By Richard A. Spinello
There are many crises in the Catholic Church today, but one of the most serious is the deplorable state of moral theology. That crisis has its roots in the confusion and intellectual upheaval that followed Vatican II. Progressive moral theologians proposed questionable moral theories such as proportionalism and the “fundamental option,” while prominent scholars like Bernard Häring dissented on vital issues of received moral teaching, such as the inadmissibility of contraception and the indissolubility of marriage.
These dissenting theologians held different views, but they shared a common theme: the Church had no authority to proclaim specific, exceptionless moral norms based on natural law. The most it could do was teach formal moral principles. Specific moral precepts such as “adultery is always wrong” are highly problematic, in their view, because there may be valid exceptions. A corollary of this is the autonomy of conscience along with “discernment” in making moral decisions. Instead of natural law, they recommended more flexible theories that allow for moral compromise in certain situations.
John Paul II sought to correct these errors in his encyclical Veritatis splendor. The fundamental option, proportionalism, the sovereignty of conscience, and moral subjectivism—all heterodox doctrines—were thoroughly refuted through principled reasoning. He also reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to natural law and its anthropological premise of a common, fixed human nature that serves as a bridge to that law. Intrinsic goods such as life and health, marriage and friendship, constitute our human fulfillment. A set of moral norms flows from the first precepts of natural law and prohibits intrinsic evils such as adultery or the deprivation of innocent life.
For a time, it seemed that the philosopher Pope had succeeded in his Herculean effort to renew moral theology. But then came the pontificate of Pope Francis, which has consistently sought to dethrone the principles of traditional natural law theory. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia openly admits this in his recent interview, “My Reforms with Francis.” He recounts how Pope Francis sent him to reinvent the John Paul II Institute in Rome in order to move beyond the rigid, moralistic framework of natural law that was at the center of the curriculum. What was needed, Monsignor Paglia declares, “was to rethink the concept of ‘nature,’ which underpinned a static and immutable vision of natural law, and with it the questioning of the essentialist and ahistorical paradigm that had sustained… moral theology.”
Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris laetitia was an attempt to advance in this direction, and it replaced Veritatis splendor as the guiding text at the JPII Institute. The Pope’s encyclical clearly sides with the progressive wing of the Church on issues such as intrinsic evil. In chapter eight, he explains:
That is why a pastor cannot feel satisfied by simply applying moral laws to those who live in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to be hurled at people’s lives. […] It is true that general norms present a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. (304)
The “general norm” in question is Jesus’ prohibition against remarriage for someone divorced from their spouse, because it amounts to adultery. But Amoris laetitia clearly does not regard this norm as exceptionless, nor does it consider adultery an intrinsic evil—something that is always, objectively, wrong and harmful, even if there is no subjective culpability.
Since Amoris laetitia, there have been many other assaults on traditional natural law and absolute moral norms. During an international congress on moral theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, the keynote speaker, Father Julio Martínez, spoke of the need to “untie the knots that Veritatis splendor tied in moral theology.” One of those knots is the concept of intrinsic evil, which introduces “serious difficulties for moral theology” and creates obstacles to discernment.
More recently, the report of the Synod Study Group Nine on “emerging” issues, Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for the Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Questions, proposed moving away from the application of “abstract” and “rigid” moral principles to human lives. The document warns “against the temptation of a sterile and regressive ossification of principles and statements, of norms and rules, regardless of the experience of individuals and communities.” This is a veiled attack not only on exceptionless moral norms, but also on the deductive moral reasoning that applies those norms.
The current discord in the Church means that we face an unavoidable choice between the theology of Veritatis splendor or the theology of Amoris laetitia, the magisterium of Pope John Paul II or the magisterium of Pope Francis. Theologians and prelates like Monsignor Paglia who carry the torch of the theology of Amoris laetitia argue that, because human nature changes, the moral law must also change.
But the notion that human nature changes essentially is a progressive myth. Of course, there are many cultural transformations along with transcendent turning points in history that affect humanity for better or worse. But as John Finnis points out, these theologians cannot provide any concrete example to illustrate the mutability of human nature because human nature, properly understood in terms of basic human possibilities or forms of fulfillment, has never changed.
We cannot find throughout the course of human history any person who was not a bodily and rational being, for whom those intrinsic goods such as life and health, marriage and knowledge, were not the source of their fulfillment.
It is all well and good to draft encyclicals on social issues such as Artificial Intelligence. But Pope Leo faces more fundamental questions: through what moral lens will the Church evaluate those problems? It can remain faithful to the tradition of natural law or revert to the deflated morality proposed by secular humanism, which favors experience and social harmony. The answers to the most troubling moral disputes can only be found deep in the soil of natural law reasoning that recognizes the eternal order of being and of nature.
About the Author
Richard A. Spinello is a professor at Boston College and an adjunct faculty member at St. John Seminary. He is the author of numerous books and articles on philosophy and ethics, including Four Catholic Philosophers: Rejoicing in the Truth (Jacques Maritain, Edith Stein, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Karol Wojtyła).