Two developments—both entirely foreseeable, one so easily avoidable as to be in essence an unforced error—are making the already improbable management of the Fiducia supplicans fiasco almost entirely impossible.
The first is the reported influx of requests for papal blessings on parchment sheets for same-sex couples. Italy’s Il Messaggero newspaper had the story over the weekend.
On paper, it oughtn’t be too difficult to turn them down. Fiducia supplicans, after all, countenances clerics granting unscripted blessings to different sorts of couples who “spontaneously” ask for them in various pastoral situations.
In order to obtain one of the parchments, one must provide the names of the persons or the family to receive the blessing and the reason or occasion for which it is being sought. Folks may request these blessings for marriages, ordinations, wedding anniversaries, ordination anniversaries and jubilees, religious professions and their various anniversaries and jubilees, baptisms, confirmations.
Strictly speaking, the blessings—and the parchments that attest them—are for milestone occasions in the life of a person or a couple. Birthdays are countenanced as a reason for requesting a papal blessing, too. The office of the papal almoner handles the business, and they’re pretty careful, with good reason. You’ll find (probably fake) papal blessing parchments hanging in small Roman businesses and even offices from time to time.
There may be a little wiggle room and occasionally a little fudging, but in any case a written request for an official document really stretches the meaning of “spontaneous” and requires at least a little scrutiny of circumstance beyond what Fiducia supplicans considers appropriate for the sorts of blessings it appears to allow.
In the real world, however, the requests either from same-sex couples or on their behalf create a multifaceted and frankly thorny problem of optics, interpretation, and application.
Basically, it puts the pope between a rock and a hard place.
He can’t refuse them without appearing stingy and legalistic—“rigid” is a word for it—but he can’t grant them without violating both the letter and the spirit of the very declaration that created the conundrum in the first place.
The second development is part of Fernandez’s very much sui generis charm offensive in the wake of Fiducia suplicans.
Almost from the get-go, Fernandez has tried to downplay the depth and breadth of resistance to his blessing scheme, giving the impression he was more than a little surprised by the cold reception it received and nonplussed by the vehemence of the pushback.
Excerpts released in anteprima from an interview Fernandez granted to Germany’s Die Tagespost—the full text of which is due to be published Thursday, 4 January 2024—have Fernandez calling Fiducia supplicans, “a pastoral response that everyone could accept, albeit with difficulty.”
The reality is that the worldwide reaction—whether it be the overreach of enthusiastic response from activist clerics and occasionally whole conferences, or the battle-ready resistance from broad swathes of the global south and several historically Catholic quarters of the Old World—lays bare how unworkable is the “pastoral” solution Francis has proposed.
The coming kerfuffle over parchment only drives the point home.
Die Tagespost’s sneak preview also quotes Fernandez as saying, “[Fiducia supplicans is] a clear answer that bears the Pope’s signature.” Saying does not make it so. Anyone who has been either an editor or a teacher will have told students and writers that “clear to me” is not necessarily the same as “clear” tout court.
The corollary is that, when they find themselves having to insist that something they’ve said or written is clear, the reason behind the need for such insistence is often that it isn’t.
“It is not the answer that two or three countries would like to have,” Die Tagespost also has Fernandez saying of Fiducia supplicans.
While it is strictly true—if there are a dozen or fifteen or fifty or more jurisdictions spread over every habitable continent displeased with the document, then there are two or three countries unhappy with it—that statement really does understate the business.
“Immediately following the publication of [Fiducia supplicans],” Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo of Kinshasa—who is the president of the African bishops’ continental umbrella conference, SECAM and a member of the C9 Council of Cardinals—told Vatican Media in a broad-ranging end-of-year interview published on 31 December 2023, “there was a reaction of anger and disappointment from our African faithful.”
“I myself have received many messages from our faithful wondering if this document was signed by Pope Francis,” Ambongo said, noting also how he “immediately noticed that certain bishops’ conferences had already begun to make declarations tending toward rejection of Fiducia supplicans.”
That is part of the reason for which Ambongo asked the bishops of Africa to discuss the document all together, “in the spirit of synodality, harmonize our views and present it to the Holy See in an organized manner.”
“From a pastoral point of view,” Ambongo said, “the document has created many misunderstandings and incomprehensions which shock the faithful in their faith.” Ambongo also told Vatican Media he hopes to go to Rome “as soon as possible” in order “to meet with the appropriate person for certain clarifications.”
The really ironic thing about this situation is that the Vatican system has a guy who is supposed to point this stuff out to the pope before he does things like this, so that things like this don’t happen.
The problem these days is that the guy happens to be Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernandez, architect of the very scheme that has put the pope in the bind.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “[Pope Francis] can’t refuse [the parchment requests] without appearing stingy and legalistic—’rigid’ is a word for it—but he can’t grant them without violating both the letter and the spirit of the very declaration that created the conundrum in the first place.”
the “letter and the spirit”? But wait, the letter and spirit is that there can be no scandal or confusion. Ergo, the only way to NOT violate Fiducia supplicans is to refuse the “spontaneous” parchments. By its own words, the Declaration is self-cancelling.
