The drama of human love within marriage and family is not a path free of trials, setbacks, and scars . Faced with the complexities of contemporary society and the profound theological debates surrounding the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia , the distinguished philosopher and theologian Rodrigo Guerra López published a fundamental study to dispel misconceptions and recover the true spirit of the papal document . His analysis—titled Understanding Amoris Laetitia: Premises and Arguments, Responses to Doubts and Objections, Path and Hope —offers a rigorous key to understanding that disarms both conservative fears and reductionist interpretations .

The Christian event versus sterile moralism

One of the methodological pillars that Guerra López highlights in his study is the centrality of Jesus Christ not as an abstract idea or an ethical code, but as a living, historical event . Following the theological path of Benedict XVI and the Second Vatican Council, the author warns that Christianity constantly runs the risk of falling into “moralism”: a temptation in which humanity looks only at itself and reduces faith to the strict observance of external rules, rendering the merciful face of God invisible and untouchable .

When Christianity is reduced to a mere list of inspirational values ​​or abstract precepts, it loses its capacity to embrace and uplift wounded humanity . In contrast, Amoris Laetitia operates from a pastoral, wisdom-based theology that embraces the concrete reality of real families—with their strengths and weaknesses—in order to illuminate them from the realism of grace .

The changing times and the primacy of processes

We live in a “change of era” marked by a profound anthropological and cultural transformation . In this context, the Church itself has acknowledged, through healthy self-criticism, that it has sometimes presented an excessively abstract, artificially constructed ideal of marriage, focused almost exclusively on normative duty, thus obscuring the beauty of the unitive end and the call to gradual growth in love .

Guerra López emphasizes that Pope Francis prioritizes pastoral processes over short-term effectiveness or the mechanical application of rules . The virtue of prudence—practical wisdom that adapts to times and circumstances—becomes indispensable for accompanying people without closing off the paths of grace . General norms express a good that should never be neglected, but in their abstract formulation, they cannot encompass in a single way the absolute totality of particular and complex situations in real life .

Imputability, consciousness and the controversial Chapter VIII

The central crux of the objections and the famous dubia presented by some cardinals revolves around access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced and remarried Catholics . In response, Guerra López’s essay makes a vital theological and moral distinction, based on the strictest Church tradition and previous texts such as Veritatis Splendor by Saint John Paul II :

• Grave matter versus mortal sin: One thing is the objectivity of an irregular situation or an act contrary to the evangelical norm (grave matter), and another very different thing is the subjective responsibility of the individual (mortal sin) .
• Mitigating factors: Due to psychological, historical, cultural or biological conditioning, a person may find themselves in an objective situation of sin without there being full guilt or deliberate consent .
• Discernment in the internal forum: For this reason, a negative judgment on an objective situation does not automatically imply a judgment on the person’s culpability . Under the prudent guidance of a confessor in the internal forum, and recognizing that the Eucharist is not a reward for the perfect but a generous remedy for the weak, in certain cases the possibility of access to the sacraments is opened .

This stance—far from inventing a situational morality or abrogating the indissolubility of marriage—harmonizes perfectly with the pastoral criteria issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region, which were explicitly endorsed by Pope Francis when he pointed out that there are no other possible interpretations .

A method for walking without despairing

Far from being a systematic treatise that seeks to exhaust moral theology, Amoris Laetitia reveals itself in Rodrigo Guerra López’s analysis as a method and a spiritual roadmap. Its fundamental purpose is to teach us not to demand an angelic perfection from human relationships, a perfection we will only find in the definitive Kingdom, while at the same time avoiding harsh judgment of those who struggle amidst profound fragility.

The exhortation calls us to keep alive the striving for the fullness of love, reminding us of an essential truth that summarizes the heart of Francis’s pontificate: “Let us walk, families, let us keep walking. What is promised to us is always more. Let us not despair because of our limitations, but neither let us renounce seeking the fullness of love and communion that has been promised to us .”

Full text by Professor Rodrigo Guerra López:

To understand Amoris Laetitia.

Premises and arguments, answers to doubts and objections, path and hope

This study explains the reasons and arguments that support the fundamental assertions of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. In other words, we seek to highlight relevant keys to understanding this document that can not only help us grasp its meaning but also foster a fundamental affinity for its core message. We address the main doubts and objections raised against this document, particularly regarding Chapter VIII. Finally, we emphasize the importance of understanding Amoris Laetitia as a method, as a path, to never despair when experiencing the drama of human love within marriage and the family.

Human love has multiple forms of expression. Its immense diversification and infinite complexities have made it an object of admiration, study, narrative, poetry, war, and reconciliation. Already the ancient Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, considered some basic forms of love that would become emblematic throughout the history of thought: utilitarian love, love based on pleasure, and love that seeks the good of the person who is loved. Likewise, in literature, love appears continually, being the theme of a good portion of the works of all time. Octavio Paz, toward the end of his book of essays, The Double Flame, aptly states that:

Despite all evils and misfortunes, we always seek to love and be loved. Love is the closest thing on this earth to the beatitude of the blessed. Images of the Golden Age and the earthly paradise merge with those of required love. (…) There is one couple that encompasses all couples, from the elderly Philemon and Baucis to the adolescent Romeo and Juliet; Their figure and their story are those of the human condition in all times and places: Adam and Eve. They are the primordial couple, the one that contains all others. Although it is a Judeo-Christian myth, it has equivalents or parallels in the narratives of all religions. Adam and Eve are the beginning and the end of every couple. They live in paradise, a place that is not beyond time but at its beginning. Paradise is what came before; history is the degradation of primordial time, the fall of the eternal now into succession. Before history, in paradise, nature was innocent, and every creature lived in harmony with the others, with itself, and with the whole. The sin of Adam and Eve cast them into successive time: into change, accident, labor, and death. Nature, corrupted, is divided, and enmity begins among creatures, a universal carnage: all against all. Adam and Eve traverse this harsh and hostile world, populating it with their actions and dreams, moistening it with their tears and the sweat of their bodies. They know the glory of creation and procreation, the labor that wears down the body, the years that cloud sight and spirit, the horror of the child who dies and the child who kills; they eat the bread of sorrow and drink the water of joy. Time dwells within them, and time empties them. Each couple of lovers relives their story, each couple suffers the nostalgia of paradise, each couple is aware of death and lives a continuous hand-to-hand combat with time without a body… Reinventing love is reinventing the original couple, the exiles from Eden, creators of this world and of ^history. 

This lengthy quote from an agnostic author serves a purpose: it helps us recognize that modern man’s attention to the phenomenon of love has not diminished. On the contrary, perhaps today more than ever, its profound meaning is intuited, and in seeking an archetype, the figures of Adam and Eve emerge, for example, in the consciousness of Octavio Paz, who, like so many other literary figures throughout history, is fascinated by love. Paz has a particular merit: he powerfully observes that every human being seeks to reinvent love, and in doing so, somehow, recover the experience of the original couple in their equally original innocence. Human love thus seems to be a drama filled with nostalgia for paradise, for foundational complementarity, for reinvention and a new beginning.

