One question facing Pope Leo XIV will be whether to advance the “new paradigm” for moral theology proposed by Pope Francis and some of his advisors in recent years.
In 2016, in Chapter 8 of his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), Pope Francis proposed a new approach to people in “irregular” marital situations (e.g., second marriages after civil divorce). Interpretations of this chapter differed widely. Was he recommending situational exceptions to moral norms, or only a more sympathetic pastoral approach to people who find themselves in these situations?
In one striking passage, however, he implied that the former was his intent:
[C]onscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It 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 what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized. (no. 303, emphasis added)
Earlier teaching documents of the Church described permanence, exclusivity, and openness to new life as characteristics of what authentic conjugal love “demands” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1643). Earlier in Amoris Laetitia, Francis was already referring to them as an “ideal” (e.g., no. 292). Now he seemed to describe not living up to that ideal, and specifically to “the objective ideal,” as consistent with still doing what God himself is asking the person to do here and now. This suggested that more than a compassionate pastoral response was being proposed. How could anyone suggest to people in this situation that they are erring by obeying God?
Jesus seems to have had his own demanding message on the Christian ideal. Asked how one can gain eternal life, he first cited the commandments against adultery and other sins. When his questioner said he was following all these, Jesus said that to be perfect—to live up to the ideal—one should sell one’s possessions, give to the poor, and follow him (see Matthew 19:16–21; cf. Mark 10:17–21). When all we do is obey the commandments forbidding grave sins, we should see ourselves as “unprofitable servants” doing only what we are obliged to do (Luke 17:10).
To be sure, Pope St. John Paul II, in his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, had spoken of a “law of gradualness” in helping married couples live up to the demands of the Gospel. But he added:
Married people too are called upon to progress unceasingly in their moral life, with the support of a sincere and active desire to gain ever better knowledge of the values enshrined in and fostered by the law of God. They must also be supported by an upright and generous willingness to embody these values in their concrete decisions. They cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. “And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.” (no. 34, emphasis added)
Pope Francis did repeat this distinction between the law of gradualness and gradualness of the law (see Amoris Laetitia, no. 295); but he—and especially theologians who then proceeded to take up his theme—seemed to approve what John Paul II warned against.
Those theologians broadened his approach to reconfigure Catholic morality generally. In 2022, the Pontifical Academy for Life published a volume that its president, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, said was “aimed at applying Pope Francis’ Magisterium to the field of moral theology.” It was titled Etica Teologica della Vita (Theological Ethics of Life). The volume was based on a symposium that included many non-members of the Academy, and it was convened by Academy leadership without involving most rank-and-file members.
To cite just two of its chapters: Professor Sigrid Müller of the University of Vienna observed that moral theology must place its preference either on the Church’s objective moral norms or on individual conscience—and after entertaining the idea that one might try to balance the two, she concluded that one must prefer the subject’s individual conscience, which after considering a moral norm may override it in light of that person’s current situation. And William Murphy of the Pontifical College Josephinum also emphasized “subjective” or situational factors in assessing moral actions, criticizing the emphasis of some bishops and theologians on the “intrinsically evil” acts that Pope St. John Paul II wrote about in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). Catholic sexual ethics came under special scrutiny in this regard.
Both writers claimed that this paradigm shift in theology was based on the “personalism” of the Second Vatican Council—the documents of which, in this author’s view, they do not seem to have read or understood. For, in the council’s document on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope), the council made the following observation on matters such as birth control:
[W]hen there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love…. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (no. 51, emphasis added)
To have the same nature as other humans means that one is bound by the same moral principles.
And no one who has read that document can forget its ringing condemnation of a series of “infamies” that “poison” human society and constitute a “supreme dishonor to the Creator” by their very nature, beginning with crimes against life itself such as genocide, murder, abortion, and euthanasia (no. 27). These were condemned without reference to particular circumstances.
As has often happened, the supposed “spirit” of Vatican II was being cited by authors of the Academy for Life volume while neglecting what the council documents actually said.
Francis himself, perhaps encouraged by such support, advanced this trend in his November 2023 motu proprio Ad theologiam promovendam (for promoting theology), presenting revised statutes for the Pontifical Academy of Theology. “Promoting theology in the future cannot be limited to abstractly reproducing formulas and models from the past,” he declared (no. 1). He called for a “paradigm shift,” a “courageous cultural revolution” committing theology to be “fundamentally contextual,” “capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women daily live” (no. 4). He urged theological reflection using an “inductive method,” starting from “the different contexts and concrete situations in which people exist, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality” (no. 8). He rejected what he saw as a deductive approach, “extrinsically adapting now-crystallized content to new situations, as if they were mere particular cases of an immutable and universal law” (no. 3).
