“Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity.” — Saint Augustine, Confessions (quoted in CCC 2340)
“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” — Saint Paul, Romans 12:1-2
Pope Leo XIV, returning to Rome after a lengthy and undoubtedly exhausting apostolic journey to four African nations, was asked about the April 4th document issued by Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising in Germany, titled “Blessing Gives Strength to Love”.
Verena Stefanie Shälter (Ard Rundfunk): Holy Father, congratulations on your first papal trip to the Global South. We saw a lot of enthusiasm and even euphoria; I can imagine that was very moving for you as well. I would like to know how you assess the decision of Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, that he gave permission to the blessing of same-sex couples in his diocese, and in light of different cultural and theological perspectives, especially in Africa, how do you intend to preserve the unity of the global Church on that particular matter?
Note that the question was not about the specifics of the document but about how Pope Leo will try to preserve the unity of the Church. Implicitly, the question appears to accept the logical conclusion that Cardinal Marx’s instructions on giving blessings to “[c]ouples not married in the Church, divorced and remarried couples, as well as couples across the full spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities” (translations from the German via DeepL).
The question is important because many of the initial reactions (including my own) to Pope Leo’s response overlooked it, and thus, I think, misunderstood to some degree the point he wished to make. Still, his answer raises some questions, not least about how, in fact, he may proceed in addressing the troubling position taken by Cardinal Marx (and others) and the approach being used to advance that position. Here is Pope’s answer in full:
First of all, I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are much greater, more important issues, such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue. The Holy See has already spoken to the German bishops.
The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of couples, in this case, homosexual couples, as you asked, or couples in irregular situations, beyond what was specifically, if you will, allowed for by Pope Francis in saying all people receive blessings.
When a priest gives a blessing at the end of Mass, when the Pope gives a blessing at the end of a large celebration like the one we had today, they are blessings for all people. Francis’ well-known expression ‘ Tutti, tutti, tutti” ’ is an expression of the Church’s belief that all are welcome; all are invited; all are invited to follow Jesus, and all are invited to look for conversion in their lives.
To go beyond that today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity upon Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches. So that’s how I would respond to that question.
First, of course, it is good that the Holy See has spoken to the German bishops and said that the blessings being, well, “blessed” by Cardinal Marx go beyond what was put forth in the December 2023 declaration, Fiducia supplicans. As Christopher Altieri noted here at CWR, the document was a polarizing flop from the start:
The purpose of Fiducia supplicans appears to have been twofold: It was to rein in bishops and bishops’ conferences that have already gone too far—think Belgium and Germany—and also encourage reticent bishops to loosen up. [Cardinal] Fernández has now all but admitted in words that the attempt failed spectacularly on both counts.
Over two years later, it is readily evident (to no one’s surprise) that most of the leaders and entrenched bureaucracy of the German Church are committed to a path of homosophistry and disunity, aka, “The Synodal Way”.
Talk of unity is fine as far as it goes, but talk alone is not going to solve this problem. If anything, it may just embolden the already belligerent prelates and bureaucrats in Germany, who seem to think—and why wouldn’t they?—that nothing is going to happen.
But I think that Pope Leo’s response on the German bishops/blessing issue would have been far better framed as, “It’s about love,” before “sexual matters.” He is right in stating that when many people (alas, even far too many Catholics) think of “morality,” they think of sex, and then it turns into a scrum over rules and commandments. But there is, I’m convinced, a far better and necessary approach to be taken (and, in fact, this was a point made in various and detailed ways by St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor).
The April 4th document from Cardinal Marx quite cleverly focuses on “love,” because, of course, no one can be against love! It mentions “love” several times, including in its opening, taken from a 2023 Synodal Way document:
The Church wishes to proclaim the message of the dignity bestowed by God upon every person in word and deed. This message guides her in her dealings with people and their partnerships. Therefore, it extends recognition to couples who are united in love, treat one another with full respect and dignity, and are willing to live out their sexuality in mindfulness of themselves, of one another, and with social responsibility over the long term, and offers them accompaniment. There are couples who ask for a blessing for their partnership. This request is based on gratitude for the love they have experienced and the hope for a future accompanied by God.