Love, in this way, occupies a special place in human existence. It is like a kind of transcendental perfection; that is, it seems to be a reality that transcends diverse categories and illuminates them, revealing the beauty within them all. It is like a tension that lies behind every other tension. Beyond libido and desire, beyond power and dominion, in the human heart dwells a dynamism that positions human beings as beings yearning for love.

In the Christian faith, reflection on love has been continuous. Saint John views God as love (1 John 4:8), and Saint Paul expresses in a hymn how this love unfolds in various fundamental attitudes (1 Corinthians 13:1-13). Whoever does not love their brother does not love God; whoever loves God must love their brothers (1 John 4:20ff). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church largely surpassed Greek thought thanks to the centrality they gave to the love that precedes us in their theological and philosophical meditations.

More recently, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have championed Christian love with a force perhaps never seen before. Four examples suffice in this regard: the catecheses known as Theology of the Body and the encyclicals Dives in Misericordia, Deus caritas Est, and Caritas in Veritate.

When Pope Francis published the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia in 2016, he could not have chosen a better title: the joy of love. In this way, the papal magisterium offers a new reflection on the long journey undertaken since antiquity and now renewed through a reading from the perspective of faith, aided by reason, and immersed in the context of new contemporary challenges.

Amoris Laetitia is a reflection, that is, a turning inward to discern the truth about the state of one’s own heart—in courtship, in marriage, in the family, and especially in moments of difficulty and pain. And this reflection encounters an inner yet objective fact: the faith that dwells within reason, becoming a method of knowledge.

Indeed, the reason that reflects in Amoris Laetitia is a reason of faith. A reason that has discovered certainty about itself and about the truth of a reason superior to itself. A reason that discovers a rational path by allowing itself to be informed by faith and, thanks to this, manages to perceive what seems humanly impossible: “No one can be condemned forever.”² For every human being, no matter how wounded they may be, there is always a way. The certainty of Christianity is precisely about this: there is a Love greater than mine, than yours, than “ours,” a Love that rescues life from any pettiness, selfishness, or betrayal. This Love is not merely formal or abstract, not a mere rhetorical device or an emotional exaltation typical of some discourse on human self-improvement. The Love to which we refer has a concrete face and a historical context: it is Jesus Christ, who died for us on the cross so that we may rise with Him, from this moment forward.

In the following lines, we will attempt to show the reasons behind this new effort by the Church to joyfully affirm the value of human love on the divine plane: Amoris Laetitia. We do not intend to provide an exhaustive overview of all its contents, but simply to identify some premises and arguments that allow us to understand its internal rationale and its creative fidelity. And from there, we hope they will help us appreciate its relevance as a factor in the renewal of the Church’s pastoral care in the world of marriages and families.

1. CENTRALITY OF JESUS ​​CHRIST AS FACT AND NOT AS AN IDEA

The Second Vatican Council has recovered the centrality of the living person of Jesus Christ as the fundamental axis for the renewal of the Church. He is “the light of the nations” and the one in whom the mystery of every human being is revealed ^. This recovery is not intended as a doctrinal ploy. The Church, in the Council, attempts to turn its gaze back to the foundational event, which is historical and not conceptual. In other words, the Christian faith is not based on a certain philosophy, a certain ethic, or a certain theological discourse. When we trace the Christian experience back to its origin, we encounter an irruption in time, an unforeseeable empirical fact, an event. Historically conceiving of God as someone who surprises and surpasses time itself, and theologically conceiving of humanity as someone who discovers how to transcend its own finite and conditioned horizon, possesses immense heuristic potential. In Christ and through Christ, God has fully revealed himself to humanity and drawn definitively close to it. At the same time, in Christ and through Christ, humanity has attained full awareness of its dignity, its elevation, the transcendent value of its own humanity, and the meaning of its existence. Beyond any doctrine, beyond the entire history of “ideas,” Christianity opens up a completely new scenario in both the religious and cultural spheres, one that is impossible to deny. Philosophical or theological immanentism collapses when confronted with Christianity as an event.

When one looks closely at the Pontificate of Saint John Paul II, one cannot help but perceive this: the Polish Pope, with great passion, sought to demonstrate the irreducibility of Jesus Christ. “Irreducibility” means that Christianity cannot be resolved or dissolved into academic theorizing, moral discourse, or mere “good example.” The programmatic Encyclical Redemptor Hominis is like a manifesto in this regard. Jesus Christ not only existed two thousand years ago but is presently active among us in the present, embracing the humanity of every human being and thereby providing the Church with a method for its work of evangelization and human development. For John Paul II: “On this path that leads from Christ to humanity, on this path by which Christ unites himself to every person, the Church cannot be stopped by anyone.”4

With Benedict XVI, this same intuition is accentuated when he engages in discussion with the ethical reduction of Christianity, that is, with “moralism.” Benedict XVI, in his first encyclical, forcefully points out that:

One does not begin to be a Christian through an ethical decision or a great idea, but through an encounter with an event, with a Person, that gives a new horizon to life and, with it, a decisive orientation.

This statement is part of a long tradition of thought that springs from the Gospel, passes through St. Augustine and the Church Fathers, and reaches contemporary authors such as Romano Guardini, Henri De Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger himself.

Having said that, the cited papal text could be etched in our memory as just another of the many theoretical pronouncements of a Pope who comes from the academic world. However, what he intends to convey is far from that. Benedict XVI is looking precisely to a place other than abstract reflection. This statement is a direct criticism of all forms of Gnostic and moralistic Christianity that reduce the specificity of the Gospel to a certain doctrine, a certain ideal of decency, or a certain adherence to moral, disciplinary, organizational, or strategic norms.

To understand its content, it is helpful to briefly reconstruct the criticism of moralism that Ratzinger continuously developed from his time as a theologian. For Ratzinger:

The temptation to transform Christianity into moralism and to concentrate everything on man’s moral action is great in all times. (…) I believe that the temptation to reduce Christianity to moralism is very great even in our time (…) In other words, Augustine teaches that Christian holiness and righteousness do not consist of any superhuman greatness or superior talent. If that were the case, Christianity would become a religion for a few heroes or for groups of the chosen . 

“Moralism” occurs when “man looks only at himself and God remains invisible and untouchable.”7 Furthermore, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a set of dogmas, a moralism, but an encounter, a love story, an event.”8 This has enormous significance. For the purposes of this discussion, the message of the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est consists in the urgent need for Christianity to be able to re-establish itself as an event, as a sociologically identifiable communal presence in the life of the world.