Likewise, now with all other requests, given the worldwide scandal and confusion.
Not buying that Bergoglio is a hapless victim of Fernandez’s ineptitude. Sorry. FS was designed from the top. We’ve seen way too much deliberate confusion for ten years. The only difference now is that Bergoglio has a willing and fawning partner, albeit incompetent and bizarre.
I think you are correct. My impression about Pope Francis and many bishops and clergy in a common belief in universal salvation. The never teach about original sin and its consequences. Or that Jesus died for our salvation. Salvation is union with Jesus in His Mystical Body and no where else. People need to know the consequences of dying in mortal sin. Far more serious in sin are those bishops and clergy who teach what Jesus teaches about the seriousness of sexual sins and their consequences.
who fail to teach what Jesus teaches.
Agreed, Francis found a stooge to do the lifting; however, this is 100% the popes doing.
I agree
Altieri’s “The problem these days is that the guy happens to be Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernandez, architect of the very scheme that has put His Holiness in the bind” would, or perhaps too strong a declaration may point to Pope Francis as an accessory. That personal opinion based on the modus operandi of previous ballistic missiles fired at the Church at large.
We all know that Fernandez was Amoris’ ghost writer. Allegedly a confidant of Francis intimated that he, Fernandez wrote the thesis then presented it to Francis to spin it. In this instance it appears the converse occurred, that His holiness pressed the red button for Fernandez, now the spin master to fire away. His Holiness can play the role as the benevolent, pious Leader [no one seems to know if His Holiness signed FS] and soothe the righteously alarmed knowing soothing will not prevent what’s already catastrophic. It’s nice when one can arrange to have his cake and eat it too. At any rate I dislike making Machiavellian assessments. Forgive me Lord. Unfortunately the Prince seems an apt student.
“The problem these days is that the guy happens to be Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernandez, architect of the very scheme that has put the pope in the bind.”
“…put the pope in the bind…”
Father Morello, that line jumped out at me, too.
Altieri’s assertion here remains ensconced in the “Conservative” narrative that the Pope is always right and it’s just bad translations and mean newspaper editors who are the ones to blame for his apparent (but not real) mistakes.
After over a decade, I cannot believe any author of any article on Francis would put forth such a lame assessment, ambiguously or in the clear.
Francis is in charge. If anyone put him “in the bind”, it’s him. I know it is hard to tie one’s own hands up, but with effort, a pretty smart guy can pull it off, and Francis isn’t dumb.
I am mystified at all this talk of Francis in a bind. When has he ever demonstrated any awareness of or concern for the damage he does? With all his talk about a listening Church, when does he ever demonstrate any capacity to listen to criticism? When has he ever expressed regret about his outbursts of nastiness towards even his mildest of critics? Why should anyone even expect he will trouble himself to notice the damaging consequences for the laity or the public witness of the Church now or ever?
Hello Rod. Good to ‘hear’ you again with some good insights. Altieri may be circumspect toward Pope Francis because of his journalistic ideals, as I read him preferring to be a journalist rather than a critic. I suppose he can be both although once you assume the role of critic you turn off a good many readers who assume you’re not going to be objective. Otherwise he comes up with a lot of intriguing issues at the Vatican.
Doth one thing leadeth to another?
If Cardinal Fernandez is unable to justify splitting out a distinctly third level/category(?) of blessings (sacramental, liturgical, and now Fiducia supplicans), how will he ever justify splitting out a third level/category of Holy Orders–bishops, priests, deacons—but also including a mutant side plate of female deacons (deaconesses surely veiled under another 5,000 words of limitations and special conditions)?
In both cases, the tissue of verbiage triggering an explosion in actual practice, vastly beyond the actual or pretended intent. Certainly a “development” of sorts…beyond even DEI (diversity, equity, identity), now to IED (improvised explosive/ecclesial device).
Now is the time to deal with those German bishops:
“The problem these days is that the guy happens to be Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernandez, architect of the very scheme that has put the pope in the bind.” They are all in this together.
Exactly JP. Pastoral heresy on a piece of paper for every couple!
Thanks be to Pope Francis and Cardinal 💋 for calling God out for His Perfection. Who is God to judge?
My position on many things in the church has long been: “If it ain’t broke, dont fix it.” ( You know, like communion in the hand, removing altar rails, proposed changes to the wording of the Our Father, etc).The pope had no reason to issue this declaration on gay blessings in the first place. It beggers belief that NOBODY clued him in that this document would become a massive problem. As demand grows for what gay couples THINK they are entitled too, so will backlash and further damage to the faithful and to the church. An unforced error, indeed.Don’t hold your breath waiting for him to admit it was a mistake.
A Benedictine who wished to remain anonymous wrote: “In all the discussions surrounding the controversy sparked by the Supplicating Trust Declaration, I am struck by how little is said about grace, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and prayer. There is only one solution to difficult pastoral situations, and that solution is grace. Grace is obtained through prayer, and prayer is within reach of every soul. There are souls to whom the words of the Act of Contrition may be difficult, but who can murmur a Hail Mary. Let these souls do this very often. Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces, will not reject the grace of contrition to those who, unable to do more, simply invoke her name.
