I Don't Think So!
This is another case of the emperor's new clothes. This is now going to be the mantra going forward for everything the modernists are going to try and push on us. Say it over and over again and everyone will believe it. All I read are Thomistic theology books, I know what the basics of Thomistic morality are, and I can say with complete confidence, that Amoris concerning Pope Francis' accompanying teaching encouraging Communion for the divorced and remarried is not Thomistic. In fact, has he ever read the Summa? The answer is clear as day if he were to actually read it. What does Thomas himself say about receiving communion if a person be known publicly to be in serious sin? He says, "A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it." This obviously refers to most of the divorced and remarried since they are publicly known to be living and having relations with someone other than their spouse. Therefore in these cases they should be denied Holy Communion.
What about a case where someone is in serious sin and no one knows about it except the priest? Should the priest give a divorced and remarried person who just moved from across the country Communion, if he is the only one who knows they are living in sin? Thomas says yes if the sin be absolutely private, although the priest should warn them and their parishioners openly that these types of sinners should not receive it because it would be a detriment to their souls. Notice, Thomas never encourages someone in serious sin to receive Holy Communion. He says, "But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death.... it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ," So if the person is not resolved to quit committing the sin, they should not receive Our Lord Thomas makes this clear, yet if it is absolutely private, to their own detriment they could receive it.
So the Pope Francis is wrong any way you go here concerning a person having relations with someone other than his or her spouse with no firm purpose of amendment. He is out of his mind if he is going to claim Thomas as his moral support for encouraging unrepentant sinners to approach the the Lord's Table. The Church's age old teaching that someone who is having marital relations with someone they are not married to, should not receive Holy Communion, is Thomistic and stands as the teaching of the Church. To think that he is now going to try and pass this confusing mess off as Thomistic and hi-jack Thomistic theology is really upsetting to say the least. For those who actually want to read what Thomas has to say on the matter should go here and read it. Question 80, Article 6.