Regensburg, Germany, Jul 2, 2019 / 05:35 pm (CNA).- Monsignor Michael Fuchs, vicar general of the Diocese of Regensburg, has published a reflection on the June 29 letter Pope Francis wrote to Catholics in Germany, in which the pope called for a focus on evangelization in the face of the “erosion” and “decline of the faith” in the country.
Numbers provided in brackets are by Mons. Fuchs and refer to the original letter. Translated by Anian Christoph Wimmer from the original German as published by CNA Deutsch.
Please find below the full text of Msgr. Fuchs’ reflection:
Pope Francis writes a letter to Catholics in Germany. He, who places so much value on the strength of the local Church and emphasizes subsidiarity and synodality, finds himself forced to step in, as both a shepherd and a father.
The result is a word of warning, and at the same time a word of encouragement. This is a serious intervention.
It comes before a backdrop of developments in the Catholic Church in Germany in recent years, and in particular the last few months, of various protest actions and letters, of the current plans for the so-called “synodal process” (cf. section 3 of the letter) and associated demands and expectations. Their direction and their vehemence must have pushed the Holy Father to this word.
Francis does not contest particular points or weigh in on minutiae. The crisis of the Church in Germany is a much more profound one, and therefore the letter also takes a more fundamental approach. In doing so, Pope Francis refers repeatedly to his address to the German bishops on occasion of their ad limina visit on 20 November 2015 (cf. the letter’s introductory words, for instance) and his letter wants to be read and understood on the basis of that address.
In both his ad limina address and the letter, the Pope – after having praised the great achievements in Germany – clearly identifies the symptoms of the current crisis: fewer Catholics attend Sunday Mass or go to confession. The very substance of the faith among many has evaporated, and the number of priests is decreasing. He assures us of his closeness and his support for our efforts to overcome this crisis and to find new ways to do so, and he wants to encourage us.
But then he identifies a number of tendencies in the German search for solutions that cause him great concern.
The Pope’s concern about a “dismemberment” of the Church
First of all, there is the concern that the church in Germany will sever ties with the universal Church and split off from the global (“Catholic”) community of the Faith – the letter describes this as a “dismemberment” of the Church.
Accordingly, Pope Francis calls for “journeying together with the whole Church” (3) and refers to the “communio [community] of all particular Churches in the universal Church” (Note 7). He points out that “especially in these times of strong fragmentation and polarization, it is necessary to ensure that the Sensus Ecclesiae is actually alive in every decision taken” and that “the particular Churches live and flourish within and out of the universal Church; if they were separated from the universal Church, they would weaken, perish and die. It is therefore a necessity always to stay in active and effective communion with the whole Body of the Church” (9), “knowing that we are an essential part of a greater Body” (ibid.).
The Pope further warns – with reference to a book by Pope Benedict XVI – against the “temptation of the promoters of Gnosticism” who “have always tried to say something new and different from what the Word of God has given them. (…) What is meant by this is the one who wants to be ahead, the advanced one, who pretends to go beyond the ‘ecclesial We'” (ibid.). The passage from the Second Letter to John (2 John 9) mentioned in the text is revealing here: “Any one who goes ahead, and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God”. The pope [adds] that there is “a temptation by the Father of Lies (…), who (…) ultimately dismembers the Body of the holy and faithful people of God” (10). In contrast to this Pope Francis presents and proposes a holistic vision of synodality.
Obviously the Holy Father has not been unaware that some of the demands of the initiators of the “synodal process” (as the “synodal way” is often also called) go beyond – or do not sufficiently take into account – the globally binding Catholic foundations of Faith. At the very least, [these demands] could jeopardize the common path and the comprehensive communion of the Church. The Pope’s choice of words is unusually clear here.
The warning of a “secularized mindset”
A second topic in the papal letter concerns the temptation to strive only for a “reform of structures, organizations and administration”, constituting “a kind of new Pelagianism” (5), of which Pope Francis had already warned the German bishops during their ad limina visit in 2015. Pelagianism, rejected by the Church in the fifth century, claimed that there was no need for salvation from sins through Christ, and that man was sufficiently strong and good by himself.