It is a true pity that the magnificent text of St. Bernard, ‘Respice Stellam, Voca Mariam,’ is almost never mentioned by those dealing with souls in difficult pastoral situations. After all, the Marian solution may not only be the best solution but the only solution.”
A priest seemed reluctant to bless unknown individuals, fearing that his blessing might be interpreted as approval of disorderly situations or relationships. Without thinking, a priest I know very well for his holiness was compelled to ask him, “Father, when you give the blessing at the end of the Eucharistic prayer, do you exclude anyone from the church?” “Absolutely not,” he replied. “Then,” he said, “does the Lord bless everyone through you?” He remained thoughtful, beginning to place greater trust in the mercy of the heavenly Father, the Blood of Jesus, and the power of the wind of the Holy Spirit.(we’d add of course the intercession of the Mediatrix of all graces!)
Another time a member of the community of that holy priest entered his place and reported to him, “Father, two men are about to come to you. They say they are homosexuals and desire a blessing.” “Let them in,” said the priest. As the religious went out to welcome them, he stopped him to say, “If they receive a gust of the Holy Spirit from above, they won’t be the same anymore. Rejoice, for who knows, they might even surpass you in the Kingdom of Heaven!”
Specification has meaning. An unspecified blessing at the end of Mass is just that. A specified blessing for two persons is specifically for them. We cannot obliterate the meaning of our actions by diluting what it specifies.
If Christ and the Church hold that homosexual relations is serious sin one commits sin by attempting to bless it.
Father, here is the experience of a person called into question by the Vatican document (one can find it in a comment to an article I’ll translate and insert tomorrow in my website available to CWR. This and others numerous comments will not be published, indeed).
“I have been living with a partner for almost ten years (I was formerly a member of an ancient religious order). From a faith perspective, I went through phases of deep rejection after leaving the Order and gaining full awareness of my same-sex orientation. However, with the start of my relationship, I gradually rediscovered the need to turn to God. I chose to return to attending Sunday Mass (while abstaining from receiving the sacraments) and paradoxically decided to recite the rosary daily. This prayer, which I had always disliked, has become precious and necessary to me over the years.
My partner is a good person, and despite identifying as a non-believer, unknowingly retains seeds of hope that I silently try to help cultivate. We have grown and are growing together, each on our own path, but I discover positive aspects in this relationship, despite being aware of the teachings of the Church’s Magisterium. Therefore, my intention is not to justify my choices or seek self-absolution. Instead, I want to point out that the content of the document under consideration is clear to me: the possibility of a potential request for a blessing for me and my partner should not be interpreted as a blessing of the relationship itself but would support the goodness and honesty present in our relationship.
Moreover, seeing how Grace is mysteriously guiding me in these years, my hope is that in the future, a potential request for a blessing from my spiritual father could even encourage my partner to approach the faith spontaneously. He, in fact, holds an image of a Church that seems too reluctant to welcome him due to some pamphlets found in a church expressing extremely harsh and almost apocalyptic tones toward homosexuals, causing a complete rejection of anything related to faith and the Church. These are distant episodes in time but so powerful that they remain alive in him even today. Yet, something is stirring within him.”
This person has fully understood the meaning and value of “Fiducia supplicans” (supplicant trust), as it is clear from the interpretation that, on the one hand, discourages modernists from exploiting it for their own advantage, and on the other hand, appeals to rigorists to appreciate the positive aspect of same-sex unions without legitimizing sin. The fact of being heterosexual or homosexual does not constitute a moral difference between them.
Homosexuals are not a separate class of people, exempt from the duty to redeem themselves from sin, nor are they cursed in a constant state of sin, irredeemable and destined for hell. Instead, the dynamics and path to salvation are fundamentally the same for everyone: we all inevitably and periodically fall into sin throughout our present lives; we all must, through penance, erase the sins we repeatedly commit; we all possess good inclinations and talents to make use of; we are all redeemed by the blood of Christ, which we can and must use for our salvation; and from now on, we can all anticipate, in grace, the future glorious resurrection of the union of man and woman.
Quite contradictory in its setting forth a personal position and expecting benefice from it, seemingly consent by an organization, which, by its nature, can not give that consent. The effusive, even erudite, expression contained therein can not change a heterodox status into something it is not. A better approach would be to ask a truly caring pastor to pray with/for them that they may seek, then find and then act courageously to practice the will of God.
If two people living in immorality are touched by the blessing of our God, they will no longer find joy in continuing their habits: they will begin to see the presence of Jesus in their home, and it will happen that they may seek, find, and act courageously to practice the will of God.
Paolo suggests that two people living in immorality are “touched by God’s blessing, they will no longer find joy” in their habits. Question, por favor, Paolo: Which demon or angel has gifted you such prophecy??