This is bureaucratic blarney pretending to describe authentic love, but in fact just outlining secular, bourgeois “love.”
As theologian Tracey Rowland remarked to me in a December 2021 interview, “the place where bourgeois Christianity flourishes is in church agencies. This might explain why the faith in Germany is in such a mess. There seems to be a high correlation between the ethos of bourgeois Christianity and institutions that are nominally Christian but funded by civil authorities.”
This sort of “Christianity,” she added, “is the attitude of people who identify themselves as Christians but define Christianity by a series of markers that are in no way different from the prevailing social fashions.” It is comfortable, self-congratulating, and even narcissistic—or, in the words of the Marx document: “…willing to live out their sexuality in mindfulness of themselves…”
There is no kenosis to be found within it. There is no self-gift, reflecting the mystery of Triune love. Because, to quote the late Cynic philosopher (and singer) Tina Turner, “What’s love got to do, got to do, with it?”
If the Church acts as if “same-sex relationships” are, as the German document states, relationships “united in love,” then it calls into question what the Church has always taught about love. Authentic love (friendship, familial, marital, etc.) must be ordered by and toward truth. And homosexuality, fornication, being civilly divorced and remarried, etc., are not ordered by and toward the truth of the Faith.
Put another way, if homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered,” and homosexual inclinations are “objectively disordered,” then no amount of blessing and language to the contrary is going to make them ordered, good, and loving.
And yet the German document accepts the very bourgeois premises of presentism, affirming that “In our culture and society … human dignity, equality, and self-determination are highly valued, and which therefore has a high degree of acceptance for love and responsibility…” Readers are blithely assured that to “be blessed by God means to walk the path of life under God’s loving gaze.”
Well, no, it’s not. As Christopher Malloy explains, a “blessing is chiefly (as a descending reality) a gift of divine assistance in the present for the ultimate good of the recipient. As such, a blessing is a means to an end. The ultimate end of any blessing is of course eternal salvation, but the proximate end is some present good suitable for the journey to heaven.”
Put another way, a blessing flows from divine love and is ordered to a good through the power and grace of divine life. So, while there’s certainly a need to talk about the sexual aspect of all this, there must first be a clear understanding of the nature of authentic love. There’s a reason, after all, that Benedict XVI’s first encyclical was on love, and that it began with this:
“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny.”
Note that latter part: “…and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny.” There we find unity, freedom, and all the rest. But it begins with a proper understanding of what love is and is not. Because that affects everyone to one degree or another, and has an immediate and grave effect on how people view marriage, sexuality, and ultimately the social order and the divine purpose of our existence.
Since the Catholic Faith, at the heart, is ordered by Triune love and for Triune love, what the Church says and teaches about love—in this case, eros, but also agape—goes to the heart of what it means to be human. Saying “justice” and “equality” are more important than such matters sounds good, but is not complete, because a flawed notion of love undermines authentic justice and equality. Which is why, for example, St. Pope John Paul II, decades ago, wrote:
Not only must human life not be taken, but it must be protected with loving concern. The meaning of life is found in giving and receiving love, and in this light human sexuality and procreation reach their true and full significance. …. Sexuality, which enriches the whole person, ‘manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love.’ The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life. Only a true love is able to protect life. (EV 81, 97)
This is essential, fundamental truth. It is not merely about “following rules” or “being moral”; it is about living the truth given by God, which is built into our very bodies and beings. Chastity refers to “the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being” (CCC 2337), a unity that is a building block to unity with others. So, to come full circle, the commandments are not meant to limit us, keep us from freedom, hinder justice, or harm true unity. “For this is the love of God,” wrote the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, “that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:2).
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.
“Note that the question was not about the specifics of the document but about how Pope Leo will try to preserve the unity of the Church.”
,
Can we stop trying to run cover for the Pope?
MrsHess dear: beloved Carl has given us one of the best example I know of, of ‘Catholic Surgical Theology’; ever-so finely dissecting-out the malfunctioning tissues with Apostolic & Patristic scalpels, yet without traumatising the papal patient. In fact: with enormous benefit for this patient, if only he follows the doctor’s Apostolic & Patristic prescription for his full recovery.