As long as Christianity is not a visible, empirically verifiable community presence, it will remain reduced to a list of “inspirational” values, incapable of real impact and transformation. Why is this? A merely inspirational or ethical Christianity is incapable of embracing tradition—that is, the ethos inherited and recreated from generation to generation, the real culture of the real people. A moralistic Christianity is incapable of interpreting popular religiosity, concrete community experiences, the sacramental dimension of the Church, the ecclesiological significance of the poorest, and ultimately, it is also incapable of being coherently inscribed within the history of the people. A moralistic Christianity is not an incarnate, inculturated reality, and therefore betrays the essence of Christianity. In short, if Jesus Christ is reduced to “values,” the possibility of welcoming everyone with patience, charity, and mercy vanishes. “Values,” and even the “precepts of natural law,” do not embrace, uplift, or save. Only a living Person can save.

TO UNDERSTAND THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL LEVEL OF THE EXHORTATION: While it is true that Amoris Laetitia contains doctrinal statements that require a certain rigorous philosophical and theological treatment for their explanation, it does not primarily aim to be an academic treatise on theology or a dogmatic magisterial reflection. In the opinion of this author, Amoris Laetitia is a meditation on pastoral theology; that is, it is a reflection of wisdom and faith that springs from the experience of those who live the drama of human love and returns to this same experience to “illuminate” it, seeking to find its meaning or pastoral path for our people today. More than a theoretical exploration aimed at developing a primarily doctrinal-universal articulation, it is a concrete pastoral exhortation and emphasis based on identifying specific gestures of the living Person of Jesus that respond to and embrace the urgent needs and processes—often filled with wounds—experienced by marriages and families.

TO UNDERSTAND HOW MORAL THEOLOGY BECOMES PASTORAL: In other words, Amoris Laetitia introduces an attitude characteristic of the theology of the spiritual life and of Jesus himself—taking into account how grace mysteriously works at different peaces within the soul of each person in the Church’s moral theology, in order to make a relevant pastoral adjustment so that the Church can be good news for the family in the present time. And when we say “relevant,” we mean both the Gospel and contemporary humanity. Time takes precedence over space, processes over automatic compliance, and pastoral gradualism over immediate syllogistic derivation ^. In the guidance of souls, this is often very evident: it is not the mechanical repetition of certain doctrinal theses or standardized ascetic practices that brings a person closer to life in Christ. Only the Holy Spirit makes saints. And this happens through various moments, some brighter and more joyful, others more arid and confusing, and all deeply personal. For the true experience of this, patience and attention to how God himself works amidst limitations, circumstances, personal uniqueness, apparent successes, and even real or apparent failures are essential.

TO UNDERSTAND FRANCIS’S “THEOLOGICAL STYLE”: In a certain sense, Amoris Laetitia is a good example of a particular Latin American theological style in which the truths of faith and moral life are discovered in the empirical encounter with the Church, that is, in immersion in the spiritual and pastoral experience of the faithful. This immersion can subsequently acquire a certain reflective and doctrinal level in order to then nourish pastoral work in daily life. I have the impression that Latin American theology, from this perspective, is not a metahistorical reflection on certain truths learned theoretically, but rather a diaconal service that reason performs through pastoral practice in order to mature that very pastoral practice. Theology is a mediating and sapiential moment of that which is its source and that which is its end. Or, to put it another way, theology is the reflective conscience of a people in motion, the People of God in motion.

In this regard, it should be noted that in some European circles, Latin American theological and pastoral experience continues to be considered that of a “reflective Church,” that is, the experience of a community that projects and applies the contributions of European theology. This has long since ceased to be the case. In Latin America, we find a “source Church” that learns from others but does so from its own unique historical, cultural, and ecclesiological perspective, thus contributing to catholicity.  To think, tacitly or explicitly, that Latin American theology lacks specificity or that true and universal theology is European, is not only false but also prevents us from appreciating the contribution that the gift of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, as Successor of Peter, is making to the universal Church.

2. AWARENESS OF THE “CHANGING ERA” AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRUDENTIAL APPLICATION OF MORAL NORMS

If Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II (1981) began with the words “the family, in modern times”, Amoris Laetitia of Pope Francis (2016) could have begun with the expression “the family in the changing times”.

Indeed, although the temporal distance between the two Apostolic Exhortations is not great, the cultural context is not exactly the same ^. The crisis of enlightened modernity—with its diverse variations in each part of the world—has deepened. The self-proclaimed “postmodern” reactions do not truly manage to construct an alternative; rather, as time passes, they increasingly reveal their many debts to the very modernity they seek to overcome. For this reason, some of us prefer to speak of “postmodernity” as “late modernity,” even though we do not deny that there is a significant rupture, which is precisely what has generated an anthropological and cultural mutation that can no longer be concealed ^. It would be pointless here to discuss the appropriateness of the term “postmodernity.” What is fundamental, however, is the need to recognize the exhaustion of rationalism and its derivatives, and the new searches that arise from a sensibility that warns us that it is necessary to break free from old limitations and recognize that reality is more complex and urgently requires more holistic and open attempts at understanding. In the midst of this, rationalism is reformulated until it reaches nihilistic expressions of various kinds, while real reason tries to overcome its self-assurance through intersubjectivity, interculturality, and even through new forms of Catholic and non-Catholic religiosity.

The causes and roots of this entire phenomenon are varied, complex, and not always evident. However, the result is an empirical fact in which we are all more or less immersed and of which we have a certain degree of awareness. New generations, new young people, both urban and non-urban, in almost every part of the world, use new signs, languages, and perspectives to view their own lives and the lives of others. This mutation in people’s worldview, this linguistic and semiotic mutation, is a manifestation of an anthropological mutation that has varied indicators, among them, the transformation of affective and family life . ^¹³ Amoris Laetitia, therefore, recognizes that: “  We look at the reality of the family today in all its complexity, in its lights and shadows […] The anthropological-cultural change today influences all aspects of life and requires an analytical and diversified approach.”¹⁴

And almost simultaneously, it is clearly recognized that the Church has not always risen to the occasion through its pastoral response. For example, consider the following paragraph carefully:  We must be humble and realistic to recognize that sometimes our way of presenting Christian convictions, and the way we treat people, have contributed to what we now lament, for which a healthy self-criticism is incumbent upon us. Furthermore, we have often presented marriage in such a way that its unitive purpose, the call to grow in love and the ideal of mutual support, has been overshadowed by an almost exclusive emphasis on the duty of procreation. Nor have we adequately accompanied newly married couples in their early years with proposals that are adapted to their schedules, their language, and their most concrete concerns. At other times, we have presented a theological ideal of marriage that is too abstract, almost artificially constructed, far removed from the concrete situation and the actual possibilities of real families. This excessive idealization, especially when we have not awakened trust in grace, has not made marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite ^.