Paolo it would seem benevolent if a blessing, which is also an affirmation, could be given to this couple without the sense of affirmation of same sex behavior. Although there has to be some sign of repentance which you allude to when one party says, “my hope is that in the future, a potential request for a blessing from my spiritual father could even encourage my partner to approach the faith spontaneously”.
The person with these sentiments presents a good, a willingness for conversion, which because there is an ongoing sexual relationship with a partner both would be required to seriously consider conversion and abstinence from relations. It would be possible to explicitly bless their ‘willingness’ to convert, which willingness is the work of grace, the priest making this known so as to avoid scandal.
A blessing doesn’t necessarily convey grace. A blessing at this stage is an affirmation of sin. Although the receptivity of grace would be manifest, if there were a mutual desire to convert and live chaste lives.
Salvation is a difficult passage in this life, a narrow door. As Christ says, Many seek salvation, few succeed. That’s why sacrifice, willingness to accept the suffering of the cross as it is given demonstrates the sincerity of our desire.
Father, I agree. I’m convinced that FS does not favor, but rather discourages, the practice of sodomy. The meaning and purpose of the blessing are clear: to strengthen the healthy energies of the couple and promote that process of penance and conversion that should lead to a gradual abandonment of a practice, which deserves more compassion than disdain.
The error into which one falls (and it surprises me that Cardinal Muller has fallen into it!) is expressed in a few words: it is a very serious misunderstanding, an interpretative mistake to believe that the blessing has as its object the sin, as if the sin were no longer a sin, and rather not the individuals created by God with infinite dignity, endowed with gifts and talents bestowed by Him, called to conversion and penance for eternal salvation. The blessing has the precise purpose of supporting them in this journey and helping them overcome sin, with specific reference to the sin of sodomy.
wow! dear father you are very clear. yes! the path to salvation is very narrow indeed! i never read with Jesus He ever deviated from the path to Calvary. Life is difficult enough and to witness in a Christian faith; and here with this FS document i recognize how much more grief parents will have in their battle with this evil gender ideology and transgenderism, we parents pray for our children, this causes many mothers to weep.
I am sorry paolo…that was a bunch of lukewarm pablum that is about to be thrown up by the infant that has swallowed it….your ignorance is that you have no idea how the sexual act of sodomy is a deep and wounding sin that rebels against God and the natural law saying to God I know better than you and choose this wickedness because after all same sex attraction is normal and thank you very much for creating me this way….Paul in his letter to the Corinthians was very clear about how God felt about this abomination….can the homosexual come to the mercy seat of Christ and ask forgiveness….absolutely because that is what happened to those Corinthians as Paul concluded…”as some of you were” ……notice the verb were meaning no longer are….lastly don.t conflate that because there are some good qualities in the indiduals life that there sexual proclivities give them a pass….it doesn’t and those acts of sodomy will not allow them to inherit the kingdom of God…my prayer is that all lgbt people will come to christ in repentance and experience the wonderful gift of salvation that He offers to all of us, to live the live of joy and fulfillment He promises in obedience to His word….
I understand, Ronald, the perplexity of most commentators about the appropriateness of publishing such a document, not easily understood and prone to misunderstandings, and I conclude, with the help of a Dominican theologian whose texts I oversee the translation for the English section. The document is inspired by a high sense of mercy and can be understood as being misunderstood by that rigorist current, resembling the sect of the Pharisees in the time of Christ. (Unfortunately, the comparison comes naturally because just as the Pharisees were scandalized by the merciful actions of Christ, so the current censors of the Declaration misunderstand the merciful attitude of the Declaration towards irregular couples, believing that it intends to legitimize sin.)
What needs to be done now is to make every effort to make it clear that the document does not approve of sodomy in any way, and for this purpose, it is necessary to explicitly state the condemnation of this sin, which, truth be told, seems rather implicit, and this is the defect of the document, as I said commenting a previous CWR article on this issue.
It is possible that certain homosexual couples may see the blessing as an endorsement of their sin, making it no longer a sin since sin cannot be blessed. If this were to happen, it is clear that the minister of the blessing, before blessing a couple, must verify if they are falling into this misconception. Therefore, if the couple refuses to accept the clarification of the minister, it is clear that he is obligated to deny the blessing because in that case there would be no genuine supplicant trust, but rather a vain cunning and an attempt to deceive God.
The blessing can very well be added to confession. Our moral conduct here on earth, with a nature wounded by the consequences of original sin but which has nonetheless retained a weak free will, is certainly the result of our free will. However, it is necessary to take into account that the inclination to sin is very strong. So, even with all good intentions and even with the help of grace, it happens that the violence of passion, for example, in the case of homosexuality as well as heterosexuality, is so strong and coercive that I end up, as Saint Paul says (Romans 7:14-24), doing the evil that, if I were free from concupiscence, I would not do.
The principle “ad impossibilia nemo tenetur” certainly should not be an excuse to feel free to sin. Yet, it applies in those cases where, although wanting to do good, we cannot do it due to a lack of strength. It is true that the act, being voluntary, is guilty, but it should be equally clear that, since the act has a dose of impotent rejection due to the greater force of passion, the guilt decreases all the more as the violence of the passion is greater. Hence the so-called mitigating circumstances, which must be taken into account in judgment not to blame those who are not guilty but simply fragile, and not to be cruel where pity is needed.