The Academy of Theology statutes have been revised before. Francis’s revision made changes in those approved earlier by John Paul II. Remarkably, however, Francis ordered that his own directives be given “stable and lasting force, notwithstanding anything to the contrary,” and that the accompanying statutes remain in force “in perpetuity” (no. 10). In this one instance, it seemed that future popes were told to reaffirm formulas from their past.*
Finally, a synodal working group on doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues, established by Pope Francis, reported in October 2024 that in this field
it is not a matter of proclaiming and applying abstract doctrinal principles, but of vitally inhabiting the experience of faith in its personal and social relevance so that we will be open to the ever new promptings of the Holy Spirit…. Only a vital, fruitful, and reciprocal tension between doctrine and practice embodies the living Tradition and is able to counteract the temptation to rely on the barren scleroticism of verbal pronouncements. (I §2, emphasis added)
While the word “scleroticism” is rare in English, an online thesaurus describes “sclerosis” as “any pathological hardening or thickening of tissue.”
The working group continued: “Ethically speaking, it is not a matter of applying a pre-packaged objective truth to different subjective situations, as if they were mere particular cases of an immutable and universal law. The criteria of discernment arise from listening to the live self-gift of Revelation in Jesus in the today of the Spirit” (II §1). The group offered to develop these themes further and offer guidelines on “sexuality, marriage, the generation of children, and the promotion and care of life” (II §3).
The trend here is from the objective to the subjective, from moral norms to each individual’s judgment of conscience, from intrinsically evil acts to the discernment of circumstances that can mitigate or set aside moral norms in practice. Taken to its logical conclusion, this approach would seem to tend toward the “situation ethics” promoted decades ago by the lapsed Episcopalian Joseph Fletcher.
In response to this trend, a group of theologians and others, including this author, contributed to a 2024 volume edited by Professors Deborah Savage of the Franciscan University of Steubenville and Robert Fastiggi of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, titled Lived Experience and the Search for Truth: Revisiting Catholic Sexual Morality. Based on this publication, three considerations may assist us in judging the new paradigm valuing “lived experience” over tradition.
First, as Karol Wojtyla, the future Pope John Paul II, wrote in The Acting Person, and as Professor Savage observes in her own contribution to this volume, moral issues do indeed emerge from lived experience. But it is through reasoned reflection that one comes to recognize one’s past or proposed actions as promoting or obstructing the flourishing of oneself and others as whole human persons—that is, as being right or wrong. The situations encountered in one’s lived experience raise important moral questions—but arriving at answers requires stepping back from the immediate experience to reflect on what kind of person my action will make me and others into.
Second, tradition itself is a repository of the lived experience of believers encountering moral issues over many ages and many cultures—freeing each of us from what G.K. Chesterton called “the degrading slavery” of being a child of one’s age. This “democracy of the dead” liberates us from the self-absorption (and yes, the self-deceptions) that tempt us to justify our own departures from moral norms. As Chesterton said, it “refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” That oligarchy can become small and arrogant indeed when “reality” is restricted to what I am willing, here and now, to see for myself.
Third, the experience of the fruits of the Sexual Revolution provides ample evidence for what does and does not contribute to human flourishing. The revolution has had many casualties, especially among women. This has been documented in great detail by authors such as Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, and Helen Alvaré, as well as Mary Eberstadt, who contributed to this volume. Another contributor, Anne Maloney, recounted what she learned from over 30 years of teaching at a Catholic women’s college: the growing incidence of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and even self-cutting and suicidal feelings among young women trying to get with the supposed “liberation” offered by hook-up culture. Other contributors, including this author, described how striving to follow the somewhat unpopular moral teachings of the Church on issues like family planning has led them to a stronger marriage and a more fulfilled life.
In short, lived experience, while open to all animals, is uniquely human only when it is subjected to reasoned reflection. In a community like the Church, the fruits of such reflection are shared by its members across time and space, not trapped within the limited perspective of each individual, and are embodied in the Church’s moral tradition. Moreover, to a great extent, that tradition’s wisdom is confirmed by contemporary experience among those who have lived by its guidance and those who have departed from it. In light of these considerations, tradition and experience can be seen not as rivals, but as partners in building up a truly living tradition.
