Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia does not teach the heresy that God's commandments are impossible
Hundreds of traditionalist-aligned priests and scholars, including the once-excommunicated head of the schismatic SSPX, have signed a "Filial Correction" accusing Pope Francis of teaching heresy in the eighth chapter of his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia ("The Joy of Love," AL). While other authors have taken up the task of defending the pope in various ways, such as Stephen Walford, Jacob Wood, Rocco Buttiglione, and Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein, I want to do a deep dive into the theology behind the first alleged heresy, which is the only accusation with any plausibility. I won't address the issue of whether or not it's acceptable to accuse the pope of heresy, but only note that canon law ("The First See is judged by no one," can. 1404) puts a high burden of proof on those claiming to do so. I'd also direct you to Fr. Thomas Reese's article on the subject of dissent in light of this controversy.
The alleged heresy is:
A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.
That's a lot to parse, but let me try. A "justified" person is someone in what we usually call "the state of grace." In other words, it's someone whom God has made righteous through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:30; Eph 1:13-14). In the context of the eighth chapter of AL, "the objective demands of the divine law" here refers to the commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Jesus says: "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (except for immorality) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). On the basis of this, the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce, and therefore considers remarriage after divorce to be a kind of ongoing adultery. It would go beyond the scope of this post to address the development and nuances of this doctrine, let alone arguments against it. Which is fine, since AL does not purport to alter this doctrine (see 297 and 308) The pope's goal in chapter eight is only to change the pastoral practice with respect to some remarried Catholics who desire the sacraments (see 303).
So, the first accusation of heresy is that Pope Francis supposedly says that some remarried people are unable to live up to this teaching; they are unable to refrain from what the Church considers, objectively speaking, to be adultery. The critics allege that he believes it is impossible for them to do what God commands, and therefore they should be shown leniency. They assert that it is Catholic dogma that it is always possible, by grace, to follow God's commandments. If a person has received the grace of God, he or she will ipso facto be converted away from all serious sin, including remaining in a second marriage. Therefore, if a remarried person refuses for any reason to abandon said marriage, he or she (by their reasoning) must not have experienced a true conversion and is still in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, they cannot receive holy communion.
Two questions arise: first, does the Church teach that God's commandments are always possible (grace assisting)? And secondly, if so, does AL contradict this teaching?
The answer to the first question is yes, provided this be properly understood. The Council of Trent declared and defined as dogma:
Jesus says: "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (except for immorality) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). On the basis of this, the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce, and therefore considers remarriage after divorce to be a kind of ongoing adultery. It would go beyond the scope of this post to address the development and nuances of this doctrine, let alone arguments against it. Which is fine, since AL does not purport to alter this doctrine (see 297 and 308) The pope's goal in chapter eight is only to change the pastoral practice with respect to some remarried Catholics who desire the sacraments (see 303).
So, the first accusation of heresy is that Pope Francis supposedly says that some remarried people are unable to live up to this teaching; they are unable to refrain from what the Church considers, objectively speaking, to be adultery. The critics allege that he believes it is impossible for them to do what God commands, and therefore they should be shown leniency. They assert that it is Catholic dogma that it is always possible, by grace, to follow God's commandments. If a person has received the grace of God, he or she will ipso facto be converted away from all serious sin, including remaining in a second marriage. Therefore, if a remarried person refuses for any reason to abandon said marriage, he or she (by their reasoning) must not have experienced a true conversion and is still in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, they cannot receive holy communion.
Two questions arise: first, does the Church teach that God's commandments are always possible (grace assisting)? And secondly, if so, does AL contradict this teaching?
The answer to the first question is yes, provided this be properly understood. The Council of Trent declared and defined as dogma:
But no one, however much justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema--that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. (Session 6, ch. 11 [DS 1536], my trans.)
The so-called correction provides additional references, but they are ultimately superfluous since Trent is the primary dogmatic reference. As a historical theologian, I believe that the sense of this dogma can be determined only by the appropriate historical reference, which in this case is the teachings of the Protestant Reformers.