This and other similar judgments throughout Amoris Laetitia allow us to maintain that this act of papal Magisterium possesses a certain degree of contextual theology without, of course, falling into a corrosive contextualism. Francis perceives the changing times as a scenario in which the Church itself is immersed and to which the Church must respond, aware that formalism has hindered the embrace and welcome of all, especially the most wounded and alienated.

Likewise, this awareness of the changing times allows Francis to prioritize pastoral processes as a strategy—that is, sustained, constant effort, rather than focusing on a certain short-term effectiveness. Pastoral work as a process frees us from the desire to achieve everything at once. This, which may seem like a cliché in the language of “pastoral planning,” primarily reflects the realism of grace. As mentioned above, God acts gradually within life, transforming it from within. To learn to properly interpret reality as a path, as a process, it is necessary to learn to apply the demands of the Gospel life accompanied by the virtue of prudence—that is, practical wisdom that modulates virtues, practical applications, and timing. Only in this way is it possible to understand that  not all doctrinal, moral, or pastoral discussions should be resolved through magisterial interventions. Naturally, unity of doctrine and practice is necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude the existence of different ways of interpreting certain aspects of doctrine or some of its consequences. This will continue until the Spirit leads us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13), that is, until he fully introduces us to the mystery of Christ and we can see everything through his eyes. Furthermore, in each country or region, more inculturated solutions can be sought, attentive to local traditions and challenges, because “cultures are very different from one another and every general principle […] needs to be inculturated if it is to be observed and applied.”^¹⁶

I immediately think of the multifaceted nature of authentic Catholic experience. The same faith, the same liturgy, is expressed in diverse ways in different latitudes, in different rites, in different cultural traditions. In fact, this is what Our Lady of Guadalupe teaches. She was described by Saint John Paul II as a “model of perfectly inculturated evangelization.”17 The Virgin does not ask that we all speak Nahuatl. What she shows with her image and her message in the Nican Mopohua is a method: the method of the Incarnation, that is, the effort to embrace humanity, including language with its symbolic and contextual peculiarities, as a path. Because what is not embraced is not redeemed.

In the realm of the Church’s moral teaching, this does not translate into an easy and deceitful disregard for natural law or the uncritical assimilation of situational ethics, but rather into the prudent application of the precept in each case. This application admits no exceptions, but, as we shall see, it does allow for the recognition of mitigating circumstances and conditions that can lead to varying degrees of culpability for a sin. This application also presupposes a thorough understanding not only of moral norms but also of the specific circumstances at the time of discernment. For this reason, Francis insists: “The degree of responsibility is not the same in all cases; the consequences or effects of a norm are not necessarily always the same.”

Anyone who wants moral norms to be applied in the same way, unequivocally and directly, to all cases and circumstances, disregards both the method of the Incarnation and the structure of moral reflection, which always involves prudential deliberation. It is no safer, as some seem to suggest, to apply moral norms more or less mechanically without regard to specific circumstances. Intellectual understanding of the norm is necessary but not sufficient. Therefore, Francis insists: “It is true that general norms present a good that should never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot encompass absolutely all particular situations . ^”

And a little later he will add:  Discernment should help us find possible paths of response to God and growth amidst limitations. By believing that everything is black or white, we sometimes close off the path of grace and growth, and discourage paths of sanctification that give glory to God . ^²⁰

3. LOVE, CHARITY AND EROTICISM

The understanding of marriage and family presented in Amoris Laetitia confirms the teaching of the Gospel and the papal Magisterium of John Paul II and Benedict XVI on these topics. This is particularly evident when Chapter IV, entitled “Love in Marriage,” is taken as the hermeneutical principle of this Apostolic Exhortation. Love in the mind of Francis, as in the mind of Benedict XVI, is not dissociated from truth. Love without truth easily leads to sentimentality. Affirming truth without love often turns into destructive despotism . ^²¹ Therefore, the pairing of love and truth is what can truly help in the reconstruction of life. But love in Francis is particularly sensitive to one of its most radical aspects—in a certain sense, the most extreme and the one that at the same time expresses God’s most proper attribute: mercy . ^²² Indeed, it is impossible to understand Amoris Laetitia apart from the temporal context in which the Apostolic Exhortation was published: the Year of Mercy. In particular, Chapter IV of Amoris Laetitia, in my opinion, acquires its true dimension when it is illuminated by the presence of Jesus Christ, incarnate mercy, as presented in Misericordiae vultus.

In a sense, Francis shows us in action how only truth accompanied by love shines forth in its full beauty. Love is not only the path to knowledge but also the method by which truth can be gradually assimilated in a human way. Only in this way can truth avoid being hurled like a projectile at our neighbor or at ourselves. Love is the path by which truth does not wound but builds up and guides freedom and the heart toward their fullness.

Indeed, Pope Francis, in Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, comments on 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. In his beautiful meditation, he emphasizes that love is presented as patience; service; absence of envy, boasting, arrogance, harshness, self-interest, and irritation. It does not keep a record of wrongs, it does not rejoice in injustice, but rather rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always perseveres, always hopes. This reflection on love prepares the way for the words dedicated to conjugal charity, which springs from the reality of the Sacrament of Matrimony. When we consider it, we cannot help but be amazed at the fact that fragile human love is sustained “from above” by the powerful divine Love: “This powerful love, poured out by the Holy Spirit, is a reflection of the unbreakable Covenant between Christ and humanity, which culminated in his self-giving to the very end, on the cross.”23 And yet, this gratuitous and extraordinary irruption does not mean that everything is already given and received by the human heart after the celebration of the sacrament. Again, and quite pertinently, Francis warns:

It is not advisable to confuse different levels: we must not place on two limited people the tremendous burden of having to perfectly reproduce the union that exists between Christ and his Church, because marriage as a sign implies “a dynamic process, which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God” ^[1]

It is through a gradual “progressive integration” that conjugal love eventually overcomes trials and matures according to God’s plan. Slowly, sensitivity is refined, and affection, friendship, and the personal gift of spouses are “reinvented.” In fact, love in Francis’s mind reappears with an intrinsic structure of unconditional respect for the human person as a person. This is what Karol Wojtyla called the “personalist norm of action,”25 and which Francis places at the heart of his reflection as the perspective that allows us to welcome the person not only in the initial moments of the loving adventure that marriage entails but also in those moments when the emotional attraction is not the same and when the journey already undertaken also carries weight.

The aesthetic experience of love is expressed in that gaze that contemplates the other as an end in themselves, even if they are ill, old, or deprived of physical attractiveness. The gaze that values ​​is of enormous importance, and withholding it often causes harm. How many things spouses and children sometimes do to be seen and considered! Many wounds and crises arise when we stop seeing each other. This is what some complaints and demands heard in families express: “My husband doesn’t look at me; to him, I seem invisible.” “Please, look at me when I speak to you.” “My wife doesn’t look at me anymore; now she only has eyes for her children.” “In my house, I don’t matter to anyone, and they don’t even see me, as if I didn’t exist.” Love opens our eyes and allows us to see, beyond everything else, how much a human being is worth.

