One of the most polemical aspects of Francis’ Amoris laetitia is regarding the `law of gradualness’. Anyone who takes the trouble to analyze what Francis affirms comes up with a poorly veiled attempt to abolish the Law of God in relation the sixth and ninth Commandments of the Decalogue. As well as a subversion of the teachings of Jesus regarding the sacraments of the Eucharist and of Matrimony. Let us examine this question to reach conclusions.

FIRST PART

João Paulo II proposes a ‘law of gradualness’ aware that the human being ‘knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth’.

Francis speaks of a law of gradualness which he attributes to John Paul II (cited in the notes 323 and 324 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, published in the year 1981, numbers 34 and 39 (we will analyze these original texts further on). Let us examine Francis’ words first:

[Francis in Amoris Laetitia] 295. Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called ‘law of gradualness’ in the knowledge that the human being ‘knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth’. This is not a ‘gradualness of law’ but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being ‘advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life’.

After this excerpt, the following title is:

The discernment of ‘irregular’ situations

 296. The Synod addressed various situations of weakness or imperfection.

He continues, mentioning a specific case, after a lengthy divergence already examined in another of our studies [see here]:

298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations ‘where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate’.

Putting aside the absurdity of what he calls ‘proven fidelity’ in relation to a ‘second spouse’ or to any other person on the part of one who is not in the state of grace, and, therefore, deprived of the divine assistance to maintain their fidelity – we must remember that Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly explains that no one may practice virtue stably without the help of divine grace stating: “Hence, Augustine (De Corrupt. et Grat. II) having stated that ‘without grace men can do no good whatever,’ adds: ‘Not only do they know by its light what to do, but by its help they do lovingly what they know;’ thus, in both states they need the help of God’s motion in order to fulfill the commandments, as stated above” (Summa Theologica I-II, q. 109, a. 4).

We consider the possibility of ‘Christian compromise’ of the person that gives objective scandal in living in a state which is contrary to the perfect fidelity of Christ to his Church, let us examine how Bergoglio deals with the case.

First of all, in number 298, he recognizes that:

It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family.

But soon after he proposes a mysterious way out: ‘discernment’.

The discernment of pastors must always take place ‘by adequately distinguishing’, with an approach which ‘carefully discerns situations’. We know that no ‘easy recipes’ exist.

After another digression (perhaps to mislead the reader), he once again uses the term (in number 300), after the surprising declaration that one should not hope for a ‘new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases.’ The reason for this declaration becomes clearer further on.

300. If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of   general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases.   What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of   responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.

The truth is that general norms already exist for the application of the principles of Catholic morals in particular cases. They are well researched documents reflecting great discernment, written by the most authorized sectors of the Catholic Church: the Dicasteries of the Vatican Curia. Francis doesn’t ignore them, for he even cites them as we shall observe. But he uses only parts of these documents, taking advantage of certain texts, so that in the name of ‘particular cases’ and ‘discernment’, the moral law ends up being denied!

After arguing that ‘in the same law there is no gradualness’ and that ‘this discernment may never overtake the requirements of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church’ he goes on to ‘attenuating circumstances in pastoral discernment’. Francis then begins to cite diverse sources (such as the Catechism and Saint Thomas) that point toward the diminishment of the subjective culpability of the concrete acts. These citations are so interesting that they deserve another study. Then, it clearly states (in number 301):

A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, ‘factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision’.

This citation is the same no. 33 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio that we shall examine further on. The question of moral dilemma also deserves a special examination, where one could ‘be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’ But for the moment we continue to grope in search of the famous ‘discernment’.

302. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved [345] .

This citation is from a Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Interpretation of Legislative Texts regarding ‘The admission to Holy Communion of the faithful who are divorced and remarried’! But, unfortunately…once again it is cited very selectively as we shall see later on.

And now comes the cherry on top:

303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

Continuing:

Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

For those who thought that the ‘responsible personal and pastoral discernment’ would help to ‘enlighten, form and guide the conscience’ to want to practice the Law of God, it now becomes clear… It really means to ‘recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel’ but also to ‘recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God’ and to ‘come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking AMID THE CONCRETE COMPLEXITY OF ONE’S LIMITS, WHILE YET NOT FULLY THE OBJECTIVE IDEAL.’

Soon after, we come upon one of the statements spread throughout the document that practically contradict what came immediately before, but not blatantly of course, in an attempt to not entirely unmask Francis’ intent: ‘In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.’ It is not clear whether these ‘new stages of growth’ that ‘enable the ideal to be more fully realized’ refer to all morality in itself. Or even, if this were the case, within what time frame. Or still if it is possible to halt at a so to say intermediary stage of growth.