The fundamental dispute of the Reformation was the relationship between faith and works (i.e., fulfilling God's commandments). Both sides agreed that without grace human beings, because of original sin, inevitably break God's commandments (see Rom 3:20-23). They somewhat disagreed about the situation with those who have been justified by God's grace. Martin Luther appears to have taught that the justified are enabled, through grace, to keep the Commandments.(1) John Calvin derides Trent's doctrine on this point, but his argument appears more verbal than doctrinal.(2) He says he won't argue about the meaning of the word impossible (implying to me that he would not be willing to call God's commandments impossible), and instead argues from Scripture that everyone, even the justified, sometimes breaks God's commandments. This, he observes, is also said by Trent, though he thinks they seriously downplay the frequency and severity with which the justified sin. In his response to the anathema of canon 18 (which corresponds to the quotation above from ch. 11), he denies only that the law can be followed with the "perfection of obedience." He seems to think that Trent implies that Christians can follow the law perfectly, which is not true. Calvin also believes that every good work a justified person does will, due to human weakness, always contains at least the slightest degree of sin (which God pardons through Christ). Perhaps this could be construed as saying that the commandments are in a sense "impossible," though Calvin does not say this as such.
Amoris Laetitia doesn't discuss the doctrine of justification or faith and works; it's about marriage and family. Nevertheless, his critics argue that he has been infected by Protestant thought. Dogmas have a lasting value beyond their original, historical signification: "Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure" (CCC 89). Does Pope Francis contradict this teaching of Trent in some other way? This would be easier to answer if the critics had put specific quotations from AL with each alleged heresy, instead of grouping them all together. Nevertheless, I am confident that the "offending" paragraphs are 295 and 303.
In AL 295, Pope Francis teaches that some people in irregular marriage situations "are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law." Does this mean that he thinks the commandments are impossible? Out of context it could, but the very next sentence says: "For the law itself is a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace." He explicitly affirms the teaching of Trent! Given this context, we can certainly say that he does not mean that some people are objectively unable to follow God's law. Rather, he means that some remarried Catholics, in the concrete, subjective circumstances of their "irregular" situation, are unable either to understand that the commandment applies to them, or, even if they do understand that, are unable to see how they could actually carry it out. Objectively, it is possible by grace, but subjectively, they are unable to see that because of their situation. This is a subtle, but no less real, distinction, and not what Trent intended to condemn (as we saw).
This idea has a name, which is the "law of gradualism." It was taught by St. John Paul II in this same context of Catholics in "irregular" marriage situations. Francis quotes from Familiaris Consortio (FC 9), that pontiff's own apostolic exhortation on the family, to say that everyone "advances gradually" in fulfilling what God asks of him/her. Conversion (or repentance), FC teaches, isn't an instantaneous, "once-and-done" process. While it implies "an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness," in terms of external reality, the converted nevertheless move towards the good and away from evil only through gradual steps (FC 9; cf. 34). In other words, conversion isn't instantaneous, as though in a single moment a person goes from wretched sinner to immaculate saint! The Church isn't a museum for saints, but a "field hospital" for sinners.(3) Though justified by grace, everyone continues to commit at least venial sins, as Trent acknowledged. Both FC and AL state that gradualism does not mean that God's law itself is gradual, as if only certain parts applied to certain people at certain times. The moral law remains universal and possible by grace. There is no heretical claim that God's commandments are impossible. What there is, is an acknowledgement of the reality of human weakness, which, as we all know, grace does not remove (cf. 2 Cor 12:9-10). Gradualism says that no one fulfills God's law perfectly all at once. Nevertheless, God, being merciful, does not reject us. God remains with us, helping us along towards perfection throughout our lives, so long as we try, with God's help, to move toward the goal as best we understand it (this is repentance). It is a cooperation of God and the human being.
