The Fatima Center wishes you a blessed Feast of Pope St. Pius X!
Pius X was a Pope who worked tirelessly to promote the true Catholic Faith and defeat the pernicious error of modernism, so rampant within the Church Militant today.
Editor’s Note: Although Mr. Vennari’s article was originally published in The Fatima Crusader, Issue #117 (2016), pp. 38-46, it remains extremely relevant and all Catholics should be aware of the dangers posed by the Vatican document mentioned here. It is even more concerning because it was presented as “authentic magisterium” by Francis’ Vatican. In fact, under Leo XIV the Vatican has recently (July 2, 2026) insisted that as a sign of fidelity and obedience, Catholics must explicitly accept Lumen Gentium #25, which effectively means “religious submission of mind and will” to how the current magisterium interprets all previous Church documents. (The original article has been slightly altered for the website.)
Amoris Laetitia: A Ramped-up Program of Diabolic Disorientation
Amoris Laetitia (the “Joy of Love”) is the much-anticipated post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis on marriage and the family. Released on April 6, 2016, it runs 260 pages, approximately 59,000 words. Father George Rutler – wryly commenting on the ponderous length of modern Vatican documents – noted that Francis’ text “is nearly two-thirds the length of all the Vatican II promulgations” combined.
Immediately after its release, respected Italian journalist Antonio Socci wrote: “The Apostolic Exhortation is an open act challenging two thousand years of Catholic teaching. And in Catholic circles people are shocked and struck dumb in bewilderment.”
Raymond Cardinal Burke, in a somewhat subdued response, called the document a “personal reflection of the Pope” that is “not [to be] confused with the binding faith owed to the exercise of the magisterium.”
The eminent Professor Roberto De Mattei said, “If the text is catastrophic, even more catastrophic is the fact that it was signed by the Vicar of Christ.”
In an unprecedented act, 45 conservative Catholic theologians recently issued a detailed Critical Analysis listing points in Amoris Latitia that are “heretical,” “contrary to Sacred Scripture,” “scandalous,” and similar censures. They opened their study stating, “The apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia has caused grief and confusion to many Catholics on account of his apparent disagreement with a number of teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals.”
Anyone who followed the tumultuous 2014 and 2015 Synods will not be surprised at the Exhortation. The Synods, the synod press conferences, the synodal texts, and the newly-released Exhortation represent one steady stream of modernist revolution.
Amidst great drifts of verbiage – some not bad, some remarkably tedious – Francis effectively canonizes what is called “situation ethics.”
Francis furtively opens the door for Communion to the divorced and “remarried” on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, which destroys key elements of Catholic Moral Theology. In particular, his approach undermines recognition of intrinsically disordered acts, and once this is undermined in one area, it is undermined in all areas.
What is an intrinsically evil act? It is an act evil in and of itself, no circumstance can justify engaging in such an act. Two examples: 1) abortion, and 2) knowingly and willingly condemning an innocent person to jail or to death. Such acts can never be justified by any mitigating circumstances.
Yet Francis’ approach undermines recognition of intrinsically disordered acts, and once this is undermined in one area it is undermined in all areas.
Progressivists immediately celebrated Amoris Laetitia as a “radical shift.”
Situation Ethics
Situation Ethics is the rejection of the universal, binding, immutable norms of morality. That means there is no such thing as a moral act that is intrinsically evil, there is no rule that admits no exceptions. According to this false approach, the morality of an act ultimately depends not on objective truth, but on the individual’s given situation.
The early advocates of situation ethics (as well as contemporary advocates) rebelled against what they call “legalism,” “rigidity,” and certain “fixed rules of morality that can never be violated.” Such an approach, as the 1960s advocates of situation ethics complained, “puts rules over people.”
Dr. Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991) was the popular proponent of Situation Ethics of the 1960s, and his ideas spread. Fletcher, an Anglican clergyman (who published the landmark 1966 book, Situation Ethics, and ended his days as an atheist), insisted that in a given situation we need not always act according to objective morality, but rather we “do the loving thing” based on our given circumstances.