What is certain is that:

304. It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being.

Once again, discernment implies that the ‘concrete existence’ departs from the ‘general norm or law’. As we see in the same number 304:

[304] It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.

The conclusion of this whole pseudo-reasoning is that: it is necessary to maintain the law in theory, while admitting that there are an enormous number of concrete situations – and it is worthwhile asking at this point which human situation is not ‘concrete’! – that serve as states that are intermediate (better put: sinful) wherein one may live very well, with a tranquil conscience that one is in some point along the line whose last end is the Law of God… AND ONE MAY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS IN THIS STATE. In a word, the law exists for an ideal abstract world, but no one needs to apply it to real life.

Do our readers reach a different conclusion than ours? It is sufficient to read that which comes directly after, in number 305 (after a citation of Francis himself and another restricted citation from a document about the Natural Law):

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

To make things absolutely clear, in the (in)famous note 351, Francis exemplifies what is the ‘help of the Church’: ‘IN CERTAIN CASES, THIS CAN INCLUDE THE HELP OF THE SACRAMENTS.’

Regarding this, Francis’ belief that the Precious Body and Blood of Christ should be administered to adulterers for their greater perdition, had already become evident to anyone who had ‘eyes to see’, when examining number 298, in which he speaks of the imaginary second unions of Christian commitment and ‘proven fidelity’. Once again, he adds an (incomplete) citation of Familiaris consortio:

298. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations ‘where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate’.

But in this note 329, he cuts off the phrase pronounced by John Paul II. Let us examine what the selection really says, in its entirety:

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples. (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 84, November 22, 1981).

It is noteworthy that Francis omits precisely what John Paul II says before and after the citation. And then he completes the ill-fated note 329 with a reference to a conciliar document Gaudium et spes. Is it necessary to mention that here as well he does the same? Let us examine the passage:

[Note 329] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

So then, these people in a ‘second union’ should not live as the Church (and God) orders, as ‘brothers and sisters’ that is ‘not more uxorio’ with the pretext that: ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ insinuating that this is what Gaudium et spes determined. But what did Gaudium et spes really say in number 51?

This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered. To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love. (Vatican Council II. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, no. 51, December 7, 1965)

The Council is speaking, once again, of a family that is well constituted by the Sacraments (and not of a situation of concubinage). And it is to these properly denoted ‘families’ that the Law of God is imposed upon by the Council.

It is also noteworthy that Francis carefully and euphemistically avoids explaining what exactly are these ‘expressions of intimacy’ that he wishes to authorize indicating to the text of Gaudium et spes. But Gaudium et spes is a clear document: it clearly uses the word ‘procreation’ in the phrase immediately preceeding the citation above. Therefore, once again, Francis shows his intention to abolish the holy Law of God.

SECOND PART

Let us examine an important section of John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio. It does not require much explanation because the text is clear, as opposed to Francis’ document that we analyzed in the first part of this study (see here). It clearly shows that John Paul II didn’t have anything to hide…

The law of gradualness cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law’

Since the moral order reveals and sets forth the plan of God the Creator, for this very reason it cannot be something that harms man, something impersonal. On the contrary, by responding to the deepest demands of the human being created by God, it places itself at the service of that person’s full humanity with the delicate and binding love whereby God Himself inspires, sustains and guides every creature towards its happiness.
But man, who has been called to live God’s wise and loving design in a responsible manner, is an historical being who day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth.
Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. ‘And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations. In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will.’ [95] (John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)

There cannot be any split or ‘dichotomy’ between instruction and doctrine

Let us interrupt the reading of the text Familiaris consortio in order to examine citation 95, extracted from a homily of John Paul II at the closing of the V Synod of the Bishops, October 25, 1980. The citation in itself is quite clear, and even preceded by this pearl (was it perhaps directed to bishop Bergoglio? The bolding is ours):

Thinking of those who have pastoral care of married couples and families, the synod fathers rejected any split or ‘dichotomy’ between instruction (which is necessary for any progress in fulfilling the will of God) and doctrine (which the Church teaches with all its consequences and which includes the command to live according to that doctrine). It is not a matter of keeping the law as a mere ‘ideal’ to be obeyed in the future. It is a question of the mandate of Christ the Lord that difficulties should be overcome continually. (John Paul II. Homily at the Close of the Fifth Synod of Bishops, no. 8, October 25, 1980)

Alas! If Pope John Paul II had read Amoris Laetitia…what would he have said?

