Veritatis Splendor vs. Amoris Laetitia

Pope John Paul II’s inspiring encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor, was promulgated thirty years ago, on August 6, 1993. The encyclical has certainly lost none of its intellectual force or deep wisdom, and it remains as pertinent today as ever. When this papal teaching first appeared, however, it was greeted with a torrent of hostility by many of the Church’s moral theologians.

Bernhard Häring (Pope Francis’ favorite moral theologian) described himself as “greatly discouraged” after reading John Paul II’s work. This is not a surprise since the pope was correcting the errors that Häring and other revisionist theologians had propagated in the Church since the end of Vatican II. As John Paul II pointed out, it was not a matter of isolated or limited dissent but a “systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine” (4).

The fundamental option, proportionalism, the sovereignty of conscience, and moral subjectivism—all of these heterodox doctrines were thoroughly refuted through arguments woven with principled reasoning. For a time, it looked like the philosopher-pope had succeeded in his herculean effort to renew moral theology. But then came the papacy of Pope Francis, which has consistently sought to marginalize and undermine the principal moral teachings of this encyclical.

Veritatis Splendor is now virtually ignored at the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences. Instead, the new faculty, hired by Archbishop Paglia, are keen to emphasize how the moral law must be constantly modified and updated in response to cultural evolution and historical experience. At a conference on moral theology held last year in Rome, some theologians expressed their utter disdain for Veritatis Splendor and the need for its correction. 

Fr. Julio Martinez, professor of moral theology at Comillas Pontifical University, said that it was necessary “to untie the knots Veritatis Splendor made in Catholic morals.” Veritatis Splendor, he stated, initiated “a very profound development in moral theology with the introduction of the concept we call intrinsic evil.” According to Fr. Martinez, this is a “controversial philosophical concept that brought serious difficulties for moral theology.”

Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that the notion of intrinsic evil was just discovered thirty years ago by John Paul II. On the contrary, this doctrine was defended by secular philosophers like Aristotle, asserted by the Church Fathers along with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and taught without objection in the Catholic Church for many centuries.

Also, the newly appointed head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, has made it clear through word and deed that he has little use for Veritatis Splendor. In one of his recent interviews, he conveyed his dismissive view of this encyclical because its particular concern is “to set certain limits.” Hence, according to Fernandez, “it is not the most adequate text to encourage the development of theology.”

The bishop’s reductive assessment, however, is way off base. Veritatis Splendor does far more than establish moral limits, though that task is certainly not alien to moral theology. Jesus Himself was not diffident about setting limits to our behavior. But John Paul II presents a holistic vision of moral theology, a brilliant synthesis of biblical Christian teaching, philosophy, and theology that covers a wide range of interrelated topics including human freedom, the divine and natural law, human nature, and the role of conscience in moral decision-making.

The renowned Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre praised Veritatis Splendor as a major intervention in moral debate and a “striking contribution…to ongoing philosophical inquiry.” In his view, this encyclical clearly provided a viable platform for the creative development of theology or philosophy. But the liberal theologians who dominated the academy were simply not interested. John Paul II can hardly be blamed for the fact that in 2023 we have no theologians of the same stature as Karl Rahner or Joseph Ratzinger.

The principal theme of Veritatis Splendor is quite simple and should be uncontroversial: the Christian faith includes specific moral demands because it is “on the path of the moral life that the way of salvation is open to all” (3). Those demands are clearly laid out in the Decalogue that is re-promulgated in the New Testament.

The encyclical opens with an exegesis of Jesus’ dialogue with the rich young man in Matthew’s Gospel (chapter 19). Jesus draws this man’s attention to the centrality of the Decalogue’s precepts. Thus, “from the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue” (12). One of those commandments is also powerfully reaffirmed with a reference to the original order of creation in Jesus’ teaching on adultery (Mark 10:4-12).

Moreover, God has conveyed to His people these same specific moral requirements as the natural moral law that proscribes certain conduct such as adultery, theft, and the taking of innocent life. These “limits” that seem to disturb Archbishop Fernandez so much protect the fundamental goods of human nature such as marriage and life. They also represent the “path involving a moral and spiritual journey toward perfection” (15).

But with a few notable exceptions, post-Conciliar moral theology has been centered on an imprudent and misguided attempt to mitigate the prohibitions found in Scripture and the natural law. Revisionist theologians have proposed theories like proportionalism (a variation of utilitarianism) that allow for exceptions to moral norms so long as the goal of a greater good or at least a lesser evil is realized. Nothing is intrinsically evil or good because everything depends on context. And they have suggested that the negative precepts forbidding certain actions that are expressed in Scripture are less than absolute.

But John Paul II insists that to deny the truth of moral absolutes such as the prohibition against adultery is philosophically untenable because it opens the door to moral subjectivism. It is also inconsistent with Revelation, for “Jesus Himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions” (52). While someone may not be subjectively culpable for committing an adulterous act (through ignorance or compulsion), adultery is always objectively wrong no matter what the circumstances may be.

Read the Whole Article