In 2015 the Pope in this context already pointed out the temptation of “putting our trust in administration, in the perfect apparatus”. In his letter Francis warns against “secularization and a secularized attitude of mind” (5). “May God free us from a secular Church under spiritual or pastoral drapery! This suffocating worldliness is healed by tasting the pure air of the Holy Spirit, who frees us from revolving around ourselves, concealed underneath a semblance of religiosity, above a godless void” (5). (Note 13)
Rather, a “theologal perspective” is what is required: “The Gospel of Grace (…) should be the beacon and guide. Whenever an ecclesial community has tried to get out of its problems by itself, (…) it ended up multiplying the evils it wanted to overcome” (6). “Without ‘faithfulness of the Church to her own vocation’, any new structure will perish within a short period of time”. (ibid.) Therefore the Church should not simply respond to “external facts and needs”, “isolated from the mystery of the Church” (ibid.).
Much of what has been happening in Germany in recent times probably looks to the Pope like the activist undertakings of a quasi-political association, a “pious non-governmental organization”, as he has often described it in other contexts. And indeed, some things uttered on behalf of the Church time and again appear to demand just that – without consideration of preconditions of Faith and in contradiction to freely receiving the faithful gift of becoming.
Tensions and imbalances instead of adaption
Pope Francis speaks in his letter several times of “tension” and “adaptation”. He warns of “adapting [the life of the Church] to the currently prevailing logic or to that of a particular group” (5), and of establishing an “order which then puts an end to the very tensions that are inherent in our humanity and which the Gospel seeks to provoke” (ibid.). “We must not forget that there are tensions and imbalances which have the taste of the Gospel, which must be maintained because they promise new life” (ibid.). Evangelization is “not a ‘retouching’ which adapts the Church to the spirit of the times but makes her lose her originality and her prophetic mission” (7). Rather, it is a matter of “recognizing the signs of the times, which is not synonymous with mere adaptation to the spirit of the times (cf. Rom 12:2)” (8).
Much of what was said before the synodal process is predicated on an anxious need to not lose touch with the world’s plurality and the intention of closing the gap between the Church and the reality of life. Pope Francis dismisses this argument decisively.
Reclaiming the primacy of evangelization
Instead, “it is necessary to regain the primacy of evangelization (…) because the Church, the bearer of evangelization, begins by evangelizing herself” (7). It should be “our main concern to encounter our brothers and sisters, especially those who can be found on the thresholds of our church doors, on the streets, in prisons, in hospitals, in public squares and cities. The Lord expressed himself clearly: ‘But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well’ (Mt 6:33)”. (8). “It is the holiness ‘from next door’ (…) that protects and has always guarded the Church against every ideological, pseudo-scientific and manipulative reduction.” (ibid.)
For this the Pope demands a basic attitude of “vigilance and conversion” (12), an “attitude of withdrawal” (ibid.), and he refers to “true spiritual remedies (prayer, penance and adoration)” (ibid.). Joy should be the defining factor: “Evangelization leads us to regain the joy of the Gospel, the joy of being Christians”. (7)
Have we abandoned the primacy of evangelization in Germany, and lost, through obstinacy and defiance, the joy of Faith? Pope Francis spells out clearly what he means by evangelization and encountering the poor, and he criticizes any reduction thereof to mere adaptations, administrative reforms, and tendencies to isolation. He thus calls us to think bigger, to step outside of our own homes and to spread the Good News in word and deed.
Do not downplay conflicts by way of polls
In his letter, the Pope does not comment on formal technical details of the synodal process (such as its regulation, voting rules, etc.), but the following words are thought provoking: “The synodal view does not remove contradictions or confusion, nor does it subordinate conflicts to decisions of ‘good consensus’ that compromise faith as a result of censuses or surveys on this or that subject.” Rather, it is about the “centrality of evangelization and the Sensus Ecclesiae as determining elements of our ecclesial DNA” (11).
Incidentally, Francis uses the term “Sensus Ecclesiae” five times in the letter, which he deploys in a universal sense, and he avoids the term “Sensus fidelium” which is theologically and ecclesiastically founded, but is sometimes misunderstood as “groupthink” or mere majority opinion.