And so, it is possible to achieve what for many seems impossible: forgiveness for the other’s faults and faithful perseverance that embraces the meaning of that which has been joined by God and which should not be separated by man. Faithful perseverance is not without trials and frailties. However, it is more a response to grace than a titanic effort of the will. In fact, the trial and experience of one’s own fragility is like the pedagogical path of purification of the love received as an undeserved gift. From this will truly spring the “joy” of marriage. Not from a cosmetic smile that arises from one who hides their weakness, not from an apparent optimism of one who masks life to make it appear without wrinkles, but from the profound joy born of a heart grateful for so much continuous forgiveness and mercy.

Joy is renewed in pain. As Saint Augustine said, “The greater the danger in battle, the greater the joy in triumph.” After suffering and struggling together, spouses can experience that it was all worthwhile, because they achieved something good, learned something together, or because they can appreciate what they have more. Few human joys are as profound and celebratory as when two people who love each other have conquered together something that cost them great shared effort ^.

It is this framework of understanding that also allows us to view human sexuality within the horizon of love. When conjugal love has been neglected in its aspects of sacrifice, forgiveness, and self-offering, people’s sexual lives end up impoverished and losing their meaning. On the contrary, this life becomes joyful and humanizing in the context of patient conjugal love, that is, in the context of a “reconciled diversity.”28 This is how we discover that:  Sexuality is not a resource for gratification or entertainment, since it is an interpersonal language where the other is taken seriously, with their sacred and inviolable value. Thus, “the human heart becomes, so to speak, a participant in another spontaneity.” In this context, eroticism appears as a specifically human manifestation of sexuality. In it, one can find “the spousal meaning of the body and the authentic dignity of the gift.” In his catechesis on the theology of the human body, he taught that sexual corporeality “is not only a source of fertility and procreation,” but also possesses “the capacity to express love: that love in which the man-person becomes a gift.” The healthiest eroticism, while linked to a search for pleasure, presupposes admiration, and therefore can humanize ^impulses .

This teaching of Pope Francis gathers and expands upon the theology of the body of Saint John Paul II. In this, as in other themes within Amoris Laetitia, an organic development and creative continuity are clearly evident.

4. A THERAPY FOR WOUNDED LOVE AND A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

Rocco Buttiglione and Cardinal Ennio Antonelli have written the book *Therapy of Wounded Love in ‘Amoris Laetitia’* ^. Buttiglione’s section bears a provocative title reminiscent of Maimonides: “Guide for the Perplexed.” This work addresses some of the key issues in the controversial Chapter VIII of the Apostolic Exhortation ^. I find the expressions used by Buttiglione and Cardinal Antonelli particularly apt, since Pope Francis dedicates this entire section to the accompaniment, discernment, and integration of marital fragility. *Amoris Laetitia* is truly a therapeutic resource for those in need and a roadmap for bewildered Christians.

Francis is well acquainted with the Magisterium of Saint John Paul II. For this reason, he revives an idea dear to him: the law of gradualness, which is not gradualness in the law itself, but rather an awareness of the progressive unfolding of divine gifts in the individual . ^³² With this in mind, Francis tells us: “We must avoid judgments that do not take into account the complexity of the various situations, and we must be attentive to the way in which people live and suffer because of their condition.”³³ In other words, before judging, it is necessary to understand. Offering prefabricated solutions to various cases and situations without a compassionate and tender perspective that allows us to attend to and understand the particularities of each person and their circumstances easily leads to injustice, even if the solution is cloaked in seemingly orthodox language. Moreover, at times it seems as if people are fatally marked by living within an objective situation of sin. In this regard, Francis maintains:

No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel. I am not referring only to divorced and remarried people, but to everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves ^.

Indeed, evil never has the last word. If this begins to be intuited as true in the natural order when meditating on the ontological structure of evil ^, it is even more true in light of the mystery of Redemption. Jesus, time and again, seeks out each human being to encounter them again. There is always a path to rebuilding one’s life after sin. In this sense, “no one can be condemned forever.” Jesus offers himself as the way, the truth, and the life for all, at every moment!

In the case of divorced and remarried Catholics, it is necessary to carefully consider the essence of Pope Francis’s proposal. I apologize to the kind reader for the following collection of key quotations. All of them are necessary to grasp how Francis zealously safeguards the revealed truth on the indissolubility of marriage1 ³⁶ and at the same time places at the center a gaze full of mercy and truth toward those who experience the pain of a failed marriage and have risked embarking on a new one:

Evil is a deficient good. In other words, the subject of evil is always a good that is constitutively striving toward its proper perfection. This striving, even if not fulfilled, persists as a kind of demand even in the greatest of evils. And perhaps, especially in them. Cf. C. CARDONA, Metaphysics of Good and Evil, Eunsa, Pamplona 1987.

Divorced people in new unions, for example, may find themselves in very different situations, which should not be categorized or confined in overly rigid statements without leaving room for adequate personal and pastoral discernment1 ³⁷ .

Conversation with a priest, in the inner forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment about what hinders the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and about the steps that can foster and enhance it. (…) When a responsible and discreet person, who does not seek to place their own desires above the common good of the Church, encounters a pastor who recognizes the seriousness of the matter at hand, the risk is avoided that a particular discernment might lead one to think that the Church maintains a double standard.1 ³³

To properly understand why special discernment is possible and necessary in certain so-called “irregular” situations, one point must always be kept in mind, so that it is never thought that the demands of the Gospel are being diminished. The Church has a solid understanding of mitigating circumstances and conditions. Therefore, it is no longer possible to say that all those who find themselves in a so-called “irregular” situation live in a state of mortal sin, deprived of sanctifying grace ^{. ³⁹}

Because of mitigating conditions or factors, it is possible that, in the midst of an objective situation of sin that is not subjectively culpable or not fully so, one can live in God’s grace, one can love, and also one can grow in the life of grace and charity, receiving for this the help of the Church ⁴⁰ .

In certain cases, it could also be the help of the sacraments. For this reason, “I remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber but the place of the Lord’s mercy”: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (November 24, 2013), 44: AAS 105 (2013), 1038. I also emphasize that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a generous remedy and food for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039) ⁴¹ .

From our awareness of the weight of mitigating psychological, historical, and even biological circumstances, it follows that, “without diminishing the value of the Gospel ideal, we must accompany with mercy and patience the possible stages of growth of people who are being built up day by day,” giving rise to “the mercy of the Lord that encourages us to do the good we can.” I understand those who prefer a more rigid pastoral approach that leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus Christ wants a Church attentive to the good that the Spirit pours out in the midst of fragility: a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “does not renounce the good that is possible, even if she risks getting her hands dirty with the mud of the road.”^⁴

Thus, we can see how Francis does not implicitly or explicitly maintain that an action previously considered bad is suddenly presented as good based on his teaching. The moral nature of the act does not change due to circumstances or situation. However, the degrees of imputability for the act will vary according to how the human act was performed as such, that is, according to the degree of awareness and freedom involved. This is in no way a doctrinal innovation but rather the most traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters, as we will see more clearly later.

