about the family.” He also warned, “How it is written, the Relatio conveys that there is an agreement on issues, on which there is not in fact an agreement.”

On his turn, Cardinal Erdo highlighted that it was not his document, especially not the parts that refer to homosexuality and Communion to the divorced, and blamed Italian bishop Bruno Forte, a confidant of Pope Francis.

Other prelates, including Cardinal Fernando Filoni, also expressed concerns, emphasizing that synod fathers “were surprised by the first reactions published in the media, as if the Pope has declared, as if the synod has decided … it is not true!” He reiterated that the document was merely a working text.

Further criticisms of the Relatio included its failure to highlight faithful families and the indissolubility of marriage. Many synod fathers also lamented that the document did not adequately address the importance of women in transmitting life and faith, nor did it sufficiently mention the role of the family as the “domestic Church.”

Regarding the issue that would end up being the heart of Amoris Laetitia’s controversy, Communion for the divorced and remarried, the Holy See Press Office summarized the concerns of synod fathers: “For instance, regarding admission to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried, it was said that it is difficult to welcome exceptions without exceptions becoming a common rule.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced strong opposition to the Relatio, stating, “The Relatio is simply riven with very serious difficulties, and I’m deeply, deeply concerned and I’m not alone.”

The pushback during the Second Synod on the Family (2015) 

As the Second Synod on the Family commenced in October 2015, controversy emerged over procedural changes that led 13 cardinals, including Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Cardinal George Pell, to write a letter to Pope Francis expressing the concern that the Synod was somehow “rigged” to lead to specific conclusions. In a confidential letter that was disclosed by Italian Vatican analyst Sandro Magister, they warned that the synodal process appeared “designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.”

They criticized the guiding document (Instrumentum laboris), arguing that it “cannot adequately serve as a guiding text or the foundation of a final document.” They also lamented the new procedures, stating, “The new synodal procedures will be seen in some quarters as lacking openness and genuine collegiality.” 

The letter continued, “A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.”

During the synod discussions, Cardinal Pell and others referenced these concerns. Pope Francis responded by affirming, “Catholic doctrine on marriage has not been touched,” while cautioning against “the impression that the only problem of the synod is that of Communion for the divorced.”

Despite this reassurance, concerns persisted, particularly as Pope Francis had appointed a drafting commission composed overwhelmingly of bishops supportive of change. Critics feared that “in a sprawling, rambling text like the Instrumentum, it is much easier for a repeat of the 2014 synod to take place.”

Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle defended the new approach, saying, “The new method adopted by the synod has definitely caused a bit of confusion, but it is good to be confused once in a while. If things are always clear, then we might not be in real life anymore.”

Prior to Amoris Laetitia, the Church’s teaching was explicit. Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (1981) stated, “The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) reinforced this, stating that such individuals “cannot receive Eucharistic Communion as long as this situation persists.”

Pope Francis drops the bomb in Amoris Laetitia

Despite the assurances that the synods were not “rigged,” Pope Francis ended up dropping the “Communion bomb” in Amoris Laetitia, which arises in Chapter 8, particularly paragraph 305, and states: “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.” The footnote (351) elaborates: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.”

Critics argue this directly contradicts previous Church teachings. In an article published in Catholic World Report on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of the document,  E. Christian Brugger and Father Peter Ryan noted that while Amoris Laetitia “never explicitly asserts anything contrary to divine revelation,” it leaves “the disconcerting question of whether AL implicitly contradicts divine revelation.”

Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, one of the primary drafters of Amoris Laetitia, defended the text, stating, “The Pope wishes pastors to consider ‘the complexity of particular situations’ where he believes the terms ‘fornicator’ or ‘adulterer’ would be inappropriate.”

The Dubia from the Four Cardinals

The controversy around the papal document reached a critical point when Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller, and Joachim Meisner formally submitted five   Dubia to Pope Francis, addressing the following concerns:

• Does Amoris Laetitia allow divorced and remarried individuals to receive absolution and Holy Communion without fulfilling the conditions set by previous documents like Familiaris Consortio, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, and Sacramentum Caritatis? They question if the phrase “in certain cases” in footnote 351 can apply to such individuals living in a new union.
• Amoris Laetitia still upholds the teaching of Veritatis Splendor (n. 79) that absolute moral norms exist, prohibiting intrinsically evil acts without exceptions?
• Does it remain possible to affirm that a person habitually living in contradiction to God’s law (e.g., adultery) is in an objective situation of grave habitual sin?
• Amoris Laetitia maintains the teaching of Veritatis Splendor (n. 81) that circumstances or intentions cannot transform an intrinsically evil act into a subjectively good choice?
• Amoris Laetitia still supports the teaching of Veritatis Splendor (n. 56) that conscience cannot justify exceptions to absolute moral norms prohibiting intrinsically evil acts?

Pope Francis never officially responded.

A case for ‘Amoris Laetitia’ 

The ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia led to varied episcopal guidelines worldwide. The bishops of the region of Buenos Aires published a collective document stating that “in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability, especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist … But we have to avoid understanding this possibility as an unlimited access to the sacraments, as if all situations warrant it.”

Pope Francis signaled this interpretation as the only valid one and approved it as official teaching of the Church.

But it did not prevent others, like Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, or Bishop Steven Lopes of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter to reaffirm traditional teaching, stating that couples who are not validly married but living a sexual relationship cannot receive absolution or Communion without at least an intent to abstain from sexual relations.

Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez, then rector of the Catholic University in Argentina and the main drafter of Amoris Laetitia, defended the document in a conference published by the Latin American theological magazine  Medellín on the occasion of the first anniversary of the document.

Fernandez explained that the Pope sought to advance this controversial issue “in a discreet way,” through footnote 351, because he wanted the other chapters on love to be the central focus of the document. However, he acknowledged the furor that ensued over the footnote, so the opposite happened from what was intended.

He also affirmed that Pope Francis is concerned not with a person’s awareness of the gap between their situation and the objective moral norm, but rather the issue of responsibility and culpability, which can be diminished depending on circumstance.

The Pope, Fernandez argued, has always maintained that only a person in a state of grace can receive Holy Communion, but also that an objectively grave fault is not sufficient to deprive a person of sanctifying grace, thus “permitting a path of discernment” to receiving the Eucharist, along with a person using their conscience, aided by a pastor and enlightened by Church teaching.

The neverending debate

But despite the effort of its apologists, Amoris Laetitia never stopped being a bone of contention and the first step into the systematic questioning of Pope Francis’ magisterium by many Catholics.

Explaining why the controversy will accompany the memory of Pope Francis, Father Raymond De Souza said,“Given the long and detailed tradition it was attempting to modify, if not overturn, Amoris Laetitia would have had to address the relevant issues forthrightly and with a great deal more sophistication than it does. The magisterium is a public act of teaching; it cannot proceed by stealth.”

He concluded, “I stand by that earlier assessment, but before Amoris Laetitia is set aside for practical purposes, it is now likely that there will be several years of confusion, conflict and even rancor.”