A synodal togetherness and the Sensus Ecclesiae obviously mean more to Pope Francis than to suppress conflicts, so to speak, technically, by votes or by polls or relying on false compromises “which subvert the faith”.
Is the contents of the letter surprising?
Not for those who have followed the Pope’s statements on the topics that the synodal process is to work on and decide. And not for those who listen to the Pope on fundamental questions of renewal and evangelization.
On the ordination of women to the diaconate, he has repeatedly called for restraint, even after several studies: “I cannot make a sacramental decree without a theological, historical basis,” he replied to those who demanded it.
In 2016, on his return flight from Sweden, he was asked whether he could imagine the ordination of women to the priesthood. His answer was clear: he referred to his predecessor John Paul II, who had spoken the last word with his “No”. “And that remains.” In response to a question asked by the journalist, Pope Francis referred to the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church and briefly explained them.
Perhaps some still remember his various statements on the conditions for admission to the priesthood. He expressly excludes the dissolution of celibacy thus: “The sentence of Saint Paul VI comes to mind: ‘I would rather give my life than change the law of celibacy’. This occurred to me, and I would like to say it, because it is a courageous sentence, in a more difficult time than this one, in the years around 1968/70 … Personally, I think that celibacy is a gift for the Church. Secondly, I do not agree to allow optional celibacy, no. Only for the remotest places would some possibility remain…” (Return flight from Panama, 27.01.2019). For the Amazon region just such an exception is, as is public knowledge, in discussion.
In addition, the Holy Father has repeatedly called problematic the presence of homosexual men in seminaries, and affirmed a corresponding regulation of the competent Congregation, which has led to weeks of fierce debate in Germany.
The letter “Maschio e femmina li creó” (“As man and woman he created her”) on the gender question, which the Congregation for Catholic Education published recently, has so far also received predominantly public malice and criticism from the Church in Germany.
What does this mean for the “synodal process”?
Following this papal letter, simply “carrying on as planned” is no longer an option, neither in content nor in form. Actually, the letter urges a complete rewriting of the process, which should be directed towards evangelization and spiritual renewal and towards “the people on the margins”; a process which does not “do” or “adapt”, but relies on God who can renew and convert and give us the joy of the Gospel; and a process which in all concerns goes with the community of the Catholic Church, which encompasses time and space.
During our ad limina visit, Pope Francis told us to take to heart the following – and perhaps we could also summarize his letter in this way: “The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself (Evangelii gaudium, 27)”.
[…]
Pope Francis invites a “fraternal discussion” while Cardinal Parolin suggests the need for an “investigation:” https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/13/cardinal-parolin-fiducia-supplinas-has-touched-a-very-sensitive-point/
So, let’s get on with a harmonized “fraternal investigation”! Participants can include all of Africa, plus Poland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Peru, and part of France and now parts of Spain.
Asia, Africa, Europe and South America, four of the continents assembled in the continental Synod 2023! (also less vocal: the “cautious” North America, the Middle East, and Oceania).
The global continents versus Germanic incontinence?
But with the seven continental synods, why pray tell do we still omit the continent of Antarctica???
Perhaps because in moral theology nothing can be BOTH black and white, and down under, so to speak, we happen to see some 20 million penguins synodally “walking together.”
And in response to their God given penguin sense of natural law no less.
“The global continents versus Germanic incontinence?”
“Sorry, dear Peter D. Beaulieu, the ‘pope’ says: “FS same-sex blessings are only opposed by a few small ideologue groups; with Africa as a special case.”!!!