The new pastoral approach coming from Francis’ Vatican delivers a new twist to the same error, claiming what is most important is to do the “merciful” thing, in light of the various “concrete circumstances” of the individual.
Condemned by Pius XII
Situation ethics pre-dates Fletcher’s book. As early as 1952, Pope Pius XII denounced situation ethics as follows: “It is an individual and subjective appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in opposition to the Natural Law and God’s revealed will.”
Pope Pius also warned in 1952: “The distinctive mark of this morality is that it is in fact in no way based on universal moral laws, for instance, on the Ten Commandments, but on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which one must act, and according to which the individual conscience has to judge and choose. This state of things is unique and valid but once for each human action. This is why the supporters of this ethics affirm that the decision of one’s conscience cannot be commanded by universal ideas, principles, and laws…” (AAS, 1952, pp. 413-419.)
Not only do we have Pius XII’s denouncement of Situation Ethics in 1952, but in 1956 Pius XII’s Holy Office explicitly condemned Situation Ethics in all its forms.
Unfortunately, this condemnation means nothing to the Modernist. A key tactic of modernism is to pretend the magisterium has not spoken on certain points. We find in Amoris Laetita an inordinate emphasis on the concrete situations of various individuals, and how this might supposedly mitigate acts that are objectively sinful. This is the language of situation ethics. Amoris Laetitia effectively starts with the person’s situation, not with immutable moral principles.
The norm of true sacramental marriage is depicted more as an “ideal” rather than a non-negotiable Commandment of Christ. The document treats with inordinate sympathy Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried, as well as those who cohabitate, offering one excuse after the next for how such souls find themselves in their fallen condition. True Catholic precepts concerning the proper living of Catholic marriage are depicted as abstract and somewhat out of touch with people’s concrete circumstances.
In 1952 and 1956, Pope Pius XII and his Holy Office condemned “Situation Ethics” in all its forms.
Here are some samples from Amoris Laetitiae:
#31: “We do well to focus on concrete realities, since ‘the call and demands of the spirit resound in the events of history…’”
#36: “At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and most artificial ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real family (the text goes on to speak of this “excessive idealization”).
#301: “The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations [the document fails to affirm that there are no mitigating factors that can in any way justify acts that are intrinsically evil, such as fornication, adultery, contraception and homosexual acts – jv]. Hence, it can no longer be said that all those who live in any ‘irregular’ situations are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. 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 different and decide otherwise without further sin.”
#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 the human being.” This effectively casts aside the general rule of law.
Thus, as we saw in situation ethics, we start with “concrete circumstances,” and then shape our moral conclusion from this “actual reality.” This demands a new program of dialogue and pastoral discernment that plays down “black and white” moral absolutes. This then grants leeway, in certain cases, to claim that those in objective mortal sin can subjectively be living the life of grace and be treated as those living the life of grace.
The end result is a new approach that opens the door for the divorced and civilly remarried, based on the difficulties inherent in their concrete situation, to receive the Eucharist.
Commenting on this point, the highly-respected theologian Father Brian Harrison notes the most troubling aspect of Francis’ new document is “its treatment in Chapter 8 of those living in irregular sexual relationships.”
He continues: “In notes 336 and 351 to paragraphs 300 and 305 respectively, the Holy Father breaks with the teaching and discipline of all his predecessors in the See of Peter by allowing at least some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics (with no decree of nullity and no commitment to continence) to receive the sacraments. Since – the document says – ‘discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists’ owing to a variety of mitigating psychological and other factors, Francis affirms in n. 351 that the Church’s ‘help’ to these Catholics living in objectively illicit relationships can ‘in certain cases . . . include the help of the sacraments’.” The context, notes Father Harrison, indicates this means reception of Penance and the Eucharist while these individuals continue to live in sin.
To be continued and concluded in Part 2.