Continuing with Familiaris consortio, it is very clear that there are no ‘different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations’:

On the same lines, it is part of the Church’s pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm.
As the Synod noted, this pedagogy embraces the whole of married life. Accordingly, the function of transmitting life must be integrated into the overall mission of Christian life as a whole, which without the Cross cannot reach the Resurrection. In such a context it is understandable that sacrifice cannot be removed from family life, but must in fact be wholeheartedly accepted if the love between husband and wife is to be deepened and become a source of intimate joy.
This shared progress demands reflection, instruction and suitable education on the part of the priests, religious and lay people engaged in family pastoral work: they will all be able to assist married people in their human and spiritual progress, a progress that demands awareness of sin, a sincere commitment to observe the moral law, and the ministry of reconciliation. (John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)

Pardon one more interruption in our reading of Familiaris consortio, but we wish to emphasize one point in particular: Pope John Paul II points toward a ‘sincere commitment to observe the moral law’ from the beginning, as well as the sacrament of reconciliation to continually maintain oneself in the state of grace. And he continues:

It will be easier for married people to make progress if, with respect for the Church’s teaching and with trust in the grace of Christ, and with the help and support of the pastors of souls and the entire ecclesial community, they are able to discover and experience the liberating and inspiring value of the authentic love that is offered by the Gospel and set before us by the Lord’s commandment. (John Paul II. Apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio, no. 34, November 22, 1981)

There are no intermediate states between sin and grace

John Paul II makes an invitation to experience true interior liberation by following the doctrine of Christ with the help of his grace. That is, the teachings of the Holy Church, for two millennia, that it is necessary to practice the Law of God, and that this is not impossible for anyone with the help of grace, which God never fails to grant.

This means that John Paul II is not speaking about intermediate states between sin, where it is possible to come to a stop. On the contrary, the gradualness that he speaks of is a progressive path within virtue to obtain greater union with God.

This is very clear from the beginning: he is speaking of the family in the true meaning of the term: two people united by the sacrament and their legitimate children, not ‘second unions’, ‘civil marriage’ or other euphemisms for adultery.

The real interpretation of Familiaris consortio cannot have been unknown to Francis, for in 1997 (16 years after the publication of the document in question) the Pontifical Council for the Family published a Vademecum for confessors regarding some topics of conjugal morality, that also mentions the same part of Familiaris consortio cited by Francis regarding the ‘law of gradualness’, saying:

The pastoral ‘law of gradualness’, not to be confused with the ‘gradualness of the law’ which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands. (Pontifical Council for the Family. Vademecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life, no. 9, February 12, 1997)

The teaching could not be clearer: the ‘law of gradualness’ refers to a ‘progressive path towards total union with the will of God’ following a ‘decisive break with sin’.

It is never licit to receive Holy Communion in mortal sin

Since we are analyzing ‘citations’ from the sources presented by Francis, let’s take a look at the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ‘Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried’ (from the year 2000).

The Code of Canon Law establishes that ‘Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of ‘grave sin’, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who ‘obstinately’ persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)

Once again, we inquire: did the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts not have mind a certain Archbishop Bergoglio at the time of promulgating this document, when it mentions that some exclude in practice the situation of the divorced that has remarried of the prohibition to receive Holy Communion alleging subjective conditions?

The text deserves to be transcribed in its entirety:

Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: ‘This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.’
   This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term ‘unworthy’: ‘Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist’ (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.

2. Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance.
   The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin. (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)

So then, why all the complex and heart-rending cases brought up by Francis?

These situations have always existed throughout the History of the Church. Let’s not forget that human nature is the same, and it was the Church that elevated it from the most wretched condition to the heights of morality demanded by God; within the degradation of the Roman Empire (denounced so astutely by Saint Paul in Romans 1, 26 – 27, and by Saint Augustine within his brilliant work the ‘City of God’, and by so many other saints) or in any other situation where Christ is not the center of human life, degraded in their nature by original sin. And the Church, as a tender Mother, has always known how to attend to these situations, as the document of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts demonstrates. Citing Familiaris Consortio, even using the moving example – mentioned by Francis also (but he uses it to arrive at an opposite conclusion) – of children born of a second union.

Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – ‘to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses’ (Familiaris consortio, no. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)

Finally, the document of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts ends with words of true maternal solicitude that perfectly express how the Church thinks and acts in light of these problems:

Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. no. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.

5. The Church reaffirms her maternal solicitude for the faithful who find themselves in this or other analogous situations that impede them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table. What is presented in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the great desire to encourage the participation of these children in the life of the Church, in the many forms compatible with their situation that are already possible for them. Moreover, the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord, particularly during this Holy Year of the Great Jubilee.(Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration, Concerning the admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are divorced and remarried, July 6, 2000)

Hopefully, after this study, some doubts created by Francis’ words have been cleared up.