But the couple can very well present themselves to the priest already in a state of grace.
It is clear – and I reiterate and complete the response to a previous comment – that those requesting the blessing must repent of their sins, including sodomy. FS clearly prescribes the duty to care for penance and conversion, so it is evident that the blessing is valid only under these conditions. For this reason, the minister does well, before giving the blessing, to verify if this intention exists to avoid the misconception that the blessing implies the legitimization or tolerance of the sin of sodomy. The fact that the blessing is spontaneous and freely formulated by the minister on a case-by-case basis and not fixed or ritualized precisely means that the minister blesses a union that, unlike intrinsically and objectively holy marital union, has a good and a bad side. Hence the need to bless the good side while excluding the bad one, which can be done by a blessing formula that makes the necessary distinctions and clarifications suitable for the specific case.
It is obvious – and Father Morello clearly and rightly pointed out that – that the blessing is valid and effective only if there is a willingness to repentance and conversion in both individuals. FS says this clearly.
In any case, if the minister suspects that the two do not have clear ideas, he must first verify if they recognize that sodomy is a sin and intend to fight against sin. Otherwise, it is clear that he is obliged to refuse the blessing, lacking the necessary dispositions.
I’m sorry, Paolo, but such “blessings”, spontaneously or not, will almost always be taken by the recipients and anyone else who sees them (see Scandal, noun) as the Church’s official license to “go and sin some more.”
Well said, dear Deacon Ed.
When our priests & bishop start blessing same-sex couples there will be many innocent Catholic celibates, lay & clergy who had been heroically faithful to God’s commands, who will be misled into starting a life of sexual sin.
“Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes.” Matthew 18:7
Even, woe to Pope Francis & the Catholic hierarchy of this day.
Izzat you PF?
Paolo, I know there is nothing preventing you from requesting a blessing on your own. Requesting one as part of a couple shows bad faith in that neither party is willing to ask for a blessing or councel without the other ‘member’. There really is no good way of blessing a couple who chooses to live in sin.
to Meiron, above:
Expressing perplexity to the angel (in this case, a priest), he, almost in a whisper, speaking to himself, replied: “As for your doubts, Meiron, far be it from me to approve disorder and sin! When those two realize that Jesus is present in their home, it will happen that they will love Him, listen to Him, and begin to give Him glory. For this purpose, I give the blessing of my God and His crucified Son for them.” I admired the faith that the priest offers to Jesus.
Paolo, who is the priest speaking to himself for expressing perplexity to an angel that seems also to have the name meiron, then explains it to meiron? Did this happen to the priest in a Mass or the confessional – or just in CWR?
I feel very sure that the early Christian communities were not fostered as groups of couples who had yet to realize together they had Jesus in their home.
Paolo,
FS does mention “grace” in #32 and it may as well be the doctrine on which Pope Francis developed Fiducia Supplicans.
Elsewhere, the name of St. Therese has been dropped, advocating for God’s mercy. It is quite known what the Little Flower teaches about grace: “Everything is a grace, everything is the direct effect of our Father’s love – difficulties, contradictions, humiliations, all the soul’s miseries, her burdens, her needs – everything, because through them, she learns humility, realizes her weakness. Everything is a grace because everything is God’s gift. Whatever be the character of life or its unexpected events – to the heart that loves, all is well.”
Be that as it may, the problem I see with FS is that the irregular blessing will be done by ordained clergy. Liturgical blessing is part of the official work and prayer of the Church within the context of the Holy Mass and in the administration of the sacraments. Sacramental blessing of people and sacred objects are sacramental because it is done by priests and deacons by virtue of their Sacrament of Holy Orders.
If FS cannot at all be rescinded, it may still be acceptable if it were to be done by Extraordinary Ministers (ie, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.) I’ve seen many an EMHC who is just aching to bestow blessings on children and people with their arms crossed at their breasts at the communion line. Why not have them do the FS on irregular couplings outside the church premises?
Dear Margarita,
Distinguishing in order to unite is also the golden rule here. To understand the decision of the DDF and the Pope, it is essential to make distinctions: it is a PASTORAL decision that seeks to exploit the pastoral opportunities for those irregular couples requesting something from the Church. It can be to bless an image, a statue of a saint, a medal, or even, as in this case, the blessing for two people, and the Church grants it (without blessing the union but rather the individuals, i.e., without blessing the sin). At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that the merciful pastoral benevolence does not negate the validity of the DOCTRINAL: sin is still sin.
For this reason, I believe that the pastor (parish priest, priest, committed layperson, i.e, EMHC, as you suggest), if involved in such blessings, having been able to DISTINGUISH, must also UNITE. That is, in the same ritual of blessing, which implies a pastoral charitable gesture, the DOCTRINAL element must be included, namely, reminding the spouses in irregular situations of the duty to embark on the path of conversion, to strive to fulfill the divine Law.
