Leo XIV Reopens the Amoris Debate
Your Pope Leo Weekly for March 23, 2026
✉️ Get this in your inbox every week:
Highlight of the Week: Pope Leo Calls a Meeting of Bishops to a “Synodal Discernment” of Amoris Laetitia
This week marked ten years since Pope Francis published Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”), a papal exhortation that served as a compendium of the 2015 Synod on the Family. Francis originally called this meeting of Catholic bishops from around the world to discuss and discern “the pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization”; the result was a theological and pastoral controversy that haunted the next decade of Francis’ papacy and continues to drive a wedge between Catholics of traditional and progressive stripes.
Much of the debate hinges on a single footnote, which (depending on how you read it) is often taken to recommend admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, though the official law on the books is that remarriage after civil divorce and without a formal annulment by the Church is not a valid marriage but adultery, and that those in such a situation of “manifest grave sin” should not receive the Eucharist until that situation is resolved.
To some, this suggestion—that the divorced and remarried could receive Communion in certain cases—represents a scandalous contradiction of Catholic moral teaching, especially Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor. Others see Amoris as a long-overdue recognition by the late pope that the Church’s moral standards are unrealistic and too extracting of normal lay people. To this day, there has been little territory won by either camp; at least in the West, these two interpretations of Amoris Laetitia have been sifted into the well-worn grooves of the culture wars, and won’t budge.
Apparently optimistic that the bishops can break us out of this gridlock, Pope Leo XIV announced on Thursday that the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences will be convening for some kind of special gathering this October “in an effort to proceed, in mutual listening, to a synodal discernment on the steps to be taken in order to proclaim the Gospel to families today, in light of Amoris Laetitia.”
Summarizing what he evidently sees as the key insights of Amoris, Leo writes,
In gathering the fruits of synodal discernment, Amoris Laetitia offers valuable teachings that we must continue to examine today: the biblical hope of God’s loving and merciful presence, which allows us to live “love stories” even when navigating “family crises” (AL 8); the invitation to adopt “the gaze of Jesus” (AL 60) and tirelessly to encourage “the growth, strengthening and deepening of conjugal and family love” (AL 89); the call to appreciate that love in marriage “always gives life” (AL 165) and that it is ‘real’ precisely in its “limited and earthly” way (AL 113), as the mystery of the Incarnation teaches us. Pope Francis affirmed the need “for new pastoral methods” (AL 199) and for a better education of children (cf. AL chap. VII), while inviting the Church to accompany, discern and integrate fragility (cf. AL chap. VIII), overcoming a reductive conception of the norm, and to promote “the spirituality that unfolds in family life” (AL 313).
Read the whole thing here → Message for the Tenth Anniversary of Amoris Laetitia
Quick Dive: Can the Bishops Break a Decade of Deadlock?
Firstly, reading Leo’s message on Amoris Laetitia brought to mind something that Paul Fahey shared during our most recent livestream with Sr Carino Hodder OP: his “hypothesis” that where Pope John Paul II was the “Philosopher Pope,” Benedict XVI was the “Theologian Pope,” and Francis was the “Pastor Pope,” Pope Leo will come to be known as the “Catechist Pope.”
It’s a good thesis, and one I can absolutely get behind. In this particular instance, you get a great example of Leo’s catechizing instinct: he takes the time to summarize the terms of the discussion on marriage and family, from Vatican II to the current context. As Sr. Carino pointed out, Leo wants to communicate clearly what he means when he’s talking about “The Church,” “The Word of God,” “Evangelization,” etc., and we see that here in his treatment of Amoris, as he makes a point to get us all “caught up” on its genuine contributions as well as the conversations yet to be had. With Leo, you also always get a bunch of citations (which wasn’t always the case with Francis, whose gift was more prophetic and exhortational).
Regarding Leo’s intentions behind calling this meeting, my hunch is that this is not meant to be a re-litigation of Amoris, a forum for rehearsing the old debates about whether or not to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, but rather an attempt at creating the conditions that would make it possible for the living magisterium to get beyond the binaries that have caused genuine discernment in this area to grind to a halt.
Finally, I think it’s important to note that Pope Leo has essentially written the syllabus for the meeting in his own selections of citations from Amoris, seen above, which roughly correspond to the nine chapters of Francis’ document. To me, the most interesting challenge listed here is how to “discern and integrate fragility, overcoming a reductive conception of the norm.” Here Leo loosely cites the entire eighth chapter of Amoris—the epicenter, so to speak, of the theological earthquake unleashed in 2016.
The way I read it, this “reductive conception of the norm” phraseology refers specifically to the subsection of Chapter VIII, “Rules and Discernment,” in which Francis expounds his ideals versus realities approach to what he calls “irregular situations”—non-sacramental marriages, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage, etc. I’m including the relevant excerpt from that section here for your consideration; for what it’s worth, I highly recommend giving all of Chapter VIII a good read, and I would love to know your reactions to it.
304. It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.
305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.1 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.
Whatever you make of this approach, my guess is this is what is going to be on the table at October’s meeting: not specific questions of policy that would amount to a “changing of the rules” in Catholic practice, but rather the general pastoral approach outlined in Amoris Laetitia, which puts the onus on the faithful, in dialogue with their pastors, when it comes to making particular discernments in challenging or irregular situations. Will the bishops rally around this vision, or will we see a rollback of Francis’ pastoral vision under Leo?
Have a question about this week’s issue?
Additional Resources and Perspectives:
Buenos Aires bishops’ guidelines on Amoris Laetitia: full text
Paul Fahey, Communion for the Divorced and Remarried: a Defense of Amoris Laetitia
Rocco Buttiglione, “Prominent Italian philosopher explains his response to doubts surrounding the Amoris Laetitia.”
Previous issues:
Here’s where the Footnote Heard ‘Round the World is inserted. It reads (citations omitted for readability):
In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy. I would also point out that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.
#304 reminds me very much of Pope Benedict's 3-book set on Jesus. He tried to distinguish between the 10 Commandments vs the rules and regulations of the Mosaic Law which enforced the 10 "absolute general principles" of the Law. To him it seemed clear: Jesus wanted not to remove a single word from the 10 Commandments but rather to fulfill it by removing it from the unnecessary rules & regulations of the Mosaic Law, which were not immutable as the commandments were.
I wish we had a social scientist to participate in this.. I wonder how many Catholics are remarried and take communion regardless of what bishops and Popes say? It seems to me that moral ideas should be in conversation with real-world practice by the Catholic occupying the pews.