St. Peter’s Dome. / Credit: dade72 via Shutterstock
Vatican City, Jan 4, 2024 / 10:10 am (CNA).
The Vatican’s doctrine office issued a response on Thursday to “clarify the reception of Fiducia Supplicans” amid widespread international backlash to the Vatican’s recent declaration on same-sex blessings.
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), published a five-page press release on Jan. 4 that refers to Fiducia Supplicans as “perennial doctrine” and underlines that pastoral blessings of couples in irregular situations should not be “an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.”
Fernández said that the responses he has received from bishops’ conferences around the world to the declaration highlight “the need for a more extended period of pastoral reflection” and that what is expressed in these bishops’ statements “cannot be interpreted as doctrinal opposition because the document is clear and definitive about marriage and sexuality.”
“There is no room to distance ourselves doctrinally from this declaration or to consider it heretical, contrary to the Tradition of the Church, or blasphemous,” the cardinal said, pointing to a few paragraphs in the text of the original declaration that affirms the Church’s doctrine on marriage. You can read the full text of the press release at the bottom of this story.
The clarification was published two and a half weeks after the Dec. 18 publication of Fiducia Supplicans, which prompted strong backlash from bishops in several African and Eastern European countries as well as confusion and division from other parts of the world.
Some bishops have welcomed the declaration, some are approaching it with caution, and others are refusing to implement it.
In the press release, published in six languages, Fernández provides one “concrete example” of what the spontaneous “pastoral blessings” might look like in practice, explaining that they should only last “about 10 or 15 seconds.”
“Since some have raised the question of what these blessings might look like, let us look at a concrete example: Let us imagine that among a large number making a pilgrimage a couple of divorced people, now in a new union, say to the priest: ‘Please give us a blessing, we cannot find work, he is very ill, we do not have a home and life is becoming very difficult: May God help us!” he said.
“In this case, the priest can recite a simple prayer like this: ‘Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace, and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen.’ Then it concludes with the sign of the cross on each of the two persons.”
Fernández said that priests giving these types of blessings should “not impose conditions” or “enquire about the intimate lives of these people.”
He added that “this non-ritualized form of blessing, with the simplicity and brevity of its form, does not intend to justify anything that is not morally acceptable.”
“It remains clear, therefore, that the blessing must not take place in a prominent place within a sacred building, or in front of an altar, as this also would create confusion,” Fernández added in the clarification.
The press release did not mention anything about cases in which priests have already violated the terms stipulated in the Fiducia Supplicans declaration, which requires that blessings be spontaneous and cannot be a “blessing similar to a liturgical rite that can create confusion.”
The cardinal emphasized that the “real novelty of this declaration” is “the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: ‘liturgical or ritualized’ and ‘spontaneous or pastoral.’”
“The central theme … is to have a broader understanding of blessings and of the proposal that these pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context, flourish. Consequently, leaving polemics aside, the text requires an effort to reflect serenely, with the heart of shepherds, free from all ideology,” he said.
The DDF’s press release says that the same-sex blessing declaration may require more time for its application “depending on local contexts and the discernment of each diocesan bishop with his diocese.”
“In some places, no difficulties arise for their immediate application, while in others it will be necessary not to introduce them, while taking the time necessary for reading and interpretation,” Fernández said.
The cardinal added that it is fine that some bishops have, for example, established that priests perform these blessings only in private, so long as this is “expressed with due respect for a text signed and approved by the Supreme Pontiff himself, while attempting in some way to accommodate the reflection contained in it.”
The clarification also notes that in countries where there are “laws that condemn the mere act of declaring oneself as a homosexual with prison and in some cases with torture and even death, it goes without saying that a blessing would be imprudent.”
The press release was signed by Fernández and Monsignor Armando Matteo, the secretary for the doctrinal section of the dicastery.
“We will all have to become accustomed to accepting the fact that, if a priest gives this type of simple blessings, he is not a heretic, he is not ratifying anything nor is he denying Catholic doctrine,” it said.