With all delicacy and prudence (certainly, in ways still imperfect compared to what a saint like Teresa of the Child Jesus would have done!), it would be good to provide good arguments for why sodomy is a sin. (A significant problem is that many, especially the LGBT community – or rather, the militant wing of the movement – do not consider it a sin but simply a different sexual orientation that needs to be respected like any other orientation!)
The perception of the distinction between acts conforming to nature and those against nature has been lost. The idea that the body is a matter freely moldable by the will is widespread, as if God Himself had not set precise norms for our conduct in the governance of our sexuality.
Therefore, there is a need for great doctrinal effort, always accompanied by competent pastoral care, about which it must be said that comforting progress has been made today. This progress should serve as a reminder for those still clinging to an exclusive mindset, using the pretext that sodomy is a sin to lack charity and mercy towards these individuals.
Paolo suggests the priest INTERRUPT a blessing to the same-sex and other irregularly assorted couples to remind them that God calls them to repentance.
Really. The priest should remind any irregularly situated or other disorderly inclined same-sex couple of the need for repentance BEFORE they ask for blessing. If they persist in asking for a blessing, the priest should accompany them one-by-one, singly and individually, into the 2-sided confessional.
Yes!
Because a person must have some degree of authority over another to bestow blessings in the imprecatory sense (meaning the blessing is invoked authoritatively, rather than requested from God). EMHC have no authority over other parishioners, and therefore cannot give blessings. This applies both to people in the communion line and to persons with sinful romantic relationships.
The problem with FS is less who is doing it, and more with what is being blessed. Even a deprecatory prayer is wrong if you are asking God to do what is clearly contrary to His will (e.g., asking God to change the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts). FS seems pretty clear that this is a blessing of the relationship, not of two individuals, even simultaneously. It is not possible to bless anything that is objectively evil, as sinful romantic relationships are. There are a lot of attempts to get around this by claiming that only the good elements of the relationship are being blessed. But there would be no trouble with a liturgical, ritual blessing that carefully specifies the good elements of the relationship (and would therefore clearly apply to people who are not in a sinful romantic relationship but rather in normal friendships, or who are roomates/housemates, etc.). Such a ritual blessing would be less liable to abuse from the likes of Fr. Martin. But it would also manifestly not do anything like what the German bishops want.
FS (SP) came out after I said gay spirituality has to be condemned. A chord was struck and they lunged forward so as not to lose ground.
The line of thinking is now obvious, I think. Fine distinctions -hair-splitting- are going to become more and more untenable.
Recall when PF accused news readers of coprophagia; so he naturally assumes lukewarm Catholics will placidly consume FS. One might inquire of our sodomitic enamored clergy whether fellatio post sodomy also qualifies as coprophagia or is it just a cardinal act of healing with the mouth? And mustn’t it be pastorally blessed?
May God have Mercy on His suffering Church.
Thank you Holy Spirit that the young priests rushing into our Church in flames for the salvation of souls do not succumb to the nonsense flowing from Rome.
“Basically, it puts the pope between a rock and a hard place.”
I’m sorry, But the pope put himself in this position, so I find it hard to have sympathy for him.
This document was unnecessary. Change couples to individuals and a lot of this will be cleaned up.
Agreed… however, Francis doesn’t care. He is a Jesuit. He has more in store, you can be certain of that.
Excuse me, Chris, but I fear that our dear Francis would consider your edit not as fixing his document, but rather as ruining it, for that would torpedo James Martin & co’s NY Times photo op!
Chris,
And change “priests” to “Extraordinary Ministers of Fiducia Supplicans” (EMFS) and it will all be fixed, albeit hilarious.
The writer here appears to have left CRUX and is now a regular at CWR. I hope he can lose his practice of throwing in completey unnecessary foreign language phrases. After wasting my time looking them up “Sui generis” simply means unique, and “Tout court” simply neans simply. Newsflash: doing it adds zero gravitas to the article and readers here don’t need to waste time looking them up since they won’t see them again for a year or two and have to look them up again. They are NOT common usage phrases for normal americans.
There is one other regular writer on CWR who does the same thing. I hope his New Year’s Pledge is to cessare e desistere as well!
You’re in The Bigs now Christopher (nee Chris)! You need to up your game – and not with unnecessary foreign language phraseology!
Chesterton has an unflattering quote regarding this practice. I’ll try to find it and post later.
The author was the news editor at Vatican Radio for a decade, was editor of The Catholic Herald for a time, and has written for numerous publications (including CRUX; but he’s not been on the staff there). It’s not common these days for journalists to use foreign phrases, but it used to be very common, even ordinary. Because fairly literate people knew a wide range of such phrases. I don’t see it as a flaw, nor do I think that having an identifiable style is a problem at all. Quite the contrary. But, then, I think the 21st century has been, overall, a complete dumpster fire.
“Chesterton has an unflattering quote regarding this practice.” I love Chesterton; I have read (and I own) most of his works. I don’t think, however, that he’s the man to go to when criticizing supposed excesses in writing.
“But, then, I think the 21st century has been, overall, a complete dumpster fire.”