R. R. Reno, the editor of ‘First Things’ gives a correctively truthful account:
♦ During the week before Christmas, Rome issued Fiducia Supplicans, a woolly-headed document about blessing same-sex couples. Anything remotely resembling a marriage blessing is streng verboten. But it’s OK to use exquisitely refined pastoral judgment sometimes, in some circumstances, to bless same-sex couples. The document strikes a clear note: Nothing can be blessed that is counter to God’s will. But one wonders: couples? We’re not talking about tennis partners. Confusion mounts. Two homosexuals united in a relationship can be blessed as couples, but not as sexual partners? One predicts that Fr. James Martin, Catholicism’s leading Rainbow collaborationist, will jump into the confusion to provide clarification. Indeed, within hours of the release of the document, he offered a blessing to a same-sex couple, helpfully (for his purposes) photographed by the New York Times. They are holding hands, heads bowed, as Fr. Martin makes the sign of the cross. No, no, he was not blessing their sexual relationship! That can’t be done, the Vatican assures us. Except, of course, when it is done, which seems to be the obvious consequence of the document, and possibly its intent.
Lies & intrigue, with a diabolical intent. . .
The fact is that Pontiff Francis has created confusion and division in the Body of Christ. About that there can be no doubt.
Dear Deacon Edward: “confusion & division” for sure, but from the viewpoint of the PF coterie it’s all for a necessary cause, as an essential first step towards the normalization of their demonic desire to legitimize ‘informal’ blessing of homosexual relationships among the clergy: deacons, brothers, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals & pope.
These ecclesial peers want it hot & appear to be on a slippery slope to eternity in a really hot place. Enjoy, enjoy . . !
Ever in the love of Christ Jesus; blessings from marty
“When decisions are not accepted, it’s because they are not understood”.
How can you have a dialogue when the decision has already been made, presumably without your input because you are just too dense to get it?
And he shouldn’t because Fiducia Supplicans forbids it!!! Pope Francis wouldn’t allow it.
Is anyone actually reading this document before they accuse??
Is anyone actually disciplining James Martin for blessing a homosexual couple?
Please don’t tell us Francis wouldn’t allow it. He already has. And he’s doing absolutely nothing to discipline those who bless couples in “irregular” unions, nor to prevent them from doing so.
Do not be fooled. This, and the confusion it fosters, is by design.
The ink didn’t even dry and Martin was blessing gay couples. The rag New York Times covered it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for disciplinary action to come anytime soon.
As the African Bishops pointed out, when the “allowable” blessing is so marginally different than outright approval, it is a GIVEN that many will not understand the subtle difference.It is splitting hairs. It does not matter WHAT the pope “intended”. Or wrote. He didnt have any reason to make this statement to begin with, which is causing massive division within the church. To placate and seeming to give approval to a handful of folks living in sin is actually NOT a good reason. Further, in places like Africa where laws on homosexuality are heavily influenced by Muslim belief, the penalty for such activity is often DEATH. This puts the church in a place of seeming to defend what is culturally unacceptable there on every level. That can only make the church an even bigger target than it is now.
It does no such thing.
Patrice, don’t be misled.
What Tucho and Bergoglio say in the document is window dressing.
Think about it. When Catholics see gay “couples” being blessed by a priest, they are going to conclude that the Church is now blessing gay couples. Because, quite frankly, it is.
They’re not going to know about — or care about — what the document says.
Bergoglio knows this, of course. So he doesn’t mind paying lip service to Catholic beliefs, all the while continuing his efforts to undermine them.
Yes, did you? The only thing FS excplicitly forbids is respect for and fidelity to Catholic doctrine. Read paragraph 25 carefully.
How the adorable Heart of the Beloved is wounded! This is not about persons but about unions or couples, like the palm and the fingers are the coupling that is the hand, distinct yes, separated or otherly, no and never.
Ones intent or intending cannot make the hand or couple-union only a person/s nor the hand only the palm or fingers, no the created reality is a unity, distinct but indivisible, not two or separated…much like the Beloved Himself three but always One and Indivisible, one and never separated. Blessings 🌹 Console Jesus and Mary, may they make us true
Homosexualists want you to confirm for them that they are created that way from within the Blessed Trinity all beyond separation; and have you bless them and praise the Trinity.
But everyone, except for Jesus and the BVM, comes into the world with defect of original sin, in whatever manner it will be discovered. This means that not everything we have by inheritance is ordained from God and not everything likewise is part of Redemption.