“We can help God’s people to discover that these kinds of blessings are just simple pastoral channels that help people give expression to their faith, even if they are great sinners. For this reason, in giving a blessing to two people who come together to ask for it spontaneously, we are not consecrating them nor are we congratulating them nor indeed are we approving that type of union.”
[…]
Catholic faithful welcome the strong words, although many do not perceive actions that support such strenuous condemnation. Many of us remain unconvinced. For example, real, live hitmen, Mafia members, in fact all Mafia members were excommunicated by Pope Francis. Then why the withholding of excommunication from Catholic politicians who applaud and legalize government legislation and financial support for abortion, the support for hitmen Planned Parenthood and the like? Why does the Pontiff discourage Catholic prelates who do wish to sanction these politicians? And approve of Archbishop Paglia’s appointment of pro abortion Anglican theologian Nigel Biggar to the Pontifical Academy for Life?. A policy of words sans action that obviously encourages the Catholic laity to vote largely in favor of pro abortion Catholic politicians? If we measure the crime by numbers the aborted infants are infinitely more the victims of murder than Mafia victims. Parity in words doesn’t equate parity in belief, if belief really means to live exactly as we say we believe. Otherwise it’s a lie.
Hope and pray that the Pope’s strong words will further lead him to follow-up with the required strong action in his administration to clean up the Church.
Finally, the Pope is speaking more and more against abortion, and ever more vigorously.
Would that he had done that in the first years of his papacy!!!
The Pope has condemned abortion quite often over the years. I believe that in the early years he might have had a lot of learning to do as a new Pope who had moved in from Argentina.
Mal, re remained silent during the Irish Referendum citing non-interference in internal country affairs. The result was that Catholics perceived he tacitly approved. Then during the US election he openly supported pro-abortion Joe over… interfering and this time with non-tacit approval. Does this resemble honest behavior from a pope, or double-speak from a Free Mason who has a public program but a “hidden” agenda?
Can you prove that our Pope, who is a faithful Catholic and disciple of our Lord, was a freemason? I have seen many such obviously false accusations being made against Pope Francis, and even the Popes before him, and these accusations are kept alive by those who hate Pope Francis.
Catholic faithful welcome the strong words, although many do not perceive actions that support condemnation. Many of us remain unconvinced. For example, Mafia hitmen, indeed all Mafia members were excommunicated by Pope Francis. Then why withhold instruction of the latae sententiae applicability of canon 915 to all Catholic politicians who support even seek to extend abortion? Why does the Pontiff discourage Catholic prelates who do wish to sanction these politicians? And approve of Archbishop Paglia’s appointment of pro abortion Anglican theologian Nigel Biggar to the Pontifical Academy for Life?. A policy of words and no follow-up, except actions that seem to support abortion policy encourage Catholic laity to dismiss doctrine and vote largely in favor of pro abortion Catholic politicians. Parity in words doesn’t equate parity in belief, if belief really means to live exactly as we say we believe.
Pray for wisdom for our Pope that he sees and performs the necessary action to be consistent with his words, and rids the Church of all elements and politicians who support abortion. Give them a chance to renounce abortion and repent. If they do not repent, then they are not Catholics in communion with the Church and, therefore, are not worthy of the Eucharist.
Agreed Ron. I do pray for a just resolution that benefits all.
This second like comment was meant to replace the one above. Ah well, double for the effort. On topic is the challenge of aging and death. Aging is not for the faint of heart (from Thurman Ray Plumlee who wrote Growing Old is Not for the Faint of Heart). Elective euthanasia the easy way out except for judgment and more suffering. Although the pontiff sounds good on the air here, he doesn’t on paper elsewhere. Amoris Laetitia provides the rationale for political expediency based on difficult concrete situations and the primacy of conscience. Moderation, the mitigation of religious rules for sake of societal pluralism. If adultery can be moderately assessed as acceptable why not abortion for the Catholic politician? There is in this an enticing fallacy that subverts [all] revealed moral truth, a religious faux pas. An indiscretion that omits reference to grace, also identified by others in Ch 8. Grace given by Christ exactly to remain faithful within life’s difficult concrete situations. As to growing old I like to look at it other than the cliché a soul trapped in a dying body. Rather an increasingly fine, aging wine ready to be decanted.