On this Feastday of St Mark, Apostle, let’s praise GOD for our informed, committed, and courageous lay Catholics.
In the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
Distinctions matter…
as between a Gothic rose window and a Modern shattered image, as between a synod of bishops and a town hall meeting, as between the Catholic Church and der Synodal Weg, as between Cardinal Marx and Karl Marx, as between the unity of universal Natural Law and the disunity of double-speak Fernandez, as between authentic love and bourgeoise love…
as between revelation and Galileo’s telescope, and as between the male member and a sigmoidoscope.
About biblical charity and clarity, what could be simpler: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house…nor his ox, nor his ass[!]…” (Exodus 20:17).
Aquinas taught what distinguishes the human intellect within Animalia is the ability to apprehend opposites, the basis for free will.
Nice job.
Now to hear it from Leo.
One cannot give what one does not have. Prayers are needed that Leo gain what he’s kept wrapped. His city on a hill has a shroud.
I have addressed this subject during Pope Francis’s Papacy, as same sex relations (and those other relationships outside the Sacrament) strike down the integrity of Holy Matrimony. The State–morally or indifferently secular at best and atheistic at worst–permits all types of couples arrangements for legal and pragmatic reasons, but the Catholic Church must remain a sign of contradiction to worldly distortions of Truth. Ironically, that is based on our understanding of Agape, the highest expression of Love. Equalizing lesser relationships condescendingly robs participants of knowing and understanding that, let alone seeking the fullness of life even while in the world.
Thank you Carl.
Witness the peace of Leo. (See Luke 12:49-56 and Matthew 10:34-36. Also, Revelation 3:16).
The faithful desire the peace of Christ.
If Leo believes that grave sin is, well, grave, he would not have followed the Franciscus model of airplane pontificating.
Where is the fear of separation from the Perfection of God?
Where is the desire to share the whole Gospel?
Where is the courage to upset a few of his subordinates as the Vicar of Christ, some members of the press, et al.
Leo is like a quarterback who punts on every play.
No worries. This too shall pass. The Perfect Word of God is Alive and Well. Unless something changes, it will be the privilege of a future pontificate to correct the heteropraxy of Franciscus, et al.
Stay and pray Catholic.
“The faith and the tradition of the churches founded in Germany are no different from those founded among the Spanish and the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. Just as God’s creature, the sun, is one and the same the world over, so also does the Church’s preaching shine everywhere to enlighten all men who want to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Now of those who speak with authority in the churches, no preacher however forceful will utter anything different — for no one is above the Master — nor will a less forceful preacher diminish what has been handed down. Since our faith is everywhere the same, no one who can say more augments it, nor can anyone who says less diminish it.”
Against Heresies, Saint Irenaeus
All of us in our generation deceive ourselves, including Pontiff Leo.
Sexual morality is the gigantic, universal moral issue gravely confronting every man and woman.
It is the decision between life in obedience to God, and life ignoring or defying God.
“And God created Man in His Own Image, male and female He created them.”
“I set before you Life and Death, blessing and curse, therefore choose life.”
You say you love me. Is that so?
“If you love me, then keep my Commandments.”
“You have heard it said, ‘You shall nit commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Let’s all stop sleepwalking…
I can confidently say that matters of sexuality were only a serious area of temptation for about 20 years of my life. Before and after that not at all. So it really isn’t universal or “gigantic” as Pope Leo correctly states.
“I can confidently say that matters of sexuality were only a serious area of temptation for about 20 years of my life.”
The world’s preoccupation with sex suggests your experience is atypical
I can confidently say that 20 years of committing adultery would be enough to destroy a marriage, break up a family, and cause life-long harm to the children. Get 30% of society doing that sort of thing, and the rest contracepting (also a grave sexual sin), and you can get over half of the next generation to be fatherless.
But sure, not universal or gigantic at all.
Carl, excellent article – thank you. I was particularly taken with the paragraph: “Talk of unity is fine as far as it goes, but talk alone is not going to solve this problem. If anything, it may just embolden the already belligerent prelates and bureaucrats in Germany, who seem to think—and why wouldn’t they?—that nothing is going to happen.”
