What If the SSPX Used ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Logic to Defend its Unauthorized Ordination of Bishops?

Those pesky ‘irregular situations’…

What If the SSPX Used Amoris Laetitia Logic to Defend its Unauthorized Ordination of Bishops?

If it weren’t for double standards, some people would have no standards at all.

Take the post-Catholic Vatican, for example. While preaching, on the one hand, that religious diversity is a gift from Almighty God, they also want people to believe that what is taught and believed by the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not among those ‘divine gifts’ conferred on humanity (unlike Hinduism or Islam, for instance).

On this web site we have been demonstrating for many years that both the SSPX and the Novus Ordo Vatican are wrong in their respective theological positions, so what you are reading in this post is not to be construed as a defense of the Lefebvrist position.

At the same time, we cannot pass up the opportunity to demonstrate how the followers of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre could use the theology put forward in ‘Pope’ Francis’ infernal 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia to defend its July 1, 2026 consecration of four new bishops against the express prohibition of ‘Pope’ Leo XIV, under penalty of excommunication.

If one were to take three pivotal paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 301-303) and apply the argumentation contained therein to ‘papally’-forbidden episcopal consecrations rather than divinely-forbidden sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, they could read thus:

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” ordinations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of canon law are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those ordained in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. An SSPX bishop 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 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”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a judgment of excommunication for an unauthorized episcopal consecration does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the bishops involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances bishops find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account an SSPX bishop’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

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

Sound ridiculous? That’s because it is.

But what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander — if the moral principles taught in Amoris Laetitia are valid for sins against chastity, then they are also valid for any other sins. Logic is simply unforgiving.

Among the errors contained in Amoris Laetitia, we find a certain moral subjectivism and ethical existentialism (situation ethics), which Pope Pius XII condemned as the ‘New Morality’:

• Subjective Morality: The Error of Amoris Laetitia Condemned and Refuted before Vatican II
• Pope Pius XII destroys Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ False-Mercy Gospel
• Francis’ “Apostolic Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia: The Highlights
• After Amoris Laetitia: Illustrating the Absurdity
• Amoris Laetitia and Concrete Cases: Reply to Austen Ivereigh
• Adultery as a Venial Sin? Amoris Laetitia and Mitigating Circumstances
• Vatican Doctrine Office explains Amoris Laetitia: Adultery can be a Venial Sin only!
• No Amoris Laetitia Here: A Priest in 1957 Explains What Catholics in an Invalid Marriage Ought to Do

We might add here that it is to assess the situation of families ten years after the release of Amoris Laetitia that Leo XIV has called a special bishops’ meeting to be held in October of this year. No doubt, it will be an interesting get-together, complete with lots of words spoken, PowerPoint presentations sat through, and more documents released.

Hey, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander…

For reference purposes, here is the original text of Amoris Laetitia, nn. 301-303:

301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation 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 differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases”.

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. 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. 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.

To sum it up (with a bit of rhetorical hyperbole): If you want to receive Holy Communion while happily living in sin with your partner, that’s not a problem for the Vatican, as long as it’s not at an SSPX Mass….

Image sources: composite with elements from Catholic Truth Society, FSSPX, and Shutterstock (Krakenimages.com) / Shutterstock (Kanyshev Andrey)
Licenses: fair use and fair use and paid / paid