5. HOW TO RESOLVE THE DOUBTS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST «AMORIS LAETITIA»?

Objections to Pope Francis’s teaching were not long in coming . ^⁴³ Some concern the possible access of divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. Others concern the magisterial nature of the Apostolic Exhortation. Still others concern the authority of the Successor of Peter. It would be impossible to address all these objections here. Attempting to address the most essential points, we offer below our opinion on how to respond to the “doubts” that four important cardinals of the Catholic Church raised privately with Pope Francis and, after a few weeks, made public.

5.1. Christian pedagogy: following another

The Christian faith is scandalous. God became fragile flesh and decided that this involvement with the life of every man and woman, and of each individual man and woman, would remain within history through the Church. The Church is us: fragile, foolish, limited. God immersed himself in our finite and clumsy humanity, and your humanity, and mine, immersed itself in the tender embrace of that same God. From that moment on, the entire Christian journey is marked by the pedagogy of following a concrete flesh, which educates and accompanies me. We do not follow an idea, we do not follow an ideal of decency, we follow a living Person and the way in which this Person has decided to remain with us, without abandoning us. The easy temptation of Gnosticism is thus avoided: by believing that the Love of God has bent down over our lives, taking pity on our nothingness, rebuilding from within what has fallen, what has been crushed, what has been wounded.

Faith becomes ideology when our certainty about the Christian scandal is taken for granted. When there is no need to start anew. When, without realizing it, we conceive of faith as a territory already conquered. When we are more certain of ourselves than of the one who has been given to us as the place to verify our experience.

Indeed, Jesus chose Peter, a poor fisherman, to guide us. He wasn’t a theologian, he wasn’t a scholar. He knew about fish and nets. It wasn’t despite his fragility and roughness that he became a rock to support the Church. It was through them that God himself decided to educate us and surprise us all.

How can we believe in this, which breaks all the molds? How can we believe that a Jesuit Pope, Latin American, a friend of Rafael Tello, Lucio Gera, and Methol Ferré, possesses full, supreme, and universal power that he can always exercise with complete freedom?

It seems to me that this certainty of faith is nurtured through faithful adherence to the companionship we are given to live the mystery of the Church: the bishop, the parish priest, the founder of the discipleship community in which we find ourselves, the older brother who advises and cares for me, and so on. God gives us people who serve as a verification factor, as a path to adherence to faith. Through the tangible sign of their friendship and companionship, my heart discovers that being Church is never a formal, abstract, or impersonal proposition. Being Church is always living within a guided companionship, with obedience and availability. To disregard this tangible mediation undermines the Church as a sacrament. Again, I would like to emphasize: we do not follow ideas. We follow a living, active, and tangible event that remains in history.

5.2. The letter from Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller and Meisner

Remembering all this pedagogy of following and adherence is important when reflecting on the meaning of the five dubia (doubts) expressed by four cardinals to Pope Francis on the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia, mainly regarding chapter VIII.

The letter from Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner is certainly cordial .¹ ^⁴⁴ However, it is regrettable that they made it public, since it appears to have originally been written as a private letter. On many occasions, when a letter that was originally private is made public without the recipient’s approval, a serious moral failing is committed. Moreover, it is not uncommon for this type of media intervention to be seen as a means of exerting pressure. Furthermore, statements accompanying the letter imbue it with a threatening tone. Cardinal Burke stated that if Francis does not respond to their questions within a certain timeframe, the four cardinals would be prepared for “a formal act of correction” against Peter’s successor . ^⁴⁵

I sincerely wonder if the cardinals realize that their now public questioning directly and indirectly strengthens those who have for years distrusted Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Second Vatican Council? Don’t they realize that some of the sectors most closely associated with fantastical conspiracy theories, ideological conservatism alien to the Gospel, and the moralism so vehemently denounced by Pope Benedict XVI, are celebrating their stance? Perhaps they are unaware of all this. Or perhaps they downplay it. Or perhaps they simply sincerely wish to resolve their “doubts” and approach the Pope with the intention of learning, not of questioning his Magisterium.

5.3. Response to the “dubia” and first reason for Pope Francis’ “silence”

From my point of view, Pope Francis’s teaching in Amoris Laetitia is true creative fidelity and organic development that makes explicit the deposit of faith, emphasizing that all truth, in order to shine in its attractiveness, requires being affirmed with mercy and kindness. The Pope’s silence in response to the cardinals’ questions can be attributed to two things, in my opinion. First, these questions are already addressed both in Amoris Laetitia and in the important homilies, messages, and catecheses with which Francis exercises his munus docendi daily. To demonstrate this explicitly, we will proceed to answer the dubia following the indications of Pope Francis himself and the Church’s traditional doctrine on moral theology. The second reason will be explained later.

The cardinals ask whether it is now possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and, consequently, admit to Holy Communion a person who, being united by a valid marriage bond, lives “more uxorio” with another. The answer is clear. It seems to me that in some cases it will be possible and in some cases it will not. It will all depend on whether there is genuine mortal sin or whether there are mitigating circumstances that make the transgression a sin, even if not of this kind. It is worth remembering in this regard that for a mortal sin to exist, three elements are required in the human act: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Grave matter alone does not in itself constitute mortal sin.

Secondly, they ask whether John Paul II’s teaching regarding the existence of absolute moral norms, valid without exception, that prohibit intrinsically evil actions, remains valid. The answer to this question is “yes,” it remains valid. There are acts that, in themselves, are always gravely illicit because of their object. But as John Paul II reminds us, “if acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or certain particular circumstances can mitigate their malice,”47 even if they do not eliminate it entirely.

The third question is whether, after Amoris Laetitia n. 301, it is still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction with a commandment of God’s law, such as the one prohibiting adultery, is in an objective state of habitual grave sin? Here, the answer requires some distinctions: a “state of habitual grave sin” refers to obstinate conduct objectively contrary to the Gospel norm; therefore, it does not allude to imputability, but to the nature of the action itself. “Grave sin” is specified by grave matter. On the other hand, “mortal sin” is an action that involves grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Therefore, for an objectively evil action to be a mortal sin, certain subjective conditions are required that make it imputable. Thus, we can understand that all mortal sins are grave sins, but not all grave sins are mortal sins.