I abhor sophistry that poses as righteous discussion. I come back repeatedly to the woman caught in adultery. Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? Neither do I condemn thee, Go, and sin more. Maintaining truth is not about accusing others of their particular sin, but it is about not sinning anymore, stopping it, walking the path toward holiness.
Why is this so challenging to Pope Leo? just as it was for Pope Francis. What is the fear of condemning sin, welcoming the sinner, and encouraging a cessation of a sinful life? Unity is not a message of Christ’s love, his gospel, or anything that has to do with the Church. It is modernism posing as charity.
With the kind of leadership Pope Prevost provides no one should wonder why the SSPX would not go ahead and ordain new bishops.
Maybe they should.
In a 1000 years, will folks look back at this time period in (their) history and talk of The Arian Heresy 2.0, speak favorably of Lefebvre (St. Lefebvre??), and marvel how The One True Faith survived?
There can be no genuine unity apart from truth. There can be no true and authentic fellowship between believers apart from the truth. Leo is thinking and acting like a progressive, acting as if the moral compromising of church leaders around the issue of sexuality is not important or not a priority. In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine’s mask finally falls away and he is revealed as the Sith Lord, the enemy of the republic. I have the same impression of Leo now. The mask has fallen away and we see his true priorities and values revealed. It’s basically Francis 2.0.
The Pope’s comment is astonishingly taut and almost perfect. In the end, the matter of actual practiced healthy sexual faculty is unenforceable from the Church perspective. But… not from Heaven/God’s. Our Church makes the clear appeal to orthodox health, but getting there for the affected souls is often a long, difficult but also not un-glorious process that humans are hard-pressed to ever narrate fully and in real time. Sexual health and the journey to orthodox faculty are mysteries beyond most people’s grasp and control. But God’s favorite act is mercy. If everything was perfection in all the generations, there would be no mercies for the Lord to ply. No journey for the human to make… The mercy is not capitulation to misordered humans, but towards their “make it to the end” resolve and entrustment to God for the outcome only He can engineer, in His time.
Dear jst,
Sins, iniquities, abominations, defilements, blasphemies, profanities, & sacrileges are all heart evils. Proverbs 4:23 exhorts Catholics (& all believing Christians):
“Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.”
On this Feastday of St Mark, Apostle:
Saint Mark (chapter 7, verses 20-23) recounts GOD-in-Christ’s declaration:
“And Jesus said: ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles, for it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, greedy avarice, malicious wickedness, lying deceit, indecent licentious sexual sins, the evil eye of envy, slander, arrogant pride, stupid behaviour. All these evils come from within and make a person polluted.’”
When was the last time you heard a priest or bishop preach this . . ?
I’ve never heard a homily explaining that our LORD defined these commonplace offences as spiritually defiling and polluting . . .
Catholic celebrities who grandstand on social justice fail to realise that GOD’s help is needed if their work is to bear good fruit that lasts: “Unless GOD build the house, we labor in vain”. Their unloving disobedience to GOD’s commands, separates from GOD & means all their public posturings will prove to be mere ‘hot air’.
From decades of experience: The first step in successful social justice work is humble, loving obedience to GOD’s instructions. Doing it whilst living in disobedience to the commandments eventually results in bitter failure, and a smear on The Church.
In Australia the ‘new norm’ is rampant. We have fervid homosophists like Frank Bennan SJ & Geraldine (Jerry) Dogue hogging the Catholic headlines, with never a murmur from our Cardinal, Archbishops, & Bishops. They’re all conspicuously awol. Do they need deliverance from the demon of timidity?
Pope Leo xvi seems to be compliant with that modernist, worldly sin-decor.
Can anyone give salt back its savour . . ?
How come our Catholic Apostolic Light is being hidden under a barrel . . ?
I’m praying: “Come soon dear LORD, King Jesus Christ!”
Revolutionary France offers a similarity. Bourgeoisie led the opposition to the absolutist Monarchy. Jacobins distrusted the wealthy, educated, elite Bourgeoisie and initiated the reign of terror [the Biden administration and the radical Left]. Bourgeoisie were harassed, heavily taxed, held in suspicion.
