EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a guest commentary by Bishop Marian Eleganti OSB, the emeritus auxiliary bishop of Chur and former abbot of St. Otmarsberg Abbey. Interviewed often by this correspondent, Bp. Eleganti has now distributed for publication this column in which he addresses the upcoming Vatican meeting on Amoris Laetitia.
(PerMariam) — It’s all about closeness now, not truth. Whereas, prior to Amoris Laetitia, pastoral care in dealing with divorced and remarried individuals sought above all objectivity – or rather, the union of truth and love – the synodal Church operates with a predominantly sentimental vocabulary that does little to objectively clarify these people’s situation according to criteria that are both sacramentally theological and canonically sound.
The emphasis is exclusively on closeness, accompaniment, and appreciation (a word used to the point of inflation) of these couples by Church representatives, not on their mission to guide them in the truth.
Question: What am I actually supposed to value in a sinner: for example, a bank robber, an adulterer, a thief, or a violent criminal? I can love the sinner (show him goodwill, i.e., wish him salvation), yes, while at the same time uncompromisingly condemning his sin. But how does “appreciation” work in this context? Must I urge a judge who has to adjudicate a criminal offense to appreciate the offender? Wouldn’t that be pure sentimentality, which is of little help in relation to the task at hand?
The comparison is flawed, but it shows that this category of appreciation simply isn’t a priority in certain contexts. For the question of whether a valid marriage exists or not is not about that (appreciation). Divorced and remarried couples should regain their trust, recognize themselves as part of the community, and experience God’s mercy, according to a guide from the synodal church. (1)
Question: Is it irrelevant in this context whether they are living in adultery or not? Does conveying God’s mercy to them mean recognizing their second union unconditionally – or at least tolerating it – even though an indissoluble marital bond exists and stands in the way? Why, then, did Jesus not set an example for us with this practice?
On the contrary, He rejects Moses’ (supposedly merciful) practice of divorce and reinforces the prohibition against divorce, much to the chagrin of His disciples! Does recalling this amount to re-traumatizing these couples, because those affected might feel hurt and marginalized once again by the memory of the truth, after they have already experienced abandonment and suffering in the separation from their lawful spouse (cf. the aforementioned guide)?
The more sentimental the language becomes, the greater the suspicion that unshakable doctrinal positions are being vapourized and softened by appealing to the tear ducts.
Now, this is nothing new. The word “mercy” has often been misused as a smokescreen to blind the observer or reader. Words have an immediate effect. Only when one delves deeper does one recognize what the semantics obscure.
The harshness of the truth is no longer endured or addressed in the synodal Church, even though it sets one free (John 8:32). It is rejected and condemned by sentimentality.
Familiaris Consortio is therefore a thing of the past (too harsh). Amoris Laetitia is the present (merciful).
The magisterium of the synodal Church begins with Francis, with the new “Hour Zero.” Time (the process) is greater than space (the doctrinal positions). That is why one invests in the process (the revision of doctrine), in feeling, in life: not in the truth, which remains nonetheless. The latter is like a sword that the synodal Church would rather wrap in cotton wool and put away until He comes who wields it in His mouth (Rev 1:16; 2:12; 2:16; 19:15; 19:21).
Revelation 1:16 – In the first vision of Christ: “Out of his mouth came a sharp, double-edged sword.”
Revelation 2:12 – In the message to the church in Pergamum: “Thus says He who holds the sharp, double-edged sword.”
Revelation 2:16 – Christ declares: “Otherwise, I am coming soon and will fight against them with the sword that comes from my mouth.”
Revelation 19:15 – Christ as the eschatological horseman: “From his mouth came a sharp sword; with it he will strike down the nations.”
Revelation 19:21 – Conclusion of the battle scene: “The rest were killed with the sword that came out of the horseman’s mouth.”
Footnotes:
Quoted in: Roberto de Mattei, “The Highest Purpose of Man” (article with English original here). Thematic guide for the preparation of Pope Leo XIV’s meeting with representatives of the Eastern Catholic Churches at the Vatican from Oct. 7–14, 2026, entitled: “In the Difficulties of Life: Accompanying and Supporting. Walking alongside families in difficult situations.”