The prohibition against receiving the Eucharist in a state of grave sin, as set forth in canon 915, rests on the possibility of disrupting the order of the community, causing scandal, and similar situations; that is, it is a disciplinary, not doctrinal, norm that the Pope can modify, or, even if he does not modify it, he can make exceptions based on the canonical principle of the “salus animarum” (salvation of souls). In contrast, the prohibition against receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin is doctrinal, not merely disciplinary.

When this distinction is correctly understood, it is no longer possible to assert that every person in a state of grave sin is, by definition, committing mortal sins. Consider, for example, people living in situations of sexual slavery, where a state of grave sin (prostitution) clearly exists, without this implying that their actions are imputable to such a degree that they can be considered to have been performed with “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” (since slavery exists). It seems the cardinals come somewhat closer to this understanding when they acknowledge that a person in an objectively sinful life “subjectively might not be fully imputable, or not imputable at all.” Indeed, there can be varying degrees of responsibility in a moral act. Not every evil act is equally culpable, not every evil act is equally imputable. Denying this gradation would render Christian morality unbearably rigid. The Church’s constant teaching has always avoided this grave error.

The fourth question posed to the Pope, following the statements in Amoris Laetitia, no. 302, on “circumstances that mitigate moral responsibility,” is whether the teaching of St. John Paul II, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically dishonest in its object into an act that is subjectively honest or justifiable as a choice,” should still be considered valid? The correct answer is “yes.” That is correct. Circumstance or intention modifies only accidentally the moral nature of the action. But both are relevant to the determination of imputability. Therefore, Pope Francis is correct in stating that “a negative judgment on an objective situation does not imply a judgment on the imputability or culpability of the person involved.”48

The fifth question concerns whether the teaching of St. John Paul II, in which he excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and affirms that it is never authorized to legitimize exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit actions intrinsically evil by their object, should still be considered valid. Again, the answer is “yes.” Amoris Laetitia does not propose exceptions to absolute moral norms. What exists are mitigating circumstances.

In some cases, this can mean that the sin committed is not attributable to a person with the necessary characteristics to have their action considered a mortal sin. Moral conscience does not have a creative role but rather discovers the truth gradually. Adultery is always wrong. However, the penitent is not always entirely guilty. Therefore, their sinful state may not always be a mortal sin.

5.4. Second reason to understand the silence of Pope Francis

I understand that not all the issues involved in these discussions are resolved by what has been said above. To close this section, I would like to mention a second possible reason that could explain the Pope’s silence to this day regarding the “doubts” of four cardinals.

In Misericordia et misera, Francis speaks several times of “silence.” Explaining Jesus’ encounter with the adulterous woman, he points out that to the one who wanted to “judge and condemn her to death, Jesus responds with a prolonged silence, which helps the voice of God to resonate in the consciences of both the woman and her accusers. They drop the stones from their hands and go away one by one ” ⁽⁴⁹ ). Could this be the reason for the Pope’s silence? Is he not waiting for those who have sworn allegiance to him to reconsider their position and return to the pedagogical path of following and adhering to the Successor of Peter, which we have outlined above? May God grant that, through dialogue and good faith, through common prayer and sincere embrace, we may all walk alongside the Successor of Peter and alongside the bishops in communion with him. In this way we can give living testimony that, beyond some differences in sensitivity, communion is always possible, if we existentially rediscover the primacy of the merciful love of our God, who loves us all and always forgives us all.

6. THE CONFLICT OF INTERPRETATIONS

Both in the cardinals’ doubts and in other objections raised here and there, there lies an implicit concern that could be expressed as a question: Can the Church value two behaviors differently when they appear externally identical because of the different subjective elements involved? This question seems entirely legitimate, especially if one suddenly recalls the principle of internis ne ecclesia quidem iudicat—in the internal forum, in one’s conscience, not even the Church can judge.

However, this objection can be resolved relatively easily if we recognize that this principle is primarily canonical rather than moral. In fact, as Rocco Buttiglione has aptly pointed out, a more complete formulation of the aforementioned principle should be: ecclesia in externis non iudicat de internis. The Church, in the canonical process, does not judge matters of the internal forum ^. The confessor, on the other hand, can indeed have internal dialogue with the penitent and, eventually, after repentance, offer absolution and the Eucharist.

This type of objection, based on a limited understanding of the external and internal forum, has, I have the impression, also given rise to some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that, without intending to object to it entirely or make explicit accusations against this magisterial document of Pope Francis, cause it to be presented in the most restrictive way possible. For example, my dear Jaroslaw Merecki, in trying to refute Rocco Buttiglione and myself in an article published in the official journal of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute, attempts to assert that: “we do not possess any instrument or empirical procedure by which the state of grace of persons can be verified.”^⁵¹ Furthermore, since we do not offer a concrete and complete catalogue of mitigating situations for the confessor to consider in assessing the possible reduction of the imputability of a sin, then, “we risk leaving everything to the discretion of the confessors, among whom some will be more rigorist, while others will be more liberal” (…) “such a situation would create more confusion than clarity with regard to the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage” ⁵²

It never ceases to amaze us that the confessor’s discernment is thus practically suppressed and that it is intended to be replaced by a more or less mechanical evaluation of human action from the point of view of the mere external forum and a rather rigid application of the moral norm to the diversity of cases and situations.

This type of perspective, based on fear of the confessor’s “discretion,” leads some to adopt the most restrictive possible interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, completely barring divorced and remarried Catholics from the sacraments unless they live as brother and sister. We believe that what we have explained in this exposition reveals that these authors distance themselves from adherence to the papal Magisterium, correctly interpreted, and prefer a certain form of self-righteousness as a substitute for such adherence. For example, this restrictive position seems to characterize José Granados, Stephan Kampowski, and Juan José Pérez-Soba in his book Amoris Laetitia. Acompagnare, Discernere, Integrare. Vademecum per una nuova pastorale familiare%.

The bishops of the province of Buenos Aires have taken a very different stance in their guiding document for applying Chapter VIII of the Apostolic Exhortation:

If it is recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person considers that they would fall into further sin by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). (…) It may be appropriate for any eventual access to the sacraments to take place privately, especially when conflict is anticipated. But at the same time, the community must continue to be accompanied so that it may grow in a spirit of understanding and acceptance, without this implying any confusion regarding the Church’s teaching on the indissoluble nature of marriage ^(S4) .