To demand instant, total conformity to the moral law is unrealistic, and in fact would nullify the Gospel, which tells us that God loves us and accepts us in spite of our sins. That is the good news! To be clear, again, this does not mean that we do not try to improve morally and follow the moral law. We do not say: "Oh, God will forgive me anyway, so why bother?" (a caricature of Protestantism). Gradualism means that God is with us on the journey, showing us mercy every day (see Lam 3:22-23; 1 John 1:8-10). This is one of the major themes of Francis's pontificate. I highly recommend the three speeches of his pontificate that I consider the most significant, in which this theme of mercy and encounter is clearly articulated: his closing speech at the 2014 synod of bishops, his 2015 homily to the new cardinals, and his concluding address to the 2015 extraordinary synod of bishops.
The so-called correction may distort the teaching of Trent on this point by denying the Catholic principle of gradualism. If so, its authors put themselves into the unenviable position of adopting the judgmental posture of the Pharisees in the synoptic gospels, who look down on all the "sinners" while justifying themselves (e.g., Luke 18:11-14). It is as if they think that anyone in an "irregular" marriage situation, regardless of circumstances, has automatically proved that he/she is unconverted, unjustified, in a state of mortal sin. But this is not correct, as St. John Paul II already taught in FC. It is possible they wrongly think that gradualism is Protestant heresy. John Calvin, in his aforementioned response to canon 18, says in part: "Believers as long as they live here [on earth] only perceive the goal at a distance, and with much difficulty keep panting towards it" (op. cit.). As I already discussed, this does not contradict Trent's teaching, though Calvin derides the idealistic way the council phrases its teaching, as though all real Christians were almost-perfectly righteous. Calvin is correct to describe the path of holiness as one that we walk throughout life, often failing. Calvin would remind us, as Pope Francis also does, that we always depend upon the mercy of God, which alone justifies us.(4) If gradualism is heresy and means that God's commandments are impossible, then St. John Paul II was the heretic first, and the Catholic Church has been in heresy for at least 35 years. Which of course is not the case.
Paragraph 303 of AL repeats this understanding of gradualism, including the fact that "every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience," and that this is a "dynamic" process always aimed at "new stages in growth." It is not true, as some have claimed, that Pope Francis winks at sin--unless we should also say that Jesus Christ winked at the sins of the tax collectors and prostitutes whom he accompanied and broke bread with (Mark 2:15-17)! It is the penultimate sentence of the paragraph that these critics consider heretical. Unfortunately, the official English translation of this sentence is marred by its failure to translate the word oblationem, as Fastiggi & Goldstein have noted, as well as the fact that it translates exemplum with the equivocal word ideal rather than pattern or model. God's commandments cannot be reduced to mere "ideals" as FC 34 says.(5) An amended translation of this sentence would read:
The fundamental dispute of the Reformation was the relationship between faith and works (i.e., fulfilling God's commandments). Both sides agreed that without grace human beings, because of original sin, inevitably break God's commandments (see Rom 3:20-23). They somewhat disagreed about the situation with those who have been justified by God's grace. Martin Luther appears to have taught that the justified are enabled, through grace, to keep the Commandments.(1) John Calvin derides Trent's doctrine on this point, but his argument appears more verbal than doctrinal.(2) He says he won't argue about the meaning of the word impossible (implying to me that he would not be willing to call God's commandments impossible), and instead argues from Scripture that everyone, even the justified, sometimes breaks God's commandments. This, he observes, is also said by Trent, though he thinks they seriously downplay the frequency and severity with which the justified sin. In his response to the anathema of canon 18 (which corresponds to the quotation above from ch. 11), he denies only that the law can be followed with the "perfection of obedience." He seems to think that Trent implies that Christians can follow the law perfectly, which is not true. Calvin also believes that every good work a justified person does will, due to human weakness, always contains at least the slightest degree of sin (which God pardons through Christ). Perhaps this could be construed as saying that the commandments are in a sense "impossible," though Calvin does not say this as such.