For his part, Pope Leo has already spoken more critically of using one’s own subjective experience as a determining factor in moral decisions. Citing St. Augustine, he has said in an interview that human experience should be a door leading us to God, and hence to a greater solidarity with other people. But he warned: “So often today, in the highly individualistic society that people are growing up in, people think that my experience is the criteria. ‘Am I happy or not happy?’ What that might really be is, ‘Do I feel pleasure or don’t I feel pleasure?’ Or, ‘Do I feel selfish?’ And if I feel okay, then that’s all that matters.”
Then on January 26th of this year, Pope Leo delivered an important speech to the bishops of the Roman Rota on the theme of “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), emphasizing that these are not in opposition but must be advanced together. Referring to cases involving matrimonial nullity and other issues in canon law, he warned:
Sometimes there is a risk that excessive identification with the oft troubled vicissitudes of the faithful may lead to a dangerous relativization of truth. In fact, misunderstood compassion, even if apparently motivated by pastoral zeal, risks obscuring the necessary dimension of ascertaining the truth proper to the judicial office.
Particularly in cases involving matrimonial nullity, this “could lead to pastoral decisions lacking a solid objective foundation.”
He also warned against “a cold and detached affirmation of the truth” that neglects the need for “respect and mercy.” But he said the bishops’ work should
… always be motivated by that true love for neighbour that seeks above all else his eternal salvation in Christ and in the Church, which entails adherence to the truth of the Gospel. We thus find the perspective in which all ecclesial juridical activity must be placed: the salus animarum as the supreme law in the Church. In this way, your service to the truth of justice is a loving contribution to the salvation of souls.
What we need now is clarity on whether the Church’s future teaching and practice will be guided by Pope Francis’s “paradigm shift,” or by the harmonious union of objective truth and Christian charity proposed by Pope Leo.
(*This document was issued by the Vatican only in Italian and Latin. I am grateful to Thomas D. Williams, STD, for ensuring the accuracy of these translated quotes.)
Editor’s note: This essay was posted originally on the “What We Need Now” site and is posted here with kind permission.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Lived experience can cut two ways, either personalistic and self determined, or awareness of the good of mutual respect. Ideals are literally ideas that are beyond reach. A false representation of Christ’s revelation.
Richard Doerflinger offers an excellent, well researched panorama of the Bergoglian new paradigm that appeals to the human condition as the moral determinant, contrasted to Christ’s standards requiring grace and grit.
Where does Pope Leo stand is the question? Amid the questionable appointments and to date lack of substantial difference from his idolized predecessor, his best indication to date of a break with Francis was his address to the Roman Rota in defense of the indissolubility of marriage.
The other encouraging indication to date is Pope Leo’s instructions to the Dicastery on the Doctrine of the Faith (with Cardinal Fernandez in attendance):
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/01/29/leo-urges-doctrine-office-to-give-clear-guidance-in-face-of-new-challenges/
Archbishop Paglia is identified as one of Pope Francis’ lieutenants in the implementation of moral ambiguity…
A picture is worth a thousand words. In this link, Paglia–as himself depicted in the homoerotic mural at his cathedral church not far from Rome (as in “not far enough”):
And a picture is worth a thousand words…https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leading-vatican-archbishop-featured-in-homoerotic-painting-he-commissioned
Refuting the Paglia et al “paradigm shift”, stripped of its camouflage, is long overdue and could be simply done with a coat of white paint–nothing more than a flippant misappropriation into moral theology from the quite different natural sciences (Thomas Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” 1962).
A fine essay emphasizing objective truth, yet this: “Second, tradition itself is a repository of the lived experience of believers encountering moral issues over many ages and many cultures—freeing each of us from what G.K. Chesterton called “the degrading slavery” of being a child of one’s age. This “democracy of the dead” liberates us from the self-absorption (and yes, the self-deceptions) that tempt us to justify our own departures from moral norms.”
“and yes, the self-deceptions”
GKC noted it, why can’t we? Why is there a frequent apologetic reluctance to acknowledge one of the most common of human experiences, right up there with breathing? Which also happens to be directly related to the apologetic reluctance to mention the word sin, which is the cause of self-deceptions. Which also happens to be directly related to equating “mercy” with alleviation of guilt. Which also happens to be directly related to the refusal to mention that sin has tragic abused, neglected, abandoned, tortured, and murdered victims who matter.
Have read just the heading so far. Not too confused about which fork to take.
The fork furthest from the plate.
🙂
“the “new paradigm” for moral theology”
Pope Leo (and all clergy), we don’t need any re-thinking of morality – that’s the project of Satan. What we need are Churchmen to preach the truth about all things, at all times and in all places. Do that and you will be followers of Christ who told us that He was the Truth.