This stance taken by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region has been personally commented on by Pope Francis in the following way:

The writing is very good and fully explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.55

Following this declaration by Pope Francis, it is impossible to argue that access to the sacraments is strictly prohibited for all persons living in a state of grave sin. Each case must always be examined individually, and if mortal sin exists without repentance, absolution and the Eucharist cannot be offered. However, in some instances, they may be possible. Once again, it must be stated: “Because of mitigating or extenuating circumstances, it is possible that, in the midst of an objective situation of sin that is not subjectively culpable or is not fully so, one can live in a state of grace. ” ^⁵⁶ This is the path. A path that is never static but requires “dynamic discernment” throughout the stages of a person’s maturation and conversion . ^⁵⁷

7. IN CONCLUSION: DO NOT DESPAIR ABOUT OUR LIMITATIONS

One of the least discussed paragraphs of Amoris Laetitia is the last. Its beauty and truth are extraordinary. I have the impression that this short text is not simply placed there to rhetorically close the Apostolic Exhortation. In a certain sense, it allows us to contemplate, in a concise, wise, and pastoral way, the central message of the entire document. Amoris Laetitia is not a systematic and exhaustive treatise that covers all aspects of the moral theology of marriage and the family. Amoris Laetitia is more of a method for discovering how God seeks to nurture, attend to, and heal love throughout people’s lives. It is a method for not despairing over our limitations. I believe there is no better way to end this meditation than with these profound lines, which at the same time reveal the truth about what lies at the heart of Pope Francis on these matters:

The words of the Master (cf. Mt 22:30) and those of Saint Paul (cf. 1 Cor 7:29-31) on marriage are embedded—not by chance—in the ultimate and definitive dimension of our existence, which we need to reclaim. In this way, married couples will be able to recognize the meaning of the path they are traveling. For, as we have recalled several times in this Exhortation, no family is a heavenly reality, created once and for all, but rather requires a progressive maturation of its capacity to love. There is a constant call that comes from the full communion of the Trinity, from the precious union between Christ and his Church, from that beautiful community that is the Holy Family of Nazareth, and from the spotless fraternity that exists among the saints in heaven. But also, contemplating the fullness that we have not yet attained allows us to put into perspective the historical journey we are making as families, so that we may stop demanding from interpersonal relationships a perfection, a purity of intentions, and a consistency that we can only find in the definitive Kingdom. It also prevents us from harshly judging those who live in very vulnerable conditions. We are all called to keep alive the striving for something beyond ourselves and our limitations, and every family must live with this constant encouragement. Let us walk, families, let us keep walking. What is promised to us is always more. Let us not despair because of our limitations, but neither should we give up seeking the fullness of love and communion that has been promised to us ^(S8).

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

ANTONELLI, E. – Bl_m1GLIONE, R. Terapia dell’amore ferito in «Amoris Laetitia». Milano: Ares, 2017.

BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate. Recovered from http:// w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/encyclicals/documents/hf ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html

BENEDICT XVI, Deus Caritas Est. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican . va/content/benedict-xvi/es/encyclicals/documents/hf benwi enc 20051225 deus-caritas-est.html

CARDONA, C. Metaphysics of Good and Evil. Pamplona: Eunsa, 1987.

FINNIS, J. & GRISEZ, G. The Misuse of Amoris Laetitia to Support

Errors Against the Catholic Faith. A letter to the Supreme Pontiff Francis, to all Bishops in communion with him, and to the rest of the Christian faithfull. Retrieved from http://www.twotlj.org/OW-MisuseAL.pdf

POPE FRANCIS. Letter to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, Delegate of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires, September 5, 2016. Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160905_regionepastorale-buenos-aires.html

Pope Francis. Apostolic Letter “Misericordia et Misera.” Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html

FRANCIS. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation «Amoris Laetitia’í Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/ apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazioneap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html

FRANCIS. Misericordiae vultus. Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco_bolla20150411_misericordiae-vultus.html

GUERRA LÓPEZ, R. Affirming the person by themselves. Mexico: National Human Rights Commission, 2003.

“Latin America in the process of transformation: a descriptive approach,” in AA. VV., Change of era? The path of the Church in the current context. Bogotá: CELAM, 2016.

«Amoris Laetitia: organic development and creative fidelity», in L’Osservatore Romano. Spanish edition, July 22, 2016, pp. 7-9;

«Fedeltà creative», in L ‘Osservatore Romano, July 23, 2016, p. 5;

“Learning from each other. Response and proposal to Jaroslaw Merecki,” in L’Espresso, August 18, 2016: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351355.html;

«Francis is going to cause a schism with Amoris Laetitia. “No!”, in ALETEIA, May 3, 2016: https://es.aleteia . org/2016/05/03/francisco-va-a-causa-un-schism-con-laamoris-laetitia-no/;

“Dear Cardinals…”, in Vatican Insider, November 23, 2016: http://www.lastampa.it/2016/11/23/vaticaninsider/es/comentarios/queridos-cardenales-Zq4zS3VoH2REeXZ08YUc70/pagina.htm1 .

. «Christianity and changing times. Educational and cultural transformations of society and the Church in Latin America», in International Congress «From Puebla to Aparecida: Church and society in Latin America 1979-2007», Istituto Luigi Sturzo, Rome (in progress).

JOHN PAUL II. Inaugural Address in Santo Domingo, October 12, 1992. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/johnpaul-ii/es/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921012iv-conferencia-latinoamerica.html

JOHN PAUL 11. Redemptor Hominis.

JOHN PAUL 11. Veritatis Splendor.

JOHN PAUL 11. Ecclesia in America.

LIMA VAZ, HC «Igreja-reflexo vs Igreja-fonte», in Cuadernos Brasileiros, 11.47, (1968): 17-22.

LLANO, A. The new sensibility. Madrid: Espasa, 1988.

MAGISTER, S. “Clarify. The appeal of four cardinals to the Pope,” November 14, 2016. Retrieved from http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articulo/1351414ffae.html?spy&refresh_ce

MERECKI, J. “Nota su alcune interpretazioni di Amoris Laetitia”, in Anthropotes, vol. XXXII, no. 2 (2016): 335-346.

PAZ, O. The Double Flame. Love and Eroticism. Mexico: Seix Barral, 1993.

RATZINGER, J. “Presentation of the book The Power and Grace. The Relevance of Saint Augustine Today.” 30 Giorni, no. 5 (2005). Retrieved from http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_8901_12.htm

RATZIN GER, J. Homily at the Mass celebrated on the occasion of the death of Luigi Giussani, February 24, 2005. Retrieved from http://www . vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/ rc_con_cfaith_doc 20050224_homily-giussani_sp.html

PASTORAL REGION BUENOS AIRES, Basic criteria for the application of chapter VIII of “Amoris Laetitia”, September 5, 2016.

SEIFERT, J. “The Joy of Love: Joys, Sorrows and Hopes”, in Aemaet. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift etir Philosophie und Theologie, vol 5, No 2 (2016): 86-158.

TORNIELLI, A. «Amoris Laetitia; Burke’s ultimatum to Francis”, in Vatican Insider, November 20, 2016: http: // http://www.lastampa.it/2016/12/20/vaticaninsider/es/vaticano/amoris-laetitia-el-ultimtum-de-burke-a-francisco-ZOV5JmsCaqd8kYYwkDxcmM/pagina.html

Overview of Amoris Laetitia: Premises and Arguments, Responses to Doubts and Objections, Path and Hope