It would be interesting to see this latest declaration from the Pope put side by side with another papal soundbite: “I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone.” Let’s wait for the USCCB document coming out this November and check on which one of these statements they will focus their spotlight on or will they give weigh to both? I can’t wait. Even CWR, the rest of the rightist conservative Catholic media, and their constituents, can be weighed in this aspect of their coverage and emphasis of papal tweetable statements to determine their Catholicity, biases, and partisanship.
This is very good news.
(Why is it that with this prelate I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop?)
Those throwaway parts did not go to waste but were in fact essential in the development of the covax
Also euthanasia may one day be our best protection against covid and therefore at that time an ‘act of love’
It’s all coming up roses
Thin gruel.
“treating human life like waste…” Just as Bergoglio did by selling out the Chinese Catholics to their tormentors. Just like he continues to do in embracing the leftist politics of the Democrats Party, globalists, environmentalists, and those who pay homage to the blood stained idol of Pachamama.
Abortion is murder. Murder is evil. Paragraph # 1753 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the end does not justify the means. So, if abortion is murder, and murder is evil, how can an abortion produce the means of a good vaccine for a pandemic? Just asking.
Mal, he remained silent during the Irish Referendum citing non-interference in internal country affairs. The result was that Catholics perceived he tacitly approved. Then during the US election he openly supported pro-abortion Joe over… interfering and this time with non-tacit approval. Does this resemble honest behavior from a pope, or double-speak from a Free Mason who has a public program but a “hidden” agenda? He speaks like a Pope, when there is political gain to be had. In this instance, there are no Stakes at Stake: the referendum passed, Joe was elected.
Dear Pope Francis, your words are encouraging, but they can’t be heard over the din of your, and your hierarchy’s ACTIONS! Don’t expect us to listen to your words and ignore your actions.
Good thing Pope Francis isn’t trying out for Catholic chaplain in a public university.
Are you kidding? Secularists love this guy. Just ask them. A wide range of people hostile to the Catholic faith and to the Gospel LOVE Pope Francis. They are especially good at recognizing double speak and hypocrisy, because they use it themselves.
My allusion escaped you, Timothy.
Timothy – National Catholic Register – English University Accepts Catholic Chaplain Who Tweeted About Abortion.
Cheers.
I am thankful that Pope Francis has spoken out strongly and clearly against the evil that is abortion, and the evil of euthanasia.
Amen. Now that the Pope has once again condemned abortion and euthanasia and declaring that they have excommunicated themselves, it is up to the Bishops and priests to deal with these people as they see fit.
And once again, Francis has taken the easy route by making a public statement that is binding on NO Catholics. In October, he will have a smiling meeting with Biden, and at that time he will say nothing at all about abortion. The emptiness of this papacy is wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
Binding on no Catholics? He has made a very clear statement proclaiming that they are EXCOMMINCATED. Just as Jesus called the doctrine-abiding “religious” Pharisees HPOCRITES, without naming a single individual. In fact, our Lord who ate with sinners and drunkards, did not ever condemn a single individual. Why would he? His mission was to SAVE them.
I agree Jesus came to save us sinners. But that doesn’t mean withholding sanctions when needed. As any parent knows, sometimes the most loving thing she can do is discipline her child and/or say “no.” Jesus did give St. Peter and his successors the power to bind. Why give a power if He did not intend it to be used. After N.O. Archbishop Rummel excommunicated local political figures and one mobster for racism, most repented and returned, chastised, to full communion with the Church. He was brave and, IMHO, right. So would be Pope Francis. Not holding my breath, however.