The theological battles of the Neo-Scholastics vs. the Tubingen School, and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange vs. Father Henri Bouillard, S.J., (“La nouvelle theologie oil va-t-elle?”, are ever present. How can static doctrine address life’s experience, which is defined by “change”, vs. metaphysical, unchanging principle. “If the conceptual terms of a dogmatic proposition change, the dogma itself changes, making truth relative”.
Well noted, dear Daniel G Fink. I’d want to go even deeper into what it actually originally meant – now means in our context – and always will mean – until our beloved King Jesus returns to separate the sheep from the goats.
Professor Richard M. Doerflinger’s article is a superb & readily accessible analysis; yet it lacks reference to Catholic Christian cornerstone truth.
On 15th August 1997, in ‘Laetamur Magnopere’, Pope John Paul 2nd approved and promulgated the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’, 2nd Edition; with the purpose of: “. . enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life; confirming its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine.”
“The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith” to serve as: “a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion, a sure norm for teaching the faith, and a sure and authentic reference text for preparing local catechisms.”
It’s noteworthy that the 2,865 paragraphs of the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ given us by Saint Pope JPII & Saint Pope Benedict XVI are primarily
supported by over 3,500 citations from The New Testament. In short, ‘The Word of God’ defines The New and Better Covenant’ (see Hebrews 8:6-13) & is demonstated to be the sure guide for the words of The Church.
Thus, we understand the 27 texts by 9 Apostolic authors – that constitute The New Testament – to be of primary importance for understanding the Catholic faith. Unique among all literature. This is the manuscript of The New & better Covenant that every true Catholic lives under.
{THE standard for critiquing novelties; never to be critiqued BY novelties}
Every Catholic can come closer to our LORD Jesus Christ (the author of The New & Better Covenant) by study of His New Testament. This is amazingly rewarding but has not always be a smooth journey, owing to numerous authors who’ve written loosely-based fiction, & others who’ve authored non-authentic
or partisan academic studies. Keep in mind:
“Fierce wolves will invade you & will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be some coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your guard.” Acts 20:30
Obviously, our constant prayer must be that Pope Leo XIV be on his guard.
It’s quite common to find teachers, even qualified Catholic clerics, who question the veracity of the New Testament texts; often providing quite complex arguments to build-up a case against the truthfulness of the accounts of Jesus Christ’s life, His teachings, & His commands. Some points
appear well made but generally have little bearing on the reliability of the highly structured, Holy Spirit gift of the New Testament. Where a case can be made against something in one of the texts, it’s always nullified when
we consider the whole New Testament witness.
Simply put: “A text without a context is a pretext!”
Our saintly & learned popes, JPII & BXVI, witness to this eternal truth. Could Pope Leo XIV have better Christ-following mentors . . ?
This comment is never a criticism of such an excellent CWR article but is, hopefully, a useful, even indispensable footnote.
Well, I change my clothes every day, and I know the lady who “changes” the flowers before the statue of the Blessed Mother at our parish almost every day, even though she never “changes” her resolve to do so. Nonetheless, transcendent, immutable doctrine reflecting the eternal unchanging mind of God, Who defined everything about our unchanging human condition from eternity to eternity, “changes” only in the mind of a theologian, infantile enough to contrive excuses for not examining his soul, no matter how many other infantile “scholars and theologians” he manipulates, with infantile sophistry, into agreement.
Gods is not and cannot be an idiot God that infantile minds imagine Him to be, who deprives His creatures from eternal truth.
Amen!
Are all these amens expressed here emanating spontaneously from lived experience, or from reading about how one should respond. Please explain the difference? And whether there is a difference.
Well said, dear Edward J Baker! Reinforcing the tragedy Doerflinger reports:
“The trend here is from the objective to the subjective, from moral norms to each individual’s judgment of conscience, from intrinsically evil acts to the discernment of circumstances that can mitigate or set aside moral norms in practice. Taken to its logical conclusion, this approach would seem to tend toward the “situation ethics” promoted decades ago by the lapsed Episcopalian Joseph Fletcher.”
In all this, are we not looking straight into the eyes of ‘Catholics’ who do not fear GOD?
Clever but uncatechised: have they any idea who the ONE IS who they are defying . . ?
Repentance & conversion is possible, if they’d sing this THEOlogically perfect song :
CityAlight – Only A Holy God – YouTube
Again and again and again . . .