Amoris Laetitia doesn't discuss the doctrine of justification or faith and works; it's about marriage and family. Nevertheless, his critics argue that he has been infected by Protestant thought. Dogmas have a lasting value beyond their original, historical signification: "Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure" (CCC 89). Does Pope Francis contradict this teaching of Trent in some other way? This would be easier to answer if the critics had put specific quotations from AL with each alleged heresy, instead of grouping them all together. Nevertheless, I am confident that the "offending" paragraphs are 295 and 303.
In AL 295, Pope Francis teaches that some people in irregular marriage situations "are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law." Does this mean that he thinks the commandments are impossible? Out of context it could, but the very next sentence says: "For the law itself is a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace." He explicitly affirms the teaching of Trent! Given this context, we can certainly say that he does not mean that some people are objectively unable to follow God's law. Rather, he means that some remarried Catholics, in the concrete, subjective circumstances of their "irregular" situation, are unable either to understand that the commandment applies to them, or, even if they do understand that, are unable to see how they could actually carry it out. Objectively, it is possible by grace, but subjectively, they are unable to see that because of their situation. This is a subtle, but no less real, distinction, and not what Trent intended to condemn (as we saw).
This idea has a name, which is the "law of gradualism." It was taught by St. John Paul II in this same context of Catholics in "irregular" marriage situations. Francis quotes from Familiaris Consortio (FC 9), that pontiff's own apostolic exhortation on the family, to say that everyone "advances gradually" in fulfilling what God asks of him/her. Conversion (or repentance), FC teaches, isn't an instantaneous, "once-and-done" process. While it implies "an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness," in terms of external reality, the converted nevertheless move towards the good and away from evil only through gradual steps (FC 9; cf. 34). In other words, conversion isn't instantaneous, as though in a single moment a person goes from wretched sinner to immaculate saint! The Church isn't a museum for saints, but a "field hospital" for sinners.(3) Though justified by grace, everyone continues to commit at least venial sins, as Trent acknowledged. Both FC and AL state that gradualism does not mean that God's law itself is gradual, as if only certain parts applied to certain people at certain times. The moral law remains universal and possible by grace. There is no heretical claim that God's commandments are impossible. What there is, is an acknowledgement of the reality of human weakness, which, as we all know, grace does not remove (cf. 2 Cor 12:9-10). Gradualism says that no one fulfills God's law perfectly all at once. Nevertheless, God, being merciful, does not reject us. God remains with us, helping us along towards perfection throughout our lives, so long as we try, with God's help, to move toward the goal as best we understand it (this is repentance). It is a cooperation of God and the human being.
To demand instant, total conformity to the moral law is unrealistic, and in fact would nullify the Gospel, which tells us that God loves us and accepts us in spite of our sins. That is the good news! To be clear, again, this does not mean that we do not try to improve morally and follow the moral law. We do not say: "Oh, God will forgive me anyway, so why bother?" (a caricature of Protestantism). Gradualism means that God is with us on the journey, showing us mercy every day (see Lam 3:22-23; 1 John 1:8-10). This is one of the major themes of Francis's pontificate. I highly recommend the three speeches of his pontificate that I consider the most significant, in which this theme of mercy and encounter is clearly articulated: his closing speech at the 2014 synod of bishops, his 2015 homily to the new cardinals, and his concluding address to the 2015 extraordinary synod of bishops.
The so-called correction may distort the teaching of Trent on this point by denying the Catholic principle of gradualism. If so, its authors put themselves into the unenviable position of adopting the judgmental posture of the Pharisees in the synoptic gospels, who look down on all the "sinners" while justifying themselves (e.g., Luke 18:11-14). It is as if they think that anyone in an "irregular" marriage situation, regardless of circumstances, has automatically proved that he/she is unconverted, unjustified, in a state of mortal sin. But this is not correct, as St. John Paul II already taught in FC. It is possible they wrongly think that gradualism is Protestant heresy. John Calvin, in his aforementioned response to canon 18, says in part: "Believers as long as they live here [on earth] only perceive the goal at a distance, and with much difficulty keep panting towards it" (op. cit.). As I already discussed, this does not contradict Trent's teaching, though Calvin derides the idealistic way the council phrases its teaching, as though all real Christians were almost-perfectly righteous. Calvin is correct to describe the path of holiness as one that we walk throughout life, often failing. Calvin would remind us, as Pope Francis also does, that we always depend upon the mercy of God, which alone justifies us.(4) If gradualism is heresy and means that God's commandments are impossible, then St. John Paul II was the heretic first, and the Catholic Church has been in heresy for at least 35 years. Which of course is not the case.