Indeed, it has.
Back in the day Mr. Bob, many “Normal Americans” used to study a little French in school. So “tout court” wasn’t too hard for me to figure out. And even if you’re from a more current generation it never hurts to gain a little more vocabulary. It’s a whole lot easier & quicker to translate things these days. Thank you Professor Google.
🙂
With the internet, all languages are at our fingertips. Why not use them to turn on the lights in a dark room? Why do what one grips about in another? Logjam beamspeck.
Chesterton and Orwell, on the use of language, misunderstood or maybe misconstrued, are also found on the internet. Unreal, right? Consider that they’ve been dead for a while, but words will linger:
“But in truth the chief mark of our epoch is a profound laziness and fatigue; and the fact is that the real laziness is the cause of the apparent bustle. Take one quite external case; the streets are noisy with taxicabs and motorcars; but this is not due to human activity but to human repose. There would be less bustle if there were more activity, if people were simply walking about. Our world would be more silent if it were more strenuous. And this which is true of the apparent physical bustle is true also of the apparent bustle of the intellect. Most of the machinery of modern language is labour-saving machinery; and it saves mental labour very much more than it ought. Scientific phrases are used like scientific wheels and piston-rods to make swifter and smoother yet the path of the comfortable. Long words go rattling by us like long railway trains. We know they are carrying thousands who are too tired or too indolent to walk and think for themselves. It is a good exercise to try for once in a way to express any opinion one holds in words of one syllable. If you say “The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment,” you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin “I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out,” you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think. The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word “damn” than in the word “degeneration.”
“Chesterton and Orwell’s concerns neatly overlap here.** And the example provided by Chesterton also helps make clear (I almost wrote “clarify”) another of Orwell’s rules:
“v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.”
~Courtesy of Bing Chat GPT-4
I really doubt the pope is “in the know” regarding homosexual couples. He believe he can separate out their behavior from their “identity”. Ever since Obama and the world-wide push for gay marriage, the position of the homosexual crowd became “We ARE our act”, or “our (sexual) act is what makes us what we are.” Therefore, one does not have homosexuality without the homosexual act itself. This is what makes FS so egregious and evil. It ratifies the homosexual in HIS/HER sin. Our pope has consigned these people to damnation and the Church to a co-conspirator in the process.
I couldn’t disagree more. Francis knows exactly what is going on … he is a South American Jesuit. Read The Society of Jesus by Martin.
Ah, but there IS a difference! A wedding, a birthday not the same as two people embroiled in sin seeking escape. Not something to hang on the wall for all to see. Exactly WHAT are we blessing, what rejoicing about? Ah there’s the rub !!!
The main point of making them spontaneous blessings was to ensure that no one could specify what is being blessed.
I found a pertinent quote from George Orwell’s Rules: “George Orwell’s rules for writing (from Politics and the English Language)….(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do….(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Moderator, please pass on to Altieri and Chapp before deleting it as you did my previous legitimate critical post. Thanks.
Came to this article after spending much time praying over the Church’s rich understanding of the Holy Name of Jesus (today’s feast). One might almost suspect we are dealing with two different religions.
Everything about this was entirely unnecessary. Who is he trying to impress with this? There has always been an outward show if unity in the Church, until this man came along. First the excretable Traditionis custodes, a document based on a lie. And then this and that unsound nonsense from Rome. He must have expected the same low grumblings his other theologically inept ramblings have produced. But now we have whole swathes of the Church in open revolt. Well done. It’s like he’s turned us into Anglicans.
Antipope Francis has stepped in it and can’t shake it off.
Francis is Lucy, teeing up the pigskin for the Popesplainers to kick; Charlie Brown is the Popesplainers.
May the latter grow weary of bruising their tailbones.
Re vocabulary – I have to admit sui generis escapes me too (three years of Latin, not all forgotten) and I find its use a bit pretentious. I’m good with tout court and I think the phrase is more generally known.
I do think it’s a good idea to go light on foreign/more obscure vocabulary. BTW, I wouldn’t mind seeing the translation of Fiducia Supplicans once in a while just so I know what is being (supposedly) discussed.
It’s on the Vatican website.
If his Holiness does impart blessings it will relevant only to those couples he blesses and the business of nobody else. It’s sad to see a small percentage of American Catholics obsessed with something so minor. Do I think this could lead to eventual sacramental recognition of same gender couples? Yes. Who is harmed? Objectively speaking, what difference does it make if LGBTQ+ people remain celibate or make life time commitments to a same gender spouse? Neither path will lead to children being born. Orientation is not something that is either contagious or chosen, nor does the medical profession any longer consider it to be some kind of illness. It is a normal variation of sexuality. Live and let love – and myob.
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. … If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”
When one member of the body sins, all the members are affected by it in the spiritual order. When false teaching about what is grave sin is proposed by those who call themselves Catholic, the affect is considerably larger.
It is not a normal variation. It is, generally speaking, a result of abuse or neglect in childhood, most often sexual abuse. And you cannot heal from that abuse if you continue to self-harm.