Morning – Noon – & Night . . . ’til Kingdom come.
Eating the forbidden fruit was Adam and Eve’s “lived experience.” This can also be said for the building of the golden calf, as well as King Solomon having his heart turned away from God by his foreign wives. Separating practice from teaching was what Christ held against the Scribes and the Pharisees in Matthew 23. He took them to task for their “lived experience” of Corban in Mark 7. He also gave correction to most of the seven churches in the messages in Revelation. You need to distinguish between faithfulness and faithlessness to God when considering “lived experience.” Faithlessness and sin are very much a “lived experience.”
Dear GregB: “distinguish between faithfulness and faithlessness to God.”
As with John 14:23-24 –
“If anyone loves Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love him,
and We shall come to him and make Our home with him.”
“Those who do not love Me do not keep My word.”
The objective truth about morality comes from Christ who created and knows our purpose and ultimate happiness. We learn these truths of morality first through faith and the Tradition of the Church with a capital T. To really see and believe the nature of man requires prayer and an authentic Catholic spiritual journey growing into love with Christ and imitating Him in our life. This is much different from using “lived experience” to judge what is moral in a situation. This inductive approach as it is being described sounds very secular humanistic and overly emotional as currently plagues western culture today. To follow this path puts man at the center of defining what is a moral act based on finite experiences, judgments and arguments in an inductive way. Then what happens is this inductive falsse judgement and argument is posed in a deductive way as the moral norm that needs to be followed by all in society. Laws are created to follow this false human centered reasoning process that leaves out the Creator’s Revelation of the moral truth about the form of human nature in the body, the soul. We need good education of Catholics and the philosophical teachings behind them. We teach high school students calculus which is much more difficult than basic meaning of being and metaphysical principles. It all comes from good court case arguments using metaphysics and epistemology. Big words but not as complex as one would think if taught properly. The supernatural role of grace in elevating the natural virtues (cardinal virtues) also needs to be taught and understood. These are the basics of doing Christ’s will in our moral life. We are to do Christ’s will as taught in the authentic teaching of the Church, not the inductively arrived at personal opinions of invincibly ignorant people, of which unfortunately today is very common.
Right-on, dear John Frank Ghostley –
John 14:15 –
“If you love Me [King Jesus Christ], you will keep My commandments.”
? Do we – both clergy & lay – grasp the fact that each of us will be judged according to how we have lived & witnessed to the truth of Jesus’ commands?
Matthew 12:48 –
“Those who reject Me and refuse My words have their judge already!
The word itself, that I have spoken will be their judge on the Last Day.”
NB: The words Christ HAS spoken; never the words that He might speak . . !
Yes: of course there are always never-ending contextual circumstances; yet a proper Catholic obeys regardless, trusting our Good Shepherd to manage every strange circumstance; & help us bear the thorn & carry our cross.
This is the concrete substance of Faith.
As with true Israelites, true Catholics are known by their loving obedience to GOD.
No other way has been provided!
Today I had the misfortune to learn that Robert Prevost provided active participation in a Pachamama rite in 1995. Indeed, a long time ago. Surely we have all much changed over thirty years, but given the continuing episcopal appointments this pontificate generates, the retention of curia personnel who should see exile on a deserted island, the prioritization of the diminishment of Marian mysteries … it is not unreasonable to see the Leonine pontificate as a continuation of the Bergoglian trainwreck.
It is heartbreaking.
This is an excellent essay that helpfully provides clarity to a subject that seeks only fogginess. Can we say that the lived experience of Eve enabled her not to be constrained by the Word of God that otherwise would rule? Are we living in a reality that has at its basis the rejection of valid and real lived experience? I am not a theologian and so simplicity works better for me. Perhaps reading C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” Book 3, Chapter1 is helpful. “Some people prefer to talk about moral ‘ideals’ rather than moral rules and about moral ‘idealism’ rather than moral obedience.”
I am the director of our OCIA and involved for over 30 years. In the last 3 years we have gone from 3-5 inquirers annually seeking the sacraments to 15 last year and 24 this year with 21 actually participating. 13 people are already signed for next year. We do no justice to their sincere desire to know the truth, by being subtle. I find many ignorant of any Catholic teaching. They desire to know it. What society offers is empty. I think two things are true that contradict the ‘lived experience’ rationale. Christian Morality is not easy. We are capable of rationalizing anything. Therefore, I need no Church guidance to justify my own built in proclivities.
Amen Francis!
