My central concern with Amoris Laetitia would therefore not be that Francis is a Hegelian. It would be that his pastoral method risks allowing historical circumstances and subjective discernment to acquire an authority over the practical application of universal moral principles that they cannot legitimately possess. That is a much more precise philosophical criticism. And it leads to the question I think is most important for your larger investigation: Is Francis using Thomistic prudence to apply an unchanging moral law to complicated circumstances, or is he introducing a modern theory of discernment in which the concrete situation effectively qualifies the authority of the universal moral law?
would characterize Amoris Laetitia as closer to modern theories of historical consciousness, contextual moral reasoning, and practical discernment than to Hegelianism proper. However, there is a meaningful Hegelian comparison, particularly concerning the relationship between universal principles and concrete historical circumstances.
The distinction matters. We should not call Francis a Hegelian simply because he emphasizes development, process, or discernment.
Let me distinguish the philosophical currents.
I. Hegel: The universal becomes concrete through history
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)
Hegel understands reality through historical development, contradiction, and mediation. Truth is not adequately understood by isolating an abstract proposition from the concrete process in which it becomes intelligible.
Hegel's philosophy emphasizes Becoming.
In simplified terms:
Reality is not adequately understood as a collection of static things.
Things must be understood in their relationships and development.
Abstract universals become concrete through particular historical circumstances.
Contradictions and tensions are understood through a larger process of development.
The connection to Amoris Laetitia is this:
Does the universal moral principle retain its full practical force when applied to particular historical circumstances, or does its meaning become qualified through the process of discernment?
That is a Hegelian-style question, although it does not establish that Francis adopts Hegel's metaphysics.
II. The modern alternative: Contextualism and historical consciousness
This is probably the more useful comparison.
Modern moral theories increasingly emphasize the concrete situation of the individual rather than beginning with the objective moral character of the act.
Several intellectual currents are relevant:
Modern current | Central emphasis |
|---|---|
Historicism | Human understanding is conditioned by historical circumstances. |
Existentialism | Individual decisions and concrete existence. |
Personalism | The subjective experience and dignity of the person. |
Situation ethics | Moral judgment emphasizes the particular circumstances of an action. |
Pragmatism | Practical consequences and effectiveness. |
Phenomenology | Experience as it is actually encountered by the subject. |
These are different philosophies, not one unified school.
The common concern is that abstract universal principles may not adequately explain the complexity of particular human situations.
This is where the controversy surrounding Amoris Laetitia becomes interesting.
III. Francis: From universal moral norms to individual discernment
Three passages are especially important.
1. Paragraph 301 — Objective situation and subjective responsibility
Francis acknowledges that someone can be in an objectively irregular situation without being fully responsible for it.
This is not particularly novel. Traditional Catholic moral theology recognizes diminished responsibility.
2. Paragraph 303 — Conscience and concrete circumstances
Francis writes about conscience recognizing what God is asking of a person in the concrete complexity of his or her situation.
This is philosophically significant.
The question becomes: What role does individual conscience play in determining the morally appropriate response when the objective moral norm is already known?
3. Paragraph 305 and footnote 351 — Sacramental consequences
Here the issue becomes practical.
Francis allows for the possibility of sacramental assistance in certain irregular situations following discernment.
The controversy concerns whether this application preserves the objective moral norm or effectively introduces exceptions to its practical requirements.
IV. The closer comparison: Blondel and the philosophy of action
Maurice Blondel (1861–1949)
Blondel's philosophy emphasizes human action, lived experience, and the relationship between human willing and supernatural fulfillment.
I would investigate Blondel before making Hegel the principal comparison.
Blondel's L'Action (1893) examines the relationship between what human beings actually do, what they desire, and what ultimately fulfills their existence.
The relevant philosophical question is:
Does one begin with an abstract formulation of truth and subsequently apply it to life, or does one begin with concrete human action and discover how truth is realized within it?
Blondel does not simply reject objective truth or Catholic doctrine. His philosophy is considerably more complicated.
Nevertheless, the emphasis on action, experience, and the concrete subject provides an interesting background for understanding certain currents in modern Catholic pastoral theology.
V. The fundamental difference: Aquinas versus modern contextualism
Here is the comparison I consider most important.
Aquinas: Prudence applies objective truth
The moral law establishes objective principles.
Human circumstances can be complicated.
Prudence considers the particular circumstances.
Conscience makes a judgment concerning the particular action.
Circumstances can diminish culpability but cannot make an intrinsically evil act good.
The problematic modern tendency: Circumstances qualify the norm
Universal principles are acknowledged.
Concrete circumstances are emphasized.
Individual discernment becomes decisive.
The practical application of the universal principle is qualified.
The result can resemble an exception to an objective moral requirement.
There is an important qualification: Aquinas himself insists that universal moral principles must be applied prudentially and that not every particular case can be resolved by mechanically applying a general rule. Paragraph 304 of Amoris Laetitia actually invokes Aquinas on this point.
Therefore, the disagreement cannot simply be reduced to universal rules versus individual discernment.
The real question is whether discernment is applying objective moral truth or effectively modifying its requirements.
VI. My assessment: Where does Amoris Laetitia fit?
I would rank the philosophical comparisons this way:
Philosophical comparison | Relevance |
|---|---|
Historicism / historical consciousness | High |
Blondelian philosophy of action | Worth investigating |
Personalism | High |
Situation ethics | Relevant as a potential danger, not an exact identification |
Hegelianism | Interesting structural analogy, but not an established philosophical identity |
Thomistic prudence | The tradition Francis invokes in defense of his approach |
VII. The question Chesterton would ask
Return to the egg.
The Hegelian joke is that the egg is understood through its becoming a hen.
The modern contextualist danger is that the egg is understood primarily through the circumstances surrounding its development.
But the Thomist insists that we must first understand what the thing actually is.
Applied to marriage:
The circumstances of a marriage may be extraordinarily complicated.
The subjective responsibility of the individuals may vary.
The pastoral response may require considerable patience and discernment.
None of these considerations changes the objective nature of marriage.
My central concern with Amoris Laetitia would therefore not be that Francis is a Hegelian. It would be that his pastoral method risks allowing historical circumstances and subjective discernment to acquire an authority over the practical application of universal moral principles that they cannot legitimately possess.
That is a much more precise philosophical criticism.
And it leads to the question I think is most important for your larger investigation:
Is Francis using Thomistic prudence to apply an unchanging moral law to complicated circumstances, or is he introducing a modern theory of discernment in which the concrete situation effectively qualifies the authority of the universal moral law?
Comments