You obviously have spent little time getting to know actual LGBTQ+ people. Your baseless claims about the origins of sexual orientation are shockingly misinformed and have been rebuked by every mainstream medical association. The world and individuals suffer from sins like murder, battery, rape, sexual abuse, war, torture and other actual crimes, NOT because two adults enter into a consensual romantic relationship.
“Objectively speaking, what difference does it make if LGBTQ+ people remain celibate or make life time commitments to a same gender spouse?”
Morally and spiritually speaking, it makes every bit of difference. In the first case, people are aware of their same sex attraction but are not acting on it, thereby aligning their lives with God’s stated moral commandments. In the second case, individuals are actively and intentionally violating clear biblical teachings about sexuality. The Bible is clear that unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. What difference does it make? How about one’s eternal destiny for starters.
If you had ever read carefully the footnotes in the New American Bible you would know that references to “homosexuals” in both the old and new testaments derived from the word “catamites,” grown men who paid underage boys for sex. Catamites were in no way the equivalent of two adult men or women entering into romantic relationships. Sins inflict some objective harm to a person or people. I can think of no OBJECTIVE harm consensual romantic relationships between two men or two women have on society or individuals in society. You apparently can’t either.
Dear John, in your eagerness to say that homosexuality is OK for a Catholic, you have dishonestly represented the Holy Word of God. That should alert you, if you are open, that some influence caused that. Our opponent is the father of lies.
Romans 1:26-27 – “God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
1 Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit The Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit The Kingdom of God.”
To encourage you: I’ve been a single celibate Christian layman for more than 20 years. It is possible and, in fact, has many advantages in terms of getting closer to King Jesus Christ, Our Most Blessed Mother Mary, the Apostles of the Lord, and the great assembly of holy saints & martyrs. Remember: THEY are the family of God we catholics desire to spend an eternity with.
What is given up out of obedience to Christ, He returns to us as blessing upon blessing. Our God IS faithful through this age and the age to come.
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
What is OBJECTIVE harm? Are you intimating some kind of SUBJECTIVE harm? Can you give examples?
Who is harmed? The “couple” whose grave sin is affirmed and whose repentance of that sin is necessary for salvation, such repentance made forever more unlikely by the Church’s perceived affirmation.
Who else is harmed? Anyone who sees such “parchment” and is scandalized (look up the meaning) as you must have been, to believe that such grave sins either cause no harm or can be affirmed.
The individual does not have “an infinite dignity”.
Just because a thing “good” makes sense for “an individual” does not mean it can transfer to “a couple”.
The presumption that grace will follow blessing for homosexualisms and/or homosexualist “couples” – “because there is some good in there”; is not the faith.
Paolo is making many references, Benedictine, Dominican, translator -all anonymous.
John above – What difference does it make? For one thing, children are being born so there goes that “non-issue”.
I have no clue what are you talking about. Basic anatomy dictates that neither a single man or woman nor two men or two women is going to produce babies. There are plenty of circumstances where such couples raise children, including the many unwanted babies relationships of heterosexual couples produce, but that doesn’t appear to be what you are trying to communicate.
Amanda above – The translation of Fiducia Supplicans is on the Vatican website? I don’t doubt it. I don’t find that very helpful.
I would appreciate the translation at the first mention of Fiducia Supplicans in every article.
The same goes for any other Latin encyclical or document, BTW.
There is so much in Catholic doctrine that is ‘confusing’. Try explaining the Trinity to a non believer. Or the dual nature of Christ. Or Transubstantiation.
This is more about homophobia and hatred than ‘confusion’. Most lay Catholics, in the west, support Supplicans but that is never mentioned. The blessings are on individuals who come before a priest as a couple. Where’s the confusion?
“The blessings are on individuals who come before a priest as a couple. Where’s the confusion?”
I think you just touched on it.
Is the Catechism “homophobic”? It says:
To deny that sin is sin, is the greatest obstacle to our acceptance of Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy.
4Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: 5For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
For THIS (singular, proximal, demonstrative) Cause.
Spot on, dear N.D. – together with Saint John’s proclamation that Jesus Christ was manifest [came into this world] so as to destroy the works of the devil, we glean that Catholics who promote non-Apostolic forms of sexuality are opposing The Incarnation by furthering the works of the devil.
Little children clearly see what the powers in Rome are obstinately blind to.
All persons are called to Holiness, in their thoughts, in their words, and in their deeds; we are Called to be “Temples for The Holy Ghost”.
There is nothing that is phobic about Christ’s Teaching on The Sanctity of human life, and The Sanctity of The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony.
From what I understand Con, most Catholics in the West support contraception and sterilization. Probably divorce and remarriage, and a host of other things too.
Catholic teaching isn’t based upon popular opinion.
“Catholic teaching isn’t based upon popular opinion.”
Revised – “Catholic teaching didn’t used to be based upon popular opinion.”
time will tell whether this belief will bear fruit at all. We will know what type of tree it is by its fruit. And perhaps the seed will not die and bear fruit. Time will also tell whether the cardinals who elect popes want to continue on the Pope’s line of thinking.
Bob