This form of legalism is therefore content to minimize, ignore and sometimes denigrate the «rules» of morality in favor of mercy, accompaniment and integration, but only because it does not recognize that there is an essential and constitutive relationship between morality and human flourishing. If this connection were restored, true mercy could not consist in taking the «burdens» of morality, for that would mean encouraging people to turn away from the true path to happiness. Certainly, the textbooks have affirmed the existence of moral absolutes, rules that identify actions that are inadmissible in themselves and should never be done. But proportionalism, like consequentialism, finds it impossible (and undesirable) to assert the existence of such rules or actions, because one can never say in advance that the consequences of a particular action will always be the worst of all possible options. Amoris suggests a similar view to some readers in his assertion that «the general rules establish a good which can never be neglected or neglected, but which, in its formulation, cannot at all respond to all particular situations.» Thus, proportionalism and some interpretations of Amoris seem to converge as opposed to «legalism,» which is understood as too strict a concern for rules. The concept of «legalism» is central to the current Catholic discussion of marriage, mercy, and morality. Pope Francis said critics of his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia approach the document in a «legalistic» frame of mind. This criticism is often repeated by his supporters. It is worth clarifying what this term really means to determine whether it is properly applied to Amoris` criticisms or whether, as I believe, it actually characterizes some of its defenders. Similarly, a form of legalism is evident in a popular series of interpretations of Amoris Laetitia`s treatment of communion after remarriage.

For the proposal to grant communion to those who continue to live in objectively adulterous relationships seems to presuppose that their situation can be corrected with mercy without changing sinful behavior itself. It is the violation of rules that is understood as the problem, not the rupture that sinful acts of their own free will create in human perspectives of happiness or communion with other people, including divine persons. When we talk about the need to «offload» the burden of morality to those who lead irregular sex lives, we hear echoes of the view that morality is only a matter of what is imposed from the outside, of what can be lifted so externally. To repeat, legalism breaks the rational and essential link between moral principles («rules») and human flourishing, well-being, bliss. And this separation can be found in various ways in the three forms of Catholic moral theology mentioned above. For textbooks, a righteous devotion to the truths of the Catholic faith, including Catholic teaching on moral absolutes, and a voluntarist understanding of moral obligation, as well as a somewhat fuzzy understanding of the relationship between moral goodness and ultimate fulfillment, have generated legalism in both senses discussed above. Morality was to follow the rules, but because the rules were understood in a legalistic way, it was also often seen as a pastoral matter to find the interpretation of the rules that would grant the greatest possible freedom. The persuasive power of natural law cannot be denied or questioned except by asking questions. A common understanding of legalism certainly seems to understand the antagonism to the «law» found in the followers of Amoris Laetitia and perhaps in Amoris himself. From this point of view, the legalist is a defender of rules: he is rigorous and tends to forget the «spirit» of the law in favor of its «letter». Thus, the anti-legalistic spirit is characterized by a rejection of these rules, by a need for empathy, discernment, accompaniment, sensitivity to the particular, etc.

Rules are associated with self-righteousness, and therefore a rhetorically useful means is available to make legalism appear particularly anti-Christian. If Christian morality is a constitutive part of the ultimate Christian life with Christ, it cannot be abandoned, abolished, or ignored without compromising the prospects of living with Christ. In the Christian context, where we are told to «seek first the kingdom of God,» the sinner receives the greatest mercy, not by lifting up external burdens or even in forgiveness, but by calling the sinner away from sin. Without acknowledgment of sin and repentance, no forgiveness can bring about the change in character necessary to allow someone to live eternally with Christ in His kingdom. An approach to morality based on this idea would therefore be very different from the highly legalistic paradigm propagated by some defenders of Amoris Laetitia. Suppose someone does not adhere to such standards. Wouldn`t injustice be above all an insult to the legislator, whether divine or ecclesiastical? If this is the case, then the way of mercy seems to require the simple forgiveness of the offense against the legislator, without anything else being required for the restoration of moral order. Being a whistler in a household that doesn`t whistle not only makes you unfit for communion with the rest of the family, and forgiveness from the lawmaker (me!) seems to be enough to restore the community shattered by a simple violation of the rules. Or perhaps, in addition to the legislator`s desire to forgive and forget, there should be the Whistler`s desire to return to communion.

But the need to change the purpose and penance for the restoration of the community will not be clear for this reason. «Legalism» is defined as the requirement that all matters of legal regulation and controversy must, as far as possible, be conducted according to predetermined rules of considerable generality and clarity. Thus, there may be moral limits for governments that prohibit them from acting on the essential moral merits of the situations they face. This applies above all to public law, but also to private law, for example in matters of substance. Hume, Kant and Hayek are examined for their arguments in favor of legalism; Alexy and Finnis also reviewed. Autonomy is the basis of legalism and justifies «ethical positivism,» as Campbell put it. However, critical legal studies (Unger, Kelman, Kennedy et al.) question the premises of legalism. But the «critical» arguments against reification only raise the question of the politics of legalism and the expediency of legal dogmatics, they do not resolve them. For all its faults, legalism is a prerequisite for free government.

Proportionalism emerged in part as a response to the «science of morality» approach found in Catholic moral theology before the 1960s, an approach based on «moral manuals» written in part for priests to help them in their pastoral care of sinners, especially in the confessional. The manual approach, in fact, emphasized the importance and perhaps the penetration of rules into the moral life. The evolutionary view of history, and in particular the emphasis that economic conditions can alter moral values, critically distinguishes legalists from advocates of alternative models of state-building (Pines 2013a). Legalists imply that everything is changeable: when socio-economic conditions change, so does human behavior; And this, in turn, requires an adjustment of political institutions. Shang Yang summarizes: Proportionalism is legalistic in the second sense, but not in the first, more popular sense. Proportionalists see little in recommending moral rules, except that they can function as «rules of thumb» that guide us for the most part, especially when circumstances prevent careful consideration of the consequences. Proportionalists therefore reject legalism in the first sense. They believe that being too strictly governed by rules is a failure to see their limits in order to lead us to proportionately greater good (or the act of true love) in certain circumstances. Thus, proportionalism has completely rejected the Catholic tradition of the moral absolute, except in an empty and formalistic way.

«No adultery» meant «no unfair sexual relations with others, not with the spouse» – a definition that implicitly leaves open the possibility of justified sexual relations with someone who is not the spouse. For more than 200 years, the Chinese people have experienced war as their daily reality, and a legalistic approach to trying to control people`s worst impulses – controlling people through the threat of severe punishment for injustice – would have been the best way to deal with the chaos. Shang Yang`s legalism dealt with everyday situations, but also extended to how to behave in wartime, and he is credited with the tactic of total war, which allowed the Qin state to defeat other warring states in order to control China.