Eventually the Bourgeoisie, well placed, educated, individualistic Catholics realized their affinity with the progressive Left and formed the new Bourgeois Catholicism.
More about Revolutionary France…
An early turning point was the so-called Tennis Court Oath of June 20, 1789, where the working class (the Third Estate) and the nobility and the clergy (the First and Second Estates) all voted as a bloc. (Very synodal, that!)
The besieged King Louis XIV tried to prevent the volatile three “Estates” from even meeting, but then insisted that they vote together to give the illusion that they did so on his instruction as if he were still in charge. The consenting clergy and the Church—as a distinct institution—were swept into the new and combined national voice—and the rest is history. (Except for today’s combined and mimic der Synodal Weg which imagines it’s doing something new.)
And, oh yes, at the follow-up storming of the Bastille (July 6, 1789), only seven prisoners were found, and of these, four were forgers and two were insane and confined for observation. As for the most famous prisoner, the rabble-rousing Marquis de Sade (the sadism guy), well, he had been silenced on July 4 by being temporarily transferred two days earlier (July 4) to a hospital for the criminally insane (from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse,” Arlington House, 1974).
As a side plate from the Revolution and through his later writings, de Sade’s licentious mark on Leftist history is well known and still casts a long shadow…surely over our cultural trivialization of sexual sins including novel couplings, given the insidious influence of dulling familiarity.
But, a new polyglot synodality would sort this stuff out, surely.
When they crashed down the gates of the Bastille they figuratively unleashed the phantasms of absolute freedom and equal justice for all.
Robespierre [it’s said he slept with Rousseau’s the Emile under his pillow], advocate of justice for the poor, learned once in power that the dream of freedom without the temperance of Christianity soon became a nightmare.
“There are couples who ask for a blessing for their partnership. This request is based on gratitude for the love they have experienced and the hope for A FUTURE ACCOMPANIED BY GOD.” Far better to be led by God in the present, rather than bending God to your wants or seeking approval for your choices.
Carl provides a good commentary, but it remains very troubling that the pope considers sexual morality to be of secondary importance, less important than “justice” etc., which, the Vicar of Christ apparently believes, take priority. This is a common view among Church liberals, and it is somewhat a surprise and does not bode well that Leo apparently shares it. The mass slaughter of millions of pre-born children stems in large part from the sexual sins of fornication and adultery that leave women in extremely difficult social and financial situations with solicited murder being the easiest solution for them, as the man involved in the tango usually has no such burden to “carry”. Of course, this involves great injustice to the child. Satan works by leading from one sin to another, from a sexual misstep to a murder, from murder to despair. I would have hoped the Vicar of Christ understood such things, but his plane-ride litany of “greater, more important” issues does not give evidence of that.
Excellent, Carl.
Thanks for telling it like it is.
Charlie
In the Bible the relationship between God and His people is expressed in nuptial terms. In the Old Testament God as Husband and Israel as spouse. Hosea married a harlot to show them what they were doing to God when they were unfaithful. King Solomon’s foreign wives turned his heart away from God. In the New Testament Christ is Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. Marriage involves the swearing of a covenant between the husband and the wife. The Eucharist is the living embodiment of Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant upon which the Church is founded. Marriage is the practical method for us to learn about covenants, commitment and how to live them out faithfully in this world.
An excerpt from Raspail’s book, “The Camp of the Saints”:
“In Raspail’s telling, Catholic Christianity has for some time been in thrall to humanitarian universalism. The novel satirizes a left-liberal Catholicism that disdains national and civilizational particularity and renders the faith indistinguishable from the moral universalism of non-believers. Under the banner of “charity, solidarity, and universal conscience,” progressive clerics abandon their neighbors for the sake of the stranger. They practice the religion of humanity, a Christian heresy.”