If a non-theologian, social scientist may be permitted to drop in:
another way to attack the rise of moral subjectivism is to turn this very “lived experience” idea against them. Their idea is “the Church’s teachings are too hard. Here are some sob stories from sad people’s lived experience. Get with the times.”
Our response in this volume (and at the Ruth Institute more generally) is this: “you think you got sob stories?!? We’ve got sob stories! Look at these people who created chaos for themselves and others by living contrary to Church Teaching. Please, reverend fathers, teach people the truth before they wreck their lives!!”
We have the social science to back it all up. Divorce is catastrophe for children. Many women suffer from their abortions. No one is actually born gay. And so on.
I also contributed an essay to the volume Richard talks about. And we at the Ruth Institute compiled a series of interviews with some of the authors. Check it out!
https://ruthinstitute.org/resource-centers/responding-to-the-vatican/
Amen to you Jennifer!
Francis Miller : “Christian Morality is not easy.”
For ‘Christian Morality’ we might read: “Obedience to GOD.” For in every Holy Mass, we are accepting GOD’s right to command our obedience.
Even the obedience of Abram, told to sacrifice his only son. Even Joseph accepting being sold as a slave by his brothers. Even Moses, in imminent danger of being stoned to death as he stands before a dehydrated and murderous people, commanded to strike a rock! Even the obedience of Virgin Mary to becoming pregnant at the risk of her life. Even obedience to unjust rejection, scourging and crucifixtion by Jesus Christ, sinless Son of GOD.
The list is endless: of believers who’ve been commanded to obey GOD before all other things. This is a strong theme in every Holy Mass.
It’s a deadly sin to say: “There is no GOD.” The second is like it: saying GOD has no right to command our total obedience. The third is equally deadly: “GOD only has a right to command what we consider logical, beneficial and socially normal.”
There is an eternity of difference between those three iniquities and the normal confession of us ordinary Catholic sinners:
“HOLY GOD have mercy on me!
YOU are perfect and all YOUR ways are true and just!
Please forgive me where I’ve disobeyed YOUR commands.
I renounce my sins and resolve to put right what I’ve done wrong.
Dear FATHER, with YOUR help I will avoid sinning again.
Please make me holy, like YOU!”
It’s not so much the sins themselves but defiance of GOD that is fatal.
Lived experience includes the lives of the Saints. Among other things, the purpose of reading the lives of the saints is to lead us beyond our limitations to see ‘here is someone who had like sins and personal frailties, who felt fear and frustration as I do, but who allowed the grace of God to transform them.’ Gradual change, yes, but not without a clear adherence to a truthful, grace revealed endpoint.
This is an enlightening article for many reasons. Thank you very much! I am glad to see the expression “lived experience” in inverted commas. I have often seen it and never properly understood it: isn’t every experience lived? Richard Doerflinger uses it here as a reference for something that I do not know. Can anybody help me understand what he is referring to?
What one learns through personal involvement in areas of social interaction, pursuit of welfare, profession rather than reading about it in essays and books.
Thank you for your explanation, Father Morello. But ‘experience’ as such (‘practical contact with and observation of facts or events’) includes the ‘being lived’. Wouldn’t be more sensible to speak of ‘thought experience’ or ‘reconsidered experience’? I have found the expression ‘lived experience’ for the first time in a book by Genevieve Lloyd, Providence Lost (2008), but even there it looked like an odd formula to refer to something left unspecified. This is what I would like to know: who first used this expression and why?
Perhaps I should ask Doerflinger directly.
Man, the sinner vs current morals. Why are the fathers examining the “options” in violation of Canon law? Compassion to violators? Secular law clashing with “settled dogma”.
Jesus said that “to be perfect—to live up to the ideal—one should sell one’s possessions, give to the poor”. In today’s failing economy, I would humbly ask our Savior to define poor.
Should a sinner be isolated or retrieved with compassion? LGBTQs front and center.
How can they exit the “Catholic closet” only to suffer the wrath of society? How can a Trans submit to major surgery? Can a Queer who prays be dammed to Gehenna?
Reuters: Just last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Pastor Wants Texas Dem Senate Candidate James Talarico To Be ‘Crucified With Christ’ Over His Religious Beliefs On Abortion, Transgenders.”Interestingly, Hegseth has joined the group defined as “Religious Nationalism,” which insists that the country is a Christian nation. I wonder how many LGBTQs were “converted”?
Will we have to disregard the Bible’s story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Will need to “refine” the Catechism? We may have to involve an army representing both sides.
The depth of this article and its participation would suggest there is another tomorrow.