I may have a different created complex in original sin nothing to with homosexualism; where nonetheless it has no merit and has to be rejected, NOT part of any journey. I find your idea of “things necessarily conjoined” that “must be in unity”, applied here, is utterly distracted and running to compulsions. Sounds sweet but … What?
We are not created perfect. It is the grace of God that is perfect and leads us in its way steadying and building up reason, nature, what is right and good, faithfulness and attraction to truth. Also teaching us the necessary excisions. We are not brought to it as couples.
Such, are some of the true issues to do with homosexualism that are being left abandoned and left to random forces while the wrong things are given prominence only then infuse deeper confusion and stir up distrust. Having Welby talk about love and Gaza where his other positions are inimical is not our witness.
I want to call attention to the fact that Bergoglio has already succeeded in the first stage of his effort to normalize homoerotic behavior in the Church.
Note that even this Spanish Bishop Gil, who is less than enthused about Sfiducia Supplicans, refers to homosexual individuals as “couples” and as being in “irregular unions.”
I feel compelled to object. Gays with other gays are not “couples.” What they do is neither “union” nor “sex.”
It is nothing more than mutual masturbation, no more resembling the conjugal act than gin rummy or washing your car.
So “gay marriage” is in no way an alternative to marriage, “irregular” or otherwise.
Now, I’m old. And I enjoy being old, because I remember lots of things.
One thing I remember is that, for most of my adult life, from the late sixties through the push for gay “marriage” in the early aughts, the left was dead-set against marriage as an institution.
They would try to undermine marriage whenever and however they could.
“No piece of paper can tell me who to love,” was their mantra.
One of the left’s most reliable and most popular music groups from the sixties and seventies, Crosby, Stills & Nash, even did a song, “Love the One You’re With,” extolling the manifold joys of barnyard promiscuity.
So you can imagine my surprise when the lefties turned on a dime one day about twenty years ago and began wailing about the sad plight of gays who would never find happiness or fulfillment unless they were accorded full acceptance of their “marriages” by our cruel and bigoted society at large.
Why would gays care about having a piece of paper that dictated whom they were allowed to love, I wondered.
Simple. The reality is, the left cares nothing about marriage or its purpose — establishing families and providing a safe, stable, secure home for every child.
The left’s purpose in all this — as is always the case, with every issue they promote — is to undermine families, to promote abortions, to prevent births and to minimize life.
“Polyamory” — the barnyard promiscuity mentioned above — will quite obviously be the next moral outrage embraced by the evil one’s leftist minions.
If Bergoglio lives to see it, I anticipate the apostolic exhortation will be titled, “Fiducia Plures.”
In English, “Imploring Multitudes.”
And humanity’s suffering will once again be exacerbated by the death-dealing left.
Forgive me Lord, Archbishop Gil is not being very courageous nor very correct. “Gil stated that his intention is to ‘bless the person’ without having to do ‘a ceremony,’ according to Europe Press”.
Archbishop Gil is doing exactly what Cardinal Fernández and Pope Francis’ recommend in FS. “I am not going to bless even one homosexual union” [Gil] is an unfortunate fallacy. Example. If we bless ‘the person’ knowing that he she is homosexual we cannot separate person or persons and homosexual behavior. As said it’s a double bind in which the act contains two propositions, blessing of a person or persons and blessing a homosexual person or persons. It’s the act of blessing sinful behavior that’s egregious, not the intent.
In a human act there are two objects of the will, the internal and the external. The internal object willed is the intent, the external is the act. The external act, the materia sine quam, is what the act does. Without which it cannot be an act. It is the object [or moral object alluded to by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor] of the act. As such morality is determined by what we do, not simply by what we intend. With that said in order for such a blessing to possess moral validity there must be the precondition of some form of repentance.
Correction: It’s materia circa quam not materia [sine] quam
It is necessary to separate here a case of those homosexuals who come not as a couple i.e. single individuals who can be present in any congregation and those two homosexuals who make a homosexual couple. In the first case, they can and do receive a blessing just as anyone else. In the second they cannot receive a blessing unless they meet certain conditions determined by the Church’s teaching.