Wow, this is a perfect example of how american Catholic outlets and commentators are turning a blind eye to the fact Leo is continuing Francis’ heterodox agenda. Although Leo’ words are quoted, the focus is on the inconsequential ones and it asks how Leo will respond to the project of Marx. He did respond and the real news should have been that Leo affirms Fiducia Supplicans and the blessing of same-sex couples! That is the scandal so many are trying to avoid, focusing on Marx, the german church, and even framing this as a victory. Once the basic concepts underlying such blessings are granted, it matters little whether it’s a blessing from a pre-made ritual or not. One can note here the laughable idea that F. Supplicans was done to try to curtail the german bishops rather than advance an ideological project. This is arguably even a set-up by Leo and a token reply- giving the appearance he’s cracking down, but in the process, gains acceptance of the basic issue. And it sadly seems to be working, with people framing this as an issue of unity, and the germans are going to far. Thus, this seems to infer that F. Supplicans and such blessings should be accepted and just kept within the bounds of “impromptu” blessings. Is that Olson’s/CWR’s editorial position? If not, he needs to speak forcefully and clearly against Leo’s affirmation of it and make that the real news story.
One could even say it’s gaslighting by Leo, with further confirmation of this in the fact that this same incident happened last June, when the german bishops conference announced their plans for such a ritual. Leo had the same response. But here we are almost 11 months later and nothing happened except that the germans proceeded to actual implementation. This signifies Leo’s reply then was a token one, and thus is now, and gives little doubt as to his position. And how much does one want to wager than no action will be taken against Marx’s actions? One can also note that when he was Prevost, Leo celebrated the issuance of F. Supplicans, while others such as Cardinal Fernandez of the DDF have publicly said that Leo intends to continue with it.
The headline and focus should have been: “How will the faithful proceed in addressing the troubling position taken by Pope Leo (and others) and the approach being used to advance that position?” Likewise, another sentence should read “Over a year later, it is readily evident (to no one’s surprise) that Pope Leo and the entrenched bureaucracy of Rome are committed to a path of homosophistry and synodality.”
“Thus, this seems to infer that F. Supplicans and such blessings should be accepted and just kept within the bounds of “impromptu” blessings. Is that Olson’s/CWR’s editorial position?”
Is this your first time to CWR? Because your remark suggests you have little to no clue all that CWR has published re: the various insanities of the Francis pontificate. My editorial clearly indicates that the I think “same sex blessings” are ridiculous. Read better and deeper.
Mr. Olson, it seems you just confirmed my overall point- you revert to talking about Francis and past statements regarding him; yet Leo confirmed this insanity as his own; but you don’t speak of the insanity of Leo’s pontificate and lay the problem at his feet, which is where it now is. I don’t see anywhere in this article calling Leo’s approval of F. Supplicans and same-sex blessings a problem, or even highlighting the fact he did so. Absent is comment about what Leo should have said and what the reply to Marx should be, and criticism over the fact Leo didn’t say it: blessings of same-sex couples are not permitted whatsoever, F. Supplicans is going to be rescinded.
Americans in particular, loathe to admit that the first american pope is a problem, will mention past criticism of Francis and same-sex blessings, but now avoid direct labeling/linking of Leo and his support of the matter for what it is. A look at so many american outlets and pundits right now shows a widespread problem of looking the other way with Leo- either not reporting Leo’s embrace of F.S., still blaming Francis, or selling narratives like, “Leo repudiated same-sex blessings, rebuked the german bishops, is undoing Francis’ legacy, is implementing reforms.” Until and if people directly, unequivocally report what Leo did and call Leo’s adoption of F.S. and same-sex blessings a problem, and a sign of heterodoxy, the point stands.
EWTN was not appreciated by Pope Francis.
I will simply bet that the German (fake) church will continue their blessings and the Vatican will not stop them because it is all about “unity.”
Just a reminder, re Sister Lucia’s letter to Cardinal Carlo Caffarra: ” Father, a time will come when the decisive battle between the kingdom of Christ and Satan will be over marriage and the family.”
“a flawed notion of love undermines authentic justice and equality”
Perfectly expressed. Thank you, Carl Olson and Catholic World Report!