Paragraph 303 of AL repeats this understanding of gradualism, including the fact that "every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience," and that this is a "dynamic" process always aimed at "new stages in growth." It is not true, as some have claimed, that Pope Francis winks at sin--unless we should also say that Jesus Christ winked at the sins of the tax collectors and prostitutes whom he accompanied and broke bread with (Mark 2:15-17)! It is the penultimate sentence of the paragraph that these critics consider heretical. Unfortunately, the official English translation of this sentence is marred by its failure to translate the word oblationem, as Fastiggi & Goldstein have noted, as well as the fact that it translates exemplum with the equivocal word ideal rather than pattern or model. God's commandments cannot be reduced to mere "ideals" as FC 34 says.(5) An amended translation of this sentence would read:
It (conscience) 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 the offering (oblationem) that God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective model (exemplum) (AL 303, modified).
Given the context, this is the principle of gradualism again. Amidst our own failures to obey completely, God graciously accepts the concrete steps we do make, provided they come from a place of genuine conversion: the offering (oblation) of ourselves to God. This is why it's unfortunate that the word oblationem was reduced to "what" in the English translation. Nevertheless, I would argue that even the official translation, when read in context, is a clear reference to gradualism, and not a claim that God asks us to remain in sin. If one wants to twist the pope's words to make them sound heretical, one can, just as in paragraph 295 the phrase "not in a position to [...] fully carry out the objective demands of the law" can be removed from its context of gradualism and turned into an absolute statement that some people can't obey God. Some people have accused the pope of being unclear or careless in his use of words, but both paragraphs 295 and 303 are clear (especially once we correct the English mistranslation). I would wager that pastors who have been dealing with these situations for years, know from experience exactly what Pope Francis means.
In summary, the so-called correction is wrong to accuse Pope Francis of having taught the heresy that God's commandments are impossible. Two sentences of AL, from 295 and 303, could be thus misconstrued, if taken out of context. The pope's clear meaning is that God does not reject people just because they do not perfectly fulfill the moral law all at once. We usually move towards the good through gradual stages, i.e., gradualism, and God mercifully accepts this from us, while always urging us forward to the perfect exemplar given by Christ. Gradualism was already taught by St. John Paul II in FC. It is not heretical; it is, in fact, Catholic doctrine and practice. I would urge any Catholic reading this who thought the pope a heretic on this point to reconsider, especially in light of the obligation that all Catholics have to at least try to assent to whatever the Bishop of Rome teaches in his official documents and speeches (see Lumen Gentium 25). After all, that's one of the reasons why we have a pope in the first place.
Addendum: The correctness of my opinion has received confirmation from no less a luminary than Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former head of the Vatican's doctrine department! In a new essay, of which he published excerpts on Monday, he writes:
(2) This and what follows are from John Calvin, "An Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification," trans. R. Scott Clark, The Highway Ministry, https://www.the-highway.com/antidote_Calvin.html.
(3) Pope Francis, "A Big Heart Open to God," America: The Jesuit Review, 30 September 2013, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/09/30/big-heart-open-god-interview-pope-francis
(4) "This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae – they are necessary – or from the importance of laws and divine commandments, but rather to exalt the greatness of the true God, who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of his Mercy (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Ps 129; Lk 11:47-54)" (Pope Francis, Conclusion of the Synod of Bishops, 24 October, 2015).