A few days ago I published an essay on this topic which discussed the initial maddening argument “we are blessing a homosexual couple as persons and not as a couple” – but apparently this argument meanwhile became a bit more down to earth and slightly less maddening, like an argument of Archbishop Gil. Still, my discourse covers his “way out” as well so I will quote it:
“I am not going to address here the most common argument of the proponents of the blessings of homosexual couples in the Roman Catholic Church who manage to split their conscience to the point of truly believing that blessing a couple does not mean an approval of the very actions which make them a couple because “we are blessing them as persons”. It has been addressed already, by the fact that the Church has been imparting blessings on the all kinds of persons (including homosexual) for all its history hence there was no need of a document that states so – unless one had in a mind something else than blessing a person, in this case the blessing of a couple as a couple. “No, they are blessed as persons”. Here we go again.”
I.e., Archbishop Gil could bless piles of homosexuals before just like anyone else, no problem. ‘FS’ was not about that. ‘FS’ wants him to bless a couple, in however oblique way – to separate them into two corners, reading a prayer over one and then another and so on will not cancel the fact that they came to him as a couple.
Anna. Thanks for your response. I was aware Archbishop Gil was essentially referring to single persons. Couples are taken for granted when it’s apparent that they present themselves as homosexuals. A single person nevertheless is not exempt. If he or she presents as a homosexual with apparent intent to be blessed as a homosexual, thereby seeking approbation, I will not offer a blessing nor should any priest.
Whereas those who approach a priest presenting as homosexuals instead offer the priest an opportunity to speak to them about the faith and the consideration of repentance/conversion of manners. May I ask if your published essay is available online?
I think when a priest blesses a single person (one) he usually cannot see who the person is – a heterosexual or homosexual (unless the latter is beaming with “pride” symbols all over him and then it is another matter of course).
Yes, my essay is available online:
orthodox-christian-icons.com/abomination-of-desolation.html
Anna I read your excellent essay. Your icons are beautiful.
Dear Anna, thank you for the deeply illuminating essay on ‘The Abomination of Desolation’ that is the denial of serious sin by our ecclesial leaders.
Thank you, too, for the lovely ikons on your website.
orthodox-christian-icons.com/abomination-of-desolation.html
Anna, a comment here on the transformative implication posed by the parsed theology of FS. This is a singular moment in Church history that the blessing of a person or persons living in sin, by implication any sin and all sin, may be presumed blessed rather than the sin. Whereas the two cannot be separated. It’s the perfect guise to diminish faithful practice.
“It’s the perfect guise to diminish faithful practice.”
Or even camouflaging their construction of a new anti-Apostolic religion . . ?
Cathocommunism anyone . . ?
This manner of proceeding will be carried out “with painstaking respect for the unalterable doctrine of the Church on true marriage and irregular unions, avoiding all confusion and seeking the good of the faithful,” the statement concludes.
Amen. For all of Bergoglio’s hatred for conservative, i.e., orthodox, American bishops, it’s noteworthy that the loudest opposition to his heresy is coming from other shores.
There’s no such reality as a “homosexual union.” The archbishop might consider taking a course in human anatomy and, when finished with that, take a course in the Theology of the Body.
Es claro que esto no lo va leer ni mi abuela (falleció hace mucho), pero,,,,,,,,,1) Si un señor o señora homosexual pide en persona una bendición el sacerdote no puede negarla bajo ningún punto de vista salvo que pida se bendiga “su modo de vida”, no su “persona”. 2) Si una pareja de homosexuales se presenta como tal y como tal pide bendición, no se puede bendecir lo que Dios reprobó.3) El caso de una pareja heterosexual que pide bendición, salvo que hagan alarde de irregularidad el sacerdote no puede negar bendición, porque de internis nemo judicat,y lo que hacen no es “intrínsicamente” malo (como la homosexualidad) y no puede juzgarse si viven como dice S.Pablo II, o si tienen conciencia de la nulidad de su matrimonio anterior, o smplemente si no conviven. Simplemente piden ser bendecidos para hacer de sus vidas lo que Dios quiere, ¿Y quién es el sacerdote para juzgarlos, salvo que ellos lo pidieren?