An excerpt from Raspail’s book, “The Camp of the Saints”:
“In Raspail’s telling, Catholic Christianity has for some time been in thrall to humanitarian universalism. The novel satirizes a left-liberal Catholicism that disdains national and civilizational particularity and renders the faith indistinguishable from the moral universalism of non-believers. Under the banner of “charity, solidarity, and universal conscience,” progressive clerics abandon their neighbors for the sake of the stranger. They practice the religion of humanity, a Christian heresy…”
Wow, this is a perfect example of how american Catholic outlets and commentators are turning a blind eye to the fact Leo is continuing Francis’ heterodox agenda. Although Leo’s words are quoted, the focus is on the inconsequential ones and it asks how Leo will respond to the project of Marx. He did respond and the real news should have been that Leo affirms Fiducia Supplicans and the blessing of same-sex couples! That is the scandal so many are trying to avoid, focusing on Marx, the german church, and even framing this as a victory. Once the basic concepts underlying such blessings are granted, it matters little whether it’s a blessing from a pre-made ritual or not. This is arguably even a set-up by Leo and a token reply- giving the appearance he’s cracking down, but in the process, he gains acceptance of the basic issue and turns it into an argument about formal vs. informal blessings. And it sadly seems to be working, with people framing this as an issue of unity, and the germans are going to far. Thus, this seems to infer that F. Supplicans and such blessings should be accepted and just kept within the bounds of “informal” blessings. Is that Olson’s/CWR’s editorial position? If not, he needs to speak forcefully and clearly against Leo’s affirmation of it and make that the real news story.
One could even say it’s gaslighting by Leo, with further confirmation of this in the fact that this same incident happened last June, when the german bishops conference announced their plans for such a ritual. Leo had the same response. But here we are almost 11 months later and nothing happened except that the germans proceeded to actual implementation. This signifies Leo’s reply then was a token one, and thus is now, and gives little doubt as to his position. And how much does one want to wager than no action will be taken against Marx’s actions? One can also note that when he was Prevost, Leo celebrated the issuance of F. Supplicans, while others such as Cardinal Fernandez of the DDF have publicly said that Leo intends to continue with it.
The headline should have been: “How will the faithful proceed in addressing the troubling position taken by Pope Leo (and others) and the approach being used to advance that position?” Likewise, another sentence should read “Over a year later, it is readily evident (to no one’s surprise) that Pope Leo and the entrenched bureaucracy of Rome are committed to a path of homosophistry and synodality.”
“Homosophistry and synodality!” Well done! Or, maybe “orthophobia”?
I do not accept your Leophobia, but moving on together…Today, we’re in a world like those several decades following the Council of Nicaea A.D. 325). St. Jerome later observed: “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself [still] Arian.” I think I’ve read somewhere that some 80 percent of the bishops suffered Arian brain damage under their purple hats.
So, today we have another creeping gradualism, and worse, not about the doctrinal unity of the Triune One, but about the Natural Law and the binary/complementary Unity of the human person in the meaning and reality of “marriage.”
About the universal Natural Law vs invertebrate pastoralism, we have Veritatis Splendor, plus this: “This is the first time, in fact, that the MAGISTERIUM of the Church [caps added] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (n. 115). (Not quite the same as the gradualist [?] “principle” that “time is greater than space!”)
SUMMARY: this time, instead of the Arius and his far-flung tribe of sycophants, is it the entrenched Lavendar Mafia coupled with its toehold, or whatever, in Fiducia Supplicans?
In olden times, it was the long-suffering Laity who finally outlasted Arianism. And today?
“abandon their neighbors for the sake of the stranger”
This is an old phenomenon. Charles Dickens, an anti-Catholic and anti-Evangelical bigot, with a keen eye for hypocrisy, save his own wrote about it in the 19th century.
He satirized the growing numbers of then emerging “middle classes” who were preoccupied with people in remote places , while ignoring the impoverished in their own land. Dickens’ apparently subscribed to “charity begins at home”
This behavior, which he called “telescopic philanthropy” was illustrated by the character Mrs Jellyby who ignored the needs of her own family, to pursue causes in far away places.
He also commented on those that preferred conspicuousness over effectiveness.
“There were two classes of charitable people; one, the people who did a little and made a great deal of noise; the other, the people who did a great deal and made no noise at all”. -Jarndyce Chapter 8, Bleak House.
Worse, they pathologize natural human kinship preferences as xenophobia, without the slighest idea that they are xenophiliacs or more precisely xenomaniacs.
