Here’s the document: The moral norm of Humanae Vitae and pastoral duty.
“The duty of calling good and evil by their right names in the area of responsible procreation was carried out by Paul VI with a most faithful love for Christ and for souls, particularly in his Encyclical Humanae Vitae…. Part of this very duty is maintaining that the moral norm of Humanae Vitae concerning contraception, as prohibiting an intrinsically disordered act, does not admit exceptions.”
Intrinsically evil acts do not admit exceptions. This includes the intrinsically evil act of contraception, as well as the grave sexual sins of fornication and adultery. Contraception does not admit exceptions; it is intrinsically disordered.
“The Christian moral tradition has always distinguished between positive norms (which bid us to act) and negative norms (which forbid action). Further, this tradition has constantly and clearly maintained that, among negative norms, those which prohibit intrinsically disordered acts do not admit exceptions; such acts*, indeed, are morally “disordered” on account of their own innermost structure, hence in and of themselves, that is, they are opposed to the person in his or her specific dignity as a person. For this very reason, no subjective intention and circumstance (which do not change the structure of these acts) can make such acts morally ordered.”
I’ve been arguing this point, many times, in books and articles. Veritatis Splendor teaches the same doctrine. But here it is, in this earlier document, stated concisely. The font called moral object has a certain structure; it is the structure of the knowingly chosen act itself. And that structure — specifically the ordering of the act toward its object — is what makes intrinsically evil acts always wrong to knowingly choose.
“The same Christian moral tradition just referred to, has also always maintained the distinction – not the separation and still less an opposition – between objective disorder and subjective guilt. Accordingly, when it is a matter of judging subjective moral behaviour without ever setting aside the norm which prohibits the intrinsic disorder of contraception, it is entirely licit to take into due consideration the various factors and aspects of the person’s concrete action, not only the person’s intentions and motivations, but also the diverse circumstances of life, in the first place all those causes which may affect the person’s knowledge and free will. This subjective situation, while it can never change into something ordered that which is intrinsically disordered, may to a greater or lesser extent modify the responsibility of the person who is acting. As is well known, this is a general principle, applicable to every moral disorder, even if intrinsic, it is accordingly applicable also to contraception.”
And now we come to the part that affects Amoris Laetitia and the discipline for Communion. There is a difference between an objectively disordered act (e.g. adultery) and the subjective guilty. An objective mortal sin is not always also an actual mortal sin. Therefore, persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin might be admitted to Communion, in some cases, if the act is not also an actual mortal sin due to the various factors — “the diverse circumstances of life — which reduce culpability.
Please take a look at this list of my books and booklets, and see if any topic interests you.
*[The word “nets” corrected to “acts” according to the Italian text.]