(5) The Latin for "merely an ideal" in FC 34 is meram quandam optimae formae effigiem, which means, if translated very formally, "a certain bare effigy of an optimal form."
In summary, the so-called correction is wrong to accuse Pope Francis of having taught the heresy that God's commandments are impossible. Two sentences of AL, from 295 and 303, could be thus misconstrued, if taken out of context. The pope's clear meaning is that God does not reject people just because they do not perfectly fulfill the moral law all at once. We usually move towards the good through gradual stages, i.e., gradualism, and God mercifully accepts this from us, while always urging us forward to the perfect exemplar given by Christ. Gradualism was already taught by St. John Paul II in FC. It is not heretical; it is, in fact, Catholic doctrine and practice. I would urge any Catholic reading this who thought the pope a heretic on this point to reconsider, especially in light of the obligation that all Catholics have to at least try to assent to whatever the Bishop of Rome teaches in his official documents and speeches (see Lumen Gentium 25). After all, that's one of the reasons why we have a pope in the first place.
Addendum: The correctness of my opinion has received confirmation from no less a luminary than Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former head of the Vatican's doctrine department! In a new essay, of which he published excerpts on Monday, he writes:
An important point of Amoris Laetitia, which is often not correctly understood in all its pastoral meaning, and which is not easy to apply in practice with tact and discretion, is the law of gradualness. It is not a matter of a gradualness of the law but of its progressive application to a concrete person in their concrete existential conditions. This happens dynamically in a process of clarification, discernment and maturation based on the recognition of one’s own personal and unrepeatable relationship with God through the path of one’s life (cf. AL 300). This is not a hardened sinner, who wants to assert before God rights that he or she does not have. God is particularly close to the person who sets out on the path of conversion, who, for example, assumes responsibility for the children of a woman who is not his legitimate bride and does not neglect the duty to take care of her. This also applies in the case in which he, because of his human weakness and not for the will to oppose grace, which helps to observe the commandments, is not yet able to satisfy all the requirements of moral law. An action in itself sinful does not become legitimate and not even pleasing to God. However, its imputability as guilt can be diminished when the sinner turns to God’s mercy with a humble heart and prays “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner”. Here pastoral accompaniment and the practice of the virtue of penance as an introduction to the sacrament of penance has a special importance. It is, as Pope Francis says, “a way of love” (AL 306).
Footnotes
(1) "Now, against this evil [i.e., our natural inability to keep God's commandments] God found a remedy and determined to send Christ, his Son, into this world, that he should shed his blood and die, in order to make satisfaction for sin and take it away, and that the Holy Spirit then should enter the hearts of such people, who go about with the works of the Law, being unwilling and forced to do it, and make them willing, in order that without force and with joyous heart they keep God's commandments" (Martin Luther, "A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter," in Luther's Church Postil, trans. John Nicholas Lenker, vol. 3 [Minneapolis: Lutherans in All Lands, 1907], 110-24; here 114). See also Robert Kolb, "Luther's Hermeneutics of Distinctions: Law and Gospel, Two Kinds of Righteousness, Two Realms, Freedom and Bondage," in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology (ed. Robert Kolb et. al.; Oxford: OUP, 2014), ch. 12.(2) This and what follows are from John Calvin, "An Antidote to the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification," trans. R. Scott Clark, The Highway Ministry, https://www.the-highway.com/antidote_Calvin.html.
(3) Pope Francis, "A Big Heart Open to God," America: The Jesuit Review, 30 September 2013, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/09/30/big-heart-open-god-interview-pope-francis
(4) "This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae – they are necessary – or from the importance of laws and divine commandments, but rather to exalt the greatness of the true God, who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of his Mercy (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Ps 129; Lk 11:47-54)" (Pope Francis, Conclusion of the Synod of Bishops, 24 October, 2015).
(5) The Latin for "merely an ideal" in FC 34 is meram quandam optimae formae effigiem, which means, if translated very formally, "a certain bare effigy of an optimal form."
Comments