TPR writes: “This behavior, which he called “telescopic philanthropy” was illustrated by the character Mrs Jellyby who ignored the needs of her own family, to pursue causes in far away places.”
It reminds me of the Bishop of Rome visiting jails in Equatorial Africa as if there no jails in his home diocese. Ultramontanism has rendered diocesan bishops as nothing more than administrators. In effect, there’s only one bishop – the bishop of Rome. And when the ‘primus inter pares’ should be acting as in the case of the heterodox Marx of Getmany, the Bishop of Rome punts. It all strikes me as highly schizophrenic.
After many years of searching for truth as I grew up in the Roman Catholic church I have come to the conclusion that the world view of conservatives and liberals in church politics will likely continue. So long as conservatives can effectively silence any progressive thinkers change if any kind is prevented and conservative leaders/followers are happy in their self-righteousness. When more more modern educated enlightened thinkers prevail for a while suddenly the Popes themselves come under attack and statements from the pope become fodder for criticism rather than teachings to be obeyed by the faithful. Amazing to observe how the worm turns when the shoe is on the other foot. Fear of change seems to be the driving force. Rigid adherence to the past becomes more important than following Christ’s compassion and instruction to stop judging others and instead try to understand them. So I am left with the realization that I must love even the most fearful forgive them for the harm they cause among their / our sisters and brothers while keeping real faith alive in my own heart with Trust that in the end Providence will guide us despite ongoing episodes of conflict in the world and in the church.
Note the following.
“change if any kind is prevented”
“modern educated enlightened thinkers”
“Fear of change”
Thank you for providing two more presenting symptoms of the left. First is the intellectual conceit of rectitude, the others are neomamia and allagimania, the unrestricted affection for novelty and change.
Yoteech: Spoken with the eloquence of all god-less radical leftists.
It’s interesting that it’s the German Church pushing for same sex couple blessings. I always thought of the Germans as disciplined rule followers, but here they are not only breaking the rules, which many other nationalities do as well, but actually trying to change the rules. This goes beyond breaking the rules, but admitting that the rules are right.
Perhaps the Germans have an attitude that goes beyond sexual sin and ventures into the sin of pride? A pride that they know better than age old dogma and accordingly, dogma must change. This is not just sex, but pride.
I would like to address just one item from Pope Leo’s airplane press conference.
He emphasized that there were greater and more important moral issues than sexual matters. He mentioned justice , equality, freedom, etc.
II just checked online and the latest figures for abortion per year in the United States is a little over one million, and world wide 73 million. We believe that abortion is wrong because it is the deliberate taking of innocent human lives – which is the definition of murder. Does the Pope or our bishops give any sense of outrage at 73 million murders of the innocent every year?
And now, let’s look at what the previous administration referred to as “root causes.” Planned Parenthood reports that 87% of the women getting abortions are single. So, the logical conclusion is adultery or fornication. Saint Paul said something about the eternal destiny of those who committed these sins and died unrepentant. Does the pope and do the bishops care about this? Or, like a prominent American bishop, do they believe there is reasonable hope that no one is in Hell.
Crusader, you are so right on abortion. The Church hierarchy just don’t seem to care. The butchering of babies shouldbe of prime concern, but sadly it is not. The pushback is left to a few priest and laity who give their lives to preventing abortion. Under the so called Catholic Biden Regime, they government went all out to convict and prison well possible those who dare to pray in front of abortion centers. To say the least it is horrible.
Pope Leo in my opinion, just crafts words that say and mean nothing, typical of a Dem. politician. Pope Leo is from the south side of Chicago, which fits his actions.
Bless me father, for I have sinned.
Love is not participating with the one you love in mortal sin. Such behavior is not only endangering your soul, but also the soul of the person you claim to love. This realty seems to be ignored by the clergy who are providing blessings for gay couples. Such blessings appear to be giving approval to the relationship.
One of the things many people mistake for love is merely the desire to be liked. Even psychopaths have that desire.
“… how the worm turns when the shoe is on the other foot.”
I gotta hand it to ya, Yoteech, if there were a Hall of Fame for mixed metaphors…
I just wish that Pope Leo would give evidence that he grasps that Paolo and Francesca were just as much in Hell as Count Ugolino or Satan himself.